The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) lambasted a Doritos commercial that aired during the 50th Super Bowl yesterday because an unborn child was depicted in an animated ultrasound image as being aware of his/her surroundings, including of the father with his Doritos snack chips. The recognition of a fetus as a functioning human being (personhood) is the antithesis of abortion advocacy.
For background, read how Ultrasound of Baby Jesus Riles Abortionists During Christmas
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Pro-life Super Bowl Commercials Censored
Christian Super Bowl Commercials Censored by FOX
Atheists' Super Bowl Ad Attacks Christians, Prayer
Anti-Christian, Pro-abortion Feminists Storm Super Bowl
Also read Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
-- From "NARAL goes on angry Super Bowl tweetstorm" by Kristen East, Politico 2/7/16
NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading advocacy group on the issue of abortion, started firing a string of tweets about ads running during Super Bowl 50 on Sunday night, criticizing several in particular as "transphobic" or "sexist."
The group had announced it would be live-tweeting the event to call out "sexist" advertisers and their creations. . . .
Snack companies couldn't catch a break, apparently. NARAL called out a Snickers commercial for being "transphobic" and a Doritos ad for "humanizing fetuses" . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion rights group is mad at Doritos Super Bowl ad" by Jennifer Brett, Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2/8/16
In the commercial, a guy munching away on a bag of Doritos during his wife’s ultrasound attracts the attention of their unborn child, who makes a hasty exit, presumably to share Dad’s snack.
NARAL also complains that the ad reinforces “sexist tropes of dads as clueless and moms as uptight.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Super Bowl Ads Are a Hit for Mountain Dew, Miss for Doritos" by Gerry Smith, Bloomberg Business 2/7/16
Don’t mess with babies. Unless they are attached to puppies and monkeys.
That is one of the marketing lessons to come out of Super Bowl 50 . . .
For better or worse, Pepsi’s Doritos brand certainly knows how to create some buzz. In one of its Super Bowl spots, a woman is getting an ultrasound while her partner stands by, eating Doritos. She gets upset at his lack of decorum and throws a chip across the room. Her unborn fetus goes after it, and everyone screams. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion group attacks Super Bowl ad showing ultrasound" by Kelly Sloan, Trunews 2/8/16
One of the biggest abortion groups in the U.S. has attacked one of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads for being “anti-choice”, but the commercial was about Doritos.
The National Abortion Rights Action League also accused Snickers of being “transphobic” for an ad which depicts a grumpy man wearing the white dress made famous by Marilyn Monroe. Once he ate the candy bar, he turned into the real Monroe, because he wasn’t hungry any more, according to Breitbart.
The group also blasted a Hyundai ad on Twitter, calling it “sexist” and “misogynistic”, when an advertisement aired about a dad following his teenage daughter on a date. They claimed his concern for his child was taking away her autonomy and “stalking her”, as The Daily Caller reported.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read how broadcast media are biased against Christian athletes.
Showing posts with label personhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personhood. Show all posts
Monday, February 08, 2016
Saturday, October 31, 2015
6-day-old Baby NOT a Person, Says NY Appeals Court
A pregnant Jennifer Jorgensen crashed her car in 2008 while on drugs and/or alcohol causing her near-full-term baby to be delivered by emergency C-section. Jorgensen was initially sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison for second-degree manslaughter because her baby girl died six days afterward. However, the highest court in the state of New York overturned that conviction, because the case hinged on the question of intent of the state law "to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for engaging in reckless conduct against themselves and their unborn fetuses, such that they should be subject to criminal liability for prenatal conduct that results in postnatal death? Under the current statutory scheme, the answer to this question is no."
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
-- From "Conviction of pregnant driver overturned in N.Y." by Michael Virtanen, Associated Press 10/22/15
Prosecutors argued that Jennifer Jorgensen was speeding, intoxicated, and unbelted when she crossed into traffic in 2008 and hit another vehicle head-on, killing Mary and Robert Kelly. Jorgensen, of Long Island, was eight months’ pregnant at the time.
She was acquitted of manslaughter in the deaths of the Kellys but convicted of recklessly causing her daughter’s death.
But the Court of Appeals, in a 5-1 ruling, said the state Legislature didn’t intend to hold a pregnant woman responsible for such harmful conduct to herself or her fetus unless it’s intentional.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Overturns LI Woman’s Conviction In 2008 Death Of Baby" by CBS New York & Associated Press 10/22/15
Any imposition of criminal liability for actions of pregnant women where a child later dies from injuries suffered while in the womb needs to be clearly defined by lawmakers, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote. “It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor.”
“Conceivably, one could find it ‘reckless’ for a pregnant woman to disregard her obstetrician’s specific orders concerning bed rest; take prescription and/or illicit drugs; shovel a walkway; engage in a contact sport; carry groceries; or disregard dietary restrictions,” Pigott wrote. “Such conduct, if it resulted in premature birth and subsequent death of the child, could result in criminal liability for the mother.”
At present, that’s not in New York’s criminal law, Pigott wrote.
In a dissent, Judge Eugene Fahy wrote that he could not join in a ruling that analyzes New York statutes to determine that the 6-day-old child was not a person because she was unborn when her mother crashed. “The pertinent parts of the Penal Law speak to victims as they are, not as they were at the time the acts giving rise to the crime were committed.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court reverses mother's conviction in infant death" by Casey Seiler, Albany Times Union 10/22/15
In June 2009, Jorgensen was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and — charges related to the death of the infant — manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Her first trial ended with a hung jury. In a 2010 retrial, Jorgensen was convicted on only one charge: second-degree manslaughter for causing the death of her daughter. A 3- to 9-year sentence was stayed pending her appeal. An appellate court subsequently upheld her conviction.
The court said that Suffolk County prosecutors "concede that, had defendant not consented to the cesarean section with the result that the child be born alive, she would not have been prosecuted for manslaughter in the second degree." Ruling against Jorgensen, then, "would create a perverse incentive for a pregnant woman to refuse a cesarean section out of fear that if her baby is born alive she would face criminal charges for her alleged reckless conduct, jeopardizing the health of the woman and the unborn fetus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mom's Conviction Tossed for Baby's Death in Crash" by Nick Divito, Courthouse News Service 10/23/15
State legislators have put down laws to criminalize self-abortions, but has left the question "ambiguous" as to whether it's a crime to be reckless while pregnant.
"We conclude that the legislature did not intend to impose greater punishment on pregnant women for their alleged reckless conduct toward a fetus than for their intentional conduct," [Judge] Pigott wrote.
And since the baby did not die while in the womb, Jorgenson "could not have been prosecuted under the manslaughter statute because the fetus would not have fallen under the definition of a 'person'" under the law, the said.
Judge Eugene M. Fahey Fahey dissented, stating: "I conclude that the baby was a person in the eyes of the penal law, that the mother can be held accountable ... for the baby's death, and that the appellate division's order should be affirmed."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
-- From "Conviction of pregnant driver overturned in N.Y." by Michael Virtanen, Associated Press 10/22/15
Prosecutors argued that Jennifer Jorgensen was speeding, intoxicated, and unbelted when she crossed into traffic in 2008 and hit another vehicle head-on, killing Mary and Robert Kelly. Jorgensen, of Long Island, was eight months’ pregnant at the time.
She was acquitted of manslaughter in the deaths of the Kellys but convicted of recklessly causing her daughter’s death.
But the Court of Appeals, in a 5-1 ruling, said the state Legislature didn’t intend to hold a pregnant woman responsible for such harmful conduct to herself or her fetus unless it’s intentional.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court Overturns LI Woman’s Conviction In 2008 Death Of Baby" by CBS New York & Associated Press 10/22/15
Any imposition of criminal liability for actions of pregnant women where a child later dies from injuries suffered while in the womb needs to be clearly defined by lawmakers, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote. “It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor.”
“Conceivably, one could find it ‘reckless’ for a pregnant woman to disregard her obstetrician’s specific orders concerning bed rest; take prescription and/or illicit drugs; shovel a walkway; engage in a contact sport; carry groceries; or disregard dietary restrictions,” Pigott wrote. “Such conduct, if it resulted in premature birth and subsequent death of the child, could result in criminal liability for the mother.”
At present, that’s not in New York’s criminal law, Pigott wrote.
In a dissent, Judge Eugene Fahy wrote that he could not join in a ruling that analyzes New York statutes to determine that the 6-day-old child was not a person because she was unborn when her mother crashed. “The pertinent parts of the Penal Law speak to victims as they are, not as they were at the time the acts giving rise to the crime were committed.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court reverses mother's conviction in infant death" by Casey Seiler, Albany Times Union 10/22/15
In June 2009, Jorgensen was indicted for aggravated vehicular homicide, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and — charges related to the death of the infant — manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Her first trial ended with a hung jury. In a 2010 retrial, Jorgensen was convicted on only one charge: second-degree manslaughter for causing the death of her daughter. A 3- to 9-year sentence was stayed pending her appeal. An appellate court subsequently upheld her conviction.
The court said that Suffolk County prosecutors "concede that, had defendant not consented to the cesarean section with the result that the child be born alive, she would not have been prosecuted for manslaughter in the second degree." Ruling against Jorgensen, then, "would create a perverse incentive for a pregnant woman to refuse a cesarean section out of fear that if her baby is born alive she would face criminal charges for her alleged reckless conduct, jeopardizing the health of the woman and the unborn fetus."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mom's Conviction Tossed for Baby's Death in Crash" by Nick Divito, Courthouse News Service 10/23/15
State legislators have put down laws to criminalize self-abortions, but has left the question "ambiguous" as to whether it's a crime to be reckless while pregnant.
"We conclude that the legislature did not intend to impose greater punishment on pregnant women for their alleged reckless conduct toward a fetus than for their intentional conduct," [Judge] Pigott wrote.
And since the baby did not die while in the womb, Jorgenson "could not have been prosecuted under the manslaughter statute because the fetus would not have fallen under the definition of a 'person'" under the law, the said.
