A Person's a Person...
Saturday, February 21, 2009
SECTION 1. References to individual, person, or human being - Legislative
intent. 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.

That's right, the North Dakota house just passed HB 1572, which states that any organism of Homo Sapiens is a person, no matter what stage of development. And, of course, a person is protected from murder or exploitation under the law.

Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, sponsored the bill. "I think North Dakota will be on the map to be the first state in recent years to mount a legitimate challenge to Roe v. Wade," he said. "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does."

The legislation now heads to the state Senate, where it hasn't been assigned to committee and is not on the calendar. The ND Senate has a Republican majority, but the party hasn't commented on this bill. However, the Senate did just pass a bill that would require abortion clinics to post a notice to women that they cannot be forced to have an abortion.

Of course, there wasn't a peep from the MSM, except a few blurbs in the local press.

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota has posted a local press release, but as of yet there is no national call to action.
HB 1572 is dangerous, far reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care,” said Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota (PPMNS).

“Women and families, not politicians, should decide what’s best for their unique circumstances. Whether the issue is abortion, birth control, or in vitro fertilization, women, in consultation with doctors should make these personal medical decisions,” said Stoesz.

How ironic. Stoesz claims women and families should decide what's best. Isn't a child a part of the family? If it is important for them, and not pro-choice politicians, to decide whether it's best that they live or die, shouldn't they be allowed to have a vote (of course, they'd have to reach an age of majority, or at least accountability, before voicing their opinion.)

Of course, Stoesz fails to mention that Planned Parenthood only cares about women and families that are able to purchase services right now. PP could care less about the female children who will never get a chance to grow into strong, independent women able to make critical health care decisions.

Planned Parenthood and the Bismarck Tribune also point out that the law could affect access to contraception and Plan B, but don't clarify that only birth control methods that involve harming an already fertilized egg would be affected. Barrier methods, such as condoms and diaphragms, will not be banned or eliminated. Is PP now admitting that the Pill actually does prevent the implantation of a new life?

Others have a problem with section 2 of the bill, which states that the legislature will appoint someone to defend the resolution. Rep. Kari Conrad, a Democrat, opposes the measure not for moral reasons but for fiscal ones. "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade," she said.

Labels: , ,

posted by Milehimama @ Mama Says at 2/21/2009 11:49:00 AM | Permalink | |