From redstate.com

One of the joys of my job as a conservative political pundit is finding a story that transcends politics and affects the deepest emotions of the truly moral people across this great country. This is one such story.

Eighteen-year-old country music artist Rachel Holt’s recently-released song “I Was Gonna Be,” written from the view of a baby that never got a chance to be born, has rocketed to the top ten country music songs on iTunes.

Nashville hitmaker Chris Wallin, who’s been behind country music hits for mega-stars Garth Brooks, Montgomery Gentry, Kenny Chesney, Toby Keith, and Trace Adkins, talked about why he wrote the song in a recent interview with Breitbart.

When asked what it felt like for a song like “I Was Gonna Be” to crack the top ten, Wallin said:

I’m just humbled honestly. When I first started writing this song I didn’t think anyone would ever actually sing it. I wrote it because I thought something had to be said.

Wallin said he started writing the song himself, adding: “I didn’t think anyone would have the courage to sing this.” The mega-hit writer was wrong. Halfway through writing the song, he met an 18-year-old newcomer from Indiana named Rachel Holt. Wallin said he immediately knew he’d found his singer. 

I played her the song and her first words, she goes, “I’m singing that song.” She told Wallin, “I think a lot of the songs that girls my age listen to never talk about real life. And that’s what I want to do.”

And what a song it’s become. (Video is at bottom of this piece)

Wallin said he explained to Holt that recording lyrics like these doesn’t come without significant risk; he wanted Rachel to understand that “I Was Gonna Be” wasn’t just any song and that “there are people who are going to be visceral about this song — on both sides. Good and bad.” Holt’s response required just three words: “I don’t care.

Wallin said Holt fully understood the political risk and charged atmosphere surrounding pro-abortion and pro-life, particularly within her age group.

She’s 18 years old and she’s 100 percent traditional values and she isn’t scared to talk and sing about it. And that’s so important these days. Everything that’s going on, to have a young woman perform this song is all the more important.

Amen.

“I Was Gonna Be” Lyrics

Again, written from the perspective of an unborn child.

Some don’t believe I’m a living soul

Just a bad mistake that needs to go

If my mama coulda just seen my face

Maybe she woulda had me anyway

There are those who speak for me

Who fight for lives that they can’t see

But there are some who only mourn?

This life of mine if I were born?

All I wanted was a chance

To learn to love and laugh and dance

But I was gone before I arrived

Sent back to heaven on a starlight flight

Yeah I was gonna change the world

I was gonna be a girl

The first thing I was gonna do

Was breathe and fall in love with you

But a couple weeks before I saw the light

Mine flickered out when you changed your mind

All I wanted was a chance

To learn to love and laugh and dance

But I was gone before I arrived

Sent back to heaven on a starlight flight

I was gonna have some pretty curls

Yeah I was gonna be a girl

I’m more than just some one night stand

Or some burden that you think I am

And there ain’t no man ever gonna be

What I was gonna be

Some don’t believe I’m a living soul

Just a bad mistake that needs to go

 

Wallin, who serves as head of A&R (artists and repertoire) for Baste Records, said his label wanted to release “I Was Gonna Be” on the first day of National Celebrate Life Weekend, which is just days ahead of the anniversary of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but ran into multiple obstacles, including finding promotional sponsors. 

We did not leave one stone unturned when it came to calling up and talking to pro-life groups. None of them would get on board with us with this at the end.

Eventually the sponsorship was secured, however — and the rest is history. Maybe, just maybe, it can be the future, as well.

"I Was Gonna Be" by @rachelholtmusic pic.twitter.com/PW8CXorGBE

— Baste Records (@basterecords) June 21, 2024

From thefederalist.com

Massachusetts’ proposed bill seeks to redefine parenthood and legalize the practice of baby-selling in the name of ‘parentage equality.’

On June 12, the Massachusetts House is expected to vote on a bill that would allow mothers to exchange their children for money—that is, engage in baby-selling—under the name of “parentage equality.”

The “Parentage Equality” bill seeks to redefine parenthood. Parenthood is recognized on its natural biological basis, or in cases of adoption, justice for a child who has suffered loss by providing them with a safe, loving home. This bill redefines it on the basis of a “person’s intent to be a parent of a child.” In doing so, it strips all mention of mothers and fathers from parentage law, replacing these vital familial roles with gender-erased language.

Finally, and most concerning, under H.4672, Massachusetts would allow for commercial surrogacy both in cases wherein the woman carrying the child is genetically unrelated to the child and in cases where she is exchanging her biological child for money.

The ‘Parentage Equality’ Act Legalizes baby-selling

Surrogacy is an inherently exploitative practice. It commodifies women and treats children as products. This specific bill enables particularly extreme arrangements. Most commercial surrogacy laws and surrogacy agencies restrict contracts to cases where the woman carrying the child is not genetically related to the child. Under genetic surrogacy arrangements, sanctioned by this bill, a woman would be allowed to accept money in exchange for her biological child.

In any other circumstance, if a woman accepts money in exchange for handing over her parental claim on her child, she has engaged in baby-selling. Under this bill, she can do exactly that if she has secured a valid surrogacy contract, even if she makes the arrangement with the purchasing parents after she has become pregnant, providing the contract is validated before the child is born.

Under H. 4672, the following would be perfectly legal: a woman undergoes the physical and mental health screenings required to become a surrogate, becomes pregnant via sperm from a sperm bank, and then posts to a surrogacy forum or social media group that she is not only available as a surrogate but already pregnant.

She could then choose to “match” with the couple willing to pay the highest “payment of consideration,” essentially auctioning off her child. As long as the surrogacy agreement meets the requirements outlined in the bill, it could be validated by a court and viewed as not only permissible but legally binding. However, if that same woman became pregnant and decided to make an agreement with a couple to adopt her child, while insisting that she be paid for placing her child with them, she would be prosecuted for baby selling.

The differences between these two scenarios are semantic, yet one would not only be legal and praised as “compassionate family building,” but, should she hand the baby over to a same-sex couple, a step towards ending discrimination. By contrast, the other case would be derided as child trafficking, despite effectually producing the same result.

No matter how much semantic gymnastics surrogacy proponents use, accepting money in exchange for a child is always wrong.

Surrogacy Laws Have a History of Abuse

Before naysayers object that the above scenario sounds far-fetched, we have already seen the sale of children take place under the mantle of surrogacy. In 2011, three California women were convicted of running an illegal baby-selling ring under the guise of a surrogacy agency.

While the women did break California’s surrogacy laws, the existence of legal surrogacy in California enabled them to operate undetected for years. As Dr. David Smolin has pointed out, this case would not have been possible without California’s surrogacy law permitting the names of unrelated adults to be listed on a child’s birth certificate without any adoption procedure.

One of the most critical aspects of the scandal was that the women running the baby-selling ring filed fraudulent court documents saying that the agreements had been secured prior to pregnancy. TheFBI’s statement on the case reiterated that a surrogacy agreement must be in place before beginning surrogacy. Imagine how bad actors could exploit a law that allows surrogacy agreements after the pregnancy has begun.

Potential for Money in Exchange for Sex

All the more troubling, Section 28N(d) of the bill addresses the scenario in which a child of surrogacy is alleged to have been conceived not through assisted reproduction, but by natural means. In this case, the court would order a genetic test to determine the parentage of a child. However, the bill states:

[I]f the second genetic source is an intended parent, the court, in its sole discretion, may determine parentage under sections 1 through 27 of this chapter. Unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise, the genetic surrogate is not entitled to any non-expense related compensation paid for acting as a surrogate if the child was not conceived by assisted reproduction. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, at the discretion of the courts, a surrogacy agreement could be considered valid in cases where a woman agrees to conceive the child naturally with the intended father—that is, by having sex with him. By stipulating that “unless the genetic surrogacy agreement provides otherwise,” the bill leaves open the possibility of a surrogate being paid beyond expense-related compensation in this scenario.

That’s to say, this bill could allow a woman to accept money in exchange for sex as long as she conceives and then relinquishes her parental rights so the father could raise the child—thus combining both prostitution and child trafficking in one terrible clause.

What further abuses could this bill enable? Forced surrogacy is not a hypothetical concern. Yet unseen exploitation of both women and children could occur so long as the flimsy requirements for a surrogacy agreement are met.

Women and children are not commodities. Children have a right to be born free, not bought and sold. No amount of saccharine wording can mask the fact that the “Parentage Equality” bill monetizes women’s bodies and turns children into products. The women and children of Massachusetts deserve better. source

Brethren – our country deserves such incredibly HARSH judgment and I believe it is coming soon.

Keep your eyes on JESUS!

MARANATHA!

From live.childrenshealthdefense.com

I must give the readers a link because this is live:

WATCH HERE

AFTER THE LIVE VIDEO IS FINISHED, YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

GOD PLEASE HELP US ALL!!