Montana Personhood Amendment Passes State Senate

Hello Everybody!  

It feels good to be posting after a long and unavoidable absence from the blogosphere and internet.   Until yesterday, the grand total of my internet time was roughly 10 minutes over the course of 10 or 11 days (I was gone to Massachusetts for a friends wedding with some of my family) which needless to say kind of eliminated blogging.   I now have a ton of important stuff to catch up on, putting blogging on the backburner, but I wanted to quickly pass along some exciting and important information I recieved in an email on Thursday.  So, without further ado, here is the information. 

“Montana Personhood Amendment Passes State Senate, 26-24 Vote

Helena, Montana - 02/26/2009 - Montana's Senate passed constitutional Personhood Amendment, SB 406, in a 26-24 vote. The amendment, introduced by Senator Dan McGee, passed on its third reading on the Senate floor this morning. This is the first Personhood Amendment in U.S. history to pass a State Senate.

"Senator Dan McGee, writing the language of SB 406 himself, has shown what it truly means to be pro-life," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Senator McGee's successful efforts on behalf of all human beings at all stages of human life are a giant step forward in historic efforts to ensure the rights and protection of every individual."

SB 406, which defines person for the purposes of application of inalienable rights, states, "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights...person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency."

"Praise God!  The honor of being the first State Senate in U.S. history to recognize the personhood of pre-born children goes to Montana," commented Cal Zastrow of Personhood USA. "Thanks to the leadership of Sen. Dan McGee, The Montana Personhood Amendment now moves forward to the State House of Representatives."

SB 406 must continue on to pass the Montana House of Representatives with a majority vote of 74. Once it passes, it is to immediately become a part of the state's constitution. The race is on between Montana and North Dakota for the first Personhood legislation in our nation's history, as Montana's Personhood Amendment continues on to its House of Representatives, and North Dakota's Personhood legislation continues on to its Senate.

Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.

For Interviews please call Personhood USA @ 202-595-3500 or

Senator Dan McGee 406-628-6534

For More Information please visit www.personhoodusa.com. 

Personhood USA PO Box 486 Arvada Co 80001”

 

This is incredibly important news!   Personhood Amendments have been and still are being pushed in many states across the nation and this is one of the most significant victories to date.  Please pray fervently that Montana House of Represenatives would pass SB 406 at the first opportunity!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Baby Born Alive At Clinic Killed

Hello all!

It is with a heavy heart that I bring this issue up.    For the sake of simplicity and getting straight to the point, I have pasted an article from www.lifesightnews.com.    

 

“MIAMI, Fla., January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, suit was filed by the Thomas More Society in Miami on behalf of Shanice Denise Osbourne, an infant girl who was allegedly murdered in July, 2006.

The case claims that Shanice was born alive and then murdered by abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez. Thirteen defendants (including Gonzalez, abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique and their conglomerate of four South Florida abortion clinics) have been sued for unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records and the killing, hiding and disposing of the baby.

Shanice’s mother, Sycloria Williams, learned she was pregnant early in July of 2006 when she went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain and bleeding. She decided to abort the baby, and visited the Miramar Woman Center in Miramar, Fla., where she was referred to abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique.  Dr. Renelique inserted laminaria sticks to dilate the cervix and prescribed additional medication to be taken that night in preparation for the procedure the next morning at a Hialeah clinic. 

Williams arrived at the Hialeah clinic on the morning of July 20, 2006, feeling ill and in severe pain from the medication the night before.  Despite the fact that the doctor nor any other licensed health practitioners were present, the abortion center’s receptionist gave Williams Cytotec, which induces labor and also dilates the cervix. Williams, however, began to feel even worse with nausea and cramping. According to testimony, the staff had her sit in the clinic’s recovery room area where she waited for hours in severe and increasing abdominal pain without medical staff available.

At one point, unable to remain seated, Williams braced herself with the arms of the recliner chair she was sitting on. As she lifted herself, her water broke and she delivered a live baby girl onto the seat of the recliner. The baby writhed and gasped for air, still connected to Williams by the umbilical cord.

Immobilized by shock, Williams watched Gonzalez run into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of orange-handled shears, stuff the baby into a red biohazard bag and throw the bag into a garbage can.  Shortly thereafter, the doctor arrived at the clinic and sedated Williams.  The doctor’s medical records failed to indicate that Williams had delivered a live baby that was killed by the clinic.

