Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers still receive taxpayer funds despite efforts by many states, Capitol Hill, and the Trump administration to put an end to it. The amount has been reduced, but it has not been eliminated completely. This is a travesty in light of a recent report that they are planning to spend at least $45 million to defeat President Trump and other Republicans.

Think about that. This is an abortion provider, which should already negate the forced funding by taxpayers. But even if we disregard that aspect for a moment, what can possibly be the justification for taking taxpayer funds regardless of the taxpayer’s political affiliation and give it to an organization that uses it to attack a single political party? Those who argue, “Taxpayer money isn’t used for campaigns” is being disingenuous. Setting aside specific dollars for health services relieves the ability for other money to be used for political purposes.

This is wrong, and blatantly so. If an organization wants to spend some of the money they raise on political campaigns, that’s perfectly fine. But they shouldn’t be getting taxpayer money to replace the political money they spend. This is such a common sense notion that it’s unfathomable laws don’t exist prohibiting such activities.

And yet, here we are…

Even pro-abortion donors should be upset by this. People supporting Planned Parenthood financially do so with the understanding they are helping fund women’s healthcare. That may include abortions (though killing a human seems to be antithetical to the concept of “healthcare,” but that’s a whole different discussion), and that’s understood by those who contribute. But to have those funds redirected to the tune of $45 million is an insult to those donating. If they wanted to donate to political campaigns or PACs, they would have done so.

It’s bad enough that many taxpayers are forced to pay for “healthcare” provided by Planned Parenthood. To force Republicans to pay taxes that are then used to attack their own candidates adds insult to injury.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

The Supreme Court has decided to take up the case against the Louisiana abortion law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This case is very similar to a case from 2016 when the Supreme Court had a swing vote in Anthony Kennedy that helped rule it unconstitutional. With Brett Kavanaugh replacing him, some are expecting the outcome to be different.

We are using the CBS video on this one so conservatives have an understanding of the talking points being used against the law. It’s being framed as an attack on “abortion care” because it would reduce the number of allowable clinics in the state to one. Those who oppose the law note the statistics showing low-income and minority women are disproportionately affected by this law.

There are some conservatives who are displeased that this is the case the Supreme Court is taking up first regarding abortion with its new originalist majority. It’s a case that is nuanced rather than being an outright attempt at banning abortion and will have little effect on Roe v. Wade. But it’s actually the right case to take up now as a litmus test for the court as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have expressed views in defense of abortion in the past.

Roberts has established himself as the de facto swing vote, a role he cherishes and one that essentially pits four left-leaning Justices versus four right-leaning Justices. Being in the middle gives Roberts an extreme level of power over the laws of the land.

This case is a step in the right direction against abortion if the Supreme Court rules in its favor. It’s not the “Roe v. Wade” killer that many conservatives seek, but it’s a perfect test to see if the court makeup is suitable to stop abortion in America.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

There’s a huge difference in the way California Governor Gavin Newsom and Texas Governor Greg Abbott handle cities in their states with rampant homelessness and dangerous conditions. Newsom defends cities like San Francisco (where he was once mayor) and tells everyone there’s nothing to worry about. Abbott issues ultimatums, as he did today to Austin’s Mayor, saying the streets need to be cleaned up and homelessness addressed before November 1st or the state will be forced to intervene.

The letter, which Abbot sent to Austin Mayor Steve Adler today, details the problems the progressive city is facing, problems similar to those documented in places like San Francisco and Seattle. These problems include businesses having difficulty keeping their sidewalks clean, homeowners fearful of property crime, rampant drug abuse, and literal human feces lining the streets.

Today I sent a letter to @MayorAdler about the growing crisis arising from the Austin Homeless policy.

Feces & used needles are piling up & residents are endangered.

If not fixed by Nov.1, I'll use State authority to protect Texans’ health & safety.#txlege pic.twitter.com/KmvEtMW81T

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 2, 2019

These are health and crime issues American citizens are forced to face because the Democrats in their cities’ governments are unwilling to address the issues. Despite high taxes bringing in plenty of money, the tax dollars are wasted on a progressive agenda that does not benefit the people and in many ways enables the problems to flourish.

Austin is one of the most progressive cities in the nation, boasting about its leftist politics from within the red state of Texas. But as problems mount, the image of the city has been deteriorating as fast as conditions in which the people are forced to live. Abbott is right to make the ultimatum. He doesn’t want to have to do it for them, but if the Democrats are unwilling to address their own problems, it’s up to the state to take action.

When a city is run as poorly as Austin, the state must reluctantly take responsibility for the safety of the people within it. Such things should not be, but as progressives continue to pretend these problems don’t exist, someone has to fix them.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.