Connect with us

News

College Students Complain They Have to Drive 8 Minutes Off Campus to Get Abortions

Published

on

There was a time when abortion advocates tried to justify the legality of abortion, a procedure most considered to be troubling, by saying all they wanted was for it to be “legal, safe, and rare.”

The idea was that it was justifiable to dismember an unborn baby in the womb when someone really, really needed to. Not just any old pregnancy.

Even Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist, argued at one time that birth control should be made more widely available to avoid abortion.

Trending: Paramedics Staying at Hotel Hear Mother's Screams, Jump Fence to Rescue Unresponsive Boy in Pool

But Sanger’s organization, Planned Parenthood, would go on to murder millions upon millions of unborn babies, and the movement she started would go on to now, 100 years later, inspire young women to demand abortion facilities be only a stone’s throw away from their dormitory.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism? (1)

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Life Site News reports:

The average distance between a California public college and an abortion facility is less than 6 miles.

But abortion activists are claiming even that short distance is too big of a burden for students who want to abort their unborn babies.

Right now, state lawmakers are considering a bill that would force public colleges and universities to provide abortion drugs to students on campus free of charge.

“It’s necessary because it’s a constitutionally protected right, but just because it’s a constitutionally protected right does not mean you have access,” said state Sen. Connie Leyva, who sponsored the bill.

They refer to a KQED article that featured the story of an abortion-seeking college student who was terribly inconvenienced to have to drive a whole 6 miles, about 8 minutes, to get an abortion, because her college clinic wouldn’t perform the procedure.

No, seriously:

Jessica Rosales recalls plunging into a downward spiral after discovering that her birth control had failed and she was pregnant. A financially unstable third-year student at UC Riverside, she immediately sought an abortion — something the campus student health clinic did not provide.

Instead she was referred to private medical facilities off campus. One wouldn’t accept her insurance; the other didn’t provide abortions. Her grades slipped, she said, and she frequently slept the days away to escape her circumstances. Eventually she traveled six miles to a Planned Parenthood clinic that performed the procedure. Ten weeks had passed.

“My situation could have been avoided if the student health center was there and provided medication abortion for students on campus,” Rosales said.

We are given no reason why this woman would have been unable to care for her baby other than being “financially unstable.”

In 2018, one of the outstanding circumstances in which a woman should be allowed to abort her baby is apparently when she’s bad with money and can’t walk to an abortion clinic from her dorm room.

Rosales had access to birth control, clearly opting for one of the many methods with a less than 99% success rate, and, while the article seems to frame the college student as having spontaneously conceived, she obviously chose to engage in premarital, most likely casual, sex.

We know no details of her financial instability, but, considering she’s a college student in 2018, we’re guessing she’s most likely faced with a great deal of debt and is probably simply irresponsible with her money.

All this amounts to not only her having a constitutional right to murder her unborn child, but having a right to do so closer to where she lives? 

I just…can’t.

News

Businesses Should Require Vax Proof from Customers, Says NIH Director

This is simply unconscionable.

Published

on

There have long been fears that this sort of discrimination was on the horizon, as the willingly unvaccinated become second-class citizens right here in the United States. With only about half of the US population fully vaccinated, (and largely by their own accord), herd immunity looks to be some time away yet.  Nearly 20% more of the population will need to wind up with COVID antibodies in order for public health officials to consider the pandemic to be waning, and a maximum pressure campaign is taking shape throughout a number of levels of government. During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Dr. Frances Collins used his position as the Director of the National Institutes of Health to pressure businesses around the nation to enact strict vaccine-proof restrictions. Anchor Jake Tapper said, “Some businesses are going a step further and requiring proof of vaccinations not just for employees, but even for customers in some cases. Audience members for broadway plays and musicals need to be vaccinated. Some bars in San Francisco and D.C. are requiring proof of vaccinations. Do you think as a public health measure it would be good for more businesses to require vaccine credentials in order to have vaccinated customers?” His answer was astonishing. Collins said, “As a public health person who wants to see this pandemic end, yes. I think anything we can do to encourage reluctant folks to get vaccinated because they’ll want to be part of these public events, that’s a good thing. I’m delighted to see employers like Disney and Walmart coming out and asking their staff to be vaccinated. I’m glad to see the president has said all federal employees. I oversee NIH. With 40,000 people need to get vaccinated or if they’re not to get regular testing which is inconvenient. All of…

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Unrepentant YouTube Decides to Suspend Mainstream News Channel Over ‘Misinformation’

The barons of the Information Revolution are no less corrupt than those of the Industrial Revolution before them.

Published

on

There are concerns that the barons of the Information Revolution, much like the barons of the Industrial Revolution, are exploiting their content producers at an unsustainable clip, and creating a very dangerous bottleneck in the world of free speech. Given just how much of the internet’s traffic flows through just a few sites, it is imperative that we keep a keen eye on what platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are doing.  They are the new gatekeepers of nearly the entire breadth of current information, and if they were to choose to keep us in the dark on any particular issue, it would be quite easy for them to do so. That’s why the latest news from YouTube is so terrifying. YouTube said Sunday it had barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for one week, citing concerns about Covid-19 misinformation. The move comes after a review of posts uploaded by the Rupert Murdoch-owned TV channel, which has a substantial online presence. “We have clear and established Covid-19 medical misinformation policies… to prevent the spread of Covid-19 misinformation that could cause real-world harm,” a YouTube statement said. With 1.86 million YouTube subscribers, the channel — which is owned by a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corp — has a conservative following well beyond Australia. The mainstream media and the mainstream social networks haven’t always gotten their COVD info right, either, which makes their declarations regarding “misinformation” all the more laughable. Early on in the pandemic, these platforms pushed back against the possibility that the virus itself may have been a part of some sort of lab leak, even going so far as to censor any such discussion.  Over a year later, and as health experts began to suggest this yes, this was truly a possibility, the premature nature of…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week