Anonymous callers notified police at least three times about the live birth and murder, and when police executed a search warrant on July 22, 2006, they found medical records but couldn’t locate the baby’s remains.  Six days later, another anonymous caller told police the baby’s body had been hidden on the roof.  Police responded but didn’t find the baby’s body on the roof. After another anonymous tip police got another search warrant and found the decomposing baby in a cardboard box in a closet at the clinic. DNA linked the baby’s remains to Williams.

The Miami-Dade County medical examiner performed an autopsy which showed that the baby’s lungs had been filled with air before her killing, proving it was a live birth. But the examiner blamed the death on “extreme prematurity,” ignoring eyewitness testimony that the baby had been murdered.  The Thomas More Society took an interest in the case when a local law school professor was quoted in The Miami Herald to the effect that if the baby wasn’t “viable,” then it “couldn’t be a case of homicide.”

“That opinion is dead wrong,” says Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “A disabled or dying patient may not be ‘viable’ in the sense of being able to live very long or without help, but if you kill them, it’s murder.  This was a case of infanticide, and we’re not going to let it go ignored or unpunished.”

The Thomas More Society tried to secure a second autopsy but prosecutors wouldn’t release the baby’s body, or take any action to begin criminal proceedings.  An investigator and expert pathologist were retained by the Society, and the expert concluded – after examination of the autopsy slides and investigation of all the facts – that the acts and omissions of the abortionist and clinic staff were causative factors in Shanice’s untimely death. The state attorneys’ office has had this matter “under investigation” for more than two years with regard to filing what the Thomas More society says should be a clear case of criminal murder, or at least manslaughter.

“This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk,” said Brejcha. “Moreover, this case should put some sharp teeth into the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. As we struggle to end the scourge of legal abortion in this country, we must hold the line against infanticide!”

You can read the story here. 

Obviously, this is a gut wrenching story.   To think of a baby dying in such a manner is truly heartbreaking.  Thus far the clinic is being sued for (to the best of my knowledge) "unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, mishandled abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records, and killing, hiding and disposing of the infants body".

All the reactions I’ve heard to this story have understandably been that of disgust, horror and sorrow, even from those who support the “right” of abortion.    But, beyond the obvious reactions this story elicits at an emotion level, there is a question that needs to be asked on the logical and moral front.  “Is there any difference between killing a baby minutes after birth (outside the womb) by suffocation and dismembering that same baby (inside the womb) then vacuuming out its body parts?”  

This is not a clever “gotcha” question.  This is very straight forward and real life question (as evidenced by this story) that brings into focus the real issues in contention with the abortion debate.  

Shanice was six months old (counting from the time of conception) when she was accidently delivered; definitely pre-mature, but more then old enough to be considered “viable” by even the most skeptical person, and in fact older by weeks then many pre-mature babies that go on to live healthy and happy lives.  This is roughly the same age as many aborted babies.  So, I repeat the question: what is the significant difference between being dismembered inside the womb and being suffocated minutes after birth outside the womb?        

The most honest answer I have heard to this question from the pro-abortion side of things is: when a baby is still inside the womb it is basically the woman’s body, therefore the woman has power over it (because it is her own body).  The problem with this answer is that, fundamentally, it denies the humanity of a human fetus, which is unscientific (the subject of a future post, I hope), unbiblical and illogical.   If a baby is a distinct human being before birth with a legal and moral right to life then it must also be that before birth, unless there is some occurrence in the birthing process that gives the baby life it didn’t have five minutes before (perhaps some sort of cellular activation in the birth canal?).  A baby’s dependence on a mature human being to meet its basic needs does not end with its birth.

To wrap things up, this is a significant story, not just because an innocent human being was killed and not just because the clinic involved engaged in horrible malpractice; this is significant because it painfully brings into focus the complete absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

I think this is a good opportunity for all of us to think through this story and the moral dilemma and come to our own conclusion.  In a future post I hope to share truly gut wrenching visual material to further illustrate and bring into focus the core issue(s) of abortion and why I believe my position is the right one.  As Tom Brejcha said, “This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk.”

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Edit: I find it painfully curious to note people citing "unlicensed" and "unauthorized" staff as the cause of Shanice's death since she was at the clinic to be aborted to begin with.

Read more...

Judd Slams Palin: Why She is Wrong

Hello all!

Are you familiar with the brewing feud between actress Ashley Judd and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? If not, the basic premise of the feud is explained in the following abbreviated article from www.foxnews.com.

“Actress Ashley Judd and Governor Sarah Palin are going at it tooth and nail over Alaska’s wolf hunting laws.
Judd taped a web video for the Defenders of Wildlife foundation that blasts the state’s predator control program, which Palin supports.
“It’s time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery,” Judd says, describing the shooting of wolves from airplanes. “Palin is … casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife.”

The video then directs viewers to the website www.eyeonpalin.org and asks for donations.

Palin responded to the ad with a statement from her office.

“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs,” she said. “Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife.”

Defenders of Wildlife countered, saying “hundreds of wildlife scientists have repeatedly condemned her program and she has not once provided any evidence to refute their charges that what she is doing is unscientific.”

It is not the first time the group has raised money using Sarah Palin as their foil. Last fall, when Palin was John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, the group raised $1 million with ads denouncing Palin and her state’s predator control program.
“It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money,” Palin said.

In Alaska, private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in rural areas.”

The purpose of this post is to address Judd's supposition that the environment is harmed when animals are killed and that it is cruel or inhumane. Before you read any further though, be sure to watch Judd’s video here.

God created earth and called it good. Sadly, the world is fallen as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, but God’s creation is still a marvelous thing to behold. I believe firmly in being a faithful steward of the environment, using and managing it in a manner that is pleasing to God, and I believe in encouraging others to do the same. I believe that, as a Christian, if I am to be like Christ then I must place value on the things He values and I must love the things He loves. I believe God loves His creation…so I love it...all of it. So, do I agree Ashley Judd is correct in asserting that Palin is perpetrating “inhumane” and “senseless” acts by placing a bounty on wolves? No I don’t, and my reasons for believing that are partially practical, but at the root of things my disagreement with Judd is based on my love for God and His creation not my lack of love for it.

The reasons for hunting predators are quite simple; among other things, they prey on other animals, and if there are too many predators they kill too many of their prey. The effects of this are too few prey, in turn leading to famine and disease among the predators. By controlling the predators to prey ratio you can help avoid the negative effects of self-correction in nature. Simply enough, is it not?

Why is there a bounty on the Alaskan wolves? It’s quite elementary. There are too many wolves! Many Alaskans depend on game to feed themselves and control food costs for their family, and a large portion of the Alaskan economy depends on tourism and out of state game hunters that come to Alaska because of its abundant wildlife.

In a statement released by her office, Palin says in response to Judd and the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation…“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs. Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife. These audacious fundraising attempts misrepresent what goes on in Alaska, and I encourage people to learn the facts about Alaska’s positive record of managing wildlife for abundance.”

That's a pretty straightforward explanation. As I mentioned earlier, nature regulates itself ideally, but there are occasions when man’s intervention is necessary for both maintaining the health of nature and avoiding the negative effects of self-correction. Sometimes, constructive intervention requires performing distasteful jobs like killing wolves, and, yes, I would find the job distasteful. Clearly Alaska is currently in a situation calling for human intervention in the wolf population. The economic woes throughout our entire nation only increase the importance of wild game as food and work for Alaskans.

(This next paragraph is non-essential to this post and slightly repetitious, so if time is short please skip it)

In parts of Texas the reverse of what is happening in Alaska is taking place. There are places where predators have been hunted too much, leading too an overpopulation of Deer. Deer rely (unknowingly, of course) on their natural predators to cull out the sick and weak, thus preventing wide spread disease among the deer population. Predators also prevent famine among the deer by keeping their population level at a healthy number. It’s interesting to note that East Texas deer are bigger and healthier than West Texas deer. Why? Because in West Texas deer natural predators have been over hunted, reducing their numbers too much, so the sick and weak deer are not being culled as they should be, and food is scarcer for the deer. In contrast, the healthier East Texas deer are not dying miserably of disease, and they stand a better chance of eluding their predators. That in turn weeds out the less hardy of their predators, leading to hardier predators and less deer, then hardier deer and fewer predators, and the cycle keeps repeating.

(End of non-essential paragraph)

In the video, Judd says: “Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the severed foreleg of each killed wolf.” After thinking about this, Judd's apparent assumption that this is some sadistically motivated act of barbarism seems to be the least reasonable of Judd’s assumptions, and it seems that perhaps she is purposely distorting reality and common sense.

The severed foreleg is not to satisfy some sadistic desire to mutilate animals; it is proof that a person actually killed the wolf they claimed to have killed. The bounty is not on the severed foreleg, it is on the wolf from which the foreleg came. Once the severed foreleg is presented as evidence that the wolf was killed by the person that claimed to kill it, I imagine the foreleg will be disposed of. It’s not inhumane or barbaric; it's common sense.  Ashley Judd is being blinded by the sort of radical animal rights and environmental ideology that actually does more harm to animals and the environment than good.

For the reasons listed above I strongly feel that Ashley Judd is very wrong in her assessment of Palin’s actions and would strongly urge her to reconsider her statements and beliefs.

In closing, I would like to stress that I do have appreciation for Judd’s efforts as a whole and appreciation for many of the efforts of the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation. I disagree with them on a significant number of issues, but I appreciate their passion. I just wish they would devote all their efforts to real environmental problems, and this certainly isn’t one. I also wish that more people with a proper Christian perspective on God’s creation would be more vocal in promoting their views.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

10 Ways to Judge Good and Bad Coffee

This is important information here folks.  Every coffee drinker needs to know these ten rules for selecting good coffee, but don't think you have to agree with all of them. :-)   Some people will look for different things in their coffee.  That's just life.

Anyway, here is the link.

http://food.yahoo.com/blog/yahoofreshpicks/2418/10-ways-to-judge-good-and-bad-coffee

God bless!

Read more...

Consumer Reports Lists the Best Cups o'Brew

Hello all!

I just happened across two articles having to do with coffee yesterday and thought I’d pass them along to you. :-) For the purposes of search engines, I’ll post them separately, so make sure you check them both out. 

For those of you who want good coffee but can’t exactly afford to buy the $40 per pound stuff, here is an informative guide from consumers guide.   I personally get my coffee from Mawker Coffee (www.mawkercoffee.com), but this is still helpful. :-)

http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/204/consumer-reports-picks-the-best-cup-o-brew;_ylt=AnjwYl1IDhmXzjJG4jOaN14azJV4

God bless!

Read more...

Rush Limbaugh is not my leader, Mr. Carville

Hello all!

This next post may seem petty to some, but please hear me out.

I just finished reading an article by James Carville on CNN.com titled “Commentary: a history lesson for Rush Limbaugh”.  The premise of the article is that Rush Limbaugh’s call for bi-partisan leadership from Barack Obama, and his proposed methodology for doing so, is inconsistent with Limbaugh’s actions and words in the past.   On that I think Mr. Carville is quite right, and what’s more (slight rabbit trail here) I think 80% of all talk about bi-partisanship from politicians and media personalities alike is silly when examined beyond face value (I also think 97.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot).  But here is the part of Mr. Carville’s article that I take issue with.  It just happens to be the opening sentence.

 

”On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan…”

 

I would like to say right now that Rush Limbaugh is not my leader.  I haven’t personally listened to him in months and that was only for about 20 minutes.  When I do listen to talk radio, which is sporadic, my favorites are Michael Medved, Neal Boortz, and Dennis Prager, all for reasons other then their commentary on everyday politics.  Further, I think both Limbaugh and his critics over estimate his real influence; Limbaugh because he seems to have a well developed appreciation for himself and his critics because it allows them to pigeon-hole all his listeners as being just like him.  

(To provide a little reason for my assertion, I believe the results of the last Republican Primary are tangible evidence that Limbaugh’s influence is overrated.  Limbaugh was firmly against both Huckabee and McCain - adamantly against in the case of McCain - the last two legitimate candidates standing) 

That last point is important.  Liberals, in their attempts to paint Republicans (and especially Conservatives) in the worst possible light love being able to point to Limbaugh and say, “There is a Republican for you”, and represent him as typical; but he is not, and if they were really honest I think they would admit as much.   He is a radio personality for a reason and those reasons have nothing to do with his normality, or lack thereof.  The base of the GOP, the John and Jane Doe’s, are much more varied in their opinion and thought processes.  Sure, you have the jerks and the selfish windbags, but you also have the kind, considerate, generous people who work hard to make a positive difference around them and they do it expecting no return beyond the satisfaction of knowing they have done the right thing.    Rush Limbaugh is no more like the bulk of his listeners than Keith Olbermann is like the bulk of his viewers.   

