News

North Carolina Planned Parenthood will expand using federal taxpayer dollars

Leave a comment

According to Life News, the North Carolina legislature voted to cancel funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. The Obama administration responded by awarding them an even BIGGER grant directly from the federal government with federal taxpayer dollars.

Life News writes:

Following a recent announcement that the Obama administration would replace the state taxpayer funding North Carolina cut for a Planned Parenthood abortion referral business, a Durham clinic says it will be able to expand.

As LifeNews reported, for the third time in July and the fifth time overall, the Obama administration has override the decision of a state to revoke taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business. The Obama administration usurped the will of the North Carolina legislature by awarding $426,000 in federal grants directly to Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state.

Here’s the latest news:

The Durham clinic of Planned Parenthood — recently at risk of closing its doors — will be able to serve an additional 500 patients thanks to a federal grant.

The clinic had been threatened with closure because the state legislature this year cut Planned Parenthood’s $125,000 budget allotment. Instead, the Newsom Street facility will grow its services because Planned Parenthood has received a Title X grant worth $426,000 — nearly three times as much as state lawmakers cut.

Last year, the clinic overall had 2,244 patient visits. Officials expect a total volume of 2,727 this year, mainly from subsidized patients.

Obama’s full pro-abortion record is available here – he is not a moderate on this issue. I hope this story shows social conservatives why they need to care about fiscal issues. If the government didn’t have money from “the rich” they couldn’t be paying off abortion providers. And I hope that this story shows fiscal conservatives why they need to care about social issues. If abortion were illegal, then the federal government wouldn’t be handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to subsidize it. We are all in this together.

Relate posts

Polemics

Doug Axe explains the chances of getting a functional protein by chance

2 Comments

I’ve talked about Doug Axe before when I described how to calculate the odds of getting functional proteins by chance.

Let’s calculate the odds of building a protein composed of a functional chain of 100 amino acids, by chance. (Think of a meaningful English sentence built with 100 scrabble letters, held together with glue)

Sub-problems:

  • BONDING: You need 99 peptide bonds between the 100 amino acids. The odds of getting a peptide bond is 50%. The probability of building a chain of one hundred amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly (1/2)^99 or 1 chance in 10^30.
  • CHIRALITY: You need 100 left-handed amino acids. The odds of getting a left-handed amino acid is 50%. The probability of attaining at random only L–amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain one hundred amino acids long is (1/2)^100 or again roughly 1 chance in 10^30.
  • SEQUENCE: You need to choose the correct amino acid for each of the 100 links. The odds of getting the right one are 1 in 20. Even if you allow for some variation, the odds of getting a functional sequence is (1/20)^100 or 1 in 10^65.

The final probability of getting a functional protein composed of 100 amino acids is 1 in 10^125. Even if you fill the universe with pre-biotic soup, and react amino acids at Planck time (very fast!) for 14 billion years, you are probably not going to get even 1 such protein. And you need at least 100 of them for minimal life functions, plus DNA and RNA.

Research performed by Doug Axe at Cambridge University, and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology, has shown that the number of functional amino acid sequences is tiny:

Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly. He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds “may be as low as 1 in 10^77.”

The problem of forming DNA by sequencing nucleotides faces similar difficulties. And remember, mutation and selection cannot explain the origin of the first sequence, because mutation and selection require replication, which does not exist until that first living cell is already in place.

But you can’t show that to your friends, you need to send them a video. And I have a video!

A video of Doug Axe explaining the calculation

Here’s a clip from Illustra Media’s new ID DVD “Darwin’s Dilemma”, which features Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer (both with Ph.Ds from Cambridge University).

I hope you all read Brian Auten’s review of Darwin’s Dilemma! It was awesome.

Related DVDs

Illustra also made two other great DVDs on intelligent design. The first two DVDs “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and “The Privileged Planet” are must-buys, but you can watch them on youtube if you want, for free.

Here are the 2 playlists:

I also recommend Coldwater Media’s “Icons of Evolution”. All three of these are on sale from Amazon.com.

Related posts

News

Why did the pollster poll 9% more Democrats than Republicans?

1 Comment

From National Review, a transcript of an interaction on the Hugh Hewitt show about a new poll by Democrat pollster Quinnipiac:

HH: Do you expect Democrats, this is a different question, do you, Peter Brown, expect Democrats to have a nine point registration advantage when the polls close on November 6th in Florida?
PB: Well, first, you don’t mean registration.
HH: I mean, yeah, turnout.
PB: Do I think…I think it is probably unlikely.
HH: And so what value is this poll if in fact it doesn’t weight for the turnout that’s going to be approximated?
PB: Well, you’ll have to judge that. I mean, you know, our record is very good. You know, we do independent polling. We use random digit dial. We use human beings to make our calls. We call cell phones as well as land lines. We follow the protocol that is the professional standard.
HH: As we say, that might be the case, but I don’t know it’s responsive to my question. My question is, should we trust this as an accurate predictor of what will happen? You’ve already told me there…
PB: It’s an accurate predictor of what would happen is the election were today.
HH: But that’s, again, I don’t believe that, because today, Democrats wouldn’t turn out by a nine point advantage. I don’t think anyone believes today, if you held the election today, do you think Democrats would turn out nine percentage points higher than Republicans?
PB: If the election were today, yeah. What we found is obviously a large Democratic advantage.
HH: I mean, you really think that’s true? I mean, as a professional, you believe that Democrats have a nine point turnout advantage in Florida?
PB: Our record has been very good. You know, Hugh, I…
HH: That’s not responsive. It’s just a question. Do you personally, Peter, believe that Democrats enjoy a nine point turnout advantage right now?
PB: What I believe is what we found.
HH: Geez, I just, and an eight point in Ohio? I’m from Ohio. Democrats haven’t had an eight point advantage in Ohio since before the Civil War. I mean, that just never happens, but Peter, I appreciate your coming on. I’m not persuaded that Quinnipiac Polls haven’t hurt themselves today, but I appreciate your willingness to come on and talk about it.

I will stick with the Rasmussen Reports polls, thanks.