A common way to put Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS, a.k.a. “transgender”) activists on the spot is to ask them “What is a woman?” They’ll hem and haw because their current emotion-based creed dictates that the only possible definition is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” Some sexual devolutionaries, however, may come back with what a YouTube commenter under a very clever, topic-related Babylon Bee video claimed. “Let’s be real, conservatives do not have a tenable definition of woman,” he stated. “[C]onservatives don’t talk about their definition of woman — they know it’s not good enough.” Okay, then, challenge accepted. I’ll talk about it:
A woman is an adult member of the species homo sapiens; this means in principle that she has an XX chromosome configuration and is, consequently, genotypically and phenotypically female.
Yes, that’s a mouthful, because it’s precise. But the sexual devolutionaries would no doubt interject here, saying, “No, no! Some ‘women’ are not genotypically XX or wholly phenotypically [appearance-wise] female.”
Yet they’d have overlooked two key words in my definition: “in principle.” One learns in good philosophy, rarely taught today, that there’s a difference between something being true in principle and it being true in the particular.
For example, an apple in principle is something that doesn’t contain a worm; this definition isn’t negated by the fact that the occasional apple has a worm because the worm isn’t integral to the apple. There obviously are deviations among women from the genotypic and phenotypic female norm; it’s also obvious that they have no bearing on what a woman is in principle.
Not understanding this (not that they’d want to), sexual devolutionaries will didactically “explain” how there are more than just the two “XX” (female) and “XY” (male) genotypes, with others supposedly being the “intersex” varieties XXX, X0, XXY and XYY. While these configurations’ existence, again, has no bearing on what the two sexes are in principle, here’s what the sexual devolutionaries don’t say:
These are all abnormalities that afflict one sex or the other. Here’s the science, courtesy of WebMD (emphasis added by me):
“Triple X syndrome (also called trisomy X syndrome, XXX syndrome, or 47,XXX) is a rare genetic condition where females inherit an extra X chromosome.”
“Turner syndrome [X0] is a rare genetic disorder that’s found only in girls.”
“Klinefelter syndrome [XXY] is a genetic condition in which a boy is born with an extra X chromosome.”
“Although genetics are hereditary, a phenomenon in genetic alterations occurs when male babies receive an extra Y chromosome in each of their cells, resulting in an XYY combination.”
And that’s it. By the way, you can search the WebMD pages I linked to, and you won’t find the term “intersex” anywhere on them. “Intersex” is not a scientific designation, but a social one. It’s not reality, but fantasy. There are two sexes and abnormalities afflicting them, nothing more. This is much as how someone suffering with hypertrichosis (excessive hair growth. Example: “Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy”) isn’t “inter-species,” but a fully human person with a disorder.
What we’re actually seeing here with the “intersex” illusion is the now-common desire to define abnormalities as either “lifestyle choices” or “normal variation.” But as G.K. Chesterton put it, “A fallacy doesn’t cease to be a fallacy because it becomes a fashion.”
People enduring these chromosomal abnormalities certainly have crosses to bear and, assuming they haven’t joined the sexual devolutionary phalanx of social engineers, deserve compassion. What no one deserves, ever, is to have all of society’s grasp of reality altered to facilitate the lie that his abnormality doesn’t exist as such because he can’t accept the truth. Warping a civilization’s sense of reality is dangerous and shouldn’t be tolerated for a moment.
Anyway, there’s the traditionalist answer to “What is a woman?” Your move, sexual devolutionaries. But I think that’s checkmate.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-28 14:51:142022-06-28 14:51:14When a Conservative is Asked ‘What is a Woman?’
Robert Royal: In America, we are not going to kill 1 million of our children annually now in mere absence of mind. That’s the main thing. The rest we’ll debate. And the hysterics are not going to make us lose sight of that.
After thirty years living in Washington D.C., nothing – nearly nothing – politicians do surprises me. But when the king – sorry, president – of France and the British Prime Minister “express concern” (egged on by their clueless U.S. counterparts) over a Supreme Court decision about a Mississippi law that is less restrictive of abortion (15 weeks) than laws in their own countries, the usual political antics and lies aren’t all that amusing anymore.
The same can be said of the guerrilla theater in America’s most liberal cities (where abortion on demand still reigns), and in the media (where professional reporting has given way to Left advocacy on all things, all of the time), and the whole morass of lying and intimidation that flouts the rule of law and the institutions that enable an ordered liberty.
The hysteria of the pro-abortion supporters has, to use their own vocabulary, been “socially constructed.” Almost all the hysterics would be less publicly distraught if their fathers, mothers, siblings, or friends died horribly in a fire.
I’m in Bratislava, the capital of the Slovak Republic, this week for our Summer Seminar on the Free Society, an educational program for American and European university students and young professionals, with participants from as far away as Australia and the Philippines. This was the brainchild of the late Michael Novak, one of the founders of The Catholic Thing and a prominent modern Catholic social theorist.
Novak realized that it wasn’t enough when Communism had finally fallen. By 2000, it was clear that nations like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, also needed a better understanding of what a properly free society means – one dedicated to liberty not license, responsibility not self-indulgence, and truth not ideology.
He created the seminar and we at the Faith & Reason Institute have administered it for a decade. (It’s our 20th anniversary, delayed two years by Covid). It’s been interesting in many ways, not least because the program has had to shift from exposing the false assumptions of totalitarian systems to explaining the threats to liberty now growing within the West’s own “free societies.”
The callous disregard for human life in the womb, for instance, in almost all the developed world is the most flagrant evidence of how freedom and prosperity have corrupted us. We want what we want. And we’re not going to let the Western, Biblical, and American moral heritage tell us no.
I’m sorry to have to write that. I believe, despite everything, that there’s much in our civilization still worth fighting for. And the Dobbs decision helps: it allows moral debate and actual democratic procedures now on today’s most burning moral issue.
The fact that adhering to constitutional limits on government and a growing concern for human life in the womb are being portrayed as tyranny and infringements on “women’s rights” (Nota bene, half of dead babies are female) testifies to how far we’ve fallen from an understanding of what’s necessary to a viable, free society.
We’re going to see intense debates now – badly conducted for the most part – over abortion and the interests of that strange category of human beings called “women,” a term that the “woke” won’t define, though they’re sure “women’s rights” are paramount.
Praise for the Vatican, which did not ignore this moment, as might have been expected. The Pontifical Academy for Life – recent papal appointees notwithstanding – didn’t just praise Dobbs, but stated, “The fact that a large country with a long democratic tradition has changed its position on this issue also challenges the whole world.”
Yes, that America could actually change direction on this most murderous result of the sexual revolution, means that faith and reason have not entirely fled the developed world. So, Amen, brothers.
The pope spoke more indirectly. In his address to the World Meeting of Families in Rome this week, he said, “Let us not allow the family to be poisoned by the toxins of selfishness, individualism, today’s culture of indifference and waste, and as a result lose its very DNA, which is the spirit of welcoming and service.” Which in the byzantine language the Holy See often employs alludes, at least so we’re told, to the Dobbs decision.
Would that the pope and his advisors, woefully ignorant as they are about America, would now realize that appointing the go-along-to-get-along bishops that they have preferred lately in America does not help move along effective pro-life action. And won’t help other Catholic principles to prevail.
Instead, we are still getting “Seamless Garment” generalities from Vatican spokesmen, such as Andrea Tornielli this week: “Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the U.S.” The Vatican’s “editorial director” apparently doesn’t know that those deaths are mostly inner-city gangs killing one another, rarely mere recklessness with guns.
And then there are the Catholic drips at publications like America and the National Catholic Reporter, who seem embarrassed by focusing on ending abortion without also promoting a whole laundry list of social programs. Yes, we also want to help new mothers; yes, we also want to support young children – but with an eye to the truth, confirmed by social science, that intact families do all those things better than government programs, which should only be a last, not first resort. So where’s the concern for promoting family and marriage?
And yes, we know of course, that conservative and pro-life politicians can sometimes be as big boobies and moral blowhards as their opponents. And that they may try to exploit the present moment for their own selfish interests.
