Category Archives: Federalist

After Arizona officials signed a consent decree agreeing to let voters who failed to provide proof of U.S. citizenship on their state voter application forms vote in federal elections anyway, Arizona saw an explosion of voters casting federal-only ballots. The soaring numbers coincide with millions of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States.

Twenty years ago, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, also known as the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. At its core, the election integrity initiative required proof of U.S. citizenship to vote and photo identification at polling places. Prop 200 has come under constant assault from leftists fighting against the Arizona Constitutions key qualification to vote in elections: U.S. citizenship.

The challenge went all the way to U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2013 the justices ruled 7-2 that states could not add documentary proof of citizenship requirements to federal election registration forms. States must accept and use the standardized federal voter registration form for national elections under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA form, developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission, does not require proof of citizenship. It only asks that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.

[READ NEXT: Elon Musk Rightly Says Arizona Doesnt Verify Federal Voter Citizenship But The Feds Dont Let Them]

But the opinion, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, opened the door for states to vet voters. Scalia wrote that states retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms.

In response, Arizona accepted federal voter registration applications without citizenship documentation, but continued to require proof of citizenship on state forms. Federal registrants were designated as Federal Only Voters, eligible to vote for president and congressional contestants but not for state and local candidates.

But in 2018, in an affront to the will of the 56 percent of Arizona voters who supported Prop 200, the Grand Canyon State was forced to not only accept federal-only applications lacking proof of citizenship but also grant a federal-only registration to applicants who used a state form but couldnt provide proof of citizenship. Arizonas then-Secretary of State Michele Reagan, a Republican, and Democrat Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, an anti-election integrity warrior who went on to become Arizonas secretary of state, signed a consent decree with the leftist League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) following more lawfare.

That lawsuit was filed in 2017 challenging our ability to verify proof of citizenship even though we had a bifurcated (voter registration) system, said Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a nonprofit committed to advancing a pro-growth, limited government agenda in the Grand Canyon State. Mussi and his organization have been at the forefront of several election integrity battles.

According to Mussi, the pause in the proof of citizenship provision saw an explosion of federal only voters voters who used the federal honor system instead of showing actual proof of citizenship.

According to the secretary of states office, about 1,700 people in Arizona voted in the 2018 midterm elections with a federal-only ballot. Two years later, in the absence of the documentation safeguard, the number grew to 11,600 individuals, according to AZ Free News. President Joe Biden claimed victory in Arizona by just 10,457 votes, or about 0.3 percent.

In 2022, the Republican-led legislature passed two election integrity bills aimed at ensuring citizenship at the polls. As the Arizona Free Enterprise Club summarized, House Bill 2492 requires county recorders to reject any application for state voter registration that does not include documentary proof of citizenship. The bill also requires proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections.

Election officials who accept forms without documentation can be charged with a class 5 felony, which comes with a maximum two and a half-year prison sentence.

The bill also requires election officials to check a multitude of databases to determine the citizenship status of an applicant using the federal form who did not include proof of citizenship, Mussis organization notes. If the election official finds proof in the databases, no problem. If not, the election official is required to inform the Arizona attorney general and the county prosecutor about the suspected crime. If an applicant cannot be found in any of the databases, the election office must notify him requesting proof of citizenship within 30 days.

House Bill 2243 demands tighter maintenance of Arizonas voter rolls and gives county recorders authority to cancel voter registrations when applicants fail to provide satisfactory evidence of U.S. citizenship within the specified time.

As I reported last week, Fontes and his leftist predecessor, now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, have failed to do critical voter list maintenance. More than a dozen Arizona counties appear to be in violation of Section 8 of the (NVRA), which mandates states keep accurate and current voter rolls for elections for federal office.

AZ Free News reported last year that in two quarterly reports issued to the state legislature, the secretary of states office noted that it had received reports of more than 78,200 potentially invalid voters. The numbers included more than 1,300 individuals who admitted to not being a citizen on a jury questionnaire; and north of 23,600 people who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire.

The bills were signed into law in 2022 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. The Republican told then-Secretary of State Hobbs a Democrat and as partisan in the secretarys office as she has proved to be leading the executive branch that the laws offer a balanced approach that honors Arizonas history of making voting accessible without sacrificing security in our elections.

Election integrity means counting every lawful vote and prohibiting any attempt to illegally cast a vote, Ducey wrote in a letter to Hobbs.

The left attacked, almost immediately.

Several challenges making the usual hysterical claims of voter suppression were filed by roughly 20 far-left plaintiffs, including the Arizona Students Association, Mi Familia Vota, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), and the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition. The Democratic National Committee also has jumped into the fray.

In September, Arizona U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton nominee, struck down key portions of the laws in what Mussi described as a weird judicial process.

Right now, theyre in limbo, said the Arizona Free Enterprise Club president. Judge Bolton, who is overseeing the case, issued a partial ruling, a very poorly written ruling, that deemed elements of the law are unlawful.

Part of the judges decision asserts the consent decree of a few years ago cannot be undone by lawmakers. Only the judge who presided over the agreement can change its terms.

It is in perpetuity until the judge dies or repeals it, according to Judge Bolton, Mussi said.

Legal observers say the case, which has already involved the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court on ancillary matters, is destined for appeal.

A further hearing in Boltons court is slated for later this month.

Mussi sounds confident that the consolidated case will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and that the election integrity laws will stand.

We believe that the laws are lawful, that they comply with not only the National Voter Registration Act but it is a clear power that the state can implement laws ensuring that noncitizens are not voting in our elections, he said.

