Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘North Dakota’

The Facts About the Dakota Access Pipeline That Protesters Don’t Want You to Know


waving flagAuthored by Rep. Kevin Cramer / / November 17, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/17/the-facts-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-protesters-dont-want-you-to-know/

A mix of 2,000-plus indigenous and nonindigenous water protectors rally in Foley Square, a park across the street from the Army Corps of Engineers who temporarily halted the Dakota Access pipeline’s construction, Nov. 16, 2016, New York City. (Photo: Pacific Press/Sipa USA /Newscom)

<!– A mix of 2,000-plus indigenous and nonindigenous water protectors rally in Foley Square, a park across the street from the Army Corps of Engineers who temporarily halted the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction, Nov. 16, 2016, New York City. (Photo: Pacific Press/Sipa USA
/Newscom)
–>

For more than three months, thousands of protesters, most of them from out of state, have illegally camped on federal land in Morton County, North Dakota, to oppose the construction of a legally permitted oil pipeline project that is 85 percent complete.

The celebrities, political activists, and anti-oil extremists who are blocking the pipeline’s progress are doing so based on highly charged emotions rather than actual facts on the ground.

This 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois. It will do this job far more safely than the current method of transporting it by 750 rail cars a day.

The protesters say they object to the pipeline’s being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, this should be of no concern as it will sit approximately 92 feet below the riverbed, with increased pipe thickness and control valves at both ends of the crossing to reduce the risk of an incident, which is already low. picture2

Just like the companies that run the 10 other fossil-fuel pipelines crossing the Missouri River upstream of Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners—the primary funder of this pipeline—is taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the pipeline does not leak.

But even if there were a risk, Standing Rock will soon have a new water intake that is nearing completion much further downstream near Mobridge, South Dakota.

From the outset of this process, Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Army Corps of Engineers or the pipeline company. The Army Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota. The logical time for Standing Rock tribal leaders to share their concerns would have been at these meetings, not now when construction is already near completion.picture3

The original pipeline was always planned for south of Bismarck, despite false claims that it was originally planned for north of Bismarck and later moved, thus creating a greater environmental danger to the Standing Rock Sioux.

The real reasons for not pursuing the northern route were that the pipeline would have affected an additional 165 acres of land, 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas, and an additional 33 waterbodies.

It would also have crossed zones marked by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “high consequence” areas, and would have been 11 miles longer than the preferred and current route.

North Dakotans have respected the rights of these individuals to protest the pipeline, but they have gone beyond civil protesting. Though these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.

The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.

Equally disturbing is the meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project through executive policymaking. This has encouraged more civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.dr-evil

All that remains for the pipeline project to be completed is for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a final easement to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. With no legal reason remaining to not issue it, I am confident the Trump administration will do what’s right if it’s not settled before President Donald Trump takes office.

The simple fact is that our nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental meddling.

The rule of law matters. We cannot allow lawless mobs to obstruct projects that have met all legal requirements to proceed.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Rep. Kevin Cramer/

Portrait of Rep. Kevin CramerRep. Kevin Cramer is the U.S. representative for North Dakota’s at-large district. He serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The Supreme Court Just Delivered A Crippling Blow To Obama’s Global Warming Agenda


waving flagReported by Michael Bastasch; 02/09/2016

The U.S. Supreme Court just delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama’s global warming agenda by halting the implementation of a key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation on carbon dioxide emissions. The court won’t allow the EPA to implement its so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. This is a big win for the 29 states suing the federal government to stop a rule expected to cripple the coal industry.

“Five justices of the Supreme Court agreed with North Dakota and other parties that EPA’s regulation would impose massive irreparable harms on North Dakota and the rest of the country and that there was a substantial likelihood EPA was acting unlawfully,” Paul Seby, an attorney with law firm Greenberg Traurig representing the state of North Dakota, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Happy Happy Joy Joy

States asked the Supreme Court to halt implementation of the CPP after a lower court rejected their appeal in January. Now, Morrisey and the Obama administration will make their oral arguments on the merits of the law in front of federal judges in June.

“Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s leading the states against the EPA, in a statement on the announcement.

Morrisey argues the CPP amounts to “double regulating” by the EPA, since coal-fired power plants — the main target of the rule — are already being regulated under another provision of the Clean Air Act. States also argue the CPP is in effect a federal takeover of their energy policies.

We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.EPA Monster

This is the second major EPA regulation to be held up by the courts in recent months. Last year, federal judges issued a stay on an agency rule redefining “waters of the United States” — this sparked backlash from nearly every industry from farmers to energy producers.

But defeating the CPP in court may not be as easy as states think, since the Obama administration will likely argue striking down these rules would go against international commitments made by the U.S. in Paris last year. In December, the U.S. joined nearly 200 countries in pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming. Obama promised to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.Solid-Foundation-600-wLogo

The Obama administration, however, may have problems of its own because it has not gotten the agreement ratified by the Senate — a key requirement for a legally binding treaty. This has only added to the confusion of whether or not the United Nations Paris deal is legally a treaty or not.

“This will be a fatal blow to the president’s climate agenda,” Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, told TheDCNF.AWWW Poor Baby

“This shows just how far the Obama administration has gone — they went too far,” Pyle said.

Baal Worship Settled-Science-600-LA Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Judge blocks new federal rule on jurisdiction of waterways


waving flagPublished August 28, 2015; FoxNews.com

EPA Monster

Thirteen states led by North Dakota asked Erickson to suspend guidelines that they say are unnecessary and infringe on state sovereignty. The federal government says the new rule clarifies ambiguity in the law and actually makes it easier for the states to manage some waterways. It wasn’t immediately clear if the injunction applied to states other than the 13 led by North Dakota.”

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota and Wyoming.

State officials in North Dakota said the new rule will cost the state millions of dollars and take away from more important programs. State Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring said there’s “confusion and anxiety” among farmers and other landowners over the initiative.

North Dakota congressman Kevin Cramer called the judge’s ruling a “victory:” “North Dakota landowners and energy workers and their peers around the country will be temporarily spared the devastating consequences of an onerous rule. This is appropriate, given the judicial history of this issue and its impact on states and property rights. The injunction provides time for Congress to continue working toward a fix and for a complete judicial review of the legal merits of the rule.”

SEE FOX NEWS CHANNEL REPORT BELOW:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4262259252001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>&#8221; href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4262259252001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”&gt;http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4262259252001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript&gt; aligncenter wp-image-19052 size-full” src=”https://mrb562.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/epa-2.jpg&#8221; alt=”epa 2″ width=”540″ height=”354″ />

At the very least, state officials argued, more time was needed to study the rule, which was finalized on May 27.

The government lawyers said during a hearing in Fargo last week that North Dakota’s objection wrongly assumes some bodies of water will be affected. They also argued the state is already going through some of the permitting procedures they’re complaining about.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem — along with attorneys general and officials from 30 other states — sent a letter last month to the EPA and the Army Corps asking that the law be postponed at least nine months. Lawyers for the states say they heard nothing back from the government, so they filed a request for a preliminary injunction.

The federal government said the request for an injunction was better suited to be heard by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rather than a federal judge, but Erickson rejected that notion.

“The Waters of the United States rule is unlawful and an abuse of executive power,” said Julia Slingsby, press secretary of the Natural Resources committee in a statement to Fox News. “The judge’s decision to block the rule— which was challenged by 13 states – is encouraging, especially as EPA’s credibility has been questioned in the past month. The EPA needs to be stopped before it does more harm to our nation’s precious water resources.” 

burke In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Who Loses Under EPA’s Clean Power Plan?


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch;  08/04/2015

The Obama administration unveiled the linchpin of its global warming agenda Monday: a 1560-page regulation called the “Clean Power Plan.” The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The EPA claims the plan will benefit the economy and the environment by reducing asthma attacks, creating jobs in the green energy sector and showing the world the U.S. is committed to fighting global warming. All of this ahead of a major United Nations climate summit this winter.EPA Monster

Put simply, the new agenda is a massive undertaking, and one that’s already facing legal challenges from a coalition of states and the coal industry. There are going to be clear winners and losers with this rule. Red states, fossil fuel companies and even blue dog Democrats stand to lose out — not to mention all the families who will be hit with higher energy bills.

Is EPA Punishing Red States?

The EPA’s cuts to CO2 emissions could cost states billions of dollars in the coming decades. States are forced to find ways to cut emissions based on certain building blocks set forth by EPA. But this could be costly for energy-intensive states, like North Dakota, with grids and economies that rely on lots of coal power, and oil and natural gas production.

There’s another interesting dynamic underlying the EPA’s rules. The Daily Caller News Foundation examined the data and found that red states were among those hit with the biggest, and likely costliest, emissions reduction mandates.

Of the ten states with the biggest CO2 reduction mandates, eight are dominated by Republicans and only two are Democratic. On the flip side, the states with the lowest CO2 reduction mandates are overwhelmingly liberal — six are Democrat and only four are Republican.

TheDCNF looked at which party controlled each chamber of the state legislature and the governorship to determine control. For example, Republicans control both chambers of the South Dakota legislature and there’s a Republican governor. We considered that state Republican. On the other hand, Montana has a Democratic governor but a Republican-controlled legislature. We’d also consider that state Republican since two of the three groups looked at were GOP-controlled.

Republican states were among those that saw the highest increases in their CO2 mandates from the EPA’s proposal to the final rule, according to Politico Pro. Some 16 states had their emissions targets increased by the EPA, but the agency also loosened targets for 31 states.

Politico reported that while North Dakota “enjoyed the lowest emission reduction goal in the proposed rule,” the state “saw that goal more than quadruple in the final rule to 44.9 percent.”

“Other states saw significant increases in their goals as well. Montana’s goal increased by 26.3 percentage points to 47.4 percent. Iowa’s went up 25.4 points, to a 41.5 percent reduction. And Wyoming’s goal went up 25.3 points to a 44.3 percent reduction,” according to Politico.

“On the other hand, 24 states saw their goals reduced. Washington’s declined the most, down 34.6 percentage points to 37.2 percent,” Politico reported. “Oregon dropped 28.1 points to 20 percent, and New York went down 24.7 points to 19.5 percent.”

Before drawing too many conclusions, it’s worth noting that red states are likely being hurt the most because they rely more heavily on coal for their energy needs. These states also tend to be major energy producing states, like North Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.

States that rely too much on coal will have the toughest time complying with the Clean Power Plan because burning coal emits much more CO2 than burning natural gas. The EPA says it bases its reduction targets on what’s “achievable.” The agency sees coal-reliant states as having much more work to do when it comes to reducing emissions than states relying more on natural gas and green energy, as many Democrat-controlled states do.

The fact is that far more states saw their emissions targets reduced from the EPA’s proposal last year. Even so, states are still going to have a tough time complying with their targets no matter what since the Clean Power Plan essentially forces them to restructure their electricity markets and regulations.

Is This An Attack On Fracking?

The Clean Power Plan has also been seen as an attack on natural gas-fired power, which has been made economical due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of shale. The oil and gas industry is worried the EPA’s rule ignores the role natural gas can play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions — when burned for electricity, natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. The Financial Times reported that the “US shale gas is the unexpected loser from President Barack Obama’s climate plan, as the White House abandons its previous enthusiasm for natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal.”Indenification of Obama

In recent years, the U.S. has become the world’s largest producer of natural gas thanks to hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep underground to unlock hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations. But industry leaders fear EPA could harm the industry. “With the reported shift in the plan, we believe the White House is perpetuating the false choice between renewables and gas,” Martin Durbin, president of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, told Oil and Gas Journal. “We don’t have to slow the trend toward gas in order to effectively and economically use renewables.”EPA-Chopper-590AEA

Reports have come out, mainly with support from environmentalists and green energy backers, declaring the Clean Power Plan downplays natural gas’ role in reducing U.S. emissions. Instead, reports indicate the EPA is focusing on boosting green energy instead of gas. “With or without new regulations, gas will continue to grow as a critical source of clean energy, but EPA’s rule does more harm than good,” Howard Feldman with the American Petroleum Institute told OGJ.

Major natural gas producing states have also been hit with steep emissions targets mandated by the EPA. Texas, the country’s largest oil and gas producer, must reduce power plant emissions 33.5 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The state gets twice as much energy from natural gas as it does from coal.

Democratic-led Pennsylvania is also being hit with tough emissions reductions mandates from EPA. The state must reduce emissions 34.9 percent by 2030. Pennsylvania is now the country’s second-largest natural gas producer thanks to fracking in the Marcellus Shale. The state even gets 37 percent of its electricity from nuclear, while coal and natural gas each provide slightly less. EPA-torture-600-AEA-378x257

Blue Dog Dems Backstabbed By Obama

What’s probably most interesting about energy states being hit hard by the Clean Power Plan, is that many of them also sport Democratic lawmakers who are now put in a tough position.

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp called the rule a “slap in the face,” according to Politico Pro. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin criticized the rule for being “utterly unrealistic.” Both of these lawmakers opposed the rule since its proposal, but now their states are some of the hardest hit.

North Dakota and West Virginia were initially given some of the smallest state emissions reductions targets by the EPA. In June 2014, the EPA said North Dakota would only have to reduce emissions 10.6 percent and West Virginia 19.8 percent by 2030. Now these states have to make much deeper cuts than the EPA initially told them. “Our President and his Administration think our country can do without coal, and they are dead wrong. They are in denial,” Manchin said in a statement condemning the rule.

Montana Democrats, who originally supported the rule, are now reeling after the EPA announced the state would have to reduce emissions even more than was initially proposed by the agency last year. Montana now has one of the highest CO2 emissions reduction mandates of any state. Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock complained that the EPA “moved the goal post on us,” saying that while “we need to address climate change” but added that “how we do so has to work for Montana.” The Montana’s AFL-CIO branch actually planned a press call in support of the rule, according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, but it was cancelled after the union found out the EPA had increased the “reduction requirement.” The group called it a “gut punch.”

Even Democratic Sen. Jon Tester was cautious in his statement on the Clean Power Plan’s release, not condemning it but also not celebrating it being finalized. Tester told the Chronicle he needed “more time to review it to ensure it works for Montana and creates healthier communities and a stronger economy.”
freedom combo 2

Read the Letter Planned Parenthood Sent News Outlets Warning Them Not to Air Undercover Videos


A regional branch of Planned Parenthood warned reporters in a new letter Monday against airing recent sting videos that purport to show the abortion provider’s employees discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts.

KVLY-TV in North Dakota published the letter from Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota.

“CMP has used footage obtained through deceit and unlawful behavior, including possible violations of state recording laws, federal tax laws and falsified state identification. Then, they concoct wildly false stories through selective editing,” the letter alleges.

Image source: Mario Tama/Getty Images

“We expect this video will be no different in that regard; however, footage yet to come is expected to represent an extreme violation of patient privacy by including footage of post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized be filmed,” it adds.how many body parts

The letter was sent one day before the Center for Medical Progress released a third video, appearing to show Planned Parenthood workers standing by dead fetuses while talking about the price “per item.” The letter concludes with a warning that “the material should not be aired.”

A representative for Planned Parenthood could not be reached for comment by TheBlaze.

Read the entire letter below via KVLY:

To: North Dakota Health and Political Reporters and Producers
From: Jen Aulwes, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
Date: July 27, 2015
Re: Center for Medical Progress Expected to Violate Patient Privacy

The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is an extreme activist organization whose sole mission is to prevent women from accessing health care and to destroy Planned Parenthood. The board members of this group believe that abortion is “genocide,” and employ people who went to jail for attempting to bomb a women’s health clinic. They are also connected with the man who murdered abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

CMP has used footage obtained through deceit and unlawful behavior, including possible violations of state recording laws, federal tax laws and falsified state identification. Then, they concoct wildly false stories through selective editing. We expect this video will be no different in that regard; however, footage yet to come is expected to represent an extreme violation of patient privacy by including footage of post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized be filmed.

When your network decides whether to consider this story newsworthy, or whether to use any of this footage at all, we urge you to keep this in mind: The extremists who entered Planned Parenthood labs under false pretenses violated research protocol, and, worse, violated the privacy of patients involved. Those patients’ privacy should not be further violated by having this footage shared by the media.

The storage and examination processes that CMP used to get this footage are medically necessary. It is necessary medical professionals ensure an abortion is complete so that patients do not get an infection. When tissue is donated for medical research, these steps are also necessary for the donations to be completed. It is also medically necessary that researchers evaluate the laboratory procedures of a medical provider for safety standards and best practices.

Some of the conversations and protocols that occur in medical settings and among professional peers can sound jarring when taken out of context. While this can be difficult to hear or watch, it should not be used as an excuse to defund Planned Parenthood.

CMP gained access to Planned Parenthood facilities under false pretenses and filmed without securing approval from the Planned Parenthood staff being filmed or the patients whose privacy is compromised by this secret videotaping. The material should not be aired.

