How Important Is The Safety Of Women?

Yesterday CBN News reported that thirteen Texas abortion clinics have closed because of a new abortion law that requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other hospital-style surgical centers. I hate to be difficult, but shouldn’t abortion clinics have been required to meet those standards a long time ago? It seems to me that if you support abortion, you would want it to be as far as possible from the days of back alley abortions and as safe as possible for the women having the procedure.

The article reports:

Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, is defending the law in court.

“This decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women,” Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean said.

There are seven abortion clinics left in the state, and none are south or west of San Antonio.

Many clinics have already closed in the past two years under a part of the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to obtain hospital admitting privileges.

One of the arguments the pro-abortion people have always used to say that we need legalized abortion was that abortions were a necessary medical procedure and the procedure needed to be as safe as possible. So why are they so upset over Texas’ new law? Unfortunately the abortion industry (yes, it is an industry) has become one of the most lucrative industries in the United States. Abortion is no longer about safety for women–it is about money. That alone should make us want to rethink the way we deal with the subject of abortion.

Some Scientists Get All The Exercise They Need By Jumping To Conclusions

I don’t like to make fun of the global warming crowd, but sometimes it is just too easy to laugh at them. Anyone can make numbers or data say anything they desire simply by choosing which facts and data to use. Today, we have another example of this in the discussion of climate change.

WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, reported today that the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics has discovered the real reason that an Antarctic glacier is melting— an active volcano exists directly under it.

The article reports:

In fact, a leading climate scientist said just last month that ‘unabated climate warming of several degrees over the next century is likely to speed up the collapse of West Antarctica, but it could also trigger irreversible retreat of marine-based sectors of east Antarctica.  Whether we should do something about it is simply a matter of common sense, and the time to act is now, Antarctica is not waiting for us.’ 

But Hunter says technology had not allowed scientists to look under the ice, and he says what researchers found there was completely unexpected, and the volcanic activity, and not man made global warming, is responsible for the melting of the glacier, and for the sea level rise which had also been attributed to global warming.

“This melting of the underside of the ice is leading to a raise of an inch or two every year,” he said.

Hunter says the magma from the volcanoes is distributed over a wider area and is much hotter than previously assumed.

The obvious conclusion is that when it comes to the Antarctic, volcanoes produce more global warming than people.

Just for the record:

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages ...

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages of public opinions on the likelihood of some scientists falsifying global warming research. Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 American adults conducted July 29-30, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Remember this when your electric skyrockets next winter due to the war on coal!

The Need To Balance Rights

CBN News posted a story today about a new law passed in San Antonio, Texas, to prevent discrimination against LGBT Texans. Now before I go into exactly what the law does, I want to go on the record as saying that I do not support discrimination against anyone for any reason. However, there are certain situations where common sense needs to dictate decisions regarding people with different views on various issues. For instance, I have no problem with civil unions, but I do not support gay marriage. Why? Because as soon as the state endorses gay marriage, is it obligated to force pastors of churches who believe homosexuality is a sin to perform those marriages? I watched the Catholic adoption agencies leave Massachusetts because the state would not grant them a religious exemption to allow them to deny adoptions to gay couples. Their right to practice their religious beliefs in the adoption process were denied. If you pass a law against discrimination against LGBT people, is a pastor who holds the Biblical view on homosexuality free to state that view from the pulpit?

The article points out:

For San Antonio’s faith community there are several red flags. The ordinance criminalizes those with a biblical view of sexuality as it forbids bias against homosexuality or bi-sexuality.

Those charged and declared guilty by the city will face a Class C misdemeanor on their record and fines of up to $500 a day.

Also, the ordinance forbids appointed officials on city boards from showing any bias. 

Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, a San-Antonio-based Christian legal non-profit, has worked to analyze and explain the ordinance for San Antonio’s churches.

He said the ordinance is vague and unclear but he believes it can and will be used against Christians, especially those in the business world who disagree with unbiblical sexuality.

“The leverage of the city to pressure any business to caving in is enormous under this,” he explained.

Would this law punish a bakery if it chose not to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding because of their religious beliefs? What about the rights of the bakers? Are their religious beliefs as important as the wedding participants? Where does the First Amendment (the government shall not interfere with the free exercise of religion) play into this?

As I said, I don’t support discrimination against anyone, but I do support the right of everyone to practice their religion and state their religious beliefs. This law is not in agreement with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Possible Good News For Boeing

Fox News reported yesterday that Boeing’s machinist union will vote today on a four-year contract extension. Workers are expected to ratify the contract, which includes dropping the complaint to the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing for opening a non-union plant in South Carolina.

The article reports:

Crucially for the union, it would ensure that jobs for Boeing’s updated 737 line — the 737 Max — stay in the Puget Sound region. Boeing said in July it was studying other locations for the new 737.

Industry analyst Wayne Plucker, of the San Antonio, Texas, research firm Frost and Sullivan, said the agreement is good for both sides. Considering the looming Defense Department budget cuts that threaten defense contracts across the industry, Boeing is going to need solid performance from its commercial airplanes division, Plucker said.

It sounds as if both sides got some good things in the agreement. It is just unfortunate that the union used a government agency to bully the company. Government interference in a company’s decision as to where to locate their facilities is one of the things that inhibits economic growth. Industry in America is currently overregulated, and until the government loosens its grip, the American economy will not grow at the rate needed to bring down the current unemployment numbers.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta