The Pronk Pops Show 1258, May 15, 2019, Story 1: Let The People of Each State Decide Whether To Protect Babies In The Womb or Allow Doctors and Women The Choice of Killing Their Babies — Babies In The Womb Have A Moral Right To Life and Due Process — Alabama Bans Abortions — Videos —

Posted on May 18, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Republican Candidates, Abortion, American History, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, European History, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Killing, Law, Life, Lying, Media, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Senate, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1247 April 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1246 April 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1245 April 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1244 April 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1243 April 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1242 April 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1241 April 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1240 April 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1239 April 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1238 April 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1237 April 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1236 April 9, 201

Pronk Pops Show 1235 April 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1234 April 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1233 April 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1232 April 1, 2019 Part 2

Pronk Pops Show 1232 March 29, 2019 Part 1

Pronk Pops Show 1231 March 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1230 March 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1229 March 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1228 March 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1227 March 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1226 March 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1225 March 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1224 March 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1223 March 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1222 March 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1221 March 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1220 March 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1219 March 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1218 March 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1217 February 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1216 February 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1215 February 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1214 February 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

martin luther kingNUMBER-ONE-KILLER-2013-FB

See the source image

Story 1: Let The People of Each State Decide Whether To Protect Babies In The Womb or Allow Doctors and Women The Choice of Killing Their Babies — Babies In The Womb Have A Moral Right To Life and Due Process — Alabama Bans Abortions — Videos —

He that is kind is free, though he is a slave; he that is evil is a slave, though he be a king.

~Saint Augustine

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

~Edmund Burke

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

~Henry David Thoreau

The resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.

~Thomas Hardy

The Holocaust was the most evil crime ever committed.

~Stephen Ambrose

The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”

~Hannah Arendt

 

Abortion

See the source image

See the source image

Alabama governor signs near-total abortion ban into law

The Most Important Question About Abortion

Ben Shapiro Destroys The Abortion Argument

The Silent Scream (Full Length)

What Is Roe V. Wade? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

Roe v. Wade Summary | quimbee.com

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Why Supreme Court got Roe v. Wade wrong

Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade

Justice Scalia On Life Part 2

Clarke Forsythe on Fox News “Special Report” talking about “UNSAFE” Report

Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade

Based on 20 years of research, including an examination of the papers of eight of the nine Justices who voted in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Abuse of Discretion is a critical review of the behind-the-scenes deliberations that went into the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions and how the mistakes made by the Justices in 1971-1973 have led to the turmoil we see today in legislation, politics, and public health. Why do the abortion decisions remain so controversial after almost 40 years, despite more than 50,000,000 abortions, numerous presidential elections, and a complete turnover in the Justices? Why did such a sweeping decision — with such important consequences for public health, producing such prolonged political turmoil — come from the Supreme Court in 1973?

See the source image

Abuse of Discretion – Book Launch

Tucker: Voters in Alabama decided for their state

“Heartbeat bill” in Georgia would ban abortions after heartbeat detected

Hollywood protest of Georgia’s ‘heartbeat’ law fizzles

Life in the womb (9 months in 4 minutes) HD – Presented to You from PSNX

Pro-choice or pro-life? 39% of Americans don’t pick a side

Is There Ever A Right Time To Have A Baby? | The Seven Ages of Pregnancy (Full Documentary)

Is There A Right Method To Parenting? | Cherry’s Parenting Dilemmas (Full Documentary)

Life Before Birth – In the Womb

7 Amazing Things Unborn Babies Can Do in the Womb

What Actually Happens When You Have An Abortion?

Can we expect a Supreme Court showdown over Alabama’s abortion ban?

The battle over abortion: Alabama ban opens new chapter in bitter fight

Pro and anti-abortion rights activists on future of Alabama abortion bill

Alabama passes strictest abortion ban in the US

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey Signs U.S.’s Strictest Abortion Ban Into Law

Alabama BANS Abortion

Abortions after about 6 weeks will now be illegal in Georgia

More states are passing laws to make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Access Restricted: Abortion in Texas – Fault Lines

Abortion frontline of America: life and death in Texas

Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion: Both Sides of the ‘Heartbeat’ Bill

What Happens If The U.S. Outlaws Abortion? | AJ+

NY Bishop Calls Out Cuomo Over State’s New Abortion Law: ‘It Goes Way Beyond Roe vs. Wade’

What So-Called Pro-Choicers Cannot Watch From Start To Finish

The Silent Scream (Full Length)

FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

Abby Johnson Exposes The Lie of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Attempt To Dismiss Viral Video Backfires!

Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Harvesting Babies Organs

Die Wannseekonferenz (1984)

A real time recreation of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which leading SS and Nazi Party officials led by SS-General Reinhard Heydrich gathered to discuss the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.

MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST

Abortion Inc: Promoting Black Genocide in US?

A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Sex Control Police State, Eugenics, Galton, Kantsaywhere, Mind Control Report

Mind Control Hate Propaganda, Hate Speech & Crime, Black PR

Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade

Auschwitz The Nazis and the Final Solution complete

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (1/5)

AUSHWITZ:THE FINAL SOLUTION CLIP 2/5

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (3/5)

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (4/5)

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (5/5)

Science and the Swastika: The Deadly Experiment

Sterilizing Undesirables: Did The USA Inspire The Nazis?

Keeping Dems Honest: CNN’s Anderson Cooper Puts Truth First and Challenges DNC Abortion Lies

Glenn Beck : Agenda 21 is not a fiction, it’s implemented right now in US and all over the World !

Glenn Beck – Ted Cruz Discusses the Evils of Agenda 21

Bill Whittle What We Believe Full Version

Brenda Lee – I’m Sorry (Live from Canada 1980)

 

Alabama governor signs bill authorizing near total ban on abortions in the state in a bid to challenge Roe v Wade in Trump’s conservative Supreme Court

  • Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on Wednesday afternoon 
  • Law will ban nearly all abortions in the state with no rape or incest exceptions 
  • Doctors who provide abortions in Alabama could face up to life in prison 
  • Law will draw immediate lawsuits and could end up before the Supreme Court
  • Democrat presidential candidates are drawing battle lines on the issue for 2020 
  • Klobuchar called it ‘unconstitutional’ and Biden said ‘Roe v. Wade is settled law’ 
  • ‘This is a war on women, and it is time to fight like hell,’ said Kirsten Gillibrand 

Alabama’s governor has signed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation.

Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed the measure on Wednesday. The law will make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison.

The law contains an exception for when the pregnancy creates a serious health risk for the woman, but not an exception for rape or incest.

There would be no punishment for the woman receiving the abortion, only for the abortion provider.

‘Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act,’ Ivey said in a statement.

‘To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God,’ she continued.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey is seen signing the bill into law on Wednesday. She called the new law 'a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious'

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey discusses the bill while visiting a car factory at Montgomery, Alabama on Wednesday shortly before signing it into law

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey discusses the bill while visiting a car factory at Montgomery, Alabama on Wednesday shortly before signing it into law

Gov. Ivey’s full statement on HB314

‘Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a bill that was approved by overwhelming majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.

‘To all Alabamians, I assure you that we will continue to follow the rule of law.

‘In all meaningful respects, this bill closely resembles an abortion ban that has been a part of Alabama law for well over 100 years. As today’s bill itself recognizes, that longstanding abortion law has been rendered ‘unenforceable as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.’

‘No matter one’s personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable. As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions. Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur.

‘I want to commend the bill sponsors, Rep. Terri Collins and Sen. Clyde Chambliss, for their strong leadership on this important issue.

‘For the remainder of this session, I now urge all members of the Alabama Legislature to continue seeking the best ways possible to foster a better Alabama in all regards, from education to public safety. We must give every person the best chance for a quality life and a promising future.’

The bill passed the state senate 25-6, after being approved by the state’s lower house 75-3.

The new law will not go into effect for six months, and in the interim abortions will remain legal in Alabama, which has three abortion clinics.

The law will likely to be challenged immediately in court, potentially setting up a case which could allow anti-abortion groups to force a Supreme Court hearing in which they would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Democrats accused Alabama Republicans of leading a charge to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

A series of the 2020 presidential candidates warned that Republican-controlled legislatures around the country may follow suit, emboldened by President Donald Trump’s two conservative justices and a warning from one of the liberal justices that abortion rights were now in play.

Democrats say that abortion opponents are hoping that the 5-4 conservative majority on the court – put in place by Trump installing Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – will rule in their favor, and tear up the 1973 ruling which makes abortion a federal right.

An anti-abortion bill that pass both houses of Alabama's legislature has Democratic presidential candidates up in arms

Conservative court: Chief Justice John Robert now presides over a court with five justices - himself included - seen as anti-abortion, two of them Trump's picks: Brett Kavanaugh (top right), and Neil Gorsuch (top left)

Conservative court: Chief Justice John Robert now presides over a court with five justices – himself included – seen as anti-abortion, two of them Trump’s picks: Brett Kavanaugh (top right), and Neil Gorsuch (top left)

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand believes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which guaranteed the legal right to abortions, could be in jeopardy

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning what the bill's authors have readily admitted, that the legislation is meant to be a mechanism to get abortion before the Supreme Court again

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is warning what the bill’s authors have readily admitted, that the legislation is meant to be a mechanism to get abortion before the Supreme Court again

Under the Alabama law, the only legal abortions would be those performed to protect a woman’s life.

Doctors could face 10 years in prison for attempting an abortion in any other circumstance, and 99 years for actually carrying out the procedure.

Other Republican-controlled states, including Ohio, have passed less restrictive ‘heartbeat bills’ which effectively ban abortion after six weeks. Roe v. Wade established it was legal in the first and second trimesters.

THE ‘HEARTBEAT BILL’ MOVEMENT: WHICH STATES ARE BRINGING THE MEASURES

STATES THAT NOW HAVE ‘FETAL HEARTBEAT’ LAWS

  • Georgia (signed into law May 7, 2019)
  • Ohio (signed into law April 11, 2019)
  • Mississippi (signed into law March 21, 2019) – though it is being challenged
  • Alabama (on May 14, passed ban with no exceptions for rape or incest 25-6)

STATES WHOSE BILLS HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY COURTS

  • Arkansas (passed March 2014, blocked March 2015)
  • North Dakota (passed July 2015, blocked January 2016) 
  • Iowa (passed May 2018, blocked January 2019)
  • Kentucky (passed March 2019, blocked April 2019)

STATES THAT ARE CONSIDERING IT

  1. Louisiana has a bill in the senate with strong bipartisan support 
  2. Tennessee has a bill but the Republican AG warned it will be hard to pass, driving many to vote against
  3. South Carolina gave near-final approval to the bill last month
  4. Missouri‘s bill also advanced last month
  5. Texas wanted to bring the death penalty for women who undergo abortions
  6. West Virginia introduced a bill in February 2019
  7. Florida‘s bill failed yesterday, but anti-abortion lawmakers are expected to try again
  8. Minnesota proposed the bill in January 2019
  9. Maryland‘s failed to pass in April 
  10. Kansas Republican lawmakers are trying and failing to override a veto that blocks a fetal heartbeat bill
  11. Illinois‘s bill was proposed in February
  12. New York‘s bill was proposed in February 

Many pro-life groups have acknowledged they are looking for a case which would allow them to directly challenge Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court. 

Anti-abortion activists hope the high court will be willing to reconsider Roe.

‘It is clearer than ever that Roe is far from being settled law in the eyes and hearts of the American people, and this is increasingly reflected in state legislatures,’ said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. ‘The American people want a fresh debate and a new direction.’

The Supreme Court affirmed women’s constitutional right to abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. President Donald Trump has added two conservative members to the court, changing its dynamic in a way that could end the case’s authority.

Legal fights are likely ahead over the Alabama measure if Ivey signs it into law.

Similar abortion restrictions are under consideration or already enacted in other conservative-leaning states.

Republican state Senator Clyde Chambliss, arguing in favor of the Alabama bill, said the point was ‘so that we can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe v. Wade.’

Republican lawmaker Terri Collins, who sponsored the legislation, said: ‘Our bill says that baby in the womb is a person.’

Courts this year have blocked restrictive abortion laws in Kentucky and Iowa. But supporters of the Alabama ban said the right to life for the unborn child transcends other rights, an idea they would like tested.

In the case of Alabama, if passed, the law is certain to be challenged in federal court in the state and almost surely will be blocked because it plainly conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.

Review by the federal appeals court in Atlanta would come next, and only then would the Supreme Court be asked to weigh in. Emergency appeals by either side could put the issue before the justices sooner, but that would not be a full-blown review of the law.

Abortion-rights activists say they have no alternative but to file lawsuits challenging every tough abortion ban passed.

‘Were we not to challenge them, they would go into effect,’ said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. ‘There’s no strategy of ‘Maybe we leave this one and challenge that one.”

The ACLU and its allies expect lower-level federal courts to honor Roe by blocking the abortion bans. The ultimate question, Dalven said, is whether the Supreme Court will decide to revisit Roe by agreeing to hear an appeal from one or more of the states whose ban was blocked.

‘It would be an extraordinary thing for the Supreme Court to take away an individual constitutional right,’ she said.

WHERE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES STAND ON ABORTION

Swing vote

Chief Justice John Roberts

George W. Bush appointee. Voted in favor of abortion restrictions until Justice Anthony Kennedy left the bench. In only abortion case since then, voted to provisionally block new restrictions in Louisiana. As swing justice, seen as wanting to avoid the Supreme Court being associated with entrenched political positions. Could do his best to avoid a Roe v. Wade challenge coming to the court. Position if one did is now unclear

Liberal wing

Stephen Breyer

Clinton appointee. Warned in May that that the conservative majority could overturn a 1992 decision upholding Roe v. Wade. Has consistently voted pro-choice

Elena Kagan

Obama appointee. Has consistently voted pro-choice 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Clinton appointee. Has consistently voted pro-choice 

Sonia Sotomayor

Obama appointee. Has consistently voted pro-choice

Conservative wing

Clarence Thomas

George H.W. Bush appointee. Said this year that Roe v. Wade was ‘notoriously incorrect’ and compared it to Dred Scott, the case which upheld slavery before the Civil War. Has consistently voted for anti-abortion positions

Samuel Alito

George W. Bush appointee. As a federal appeal judge, he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law which required women to tell their husbands they planned to have an abortion. As Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, his ruling was overturned in the Supreme Court the next year, in a ruling Stephen Breyer says could be overturned itself. Has consistently voted for anti-abortion positions

Neil Gorsuch

Trump appointee. Only vote on abortion-related case was in February, on whether to block restrictions on clinics in Louisiana pending a full appeal. Gorsuch voted for them to go into place but the block was kept in place by Roberts voting with the liberal wing. Federal court career has no abortion votes. Seen as likely to vote for anti-abortion positions

Brett Kavanaugh

Trump appointee. Like Gorsuch, only vote on abortion-related case was in February, on whether to block restrictions on clinics in Louisiana pending a full appeal, when he joined Gorsuch in losing minority. As federal appeal court judge had one significant abortion vote, against allowing a 17-year-old illegal immigrant in detention to seek a termination without delay. Seen as likely to vote for anti-abortion positions

Justice Stephen Breyer offered the latest recognition of the difficulty his liberal side of the court faces in a dissent in a case unrelated to abortion that the court decided Monday, one in which the five conservatives voted to overturn a 1979 decision.

Breyer, joined by liberal colleagues Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, cited the 1992 abortion decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in a dissent that concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.’

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member on record as supporting overruling the court’s abortion precedents. In his most recent comments on the topic in February, also in a case unrelated to abortion, Thomas likened Roe to the court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans weren’t citizens. Both, he wrote, were ‘notoriously incorrect.’  

But Chief Justice John Roberts also has a track record of preferring smaller bites before making significant changes in constitutional law.

‘You do see consistently in the chief justice’s career a willingness to go incrementally and only decide what the court needs to resolve in the case before it,’ said Michael Moreland, a Villanova University law professor.

Roberts also is aware of the questions the court would face if a conservative majority of justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, were to reverse the abortion decisions, Moreland said.

Still, Roberts has, with one exception, favored abortion restrictions. His provisional vote to block the Louisiana clinic law was the only time he voted in support of abortions rights in more than 13 years on the court.

The Alabama vote set off outrage among Democrats.

‘This is wrong. This is unconstitutional,’ Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar tweeted.

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wrote on Twitter: ‘We will fight these dangerous efforts with everything we’ve got in legislatures across the country.’

Former vice president Joe Biden, the early Democratic front-runner, touted his anti-abortion credentials, tweeting on Wednesday: ‘Republicans in AL, FL, GA, and OH are ushering in laws that clearly violate Roe v Wade and they should be declared unconstitutional. Roe v Wade is settled law and should not be overturned. This choice should remain between a woman and her doctor.’

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg criticized Alabama lawmakers for ‘ignoring science, criminalizing abortion, and punishing women.’

‘Instead, the government’s role should be to make sure all women have access to comprehensive affordable care, and that includes safe and legal abortion,’ he wrote.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told CNN on Tuesday: ‘It’s certainly the intention of President Trump and the Republican Party to overturn Roe v. Wade.’

Gillibrand observed on Twitter that that Alabama bill includes ‘[n]o exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors could face 99 years in prison for providing abortions.’

‘This is a war on women, and it is time to fight like hell,’ she added.

Alabama senate challenges Roe v Wade with abortion ban bill

Alabama Democratic state Sen. Roger Smitherman is pictured speaking in opposition to HB314, which now sits on Gov. Kay Ivey's desk awaiting her signature

 

Gillibrand also claimed in an MSNBC interview on Wednesday that the public won’t stand for any interference with legal abortion rights.

‘This is not something the American people support. Seventy percent of Americans want safe, legal abortion to be available to women when they need it,’ she claimed.

‘This ban is dangerous and exceptionally cruel – and the bill’s authors want to use it to overturn Roe v. Wade,’ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote Tuesday night.

‘I’ve lived in that America and let me tell you: We are not going back – not now, not ever. We will fight this. And we will win.’

‘I say to Gov. Ivey: Veto this cruel bill,’ tweeted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. ‘Stop the attack on women’s rights.’

Alabama Democratic state Senator Linda Coleman-Madison called the Republicans hypocritical for advocating small government that ought to stay out of private matters but ‘now you want in my womb; I want you out.’13

Anti-abortion protesters are hopefully awaiting a day when Roe v. Wade can be reopened in light of 46 years of shifting public sentiments on abortion rights

Former Texas Rep. Beto O¿Rourke wrote on Twitter: 'We will fight these dangerous efforts with everything we¿ve got in legislatures across the country'

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke wrote on Twitter: ‘We will fight these dangerous efforts with everything we’ve got in legislatures across the country’

Anti-abortion protesters demonstrated this week in front of the Alabama State House in Montgomery

Anti-abortion protesters demonstrated this week in front of the Alabama State House in Montgomery

Pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would have no right to an abortion under new state law

An 11-year-old in Ohio who allegedly became pregnant after being raped by a 26-year-old would have no right to an abortion under new state legislation signed into law last month.

Ohio passed a bill banning abortion after a heartbeat is detected in the fetus, at around five or six weeks into a pregnancy, in April.

As the bill will not come into effect until July, the victim, who cannot be named, will be allowed to have abortion if she chooses, but thousands of other victims will soon be denied the same right.

A pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would have no right to an abortion under new laws in her state had she been assaulted just two months later. Pictured: protesters fighting against an abortion ban dress up as handmaids outside Alabama State House in Montgomery

The legislature also means many women will only discover they are pregnant after the time period for a legal abortion has passed.

The case has raised serious questions about the so-called ‘heartbeat bill’, which four other states have passed so far.

Attorney General Dave Yost defended the law after being quizzed about this specific case by CBS News.

He told the broadcaster: ‘Sometimes, the evolution of the law requires bold steps.

