Despite Majority in Congress, Republicans Are Still Funding Planned Parenthood

Katie Pavlich 

For years Republicans have promised to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, which currently rakes in $500 million per year in taxpayer money. They've won elections on the issue after being backed by pro-life groups. 

Yet with a new Republican majority in the House, Senate and White House, Planned Parenthood is still getting taxpayer funding as part of a budget deal struck over the weekend. President Trump said on the campaign trail he would be willing keep Planned Parenthood funding, so long as the organization stopped performing abortions. Since Inauguration day, 81,000 abortions have been performed at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. 

Pro-life groups and conservatives with major political capital have taken notice. 

“A majority (53.3 percent) of Americans support redirecting Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding to community health centers that offer a full range of primary and preventative care but do not perform or promote abortion. With pro-life Republican majorities in both houses, it is incredibly disappointing that any Republican spending bill would contain continued funding for Planned Parenthood,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser released in a statement. "This makes it imperative that Republicans also move quickly on a reconciliation bill that redirects the abortion giant’s funding to community health centers."

“In March, Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in order to overturn then President Obama’s last minute regulation which forced states to fund Planned Parenthood under Title X. That effort to undo Obama’s parting gift to the big abortion industry proves that the votes are there using reconciliation. Women would be better served by these comprehensive health care entities, which outnumber the abortion chain by more than 20 to one nationwide. Planned Parenthood, which performs more than 320,000 abortions in a single year per their latest annual report, does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars,” she continued. 

Concerned Women for America issued a similar response. 

"Although there is much to like in this budget, members of Concerned Women for America are deeply saddened that despite a historic turn out in the 2016 election cycle, a president that supports our cause, and victory in the passage of HJ Res 43, Congress hasn't gotten the message.  The American people no longer support their hard-earned tax dollars propping up the big abortion industrial complex, Planned Parenthood," CWA President Penny Nancy released in a statement. 

"However, Planned Parenthood shouldn't throw a party yet.  The aforementioned resolution signed by President Trump in my presence on Easter Week gives governors the authority to not fund Planned Parenthood with this money (Title X).  Title X comprises about 20% of Planned Parenthood's government funding.  The bigger portion comes from Medicaid, which will be addressed in budget reconciliation," Nance continued. " This disappointing legislative effort underscores that Congress must quickly pass a budget reconciliation.  Every day that Planned Parenthood continues to receive the current level of $500 million in taxpayer funds means 1,000 lives snuffed out in their clinics."

The White House is arguing the current budget agreement is limited for 2017 and the majority of the President's priorities will be included for fiscal year 2018.

"Remember, it's important to keep in context. We're talking about 2017 funding," Spicer said. "This is something that most presidents would have walked into office and that would have been done. Because the last Congress didn't do this under President Obama, we have an opportunity to get some of the President's priorities infused for the last five months of 2017. That's a big step forward."

Under Right Circumstances, Trump Says He'd Be 'Honored' to Meet With Kim Jong Un

Leah Barkoukis 

President Trump said he would meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un under the right circumstances.

“If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it,” Trump said Monday. “If it’s under the, again, under the right circumstances. But I would do that.”

The commander in chief made the comments in an interview with Bloomberg News amid heightened tensions with the rogue regime. 

“Most political people would never say that,” Trump continued, “but I’m telling you under the right circumstances I would meet with him. We have breaking news.”

Kim Jong Un has never met with a foreign leader since he took office in 2011 after his father’s death.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said last week that the U.S. would be open to negotiating with North Korean but on the condition that the regime took steps to give up its weapons program.

When asked for clarification on Trump’s comments, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said “clearly the conditions are not there right now.”

Though Trump did not specify what the right circumstances would be, Spicer told reporters “we’ve got to see their provocative behavior ratcheted down.”

Experts like Evans Revere, a former U.S. diplomat in South Korea, told Bloomberg it’s near “impossible to imagine” conditions being met that would allow a meeting between the two leaders to take place.

“North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when it was caught cheating, violated every one of the denuclearization commitments it made, and now threatens the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons,” he said, reports Bloomberg. “That’s hardly the basis for a presidential meeting with Kim Jong Un.”  

Trump’s comments come as North Korea threatened to strengthen its nuclear force “to the maximum.”

Schumer turns GOP tactics on Trump

Schumer turns GOP tactics on Trump
By Alexander Bolton - 05-02-17 06:02 AM EDT

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) capped off his first 100 days as Senate Democratic leader under President Trump with a big win on spending, signaling how he plans to deal with Republicans in the months ahead.

Schumer and former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted Senate Republicans throughout President Obama's presidency for obstructing his agenda.

But just over three month's into Trump's first term, Schumer's playbook looks similar to the one Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) used against Obama eight years ago.

It's a flashback to 2009: keep the minority unified and use every opportunity to slow down the president's agenda.

Frustrated, Trump has lashed out at Schumer in recent days.

"Senator Schumer is a bad leader. I've known him for a long time. Senator Schumer is a bad leader, not a natural leader at all," Trump told supporters at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., Saturday.

On Sunday, Trump blasted Democrats in a CBS News interview as "extremely obstructionist" and slammed Schumer again on Monday during a sit-down with Fox News.

"If slowing things and pitching a fit is successful, he was very successful," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said of Schumer.

Republicans say he exceeded McConnell by slowing the confirmations of Trump's Cabinet nominees to a crawl. Democrats held three all-night talk-a-thons to protest Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

Schumer also launched the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, something McConnell never did.

"They dislike Trump so much that they literally did everything to try and destroy his presidency right off the bat," Hatch said of Schumer and other Democrats.

Schumer's hardball tactics sent a message: he and his colleagues were dead serious about pulling out all the stops to fight Trump. It gave him leverage in the recent spending talks, since Republicans had little doubt Schumer would force a shutdown if they didn't back off their demands.

"We made it clear that if the government shut down it would be on the Republicans' backs," Schumer told reporters at the Capitol Monday. "That became the general consensus and that gave us real leverage even though we were in the minority to get things done."

Fearing a shutdown would delay tax reform and derail any hopes of reviving healthcare reform legislation, Republicans abandoned Trump's request to fund construction of a border wall as well as various riders to loosen environmental and financial regulations.

Schumer was exultant, touting it as "a very good deal for the American people."

He sees the budget as a roadmap for upcoming talks on other major issues.

"I hope this is a metaphor for the future. When Republicans work with us, we can get things done," Schumer said Monday.

Schumer's plan is to keep his Democrats unified in hopes of exploiting divisions within the Republican Party - just as he did by picking off GOP senators who opposed the border wall or who wanted to see more funding for the National Institutes of Health and Pell Grants.

He hopes it will push Trump to reach out to Democrats on tax reform and infrastructure, after a healthcare debate that saw Trump avoid cutting deals with Democrats.

But Republicans say Schumer's opposition likely to do the opposite.

A senior GOP strategist said that after the way Schumer treated Gorsuch, a judge rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association, there's no chance of Democrats working with Trump on tax reform. He said that's all the more reason to overhaul the tax code with a party-line vote under a special budgetary process known as reconciliation, which will enable Republicans to bypass the traditional 60-vote threshold required to beat a filibuster.

Democrats say a key difference between Schumer in 2017 and McConnell in 2009 is that Obama spent his first year in office trying to woo GOP support for the economic stimulus and healthcare reform.

Tax cuts made up 40 percent of the cost of Obama's first stimulus proposal, and Democrats spent almost a year trying to woo Republicans such as former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to support ObamaCare, they note.

By contrast, centrist red-state Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) say there has been little serious outreach from the president to date.

Under heavy pressure from the Democratic base, Schumer has dug in against Trump's agenda, defying predictions that he would be a pragmatic dealmaker who couldn't be trusted by liberals.

A week after Trump's surprising victory over Hillary Clinton, The New York Times highlighted what it called the "Senate Democrats' Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align with Trump."

Schumer announced a week after the election that Democrats were "ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Republicans - working with soon-to-be President Trump on issues where we agree" while cautioning he wouldn't be afraid to "go toe-to-toe" against the president when their values clashed.

So far, though, there has been lot more clashing than cooperation. Amazingly, Schumer has kept his caucus unified, even though ten Democratic colleagues face re-election in states Trump carried in November.

The bottom line for Trump is that he has not been able to put much pressure on Democrats facing re-election in states he won by big margins, forcing him to rely on his own party at a time when it's riven by divisions between the leadership and conservative rebels.

"I think Chuck's done a good job," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who is running for re-election in a state won by 20 points. "The caucus isn't the easiest to work with because you've got all sorts of differences of opinions."

He disputed that Schumer has become too beholden to the liberal base.

"I don't buy that," he said. "Chuck listens to people and I think thus far he has reacted appropriately."

The challenge for the GOP is whether they will be able to inflict enough damage on Democrats by calling them obstructionist to either force more cooperation or win more electoral victories.

Democrats tried for years to paint Senate Republicans as obstructionist, but it didn't save their 60-seat majority in 2009 from becoming a 46-seat minority in 2015.

Some of Schumer's other decisions have been criticized, too.

Republicans say the filibuster of Gorsuch backfired because it resulted in a rules change, stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster a future Trump nominee to the high court when the stakes might be higher or the political environment changed.

But Democrats argue that McConnell would have employed the nuclear option to change the rules even if a liberal seat on the court became open in 2020, the next presidential election year.

"It was the right move because Gorsuch wasn't the right guy for the court," said Tester, who voted to filibuster Gorsuch.

"Either we come out of this with a base motivated, engaged and energized, or one that is deflated," a senior Democratic aide said of the decision to filibuster Gorsuch.

Schumer's and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) choice of former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) to deliver the response to Trump's first address to a join session of Congress elicited mockery from the GOP and grumbling from some liberal sectors like the Huffington Post, which portrayed Beshear's selection as a symbol of the party's struggle to move forward.

A senior Democratic aide acknowledged that Beshear "flubbed" some of his lines, but argued that he was uniquely positioned to highlight the success of ObamaCare in providing health insurance to low-income Americans in red states such as Kentucky.

Republicans also highlight the 13 Obama-era regulations they rolled back under the Congressional Review Act on Schumer's watch. They argue that Schumer has failed to pick off enough Republican votes to defeat the measures, revealing his limited traction with GOP colleagues.

But Democrats say these are minor victories as they only repealed regulations from the last few months of Obama's tenure. Furthermore, they argue that there are several rules that Republicans don't dare challenging for fear of losing.

A Democratic aide noted that Senate Republicans have not acted on resolutions to overturn a Department of Labor regulation designed to promote broader access to workplace retirement savings plans, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule for prepaid credit cards and a Bureau of Land Management Regulation limiting the venting, flaring and leaking of methane from oil and gas operations on public lands.

Schumer says Republicans will need to start working with his caucus, or face more problems with their agenda.

"If on healthcare or if it occurs on the tax bill, they just try to do things on their own, they're not going to be able to accomplish anything," he said.

GOP struggles to find ObamaCare repeal votes

GOP struggles to find ObamaCare repeal votes
By Jessie Hellmann - 05-01-17 18:41 PM EDT

The Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare appears to lack sufficient votes to pass the House, despite hopes from GOP leaders and the White House that it might be approved by the lower chamber this week.

According to The Hill's whip list, 21 Republicans oppose the bill - the maximum number of GOP defections that can be afforded - assuming every Democrat also votes against it.

The latest Republican to announce his opposition is Rep. Billy Long (Mo.), a staunch conservative who often says he was "Tea Party before Tea Party was cool."

He told The Hill he wouldn't support the bill because of the impact it could have on people with preexisting conditions.

"I have always stated that one of the few good things about ObamaCare is that people with pre-existing conditions would be covered," Long said in a statement to The Hill.

"The MacArthur amendment strips away any guarantee that pre-existing conditions would be covered and affordable."

An amendment authored by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) would allow states to apply for waivers to two ObamaCare provisions: essential health benefits, which mandates what services insurers must cover, and "community rating," which essentially bans insurers from charging people with preexisting conditions more for coverage.

