Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.



 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

North Dakota Abortion Laws - A World Of Only Absolutes

Category: Roe v Wade
Posted: 03/22/13 19:39, Edited: 03/22/13 19:40

by Dave Mindeman

North Dakota is going where even Mississippi could not go. The ND legislature is going to try and outlaw abortion altogether and put "personhood" on the ballot next year.

Now, aside from the fact that this is clearly unconsitutional. (Funny how reproductive Constitutional rights can be challenged, but 2nd Amendment rights can never be questioned). There are a number of moral and legal implications here.

1. Rape.
(Rep. Margaret) Sitte said she doesn?t think women should abort pregnancies resulting from rape. ?Rape is a horrible crime. It is absolutely devastating,? Sitte said. ?But do we believe in capital punishment for those children??

Does the woman forced to bear the child of a rapist now have the obligation to grant him visitation rights? To keep him in the "family" loop? To force her child to have a relationship with a felon....a marginal parent? Is a rape pregnancy a "blessing" from God as some Republicans have articulated? What kind of life are you sentencing this mother to? And how can she have a relationship with someone else? Why is the woman raped forced to bear the consequences and responsibilities of a crime where she is clearly the victim?

2. In Vitro Fertilization.
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.?

Exceptions for screening, collecting, preparing, transferring, or cryopreserving. Notice there is no exception for destruction of the embryos. A practice that does occur in the process because to make it work, there needs to be mutliple fertilizations. This law will produce a new "protected" class. An unlimited number of "persons" that cannot think, cannot feel, and cannot express an opinion. Alive? Forever? How does religion determine their soul's destination? Are we not playing God in the whole process?

Fertilization specialist concerns were voiced here....

Dr. Steffen Christensen, who founded an in vitro fertilization clinic in Fargo 19 years ago, said he can?t put himself or his workers at risk of legal action. ?The concern is that this is criminal negligence if anything should happen to an embryo,? he said.

When it comes to morality, we like things to be absolute. No exceptions. No complications. We look at our black and white Bible and contend that gray areas don't exist.

Do we really think we can know the mind of God? Do we?

For now we see through a glass darkly....

Until we know the "face to face" way of things, I think we should be treading more carefully.
comments (0) permalink

Marco Rubio - Looking For Applause Lines; Not Consensus

Category: Roe v Wade
Posted: 03/14/13 17:56, Edited: 03/14/13 17:58

by Dave Mindeman

When you get these CPAC speakers revved up you get to see the reality of American Conservatism. It becomes a hybrid of libertarianism with a few shots of Christian right social conservatism.

Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are the flip sides of the coin and for now, they both get accepted. For now.

Marco Rubio made some statements on social issues....statements made as if they were incontravertible truth. They aren't.

Rubio: ?Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.?

Sorry, Marco, it kinda does.

If you are going to deny something to a group of Americans just because of their sexual orientation, that, my friend, is discrimination. You can argue the religious implications till doomsday, but as long as marriage rights and privileges are based on US law, you cannot deny them to a minority group.

No, sir, not in the United States.

Rubio: ?Just because we believe life, all life ? all human life is worthy of protection at every stage in its development does not make you a chauvinist.?

You might not be a chauvinist (for this particular reason), but you still have it wrong. And again, your conservative values are denying individual rights. Is that really what you want to be saying?

Rubio: ?In fact, the people that are really closed minded in American politics are the people that love to preach about the certainty of science in regard to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception.?

It would be greatly beneficial if Rubio would refrain from using the word "absolute" in reference to anything. Because again, he is wrong.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. "A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way."

Does that sound like a definition of life at conception? Not if you are analyzing the rational facts.

When Rubio says this type of thing at CPAC, he knows they will be good applause lines. But if he expects the rest of us to digest this in the same way....well, he is very sadly mistaken.

In fact, Rubio better check with his libertarian friends before he makes that kind of broad statement.
comments (0) permalink

Health Exchange Gets Zapped With Abortion Language

Category: Roe v Wade
Posted: 03/04/13 21:53, Edited: 03/04/13 22:00

by Dave Mindeman

This is very disappointing.

(MN)House members voted 71-58 Monday afternoon to ban health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage in the plans that will be sold on the state's new online health insurance marketplace.

Sponsored by Democrat Patti Fritz (Faribault), this amendment may seek to protect the "sanctity of life", but in reality it infringes on Constitutional rights and gives the large number of pro-choice advocates that happen to disagree with an absence of choices, a reason to question its support of the House majority.

It was suspected, and is now clear, that the Minnesota House has a clear majority that adheres to the dictates of the MCCL (Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life).

I had assumed that in a year where rape is "redefined", where trans-vaginal ultrasounds are promoted as a reproductive need, where the Violence Against Women Act gets questioned as to authenticity, and where contraception is being warped back to the 1950's....that in such a year, we would not have to revisit the Constitutional right of choice in America. Especially when dealing with a law that's main purpose is to give people without health insurance an affordable chance to obtain it.

Abortions have gone way down in Minnesota. And as long as we don't fool around with contraceptive use, they will continue to go down. Nobody favors abortion as any kind of "family planning" method. No...they do not.

But choice has a unique history....an emotional history. And too many people have paid high prices to have it questioned once again.

The Health Exchange bill does not promote abortion. The Health Exchange bill assumes that the law of the land on abortion will continue to be the law of the land.

Adding this amendment is wrong. It adds nothing to the bill but divisive words. The very idea of the Health Exchange is to offer choices in all aspects of health care. This amendment is only meant to limit those choices.

The hope right now is that the Senate will have a clean bill and drop this amendment in conference. The Health Exchange bill needs to be about clear and complete choices for health care.

It must not be about forcing people to accept someone else's view about what health care should be.

This is about health in all its aspects and about rights that are supposed to be protected.

Disappointment indeed.
comments (0) permalink
« First « Previous

Calendar

« April 2014 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.