Meanwhile, Fontes, Arizonas secretary of state, released an updated election manual in late December. The manual, created by Democrats for Democrats, thumbs its nose at the election integrity laws, allowing, among other things, voter registration applicants failing to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal races.

The Arizona GOP called it a power grab and a breathtaking overstep that is trying to take powers from the state legislature that are not his to take. Litigation is expected.

We warned the SOS early on that we would sue if the Elections Procedure Manual was not corrected to reflect the laws passed by the legislature. Unfortunately that did not happen. I imagine there will be many plaintiffs joining the Senate in protecting our elections, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen wrote on his X account on New Years Eve.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Read the original post:

Votes Without Citizenship Proof 'Exploded' In AZ After Dem Lawfare - The Federalist

Amid high-profile losses at the ballot box since the overturning of Roe, its becoming increasingly clear that people seeking to protect the rights of the unborn need to get serious about the unbalanced nature of American politics.

At the 51st annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., enthusiasm for protecting the rights of the unborn was tangible. Thousands of young people were in attendance, with some accurately describing the moment as a spiritual battle and civil rights issue of our lifetimes. Yet what is being done to effectively hinder the slaughter of the unborn?

Other than waxing poetic about Americas national creed and speak[ing] the truth in love, as he did at the March for Life, what has Speaker Mike Johnson done to advance life-saving policies in the House? What have Senate Republicans done other than kneecap Alabama Sen. Tommy Tubervilles protest of the Pentagons illegal policy subsidizing military members travel to receive abortions?

Besides endlessly investigating government weaponization, theyre doing nothing of significance. Congressional Republicans have so far refused to push back in any meaningful way on the lefts anti-life radicalism, opting to fund Democrats spending requests instead and sabotage one of the few people in the Senate working to protect the unborn and raise awareness of the federal governments illegal support for killing them.

Yes, some Republican officials in both chambers have tried several times to pass legislation protecting the unborn, but those fall flat due to lack of support. Their Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, frequently pass widely unpopular policies. Congressional Democrats ruthlessly pursue their goals through the negotiation process, ensuring the satisfaction of their base. Republicans dont.

Most Republicans at the national level appear unfazed by the federal governments persecution of pro-life activists and unwilling to take a stand on the ever-expanding abortion industry. The median voter may be ambivalent about abortion, but the Republican base most certainly is not.

Short of restricting and banning abortion, Republicans can do more to support life issues. Currently, congressional Republicans have the power to protect the rights of health care providers to not perform abortions against their consciences, strip funding from federal agencies that fund groups such as Planned Parenthood, and support colleagues like Tuberville when they stand against illegal abortion subsidization. This can all be accomplished now, but Republicans refuse to act despite the demands of their supporters. (Perhaps their inaction and routine capitulation betray their apathy.)

Subsequently, actual work protecting pro-life interests has been largely forfeitted to activists and private organizations.

Solidarity HealthShare is a health care-sharing ministry that, according to its website, provides an alternative way to fund health care costs while protecting and practicing its networks Catholic beliefs. Its cofounder Chris Faddis spoke to The Federalist about the issues facing pro-life doctors under the Biden administration. The American Board of Obstrecis and Gynecology that credentials OB-GYNs came out and said that doctors who speak out against abortion or the abortion pill should be should have their licenses removed right after the Dobbs decision, he said.

The federal government is not just on board with this but accelerating it. The Biden administration is forcing so-called non-discrimination rules, which would include abortion services and gender services, [that] would force doctors, hospitals, medical professionals, and clinics to participate in all of these practices, or they wont receive government funding. They wont be able to participate in Medicare, Faddis pointed out.

Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The Federalist the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is trying to require doctors in emergency rooms to perform elective abortions, which was never a part of the EMTALA regulation.

Faddis and Francis organizations work to provide tangible solutions for pro-life Americans while elected Republicans twiddle their thumbs. This is why many are turning to state legislatures for results.

March for Life president Jeanne Mancini told The Federalist her organization was laser-focused on growing our state [outreach and March for Life programs] to educate more voters about the gruesome reality of abortion.

Weve had a lot of states enact [before 20-week bans], which they couldnt do under the Roe regime. But weve had our fair share of losses, too, she said.

Despite lamenting the lefts deceptive use of language to push abortion ballot referendums, Mancini remained adamant that abortion is such a winning issue and suggested Republicans need to hone their abortion messaging.

There are so many positive ways to message about it what weve seen in elections is that when candidates seem kind of nominal about this, so they bury their heads in the sand, and they dont win. But when they lean into this, theyre competent, and they know what theyre speaking about, we win. So my advice would be to lean into [the abortion argument].

Political action at the state level is effective at protecting the unborn.

The overturning of Roe gave us the opportunity to really advocate for our position and bring people to our side. Instead of relying on the heavy hand of the judiciary prohibiting our ability to move the limits on abortion, now we can really advocate and bring the state legislatures to our side, said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America.

An incredible amount of work still needs to be done. The American people reject Democrats abortion extremism, but they too often dont hear about it.

The most powerful government in the history of the world and its acolytes view abortion with religious fervor. Yes, pro-lifers need to raise awareness about how abortion kills the innocent while harming women, but the federal government and the lefts vast nonprofit apparatus are committed to eroding this awareness and the power of states.

Without meaningful action at the federal level, the abortion industry will continue to grow, and countless more lives will be lost. Red states cannot fight this fight alone.

Samuel Mangold-Lenett is a staff editor at The Federalist. His writing has been featured in the Daily Wire, Townhall, The American Spectator, and other outlets. He is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. Follow him on Twitter @smlenett.

