If Milley Quote Is Accurate, Read Him His Rights

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said that if the reports implicating Gen. Mark Milley for making secret calls to his communist Chinese counterpart are true, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “needs to be read his rights.”

“Did General Milley call our enemy, Communist China, and say this? ‘If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,’” Scott tweeted. “If true, Milley needs to be read his rights. If not true, why is Bob Woodward lying…again?”

Milley reportedly called Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army twice while former President Donald Trump was still in office to reassure the communist military authority that the United States did not have plans to attack China.

One day prior to calling for action against Milley, Scott said he didn’t “take this ‘reporting’ as gospel,” but thinks Milley needs to “immediately address these accusations & testify to Congress ASAP.”

Christopher Miller, acting Defense Secretary under Trump, said on Wednesday that Milley had no authority to make “secret” calls to his counterpart in communist China and needs to resign “immediately,” Fox News reported. Miller also called the alleged calls a “disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination” and repeated that he “did not and would not ever authorize” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make those calls because it caused Milley to break the chain of command.

Scott is not the only Republican politician calling for action against Milley. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wrote a letter to President Joe Biden calling for Milley to be fired after the general reportedly “contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party.”

In the letter, Rubio said Milley “worked to actively undermine the sitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and did not deserve to keep his position.

“These actions by General Milley demonstrate a clear lack of sound judgment, and I urge you to dismiss him immediately,” Rubio wrote. “I do not need to tell of you the dangers posed by senior military officers leaking classified information on U.S. military operations, but I will underscore that such subversion undermines the President’s ability to negotiate and leverage one of this nation’s instruments of national power in his interactions with foreign nations.”

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Source link

Brazil’s top court halts indigenous land rights case, no new date set

Indigenous people take part in a protest on the day of Brazil’s Supreme Court trial of a landmark case on indigenous land rights in Brasilia, Brazil September 15, 2021. REUTERS/Adriano Machado

September 15, 2021

BRASILIA (Reuters) – Brazil’s Supreme Court on Wednesday suspended a high-profile land rights case that the country’s indigenous people say is vital for their survival, with no new date for when it will re-take the matter.

The top court is weighing whether a state government applied an overly narrow interpretation of indigenous rights by only recognizing tribal lands occupied by native communities at the time Brazil’s constitution was ratified in 1988.

Indigenous rights groups say the rule was unconstitutional because there was no timeframe in the 1988 constitution, which guaranteed the right to ancestral lands.

The case was suspended after one of the justices, Alexandre De Moraes, asked for more time. As things stand, two members of the 11-member court have ruled so far, with one justice in favor of a cut-off date for land claims, while another has voted to end the timeframe.

The government of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro draws support from the agricultural sector, which largely supports the timeframe. It argues the time framework gave legal security to farmers, many of whom have lived for decades on land once inhabited by natives.

Protected indigenous lands offer a bulwark against deforestation in the Amazon, advocates say. A defeat in court for the indigenous people would set a precedent for the rollback of native rights that Bolsonaro has sought with the backing of powerful farming interests, critics say.

Lawyers for the indigenous people, who today number some 850,000 in Brazil, say the constitution that set in stone their rights to ancestral lands makes no mention of a time framework.

Their ancestors were driven off of their hunting grounds when European settlers began to arrive centuries ago, or expelled from coveted farm land https://reut.rs/3zcZ00Q more recently but before the 1988 cutoff.

Families of white farmers in many cases have lived for decades on land now claimed by indigenous communities, and even hold title in some cases showing they bought it from the state.

“If the Supreme Court doesn’t maintain the 1988 timeframe … it will kill agribusiness in Brazil, there will be no incentive to invest in agriculture,” Bolsonaro said recently.

(Reporting by Ricardo Brito and Gabriel Stargardter; Editing by Aurora Ellis)

Source link

‘Justice for J6’ rally scares Washington, but organizers call it a civil rights action

The organizers of the “Justice for J6” rally scheduled for Saturday at the U.S. Capitol say they are spotlighting the “immoral” treatment of people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot.