‘In the last 46 years, the practice of medicine has changed. Science has changed. Even the point of viability has changed. Only the law has lagged behind.’

Ohio already bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and the girl will need to gain parental consent or her case to a judge for permission.

Although the bill passed the House of Representatives 74-3, some GOP state senators have expressed discomfort that the bill doesn’t include an exception for rape.

‘Overwhelmingly, the people out on the street I’m talking to, they are hesitant to put into law no exceptions,’ Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7032873/Democratic-2020-candidates-lash-Alabama-bill-making-abortion-felony.html

Alabama house votes to BAN abortion with doctors facing up to 99 years in jail if they carry out the procedure in the state including cases of rape or incest

  • Alabama’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a near-total abortion ban
  • Politicians in the statehouse voted against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest
  • If passed into law, the legislation would criminalize abortion, classifying it as a Class A felony in Alabama
  • A doctor caught performing abortions in the state would face up to 99 years jail 
  • The text of the Alabama bill likens legalized abortion to history’s greatest atrocities, including the Holocaust 
  • Because federal law supersedes state law, Alabama would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution if lawmakers attempted to implement the legislation 
  • The bill will now move to the Senate where it will be debated and voted upon 
  • The legislation is purposely designed to conflict with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationally 

 

The Alabama House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to outlaw almost all abortions in the state as conservatives took aim at the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted 74-3 for legislation that would make it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy.

The proposal passed after Democrats walked out of the chamber after sometimes emotional debate with opponents and supporters crowding the gallery. The bill now moves to the Alabama Senate.

Supporters said the bill is intentionally designed to conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationally, hoping to spark court cases that might prompt the justices to revisit Roe.

The bill contains an exemption for situations in which there is a serious risk to the mother’s health, but not for rape and incest.

Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, from left,Kari Crowe and Margeaux Hardline, dressed as handmaids, take part in a protest against HB314, the abortion ban bill, at  Alabama State House+11

Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, from left,Kari Crowe and Margeaux Hardline, dressed as handmaids, take part in a protest against HB314, the abortion ban bill, at  Alabama State House

Abortion rights protesters painted the window in the House Gallery during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on Tuesday

Abortion rights protesters painted the window in the House Gallery during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on Tuesday

Women's heath clinic escorts, from left Mia Raven, Margeaux Hartline and Kari Crowe walk into the gallery to watch debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery,

Women’s heath clinic escorts, from left Mia Raven, Margeaux Hartline and Kari Crowe walk into the gallery to watch debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery,

Travis Jackson holds signs during a protest against, the abortion ban bill

Travis Jackson holds signs during a protest against, the abortion ban bill

Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon gavels in the session at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery

Speaker of the House Mac McCutcheon gavels in the session at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery

‘The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in a womb is not a person,’ said Republican Rep. Terri Collins of Decatur.

Republicans in the chamber applauded after the bill was approved after more than two hours of sometimes emotional debate.

Collins acknowledged that such a ban would likely be struck down by lower courts, but she said the aim is eventually to get to the Supreme Court.

Without the numbers to stop the bill, Democrats walked off the House floor ahead of the vote, calling the proposal both extreme and fiscally irresponsible.

They said the ban would cost the state money for a potentially expensive legal fight that could be spent on other needs.

Rep. Louise Alexander, a Democrat, said the choice to give birth to a child should be left up to a woman, and the decision should not be made on the floor of the Alabama Legislature.

A protest is held against the abortion ban bill, at the Alabama State House in Montgomery

A protest is held against the abortion ban bill, at the Alabama State House in Montgomery

Rep. Terri Collins answers questions during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama

Rep. Terri Collins answers questions during debate on the abortion ban bill at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama

Rep. Merika Coleman, center, and members of the Democratic caucus walk out of the debate on the abortion ban bill to hold a press conference explaining their opposition to the bill

Rep. Merika Coleman, center, and members of the Democratic caucus walk out of the debate on the abortion ban bill to hold a press conference explaining their opposition to the bill

‘You don’t know why I may want to have an abortion. It may be because of my health. It may be because of many reasons.

Until all of you in this room walk in a woman’s shoes, y’all don’t know,’ Alexander said.

Emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court, abortion opponents in several states are seeking to incite new legal fights in the hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade.

The Alabama bill comes on the heels of several states considering or approving bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs in about the sixth week of pregnancy.

The Alabama bill attempts to go farther by banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

House Republicans voted down Democrats’ attempt to amend the bill to add an exemption for rape and incest. Representatives voted 72-26 to table the proposed amendment.

Rep. Terri Collins talks on the house floor. The bill contains an exemption for the mother's health but not for rape or incest. Collins is the sponsor of the abortion ban bill

Rep. Terri Collins talks on the house floor. The bill contains an exemption for the mother’s health but not for rape or incest. Collins is the sponsor of the abortion ban bill

Rep. Terri Collins, R-Alabama, gets a standing ovation after her near total ban on abortion bill

Rep. Terri Collins, R-Alabama, gets a standing ovation after her near total ban on abortion bill

‘They would not even allow an exception for rape and incest. … What does that say to the women in this state,’ House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels.

Collins argued that adding exemptions would weaken the intent of the bill as a vehicle to challenge Roe. She said if states regain the ability to decide abortion access, Alabama lawmakers could come back and decide what exemptions to allow.

The bill drew a crowd of opponents and supporters to the House gallery. A group of abortion clinic escorts wore their rainbow-colored vests in the House gallery.

A demonstrator was arrested on disorderly conduct charges after shouting ‘dumb,’ attempting to write on the glass window overlooking to the House chamber and throwing paint at legislative security officers, House spokesman Clay Redden said.

Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, dressed as a handmaid, takes part in a protest against the bill

Bianca Cameron-Schwiesow, dressed as a handmaid, takes part in a protest against the bill

Rep. Merika Coleman, center, and members of the Democratic caucus walk out of the debate on the abortion ban bill to hold a press conference explaining their opposition to the bill

Rep. Rolanda Hollis, a Birmingham Democrat, read a poem that criticized Republicans’ embrace of gun rights but not abortion rights, and later referred to the state as ‘Ala-Backwards.’

The text of the Alabama bill likens legalized abortion to history’s greatest atrocities, including the Holocaust.

Tuscaloosa Republican Rep. Rich Wingo, a supporter of the bill, likened abortion to murder and read statistics that estimate that there have been 60 million abortions since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.

‘I believe this chamber, this body, will never make a greater decision than today… protecting the life of an unborn child,’ Wingo said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6974893/Alabama-House-ready-debate-near-total-abortion-ban.html

 

 

Alabama law moves abortion to the center of 2020 campaign

yesterday
Cory Booker
1 of 3
FILE – In this April 15, 2019 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks during an election stop at the Sioux City Public Museum in Sioux City, Iowa. The campaign of presidential candidate Cory Booker is defending his decision to start a tech company while he was serving as mayor of New Jersey’s largest city. A spokeswoman says that Booker “jumped at the chance” to start Waywire in 2012 because he saw it as a socially-conscious video network that could bring people together. But his one-time aspiration to be a tech mogul, and his long ties to the industry, could become a liability for his campaign. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Alabama’s new law restricting abortion in nearly every circumstance has moved one of the most polarizing issues in American politics to the center of the 2020 presidential campaign.

The state’s legislation — the toughest of several anti-abortion measures that have passed recently, with the only exception being a serious risk to the woman’s health — prompted an outcry from Democratic presidential candidates, who warned that conservatives were laying the groundwork to undermine the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The White House, meanwhile, didn’t comment on the Alabama bill, signed into law Wednesday by Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, as President Donald Trump tries to balance his conservative base against the potential of antagonizing women who are already skeptical of his presidency.

Alabama legislators have given final approval to a ban on nearly all abortions, and if the Republican governor signs the measure, the state will have the strictest abortion law in the country. (May 15)

“I respect every woman’s right to make a decision about what’s in the best interest of herself and her family,” Harris said.

Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved abortion bans once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. None of these laws are yet in force, either because of later effective dates or legal challenges that have blocked them. But supporters have openly predicted that the laws could spark court fights that will eventually lead the Supreme Court to revisit its Roe decision.

Gillibrand plans to fly to Atlanta on Thursday to meet with women protesting Georgia’s state law.

Sen. Cory Booker told The Associated Press that backers of the Alabama measure are “saying that they designed this bill with certain provisions — like not having any exceptions for rape or incest — specifically designed so that they can lead a fight to the Supreme Court” to “undermine other freedoms and liberties of women to control their own bodies.”

Booker said it’s not enough to hope that Roe will be upheld, adding: “We cannot wait to see if this gets worse.”

Several Democratic presidential candidates sought to use their high-profile positions to boost organizing against the state-level abortion laws. Harris emailed her campaign supporters offering to “split a donation” to four advocacy groups working to defend abortion rights. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, directed his supporters by email to the abortion-rights group NARAL.

Among the other Democratic candidates who took to Twitter to blast Alabama’s law and other state-level restrictions were Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, as well as former Vice President Joe Biden and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL, lauded the Democrats for their support. But she urged them to go further than pro-abortion-rights rhetoric, calling instead for “articulated plans about how we’re going to address and get out of this crisis.”

The Democratic pushback comes as Trump makes his selection of conservative judges a centerpiece of his political stump speech, part of a long-running courtship of social conservatives whose support he needs to win reelection next year. Republicans have long believed that the politics of abortion have shifted somewhat in their favor in recent years. But the near-absolutist nature of the most recent bills has sparked some concern among the president’s team that it could energize Trump critics and female voters, with whom the president has long struggled.

Polling suggests that the issue of abortion has the potential to stoke political engagement among both parties. The General Social Survey released last year found 64% of Democrats, but just 35% of Republicans, saying a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason.

Other surveys have found majority support for legalized abortion in “all or most cases.” A Pew Research Center survey in September 2018 found 58% of Americans saying abortion should be legal in at least most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Trump won the White House in 2016 in part because of strong support from socially conservative Republicans who wanted to ensure that a conservative justice got named to the Supreme Court seat that had been occupied by Antonin Scalia — a seat held open by the GOP’s refusal to confirm President Barack Obama’s pick for the lifetime post. Since his first campaign began, Trump has supported a ban on abortions at the point that a fetus is believed to feel pain and publicly released a list of conservative judges from which he would select a nominee for the nation’s highest court.

The president’s selection of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court has emboldened conservative allies of the White House who believe the time is ripe for a court case to challenge Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh assured senators before his confirmation last year that he viewed Roe as precedent, but Democratic senators pointed to a 2003 memo he wrote that suggested it wasn’t necessary to call the landmark abortion-rights ruling “settled law” because the “Court can always overrule its precedent.”

The Trump campaign deferred to the White House on whether Trump supported the Alabama measure or other restrictive bills passed by other states. White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere touted Trump’s record on abortion, noting that he “is protecting our most innocent and vulnerable, defending the dignity of life, and called on Congress to prohibit late-term abortions.”

___

Associated Press writers Hunter Woodall in Nashua, N.H., and Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.

https://apnews.com/1ef6c45ac16e4468a1f6ae2f52f0a419

Why America’s strict new anti-abortion laws could backfire

Image
Joel Mathis

Fists coming out of Alabama.

Illustrated | nezezon2/iStock, beakraus/iStock

The anti-abortion laws passed in recent days by legislatures in Alabama and Georgia seem designed for one purpose: to get the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Waderuling that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. The Court — more solidly conservative now than ever thanks to the recent addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — may well uphold those new laws.

Will voters do the same?

Maybe not. There is plenty of evidence that citizens of conservative states are, to some extent, actually protective of abortion rights. It may not be something they proclaim in their offices, at church, or to pollsters — but their secret beliefs can become quite evident once they enter the voting booth. This should make the legislators who passed the new bills very nervous.

ADVERTISEMENT

My home state of Kansas has been a hotbed of abortion-related activism for more than a generation. Most memorable, perhaps, were the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests in Wichita, where thousands of protesters flooded the city to blockade an abortion clinic operated by Dr. George Tiller; over the course of six weeks and more than 2,600 people were arrested. Anti-abortion protests in Kansas have, on occasion, congealed into violence: Tiller’s clinic was firebombed in 1986; he was shot and injured by an abortion opponent in 1993; he was shot and killed by another abortion opponent in 2009.

But the state’s record on abortion is more mixed than Tiller’s story might suggest. Take, for example, the story of Phill Kline, someone you’ve likely never heard of but whose rise and fall could be a warning sign for anti-abortion legislators in Kansas and other red states today. Kline spent a decade as a culture warrior in the Kansas legislature before being elected the state’s attorney general in 2002. He used the perch to go on an anti-abortion crusade, ultimately bringing more than 30 misdemeanor charges against Tiller in 2006. A judge threw out those charges; Tiller was acquitted in a follow-up case the following year.

But voters in the famously red state of Kansas had enough: Kline lost his re-election campaign, badly, with just 41 percent of the vote. He managed to get himself appointed as district attorney in Johnson County, home to prosperous Kansas City suburbs, only to lose a primary election two years after that. These days, he’s on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia, having lost his law license for misconduct during the abortion investigations.

Kansas is hardly a progressive state, but voters here often tire quickly of extremists. The same is probably true in other conservative states. While America’s abortion politics are polarized, many citizens are closer to the mushy middle on abortion — morally squeamish about it, but sometimes willing to suspend those qualms when faced with difficult decisions for themselves or their family members.

Across the nation as a whole, just 17 percent of Americans say Roe should be overturned entirely, and this reality is reflected at the state level: In 2008, voters in the solidly-Republican state of South Dakota overwhelmingly rejected a statewide ban on abortion — and repeated the feat two years later, even after exceptions for incest and rape were added to the proposed law. In 2011, Mississippi voters rejected a similar referendum by an even larger margin. Back in my home state of Kansas, the state Supreme Court last month ruled — shockingly — that the state constitution protects the right to an abortion.

“There’s a lot of public pressure to be anti-abortion,” Marvin Buehner, a South Dakota OB-GYN said at the time of the 2008 proposal. “People are more likely to answer the poll that they’ll support [a ban]. Then they get into the ballot booth and decide they just can’t vote for something like that.”

These sweeping new laws do very little to assuage the concerns of such voters. Alabama’s bill, for example, makes no exception for incest or rape. Georgia’s law would grant personhood protections to fetuses just six weeks after conception. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the laws, the examples from Kansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota suggest that legislators who passed these new bills could find themselves suddenly vulnerable.

Of course, that won’t satisfy pro-choice women and men who believe the right to abortion is just that — a right, to be defended by government, not compromised by it. “Today’s women can only thrive in a state that protects their most basic rights — the right to choose when and whether to start a family,” Andrea Young, executive director of Georgia’s ACLU, said last week, pledging to challenge the state’s new law.

Despite the high stakes of the coming court battles over the new anti-abortion laws, the Supreme Court is not the end of the line. In politics, few battles are ever completely won or lost. Nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade, the fight may just be beginning anew.

https://theweek.com/articles/841763/why-americas-strict-new-antiabortion-laws-could-backfire

Roe v. Wade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Roe v. Wade
Seal of the United States Supreme Court

Argued December 13, 1971
Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973
Full case name Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
Citations 410 U.S. 113 (more)

93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
Argument Oral argument
Reargument Reargument
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp.1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted402U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument408 U.S. 919 (1972)
Subsequent Rehearing denied410 U.S.959 (1973)
Holding
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence Burger
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Stewart
Dissent White, joined by Rehnquist
Dissent Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV;
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It also ruled that this “right to privacy” is not absolute and must be balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women’s health and protecting prenatal life.[2][3] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: the Court ruled that during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.[4] Because the Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as “fundamental”, the decision required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the “strict scrutiny” standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.[5]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[6][7] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wadereshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Roe was criticized by some in the legal community,[8] with the decision being seen as a form of judicial activism.[9] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[8][9] the American legal scholar John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[10] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[11]

In 1992, the Supreme Court modified the legal principles in Roe in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[12] In Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe‘s holding that a woman’s right to abort a nonviable fetus is constitutionally protected, but abandoned Roe‘s trimester framework in favor of a standard based on fetal viability, and overruled Roe‘s requirement that government regulations on abortion be subjected to the strict scrutiny standard.[2][13]The Roe decision defined “viable” as “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”[14] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[15]

Contents

Background

History of abortion laws in the United States

According to the Court, “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage.” Providing a historical analysis on abortion, Justice Harry Blackmun noted that abortion was “resorted to without scruple” in Greek and Roman times.[16] Blackmun also addressed the permissive and restrictive abortion attitudes and laws throughout history, noting the disagreements among leaders (of all different professions) in those eras and the formative laws and cases.[17] In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[18] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[19] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have “roots in the English common-law tradition.”[20] Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider’s business.[21][22]

In 1971, Shirley Wheeler was charged with manslaughter after Florida hospital staff reported her illegal abortion to the police. She received a sentence of two years’ probation and, under her probation, had to move back into her parents’ house in North Carolina.[21] The Boston Women’s Abortion Coalition held a rally for Wheeler in Boston to raise money and awareness of her charges as well as had staff members from the Women’s National Abortion Action Coalition (WONAAC) speak at the rally.[23] Wheeler was possibly the first woman to be held criminally responsible for submitting to an abortion.[24] Her conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.[21]

History of the case

In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the incorrect assumption that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). This scheme would also fail because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. In any case, the Texas statute allowed abortion only ”for the purpose of saving the life of the mother”. She attempted to obtain an Illegal abortion, but found that the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[25][26] (McCorvey would end up giving birth before the case was decided, and the child was put up for adoption.)[27]

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District AttorneyHenry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was a result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[28][29] “Rape” is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in the case.[30]

On June 17, 1970, a three-judge panel of the District Court, consisting of Northern District of Texas Judges Sarah T. HughesWilliam McLaughlin Taylor Jr. and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Irving Loeb Goldberg, unanimously[30] declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. In addition, the court relied on Justice Arthur Goldberg‘s 1965 concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court, however, declined to grant an injunction against enforcement of the law.[31]

Issues before the Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1970. The justices delayed taking action on Roe and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, until they had decided Younger v. Harris (because they felt the appeals raised difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction) and United States v. Vuitch (in which they considered the constitutionality of a District of Columbia statute that criminalized abortion except where the mother’s life or health was endangered). In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, though in doing so, it treated abortion as a medical procedure and stated that physicians must be given room to determine what constitutes a danger to (physical or mental) health. The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.[32]

Arguments were scheduled by the full Court for December 13, 1971. Before the Court could hear the oral arguments, Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired. Chief Justice Warren Burger asked Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Blackmun to determine whether Roe and Doe, among others, should be heard as scheduled. According to Blackmun, Stewart felt that the cases were a straightforward application of Younger v. Harris, and they recommended that the Court move forward as scheduled.[33]

In his opening argument in defense of the abortion restrictions, attorney Jay Floyd made what was later described as the “worst joke in legal history.”[34] Appearing against two female lawyers, Floyd began, “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It’s an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.” His remark was met with cold silence; one observer thought that Chief Justice Burger “was going to come right off the bench at him. He glared him down.”[35][36]

After a first round of arguments, all seven justices tentatively agreed that the Texas law should be struck down, but on varying grounds.[37] Burger assigned the role of writing the Court’s opinion in Roe (as well as Doe) to Blackmun, who began drafting a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law’s vagueness.[38] (At this point, Black and Harlan had been replaced by Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., but they arrived too late to hear the first round of arguments.) But Blackmun felt that his opinion did not adequately reflect his liberal colleagues’ views.[39] In May 1972, he proposed that the case be reargued. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order (he and the other liberal justices were suspicious that Rehnquist and Powell would vote to uphold the statute), but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.[40][41] The case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers replaced Jay Floyd for Texas.[citation needed]

Blackmun continued to work on his opinions in both cases over the summer recess, even though there was no guarantee that he would be assigned to write them again. Over the recess, he spent a week researching the history of abortion at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he had worked in the 1950s. After the Court heard the second round of arguments, Powell said he would agree with Blackmun’s conclusion but pushed for Roe to be the lead of the two abortion cases being considered. Powell also suggested that the Court strike down the Texas law on privacy grounds. Justice Byron White was unwilling to sign on to Blackmun’s opinion, and Rehnquist had already decided to dissent.[42]

Prior to the decision, the justices discussed the trimester framework at great length. Justice Powell had suggested that the point where the state could intervene be placed at viability, which Justice Thurgood Marshall supported as well.[43] In an internal memo to the other justices before the majority decision was published, Justice Blackmun wrote: “You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary.”[44]Roe supporters are quick to point out, however, that the memo only reflects Blackmun’s uncertainty about the timing of the trimester framework, not the framework or the holding itself.[45] In his opinion, Blackmun also clearly explained how he had reached the trimester framework – scrutinizing history, common law, the Hippocratic Oath, medical knowledge, and the positions of medical organizations.[46] Justice Blackmun’s trimester framework was later rejected by the O’Connor–Souter–Kennedy plurality in Casey, in favor of the “undue burden” analysis still employed by the Court.[47] Contrary to Blackmun, Justice Douglas preferred the first-trimester line.[48] Justice Stewart said the lines were “legislative” and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun’s decision.[49] Justice William J. Brennan Jr. proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[48]

Supreme Court decision

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Roe that struck down Texas’s abortion ban as unconstitutional. In addition to the majority opinion, Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart each filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger’s, Douglas’s, and White’s opinions were issued along with the Court’s opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade).