View post:

Congressional Republicans Need To Start Fighting Abortion - The Federalist

Joe Bidens signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 may, in effect, be null and void by days end if a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, agrees with the states attorney general that the $1.7 trillion spending bill was never validly enacted because the House of Representatives lacked a constitutionally mandated quorum.

The bench trial in this hugely important case, State of Texas v. Dept. of Justice, begins at 10:30 a.m. Eastern on Monday before district court Judge James Hendrix a Trump appointee who was first nominated by Barack Obama.

Heres your lawsplainer so you can follow along with the developments.

On Feb. 15, 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suitin State of Texas v. Dept. of Justice, challenging the constitutionality of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. As Paxtons lawsuit explained, the omnibus spending bill originated in the House of Representatives as Resolution 2617. After the lower chamber passed H.R. 2617 in September 2021, the bill went to the Senate, which passed a different version of the bill in November 2022.

Because the spending bills differed, Congress needed to reconcile them, with each body then required to pass the amended version. On Dec. 22, 2022, the Senate approved the Houses amendments to the bill, with the House meeting the next day to consider the Senates changes.

As I explained shortly after Paxton sued the Biden administration, heres where the constitutional problem arose:

When the House met on Dec. 23, 2022, to vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, it lacked a quorum to conduct business. Only 201 of the representatives were present. Nonetheless, the House proceeded with the vote. But it didnt just count the votes of the present members. It added to the tally an extra 226 votes, cast by present House lawmakers on behalf of absent ones who had appointed them proxies.

While the votes of those physically present totaled 88 yeas and 113 nays, the House clerk recorded that the bill passed by a margin of 225 yea, 201 nay, and 1 present, relying on a rule originally adopted in May of 2020 that allowed members to designate[] another Member as a proxy to cast the vote of the designating Member if a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect[.]

Then, on Dec. 29, 2022, Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, providing for appropriations through the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2023.

In his lawsuit, Paxton argued that because the House proxy rule violates the quorum clause of the Constitution, which Texas maintains requires a members physical presence, the Consolidated Appropriations Act never became law.

The quorum clause, found in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, provides:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Whether that provision requires the physical presence of members of the House to vote on legislation or allows the House to authorize voting by proxy is the bottom-line question at Mondays trial.

From an originalist perspective, which looks at the text, structure, and original understanding of the Constitution, Texas quorum clause argument is correct.

It would make little sense for the Constitution to expressly say that if a quorum were lacking, the House was authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, if proxy voting were allowed. Further, as Paxtons complaint notes, delegates at the Constitutional Convention rejected proposals that would have allowed Representatives to vote by proxy. The founders had also previously rejected proxy voting during debates over the Articles of Confederation, further illustrating that only those physically present counted for purposes of a quorum.

The Supreme Court has alsoheldthat to conduct congressional business, the Constitution requires a majority of members to be actually and physically present. This aligns with the meaning of present at the founding: not absent; face to face; being at hand.Other constitutional provisions, such as record-keeping requirements and impeachment rules in the Senate, indicate the need forphysicalpresence.

Congresss operations over the two centuries before Covid-19 lockdowns, including during various national emergencies, further establish that the quorum clause requires the physical presence of lawmakers. As Texas highlighted in its lawsuit:

During the Yellow Fever epidemic, Thomas Jefferson urged President Washington to keep Congress sitting in Philadelphia, then the capital, even if it meant meeting in the open f[ie]lds. [I]n the aftermath of that epidemic, the Third Congress enacted a law still in force today stating that [w]henever Congress is about to convene, and from the prevalence of contagious sickness, or the existence of other circumstances, it would, in the opinion of the President, be hazardous to the lives or health of the members to meet at the seat of Government, the President could convene Congress at such other place as he may judge proper.

There would be no reason to meet in open fields or to convene Congress at such other place as he may judge proper if the House and Senate could instead opt for proxy voting without the attendance of elected officials. Further, through the Civil War, the Spanish flu pandemic, the Cold War, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress continued to meet in person.

This long-settled and established practice, coupled with the text and structure of the Constitution, confirms the quorum clause requires the physical presence of elected lawmakers. But only 201 members were physically present in the House on Dec. 23, 2022, meaning the legislative body lacked a quorum to do business. Consequently, the House could not and did not pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

So does that mean the entire $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill is unconstitutional?

Yes and no: Because the quorum clause, properly interpreted, required the physical presence of a majority of members to do business, and because the House lacked the requisite quorum when it purported to pass the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the $1.7 trillion spending bill was unconstitutionally enacted.

But Texas is only challenging two aspects of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief related to those two provisions. Specifically, Paxton seeks a ruling that the legislations expansion of Title VIIs anti-discrimination provision to require employers, including Texas, to provide reasonable accommodations to limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, is null and void. While Texas maintains it already provides such reasonable accommodations, this amendment to Title VII harms the state by increasing litigation and other costs when employees wrongly believe Texas denied them a reasonable accommodation, the state argues.

Second, the Lonestar State challenges the $20 million appropriated to fund nonprofits and local governments to connect illegal aliens released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with various social services. This appropriation further encourages illegal immigration and burdens Texas education, health care, and other costs, according to the state.

If Texas prevails following Mondays bench trial, the courts ruling would be limited to those two provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. However, to strike those two portions of the omnibus spending bill, the federal court would first need to conclude that the House violated the quorum clause and thus never constitutionally passed the law.

