The U.S. will begin using the downtown Dallas convention center as a “decompression center,” to house up to 3,000 migrant teenagers, specifically boys ages 15 to 17, according to a memo obtained by the AP.
Why it matters: The convention center’s conversion comes amid a rise in border crossings that has strained sheltering capacities along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Department of Health and Human Services is moving to open new facilities to house the children.
Flashback: The CDC had allowed shelters housing children to expand to full capacity in spite of a previous COVID-19 safety protocol, a change that highlighted the extent of the housing capacity crisis, Axios previously reported.
What’s more: The surge at the border has already prompted the creation of new shelters for children, including a tent facility in Donna, Texas that is housing “more than 1,000 children and teenagers, some as young as 4,” according to AP.
The government is also considering housing unaccompanied minors in a military base in Virginia, Reuters reports.
A Pentagon spokesman confirmed that Fort Lee, a U.S. Army facility about 30 miles (48 km) south of Richmond, was under consideration.
The number of migrant children arriving at the southwestern border has increased in recent months, putting pressure on HHS-run shelters that house the children before they are released to parents or other sponsors in the United States.
In the notice, HHS said it urgently needs to find more shelter space for unaccompanied minors. The department said it must “aggressively” find solutions for the rising number of children entering the country amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The number of migrants caught crossing the border and allowed to enter the United States has increased in recent weeks, as U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has pledged to reverse many of the hardline policies of former President Donald Trump, a Republican.
The Post said in a correction that a ‘source’ provided information about the quotes falsely attributed to the former president
The Washington Post is getting hammered on social media over its recent correction admitting that former President Donald Trump never urged a Georgia elections investigator to “find the fraud” in a phone call over general election ballot impropriety allegations in the state.
What are the details?
The Post placed the following correction above its story, originally published in early January:
Correction: Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week on audio of the Dec. 23 call between Trump and investigator Frances Watson, noting that the Post reported on the call in January but that this was the first time the recording had been released.
The Post, in its story about the recording, said Georgia officials indicated they didn’t believe a recording existed. But the Post said officials found the recording on a trash folder on Watson’s device while responding to a public records request — and that tidbit came courtesy of “a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal process.”
The whip comes down
Alex Thompson, Politico’s White House reporter, characterized the Post’s errors as “real bad” and noted that “this quote was and still is everywhere”:
The Daily Beast acknowledged that the Post “quietly” corrected its story, while a number of other media watchers were taken aback — to put it mildly — by the Post getting such crucial details wrong:
🚨 So basically a "source" made up a bunch of Trump quotes, WaPo ran with it, and now they're issuing a correction *two months later* completely contradicting what they originally claimed.
"The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to 'find the fraud' or say she would be 'a national hero' if she did so." pic.twitter.com/5xP0bMpIOt
The MSM is a bunch of rumor mongers. Look how one lying anonymous source can shape a narrative by shouting into the echo chamber.
Wapo reports that a source told them Trump said “find the fraud” and whoever did would be “a national hero.” Now, they’ve corrected it based on audio pic.twitter.com/80vMQyVH10
Significantly, Democrats used the two false quotes attributed to Trump in their impeachment proceedings:
FLASHBACK: Democrats used the fake Washington Post “find the fraud” quote that was retracted today in the Trump impeachment trial pic.twitter.com/45G70wLaYf
A 2019 closed-door seminar on the manuscript ended in fierce debate
An Israeli-American scholar in Germany has challenged a 140-year-old claim of fraud by arguing that not only was a supposedly ancient bible authentic, but it may, in fact, be the oldest biblical manuscript found so far, according to newly published findings.
The manuscript was the center of a sensational controversy at the time of its discovery: Found by antiques dealer Moses Wilhelm Shapira, the manuscript comprised 15 fragments he supposedly found in a cave near the Dead Sea.
Shapira claimed the manuscript contained the original Book of Deuteronomy, but some experts and collectors denounced the discovery as a fraud after examination, leading Shapira to flee and commit suicide, according to reports.
Idan Dershowitz, 38, now claims the manuscript is, indeed, real and far older than Shapira thought.
Dershowitz published his claims and arguments in a paper released earlier this month, “The Valediction of Moses: New Evidence on the Shapira Deuteronomy Fragments.”
The paper outlines a number of techniques, including linguistic and archival evidence, to argue that the text is actually an earlier, more primitive draft of Deuteronomy, dating to the period of the First Temple.
