Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA
Well, maybe not a Christian nation, but a faithful nation... or a nation of faithful states:
• Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
• Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
• Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
• Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
• California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
• Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
• Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
• Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
• Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
• Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
• Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution.
• Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
• Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
• Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
• Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
• Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
• Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
• Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
• Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty....
• Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
• Michigan 1908, Preamble.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
• Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
• Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
• Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
• Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
• Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
• Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
• New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art . I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
• New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
• New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
• North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
• North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
• Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
• Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
• Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
• Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
• Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
• South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
• South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
• Tennessee 1796, Art . XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
• Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
• Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
• Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
• Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
• Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
• West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..
• Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
• Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Democrats too liberal? Gallup
An opening for Republicans? Today the Dems win the supermajority. How long will they retain power?
********************
June 30, 2009
More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.
Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.
As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).
But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats' ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans' ideology (34%).
In fact, the 34% who say the GOP is about right is a new low since the question was first asked in 1992, and a far cry from November 1994 and November 2002, when majorities thought the Republicans' views were appropriately balanced.
Independents' Views of the Parties
Political independents' perceptions of the two major parties' ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party's views as being about right and the other party's as being too extreme.)
Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.
Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans.
Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal."
Implications
The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
********************
June 30, 2009
More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.
Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.
As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).
But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats' ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans' ideology (34%).
In fact, the 34% who say the GOP is about right is a new low since the question was first asked in 1992, and a far cry from November 1994 and November 2002, when majorities thought the Republicans' views were appropriately balanced.
Independents' Views of the Parties
Political independents' perceptions of the two major parties' ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party's views as being about right and the other party's as being too extreme.)
Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.
Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans.
Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal."
Implications
The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Newborn blood samples - DNA privacy
Here we go again.
****************
Blood Samples Raise Questions of Privacy
Some Samples Are Stored and Used For Research Without Parents' Consent
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since -- and was making them available to scientists for medical research.
"They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."
The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.
Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health, meanwhile, is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.
The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
"There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. "Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."
Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.
Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research.
Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward. The District discards them after a year. Virginia saves them for up to 10 years but does not allow them to be used for research, officials said. Maryland has been storing blood spots since 2004 and may make its inventory of about 350,000 samples available to researchers. At least nine other states also keep the blood spots indefinitely.
"We consider them a national treasure," said Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance, a coalition that promotes genetics research. "We think they offer us the beginnings of a national blood bank to understand disease at an early age and follow people longitudinally over time."
The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.
Research projects are only approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.
"I've never heard anyone complain that their privacy was violated or their dried blood was used for something that negatively impacted them," said Michael S. Watson of the American College of Medical Genetics, which has the NIH contract to create an electronic database of newborn blood samples from across the country.
But the states can still link each sample to an individual child -- and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources.
"It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it. Once we start using DNA for more and more things like regular medical records, somebody could do a cross-check and say whose blood it is."
As scientists continue to discover new genetic markers, many wonder what such databases might reveal.
"I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."
Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.
"Once learning the genetics of one child, you could see an insurance company seeing that possibility for the next child and making it clear that this is a preexisting condition that the company would not cover. Or perhaps an employer that found out about it wouldn't want to have us as an employee," said Twila Brase of the Citizens' Council on Health Care in St. Paul.
Guaranteeing Privacy
The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is still pending over what should be done with the samples already on file.
"I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm not comfortable with a governmental agency having this information, with potentially the ability to share it with sister governmental agencies, such as criminal agencies," said Maryann Overath, an Austin lawyer with two sons who sued the state.
Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.
State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the newborn blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.
"Privacy is very important, and we protect it every way we can," said David Orren, the Minnesota health department's chief legal counsel.
In Michigan, officials plan to start asking new parents for permission to include their children's samples in the stockpile. But officials decided it would be impractical to try to contact the parents of all 3.5 million children whose samples are already on file. Instead, they are publicizing the biobank to allow parents to object if they don't want their children's samples included.
But even if the question of consent is resolved, other issues remain.
"There might be some research that offends moral sensibilities of citizens, such as research into prenatal screening for some genetic condition that might lead some parents to make a decision to selectively abort affected fetuses," said Tom Tomlinson, a bioethicist at Michigan State University.
Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September.
"There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said R. Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Comments: steinr@washpost.com.
****************
Blood Samples Raise Questions of Privacy
Some Samples Are Stored and Used For Research Without Parents' Consent
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since -- and was making them available to scientists for medical research.
"They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."
The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.
Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health, meanwhile, is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.
The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
"There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. "Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."
Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.
Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research.
Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward. The District discards them after a year. Virginia saves them for up to 10 years but does not allow them to be used for research, officials said. Maryland has been storing blood spots since 2004 and may make its inventory of about 350,000 samples available to researchers. At least nine other states also keep the blood spots indefinitely.
"We consider them a national treasure," said Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance, a coalition that promotes genetics research. "We think they offer us the beginnings of a national blood bank to understand disease at an early age and follow people longitudinally over time."
The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.
Research projects are only approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.
"I've never heard anyone complain that their privacy was violated or their dried blood was used for something that negatively impacted them," said Michael S. Watson of the American College of Medical Genetics, which has the NIH contract to create an electronic database of newborn blood samples from across the country.
But the states can still link each sample to an individual child -- and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources.
"It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it. Once we start using DNA for more and more things like regular medical records, somebody could do a cross-check and say whose blood it is."
As scientists continue to discover new genetic markers, many wonder what such databases might reveal.
"I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."
Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.
"Once learning the genetics of one child, you could see an insurance company seeing that possibility for the next child and making it clear that this is a preexisting condition that the company would not cover. Or perhaps an employer that found out about it wouldn't want to have us as an employee," said Twila Brase of the Citizens' Council on Health Care in St. Paul.
Guaranteeing Privacy
The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is still pending over what should be done with the samples already on file.
"I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm not comfortable with a governmental agency having this information, with potentially the ability to share it with sister governmental agencies, such as criminal agencies," said Maryann Overath, an Austin lawyer with two sons who sued the state.
Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.
State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the newborn blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.
"Privacy is very important, and we protect it every way we can," said David Orren, the Minnesota health department's chief legal counsel.
In Michigan, officials plan to start asking new parents for permission to include their children's samples in the stockpile. But officials decided it would be impractical to try to contact the parents of all 3.5 million children whose samples are already on file. Instead, they are publicizing the biobank to allow parents to object if they don't want their children's samples included.
But even if the question of consent is resolved, other issues remain.
"There might be some research that offends moral sensibilities of citizens, such as research into prenatal screening for some genetic condition that might lead some parents to make a decision to selectively abort affected fetuses," said Tom Tomlinson, a bioethicist at Michigan State University.
Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September.
"There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said R. Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Comments: steinr@washpost.com.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Jenny Sanford - strong woman
This is amazing. Have you ever seen such a woman.
*******************
Jenny Sanford: I asked husband to leave 2 weeks ago
'I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2009
5:22 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford
Jenny Sanford, the first lady of South Carolina, released the following statement today:
I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
(Story continues below)
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
*******************
Jenny Sanford: I asked husband to leave 2 weeks ago
'I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2009
5:22 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford
Jenny Sanford, the first lady of South Carolina, released the following statement today:
I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
(Story continues below)
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Christians compelled to participate in US, UK gay parades
Wow.
***********
Heterosexual ambulance staffers sought for 'gay' parade
Despite clampdown on expenses, offered overtime to participate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Staff members from a British ambulance service are being offered extra pay if they take part in a homosexual parade, following the low attendance at the event a year ago when participation was voluntary, according to a report in the London Daily Mail.
The costs, including overtime, refreshments for the staffers and transportation to and from the Brighton, England, resort where the parade is scheduled, will be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers, the report said.
The newspaper said a paramedic said the South East Coast Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust would be paying its workers 40 British pounds each – about $65 – to take part in the Brighton homosexual parade.
That's the equivalent of two hours overtime pay, even though the newspaper reported paramedics confirmed there had been a halt order issued for overtime payments.
(Story continues below)
"People from the trust went last year but they all attended as all volunteers," the paper quoted one paramedic saying, "I heard that the turnout wasn't very high and they wanted to get more people there."
A member of parliament, Ann Widdecombe, called the situation "unacceptable."
"The fact that the ambulance service is having to bribe paramedics to go is even worse. It would be much better to let them take a day off so they can get refreshed before they have to start their vital work saving lives," she said.
A Taxpayer Alliance official told the newspaper if staff members want to march, they can, "but there's no way we should pay for them to go on this march."
According to the report, a spokesman for the ambulance service said such community events are good ways to engage the public.
WND previously reported on a case in the United States in which firefighters were ordered to appear in a homosexual "Pride Parade," and later were awarded $5,000 each for emotional damages from the event.
In that case, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast regional director for the Thomas More Law Center, said, "Government employees should never be forced to participate in events or acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs."
"We are pleased with the jury's verdict recognizing the firefighters' right to abstain from activities that they consider morally offensive and that subject them to harassment," LiMandri said.
LiMandri said the main goal was that firefighters, all Christians, no longer will be subjected to such treatment.
The firefighters had been ordered to participate in the July 21, 2007, promotion of homosexuality and explicit sex.
WND reported earlier when attorney LiMandri made clear the liability held by the city of San Diego.
"These men were sexually harassed in clear violation of San Diego's sexual harassment code," LiMandri said. "Further, the California Constitution's freedom of speech provision prohibits compelled speech. What the firefighters were ordered to do was endorse what goes on at this parade through their participation in it."
***********
Heterosexual ambulance staffers sought for 'gay' parade
Despite clampdown on expenses, offered overtime to participate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Staff members from a British ambulance service are being offered extra pay if they take part in a homosexual parade, following the low attendance at the event a year ago when participation was voluntary, according to a report in the London Daily Mail.
The costs, including overtime, refreshments for the staffers and transportation to and from the Brighton, England, resort where the parade is scheduled, will be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers, the report said.
The newspaper said a paramedic said the South East Coast Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust would be paying its workers 40 British pounds each – about $65 – to take part in the Brighton homosexual parade.
That's the equivalent of two hours overtime pay, even though the newspaper reported paramedics confirmed there had been a halt order issued for overtime payments.
(Story continues below)
"People from the trust went last year but they all attended as all volunteers," the paper quoted one paramedic saying, "I heard that the turnout wasn't very high and they wanted to get more people there."
A member of parliament, Ann Widdecombe, called the situation "unacceptable."
"The fact that the ambulance service is having to bribe paramedics to go is even worse. It would be much better to let them take a day off so they can get refreshed before they have to start their vital work saving lives," she said.
A Taxpayer Alliance official told the newspaper if staff members want to march, they can, "but there's no way we should pay for them to go on this march."
According to the report, a spokesman for the ambulance service said such community events are good ways to engage the public.
WND previously reported on a case in the United States in which firefighters were ordered to appear in a homosexual "Pride Parade," and later were awarded $5,000 each for emotional damages from the event.
In that case, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast regional director for the Thomas More Law Center, said, "Government employees should never be forced to participate in events or acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs."
"We are pleased with the jury's verdict recognizing the firefighters' right to abstain from activities that they consider morally offensive and that subject them to harassment," LiMandri said.
LiMandri said the main goal was that firefighters, all Christians, no longer will be subjected to such treatment.
The firefighters had been ordered to participate in the July 21, 2007, promotion of homosexuality and explicit sex.
WND reported earlier when attorney LiMandri made clear the liability held by the city of San Diego.
"These men were sexually harassed in clear violation of San Diego's sexual harassment code," LiMandri said. "Further, the California Constitution's freedom of speech provision prohibits compelled speech. What the firefighters were ordered to do was endorse what goes on at this parade through their participation in it."
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Internet time crowding family time
Time to turn off the screens across America. But not until I do this blog entry.
*******************************************
Survey: Family time eroding as Internet use soars
Jun 15 01:38 PM US/Eastern
Comments (24) Share on Facebook
NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's around the dinner table or sitting front of the TV, U.S. families say they are spending less time together.
The decline in family time coincides with a rise in Internet use, and the boom of social networks—though a new report stops just short of assigning blame.
The report is from the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California.
The center is reporting that 28 percent of Americans it interviewed last year said they have been spending less time with members of their households. Only 11 percent said that in 2006.
*******************************************
Survey: Family time eroding as Internet use soars
Jun 15 01:38 PM US/Eastern
Comments (24) Share on Facebook
NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's around the dinner table or sitting front of the TV, U.S. families say they are spending less time together.
The decline in family time coincides with a rise in Internet use, and the boom of social networks—though a new report stops just short of assigning blame.
The report is from the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California.
The center is reporting that 28 percent of Americans it interviewed last year said they have been spending less time with members of their households. Only 11 percent said that in 2006.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tami Farrell: just like Prejean
Atta girl.
****************
New Miss California: Marriage between man, woman
Tami Farrell: 'The right thing to do is let the voters decide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 11, 2009
5:50 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Tami Farrell, the new Miss California
Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, and President Obama that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:
"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"
Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."
"You do, OK," said Cavuto.
Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."
****************
New Miss California: Marriage between man, woman
Tami Farrell: 'The right thing to do is let the voters decide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 11, 2009
5:50 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Tami Farrell, the new Miss California
Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, and President Obama that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:
"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"
Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."
"You do, OK," said Cavuto.
Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
