DOJ Wants to Arrest You for Terrorism for Not Liking Them Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-government-cage-liking/#tibKi4ROowxqbJkM.99
source: Larken Rose
Propagandists for the U.S. ruling class—I mean, “spokespersons for the United States government”—usually choose their words carefully, trying to use insinuation to demonize their opponents, euphemisms to deify themselves, and other spin and lies to make freedom sound bad and authoritarian power sound good. But they’re not usually stupid enough to come right out and say, “war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength” (see George Orwell’s “1984”). In most cases, to see their true agenda, you need to read between the lines. Sometimes, however, their totalitarian mentality is put on display for all to see.
Consider, for example, this CNN article, talking about how the DOJ wants to shift its focus more to domestic “terror groups.”
Just so we’re clear, I’m a voluntaryist myself, who believes in the non-aggression principle. I abhor actual assault, murder and terrorism (which, as it happens, is committed by agents of “government” far more often than by anyone else). So if someone is actually harming or endangering innocents, I hope someone stops them, using whatever it takes. Whether or not the aggressor, or the protector, wears a badge is totally morally irrelevant. Ain’t I just an extreme, dangerous kook? Anyway, back to the story.
The CNN article starts by quoting “government” officials saying that “domestic terror groups” are a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda. Well, since those (sometimes fictional) groups are no threat at all to America, that isn’t saying much. Then the article explains how, according to Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, the DOJ has a new plan “that will coordinate the investigation and prosecution of anti-government and hate groups.” That’s already a strange thing to say, since neither being anti-“government” nor hating someone is actually a crime. But wait. It gets worse.
Carlin is then quoted as claiming that “a number of violent attacks or plots against the U.S.” were motivated by “anti-government views, racism, bigotry and anarchy, and other despicable beliefs.” Of course, that wording was chosen to: 1) make people think that not liking the federal “government” means that you must be a racist and a bigot, and; 2) make people think that it’s “despicable” to not want to be ruled by a bunch of power-happy parasites.
The only specific example given of this supposed “anti-government” violence was the shooting of two cops in Las Vegas by Jerad and Amanda Miller back in mid 2014. Curiously, just after that happened, when I tried to find out more about those supposed “anti-government extremists,” I couldn’t find anyone who knew them. In fact, despite having about 4,000 Facebook “friends” at the time—most of them anarchists—I had no shared “friends” with the two. Gee, what are the odds?
But then comes the most amazing part of the article. The feds already declare certain groups (like ISIS and al Qaeda) to be “terror organizations,” and prosecute people for supporting such groups. But there is no equivalent law allowing the feds to prosecute “white supremacists,” the KKK, or “anti-government extremists.” So, according to the CNN article, those poor federal control freaks are forced to “find more concrete charges to lock them up.” Since “domestic terrorism” is not an actual crime, in and of itself, “domestic terror groups or actors must be prosecuted with firearms or explosives offenses, hate crimes or murder.”
Wow. Those poor federal persecutors, complaining about not being able to cage people for thinking things or associating with certain groups or ideas. What is the world coming to when you can’t lock someone up until they’ve actually threatened or tried to hurt someone? Apparently we need a Federal Department of Thought Police to protect us. Of course, given their twisted Orwellian terminology, I would absolutely count as an “anti-government extremist,” which means I’m one of those people (as are many readers of The Free Thought Project, no doubt) whom the DOJ really wishes they could lock up just for thinking things and saying things. I am openly and proudly anti-“government,” precisely because “government” is always pro-aggression, anti-freedom and anti-justice. I guess that makes me an “enemy of the people” who must be destroyed by any means necessary.
It is quite clear from Carlin’s comments that the fascists at the DOJ are not content to only go after people who actually harm (or try to harm) others. No, if you don’t like being ruled, if you think violent aggression is bad even when it’s “legal,” if you think all human interaction should be peaceful and voluntary, then you are despicable and dangerous, and the DOJ will be looking for new excuses to lock you up. Good to know
More than a dozen U.S. states have now completely decriminalized the act of possessing marijuana and both Colorado and Washington have made it legal to possess, sell, transport and cultivate the plant. But soon it may be legalized across the entire country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.
In a historic and significant moment in American history, last November, Colorado became the first US state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. The impact of the decision could soon ripple across the entire country with vast opportunities to educate millions on the top health benefits of marijuana.
