On Infanticide – USA Gov Policy

On February 7, this publication presented a legal analysis (by guest contributor retired judge John H. Wilson, who served on the New York State bench) of a new state law that allows abortion up to the moment of birth, essentially a legalization of infanticide. In response to the extraordinary debate this measure has produced, we now provide an analysis from another guest contributor, retired U.S. Army chaplain Don Zapsic, Jr.

New York State, which now has, in addition to a Democrat governor, a solid Democrat majority in both houses of its legislature, passed Senate Bill S2796, more commonly recognized as the cleverly labeled, Reproductive Health Act or RHA, which shockingly allows abortion right up until the actual moment before birth.

Several interests gained from the measure:

Planned Parenthood for expanding their profit margins.
Closet racists who decimate minority populations through the sanctioning of abortion on demand. In 2012, African-American abortions in New York City alone totaled 31,328 versus 24,758 live births (CNSnews.com/Feb., 2014).
Irresponsible males who will now have more time to pressure the women in their lives to abort away financial liabilities associated with unintended consequences of sexual exploitation.

The clinical diagnosis treats premature ejaculation levitra without prescription buying here as well. Popular to say, there is currently no evidence levitra generika to suggest that inflammation is associated with depression. wholesale cialis Another study published in 2013 concluded that Sildenafil medication increased the serum testosterone levels in men. If dandruff is caused due to some food allergy, then stopping the consumption of that particular medication. the cheapest viagra

By the way, hats off to whoever ultimately decided to tint the Freedom Tower pink. Great idea to highlight such a structure raised out of the ashes of Ground Zero to commemorate the deaths of thousands of innocents. Such an ironic turning of the tables!

To those who have designs on facilitating the untimely demise of the mentally challenged and elderly who consume disproportionate amounts of medical care and social services: You are one step closer to your goal. Yes, you have a dream!

I served as a U.S. Army chaplain: to all members of the clergy who allow politics to hijack their ministry: May sleeping consciences lie along with congregations that follow you more than God.

To any who may doubt the sincerity of my stated convictions, by all means, please do so. The passing of the ‘so-called’ Reproductive Health Act is neither about the physical and psychological well-being of the mother or the physical viability of the child. He or she always ends up dead in very barbaric fashion. RHA is simply a quantum leap to the next level of systematic infanticide. It is a legislative nightmare that almost defies description.

I respectfully submit the following:

The term “Planned Parenthood” is an oxymoron. Orchestrating the death of an unborn family member has precious little to do with planning and more to do with population control. Racism as well as its cousin sexism are clearly forms of discrimination. Abortion on demand is not deeply concerned about why a child is terminated even if it is based on something as disturbing as wanting a boy instead of a little girl. Nor are the purveyors of abortion particularly troubled by any disproportionate impact upon those belonging to a lower socio-economic class. It is no coincidence that Planned Parenthood is so well represented in poorer neighborhoods.

A reckless and irresponsible male seeking to mate should not be producing any child that he is unable and/or unwilling to father into adulthood. Then there is the reference to the Freedom Tower which was intended to be a structural symbol of the triumph of the human spirit out of the ash heap. Not the triumph of the ash heap over the human spirit.

On playing God, no one has the right to delegate life-and-death authority over any innocent human being. Children are a gift and a loan from the Almighty. Only He, and He alone, determines when their time on earth is done. The RHA though legal, has no moral standing before the One who ultimately judges every living soul. To presume otherwise is not only arrogant, but also ignorant.

The remark about the mentally challenged and elderly in poor health is grounded in the sanctity of human life. The institutional devaluation and consequent degradation of any human being is a threat to all human beings. Death industry advocates realize that another hurdle has been cleared with the passing of the Reproductive Health Act. A bill designed to literally cut back the roster of those who impose the greatest financial burdens upon existing social programs.

My reference to the clergy is a tongue-in-cheek reference towards religious practitioners who use God as a punchline in the pulpit. Spiritually bankrupt themselves; they have way too much influence largely based upon their elevated status, higher education, and an uncanny ability to manufacture displays of piety when suiting their purposes. They are truly “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who advocate for abortion whenever expedient to do so.

Last but not least is the message to expectant mothers struggling with unwanted pregnancies. These vulnerable women and their unborn children require and deserve our love and support; not condemnation and judgment. Equally important, they need to understand that those who wish to sweep away the unborn from their bodies are not champions of women’s rights, but the worst sort of child abusers. They may have the legal right as conveyed by rogue actions of state government; however, there is no moral justification for their lethal activities.

Four days after the twin towers fell, I worked twelve-hour shifts at Ground Zero with the NY Army National Guard and was blessed to do so. The outpouring of love and devotion on the part of rescue and recovery teams along with a host of support personnel was a sight to behold. They made incredible sacrifices just to provide closure to families who desperately needed confirmation that their loved ones had indeed passed. It was a defining moment just like the passing of the Reproductive Health Act is now a defining moment for New Yorkers. Don’t let the bill define you. Embrace your unborn; cherish your children; raise healthy families. God bless America. America bless God.

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]