Daily Archives: September 29, 2021

On Friday, the Arizona State Senate released the final reports on the results of the Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit. While the reports made several significant findings supporting former President Trumps complaints about the 2020 election, the corporate media ignored those aspects of the audit to focus instead only on the results of the hand recount.

As broadly reported, the audit established there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official canvass results for the County. Maricopa County, which represents Arizonas most populous county thanks to its county seat of Phoenix, had provided Biden a 45,000-vote advantage in the state, propelling Biden to a victory by 10,457 votes. So the media presented the recount as confirming Bidens victory in the state.

Left unmentioned, however, were the numerous findings of problems with the election and, most significantly, evidence indicating tens of thousands of ballots were illegally cast or counted. A report entitled Compliance with Election Laws and Procedures, issued by Senate Audit Liaison Ken Bennett, highlighted several issues, of which two were particularly significant because of the number of votes involved.

First, Bennett excerpted the Arizona statutory provisions governing early ballots. Those provisions require early ballots to be accompanied by a signed affidavit in which the voter declares he is registered in the appropriate county and has not already voted. The statute further mandates that a voter make and sign the affidavit, and directs the early election board to check the voters affidavit.

Significantly, if the affidavit is insufficient, the vote shall not be allowed. The secretary of states Election Procedures Manual reinforces this point, stating: If the early ballot affidavit is not signed, the County Recorder shall not count the ballot.

In his report, Bennett noted that while the Audit scope of work did not include comparing signatures with voter registration records for each voter, it did identify a number of missing signatures on ballot envelop affidavits, which to the extent the ballots in such envelopes were tallied, would violate the above statutes and procedures.

Although Bennett did not elaborate on the issues related to affidavit signatures or the numbers of affected ballots, in a 99-page report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineer Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai detailed numerous anomalies.

First, Ayyadurai analyzed the early voting ballot return envelopes, on which voters were required to sign an affidavit within a signature block. That review revealed more than 17,000 duplicate images of the return envelopes. When the duplicates were eliminated from the review, Ayyadurais company, EchoMail, concluded that Maricopa County had recorded more than 6,545 early voting return envelopes than EchoMail determined existed. EchoMail also concluded that another approximately 500 of the envelopes affidavits were left blank.

Ayyadurai also highlighted several implausible statistics, such as that while there was a 52.6 percent increase from 2016 to 2020 in the number of early voting ballots, Maricopa County reported a decrease in signature mismatches of 59.7 percent. This inverse relationship requires explanation, the report noted, and then recommended a full audit of the signatures.

Bennetts report on election law compliance highlighted several additional issues, but of particular note, in light of the audit report, was his reference to Arizonas statutory requirements for individuals to be considered eligible voters, as delineated in Articles 1, 1.1, and 2 of the Arizona election code.

The Audit identified numerous questions regarding possible ineligible voters, Bennett noted, while adding that because these determinations were made from comparisons between the Countys final voted information and private data sources, the cooperation of Maricopa County and further investigation would be necessary to determine whether ineligible persons actually were allowed to vote in the 2020 election.

The referenced articles of the election code discuss voter registration requirements and the requirement for individuals to be registered to vote at their address of residence, although individuals moving within 29 days of the election remain properly registered to vote in the county in which they previously resided. However, students, members of the military, and others temporarily living at another address remain properly registered at their permanent home address.

Also of significance is the Arizona secretary of states Election Procedures Manual, which according to the audit provides that ballot-by-mail must be mailed to voters by first-class, nonforwardable mail.

These statutory provisions and procedures prove significant because the audit revealed that 15,035 mail-in votes in Maricopa County were from voters who had moved prior to the registration deadline, another 6,591 mail-in-votes came from voters who had moved out of Arizona prior to the registration deadline, and 1,718 mail-in votes came from voters who moved within Arizona but out of Maricopa prior to the registration deadline.

One of three scenarios seems possible here: First, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had only temporarily relocated. Such votes would be legal and entirely proper.

Second, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address and then provided to the named voter, who had permanently moved, but failed to timely update his registration record yet signed an affidavit attesting to a false address of residence. Such votes would be illegal.

Or third, the mail-in ballot was delivered to the old address, and then someone other than the named voter cast the vote. Such votes would be both illegal and fraudulent.

Neither Maricopa County nor the state of Arizona knows how many of these 23,000-plus votes fall within each of these three scenarios. And thats a problem.