Please contact me at 651-755-XXXX or XXXXXXX@ppmns.org if you have any questions or need any more information.Offical Seal

(H/T: Truth Revolt)

The Planned Parenthood abortion video in context

Planned Parenthood supporters chant "four more years!" during a rally during the second day of the Republican National Convention August 29, 2012 in Tampa, FL. (Leah Millis | Tampa Bay Times)
Planned Parenthood supporters chant “four more years!” during a rally during the second day of the Republican National Convention August 29, 2012 in Tampa, FL. (Leah Millis | Tampa Bay Times)

An anti-abortion activist group released a video that they say proves Planned Parenthood “sells the body parts of aborted fetuses.”

Is it misleading?

Posing as a biological tissue procurement company, actors for the Center for Medical Progress secretly filmed a luncheon with Planned Parenthood’s senior director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola in 2014. On July 14, 2015, the group released a nine-minute video that they say shows Nucatola talking about performing partial-birth abortions to keep body parts intact in order to “sell” them, an action which the video alleges is a felony.

Nearly every Republican presidential candidate has responded, condemning Planned Parenthood. And Congress, as well as the states of Texas and Louisiana, have called for investigations into the women’s reproductive health care organization.

Many, including Planned Parenthood, have said the video was heavily edited and is misleading. They say Nucatola was discussing a standard, legal procedure for providing fetal tissue for scientific research, for which clinics are often reimbursed for costs associated with procuring the tissue (as opposed to selling tissue for a profit).

Who’s right? We read the 60-page transcript of the nearly three-hour luncheon and found that Nucatola reveals very little concrete information on Planned Parenthood’s practices. Put simply, there’s no clear gotcha.

We’ll leave it up to readers to come to their own conclusions about Planned Parenthood’s practices and Nucatola’s statements, but we want to highlight a few key moments in the conversation to put the edited video in context.

It’s clear in the full-length video that Nucatola believes she is speaking with representatives from a company that provides scientific researchers with tissue from aborted fetuses (a legal process that raises difficult ethical questions). She describes the process of getting consent from patients, as well as how Planned Parenthood clinics typically interacts with the companies that take the tissue from the clinics to the researchers.

The edited video shows Nucatola discussing a per-specimen price range for tissue parts. But the full video shows that the cost under discussion is a reimbursement for the cost of preparing the specimens for transfer, not the value of the specimens themselves. She adds that Planned Parenthood needs to be able to explain exactly what the funds are used for.

Asked by the actors about a price range, Nucatola said:

“You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100 (per specimen), depending on the facility and what’s involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there who’s going to be doing everything, is there shipping involved, is somebody going to have to take it out? You know, I think everybody just wants, it’s really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, ‘What do you do for this $60? How can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free.’ So it just needs to be justifiable.

“The way they budget (for the cost of producing a specimen) is by the amount of time they spend on one patient. … It depends, if (the procurement service is) expecting somebody to process, and package, identify tissue for you, it’s going to be at the higher end of the range. In all cases, it’s really going to be about staff time, because that’s the only cost to the affiliate. And then, if you want space.”

Nucatola also said Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics appreciate that they can reduce some of their overhead costs of disposing of aborted fetal tissue by using a tissue procurement service.

Nucatola said:

“I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a nonprofit, they just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get.

“No one’s going to see this as a money-making thing. The other reason affiliates think this is a good thing is, it’s less tissue that they need to worry about, it’s taken care of. They have to do something with that tissue, it’s hard to find somebody that wants to do something with that tissue, so the fact that there’s somebody that’s looking for that tissue is — that is such a huge service to them.”

Nucatola says throughout the luncheon that Planned Parenthood is not interested in making a profit off the specimens — an interpretation the edited video pushes.

“(Clinics) want to do this, but they want to do it in a way that’s not going to impact them, and it’s much much less about money. You could call them up and say, ‘I’ll pay you double the money,’ and they’re almost more inclined to say no, because it’s going to look bad. … To them, this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer this to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them.

“Again, affiliates don’t —  affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.

“At the end of the day we just want to keep the doors open. And we don’t want to let jeopardize keeping the doors open. We just want (the cost per specimen) to be reasonable for the impact it has on the clinic. This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community.

“Like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream because that’s not what it is.”

The actors in the video act as if they are on the same page:

Actor: “I understand what you’re saying. This cannot be seen as, ‘We’re doing this for profit.’ ”

Nucatola: “No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that’s not like, reasonable and customary. This is not — nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here.”