While the AHCA keeps an ObamaCare provision banning insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, allowing states to waiver out of community rating means insurers could charge sick people more.

States that get that waiver would have to have a high-risk pool as a backstop for people priced out of coverage. But those pools, in the past, have seen waiting lists, high premiums and other issues.

The Hill's whip list includes some Republicans who were ready to vote for the bill before changes made the language backed by MacArthur and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the Freedom Caucus chairman.

They include Reps. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) and Fred Upton (Mich.).

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) went from being a yes on the bill to a no.

And four members of the GOP Whip team, Reps. David Valadao (Calif.), Erik Paulsen (Minn.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Kevin Yoder (Kansas) are undecided on the bill.

Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) told CNN that she's talked to centrist Republicans who say they won't back the bill because they don't like it, and because they don't think it will be approved by the Senate even if it does pass the House.

"They're being asked to walk the plank on a bill they know won't survive," she said.

In another bad sign for the GOP's whip count, Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) on Monday refused to say if it had his support.

Frelinghuysen came out against the bill shortly before it was pulled from the floor last month and told reporters Monday he was "still looking" at the changes.

"I'm focusing on the appropriations bill for 2017, so that's my focus," he said.

"My position is that I'm focused on the appropriations process, trying to get the bill across the finish line. I haven't been focused on anything else."

Although Vice President Pence was on Capitol Hill on Monday seeking to sway Republicans, the White House acknowledged the GOP's American Health Care Act doesn't yet have the support to pass and wouldn't put a timeline on a vote.

"We're getting closer and closer every day, but we're not there yet," Spicer said when asked if there are enough votes in the House to put a bill on the floor.

A few Republicans are saying that a vote could be held this week.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who is in the conservative Freedom Caucus and is also a member of the GOP whip team, said the legislation has the votes to pass by a slim margin because the latest changes had moved some moderates from no to yes.

He said a vote would "probably" happen this week and suggested that some lawmakers could be strong-armed into backing the new bill, as they would "rather be a no vote but if it needs their vote to pass then they'll support it."

He said he is not privy to the official whip count but has "knowledge of individual votes that I've talked to plus a general feel for the way the House is."

Barton offered no names, however, and Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), co-chairman of the moderate Tuesday Group, said Friday the amendment didn't move any moderates from 'no' to 'yes.'

"I'm not aware of any members of the Tuesday Group who were a 'no' and became a 'yes' because of it," he said.

"I suspect there were some who were maybe inclined to move in the other direction, either to undecided or a no. So, they didn't pick up anybody from our group."

If a bill is not approved by the House this week, it will significantly reduce the chances of ObamaCare repeal being approved at all. The House will go on recess next week, and lawmakers are moving on to tax reform and spending bills for next year.

Scott Wong and Peter Sullivan contributed 

Japan destroyer leaves port reportedly to escort US warships

TOKYO (AP) — Japan's navy has dispatched its largest destroyer reportedly tasked with escorting U.S. military ships off the Japanese coast amid heightened tension on the Korean Peninsula.

The helicopter carrier Izumo departed the Yokosuka port near Tokyo earlier Monday.

Japanese media say the destroyer is set to escort a U.S. supply ship in the Pacific Ocean south of Tokyo later Monday, a new mission under the new security legislation allowing Japan's military a greater role in overseas activity. The U.S. supply ship is expected to refuel other American warships, including the USS Carl Vinson strike group, currently in the region.

Japan's defense ministry only says the Izumo left to eventually participate in an international naval event in Singapore on May 15.

10 Reasons Congress Should Defund Planned Parenthood, From Women Who Have Been There

10 Reasons Congress Should Defund Planned Parenthood, From Women Who Have Been There

The Federalist - Monday May 1, 2017

by Theresa Bonopartis

On April 29, protesters took to the streets across the country to call for Congress to finally fulfill Republican leaders’ promises to end taxpayers’ sponsorship of Planned Parenthood, our nation’s largest abortion provider.

Sadly, in the debate between pro-lifers and pro-aborts, certain voices are often ignored. This includes the women who have experienced abortion and were deceived by organizations like Planned Parenthood, which have a vested interest in downplaying or denying the effects abortion can have on women’s lives.

While the abortion giant claims to have women’s best interests at heart, countless numbers of us who have suffered the adverse effects of abortion know that’s anything but true. While the organization’s brass promote themselves as health-care providers and advocates of poor women, a little research reveals the people running the show aren’t the champions they claim to be.

In fact, they’re doing quite well for themselves as taxpayers watch their hard-earned dollars support their organization, which delivers more than 300,000 abortions each year. In 2014, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards earned $957,952, according to Internal Revenue Service records, while the organization received $528 million in government funding the same year.

It’s no wonder the organization is keen to cling to its carefully constructed public image as a women’s health-care provider despite disturbing revelations over the past few years, including allegations that Planned Parenthood harvests the organs of aborted babies, or the fact that the organization does not provide mammograms. Deception has served Planned Parenthood well. Styling itself as a one-stop shop for women’s health care, the organization enjoys the support of countless donors who remain unaware of what goes on behind the nonprofit’s closed doors.

It is hard to listen to all the rhetoric surrounding Planned Parenthood when you have been a statistic of abortion’s damage and the organization’s leaders downplay or deny the very real experiences of millions of women. Most women don’t feel comfortable speaking about their abortion experiences, but as more and more of us reach healing, that’s changing. On behalf of those women, here are 10 reasons why Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

10. Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Care for Post-Abortive Women

Because it denies the reality of abortion’s effects on mental health, Planned Parenthood does not provide follow-up care for women who have had abortions.

“Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide any after abortion counseling [and] they don’t provide real choices,” says Nancy, from New York.

9. Planned Parenthood Overlooks Statutory Rape

As investigations over the years have revealed, Planned Parenthood’s de facto policy is to ignore statutory rape laws when admitting underage patients.

“The fact is that they cover up the abuse of minors by abetting the sex trafficking of minor girls,” says Clarissa, from Ohio.

8. Planned Parenthood Uses Women

“For me, Planned Parenthood was the clinic where my pregnancy was confirmed in July of 1972 as there were no home pregnancy tests at the time. It was there that I was told the first of many lies… [Such as identifying the developing baby as a] ‘Glob of cell and tissue.’ (I was 12 weeks pregnant.) Second, I was told it would be a simple surgical procedure. It was not…there would be no after effects and there was no discussion of any other alternative, [including] having the baby or adoption.”

“They also told me to lie as I was only just 17 and the law was 18 in New York. It was later on that I came to find out that they were in an intentional partnership with the clinics in New York to deceive young women into having abortions as a safe and easy solution to the ‘problem of a pregnancy.’ This was part of the agenda to push for legalization on a national level…These abortions were not back alley. They were being done in hospitals and of course clinics like CRASH.”

“There was not only deceit…but we were being used on so many levels for the purpose of an agenda…as we believed the lies and then had to deal with the aftermath of the death of our children. We were also left with no support or follow up…only birth control pills which became another way we could be used. I continued to go to the Planned Parenthood clinic to get my pills. No one ever even asked me about my abortion and how I was doing,” says Mary, in New Jersey.

7. Employees Speak of Pregnancy as a ‘Problem’ to ‘Fix’

“They are not very helpful in planning happy parenthood. Just the painful. I am the mother of deceased children.”

“Further, as I volunteered recently at a pregnancy center I talked to women who came to us for an ultrasound after they visited Planned Parenthood. They were shocked when they saw their babies’ development. They reported that workers at Planned Parenthood said: ‘You should take care of this soon before it turns into something.’ In other words, they are still lying to women about fetal development, which is a truth of medical science! Why should my tax dollars pay for that? Real doctors don’t have to lie so they can profit from the services they provide,” says Eileen, in Michigan.

6. Planned Parenthood Ignores Women’s Testimony of Post-Abortive Suffering

Because admitting abortion can cause emotional and mental trauma would damage the narrative that abortion is simply a minor procedure, Planned Parenthood ignores the stories of women who have suffered after their abortions.