The rally is expected to bring about 600 people to Capitol Hill amid fresh allegations that accused rioters suffer harsh treatment in jails and are being denied due process in the legal system.

“Our motivation is to raise the profile of our fellow Americans who are having their civil rights abused, being denied their constitutional rights, and are being treated as political prisoners,” said Matt Braynard, the main organizer behind the rally.

Mr. Braynard, who is also a former Trump campaign operative and the executive director of the nonprofit Look Ahead America, echoes the concerns of a handful of House lawmakers who have alleged that jailed rioters are being treated unfairly due to their support for former President Donald Trump.

A Rasmussen Reports poll found that almost half of U.S. voters align with that view, with 49% of likely voters agreeing that protesters arrested in connection to Jan. 6 are “political prisoners.”

Among those polled, 30% strongly agreed with that idea, while 42% disagreed and 33% strongly disagreed, according to the poll that was released Tuesday.

The poll had a margin of error of +/- 3%.

Washington officials are treating the rally as a threat.

A fence around the U.S. Capitol is set to go up ahead of the rally, a feature that was erected after the Jan. 6 riot and taken down in July.

The U.S. Capitol Police said they asked the Department of Defense for the ability to receive National Guard support should the need arise on Saturday.

District Police are preparing to have an “increased presence” around the city and say they “will be fully prepared” for the rally.

Many Republicans have distanced themselves from the upcoming rally, including lawmakers who have advocated on behalf of imprisoned rioters.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, said he didn’t expect any of his members to attend the rally.

Mr. Braynard said the lack of support makes the elected leaders look out of touch with the political reality in the country.

“Half of America is on our side of the issue,” Mr. Braynard said. “I’ve also seen internal polling that shows that among GOP voters, they’re completely in line with the Justice for J6 movement.”

A couple of Republican candidates seeking office plan to join the rally.

Mike Collins, a candidate for Georgia’s 10th district, is scheduled to speak at the rally. He said he wanted to advocate for people’s constitutional rights that he thinks are being violated.

“People need their day in court,” Mr. Collins said. “Whatever they’ve done or been accused of doing, I’m not part of that. But I am saying they need their constitutional rights upheld.”

The Jan. 6 riot resulted in the deaths of four pro-Trump demonstrators. A Capitol Police officer also died of a stroke, which a medical examiner later ruled was death by natural causes.

Two other Capitol Police officers died by suicide in the days following the riot.

More than 500 people have been arrested and charged in connection to the storming of the Capitol, many of whom have been released as they await trial.

Some of those who are behind bars have alleged being subject to excessively harsh treatment, including abuse and unjustified solitary confinement.

Albert Watkins is a St. Louis-based lawyer representing four defendants from the riot, including “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley. He said the Justice Department rushed into the prosecutions before a full investigation was complete. He also accused the government of cherry-picking evidence.

The lawyer also said Mr. Chansley’s mental health vulnerabilities were not taken into full consideration, adding that his client is currently spending up to 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.

He said the treatment of his client approaches that of a political prisoner, but he blamed it on Mr. Chansley becoming the face of the Jan. 6 riot with his red, white, and blue face paint and a fur hat.

“I don’t blame it on his political beliefs. I blame it on the fact that he, for better or for worse, won the best costume contest of the day for Jan. 6,” Mr. Watkins said.

Mr. Chansley, 33, pleaded guilty earlier this month for one count of obstruction of an official proceeding for his role in the riot.

As far as the rally goes, Mr. Watkins said it is justified as long as it’s peaceful and not a repeat of what happened nine months ago.

“I do think it’s noble if it is done in a fashion that is peaceful and constitutes the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech,” Mr. Watkins said. “If it’s being done to create an epilogue to Jan. 6, that’s not right.”

Other defense attorneys familiar with rioters’ cases said privately that the rally was a bad idea and wouldn’t help the cause of those still behind bars.

