America’s Abortions May End With Personhood Law in North Dakota

            America’s Abortion may end with North Dakota Personhood Law

History may mark February 7th as the day that Personhood for the unborn was established. This is the day that provided the unborn at conception the God given right to life bestowed upon all since the beginning of creation. This is a significant step in the continuing evolution of sanctioning the protection of life which has been riddled by abortion rights activists since the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Forty years and 55 million plus deaths of the unborn who committed no crime except to be conceived in God’s image were murdered. This was accomplished because of a court and society that would protect a tree frog’s existence above a human life. These murders may soon be put to a stop with the North Dakota Personhood Measure that passed in the State Senate. When it is established that a fetus has U.S. 14th Amendment constitutional protection, abortion ends in America!

Often times in the history of monumental movements, they often have their genesis in the hearts and souls of the faithful who are unwilling to witness or permit the undoing of basic rights. The aptly named Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative would codify the constitutional protections and absolute rights afforded all citizens of North Dakota and equally apply them to human embryos.

This is not just a momentary battle that supporters of life will wait to see what will happen in North Dakota’s House. The fact is that, in North Dakota as well as other states that are considering Personhood laws; the war for life should and can be won on the local battleground of state turf. These legislators, unlike their federal congressional counterparts, are not afraid to stand up to protect their religious values and principles, under the heat of unceasing liberal mass media contempt.

At the very core of the right to life is the imbalance that exists in continuing to treat the right to exist and to be born as incidental and given no more value than extinguishing the life of a common earth worm. The rights of the mother is given weight not as the carrier of life, but the right to her privacy to do as she pleases, which includes state sanctioned murder.

Yet for forty years the growing tearful cries of fathers who will never be, and mothers who are now filled with regret because of abortion. Their mournful regret is coupled with birthrights of the unborn, sheered away by abortion clinics.

( click to read more )

Views: 50


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Louis Blasiotti on February 19, 2013 at 10:15pm

The unborn in the womb of a Mother is made in the image and likeness of God.  Abortion offends and goes against God's plan of creation.  The concept of Abortion is pleasing to the Devil and his helpers up from hell because the hate humankind.  They have no love for people and their main objective is to get people to sin any way they can.  Most people today do not understand this world wide spiritual battle that is going on today.  They will after they pass on to the next world.  Mothers have been brainwashed or should I say relieved of the concept of abortion as being contradictory to their idea of a moral conscience.  They do not believe and do not understand that abortion in the eyes of the Eternal Father breaks the 5th Commandment given by God to Moses:  THOU SHALT NOT KILL!  Pray for all those who are being influenced to abort their children.



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service