State Of Wyoming Says, “No” To Chemical Abortions

0
CHEYENNE, WY – As the majority of abortions are now chemical abortions in the United States, Wyoming has become the first state to explicitly ban abortion pills and will impose criminal penalties upon those who violate the law.
Last Friday, Governor Mark Gordon signed SF0109, known as the “Prohibiting Chemical Abortions” bill, which states “it shall be unlawful to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person.”
The only exceptions are “to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health, according to appropriate medical judgment, or the pregnancy is the result of incest or sexual assault.” 
Abortionists who violate the law would be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a $9,000 fine, or both.
According to this law, a woman upon whom a chemical abortion is performed or attempted shall not be criminally prosecuted.
Another law, HB0152, known as the “Life Is a Human Right Act,” became law last Sunday without Governor Gordon’s signature. This law modifies an existing abortion ban in the state to now include prescribing or selling abortion pills. 
This law states, “From conception, the unborn baby is a member of the human race,” and “all members of the human race are created equal.” The legislation states that “no person may be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.” Abortions may take place only to save the life of the mother, if the child is conceived in rape or incest, or if the child has a “lethal fetal anomaly.”
The law also refers to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization when it states, “Wyoming’s legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.”Abortionists who kill an unborn child would be guilty of a felony with punishment up to five years in prison, or a $20,000 fine, or both. Abortionists can have their medical licenses revoked. It also creates a right of action for mothers who suffered an abortion, or her parents if she is a minor or deceased, for $10,000 in statutory damages, as well as “actual and punitive damages.” In addition, the woman who underwent the abortion shall not be prosecuted.
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has released data revealing that chemical abortions accounted for the majority of all abortions for the first time in U.S. history in 2020. Every three years, Guttmacher surveys all known abortion providers in America. In 2020, abortion pills accounted for 54 percent of all U.S. abortions, an increase from 44 percent in 2019. Chemical abortions accounted for 39 percent of all abortions in 2017, an increase from 29 percent in 2014. 
The abortion drugs, sold under the brand name Mifeprex, is a two-drug treatment that is approved to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks gestation or less when the baby has a beating heart and arms and legs. There has been a steady increase in the use of abortion pills since September 2000 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone/RU-486, which cuts off blood and nutrients to the unborn baby, slowly starving it to death over one to two days. This drug is taken with misoprostol, which induces labor and causes severe cramping, contractions and bleeding to expel the baby from the womb.
A 2019 study published in the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience provides additional evidence of the harmful biological and behavioral effects of drug-induced abortion. Using rat subjects, the findings “strongly suggest that pregnancy termination at mid-term (first-trimester human equivalent) induces significant negative biological and behavioral changes in the rat.” The study found that drug-induced abortion presented more negative effects than a spontaneous abortion through miscarriage. Finally, the study found there were positive benefits to carrying the baby to term. 
The Franciscan University three-year study, which was conducted by a team of behavioral neuroscientists who do not have ties to the abortion industry, clearly indicates that there are negative consequences such as depression, anxiety, loss of appetite and decreased self-care after terminating a viable pregnancy using mifepristone and misoprostol. 
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We commend Wyoming legislators for protecting unborn children and mothers by banning this human genocide. Chemical abortions harm women physically and emotionally and end the life of defenseless children. More states need to follow Wyoming’s example.” Liberty Counsel is a public law firm and a news partner with the Wyoming News.

Legalized Climate Grifting 

Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates is renowned for his multi-million-dollar donations to social, health, environmental and corporate media causes. But he was recently accused of being “a hypocrite” for posing as “a climate change campaigner,” while taking his private jets on global excursions, even to Davos and other confabs where wealthy elites tell poor and middle class families to live simpler lives and stop using fossil fuels. Actually, the deceptions go much deeper, and certainly not only with Mr. Gates. 

In fact, Climate Armageddon Club members’ cars, profits, green tech schemes and lifestyles are built on metals and minerals extracted and processed with African child labor and lakes of toxic chemicals. Many of them have their origins in or transit through China. 

Paul Dreissen’s article delves deeply into this world of climate change grifters and offers links to many informative articles exploring these issues more deeply.

