Biden’s Task Force: Abortion First, Ignore Religious Freedom!

Ladies and gentlemen, brace yourselves for the latest episode of “Biden’s Reproductive Rights Task Force: The One-Sided Show.” In this thrilling installment, Attorney General Merrick Garland managed to divert attention from the real issue at hand with a lengthy discussion about allegations against former Ambassador Victor Manuel Rocha. It’s like talking about your neighbor’s dog while your house is on fire!

But fear not, Garland eventually got around to his real agenda: defending the so-called “reproductive freedoms” that are protected by federal law. Translation: ensuring that abortion remains easily accessible and unrestricted. Because apparently, that’s the top priority of the Biden administration. Forget about the economy, national security, or any other pesky issues. It’s all about abortions, folks!

Garland pointed out specific state laws in Alabama and Idaho, and even mentioned a case from Texas involving the controversial abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. The Department of Justice (DOJ), ever the champion of “reproductive rights,” is pushing for Supreme Court review to make sure mifepristone remains readily available. Because who needs pesky regulations or safety concerns when it comes to abortion, right?

Oh, but let’s not forget about the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the shining star of the administration’s priorities. Garland proudly proclaimed that they are diligently enforcing this act, which allegedly protects both those seeking abortion services and pro-life pregnancy counseling services. But let’s be honest, we all know which side the DOJ is really focused on here. Protecting pro-life services? Yeah, right.

And speaking of bias, FBI Director Christopher Wray also had his shining moment when he failed to adequately answer a question about abortion-related violence. It’s almost as if they don’t want to acknowledge the realities of the pro-life movement or the violence that abortion clinics often face. But don’t worry, they’re all over it when it comes to targeting pro-life activists who dare to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Take the case of pro-life activist Mark Houck, for example. The DOJ slapped FACE Act charges on him, even after local prosecutors dropped the charges. Agents stormed his home in the early morning hours, terrorizing his children. Thankfully, Houck was eventually found not guilty, but the damage was already done. This is what happens when the DOJ decides to play judge, jury, and executioner in the name of protecting “reproductive rights.”

But let’s not forget the real victims here: the pro-life activists who have been targeted, arrested, and unjustly convicted under the FACE Act. Elderly women, of all people, have faced the wrath of this biased enforcement. Meanwhile, the media conveniently ignores these stories, or tries to chalk them up to inexplicable plea deals. It’s like the liberal agenda is more important than the truth.

And as if that wasn’t enough, we have Catholic churches being attacked left and right since the leak of the Dobbs decision. Yet, the Biden administration has opened zero FACE Act cases in response. Funny how that works, huh? It’s almost as if they only care about protecting the “reproductive rights” of a select group, while turning a blind eye to the religious freedom of others. But hey, who needs consistency when you have an agenda to push?

All in all, the Biden administration’s Reproductive Rights Task Force is just another prime example of their partisan and one-sided approach to policy-making. While they claim to be champions of “reproductive freedom,” they conveniently ignore any opposing viewpoints or concerns. It’s all about abortions, no matter the cost. But hey, at least they’re consistent in their bias, right? That’s one way to spin it, I suppose.

Written by Staff Reports

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Biden Bust: House Probe Exposes Sketchy Family Cash Flow!

UN Women Scramble to Back Israeli Women: Too Little, Too Late?