This is a test to make sure that Facebook is properly importing my posts.
Edit: They seem to be getting posted now. Good.
31 October 2008
This is a test to make sure that Facebook is properly importing my posts.
I've been listening to KCFR's series on the Senate candidates, and I just wanted to make a quick note about two things that surprised me. Udall is against gay marriage, on the principle that marriage is a religious institution and people of faith should be the ones to define it. He does support civil unions however. Second, Schaffer is against the "Definition of a person" amendment. Both of these really surprised me when I first heard them. Without being fully immersed in Colorado's senate race, I have to some degree replaced both of them with Strawmen who tow the party line. Listening to this series, not just this little snippet, but the whole thing, has given me a better perspective on the two candidates. To those Coloradans who have not voted yet, I recommend that you listen to them.
30 October 2008
I'm a bit of a blog machine tonight, but this story caught my eye. I'm in favor of this method of economic stimulus. Everything I've read about economic theory has said that checks sent to taxpayers are usually not helpful in the longterm. This article originally posted at Wired.
Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke have been racking their brains for something that might give the U.S. economy a bump. Their next try might be good for the nation's transportation system — but it's not going to be cheap.
Bernake is throwing his support behind a gigantic stimulus package that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats are pushing through Congress. If it were to become reality in its current form, it would significantly boost spending on roads, bridges and other public works projects: like a giant toll that everyone in the country has to pay.
The stimulus plan, which would be the second this year, would cost between $150 billion and $300 billion. In addition to allocating funds for traditional infrastructure spending, lawmakers are also considering provisions that would give families and businesses tax credits for investing in green projects like wind and solar.
While there is significant support for the package on Capitol Hill, some economists argue that the economic impact of public sector spending is overstated. "If the government taxes or borrows $10 billion new dollars to build bridges and roads, it's sucking the $10 billion out of the private sector economy somewhere else," Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute told Marketplace. "You know taxes are going to have to be higher than they otherwise would be."
Others say that these types of projects take time to ramp up, minimizing their economic impact. But the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials disagrees. It estimates that there are roughly 3,000 highway projects that could begin within 30 to 90 days of receiving funding, and several U.S. governors have been pleading with Congress for money to restart their states' stalled construction programs. With the recession projected by many to be long and deep, investment in infrastructure would have a big economic payoff, especially in sectors like construction, where unemployment sits at over 10 percent.
But on the downside, infrastructure spending can be especially vulnerable to political shenanigans. "You don't want to build more bridges to nowhere," Global Insight's Brian Bethune is quoted as saying, referring to the infamous Alaska project that has been bounced around as an issue by both presidential candidates.
At this point the plan is being well received in part because the last stimulus package, which consisted of rebate checks to taxpayers, was a bust. "It gave the economy a sugar high that faded as the financial crisis intensified," economist Peter Morici told the Associated Press.
But priorities in Washington can shift quickly. Right now, if the package actually passes and what it ends up looking like is anyone's guess.
To me, this is similar to the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was hugely helpful in pulling the US out of the Great Depression.
Having looked again at the ballot I've realized that the referendums don't require too much opinion from me. Let's give this a go.
An amendment to section 4 of article V of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the ability of an elector of the state of Colorado who has attained the age of twenty-one years to serve as a member of the Colorado general assembly.
I know what I was like at 21. I would not have been ready for a position in the state legislature and I doubt many 21 year olds would be. I agree the the age of 25 strikes a good balance.
Shall section 7 of article XVIII of the state constitution concerning outdated, obsolete provisions regarding land value increase be repealed?
Article XVIII, Section 7, authorizes the state to delay collection of additional property taxes when a property is improved by the planting of trees. There are, however, no tax breaks that take advantage of this. Nor is there any reason that such a law could not be passed if we wanted to have such a tax break.
Shall there be a repeal of section 5 of article XVIII and article XXII of the state constitution, concerning the elimination of outdated obsolete provisions of the state constitution?
Do we get rid of the law that prohibits saloons? I guess. I doubt we will see a resurgence in them.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning ballot initiatives, and, in connection therewith, increasing the number of signatures required for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution; reducing the number of signatures required for a proposed statutory initiative; requiring a minimum number of signatures for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to be gathered from residents of each congressional district in the state; increasing the time allowed to gather signatures for a proposed statutory initiative; modifying the review of initiative petitions; establishing a filing deadline for proposed initiatives to amend the state constitution; and requiring a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly to amend, repeal, or supersede any law enacted by an initiative for a period of five years after the law becomes effective?