Proving the authenticity of the claims will be incredibly difficult.
Experts have yet to subject Dershowitz’s claims and research to analysis, but a closed-door seminar at Harvard in 2019 resulted in fierce debate, according to The New York Times.
“Qumran was a massive shift,” Na’ama Pat-El, an expert in classical Semitic languages at the University of Texas in Austin, said, referring to the area where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. “What Idan is offering is something that’s at least equivalent, if not more. It’s pretty incredible if he’s right.”
In an open letter to WHO and in a follow-up video interview, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, says that by vaccinating everyone with a vaccine that doesn’t prevent transmission, we are destroying people’s immune systems, and setting the stage for a global health disaster.
Bossche says the COVID vaccines approved so far have been developed by “just brilliant” people and he has no criticism of them But, as he tells Dr. Phillip McMillan in an interview, “please use the right vaccine at the right place. And don’t use it in the heat of a pandemic on millions of millions of people.”
Bossche says that a mass vaccination campaign in the middle of a pandemic, with vaccines that don’t prevent transmission, is disastrous at an individual — and at a global — level:
“We are going to pay a huge price for this. And I’m becoming emotional because I’m thinking of my children, of the younger generation. I mean, it’s just impossible what we are doing. We don’t understand the pandemic.”
In an open letter to the World Health Organization (WHO), Bossche wrote that “we are currently turning vaccinees into asymptomatic carriers shedding infectious variants.”
Bossche hasn’t heard back from WHO, which concerns him.
“It is about humanity … I mean, it’s about your children. It’s your family. It’s my family. It’s everyone. Right. And it’s simply for me, I put everything at stake because I’ve done my homework. And this is simply a moral obligation. A moral obligation.”
How much longer will the government get away with denying the science?
Why should the estimated one-third of Americans who have already contracted the virus still be treated like ticking time bombs? How much longer will the government get away with denying the science behind immunity from infection?
The isolation of all human beings as a strategy to deal with this virus began with the novel assumption of mass asymptomatic spread, a hypothesis now disproven by studies on transmission. Now, the mandatory masking and isolation are continuing without question based on a shocking lie that the one-third of the country who have already gotten the virus – despite the masks and lockdowns, by the way – are not immune to the virus.
As more and more studies have come out showing that prior infection confers long-lasting immunity – not just the 90 days we are told by the government – the purveyors of panic and tyranny have sought to use the focus on several supposedly new variants to deny the presumed immunity from prior infection. However, a new comprehensive study from Harvard Medical School and Boston University researchers should put this latest myth to rest.
The researchers took blood samples from people who had the virus from March 3 to April 1, 2020, long before the new variants were discovered, which allowed them to presume they all had the original Wuhan strain. They found the S-specific memory B cells “conferring robustness against emerging SARS-CoV2 variants” – the U.K. (B117) & South African (B1351) variants.
“Loss of protection against overt or severe disease is not an inevitable consequence of a waning serum antibody titer,” wrote the authors. “This atlas of B cell memory therefore maps systematically a crucial component of the long-term immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
In other words, the inherent immune system full of B cells (in addition to T cells) provides robust immunity not just long after the antibody titers wane from the original infection, but also against emerging strains of the virus.
There has been much discussion over whether the vaccine confers immunity against the new variants, but the more important fact is that previous infection confers such immunity, as is the case with nearly every virus. Indeed, cases have plummeted in South Africa and England precisely since the new variants have been discovered, which would be difficult without natural immunity from the prior waves working against the new variants.
In Denmark, the U.K. variant composes roughly three-quarters of all cases, yet the country is averaging one death per day over the past 7 days. The same holds true for a number of states in America.
A retrospective observational study of 14,840 COVID-19 survivors in Austria found just a 0.27% reinfection rate during the second wave. “Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies,” concludes the study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.
It’s also important to remember that, as with other viruses, immunity doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t test positive again, but that you won’t experience serious symptoms even if you do. The goal is not to prevent colds and flus, but to pre-empt serious illness and death. “With follow‐up on mortality available until December 23, only one 72‐year‐old woman died two days after her tentative re‐infection diagnosis,” observed the authors of the Austrian study. “She was not hospitalized and according to her medical records her cause of death (‘acute vascular occlusion of an extremity with rhabdomyolysis’) was not causally attributed to COVID‐19.”
As the Los Angeles Times reported already in February, with an estimated 35% of Americans already infected (up to 50% in Los Angeles!), “the biggest factor” driving the plummeting of cases “paradoxically, is something the nation spent the last year trying to prevent.” That is herd immunity. As illogical as it was to lock down all Americans last year, regardless of whether they were sick, it’s downright insane to continue masking people who already had the virus AND have no current symptoms.
We’ve already learned from reams of medical research that asymptomatic individuals rarely drive outbreaks. Coupled with already having been infected, the likelihood of a recovered COVID patient both getting the virus and transmitting it is so low that it makes further masking of these people unconscionable.
With this thought fresh in your mind, now consider the insane abuse our government continues to foist upon kids by masking them seven hours a day in school. You can have a child who already had the virus and currently has no symptoms, yet he is still forced to wear a mask. What’s worse, with mass testing of children, yet extremely low rates of infection in recent weeks, the chance of false positives is extremely high. Last week, Professor Jon Deeks, a biostatistician from the University of Birmingham, told the U.K. Telegraph, “It seems likely that over 70% of positive test results are false positives, potentially many more.”
So, children continue to be masked or even removed from school with no symptoms, based on faulty testing, predicated on a false assumption of mass asymptomatic spread – when so many of them already have immunity. In other words, this cycle can go on forever.
Just how big a lie is mass asymptomatic spread? Last month, the Federalist’s Georgi Boorman trenchantly observed how the CDC mistakenly admitted that its entire premise of masking and isolating asymptomatic people is based on a lie. While finally acknowledging in its Jan. 29 report the fact of insignificant levels of spread in schools, the CDC let the following genie out of the bottle:
“Children might be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than are adults. … This apparent lack of transmission [in schools] is consistent with recent research (5), which found an asymptomatic attack rate of only 0.7% within households and a lower rate of transmission from children than from adults. However, this study was unable to rule out asymptomatic transmission within the school setting because surveillance testing was not conducted” (emphasis added).
So, when it comes to explaining why children rarely spread the virus, the CDC settled on the principle that children usually get infected asymptomatically, which means very little transmission! That would apply to adults who don’t have symptoms, too, but the CDC will never concede that point. In fact, the low rate of transmission in that study includes both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases. Nevertheless, despite the CDC admitting that kids, especially young kids, are not vectors of spread, it updated its guidance to continue recommending that children as young as two, aka babies, wear masks at child care facilities except for when they are eating and sleeping!Which raises the question: With so many people already having had the virus and feeling healthy, what is the legal justification for using the police power of quarantine against those people? There is none, and there never has been a legitimate constitutional authority, yet they’ve done it anyway. In other words, if we don’t end this tyranny now, it will never end, because quarantine and masking are no longer a means but an end.
There is no clear answer as to why his team do not trust the President to give a Press Conference
Joe Biden’s decline has become so painful to see and so embarrassing to watch that it feels cruel to mention it. But it’s even more cruel that Biden’s team act as if it’s not happening, and most of America’s media look the other way.
@JohnKingCNN IMPOSSIBLE CNN DOESN'T SEE THAT: Biden’s Mental Decline Just Hit Uncharted Levels: Biden forgets the name of the Pentagon, as well as the name of his secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin pic.twitter.com/mDsa5c2tG3
On Thursday night, Biden marked the first anniversary of the Covid-19 shutdowns and his fiftieth day in the White House by giving the first televised address of his presidency. He hadn’t been seen in public for three days.
From the moment he wheezed up to the lectern and peered into the camera, you could tell Biden was on top form: croaky sentiment, sporadic belligerence, and only the occasional moment when he looked oddly distant and perplexed.
He got through twenty minutes, then tottered off without taking any questions. This is how low the bar now is for Biden. And we can see how hard Biden has to fight, and what a long run-up he requires, if he is to clear it.
We can see it in his struggle to follow the simple lines on his autocue, and in his bungling of the simplest ad-libs. We see it in the clips of his increasingly desperate handlers trying to block him from questions at his rare and carefully managed appearances before the cameras. Most of all, we see it in his eyes.
“What am I doing here?” Biden asked after fumbling his autocue lines in an address in Texas in late February. He reached for the cue cards that are now his constant companion. “I’m gonna lose track here.”
Biden’s supporters call him “gaffe-prone”. It’s true: he’s always thought with his mouth open. It’s also true that he bravely overcame a speech impediment in childhood, and that anxiety and age can cause a stutter to recur. But these aren’t gaffes or stutters.