But in America, we are not going to kill 1 million of our children annually now in mere absence of mind. That’s the main thing. The rest we’ll debate. And no one is going to make us lose sight of that.
And thanks be to God – and all those who labored for half a century – that this day has finally come.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-27 14:51:302022-06-27 14:51:30Let Not the Hysterics Distract You
President Trump successfully nominated three pro-life Supreme Court Justices, which enabled the overturning of Roe v. Wade. President Trump was a historic POTUS. The greatest of our lifetime. He will save this country from ruin when he is re-elected in November 2024. #Trump2024!
45: These major Victories prove that even though the Radical Left is doing everything in their power to destroy our Country, your Rights are being protected, the Country is being defended, and there is still hope and time to Save America! pic.twitter.com/ScsIb8VIWc
In 2016, one of Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.Today, his promise became a reality. It’s the latest example of a Trump promise made and a Trump promise kept. Everyone who is against infanticide should be thankful for Donald Trump, regardless of one’s personal feelings about him.
(And, if we are being fair, for all the people who have lambasted him recently and called him a RINO, Sen. Mitch McConnell deserves some credit, too.)
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-27 13:51:372022-06-27 13:51:37Without Trump, Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade would not have been possible
The Democrat party of treason will destroy the military the same way they destroyed the air travel industry. They did this to the pilots, hence the current pilot shortage.
Up to 40,000 Unvaccinated Army Guard Troops at Risk of Dismissal as Deadline for Vaccine Mandate Looms
According to AP, up to 40,000 Army Guard troops are still unvaccinated and at least 7,000 are at risk of being dismissed after refusing to take the experimental Covid vaccine, as the deadline for shots looms.
“According to data obtained by The Associated Press, between 20% to 30% of the Guard soldiers in six states are not vaccinated, and more than 10% in 43 other states still need shots,” the news outlet reported.
Around 7,000 national guards have requested exemptions which are almost all for religious reasons.
In an interview with AP, the director of the Army National Guard Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen said, “We’re going to give every soldier every opportunity to get vaccinated and continue their military career. Every soldier that is pending an exemption, we will continue to support them through their process.”
“We’re not giving up on anybody until the separation paperwork is signed and completed. There’s still time,” Jensen added.
Last year, the Oklahoma National Guard announced that they will not impose Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate.
Army Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino wrote in a memo that “no negative administrative or legal action will be taken” against anyone who doesn’t get the vaccine.
Biden Pentagon responded and threatened the Oklahoma National Guard for not forcing all members to take the controversial COVID vaccines. The Pentagon threatened the careers of the guard members in the state and announced the state statute may jeopardize their status.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott sued Joe Biden and the Pentagon over its military vaccine mandate last March 2022.
Over 40% of the Texas National Guard are refusing to get the Covid vaccine.
Oklahoma National Guard defies Pentagon, won’t impose COVID-19 vaccine mandate | Just The News https://t.co/Z6BiA0nLxw
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-27 13:51:362022-06-27 13:51:36Up to 40,000 Unvaccinated Army Guard Troops at Risk of Dismissal as Deadline for Vaccine Mandate Looms
Where is the Supreme Court’s apology? Look at what their Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 put the country through.
Over the weekend, violence or disturbances broke out in several cities in response to the Dobbs decision reversing Roe, including Los Angeles, Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona. Prior to that, there were 27 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers – including firebombings – and the FBI has not made a single arrest. There was an assassination attempt and threats of violence against the lives of Supreme Court Justices in the run-up to the Court’s new decision. People are resorting to violence because the Supreme Court created a federal constitutional right to abortion out of thin air in Roe in an opinion widely criticized for its incoherence and lack of constitutional moorings, and people are upset the Court is taking their candy away.
The recent violence is not even the half of it, and none of it needed to happen. For the last 50 years – my entire adult lifetime – there has been other violence, on the part of those who killed abortionists and attacked their clinics. Kidnapping, arson, and even anthrax threats characterized the era. Free speech rights were trampled as localities moved to squash peaceful demonstrations and even prayer outside abortion clinics. The debate on abortion in the country became polarized and bitter because abortion was federalized, instead of leaving this divisive social question to the states as the new ruling finally does. The Supreme Court did untold damage to federalism and upset the constitutional order by stripping states of the power to legislate on the issue and further concentrating power in Washington, D.C. where it doesn’t belong. Roe v. Wade helped the federal government become too darn big and powerful.
Justice Alito recognized this at the end of his opinion in Dobbs. Alito wrote:
The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
A dollar short and 50 years late. But you won’t find the words ‘apology’ or ‘we’re sorry’ anywhere in Alito’s opinion.
Roe was the Court’s first experiment in social engineering. It was followed by Lawrence v. Texas which created a federal right to sodomy out of thin air. Then Obergefell, which created a federal right to same-sex marriage out of thin air. Former Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in both cases. Someone more clever than me put out a meme at the time, “Help, I’m being ruled by Anthony Kennedy!” It’s not supposed to be that way. We live in what is supposed to be a constitutional Republic where We the People are sovereign. It makes no sense to have important social issues decided by nine unelected Justices in Washington. It makes even less sense to have them decided by five of them in the majority, or by a single swing Justice like Anthony Kennedy, for the entire country.
More recently, Justice Neil Gorsuch picked up where Anthony Kennedy left off. In the 2020 Bostock case, Gorsuch put sexual orientation and transgenderism into Title VII where Congress had not, creating federal rights once again out of thin air. Like Roe, the opinion in that case is completely incoherent. Gorsuch was contemptuous of Congress in that case, saying Congress could have legislated against his result but failed to do so, leaving him perfectly free to rewrite the law as he saw fit. This budding social engineer left his training wheels behind that day. He adopted the language of the Left, talking about how ‘sex’ is merely assigned at birth. He was also naïve, believing the reach of Bostock could be limited to its facts in Title VII employment cases, but Bostock is now being read broadly and cited in all kinds of transgender cases.
The Supreme Court’s social engineering in Obergefell is following the unfortunate pattern of Roe – proving horribly divisive and leaving opponents nowhere to turn because the Court federalized the question. Just wait until the Left gets around to stripping churches that believe in traditional marriage of their tax exemptions. Bostock is a little different, because it involved statutory interpretation, not a constitutional question. Congress could change the result, but don’t hold your breath.
The Court waits in cases like this until public opinion tips in favor of making a change, but this is not a Quaker meeting house where the leader simply declares the ‘sense of the meeting’. It’s not the Court’s job to follow public opinion. It’s the Court’s job to interpret the Constitution regardless of public opinion. To applaud the Court for waiting for most people to become comfortable with the change completely misses the point.
To the Justices I say, get out of the social engineering business entirely. You are not smart enough to dictate social policy for the entire country. Nobody is. Social change is supposed to occur organically, through society at large. Not foisted on us by nine unelected Justices in Washington, D.C. As one wag put it, social change happens one funeral at a time.
The Dobbs decision is nice, but I’m waiting for the Supreme Court’s apology for Roe. But what I’d really like to have is some assurance the Supreme Court is out of the social engineering business, forever.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-27 12:51:202022-06-27 12:51:20Where Is the Supreme Court’s Apology?
This week, the US Senate began debate on a bipartisan gun control package supporters have labeled a “compromise” bill.
Earlier this month, Democrats announced they had obtained enough Republican support for legislation to get it out of the Senate. (Though the House has an easy Democrat majority, much of the left’s agenda has stalled under President Joe Biden due to a very slim majority in the Senate that requires the support of at least 10 Republican Senators to overcome a filibuster.)
The gun control package includes several items: Incentives for states to pass red flag laws, a crackdown on “straw purchases,” an end to the “boyfriend loophole,” investments in mental health and suicide prevention as well as crisis and trauma intervention and recovery, an expanded requirement for who must register as a licensed federal firearms dealers, and enhanced background checks for 18-21 year olds looking to buy a gun. Should it pass, NICS (the entity that carries out federal background checks) would basically have to call state and local law enforcement to search for any sealed juvenile records or mental health events as well as agencies in the state that deal with mental health issues before 18 to 21 year olds could purchase a gun.