The rally is scheduled to begin at noon Saturday on the west side of the Capitol grounds. Another 17 sister rallies are scheduled to take place Saturday outside state legislatures across the country.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters


Source link

Judges Who Violate Due Process Rights For Personal Gain Just Got a Major Pass From This Federal Court – Reason.com

A New Orleans judge systematically violated the due process rights of criminal defendants when he pushed them to enroll in ankle monitoring provided by a company with which he shared significant financial, professional, political, and personal ties, according to a suit filed last year. Despite acknowledging substantial evidence of this arrangement, the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana has struck down the lawsuit. 

Those who came before Judge Paul Bonin of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court specifically found themselves steered toward ETOH Monitoring LLC, with Bonin consistently tying release from GPS monitoring to paying all fees to the company.

Yet Bonin failed to disclose that he received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions as well as a loan from ETOH, and that he was previously the law partner of one of the company’s principals.

That suit against ETOH—in this case, the private company was operating as a state actor—was recently struck down not because the partnership between the two was deemed appropriate, but because ETOH did not have a similar arrangement with other judges. 

“Plaintiffs’ allegations depend on the specific relationship between former Judge Bonin and ETOH and therefore fail to state an institutional incentives claim,” reads the Court’s decision. In other words, the company is protected from liability because the relationship only existed with Bonin, and not across the entire judiciary.

That’s a recipe for future corruption, says Jaba Tsitsuashvili, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm. “The judge here held that if the constitutional defect—where an ankle monitoring company’s profit incentive is the driving force behind a judge’s decisions—if that’s only happening in one courtroom, then it’s essentially immunized from judicial scrutiny,” he says. “If this was the prevailing wisdom, it would [shield] judges and private companies from any sort of judicial scrutiny in the operation of the criminal system.”

Hakeem Meade, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, was arrested after he was shot six times by the owner of an auto shop as the two bickered about repairs. The owner also shot Meade’s pregnant girlfriend, who lost the twins she was carrying. After six months in Bonin’s court—where Meade passed the required drug tests and attended every scheduled court appearance—Bonin ordered him without explanation to enroll in ankle monitoring provided by ETOH. The cost of that monitoring included a $100 installation fee and a $10 daily charge over the course of several months, all of which had to be shouldered by Meade, who at the time worked as a truck driver. He was threatened with jail if he didn’t pay.

Another defendant, Marshall Sookram, was originally set free from pretrial detention without monitoring—until he landed in Bonin’s court. After a bondsman paired him with a different company, his public defender revealed in court that he would be switching Sookram to ETOH, a few months after Bonin requested the attorney’s email address. After over a year on ankle monitoring, Sookram was told by Bonin’s court that he would only be set free once he was able to pay the hundreds of dollars in fees charged by ETOH.

Meade and Sookram are not alone. There were dozens of such defendants who were murkily assigned ankle monitoring and specifically pressured to use ETOH, according to a report from Court Watch NOLA (CWN), which reviewed Bonin’s financial disclosures and subsequent monitoring practices. 

“On several occasions, Judge Bonin refused to release the defendants from jail until the defendant’s family had arranged for ETOH to establish ankle monitoring services,” says the report. “On several other occasions, Judge Bonin refused to release criminal defendants from their ankle monitors until the defendant paid ETOH all remaining fees the defendant owed to ETOH. In at least two cases, Judge Bonin threatened to incarcerate the defendant for failing to pay ETOH.”

Those sorts of court fines and fees disproportionately harm poor people, making it more difficult for them to reenter society and often meaning they end up back behind bars if they’re unable to pay, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Tsitsuashvili, who is representing Meade and Sookram, says he plans to appeal. But it’s possible the two will never get any sort of accountability. Bonin left his perch after the two filed suit. Suing him personally is not an option, as judges are protected by absolute immunity, a doctrine that makes it impossible to hold them accountable in civil and criminal court for job-related misconduct.

