Friday, January 25, 2019

Rep. Kalish Attends Gov. Pritzker’s 45th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Celebration


Rep. Kalish Attends Gov. Pritzker’s 45th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Celebration

Rep. Kalish Attends Gov. Pritzker’s 45th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Celebration
[Chicago] - Newly appointed State Rep. Rabbi Yehiel "Mark" Kalish (D-Chicago) attended the 45th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Celebration hosted by Governor J.B. Pritzker on Tuesday.
"Protecting access to safe and legal reproductive healthcare for women in Illinois is a priority for me because a woman's right to choose is under assault from Washington," said Kalish. "That's why I think that it's important for me to stand with Governor Pritzker and my legislative colleagues on the 45th anniversary of the Roe decision."
Pritzker headlined the Roe celebration at Planned Parenthood's Chicago office on January 22.
Kalish, who was sworn in on January 20 after being appointed to the Illinois House seat vacated by State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie), was also an active advocate on winning approval for Illinois House Bill 40, sponsored by State. Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), a measure that ensures that a woman's right to choose remains the law of the land in Illinois if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Roe.
"I'm proud to have been one of the foot soldiers in Rep. Feigenholtz's successful effort to protect a woman's right to choose in Illinois," said Kalish. "It's clear that Roe is at risk from Donald Trump's Supreme Court appointees."
In addition to protecting reproductive health care for women, Kalish also pledges to fight any attempts to roll back or chip away at marriage equality or undermine the civil rights of the LGBT community.
"Equality for all citizens is a fundamental constitutional and moral principle," said Kalish. "We are all equal under the eyes of the law and God, and marriage equality is no exception and that's why I support the law."

23 comments :

  1. Amen. I don't want some Catholics in Washington determining under what circumstances a Torah-observant Jew can have an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Guest Post

    Soooo, Agudath Israel of America (AI) now stands for Shefichus Damim, Murder, and Giluy Arayos, Sexual Immorality.

    Proof:
    For Bnai Noach, abortion and same-sex marriage are forbidden.

    Rabbi Kalish supports abortion and same-sex marriage rights for non-Jews according to this article:
    https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2019/01/22/pro-choice-rabbi-replaces-lang-fop-stands-up-for-burke-howard-dean-endorses-daley-380110

    Rabbi Kalish is an important member of AI. He is a trustee, according to this article:
    http://agudathisrael.org/agudath-israel-of-america-congratulates-rabbi-yehiel-kalish-on-his-appointment-to-illinois-house-of-representatives/

    AI reacted to Rabbi Kalish's appointment by congratulating him.

    But even if they had said nothing, that would have sent a message to other AI field offices that getting into power by selling out is acceptable.

    Thus, I maintain, in conjuction with past AI activity such as Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky not telling an adulterous couple to separate and the AI supporting Federal legislation expanding rights for homosexuals, that AI supports bloodshed and degeneracy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bravo to Joseph Orlow!
    Joseph Orlow says “...Soooo, Agudath Israel of America (AI) now stands for Shefichus Damim, Murder, and Giluy Arayos, Sexual Immorality...Thus, I maintain, in conjunction with past AI activity such as Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky not telling an adulterous couple to separate and the AI supporting Federal legislation expanding rights for homosexuals, that AI supports bloodshed and degeneracy.”

    Hertz Chumash on “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13).
    “Adultedry. Is an execrable [detestable, abominable] and God-detested wrong-doing (Philo). This Commandment against infidelity warns husband and wife alike against profaning the sacred Covenant of marriage. It involves the prohibition of immoral speech, immodest conduct, or association with persons who scoff at the sacredness of purity. Among no people has there been a purer homelife than among the Jewish people. No woman enjoyed greater respect than the Jewish woman; and she fully merited that respect.”