As I wrote when similar problems, albeit with more conclusive evidence, were unearthed in Georgia, Elections are too tight and the populace too divided for close enough for government work to cut it anymore. The American voting system must be reformed to ensure security, transparency, replicability, and election officialsuniform compliancewith state election law.

Sixteen years ago, both Democrats and Republicans would have agreed on these goals, as the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reforms report Building Confidence in U.S. Elections confirms. That commission, co-chaired by Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican James Baker III, spoke of the administration of elections as a continuing challenge, which requires the highest priority of our citizens and our government.

Unfortunately, rather than acknowledge the problems the Maricopa County audit revealed and rise to the challenge of ensuring they are not repeated, while also investigating areas of potential fraud and illegal voting, Democrats and some Republicans pretend the hand recounts confirmation of the official vote tally ends the matter.

The corrupt press likewise pushes this narrative: The audit confirms Trump lost, and that is all there is to the matter.

But this isnt about Trump, just as the 2005 report on building confidence in American elections wasnt about Al Gore. This is about election integrity and our democracy because, as the commission wrote not even 20 years ago:

The vigor of American democracy rests on the vote of each citizen. Only when citizens can freely and privately exercise their right to vote and have their vote recorded correctly can they hold their leaders accountable. Democracy is endangered when people believe that their votes do not matter or are not counted correctly.

The Arizona audit ended nothing including, sadly, the view held by half of our country that their votes do not matter and are not counted correctlyand that many politicians and members of the press dont care.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

The rest is here:

Arizona Audit Finds Potentially Election-Shifting Numbers Of Illegal Ballots - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky and Senior Editor Chris Bedford to discuss his book A Republic Under Assault: The Lefts Ongoing Attack on American Freedom and how the deep state used corruption to attack former President Donald Trump.

It wasnt even just reporting material that they should have known was bad, Fitton said. It was: they wanted to put people in jail that they had a political distaste for and, in the case of [Paul] Manafort, they wanted to kneecap the Trump campaign by going after his campaign manager, Fitton said.

The corporate media, Fitton said, is one of the largest culprits in this scheme and shouldnt get away with their malfeasance.

This idea that journalists deserve special protection from the laws that govern the rest of us is as objectionable as the idea that, you know, Hillary Clinton shouldnt be prosecuted because she lost the presidency and leave her alone, Fitton said. This is garbage. Garbage ethics.

Read more:

The Sussmann Indictment Is A Window Into Establishment Corruption - The Federalist

It only took seven months after my family and I moved to Baltimore in January for us to move out. Were hardly the only ones leaving in 2020, Baltimore lost more residents than did any other major U.S. city. At one point, my Brazilian husband remarked, I thought America was a developed country.

His observation is particularly telling because, before coming to Baltimore, we spent five years living abroad in two of the most dangerous places in the world Brazil and South Africa. In many ways, life in those countries was easier than life in Charm City.

The residents of Baltimore pay some of the highest taxes in the country for some of the worst public services. Crime is a constant threat, even though the neighborhood where we lived is usually labeled gentrifying. A professional exterminator warned us never to buy second-hand furniture due to the prevalence of bed bugs. Everyone on our block kept a cat often two or three to combat the rodents.

After we fled to the suburbs, I was left pondering why life in Brazil and South Africa was easier particularly South Africa, which has many parallels with America because it reached a fairly high level of development, but ruinous government policies are now driving it backward. Public services in South Africa have been so deeply riddled with corruption and mismanagement for so long, citizens have learned to do without or developed workarounds, something the residents of Baltimore havent learned yet.

Baltimore and South Africa are both infamous for high crime rates. In South Africa, police are helpless and incompetent. For example, a few years ago, the police cybercrimes unit had to drop hundreds of cases because they forgot to pay for their software licenses. They can also be corrupt; South Africans told me stories about police officers demanding bribes to do routine tasks like writing up a car accident report.

As a result, everyone from the lower middle class and upward pays for private security. In the small city where we lived, a local security firm patrolled the streets like a private police force. Even the police sometimes hire private security to guard their precincts.

In Baltimore, the number of reported homicides reached a record high in 2015 after the city erupted in riots at the death of Freddie Gray in police custody. In the wake of the riots, police became less visible on the streets, and they have not returned. The Baltimore police department operates with around 400 unfilled vacancies. The citys homicide rate has yet to fall to pre-2015 levels.

While the current condition and recent history of police in Baltimore and South Africa are different, the outcome is the same: criminals run rampant. Neighborhoods and businesses in Baltimore appear to be gradually moving towards the South African solution: private security.

