Human Life at Every Stage of Development - Does ND Value It?

 Next door to the state where I live voters will have on their ballot, this year, the the following article to be added to the North Dakota Constitution:

"The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected."

First a few items in the interest of transparency:

•  Both side have claimed major interference from forces outside the state. While I grew up in North Dakota and came to love politics studying its history, I am currently a citizen of a neighboring state so I am one of those "outsiders."
• Both sides claim that significant non-ND funding is driving their opposition. It appears that the Vote No side gets the prize for funds from outside. While my family makes a major contribution to ND taxes (via sale tax)each year, I am in no position to provide any significant funds at this time.
• There have been endless side taking about the well being of those of us at the later stages of human development if this amendment is approved. My age is within months of the life expectancy (77.4, WHO, 2014) for males in the US.
• It has been a long time since I have seen so many ad hominem attacks on Catholics as I have read in recent weeks. I am one of those terrible Catholics.
• One trait I took on during my years in politics was to try to know my opponents' rational for their positions as thoroughly as possible. My initial analysis of this issue (its not just a ND issue) put me on the vote yes side. Thus I have read more editorials, letters and position papers from the vote no side.
• Both sides seem to agree that the origins of this proposal is from proponents of a right to life. This is documented well in any list of declared organizations supporting the measure. I am one of those proponents. The label(s) "pro life" (and  "pro choice") are used by our media as designations of single issue positions. However, most supporters of a right to life see it as a human right of any human in any situation or stage of life, obviously not a single issue position.

The most surprising discovery in reading all those papers, letters and editorials from lawyers and doctors on  the Vote No side, was that many claimed that a "right to life" would result in denying seniors, such as myself,control over their own health care decisions. Now, in my understanding of language, logic and the meaning of rights in political thought, it seems to me to be just the opposite. In other word, it seems to me, a constitutional protection of my right to life would in fact protect my ability to control my own health care. The ability to control, accept or reject, or choose alternatives for health care seems to be an integral part of of my human dignity, my right to life.

My fraternal recommendation to friends and relatives on the other side of the state line is to vote yes on measure one.

Crisis Pregnancy Health Care in North Dakota

In the runuup to the 40th Anniversary of the Roe v Wade court ruling that made abortion legal in our country the national media broadcast many specials that largely depicted the abortion industry as the center of women's health. In one such feature the only abortion provider in North Dakota was featured. It is located in a city near by Minnesota Lakes country so I am familiar with its history.

The network focussed upon the abortion clinic staff, director and owners in its interviews. While the camera views did provide very brief shots of people praying outside the clinic, none of those prayers were interviewed. In addition the clinic characterized these praying women and men as terrorists and haters of woman. The manager of the clinic went on at length about how cruel it was that many North Dakota women had to drive hundreds of mile to obtain heathcare.

Last year Planned Parenthood was critical of one of its donors, that had provided funds so that the abortion provider could also provide mammigrams, when it dropped its funding. Since my wife and I had never heard of anyone getting a mammogram at Planned Parenthood I did a search of the websites of all Planned Parenthood offices in our three State Area and determined that none did mammograms. Click here to read my resulting posting. 
 

I was skeptical that the only pregnancy health care clinic in North Dakota was the abortion facility in Fargo so I searched for "Çrisis Pregnancy Centers" in North Dakota.  There were fourteen located all over the state. Thus women with crisis pregnancies could find healthcare much closer to home than claimed by the media. Click here to see a map with these centers in North Dakota.
 

Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood, on its web site, implies that  Crisis Pregnancy Centers like these are not "legitimate" since they do not perform abortions.

A.L.S. Fund Raising Expedition

Lou Gehrig found out he had A.L.S. the year I was born. The disease is still called 'Lou Gehrig's desease' by many people. A friend and my oldest daughter's father-in-law suffered from A.L.S. Here is a video about A.L.S. and a fund raising project called higher ground expedition which is associated with HARK (HARK, short for Healthy, Active, Responsible Kids), was formed in memory of Charlie Dourney to help raise much needed funding and awareness for A.L.S. research and support. Members of Charlie's family including my daughter appear in the video. Donna in the video is my son-in-law's sister.

You can view the Higher Ground Web Site here. Check it out and send some support.

