…and please remember to pray for the President that his heart and mind will be changed about abortion.
The North Dakota state House on Tuesday approved a bill that declares unborn children as persons beginning at the point of fertilization, or conception. The bill could be used to challenge the Supreme’s Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade ruling and ban abortions.
Because the bill defines an unborn baby as a person, an abortion of an unborn child would be considered murder under state law.
The legislative chamber approved House Bill 1572 on a 51-41 vote and now the measure heads to the state Senate for consideration.
The legislation says: "For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens."
“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” (President Barack Obama, National Prayer Breakfast, February 5, 2009).
Mr. President, if God doesn’t condone taking the life of an innocent human being. Why do you?
Full text of President Obama’s comments at the National Prayer Breakfast here.
According to Nancy Pelosi adding birth control funding to the new economic “stimulus” package is needed because “Contraception is a good thing because it will reduce the costs of the state and federal government in providing services.”
Stop and think about that for a minute, to whom are state and federal government health services provided?
Here’s a hint: Those services are not provided to people that look like Nancy Pelosi.
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” (Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood)
Wake up America.
Via One News Now:
Do you know what your children’s vaccines contain?
Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God for Life, says some vaccines are made in part from aborted babies, yet most people do not know it. She has introduced the Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act in Congress so consumers and their children will know the origins of the vaccines they receive to make an informed decision — "no guilt, no manipulation, just information," she says.
"What this legislation does is…inform consumers and physicians and pharmacists any time aborted fetal material or embryonic material is used in any medical product," Vinnedge explains.
According to the pro-life activist, making vaccines from aborted babies is "one of the best-kept secrets" that pharmaceutical companies have. To her, the bill just makes sense. "There are moral alternatives out there," she points out. "We believe consumers should have a choice and should have foreknowledge in advance of buying these products."
Concerned people can sign a petition on the Children of God for Life website to encourage Congress to pass the law.
"If the FDA can require carbohydrate and fat content on a package of cookies, why shouldn’t people know when aborted fetal or embryonic cell components and DNA are being injected into their [or their children’s] bodies?" Vinnedge contends.
File this under example of insanity:
ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2008) — Adolescents who have high levels of exposure to television programs that contain sexual content are twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy over the following three years as their peers who watch few such shows, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
The study, published in the November edition of the journal Pediatrics, is the first to establish a link between teenagers’ exposure to sexual content on TV and either pregnancies among girls or responsibility for pregnancies among boys.
"Adolescents receive a considerable amount of information about sex through television and that programming typically does not highlight the risks and responsibilities of sex," said Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Our findings suggest that television may play a significant role in the high rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States."
Researchers from RAND Health say that exposure to sex on television may influence teen pregnancy by creating the perception that there is little risk to engaging in sex without using contraceptives and accelerating the initiation of sexual intercourse.
"The amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years, and there is little representation of safer sex practices in those portrayals," Chandra said. "While some progress has been made, teenagers who watch television are still going to find little information about the consequences of unprotected sexual practices among the many portrayals promoting sex."
She said that the findings hold implications for broadcasters, parents and health care providers.
Broadcasters should be encouraged to include more realistic depictions of sex in scripts and to portray consequences such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Parents should consider limiting their children’s access to programming with sexual content and spending more time watching programs with their children so they can explain the consequences of sex. Pediatricians should ask adolescents about their media use and discuss with them both contraception and the consequences that may accompany sexual activity.
Let’s briefly recap this–
Adolescents who have high levels of exposure to television programs that contain sexual content are twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy over the following three years as their peers who watch few such shows.
1. Broadcasters should have more realistic depictions of sex
2. Parents should limit viewing (not eliminate but limit) the access of children to pornographic content
3. Parents should validate the viewing of pornography by watching it with their children
4. Pediatricians should remind children about the pornographic content of programs they view and then provide children with contraception.
The non-insane remedy is actually found in the problem statement – read it again if you missed it the first time. I’d love to get my hands on the underlying data of that study, the probability is high that the children who watch few such shows also come from families with a strong Christian background.