Compare how he moves and sounds now to how he was a year ago, let alone five years ago. Biden looks and sounds frail. He seems visibly distressed at his inability to carry out the simplest requirements of office – and at a time when the requirements are simpler than usual.
Trump to Biden. If you CANNOT SEE Biden’s MENTAL DECLINE, then your BIAS clouds your ability to reason. 🤦🏼♂️ pic.twitter.com/b8dzg67sW5
When Biden dodged the press during last year’s election campaign, his aides called it Covid-19 precautions. As the pandemic ends, he will run out of excuses for not travelling. He doesn’t look capable of leading an international summit, let alone taking the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call.
Earlier this week, the Commander-in-Chief forgot the name of the largest department in the US government, the Department of Defense, as well as the name of the man he recently appointed as its leader, Lloyd Austin.
“Thank you to the Sec… the former general… I keep calling him general… my… my… the guy who runs that outfit over there,” he flailed.
Biden is the first President in decades to reach fifty days in office without giving a press conference. He missed giving the traditional speech to Congress in February. His handlers refuse to name when he might talk to the press, and only offer that it’s “something he will do in the future”.
There’s only one possible explanation. Biden’s team don’t trust him to manage one of the simplest requirements of modern political office. But they know they can’t defer the reckoning.
The longer Biden waits, the more newsworthy his delayed appearance will be, and the greater the scrutiny of his performance. And once Biden has surrendered to the rising expectation that he speak live and unscripted, he will be expected to do it again, and again, just like any other President.
This presidency is turning into a theatre of cruelty. It can only end one way. Sooner or later, Biden will be caught in the spotlight. The Democrats who promoted an unfit candidate to America’s highest office, and the media who covered for him, will be exposed as having betrayed their responsibilities to the American people. The people’s trust in democratic institutions will decline further. And we will all be party to Biden’s public humiliation.
Dominic Green is deputy editor of The Spectator’s US edition
This doesn't look like a speech impediment issue. It looks like a decline in mental ability.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) told Breitbart News on Sunday how Rita Hart, her defeated Democrat opponent in November’s election for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, is attempting to overturn the election results and disenfranchise Iowa’s voters.
Miller-Meeks explained that her opponent is asking the House Committee on Administration — run by a six-to-three Democrat majority — to overturn the election results. In Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, 394,439 people voted in the 2020 election, with Miller-Meeks ultimately winning by 6 votes. Hart argues 22 Democrat ballots deemed illegitimate should have been counted, giving her the election.
“They are disenfranchising 400,000 voters,” Miller-Meeks determined. “They are disenfranchising all of these voters by this process.”
“What [my opponent’s campaign] did was avail themselves to a provision of the Constitution that says Congress will seat its members, and appeal to the House Committee on Administration to overturn the election based upon 22 ballots that … in all likelihood would have been rejected by Iowa courts,” Miller-Meeks commented. “That takes it from a campaign election process with election law to a political process and it’s a partisan political process.”
The Des Moines Registerreported Hart is asking the Democrat-majority House of Representatives to overturn the certified election results:
But Hart has claimed in a petition filed to the U.S. House of Representatives that 22 legally cast ballots were not counted and could have swayed the outcome of the race. She is asking the Democrat-controlled body to weigh in on the contest and determine its outcome — a move that has drawn the ire of Republicans who argue the issue should be settled in the Iowa courts.
Miller-Meeks remarked, “So basically, what my opponent is now doing is asking the Democrats who are in control of Congress to overturn an election that was duly certified [and] duly recounted — [the election] was counted, recounted, certified — and to toss all that out in favor of her.”
Miller-Meeks explained the election’s initial results and recount.
“When the 24 counties in [Iowa’s] 2nd Congressional District had their official county campus, which is one week after the election, I was still declared the winner,” she remarked. “I was still ahead, and then our opponent requested a recount in Iowa. There are recount boards in every county. Each candidate gets to pick a person, and then they’re supposed to agree upon a third person, and if they don’t agree upon a third person, then it’s appointed by the district judge.”
She continued, “It was made known to us right away that our opponent’s representative on the recount board was not going to agree to anybody we put forward, even when we suggested, in some counties, someone from the county auditor’s office — that we didn’t even know — be the third person, and [my opponent] disavowed that. Nonetheless, throughout this recount process [and] everything that went on, I still came out ahead by six votes.”
“The ballots are looked at in accordance with Iowa law, and so all of the legal ballots were counted,” she added. “All of those ballots were put in place. I was still ahead at every single juncture. I was ahead of my opponent, and so then, at the end of November, I was certified the winner of that election by a bipartisan — three Republicans, two Democrats — executive council, one of whom is our state auditor who is a Democrat.”
She went on, “At that juncture, my opponent could have asked the Iowa courts to look at any ballots that they were concerned about. They did not do that. They did not avail themselves of that opportunity, and we think they didn’t because they would have lost in a court and an Iowa court.”
Hart’s campaign and legal team are asking House Democrats to count 22 votes repeatedly deemed illegitimate by Iowa’s election apparatus to overturn the election.
Miller-Meeks stated, “The recount board … determined [that these were] illegitimate ballots when they were originally tallied. They were determined to be illegitimate ballots at the county canvas, and then the recount board determined that they were illegitimate ballots. … At three junctures during the election, they were determined to be illegitimate invalid ballots.”
Marc Elias is leading the legal team representing Hart’s campaign in its attempts to overturn the certified election results of Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.
“If Mark Elias and Rita Hart wanted these ballots to be determined to be legitimate ballots, or if they thought there were irregularities, they should have gone to [Iowa] courts to ask the court to intervene and intercede,” Miller-Meeks said, “but they didn’t do that, and there’s a reason they didn’t do that. There’s a reason they went from an election law process to a partisan political process.”
Miller-Meeks warned of national implications if House Democrats set the precedent of overturning her election and installing her opponent as the representative for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.
“Every single Democrat voted to seat every representative [on January 3], including me,” she noted. “No one made a contest. No one made a motion that I should not be seated [or that] I should not be sworn in. … Think about the precedent that this sets: You have someone who is elected, someone who is ahead at the juncture of a county canvas, someone who is ahead after a recount, [and] someone who is certified by a bipartisan executive council of their state.”
She continued, “[My opponent] could have appealed to the courts in [Iowa], and [she] bypassed that to then ask Congress to overthrow those certified election results, and [she] deliberately … skipped over the Iowa courts because [she] knew [she] would lose in Iowa courts, and then it would have been worse for [her] appealing to the House Committee on Administration if the court had not ruled in [her] favor.”
“It sets a bad precedent because if Congress is going to over overturn elections,” Miller-Meeks concluded, “Then what hope is there for any of us? It’s not just an Iowa thing. It’s not about me personally. This has ramifications for all of us and in every state.”
Breitbart News reported Friday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she is “open to a ‘scenario’ in which the Democrat-run House of Representatives would overturn a close Republican win.”
Several state Republican attorneys general are seeking court actions to preserve former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies while President Joe Biden works to undo them.
“I think the one thing that is becoming crystal clear with the Biden administration is that they are going all-in on ‘open borders,'” Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said, according to The Hill. “It’s troublesome, and I think that, in the long run, this is going to hurt America.”
The court battles come after years of Democrat AGs suing to stop Trump’s immigration policies. Now, the GOP is looking to judges to help keep policies in place that it says protects the public and saves billions in federal tax dollars.
Clashes between the White House and opposition party state AGs are frequent, legal experts say, and some of the recent conflicts can at least partially be traced to continued congressional gridlock on immigration. Into that vacuum, presidents have imposed their agenda using executive action.
During his first week in office, Biden backed legislation providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But he also used his executive powers to stop some of Trump’s policies, sparking legal challenges from Republican state attorneys.
On Biden’s first day, his Department of Homeland Security enacted a 100-day halt on deportations of almost all illegal immigrants. David Pekoske, Biden’s then-acting DHS secretary, said the pause would “ensure we have a fair and effective immigration enforcement system focused on protecting national security, border security, and public safety.”
Within days, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, filed suit, saying Biden’s plan, if it wasn’t blocked, would “cause Texas immediate and irreparable harm.” The American Civil Liberties Union, which is backing Biden in the lawsuit, says the president’s order is lawful, however.
“From our perspective, this is really about Texas’s interference in the 100-day pause and attempting to continue the immigration policies of the Trump administration,” Kate Huddleston, an attorney with the ACLU in Texas, told The Hill.
Judge Drew Tipton, who Trump nominated to the bench last year, ruled against the Biden administration, however, and suspended the 100-day deportation ban nationally, finding the administration didn’t offer an adequate legal reason to stop the migrant removals.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody also attacked the deportation freeze, saying on March 9 after filing a lawsuit that “the Biden administration’s reckless policy of refusing to do their jobs and deport criminals places all those gains and Floridians’ public safety at risk.”
A dozen GOP state attorneys general are also pushing to preserve Trump’s “public charge” rule, a measure creating high barriers for poor immigrants seeking residency in the United States.
The rule, enacted in 2019, imposes strict financial requirements on potential immigrants, directing federal authorities to refuse green cards and visas for applicants who could enter the country and need to collect public assistance benefits.
The Republican AGs say the rule saves more than $1 billion in tax dollars, though critics term it a “wealth test” for immigrants.
The issue is being litigated in three federal appeals courts and it’s likely to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
State challenges, though, are facing an uphill fight because courts typically see immigration as a federal, not a state, matter.
Biden has already rolled back several other areas of Trump’s immigration agenda, including stopping construction on Trump’s border wall, ending many travel restrictions and boosting an Obama administration deportation shield for young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
Election fraud cases from the 2020 presidential election are still being looked into. Data shows there are still 18 active court cases out of the 83 total filed in relation to the last election cycle. However, the majority of the inactive cases were not looked into by the courts.
Twenty-one cases related to election fraud were based on merit with President Trump and the GOP winning 14 of those. There are active lawsuits in 11 states with the majority in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
This came after the Supreme Court refused to hear multiple election-related lawsuits last month, which arose from possible election fraud in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The high court did not provide a justification for rejecting one of the more contentious cases filed by U.S. attorney Sidney Powell in Pennsylvania
Powell alleged there was evidence of electronic manipulation of votes, which resulted in thousands of ballots not being counted in multiple states.
“In this case it requires forensic evaluations of the machines and looking at all of the paper ballots, we already know that’s not going to match up,” explained the attorney. “There were counterfeit ballots…if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine, you’re going to get the same result.”
According to the Heritage Foundation, there have been over 1,300 proven cases of voter fraud in recent years and over 1,100 convictions.
The Biden administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss litigation over a rule that prohibits federal Title X family planning funds from going to clinics and organizations that provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar submitted a short brief to the high court last Friday requesting that the cases filed against the rule be dismissed since both sides have agreed to end the litigation and bear their own costs.
In 2019, the Trump administration issued a final rule barring Title X funds from going to entities that provide or promote abortion for family planning, prompting multiple lawsuits in response. The rule essential barred Title X funding from going to clinics where abortion is provided.
Representatives of the American Medical Association and multiple states, who had filed suits against the 2019 rule, also filed a short brief requesting dismissal.
The decision to end the litigation came in response to a memorandum issued by President Joe Biden in January stating the intention of rolling back the 2019 rule.
The January memo asked the Department of Health and Human Services to review restrictions on funding for abortion providers and other entities that promote abortion.
Biden concluded that the Title X rule put “undue restrictions” on the use of federal funds and put “women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information.”
“The [law] specifies that Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning, but places no further abortion-related restrictions on recipients of Title X funds,” reads the Biden memo.
Earlier this month, 19 states filed a joint motion to ask the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from scrapping the Title X rule, also known as the “Protect Life Rule.”
“To be sure, some States provide such funding. And many advocates would like to see more public funding. But the broader national consensus against funding elective abortion remains,” stated the joint motion.
“Title X reflects this consensus. Since its 1970 enactment, the law has funded non-abortion family planning. All the while, it has banned the use of Title X funds ‘in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.’”
The short briefs filed by Prelogar and the plaintiffs argued that the 19 states were “not parties to these cases,” and so their joint motion does “not prevent the parties from stipulating to dismissal.”
The Trump-era Title X rule drew strong opposition from Planned Parenthood, which led to the nation’s largest abortion provider exiting the Title X family planning program.
The Title X program was enacted during the Nixon administration and grants hundreds of millions of dollars each year to health clinics across the nation to provide contraceptives, cancer screenings, STD testing and other health care services to low-income patients.
Before its exit from the program, Planned Parenthood was the largest provider of Title X care in the country.
Last September, an appeals court upheld a ruling that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the Title X rule. In February 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Title X rule in a 7-4 decision.
Last month, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear litigation on the matter and consolidated three cases.
Leading pro-life advocate Marjorie Dannenfelser was confident that the nation’s high court, with a conservative majority, would rule that future administrations have the right to “disentangle Title X taxpayer funding from the abortion industry.”