“After my two abortions by 1982, I was emotionally spent and quit my ‘dream TV career’ to go back home to the D.C. area to be near family. I desperately needed security. How many young women QUIT their own TV show? [It] proves I was broken and didn’t know just how much those abortions affected me. I just didn’t understand why I was so depressed, [why I engaged in] drug and alcohol abuse, major promiscuity, etc…I was a textbook case of self-sabotaging and destructive behaviors. Anything to dull the pain…but [I] didn’t connect the dots.”

“They never once told me about the aftermath of what I’d feel or how the abortions would affect me mentally, spiritually, and physically,” says Leslie in Virginia.

5. Planned Parenthood Preys on Women’s Defensiveness About Abortion

Planned Parenthood deceives women encouraging their support, knowing that they need to justify their abortion decisions.

“For years in the 1990’s while raising my kids up to their high school years, I was a militant pro choicer and major advocate for PP (to validate MY poor choices), I was an angry voice for a woman’s right to choose… ‘my body, my choice.’ I lobbied lawmakers to get out of my bedroom. I was a misguided, angry woman, like so many I see today.

“Planned Parenthood lies, and cheats women, families, and our tax dollars. They buy politicians to do their bidding. (Look at the DNC National platform!!!) I’ve studied their propaganda and deception, the history of Margaret Sanger, Nathanson, NARAL, NOW, etc.,” writes LB.

4. Planned Parenthood Ignores Abortion Coercion

Planned Parenthood ignores the fact that many women and teenage girls are coerced into having abortions by their parents, husbands, boyfriends, and others who have power over women.

“I was a seventeen year old kid when I had my abortion which was coerced by my father. I was in my 4th month of pregnancy because I had hidden it for so long. No one told me the development of my baby or anything about the procedure I was about to undergo. “

“For countless women abortion is not a free choice or between them and their doctor, it happens because of coercion by parents, boyfriends and husbands, but Planned Parenthood does nothing to stop that, all they care about is the money,” says Theresa in New York.

3. To Planned Parenthood, ‘Choice’ Means Abortion

“The entire premise of the Planned Parenthood organization is that they stand behind ‘a woman’s right to choose.’ This is a complete lie. From the moment I walked into PP prior to my abortion, it was as if it was already understood that abortion was the ONLY choice and actually, the best way to handle my ‘situation.’ My ‘situation’ was a precious life growing inside of me and I was scared to death. At no point was I counseled in terms of future emotional, mental and psychological affects this abortion would have on my life. It was simply put to me that ‘more women than you could imagine have abortions’ – I never wanted to be in that category.”

“I take full responsibility for my abortion; however being read off statistics of the prevalence of abortion in our culture was in no way comforting to me at this time. The term counseling usually comes with a positive, healing connotation. This was the complete opposite. Never once did the counselor or doctor broach the discussion of ‘would you like to keep your baby?’ It was as if it were just understood that this abortion was happening,” writes BT from New York.

2. Planned Parenthood Fights Oversight and Informed Consent

Planned Parenthood fights every attempt at regulations, protection, and the informed consent of women, leaving them uninformed and in danger.

It opposes Women’s Right to Know legislation, which would provide information on all the dangers of abortion and fetal development. Planned Parenthood is against parent consent to medical procedures done on minors. Your child cannot get an aspirin at school without parental consent, but in many states can go for a life-altering procedure like abortion without parental consent.

Planned Parenthood fights regulations on abortion clinics, leaving their safety requirements far less than those on any other surgical clinics.

1. Women Have Died Because of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood would like everyone to believe that ending federal funding to them would place women’s lives at risk. Yet we know women’s lives are already at risk in their clinics, physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Some deaths of women at Planned Parenthood include: Tanya Reaves, a 24-year old woman, who died from three major complications during a botched second-trimester abortionsuffered at a Chicago Planned Parenthood; Cree Erwin, who died from complications of a botched abortion performed at an Planned Parenthood facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan; Holly Paterson, who died in an emergency room after having been given RU-486 at Planned Parenthoodin San Francisco; and Diane Lopez, who went to the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood for an abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant. Her cervix was punctured during the abortion and she later bled to death at a nearby hospital.