Actor: “Right. And, I never see that as, I don’t look at it that way, we’re not selling tissue, we’re selling the possibility of what the research can offer.”

Nucatola: “I think we all would agree with you. That’s just not the perception, sadly, for everybody.”

Actor: “I mean, researchers are paying for procurement, they’re not paying for —  You’re not buying a brain, you’re buying a procurement service.”

Nucatola: “Exactly. Exactly.”

The conversation indicates that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics do sell aborted fetal tissue. But Nucatola plainly argues that the money they’re charging is trying to offset the costs associated with tissue procurement — a legal service.

 

States move to counter gay marriage ruling


By Tim Devaney06/30/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246582-states-move-to-counter-gay-marriage-ruling

burke

More than a dozen states that saw gay marriage bans struck down last week by the U.S.  Supreme Court are vowing to protect religious liberty, even though they grudgingly accept that the ruling is now the law of the land.

  • In the wake of Friday’s decision, Texas’s attorney general told county clerks in the state that they have a statutory right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections to gay marriage.
  • In Alabama, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage — said a new state court order could temporarily delay the practice, only to walk back the remarks.
  • And in Louisiana, the attorney general contends there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling that renders it effective immediately, raising questions about how soon the state would have to comply. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Many other states across the South and upper Midwest are criticizing the ruling as an encroachment on states’ rights and religious freedom, though most acknowledge they cannot ignore it. “Ultimately, my position is that the state should have been legally entitled to define marriage,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told The Hill. “I feel the state has traditionally held that role, and certainly when it’s in the state’s constitution it should be respected.” “But we are a nation of laws and we must respect that,” he added.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, those states and 11 others — Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Tennessee — had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Though not outright defying the high court’s decision, states are now seeking to make clear the limits of its scope. “The ruling does not tell a minister or congregation what they must do, but it does make clear that the government cannot pick and choose when it comes to issuing marriage licenses and the benefits they confer,” said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.Giant Government Compliance Officer

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would issue exemptions to county clerks, judges and justices of the peace who express religious objections to issuing gay marriage licenses, promising to “defend their religious beliefs.” The government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,” Paxton said, accusing the Supreme Court of “ignoring the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist.”

In cases where there are objections, however, other public officials would issue the documents.

A federal judge ruled in May that Alabama’ s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and stayed her opinion until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. This week, Moore — the state Supreme Court’s chief justice — initially said a new motion in the earlier case would effectively table Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, a case known as Obergefell v. Hodges.
But same-sex marriage advocates argued that the order has no tangible effects thanks to a federal injunction, and Moore later backed away from the assertion. “In no way does the order instruct probate judges of this State as to whether or not they should comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” he said.SCOTUS GIANT

Still, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange accused the Supreme Court of “overturning centuries of tradition and the will of the citizens.” “I expect the focus will now turn to the exercise of one’s religious liberty,” Strange said.

A number of attorneys general also complained that the Supreme Court’s decision infringes on states’ right to define marriage how they see fit. Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the court’s ruling “overturns the will of the people of Louisiana, and it takes away a right that should have been left to the states.”

Caldwell is threatening to essentially disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling for the time being, saying there is “nothing in [the] decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately. Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana.”

Gay rights activists warn that any acts of perceived defiance would threaten to undermine the legal system. “It’s a dangerous message for southern governors to disobey an order from the Supreme Court,” said Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry. “The notion that public employees get to pick and choose which laws they follow based on their religious beliefs is a really dangerous precedent and a terrible public policy,” he added. “If you’re a public official, you need to carry out those laws, and you don’t get to decide whether they’re right or wrong.”
Big Gay Hate Machine
The attorneys general in North Dakota and Mississippi both said they are waiting on other court cases to be resolved before they enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Other states like Ohio and Nebraska expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court was interfering with their marriage laws but also indicated they would respect the ruling.

And top officials in a handful of states that formerly banned gay marriage are now welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he would move swiftly to recognized same-sex marriage in the wake of the court’s ruling. “The history of our country has always been one of moving toward inclusion and equality,” Koster said in a statement. “I applaud the court for their courage and strong sense of fairness. Missourians should be seen as equals under the law; regardless of their gender, race, or whom they love.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Austin Yack, Hanna Krueger, Kate Hardiman and Rachel Ravina contributed.

freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: