An Illinois appeals court has ruled against a woman who sued a Planned Parenthood clinic because it did not inform her that the abortion she requested would take a human life. As reported by LifeSiteNews.com, “The plaintiff, identified only as Mary Doe, had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago in 2004, before which she says she had specifically asked a clinic counselor if her unborn child was a human being. Two years later, she filed a malpractice action against the clinic based upon the fact that the counselor had erroneously told her no.”
“I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this legislation,” President Barack Obama stated in his Thursday evening speech to a joint session of Congress. He then proceeded to propose modest tax cuts, significant spending increases, an unemployment insurance extension, Medicare and Medicaid reform, and tax loophole closures — all told, an estimated $447 billion in reduced revenue and increased outlays. It is difficult to fathom how such a plan could fail to be controversial.
When the government infringes upon Second Amendment rights through regulation and harsh gun control, it is accused of violating one’s right to self-defense. There is no greater example of this violation, however, than when the federal government attempted to punish a man for killing a grizzly bear that threatened his life and the lives of his family. Fortunately, when the story was publicized and received a great deal of negative media attention, federal prosecutors decided to drop the charges.
A federal court of appeals threw out Virginia’s legal challenge to Obamacare and with it, the principles of federalism and state sovereignty.
Thursday, the three-judge panel of the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that the state of Virginia lacks jurisdiction to challenge the twin federal health care measures passed in 2010 and known collectively as Obamacare.
Unbeknownst to most Americans listening to 2012 campaign rhetoric, what’s being pitched is “free-market socialism." An oxymoron? Not exactly. “Free-market socialism,” a version of “market socialism,” is so named because it does not involve planners, as most of us understand that word. It is, in essence, a kinder and gentler form of highly regulated enterprise that nevertheless steers a nation toward an entitlement society with an emphasis on government-supplied jobs under the guise of entrepreneurship and “open” markets.