South Africans do not mess around with their safety. In addition to hiring private security, they protect their houses with things like tall electric fences, CCTV, guard dogs, and motion sensors. People in Baltimore are still nave in that regard. I followed several online groups for city residents. Many of the posts were by people whose houses had just been burgled, who often shared images from their security cameras. I was amazed to note most of them did not even have a fence in their backyards.

I also found myselfsurprised that people in Baltimore and Americans in general still rely heavily on the U.S. Postal Service. We sometimes only saw our mailman once a week and he often brought us other peoples mail. In South Africa, the postal service has been a disaster for so long that many people have stopped sending mail at all.

Other public services in South Africa were just as bad. Usually, the poor are left with scraps, while those with money usually pay twice: once in taxes for worthless public services and then for a private solution that actually works.

Electricity is very expensive in South Africa because the state utility Eskom is corrupt and mismanaged. Millions of people live without electricity, while those who can afford to pay Eskoms rates also have to buy generators or solar panels as a backup for the regular power outages.

South Africas constitution includes the right to water, but this right is violated all over their country every day. The tap water in the city where we lived was unsafe, so we bought large containers from one of the many local water shops. Other people take it a step further by drilling boreholes and installing their own filtration systems. In one city, a group of citizens took over running their local water and sewage plants because they were so badly mismanaged.

Community solidarity like this was common in South Africa, and made the difficulties manageable. South Africans organize private groups to do things like fill potholes, repair or repaint road signs, and collect garbage. They form neighborhood watch groups that partner with professional private security firms.

There are certainly significant tensions between different ethnic groups in South Africa, but within individual groups, I observed a very strong culture of looking out for one another. We lived in a college town, and students in their late teens and early twenties regularly helped us with things like home repairs or running errands. This was already their normal way of life. In a difficult country like South Africa, going it alone is not an option.

In Baltimore online discussion groups, people often posted comments like we have to work together or we should stand up. I agree, but until they turn those words turn into offline actions, life in their city will not improve much.

Baltimore is a particularly bad case. But in many other American cities, crime rates are rising and the quality of public services is dropping. If we have any hope of reversing the decay, we should take note and act now.

Emma Freire is a freelance writer who has lived in Brazil, South Africa, and Europe. She is a 2021-2022 Robert Novak journalism fellow for the Fund for American Studies.

Read more here:

Of All The Third-World Cities I've Lived In, Baltimore Was The Worst - The Federalist

Eighty weeks after the experts told America it would only take two weeks to slow the spread, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla wants you to know that you can probably go back to living your life as normal in another 52 weeks,if youre vaccinated.

Within a year, I think we will be able to come back to normal life, Bourla said on Sunday, as if the country has been holding its breath for his permission to go back to living. He was also sure to add the caveat, I dont think this means that we should be able to live our lives without having vaccinations like the one that has brought his company hundreds of millions of dollars.

Bourla was echoing a similar comment Moderna CEO Stphane Bancel made last week, that he assumes life will be back to normal as of today, in a year. Like many self-appointed experts, Bourla and Bancel clearly dont realize that no one outside of their self-affirming echo chamber is listening to them.

Whether because theyre vaccinated or simply because they decided the risks of the coronavirus didnt merit putting life on pause in the first place, most Americans are already back to normal or trying to as best they can, under dragged-out mandates and closures from political powerbrokers who dont follow their own rules.

I can easily list 50 normal-life things Ive already done without waiting for the elusive permission of experts like Bourla. Their attempt to control your life shouldnt stop you from doing activities like these, either.

Those are just the first 50 things that pop into mind, not to mention the countless other things that are so unremarkably normal I didnt even think to include them. If youre like most of the country, you could check off many of these things and more.

Conversely, if youre still holding out for permission from out-of-touch bullies like Bourla to go on living, dont hold your breath. Itll be the longest two weeks of your life.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

See the rest here:

50 'Back To Normal' Things I'm Already Doing, And So Should You - The Federalist

The New Yorker amplified calls for eco-terrorism in the name of sparking action on climate change last week by inviting Andreas Malm, the Swedish author of How To Blow Up A Pipeline, onto its podcast.

In the episode titled How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Malm explains how its time for the climate change movement to diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle, and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.

Malm stopped his recommendations short of kidnapping oil workers but said that civil disobedience ostensibly to save the planet should include mass acts of intelligent sabotage and property destruction, such as blowing up pipelines.