Judge Eugene M. Fahey Fahey dissented, stating: "I conclude that the baby was a person in the eyes of the penal law, that the mother can be held accountable ... for the baby's death, and that the appellate division's order should be affirmed."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Courts Strike Abortion Bans, Supreme Court Next
Even as medical science proves fetal viability ever earlier in gestation, federal appeals courts continue to strike down state laws protecting unborn viable human beings from abortionists. Now, with Congress passing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, the Supreme Court will soon have no choice but to consider when life begins.
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
-- From "Court nixes Idaho's 20-week abortion ban" by Peter Sullivan, The Hill 5/29/15
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's law violates Supreme Court precedent protecting abortions up to the point of viability for a fetus, which has been considered to be around 24 weeks.
Courts have struck down such bans before. In 2013, the 9th Circuit also ruled an Arizona ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that decision.
Ten states currently have 20-week abortion bans, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. [Those states being Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia].
There has been rising support for 20-week bans among Republicans. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho's Abortion Ban Struck Down" by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service 5/29/15
Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling, because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability" and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester abortions."
The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law, the panel said.
In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that the regulations are unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on Friday . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Arkansas: Stringent Abortion Limit Struck Down" by The Associated Press 5/27/15
A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions [Act 301 of 2013, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act] on Wednesday, agreeing with a lower court that a state law unconstitutionally burdens women by banning abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus’s ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected weeks earlier.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "8th Circuit Strikes Down Arkansas Abortion Law" by Joe Harris, Courthouse News Service 5/27/15
In 2014, an Arkansas federal judge sided with Supreme Court precedent and struck down the law.
Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the viability standard cannot be the end of the discussion when weighed against the state's interest in protecting human life.
The court did acknowledge that medical advances since Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that privacy and due-process rights extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion - have moved fetus viability closer to conception, but found that "viability determination necessarily calls for a case-by-case determination and changes over time based on medical advancements" and that legislatures are better suited to make judgments in this area.
Circuit Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd comprised the three-judge panel.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court: 12-week abortion ban unconstitutional" by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau 5/27/15
Then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill [in 2013], saying it was unconstitutional, but the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Act 301 on behalf of two Little Rock doctors who perform abortions [Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten].
Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, who sponsored the legislation that became Act 301, said he was disappointed with the ruling but happy that “every single woman who goes to a clinic is going to have to have an ultrasound. She will have to be informed if there is the presence of a heartbeat in the womb.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 5/29/15
For years, the [Supreme Court] justices have steered clear of most abortion cases. A decision to turn down the latest appeals, from Mississippi and North Carolina, would be a victory for abortion rights advocates. . . .
At the Supreme Court, justices could announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear the Mississippi case. A decision on whether to hear North Carolina's appeal should come by mid-June.
Attorneys for the states that have passed new restrictions say the court should clarify the law governing abortions. In 1992, in its last sweeping abortion ruling, the high court said states may regulate the procedures so long as their rules do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking to end a pregnancy.
Lawyers for Mississippi called that a “vague and amorphous standard” which has not provided “meaningful guidance” to lawmakers or judges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/29/15
The percentage of Americans who say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion has been edging up over the past seven years. The 21% who currently say this is, by one percentage point, the highest Gallup has found in its 19-year history of asking the question. The percentage of Americans who do not see abortion as a major issue in their voting decision has declined over the same period, and is now at 27%. Most of the rest (46%) say that abortion is one of many important factors they will take into account.
The recent uptick in the importance Americans place on where candidates stand on abortion comes as many states have enacted new or increased abortion restrictions. State lawmakers have passed more than 200 regulations on abortion since 2010, after Republicans gained control of many state legislatures. Republicans in Congress are currently advocating a federal bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
However, as Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back; for example, Abortionists and Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
And read Abortionists Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court
“It is high time for this court to revisit the issue” of abortion, Mississippi Atty. Gen. Jim Hood told the Supreme Court justices in a brief filed in early May.For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
-- From "Court nixes Idaho's 20-week abortion ban" by Peter Sullivan, The Hill 5/29/15
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's law violates Supreme Court precedent protecting abortions up to the point of viability for a fetus, which has been considered to be around 24 weeks.
Courts have struck down such bans before. In 2013, the 9th Circuit also ruled an Arizona ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that decision.
Ten states currently have 20-week abortion bans, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. [Those states being Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia].
There has been rising support for 20-week bans among Republicans. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho's Abortion Ban Struck Down" by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service 5/29/15
Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling, because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability" and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester abortions."
The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law, the panel said.
In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that the regulations are unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on Friday . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Arkansas: Stringent Abortion Limit Struck Down" by The Associated Press 5/27/15
A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions [Act 301 of 2013, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act] on Wednesday, agreeing with a lower court that a state law unconstitutionally burdens women by banning abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus’s ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected weeks earlier.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "8th Circuit Strikes Down Arkansas Abortion Law" by Joe Harris, Courthouse News Service 5/27/15
In 2014, an Arkansas federal judge sided with Supreme Court precedent and struck down the law.
Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the viability standard cannot be the end of the discussion when weighed against the state's interest in protecting human life.
The court did acknowledge that medical advances since Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that privacy and due-process rights extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion - have moved fetus viability closer to conception, but found that "viability determination necessarily calls for a case-by-case determination and changes over time based on medical advancements" and that legislatures are better suited to make judgments in this area.
Circuit Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd comprised the three-judge panel.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court: 12-week abortion ban unconstitutional" by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau 5/27/15
Then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill [in 2013], saying it was unconstitutional, but the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Act 301 on behalf of two Little Rock doctors who perform abortions [Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten].
Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, who sponsored the legislation that became Act 301, said he was disappointed with the ruling but happy that “every single woman who goes to a clinic is going to have to have an ultrasound. She will have to be informed if there is the presence of a heartbeat in the womb.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 5/29/15
For years, the [Supreme Court] justices have steered clear of most abortion cases. A decision to turn down the latest appeals, from Mississippi and North Carolina, would be a victory for abortion rights advocates. . . .
At the Supreme Court, justices could announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear the Mississippi case. A decision on whether to hear North Carolina's appeal should come by mid-June.
Attorneys for the states that have passed new restrictions say the court should clarify the law governing abortions. In 1992, in its last sweeping abortion ruling, the high court said states may regulate the procedures so long as their rules do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking to end a pregnancy.
Lawyers for Mississippi called that a “vague and amorphous standard” which has not provided “meaningful guidance” to lawmakers or judges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/29/15
The percentage of Americans who say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion has been edging up over the past seven years. The 21% who currently say this is, by one percentage point, the highest Gallup has found in its 19-year history of asking the question. The percentage of Americans who do not see abortion as a major issue in their voting decision has declined over the same period, and is now at 27%. Most of the rest (46%) say that abortion is one of many important factors they will take into account.
The recent uptick in the importance Americans place on where candidates stand on abortion comes as many states have enacted new or increased abortion restrictions. State lawmakers have passed more than 200 regulations on abortion since 2010, after Republicans gained control of many state legislatures. Republicans in Congress are currently advocating a federal bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
However, as Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back; for example, Abortionists and Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
And read Abortionists Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court
Thursday, May 07, 2015
New York Times Admits 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
In a stunning revelation, the liberal mainstream media have just discovered that pregnant women may, in fact, have "a person" developing in the womb — thanks to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published yesterday concerning "fetal viability."
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
What do the abortionists say? Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
In addition, read about the Georgia teacher ousted last month for revealing President Obama's position on infants who survive abortion.
-- From "Study of premature babies adds to questions for parents, doctors" by Pam Belluck, The New York Times 5/6/15
A new study of thousands of premature births found that a small minority of babies born a week or two before what is now generally considered the point of viability can be treated and survive, in some cases with relatively few health problems.
The findings may also have implications for the abortion debate. The Supreme Court has said states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, and 24 weeks has generally been cited by medical experts as the time of viability.
Recently, physicians who work with very premature infants have begun to consider it reasonable to offer active treatment for babies born at 23 weeks. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” as more than a quarter of them survive if treated intensively.
The study, involving nearly 5,000 babies born between 22 and 27 weeks gestation, found that 22-week-old babies did not survive without medical intervention. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study on premature babies raises questions about abortion and medical care" by Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post 5/7/15
[The study] is heartening news in the world of pediatrics. But it also adds to a list of questions for parents, doctors and lawmakers by challenging the accepted age for “viability” — a standard that has defined the debates about abortion and intensive neonatal care.
According to Neil Marlow, a neonatology expert at University College London, many doctors have assumed that 22 weeks was too early for a child to be a candidate for intensive care because fatality rates were so high. But the NEJM study shows that those high rates are in part due to doctors’ reluctance to attempt a painful intervention on a newborn that’s unlikely to survive.
. . . the Supreme Court has long crafted its abortion rulings around the idea of viability. In Roe v. Wade the court ruled that states could not restrict abortions before the 28th week of pregnancy, at the time thought to be the earliest a newborn could survive on its own.
The 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, acknowledging that advances in neonatal care made survival of even more premature babies possible, detached the “viability” marker from the 28-week standard but left the sentiment of the original ruling intact: “We reaffirm … the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” read the majority opinion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hospital efforts to save very premature babies vary widely" by Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press 5/6/15
The study involved nearly 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals in a research group run by the National Institutes of Health between April 2006 and March 2011.
Researchers looked at rates of comfort care versus active treatment, such as breathing machines, feeding tubes or heart resuscitation. Active treatment was given to 22 percent of babies born at 22 weeks, 72 percent of those at 23 weeks and nearly all beyond that.
Survival rates were higher for the actively treated babies — 23 percent versus 5 percent for all babies in the study born at 22 weeks, and 33 percent versus 24 percent for those born at 23 weeks.
About 12,000 babies each year in the United States are born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is about 40 weeks.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Standard Treatment for Extreme Preemies - Practice differences appear to explain survival disparities" by Sarah Wickline Wallan, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 5/7/15
"This article raises important questions about what information should be given to parents during counseling about risks after an extremely preterm birth," Neil Marlow, DM, wrote in an accompanying editorial. "To give crude data on the survival rate among all such infants, regardless of whether treatment efforts were made, is misleading and helps to make poor survival a self-fulfilling prophecy."
"The NICHD NRN (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network) collects data only on live births in specialist hospitals and is not population-based; thus these data cannot be used to explore attitudes underlying the decision to provide or withhold treatment or to evaluate antepartum fetal deaths," added Marlow, who is from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health at University College London.
"The study should prompt physicians, hospitals, state governments, and professional societies to accelerate efforts to provide perinatal regionalization programs that will optimize access of these extremely premature babies to level 3 and 4 perinatal centers that can provide skilled, experienced active treatment in the delivery room when parents and physicians decide in favor of active treatment," F. Sessions Cole, MD, director of the division of newborn medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said in an email to MedPage Today.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Gallup poll, Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back
Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Also read Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)
“[We now consider viability at 22 weeks,] but this is a pretty controversial area. I guess we would say that these babies deserve a chance. [But parents need to know that] the hospital that you go to might determine what happens to your baby.”For background, read Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses
-- Edward Bell, study leader and pediatrics professor at the University of Iowa
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
What do the abortionists say? Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
In addition, read about the Georgia teacher ousted last month for revealing President Obama's position on infants who survive abortion.
-- From "Study of premature babies adds to questions for parents, doctors" by Pam Belluck, The New York Times 5/6/15
A new study of thousands of premature births found that a small minority of babies born a week or two before what is now generally considered the point of viability can be treated and survive, in some cases with relatively few health problems.
The findings may also have implications for the abortion debate. The Supreme Court has said states cannot ban abortion before a fetus is viable outside the womb, and 24 weeks has generally been cited by medical experts as the time of viability.
Recently, physicians who work with very premature infants have begun to consider it reasonable to offer active treatment for babies born at 23 weeks. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” as more than a quarter of them survive if treated intensively.
The study, involving nearly 5,000 babies born between 22 and 27 weeks gestation, found that 22-week-old babies did not survive without medical intervention. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study on premature babies raises questions about abortion and medical care" by Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post 5/7/15
[The study] is heartening news in the world of pediatrics. But it also adds to a list of questions for parents, doctors and lawmakers by challenging the accepted age for “viability” — a standard that has defined the debates about abortion and intensive neonatal care.
According to Neil Marlow, a neonatology expert at University College London, many doctors have assumed that 22 weeks was too early for a child to be a candidate for intensive care because fatality rates were so high. But the NEJM study shows that those high rates are in part due to doctors’ reluctance to attempt a painful intervention on a newborn that’s unlikely to survive.
. . . the Supreme Court has long crafted its abortion rulings around the idea of viability. In Roe v. Wade the court ruled that states could not restrict abortions before the 28th week of pregnancy, at the time thought to be the earliest a newborn could survive on its own.
The 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, acknowledging that advances in neonatal care made survival of even more premature babies possible, detached the “viability” marker from the 28-week standard but left the sentiment of the original ruling intact: “We reaffirm … the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” read the majority opinion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hospital efforts to save very premature babies vary widely" by Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press 5/6/15
The study involved nearly 5,000 babies born before 27 weeks gestation at 24 hospitals in a research group run by the National Institutes of Health between April 2006 and March 2011.
Researchers looked at rates of comfort care versus active treatment, such as breathing machines, feeding tubes or heart resuscitation. Active treatment was given to 22 percent of babies born at 22 weeks, 72 percent of those at 23 weeks and nearly all beyond that.
Survival rates were higher for the actively treated babies — 23 percent versus 5 percent for all babies in the study born at 22 weeks, and 33 percent versus 24 percent for those born at 23 weeks.
About 12,000 babies each year in the United States are born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is about 40 weeks.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Standard Treatment for Extreme Preemies - Practice differences appear to explain survival disparities" by Sarah Wickline Wallan, Staff Writer, MedPage Today 5/7/15
"This article raises important questions about what information should be given to parents during counseling about risks after an extremely preterm birth," Neil Marlow, DM, wrote in an accompanying editorial. "To give crude data on the survival rate among all such infants, regardless of whether treatment efforts were made, is misleading and helps to make poor survival a self-fulfilling prophecy."
"The NICHD NRN (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network) collects data only on live births in specialist hospitals and is not population-based; thus these data cannot be used to explore attitudes underlying the decision to provide or withhold treatment or to evaluate antepartum fetal deaths," added Marlow, who is from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health at University College London.
"The study should prompt physicians, hospitals, state governments, and professional societies to accelerate efforts to provide perinatal regionalization programs that will optimize access of these extremely premature babies to level 3 and 4 perinatal centers that can provide skilled, experienced active treatment in the delivery room when parents and physicians decide in favor of active treatment," F. Sessions Cole, MD, director of the division of newborn medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said in an email to MedPage Today.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Gallup poll, Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back
Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Also read Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Pelosi Anti-Life Science NOT Catholic: Archbishop
When San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was asked if an unborn baby is a human being at 20 weeks gestation, she said that the mother is the one who matters and anyway that's not a question for politicians to answer. In response, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone denounced House Minority Leader Pelosi's refusal to verbalize the “scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” and he further stated that “no Catholic can dissent in good conscience” from the Church teaching on abortion.
For background, read Archbishop Cordileone Rebuts Pelosi's Government-run Church and also read Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say as well as Pope Francis Says Wayward Politicians Can't Take Communion (e.g.: Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et. al.)
And read Pelosi Thanks God for Nuns' Support for Abortion Bill
Not surprisingly, the liberal media ignore Pope Francis when he speaks on the sanctity of life.
In addition, read Liberals Embrace Science Lies, Reject Science Truth
-- From "Pelosi On Abortion: The Mother Comes First" by Rachel Stoltzfoos, Reporter, Daily Caller 1/22/15
“I don’t think it’s up to politicians to do that,” Pelosi said in a briefing Thursday.
“You know it’s really interesting that you would come to these meetings to talk about [abortion],” she told the reporter. “The fact is what we have said. The life and the health of a mother is what is preeminent when a decision is made about a woman’s reproductive health.”
“It isn’t an ideological fight,” she added. “It’s a personal health issue. This is up to women — their conscience, their god their doctor, their health, their fate, survival.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SF Archbishop on Pelosi: No Catholic Can Dissent from Church Teaching on Abortion" by Lauretta Brown, CNSNews.com 1/26/15
At her Jan. 22 briefing Pelosi said she had "great standing" to speak on the issue of abortion, noting that she was a "Catholic and a mom of five" and asserting that it was "true" she knew "more about having babies than the pope."
CNSNews.com asked Archbishop Cordileone about Pelosi’s comments on human life, particularly in light her self-description “as a Catholic and a mom of five."
"It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception," the archbishop said in a written statement to CNSNews.com. "This has been established in medical science for over 100 years. Catholic moral teaching acknowledges this scientific fact, and has always affirmed the grave moral evil of taking an innocent human life.
“This has been the consistent teaching of the Church from the very beginning, a teaching already discernible in the natural moral law, and so a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent in good conscience,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi asked twice if unborn baby at 20 weeks is ‘human’: refuses to respond" by John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com 1/23/15
The question, and follow-up, were asked by a reporter with CNSNews in reference to the ongoing debate about a bill in Congress that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. . . . One recent poll found that 84% of Americans support the bill.
CNSNews.com: "Is an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy a human being?"
Pelosi: "You know what, what we're talking about on the floor of the House is something that says politicians should determine what effects the health of a woman, her life, her health, and the rest. I don't think it's up to politicians to do that. And that's why we are very overwhelmingly opposing what is going on on the floor of the House."
Later…
CNSNews.com: "My question is pretty simple. On the abortion issue, I understand your position on the legislation, but even the legislation aside, when it comes to the matter of whether or not an unborn child is a human being at 20 weeks gestation, what is your personal take on it. If it is not a human being, then what do you believe it is?
Pelosi: “You know it is really interesting that you would come to these meetings to talk about it. The fact is is what we have said: The life and the health of the mother is what is preeminent in when a decision is made about a woman’s reproductive health. It isn't an ideological fight, it is a personal health issue."
To read the entire Pelosi transcript above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 1/27/15: Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)
Also read President Obama Touts Abortion, While Americans March Against It
And read As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back as well as 75% of Abortion Clinics Closed: Jan. 2015 vs. 1991
For background, read Archbishop Cordileone Rebuts Pelosi's Government-run Church and also read Rep. Nancy Pelosi is a Fraud, Catholic Leaders Say as well as Pope Francis Says Wayward Politicians Can't Take Communion (e.g.: Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et. al.)
And read Pelosi Thanks God for Nuns' Support for Abortion Bill
Not surprisingly, the liberal media ignore Pope Francis when he speaks on the sanctity of life.
In addition, read Liberals Embrace Science Lies, Reject Science Truth
-- From "Pelosi On Abortion: The Mother Comes First" by Rachel Stoltzfoos, Reporter, Daily Caller 1/22/15
“I don’t think it’s up to politicians to do that,” Pelosi said in a briefing Thursday.
“You know it’s really interesting that you would come to these meetings to talk about [abortion],” she told the reporter. “The fact is what we have said. The life and the health of a mother is what is preeminent when a decision is made about a woman’s reproductive health.”
“It isn’t an ideological fight,” she added. “It’s a personal health issue. This is up to women — their conscience, their god their doctor, their health, their fate, survival.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SF Archbishop on Pelosi: No Catholic Can Dissent from Church Teaching on Abortion" by Lauretta Brown, CNSNews.com 1/26/15
At her Jan. 22 briefing Pelosi said she had "great standing" to speak on the issue of abortion, noting that she was a "Catholic and a mom of five" and asserting that it was "true" she knew "more about having babies than the pope."
CNSNews.com asked Archbishop Cordileone about Pelosi’s comments on human life, particularly in light her self-description “as a Catholic and a mom of five."
"It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception," the archbishop said in a written statement to CNSNews.com. "This has been established in medical science for over 100 years. Catholic moral teaching acknowledges this scientific fact, and has always affirmed the grave moral evil of taking an innocent human life.
“This has been the consistent teaching of the Church from the very beginning, a teaching already discernible in the natural moral law, and so a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent in good conscience,” he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pelosi asked twice if unborn baby at 20 weeks is ‘human’: refuses to respond" by John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com 1/23/15
The question, and follow-up, were asked by a reporter with CNSNews in reference to the ongoing debate about a bill in Congress that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. . . . One recent poll found that 84% of Americans support the bill.
CNSNews.com: "Is an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy a human being?"
Pelosi: "You know what, what we're talking about on the floor of the House is something that says politicians should determine what effects the health of a woman, her life, her health, and the rest. I don't think it's up to politicians to do that. And that's why we are very overwhelmingly opposing what is going on on the floor of the House."
Later…
CNSNews.com: "My question is pretty simple. On the abortion issue, I understand your position on the legislation, but even the legislation aside, when it comes to the matter of whether or not an unborn child is a human being at 20 weeks gestation, what is your personal take on it. If it is not a human being, then what do you believe it is?
Pelosi: “You know it is really interesting that you would come to these meetings to talk about it. The fact is is what we have said: The life and the health of the mother is what is preeminent in when a decision is made about a woman’s reproductive health. It isn't an ideological fight, it is a personal health issue."
To read the entire Pelosi transcript above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 1/27/15: Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif. and chairman of House Democratic Caucus) won't answer if unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy is human being. (video)
Also read President Obama Touts Abortion, While Americans March Against It
And read As Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back as well as 75% of Abortion Clinics Closed: Jan. 2015 vs. 1991
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Lead Abortionist Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a TV interview, concerning the oft-debated abortion issue of when life begins, "I don't know that it's really relevant." She went on to say that her kids' lives began at the time of delivery.
Did you know that Planned Parenthood Kills a Baby Every 94 Seconds? And do you know how they get a steady stream of customers?
Keep in mind that Taxpayers Provide 46% of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$ and yet Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers
-- From "Planned Parenthood president: Start of life not ‘really relevant’ to abortion discussions" by Douglas Ernst, The Washington Times 2/28/14
“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards said while appearing on Fusion’s “America with Jorge Ramos” on Thursday, Twitchy reported.
Mrs. Richards went on to say that she didn’t think Planned Parenthood should have to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries.”
Mr. Ramos, a journalist, was persistent, asking her “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you believe life starts?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Life Begins at Delivery, Planned Parenthood President Says" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 2/28/14
Richards at first dodged the question several times . . .
Richards then answered that the question is not part of the conversation about whether abortion should be legal. Every woman needs to make their own decision and Planned Parenthood wants them to have "all their options for health care."
"For me, I'm the mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They've been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that was my own personal decision."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Prez Cecile Richards: When life begins not ‘really relevant’ to abortion" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 2/28/14
Richards' refusal to answer the question echoes Barack Obama's 2008 reply to Rick Warren stating that determining the moment when life begins is “above my pay grade.” However, biologists and embryologists say the fact that life begins at conception is settled science.
“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” according to the 1976 Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. The 1993 book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects says fertilization “represents the beginning of a human being.” Numerous other textbooks reveal the same conclusion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Cecile Richards: When life begins isn’t relevant to the conversation" by Cassy Fiano, Live Action News 2/28/14
. . . And why would the science of embryology, pregnancy, and reproduction be irrelevant to the conversation? Of course it’s irrelevant for Richards, whose livelihood relies on women believing that life can begin at conception, or at 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, at birth, or whenever you feel like it does.
If science were to definitively say that life begins at conception (which it does), and Richards were to admit that, then she’s admitting that her business is one of snuffing out a life for pay. It makes her a glorified hit man in heels. The problem is that the science of embryology and reproduction has answered that question — life begins at conception — and the question is not over whether or not the baby is alive, but whether killing this life is acceptable.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Life Begins at Fertilization" posted at Princeton.edu
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
To read more scientific references, CLICK HERE.
Some Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich not sure when life begins, but according to one governor, The Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn
Just days after taking office, President Obama Chose Death for the Unborn
In addition, read President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood and also read Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access as well as Bishops Warn Voting for Pro-abortion Democrats is 'Grave Sin'
Did you know that Planned Parenthood Kills a Baby Every 94 Seconds? And do you know how they get a steady stream of customers?
Keep in mind that Taxpayers Provide 46% of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$ and yet Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers
-- From "Planned Parenthood president: Start of life not ‘really relevant’ to abortion discussions" by Douglas Ernst, The Washington Times 2/28/14
“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards said while appearing on Fusion’s “America with Jorge Ramos” on Thursday, Twitchy reported.
Mrs. Richards went on to say that she didn’t think Planned Parenthood should have to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries.”
Mr. Ramos, a journalist, was persistent, asking her “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you believe life starts?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Life Begins at Delivery, Planned Parenthood President Says" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 2/28/14
Richards at first dodged the question several times . . .
Richards then answered that the question is not part of the conversation about whether abortion should be legal. Every woman needs to make their own decision and Planned Parenthood wants them to have "all their options for health care."
"For me, I'm the mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They've been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that was my own personal decision."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Prez Cecile Richards: When life begins not ‘really relevant’ to abortion" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 2/28/14
Richards' refusal to answer the question echoes Barack Obama's 2008 reply to Rick Warren stating that determining the moment when life begins is “above my pay grade.” However, biologists and embryologists say the fact that life begins at conception is settled science.
“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” according to the 1976 Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. The 1993 book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects says fertilization “represents the beginning of a human being.” Numerous other textbooks reveal the same conclusion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Cecile Richards: When life begins isn’t relevant to the conversation" by Cassy Fiano, Live Action News 2/28/14
. . . And why would the science of embryology, pregnancy, and reproduction be irrelevant to the conversation? Of course it’s irrelevant for Richards, whose livelihood relies on women believing that life can begin at conception, or at 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, at birth, or whenever you feel like it does.
If science were to definitively say that life begins at conception (which it does), and Richards were to admit that, then she’s admitting that her business is one of snuffing out a life for pay. It makes her a glorified hit man in heels. The problem is that the science of embryology and reproduction has answered that question — life begins at conception — and the question is not over whether or not the baby is alive, but whether killing this life is acceptable.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Life Begins at Fertilization" posted at Princeton.edu
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
To read more scientific references, CLICK HERE.
Some Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich not sure when life begins, but according to one governor, The Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn
Just days after taking office, President Obama Chose Death for the Unborn
In addition, read President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood and also read Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access as well as Bishops Warn Voting for Pro-abortion Democrats is 'Grave Sin'
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
Chimpanzees are being enslaved against their will according to multiple lawsuits filed in New York that use the same legal arguments made to free black slaves prior to the Civil War.
In addition, read 'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists
-- From "Group Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ Status For Chimpanzees" by The Associated Press and CBSNewYork 12/3/13
Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group . . . is asking New York courts to recognize scientific evidence of emotional and cognitive abilities in chimpanzees and to grant the animals “legal personhood” so that they are ensured better treatment. The activists argue that the chimps are not things to be possessed and caged by people and should be released from “illegal detention.”
“In this case, we are claiming that chimpanzees are autonomous,” said Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise, the founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “That is, being able to self-determine, be self-aware, and be able to choose how to live their own lives.”
The national group says it is dedicated to changing the common law status of some species other than humans. . .
If the lawsuits succeed, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants, Wise said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New York lawsuit seeks 'legal personhood' for chimpanzees" by Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner, Reuters 12/3/13
The lawsuit states that chimps are entitled to a "fundamental right to bodily liberty," which Wise told Reuters is the basic right to be left alone and not held for entertainment or research.
The lawsuit was filed at "the earliest point at which we have some reasonable chance at winning," said Wise, a well-known animal rights activist and author of books including the 2000 title "Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals."
"These are the first cases in an open-ended, strategic litigation campaign," he said. "We're just going to keep filing suits."
Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 began a nationwide search for an optimal venue to file the lawsuits, Wise said. New York was ultimately chosen because of its generally flexible view of requests for a writ of habeas corpus, the centuries-old right in English law to challenge unlawful detention, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim" by Holly Yan and Mayra Cuevas, CNN 12/3/13
"To be a 'legal person,' one doesn't need to be a human being or even a biological being. A corporation is a legal person," wrote Joyce Tischler, co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Even if the chimpanzees don't understand what a lawsuit is, they benefit from being directly represented, she said.
"We see that in children. They can be removed from an abusive home and be protected, even though the child might not be able to formulate those desires and the issues represented in the court of law," Tischler told CNN.
"Lawsuits have to address a real problem faced by an individual plaintiff. You cannot sue on behalf of all animals everywhere," Tischler said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suit champions chimp's right to not be held as a pet" by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY 12/2/13
Tommy [the chimp], who lives with a couple who have a reindeer farm in Gloversville, N.Y., is illegally imprisoned and under New York law has the right to live a more "chimpanzee-like" life at a sanctuary, says attorney Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
The lawsuit accuses Patrick and Diane Lavery of holding Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, captive. The Laverys are "detaining Tommy in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed" at their property, the lawsuit says.
Chimpanzees can make choices and, like humans, have an interest in freedom to live as they wish, Wise says. "It would seem exceedingly unlikely that any chimpanzee would choose to live life in a cave."
The cage in New York where Tommy now lives exceeds federal and state standards and is inspected every year . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courts Should Reject Chimp Habeas Corpus!" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 12/4/13
This suit furthers the subversive animal rights agenda–known as “animal standing“–which would allow animals to sue their owners and others in court. Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights fanatics who would be using the animals as fronts to further their own ideological agendas.
. . . these lawsuits are a malicious attack on human exceptionalism. A judge ruling that chimps have human-type rights won’t elevate them to our status, it will reduce us to theirs. If this lawsuit carries the day, the predictable and unpredictable deleterious consequences to human wellbeing will be hard to quantify.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/4/14: "Chimpanzees don’t have same rights as humans: court" by Chris Perez, New York Post
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties,” a three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.
“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
The judges ruled unanimously that chimpanzees are not entitled to the same rights as human beings. Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, was happy with the decision.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read In Defense of Human Exceptionalism
In addition, read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
"Not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of their owners. We will assert, based on clear scientific evidence, that it's time to take the next step and recognize that these non-human animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human owners."For background, read Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism and also read Austrian Court Considers if Chimpanzee Deserving of “Human Status” as well as Obama Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
-- Attorney Steven Wise, president of Nonhuman Rights Project
In addition, read 'Planet of the Apes' Possible, Warn Scientists
-- From "Group Seeks ‘Legal Personhood’ Status For Chimpanzees" by The Associated Press and CBSNewYork 12/3/13
Nonhuman Rights Project, an animal rights group . . . is asking New York courts to recognize scientific evidence of emotional and cognitive abilities in chimpanzees and to grant the animals “legal personhood” so that they are ensured better treatment. The activists argue that the chimps are not things to be possessed and caged by people and should be released from “illegal detention.”
“In this case, we are claiming that chimpanzees are autonomous,” said Massachusetts lawyer Steven Wise, the founder of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “That is, being able to self-determine, be self-aware, and be able to choose how to live their own lives.”
The national group says it is dedicated to changing the common law status of some species other than humans. . .
If the lawsuits succeed, similar ones could eventually be filed on behalf of other species considered autonomous, such as gorillas, orangutans, whales, dolphins and elephants, Wise said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New York lawsuit seeks 'legal personhood' for chimpanzees" by Bernard Vaughan and Daniel Wiessner, Reuters 12/3/13
The lawsuit states that chimps are entitled to a "fundamental right to bodily liberty," which Wise told Reuters is the basic right to be left alone and not held for entertainment or research.
The lawsuit was filed at "the earliest point at which we have some reasonable chance at winning," said Wise, a well-known animal rights activist and author of books including the 2000 title "Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals."
"These are the first cases in an open-ended, strategic litigation campaign," he said. "We're just going to keep filing suits."
Nonhuman Rights Project in 2007 began a nationwide search for an optimal venue to file the lawsuits, Wise said. New York was ultimately chosen because of its generally flexible view of requests for a writ of habeas corpus, the centuries-old right in English law to challenge unlawful detention, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim" by Holly Yan and Mayra Cuevas, CNN 12/3/13
"To be a 'legal person,' one doesn't need to be a human being or even a biological being. A corporation is a legal person," wrote Joyce Tischler, co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
Even if the chimpanzees don't understand what a lawsuit is, they benefit from being directly represented, she said.
"We see that in children. They can be removed from an abusive home and be protected, even though the child might not be able to formulate those desires and the issues represented in the court of law," Tischler told CNN.
"Lawsuits have to address a real problem faced by an individual plaintiff. You cannot sue on behalf of all animals everywhere," Tischler said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suit champions chimp's right to not be held as a pet" by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY 12/2/13
Tommy [the chimp], who lives with a couple who have a reindeer farm in Gloversville, N.Y., is illegally imprisoned and under New York law has the right to live a more "chimpanzee-like" life at a sanctuary, says attorney Steven Wise, president of the Nonhuman Rights Project.
The lawsuit accuses Patrick and Diane Lavery of holding Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp, captive. The Laverys are "detaining Tommy in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed" at their property, the lawsuit says.
Chimpanzees can make choices and, like humans, have an interest in freedom to live as they wish, Wise says. "It would seem exceedingly unlikely that any chimpanzee would choose to live life in a cave."
The cage in New York where Tommy now lives exceeds federal and state standards and is inspected every year . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Courts Should Reject Chimp Habeas Corpus!" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 12/4/13
This suit furthers the subversive animal rights agenda–known as “animal standing“–which would allow animals to sue their owners and others in court. Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights fanatics who would be using the animals as fronts to further their own ideological agendas.
. . . these lawsuits are a malicious attack on human exceptionalism. A judge ruling that chimps have human-type rights won’t elevate them to our status, it will reduce us to theirs. If this lawsuit carries the day, the predictable and unpredictable deleterious consequences to human wellbeing will be hard to quantify.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/4/14: "Chimpanzees don’t have same rights as humans: court" by Chris Perez, New York Post
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties,” a three-judge Appellate Division panel said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press.
“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.”
The judges ruled unanimously that chimpanzees are not entitled to the same rights as human beings. Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, was happy with the decision.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read In Defense of Human Exceptionalism
In addition, read American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
Monday, April 08, 2013
Pro-life Laws Sweeping States, Roe Challenge Soon
The ultimate challenge to Roe v. Wade is nearing the U.S. Supreme Court much faster than anyone had predicted. Several states have just enacted, or are about to pass, new laws restricting abortion, some of which may conflict with the 1973 and subsequent rulings by the Supremes.
For background, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state
UPDATE 7/8/13: Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits
UPDATE 4/9/13: Alabama governor signs bill, takes effect July 1st, might close all abortion clinics in state
-- From "Alabama Legislature Passes New Limits on Abortion Clinics" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 4/3/13
The Alabama Legislature late Tuesday adopted stringent new regulations for abortion clinics that supporters called a step to protect women but that others called medically unnecessary and a disguised effort to force the closing of the state’s five abortion clinics.
The bill, like measures passed last year in Mississippi and Tennessee and last month in North Dakota, would require that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Several of Alabama’s clinics rely on doctors who fly in from out of state, and given the hostile political climate it appears unlikely that nearby hospitals would grant them such privileges, said Nikema Williams, vice president for public policy of Planned Parenthood Southeast, which runs two of the clinics.
Another clause in the Alabama bill would require clinics to meet the building, equipment and staffing standards of ambulatory surgery centers, which would require some clinics to spend millions of dollars altering buildings, and buying beds and monitoring equipment, for what they say is no relevant medical purpose.
The bill will be sent to Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, who previously said he planned to sign it. The American Civil Liberties Union said that if the bill becomes law it is likely to sue to block it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kan. House passes sweeping anti-abortion bill" by The Associated Press 4/8/13
The House gave final approval Friday to the measure [by a 90-30 vote], which blocks tax breaks for abortion providers and outlaws abortions performed solely because of the baby's sex.
The measure also declares that life begins "at fertilization," language that abortion opponents call a statement of principle and not an outright ban on abortion, though the bill's opponents are skeptical.
The bill also prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to patients before performing abortions.
Senators voted 28-10 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kansas set to enact life-starts-'at fertilization' abortion law" by Kevin Murphy, Reuters 4/6/13
If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.
While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.
States that already have such language are Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio, Nash said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kansas Passes Three Pro-Life Bills, Bans Sex-Selection Abortion" by Kathy Ostrowski, LifeNews.com 4/8/13
Abortion supporters continue to mischaracterize these bills—even during debate in both chambers Friday night–so here are some needed corrections. Under these pro-life bills:
For background, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state
UPDATE 7/8/13: Abortionists Lament Ever-greater State Limits
UPDATE 4/9/13: Alabama governor signs bill, takes effect July 1st, might close all abortion clinics in state
-- From "Alabama Legislature Passes New Limits on Abortion Clinics" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 4/3/13
The Alabama Legislature late Tuesday adopted stringent new regulations for abortion clinics that supporters called a step to protect women but that others called medically unnecessary and a disguised effort to force the closing of the state’s five abortion clinics.
The bill, like measures passed last year in Mississippi and Tennessee and last month in North Dakota, would require that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Several of Alabama’s clinics rely on doctors who fly in from out of state, and given the hostile political climate it appears unlikely that nearby hospitals would grant them such privileges, said Nikema Williams, vice president for public policy of Planned Parenthood Southeast, which runs two of the clinics.
Another clause in the Alabama bill would require clinics to meet the building, equipment and staffing standards of ambulatory surgery centers, which would require some clinics to spend millions of dollars altering buildings, and buying beds and monitoring equipment, for what they say is no relevant medical purpose.
The bill will be sent to Gov. Robert Bentley, a Republican, who previously said he planned to sign it. The American Civil Liberties Union said that if the bill becomes law it is likely to sue to block it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kan. House passes sweeping anti-abortion bill" by The Associated Press 4/8/13
The House gave final approval Friday to the measure [by a 90-30 vote], which blocks tax breaks for abortion providers and outlaws abortions performed solely because of the baby's sex.
The measure also declares that life begins "at fertilization," language that abortion opponents call a statement of principle and not an outright ban on abortion, though the bill's opponents are skeptical.
The bill also prohibits abortion providers from being involved in public school sex education classes and spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to patients before performing abortions.
Senators voted 28-10 for a compromise version of the bill reconciling differences between the two chambers.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kansas set to enact life-starts-'at fertilization' abortion law" by Kevin Murphy, Reuters 4/6/13
If the bill is signed into law, Kansas will become the eighth state declaring that life begins at fertilization, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager of the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which researches abortion-related laws nationwide.
While it would not supplant Kansas law banning most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, it does set the state up to more swiftly outlaw all abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court revisit its 1973 ruling making abortion legal, Nash said.
States that already have such language are Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Dakota and Ohio, Nash said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Kansas Passes Three Pro-Life Bills, Bans Sex-Selection Abortion" by Kathy Ostrowski, LifeNews.com 4/8/13
Abortion supporters continue to mischaracterize these bills—even during debate in both chambers Friday night–so here are some needed corrections. Under these pro-life bills:
* only abortions done solely for sex selection are banned, otherwise abortions for any reason, including rape, remain legal until the 22nd week of pregnancy, and after that time, can be obtained to preserve the life of the mother or prevent irreversible and substantial physical damage to her;To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
* hospitals suffer no penalties for treating life-of-the-mother crises including both ectopic pregnancies and emergencies throughout 9 months;
* the updated informed consent materials (created by KDHE since 1997) do not contain misinformation, do not say abortion causes breast cancer, and do not force any abortion provider to tell women ANYTHING because the materials are written and online;
* the acknowledgment that ‘life begins at fertilization’ is language approved in 1989 by the U.S. Supreme Court, and adopted by 13 other states–it does not challenge abortion decisions at the federal or state level;
* there was no money “taken” from the KUMC budget for the adult stem center, and the center is not hostage to politics, but is expanding on successful medical treatments ALREADY under way at KUMC and across the state.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
N. Dakota Pro-life Laws Slammed by Media, Doctors
The North Dakota Medical Association is denouncing legislation just passed and currently being debated that limit abortion after six weeks gestation ("heartbeat bill") and that defines life at conception ("personhood"). Doctors say they must have a right to decide issues of life in consultation with their patients irrespective of government lawmaking.
Doctors think they're above the law?! It's contagious (they caught it from activist judges).
For background, read Arkansas 12-week Abortion Law Most Restrictive in U.S. and also read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws
So far, Personhood Legislation is Battling Uphill in Courts
UPDATE 3/27/13: Gov. signs bills, prepares for legal attack from abortionists
-- From "ND Senate approves 'heartbeat' abortion ban" by James Macpherson, Associated Press 3/18/13
The North Dakota Senate on Friday approved banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, sending what would be the most stringent abortion restrictions in the U.S. to the state's Republican governor [Jack Dalrymple, who is pro-life,] for his signature.
It's one of several anti-abortion measures the state Legislature has weighed this session. The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.
That measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws.
Some supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure have said they hope to send a message that North Dakota is anti-abortion and aims to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions" by Dave Kolpack, Associated Press 3/18/13
The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.
Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.
One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion attorney says ND bill won’t survive legal challenge" by Wendy Reuer, Forum News Service 3/18/13
Paul Linton, a Chicago-based attorney who has assisted other states with anti-abortion measures and served as general counsel to Americans United for Life . . . did not give an estimation of what litigation would cost, [but] if defeated, the state would pay not only its counsel, the attorney general, but the courts could also force the state to pay for attorney fees of those challenging the bill.
House Bill 1456 prohibits an abortion if a detectable heartbeat is found. . . . Another bill that passed, House Bill 1305, would ban abortions for gender selection or fetal anomalies.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Dakota has funds to fight over abortion" by The Associated Press 3/19/13
As oil-rich North Dakota moves toward outlawing most abortions, it's in a better position than most states for what could be a long and costly court battle over its restrictions.
Abortion-rights activists have promised a legal battle if the measures become law.
North Dakota has a budget surplus nearing $2 billion, thanks to new-found oil wealth.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read IVF: 'Creating' Life & Aborting Life in addition, read Lab Creates Human Life with 3 Biological Parents
Doctors think they're above the law?! It's contagious (they caught it from activist judges).
For background, read Arkansas 12-week Abortion Law Most Restrictive in U.S. and also read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws
So far, Personhood Legislation is Battling Uphill in Courts
UPDATE 3/27/13: Gov. signs bills, prepares for legal attack from abortionists
-- From "ND Senate approves 'heartbeat' abortion ban" by James Macpherson, Associated Press 3/18/13
The North Dakota Senate on Friday approved banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, sending what would be the most stringent abortion restrictions in the U.S. to the state's Republican governor [Jack Dalrymple, who is pro-life,] for his signature.
It's one of several anti-abortion measures the state Legislature has weighed this session. The vote came with almost no debate in the Senate and after the same chamber approved another measure that would make North Dakota the first to ban abortions based on genetic defects such as Down syndrome.
That measure would also ban abortion based on gender selection. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion laws throughout the country, says Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws.
Some supporters of the so-called fetal heartbeat measure have said they hope to send a message that North Dakota is anti-abortion and aims to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Dakota looks at more abortion restrictions" by Dave Kolpack, Associated Press 3/18/13
The "personhood" measures would ban abortions by defining human life as beginning with conception. It's drawing opposition from some doctors who say it could cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization to conceive, but supporters insist that's addressed in the legislation.
Dr. Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo infertility specialist, said Monday that the personhood measures could ban in vitro fertilization and force doctors to leave the state rather than face health care restrictions or possible criminal penalties. In vitro fertilization, or IVF, involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring resulting embryos into the womb.
One of the key players in the anti-abortion campaign, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said she was "floored" by the assertions about limitations on in vitro fertilization. She said the proposals allow exceptions for the "screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving a human being created through in vitro fertilization for the purpose of being transferred to a human uterus." Sitte said that clause was crafted with Dahl's help.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Anti-abortion attorney says ND bill won’t survive legal challenge" by Wendy Reuer, Forum News Service 3/18/13
Paul Linton, a Chicago-based attorney who has assisted other states with anti-abortion measures and served as general counsel to Americans United for Life . . . did not give an estimation of what litigation would cost, [but] if defeated, the state would pay not only its counsel, the attorney general, but the courts could also force the state to pay for attorney fees of those challenging the bill.
House Bill 1456 prohibits an abortion if a detectable heartbeat is found. . . . Another bill that passed, House Bill 1305, would ban abortions for gender selection or fetal anomalies.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Dakota has funds to fight over abortion" by The Associated Press 3/19/13
As oil-rich North Dakota moves toward outlawing most abortions, it's in a better position than most states for what could be a long and costly court battle over its restrictions.
Abortion-rights activists have promised a legal battle if the measures become law.
North Dakota has a budget surplus nearing $2 billion, thanks to new-found oil wealth.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read IVF: 'Creating' Life & Aborting Life in addition, read Lab Creates Human Life with 3 Biological Parents
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
U.S. Supreme Court: OK Voters Silenced by Abortion
The Oklahoma attorney general had approved a "personhood amendment" to be placed on the ballot to allow citizens to define “a person” as “any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death,” but in April, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the ballot measure saying that it would violate the U.S. Supreme Court favoring abortion. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal to allow Oklahomans a voice in the matter.
Unelected judges prevail, again.
For background, read Oklahoma GOP & Supreme Court Defeat Personhood and also read Abortionists Fear Personhood Movement Gaining Steam as well as Mississippi Failed to Negate Roe v. Wade via Personhood
-- From "U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Oklahoma Personhood Initiative case" posted at KOCO-TV5 (Oklahoma City) 10/29/12
[The case] Personhood Oklahoma v. Barber questioned whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court had the authority to stop the initiative from going to a vote.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt approved the ballot title and summary. Personhood Oklahoma was attempting to gather signatures in order to place the issue before the voters. The American Civil Liberties Union along with the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations filed a lawsuit disputing the constitutionality of the proposed amendment.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court then ruled that the initiative violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "US Supreme Court rejects Okla. personhood appeal" by Ken Miller, Associated Press 10/30/12
A personhood bill passed in the state Senate during this year's legislative session but was not heard by the House.
Personhood Oklahoma co-founder Dan Skerbitz said the group will not give up.
"In Oklahoma, the people were denied their right to petition and their right to vote," Skerbitz said. "The people of Oklahoma will not rest until our voices are heard, and our women and children are protected from abortion."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Courts Declines to Review ‘Personhood’ Ballot Measure" posted at JD Journal 10/30/12
While the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU and local abortion rights groups had sued in March to block the proposed initiative, and got a ruling in their favor, Personhood Oklahoma challenged the state court’s decision and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellants had argued that the decision of Oklahoma Supreme Court to block the initiative from being put to ballot deprived supporters of the measure of their rights to free speech and of their rights to participate in the democratic process.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court, refused to hear the case without adding any comment.
[Although], similar initiatives have been placed on ballot in Colorado and Mississippi, though in both states, such amendment measures have been defeated.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Supreme Court declines Oklahoma Personhood case" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com 10/29/12
Commenting on the case, Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said, “The Court’s decision not to take up the Oklahoma Personhood initiative has no precedential value. The issue is not about the merits of personhood but about whether a state court can interfere with the rights of citizens to gather signatures to amend their constitutions.”
“On the issue,” Staver added, “the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision is wrong.”
Staver concluded, “The time has come for government to acknowledge what science has long recognized – that human life begins from the moment of conception or fertilization and should be protected in law from its earliest beginnings.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Non-Romney GOP Push Personhood, End of Abortion
Unelected judges prevail, again.
For background, read Oklahoma GOP & Supreme Court Defeat Personhood and also read Abortionists Fear Personhood Movement Gaining Steam as well as Mississippi Failed to Negate Roe v. Wade via Personhood
-- From "U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Oklahoma Personhood Initiative case" posted at KOCO-TV5 (Oklahoma City) 10/29/12
[The case] Personhood Oklahoma v. Barber questioned whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court had the authority to stop the initiative from going to a vote.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt approved the ballot title and summary. Personhood Oklahoma was attempting to gather signatures in order to place the issue before the voters. The American Civil Liberties Union along with the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations filed a lawsuit disputing the constitutionality of the proposed amendment.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court then ruled that the initiative violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "US Supreme Court rejects Okla. personhood appeal" by Ken Miller, Associated Press 10/30/12
A personhood bill passed in the state Senate during this year's legislative session but was not heard by the House.
Personhood Oklahoma co-founder Dan Skerbitz said the group will not give up.
"In Oklahoma, the people were denied their right to petition and their right to vote," Skerbitz said. "The people of Oklahoma will not rest until our voices are heard, and our women and children are protected from abortion."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Courts Declines to Review ‘Personhood’ Ballot Measure" posted at JD Journal 10/30/12
While the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU and local abortion rights groups had sued in March to block the proposed initiative, and got a ruling in their favor, Personhood Oklahoma challenged the state court’s decision and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellants had argued that the decision of Oklahoma Supreme Court to block the initiative from being put to ballot deprived supporters of the measure of their rights to free speech and of their rights to participate in the democratic process.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court, refused to hear the case without adding any comment.
