Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
As expected, Planned Parenthood is throwing a hissy fit about North Dakota’s HB-1572. Seems they haven’t even read it, particularly Section 2, 3e-3k.
Here it is, for your convenience:
e. It is not yet possible to conclusively determine whether all chemical
contraception is abortifacient or not.
f. All abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a
whole, separate, unique, living human being. There is an existing relationship
between a pregnant woman and her preborn child during the entire period of
g. Because all preborn children are persons, no abortion performed with specific
intent is legal. A direct abortion is always performed with the specific intent to
bring death to a preborn child; it is a deprivation of the right to life and the right
to the equal protection of the law and is the ultimate manifestation of the
involuntary servitude of one human being to another.
h. A mother is not going to die by recognizing her child's right to life. When the
mother needs a life-saving medical operation, then an indirect abortion is not
legally or morally considered abortion because it is not performed with specific
intent to bring death to a preborn child. The death of the child may be
permitted as an indirect and unavoidable result of steps necessary to save the
mother's life. Physicians shall make, in all cases, every effort to preserve
both the life of the mother and the life of the preborn child. Physicians shall
provide equal care and equal consideration to the mother and child.
i. Medical treatment that has as its primary purpose to cure a disease of the
pregnant woman or of a twin preborn human being may not be considered
abortion. The pregnant woman must be given the choice of which treatment
to receive provided it is treatment intended to act upon or cure a disease.
This excludes the possibility of ever performing an abortion under the
pretense of a medical necessity since a preborn human being is not a
j. In the case of twins, all medical procedures designed to address specific
medical conditions that affect both twins are lawful provided as the physician's
actions are performed with the specific intent to save the life of the preborn
human being with highest chance of survival.
k. If a pregnant woman's health is in danger during a pregnancy, the physician
may not be held criminally responsible for unintentionally causing the death of
the preborn human being from legitimate treatment administered to the
pregnant woman. Chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and other medical
procedures that are not intended to cause the death of the preborn human
being but that are likely to do so, may not be prohibited if prescribed to cure
the pregnant woman. Under no circumstance may abortion be considered
And looky here:
SECTION 2. Legislative findings regarding certain effects of establishing
1. With respect to preborn personhood, it is the intent of the legislative assembly to:
a. Immunize a woman from criminal prosecution for abortion.
Also, this part disturbs me:
12.1-27.2-04.1. Possession of certain materials prohibited. A person is guilty of a
class C felony if, knowing of its character and content, that person knowingly possesses any
motion picture, photograph, or other visual representation that includes sexual conduct by a
minor. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the minor is a born alive child as defined in
section 1 of this Act.
Are they really implying there’s fetus porn (or necrophiliac CP)‽ And if there is fetus porn, is it less bad than CP?