Sunday, March 15, 2009

GA Embryo Bill does very little to protect any embryos

The current bill in the GA legislature is being assailed by pro-death groups like the American Fertility Associations, whose millions and millions of largesse depend on government and large foundational spending, such as that signed into effect by abortoholic prez Barrie Hussein Obama last Monday.

Truth be told, the GA bill, SB169: The Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act,is a well meaning and well intentioned bill from a state that has been one of the few to pass specific pharmacist conscience clause laws and regulations.

However, a reading of the bill, and the attendant release from Georgia RTL, clearly shows that really little substance is in the bill to protect embryos and embryo cell lines already existing.

A very reliable research and philosphy expert, who has done tremendous work dissecting the true meaning of language in embryo, IVF, genetics and other such bills, explained to me yesterday:

  • "Fertilization", "natural death", "cloning = SCNT (misdefined)" (GRTL web site) -- Sounds like the same old "Weldon/Brownback" crowd [this alludes to the more smoke and mirrors bills pushed by Sens. Weldon and Brownback which usually intentionally mis-defined human beings and personhood]. Guess they have a lot at stake by this time, and won't budge. I've also noticed something in several of these "incremental" bills. They throw in their usual mis-definitions, but they also designate just "IVF" clinics, and leave out all the other "ART" [artificial reprotuctive technology] clinics. And by using the exclusionary term "clinic", they also totally ignore IVF and ART research laboratories so that [the latter] are not affected by the legislation. End result, nothing.
Terms such a "fertilization" leave out all embryos [babies] created by various asexual manipulations besides SCNT. "Pregnancy" and terms like it redefined by the abortion-eugenics industry leave out all embryos created in whatever form BEFORE implantation, for that is how they unscientifically define pregnancy.
And so the list goes on of poor definitions and terminology that is defined by the enemies of life.

That summarizes --however briefly--major pitfalls in the bill that amount to very few protections in reality, although they make for good press releases as being "pro life".

No comments: