Pro-Choice Maryland

North Dakota didn't set out to become the abortion debate's new epicenter.

It happened by accident, after a legislative caucus that once vetted abortion bills languished, leaving lawmakers to propose a flurry of measures — some cribbed from Wikipedia — without roadblocks.

Long dismissed as cold and inconsequential, North Dakota is now trying to enact the toughest abortion restrictions in the nation. The newly oil-rich red state may soon find itself in a costly battle over legislation foes describe as blatantly unconstitutional.

( More )

Lawmakers on Friday took a step toward outlawing abortion altogether in the state by passing a so-called personhood resolution that says a fertilized egg has the same right to life as a person. The House's approval sends the matter to voters, who will decide whether to add the wording to the state's constitution in November 2014.
Hopefully, history repeats itself again by voters overturning this like it did in Colorado and Mississippi.

Also, I'm happy to see that there are some republicans that aren't happy about this bill and think it goes too far. They realize that this wouldn't only hinder abortion, but it would hinder IVF and make miscarriage a crime...two things that also affect lifers as much as choicers.

With all of this said and done...it makes me happy I'm not from a state like ND. It also makes me happy that I live in Sweden because I wouldn't have to worry about this stupid shit. I was already lucky to be living here when I miscarried in 2010 because I bleed so much that a blood transfusion was required. If I had been refused a D&C, I probably would've bled to death regardless if I had the blood transfusion because I would've continued to bleed until the fetus (who was already dead) was removed (as I have O negative blood while the fetus had a positive blood type).

I took this action through Planned Parenthood:
President Obama is holding the line on making no-cost birth control available to women no matter where they work. Now it's our turn. The administration has 60 days to collect public comments on the rule -- I made mine in support and I need you to add yours right now

Warren Buffett, probably the world’s most successful investor, has said that anything good that happened to him could be traced back to the fact that he was born in the right country, the United States, at the right time (1930). A quarter of a century ago, when The World in 1988 light-heartedly ranked 50 countries according to where would be the best place to be born in 1988, America indeed came top. But which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?

To answer this, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.

Its quality-of-life index links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys—how happy people say they are—to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries. Being rich helps more than anything else, but it is not all that counts; things like crime, trust in public institutions and the health of family life matter too. In all, the index takes 11 statistically significant indicators into account. They are a mixed bunch: some are fixed factors, such as geography; others change only very slowly over time (demography, many social and cultural characteristics); and some factors depend on policies and the state of the world economy.

A forward-looking element comes into play, too. Although many of the drivers of the quality of life are slow-changing, for this ranking some variables, such as income per head, need to be forecast. We use the EIU’s economic forecasts to 2030, which is roughly when children born in 2013 will reach adulthood.

What are your thoughts about this? I'm not surprised that the country I'm currently residing is in the top 5.

Rory Delaney is a three-year-old who has not been out of diapers that long, but she already knows something about changing them.

Her sister, Saorise, is a five-year-old kindergarten student who already knows what she wants to be when she grows up, a mom.

Now, researchers at Rockefeller University say the inclination that both Rory and Saorise feel at such a young age to nurture and feed their baby dolls and play with items like strollers could be something they were born with, and something that will definitely impact their futures.

In a study with mice, the researchers determined that a single gene exists that could be responsible for motivating mothers to protect, feed and raise their young.

The study's findings mean there could be a valid explanation as to why some women seem born to be maternal figures, while others come across as detached or cold or even completely not interested when it comes to children.

Some are calling the discovery the "mommy gene."

Moms who spoke with ABC News were divided on the possible link to motherhood, with some saying it makes sense and others saying it is not that simple.

"I can always remember playing with dolls and always thinking, 'I'm going to be a mom,'" said Melissa Delaney, a mother of three. "I do have friends who say they just don't have it in them to want a baby or to take care of them."

"On a good day I'm incredibly nurturing. On a bad day, it's a little harder," said Julie Taw, a mother of two, raising the argument that maternal instinct may have more to do with circumstance than genetics.

One blogger who leads a parenting website worried the gene study might present mothers with another reason to look harshly on themselves, and other moms.

"I worry that it could almost invite us to look at someone that does something differently than we do and say, 'She doesn't want to breastfeed. She doesn't have the 'mommy gene,"" said Melissa Lawrence, a mother of five and co-founder of CloudMom.com.

So, do you all think a "motherhood" gene exists?