Source link

U.S. to hold $130 million of Egypt’s military aid over human rights -State Dept

FILE PHOTO: Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi speaks during a joint news conference with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at Maximos Mansion in Athens, Greece, November 11, 2020. REUTERS/Costas Baltas/File Photo

September 15, 2021

By Humeyra Pamuk

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Biden administration will withhold $130 million worth of military aid to Egypt until Cairo takes specific steps related to human rights, a State Department spokesperson said on Tuesday.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s move is a break with his predecessors’ policy of overriding a congressional check on military aid to Egypt. In the past, an exception was granted to free up Foreign Military Financing for Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government, worth $300 million this fiscal year, on the basis that it was in the interest of U.S. national security.

But rights groups, which had called on the administration to block the entire $300 million aid, expressed disappointment at the decision, saying it was a “betrayal” of the U.S. commitment to promote human rights.

The State Department spokesperson said in an emailed statement: “We are continuing to discuss our serious concerns about human rights in Egypt,”

Blinken “will move forward with the use of $130 million if the Government of Egypt affirmatively addresses specific human-rights related conditions,” the statement added.

Earlier, a U.S. official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the administration would approve $170 million but would put a hold on the remaining $130 million, making that available in future fiscal years if Egypt improves its record.

“What the Biden administration has really done is waive the minimal human rights conditions imposed by Congress on a fraction of U.S. aid, while keeping a small portion of $130 million blocked on even more watered down conditions,” said Sarah Leah Witson, executive director of advocacy group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN).

The United States has provided around $1.3 billion in foreign assistance to Egypt annually since the 2017 fiscal year, according to a congressional research report.

Sisi, who ousted the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013, has overseen a crackdown on dissent that has tightened in recent years. He denies there are political prisoners in Egypt and says stability and security are paramount.

President Joe Biden has pledged to put human rights at the heart of his foreign policy and rights advocates have pushed Washington to get tougher on Sisi, even though ties with Egypt have improved after Cairo’s mediation to help end hostilities in April between Israel and Hamas militants.

“If the administration’s dedication to human rights were sincere, this decision would have been simple: withhold the $300 million in military aid as conditioned by Congress to incentivize al-Sisi to change course,” said a joint statement from nearly two dozen rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Criticism from rights groups on Biden’s commitment to promote rights and freedoms worldwide is not limited to Egypt.

They say while his increased emphasis on the issue is an improvement from the position of his predecessor Donald Trump – who praised authoritarian leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin – Biden has so far refrained from impactful action.

(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Mike Stone in Washington; Editing by Dan Grebler and Richard Pullin)

Source link

Blocking Chipman Is A Win But Biden’s War On Gun Rights Isn’t Over

Amid the media frenzy surrounding President Joe Biden’s decision to pull his Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) pick, David Chipman, the National Rifle Association (NRA) tells The Federalist that no Biden nominee will respect the constitutional rights of Americans.

“The NRA does not expect an administration as anti-gun and radical as Biden’s to nominate anyone who supports the Second Amendment and cares for the constitutional rights of American citizens,” NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said. “That said, we’re pleased we defeated Chipman, who was on record as a radical gun control proponent and who could have imposed widespread bans and countless attacks on [Second Amendment] rights.”

Biden yanked Chipman’s nomination Thursday after it became clear not enough lawmakers would back him. The senior policy advisor at Giffords, a gun-control group, has been roundly scrutinized for his controversial positions and actions. As The Federalist reported in July, Chipman claimed in 2019 he was “frustrated” by the First Amendment freedom of gun owners to say things he disapproved of.

Republican leadership indicated to The Federalist that Chipman was an inadequate nominee and other potential picks must show consideration for the rights of Americans.

“Mr. Chipman’s disregard for the Second Amendment was radical, even for the Senate Democrats who killed his nomination,” a spokesman for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said. “Leader McCarthy would support a nominee who stands with law enforcement and respects the Second Amendment — a glaring omission in Mr. Chipman’s resume.”

“A baseline qualification for anyone to be considered for this position would be a strong support for the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” said Lauren Fine, spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

While the NRA is pleased with Chipman’s withdrawal, the organization is still convinced the Biden administration has little regard for the Second Amendment. In August, for instance, Republicans on the Second Amendment caucus slammed the White House for altering the legal definition of a “firearm.”

“In Chipman’s defeat, we’ve won the most immediate threat to our rights,” Hunter said. “But, we expect many more battles in the future as long as Biden remains in office.”

Source link

Advocates see ‘chaos’ if U.S. Supreme Court guts abortion rights

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen following an abortion ruling by the Texas legislature, in Washington, U.S., September 1, 2021. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

September 13, 2021

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Abortion rights advocates on Monday urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide – a 1973 landmark imperiled in the legal fight over Mississippi’s attempt to ban the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

“The fallout would be swift and certain. As abortion bans are enforced – or the threat of enforcement looms – large swaths of the South and Midwest would likely be without access to legal abortion,” said lawyers for Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi.

“People would be harmed, and chaos would ensue, even in states that claim not to be prohibiting abortion directly,” the lawyers added.

The court filing came in response to Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, who said in papers filed with the court in July that the Roe v. Wade ruling and a subsequent 1992 decision that affirmed it were both “egregiously wrong.”

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Mississippi’s July court filing marked the first time that the Republican-governed state, in seeking to revive a law blocked by lower courts, made overturning Roe v. Wade a central part of its argument. The 1973 ruling ended an era in which some states had banned abortion.

“Unless the court is to be perceived as representing nothing more than the preferences of its current membership, it is critical that judicial protection hold firm absent the most dramatic and unexpected changes in law or fact,” lawyers for the Mississippi clinic said.

The Supreme Court’s central role in the fight over abortion rights was highlighted on Sept. 1. In a late-night decision, the court allowed a Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy to stay in effect, setting off a firestorm of criticism https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-declines-block-texas-abortion-ban-2021-09-02 from abortion rights advocates.

The court in May agreed https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-takes-up-case-that-could-limit-abortion-rights-2021-05-17 to take up the Mississippi case and will hear it in its term that begins in October. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, with a ruling due by the end of June 2022.

It has been a longstanding aim of religious conservatives to overturn Roe v. Wade, which recognized that a constitutional right to personal privacy protects a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. The court in its 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, reaffirmed the ruling and prohibited laws that place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Roe v. Wade said that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb, which is generally viewed by doctors as between 24 and 28 weeks. The Mississippi law, enacted in 2018, would ban abortion much earlier than that. Other states like Texas have backed laws that would ban it even earlier.

After Jackson Women’s Health Organization sued to block the 15-week ban, a federal judge in 2018 ruled against Mississippi. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 reached the same conclusion.

The Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020 struck down restrictive abortion laws in Texas and Louisiana, but new justices appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump have moved the court further rightward.

The court’s conservative majority includes the addition last year of Trump’s third appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who during her Senate confirmation hearings declined to call Roe v. Wade a “super-precedent” invulnerable to being overturned. Barrett replaced liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion rights champion who died last year.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source link

The Woke Crowd That Promised Women’s Rights Is Now Getting Rid of Women Completely

Watching the left cling to woke ideology while attempting to discuss SB 8, the Texas law that effectively bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the growing human fetus, is entertaining.

Leftists have been pushing gender-neutral language for years and have succeeded in some areas, but it makes for interesting intellectual acrobatics when it comes time to make sense of their arguments.

For example, the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine now wants everyone to use the terms “chestfeeding” and “parent’s milk” instead of “breastfeeding” because that word, the same one in the name of the organization, is not inclusive.

Two hospitals in the United Kingdom also made these same suggestions and added that breast milk should be referred to as “human milk.”

Let’s not stop there. Because the CDC apparently has nothing better to do, last month it released a guide to focus on “inclusive language,” urging the use of words like “two-spirit” to replace “transgendered” or “homosexual.”


While Clintons, Bidens and Obamas Attended Ceremony at 9/11 Memorial Yesterday, Trump Quietly Dipped Into a Nearby NYFD Bay

And last year, the United Nations tweeted a chart for gender-neutral language that included swapping out words like “husband” and “wife” for “spouse” and “mankind” for “humankind.”

Here’s the thing: If women are not referred to as women, the liberals are taking away the very person and gender whose “rights” they are claiming to support.

Do you think the left hates women?

Following their logic, abortion is a women’s issue and men have zero say in that decision. But according to them, men can get pregnant too, so they do have a say in the abortion decision, right?

And what about “menstruating persons,” as Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez talked about in a recent CNN interview?

She also tweeted, “Just one reason Roe isn’t a ‘women’s issue’ beyond the fact that people who aren’t women can menstruate too!”


Hey AG Garland, the Judicial System Got the Texas Abortion Bill Ruling Right

Is she saying men are not oppressing women, that the patriarchy doesn’t exist, that *gasp* abortion is a men’s issue as well?

If you’re confused, you aren’t the only one. Woke leftists claim to be pro-science, yet they are the exact opposite by essentially destroying the notion of gender.

Every human being is born with a distinct gender, which I cannot believe needs to be said. Science confirms this. A toddler could tell you this is true.

Only women have the reproductive organs to become pregnant and carry a child. This is basic biology. No matter what you want to call a woman who identifies as something or someone else, the truth is that it is only a woman who has the gift of bringing new life into the world.

Take that gift away from women, like the liberals who have walked the plank of reality, and you have no “women’s rights” to fight for.

If the left wants to talk about how abortion is not just a women’s issue, then let’s have that discussion. Men are hurt by abortion too. Support After Abortion has an entire podcast series and upcoming conference dedicated to helping men heal from the trauma of abortion, which no one is talking about.

Their consumer research indicates more than half of men never had a say in the abortion decision and have sought out resources for healing but have no idea where to look. Their research further shows that 22 million men have been impacted by abortion in the United States. So yes, let’s talk about how abortion isn’t just a women’s issue.

Every single person deserves to be loved and accepted for who they are, and it is heart-wrenching when that doesn’t happen. But removing gender and denying the unique gifts that men and women possess because of their biology is not the way to move toward acceptance.

This is one of the worst aspects of cancel culture — women being canceled. Their ability to grow life and feed their babies is denied by the very people who purport to support and empower them.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Abby Johnson is the founder and director of And Then There Were None.

Abby Johnson worked for Planned Parenthood for eight years, working her way up through the ranks to become the clinic director in Bryan, Texas. She was Planned Parenthood’s employee of the year in 2008 but she walked away from her job after witnessing the abortion of a 13-week-old fetus during an ultrasound-guided abortion. She left Planned Parenthood and instantly became a national news headline for her defection, which led to a pro-life speaking career. In 2012, she founded And Then There Were None, the only ministry in the nation that helps abortion workers leave their jobs and find new ones out of the industry. To date, she has helped over 550 abortion workers quit. She also founded ProLove Ministries and LoveLine in the fall of 2019. Her bestselling book, “Unplanned,” was made into a feature film that debuted in theaters nationwide March 2019 under the same name, and she is the host of the podcast “Politely Rude.” She and her husband, Doug, have eight children.

Source link

Qatar foreign minister says asked Taliban to respect women’s rights

Article content

DUBAI — Qatar’s foreign minister said on Monday the Gulf state has asked the Taliban to respect women’s rights by giving several examples of Muslim countries where women have an active role in the society.

Sheik Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani was speaking in a joint press conference with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian in Doha. Le Drian said dozens of French nationals are still in Afghanistan and Paris is working with Qatar to evacuate them. (Reporting by Aziz El Yaakoubi; Editing by Toby Chopra)

Source link