Because Paxtons complaint is narrow, a win for Texas will have limited reach. And because the Biden administration will appeal any adverse decision, by the time a decision is final, the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2024, will have come and gone. That means the $1.7 trillion will already have been spent, and both the $20 million appropriated to the pilot program to assist illegal aliens and every other dollar authorized by the omnibus spending bill will be history.

That will not be the end of the case, however, because of the so-called Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that Congress shoehorned into the spending legislation. That portion of the omnibus bill had nothing to do with appropriations and instead amended the substantive portions of Title VII. So even after all the money is spent, there will be one aspect of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 that could be stricken.

Knowing that ruling in Texas favor wont affect any of the $1.7 trillion in the spending bill should assuage any practical concerns Judge Hendrix may have that the bill is too big to declare unconstitutional. And while striking the amendment to Title VII will have some ramifications, Congress can always re-up the reasonable accommodation provision, although that is unlikely with the current red House.

Yet the consequences of ruling in Texas favor would still be huge because it would be a declaration by a federal court that a majority of members of Congress and President Joe Biden violated their duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and did so to the tune of $1.7 trillion.

Ruling against Texas, though, would be equally significant but devastatingly so because it would be a sign to our country that the judicial branch is unwilling to operate as a check on the other two branches of government. If Judge Hendrix and the appellate courts ignore the quorum clause or sidestep the constitutional issue, which is more likely, they will declare to Americans that our Constitution and the rule of law mean nothing.

Many Americans may not even know that fewer than half the House members were present when Congress passed the largest spending bill in the history of our country. This was a flagrant violation of the Constitution. The relief sought in this case is narrow, but it is a matter of principle that we uphold our Constitutional order, and make clear that the federal government must never do this again, Paxton told The Federalist.

In pretrial haggling, the parties agreed on the logistics of the trial, with Texas and the Biden administration both agreeing to present their cases based on written declarations submitted by the parties, along with other documentary evidence. No witnesses will be called, according to a person familiar with the case, with both sides also waiving opening statements.

The bench trial before the district court judge will proceed, The Federalist has learned, with each side essentially presenting closing statements that highlight the evidence that the court has already admitted in advance of Mondays hearing. Arguments will begin at 10:30 a.m. ET, with Texas allocated one hour to address issues of justiciability, which concerns whether Paxtons lawsuit is one appropriate for the court to consider. The Biden administration will then have an hour to counter Paxtons legal arguments. Texas will have another hour to address the merits of its quorum clause argument, along with the arguments concerning the appropriate remedy. And the Biden administration will again have an hour to counter Paxtons legal team. Texas, as the plaintiff, will have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to end the argument.

Since the first two hours will focus on the question of justiciability, watch for a punt by the court because if Judge Hendrix finds the case is non-justiciable, he will never reach the merits of the quorum clause question.

We will soon know whether our Constitution and the rule of law will crumble under the exigency of circumstances or the desires of politicians.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalists senior legal correspondent. Margots work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion (forthcoming), National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Privethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishmentsher dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Read more:

Congress's $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill Goes On Trial In Texas - The Federalist

Image CreditFDRLST / Canva

TheRyan Center, the University of Chicagos campus abortion clinic, advertises potentially illegal late-term abortions on its websites, according to a recent report from The Chicago Thinker, the universitys right-leaning student newspaper.

The 2019 Illinois Reproductive Health Act (RHA) states that, if an unborn baby can live outside the womb, an abortion can only be performed if, in the professional judgment of the health care professional, the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient.

The Ryan Center, however, offers abortions of preborn babies up to 23 weeks and 6 days old, when a significant percentage can survive outside the womb, and regardless of any threat to the mothers life or health. TheFamily Planning Associates(FPA) Chicago clinic similarly offers abortions up to 23.5 weeks.These are both ages at which babies prematurely delivered and given standard medical care often survive outside the womb.

U.S. babies delivered at 22 weekssurviveapproximately 28% of the time, while babies delivered at 23 weeks survive approximately 55% of the time, writes Thinker reporter Ben Ogilvie. Their survival rate is presumably even higher at a state-of-the-art health center like UChicago Medicine.

Essentially, killing viable babies is only allowed in extreme situations threatening the life of the mother in Illinois, yet the Ryan Center and FPA clinic appear to be advertising late-term abortions of babies at a known viable stage to anyone, under any circumstance.While the text of the law clearly indicates this is illegal, Illinois courts and agencies interpret health of the mother to include mental health. That can include any form of worry about bearing a child. This loose interpretation allows abortions up to birth in Illinois.

The Ryan Center and the FPA clinic may also be getting away with performing illegal late-term abortions because of the RHAs definition of viability. Its definition is not simply whether a child has a chance of surviving outside the womb or even if the child has a good chance. The RHA defines viability as when in the professional judgment of the attending health care professional, based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of a fetuss sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

Subjective terms like extraordinary have often been misconstrued by abortionists to get away with killing children outside the legal limits. According to Ogilvie, Extraordinary is a term of art commonly used in discussions ofend-of-life care,living wills, andCatholic bioethics. It generally refers to medical care that is highly expensive or painful with limited benefits; cancer treatment for the terminally ill is a classicexample.

This is certainly not how one would describe the care administered to the10-15 percentof babies who spend time in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Its unclear how abortionists at the Ryan Center and FPA clinic define extraordinary but their websites contain no cautions about this aspect of state law.

RHA contains no explicit penalty for performing illegal late-term abortions. While the intentional homicide of an unborn child carries a minimum 20-year prison sentence in Illinois, that isnt likely to apply to the babies dying in the Ryan Center or FPA Chicago facilities. This is because, per the RHA, a fetus does not have independent rights under the laws of this State.

