NDSU and Planned Parenthood: Not a Good Idea for ND, Especially Women

NDSU & Planned Parenthood

Not a Good Idea for North Dakota, Especially Women

There has been resistance this week by both professors at NDSU  and the legislature relating to the amendment proposed to end a sex education program that is a partnership between NDSU and Planned Parenthood.  A 1.2 million dollar federal grant was given to NDSU to begin a Planned Parenthood program for at-risk teens.  Those who oppose the amendment argue that the program could prevent the need for abortion.  

After the passage of several life bills this month, it is clear that North Dakotans do not see a need for abortion and that we believe it is morally wrong to end life.  The partnership between NDSU and Planned Parenthood is of the state’s interests because it contradicts the values of the majority of North Dakotans by partnering with an organization that performs abortions.

Abortion has ended the lives of about 305,000 babies so far this year alone in the United States.  Does Planned Parenthood really seek to prevent abortion when only 1 adoption is referred per 392 abortions performed?  There are crisis pregnancy centers in almost every major city across the state that can already help women with unplanned pregnancies that seek life affirming alternatives.  There is no need for a Planned Parenthood Program.

The partnership between NDSU and Planned Parenthood could be in response to the 2011 bill that enacted abstinence-only education in public schools.  The fact is that at-risk teens do have access to sex education at school, but this is a way for Planned Parenthood to get their message of contraception,  sexual health, abortion, and advocacy for sexual activity,  to minors.  The language of Planned Parenthood about abstinence reads,

People may find it difficult to abstain for long periods of time and may end their period of abstinence without being prepared to protect themselves against pregnancy or infection… Most people stop being abstinent at some point in their lives.”

This language attacks abstinence education because it assumes that abstinence will be ended.  It also implies that pregnancy is like a disease because it is both paired with disease and stresses the importance of prevention.  This language is also appealing to younger generations who are easily convinced by arguments that persuade through peer pressure and the difficulty of alternatives.  Other language used by Planned Parenthood includes, “You can only do what’s best for you” and that language creates a selfish mindset that dismisses the needs of an unborn child.  Planned Parenthood wants to bring this message to not only teens, but teens who most likely don’t have parents or absent parents.  The program responds to the breakdown of the family in a way that destroys future families.

Planned Parenthood would not only be harmful to these vulnerable teens, but to women.  Abortion is 4 times deadlier than a mother carrying to term (Elliot Institute, 2000) and abortion can also cause infertility (Danforth, 1993).  There is a risk for emotional trauma that has been termed PAS (post abortion syndrome) that increases the threat for relationship difficulties, future abortions, suicide, and substance abuse (Rue, Speckhard, Rogers, & Franz 1987).  As medical doctor Wanda Franz explained to US Congress in 1989, “They feel worthless, and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities – the role of being a mother”.  Feminism should value all human life from male to female, and from conception until death.  Doing otherwise would be hypocritical.  

One thing is clear; North Dakota has an interest in protecting its citizens.  We must protect vulnerable teens from the message of abortion Planned Parenthood advocates and we must protect women from the harmful effects of abortive procedures.  The future of North Dakota and our families depends on these protections.  

Carly

Read more...

Responding NDSU's Planned Parenthood Partnership

NDSU & Planned Parenthood Partnership

Response to April 12th Forum Article 

 

The article’s opening paragraph sets the tone for the entire article, setting up the issue as an “attack on women and families”.  Not only is this premise inaccurate and disingenuous, it mocks the integrity of women and wonderful purpose of family.

For all the talking points ‘sound bites’ sprinkled throughout the article, it fails to mention the real purpose of the program—to inform teenagers of their options; before, during, and after they have had sex outside of a married relationship.  For according to the ‘comprehensive sex education’ taught by Planned Parenthood, a partner in the program, it is a given teenagers will have sex and we need to focus on eliminating the unwanted pregnancy.  The unborn baby becomes the problem, an obstacle which needs to be eliminated.

The program’s clientele is identified as “at risk Fargo teens”.  “At risk” of what?  At risk of not hearing that family planning is really about when having sex, try to protect yourself from disease and an unwanted pregnancy by wearing a condom, and if a pregnancy occurs—eliminate the problem by way of abortion.  Is this really what our ‘at risk’ teens need to hear?  And then to add insult to injury, the program’s strategy is to disseminate the program’s indoctrination to the ‘at risk’ teen’s peers.  

The article ridicules the legislature for trying to meddle in affairs they don’t know anything about, especially without a public hearing.  It was ironic that as news broke of this program partnering with Planned Parenthood, there was no ‘hearing’ responding to the public.  Pres. Bresciani’s only consideration was if it was legal, not whether it was the right thing to do.  And now that the legislature would clarify the legality by passing legislation, the cry is “how dangerous” and how “incredibly unusual”.

Yes it is “incredibly unusual” that a university program would reach down to 15 year olds to indoctrinate a vulnerable, at risk group.  Should it be “incredibly unusual” that “politicians”, whom we would call the public policy decision makers, would have an interest in the well-being of our children.  In 2011, the issue was debated in detail and the legislature passed an abstinence bill to be implemented in public and private schools.  

The article criticizes legislative involvement, touting it should be left to “health professionals”, with no guidance short of a “family planning model” from Planned Parenthood.  Should we should trust Planned Parenthood rather than the collective legislative wisdom of those representing the people?

The North Dakota Century Code clearly gives preference to life versus abortion and to abstinence education.  North Dakota law and the program planned at NDSU in partnership with Planned Parenthood are in direct conflict.  Legislators need to set the policy direction.

Tom

Read more...

“So why wouldn’t someone support this?

“So why wouldn’t someone support this?
As I sat behind the rail in the House chambers waiting for the floor discussion and vote on HB 1423, a statewide elected official sat down beside me, in fact a rather high ranking official.  “How do you think this will go”, was asked.  “Hoping and praying, but we’ll see”, was my reply.  I was thinking about our earlier discussion on the bill and the question was, “well, so why wouldn’t someone support this”?

About 10 minutes later the answer appeared on the big board, 48 votes no and 45 votes yes.  The measure failed.  A bill to include a component in the divorce process when minor children were involved—requiring an educational program focusing on how the divorce will affect the children and future finances—failed.

Why?  Well, during floor discussion and committee testimony, we heard this is a private matter and the government should stay out of ‘our bedrooms and private lives’.  Like it or not, the government has a vested interest, witnessed by many pages of ND Century Code law on marriage licensing, divorce decrees, child custody, and other related matters. 

So what other reasons might there be?  Well, the couple has already made up their mind and this would be a hardship on them during an already difficult situation.  The amended bill removed the waiting period and injected the educational material into the existing process.  The hardship to the couple would have been minimal and the potential benefit to the children immense.  Children want and need stability.

We know and believe that couples who marry and have children would never purposely intend to hurt those children.  However, documented research provides evidence of the physical, emotional, and financial effect on most children of divorce.  This effect will be more serious in some cases, less in others, but evident in most, and will last well into adulthood and affect future generations.

More reasons?  Well the system we have in place is doing about as good as can be expected.  The mediation process administered by the courts leads the couple through the difficult process in a civil manner, seeking the best post-divorce outcome possible.  By the courts standards, the system does its job.

But as a people, as a society—should we be satisfied?  As a North Dakota government, promoting the common good for our residents, should we be satisfied?  Should we be satisfied that only about half of the children reaching their 17th birthday will be living with their biological parents?  Should we be satisfied that as high as 50% of parents with children going through a divorce will move into poverty?

Should we be concerned that many of these children will perform more poorly in school, have a greater likelihood of experiencing behavioral and emotional problems, and a greater incidence of abuse?  The government at all levels is tasked with responding to these problems on a daily basis, and at great cost.  In fact our North Dakota legislature will appropriate millions of dollars for public assistance and human service programs. 

In North Dakota we have on average about 4200 marriages per year, with about 1900 divorces per year.  Should we be satisfied that our divorce rate is rather low compared to nationally?  Of those 1900 divorces, should we be satisfied that 900 involve only about 1600 minor children annually?  After all over the course of a dozen years that’s only about the number of people who live in Jamestown.  And the system we have in place is doing about as good as we can expect.  Really?

Should we be concerned that trends suggest children of broken homes will be less educated and have less earning power, be less likely to marry, and have children facing a similar future?  Should we be satisfied that those children from intact homes will be better educated, have a better job with higher pay, will have a much greater likelihood of staying married,  and providing any children of that marriage with a similar future? 

As a society, as a people, are we really saying we can’t do anything about this?  Are we satisfied with the present status?  Have we given up hope?

Our NDFA Marriage Task Force Report identified four venues to promote marriage: a prayer initiative, raising the level of awareness, involving our churches, and a legislative component.  The legislature, the policy making branch of our government, has the ability to set direction.  Not discounting the first three venues, should not the legislature by its actions endorse the positive effect the institution of marriage has on children in specific and on society in general? 

HB 1423 has failed.  But the issue is much larger than just HB 1423.  There will be other opportunities for the legislature to stand for marriage and the family.  I trust they will do so.

Read more...

Chick-Fil-A

Chick-Fil-A, InForum, NDFA MTF, Ephesians 5

By now most of you know of Chick-Fil-A, even though the fast food chain does not have a store in North Dakota.  Chick-Fil-A’s owner voiced his support for traditional marriage in an interview, and as such, his lack of support for same-sex marriage.

Response to Dan Cathy’s statement went viral.  The gay community threatened protests.  Mayors of a number of major cities where Chick-Fil-A was planning to locate first time stores, including Boston, vowed to keep them out.  Gay rights activists planned ‘kiss-in’ demonstrations at Chick-Fil-A stores.

To show support for Cathy’s right to share his support for traditional marriage, Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was organized by Mike Huckabee for Wednesday—asking supporters to show up at one of their 1600 plus locations.  Lines were long, waits in excess of two hours, and a single day sales record was set.

Some of you are aware of the Forum newspaper in Fargo changing its policy on posting wedding engagements.  A gay couple asked that their same-sex wedding engagement be printed in the Forum.  The Forum initially declined citing existing policy.  The couple challenged the policy.

Gay right’s activists started an online petition, letters to the editor began in mass, and the talk show airwaves were flooded.  The Forum changed its policy.

Some of you know of NDFA’s initiative to restore and preserve traditional marriage, the NDFA Marriage Task Force.   We had our 5th meeting on Thursday.  We heard a presentation on the merits of churches incorporating a marriage mentorship program.  We also had a general discussion on the overall merits of marriage, and especially for children.

Many of us are familiar with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.  In Ephesians 5:18, Paul exhorts them (us) to be filled with the Holy Spirit; giving thanks, singing hymns, worshipping, and submitting to one another in the fear of God.

And then Paul’s inspired words present the most powerful message on the commitment and duty of marriage.  Paul compels us: husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, husbands love your wives as your own bodies, wives submit to your husband as to the Lord, and husbands give yourself for your wife just as Christ gave Himself for the church.

Christ the Bridegroom, the church His bride, without spot or wrinkle, holy and without blemish—so too is the marriage between man and woman, husband and wife.  How awesomely powerful to know that God elevates the relationship of husband and wife to the level of Jesus’s relationship to His church.

How revealing, how clear, how awesomely convicting is the Word.

Just a few verses later in chapter 6, Paul informs the Ephesians (and us today) of trouble, trials, and
difficult times.  He implores them (us) to put on the full armor of God, for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities and spiritual enemies. 

Paul tells us to stand against evil, defending what is true.  He tells to use the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.  We are exhorted to stand for truth.

Supporters of truth stood in line at Chick-Fil-A.  They did not angrily protest, but by their actions supported the right of a business owner to voice his belief.   They did not boycott.  They did not show disrespect or hatred for anyone.

When made aware of a LGBT ‘kiss in’ event at their stores, a Chick-Fil-A spokesman said, "we understand from news reports that Friday may present yet another opportunity for us to serve with genuine hospitality, superior service and great food,"

Chick-Fil-A stresses that its employees abide by a service tradition to "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."  That policy includes customers and fellow employees.

While Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A stood firm in its beliefs, the Forum of Fargo was quite different.  It cited any number of reasons for changing its policy, the greatest being the perceived sentiment of the public.  But one thing stood out in the Forum’s rationalization for it decision.  It stated there is much more to this issue than whether a newspaper prints a same-sex wedding announcement.  True.

Following the Forum’s policy change, same-sex activists agreed.  This is just the first step.  Legislatively pass measures to classify “sexual orientation and gender identity” in anti-discrimination law.  And then civil unions, and then same-sex marriage.  The strategy is simple: desensitize, normalize, and legitimize.

The Forum was correct in its assessment about the larger issue—it’s not about publishing an engagement announcement, or about homosexuality, or even about divorce, or cohabitation—it’s about promoting, restoring, and preserving the institution of marriage between one man  and one woman.  It is about understanding the foundational value of traditional marriage for all of society, and especially our children.

Traditional marriage has been the cornerstone of the family for thousands of years, as the family is the foundation of society.  As in past cultures, the survival of America rests on marriage and the family.

Will we stand for marriage, as those who stood in line at Chick-Fil-A?

Will we stand for life, or will we look the other way?

Will we stand for religious freedom, or will be put our finger to the wind and go with the prevailing wind?

Will we stand, taking action, for what is right, for what is truth?

Read more...

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment
June 12, 2012 Primary Election Ballot


Purpose & Need Fact Sheet

www.yesonmeasurethree.org

Protect religious liberty in North Dakota from government mandates

What it is?

Measure 3 is a state constitutional amendment that restores a well-tested way of preserving religious liberty for all North Dakotans for future generations.

How?

Measure 3 restores and preserves a person’s or organization’s religious liberty for our children and grandchildren, while respecting legitimate government interests as provided by our Founding Fathers.

Why?

Because our religious liberty is a treasured freedom on which America was founded, and now is being threatened and under attack, it is time to act.

Why now?

We can’t wait. As we see an administration (HHS), by government mandate, forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives, sterilization drugs, and abortifacients in violation of sincerely held religious beliefs. These attacks are on our religious liberty. We need protection, and we need it now.

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
www.yesonmeasurethree.org

Read more...

The social driving the fiscal.

The social driving the fiscal.


Rick Santorum’s recent surge in the Republican presidential polls would indicate the public’s interest and support, in no small part due to his stance on the social issues.


Santorum is unashamedly pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-faith—just about pro everything we stand for here at the NDFA. But he has a much deeper understanding of where America is today. Santorum has a firm recognition of the correlation of the cultural state of the family and the fiscal crisis in our country.


Today the breakdown of the family is evidenced in lower marriage rates, increased out of wedlock birth rates, higher cohabitation numbers, as well as other indicators. At the same time, we see a fiscal crisis pushing the debt limits to unparalleled levels.


Fiscally, the bottom line is this—married couples provide the most stable, sustaining revenue for the government, federal and state. The federal fiscal crisis we are in is due in part to the declining number of married couple families, with marriage rates having declined by 50% over the past 35 years.


Conversely, those providing the least revenue to government fall into the category of separated, cohabitating, and divorced. And in many cases, these require government assistance. This population is rising, with cohabitation rates increasing over 1500% since 1960.


This trend is of great concern. The number of families supporting the government revenue needs (taxes) is declining, and the number of families providing very little support if any, and very likely accepting government assistance is rising. As one researcher stated, “we cannot tax, spend, or borrow enough to counteract this trend”. Most estimates cite the cost at $112 billion per year, one trillion over a ten year period.


Compounding this spiraling trend is the slowdown of our birthrate, decreasing the number of working, tax paying citizens. In addition, of the births, 41% occur in a non-marital situation, with many requiring government assistance.


Understanding that research documents the common denominator of those doing better financially is the stability of the married couple structure, today an obvious phenomena is occurring. Over 83% of those in the higher income groups are married, only 44% of those in the middle/blue collar, working class groups are married. This gap between the “haves” (those married) and the “have nots” (those not married) is increasing. Where we are today is very reminiscent of where the inner city African-American communities were some generations ago.


Not only is this trend alarming for the fiscal future to this country, it is a moral crisis which we cannot ignore. We have an ever increasing number of children growing up in non-traditional homes, with 27% of children living in a single parent home and 55% having experienced a break up of their family by time they reach 18 years of age. And these children have a greater likelihood of not doing as well in school, turning to drugs, having children out of wedlock, and living in poverty.


Vast amounts of research document the undeniable link between marital status, the welfare of children, and the economic status of both the children and their parents. As a society, we must remove our heads from the sand and seek to affect this issue on a moral basis. As a government, our elected officials must recognize the criticality of understanding the importance of this issue and take action. The future of our country is depending on us.



Posted by Tom Freier
Executive Director
North Dakota Family Alliance

Read more...

Polictics : Rick Santorum: What’s not to like?

Polictics : Rick Santorum: What’s not to like?

As I listened to Rick Santorum as he spoke in Fargo last week, I was impressed with his openness, genuine demeanor, and common sense approach to the important issues of the day. He spoke addressing all issues; including, jobs, the economy, health care, the national debt, taxes, national defense, Iran, and of course, the social issues of life/abortion and marriage.

He most certainly understands the importance of the breakdown of the family, not only as a social issue, but its economic effect on the country. He outlined the financial cost to the taxpayers. He understands that as traditional marriage declines, adults and children are put on public assistance—costing billions of dollars per year.

Santorum is truly pro-life. He does not have to be convinced of his position. He does not have to look at the polls to determine where he stands. Santorum is genuine, he knows where he stands.

Because of Santorum knowing where he stands, he was able to give his clear view on the president infringing on the soundly held religious beliefs of those who wish not to furnish sterilization and abortifacients. When addressing issues relating to his faith, faith related issues, he can speak from his heart.

With gas prices soaring, the cost of a bag of grocery staggering, the family is struggling to balance their checkbook. All this at a time when federal government spending is out of control, the national debt threatening the stability of our financial system, and who will be called on to bail out this failed policy? The Family. Families will pay higher taxes, and see their take home pay buy less due to inflation.

Santorum spoke with authority on America’s defense needs, restoring our relationship with Israel, and the real threat posed by Iran. He spoke of restoring America to being the leader of the free world respected around the world.

Some have suggested Santorum may be too conservative. Could someone really think that? Some say he is too socially conservative. America is crying out for a man of integrity. America is seeking a leader who respects life and the God given institution of marriage, a candidate to do what is right—representing the American dream.

A final observation, Santorum seems to elicit trust. And aren’t we all looking for a place to place our trust. And so, what is there not to like about Rick Santorum?

Read more...