[Although], similar initiatives have been placed on ballot in Colorado and Mississippi, though in both states, such amendment measures have been defeated.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. Supreme Court declines Oklahoma Personhood case" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com 10/29/12
Commenting on the case, Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said, “The Court’s decision not to take up the Oklahoma Personhood initiative has no precedential value. The issue is not about the merits of personhood but about whether a state court can interfere with the rights of citizens to gather signatures to amend their constitutions.”
“On the issue,” Staver added, “the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision is wrong.”
Staver concluded, “The time has come for government to acknowledge what science has long recognized – that human life begins from the moment of conception or fertilization and should be protected in law from its earliest beginnings.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Non-Romney GOP Push Personhood, End of Abortion
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Pro-abortion Activists Attack Pro-lifer's Family
The mainstream media has embargoed the story of vicious vandalism of the home of Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA, following an outbreak of on-line hatred from abortion supporters resulting from a Newsweek Magazine story profiling Mason and his pregnant wife Jennifer. The nighttime raid by attackers included painting red coat-hangers and hate speech on the house and smashing their front door, spewing glass throughout the porch and home's interior.
Denver police are investigating the incident, but have NOT classified it as a hate crime.
For background, read Abortionists Bomb Pro-life Catholics, Media Ignore and also read Liberal Jailed for Death Threats to Pro-lifers as well as Pro-abortion Forces Get Violent
-- From "‘Personhood’ Leader Keith Mason Says His Family Home Was Attacked" by Abigail Pesta, The Daily Beast - Newsweek Magazine 7/2/12
Mason says he was awake at the time of the attack. “I was in the basement, catching a movie and having a beer, to just chill,” Mason says. “I heard a loud noise and thought one of our kids had fallen down the stairs." Mason says he ran upstairs from the basement, then "ran through a bunch of glass" and "saw red." He describes the scene as "surreal—I didn’t know if it was blood on the glass or what. It turned out to be spray paint. There was red paint all over the side of our house. They spray-painted coat-hangers all over my sidewalk and door. We called 911. The police were there within three minutes.”
Mason says the vandals had “yanked down” the security lights on the home as well.
Cheri Stottke, a Denver police investigator, confirmed the attack on Mason’s home and said police are searching for suspects.
The Newsweek story has drawn a stormy response across the Web, highlighting the gulf between both sides of the abortion debate.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-Life Activist’s Home Vandalized by Abortion Backers" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 7/2/12
The Newsweek article profiled the Masons and their work as the leaders of the group Personhood USA, which is working to pass personhood amendments in states across the nation. The amendments would, until the Supreme Court is changed, act as statements of position by states certifying that human life begins at conception, or fertilization.
The profile was also featured on The Daily Beast and, in comments at the bottom of the post, the notoriously liberal audience took exception to the pro-life beliefs of the Masons, resulting in several physical threats posted in the comments beneath the article. After viewing these threats, one reader tracked down the Mason’s home address and posted it in the comment section. Mason indicates he thinks that was the genesis of the vandalism and attack on his home.
“The article does state that we have three small children, and that my wife is due to deliver our fourth child very soon,” he said. “It is shocking to consider that someone would be so cruel and heartless to attack a home with a pregnant woman and small children inside. Apparently, the pro-choice crowd has no more compassion for born children than they do for the preborn.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Violent attacks strike pro-lifer's house" by Drew Zahn, World Net Daily 7/2/12
PersonhoodUSA reports the violence didn’t stop there. Also last week, fellow pro-life volunteer Everett Stadig was reportedly assaulted while petitioning for Colorado’s personhood initiative and suffered several injuries, including a broken hip, which required surgery.
Still, the determined example of Stadig persevering in the cause, despite suffering physical injury to his person, has only steeled their resolve.
“Not only are these hateful attacks uncalled for, but they have renewed our resolve to press forward,” Mason said. “It is a great testimony that even as Everett recuperates in the hospital he is undeterred, even asking hospital staff and visitors for their signatures on his personhood petition. We are all following his example, pressing forward despite hardships, determined to continue to defend the lives of women and babies – all of whom deserve better than abortion.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Colorado Senator condemns home attack against pro-life Personhood founder" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 7/3/12
“My immediate reaction is extreme disappointment that the opponents of Personhood, or some, would stoop to such an ugly tactic like intimidating someone’s family and destroying their property,” [Colorado state] Senator Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview Tuesday.
“Such actions are completely inexcusable,” he said, noting that the Personhood movement remains a point of controversy in Colorado. “This is an important issue that the people really need to come to terms with, and this isn’t the way to do it.” Lundberg said he has been supportive of the movement “ever since the beginning.”
The Personhood leader said that someone had posted the family’s home address in the comments section of the article, which had already gone “crazy” with angry remarks against the family. Mason said other comments had said his wife Jennifer, who is pregnant with their fourth child, “should be raped and forced to carry the baby,” or that Mason himself should be neutered and killed.
Keith Mason says he has already moved his family to a safe house, and planned to find a new place to live.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Non-Romney GOP Push Personhood, End of Abortion as well as Oklahoma GOP & Supreme Court Defeat Personhood
Denver police are investigating the incident, but have NOT classified it as a hate crime.
For background, read Abortionists Bomb Pro-life Catholics, Media Ignore and also read Liberal Jailed for Death Threats to Pro-lifers as well as Pro-abortion Forces Get Violent
-- From "‘Personhood’ Leader Keith Mason Says His Family Home Was Attacked" by Abigail Pesta, The Daily Beast - Newsweek Magazine 7/2/12
Mason says he was awake at the time of the attack. “I was in the basement, catching a movie and having a beer, to just chill,” Mason says. “I heard a loud noise and thought one of our kids had fallen down the stairs." Mason says he ran upstairs from the basement, then "ran through a bunch of glass" and "saw red." He describes the scene as "surreal—I didn’t know if it was blood on the glass or what. It turned out to be spray paint. There was red paint all over the side of our house. They spray-painted coat-hangers all over my sidewalk and door. We called 911. The police were there within three minutes.”
Mason says the vandals had “yanked down” the security lights on the home as well.
Cheri Stottke, a Denver police investigator, confirmed the attack on Mason’s home and said police are searching for suspects.
The Newsweek story has drawn a stormy response across the Web, highlighting the gulf between both sides of the abortion debate.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pro-Life Activist’s Home Vandalized by Abortion Backers" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 7/2/12
The Newsweek article profiled the Masons and their work as the leaders of the group Personhood USA, which is working to pass personhood amendments in states across the nation. The amendments would, until the Supreme Court is changed, act as statements of position by states certifying that human life begins at conception, or fertilization.
The profile was also featured on The Daily Beast and, in comments at the bottom of the post, the notoriously liberal audience took exception to the pro-life beliefs of the Masons, resulting in several physical threats posted in the comments beneath the article. After viewing these threats, one reader tracked down the Mason’s home address and posted it in the comment section. Mason indicates he thinks that was the genesis of the vandalism and attack on his home.
“The article does state that we have three small children, and that my wife is due to deliver our fourth child very soon,” he said. “It is shocking to consider that someone would be so cruel and heartless to attack a home with a pregnant woman and small children inside. Apparently, the pro-choice crowd has no more compassion for born children than they do for the preborn.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Violent attacks strike pro-lifer's house" by Drew Zahn, World Net Daily 7/2/12
PersonhoodUSA reports the violence didn’t stop there. Also last week, fellow pro-life volunteer Everett Stadig was reportedly assaulted while petitioning for Colorado’s personhood initiative and suffered several injuries, including a broken hip, which required surgery.
Still, the determined example of Stadig persevering in the cause, despite suffering physical injury to his person, has only steeled their resolve.
“Not only are these hateful attacks uncalled for, but they have renewed our resolve to press forward,” Mason said. “It is a great testimony that even as Everett recuperates in the hospital he is undeterred, even asking hospital staff and visitors for their signatures on his personhood petition. We are all following his example, pressing forward despite hardships, determined to continue to defend the lives of women and babies – all of whom deserve better than abortion.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Colorado Senator condemns home attack against pro-life Personhood founder" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 7/3/12
“My immediate reaction is extreme disappointment that the opponents of Personhood, or some, would stoop to such an ugly tactic like intimidating someone’s family and destroying their property,” [Colorado state] Senator Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview Tuesday.
“Such actions are completely inexcusable,” he said, noting that the Personhood movement remains a point of controversy in Colorado. “This is an important issue that the people really need to come to terms with, and this isn’t the way to do it.” Lundberg said he has been supportive of the movement “ever since the beginning.”
The Personhood leader said that someone had posted the family’s home address in the comments section of the article, which had already gone “crazy” with angry remarks against the family. Mason said other comments had said his wife Jennifer, who is pregnant with their fourth child, “should be raped and forced to carry the baby,” or that Mason himself should be neutered and killed.
Keith Mason says he has already moved his family to a safe house, and planned to find a new place to live.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Non-Romney GOP Push Personhood, End of Abortion as well as Oklahoma GOP & Supreme Court Defeat Personhood
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Obama Tracks Unborn Children Visiting White House
America's most pro-abortion president, who said he wouldn't punish his daughters with a baby, wants to know the identity of every non-person (by his definition) who may enter the White House.
For background, read Obama Celebrates Roe v. Wade Anniversary and also read Obama Says Girls Need Abortion Rights for Equality
-- From "A Pro-Life Visiting Policy at the Obama White House?" by Olivier Knox, posted at ABC News 5/9/12
. . . an email from the White House Visitors Office that asks expectant parents to register their future bundle of joy, "crazy as it may sound." They should give their family name as the last name, "baby" as the first name, "NMN" ("No Middle Name"), and the like. The email goes on to say that, "once the baby is born," the parents should update the information.
"All White House tour guests, regardless of age, are required to provide identification information as part of the tour request. This includes children and infants," according to Secret Service Spokesman Brian Leary.
"This procedure was implemented to expedite tour requests by ensuring that all tour attendees are accounted for, as well as eliminating any delays that may occur if a tour guest arrives with a newborn that was not submitted as part of the original tour request," Leary said
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Security at pro-choice White House counts unborn children" by Dave Boyer, Washington Times 5/8/12
The pro-choice Obama White House requires pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of the executive mansion.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said there’s a disconnect at the White House.
“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Obama Celebrates Roe v. Wade Anniversary and also read Obama Says Girls Need Abortion Rights for Equality
-- From "A Pro-Life Visiting Policy at the Obama White House?" by Olivier Knox, posted at ABC News 5/9/12
. . . an email from the White House Visitors Office that asks expectant parents to register their future bundle of joy, "crazy as it may sound." They should give their family name as the last name, "baby" as the first name, "NMN" ("No Middle Name"), and the like. The email goes on to say that, "once the baby is born," the parents should update the information.
"All White House tour guests, regardless of age, are required to provide identification information as part of the tour request. This includes children and infants," according to Secret Service Spokesman Brian Leary.
"This procedure was implemented to expedite tour requests by ensuring that all tour attendees are accounted for, as well as eliminating any delays that may occur if a tour guest arrives with a newborn that was not submitted as part of the original tour request," Leary said
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Security at pro-choice White House counts unborn children" by Dave Boyer, Washington Times 5/8/12
The pro-choice Obama White House requires pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of the executive mansion.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said there’s a disconnect at the White House.
“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House — yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Oklahoma GOP & Supreme Court Defeat Personhood
After the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor of Oklahoma refused to consider giving unborn children a right to live, the citizen-led personhood referendum campaign was struck down as unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court citing the so-called right to abortion, thus denying the citizens' constitutional rights to petition government.
For background, read Abortionists Fear Personhood Movement Gaining Steam and also read Dems' Life Mission to Kill the Unborn, Says Miss. Governor as well as Colorado Personhood on the Ballot in 2012, Again
-- From "Oklahoma court rejects ballot initiative on 'personhood'" By Steve Olafson, Reuters 4/30/12
Passage of a personhood law or constitutional amendment would have the effect of banning abortion in the state, both supporters and critics have said.
A personhood bill passed the Oklahoma state Senate in February but the state's House of Representatives refused to bring it to a vote last week.
The petition was challenged in court last month by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and local abortion rights groups.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Oklahoma Personhood Bill Backers Fail To Get Hearing" by The Associated Press 4/26/12
The state Senate-passed personhood bill has not been scheduled for a hearing in the House. But Rep. Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City moved Wednesday evening to suspend state House rules and allow the personhood bill to be immediately debated and voted on.
House Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Hickman of Dacoma, who was presiding over the chamber, ruled that Reynolds' motion was out of order. Hickman says any new business heard by the House must be scheduled with House Floor Leader Dale DeWitt of Braman.
House Speaker Kris Steele of Shawnee says a majority of the Republican caucus has privately voted against hearing the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Oklahoma's top court rejects 'personhood' for embryos" by Michael Winter, USA TODAY 4/30/12
The state's high court ruled [unanimously] that Initiative Petition No. 395, which supporters had hoped to put to voters in November, was "clearly unconstitutional" because if violated a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a woman's right to an abortion, The Oklahoman says.
Here's what the amendment, also known as State Question No. 761, sought to do:
From "Oklahoma Supreme Court rejects embryo 'personhood' measure" by The Associated Press 4/30/12
The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.
The ruling is the latest setback for abortion opponents who have been pursuing personhood measures in several states. In December, a judge in Nevada ruled that a personhood initiative petition was vague and could not be circulated for signatures to qualify for the 2012 ballot. Similar proposals were defeated last year in Mississippi and Colorado.
The backers of the signature drive say their goal is to set up a legal challenge to the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 that gave women a legal right to abortion
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Okla. court halts 'personhood' rights for embryos" by The Associated Press 5/1/12
Dan Skerbitz of Personhood Oklahoma said the organization's attorneys will have to study the decision before deciding how to proceed. He said that next year, supporters may ask the Legislature to place the issue on a statewide ballot.
Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU's Oklahoma chapter and a former Democratic lawmaker, said the court's decision Monday supports the notion that a woman and her family, "and not the government," should be making decisions on reproductive health care
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lessons from the Defeat of the Oklahoma Personhood Bill" by Sarah Morice-Brubaker, Religion Dispatches 4/30/12
Why did SB-1433, the Oklahoma personhood bill, die? Until very recently, most people watching the bill expected it to pass. It passed the senate, it passed the house Public Health and Safety Committee, and Governor Mary Fallin had said that she would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that crossed her desk.
Well, there was a fight, but SB-1433 was never heard, and now the deadline has expired. In the aftermath, it seems to me that two factors contributed to the bill’s defeat: 1) Deep disagreement, between the personhood movement and more mainstream pro-life Oklahoma voters and legislators, on the advisability of amendments to the bill; and 2) The development of ill will between the personhood lobby and the Republican representatives.
To recap: In the past few weeks, Oklahoma house Republicans have been heavily lobbied by both Oklahomans for Life and Personhood Oklahoma (a state affiliate of Personhood USA). Those groups firmly opposed any amendment to the bill — even amendments that would protect access to IVF and birth control, and would clarify that women with life-threatening pregnancies could still receive treatment. Nevertheless, some supporters of the bill continued to claim that SB-1433 was nothing more than a statement of pro-life principles and wouldn’t affect Oklahomans’ access to assisted reproduction, emergency medical treatment, and their chosen form of birth control.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Abortionists Fear Personhood Movement Gaining Steam and also read Dems' Life Mission to Kill the Unborn, Says Miss. Governor as well as Colorado Personhood on the Ballot in 2012, Again
-- From "Oklahoma court rejects ballot initiative on 'personhood'" By Steve Olafson, Reuters 4/30/12
Passage of a personhood law or constitutional amendment would have the effect of banning abortion in the state, both supporters and critics have said.
A personhood bill passed the Oklahoma state Senate in February but the state's House of Representatives refused to bring it to a vote last week.
The petition was challenged in court last month by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and local abortion rights groups.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Oklahoma Personhood Bill Backers Fail To Get Hearing" by The Associated Press 4/26/12
The state Senate-passed personhood bill has not been scheduled for a hearing in the House. But Rep. Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City moved Wednesday evening to suspend state House rules and allow the personhood bill to be immediately debated and voted on.
House Speaker Pro Tem Jeff Hickman of Dacoma, who was presiding over the chamber, ruled that Reynolds' motion was out of order. Hickman says any new business heard by the House must be scheduled with House Floor Leader Dale DeWitt of Braman.
House Speaker Kris Steele of Shawnee says a majority of the Republican caucus has privately voted against hearing the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Oklahoma's top court rejects 'personhood' for embryos" by Michael Winter, USA TODAY 4/30/12
The state's high court ruled [unanimously] that Initiative Petition No. 395, which supporters had hoped to put to voters in November, was "clearly unconstitutional" because if violated a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a woman's right to an abortion, The Oklahoman says.
Here's what the amendment, also known as State Question No. 761, sought to do:
This measure adds a new section to the Oklahoma Constitution to reconcile recent scientific developments with the definition of a human being for the purpose of equal protection under the law. The proposed amendment expands the legal definition of humanity or "personhood" to include every human being, regardless of place of residence, race, gender, age, disability, health, level of function, condition of dependency, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of biological development to the end of natural life. The amendment applies the term "person" under the Oklahoma Constitution equally to every human being so defined and prohibits the intentional killing of any such "person" without due process of law.To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Oklahoma Supreme Court rejects embryo 'personhood' measure" by The Associated Press 4/30/12
The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.
The ruling is the latest setback for abortion opponents who have been pursuing personhood measures in several states. In December, a judge in Nevada ruled that a personhood initiative petition was vague and could not be circulated for signatures to qualify for the 2012 ballot. Similar proposals were defeated last year in Mississippi and Colorado.
The backers of the signature drive say their goal is to set up a legal challenge to the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 that gave women a legal right to abortion
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Okla. court halts 'personhood' rights for embryos" by The Associated Press 5/1/12
Dan Skerbitz of Personhood Oklahoma said the organization's attorneys will have to study the decision before deciding how to proceed. He said that next year, supporters may ask the Legislature to place the issue on a statewide ballot.
Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU's Oklahoma chapter and a former Democratic lawmaker, said the court's decision Monday supports the notion that a woman and her family, "and not the government," should be making decisions on reproductive health care
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lessons from the Defeat of the Oklahoma Personhood Bill" by Sarah Morice-Brubaker, Religion Dispatches 4/30/12
Why did SB-1433, the Oklahoma personhood bill, die? Until very recently, most people watching the bill expected it to pass. It passed the senate, it passed the house Public Health and Safety Committee, and Governor Mary Fallin had said that she would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that crossed her desk.
Well, there was a fight, but SB-1433 was never heard, and now the deadline has expired. In the aftermath, it seems to me that two factors contributed to the bill’s defeat: 1) Deep disagreement, between the personhood movement and more mainstream pro-life Oklahoma voters and legislators, on the advisability of amendments to the bill; and 2) The development of ill will between the personhood lobby and the Republican representatives.
To recap: In the past few weeks, Oklahoma house Republicans have been heavily lobbied by both Oklahomans for Life and Personhood Oklahoma (a state affiliate of Personhood USA). Those groups firmly opposed any amendment to the bill — even amendments that would protect access to IVF and birth control, and would clarify that women with life-threatening pregnancies could still receive treatment. Nevertheless, some supporters of the bill continued to claim that SB-1433 was nothing more than a statement of pro-life principles and wouldn’t affect Oklahomans’ access to assisted reproduction, emergency medical treatment, and their chosen form of birth control.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