Im not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind. Im all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects, Malm said. So I am in favor of destroying machines, property not harming people, thats a very, very important distinction there. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways, or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion as when we defeated the SUVs, or in a more spectacular fashion, as in potentially blowing up a pipeline thats under construction. Thats something that people have done.

So youre recommending blowing up a pipeline, the host confirmed.

Malm justified such actions by claiming that the supposedly moral pros of combatting the climate crisis outweigh the cons.

I dont see how that property damage could be considered morally legitimate, given what we know of the consequences of such a project, Malm said.

The author also pledged to be part of any kind of action of the sort that I advocate in the book before criticizing the climate change movements tendency toward nonviolent protest.

This dogmatic commitment to nonviolenceis based on a faultyhistory writing or understanding of social struggles over history because its based on the idea that the only thing that has ever worked for social movements is to stay completely peaceful and that just isnt the case, Malm argued.

Instead of acknowledging the criminal consequences of violence and domestic terrorism, Malm compared the climate movement to the riots that followed the death of George Floyd, which the host said was a false label for a cause that was largely peaceful.

I dont think that anyone could seriously argue that the BLM movement in 2020 would have achieved more if there had been no confrontations, no windows smashed, no police stations or cars burnt.Thatsa fantasy scenario, in my view, Malm said.

A few months ago, Vox co-founder Ezra Klein excused Malms suggestions for terrorist bombings of oil pipelines in a New York Times column titled It Seems Odd That We Would Just Let the World Burn. When asked whether Kleins worries that poor people would be harmed by ecoterrorism on infrastructure are founded, Malm once again claimed the ends justify the means.

If you engage in property destruction that causes such disruption to prices, you run a risk of alienating people, butI think that if people go about this in a careful fashion, and if they time property disruption of this sortto moments when the impact of the climate crisis are being felt, therewould be a decent chance to also gain popular support for these kind of actions, he said.

The host then asked how Malm would avoid Fox News labeling his actions as eco-terrorism, to which the author replied, Well, I dont think that we should adapt our tacticsafter the enemysscript.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Here is the original post:

New Yorker Amplifies Calls For Pipeline Bombings To Save The Planet - The Federalist

Reality television has historically been an escape from the countrys problems. Now it serves as a woke amplification of identity politics and exasperates our problems. We have seen this clear shift throughout this past season of the Real Housewives of New York,Bravo TVs Southern Charm, The Bachelor franchise, among others.

For over twenty years, the successful and unique competition of CBSs Survivor has pit hundreds of castaways from across the country to outwit, outlast, outplay other competitors on a remote island in an effort to win a grand prize of one million dollars.

Last week, the long-awaited 41st season of Survivor premiered. In step with the HBO Max reboot of Gossip Girl, the COVID theme was rampant and there were noticeably more queer cast members. Frontline health care workers shared stories of their past year and contestants quickly shared about losing loved ones during the pandemic.

Almost immediately, host Jeff Probst met with the castaways and shared that all contestants had been tested for COVID and were cleared to participate. He emphasized being of the moment and switched gears to ask if the traditional call for contestants to enter a challenge was acceptable in an effort to be of the moment and inclusive.

Come on in guys has been Probsts longtime entrance call for men and women competitors since the shows inception in 2000. A woman with short hair in a button-down top and bowtie proclaimed Jeff, as a queer woman, I am okay with that phrase. But following the challenge, contestant Ricard, who was revealed to have left his transgender, pregnant husband to come on the show changed his mind.

Richard said he was unable to express his feelings because he was too overwhelmed. Probst, seemingly relieved, expressed that he was glad that was the last time hed ever say the clearly triggering phrase, guys. In an effort to escape any sort of cancellation like similar longtime reality host Chris Harrison, Probst broke the fourth wall and said if you dont like it, Im @ Jeff Probst on Twitter.

It goes without saying that Survivor is not a new show. Part of the beauty of the game is understanding the players in their personalitys purest form as the episodes follow people after weeks in a jungle with the same people. It is not until dozens of days of mental and physical exhaustion set in that viewers truly get to know the emotional and heart-wrenching stories of why players are in the fight for one million dollars.

An example that sticks out is when viewers learned winner of season 33, Adam Kleins mother had stage four lung cancer. It was heartbreaking and created an unlikely friendship with Jay, the seasons popular yet likeable villain. Unscripted interactions like this one are memorable and touching because they happen organically.