    Wow 4 of the 10 Commandments in one passage: “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your
    Neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:17). Is Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky guilty of bearing false witness עד שקר עד שוא against his neighbor in the matter of the fake/phony PhD psychology letter behind the K-G heter? I complain that Judge Prus is guilty of judicial perjury עד שקר עד שוא in SCOTUS docket 18-7160...
    שמות פרק כ פסוק יג
    לֹא תִּרְצָח לֹא תִּנְאָף לֹא תגנב לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר
    דברים פרק ה פסוק יז
    לֹא תִּרְצָח וְלֹא תִּנְאָף וְלֹא תגנב וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁוְא:

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Kalish is a Left/Progressive...
    “In addition to protecting reproductive health care for women, Kalish also pledges to fight any attempts to roll back or chip away at marriage equality or undermine the civil rights of the LGBT community. "Equality for all citizens is a fundamental constitutional and moral principle," said Kalish. "We are all equal under the eyes of the law and God, and marriage equality is no exception and that's why I support the law."”

    We all agree with the 10 Commandments. “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your
    Neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:17).
    Mikilta De_Rabbi Ishmael vol. 2 p. 261;
    “Thou Shalt Not bear false Witness Against Thy Neighbor. Why is this said? Because it says “If a man appears against another to testify maliciously and gives false testimony against him, the two parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests or magistrates in authority at the time, and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not
    again be done in your midst” (Deuteronomy 19:16-20). We have thus heard the penalty for it, but we have not heard the warning against it; therefore, it says hers Thou Shalt Not bear false Witness Against Thy Neighbor.’
    משך חכמה דברים פרק ה פסוק יז
    ולא תענה ברעך עד שוא, ולא תחמד אשת רעך. ברשב"ם, שלא יענה על חבירו שמת, כדי לקחת את אשתו [ומשום הכי אמרו חז"ל (יבמות כה, א במשנה) המעיד על אשה לא ישאנה]. ולכן כתיב פה 'שוא', שהוא שקר במילתא דעבידא לאגלויי. ובגירושין אין עד אחד נאמן, ואין שנים מצויים לחטוא מפני יחיד [ירושלמי]. אבל בעדות מיתה עד אחד נאמן מן התורה, עיין תשב"ץ. לכן אמרה תורה שלא יענה שוא. ועוד דבגירושין היא לא מקלקלא את עצמה, ופשוט. "ושדהו" נזכר כאן ב'לא תחמוד' (צ"ל "לא תתאוה") להורות שאף בזמן שהיובל נוהג ותחזור לבעליה ביובל לא תחמוד לקחת בדמים.
    The משך חבמה’s example of bearing false witness: falsely testifying that the husband died, so he could marry the woman which is adultery.

    I noticed that Stoner says that any contradictions between testimonies he gave and emails and recorded conversations radio etc that Mueller showed the grand jury are not material and not intentional Deuteronomy 19:16-20 makes it clear that to punish for false testimony there must malicious intent and the false testimony material...
    Yes, I’m on Stoner side. Why? Mueller and supporters just want Trump... Mueller is not upholding the 10 Commandments. If he were, he would prosecute false statements of Hillary supporters too... We must be against bearing false witness, that is material and intentional. Did Rabbi Kamenetsky do so with his (probably Susan’s) fake/phony PhD psychology letter? Did Judge Prus do so with Susan’s fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 27, 2019 at 2:03 PM

    Do you have admissible evidence against the judge?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kalonymus Anonymus says “Do you have admissible evidence against the judge?” Yes, see my last letter, for example. SCOTUS tells me last Thursday that my letter to them (copy of my letter to the NYS Ct of Appeals) will go into their analysis file. SCOTUS tells me that I should hear soon if SCOTUS will grant my motions...
    Torah thought on this week’s parsha משפטים

    See
    “Trump appears to be referring to a passage from Exodus 21-24, which lays out the Old Testament rules governing personal behavior.”

    “Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:21).

    “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:24-25).

    “If anyone maims his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him.” (Leviticus 24:19-20).