 

(Bill Gates and climatist collaborators are taking taxpayers and consumers on trillion-dollar rides)

Written by: Paul Driessen             

Grifters have long fascinated us. Operating outside accepted moral standards, they excel at persuading their “marks” to hand valuables over willingly. If they ever represented a “distinctly American ethos,” they’ve been supplanted by con artists seeking bank accounts for funds abandoned by Nigerian princes. 

Their artful dodging is epitomized by Frank Abagnale daring the FBI to “catch me if you can,” Anna Delvey inventing Anna Sorokin, Redford and Newman masterminding their famous Sting, and dirty, rotten scoundrels like Steve Martin, Michael Caine and Glenn Headly.  

However, they were all pikers compared to the billion-dollar stratagems being carried off by Climate Armageddon grifters like Bill Gates, Al Gore, Elon Musk and Biden Climate Envoy John Kerry. 

Their long cons are not only unprecedented in size and complexity. They represent the greatest wealth transfer in history, from poor and middle class families to the wealthiest on Earth. Most important, the plundering has been legalized by laws, regulations, treaties and executive orders, often implemented at the behest of the schemers and their lobbyists.

(You have to wonder how Mark Twain would update his suggestion that “there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”) 

They and their politician, activist, scientist, corporate and media allies profit mightily, but legally, if not unethically, from foundation grants, government payouts and subsidies, and taxpayer and consumer payments based on claims that Earth faces manmade climate cataclysms. That most of us are willingly giving money to mandated “renewable energy” schemes and other corrupt practices is questionable. 

Microsoft co-founder Gates’ estimated 2022 post-divorce net worth of some $130 billion enables him to donate hundreds of millions to social, health, environmental and corporate media causes. That usually shields him from tough questions. 

But BBC media editor Amol Rajan recently asked Mr. Gates to answer charges that he’s “a hypocrite,” for claiming to be “a climate change campaigner” while traveling the world on his luxurious private jets – often to confabs where global elites discuss how we commoners can enjoy simpler, fossil-fuel-free lives: what size our homes can be, how and how much we can heat them, what foods we can eat and how we can cook them, what cars we can drive, whether we can fly anywhere on vacation, what our kids will learn in school, and more. 

Caught flatfooted, Gates defended his use of fuel-guzzling, carbon-spewing jetliners by claiming he purchases “carbon credits” to offset his profligate energy consumption. He also said he visits Africa and Asia to learn about farming and malaria, and spends billions on “climate innovations.” 

Indeed, Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need” calls for replacing beef with synthetic meat. Cattle emit methane, a greenhouse gas (00.00019% of Earth’s atmosphere) – so people should eat fake meat processed from vegetable oil, veggies and insects. 

You may say, That’s disgusting. But Mr. Gates will profit mightily if his “recommendation” is adopted. He’s a major investor in farmland and the imitation meat company Impossible Foods, as is Mr. Gore. 

How cool! Wealthy elites can save the world and get richer at the same time! 

Beyond Meat’s stock may be down more than 75% from its one-time high, but investors will likely bring  in lots more cash via new “climate-saving” diktats, while consumers are left holding bags of rotting bug and lab-grown burgers. 

Carbon offsets? In the real world they’re part of the problem, not the solution. They don’t help Main Street; they too help rich Climate Armageddon Club members become wealthier. 

Gates Foundation grants could prevent extensive African misery, brain damage and death from malaria, by spotting disease outbreaks and eradicating Anopheles mosquito infestations – today. But it’s spending millions trying to engineer plasmodium-resistant mosquitoes, which may pay off a decade from now. 

Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc. continues pocketing billions selling and trading carbon credits. In fact, between 2015 and 2020, the company received $1.3 billionfrom selling credits to other companies – more than twice what it earned from automotive sales. Times sure have changed since manufacturing tycoons got rich selling products, instead of hawking climate indulgences. 

Musk also loves flying in private jets. Last summer, he even took a 9-minute, 55-mile flight from San Francisco to San Jose, instead of driving a Tesla. Wags might say that goes well with the way he and others have made a science of lobbying government agencies to subsidize fire-prone electric cars. 

It’s all to protect the environment, of course – which is why Gore, Gates, Musk and Kerry think they’re entitled to travel by private jet and limousine. We’re also supposed to ignore how their cars and lifestyles are based on metals extracted and processed with African child labor and lakes of toxic chemicals. 

Since Al Gore left the vice president’s office, he’s hauled in some $330 million railing about “rain bombs” and “boiling oceans,” and shilling for government and corporate “investments” in “green energy” that’s also reliant on supply chains running through Africa and China. 

Never forget this fundamental rule: Wind and sunshine are clean, renewable and sustainable. However, harnessing these unreliable, weather-dependent energy sources to power modern economies requires millions of tons of metals and minerals extracted from billions of tons of ores, mostly using dirty, polluting processes in countries that are conveniently out of sight and mind. 

In short, nothing about “renewable energy” is clean, renewable, sustainable, fair or equitable. 

Moreover, the “climate crisis” is based on computer models that predict hurricanetornado, flood, drought, sea level rise and other disasters vastly greater than the world is actually experiencing. The models also ignore five great ice ages and interglacial periods, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, the Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other inconvenient climate truths. 

Topping it off, China, Russia and India are burning cheap coal to industrialize, lift people out of poverty, and leave climate-obsessed Western nations in the economic and military dust. Even if the West went totally Net Zero, it wouldn’t reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases even one part per million.  

The climate change movement’s deceptions and contradictions seem to have no bounds – and know no apparent limits to how much loot they can rake in by lobbyingfederal, state and local governments, banks and financial institutions; waging media warfare; and engaging in political science with similarly minded legislators and regulators who control climate and energy laws, mandates, grants and subsidies. 

What about ESG, financial disclosure, SVBCredit Suissefiduciary responsibility, and accountability

How can the general public be so oblivious to all of this?       

FTX founder and alleged fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried revealed the secret. He avoided media and regulator scrutiny by donating to influential media outlets, the way Bill Gates does. That garners favorable press and social media – which also ignore, cancel and deplatform critics and skeptics. 

Fortunately, gutsy interrogators like Rajan are discovering and publicizing what most of the bought-and-paid-for “journalist classes” still won’t. This helps more people see behind the curtain and find the self-interest, self-dealing and pseudo-science that create the scary climate crisis monsters. 

Climate Armageddon Club games are costing us trillions of dollars, in the name of saving people and planet. Hopefully, more real journalists, troves of Twitter emails (this time kudos to Mr. Musk!) and congressional investigations will save taxpayers and families from additional costly, destructive policies. 

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights. Paul Driessen is a Guest Writer for the Wyoming News and Montana News.

Wyoming Bans Abortion Pills

0

Are you going to have an abortion in Wyoming? You better think twice about that.
The state of Wyoming is the first state with an explicit ban on abortion pills.

Any woman can go on the internet and get abortion pills prescribed to her online and then delivered to her in the privacy of their own home.

Radical Liberal WOKE Democrats who insist on murdering babies will likely attempt to use the Courts to challenge the Wyoming abortion laws and get the abortion pill ban removed.
This action by the Wyoming State Legislature, has put a significant dent in the Planned Parent Hood baby death cycle in the state of Wyoming

Laramie County Circuit Court Criminal Cases

0

28-year-old Faith A. Hauck Charged with DWUI, METH,Speeding and Driving while license is suspended. Her bond was set as a cash bond of $1,000

25-year-old Jay Marshal King DUI, his bond was set as a cash bond $2,000

43-year-old Terry DeWayne Carey was charged with a DUI, and Suspended license second offense, Interference w/peace officer, no seat belt, and Compulsory Auto Insurance, first offense. Bond was set at $2,500

31-year-old Breanna Lemae Sorensen was charged with Destruction of property. Her bond was set at $2,000 cash

19-year-old Christopher M. Thayer was charged with a Strangulation PFMA case. His bond was set at a $2,000 cash bond.

RI School District Denying Equal Access To Bible Clubs

PROVIDENCE, RI – Liberty Counsel filed a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against Providence Public School District and its superintendent, Dr. Javier Montanez, for discriminating against Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) by not allowing its Good News Clubs on campuses while allowing other clubs to meet. If granted, this preliminary injunction would allow the Good News clubs to meet as the case proceeds.
The Providence Public School District previously allowed CEF Rhode Island to run a Good News Club at D’Abate Elementary School for the 2019–2020 school year before COVID caused the cancelation of all clubs in Spring 2020. When CEF Rhode Island requested to resume the Good News Club, as well as start a new club at Leviton Elementary for the 2021–22 school year, district officials failed to respond to repeated facilities use applications by CEF Rhode Island. In March 2021, Liberty Counsel received thousands of pages of public records from the school district revealing that when it denied the Good News Clubs’ facilities use requests by repeated failures to respond, the school district was routinely approving the requests of similar groups. In November and December 2021, Liberty Counsel requested prompt approval of CEF’s requests to hold the after school Good News Clubs. The school district did not approve any of CEF’s facilities use requests, despite Liberty Counsel’s letters setting forth the applicable facts, policies, and law. In June 2022, the Good News Club even submitted a “community partner” application. Again, the school district never responded while a comparable non-profit club, Girls on the Run, had its first spring meeting on February 27, 2023.
Therefore, for nearly two years, the district has blocked CEF Rhode Island from hosting its elementary school Good News Clubs on district school facilities. Yet other organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Girls on the Run are given free use of school facilities for after school programs.
CEF Rhode Island is a Christian non-profit organization and a subsidiary of Child Evangelism Fellowship Inc., an international non-profit worldwide children’s ministry. CEF Good News Clubs positively impact the lives of children and their families. Good News Clubs typically meet once per week, immediately after school, and are led by trained and vetted local community volunteers. The clubs provide religious and other teaching and activities to encourage learning, spiritual growth, and service to others, as well as social, emotional, character, and leadership development.
Good News Clubs do not charge any fee and welcome children with written permission from parents. There are currently more than 4,800 Good News Clubs in public elementary and middle schools across the United States, including in other Rhode Island school districts.
In June 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court in Good News Club v. Milford Central Schoolruled that public schools violate the First Amendment by not providing equal access and equal treatment to Christian clubs when the school has opened the forum to secular clubs, as in this case.
Liberty Counsel has represented approximately 200 CEF cases nationally and has never lost a case involving Good News Clubs.  Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Good News Club must be given equal treatment as the non-religious groups on public school campuses. Equal access means equal treatment in terms of use of the facilities, including fee waivers, time of meetings, and announcements. After about 200 successful CEF cases, Liberty Counsel will once again prove this fact.”
Liberty Counsel is a public law firm and a news partner with the Wyoming News and Montana News.

25-year-old Cheyenne Wyoming Woman, Alissa Marie Arellano High on Meth And “Streaking” Naked Downtown

0

25-year-old Alissa Marie Arellano from Cheyenne, Wyoming, was arrested on a warrant, but at the time of the arrest, Arellano was running around in the streets naked and high on METH.

Cheyenne Police Department Police Officer Teralyn Alaric responded to a call of a woman who was lewd and running around downtown Cheyenne naked.

According to police documents, Arellano was intoxicated and was high on Meth and marijuana.

Arellano was “airing it out,” as that was what she claimed the voices were telling her to do.

Arellano already had a warrant out for her arrest for a previous drug possession charge but failed to appear in court.

Montana Republican Party Moves To Protect Montana Students Constitutional Rights From Socialist Democrats

With the Republican supermajority you elected this legislative session, we have the chance to protect Montana students’ constitutional rights. 

In order to safeguard Montana’s higher educational freedoms, Rep. Mike Hopkins is sponsoring a constitutional amendment that would grant the legislature the power to direct the Board of Regents to adopt policies that would protect the constitutional rights of every student, faculty and staff of the Montana University System. 

In 2019, Democrats stifled University Students right to Free Speech when Gov Bullock vetoed HB 735 and during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were numerous instances where students’ rights were violated on college campuses across the state. One Montana State University student was nearly arrested in his dorm for petitioning against MSU’s COVID-19 mask mandate. Then in 2021, HB 218 supporting university student’s right to free speech was squashed by our liberal supreme court. We need to protect our citizens!

Students should not be punished or have deal with repercussion from their peers and educators for standing up for their constitutional rights. Republican lawmakers in Helena are coming together to make it clear that they will not let the liberal university system continue to infringe on students’ rights. 

For Educational Freedom, 

Chairman

Don “K” Kaltschmidt 
Chairman 
Montana Republican Party 

Blocking The JetBlue-Spirit Merger Won’t Revitalize The Airline Industry

Written by:Rachel Chiu
Government officials are eager to “fix” the airline industry. Over the holidays, two million Southwest passengers were stranded in airports across the country, prompting a Senate hearing and calls for regulation. The Biden administration is, yet again, using antitrust to remedy a problem it is ill-suited to solve.  Now, the Department of Justice and Department of Transportation have taken action to halt JetBlue’s takeover of Spirit Airlines. Although the state of air travel could use some improvement, breaking up pro-competitive mergers and acquisitions is not the way to achieve that. By attempting to block the JetBlue-Spirit merger, regulators are effectively reinforcing the market power of larger airlines.  The companies announced in October that stockholders approved the $3.8 billion deal. Although the transaction depended upon the required assent from regulators, Spirit and JetBlue anticipated that they would allow the deal to close by the end of the first half of 2024, at the latest. JetBlue offered to divest from all of Spirit’s assets in New York and Boston, along with five gates in Fort Lauderdale, to prevent the airline from commandeering these regions. However, the divestiture commitments failed to appease the Biden administration, and according to JetBlue’s CEO, Robin Hayes, the DOJ staff “came to the table with their minds made up.” It therefore came as no surprise when the Justice Department — joined by Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia — sued to block the merger earlier this week. The complaint alleges that the transaction would eliminate the “largest and fastest-growing ultra-low-cost carrier” and increase fares. Ironically, regulators highlight existing consolidation in the airline industry without appearing to think through how, if their suit is successful, it could worsen this state of affairs.  The proposed merger would increase JetBlue’s market share to 9 percent and position the company as the fifth largest U.S. airline, which would only be half the size of each of the “Big Four”: American Airlines, Delta, Southwest, and United. As noted by Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah), “What about the four airlines that control 80 percent of the market?”  If regulators believe the airline industry lacks robust competition, they should celebrate this deal rather than condemn it. After all, companies must attain significant resources to become viable competitors against the Big Four. For example, Delta, the oldest domestic airline still in operation, maximizes profits by routing flight traffic from small cities through bigger ones. This process, known as the “hub-and-spoke” model, is not feasible for budget-friendly airlines that do not have such widespread reach. Competitiveness in this capital-intensive market requires scale. It is unreasonable to expect new entrants and small players to achieve economies of scale exclusively through their own means. The DOJ acknowledges that prohibitive barriers exist in the airline industry, yet describes Spirit as a company that can overcome it all: “Spirit has doubled its network in size and, before this deal, [was] expected to continue expanding at a quick pace. The acquisition stops this future competition before it starts.” While it is true that the ultra-low-cost carrier has found success within its niche, it is not enough to support the assumption that Spirit would become “future competition” for established carriers.  The DOJ argues that it is trying to “preserve Spirit’s unique and disruptive role” from being diminished by the “rest of the industry — including JetBlue — [which] has been forced to respond to Spirit’s innovations and low prices.” Interestingly, the DOJ made a similar claim in 2021 when describing JetBlue as a “uniquely disruptive low-cost airline.” It is worth considering why such arguments might find support among the public. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, only 27 percent of Americans view the airline industry positively. And indeed the DOJ and DOT refer to the consumer experience in their statements. That said, some of the problems that travelers see in airports can also be attributed to the rising cost of fuel, inflation pressures, and the pandemic’s lingering effects. In 2020, airlines shut down routes and sent home their workforce to respond to the sharp decrease in demand. These changes have impacted travel, though they should not be conflated with the government’s antitrust analysis of competitive harm.   If the DOJ wants to alleviate issues such as rising fares and deteriorating service, it should promote competition rather than restrict it. Ultimately, regulators have decided that the quantity of players in the airline industry is more important than competitive strength. That’s good news for the Big Four, less so for consumers.