Furthermore, the first-ever winner of Survivor was, in fact, a gay man. In 2000, Richard Hatchs identity politics mattered little to the game that focused on much more than his sexual orientation. He walked around camp naked, and famously became friends with a proclaimed homophobe, a seventy-two-year-old Vietnam veteran name Rudy Boesch. Boesch stated on the show that his opinion of Hatch did not change when it was revealed he was homosexual.

This natural interaction and somewhat ironic friendship is a part of the series that just puts a smile on your face. It embodies the true spirit of early American reality television.

Since 2000, Survivor has been a place where unscripted and complex friendships come alive in a fight to finish the game for more than just the potential monetary prize. Players prove physical, mental, and emotional strength. Historically speaking, there is no room for snowflakes on the show, and I hope that the tribe speaks as loud as my friends and I did while watching the outrageous and unprecedented premiere.

There is a reason that millions of viewers have been tuning in every Wednesday night for the past 21 years, and the changes made in season 41 are just not it.

Karalee Geis is a former Capitol Hill staffer. Originally from West Virginia, she is a graduate of Samford University. She is an avid Pittsburgh Steelers and Bravo TV fan. You can follow her on Twitter @realkaraleegeis.

Read the original:

New Season Of 'Survivor' Caves To The New Woke Requirements Of Reality Television - The Federalist

A middle school teacher in an affluent Virginia suburb published a tweet stating that she intended to incorporate critical race theory (CRT) the theory that defines the United States as intrinsically and irredeemably racist into her classroom, despite the districts assurances that educators do not teach the divisive ideology.

Andrea Weiskopf, an English and Latin teacher at River Bend Middle School in Virginias Loudoun County Public School district (LCPS), published tweets that discussed indoctrinating students, crafting lesson plans about CRT, white supremacy, and her disdain for Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

The first rule of indoctrinating students is not to tell anyone that you are indoctrinating students, Weiskopf tweeted. The second rule of indoctrinating students is not to tell anyone that you are indoctrinating students.

In a response to her Sept. 17 tweet, Weiskopf appeared to joke about indoctrination by stating that general indoctrination courses take place during the first semester of the school year.

A tweet from June 20 reads, The best thing about the summer is that I can spend all my time planning how to incorporate Critical Race Theory into my lessons. A tweet from Aug. 24 reads, Does anyone have any lessons designed to indoctrinate students? I need to finish my 1st quarter lesson plans.

On July 25, Weiskopf tweeted about Carlson using the framework of a well-known quote by anti-Nazi activist Martin Niemoller. First Twitter came for Tucker Carlson, and I did nothing but laugh and laugh, because he truly is an awful person.

Other tweets showcase what appears to be Weikopfs classroom. Signage includes a gay pride flag, a Black Lives Matter sign, and a Stop Asian Hate sign.

Beyond her tweets, Weiskopf has been outspoken about her left-wing commitments. According to Loudoun Times, during an April 8 Equity Committee meeting for the district, Weiskopf said that parents who oppose critical race theory are putting their racism on display.

Over the past few weeks, a small group of Loudoun residents have put their racism on display for the nation, Weiskopf said, according to the paper. They have been emboldened by the meekness and the silence of those on the School Board and in the community who, just one year ago, marched boldly through the streets of Leesburg to protest the pervasive use of violence against Black and brown bodies.

LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler has repeatedly denied that the district teaches CRT in any form.

Our detractors would have you believe that we are teaching and indoctrinating students with critical race theory in our schools, Ziegler said. Thats something thats simply not happening.

River Bend Middle School did not respond to The Federalists request for comment.

Scott Mineo, an LCPS parent who runs the group of detractors known as Parents Against Critical Theory (PACT), told me he blames the superintendent for intentionally misleading parents.

A superintendent used to garner respect and was taken very seriously. They were an authority on education that parents trusted, Mineo said. Now, at least in LCPS, our superintendent is a joke, not respected, and continues to mislead the parents of Loudoun.

Loudoun County taxpayers uncovered other examples of CRT allegedly being taught and implemented in the district. According to The Daily Wire, LCPS sent teachers a PowerPoint explaining how to implement CRT in the classroom. The PowerPoint was dubbed a teacher facing item and defined CRT as an interpretive framework that examines the appearance of race and racism across dominant cultural modes of expression.

Under the application/example portion of the PowerPoint, educators were told to use the theory when analyzing issues such as school funding, segregation, language policies, discipline policies, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and accountability policies.

Teachers have fallen prey to the districts CRT agenda as well. An advisory board linked directly to the district continues to demand that teachers be dismissed if they criticize the districts equity training inspired by CRT.

See more here:

Loudoun County Teacher Vows To Keep Critical Race Theory In Classroom - The Federalist

Right now, more than 100 babies are being saved from abortion every day in Texas. The Texas Heartbeat Act is currently enforceable, even as the abortion industry and Biden administration attempt to thwart it. There has been much legal back-and-forth and misrepresentation of this life-saving law, particularly on the unique way in which it is enforced. Lets cut through that confusion.

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits elective abortion after the preborn childs heartbeat is detected. Those who commit an abortion after this biological marker in the childs development, as well as those who knowingly aid and abet in that illegal abortion, can be sued. The lynchpin that has allowed the law to take effect is that the state is not allowed to enforce the law; rather, it is the responsibility of private individuals to hold the abortion industry accountable for following the law.

So far in Texas, we are seeing the abortion industry comply with the new law. Eighty-five percent of abortions that previously would have been occurring in our state are now illegal. More than 100 babies per day are being given a chance at life. There have not been any credible assertions of violation. This means that the unique threat of private lawsuits under this law is successfully saving babies.

Civil penalties are the most effective in pro-life laws because the abortion industry is profit-driven. The industry profits off killing preborn children and does not want to lose money. So it complies with pro-life laws (even as it fights them in the courts). That is why the Texas Heartbeat Act uses civil remedies because it incentivizes compliance from the abortion industry.

Despite the assertion by pro-abortion advocates and media, this is not vigilantism, and the civil remedies are not a bounty. The threat of a lawsuit and paying out at least $10,000 for a violation is the consequence set up under this law for engaging in an illegal activity, namely, performing an abortion after the baby has a heartbeat.

Penalties function to deter illegal activity and to encourage compliance. Vigilantism implies lawlessness, and filing a lawsuit is not lawless. If a person believes an illegal abortion has been committed, she can bring a suit under the law, and a judge will evaluate the evidence and proceed from there.

The same holds for those who aid or abet in an illegal abortion. Rideshare platforms have ranted about this part of enforcement. However, Texas law already had a definition of aiding and abetting long before the Texas Heartbeat Act, and judges are used to applying this standard in other criminal activities.

For a driver with a ridesharing platform to be sued under the aiding and abetting provisions of the Texas Heartbeat Act, he would have to know where hes taking the pregnant woman, how far along in the pregnancy she is (is she past the point at which the babys heartbeat is detectable?), and whether shes entering that abortion facility to obtain an abortion. This is the kind of high legal standard a judge would use in determining aiding and abetting of an illegal activity.

The same goes for the fear of frivolous lawsuits. There is already a legal standard under which judges consider and dismiss frivolous lawsuits that existed long before this law. Even if you dont trust the pro-life activist who can bring the lawsuit, trust our legal system and the judges who are used to handling these situations every day, and are equipped through legal and evidentiary standards to do so.

The ability of any individual to bring a lawsuit under the Texas Heartbeat Act is a type of private enforcement that is already used in other areas of law (such as Medicaid fraud), including to a limited degree in other pro-life law. The Heartbeat Act merely extends this approach.

Besides, most pro-lifers who would bring a lawsuit under the Texas Heartbeat Act are not interested in monetary compensation they are interested in preborn lives being spared from a violent and unjust death. That is why the law is clear that a pregnant woman cannot be sued under the law, because the purpose is to hold those who profit off the deaths of preborn children accountable: the abortion industry.

But why try this unique enforcement mechanism in the first place? Because the pro-life movement is tired of district attorneys refusing to enforce pro-life laws and activist federal judges holding pro-life policies up in court for years on end, if not indefinitely. It is time to try a new approach. And that new approach is working.

Texas is the first state to actually see a heartbeat law take effect the Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest pro-life law since Roe v. Wade. The anti-life mob is trying to cancel the Texas Heartbeat Act, but they have not been successful. So instead they are misrepresenting the law and constantly nitpicking and finding new objections.

But the most important aspect of the law is this: Thousands of tiny Texans are being spared from the violence of death by abortion because of the way the Texas Heartbeat Act is enforced. No wonder those who promote abortion are so up in arms over its ingenuity.

Rebecca Parma is the senior legislative associate at Texas Right to Life in Austin, Texas.

Visit link:

The Texas Heartbeat Act Is Saving 100 Babies' Lives Every Single Day - The Federalist