Recent emergencies at Planned Parenthood include: The Virginia Beach Planned Parenthood hospitalized two women in the month of April 2017; On April 1, 2017, a patient was loaded into the ambulanceat Tempe, Arizona, Planned Parenthood; and on April 1, 2017, a woman was medically transported out of the Planned Parenthood facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Then of course there are the countless numbers of women who suffer emotionally after abortion, and even those who have committed suicide.

Planned Parenthood is quick to tell us they provide women “quality health care.” I think the families of the women mentioned would disagree. We’ve been there. We know. It’s time for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood and give our tax money to real medical providers who truly care for women’s health and safety.

Read More Here

Judd Gregg: An American Parliament

Judd Gregg: An American Parliament
By Judd Gregg - 05-01-17 06:00 AM EDT

In Federalist Paper No. 58, James Madison defined our form of government, writing: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for: but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

Call it separation of powers or a constitutional checks and balances system, the purpose is the same: to limit the power of government to run amok.

The system has evolved over time. It could be argued that within the elected branches of government, the Senate has taken on the role of the primary checker of government excess, at least relative to the House and the presidency.

In fact, this was the role that Madison saw for the Senate when he wrote in Federalist Paper No. 63: "Such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."

In the course of the development of this role, the Senate was empowered by the filibuster. The 60-vote hurdle made participation by the minority central to obtaining Senate action.

At rare times in recent history, one party has controlled the presidency, the House and has had 60 votes in the Senate. This was certainly true in the time of Lyndon Johnson's presidency and for some periods during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. Both presidents used this power to override the checks and balances elements of our form of government.

Those times created what could best be described as a quasi-parliamentary form of governance. There were no checks on the power of the party in control. They could and did pass whatever laws they wanted, with unilateral disdain for the minority.

A parliamentary form of government, where all power is vested in the majority party, tends to move aggressively. As the parties in power change, the direction of government can swing like a pendulum.

Parliamentary governments can also be extremely autocratic and unjust to those who may disagree with the policies of the party in power. They are simply left behind.

This was not what Madison wanted. But the course he laid out is being fundamentally changed.

We are headed in a new direction relative to our form of government. We are developing a hybrid. Call it an American Parliamentary System.

It was inevitable that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) would move to end the filibuster to stop Supreme Court nominees. This action was the natural consequence of the action of the former Majority Leader, then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in terminating the filibuster for all other judicial and administration appointments.

McConnell simply had no choice but to expand the precedent set by Reid.

But the death of the filibuster nevertheless eliminates the need to win some manner of approval from the minority party in order to make important appointments. It pushes the nation down the road toward a parliamentary system.

Equally important, the trend toward using reconciliation as the primary tool for passing important policies in the Senate also reduces the importance of the minority party.

The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, was passed under reconciliation. It was brought to the floor of the Senate on a Saturday, no substantive amendments were taken, and it was passed three days later on Christmas Eve on a party-line vote.

It is likely that if the Republicans can agree on a healthcare reform package to replace ObamaCare, it will be handled in essentially the same manner.

Tax reform stands in the wings. It will soon have reconciliation protection and will most likely be passed by 51 votes in the Senate.

The next step is obvious - the elimination of the filibuster as it applies to any policy initiative of substance and controversy.

This is not that much of a leap from the present use of reconciliation, which was initially meant to be a budget tool aimed at reducing spending in entitlement programs.

In concert with these actions is the now common practice of putting most appropriations into omnibus bills that have little input from the minority and are passed primarily because of the need to fund the agencies they cover.

As a result, we have a new form of American democracy: the American Parliamentary System.

Under these circumstances, overreach is almost inevitable. Bad government will result. This is what happened not so long ago, in the shape of ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations.

This will cause the people to act, because as Madison predicted in Federalist Paper No. 49: "The people are the only legitimate fountain of power." And their interests do not fully reside with one party alone.

We will then return to a divided government where the balance of influence and power does not reside with one party and its president.

This of course is what Madison wanted and expected. He would have understood that an American Parliamentary System was "not the government they fought for."

Judd Gregg (R) is a former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.