You can donate online here or mail a check to HARK, Inc. 5 Pirozzi Lane Hillsborough, NJ 08844

Caution! Political Spin on the Road

My credulity flag goes up as soon as I hear a politician in defensive mode explain away serious criticism, what is called  'political spin'. When I was that politician I tried to keep my mouth shut until I could get the facts and my humility in place before speaking or writing when under attack. I suspect my success in this was no where close to 100%.

We have been suffering under a heavy plague of political spin due to the Republican primary. Meanwhile we Democrats have been sitting around with a smile on our face as the other party self destructs. Now we have our own political spin embarrassment concerning the HHS limits on religious freedom. I'm not sure of the sequence but here are some of the spin grenades the that we have been handed. We need to chuck them in the nearest pond so no one is hurt.

"THIS IS THE SAME OLD CONTRACEPTION ISSUE"

This is the old bait and switch spin tactic. The essence of this spin is to claim that the new criticism is just another version of an old issue. There are issues concerning contraception but this is not one of them yet the bait has been widely taken by our media. I have waited or waded through hours and pages of discussion about contraception to hear any discussion about the issue raised by the HHS rules defining who will and will not be recognized as religious or the constitutional challenge embodied therein. There are some some serious issues on the margins of the subject of contraception almost all of which were never mentioned in the discussions I heard.

"THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ATTACK ON WOMEN"

This is also in same category but the bait is a lot less likely to be so widely taken seriously due to the fact that the most of the organizations being ruled as non-religious are headed by women and among the critics are powerful non-political American women. The implication that institutions headed by woman cannot possible be religious is a handicap on this one. Of course it totally ignores the fact that contraception is relevant only if men are in the picture also.

"NOT A BIG DEAL, IT ONLY AFFECTS SOME CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS"

This is an attempt to convince the public that the group effected by the ruling is small and certainly doesn't affect most Americans. This one can be very effective with those not paying much attention. The fact is that the institutions that will be classified as non-religious would be widespread.

Schools are a major group under the HHS rules and in our rural area one near by small city has four schools systems at the grade school level of which 50% are religious, three at the high school level of which 33% are religious and three at the college level of which 67% are religious. Of the these religiously provided schools only 20% are Catholic. While non Catholic religious institutions may may not have teachings opposed to most contraception drugs you can be sure they will not be happy to be told they must pay for abortions or abortion insurance. Of course the ruling also deals with hospitals, clinics, woman's health centers, adoption programs, social service agencies and counselling services. This fact will de facto lead to many larger  churches and parishes being 'declassifed' as religious since they incorporate one or more of these services in their mission and collocated with their church.

"BLAME THE CRITIC OR THE MESSENGER"

In the current primary campaign this one has been on eloquent display. Every debate has featured the tactic of not answering a question or critique by launching an attack on the critic or even the messenger. The messenger attacked is  often 'The Media' but sometimes its the person reading the question from an audience member or asking a question raised but not answered in public discourse during the preceding week.

This has been the most interesting of the fuzz options I have addressed in this posting since it really accentuates the the point I made last week about the issue of religious freedom being non partisan. The use of the 'attack on the critic' tactic on this issue has come from both self proclaimed Democrats and self proclaimed Republicans alike. I summarize two of those that I have read or heard as follows.

"The bishops are to blame for this:"

             (1) since they teach that abortion (or abortive drugs or contraception or...)

                  is wrong they  should have no say in who pays for insurance that pays for

                  abortions (or abortive drugs or ...).

Its mostly voices from the Democratic side I hear saying this one (1) but I have heard it from several Republican voices in some of the discussions on TV over the last week.

             (2) since they teach that it is wrong to deny health care to anyone

                   this whole thing is their fault since that led them to support efforts

                   to get health care for everyone ("obamacare' in Republican fuzz).

                   If they had not done that we wouldn't  be facing this constitutional

                   challenge right now. 

Now I fully expected that Republicans would blame Democrats for this one but am truly surprised that the this (2) diversion arose so blatantly and quickly from the Republican side. I was even more amazed by the fact that Rick Santorum (my personal favorite among the Republican Candidates) was proactive in giving this one voice. (See my posting on Senator Santorum's use of this argument here.)

On the other hand I am not surprised that many Democratic voices have spoken in opposition to the HHS regulations that severely limit conscience protections. Yet many friends are surprised, I think due to the strange doctrine of polarization that has gripped our political climate on all sides these days.