    Hertz Chumash page 309:
    Eye for eye. This law of retaliation—measure for measure—existed among ancient people and persists to own day in capital punishment. In the Torah, likewise, this law of measure for measure is carried out literally only in the case of murder “You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death” (Numbers 35:31) says Scripture. Hence, it is evident that other physical injuries which are not fatal are a matter of monetary compensation for the injured party. Such monetary compensation, however, had to be equitable, and as far as possible equivalent. This is the significance of the legal technical terms life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. See Additional Note, p. 405”

    Hertz Chumash page 527
    “On the one hand, Judaism, the so-called religion of strict justice, rejected the literatl application of the law of retaliation, and knew neither torture in legal procedure nor mutilation as a legal punishment. In Christian lands, on the other hand, [also in Muslim lands...] mutilation and torture are well-neigh the indispensable accompaniments of justice...”
    דברים פרק יט פסוק כא
    וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל


    ויקרא פרק כד פסוק יט
    וְאִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ
    ויקרא פרק כד פסוק כ
    שֶׁבֶר תַּחַת שֶׁבֶר עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם כֵּן יִנָּתֶן בּוֹ
    רש"י ויקרא פרשת אמור פרק כד פסוק כ
    כן ינתן בו - פירשו רבותינו, שאינו נתינת מום ממש אלא תשלומי ממון, שמין אותו כעבד,מ לכך כתוב בו לשון נתינה, דבר הנתון מיד ליד
    שמות פרק כא פסוק כד
    עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל
    שמות פרק כא פסוק כה
    כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה:
    מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי פרק כא פסוק כה
    בן עזאי אומר הרי הוא אומר חבורה תחת חבורה ולהלן הוא אומר והכה איש את רעהו באבן או באגרף (פי"ח) הא חבורה חבורה מה חבורה האמורה להלן שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא אף כאן שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא. או יכול אף נפש תחת נפש ת"ל ולא תקחו כפר לנפש רוצח (במ' לה לא) לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כפר אבל אתה לוקח כפר לאיברין.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kalonymus AnonymusJanuary 27, 2019 at 3:31 PM

    Hertz - Gaon

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kalonymus Anonymus “Do you have admissible evidence against the judge?” and “Hertz – Gaon”

    “If a man appears against another to testify maliciously עד חמס and gives false testimony against him לענות בו סרה” (Deuteronomy 19:16).
    דברים פרק יט פסוק טז
    כִּי יָקוּם עֵד חָמָס בְּאִישׁ לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה
    Hertz Chumash: “unrighteous witness, lit. a witness of violence, i.e. a witness who purposes to do harm. perverted witness, lit. a turning aside, i.e. rebellion against the Law of God. In [“As for that prophet or dream-diviner, he shall be put to death; for he urged disloyalty to the Lord your God כי דבר סרה על ה' אלקיכם—who freed you from the land of Egypt and who redeemed you from the house of bondage—to make you stray from the path that the Lord your God commanded you to follow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst”] (Deuteronomy 13:6) the same word [סרה] is used in reference to the sin of idolatry.”
    מדרש תנאים לדברים פרק יט פסוק טז
    כי יקום עד חמס באיש אין חמס אלא גזלן: לענות בו סרה אין סרה אלא עבירה שנ' (יר' כח טז) השנה אתה מת כי סרה דברת על ה':
    “And the prophet Jeremiah said to the prophet Hananiah, Listen, Hananiah! The Lord did not send you, and you have given this people lying על שקר assurances. Assuredly, thus said the Lord: I am going to banish you from off the earth. This year you shall die, for you have urged disloyalty כי סרה דברת to the Lord.” (Jeremiah 28:15-16)
    מלבי"ם דברים פרק יט פסוק טז
    שם סרה נרדף עם שם שקר, רק שיש הבדל ביניהם שסרה מציין שאומר דבר שקר הסר מדרך הרגיל ואין לו אפשריות כלל, כמו כי דבר סרה על ה', היינו דבר שא"א להיות כלל,
    The Malbim based on the Gamara explains that the difference between a malicious חמס witness and a lying שקר witness is that the malicious witness testifies to something that cannot be at all, such as urged disloyalty to the Lord your God כי דבר סרה על ה' אלקיכם...
    I claim Judge Prus is a malicious witness עד חמס in the matter of the fake/phony 1995 Rigler Order of Separation---wholly fake and phony, yet Judge Prus testifies and states and signs.... Follow Kalonymus Anonymus ? Similarly Rabbis Kamenetsky and Greenblatt based their approval of Tamar marrying her lover without a get, on a document, wholly fake and phony. To prove perjury, a violation of the 10 Commandments, I have to prove a malicious עד חמס testimony. Follow Kalonymus Anonymus ? Mueller has to prove in court against Roger Stone that Roger Stone had malicious intentions and that his lies were material to achieve his malicious intentions...
    Similar out Torah/gamara and US law on the crime of perjury...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you want some atheists in Albany determining under what circumstances a Torah-observant Jew can kill someone in self-defense?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Every society has to establish laws concerning interactions between its citizens. When it comes to the private behavior of such citizens, it is a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yehoshua says “Amen. I don't want some Catholics in Washington determining under what circumstances a Torah-observant Jew can have an abortion.”
    Yehoshua’s “some Catholics” include Judge Kavanaugh whom Yehoshua and other left/progressives fought so hard against... Mike Pence is fighting hard today for the independence of Venezuela from domination by Cuba, Russia, China, and Turkey...
    Torah-observant Jews fear and try to follow the 10 Commandments. So do Catholics. God bless them. Hertz Chumash p. 295: “The Most natural division of the Ten Commandments is into man’s duties towards God (בין אדם למקום), the opening five Commandments engraved on the First Table; and man’s duties to his fellow-man (בין אדם לחברו), the five Commandments engraved on the Second table.”
    There are two chapters in Leviticus, 18 and 20, on forbidden marriages/sex etc. Ezra, aka, Malachi, was enormously concerned over forbidden marriages/sex etc of those returning from Exile. Yehoshua, where do you place abortion, under man-to-man or man-to-God ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yehoshua supports politicians who insist on making the USA a combination of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the USSR. His is a recipe for complete destruction of our country. He would rather ignore Torah principles for his own misguided progressive "principles".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Are you familiar with the teshuvos of the Tzitz Eliezer concerning abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Abortion isn't a private behavior. Like my other example, it affects someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Actually, the question of when it affects "someone else" is at the heart of the abortion debate, both in society and in halakha. You might ascribe to the Catholic view that "someone else" begins at conception, but I don't, and neither do Chazal or the poskim.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You got it exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chazal and poskim don't consider the unborn child to be a thing that can be discarded and not considered within the realm of life that one can declare aborting it is a private matter affecting no one else but the woman.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That would depend on the stage of development. At least until 40 days following conception, it is מיא בעלמא.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The NYS legislature is attempting as we speak to permit abortion through the ninth month. Yet you seemingly referred to that by implication as a private matter.

    Do you agree then that isn't a private that a state legislature can permit such abortion to be legal and left between a woman and her spiritual advisor any more than the state legislature can permit deciding whether to kill someone in self defense is best left between the potential self-defense killer and his spiritual advisor?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that as a Torah-observant Jew, I would prefer that if my wife and I need to consider aborting, that we should be able to make that decision according to halakha. And that the types of restrictions advocated by those on the right would take away my ability to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Similarly, your thought should be that New York State should allow you to decide according to Halacha whether you can kill in self-defense someone who is threatening to you. And the state should not outlaw any killing in self-defense much as you wouldn't want them to outlaw any abortions.

    As you surely know, as things stand many states outlaw killing in self-defense in situations where Halacha does permit the killing. For example, someone who broke into your home.

    ReplyDelete
  22. First, halakha does not permit you to kill anyone who breaks into your home. There must be a reasonable belief that the intruder would be willing to kill. Second, I am unsure what your point is. If there was a possibility of enacting a law banning all self-defense killings (similar to the theoretical of a ban on almost all abortions) I would not advocate for that either.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To be consistent you should advocate that the states allow anyone to kill anyone in self-defense that their personal religious laws permit, much as you advocate that the states allow abortion to the extent that anyone's religious beliefs allow.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.