"To steal, kill and destroy." Those were the words spoken by Jesus when giving a synopsis of Satan's self-given assignment on this earth. Jesus referred to this entity as "The Thief."
Thievery through deception was the very first activity of the "Devil" on the earth as far as we know. He stole the right of Adam to rule the planet alongside his helpmate Eve. Since then Satan has been - what the apostle Paul called - the "god of this world" and which Jesus referred to as the "prince" of this world. "To steal, and to kill, and to destroy."The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.John 10:10
PPSIMMONS received another email from "Medusa" the 14th of this month. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee is upset that the Supreme Court saw fit to enforce the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993. The bill was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The email from "Medusa" reads:
Friend --I've got a very important question for you: Are you ready to fight just as hard for women's rights as conservatives seem to be fighting against them? This is a critical moment. The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case was a big setback for women's health care. But that isn't the end of this debate. We can mend the damage if we act now. As I send this, Democrats have introduced a piece of legislation to negate the Supreme Court's ruling and provide American women who work at for-profit companies with fair and equal access to coverage. But it won't get passed without your help. Add your name to stand with women and show the other guys that religious freedom doesn't mean the freedom to deny women their rights:http://redactedThanks,DebbieDebbie Wasserman SchultzChairDemocratic National CommitteeP.S. -- I want to say this one more time: We won't let conservatives infringe on our rights and we'll pull out all the stops to defeat them if we have to. Are you ready?
Somebody needs to point out to "Medusa" that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed virtually unanimously and signed by a Democrat president... but I digress.
The bill to which "Medusa" (a soul-sucking mythical demon figure) is referring has little to no chance of passing but I would like to point your attention to yet another bill which is currently being debated in the Senate.
"A bill to protect a women's right to determine whether and when to bear a child or end a pregnancy by limiting restrictions on the provision of abortion services."
Women's Health Protection Act of 2013 - Makes the following limitations and requirements concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government: a requirement that a medical professional perform specific tests or follow specific medical procedures, unless generally required in the case of medically comparable procedures; a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to delegate tasks, other than one applicable to medically comparable procedures; a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to prescribe or dispense drugs based on her or his good-faith medical judgment, other than one generally applicable; a limitation on an abortion provider's ability to provide abortion services via telemedicine, other than one generally applicable; a requirement or limitation concerning the physical plant, equipment, staffing, or hospital transfer arrangements of facilities where abortions are performed, or the credentials, hospital privileges, or status of personnel at such facilities that is not otherwise imposed where medically comparable procedures are performed; a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services; and a requirement or limitation that prohibits or restricts medical training for abortion procedures, other than one generally applicable to medically comparable procedures. Makes unlawful a measure or action that restricts the provision of abortion services, or the facilities that provide them, that is similar to any of those described above if it singles out abortion services or make abortion services more difficult to access and does not significantly advance women's health or the safety of abortion services. Provides standards for the making of a prima facie case in a civil action challenging such restrictions and factors to be considered by a court in determining whether a measure or action impedes access to abortion services. Makes the following other restrictions on the performance of abortion unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government: a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability; a prohibition after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating physician, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's life or health; a restriction that limits a woman's ability to obtain an immediate abortion when a health care professional believes, based on good-faith medical judgment, that delay would pose a risk to the woman's health; and a prohibition or restriction on obtaining an abortion prior to fetal viability based on a woman's reasons or perceived reasons or that requires her to state her reasons before obtaining an abortion prior to fetal viability. Requires courts to liberally construe the provisions of this Act. Authorizes the Attorney General or an individual or entity aggrieved by (or a health facility or medical professional adversely affected by) a violation of this Act, to commence a civil action for injunctive relief. Preempts any provision enacted by a state or subdivision having the force of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act.
S.1696 seeks to override all state laws regarding abortion and makes the slaughter of unborn babies universally available whenever a woman and her "doctor" collude to produce a case for the killing of a baby to protect the health of the mother. In a society saturated with liberalism the danger of suffering a broken nail during delivery might well qualify in the course of time due to "mental and/or emotional anguish" if the current left-leaning courts are any indication. When the supreme court of Canada struck down all laws governing abortion in that country in 1988 they removed all restrictions governing the slaughter of unborn babies and today 30% of pregnancies end in the death of the child at the hands of the mother and her so-called "doctor."
The bill goes further by making "limitations" on abortion services "illegal!" This is liberalism in it's purest form. Liberalism is defined in the dictionary as an "unrestricted" lifestyle.
There will be a committee vote on this bill in a few weeks and likely a failed cloture vote in August or early September.
Thankfully this bill will not pass the Senate and even if it did, it would be dead on arrival in the House. Sadly though passage of this bill is not the point or even intended. It is simply another attempt to move the ball a little further down the field.