Opinion of the Court

Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Seven justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun. The Court began by exhaustively reviewing the legality of abortion throughout the history of Roman law and the Anglo-American common law up until the 20th century.[50] It also reviewed the developments of medical procedures and technology to perform abortions safely.[50]

Right to privacy

With its historical survey as background, the Court centered its opinion around the notion of a constitutional “right to privacy” that was intimated in earlier cases involving family relationships and reproductive autonomy.[50] After reviewing these cases, the Court proceeded, “with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value”,[5] to rule that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman’s decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[3]

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment‘s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or … in the Ninth Amendment‘s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[51]

The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman’s right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children “may force upon the woman a distressful life and future”; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother’s physical and mental health; and because there may be “distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”[52] However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman’s right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state’s interest in protecting “prenatal life.”[53]

The Court acknowledged that states had two interests that were sufficiently “compelling” to permit some limitations on the right to choose to have an abortion: their interests in protecting the mother’s health and protecting the life of the fetus. The Court had rejected Roe’s argument that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion should be absolute, and it also rejected Texas’s argument that total bans on abortion were justifiable because “life” begins at the moment of conception.[5] The Court found that there was no indication that the Constitution’s uses of the word “person” were meant to include fetuses, and so it rejected Texas’s argument that a fetus should be considered a “person” with a legal and constitutional right to life.[54] It noted that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a “person”.[54]

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[55]

The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman’s ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[5] After the first trimester, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[5] At the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from the beginning of the third trimester on through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.[5]

Justiciability

An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court’s disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe’s appeal was “moot” because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked “standing” to assert the rights of other pregnant women.[56] As she did not present an “actual case or controversy” (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion.

The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”[57] This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC.[58] Blackmun’s opinion quoted McKenna and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: “If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied.”[59]

Concurrences

Several other members of the Supreme Court filed concurring opinions in the case. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a concurring opinion in which he stated that even though the Constitution makes no mention of the right to choose to have an abortion without interference, he thought the Court’s decision was a permissible interpretation of the doctrine of substantive due process, which says that the Due Process Clause‘s protection of liberty extends beyond simple procedures and protects certain fundamental rights.[54] Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion in which he described how he believed that while the Court was correct to find that the right to choose to have an abortion was a fundamental right, it would be better to derive it from the Ninth Amendment – which states that the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution shall not be construed to mean that American people do not possess it – rather than through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.[54]

Dissents

Byron White was the senior dissenting justice.

Only two justices dissented from the Court’s decision, but their dissents touched on the points that would lead to later criticism of the Roe decision.[5]

Justice Byron White wrote a dissenting opinion in which he stated his belief that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children. He wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting).

White asserted that the Court “values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Though he suggested that he “might agree” with the Court’s values and priorities, he wrote that he saw “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.” White criticized the Court for involving itself in the issue of abortion by creating “a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.” He would have left this issue, for the most part, “with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”

Justice William Rehnquist also dissented from the Court’s decision. In his dissenting opinion, he compared the majority’s use of substantive due process to the Court’s repudiated use of the doctrine in the 1905 case Lochner v. New York.[5] He elaborated on several of White’s points, asserting that the Court’s historical analysis was flawed:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).[60][61][62]

From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

Reception

Political

A statistical evaluation of the relationship of political affiliation to pro-choice and anti-abortion issues shows that public opinion is much more nuanced about when abortion is acceptable than is commonly assumed.[63] The most prominent organized groups that mobilized in response to Roe are the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee.

Support

Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women’s rights, personal freedom, bodily integrity, and privacy. Advocates have also reasoned that access to safe abortion and reproductive freedom generally are fundamental rights. Some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:

When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[64]

Supporters of Roe contend that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation in the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the fundamental right to abortion is found elsewhere in the Constitution but not in the articles referenced in the decision.[64][65]

Opposition

Protestors at the 2009 March for Life rally against Roe v. Wade

Every year, on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., in the March for Life.[66] Around 250,000 people attended the march until 2010.[67][68] Estimates put the 2011 and 2012 attendances at 400,000 each,[69] and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.[70]

Opponents of Roe assert that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[71] Like the dissenters in Roe, they maintain that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[72]

A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.[73]

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent or parental notification for minors to obtain abortions; spousal mutual consent laws; spousal notification laws; laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals, not clinics; laws barring state funding for abortions; laws banning intact dilation and extraction, also known as partial-birth abortion; laws requiring waiting periods before abortions; and laws mandating that women read certain types of literature and watch a fetal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.[74] In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down some state restrictions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).[75]

Some opponents of abortion maintain that personhood begins at fertilization or conception, and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;[65] the dissenting justices in Roe instead wrote that decisions about abortion “should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”[76]

Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself: In 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she had become pro-life, and from then until her death in 2017, she was a vocal opponent of abortion.[77]

Legal

Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career.[78] Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision’s chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[79] Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[80] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[81]

Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, “it might have been much more acceptable” from a legal standpoint.[82] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[83]Ginsburg has also faulted the Court’s approach for being “about a doctor’s freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best…. It wasn’t woman-centered. It was physician-centered.”[84] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: “[Roes] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.”[85]

In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[9] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[86] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[87] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[88] Cass Sunstein,[89] and Kermit Roosevelt[90] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.

Jeffrey Rosen[91] and Michael Kinsley[92] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”[93] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”[94] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who “loved Roes author like a grandfather,” wrote: “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible…. Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”[95]

The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.[96] The “viability” criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[97]

Public opinion

Americans have been equally divided on the issue; a May 2018 Gallup poll indicated that 48% of Americans described themselves as pro-choice and 48% described themselves as pro-life. A July 2018 poll indicated that only 28% of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, while 64% did not want the ruling to be overturned.[98]

Gallup poll conducted in May 2009 indicated that 53% of Americans believed that abortions should be legal under certain circumstances, 23% believed abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and 22% believed that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. However, in this poll, more Americans referred to themselves as “Pro-Life” than “Pro-Choice” for the first time since the poll asked the question in 1995, with 51% identifying as “Pro-Life” and 42% identifying as “Pro-Choice”.[99] Similarly, an April 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed a softening of support for legal abortion in all cases compared to the previous years of polling. People who said they support abortion in all or most cases dropped from 54% in 2008 to 46% in 2009.[100]

In contrast, an October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade asked the following question:

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[101]

In reply, 56% of respondents indicated favour while 40% indicated opposition. The Harris organization concluded from this poll that “56 percent now favours the U.S. Supreme Court decision.” Anti-abortion activists have disputed whether the Harris poll question is a valid measure of public opinion about Roes overall decision, because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.[102][103] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe since 1973:[101][104]

Roe v Wade.svg

Regarding the Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[105] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe drops.[105][106]

Role in subsequent decisions and politics

Opposition to Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan, who supported legislative restrictions on abortion, began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus test: “I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We’ve had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating.”[107]

In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor began dissenting from the Court’s abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was “unworkable.”[108] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be “reexamined”;[109] the associate justice who filled Burger’s place on the Court – Justice Antonin Scalia – vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork‘s nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony Kennedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada used the rulings in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton as grounds to find Canada’s federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R. v. Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[110]

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

In a 5–4 decision in 1989’s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because “none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution.”[111] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[111]

In concurring opinions, O’Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O’Connor for not overruling Roe.[111] Blackmun – author of the Roe decision – stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were “callous” and “deceptive,” that they deserved to be charged with “cowardice and illegitimacy,” and that their plurality opinion “foments disregard for the law.”[111] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was “warped.”[109]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

During initial deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn RoeKennedy changed his mind after the initial conference,[112] and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[113] saying, “Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. […] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”[114] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Casey.[78]

Scalia’s dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of “great importance to many women”, but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: “[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.”[115]

Stenberg v. Carhart

During the 1990s, the state of Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called dilation and evacuation abortions. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, “this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only ‘a method of performing abortion’.”[116] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.

Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5–4 Casey decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[116] In his dissent, Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit, and thus argued that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called “partial birth abortion.”[116]

The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg – Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas – disagreed again with Roe: “Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so.”

Gonzales v. Carhart

In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state’s ban on “partial birth abortion” was unconstitutional because such a ban did not have an exception for the health of the woman. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O’Connor, respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the Stenberg case.

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy’s opinion did not reach the question of whether the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. WadePlanned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart remained valid, and instead the Court stated that the challenged statute remained consistent with those past decisions whether or not those decisions remained valid.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the majority. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act possibly exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,[117][118][119] the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain “admitting privileges” at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions “facially” from the law at issue – that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures.[120]

Activities of Norma McCorvey

Norma McCorvey became a member of the anti-abortion movement in 1995; she supported making abortion illegal until her death in 2017.[121] In 1998, she testified to Congress:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the “right” to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, “Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn’t have been possible.” Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[29]

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[122] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey’s appeal ended.

Activities of Sarah Weddington

After arguing before the Court in Roe v. Wade at the age of 26, Sarah Weddington went on to be a representative in the Texas House of Representatives for three terms.[123] Weddington has also had a long and successful career as General Counsel for the United States Department of Agriculture, Assistant to President Jimmy Carter, lecturer at Texas Wesleyan University, and speaker and adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin.[123]

Presidential positions

President Richard Nixon did not publicly comment about the decision.[124] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said “There are times when an abortion is necessary,… .”[125][126] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.”[125]

Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,[127] Ronald Reagan,[128] and George W. Bush.[129] President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[130][131]

President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[132] Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton.[133] President Barack Obama has taken the position that “Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.”[134]

President Donald Trump has publicly opposed the decision, vowing to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.[135] Upon Justice Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace him, and he was confirmed by the Senate in October 2018. A central point of Kavanaugh’s appointment hearings was his stance on Roe v. Wade, of which he said to Senator Susan Collins that he would not “overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided”.[136] Despite Kavanaugh’s statement, there is concern that with the Supreme Court having a strong conservative majority, that Roe v. Wade will be overturned given an appropriate case to challenge it. Further concerns were raised following the May 2019 Supreme Court 5-4 decision along ideological lines in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. While the case had nothing to do with abortion rights, the decision overturned a previous 1979 decision from Nevada v. Hall without maintaining the stare decisis precedent, indicating the current Court makeup would be willing to apply the same to overturn Roe v. Wade.[137] Pro-abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood are planning on how they will operate should Roe v. Wade be overturned.[138]

State laws regarding Roe

Since 2010 there has been an increase in state restrictions on abortion.

Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[139] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[140]

Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[139]

The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion unfeasible without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi law as of 2012 was being challenged in federal courts and was temporarily blocked.[141]

Alabama House Republicans passed a law on April 30, 2019 that will criminalize abortion if it goes into effect.[142] It offers only two exceptions: serious health risk to the mother or a lethal fetal anomaly. Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on May 14, primarily as a symbolic gesture in hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.[143][144][145]

See also

Footnotes …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia.[1] The Supreme Court’s decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.[2]

Contents

Background

The Georgia law in question permitted abortion only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a three-member special committee that either (1) continued pregnancy would endanger the pregnant woman’s life or “seriously and permanently” injure her health; (2) the fetus would “very likely be born with a grave, permanent and irremediable mental or physical defect”; or (3) the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.[3][4] In addition, only Georgia residents could receive abortions under this statutory scheme: non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances.

The plaintiff, a pregnant woman who was given the pseudonym “Mary Doe” in court papers to protect her identity, sued Arthur K. Bolton, then the Attorney General of Georgia, as the official responsible for enforcing the law in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The anonymous plaintiff has since been identified as Sandra Cano, a 22-year-old mother of three who was nine weeks pregnant at the time the lawsuit was filed. Cano, who died in 2014, described herself as pro-life and claimed her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, lied to her in order to have a plaintiff.[5][6]

On October 14, 1970, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia consisting of Northern District of Georgia Judges Albert John HendersonSidney Oslin Smith Jr., and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lewis Render Morgan unanimously declared the conditional restrictions portion of the law unconstitutional, though upheld the medical approval and residency requirements.[7] The court also declined to issue an injunction against enforcement of the law, similarly to the district court in the case Roe v. Wade. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court under a statute, since repealed, permitting bypass of the circuit appeals court.

The oral arguments and re-arguments followed the same schedule as those in Roe. Atlanta attorney Hames represented Doe at the hearings, while Georgia assistant attorney general Dorothy Toth Beasley represented Bolton.

Opinion of the Court

The same 7-2 majority that struck down a Texas abortion law in Roe v. Wade, invalidated most of the remaining restrictions of the Georgia abortion law, including the medical approval and residency requirements. The Court reiterated the protected “right to privacy,” which applied to matters involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.[3] Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the Court, in which he explained “the sensitive and emotional nature” of the issue and “the deep and seemingly absolute convictions” on both sides.[4] Justice Blackmun went on to conclude that as a constitutional matter, the right to privacy was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”[3][4]

Together, Doe and Roe declared abortion as a constitutional right and overturned most laws against abortion in other U.S. statesRoe legalized abortion nationwide for approximately the first six months of pregnancy until the point of fetal viability.[3]

Definition of health

The Court’s opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined “health” as follows:

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, “an abortion is necessary” is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

Subsequent developments

In 2003, Sandra Cano filed a motion to re-open the case claiming that she had not been aware that the case had been filed on her behalf and that if she had known she would not have supported the litigation.[8] The district court denied her motion, and she appealed. When the appeals court also denied her motion,[9] she requested review by the United States Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear Sandra Cano’s suit to overturn the ruling.[10] Sandra Cano died on September 30, 2014.[6]

See also

References

  1. ^ Doe v. Bolton410 U.S. 179 (1973).
  2. ^ Roe v. Wade410 U.S. 113 (1973).
  3. Jump up to:a b c d Goldstein, Leslie (1994). Contemporary Cases in Women’s Rights. Madison: The University of Wisconsin. pp. 16–17.
  4. Jump up to:a b c Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 189.
  5. ^ White, Gayle. “Roe v. Wade Role Just a Page in Rocky Life Story”The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (2003-01-22).
  6. Jump up to:a b Wetzstein, Cheryl (October 1, 2014). “Sandra Cano, the ‘Mary Doe’ of landmark abortion case, dies”The Washington Times. Retrieved 2018-02-01.
  7. ^ Doe v. Bolton319 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Ga. 1970).
  8. ^ “’Mary Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton Files Motion To Overturn Companion Case to Roe v. Wade” Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback MachineKaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, (2003-08-27).
  9. ^ Cano v. Baker435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006).
  10. ^ Mears, Bill. “Court won’t rethink ‘Mary Doe’ abortion case”CNN (2006-10-10).

External links

Griswold v. Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Griswold v. Connecticut
Seal of the United States Supreme Court

Argued March 29, 1965
Decided June 7, 1965
Full case name Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. Connecticut
Citations 381 U.S. 479 (more)

85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282
Case history
Prior Defendants convicted, Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit, 1-2-62; affirmed, Circut Court, Appellate Division, 1-7-63; affirmed, 200 A.2d 479 (Conn.1964)
Subsequent None
Holding
A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority Douglas, joined by Warren, Clark, Brennan, Goldberg
Concurrence Goldberg, joined by Warren, Brennan
Concurrence Harlan
Concurrence White
Dissent Black, joined by Stewart
Dissent Stewart, joined by Black
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. IIVVIXXIV; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-32, 54–196 (rev. 1958)

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in the United States about access to contraception. The case involved a Connecticut “Comstock law” that prohibited any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that “the clear effect of [the Connecticut law …] is to deny disadvantaged citizens … access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control.” By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy“, establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.”

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention “privacy”, Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.” Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Contents

Background

Griswold v. Connecticut originated as a prosecution under the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The law made it illegal to use “any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception…”. Violators could be “… fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.”[1] By the 1950s, Massachusetts and Connecticut were the only two states that still had such statutes, although they were almost never enforced.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, physicians in the United States largely avoided the publication of any material related to birth control, even when they often recommended or at least gave advice regarding it to their married patients. Then in 1914, Margaret Sanger openly challenged the public consensus against contraception.[2] She influenced the Connecticut Birth Control League (CBCL) and helped to develop the eventual concept of the Planned Parenthood clinics.

The first Planned Parenthood clinic in Connecticut opened in 1935 in Hartford. It provided services to women who had no access to a gynecologist, including information about artificial contraception and other methods to plan the growth of their families. Several clinics were opened in Connecticut over the following years, including the Waterbury clinic that led to the legal dispute. In 1939, this clinic was compelled to enforce the 1879 anti-contraception law on poor women patients. This caught the attention of the CBCL leaders, who remarked on the importance of birth control for cases in which the lives of the patients depended upon it.[3]

During the 1940s, several cases arose from the provision of contraception by the Waterbury clinic, leading to legal challenges to the constitutionality of the Comstock law, but these failed on technical grounds. In Tileston v. Ullman (1943), a doctor and mother challenged the law on the grounds that a ban on contraception could, in certain sexual situations, threaten the lives and well-being of patients. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue on behalf of his patients. Yale School of Medicine gynecologist C. Lee Buxton and his patients brought a second challenge to the law in Poe v. Ullman (1961). The Supreme Court again dismissed the appeal, on the grounds that the case was not ripe: the plaintiffs had not been charged or threatened with prosecution, so there was no actual controversy for the Court to resolve.

The polemic around Poe led to the appeal in Griswold v. Connecticut, primarily based on the dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Poe, one of the most cited dissents in Supreme Court history.

(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms in the United States; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.

— Justice John Marshall Harlan II, dissent in Poe v. Ullman.[4]

He argued, foremost, that the Supreme Court should have heard the case rather than dismissing it. Thereafter, he indicated his support for a broad interpretation of the due process clause. On the basis of this interpretation, Harlan concluded that the Connecticut statute violated the Constitution.

After Poe was handed down on June 1961, the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut (PPLC) decided to challenge the law again. Estelle T. Griswold served on the PPLC as Executive Director from 1954 to 1965.[5]Struggling through legal battles against birth control restrictions in Connecticut, Griswold and PPLC made an initial effort to financially support women who wanted contraceptives to bus to cities in New York and Rhode Island.[5] PPLC Executive Director Estelle Griswold[6] and Dr. Buxton (PPLC medical volunteer),[7] opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut,[8] “thus directly challeng[ing] the state law.”[5] The clinic opened on November 1, 1961, and that same day received its first ten patients and dozens of appointment requests from married women who wanted birth control advice and prescriptions. Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each.[9] The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court.[10]

Court’s decision on relationship with the right to privacy

Griswold appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Connecticut statute was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws,” (Amendment 14 Section 1).[11] By a 7–2 majority, on June 7, 1965 the Supreme Court concluded that the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional.

Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority of the court, recognized the right to privacy, even though not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the freedom of association clause of the First Amendment. The right to privacy is seen as a right to “protect[ion] from governmental intrusion.” Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling, reasoning that the right of privacy was retained by the people. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II also wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments by his fellow justices. Justice Stewart called the Connecticut statute “an uncommonly silly law” but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.

The final decision of the court was later used in other cases related to sexual practices and other personal, often considered private, decisions for the American citizens.

Precedent for later cases

Later decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts.

Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the “right of privacy” in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships.[12] The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).[13] Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked “irrational discrimination” if not extended to unmarried couples as well.

Right to abortion for any woman, 1973

The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in the concurring opinion by Associate Justice Potter Stewart in support of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[14] The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion.[15] The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion became legalized for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the approximate time of fetal viability). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with exception for the mother’s health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.

Right to contraception for juveniles at least 16 years of age, 1977

Right to homosexual relations, 2003

Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas sodomy law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the “Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.” Justice O’Connor, who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy‘s majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched “upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home,” and attempted to “control a personal relationship that … is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished.” Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the “right to privacy” found in Griswold as the “most pertinent beginning point” in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.[16]

Right to same-sex marriage, 2015

Griswold was also cited in a chain of cases that led the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

See also

References

  1. Jump up to:a b Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479 (1965).
  2. ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University of Kansas. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
  3. ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University of Kansas. pp. Chapter 2. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
  4. ^ Johnson, John W. (2005). Griswold V. Connecticut. University Press of Kansas. pp. Chapter 5. ISBN 0-7006-1378-1.
  5. Jump up to:a b c Cheek, Jeannette Bailey (March 17, 1976). “Estelle Griswold oral history interview about her part in Griswold v. Connecticut, legal challenge to Connecticut birth control law”. Women’s Studies Manuscript Collections from the Schlesinger Library: Voting Rights, National Politics, and Reproductive Rights – via ProQuest History Vault.
  6. ^ “Estelle Griswold”. Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame.
  7. ^ “1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Contraception as a right of privacy? The Supreme Court says, ‘Yes!. Action Speaks Radio. 2012.
  8. ^ Garrow, David J. (Spring 2011). “Human Rights Hero. The Legacy of Griswold V. Connecticut” (PDF)Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities.
  9. ^ Alex McBride (December 2006). “EXPANDING CIVIL RIGHTS Landmark Cases Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)”. PBS.
  10. ^ Laura Carroll (July 2012). The Baby Matrix. LiveTrue Books. ISBN 0-615-64299-3.
  11. ^ “Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — Ratified 1868”. pbs.org. 2007.
  12. ^ Frances KisslingJonathan D. MorenoThe Nation (March 22, 2012). “The Nation: Still Fighting ‘Eisenstadt v. Baird. npr.org.
  13. ^ Sheraden Seward (2008-12-03). “Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)”embryo.asu.eduArizona State University.
  14. ^ Cornell University Law School“Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18) 314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part. STEWART, J., Concurring Opinion SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES”. law.cornell.edu.
  15. ^ University of Missouri-Kansas City (January 22, 1973). “ROE v. WADE 410 U.S. 113 (1973)”. umkc.edu.
  16. ^ Lawrence v. Texas539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Further reading

  • Bailey, Martha J. (2010). “Momma’s Got the Pill’: How Anthony Comstock and Griswold v. Connecticut Shaped US Childbearing”. American Economic Review100 (1): 98–129. doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.98.
  • Garrow, David J. “Human Rights Hero: The Legal Legacy of Griswold v. Connecticut“.” Human Rights (2011): 26-25.
  • Hasian Jr, Marouf. “Vernacular Legal Discourse: Revisiting the Public Acceptance of the “Right to Privacy” in the 1960s.” Political Communication 18, no. 1 (January 2001): 89-105. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2 29, 2015).
  • Helscher, David (1994). “Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy”. Northern Illinois University Law Review15: 33. ISSN 0734-1490.
  • Kalman, Laura; Garrow, David (1994). “Review: The Promise and Peril of Privacy”. Reviews in American History. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 22 (4): 725–731. doi:10.2307/2702826JSTOR 2702826.
  • Lockhart, Andrea (1997). “Griswold v. Connecticut: A Case Brief”. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues14: 35. ISSN 0896-5595.
  • Loewy, Arnold H. (2003). “Morals Legislation and the Establishment Clause”. Alabama Law Review55 (1): 159–182. ISSN 0002-4279.
  • Johnson, John W. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth control and the constitutional right of privacy. University Press of Kansas, 2005.
  • Tushnet, Mark (2008). I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 179–190. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.

External links

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1258

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 794, November 11, 2016, Story 1: American People United Behind Ending Human Genocide of Blacks, Hispanics, Whites By The Political Elitist Establishment of The Progressive Racist Eugenics/Population Control Movement — The Lying Lunatic Left’s Racists Fear Mongering — Who Are The Real Progressive Eugenics Racists? — Videos

Posted on November 11, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abortion, American History, Benghazi, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, Eugenics, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Food, Fourth Amendment, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Networking, Social Security, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Story 1: American People United Behind Ending Human Genocide of Blacks, Hispanics, Whites By The Political Elitist Establishment of The Progressive Racist Eugenics/Population Control Movement — The Lying Lunatic Left’s Racists Fear Mongering — Who Are The Real Progressive Eugenics Racists? — Videos 

Image result for cartoons democrats play race cardsImage result for cartoons democrats play race card on trump and supportersImage result for cartoons racist cardImage result for cartoons progressive racists

Image result for cartoons democrat party playing racist card

Image result for cartoons democrat party playing racist card

Image result for cartoons democrats play race card on trump and supporters

 

Image result for cartoons democrat party playing racist card

Image result for Hillary Clinton Margaret Sanger MemeImage result for cartoons margret sanger KKK meetingImage result for cartoons eugenics population control new world orderImage result for Hillary Clinton Margaret Sanger MemeImage result for Hillary Clinton Margaret Sanger MemeImage result for leading killer of blacks abortionImage result for leading killer of blacks abortionImage result for Hillary Clinton Margaret Sanger MemeImage result for leading killer of blacks abortionLyndon B. Johnson

Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides?

DEMOCRATS HORRIBLE RACIST PAST & HOW THEY STARTED THE KKK

The Donald: What Bill Whittle Loves About Donald Trump…

Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

BLACK REPUBLICANS Tell Other Blacks To WAKE UP!!!

Black Trump Supporters debate White Liberal RNC Cleveland, OH

President Obama To Donald Trump: If You Succeed, The Country Succeeds | NBC News

Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters ‘deplorable’

Sheriff Clarke: Hillary A ‘One Trick Pony’ Calling Trump Racist To Get The Black Vote

Donald Trump On Hillary Clinton’s Racism Charges: It’s A Tired Disgusting Argument’ | NBC News

Published on Aug 25, 2016

Speaking at a rally in New Hampshire, Donald Trump calls Hillary Clinton’s attempt tie him to the “alt right” a tired disgusting argument.

Jesse Lee Peterson on Fox Business: Dems Cry “Racism” to Manipulate Blacks

Trump Won Because ‘Racism’? NO, YOU IDIOT!! | Louder With Crowder

Are Donald Trump Supporters Racists and Bigots? | #CWTB

Triggered Liberal TARDS Protest President Trump – SJWs GO FULL RETARD MODE

Van Jones on Trump Victory: This was a “Whitelash” Against a Changing Country

Hillary Tries To Paint Trump As Racist But The Democrats Are The KKK Party

Van Jones Embarrassed Black Men With His “Whitelash” Speech LIVE on CNN Against Trump (REACTION)

MAAFA 21 Documentary: The Black Holocaust

THE MOTHER OF BLACK GENOCIDE..MARGARET SANGER..FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Must See! Agenda 21 Exposed in less than 5 minutes

Agenda 21, The Plan To Kill You – David Icke

Agenda 21 The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order 

OVERPOPULATION

“It Can’t Happen Here!”

HOW TO SURVIVE RACEBAITING IN AMERICA

Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux – The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy!

Raw: Riot at Portland, Oregon Anti-Trump Protest

#NotMyPresident protest turns into riot in Portland

LIVE: Anti-Trump Protests Across America

Breaking News: Anti-Trump Protests in at least Seven Cities. #AntiTrumpProtests #protest Part 2

Anti-Trump Protests Grip Cities Nationwide | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Anarchy in the streets

Billionaire Globalist Soros Exposed as Hidden Hand Behind Trump Protests — Provoking US ‘Color Revolution’

November 10, 2016

Billionaire globalist financier George Soros’ MoveOn.org has been revealed to be a driving force behind the organizing of nationwide protests against the election of Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

Wednesday saw protests in the streets of at least 10 major U.S. cities. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D.C., Portland, Ore., St. Paul, Minn., Seattle, and several other cities saw protests, according to USA Today.

In light of the protests and rioting that have transpired since the election of Trump, a closer analysis of the dynamic at play is warranted to gauge whether it’s an organic grassroots movement, or something much more organized, sophisticated and potentially dangerous.

Soros’ affiliated organization MoveOn.org released the following press release yesterday afternoon:

Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

Now come reports from various protest locations that reveal a substantially coordinated effort, and not the organic grassroots showing by concerned Americans, as the mainstream media is reporting. Photos from Austin, Texas reveal a line of busses the “protestors” arrived in, making their appearance seem substantially less than organic – with a direct implication of being strategically orchestrated.
 http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-trump-protests-revolution/#bYyE6Il5CV4jxBOJ.99

Assassination threats against Trump flood Twitter

The shock and anger over Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House has triggered a flood of calls on Twitter and other social media outlets for the president-elect to be assassinated — and authorities will investigate all threats deemed to be credible, The Post has learned.

Trump met Thursday with President Obama in the Oval Office, with the Republican businessman calling the hour-plus session a “great honor.” Obama said they had an “excellent” and “wide-ranging” conversation, while urging all people to “now come together.”

But that message of inclusion was apparently lost in social media circles, particularly Twitter, where a simple search can reveal dozens and dozens of calls to gun down the next leader of the free world. Some posts called for both Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence to be assassinated, and there’s even an #AssassinateTrump hashtag.

“Trump chose the literal worst case scenario as VP so nobody would try to impeach or assassinate him,” one user posted on Twitter.

Another user wrote that the “only” remaining question after Tuesday’s historic and polarizing election is who will “assassinate” Trump, who will be inaugurated on Jan. 20. Some users even cited that date as a deadline for the assassination.

Other postings called for users who used the inflammatory hashtag to be contacted by authorities.

Nicole Mainor, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, declined to comment on the posts directly, citing agency policy.

“The Secret Service does not provide information regarding protective services,” Mainor said.

But a security source told The Post that the Secret Service would investigate all social media postings containing credible threats, adding that there’s a difference between someone saying they’re planning to kill the president and suggesting that someone else should attempt an assassination. Generally, indirect threats are not prosecuted, according to the source, and investigators will “prioritize” them before determining their credibility.

FBI officials declined comment, referring inquiries to the Secret Service.

On Saturday, Trump was rushed off a stage in Reno, Nevada, where Secret Service agents took action after an “unidentified individual shouted ‘gun’” in front of the stage. Authorities later took a man, Austyn Crites, into custody, but did not find a gun, the Secret Service said in a statement, according to the Washington Post.

The 33-year-old Crites said the incident will change the rest of his life, he told the Reno-Gazette Journal.

“To what extent, that’s still yet to be seen, but I’m very cognizant that there is going to be a portion of the US population that is going to doubt my true intentions no matter what I say,” he told the newspaper. “No matter what background I have, there will always be people who feel that I’m a sellout or something like this.”

Crites, who was holding a “Republicans against Trump” sign at the rally, was released following the incident. He said the subsequent media coverage, including reports accusing the registered Republican of attempting to kill Trump, has been challenging.

“That is an extremely reckless title to put on somebody who loves the nation and would never do anything like that, would never even think of doing anything like this,” Crites said.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/assassination-threats-against-trump-flood-twitter-after-election-shocker/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1292370

Anti-Trump Protests Continue; Opponents Call Them Hypocrites

Demonstrators took to the streets across the country to express their outrage over Donald Trump’s unexpected presidential win, while supporters took to social media and denounced demonstrators as hypocrites or worse for not accepting defeat in a democratic process.

High-spirited high school students marched through San Francisco’s downtown, chanting “not my president” and holding signs urging a Donald Trump eviction. They waved rainbow banners and Mexican flags, as bystanders in the heavily Democratic city high-fived the marchers from the sidelines.

“As a white, queer person, we need unity with people of color, we need to stand up,” said Claire Bye, a 15-year-old sophomore at Academy High School. “I’m fighting for my rights as an LGBTQ person. I’m fighting for the rights of brown people, black people, Muslim people.”

In New York City, about a hundred protesters gathered at Union Square in Manhattan to protest a Trump presidency. They held signs that read “Divided States of America” and “Not My President” and “Let the New Generation Speak!!”

At a subway station along 14th Street, New Yorkers expressed their thoughts — “Time to Fight Back” and “Keep the Faith! Our work is just beginning!” — along the walls of a walkway using sticky notes.

On Twitter, Trump supporters accused protesters of not respecting the process because it didn’t work out in their favor.

“You’re literally protesting against free democratic elections. Go live in North Korea, you absolute trash,” one said. “They’re not protesting Trump, they’re protesting democracy and the right to disagree with them. Isn’t that fascism,” said another.

Thousands demonstrated Wednesday around the country, from New England to Kansas City to the West Coast. Flames lit up the night sky in California cities as protesters burned a giant papier-mache Trump head in Los Angeles and started fires in Oakland intersections.

In Chicago, where thousands had recently poured into the streets to celebrate the Chicago Cubs’ first World Series victory in over a century, several thousand people marched through the Loop. They gathered outside Trump Tower, chanting “Not my president!”

Since Tuesday night, protesters have marched in the Midwest, including St. Paul, Minnesota, Omaha, Nebraska, and Kansas City, Missouri. Marchers protesting Trump’s election chanted and carried signs in front of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Anti-Trump Protests Continue; Opponents Call Them Hypocrites

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-794

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 765, September 28, 2016, Story 1: Desperate Democrat Distractions: Racist Birther Lies and Former Miss Universe Winner and Weight Challenged Alicia Machado Campaigns For Clinton — Source of Hillary’s Miss Porky Trump Attack — Crooked Liar Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) Hillary Plays Race Card on Trump — Who Really Is The Racist? Democrat Party’s Progressive Eugenics Racist Agenda of Black Genocide — Videos — Part 2 of 3 Story 2: The Winner of The Debate — Tie Goes To Trump — We The People Vs. Politicians, Big Lie Media and Donor Class — The Winner on Election Day — We The People — President of The United States — Donald J. Trump — Videos —

Posted on September 28, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, Benghazi, Blogroll, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Fast and Furious, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Illegal Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

 Story 1: Desperate Democrat Distractions: Racist Birther Lies and Former Miss Universe Winner and Weight Challenged Alicia Machado Campaigns For Clinton — Source of Hillary’s Miss Porky Trump Attack — Crooked Liar Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) Hillary Plays Race Card on Trump — Who Really Is The Racist? Democrat Party’s Progressive Eugenics Racist Agenda of Black Genocide — Videos — 

Hillary Clinton CALLS Trump RACIST and SEXIST During 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!

Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters ‘deplorable’

Presidential Debate | Was Hillary Clinton’s Strategy Effective?

This Video SHOULD Cost Hillary Clinton The Black Vote

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger

Hillary Clinton Planned Parenthood FULL Speech

Black Genocide – Maafa 21 – Full Length

“Maafa 21” Exposes Black Genocide The documentary Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is an explosive exposé of the racist eugenics agenda of the abortion industry in the United States. It makes the case that, though abortionists claim to advocate privacy, women’s rights, and reproductive choice, their true motive is racial genocide and ethnic cleansing. …

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons presidential debate 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons hillary clinton and trump presidential debate

Image result for cartoons presidential debate 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Porn Star Campaigns For Hillary Clinton

ALEX PFEIFFER
Reporter

14288024_1178019405590949_1573831976_n

 

Former Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado, who has been campaigning against Republican nominee Donald Trump for the Hillary Clinton campaign, has appeared in pornographic videos.

Snippets of an adult film starring Machado are available on multiple free porn websites. Machado also appeared topless in Mexican Playboy in 2006 and 2012. Hillary Clinton invoked the 1996 Miss Universe winner in an attack on Trump during Monday’s debate.

Machado said Trump called her “Miss Piggy” after she gained weight, and that he referred to the Venezuelan as “Miss Housekeeping.” Trump said Tuesday, “She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. We had a real problem. Not only that, her attitude.”

Machado attacked Trump later Tuesday during a call with the press in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish. She spoke about her career as an actress in soap operas and film, but did not mention her appearance in porn.

In addition to her background in pornography, the Daily Mail reported that Machado was accused in 1998 of threatening to kill a Venezuelan judge.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/porn-star-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz4La8VkkWA

Miss Universe ‘fat-shamed’ by Donald Trump was accused of threatening to kill a judge and being an accomplice to a MURDER bid in her native Venezuela

  • Alicia Machado, from Venezuela, was Miss Universe in 1996 when Donald Trump bought the franchise for the contest
  • She was spoken about at Monday night debate by Hillary Clinton who told how Donald Trump had called her ‘Miss Piggy’ because of weight gain
  • But reports from the time have surfaced which reveal questions over her background in Venezuela
  • Court documents in 1998 revealed she was accused of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a murder attempt – at a woman’s funeral
  • A judge also claimed on national television that she threatened his life 
  • Unknown if Clinton campaign vetted Machado, 39, before debate and conference call with press on Tuesday which was almost all in Spanish

The former Miss Universe at the center of a bitter exchange in Monday’s presidential debate was accused of aiding a would-be murderer and threatening to kill a judge, it has emerged.

Alicia Machado was named by Hillary Clinton as having been shamed for her weight in 1996 by Donald Trump, when she was Miss Universe and he bought the beauty contest, by being called ‘Miss Piggy’ when she gained weight.

The then-Miss Venezuela was photographed with Trump at a gym as he spoke about how she ‘loves to eat,’ and she also claimed he mocked her Latino accent, calling her ‘Miss Housekeeping.’

On Tuesday Machado launched her own attack on the Republican candidate, accusing him of abuse and ‘stupid things.’

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO 

Prestigious title: Alicia Machado was named Miss Universe in 1996 but quickly gained weight and when Donald Trump took over the beauty contest, she was a 'problem', he said Tuesday

Prestigious title: Alicia Machado was named Miss Universe in 1996 but quickly gained weight and when Donald Trump took over the beauty contest, she was a ‘problem’, he said Tuesday

'Fat-shamed': Machado claimed that she felt humiliated when she was photographed exercising at a gym with Trump watching. He said Tuesday that 'she gained a massive amount of weight'

‘Fat-shamed’: Machado claimed that she felt humiliated when she was photographed exercising at a gym with Trump watching. He said Tuesday that ‘she gained a massive amount of weight’

Campaign tool: The Clinton campaign energetically set up a conference call on Tuesday with Machado to try to capitalize on her mention in the debate. DailyMail.com is asking about the vetting of her past

Campaign tool: The Clinton campaign energetically set up a conference call on Tuesday with Machado to try to capitalize on her mention in the debate. DailyMail.com is asking about the vetting of her past

Small world: Bill Clinton was welcomed to Caracas by Rafael Caldera in November 1997. Three months later Caldera was allegedly being named by Machado as a friend who would ruin a judge's career if he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder

Small world: Bill Clinton was welcomed to Caracas by Rafael Caldera in November 1997. Three months later Caldera was allegedly being named by Machado as a friend who would ruin a judge’s career if he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder

But now two Associated Press reports from 1998 have revealed the Machado was accused of aiding attempted murder and threats to kill in Venezuela.