With the passage of I-502 in the 2012 Washington State election, marijuana also became legal in Washington–not just for medical use, but also for recreational use–and Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont have all decriminalized marijuana.
Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers.
There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in many other states.
For other states to mimic the systems in Colorado and Washington, they will first have to get legalization laws on their ballots or in their state houses, which could post a challenge, he said.
After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.
Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.
Ruling Signals The End is Near For Marijuana Prohibition
Last Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country’s longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. “It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end,” said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.
The memo sent to states Thursday by the DOJ said that as long as states set up comprehensive regulations governing marijuana, there would be no need for the federal government to step in, a decision that will save the Justice Department from having to use its limited resources on prosecuting individuals for growing or smoking marijuana.
“This memo appears to be sending the message to states regarding marijuana prohibition that is a recognition that a majority of the public and in some states majority of lawmakers no longer want to continue down the road of illegal cannabis, and would rather experiment with different regulatory schemes of license and retail sale of cannabis,” Armantano said.
In 2011 the federal government decreed that marijuana had no accepted medical use use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin. Accepting and promoting the powerful health benefits of marijuana would instantly cut huge profits geared towards cancer treatment and the U.S. would have to admit it imprisons the population for no cause. Nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States are for marijuana.
According to MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition “…there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.
While Colorado and Washington have not yet set up their regulatory systems, both states will likely sell licenses to farmers who want to grow marijuana as well as to manufacturing plants and retail sellers. The marijuana will also likely be taxed at each stage of its growth, processing, and sale.
“In both Colorado and Washington, legalization was done by citizens with no participation by elected representatives until they had to pass laws to comply with the initiative. In other initiative states I would expect such measures – I would expect a new one in California, for instance – and roughly half the states permit this and the rest don’t.
“In the states that do have initiatives I expect efforts to get it on the ballot. The other half it will be much tougher. It’s hard to get elected representatives to do this,” Collins said.
Armantano is more optimistic about the spread of legalized pot. He compared the DOJ’s announcement to the federal government’s actions toward the end of alcohol prohibition in America a century ago, when states decided to stop following the federal ban on alcohol sales and the federal government said it would not step in and prosecute crimes.
“For first time we now have clear message from fed government saying they will not stand in way of states that wish to implement alternative regulatory schemes in lieu of federal prohibition,” Armantano said.
He predicted that within the next one to three years, five or six other states may join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the drug, setting the stage for the rest of the country to follow.
The Age of Deception is Ending
In 2003, the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services filed for, and was awarded a patent on cannabinoids. The reason? Because research into cannabinoids allowed pharmaceutical companies to acquire practical knowledge on one of the most powerful antioxidants and neuroprotectants known to the natural world.
The U.S. Patent 6630507 was specifically initiated when researchers found that cannabinoids had specific antioxidant properties making them useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.
Besides the top 10 health benefits below, findings published in the journalPLoS ONE, researchers have now have now discovered that marijuana-like chemicals trigger receptors on human immune cells that can directly inhibit a type of human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) found in late-stage AIDS.
Recent studies have even shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia, a disease many other studies have inconsistently found it causing.
Top 10 Health Benefits of Marijuana
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animalsÃ‚Â and also kill cancer cells. Western governments have known this for a long time yet they continued to suppress the information so that cannabis prohibition and the profits generated by the drug industry proliferated.
THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.
2. Tourette’s Syndrome
Tourette’s syndrome is a neurological condition characterized by uncontrollable facial grimaces, tics, and involuntary grunts, snorts and shouts.
Dr. Kirsten Mueller-Vahl of the Hanover Medical College in Germany led a team that investigated the effects of chemicals called cannabinols in 12 adult Tourette’s patients. A single dose of the cannabinol produced a significant reduction in symptoms for several hours compared to placebo, the researchers reported.
Marijuana is a muscle relaxant and has “antispasmodic” qualities that have proven to be a very effective treatment for seizures. There are actually countless cases of people suffering from seizures that have only been able to function better through the use of marijuana.
Since medicinal marijuana was legalized in California, doctors have reported that they have been able to treat more than 300,000 cases of migraines that conventional medicine couldn’t through marijuana.
Marijuana’s treatment of glaucoma has been one of the best documented. There isn’t a single valid study that exists that disproves marijuana’s very powerful and popular effects on glaucoma patients.