While supporters of this legislation are presumably well-meaning, it is mostly misguided.
And while there is little indication these agenda items would actually prevent violence or save lives, there’s plenty of evidence to indicate they would deter vulnerable people from seeking mental health treatment.
Regarding the bill, Psychology Todaystates, “Of course, increased funding for mental health programs is sorely needed. But there is also concern among mental health advocates about reinforcing the false conflation of gun violence and mental illness. Although the popular belief is that those with mental illness are more likely to commit acts of violence, data shows that people with mental illness are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.”
Sixty national mental health advocacy groups also recently crafted a letter condemning the conflation of gun violence and mental health issues. “Attempts to connect mental illness to mass shootings are a distraction that inflicts enormous damage by taking attention from solutions that could actually prevent such events,” they write. “This perpetuates a false narrative that encourages stigmatization of and discrimination against the millions of Americans living with mental health conditions who are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.”
The president and CEO at Meridian Health Services, Hank Milius, also recently authored an op-ed for Yahoo! Financewriting, “gun violence is a public health issue but linking it to mental health only adds to the stigma of mental illness.” He goes on to say, “Certainly, there are cases of gun violence by individuals who have a mental illness. But to suggest there is a cause and effect by inextricably linking the two builds a false narrative.”
Milius also reiterated the talking points of Mental Health America, writing, “Mental illness is not a predictor of violence towards others, but is a predictor of suicide. Firearm deaths associated with mental illness are nearly always suicides. The majority of people with mental illness are not violent. If mental illness were eliminated, gun violence in America would go down by only 4%.”
Sixty percent of gun deaths in the US are attributed to suicide, NPR notes. So if we want to actually reduce gun deaths, mental health is an excellent place to focus our attention and resources.
But while this bill offers an expansion of services…or at least funding for services…numerous components within it would likely lead to fewer people seeking help.
As Milius and Psychology Today make clear, people who suffer from mental illness are far likelier to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators of it. But that being said, when a person in psychosis does not receive the care and or medicine they need, violence can occur. So we should do everything we can to encourage those with mental illness to seek help.
However, this bill goes the opposite way. It risks the healthcare privacy of young adults and puts their ability to defend themselves in jeopardy. If a young woman fears that seeking help for anxiety or suicidal thoughts may lead to her inability to be able to buy a gun and defend herself when she turns 18 and moves out on her own, the reality is a not-insignificant portion of the population will likely take the safe route and forego care.
Dr. Laura Streyffeler, a Licensed Mental Health Counselor, states, “I think if we start having them diagnose and take away weapons and have mental health diagnosis as a way that people are going to lose their firearms I think what’s going to happen is people are going to stop looking for help.”
Furthermore, red flags laws weaponize mental health issues against people who may have absolutely no indication of violence whatsoever. It isn’t ok to condition one’s rights on their health, which is what Red Flag laws do. While the actual language differs from state to state, the gist is that people who know you can alert police to behaviors they think are unstable and that can then be used to take away someone’s guns. What behaviors that includes are pretty arbitrary, subjective, and loosely defined. Does someone not like your politics and think you’re a conspiracy theorist? Does that indicate mental unwellness? Is someone anti-gun in general and believe that merely owning a gun makes you a threat? You get the picture here. These laws could easily be used against people who aren’t mentally ill in the least, but we know they’ll certainly be used against anyone with a history of mental illness.
Civil liberties should never be able to be taken away without due process, a preponderance of the evidence, and a trial. Red flag laws skip those conditions and make people who seek basic healthcare services vulnerable.
The reality is that most mass shooters were not mentally ill, at least not in a diagnosable way. Rather, they are typically young men who are isolated, angry, and entitled. Additionally, according to reporting by Vice, “A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a ‘script’ or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.”
Those are signs of future violence we can certainly be on guard against—and people with firearms in their home have the responsibility to make sure their guns are safe and secure—but making mental health a scapegoat for shootings is not the answer.
Instead, the gun control package demonizes and stereotypes innocent people, and makes an already vulnerable population more susceptible to abuse. It also puts too much pressure on our mental healthcare system, which is already buckling under the weight of trying to provide basic services for those who are quantifiably mentally ill. The mental health community can’t do the job of police on top of everything else.
The French economist Frédéric Bastiat once said, “In the economic sphere, an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen. There is only one difference between a good economist and a bad one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those which must be foreseen.”
It’s easy to see Bastiat’s description playing out under this new gun control package, should it pass. Lawmakers believe they are solving one problem, the “seen,” while failing to take into account all of the negative repercussions and implications that will follow, the “unseen.”
This isn’t smart public policy, which is a shame because there are many thoughtful, well-researched people putting out reforms that could actually target violence while upholding individual liberty and ensuring vulnerable populations aren’t further harmed.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-26 23:51:582022-06-26 23:51:58How the New Gun Control Package Could Harm the Mental Health Community
It’s not quite a documentary but it does come at the issue from several perspectives. I hope it is helpful. I have friends that have asked about the shows we’ve done recently on this subject.
Dr. Syed Haider, MD completed his 3-year residency in Internal Medicine at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, NY he worked as an internal medicine hospitalist for 10 years. He is additionally trained in Functional medicine, Lifestyle medicine and Chinese medicine. Since December 2020, Dr. Syed has focused entirely on prevention and treatment of COVID-19. He was the first physician in the US to widely use Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 starting in February 2021.
DR. NAOMI WOLF
Dr. Naomi Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist, and professor. She is cofounder and CEO of Daily Clout. a successful civic tech company. Since the publication of her landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, which The New York Times called “one of the most important books of the 20th century,” Dr. Wolf’s other seven bestsellers have been translated worldwide. The End of America and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, predicted the current crisis in authoritarianism and presented effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement. Dr. Wolf trains thought leaders of tomorrow, teaching public presentation to Rhodes Scholars and co-leading a Stony Brook University that gave professors skills to become public intellectuals. She was a Rhodes Scholar herself, and was an advisor to the Clinton re-election campaign and to Vice President Al Gore. Dr. Wolf has written for every major news outlet in the US and many globally; she had four opinion columns, including in The Guardian and the Sunday Times of London. TOPIC: Pfizer Docs Contradict Claim of No Risk to Unborn Babies.
DR. RICHARD URSO
Dr. Richard Urso is a board-certified ophthalmologist and one of America’s Frontline Doctors. He is a scientist, sole inventor of an FDA-approved wound healing drug, and the Former Director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center. TOPIC: COVID-19 vaccines and kids: What parents need to know.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-26 23:51:562022-06-26 23:51:56AUNTVN : The Doctors speak out about the Covid Vaccine Dangers
“Whatever may have been my political opinions before, I have but one sentiment now. That is, we have a Government, and laws and a flag, and they must all be sustained. There are but two parties now, traitors and patriots and I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter, and I trust, the stronger party.” — Ulysses S. Grant
Since the Supreme Courts recent rulings on two key Democrat issues, abortion and gun control, we have seen members of Congress, Biden and the liberal media call for violence. We are seeing elected officials, including Supreme Court Justices, threatened and even an effort at assassination. We are seeing riots, vandalism and fire bombings fueled by Democrat rhetoric.
Democrats are doing evil while they threaten others with violence for not doing their bidding.
Here’s pro-abortionist’s “insurrection” at Arizona’s Capital on Friday, June 24th, 2022:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Law Enforcement Prevents Insurrection of State Senate While Lawmakers Conduct the People’s Work pic.twitter.com/jiWmAAYJJn
Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government or rule; the cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control; or a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
America is now under the rule of a cruel and oppressive government controlled by the Democrat Party.
Watch these videos to understand why Democrats and their supporters are truly tyrants:
Maxine Waters (D-CA): ‘The Hell with SCOTUS, we will defy them!’
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Says ‘No Point in Saying Good Morning, Because it Isn’t’
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortex (D-NY) Chants with Protesters that SCOTUS Roe Decision Is ‘Illegitimate’
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortex (D-NY) REFUSES to Condemn Threats of Violence by Pro Abortion Activists
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Says ‘Cruel’ Supreme Court Decision Puts Women’s ‘Lives at Risk’
UNHINGED Pro-Abortion Activist Openly Calling for Violence Against SCOTUS Justices
Tulsa, now.
Doctor’s office.
Shove your “responsible gun owners” crap up your ass.
The 2nd Amendment does not include the word “own.” There is no right. https://t.co/LFIVT26Fc8
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-26 11:51:312022-06-26 11:51:31Videos Showing Pure Hate and Evil as Democrats Call for an Insurrection
Lawmakers were instructed not to exit the Arizona state capitol as protestors gathering outside the building created a “hostage” situation late Friday night into early Saturday morning.
“Violent anti-abortion protestors attempts of an insurrection at the Arizona State Senate were thwarted Friday night, thanks to the swift action from local and state law enforcement,” the Arizona State Senate said in a press release.
“Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass,” Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted.
Police used tear gas to disperse the protestors and regain control of the building, according to Fox News.
“We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security,” State Senator Kelly Townsend wrote on Twitter.
State Senator Warren Peterson said several of his fellow Senators were armed.
Feeling safe at the Capitol as I sit by 3 of my fellow senators who are armed. pic.twitter.com/N300F9JAVl
One Senator compared the violence to the breach of the United States Capitol that occurred on January 6, 2021.
“I expect a J24 committee to be created immediately,” she said on Twitter.
“Extremist demonstrators made their way to the entrance of the Senate building and began forcibly trying to make entry by breaking down windows and pushing down doors,” according to the Arizona State Senate press release.
WATCH: Chaotic scenes during pro-choice rally at the Arizona Capitol, forcing the Senate to go into recess pic.twitter.com/9xk257UsJF
According to the press release, the air circulation system in the building pulled the tear gas deployed on the demonstrators into the Senate chambers, preventing lawmakers from returning to the Senate floor.
“Senate proceedings were moved to another room in the building.”
Senate President Karen Fann thanked law enforcement for responding quickly to the situation.
“We are incredibly thankful for our local law enforcement who quickly intervened during what could have been a destructive and dangerous situation for our members, staff and public inside the Senate,” Fann said.
You have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the Constitutional right end the heartbeat of another human being. Any questions? #RoeVWade#SupremeCourt
And finally Senator Townsend asks will there be a June 24th Committee?
We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security. We smell teargas and the children of one of the members are in the office sobbing with fear. I expect a J24 committee to be created immediately.
— Senator Kelly Townsend 🇺🇸 (@AZKellyT) June 25, 2022
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-25 09:52:152022-06-25 09:52:15The Top 10 Telling Tweets on the Roe v. Wade Decision
Do Psychiatric Meds and War Games Lead to Mass Shootings?
While many have bought into the simplistic idea that the availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
97.8% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence
While many have bought into the simplistic idea that the availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems.
An article written by Molly Carter, initially published on ammo.com at an unknown date1 and subsequently republished by The Libertarian Institute in May 2019,2 and psychreg.org in late January 2021,3 noted:
“According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter … during a single incident …
Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs … the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response — they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed ‘solutions’ on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.
Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are NOT the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.
Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting ‘gun-free zones,’ where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center,4 97.8% of public shootings occur in ‘gun-free zones’ – and ‘gun-free zones’ are the epitome of the core philosophical tenet of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence …
This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings — mental health and prescription drugs.
Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times: ‘But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.’”
The Elephant in the Room: Antidepressants
Thoughts, emotions, and a variety of environmental factors play into the manifestation of violence, but a mental illness by itself cannot account for the massive rise in mass murder — unless you include antidepressants in the equation. Yet even when mental health does enter the mass shooter discussion, the issue of antidepressants, specifically, is rarely mentioned.
The fact is, depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants.
Prozac, released in 1987, was the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to be approved for depression and anxiety. Only two years earlier, direct-to-consumer advertising had been legalized. In the mid-1990s, the Food and Drug Administration loosened regulations, direct-to-consumer ads for SSRIs exploded and, with it, prescriptions for SSRIs.
In 1989, just two years after Prozac came to market, Joseph Wesbecker shot 20 of his coworkers, killing nine. He had been on Prozac for one month, and the survivors of the drug-induced attack sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac. Since then, antidepressant use and mass shootings have both risen, more or less in tandem.
In the two decades between 1988 and 2008, antidepressant use in the U.S. rose by 400%,5, and by 2010, 11% of the U.S. population over the age of 12 were on an antidepressant prescription.6
In 1982, pre-Prozac, there was one mass shooting in the U.S.7 In 1984, there were two incidents and in 1986 — the year Prozac was released — there was one. One to three mass shootings per year remained the norm up until 1999 when it jumped to five.
How can we possibly ignore the connection between the rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings?
Another jump took place in 2012 when there were seven mass shootings. And while the annual count has gone up and down from year to year, there’s been a clear trend of an increased number of mass shootings post-2012. Over time, mass shootings have also gotten larger, with more people getting injured or killed per incident.8
How can we possibly ignore the connection between the rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings? Suicidal ideation, violence, and homicidal ideation are all known side effects of these drugs. Sometimes, the drugs disrupt brain function so dramatically the perpetrator can’t even remember what they did.
For example, in 2001, a 16-year-old high schooler was prescribed Effexor, starting off at 40 milligrams and moving up to 300 mg over the course of three weeks. On the first day of taking a 300-mg dose, the boy woke up with a headache, decided to skip school, and went back to bed.
Sometime later, he got up, took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates, hostage, at gunpoint. He later claimed he had no recollection of anything that happened after he went back to bed that morning.9
The Risks Are Clear
The risks of psychiatric disturbances are so clear, ever since mid-October 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. must include a black box warning that the drug can cause suicidal thoughts and behaviors, especially in those younger than 25, and that:10
“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility (aggressiveness), impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”
SSRIs can also cause emotional blunting and detachment, such that patients report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything or anyone, as well as psychosis and hallucinations. All of these side effects can contribute to someone acting out an unthinkable violent crime.
In one review11,12 of 484 drugs in the FDA’s database, 31 were found to account for 78.8% of all cases of violence against others, and 11 of those drugs were antidepressants.
The researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the drugs analyzed, SSRI antidepressants and the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), had the strongest associations. The top-five most dangerous SSRIs were:13
Fluoxetine (Prozac), which increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
Paroxetine (Paxil), which increased violent behavior 10.3 times
Fluvoxamine (Luvox), which increased violent behavior 8.4 times
Venlafaxine (Effexor), which increased violent behavior 8.3 times
Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), which increased violent behavior 7.9 times
Depression Is Vastly Overdiagnosed
In her article, Carter also reviewed the clinical determinants for a diagnosis of clinical depression warranting medication. To qualify, you must experience five or more of the following symptoms, most of the day, every day, for two weeks or more, and the symptoms must be severe enough to interfere with normal everyday functioning:14
Sadness
Anxiety
Feeling hopeless
Feeling worthless
Feeling helpless
Feeling ’empty’
Feeling guilty
Irritable
Fatigue
Lack of energy
Loss of interest in hobbies
Slow talking and moving
Restlessness
Trouble concentrating
Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough
Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite
Thoughts of death or suicide
The reality is that a majority of patients who receive a depression diagnosis and subsequent prescription for an antidepressant do not, in fact, qualify. In one study,15 only 38.4% actually met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria, and among older adults, that ratio was even lower. Only 14.3% of those aged 65 and older met the diagnostic criteria. According to the authors:16
“Participants who did not meet the 12-month MDE criteria reported less distress and impairment in role functioning and used fewer services. A majority of both groups, however, were prescribed and used psychiatric medications.
Conclusion: Depression overdiagnosis and overtreatment is common in community settings in the USA. There is a need for improved targeting of diagnosis and treatments of depression and other mental disorders in these settings.”
What Role Might War Games Play?
Aside from antidepressants, another factor that gets ignored is the influence of shooting simulations, i.e., violent video games. How does the military train soldiers for war? Through simulations. With the proliferation of video games involving indiscriminate violence, should we really be surprised when this “training” is then put into practice? As reported by World Bank Blogs, young men who experience violence “often struggle to reintegrate peacefully into their communities” when hostilities end.17While American youth typically have little experience with real-world war, simulated war games do occupy much of their time and may over time color their everyday perceptions of life. As noted by Centrical, some of the top benefits of simulations training include:18
Allowing you to practice genuine real-life scenarios and responses
Repetition of content, which boosts knowledge retention
Personalization and diversification, so you can learn from your mistakes and evaluate your performance, thereby achieving a deeper level of learning
In short, violent mass shooter games are the perfect training platform for future mass shooters. Whereas a teenager without such exposure might not be very successful at carrying out a mass shooting due to inexperience with weapons and tactics, one who has spent many hours, years even, training in simulations could have knowledge akin to that of military personnel.
Add antidepressant side effects such as emotional blunting and loss of impulse control, and you have a perfect prescription for a mass casualty event.
On top of that, we, as a nation, also demonstrate the “righteousness” of war by engaging in them without end.19 When was the last time the U.S. was not at war someplace? It’s been ongoing for decades.
Even now, the U.S. insists on inserting itself into the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and diplomacy isn’t the chosen conflict resolution tool. Sending weapons to Ukraine and calling for more violence against Russians are. Sen. Lindsey Graham has even called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Showing just how serious such a suggestion is, the White House had to publicly disavow it, stating Graham’s comment “is not the position of the U.S. government.”20
Graham, meanwhile, does not appear to understand how his nonchalant call for murder might actually incite murder. In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, he now wants to mobilize retired service members to enhance security at schools, and while that might be a good idea, how about also vowing never to call for the murder of political opponents? Don’t politicians understand that this could translate into some kid thinking it’s acceptable to murder THEIR perceived opponents?
As far as I can tell, mass shootings have far more to do with societal norms, dangerous medications, a lack of high-quality mental health services, and the normalization of violence through entertainment and in politics, than it does with gun laws per se.
There are likely many other factors as well, but these are clearly observable phenomena known to nurture violent behavior. I’m afraid Americans are in need of a far deeper and more introspective analysis of the problem than many are capable of at the moment. But those who can, should try, and make an effort to effect much-needed change locally and in their own home.
Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.
Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-06-25 04:00:002022-06-25 04:00:00Weekend Read: 97.8% of Mass Shootings Are Linked to This
WATCH: Planned Parenthood insurrectionists scream inside Wisconsin state capital as GOP upholds 173 year-old law criminalizing abortion pic.twitter.com/h9tylNJfHc
Governor Tony Evers (D-WI) signed an executive order this month calling for the special session to repeal a 173 year-old ban on abortion, noting, “While the governor has the authority to call lawmakers into a special session, lawmakers are not obligated to take action on any bills.”
“Whose choice? Our choice!” dozens, if not hundreds, of protesters chanted inside the Capitol rotunda, protesting the GOP’s expected refusal to overturn the ban. “If we don’t get it, shut it down! If we don’t get it, shut it down! If we don’t get it, shut it down!”
“The people of Wisconsin support access to abortion! Our legislators need to listen and pass the Abortion Rights Preservation Act!” Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin tweeted Wednesday.
Many protesters were wearing Planned Parenthood gear and sporting the abortion provider’s signs.
Despite pressure from loud protesters inside the Capitol, the Republicans in the Senate and Assembly quickly gaveled in and out of Evers’ special session without taking votes to repeal the state’s abortion ban.
PPFA opposes any limitations on access to abortion, including the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and also opposes mandatory parental notification for minors wishing to undergo the procedure. Approximately one-third of PPFA’s clients are girls younger than 18 who live with one or both parents. Some 97 percent of these girls qualify for federal assistance to reimburse a provider of social services. This is because PPFA teaches its affiliates how to exploit federal “family planning” programs by qualifying as many clients as possible for federal subsidies of pregnancy tests, contraceptives, and abortions covered by Medicaid…
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-24 07:51:302022-06-24 07:51:30Planned Parenthood Wages Insurrection at Wisconson State Capitol
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been playing the toady for the Chinese Communists since the pandemic was first loosed upon the world in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. He abandoned any pretense of impartiality and ran interference for his masters in Beijing when the first investigations into the origins of the coronavirus were conducted.
But slowly, over the intervening two years, Tedros has had an epiphany. Indeed, the number of researchers and scientists admitting that the possibility of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology led to the pandemic is growing as time goes by.
According to the Daily Mail, Tedros is also coming around to accepting that hypothesis. He confided to a senior European politician that the most likely explanation was a catastrophic accident at the Wuhan Institute where infections first spread in late 2019.
In essence, it’s now down to a process of elimination. For two years, scientists have been looking for the specific animal species that would have passed the coronavirus to humans. They’ve concentrated on bats, but other mammals have been tested — tens of thousands of them — looking for the “‘zoonotic’ spread” that researchers confidently predicted would show up and solve the mystery of the coronavirus’s origins.
There’s been no sign of the coronavirus spreading from a specific animal species to humans. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. But it’s certainly a compelling reason to try and force China to cooperate in the investigation…..
The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.
Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-06-24 03:55:002022-06-24 03:55:00WHO Chief Now Says He Believes COVID Did Leak From Wuhan Lab After an Accident in 2019
Ever since the unprecedented leak of an early draft of the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court which may overturn Roe v. Wade, the “shock troops of tolerance” have been busy interrupting church services. And they have done much destruction of crisis pregnancy centers.
They claim to be “pro-choice,” but choice involves options. And these people want to make sure women make only one choice—the choice of abortion. When there’s only one choice, then “pro-choice” is an oxymoron.
Since May 2, when the draft decision was leaked:
There have been numerous disruptions of church services, usually Catholic ones. However, even Joel Osteen’s church service was interrupted by topless promoters of abortion.
There have been illegal protests in front of the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices to intimidate them to change their opinion.
There have been at least 60 attacks on crisis pregnancy centers, which are all funded by private donations to provide loving alternatives to abortion. This is becoming a regular occurrence.
Many of these attacks have been done through an ad hoc organization called “Jane’s Revenge.”
The name would imply revenge on behalf of “Jane Roe” from the 1973 Supreme Court pro-abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.
Jane’s Revenge declares open season on crisis pregnancy centers across the nation: “From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season, and we know where your operations are. The infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. We will never stop, back down, slow down, or retreat.”
A friend of mine works in a crisis pregnancy center. She told me in an email over the weekend: “I worked in the Emergency Dept as a RN for 25 years with police security, but I never dreamed that working at a pro-life clinic would be a high risk job!”
And this damage is being done in the name of Jane Roe? As the record shows, Jane Roe’s identity was revealed in 1987, and her name was Norma McCorvey. It turns out McCorvey had not been raped (as claimed in the case). She had gotten pregnant from her boyfriend, and she just wanted an abortion.
ACLU attorney Sarah Weddington lied to her as she assured McCorvey she could get an abortion, but what Weddington really wanted was McCorvey’s participation in what became Roe v. Wade.
Then in the late 1990s, something amazing happened. Norma McCorvey made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ and came to oppose abortion. Thus, Roe came to agree with Wade. Henry Wade had been the District Attorney of Dallas County, and Roe v. Wade challenged Texas’s pro-life law.
Norma McCorvey wrote her story in her 1997 book, Won By Love (with co-author Gary Thomas). The subtitle of that book is “Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction for Life.”
And now, in the name of Jane Roe, anarchists and ANTIFA-types are carrying out acts of vandalism and damage of pregnancy centers that simply exist to provide loving alternatives to abortion.
One man who knew McCorvey, who died in 2017, is Father Frank Pavone, the president of Priests for Life. He even baptized her and spent time sharing Scriptures and Church teaching with her.
I asked him for a comment on the former “Jane Roe” since these groups are doing damage to try and disrupt pro-life work in her name.
Father Pavone told me: “As for Norma McCorvey, hers was a life of repentance, not of revenge. She wouldn’t have needed to take ‘revenge’ on pro-life people anyway, because she was one of us. She would have abhorred the way the pro-abortion people are acting now. In fact, she didn’t like them even when she was on their side. She thought they were arrogant and disrespectful of her.”
He adds, “The abortion supporters were handed abortion-on-demand on a silver platter by Roe v. Wade. They didn’t have to engage in the laborious, tedious process of elections, lobbying, debating, persuading and lawmaking. Instead, a ‘constitutional right’ was just created for them.
Now that it is being taken away, they whine and stomp their feet like a child.”
Where is the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in all this? When is he going to act against this intimidation? Our nation’s founders said that the Creator has endowed us with “unalienable rights”—first among these is “the right to life.”
Father Pavone has the final word: “Of course, their attacks on our churches are because when we restrict abortion, they perceive it as an attack on theirs. The abortion clinics are their churches, abortion-on-demand is their dogma, and abortion itself is their sacrament. May they be given the grace of repentance.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-22 16:51:182022-06-22 16:51:18Violence in the Name of “Jane’s Revenge”
This question, which is really a threat, is the central tenet of the campaign selling gender ideology to parents.
Parents are often told that they are putting their gender-nonconforming child at risk of suicide if they don’t medically “transition” him or her to appear as the opposite sex or at least treat their child as the sex he or she chooses. The child then internalizes this information and believes that suicide is an inevitable outcome without transition, as opposed to an unhealthy response to internal distress.
The pernicious assumption behind this horrific question is that parents do not have the best interest of their children at heart and that the “experts” know better. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Parents who are not caught up in this social contagion know that children who threaten suicide are not born in the wrong body and that a risky regimen of puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries won’t bring children the peace and joy they desperately crave. A child who threatens suicide requires love, kindness, and therapy to address underlying struggles, not sterilization.
The children captivated by gender ideology often have underlying conditions, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder, which are associated with lagging social skills, obsessive rumination, depression, and anxiety.
Both research studies and the stories shared by a growing number of those who have detransitioned reveal a tendency to self-harm and suffer from eating disorders. Life has been hard for these highly sensitive and emotionally intense young people, and they’re understandably seeking relief.
These vulnerable children, often girls, deserve their parents’ involvement as they struggle through puberty, and they need their parents’ emotional and financial support until they make it safely to adulthood.
At its horribly rotten core, the culture created by the question “Do you want a dead daughter or a live son?” intentionally drives a painful wedge between parents and children unless parents consent without question to immediate social and medical transition. Parents who would do anything to keep their children safe are shoved aside by arrogant and callous school staff, doctors, and therapists.
Rather than assuring children that no one is born in the “wrong” body, schools and many doctors and therapists choose to parrot activist slogans instead.
Children are told that doctors guess the gender when a child is born and sometimes get it wrong; that if they don’t feel like they fit into regressive stereotypes about males and females, they must be transgender; that a “safe space” is one that affirms fleeting feelings rather than biological reality; and that anyone who doesn’t immediately and fully embrace their new transgender identity hates them and wants to “erase” them. Most perniciously, children receive a steady drumbeat of messages focused on suicide and death.
These slogans are used like a giant switch that turns off critical thinking and forbids even gentle questioning. They are repeated over and over in colorful children’s picture books; at GSA (gender sexuality clubs) meetings; and in-classroom lesson materials created by organizations like Queer Kids, Gender Spectrum, Advocates for Youth, and, of course, Planned Parenthood, an organization that profits from this ideology by doling out cross-sex hormones at clinics across the country.
These slogans are also baked into local and state transgender policies adopted—often quietly or even without a formal vote—by school boards.
Misguided advocates for so-called transition procedures may be familiar with the suicide-centered activist slogans that populate their social media feed and the materials distributed by the many professional associations captured by this ideology, but they definitely haven’t done the research to familiarize themselves with the irreversible damage that so many young people experience after transitioning to appear as the opposite sex.
That damage can include, according to a list compiled at The Federalist, “loss of bone density, increased risk of blood clots, premature brain aging and increased aggression, reduced capacity for sexual pleasure, future infertility, and increased risk of heart disease.”
Activists and misguided school staff, as well as an alarming number of doctors and counselors who have carelessly embraced the gender gospel,must stop making vulnerable students’ lives harder.
A recent analysis by Jay Greene of The Heritage Foundation found that “existing literature on this topic suffers from a series of weaknesses that prevent researchers from being able to draw credible causal conclusions about a relationship between medical interventions and suicide.” (The Daily Signal is the news and analysis site of The Heritage Foundation.)
I participated in a recent event discussing Greene’s conclusion that it is possible that “increasing minors’ access to cross-sex interventions is associated with a significant increase in the adolescent suicide rate.” The findings suggest that the “gender-affirming” policies and standards of care put in place in the name of protecting children from suicide must be reevaluated.
It’s time to stop cruelly manipulating children with cult-like slogans. It’s time to stop driving a wedge between parents and their vulnerable children.
Our society must support parents, protect children, and keep families intact by turning away from propaganda centered around suicide threats. We must end secretive and destructive policies that harm children and instead pass laws that affirm that parents have primary responsibility for their children’s education and health.
The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.
Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-06-22 03:57:002022-06-22 03:57:00Transgender Activists Manipulate Parents With Suicide Threats
The political and terrorist arms of the American Left are in sync.
A few weeks after the Buffalo mass shooting, another domestic terrorist attack occurred in the upstate New York city. CompassCare, a pregnancy care clinic guiding new mothers away from abortion, was firebombed by the pro-abortion hate group, Jane’s Revenge. The group has been linked to the firebombing of at least two other pro-life offices and organizations last month.
Its threatening graffiti included the warning, “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.”
“We demand the disbanding of all anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days,” the Jane’s Revenge communique threatened. “We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle.”
Since then the abortion domestic terror group has claimed responsibility for more attacks. And Senate Dems appear to be working in tandem with it.
A group of Democratic senators and representatives called on Google to look into search results and ads tied to “anti-abortion ‘fake clinics’” amid a recent report that showed their prevalence in 13 states with so-called “trigger laws” that would almost immediately ban or severely restrict abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Thirteen senators and eight representatives signed a letter to Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google parent company Alphabet Inc., dated Friday in which they highlighted a report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that showed that in 13 states with trigger laws, searches for “abortion pill” or “abortion clinic near me” showed clinics that did not provide those services 11 percent of the time.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a British leftist group run by Imran Ahmed, a former adviser to future London Mayor Sadiq Khan, now operating out of Washington D.C. CCDH Senior researcher Sophie Wilkinson used to write pieces for Vice and The Guardian. Samples include “I Posed as a Man Online for Sex”, “Slutdropping: the Dancefloor Move That’s Bringing Women Together”, and, “I Got My Faeces Tested to See If It’s ‘Super-Poo’”.
Absolutely the folks that Senate Dems should be relying on for intel, instead, they want Google to get rid of pro-life pregnancy centers from its search results.
This is the same agenda as their domestic terrorist allies are following, except they’re using Big Tech allies to do the destroying.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-21 17:53:322022-06-21 17:53:32While Abortion Activists Vandalize Pro-Life Clinics, Senate Dems Want Google to Ban Them
In the end Dr. Fauci was no more successful in avoiding the virus than Prince Prospero, the villain from Poe’s imagination who believed his castle could protect him from the plague.
I recently returned from a week-long vacation in the north woods of Wisconsin. We played beach volleyball, went fishing and boating, had a lively game of Wiffle Ball with the kids, and swam until our skin was prune-like.
Even without a cell phone, I managed to stumble on a bit of breaking news from an unusual source: television. (It was virtually the only media I had up there.) Naturally, I had to share this bit of news.
“Fauci has Covid,” I told some of my companions, stuffing beer into coolers.
A discussion quickly broke out over whether the news was relevant.
“So what?” a friend responded. “I accepted a long time ago that everyone is going to get this thing.”
I partly agreed with my friend. Even during the early stages of the pandemic, I harbored suspicions that the virus was going to spread regardless of any interventions politicians or bureaucrats enacted—and those interventions could prove to be destructive, perhaps more destructive than the virus itself.
But I told him not to underestimate the importance of Fauci contracting Covid.
Why It Matters That Fauci Got Covid
It’s important to understand that Fauci isn’t just the president’s top medical advisor. Fauci, whose official title is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is “America’s Doctor,” as The New Yorker described him in April 2020.
More importantly, for better or worse, Fauci became the architect of the US Covid response.
It was Fauci who, early in the pandemic, proposed a Covid strategy that was simultaneously radical and simple: keep Americans apart from one another, using state force, if necessary.
In March 2020, Fauci told “Face the Nation” that the strategy was working.
“The kinds of mitigation issues that are going on right now, the things that we’re seeing in this country, this physical separation at the same time as we’re preventing an influx of cases coming in, I think that’s going to go a long way to preventing us from becoming an Italy,” Fauci said.
The “mitigations” Fauci was referring to were lockdowns. Schools closed. Parks closed. Businesses closed. Any enterprise or activity not deemed “essential” by state authorities was illegal.
Americans were told these efforts were only temporary. “Fifteen days to slow the spread,” became a national mantra.
Six months later, however, nothing had changed. In fact, Fauci was now saying it would have to continue until 2022.
The idea that humans could hide indefinitely from an airborne pathogen if government bureaucrats turned the dial just right has more than a touch of madness to it, but what few seem to realize is that for Fauci, this was just the first step in a larger revolution.
Writing at the Brownstone Institute, Jeffrey Tucker points to an August 2020 Cell article written by Fauci wherein the doctor explains his ideological vision, which rings of Rousseauian idealism.
“Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues.
In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.”
The article, Tucker points out, makes it clear Fauci’s pandemic response was not just about Covid, but a larger technocratic revolution that was hard to define—and one Americans had not signed up for.
“It’s not socialism or capitalism. It’s something else entirely, something very strange,” Tucker writes. “No one has voted for such a thing. It is something Fauci and his friends dreamed up on their own and deployed all their enormous power to enact just as a test, until it fell apart.”
And this is what makes Fauci’s infection—which comes more than two years after the first lockdowns were imposed—so important.
“It’s a sign and symbol that [Fauci’s] entire theory of virus control was wrong,” Tucker writes. “He got his way with policy and it did not work. The virus finally landed on him, as if to reenact Edgar Allan Poe’s fictional story of Prince Prospero in his castle that he believed would protect him.”
The Fatal Conceit
In his 1974 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the economist F.A. Hayek concluded with a warning: he urged humans to act humbly with the immense power of modern science.
“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered,” Hayek said, “and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success,’ to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.”
He continued:
“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”
A careful look at Dr. Fauci reveals that humility is not one of his stronger attributes, and his actions show the fatal conceit that Hayek warned against infects public health officials as well as economic planners.
Despite all his efforts, Fauci was no more successful in avoiding the plague than Prince Prospero. But his mad, arrogant effort to extinguish the virus through force is a tale worthy of its own parable.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-21 16:51:282022-06-21 16:51:28Why It Matters That Fauci Got Covid-19
It is a testament to mankind’s enduring optimism, as much as our enduring hubris, that with every generation hope should spring anew that the fundamental forces which have governed our affairs since time immemorial have changed for the better.
After each passing calamity, the majority are once again lulled back into the comforting fantasy that we’ve reached the end of history, that the perennially destructive impulses of vanity, pride, greed, narcissism, cowardice, and inhumanity have been consigned to mere curiosities in our books and historical records, no longer playing any significant role in the decision-making of those with the power to shape our reality and the causes to which they recruit us.
No event in living memory has more thoroughly lain bare the folly of that notion than the response to Covid-19.
At every turn, the story of the world’s response to Covid is the story of power: The perception of it, the exercise of it, the fear of it, the abuse of it, and the pathological lengths to which some will go to obtain it.
During the response to Covid, we witnessed the ability of those who were perceived as having the power to simply make up reality as they went along. They were able to redefine scientific terms, causality, history, and even entire principles of the enlightenment virtually at leisure. More often than not, their narratives made no logical or chronological sense; in many cases, the absurdity was the point.
We were told that a two-month lockdown of one city in China had eliminated Covid from the entire country—but nowhere else—a false syllogism dutifully repeated by our political class for two years.
We were told that the purpose of lockdowns had been to flatten the curve, but also to eliminate the virus, in order to buy time for vaccines for the virus.
We were told that lockdowns in China violated human rights, fractured society, and led to deaths by other causes, but that lockdowns in the west did not.
We were told that outdoor protests spread the virus, unless the protest was for the right cause, in which case it slowed the virus.
We were inundated with reminders that all the myriad harms of lockdowns, from lost education and bankruptcies to drug overdoses and famine—while regrettable—were merely a result of the “pandemic,” and thus outside the control of the leaders who’d ordered the lockdowns.
We were told that “science” was a command to be followed, rather than a process for building and testing knowledge.
We were told that masks were useless and we were bad for procuring them, until we were told that they were mandatory and we were bad for refusing them. This, again, was attributed to a change in “science”—a natural force outside the control of our leaders.
We were told that medical information shared before the “science” had so changed was misinformation to be censored, even if the change in “science” was retroactive.
We were told that national governments, local governments, and private businesses could each impose mandates if they wished, but that no government could revoke a mandate imposed by a local government or private business.
We were told that lockdowns didn’t weaken human rights, our leaders were simply interpreting data differently; but now that we’d had lockdowns, fundamental rights to movement, work, and commerce were contingent on vaccination.
We were told it wasn’t safe for American children to attend school in-person, and that they had to wear masks if they did so attend, but also that it was never unsafe for European children to attend school without masking.
We were told that school closures were good and that opposition to them had to be censored until we were told that school closures had always been bad.
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
Those in power were able to so whimsically shape our reality because the officials, journalists, judiciaries, citizens, and self-styled intellectuals who were meant to keep power in check were revealed to be little more than sycophants. And they were sycophants so that they could retain some of that power for themselves.
In short, people seek power because other people are sycophants, and people are sycophants because sycophancy is the simplest route to power. This age-old dynamic is what allows those in power to shape reality so free of accountability, scrutiny, or even basic logic. It’s the reason that power has always been fought over with scorched-earth ferocity, and why, in the absence of institutions adequate to keep it in check, power is almost always seized by sociopaths.
To Friedrich Nietzsche, the foundational motivating force behind all human behavior was not so much happiness, or even survival, but instead the will to power—to have one’s will exerted onto existence as one perceived it.
Nietzsche deconstructed preexisting notions of morality into what he termed “master” and “slave” morality, which he distinguished primarily by the motivations behind them. Master morality was motivated by the self-actualization of one’s own virtues and will onto existence.
Slave morality, by contrast, was motivated by limiting the power and self-actualization of others. To Nietzsche, the will to power was itself neither good nor bad, it was simply the fundamental force behind all human actions; but more often than not, human actions were motivated by slave morality.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that, in the process, he does not become a monster himself. Gaze long enough into an abyss, and the abyss will gaze right back into you.” ~ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886
Perhaps more than any event in history, the response to Covid illustrated Nietzsche’s point that human behavior is not fundamentally motivated by happiness, but instead by the simple will to power—to have one’s will exerted onto one’s perceived existence—and how easy it is to subvert that will toward the petty limitation of others’ self-actualization. Healthy people living their lives normally were demonized not because they were threatening, but because they were self-actualizing in a way that the mob could not.
The unvaccinated were vilified not because they were dangerous, but because they were free. Those questioning these things had to be censored not because their thoughts were wrong, but because they were thinking. Children could not be allowed to grow and live not because it was risky, but because preventing them from living was simply something for the mob to do.
I dare not imagine the living hell that some human beings must experience in their formative years to learn that power can be used to enslave others by motivating them toward the petty limitation of their peers; I would not wish such hell on anyone. Nor did I ever imagine that I would spend two years having to convince people that what’s good for themselves and their loved ones actually is good, but here we are.
I dislike what I witnessed during Covid, particularly what it revealed about the minds of those around me. What I believed were commonly-shared ideals of liberalism, humanity, critical thinking, universal rights, and constitutionalism were revealed to be little more than the modern trappings of sycophancy—fashion statements popular among contemporary elites only to be jettisoned as soon as the rich men who funded their employers, peers, and influencers decided that they were no longer convenient.
We were told that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. But worst of all, our own friends and peers were told to ostracize and vilify us if we did not do as we were told—and far too often, they did as they were told.
The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.
Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-06-21 04:00:002022-06-21 04:00:00Your Misery Is All About Their Power
‘Our department of health has been very clear, the risks outweigh the benefits,’ DeSantis said at a news briefing Thursday morning.
Florida has not ordered COVID-19 vaccines for children aged six months old to five years old ahead of their potential rollout date of June 21
Officials cite the ‘inconsistent and unsustainable COVID-19 policies’ of the federal government as reason why they refuse to order
The White House has targeted June 21 as the date for the shots to first become available nationwide to the last age group eligible for the shots
Covid cases have flattened over the past week, at just over 100,000 per day, but deaths have fallen 25% to 301 per day
By Mansur Shaheen U.S. Deputy Health Editor For Dailymail.Com, 16 June 2022:
Florida is the only state in America that has not pre-ordered shots of COVID-19 vaccines for children aged six months old to five in the wake of the jabs receiving recommendation from a panel of FDA advisors – sticking by its recommendation issued earlier this year for children not to get the shots.
The Miami Herald reports that the state missed a Tuesday filing deadline to request the shots be delivered into to roll them out starting June 21. In every other state, the jabs will be distributed to vaccine providers, pharmacies and pediatric clinics starting next week.
It comes after state health officials said in March that children and teens in the state do not need to get vaccinated because of the comparatively limited risk they face from Covid when compared to adults. According to most recent official data, children make up around 0.1 percent of U.S. deaths from the virus.
Governor Ron DeSantis reaffirmed his state’s stance Thursday, blaming media hysteria for the fear some parents have of the virus, despite limited evidence children are at risk from the virus.
The shots will begin to rollout as risk from the virus recedes as well, with cases staying flat over the past week at 103,995 per day, and deaths falling 25 percent to 301 per day.
Our department of health has been very clear, the risks outweigh the benefits.,’ DeSantis said at a news briefing Thursday morning.
‘That’s not the same as banning it, people can still access it if they want to, and patents can to, but if you look at when they were doing the hearing, we had one physician say parents are really really frightened and we know that the risk is low, we’re not sure how this is gonna work, but parents are frightened about Covid for their kids.’
He said that fear, not science, is not a reason to approve the shots for kids, and pointed at the mainstream media as the reason for budding fear among parents.
‘Why would they be frightened about it? It’s because of media hysteria. It’s because of a lot of misinformation, that’s why they’re scared,’ he added.
Both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children as young as six months received clearance from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel this week, setting them up for controversial emergency use authorization in the coming days.
After the FDA authorizes the shots, a green light from the CDC is expected soon after. The White House had targeted June 21 – the day after the Juneteenth holiday on Monday – as the day where shots will first become available nationwide.
Shots are purchased at the federal level, with the White House forking over the needed cash to acquire the shots. Then, states are to request allotments of the shots based on expected need, for which the federal government will fulfill to the best of its ability.
Floridians will not be able to access the shots unless the governor puts in an order, though the option to cross into another state and receive the shot there will exist for families that are desperate to receive it.
‘The Florida Department of Health has made it clear to the federal government that states do not need to be involved in the convoluted vaccine distribution process, especially when the federal government has a track record of developing inconsistent and unsustainable COVID-19 policies,’ Jeremy Redfern, said in a statement.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2022-06-20 14:52:032022-06-20 14:52:03Florida remains the only state not to pre-order COVID-19 vaccine shots for children under-5
On June 8, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) signed SB 1469 into law. Introduced by Senator Nancy Barto (R‑Phoenix), the bill requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before perusing the state’s prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) database, administered by the Arizona Board of Pharmacy. The bill passed unanimously through both houses of the state legislature. Until now, law enforcement could inspect the PDMP database without a warrant by simply stating in writing that the information is necessary for an open investigation or complaint. The new law further states that if, upon perusing the database, police find no evidence of a statutory crime but believe a practitioner’s prescribing patterns fall outside the norms, they may only report the matter to the relevant state licensing board for possible investigation. State medical licensing boards conduct investigations using members of the medical profession who understand the variations and nuances of clinical situations, and the practitioner under investigation is afforded due process.
This is an important reform. As panelists explained at a Cato conference in 2019, while PDMPs have succeeded in pressuring practitioners to reduce opioid prescribing (down more than 60 percent since its peak in 2011), they primarily serve as a law enforcement tool. They have not reduced the overdose rate–if anything, PDMPs have driven non-medical users who are unable to obtain diverted prescription pain pills to more dangerous drugs in the black market, such as heroin or fentanyl, causing the overdose rate to increase.
With countless stories in the mainstream press about doctors arrested, sometimes with police bursting into their crowded waiting rooms, or having their licenses suspended for “overprescribing” prescription opioids—even though there is no legal definition of “overprescribing”—many doctors have been frightened into curtailing their pain medicine prescribing. Some are refusing to see patients for pain altogether and referring them to pain management specialists, many of whose practices have long waits for appointments because they are inundated with referrals. Some pain clinics refuse to see new patients. Some patients, in desperation, seek relief in the dangerous black market. Some resort to suicide. Some exasperated patients threaten their doctors. Some even resort to murdering their doctors.
The goal of SB 1469 is to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of patients and doctors. Hopefully, as police discover they cannot go on fishing expeditions through private medical records without convincing a judge to issue a search warrant—and if they can’t dictate how to practice medicine by arresting doctors for what they perceive as “inappropriate” prescribing—the new law will help thaw the chilling effect cast upon doctors treating their patients’ pain.
Arizona has now become the 19th state to enact this search warrant requirement. It joins states as diverse as Alaska, Montana, Missouri, Utah, California, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Unfortunately, Rhode Island repealed its search warrant requirement in 2017.
In 2019 Drug Enforcement Administration investigators wished to inspect the New Hampshire PDMP and were rebuffed, pursuant to New Hampshire law that requires a search warrant. The DEA claimed the requirement did not apply to the federal agency. The New Hampshire PDMP lost its argument in front of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief supporting the appellant. In January of this year, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s opinion, ruling the DEA can access a state’s prescription drug database without a warrant. The state of New Hampshire petitioned for an en banc rehearing in March, which was denied in mid-April. New Hampshire next sought a stay of the appeals court decision pending the filing of a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, implying the state intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. The state has until mid-July to file the cert petition.
Regardless of the federal case’s outcome, state and local law enforcement remain subject to the search warrant requirement. And while the DEA may be the giant gorilla in the room, state-level efforts to protect the privacy of medical records and the patient-doctor relationship is a welcome step in the right direction. Arizona’s legislators and governor deserve praise for enacting SB 1469.
The highly choreographed January 6 Select Committee that is being performed on primetime TV over the next several weeks can only be described as political and partisan trash. It is not about truth or acting in the interests of American citizens. It is about the 2024 election – clear as day.
Please click here to inform our elected leaders how you feel about the partisan travesty unfolding in the U.S. House of Representatives.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2022-06-20 11:19:002022-06-20 11:19:00Arizona Becomes the 19th State to Ban Warrantless Searches of Prescription Drug Database