DailyMail.com has asked the Clinton campaign whether they knew about the accusations, which do not appear to have ended in conviction, before the candidate spoke about her at the debate.

The campaign also organized a conference call for reporters on Tuesday with the now 39-year-old actress, in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish to continue the attacks on Trump.

The troubling details of what Machado was accused of emerged after she had reigned as Miss Universe in 1996.

In January 1998, the Associated Press revealed that Machado had been accused in court documents in Cadacras of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a shooting.

She was ordered to testify in court, with her lawyer telling a local newspaper that she was in fact filming a soap opera at the time.

The murder, it was alleged, was the culmination of a bitter feud.

Machado’s boyfriend, Juan Rodriguez Reggeti, was accused of shooting his brother-in-law, Francisco Sbert Moukso – at the funeral of the dead man’s wife, Maria Rodriguez, who was the alleged murderer’s sister.

Sbert’s attorney alleged that Reggeti believed the dead man had driven his sister to suicide and took revenge, the Associated Press said.

Rodriguez was eight months pregnant when she jumped to her death off a fifth-floor balcony.

The attorney also alleged that witnesses saw Machado drive her boyfriend away from the scene of the crime, and that her boyfriend had snatched the dead woman’s 11-month-old son as well.

But her lawyer, Ricardo Koesling, was quoted in a local newspaper calling the claims ‘a huge stupidity’ and saying: ‘She wasn’t even present at the site of the incident.’

Machado was not indicted when the judge in the case said there was insufficient evidence that she was at the scene of the alleged crime.

Right to vote: Alicia Machado celebrated becoming a U.S. citizen earlier this year, saying she would use her vote against Donald Trump 

Right to vote: Alicia Machado celebrated becoming a U.S. citizen earlier this year, saying she would use her vote against Donald Trump

'I'm with you!' Alicia Machado posted this tweet shortly after the end of Monday's debate - but it is unknown if the Clinton campaign knew about the questions over her past

‘I’m with you!’ Alicia Machado posted this tweet shortly after the end of Monday’s debate – but it is unknown if the Clinton campaign knew about the questions over her past

Latino star: Since her apparent brush with the law in 1998, Machado has become a star of telenovas and how is a US citizen

Latino star: Since her apparent brush with the law in 1998, Machado has become a star of telenovas and how is a US citizen

Former Miss Universe talks about being treated badly by Trump

There was clearly confusion as in contrast to her lawyer’s initial claim she was filming, Machado later claimed that she was at home sick. The judge said there was also insufficient evidence to prove that claim.

A judge indicted her boyfriend, described by Reuters as ‘a 26-year-old graphic designer with movie star good looks’ – and police mounted a series of raids to find him, to no avail.

It was not the end of the affair.

A month later the judge went on national television to allege that Machado had threatened to kill him if he indicted Sbert.

Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that she threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me’, the Associated Press reported.

Reuters reported that he ‘said she would make sure, using her friendship with the president [Rafael Caldera], that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me.’

He alleged that when he issued an arrest warrant she made a threatening phone call. He had traced her identity because her number showed up on his mobile phone – a relatively new technology in 1998.

The judge said he planned to open a new case against Machado. Judges in Venezuela are more akin to prosecutors, having investigatory powers.

The indictment, if it had led to criminal trial, would have carried a jail term of up to 18 months if she had been found guilty.

Gym trip: In January 1996, during her reign as Miss World, she was photographed working out in a gym with Trump watching

Gym trip: In January 1996, during her reign as Miss World, she was photographed working out in a gym with Trump watching

Admission: Trump made no secret as he appeared on Fox and Friends that Machado's weight had been an issue.

Admission: Trump made no secret as he appeared on Fox and Friends that Machado’s weight had been an issue.

I wasn’t there, my love. I was at Venevision filming. At 2pm I left my house and called the station to tell them I couldn’t go. I was ill with a stomach ache because of my diet. As you can see I am yet again, as God and the Virgin would have it, 15 kilos lighter and focusing on my work.
How Achado explained what she had told a judge about allegations she drove her boyfriend from the scene of an attempted murder.

The Economist reported that she admitted making the call but that that she said it was to thank him for what it described as ‘his unbiased pursuit of justice.’

Local newspaper El Tiempo said she was questioned behind closed doors by the judge for two hours, then emerged and spoke to local journalists.

‘I don’t have anything to do with this,’ she said, crying, it reported.

‘I wasn’t there, my love. I was at Venevision filming. At 2pm I left my house and called the station to tell them I couldn’t go.

‘I was ill with a stomach ache because of my diet. As you can see I am yet again, as God and the Virgin would have it, 15 kilos [33lb] lighter and focusing on my work.’

DailyMail.com is reaching out to Machado for comment.

Machado went on to have a career in telenovelas and earlier this year became an American citizen, in time to vote in the November election.

Clinton named her in the debate on Monday night without making any reference to her past scandals.

As she was: Machado was appearing in the telenova Samantha, in which she was the eponymous central character, when the judge moved to indict her

As she was: Machado was appearing in the telenova Samantha, in which she was the eponymous central character, when the judge moved to indict her

Accusation: Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor claimed the ex-Miss Universe had threatened his career and his life

Accusation: Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor claimed the ex-Miss Universe had threatened his career and his life

Instead she said of her: ‘One of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest.

‘He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them, and he called this woman “Miss Piggy,” then he called her “Miss Housekeeping” because she was Latina.’

On Tuesday morning Trump agreed that he had told her to lose weight, and doubled down on his description.

‘She was the worst we ever had,’ he said on Fox and Friends.

‘She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem.’

Hours later Machado was made available by the Clinton campaign for a conference call with reporters.

Only a tiny fraction of it was in English and the campaign translated some of it for reporters, who had not been told it would be in Spanish.

In the course of it she accused Trump of ‘violence’ and said she wanted to share her story with the Latino community.

It does not appear she mentioned anything about the court case and although she claimed to have been ‘sharing her story’ for ’20 years’ DailyMail.com has yet to find evidence she as spoken of it since it happened.

‘I have been sharing this story, my story, with all of my fans and all of the communities from the beginning,’ she saud.

Basically by sharing my experience and focusing on abuse against women, the disrespect to women, violence against women, must end
 Macahdo on Donald Trump

‘And I have been talking about this for 20 years, this really bad experience working with Mr. Donald Trump.

‘I know very well what’s he’s capable of, this man.

I think I speak more English than her. I don’t see anything about this girl. She’s a doll. She’s a decoration
Machado on Melania Trump

‘And that’s why I am fighting to make the community understand, now more than ever, that Latinos need to support the US, that we need to return all the beautiful and grand things the US has provided for us.

‘Basically by sharing my experience and focusing on abuse against women, the disrespect to women, violence against women, must end.’

Despite her attack on ‘abuse against women’, she had earlier this month spoke to Cosmopolitan.com about her views on Trump’s wife, Melania.

‘I think I speak more English than her,’ Machado said. ‘I don’t see anything about this girl. She’s a doll. She’s a decoration. That is how I see her.’

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

THE FULL ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT ABOUT ‘THREATS TO KILL A JUDGE’ IN 1998

STEVEN GUTKIN , Associated Press Feb. 5, 1998 4:36 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) – A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder.

Venezuelan beauty queen Alicia Machado threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me,’ Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television.

The 21-year-old Machado, who created an international stir in 1996 when she gained 35 pounds after being crowned Miss Universe, allegedly called the judge after he issued an arrest warrant Wednesday for Juan Rafael Rodriguez Regetti.

Rodriguez, 26, is accused of shooting and wounding his brother-in-law, Francisco Antonio Sbert Mousko, outside a church in Caracas last November where Sbert’s wife – Rodriguez’s sister – was being eulogizing.

Rodriguez apparently blamed Sbert for driving her to commit suicide.

The victim’s family accused Machado of driving the getaway car, but Fuenmayor has not indicted her, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said there were no witnesses to place Machado at the scene – or to back up her claim she was home sick at the time.

Machado could not be reached for comment Thursday. She was in the city of Maracay filming a soap opera Thursday, according to Mariela Castro of Venevision TV network. Machado’s lawyer was also unavailable for comment.

Fuenmayor said he planned to open a new case against Machado for Wednesday’s threatening phone call.

In the past two decades, Venezuela has had four Miss Universes, four Miss Worlds and two Miss Internationals – the world’s top beauty title record.

 Source: AP news archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3810484/Miss-Universe-fat-shamed-Donald-Trump-accused-threatening-kill-judge-accomplice-MURDER-native-Venezuela.html#ixzz4LaA9aDFg

 

 Part 2 of 3 Story 2: The Winner of The Debate — Tie Goes To Trump — We The People Vs. Politicians, Big Lie Media and Donor Class — The Winner on Election Day — We The People — President of The United States — Donald J.  Trump — Videos

Trump: I’m Not Running to be President of the World

Reaction To Clinton vs Trump Presidential Debate – Bret Baier & Megyn Kelly

FULL: Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton – First Presidential Debate 2016 – Hofstra University NY

Presidential Debate Analysis

Local reaction to presidential debate

SR #1216 – One Deplorable’s Response -Editorial Director Bill Still Goes-Off on Crooked Obama

Still Report #1214 – Hillary Clinton Campaign Gives Up on Ohio – Donald Trump Dominates Polls

Still Report#1213 –How Donald Trump Can Knock Out Hillary Clinton Tonight at the Presidential Debate

Why Trump’s outsider appeal can win him the working class

RUSH: TRUMP IS A ‘GENUINE OUTSIDER’

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Presidential Debate Analysis

Media waging a war against Trump?

Image result for Lester holt and hillary clinton

Whoomp There It Is – Tag Team

Cognition: How Your Mind Can Amaze and Betray You – Crash Course Psychology #15

Trump pulled off presidential

James Robbins

Like Reagan in 1980, viewers saw a Trump who was better than the liberal talking points.

You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader.

In the run-up to the Hofstra presidential debate, the Clinton campaign mounted a concerted effort to make fact-checking the centerpiece of the event. Campaign manager Robby Mook argued that “it’s unfair to ask that Hillary Clinton both play traffic copwith Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.” Mook said that if Trump “lied,” it was moderator Lester Holt’s responsibility to point that out.

Fact-checking has never been an accepted role for debate moderators. Janet Brown, head of the Commission on Presidential Debates, said that a moderator should not “serve as the Encyclopedia Britannica.” And moderator Candy Crowley’s ill-advised intervention against Mitt Romney in 2012 showed why fact checking on the fly is a bad idea.

It was strange that the truth-challenged Clinton would want to make an issue of facts. But there was certainly no shortage of checking. Veteran debate moderator Bob Schieffer said that “the chief fact-checkers are the candidates,” and Clinton and Trump agreed, vigorously challenging each other over facts, policies and opinions. In addition, the social media hive-mind was scrutinizing every word in real time. Anyone who needed to track down a fact had the entire connected world at their disposal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/26/trump-clinton-debate-hofstra-1980-reagan-carter-james-robbins-column/91141618/

 

Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism

– The Washington Times

NALYSIS/OPINION:

The media coverage on the presidential contest seems to have come down to “fact-checking,” with The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico each doing articles depicting Donald Trump’s lies on the campaign trail.

This is dangerous territory for the profession, for as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Twitter: ” ‘Fact checking’ is opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity.”

Why you ask? Because most “fact-checkers” are merely liberal journalists looking to prove their preconceived narrative. They cherry-pick the statements to “fact-check” and then decide which data to back it up with. Statistics can be manipulated — for every study coming out of the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation can have a counter argument, depending on the methodology and surveys used. Moreover, much of what they decide to “fact-check” is subjective at best. Nothing that can be pinned down with undisputed data.

In addition, many times politicians use hyperbole to extenuate a larger point — and many times these “fact-checkers” ignore the larger point to focus on the validity of the minutia. Here are the eight most outrageous “fact-checks” used against Mr. Trump in the last few weeks, that explain why the American public’s trust in the media is at an all-time low.

The New York Times:

(1) Trumpquote: “Do people notice Hillary is copying my airplane rallies — she puts the plane behind her like I have been doing from the beginning.” (Twitter, Sept. 20)

Fact-check: “He did not invent the tarmac rally or the campaign-plane backdrop.”

(2) Trump quote/assertions: “Mrs. Clinton destroyed 13 smartphones with a hammer while she was secretary of state.” (Speeches in Florida, Sept. 15 and Sept. 19)

Fact-check: “An aide told the FBI of only two occasions in which phones were destroyed by a hammer.”

(3) Trump quote: “We have cities that are far more dangerous than Afghanistan.”

Fact-check: “No American city resembles a war zone, though crime has risen lately in some, like Chicago. Urban violence has fallen precipitously over the past 25 years.”

Of note, The New York Times wrote on Sept. 9 that “murder rates rose in a quarter of the nation’s 100 largest cities, and that “the number of cities where rates rose significantly was the largest since the height of violent crime in the early 1990s.”

Politico:

(4) Trumpquote: “We’re presiding over something the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable.” (Sept. 19, Fort Myers, Florida, rally)

Fact-check: “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

(5) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, it’s a very substantial tax increase.” (Sept. 20 High Point, North Carolina, rally, and a similar statement at least one other time)

Fact-check: “Clinton has not released the full details of her tax plan, but she has sworn off tax hikes for households earning less than $250,000 a year. The vast majority of tax increases she proposes levying affect the highest earners.”

Of note, this fact-check says Mrs. Clinton will, indeed raise taxes. Additionally, in December, when ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos asked her “Is that a rock-solid promise?” (on not raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000) she hedged. “Well,” she said, “it certainly is my goal.”

(6) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton wants to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership; that deal will be a disaster for North Carolina, for every state. Your state.” (Sept. 20, High Point, North Carolina, rally)

Fact-check: “CNN tracked 45 instances in which Clinton supported the TPP, including in 2012 when she called it the “gold standard” of trade deals. But facing a challenge to her left from Bernie Sanders, Clinton this year said she opposed it and would continue to as president. The trade pact’s economic impacts are hotly debated, with some arguing it will hurt domestic workers while others arguing it will spur further exports and economic growth.”

Just to be clear, Politico is calling Mr. Trump a liar for calling out Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flop on TPP. Not to mention, her vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine was a vocal advocate of the trade-agreement for the Obama administration in Virginia (before he denounced it, once jumping on her ticket).

The Washington Post

(7) Trump quote: “The policies he [Rudolph Giuliani] put into place ultimately brought down crime by 76 percent and murder in New York by 84 percent.” (Speech in Pittsburgh, Sept. 22, 2016)

Fact-check: “It’s debatable whether the stop-and-frisk policies had such a direct impact on crime, as Trump suggests. Crime is affected by many factors, and New York’s decline in crime mirrored the decline in many other major cities at the time.”

The Post, after admitting the statistics were “debatable” still gave the assertion three Pinocchios. They used their preferable statistics to justify, saying Mr. Trump‘ “cherry-picked” his.

(8) “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it, you know what I mean. President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.” (Donald Trump, news conference, Sept. 16, 2016)

Fact-check: “Let’s review this again: No, Clinton and her campaign did not start the “birther” controversy.”

Although Mrs. Clinton herself can’t be tied to starting or spreading the birther conspiracy, her 2008 presidential campaign can. Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager said they had to fire a staffer (she couldn’t remember if he or she was paid or not) for sending an email relating to Mr. Obama’s birthplace.

Moreover, the former Washington, D.C., bureau chief of McClatchy alleged Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal asked him to investigate Mr. Obama’s birthplace, essentially starting a whisper campaign. McClatchy even sent a reporter to Kenya.

The Washington Post’s own fact-checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee admitted she heard about Mr. Blumenthal’s whisper campaign, so she called him and he said it wasn’t true (Remember: Mr. Blumenthal was responsible for spreading whisper campaigns about Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s — it’s been documented). But, The Washington Post fact-checker decided to believe Mr. Blumenthal, and gave Mr. Trump four Pinocchios instead.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/

 

In debate, Clinton gets no follow-up questions, Trump gets 6

Lester Holt: The Third Debater?

By Heat Street Staff|11:01 pm, September 26, 2016At tonight’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.

The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:

  • Hillary’s emails
  • Benghazi
  • The Clinton Foundation

While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.

Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).

Lester Holt: The Third Debater?

CLINTON, TRUMP BATTLE FIERCELY OVER TAXES, RACE, TERROR

In a combative opening debate, Hillary Clinton emphatically denounced Donald Trump Monday night for keeping his personal tax returns and business dealings secret from voters and peddling a “racist lie” about President Barack Obama. Businessman Trump repeatedly cast Clinton as a “typical politician” as he sought to capitalize on Americans’ frustration with Washington.

Locked in an exceedingly close White House race, the presidential rivals tangled for 90-minutes over their vastly different visions for the nation’s future. Clinton called for lowering taxes for the middle class, while Trump focused more on renegotiating trade deals that he said have caused companies to move jobs out of the U.S. The Republican backed the controversial “stop-and-frisk policing” tactic as a way to bring down crime, while the Democrat said the policy was unconstitutional and ineffective.

The debate was confrontational from the start, with Trump frequently trying to interrupt Clinton and speaking over her answers. Clinton was more measured and restrained, but also needled the sometimes-thin-skinned Trump over his business record and wealth.

“There’s something he’s hiding,” she declared, scoffing at his repeated contentions that he won’t release his tax returns because he is being audited. Tax experts have said an audit is no barrier to making his records public.

Clinton said one reason Trump has refused is that he may well have paid nothing in federal taxes. He interrupted to say, “That makes me smart.”

Trump aggressively tried to turn the transparency questions around on Clinton, saying he would release his tax information when she produces more than 30,000 emails that were deleted from the personal internet server she used as secretary of state.

Trump’s criticism of Clinton turned personal in the debate’s closing moments. He said, “She doesn’t have the look, she doesn’t have the stamina” to be president. He’s made similar comments in previous events, sparking outrage from Clinton backers who accused him of leveling a sexist attack on the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party.

Clinton leapt at the opportunity to remind voters of Trump’s numerous controversial comments about women, who will be crucial to the outcome of the November election.

“This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs,” she said.

The televised face-off was the most anticipated moment in an election campaign that has been both historic and unpredictable. Both sides expected a record-setting audience for the showdown at Hofstra University in suburban New York, reflecting the intense national interest in the race to become America’s 45th president.

The centerpiece of Trump’s case against Clinton was that the former senator and secretary of state is little more than a career politician who has squandered opportunities to address the domestic and international she’s now pledging to tackle as president.

“She’s got experience,” he said, “but it’s bad experience.”

Both candidates portrayed themselves as best-prepared to lead a nation where many are still struggling to benefit from a slow economic recovery and are increasingly fearful of terror threats at home and abroad. When Trump jabbed Clinton for taking time off the campaign trail to study for the debate, she said, “I prepared to be president, and that’s a good thing.”

The candidates sparred over trade, taxes and how to bring good-paying jobs back to the United States.

Clinton said her Republican rival was promoting a “Trumped-up” version of trickle-down economics – a philosophy focused on tax cuts for the wealthy. She called for increasing the federal minimum wage, spending more on infrastructure projects and guaranteeing equal pay for women.

Trump panned policies that he said have led to American jobs being moved overseas, in part because of international trade agreements that Clinton has supported. He pushed her aggressively on her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact while she was serving in the Obama administration. She’s since said she opposes the sweeping deal in its final form.

“You called it the gold standard of trade deals,” Trump said. “If you did win, you would approve that.”

Disputing his version of events, Clinton said, “I know you live in your own reality.”

Trump struggled to answer repeated questions about why he only recently acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States. For years, Trump has been the chief promoter of questions falsely suggesting the president was born outside of America.

“He has really started his political activity on this racist lie,” Clinton charged.

Trump also repeatedly insisted that he opposed the Iraq War before the 2003 U.S. invasion, despite evidence to the contrary. Trump was asked in September 2002 whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with Howard Stern. He responded: “Yeah, I guess so.”

Presented with the comment during the debate, Trump responded: “I said very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows.”

The Republican also appeared to contradict himself on how he might use nuclear weapons if he’s elected president. He first said he “would not do first strike” but then said he couldn’t “take anything off the table.”

Clinton said Trump was too easily provoked to serve as commander in chief and could be quickly drawn into a war involving nuclear weapons.

“A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes,” she said.

Trump replied: “That line’s getting a little bit old.”

Some frequently hot-button issues were barely mentioned during the intense debate. Illegal immigration and Trump’s promises of a border wall were not part of the conversation. And while Clinton took some questions on her private email server, she was not grilled about her family’s foundation, Bill Clinton’s past infidelities or her struggle with trustworthiness.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-09-26-22-37-04

Confirmation bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance(when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3][Note 2]

Types

Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person’s expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.[4]

Some psychologists restrict the term confirmation bias to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Other psychologists apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one’s existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[5][Note 3]

Biased search for information

A drawing of a man sitting on a stool at a writing desk

Confirmation bias has been described as an internal “yes man“, echoing back a person’s beliefs like Charles Dickens‘ character Uriah Heep.[6]

Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis.[7][8] Rather than [9]searching through all the relevant evidence, they phrase questions to receive an affirmative answer that supports their hypothesis.[10] They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if it were false.[10] For example, someone using yes/no questions to find a number he or she suspects to be the number 3 might ask, “Is it an odd number?” People prefer this type of question, called a “positive test”, even when a negative test such as “Is it an even number?” would yield exactly the same information.[11] However, this does not mean that people seek tests that guarantee a positive answer. In studies where subjects could select either such pseudo-tests or genuinely diagnostic ones, they favored the genuinely diagnostic.[12][13]

The preference for positive tests in itself is not a bias, since positive tests can be highly informative.[14] However, in combination with other effects, this strategy can confirm existing beliefs or assumptions, independently of whether they are true.[15] In real-world situations, evidence is often complex and mixed. For example, various contradictory ideas about someone could each be supported by concentrating on one aspect of his or her behavior.[8] Thus any search for evidence in favor of a hypothesis is likely to succeed.[15] One illustration of this is the way the phrasing of a question can significantly change the answer.[8] For example, people who are asked, “Are you happy with your social life?” report greater satisfaction than those asked, “Are you unhappy with your social life?”[16]

Even a small change in a question’s wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case.[17] Participants read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods of time. When asked, “Which parent should have custody of the child?” the majority of participants chose Parent B, looking mainly for positive attributes. However, when asked, “Which parent should be denied custody of the child?” they looked for negative attributes and the majority answered that Parent B should be denied custody, implying that Parent A should have custody.[17]

Similar studies have demonstrated how people engage in a biased search for information, but also that this phenomenon may be limited by a preference for genuine diagnostic tests. In an initial experiment, participants rated another person on the introversion–extroversion personality dimension on the basis of an interview. They chose the interview questions from a given list. When the interviewee was introduced as an introvert, the participants chose questions that presumed introversion, such as, “What do you find unpleasant about noisy parties?” When the interviewee was described as extroverted, almost all the questions presumed extroversion, such as, “What would you do to liven up a dull party?” These loaded questions gave the interviewees little or no opportunity to falsify the hypothesis about them.[18] A later version of the experiment gave the participants less presumptive questions to choose from, such as, “Do you shy away from social interactions?”[19] Participants preferred to ask these more diagnostic questions, showing only a weak bias towards positive tests. This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies.[19]

Personality traits influence and interact with biased search processes.[20] Individuals vary in their abilities to defend their attitudes from external attacks in relation to selective exposure. Selective exposure occurs when individuals search for information that is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with their personal beliefs.[21] An experiment examined the extent to which individuals could refute arguments that contradicted their personal beliefs.[20] People with high confidence levels more readily seek out contradictory information to their personal position to form an argument. Individuals with low confidence levels do not seek out contradictory information and prefer information that supports their personal position. People generate and evaluate evidence in arguments that are biased towards their own beliefs and opinions.[22] Heightened confidence levels decrease preference for information that supports individuals’ personal beliefs.

Another experiment gave participants a complex rule-discovery task that involved moving objects simulated by a computer.[23] Objects on the computer screen followed specific laws, which the participants had to figure out. So, participants could “fire” objects across the screen to test their hypotheses. Despite making many attempts over a ten-hour session, none of the participants figured out the rules of the system. They typically attempted to confirm rather than falsify their hypotheses, and were reluctant to consider alternatives. Even after seeing objective evidence that refuted their working hypotheses, they frequently continued doing the same tests. Some of the participants were taught proper hypothesis-testing, but these instructions had almost no effect.[23]

Biased interpretation

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Michael Shermer[24]

Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased.

A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it.[25][26]Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study’s procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing.[25] In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped.[25][26]

The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways.[25][27] Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, “The research didn’t cover a long enough period of time”, while an opponent’s comment on the same study said, “No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented”.[25] The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as “disconfirmation bias”, has been supported by other experiments.[28]

A large round machine with a hole in the middle, with a platter for a person to lie on so that their head can fit into the hole

An MRI scanner allowed researchers to examine how the human brain deals with unwelcome information.

Another study of biased interpretation occurred during the 2004 U.S. presidential election and involved participants who reported having strong feelings about the candidates. They were shown apparently contradictory pairs of statements, either from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry or a politically neutral public figure. They were also given further statements that made the apparent contradiction seem reasonable. From these three pieces of information, they had to decide whether or not each individual’s statements were inconsistent.[29]:1948 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[29]:1951

In this experiment, the participants made their judgments while in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner which monitored their brain activity. As participants evaluated contradictory statements by their favored candidate, emotional centers of their brains were aroused. This did not happen with the statements by the other figures. The experimenters inferred that the different responses to the statements were not due to passive reasoning errors. Instead, the participants were actively reducing the cognitive dissonance induced by reading about their favored candidate’s irrational or hypocritical behavior.[29]:1956 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[29]:1951

Biases in belief interpretation are persistent, regardless of intelligence level. Participants in an experiment took the SAT test (a college admissions test used in the United States) to assess their intelligence levels. They then read information regarding safety concerns for vehicles, and the experimenters manipulated the national origin of the car. American participants provided their opinion if the car should be banned on a six-point scale, where one indicated “definitely yes” and six indicated “definitely no.” Participants firstly evaluated if they would allow a dangerous German car on American streets and a dangerous American car on German streets. Participants believed that the dangerous German car on American streets should be banned more quickly than the dangerous American car on German streets. There was no difference among intelligence levels at the rate participants would ban a car.[22]

Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, participants were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character’s guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.[30]

Biased memory

Even if people gather and interpret evidence in a neutral manner, they may still remember it selectively to reinforce their expectations. This effect is called “selective recall”, “confirmatory memory” or “access-biased memory”.[31]Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled than information that does not match.[32] Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out and so is memorable.[32] Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright.[33]

In one study, participants read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors.[34] They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group were told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the “librarian” group recalling more examples of introversion and the “sales” groups recalling more extroverted behavior.[34] A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types.[32][35] In one of these, a group of participants were shown evidence that extroverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group were told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated, study, they were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extroverted. Each group of participants provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly.[36]

Changes in emotional states can also influence memory recall.[37][38] Participants rated how they felt when they had first learned that O.J. Simpson had been acquitted of murder charges.[37] They described their emotional reactions and confidence regarding the verdict one week, two months, and one year after the trial. Results indicated that participants’ assessments for Simpson’s guilt changed over time. The more that participants’ opinion of the verdict had changed, the less stable were the participant’s memories regarding their initial emotional reactions. When participants recalled their initial emotional reactions two months and a year later, past appraisals closely resembled current appraisals of emotion. People demonstrate sizable myside bias when discussing their opinions on controversial topics.[22] Memory recall and construction of experiences undergo revision in relation to corresponding emotional states.

Myside bias has been shown to influence the accuracy of memory recall.[38] In an experiment, widows and widowers rated the intensity of their experienced grief six months and five years after the deaths of their spouses. Participants noted a higher experience of grief at six months rather than at five years. Yet, when the participants were asked after five years how they had felt six months after the death of their significant other, the intensity of grief participants recalled was highly correlated with their current level of grief. Individuals appear to utilize their current emotional states to analyze how they must have felt when experiencing past events.[37] Emotional memories are reconstructed by current emotional states.

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[39] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, participants recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.[39]

Related effects

Polarization of opinion

Main article: Attitude polarization

When people with opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart. This is called “attitude polarization”.[40] The effect was demonstrated by an experiment that involved drawing a series of red and black balls from one of two concealed “bingo baskets”. Participants knew that one basket contained 60% black and 40% red balls; the other, 40% black and 60% red. The experimenters looked at what happened when balls of alternating color were drawn in turn, a sequence that does not favor either basket. After each ball was drawn, participants in one group were asked to state out loud their judgments of the probability that the balls were being drawn from one or the other basket. These participants tended to grow more confident with each successive draw—whether they initially thought the basket with 60% black balls or the one with 60% red balls was the more likely source, their estimate of the probability increased. Another group of participants were asked to state probability estimates only at the end of a sequence of drawn balls, rather than after each ball. They did not show the polarization effect, suggesting that it does not necessarily occur when people simply hold opposing positions, but rather when they openly commit to them.[41]

A less abstract study was the Stanford biased interpretation experiment in which participants with strong opinions about the death penalty read about mixed experimental evidence. Twenty-three percent of the participants reported that their views had become more extreme, and this self-reported shift correlated strongly with their initial attitudes.[25] In later experiments, participants also reported their opinions becoming more extreme in response to ambiguous information. However, comparisons of their attitudes before and after the new evidence showed no significant change, suggesting that the self-reported changes might not be real.[28][40][42] Based on these experiments, Deanna Kuhn and Joseph Lao concluded that polarization is a real phenomenon but far from inevitable, only happening in a small minority of cases. They found that it was prompted not only by considering mixed evidence, but by merely thinking about the topic.[40]

Charles Taber and Milton Lodge argued that the Stanford team’s result had been hard to replicate because the arguments used in later experiments were too abstract or confusing to evoke an emotional response. The Taber and Lodge study used the emotionally charged topics of gun control and affirmative action.[28] They measured the attitudes of their participants towards these issues before and after reading arguments on each side of the debate. Two groups of participants showed attitude polarization: those with strong prior opinions and those who were politically knowledgeable. In part of this study, participants chose which information sources to read, from a list prepared by the experimenters. For example, they could read the National Rifle Association‘s and the Brady Anti-Handgun Coalition‘s arguments on gun control. Even when instructed to be even-handed, participants were more likely to read arguments that supported their existing attitudes than arguments that did not. This biased search for information correlated well with the polarization effect.[28]

The backfire effect is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.[43][44] The phrase was first coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler.[45]

Persistence of discredited beliefs

Main article: Belief perseverance

[B]eliefs can survive potent logical or empirical challenges. They can survive and even be bolstered by evidence that most uncommitted observers would agree logically demands some weakening of such beliefs. They can even survive the total destruction of their original evidential bases.

—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson[46]

Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs persist when the initial evidence for them is removed.[47] This belief perseverance effect has been shown by a series of experiments using what is called the “debriefing paradigm”: participants read fake evidence for a hypothesis, their attitude change is measured, then the fakery is exposed in detail. Their attitudes are then measured once more to see if their belief returns to its previous level.[46]

A common finding is that at least some of the initial belief remains even after a full debriefing.[48] In one experiment, participants had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. The feedback was random: some were told they had done well while others were told they had performed badly. Even after being fully debriefed, participants were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told.[49]

In another study, participants read job performance ratings of two firefighters, along with their responses to a risk aversion test.[46] This fictional data was arranged to show either a negative or positive association: some participants were told that a risk-taking firefighter did better, while others were told they did less well than a risk-averse colleague.[50] Even if these two case studies were true, they would have been scientifically poor evidence for a conclusion about firefighters in general. However, the participants found them subjectively persuasive.[50] When the case studies were shown to be fictional, participants’ belief in a link diminished, but around half of the original effect remained.[46] Follow-up interviews established that the participants had understood the debriefing and taken it seriously. Participants seemed to trust the debriefing, but regarded the discredited information as irrelevant to their personal belief.[50]

The continued influence effect is the tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[51]

Preference for early information

Experiments have shown that information is weighted more strongly when it appears early in a series, even when the order is unimportant. For example, people form a more positive impression of someone described as “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious” than when they are given the same words in reverse order.[52] This irrational primacy effect is independent of the primacy effect in memory in which the earlier items in a series leave a stronger memory trace.[52] Biased interpretation offers an explanation for this effect: seeing the initial evidence, people form a working hypothesis that affects how they interpret the rest of the information.[47]

One demonstration of irrational primacy used colored chips supposedly drawn from two urns. Participants were told the color distributions of the urns, and had to estimate the probability of a chip being drawn from one of them.[52] In fact, the colors appeared in a pre-arranged order. The first thirty draws favored one urn and the next thirty favored the other.[47] The series as a whole was neutral, so rationally, the two urns were equally likely. However, after sixty draws, participants favored the urn suggested by the initial thirty.[52]

Another experiment involved a slide show of a single object, seen as just a blur at first and in slightly better focus with each succeeding slide.[52] After each slide, participants had to state their best guess of what the object was. Participants whose early guesses were wrong persisted with those guesses, even when the picture was sufficiently in focus that the object was readily recognizable to other people.[47]

Illusory association between events

Main article: Illusory correlation

Illusory correlation is the tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.[53] This tendency was first demonstrated in a series of experiments in the late 1960s.[54] In one experiment, participants read a set of psychiatric case studies, including responses to the Rorschach inkblot test. The participants reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact the fictional case studies had been constructed so that the homosexual men were no more likely to report this imagery or, in one version of the experiment, were less likely to report it than heterosexual men.[53] In a survey, a group of experienced psychoanalysts reported the same set of illusory associations with homosexuality.[53][54]

Another study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.[55]

This effect is a kind of biased interpretation, in that objectively neutral or unfavorable evidence is interpreted to support existing beliefs. It is also related to biases in hypothesis-testing behavior.[56] In judging whether two events, such as illness and bad weather, are correlated, people rely heavily on the number of positive-positive cases: in this example, instances of both pain and bad weather. They pay relatively little attention to the other kinds of observation (of no pain and/or good weather).[57] This parallels the reliance on positive tests in hypothesis testing.[56] It may also reflect selective recall, in that people may have a sense that two events are correlated because it is easier to recall times when they happened together.[56]

Individual differences

Myside bias was once believed to be associated with greater intelligence; however, studies have shown that myside bias can be more influenced by ability to rationally think as opposed to amount of intelligence.[58] Myside bias can cause an inability to effectively and logically evaluate the opposite side of an argument. Studies have stated that myside bias is an absence of “active open-mindedness,” meaning the active search for why an initial idea may be wrong.[59] Typically, myside bias is operationalized in empirical studies as the quantity of evidence used in support of their side in comparison to the opposite side.[60]

A study has found individual differences in myside bias. This study investigates individual differences that are acquired through learning in a cultural context and are mutable. The researcher found important individual difference in argumentation. Studies have suggested that individual differences such as deductive reasoning ability, ability to overcome belief bias, epistemological understanding, and thinking disposition are significant predictors of the reasoning and generating arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals.[61][62][63]

A study by Christopher Wolfe and Anne Britt also investigated how participants’ views of “what makes a good argument?” can be a source of myside bias that influence the way a person formulates his own arguments.[60] The study investigated individual differences of argumentation schema and asked participants to write essays. The participants were randomly assigned to write essays either for or against their preferred side of an argument and were given research instructions that took either a balanced or an unrestricted approach. The balanced-research instructions directed participants to create a “balanced” argument, i.e., that included both pros and cons; the unrestricted-research instructions included nothing on how to create the argument.[60]

Overall, the results revealed that the balanced-research instructions significantly increased the incidence of opposing information in arguments. These data also reveal that personal belief is not a source of myside bias; however, that those participants, who believe that a good argument is one that is based on facts, are more likely to exhibit myside bias than other participants. This evidence is consistent with the claims proposed in Baron’s article—that people’s opinions about what makes good thinking can influence how arguments are generated.[60]

History

Informal observation

Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the phenomenon had been observed anecdotally throughout history. Beginning with the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC), who wrote of misguided treason in The Peloponnesian War; “… for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.”[64] Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), noted it in his famous work, the Divine Comedy, in which St. Thomas Aquinas cautions Dante upon meeting in Paradise, “opinion—hasty—often can incline to the wrong side, and then affection for one’s own opinion binds, confines the mind.”[65] English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (1561–1626),[66] in the Novum Organumnoted that biased assessment of evidence drove “all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments or the like”.[67] He wrote:

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.][67]

In his essay (1897) “What Is Art?“, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote,

I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.[68]

Wason’s research on hypothesis-testing

The term “confirmation bias” was coined by English psychologist Peter Wason.[69] For an experiment published in 1960, he challenged participants to identify a rule applying to triples of numbers. At the outset, they were told that (2,4,6) fits the rule. Participants could generate their own triples and the experimenter told them whether or not each triple conformed to the rule.[70][71]

While the actual rule was simply “any ascending sequence”, the participants had a great deal of difficulty in finding it, often announcing rules that were far more specific, such as “the middle number is the average of the first and last”.[70] The participants seemed to test only positive examples—triples that obeyed their hypothesized rule. For example, if they thought the rule was, “Each number is two greater than its predecessor”, they would offer a triple that fit this rule, such as (11,13,15) rather than a triple that violates it, such as (11,12,19).[72]

Wason accepted falsificationism, according to which a scientific test of a hypothesis is a serious attempt to falsify it. He interpreted his results as showing a preference for confirmation over falsification, hence the term “confirmation bias”.[Note 4][73] Wason also used confirmation bias to explain the results of his selection task experiment.[74] In this task, participants are given partial information about a set of objects, and have to specify what further information they would need to tell whether or not a conditional rule (“If A, then B”) applies. It has been found repeatedly that people perform badly on various forms of this test, in most cases ignoring information that could potentially refute the rule.[75][76]

Klayman and Ha’s critique

A 1987 paper by Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha argued that the Wason experiments had not actually demonstrated a bias towards confirmation. Instead, Klayman and Ha interpreted the results in terms of a tendency to make tests that are consistent with the working hypothesis.[77] They called this the “positive test strategy”.[8] This strategy is an example of a heuristic: a reasoning shortcut that is imperfect but easy to compute.[78] Klayman and Ha used Bayesian probability and information theory as their standard of hypothesis-testing, rather than the falsificationism used by Wason. According to these ideas, each answer to a question yields a different amount of information, which depends on the person’s prior beliefs. Thus a scientific test of a hypothesis is one that is expected to produce the most information. Since the information content depends on initial probabilities, a positive test can either be highly informative or uninformative. Klayman and Ha argued that when people think about realistic problems, they are looking for a specific answer with a small initial probability. In this case, positive tests are usually more informative than negative tests.[14] However, in Wason’s rule discovery task the answer—three numbers in ascending order—is very broad, so positive tests are unlikely to yield informative answers. Klayman and Ha supported their analysis by citing an experiment that used the labels “DAX” and “MED” in place of “fits the rule” and “doesn’t fit the rule”. This avoided implying that the aim was to find a low-probability rule. Participants had much more success with this version of the experiment.[79][80]

Within the universe of all possible triples, those that fit the true rule are shown schematically as a circle. The hypothesized rule is a smaller circle enclosed within it.

If the true rule (T) encompasses the current hypothesis (H), then positive tests (examining an H to see if it is T) will not show that the hypothesis is false.

Two overlapping circles represent the true rule and the hypothesized rule. Any observation falling in the non-overlapping parts of the circles shows that the two rules are not exactly the same. In other words, those observations falsify the hypothesis.

If the true rule (T) overlaps the current hypothesis (H), then either a negative test or a positive test can potentially falsify H.

The triples fitting the hypothesis are represented as a circle within the universe of all triples. The true rule is a smaller circle within this.

When the working hypothesis (H) includes the true rule (T) then positive tests are the only way to falsify H.

In light of this and other critiques, the focus of research moved away from confirmation versus falsification to examine whether people test hypotheses in an informative way, or an uninformative but positive way. The search for “true” confirmation bias led psychologists to look at a wider range of effects in how people process information.[81]

Explanations

Confirmation bias is often described as a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[15][82] According to Robert Maccoun, most biased evidence processing occurs through a combination of both “cold” (cognitive) and “hot” (motivated) mechanisms.[83]

Cognitive explanations for confirmation bias are based on limitations in people’s ability to handle complex tasks, and the shortcuts, called heuristics, that they use.[84] For example, people may judge the reliability of evidence by using the availability heuristic—i.e., how readily a particular idea comes to mind.[85] It is also possible that people can only focus on one thought at a time, so find it difficult to test alternative hypotheses in parallel.[86] Another heuristic is the positive test strategy identified by Klayman and Ha, in which people test a hypothesis by examining cases where they expect a property or event to occur. This heuristic avoids the difficult or impossible task of working out how diagnostic each possible question will be. However, it is not universally reliable, so people can overlook challenges to their existing beliefs.[14][87]

Motivational explanations involve an effect of desire on belief, sometimes called “wishful thinking“.[88][89] It is known that people prefer pleasant thoughts over unpleasant ones in a number of ways: this is called the “Pollyanna principle“.[90] Applied to arguments or sources of evidence, this could explain why desired conclusions are more likely to be believed true.[88] According to experiments that manipulate the desirability of the conclusion, people demand a high standard of evidence for unpalatable ideas and a low standard for preferred ideas. In other words, they ask, “Can I believe this?” for some suggestions and, “Must I believe this?” for others.[91][92] Althoughconsistency is a desirable feature of attitudes, an excessive drive for consistency is another potential source of bias because it may prevent people from neutrally evaluating new, surprising information.[88] Social psychologist Ziva Kunda combines the cognitive and motivational theories, arguing that motivation creates the bias, but cognitive factors determine the size of the effect.[93]

Explanations in terms of cost-benefit analysis assume that people do not just test hypotheses in a disinterested way, but assess the costs of different errors.[94] Using ideas from evolutionary psychology, James Friedrich suggests that people do not primarily aim at truth in testing hypotheses, but try to avoid the most costly errors. For example, employers might ask one-sided questions in job interviews because they are focused on weeding out unsuitable candidates.[95] Yaacov Trope and Akiva Liberman’s refinement of this theory assumes that people compare the two different kinds of error: accepting a false hypothesis or rejecting a true hypothesis. For instance, someone who underestimates a friend’s honesty might treat him or her suspiciously and so undermine the friendship. Overestimating the friend’s honesty may also be costly, but less so. In this case, it would be rational to seek, evaluate or remember evidence of their honesty in a biased way.[96] When someone gives an initial impression of being introverted or extroverted, questions that match that impression come across as more empathic.[97] This suggests that when talking to someone who seems to be an introvert, it is a sign of better social skills to ask, “Do you feel awkward in social situations?” rather than, “Do you like noisy parties?” The connection between confirmation bias and social skills was corroborated by a study of how college students get to know other people. Highly self-monitoring students, who are more sensitive to their environment and to social norms, asked more matching questions when interviewing a high-status staff member than when getting to know fellow students.[97]

Psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Philip Tetlock distinguish two different kinds of thinking process. Exploratory thought neutrally considers multiple points of view and tries to anticipate all possible objections to a particular position, while confirmatory thought seeks to justify a specific point of view. Lerner and Tetlock say that when people expect to justify their position to others whose views they already know, they will tend to adopt a similar position to those people, and then use confirmatory thought to bolster their own credibility. However, if the external parties are overly aggressive or critical, people will disengage from thought altogether, and simply assert their personal opinions without justification.[98] Lerner and Tetlock say that people only push themselves to think critically and logically when they know in advance they will need to explain themselves to others who are well-informed, genuinely interested in the truth, and whose views they don’t already know.[99] Because those conditions rarely exist, they argue, most people are using confirmatory thought most of the time.[100]

Consequences

In finance

Confirmation bias can lead investors to be overconfident, ignoring evidence that their strategies will lose money.[6][101] In studies of political stock markets, investors made more profit when they resisted bias. For example, participants who interpreted a candidate’s debate performance in a neutral rather than partisan way were more likely to profit.[102] To combat the effect of confirmation bias, investors can try to adopt a contrary viewpoint “for the sake of argument”.[103] In one technique, they imagine that their investments have collapsed and ask themselves why this might happen.[6]

In physical and mental health

Raymond Nickerson, a psychologist, blames confirmation bias for the ineffective medical procedures that were used for centuries before the arrival of scientific medicine.[104] If a patient recovered, medical authorities counted the treatment as successful, rather than looking for alternative explanations such as that the disease had run its natural course.[104] Biased assimilation is a factor in the modern appeal of alternative medicine, whose proponents are swayed by positive anecdotal evidence but treat scientific evidence hyper-critically.[105][106][107]

Cognitive therapy was developed by Aaron T. Beck in the early 1960s and has become a popular approach.[108] According to Beck, biased information processing is a factor in depression.[109] His approach teaches people to treat evidence impartially, rather than selectively reinforcing negative outlooks.[66] Phobias and hypochondria have also been shown to involve confirmation bias for threatening information.[110]

In politics and law

A woman and a man reading a document in a courtroom

Mock trials allow researchers to examine confirmation biases in a realistic setting.

Nickerson argues that reasoning in judicial and political contexts is sometimes subconsciously biased, favoring conclusions that judges, juries or governments have already committed to.[111] Since the evidence in a jury trial can be complex, and jurors often reach decisions about the verdict early on, it is reasonable to expect an attitude polarization effect. The prediction that jurors will become more extreme in their views as they see more evidence has been borne out in experiments with mock trials.[112][113] Both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal justice systems are affected by confirmation bias.[114]

Confirmation bias can be a factor in creating or extending conflicts, from emotionally charged debates to wars: by interpreting the evidence in their favor, each opposing party can become overconfident that it is in the stronger position.[115] On the other hand, confirmation bias can result in people ignoring or misinterpreting the signs of an imminent or incipient conflict. For example, psychologists Stuart Sutherland and Thomas Kida have each argued that US Admiral Husband E. Kimmel showed confirmation bias when playing down the first signs of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[75][116]

A two-decade study of political pundits by Philip E. Tetlock found that, on the whole, their predictions were not much better than chance. Tetlock divided experts into “foxes” who maintained multiple hypotheses, and “hedgehogs” who were more dogmatic. In general, the hedgehogs were much less accurate. Tetlock blamed their failure on confirmation bias—specifically, their inability to make use of new information that contradicted their existing theories.[117]

In the 2013 murder trial of David Camm, the defense argued that Camm was charged for the murders of his wife and two children solely because of confirmation bias within the investigation.[118] Camm was arrested three days after the murders on the basis of faulty evidence. Despite the discovery that almost every piece of evidence on the probable cause affidavit was inaccurate or unreliable, thecharges were not dropped against him.[119][120] A sweatshirt found at the crime was subsequently discovered to contain the DNA of a convicted felon, his prison nickname, and his department of corrections number.[121]Investigators looked for Camm’s DNA on the sweatshirt, but failed to investigate any other pieces of evidence found on it and the foreign DNA was not run through CODIS until 5 years after the crime.[122][123] When the secondsuspect was discovered, prosecutors charged them as co-conspirators in the crime despite finding no evidence linking the two men.[124][125] Camm was acquitted of the murders.[126]

In the paranormal

One factor in the appeal of alleged psychic readings is that listeners apply a confirmation bias which fits the psychic’s statements to their own lives.[127] By making a large number of ambiguous statements in each sitting, the psychic gives the client more opportunities to find a match. This is one of the techniques of cold reading, with which a psychic can deliver a subjectively impressive reading without any prior information about the client.[127]Investigator James Randi compared the transcript of a reading to the client’s report of what the psychic had said, and found that the client showed a strong selective recall of the “hits”.[128]

As a striking illustration of confirmation bias in the real world, Nickerson mentions numerological pyramidology: the practice of finding meaning in the proportions of the Egyptian pyramids.[129] There are many different length measurements that can be made of, for example, the Great Pyramid of Giza and many ways to combine or manipulate them. Hence it is almost inevitable that people who look at these numbers selectively will find superficially impressive correspondences, for example with the dimensions of the Earth.[129]

In science

A distinguishing feature of scientific thinking is the search for falsifying as well as confirming evidence.[130] However, many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data.[130] Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs.[82][131][132] However, assuming that the research question is relevant, the experimental design adequate and the data are clearly and comprehensively described, the found results should be of importance to the scientific community and should not be viewed prejudicially, regardless of whether they conform to current theoretical predictions.[132]

In the context of scientific research, confirmation biases can sustain theories or research programs in the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence;[75][133] the field of parapsychology has been particularly affected.[134]

An experimenter’s confirmation bias can potentially affect which data are reported. Data that conflict with the experimenter’s expectations may be more readily discarded as unreliable, producing the so-called file drawer effect. To combat this tendency, scientific training teaches ways to prevent bias.[135] For example, experimental design of randomized controlled trials (coupled with their systematic review) aims to minimize sources of bias.[135][136] The social process of peer review is thought to mitigate the effect of individual scientists’ biases,[137] even though the peer review process itself may be susceptible to such biases.[132][138] Confirmation bias may thus be especially harmful to objective evaluations regarding nonconforming results since biased individuals may regard opposing evidence to be weak in principle and give little serious thought to revising their beliefs.[131] Scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community, and research presenting controversial results frequently receives harsh peer review.[139]

In self-image

Social psychologists have identified two tendencies in the way people seek or interpret information about themselves. Self-verification is the drive to reinforce the existing self-image and self-enhancement is the drive to seek positive feedback. Both are served by confirmation biases.[140] In experiments where people are given feedback that conflicts with their self-image, they are less likely to attend to it or remember it than when given self-verifying feedback.[141][142][143] They reduce the impact of such information by interpreting it as unreliable.[141][144][145] Similar experiments have found a preference for positive feedback, and the people who give it, over negative feedback.[140]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ David Perkins, a geneticist, coined the term “myside bias” referring to a preference for “my” side of an issue. (Baron 2000, p. 195)
  2. Jump up^ Tuchman (1984) described a form of confirmation bias at work in the process of justifying policies to which a government has committed itself: “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it” (p. 245). In the context of a discussion of the policy that drew the United States into war in Vietnam and kept the U.S. military engaged for 16 years despite countless evidences that it was a lost cause from the beginning, Tuchman argued:

    Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a historian’s statement about Philip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden head of all sovereigns: “no experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in essential excellence.” (p.7)

    Folly, she argued, is a form of self-deception characterized by “insistence on a rooted notion regardless of contrary evidence” (p.209)

  3. Jump up^ “Assimilation bias” is another term used for biased interpretation of evidence. (Risen & Gilovich 2007, p. 113)
  4. Jump up^ Wason also used the term “verification bias”. (Poletiek 2001, p. 73)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-765

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 760, September 21, 2016, Story 1: Progressive Eugenics Racists Project Their Own Racism On Others — Dueling Ads Hidden History — Trump Goes Positive vs. Clinton Goes Negative — Who Do You Trust? — Videos

Posted on September 21, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Assault, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Islamic State, Legal Drugs, Monetary Policy, Second Amendment, Senate, Tax Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Donald Trump Campaign Advert – Heartland For TRUMP

Dobbs: Clinton’s attack ads have had no effect on Trump

Sheriff Clarke on Clinton attacking Trump on race

Equal | Hillary Clinton

Fighter | Hillary Clinton

Hannity 8/26/16 | Donald Trump new ad attacks Hillary Clinton’s Racism & ‘Super-Predators’ remarks

(Democratic Debate) Hillary Clinton: I’m a progressive who likes to get …

This Video SHOULD Cost Hillary Clinton The Black Vote

The video Hillary Clinton does not want you to see.

Audience laughs when Crist tells them Hillary is honest

Most Powerful Attack Ads against Donald Trump | HEARTBREAKING

Hillary Clinton hits Donald Trump with new attack campaign ad

New Hillary Clinton ad suggests Donald Trump supporters are RACIST

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

Hillary Clinton “admires” Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger

PJTV — Forgotten Newsreel History: Margaret Sanger Declaring ‘No More Babies’

Hillary Clinton Planned Parenthood FULL Speech

Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” & Barack Obama’s Planned Parenthood

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

Eugenics, Hitler, Margaret Sanger’s Planned Murderhood, etc. by Edwin Black

Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger

MAAFA 21 [A documentary on eugenics and genocide]

CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )

Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal

Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full

Robert Spencer on Black Lives Matter and the Leftist/Islamic Alliance

Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Destroys Leftist Ideology

Thomas Sowell – Legacy of the Welfare State

Thomas Sowell on “Black Redneck” Culture

Thomas Sowell exposes Black Lives Matter activists & leaders

 

Charlotte faces aftermath of protests ignited by fatal police shooting; 16 officers injured

Charlotte officials say they are preparing for more protests today following a night of violence over a police officer’s fatal shooting of an African-American man Tuesday in the University City area. The dead man was identified as Keith Lamont Scott, 43.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-760

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 735, August 12, 2016, Story 1: Big Lie Media Fearing and Trembling Over October or September Surprise — Surprise — Surprise — Surprise –Russia, China, and U.S.A. (National Security Agency) — Have All of Hillary Clinton’s “Destroyed” — Emails On Libya–Benghazi–Syria–Islamic State, CIA agents blown by Hillary and Staff and Clinton Foundation Pay for Play Access and Influence Racket (RICO Complaint Filed — Public Corruption)! — Story 2: The Sinking of The Clippers in October — We found the mighty CLIPPER and then we cut her down — Corrupt Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racists — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — Story 3: We Have To Sink The Clippers To The Bottom of The Sea — Trump To Big Lie Media “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” –Hillary, Lies and Drugs – “But if you try sometime you find You get what you need” — Trump, Truth and Freedom — Videos

Posted on August 12, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Egypt, Employment, European History, European Union, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Foreign Policy, France, Germany, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Great Britain, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Media, Middle East, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Networking, News, Obama, Oil, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Qatar, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Security, South America, Success, Syria, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Turkey, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Story 1: Big Lie Media Fearing and Trembling Over October or September Surprise — Surprise — Surprise — Surprise –Russia, China, and U.S.A. (National Security Agency) — Have All of Hillary Clinton’s “Destroyed”  Emails On Libya–Benghazi–Syria–Islamic State, CIA agents exposed  by Hillary and Staff and Clinton Foundation Pay for Play Access and Influence Racket (RICO Complaint Filed — Public Corruption)! –

quid pro doughclinton foundationcartoon-bill-clinton-lynch-scratchclinton-foundation-scandalsdrive up corruptionClinton_Family_Corruptioncookie jarsClintons-Again0follow the moneyjpgfeel my pain
stepping updefine wealthhillary_clinton_cartoonClinton-Proppedreal truth about hillarylipstick on a pigclintonfallinghillary and pimpLookShinycartoon-clinton-foundationclinton crime familyclintonfoundationClinton-Foundation-2013-Breakdownpay for playpay for playpay for play crime familycf hillary clintoncnn state department report news cover

The Clinton Foundation: Pay For Play

Reality Check: Emails Prove Clinton Found. WAS Getting Favors From Hillary’s State Department

Emails Expose Clinton Foundation Corruption: Special Report 8/10/16 Full

New developments in Hillary Clinton pay for play scandal

DOJ Blocked FBI Investigation Into Potential Public Corruption at Clinton Foundation

DOJ under scrutiny over Clinton Foundation

Kelly File 8/11/16-Clinton Foundation revelations could be serious;Clinton econ plan;(On The Record)

The Kelly File 8/11/16 | Intel Reports manipulated, Donald Trump’s Meltdown, Mike Huckabee interview

BUSTED! State Dept. Covering For Crooked Hillary Clinton @Mr_Pinko

On the Record 8/10/16 FULL: Clinton Foundation Exposed! Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich

Wikileaks: More Hillary E-mails Could Indict Her This Time?

New Bombshell in the Hillary Clinton Deleted Emails and the Wikileaks DNC Email Scandal

Napolitano and Assange Say Email Leaks Lead to Death of Scientist

Clinton Discussed Iran Scientist In Emails – Iran Executes Nuclear Scientist – America’s newsroom

Executed In Iran – Shahram Amiri Exposed On Hillary Clinton’s Server – Lt Gen Flynn – Fox & Friends

16-0807 Sen. Tom Cotton on Hillary’s Email Killing an Iranian Scientist

Iran Executes Scientist/Spy – What’s Hillary’s Role?

Executed In Iran – Shahram Amiri Exposed On Hillary Clinton’s Server – Fox & Friends

America’s Newsroom 8/8/16- Iran Scientist &Clinton Email;Trump Economy Plan;Giuliani Blast MediaBias

Why PUTIN hates HILLARY – UN meeting exposes the Truth!

Putin Orders “Full Defense” of Trump, Authorizes All Hillary Emails Released.

All USA need to see this! 2016 Please Share

Next leak will lead to arrest of Hillary Clinton – Assange

Julian Assange : we have proof that the Clinton camp is rigging the election,we will release it soon

Hillary ‘deliberately and blatantly lied’ if Assange claim true – Ron Paul

Hillary Clinton Won’t Stop Lying! Judge Jeanine Opening Statement 8/6/16

Wikileaks Exposes Hillary’s Benghazi Lies To Congress

Hillary Clinton New Email Scandal – Clinton Foundation O’Reilly

Why is Putin Attacking the Globalists?

News Alert: Judicial Watch Uncovers New Unseen Emails From Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server

Clinton Foundation has a RICO Complaint Filed

Rudy Giuliani “Clinton Foundation Is A Racketeering Enterprise To Enrich The Clintons!”

Donald Trump On Crooked And Crazy Hillary – Rudy Giuliani On Fox And Friends August 7, 2016

Wow: Julian Assange Just Delivered Next Batch of Hillary Emails! She’s Toast!

CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )

Gomer Surprise

Sink The Clipper

SINK THE BISMARCK ~ sung by Johnny Horton

Lyrics

In May of nineteen forty-one the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship that had the biggest guns
The Bismarck was the fastest ship that ever sailed the seas
On her deck were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees

Out of the cold and foggy night came the British ship the Hood
And ev’ry British seaman, he knew and understood
They had to sink the Bismarck, the terror of the sea
Stop those guns as big as steers and those shells as big as trees

We’ll find that German battleship that’s makin’ such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin’ boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down

The Hood found the Bismarck and on that fatal day
The Bismarck started firin’ fifteen miles away
“We gotta sink the Bismarck” was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away, the mighty Hood went down

For six long days and weary nights they tried to find her trail
Churchill told the people “Put ev’ry ship a-sail
‘Cause somewhere on that ocean I know she’s gotta be
We gotta sink the Bismarck to the bottom of the sea”

We’ll find that German battleship that’s makin’ such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismarck cause the world depends on us
Hit the decks a-runnin’ boys and spin those guns around
When we find the Bismarck we gotta cut her down

The fog was gone the seventh day and they saw the mornin’ sun
Ten hours away from homeland the Bismarck made its run
The admiral of the British fleet said “Turn those bows around
We found that German battleship and we’re gonna cut her down”

The British guns were aimed and the shells were comin’ fast
The first shell hit the Bismarck, they knew she couldn’t last
That mighty German battleship is just a memory
“Sink the Bismarck” was the battle cry that shook the seven seas

We found that German battleship was makin’ such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismarck ’cause the world depends on us
We hit the deck a-runnin’ and we spun those guns around
Yeah, we found the mighty Bismarck and then we cut her down

We found that German battleship was makin’ such a fuss
We had to sink the Bismarck ’cause the world depends on us
We hit the deck a-runnin’ and we spun those guns around
We found the mighty Bismarck and then we cut her down

Sink The Bismarck (1960)

The Bismark Documentary on Sinking the Bismark,

the Deadliest Warship Ever Made

Rudy Giuliani Blasts Media Bias – Media Has Almost Like Put Mob Hit On Trump – America’s Newsroom

FULL SPEECH: Reince Priebus speaking at Donald Trump rally in Erie, Pennsylvania

Donald Trump Tells Protester: “YOUR MOTHER IS VOTING FOR TRUMP” Erie Pa Rally 8/12/16

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uQ8_GYgPs]

Live: Donald Trump Holds Rally in ERIE, PA (8/12/16)

 

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (TV Show ’69)

You Can’t Always Get What You Want
I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she would meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man
No, you can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need
I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was her footloose man
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need
But I went down to the demonstration
To get your fair share of abuse
Singing, “We’re gonna vent our frustration
If we don’t we’re gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse”

The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Live) – OFFICIAL

Obama admin blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption: Report

– The Washington Times – Thursday, August 11, 2016

The Trump campaign seized on reports Thursday that the Obama administration rejected requests from three FBIfield offices that wanted to open public corruption cases involving the Clinton Foundation and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

After banks alerted the field offices to suspicious activity involving the Clinton family charity, the FBI wanted to investigate conflicts of interest stemming from foreign donations during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, CNN reported.

“Today’s news that President Obama’s Department of Justice overruled three separate DOJ field offices and the FBI in declining to open a public corruption charge against the Clinton Foundation shows a troubling pattern of Obama andClinton politicizing any government institution for their own personal political interests,” Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement.

“This latest refusal to allow even a cursory investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play dealings smacks of political favoritism. This is exactly why the American public has lost trust in the U.S. government and is ready to elect an outsider like Donald Trump,” Mr. Miller said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/obama-admin-blocked-fbi-probe-clinton-foundation/

The revelation of the blocked corruption probe follows criticism of decision the Justice Department not to pursue criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton for her secret email setup as secretary of state, despite the FBI’s determination that she was “extremely careless” and mishandled classified information.

Abedin’s Overlapping Jobs Renew Focus on Clinton Conflicts

By Ben Brody and Nick WadhamsNick

August 15, 2016 — 4:00 AM CDT Updated on August 15, 2016 — 12:27 PM CDT

Huma Abedin Faces Questions About Overlapping Jobs

Huma Abedin stepped down from her post as deputy chief of staff at the State Department and Hillary Clinton’s ever-present personal assistant on June 3, 2012. Only she didn’t really leave.

Instead, in a reverse twist on a program intended to bring talented outsiders into government, Abedin was immediately rehired as a “special government employee.” She also took paying jobs with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm with international clients that was co-founded by a foundation official who also was Bill Clinton’s long-time personal aide.

Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton.
Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton.
Photographer: J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Abedin’s multitasking in the final eight months of Hillary Clinton’s time as the top U.S. diplomat — and her role as intermediary for some of the same players before that — are drawing renewed scrutiny after a conservative watchdog group’s release last week of a new batch of e-mails to and from Clinton aides. Abedin has become the personification of an election-year debate over whether the nonprofit foundation will create conflicts of interest if Clinton wins the White House.

‘Walking Conflict’

“The Clinton Foundation for Hillary Clinton is kind of a walking conflict-of-interest problem,” Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said in an interview. “Clearly this notion that it could continue to operate while she was secretary of state — it was a built-in problem. If you’re really looking at what should happen if she’s elected, neither her husband nor her daughter, certainly no relative, should have any connection with the foundation.”

Clinton was rated trustworthy by just 41 percent of likely voters in a Bloomberg Politicsnational poll conducted Aug. 5-8. More than half said that the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of foreign contributions while she was secretary of state bothers them “a lot.”

The Clinton Foundation is a nonprofit which says on its website that it has focused “on tackling a number of the world’s greatest challenges: Global health, climate change, economic development, health and wellness, and improving opportunity for girls and women.” Its annual financial statement for 2014 said its grants and contributions for the year totaled $331.7 million.

Political Contributions

Bill and Hillary Clinton have never been paid for their work with the foundation, and Bill Clinton told Bloomberg Television in June that “I always took all the money people gave us and put it right into the work.”

But Republican critics say they have benefited from political contributions and speech fees provided by some of its wealthy contributors. Republicans have cited the questionable human-rights records of some countries that contributed to the foundation, and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump last week called it a “pay-for-play” operation that rewarded its benefactors with State Department favors.

Clinton’s Pledge

When Clinton was awaiting confirmation as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state in 2009, she wrote a letter to the State Department’s chief ethics officer promising that she wouldn’t “participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption.”

But that “did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with the Clinton Foundation staff,” just as they “are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations,” department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters last week.

That’s where Abedin came in.

Best known for her “Good Wife” ordeal standing by her husband, former Representative Anthony Weiner, throughout the sexting scandal that brought down his career in politics, Abedin’s professional accomplishments have been mostly behind the scenes as the ever-present assistant to Hillary Clinton.

Campaign Role

The Michigan-born daughter of an Indian father and a Pakistani mother, Abedin graduated from George Washington University and worked as a White House intern for Hillary Clinton as first lady. She followed her boss to the Senate, on her 2008 presidential campaign and to the State Department. Abedin is still at Clinton’s side as vice chair of this year’s presidential campaign.

Abedin’s arrangement as a “special government employee” has been challenged since 2013 by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has questioned whether she was overpaid and wrote her that “you allegedly sent or received approximately 7,300 emails on your official Department of State address that involved Mr. Douglas Band,” the Bill Clinton aide and Clinton Foundation official who co-founded Teneo.

In a 2013 letter to State Department officials, Abedin said she left her full-time post because “the birth of my son in December 2011 led me to decide to spend the bulk of my time in New York City where my family lived.” She said she stayed on as an hourly employee working for “the Secretary of State in her personal capacity to help prepare for her transition from public service.”

‘Strategic Advice’

Abedin wrote that she provided “strategic advice” to Teneo’s management team but never did “any work on Teneo’s behalf before the department” nor provided information from government sources to help its clients make investment decisions, as Republicans had suggested.

Abedin’s arrangement was questioned in a 2013 civil lawsuit by Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, which pressed for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. After Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server when she was secretary of state became public, the group got the the case reopened and has been obtaining — and publicizing — a steady barrage of e-mails and deposition transcripts on the e-mail system and other topics..

Last week, Judicial Watch produced e-mails including a 2009 exchange in which Band wrote Abedin that it was “important to take care of” an individual, whose name was redacted. Abedin replied that “personnel has been sending him options.”

In another 2009 exchange, Band asked Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury in touch with a State Department “substance person” on Lebanon. The Chagoury Group co-founder has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a list of donors posted online.

“Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work,” Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, said in a statement. Referring to Band’s work for Bill Clinton, he said, “They are communications between her aides and the President’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.”

Trudeau, the State Department spokeswoman, said the department was “not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.” A lawyer for Abedin declined to comment.

GAO Report

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office released the findings of a probe into the “special government employee” designation Abedin had, concluding that agencies don’t keep reliable data on the role. While not addressing Abedin’s position specifically, the review, prompted by Grassley’s concerns, cited “weak internal coordination and misunderstanding” about what the job involves.

“The report shows government agencies are having trouble determining who should be given this designation and what’s needed to process the designation,” Grassley said in a statement after the report was released. “This is worrisome because if the government isn’t properly tracking who has the designation, it may not be looking at whether anyone has a conflict of interest with government service and a private sector job.”

The thousands of work-related e-mails from Clinton’s private server that have been released by the State Department also underscore that some of the almost-constant contacts between Abedin and Douglas Band during her years at the State Department simply reflected their roles as the all-purpose helpers alongside Hillary and Bill Clinton in their separate global travels.

“If u r still up, wjc landed in brazil for refuel,” Abedin wrote the secretary of state in June 2009, using Bill Clinton’s initials. “He should be on the ground for an hour or so. Call dougs cell.”

Washington’s Ways

Washington is in many ways a small town with government as its industry, and the debate over the Clinton Foundation simply shows “the way Washington works,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight.

“It’s instances like this that cause the public to have a negative view of how our government works, and it really gives people the impression that deals are done in back rooms and based on who you know rather than what you know,” Amey said in an interview.

While Abedin hasn’t said whether she’d return to Washington and the White House to serve again in a Clinton administration, the Clintons have acknowledged that they would have to forge a new relationship with the foundation they started. But they haven’t provided details.

“There’ll clearly be some changes in what the Clinton Foundation does and how we do it,” Bill Clinton told Bloomberg Television anchor David Westin during a June session of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative in Atlanta. “And we’ll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-15/huma-abedin-s-overlapping-jobs-renew-focus-on-clinton-conflicts

Clinton Foundation Investigation Could Spell Hillary’s Doom

A report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation could spell serious trouble for Hillary Clinton. (AP)

A report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation could spell serious trouble for Hillary Clinton.

Scandal: The Daily Caller reports that the FBI now has multiple investigations underway into the nefarious dealings of the Bill and Hillary’s favor bank, also known as the Clinton Foundation. If true, this investigation could succeed where others have been stonewalled or blocked by the Clinton machine.

Is Hillary Clinton going to be held to account for her corrupt dealings between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation? That question just became highly relevant again.

According to the Daily Caller, this investigation — unlike the politically neutered FBI probe into Clinton’s reckless use of a private email server while Secretary of State — is being headed by Preet Bharara, a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara, the story notes, has a well-deserved reputation as a nonpartisan who fearlessly takes on powerful political interests.

If this is true, and the report is admittedly based on the word of an unnamed source, it could spell big trouble for Hillary.

This latest report comes just days after Judicial Watch released a batch of emails that exposed a cozy relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation — a relationship Clinton swore she would avoid when taking the job.

As the Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton put it, the documents show that “the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked hand in hand in terms of policy and donor effort.”

Even the mainstream press was forced to admit that the new emails “raised questions” about “whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department.” On Sunday, the Washington Post editorialized that the emails reveal a “porous ethical wall” while Clinton was at State, and that the story would have been bigger news if so much attention weren’t being devoted to the imploding Trump campaign.

Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that in 2012, Clinton’s top State Department aide, Cheryl Mills, traveled to New York in 2012 to interview candidates to run the foundation. As CNN put it, this “raises new questions about the blurred lines that have dogged the Clintons in recent years.”

The Daily Caller report also comes amid news that three FBI field offices were pushing months ago to launch a public corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation, but were rebuffed by the Justice Department.

The FBI announced in May that it was investigating longtime Clinton crony and Virginia’s ethically challenged Gov. Terry McAuliffe for possible illegal campaign contributions. The FBI said it was also looking into McAuliffe’s time as a board member of the Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative.

Before taking the job at State, Clinton agreed not to avoid conflicts of interest between the Foundation and her role at State. It should be obvious to everyone that this promise wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

All of this supports the central contention of Peter Schweizer’s 2015 book, “Clinton Cash,” that detailed how the Clinton’s used Hillary’s position at State to trade massive donations to the Foundation for favors from the Obama administration. As Schweizer put it, “they have monetized public service in a massive way.”

We also learned Friday that the Clintons made $1 million in donations to their own foundation, which effectively amounts to recirculating the money back to themselves and their friends while taking a massive tax deduction.

This sort of corruption would be intolerable to liberals and the mainstream media if a Republican were engaged in it. Yet these same liberals reflexively dismiss all such corruption claims against team Clinton as lacking “definitive proof” or as insignificant or immaterial.

As a result, for too long, the Clintons have gotten away such scams. One can only hope that this time Bill and Hillary meet their match in U.S. attorney Bharara.

Clinton Foundation Investigation Could Spell Hillary’s Doom

 

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Newly released emails show the complicated nature of ties between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton-led State Department—and the high risk of conflicts of interest.

Newly released emails have shown again the troublesome interconnections between the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

The conservative accountability group Judicial Watch released Tuesday night a tranche of nearly 300 emails it obtained through a lawsuit, and they paint a picture of some of the conflicts of interest created by a situation in which Hillary Clinton ran U.S. foreign policy as her husband’s foundation acted around the globe. Many of the emails are redacted, and some are almost comically boring—“No new voice messages,” one reads in full—but others are not.

In one of the more piquant interactions, from April 2009, Doug Band, a close confidant of former President Clinton who was then in charge of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, pressed top Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for a connection at the State Department for Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian-Lebanese billionaire who was a major benefactor of the Clinton Foundation.

“It’s jeff feltman. I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to jeff,” Abedin replied, referring to the then-U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Band responded, “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important… He’s awake I’m sure.”

On Wednesday, Chagoury released a statement through a spokesman, saying he had hoped to pass along insights about the Lebanese election, but that nothing had come of it. He said he had not spoken with Clinton or any member of her staff since 2006.

According to Clinton Foundation records, Chagoury has given the charity between $1 and $5 million, and pledged $1 billion to CGI. He had ties to the former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, according to The Wall Street Journal, as well as to Christian politicians in highly sectarian Lebanon. In 2000, he paid a $66 million fine in Nigeria as part of a plea deal in a money-laundering case.

In another case, Band appears to be lobbying for a job for someone. Also in April 2009, he wrote to State Department official Nora Toiv as well as Mills and Abedin, saying it was “important to take care of” an individual, whose name is redacted. Abedin replied, “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

The Clinton campaign issued a statement saying Band’s correspondence was unrelated to the Clinton Foundation:

Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides and the President’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.
But rather than reassure, that statement only emphasizes the unusual and awkward situation. How would a third-party observer know when Band was working in his private capacity as an aide to Bill Clinton, and when he was working in his CGI capacity? For that matter, would Abedin and Mills know? The overlapping interests are effectively impossible to entangle. Moreover, the Chagoury interaction is not the first one in which Foundation donors had cause to deal with the State Department, raising the possibility of quid-pro-quos.
Judicial Watch also noted that there were 44 emails in the batch which Hillary Clinton had not turned over to the State Department as part of public-records compliance.

The new disclosures weave together two threads of scandals around Hillary Clinton. The first are the many possible conflicts of interest involving the Foundation and Foggy Bottom, in which there have been various sightings of smoke but no obvious flames as yet. The second are her emails. Even after the Department of Justice announced on July 6 that Clinton would not face charges related to her use of a private email server, the fact and content of those emails continues to haunt her. FBI Director James Comey called Clinton and her aides “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” and the State Department is still probing the emails. Meanwhile, lawsuits like Judicial Watch’s continue to produce embarrassing revelations.

The emails represent something of a classic Clinton scandal. Although the House investigation turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on her part with respect to the attacks themselves, it was during that inquiry that her private-email use became public. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. Although no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges.

What? During the course of the Benghazi investigation, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned Clinton had used a personal email account while secretary of state. It turned out she had also been using a private server, located at a house in New York. The result was that Clinton and her staff decided which emails to turn over to the State Department as public records and which to withhold; they say they then destroyed the ones they had designated as personal.

When? 2009-2013, during Clinton’s term as secretary.

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; top aides including Huma Abedin

How serious is it? Serious, but slightly less serious. A May report from the State Department inspector general is harshly critical of Clinton’s email approach, but Loretta Lynch announced on July 6 that the Justice Department would not pursue criminal charges, removing the threat of an indictment that could be fatal to her campaign. But the scandal will remain a millstone around her neck forever. Comey’s damning comments about her conduct—“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”—will reverberate throughout the campaign. Also unresolved is the question of whether Clinton’s server was hacked. Comey said the FBI did not find any proof, but he also said that “we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.” Meanwhile, a recently released deposition shows Abedin expressing her frustration with the unwieldy setup, which she called “not a good system.”

What? Setting aside the question of the Clintons’ private email server, what’s actually in the emails that Clinton did turn over to State? While some of the emails related to Benghazi have been released, there are plenty of others covered by public-records laws that are still in the process of being vetted for release.

When? 2009-2013

How serious is it? Serious, but not as serious as it was. While political operatives hoped for embarrassing statements in the emails—and there were some cringeworthy moments of sucking up and some eye-rolly emails from contacts like Sidney Blumenthal—they were, for the most part, boring. More damaging is the fact that 110 emails included classified information at the time they were sent or received, even though Clinton had insisted she did not send or receive anything classified. Meanwhile, some emails remain to be seen. The State Department, under court order, is slowly releasing the emails she turned over, but there are other emails that she didn’t turn over, which have surfaced through court battles.  In particular, roughly 160 emails that Clinton did not turn overhave now surfaced through lawsuits by the conservative group Judicial Watch, raising questions about how and why they were withheld. In one, she even wondered about how her messages would be handled: “I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?”

What? On September 11, 2012, attackers overran a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Since then, Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton failed to adequately protect U.S. installations or that she attempted to spin the attacks as spontaneous when she knew they were planned terrorist operations. She testifies for the first time on October 22.
When? September 11, 2012-present

How serious is it? With the June 28 release of the House committee investigating Benghazi, this issue is receding. That report criticized security preparations at the American facility in Benghazi as well as stations elsewhere, but it produced no smoking guns or new accusations about things Clinton could have done the night of the attacks. Although some conservatives will likely continue to assail her, the biggest damage is likely to be iterative—the highly damaging private-email story was revealed during the course of the House inquiry.

What? Before becoming Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills worked for Clinton on an unpaid basis for four month while also working for New York University, in which capacity she negotiated on the school’s behalf with the government of Abu Dhabi, where it was building a campus. In June 2012, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin’s status at State changed to “special government employee,”allowing her to also work for Teneo, a consulting firm run by Bill Clinton’s former right-hand man. She also earned money from the Clinton Foundation and was paid directly by Hillary Clinton. In a separate case, ABC News reports that a topClinton Foundation donor named Rajiv Fernando was placed on State’s International Security Advisory Board. Fernando appeared significantly less qualified than many of his colleagues, and was appointed at the behest of the secretary’s office. Internal emails show that State staff first sought to cover for Clinton, and then Fernando resigned two days after ABC’s inquiries.

Who? Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are among Clinton’s longest-serving and closest aides. Abedin remains involved in her campaign (and she’s also married to Anthony Weiner).

When? January 2009-February 2013

How serious is it? This is arcane stuff, to be sure. There are questions about conflict of interest—such as whether Teneo clients might have benefited from special treatment by the State Department while Abedin worked for both. To a great extent, this is just an extension of the tangle of conflicts presented by the Clinton Foundation and the many overlapping roles of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation.

How serious is it? Only mildly. Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him.

What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches.

When? 2001-present

Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton

How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clintonon behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?

What? Bill Clinton’s foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton’s departure as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

When? 1997-present

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc.

How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.

What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate.Vince Foster’s suicide. Juanita Broaddrick.

When? 1975-2001

Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters

How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they’re not terribly dangerous. Some are wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it’s hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton’s standing. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise—or just conventional. On May 23, Donald Trump released a video prominently highlighting Broaddrick’s accusation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 

//

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-735

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555<