If you have followed this at all, you will notice that I think people who use the citizen's initiative process are generally short-sighted or attempting to serve specific pet projects. Making it easier to propose statutory amendments compared to constitutional ones may help in this regard. I feel that the Colorado constitution has been messed with too much in the last couple of years and people really need to knock it off.
Hello again everyone. We really are getting down to the line here. I'm sure many of you have already voted using a number of early voting options, but since I'm a bit busy with other things, I haven't been able to finish up this series as quickly as I would like. Today, I'll look at the last four amendments on the Colorado ballot. We're skipping a few numbers because those measures have been withdrawn by their sponsers.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?
Another taxation and budget issue wrapped up together in an amendment issue. The trouble with this one is typical of initiatives that are put on the ballot in Colorado. This is an amendment to the state constitution; its very difficult to change. My response here is fairly similar to several other initiatives such as this. A change in the severance tax policy would not be bad. As part of an overarching strategy, I think it would be wise to increase the tax on fossil fuel development and add further incentives to renewable energy research and implementation. I really dislike setting aside budgetary items in amendments. I-70 needs some work, but it really needs to be addressed in another way.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning restrictions on campaign contributions, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the holder of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as indexed for inflation, awarded by state or local governments without competitive bidding ("sole source government contracts"), including certain collective bargaining agreements, from making a contribution for the benefit of a political party or candidate for elective office during the term of the contracts and for 2 years thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes a contribution in a ballot issue election from entering into a sole source government contract related to the ballot issue; and imposing liability and penalties on contract holders, certain of their owners, officers and directors, and government officials for violations of the amendment?
Alright, this amendment basically says that people with government contracts should not be allowed to donate that money to campaigns or use it for other political purposes. The blue book has probably pointed out the biggest problem with this issues: it prevents county or city level contractors from contributing money to candidates or causes outside of the limits of the person holding their contract.
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?
This is again, a good place for the state to increase its revenue, but a bad way to target the spending of such.
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE 2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION; CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT; ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT; ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?
This amendment is trying to fix some of the funding conflicts already in the state constitution by creating more of them. I think that summarizes my opinion on that pretty well.
As some of you may know, I still haven't received my official Colorado ballot, and so I will most likely not get to actually vote on these ballot issues. I have submitted a write-in ballot for the federal and state elections, so my voice will be heard in that way at least. I guess I'm also doing this blog, which may help to raise attention to some of these ballot issues. I'm at a conference on election day, so I won't be able to follow everything, but I will do my best to keep an eye on things.
If I have some more time, I'll cover the four referendums on the ballot as well.
24 October 2008
I meant to talk about this a few days ago because I think it is shocking. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann calls for a return to McCarthy-ism in America. Regardless of which party she is from, promoting the idea that some Americans are anti-American or have anti-American views is stupid. All of us want what is best for the country, we just have different views about what is best.
23 October 2008
Hello again to everyone. I haven't had as much free time for posting lately, but I thought that I should try to make some time to go over a few more of the ballot issues that Coloradans will be seeing this year. I should also speak about one of my biases. I think that the Citizen Initiative method in Colorado is a bit broken. Activists of all stripes tend to use this process in an attempt to lock things into the state constitution that cannot be easily changed. We elect our General Assembly for a reason. We use a republican model for a reason. Sometimes, it is better to leave the lawmaking in the hands of people who dedicate their lives to it. They are (or should be) experts on it. It is the same as trusting the advice of a doctor or lawyer in the appropriate situations. Therefore, unless I see an initiative that actually changes something that is wrong in the constitution, I will probably vote it down. Even if it is a good cause, a worthy initiative, I will try to block it. Our legislature is in charge of the State budget. If you would like to see more funding go to a specific project, write to your representative or senator and get them to do something about it. Vote people into office who you think will push the causes that you care about. Certainly, our representatives should take the opinions of the electorate to heart, but they also owe us their judgement. If the electorate is pushing Issue X but Rep. Smith knows that passing Issue X would cause a $2 mil shortfall in state revenues, he should vote against it.
Now, on to the main event.
Alright, this is a constitutional ammendment that prohibits government employees from having certain types of witholding. Simply put, I think this is unnecessary. There are already laws that people can opt out of any witholding that they don't want. I'm voting "no" for this.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from taking a payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other insurance, deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, and charitable deductions?
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS TO LIMITED GAMING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING THE LOCAL VOTERS IN CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK TO EXTEND CASINO HOURS OF OPERATION, APPROVED GAMES TO INCLUDE ROULETTE AND CRAPS OR BOTH, AND MAXIMUM SINGLE BETS UP TO $100; ADJUSTING DISTRIBUTIONS TO CURRENT GAMING FUND RECIPIENTS FOR GROWTH IN GAMING TAX REVENUE DUE TO VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN GAMING; DISTRIBUTING 78% OF THE REMAINING GAMING TAX REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STUDENT ENROLLMENTS, AND 22% FOR LOCAL GAMING IMPACTS IN GILPIN AND
TELLER COUNTIES AND THE CITIES OF CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN EACH CITY OR COUNTY; AND REQUIRING ANY INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES FROM THE LEVELS IMPOSED AS OF JULY 1, 2008 TO BE APPROVED AT A STATEWIDE ELECTION, IF LOCAL VOTERS IN ONE OR MORE CITIES HAVE APPROVED ANY REVISION TO LIMITED GAMING?
Simple version of this ammendment: allows cities to set new limits on betting, and changes the allocation of the revenue. I'm not against a constitutional change that would allow the expansion of gambling options. However, tacking on the changes for the revenue targets is not so good. This gets a "no" from me.
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009, BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS; PERMITTING THE STATE TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM THE NEW TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE SPENDING LIMIT; REQUIRING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NET REVENUE FROM THE NEW TAX TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE NEWLY CREATED DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LONG-TERM SERVICES CASH FUND; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; AND PROHIBITING REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVEL OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS MEASURE FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES?
This is a good example of the worthy cause that should not be an ammendment. Although this is only a statutory ammendment, I'm still against this on the basis that it is an ammendment. Certainly we should fund programs that we have so that they reach the people that need them. Again though, this should just be something that the legislature should take care of in their annual budget vote. If we need additional tax revenue to cover the costs, it can be brought before the voters as a referendum. I would encourage the proponents of 51 to get out and encourage the General Assembly to fund this program. Adding an ammendment to change the sales tax and lock that revenue into one program is not the way to go about this. Fiscal situations change every year, which is why the budget is voted in on an annual basis.
I've been rather busy lately, and I feel the need to explain my abscence from the blog. I've had weekly committe meetings working to hammer out my funding. I've found out that one of my supervisors is leaving the University at the end of the year and that is somewhat throwing a wrench in things. Anyhow, as part of the funding thing, I am writing a progress report, which is basically turning out to be a sort of kernel of my thesis. It's a lot of work, and I'm being forced to really examine my figures that I'm planning to use. The process is helping, but its forcing me to work really hard right now.
I'm leading our Bible study on Job tonight, and haven't really had a chance to prepare for that yet. Hopefully, I can find some time during dinner to do that. I've read the passages that we'll be studying at least. Now I just need to look through the questions a bit more.
Posted by jarthurs at 10:26 AM
14 October 2008
13 October 2008
A lot of work today. I've been looking threw the pictures that I took using the scanning electron microscope last week and trying to characterize the microfabrics of my various samples. I need to get the book out of the library that has the detailed pictures about microfabrics in order to do a really good job of though. Right now, I'm just looking at the types of particles and contacts that exist. My intact samples seem to be quite loose and the particles are only in edge to face contact, with the exception of clay microaggregate which form face to face contacts. Any way, here is an example photo. I think it pretty cool stuff. You can see a lot of clay particles in this picture. They are the things that look like a cross between a stack of books and a snake. This whole thing is pretty cool.
Recently, two prominant conservative writers have written editorials supporting Obama. The first is Chris Buckley, son of William F. Buckley. The second is Wick Allison, former editor of the National Review. I think Allison's argument is a bit stronger and more appealing. I think his assement of what conservitism and liberalism as ideals is very good and in fact reaffirms my position as a centrist. Namely, I think I have a bit of the liberal idealism for what ought to be done, but I also look back at what has been done to see whether or not it worked. Anyways, both are good reads.
Also, I had trouble expressing this when I was asked about it the other day, but I have to say that I think the wall of seperation between church and state must go both ways. Neither should have undo influence on the other. I hope that makes more sense.
10 October 2008
This really bugs me. The ammount of civil liberties that have been stripped from American citizens since the Sept. 11 attacks is terrifying. These actions are unconstitutional and have not even been proven to make us safer.
On a side note, I think the advertisement for salad dressing on the page using a clip from The Flaming Lips "Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Song".
I've had a look at the Colorado Blue Book online, and I am rather intimidated by the shear number of ballot issues. Over the next week, I'm going to try to give my views on the various amendments and referendums on the Statewide ballot. For the purpose of this blog, I'll be quoting the measures as they will appear on the Adams County ballot.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting; allowing exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide qualifications based on sex are reasonably necessary or when action is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funds; preserving the validity of court orders or consent decrees in effect at the time the measure becomes effective; defining "state" to include the state of Colorado, agencies or departments of the state, public institutions of higher education, political subdivisions, or governmental instrumentalities of or within the state; and making portions of the measure found invalid severable from the remainder of the measure?
Proponents of Amendment 46 claim that it removes affirmative action. Opponents say that it would cripple many outreach programs (especially those sponsored by universities) from targeting minorities and women. This would also include scholarships and similar programs. Propenents say that we have reached a point in our society where race, ethnicity, and gender are no longer the relevent deciders about economic status. They claim that instead, economic class should be used as the primary determinative factor in the allocation of scholarships and outreach programs.
My opinion will have to be limited to gender issues because it is the one I am most familiar with due to my field of study. Women are underrepresented in the maths and sciences. This is a fact.
This chart from the WISEM program at Mines.
|CSM Female Students Percent of Total Enrollment Fall 1992 - Fall 2004|
|Year||% of Total Undergrad Students||% of Total Grad Students||% of Total Females|
Source: Fall 1992-2004 CSM Registrar’s Reports
In terms of anecdotes, most of the girls that I went to school with would have been perfectly qualified to pursue careers in science and technology. There is a fairly well reported phenomenon of girls losing their interest in science and math during middle school, primarily due to pressure to not be perceived as "too smart". This is generally a group that should be targeted and that is distinctly not related to their socio-ecomonic status. This effect is seen in all women regardless of their family's income.
For reasons such as these, I must oppose this amendment. Certainly, economic status should be taken into account in recruitment programs etc., but we should not remove gender and race from the equation either.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning participation in a labor organization as a condition of employment, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting an employer from requiring that a person be a member and pay any moneys to a labor organization or to any other third party in lieu of payment to a labor organization and creating a misdemeanor criminal penalty for a person who violates the provisions of the section?
I've had a bit more difficulty in my thinking about this one, and I still have not made a solid decision either way. On one hand, I feel that participation in any organization should be voluntary. If you work at a place, you should not be required to participate in the company picnic or what not. On the other hand, Unions do a lot of work to advocate for their members, not limited to collective bargaining for wages. If Union enrollement at traditionally Unionized trades is not required, enrollment may drop, and the ability of the Union to help the workers could be lessened. My other inclination is to say that things are working as they are. Another thought is that this is an amendment and if it passes is very hard to remove or change. Things which I might not be opposed to becoming some sort or law (ie referendum or bill brough forth through the general assembly), I am against they idea of them being a part of the State constitution. With all of those qualifiers, my current inclination is No for this amendment. I will be looking in more detail at the arguments for and against before I make a final decision on this, and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” is used in those provivions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
This amendment is primarily designed to challenge abortion rights as designated in Roe v. Wade. One problem with the amendment is that it is scientifically absurd. There is no medical or scientific way to know the moment of conception or fertilization. Further, a recent study on in vitro fertilization has shown that roughly 40% of fertilized embryoes created have genetic issues, ussual missing or extra chromosomes, and would likely not become implanted in the womb. In other words, 40% of fertilized eggs are likely to result in miscarriage. This makes the law very difficult to enforce. This amendment gets a No.
So far, three amendments and three "no" votes for me. For those who are looking at this through Facebook, please come to forscience.blogger.com, so that you can have a look at the various links contained throughout this post. Comments are welcome, especially in regards to 47.