Understand that I don’t particularly dislike Limbaugh.  The guy is extremely good at what he does and can run rings around all but a very few people when it comes to brain power.  I just am tired of people assuming Republicans are like Limbaugh simply because a lot of people listen to him, especially since it's obviously a ploy propogated by Democratic strategists (and on the flip side, Republican strategists).    Personalities get listenership, not real people in almost all cases, and nothing is wrong with that so long as we acknowledge it.

There…I am finished ranting. :-)

 

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

 

 

 

   

Read more...

Michael Phelps: what have we learned?

Many of you are probably aware of the recent photo released by a British tabloid paper “News of the World” showing newly minted swimming legend Michael Phelps inhaling a substance from a marijuana pipe (commonly referred to as a “bong”).    Phelps has since admitted to inhaling marijuana, delivering the following statement:

"I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment," Phelps said in the statement released by one of his agents. "I'm 23 years old and despite the successes I've had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.” 

While this apology left me very disappointed, I found even more disappointing the results of a poll from an article on Fox Sports.  The poll asked the question, “How do you feel about Michael Phelps smoking pot?”   The two answers to choose from were:

1) “I’m dismayed.  I can’t believe he would do that!”

2) “He’s 23 years old - can we all relax?”

As I am writing this, 149, 802 people have taken the poll.  Roughly 8 out of 10 (79% to 21% last I checked, down from 81% to 19% 20 earlier this afternoon) chose number 2 as their response.

I find the results to be very sad. Why?  Because it doesn’t seem to be bothering many people that Phelps did it…because of his youth.  The young part makes it all okay because we expect young people to behave in such a fashion; if it were someone older then we wouldn’t be so accepting of the situation. 

It’s bad enough that Phelps pulled the, “I’m young-so-give-me-a-break,” angle in his apology, but to have his sentiment verified by thousands upon thousands of people is much, much worse.  I already knew our culture has cripplingly low expectations for our young people, but every painful reminder (like this poll and Phelps’ apology) just makes it more painfully sad to me.  It only gets worse when you consider that many of the 20% percent disappointed in Phelps actions only expected more because he makes a bunch of money, not that he is an adult and should act like it regardless of his monetary worth.  

There are many factors contributing to the conditions of today’s irresponsible, reckless, dependant, free boating, shallow, ADD youth; our culture’s low expectations is one of the most significant reasons.  If there was one thing I could say to Michael Phelps I would say the same thing I say to any other of my peers…I expect better.   I don’t believe we should be respecters of persons in applying the proper standards.   We should expect the same sort of proper behavior from young people coming from low, income single parent homes that we expect from rich kids, athletic phenomena, or an average kid from an average middle income suburb.

I could start really ranting, but I’ll wind down instead.  To answer the question in my blog title, we have learned the myths of adolescence are just as strong today as they have ever been, if not stronger.   We have also learned that Michael Phelps should read the articles linked below, as should you, if you haven’t already. :-)     

The Myth of Adolescence Part 1

The Myth of Adolescence Part 2

Adolescence is Permanent

I don’t want to pile onto Phelps or sound like I am laying our culture’s problems at his feet.   Regardless of his mistake(s) he has achieved great and extraordinarily difficult things.   He has demonstrated dedication in driving towards a goal that I would love to demonstrate.   But, all that was done in pursuit of medals and endorsements.  The true test of every persons character comes when the limelight does not seem to be on them, and people aren’t pushing you forward.   As mentioned above, I don’t expect Phelps, Miley Cyrus, or Vanessa Hudgens to act exceptionally, only the way I expect any other young person to act…properly and maturely.   Let’s see how Phelps handles it from here on out.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

P.S. Here is an update for the poll numbers given above.   With 153, 583 votes in (the last two minutes have yielded 500 votes) the percentages are holding steady at 79% for number 2 and 21% answering with number 1.

Read more...