New Hampshire Right to Life organization plans its strategy following last year’s Roe v. Wade decision – Frankly Speaking

Kurt Wuelper, vice president of New Hampshire Right to Life, was my guest for this episode of, ‘Frankly Speaking‘. This interview took place at the Nashua Public TV studio on 8-30-23.

It’s been approximately one year since the Supreme Court overturned our country’s legislation on Abortion – which was intact for nearly a half century – thus putting the onus on each of the 50 States as to how they choose to legally manage this item. The NHRTL, long-time staunch Pro Life advocates, would love to see Abortion prohibited here in the Granite State.

Among the topics discussed on this episode: how NH fares on its Abortion laws versus other neighboring States, have there been any reports of arrests or threats against any NHRTL members following protests or public confrontations, does NHRTL present Adoption as a viable option to Abortion, does NHRTL offer a ‘Report Card’ system to provide Voters a gauge on how each State elected official is rated according to their Pro Life stance, and should “Infanticide” be viewed as, Murder?

Incidentally, if you’d like more information on, The New Hampshire Right to Live group, please log onto: http://www.nhrtl.org .

Local entertainer Sharon DiFronzo, of Screamin Heart records, sang both the Intro and Outro song to this particular episode.

Dear Evangelical Biden voters: Where the heck are you? by Allie Beth Stuckey

Should Church Pastors publicly warn members of electing an alleged Socialist as our next President?

So within four (4) days of this particular post, the United States could elect a President who could transform our Country into Socialism. Should Church Pastors get involved on making their members aware of everything that entails?

Or does the Separation of Church and State come into play here?

Could a Socialism government censor Church sermons as they do in other countries? Wouldn’t it be much better to inform church members of this potential situation to make worshiping God that much easier as it is now in a Capitalist Democratic Republic such as the USA.

Historically speaking, other countries in the world that have fully converted to either Socialism or Communism have NEVER turned back to Capitalism.

Should THAT be a concern for Christian voters?

Lastly, the Presidential candidate who seems to be surrounding himself with predominately Socialist politicians, also believes in Abortion — even after the ninth month of pregnancy, along with the government funding to Planned Parenthood, to enable those procedures to continue. As a Christian voter, do YOU really want to support a politician like that who endorses that practice?

Todd Friel of ‘Wretched Radio’ is a popular Christian blogger on YouTube and he did an excellent video about this very same subject that last a little over 11 minutes. As a Christian voter, you really ought to listen to this message BEFORE you cast you vote this Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Enjoy

YouTube blogger exposes Kamala Harris’s extremely corrupt history

OK, so let me see if I’ve got this straight — Kamala Harris says the one thing we know for sure about people between 18-24 is that “they’re Stupid — which is why they’ve got Resident Managers living in College Dorms” with them. HOWEVER, Kamala has no qualms whatsoever about lowering the national voting age to 16 — a little bit of hypocrisy there or what?

Also, when a Journalist secretly videotaped Planned Parenthood selling body parts from aborted babies for medical research, Harris ordered Californian law authorities to arrest the Journalist, probably because she already took about $80,000 in campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood.

What’s really scary here is that out of all the Vice Presidential candidates from either the Democrat or Republican parties we’ve ever had in America, Harris is, by far, most probable to serve as President during that term due to the current health status of their Presidential counterpart in question. Please watch this video clip from ‘Daily Wire’, but I think the aforementioned reasons are sufficient enough to reelect Donald Trump on Nov. 3rd.

Pro Life activist delivers compelling presentation on why elected politicians we choose aren’t required to be virtuous people of Faith

Father Frank Pavone, who’s the National Director of Priests for Life, makes an excellent argument in his latest YouTube video titled, “God uses Flawed People to accomplish His purposes!” as to WHY elected officials we choose to serve in our government don’t necessarily have to be strong, virtuous men and women of Faith.

Although Pavone doesn’t mention any specific names or offices in the upcoming 2020 Presidential election, the two main presumptive opponents as of the date of this posting, Republican incumbent Donald Trump; and expected Democratic nominee Joe Biden could both appropriately fit in the description for this approximate nine-and-a-half minute video.

Pavone starts off by saying when you’re about to elect someone to a public government office, you need to basically look at: a) the individual, and b) the role they’re pursuing. He said that if you were electing either a Priest or Pastor to a Church, or maybe someone to Sainthood, the moral criteria would be much higher for someone like that.

But then he threw out the analogy of choosing a Mechanic, which you would want to know if that person could actually repair your vehicle at a fairly reasonable price. The fact, for example, of whether that Mechanic was married a couple times before would probably be totally irrelevant if you’d want that person to fix your car. Pavone also used the analogy of choosing a Doctor, who obviously you’d want to make sure they knew what they were doing before you had them operate on you.

He brings up Biblical examples on how God used very flawed individuals, like King David who was an adulterer and a murderer, or Rahab the prostitute, or King Cyrus all to fulfill His purpose.

And as a Priest whose main assignment is to promote the Pro Life agenda, Pavone also encouraged his viewing audience to avoid politicians who wish to contribute government funds to Planned Parenthood, which initiates many, if not most, of the Abortions in this country. He also encouraged folks to favor politicians who appoint Conservative judges to the Supreme Court as well as the Federal District court system.

As for the two names mentioned earlier in the 2020 Presidential race, Trump seems to have the much more favorable record in office with Christian and Pro Life advocates.

For more information about Father Frank Pavone and his organization, log onto either:

ElectionVideos.org

ProLifeVote.com

Or, go on YouTube.com , and subscribe to the Channel: Father Frank Pavone .

Abortion in the USA must end in 2019

It’s hard to believe that it’s been 46 years already that the passage of Roe v. Wade, making Abortions legal in the United States to take place. Since 1973, about 60 million infants have been murdered, LEGALLY, in America all thanks to this legislation. And the organization most responsible for performing these heinous acts, Planned Parenthood, was initiated by a woman named Margaret Sanger, who basically wanted to control the Black population in America due to the fact that she was a blatant Racist — Unbelievable!

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee’s view on this subject.

Should unborn fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome be Aborted? What about Adoption?

Ruth Marcus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-fetus-with-down-syndrome-women-need-that-right/2018/03/09/3aaac364-23d6-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.169a31f31d45

I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndome. Women need that right.

By Ruth Marcus, Deputy editorial page editor, March 9

There is a new push in antiabortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong.

This is a difficult subject to discuss because there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down syndrome. Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives. The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.

I have had two children; I was old enough, when I became pregnant, that it made sense to do the testing for Down syndrome. Back then, it was amniocentesis, performed after 15 weeks; now, chorionic villus sampling can provide a conclusive determination as early as nine weeks. I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.

And I am not alone. More than two-thirds of American women choose abortion in such circumstances. Isn’t that the point — or at least inherent in the point — of prenatal testing in the first place?

If you believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, the taking of a human life, then of course you would make a different choice. But that is not my belief, and the Supreme Court has affirmed my freedom to have that belief and act accordingly.

I respect — I admire — families that knowingly welcome a baby with Down syndrome into their lives. Certainly, to be a parent is to take the risks that accompany parenting; you love your child for who she is, not what you want her to be.

But accepting that essential truth is different from compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised. Most children with Down syndrome have mild to moderate cognitive impairment, meaning an IQ between 55 and 70 (mild) or between 35 and 55 (moderate). This means limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family.

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.

Which brings us to the Supreme Court. North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome; Utah’s legislature is debating such a bill.

These laws are flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed in 1992, that “it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Of the woman. As U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law in September, the high court’s determination “leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone pro­hibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.”

Think about it. Can it be that women have more constitutional freedom to choose to terminate their pregnancies on a whim than for the reason that the fetus has Down syndrome? And, to the question of enforceability, who is going to police the decision-making? Doctors are now supposed to turn in their patients — patients whom they owe confidentiality — for making a decision of which the state disapproves?

In an argument worthy of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” the state of Indiana suggests precisely that scenario. The right to abortion, its lawyer argued before a federal appeals court last month, protects only the “binary” decision of whether to bear a child — not which child you must carry to term once you choose to become pregnant. In other words, though he didn’t put it in these exact words, the state can hijack your body.

Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate. But in the end, the Constitution mandates — and a proper understanding of the rights of the individual against those of the state underscores — that these excruciating choices be left to individual women, not to government officials who believe they know best.

Putting ‘Euthanasia’ in Proper Perspective — Frankly Speaking

Detailed website offers women numerous logical alternatives from having an Abortion

It’s a website which sort of serves as the Swiss Army Knife for females contemplating Abortion.

If you know of female contemplating an Abortion, recommending SilentNoMoreAwareness.org might be just what the doctor ordered. For example, if you navigate on this site a little bit you’ll run across the testimonial section at, http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx , which you can either read or watch testimony from women who experienced every conceivable scenario regarding Abortions — i.e. Rape and Incest, Life of the Mother, Planned Parenthood, etc. You could appropriately conclude, these folks left no stone unturned.

And as it states on the site itself as one of its objectives: Healing the Shock Waves of Abortion. Please check out this website for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. I think it’ll be well worth your while.

Is it Donald Trump’s responsibility to defend Barack Obama from any public criticism? I don’t think so

(I may not be supporting Donald Trump in the Republican Primary, but I am in this most recent controversy on him not chiming-in to criticize a man who asked a question at one of his New Hampshire Town Hall meetings and said that President Barack Obama was a Muslim. Why should the onus be on Trump to police every single person making a comment at the microphone during one of his public campaign forums? And for someone claiming to be a “Christian”, why shouldn’t Obama be criticized for his faith in much the same fashion as Trump is for not quoting specific Bible verses as his personal favorite? As the undisputed #1 Black role model in the United States, why doesn’t President Obama publicly call out and take the organization known as, Black Lives Matter to task and convince them that, All Lives Matter? Come to think of it, isn’t that what people who claim to be, “Community Organizers” are supposed to be doing to bring everybody together??? Does this latest deal with Iran and its nuclear capability show that President Obama represented the best interests of the American Christians? Would a “good Christian” publicly and financially support a group like Planned Parenthood, which sells the body parts of its aborted fetuses? Would a “good Christian” publicly support homosexual marriages throughout the entire United States and then light up the White House in rainbow colors immediately after the Supreme Court illegally proclaimed this as the official, “Law of the Land”? Bottom Line: I tend to think there’s a major difference between someone who simply CLAIMS they’re a Christian from a person who actually practices and abides by the Christian faith. Lastly, what the heck difference does it make on whether or not Trump “BELIEVES” Barack Obama was actually born in the United States? If nobody can PROVE THIS with an authentic and official Birth Certificate, why is anyone who calls this into question placed on the same plateau as slander and blasphemy?)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/09/19/im-one-donald-trump-vows-protect-christians-religious-liberty/

‘I’m One of You’: Donald Trump Vows to Protect Christians, Religious Liberty

by Alex Swoyer
19 Sep 2015
Washington, DC

GOP front-runner Donald Trump appeared at the Iowa Faith and Family Coalition with his personal Bible in hand, a gift from his mother where she made special written notes to him, and a photo of his confirmation. He then went on to respond to the backlash from the media after he brushed off a supporter at a town hall who claimed President Obama was a Muslim.

He was one of several candidates to speak at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition on Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa.

“I was in big trouble all over the place… Every newscast — it was the biggest story,” Trump said. “Only time I’ll ever beat out the Pope,” he joked, about having more news coverage than the Pope had on his upcoming visit to America.

Trump went on to reference his tweets from earlier in the day where he said this is the first time he has ever caused controversy by “NOT” saying anything. He tweeted more about defending religious liberty and the First Amendment, which Breitbart News previously noted.

“I’m Presbyterian, can you believe it?”

The crowd chuckled.

“I will protect… because we’re not being protected,” Trump said, referencing Christians and religious liberty.

He said his first priority if elected President of the United States would be to “preserve and protect our religious liberty.”

“We’ll be fighting as part [of a] common core, and we’re going to protect totally the First Amendment,” he vowed.

Trump was asked if he prefers executive orders or treaties when dealing with foreign relations, as well as his thoughts on the Iran deal.

He said a treaty would be his preference because it is a “much stronger agreement” because it goes through Congress and has to be approved.

“We will protect Israel,” he vowed, saying he would fix the deal with Iran. “That deal will become much much better.” Of the other GOP presidential candidates who have said they would rip up the Iran deal, Trump said, “They don’t understand the way it works.”

“Israel is going to be safe. We’re going to be safe,” he vowed, saying Iran will never get nukes, “That I will tell you.”

He was also questioned about his thoughts on the Second Amendment.

“We need it for security; we need it for safety,” he answered, saying he would defend the Second Amendment.

He did address mental health problems, and said he would “do a lot to fund that, because we’ve got to get these people back in the hospital.”

He criticized taking guns away from the military, and referenced the shooting in Tennessee where military members were shot and killed in a gun free zone.

“If they had the guns, that wouldn’t have happened,” Trump said. “We will keep that Second Amendment.”

He also said he supports the new process regarding ethanol, because “there’s no reason not to. We need it. We need everything we can get. Ethanol is terrific.”

He was again questioned about religious liberty and what he can do to help protect Christians from having to violate their religious beliefs due to government regulations and laws.

“I feel so strongly in fact, it was mentioned in my second paragraph,” he said, referencing his speech. “Religious liberty is so important.”

“I’m a good fighter,” he vowed, “I win a lot,” suggesting he would win the war against Christianity.

“I want Christmas re-used,” Trump said of the campaign waged to remove the word “Christmas” from society in order to be more politically correct.

“Every year it gets worse and worse,” he said. “We have nobody fighting for us. I’m one of you — just remember that.”