6. Multiple Sclerosis
Marijuana’s effects on multiple sclerosis patients became better documented when former talk-show host, Montel Williams began to use pot to treat his MS. Marijuana works to stop the neurological effects and muscle spasms that come from the fatal disease.
7. ADD and ADHD
A well documented USC study done about a year ago showed that marijuana is not only a perfect alternative for Ritalin but treats the disorder without any of the negative side effects of the pharmaceutical.
8. IBS and Crohn’s
Marijuana has shown that it can help with symptoms of the chronic diseases as it stops nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.
Despite what you may have heard about marijuana’s effects on the brain, the Scripps Institute, in 2006, proved that the THC found in marijuana works to prevent Alzheimer’s by blocking the deposits in the brain that cause the disease.
10. Premenstrual Syndrome
Just like marijuana is used to treat IBS, it can be used to treat the cramps and discomfort that causes PMS symptoms. Using marijuana for PMS actually goes all the way back to Queen Victoria.
Mounting Evidence Suggests Raw Cannabis is Best
Cannabinoids can prevent cancer, reduce heart attacks by 66% and insulin dependent diabetes by 58%. Cannabis clinician Dr. William Courtney recommends drinking 4 – 8 ounces of raw flower and leaf juice from any Hemp plant, 5 mg of Cannabidiol (CBD) per kg of body weight, a salad of Hemp seed sprouts and 50 mg of THC taken in 5 daily doses.
Why raw? Heat destroys certain enzymes and nutrients in plants. Incorporating raw cannabis allows for a greater availability of those elements. Those who require large amounts of cannabinoids without the psychoactive effects need to look no further than raw cannabis. In this capacity, it can be used at 60 times more tolerance than if it were heated.
Raw cannabis is considered by many experts as a dietary essential. As a powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant, raw cannabis may be right u there with garlic and tumeric.
Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Courtesy of old friend Paul Thacker, former Hill staffer and currently a fellow at Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, here’s an interesting addendum to Bloomberg’s highly embarrassing Eric-Holder-Caught-Juking-the-Stats story that came out this Sunday.
It turns out that Barack Obama’s Justice Department, in the person of Attorney General Holder, didn’t just grossly overstate the success of its Mortgage Fraud Task Force. In what at best is a bonehead mistake, the Department channeled 1984 and whitewashed a web page, re-transcribing an old speech of Holder’s to better reflect the “updated” version of the mortgage facts.
By now most people who follow white-collar crime know the backstory. Last year, on October 9th, Mr. Holder gave a press conference in which he touted the efforts of Barack Obama’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force, claiming that in a year’s time, the Department had secured “285 federal criminal indictments and informations against 530 defendants for allegedly victimizing more than 73,000 American homeowners –and inflicting losses in excess of $1 billion.”
Two days after that appearance, a pair of pain-in-the-ass Bloomberg reporters, Phill Mattingly and Tom Schoenberg, reported that at least one of the cases Holder was citing was a Bush-era prosecution, and multiple others had been filed long before the Task Force existed. “There is no attempt to fudge the numbers,” an FBI spokesman grumbled lamely at the time.
Subsequently, Bloomberg writer Jonathan Weil continued to follow up, pestering the DOJ for a list of the cases Holder was talking about. He repeatedly asked a DOJ spokesperson for the list, and whether the delay was coming from the FBI (which had the information) or the DOJ, he never got the information he was after.
Last Friday, the reason for that stalling finally emerged. The DOJ issued a revised press release, admitting that it had not, in fact, prosecuted 530 individuals in the program, but 107 – as Weil noted, an 80% decrease. Wrote Weil this weekend, in a piece entitled “Eric Holder Owes the American People and Apology”:
Holder originally said the defendants had victimized more than 73,000 American homeowners. That number was revised to 17,185, while estimates of homeowner losses associated with the frauds dropped to $95 million from $1 billion.
Now, the new, revised DOJ press release came with a big banner at the top announcing their screwup, along with a full-paragraph mea culpa in which they basically admit to gaming the numbers for press purposes in multiple ways. The new press release reads like a Capitol Hill version of horror fiction. Emphasis is mine:
This press release was updated on August 9, 2013.
An extensive review of the reported cases concluded that the original figures included in the Distressed Homeowner Initiative were not just criminal defendants who had been charged in Fiscal Year 2012, as reported, but also a number of defendants who were the subject of other prosecutive actions – such as a conviction or sentence – in Fiscal Year 2012. In addition, the announcement included a number of defendants who were charged in mortgage fraud cases in which the victim(s) did not fit the narrow definition of distressed homeowner that the initiative targeted. As a result, the announcement overstated the number of defendants that should have been included as part of the Distressed Homeowner Initiative. . .
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/doj-compounds-stat-screwup-by-whitewashing-old-eric-holder-speech-20130814#ixzz2byN0Pq3a Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don’t need a search warrant to review Americans’ e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal.
Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they’re not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail. The IRS, on the other hand, publicly said last month that it would abandon a controversial policy that claimed it could get warrantless access to e-mail correspondence.
The U.S. attorney for Manhattan circulated internal instructions, for instance, saying a subpoena — a piece of paper signed by a prosecutor, not a judge — is sufficient to obtain nearly “all records from an ISP.” And the U.S. attorney in Houston recently obtained the “contents of stored communications” from an unnamed Internet service provider without securing a warrant signed by a judge first.
“We really can’t have this patchwork system anymore, where agencies get to decide on an ad hoc basis how privacy-protective they’re going to be,” says Nathan Wessler, an ACLU staff attorney specializing in privacy topics who obtained the documents through open government laws. “Courts and Congress need to step in.”
The Justice Department’s disinclination to seek warrants for private files stored on the servers of companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft continued even after a federal appeals court in 2010 ruled that warrantless access to e-mail violates the Fourth Amendment. A previously unreleased version of an FBI manual (PDF), last updated two-and-a-half years after the appellate ruling, says field agents “may subpoena” e-mail records from companies “without running afoul of” the Fourth Amendment.
The department did not respond to queries from CNET Tuesday. The FBI said in a statement that:
In all investigations, the FBI obtains evidence in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States, and consistent with Attorney General guidelines. Our field offices work closely with U.S. Attorney’s Office to adhere to the legal requirements of their particular districts as set forth in case law or court decisions/precedent.
Not all U.S. attorneys have attempted to obtain Americans’ stored e-mail correspondence without a warrant. The ACLU persuaded a judge to ask whether warrantless e-mail access has taken place in six of the 93 U.S. Attorneys’ offices — including the northern California office that’s prosecuted an outsize share of Internet cases. The answer, according to assistant U.S. attorney Christopher Hardwood, was “no.”
Still, the position taken by other officials — including the authors of the FBI’s official surveillance manual — puts the department at odds with a growing sentiment among legislators who insist that Americans’ private files should be protected from warrantless search and seizure. They say the same Fourth Amendment privacy standards that require police to obtain search warrants before examining hard drives in someone’s living room, or a physical letter stored in a filing cabinet, should apply.
(Credit: U.S. Senate)
After the IRS’s warrantless e-mail access policy came to light last month, a dozen Republican and Democratic senators rebuked the agency. Their letter (PDF) opposing warrantless searches by the IRS and signed by senators including Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said: “We believe these actions are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Steven Miller, the IRS’ acting commissioner, said during a Senate hearing that the policy would be changed for e-mail. But he left open the possibility that non-email data — Google Drive and Dropbox files, private Facebook and Twitter messages, and so on — could be accessed without a warrant.
Albert Gidari, a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm who represents technology companies, said since the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2010 ruling in U.S. v. Warshak, the Justice Department has generally sought court warrants for the content of e-mail messages, but is far less inclined to take that step for non-email files.
Before the Warshak decision, the general rule since 1986 had been that police could obtain Americans’ e-mail messages that were more than 180 days old with an administrative subpoena or what’s known as a 2703(d) order, both of which lack a warrant’s probable cause requirement and are less privacy protective. Some e-mail providers, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Facebook, but not all, have taken the position after Warshak that the Fourth Amendment mandates warrants for e-mail all over the country.
The 180-day rule stems from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was adopted in the era of telephone modems, BBSs, and UUCP links, and long before gigabytes of e-mail stored in the cloud was ever envisioned. Since then, the appeals court ruled in Warshak, technology had changed dramatically: “Since the advent of e-mail, the telephone call and the letter have waned in importance, and an explosion of Internet-based communication has taken place. People are now able to send sensitive and intimate information, instantaneously, to friends, family, and colleagues half a world away… By obtaining access to someone’s e-mail, government agents gain the ability to peer deeply into his activities.”
A phalanx of companies, including Amazon, Apple, AT&T, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and Twitter, as well as liberal, conservative, and libertarian advocacy groups, have asked Congress to update ECPA to make it clear that law enforcement needs a warrant to access private communications and the locations of mobile devices.
In November, a Senate panel approved the e-mail warrant requirement, and acted again last month. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes the heart of Silicon Valley, introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
The political pressure, coupled with public petitions and increased adoption of cloud-based services, has had an effect. In 2011, James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, warned that requiring search warrants to obtain stored e-mail could have an “adverse impact” on criminal investigations. By March 2013, however, Elana Tyrangiel, an acting assistant attorney general, indicated that the department would acquiesce on some privacy reforms.
“They dropped their opposition in Congress, but they’re going to try to wiggle out from under the Fourth Amendment whenever possible,” says the ACLU’s Wessler. “They probably realize that they couldn’t figure out a way to respond to hard questions from Congress anymore.”
Separately, the New York Times reported Tuesday evening that the Obama administration may embrace the FBI’s proposal for a federal law mandating that tech companies build in backdoors for surveillance. CNET reported last year that the FBI has asked the companies not to oppose such legislation, and that the FBI has been building a case for a new law by collecting examples of how communications companies have stymied government agencies.
Last week, FBI former counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously-made telephone call. “All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not,” he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the “intelligence community” — a likely reference to the National Security Agency — “there’s a way to look at digital communications in the past.”
The Obama administration has joined with Planned Parenthood in a suit intended to stop an Arizona law that defunds the abortion giant. The Whole Woman’s Healthcare Funding Prioritization Act, signed into law last May by Republican Governor Jan Brewer (pictured with Obama), defunds abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. The law offers the state family planning funds instead to entities that provide comprehensive healthcare without an abortion option.
On October 4, Obama’s Department of Justice filed a brief in the suit, claiming that the state of Arizona is not permitted to decide which groups will receive Medicare money it gets from the federal government. But Arizona Solicitor General David Cole pointed out that federal law allows states to establish “meaningful provider qualifications” for Medicare recipients, giving the state the authority to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood and other “health care” providers that perform abortions. “Cole said Planned Parenthood could get family planning funds if it divorces its family planning services from its abortion business,” reported LifeNews.com, a path Planned Parenthood is unlikely to take as long as it has such a solid ally in the White House.
In signing the defunding measure, Brewer called it a “common-sense law that tightens existing state regulations and closes loopholes in order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions, whether directly or indirectly.” When the bill was passed, Cathy Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy explained that cutting funding to the abortion giant meant that more funding would now be available to groups that don’t rely on the deadly procedure for revenue. “The grants will be made to community health centers,” Herrod said of the former Planned Parenthood funding, adding that “there are many providers out there providing these services able to pick up the slack.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, which, along with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) provided the model legislation for the bill, said that when Arizona state lawmakers passed the measure, they were acting on behalf of the state’s citizens, who “do not want their tax dollars going to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which performs more than 330,000 abortions a year.”
Dannenfelser noted that the Obama administration’s actions in filing the suit through the DOJ are on behalf of one of the president’s staunches allies. “While Planned Parenthood spends millions to re-elect President Obama and even sends its president, Cecile Richards, to campaign in Iowa this week,” she said, “the Obama Administration once again is stepping in to protect the bottom line of its top political ally and the nation’s largest abortion provider.”
She added that in spite of nearly non-stop scandals on the part of Planned Parenthood, “including allegations of the waste, abuse and potential fraud of millions of taxpayer dollars, President Obama has refused to allow a single tax dollar to be cut from Planned Parenthood at the federal level. When the states take matters into their own hands to protect taxpayers from the abortion industry, Obama’s Administration promptly intervenes on the abortion businesses’ behalf.”
ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden said that the Arizona bill is worded in a way that allows the state “to be good stewards of the people’s money in this regard. It’s no surprise that Planned Parenthood would oppose that in light of their ongoing thirst for taxpayer dollars.”
Arizona is the third state the Obama administration has sued for defunding Planned Parenthood, following Indiana and Texas. Wisconsin, Kansas, and North Carolina have also passed laws to defund the abortion giant, and all face lawsuits over the legislation.