Friday, January 30, 2009

The Super Bowl Commercial You Won't See


Check out the video on this website. I wonder if Pres. Obama "approved" this message? I don't think that he would have supported it (based on his political record) since there is a pro-life message conveyed in the video... but maybe he would since he is the child being depicted....

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=404524

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Fight to Preserve Prop 8‏

Here is an update e-mail that I got from the group that is fighting to make sure that the people's vote be upheld... I know that it is a little long, but here it is:

January 21, 2009

Dear Friend,

I am writing to update you on our committee’s efforts to defend Prop 8 against legal challenges before the California Supreme Court.

ProtectMarriage.com is the only group before the Supreme Court that is defending Prop 8 and the rights of the people given to us by the Constitution. This is an expensive battle. We are up against the Attorney General and attorneys representing some of the state’s largest counties. Our adversaries enjoy taxpayer funding or represent well-heeled interest groups that support same-sex marriage. We are relying on you and other supporters of Prop 8 to help us defend traditional marriage in California. Please help us continue our fight by clicking here to make a contribution to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. Your contribution is tax-deductible and will not be publicly disclosed.

On January 5th, we filed our answer to the brief of Attorney General Jerry Brown. The Attorney General agreed with us that Prop 8 is neither a revision to the state constitution, nor does it violate the separation of powers doctrine. Our brief embraced the Attorney General’s conclusions in these regards. However, one portion of the Attorney General brief advanced a novel legal theory that even though Prop 8 was a valid amendment to the state constitution, it should be invalidated because it allegedly violates the “inalienable” rights of same sex couples to liberty. Our answer noted that the Attorney General’s theory was “utterly without foundation in this Court’s case law.” The brief, submitted by Kenneth Starr, former Solicitor General of the United States, said, “The Attorney General’s theory fails at every level because the people have the final word on what the California Constitution says and there is no higher legal authority within California to which the judiciary can appeal.” The brief also warned that accepting the argument of the Attorney General, “is inviting this Court to declare a constitutional revolution” that would fundamentally alter the role of the judiciary, putting them in the role of “supreme overseer” of the people’s constitution-making power, a result patently contrary to popular sovereignty.

Today, ProtectMarriage.com filed briefs with the California Supreme Court in response to dozens of amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs filed urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8. Our brief summarizes their arguments thusly: “Invalidate the duly enacted provision of the Constitution. Ignore the will of the people, even if expressed following an open, fair election.”

Despite the emotions swirling among our opponents, the law is clear that Prop 8 is valid and that the democratic process should be respected. Of the argument of our opponents, the brief says, “Those sincerely-held emotions should play their way out in the ongoing democratic conversation about the future of marriage in a democratic society – where we the people govern. . .The Constitution has now been amended, by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case.”

One of the questions to be decided in the litigation is the fate of the estimated 18,000 marriages performed in the interim between the time the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and Election Day when the people enacted Proposition 8. Our brief today reminded the Court that despite losing the status of marriage, those same-sex couples will continue to enjoy virtually all the legal rights of marriage. In addition, they can avail themselves of California’s expansive domestic partnership legislation. These laws provide that domestic partners enjoy essentially all the legal rights, privileges, benefits and duties of marriage afforded by the state of California.

We are very fortunate to have such a prominent constitutional scholar as Kenneth Starr on our team of attorneys working to defend Proposition 8. But this defense is an expensive undertaking. Our opponents have unlimited access to taxpayer resources or can tap the support of wealthy groups fighting to legalize same-sex marriage. Please help us continue the fight to preserve Proposition 8 by making a contribution now. Your contribution will not be publicly disclosed, but will make a major difference in our ability to fight for traditional marriage.

Thank you for your support of traditional marriage.

NOTE: All the briefs that we have filed can be accessed from the California Supreme Court’s website at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/.

Thank you so much for your attention and support.

Very truly yours,

ANDREW P. PUGNO
General Counsel
Prop. 8 Legal Defense Fund
www.protectmarriage.com

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Pentacel Vaccine and Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5‏

I know that this is a bit delayed, but I figured that it was about time that I added this to my blog. Last year I had heard that some of the vaccines that are being used today where created using aborted human cells and to be honest I was somewhat disturbed by this. So I decided to look it up in the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) records. When I looked it up I soon found that there was pretty much nothing mentioned in there about it. Then, I decided to e-mail the NLM to see what information I could gather, and below is the e-mail correspondence that I had with them (starting from the bottom up you can see my e-mail and then their response). I know that a lot of the language in this e-mail may be a little hard to understand, but I thought that I would include it so that any of you who are curious would have the source to look at. To summarize their response, I learned that "Pentacel, which is a combination vaccine of Diptheria, Petrussis, Tetanus (DTap), HiB and Polio" was derived from a human fetus from a voluntary abortion. Also, "Poliomyelitis, Rubella, Vermicelli, Mumps, Rabies, adenoviruses and Hepatitis A" were also created from an aborted fetus. Is this disturbing to anyone else? Let me know your thoughts on this....

Dear,

We received the message you sent to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) asking about published information in medical journals concerning Pentacel containing Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5. I searched the NLM database several ways and only found one article, still in the process of being indexed, which is in Spanish but has an English Abstract. Redondo Calderón JL.[Vaccines, Biotechnology and their Connection with Induced Abortion.]Cuad Bioet. 2008 May-Aug;19(66):321-53. Spanish. PMID: 18611078 [PubMed - in process] To see it, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ and type 18611078 into the search box. As you may know, Pentacel, which is a combination vaccine of Diptheria, Petrussis, Tetanus (DTap), HiB and Polio, is the first DTaP-based combination vaccine that includes polio and HiB vaccine components. The polio portion of this vaccine is grown on the MRC-5 cell line & derived from human fetuses. Fetal tissue research has been questioned in the literature by http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v357/n6378/pdf/357432c0.pdf The cell line was created in 1966 derived from a 14-week-old male fetus who was electively aborted. Leonard Hayflick, Ph. D., developed the WI-38 cell line in 1962 also doing research on cells from an aborted fetus. WI-38 is used to manufacture vaccines for Poliomyelitis, Rubella, Vermicelli, Mumps, Rabies, adenoviruses and Hepatitis A. If you want to search for published articles about the pros and cons of using fetal cells, you can search PubMed/MEDLINE using the following search string (cut and paste this into the search box) (aborted fetus[mh] AND vaccines[mh]) OR (aborted fetus[mh] AND (tissue OR cells) AND ban[ti]) Click on the Related Articles link to the right of the citations to get more citations If you want more searching to be done by a librarian, I encourage you to contact your local public or university library to ask about search services. Our library only does limited reference work in response to emails. I hope this is helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Marcia Zorn, Reference StaffNational Library of Medicine

------Original Message------ From: Sent:08/20/2008 17:03:20To: Custhelp@mail.nlm.nih.govSubject: Pentacel Vaccine and Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5 SUBJECT: Pentacel Vaccine and Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5 EMAIL: NAME: GROUP: Student STATE: CA COUNTRY: USA FROM: http://vsearch.nlm.nih.gov/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?input-form=simple&v%3Asources=nlm-main-website-bundle&v%3Aproject=nlm-main-website&query=Aborted+Fetal+Cell+Line+MRC-5 BROWSER: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; NovaPacs Viewer 6.6.246.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648) DATE: 08/20/2008

MESSAGE: To whom it may concern: I am searching for more information about the Pentacel Vaccine and Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5. The only information that I can find is an article stating that Pentacel is now an approved vaccine. Why isn't there any information about it containing Aborted Fetal Cell Line MRC-5? Please let me know if there is more information available. There is information on the internet about this (http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/entertainment?type=entertainmentNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7uKSLYIvxu3zDSUkrYJp2Xj&src=blogBurst_entertainmentNews&bbPostId=BzDiQnMBguaCB3TPU7wKZdauCz6VbvRu4VgfTCz4t6GPDte2pe&bbParentWidgetId=B7uKSLYIvxu3zDSUkrYJp2Xj and other such websites); however I wanted to know what has been published on the issue in the medical journals. Thank you,

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Fighting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

I hope that as a people we can prevent the FOCA from being signed into law by Pres. Elect Obama when he becomes president. He has already promised Planned Parenthood that he will... now it is up to us to make sure that he doesn't have the chance. Please watch this video and contact your elected officials to let your voice be heard. I have already done it at least once and I am going to do it again.

http://www.youtube.com/user/FightingFOCA

Is Obama Overexposured?

Counter


Search Engine Ranking