Legally stripping unborn babies of their personhood isnt the only reason abortionists might get away with performing second-trimester abortions. The act removes all state and local oversight in abortion facilities. It also ended therequirementthat Illinois abortion facilities have a licensed physician on their boards in order to obtain a license. In Illinois, tanning salons and barbershopsfacestricter scrutiny than abortion facilities, writes former Executive Director of Illinois Right to Life Amy Gehrke.

Under RHA, abortion facilities only self-report their violations to law enforcement, so, as Gehrke explains, facilities can more easily destroy evidence, covering up any negligence or criminal activity taking place at an abortion facility.

In the case of any illegal late-term abortions in Chicago, no facility is going to report themselves to law enforcement if they murder viable unborn children. They openly market these potentially illegal murders because they are accountable to no one.

This article has been updated since publication.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

See the rest here:

Chicago Abortionists Advertise Possibly Illegal Late-Term Abortions - The Federalist

Alright, Gov. Ron DeSantis supporters, youve had a full day to be sad, angry, and whatever else, but now its time to move on. It sucks to lose, but it happens. Better luck next time.

DeSantis, also known as the greatest Republican governor of my lifetime, effectively ended his so very disappointing campaign for president on Sunday. As politicians of the same party routinely do after primaries, he immediately endorsed his competitor Donald Trump. That should be all his supporters needed to swallow however hard is necessary and do the same, but the wounds are apparently not just superficial for some of Team DeSantis.

Judging by a large number of his extremely-on-Twitter supporters, the defeat has deeply hurt their feelings. Theyre taking it personally and sorely.

Its every bit as unattractive as DeSantiss dysfunctional campaign. The whole time he ran, he made nothing but a series of unfathomable decisions.

He refused to confront his critics in the media, formerly his strongest attribute and something he only just now admits was a catastrophic mistake. He blew millions on an inept leadership team. He kept his campaign manager Generra Peck in her position for months as his poll numbers nosedived. He wore those inexplicable boots and showed not even a flicker of self-awareness when anyone pointed out how undeniably oddly they fitted.

Why did he change the way he pronounced his name?

For whatever reason, the DeSantis Devotees arent interested in acknowledging any of it. Their unyielding argument is that the governor is smarter and more capable than Trump, whom general election voters dislike so much that his defeat in a rematch with Joe Biden is inevitable.

Maybe Trump will lose in November. In campaign politics, someone has to, and nobody should know that better than DeSantis backers.

Its one thing for them to express their doubts. Thats fair. But its another to spend the next nine months telling fellow Republicans how stupid they were for not sharing their preference in the primary. Thats useless.

We know Trump is in serious legal jeopardy. We know he was defeated by Biden before and it could happen again. We know the ferociously deceitful news media will savage him for the duration of the campaign like theyve never done before.

Nobody needs DeSantiss diehard Twitter army to remind them, although it seems some of those people were so emotionally and professionally invested in his presidential campaign that theyre practically rooting for a defeat in November. That will at least earn them the consolation prize of getting to say, I told you.

Its childish. Its petty. Its pathetic.

Theyre understandably disappointed, but theres no reason they should embarrass themselves with an extended, unproductive bout of depression and resentment. Theres still a lot for everyone to get excited about.

DeSantis is still a phenomenal governor with another three years to run his state. He would also be a tremendous asset in a second Trump administration serving as Homeland Security secretary or attorney general. Hes young, so there is plenty of time for him to learn from his campaign and try again next time. I hope he does.

I also hope that, as quickly as DeSantis moved on, so will his supremely on-Twitter supporters.

Read the original post:

How DeSantis's Disappointed Supporters Can Move On From Ron - The Federalist

With every woman, for every child.

This was the slogan for the 51st annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday where thousands of pro-life Americans gathered despite snow and frigid temperatures. The annual march marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years.

Americans of all ages and faith backgrounds gathered at the rally before the march began with a view of the Capitol building in front and a view of the Washington Monument behind them. Young high school students built a snowman while others of all ages gathered in joy to witness and celebrate the beauty of life.

While thousands gathered to hear a variety of speeches, a video played on repeat, speaking to how the death and darkness of abortion will only end with an approach of hope and love. Those gathered were invited to be the light in the darkness, and a voice for unborn babies who have no voice.

The video also referenced, as did many speakers at the rally, that the overturn of Roe v. Wade was a big step but that much is still to be done, promising to not stop marching until abortion is unthinkable.

We are not done. We will keep marching every January at the national level, as well as in our states, until our nations laws reflect the basic truth that all human life is created equal and is worthy of protection, said March for Life President Jeanne Mancini.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., gave the opening remarks. He spoke about how the birth certificate of America, the Declaration of Independence, bluntly references the fact that our rights do not come from the government but from our Creator.

Johnson also noted that his existence was the result of an unplanned pregnancy. His parents were teenagers when they found out they were pregnant. Johnson showed gratitude to his parents for choosing life, expressing just how blessed he was for that decision.

Jean Marie Davis, executive director of Branches Pregnancy Resource Center, and single mom and author Aisha Taylor, both spoke at the rally about how pregnancy resource centers saved the lives of their children. When they needed help and had nowhere to go, they reached out to one of these centers and were given a similar message: How can we help you and support you?

Both women noted that those conversations helped them to have the courage to keep their baby and not get an abortion. Now they could never consider life without their unplanned children.

There are over 2,700 pregnancy centers around the country. While the Biden administration desires to decrease their funding, these centers save lives every year and support mothers with over $300 million of donations in diapers, clothing, baby formula, and other necessities. Keeping these facilities open and available while championing the good they do was a clear message from the rally.

University of Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh, who just clinched the national college football championship a few weeks ago, also shared some words at the rally. This is a great day for a march. It is football weather, Harbaugh said, before noting what a great witness to the sanctity of life is being set by the thousands gathered.

[READ: UM Coach Jim Harbaugh Champions Right To Life Following Football Championship]

Once the walk to the Capitol building and Supreme Court began, thousands of pro-lifers filled the streets. Along the route, you could visibly see groups wearing color-coordinated scarves and hats. There were groups from Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, Indiana, New York and countless others who had traveled across the country to march.

Along the way, you could hear some groups praying the rosary while others sang songs and some led chants in support of the pro-life cause. Not long into the route, a bright yellow sign caught my eye: Caution genocide content ahead.

Soon there was a massive television in sight showing pictures of aborted babies. There was even a recording of a baby crying during an abortion. As a father of two, this was the most jarring part of the event. It was explicit and real. But it was true.

The reason why so many made their way through the bitter cold and snow to walk the streets of the nations capital was encapsulated by the chants, songs, and images of the day. Those who marched love life. They love families and they love babies.

Speaking to some participants on this cold day their messages were similar. We come to give voice to the voiceless. We march out of love for life. Protecting their right to life is why we march.

May the goal of the March for Life come true: lets make abortion unthinkable because every life has infinite value.

Thomas Griffin teaches in the Religion Department at a Catholic high school and lives on Long Island with his wife and son. He has a masters degree in theology and is currently a masters candidate in philosophy. Follow his latest content at EmptyTombProject.org

Read the rest here:

Thousands Attend March For Life Hoping To Make Abortion 'Unthinkable' - The Federalist

The corporate media are just now discovering what I learned in 2015, that theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA), under the direction of President Barack Obama, hires air traffic controllers (ATC) on the basis of race.Of course, President Biden, as part of his commitment to equity, took it further.His FAA identified certain disabilities as deserving of special emphasis in recruitment and hiring, including epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, [and] psychiatric disability.

How in the world did it come to this?

Twenty-nine years ago this week, I argued before the Supreme Court of the United States that the federal governments policy of using race to award contracts was unconstitutional.My client, Randy Pech of Colorado Springs, was a college dropout who had parlayed his fathers retirement monies no bank would loan him funds into a small business building guardrails along federal highways.Although his was the lowest bid on a national forest job in southwestern Colorado and he had a reputation for doing excellent work on a timely basis, he was denied the subcontract because a federal agency awarded the prime contractor a $10,000 bonus to give the job to a minority-owned business.

Forty-one years after the Supreme Court ruled regarding public schools in Washington, D.C., it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government than on the states, and the solicitor general argued just that:Congress owed no duty to my client to adhere to the Constitutions equal protection guarantee.

The court disagreed. In fact, I was there that spring when Justice OConnor read her5-4 ruling, which held:[A]ny person, of whatever race, has the right to demand that any governmental actor subject to the Constitution justify any racial classification subjecting that person to unequal treatment

The holding was a bombshell.It led the network news that night and appeared on the front page, above the fold, of every newspaper in the country.Race-based decision-making, affirmative action, or reverse discrimination was doomed, declared all the legal experts.

Today, with federal agencies like the FAA hiring on the basis of race, Ivy League universities appointing presidents due to the color of their skin, corporations all but declaring that white males (like my client who was once called an angry white man) need not apply, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) everywhere run amok, what happened to the 1995 ruling my client won inAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea?

Because, in Justice OConnors words, the court had alter[ed] the playing field, my client was sent back to Colorado federal district court for it to rule anew, given the courts holding that the Constitutions equal protection guarantee applied to the federal government.

In 2000, the courtunanimously swatted asidean attempt by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to kill the case; thus, in 2001, I was back before the court.On their way out the door, Clinton administration lawyers argued the case was ripe for a ruling, but President George W. Bushs lawyers argued it was moot.In the wake of the attack of 9/11,the court agreed. During oral argument, I vowed to return to enforce the courts 1995 holding.

In 2003, I did return on behalf of a Denver small businessman, but by then Justice OConnor had lost her way.On the recommendation of retired generals and admirals, corporate CEOs, and university poohbahs,she allowed colleges to grant admission based on race for no more than 25 more years.Not surprisingly, over a vigorousdissentby Justice Scalia, joined by the chief justice, my clients petition forwritofcertiorariwas rejected.

Meanwhile, in the wake of my 1995 victory, Congress considered whether to end itspolicyof doing business based on race.After two years, with bipartisan support, Congress voted to leave the issue up to the courts.Then, in 2015, after I sued the FAA for hiring air traffic controllers based on race, Congress declined to end the program, which continues even today.In 2021, albeit with not a single Republican vote, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan Act, which granted Covid relief to restauranteurs, but only those of certain enumerated races.Fortunately, that misadventure ended after federal court rulings, including bythe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that it was unconstitutional, citingAdarand.

Meanwhile, the American people expressed their disdain for racial quotas.In 1996, California passed theCalifornia Civil Rights Initiative(Proposition 209), modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended race-based hiring, contracting, and admissions in the Golden State.In 1998,Washington state did the same.In both instances, voters rejected the urgings of their states political, business, and media elites, which were brought to them via slick, expensive advertising campaigns.In fact, in 2020,Californians once again voted No to government race-based decision-making.

Fortunately, OConnors disastrous 2003 ruling inGrutterdid not live out its 25-year sentence. Last year, Chief Justice Robertsall but overruledGrutterby ending race-based admissions by colleges and universities.That good news was long overdue. However, that was not all the chief justice got right.

In 2007, he declared, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.Time to do so is well past due, but it will not occur with President Biden and the current Congress.

Given illegal immigration, inflation, and imminent global war, the American people have many reasons to vote the bums out.Add racial politics, racial divisiveness, and the radical end to Americas meritocracy, and the path forward becomes clear.

A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies.Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Courts ruling inAdarandand compel the federal government to comply with the Constitutions equal protection guarantee.To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the promissory note set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Mr. Pendley, a Wyoming attorney and Colorado-based, public-interest lawyer for three decades, served in the Reagan administration and led the Bureau of Land Management for President Donald Trump.

Follow this link:

Putting An End To Race-Based Hiring Is 30 Years Past Due - The Federalist

Eurocrats are preparing an extensive overhaul of the EUs existing internal rules, aiming to modify its entire decision-making structure by 2030. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen presented the comprehensive reforms as the technical process necessary to accommodate a European Union with at least 30 member states. Reform, of course, is simply Brussels-speak for more centralized federal control, removing individual member states right to veto, and imposing EU taxes.

The political intertwining of enlargement and reform is not incidental. It is designed to incentivize countries supportive of enlargement but hesitant about reformnotably the Nordics and Balticsto actively endorse EU reforms. Ultimately, the EU Commission will deliberately present these reforms as a moral issue: rejecting centralization equals rejecting enlargementwhich amounts to nothing less than betraying Ukraine and siding with Russia.

The ambitious plan was discussed by von der Leyen while she was addressing the European Parliaments plenary on Wednesday, January 17th. She promised to deliver a comprehensive blueprint for the EU reforms next month, ahead of the next European Council Summit on February 1st. Modernization, she claims, is deemed necessary for the impending EU enlargement to include Ukraine, Moldova, and several Balkan countries. Naturally, von der Leyen made no mention of how it will centralize federal power.

Several member states have been eagerly awaiting the Commissions concrete proposals to kickstart the more substantive discussion on the matter.

Among others, Germany, France, and Portugal have been the most vocal supporters of reforming the EUs inner dynamics, even if that would ultimately mean less power for the individual member states.

Von der Leyen noted that the Commission formulated its proposals for building the future EU while heavily relying on the input it received from the European Parliament. This House has already put forward bold ideas for a reform of our treaties, she said, without revealing any further details.

Recently the European Parliament adopted several reports, endorsing a wide range of proposals that would explicitly strengthen Brussels while weakening member states sovereignty. These include restricting the Councils legislative powers, scrapping the rotating presidency and members veto power, creating an EU citizenship, and introducing European referenda, as well as transferring ten concrete policy areas (including climate, public health, border control, and defense policy) to Brussels auspices.

Reacting to one of the most outrageous reports submitted by the notoriously federalist Verhofstadt Group, Polish MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski described the proposals as the creation of a European superstate on the ruins of nation-states:

The public is not supposed to notice that a putsch is about to take place, that the European Union as a community of sovereign states is being abolished and a superstate is being created without any consent of the people, where a political oligarchy will rule unaccountably and escape the democratic control of citizens.

Insiders suggest that the Commissions forthcoming proposals are likely to include a step-by-step strategic roadmap that would intricately link each reform measure with a corresponding enlargement step. The overarching goal is to complete these reforms by the time Ukraine and the others officially join the EU, for which no official deadline has been set by mainstream Eurocrats who would like to see it happen by 2030.

Adding a layer of complexity to the reform agenda, officials in Paris and Berlin have underscored the necessity of addressing the financing of Union programs and the repayment of EU debt in the future as well. The economic disparity between current EU members and the much poorer newcomersparticularly Ukraine with an estimated GDP per capita of 4,100poses a significant challenge.

Thats why the Commissions proposals will likely include a set of measures to acquire its own resources, primarily in the form of EU taxes. Critics have warned these could easily lead to the fragmentation of the European economy, as well as accelerated centralization and further hijacked competencies.

Put simply, the proposed EU reforms can only go in the direction of deeper integration and the federalist end goal. Europeans, however, will have one more say on the matter in June: let us hope the Eurocrats will take notice.

See the original post here:

Ever-Closer Union: Brussels Plots Federalist Reforms The European Conservative - The European Conservative

Nearly four years after the damning evidence of Biden family corruption on Hunter Bidens laptop was disclosed in 2020, President Joe Bidens Department of Justice admitted in a court filing on Tuesday that the Mac and its contents are real.

If youve been following this story since it broke in October 2020, you know there was never any true reason to doubt The New York Posts reporting or the word of the Delaware computer repair shop owner that the abandoned Mac belonged to Hunter. Yet truth was no defense. The Post was quickly banned from social media for spreading disinformation a decision based on actual disinformation and dozens of U.S. intelligence officials rushed to back the censorship. So did Joe Biden.

The DOJs confirmation the laptops contents came from Hunter arrives years after complicit media outlets quietly admitted the truth about the computer in 2022, and even longer after conservative media verified the laptops authenticity ahead of 2020 election day.

The DOJs acknowledgment that Hunters laptop was left at a computer store and contained duplicative information investigators had already obtained from Apple further vindicates the IRS whistleblowers, who were also relentlessly smeared for speaking up.

In 2020, any mention of the evidence IRS whistleblower or otherwise that the then-presidential candidate Biden and his family were involved in an international influence-peddling scheme was nuked by Big Tech, shunned by corporate media, and skewered by Democrats. Its still treated as false by many top media and Democrat figures.

President Joe Biden, one of the biggest laptop deniers, repeatedly insisted from the 2020 debate stage and campaign trail that the laptop was a Russian plant meant to harm his election chances. Biden, Hunter, Big Tech companies, the FBI, and the IRS knew this was a lie, but continued to tout it well into the Democrats first term.

Even when current intelligence leaders confirmed there wasnever any evidencethat the Hunter laptop wasnt legitimate, Biden justified spreading this conspiracy theory with a lettersigned by dozens of former intelligence heads. In it, they dubbed the laptop story Russian disinformation.Reporting later revealed it was Bidens then-campaign adviser and now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken who orchestrated the letter and the CIA that solicited signatures for it.

Evidence of the Bidens deep familial corruption had thepotential to changeAmericans votes in the 2020 election. That is why all of Democrats forces in technology, the propaganda press, and the bureaucracy banded together to subdue it.

Over and over and over, those same forces were proven not just wrong, but corrupt co-conspirators in the scheme to rig the 2020 election in Bidens favor.

When Hunters laptop surfaced and former Biden business partner Tony Bobulinskiclaimedmere weeks before the 2020 election he met with Joe as part of Biden family influence-peddling, Biden denied everything. He denied Hunter ever made money on China and that he was ever involved in the pay-to-play scheme.

To this day, Biden claims the hundredsofemails,texts, voicemails,bank records,receipts,White House visitor logs,photos, andsworn witness testimonies from Biden business associates proving his involvement in the family corruption business are a bunch of lies. He and everyone else who knew the laptop and its contents were legit faced zero consequences for their lying and treachery.

Election Day 2024 is fast approaching, and not one of the Americans who was lied to during the 2020 election will ever receive an apology from the FBI, corporate media, Big Tech, or the Bidens, because those institutions and people are not sorry. Getting away with dodging, deflecting, and burying what should have been the biggest corruption scandal story of the century was the plan all along.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

See the rest here:

4 Years Too Late, DOJ Admits Biden 'Laptop From Hell' Is Real - The Federalist

Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America President Dr. Kevin Roberts was invited to the World Economic Forums (WEF) annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to appear on a panel about What to Expect from a Possible Republican Administration on Thursday.

In an op-ed penned ahead of the conference, Roberts wrote that he accepted the invitation to deliver the global elites a message. Davos must accept the moral virtues, practical benefits, and natural rights of nations, families, and individuals to govern themselves, Roberts wrote, or We, the People will take matters into our own hands.

Roberts certainly delivered that message. When asked about who will likely join a new Trump administration, Roberts said it will be those who wish to destroy the grasp that political elites and unelected technocrats have over the average person.

The agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything thats ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum, and object to all of them wholesale, he added.

Roberts assertions are grounded in peoples real fear of the WEFs despotic policy proposals. So far during the 2024 conference, global elites have discussed ushering in a new world order,decrieddisinformation and misinformation, andlabeledfarming and fishing ecocide.

The discussion about a new Republican presidency was largely centered around fear of Trump that hell pull the United States out of NATO, yank aid to Ukraine, and put an end to supposed climate change policies. Panelist Gerard Baker, the editor-at-large for The Wall Street Journal, even fretted that a second Trump term could lead to a dictatorship.

Roberts called the fearmongering absurd and laughable, adding that its ironic to use the word dictatorship at Davos.

The Heritage Foundation president aptly pointed out that the WEF elites, the media, the academy, government agencies, international organizations, corporations, and the arts, dont actually care about preserving democracy. They fear Trump because a Trump presidency poses an existential threat to their power and Roberts did nothing to alleviate that fear.

Political elites tell the average people that the reality is X, when in fact reality is Y, Roberts said. Using immigration as an example, he called out the Davos crowd for telling people that open borders and even illegal immigration are OK. In reality, Roberts said, those things have robbed [people] of the American way of life.

Roberts also condemned elites for scaring people into believing so-called climate change is an existential threat to humanity and pointed out that Davos solutions to the supposed climate crisis are killing people.More than a billion people in the world have been lifted out of poverty in the last 35 years because of fossil fuels, Roberts explained. Yet climate alarmists are shutting down energy production to replace it with insufficient green energy.

China, Roberts added, is the No. 1 adversary not just to the United States, but to free people on planet Earth. Not only do we at Davos not say that, we give the Chinese Communist Party a platform.

Roberts said to count on Trump taking on illegal immigration, eco-fascism, and Red China.

I think President Trump, if in fact he wins a second term, is going to be inspired by the wise words of Javier Milei, who said that he was in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions, concluded the president of Heritage. Thats what the average American and the average free person on planet Earth wants out of leaders.

Roberts appearance was vindicating for all the WEF victims who suffer from high energy prices, threats to freedom of movement and meat consumption, and increased encroachments on speech and other freedoms. Unfortunately, his remarks on Thursday wont change much.

In a statement following the event, Roberts expressed that he had little faith the WEF is capable of reform or adopting a noblesse oblige view of the world. Ultimately, Roberts wrote in his op-ed, the everyday citizens, workers, and families who shoulder the burdens of Davos-style global elitism, will have to work themselves to reclaim their individual rights and national sovereignty.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso is a staff writer to The Federalist and the co-founder of the Chicago Thinker. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, and her family. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1 or contact her at evita@thefederalist.com.

More:

Heritage Foundation President Slams Davos Elites To Their Faces - The Federalist