'Big brother-care' looms large

'Big brother-care' looms large



Matt BarberIt's socialized medicine vs. the private sector. How does the former match-up to the latter? Well, by way of an ill-advised postal services analogy, our inspired physician-in-chief has gaffed upon the answer: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he observed, "It's the post office that's always having problems."
 


Priceless – From the mouths of libs...

Speaking of "Federal Express:" Was there ever any doubt as to why the left's government takeover of healthcare absolutely, positively had to be there overnight? Dr. Obama, Nurse Nancy and the rest of the congressional candy-stripers recognized that if Americans had a chance to actually vet this medical monstrosity, they'd rise-up against it.
 
Oops. We have -- and we have.
 
But despite a nose-dive in support, the Democratic Party's ObamaCare Kamikazes refuse to pull-up. Instead, they're unloading both barrels, hell-bent on sinking the U.S.S. Free Market and taking our liberties, quality of care, and American exceptionalism down with it.
 
Pelosi has disgracefully implied that town-hall goers who question this radical experiment in socialized medicine are Nazis. And in an August 10 USA Today op-ed, she and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) shamelessly labeled those same heartland patriots – many of whom are senior citizens – as "un-American."
 
But what is "un-American" is this socialist piece of Euro-trash being peddled as "healthcare reform." This is not the "hope and change" America envisioned while punching Obama's chad last November. He and liberals in Congress have betrayed their nation's trust.
 
At nearly 1,100 pages, even the president admits he hasn't read H.R. 3200 – the House version of the bill – and supporters like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have ridiculed the very idea that anyone would.
 
Well, some of us are reading it – silly as we may be.
 
Liberty Counsel's Washington, DC, staff has compiled a comprehensive bullet-point summary of the bill. It's gone viral and Americans are arming themselves with the information it provides. They're taking it to town-hall meetings around the country and are respectfully, but firmly holding their representatives' feet to the fire.
 
"What Americans Need to Know About the Healthcare Takeover" provides a link to both an overview of H.R. 3200 and the full text of the bill so that people can verify for themselves the overview's accuracy. This is democracy in action and it's making the left mouth-foaming furious.
 
ObamaCare is fatally flawed on numerous levels, but, for now, let's focus on just a few:
 


First, despite ludicrous denials by both an increasingly partisan AARP and a "snitch on your comrade" White House, pages 424, 425, and 426 of the plan do, in fact, mandate compulsory government "end-of-life" consultations for seniors who have "not had such a consultation within the last 5 years."
 
According to the bill, these consultations "shall include...an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice." (Or, as President Kevorkian put it, instruct you that: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.")


 
Again, these are mandatory consultations. The word "shall" is a legal term of art that means – for lack of a better word – "shall." Notwithstanding White House and AARP claims to the contrary, "shall" does not mean "may," "can" or "have the option to."
 
So, in the interest of candor and for the sake of clarity, let's call ObamaCare's mandatory "end-of-life counseling" what it truly is: "End-your-life" counseling. Better yet, let's call it the "Useless-Eaters-Get-Out-of-the-Way-and-Just-Die-Already" provision.
 
Next, we have Sec. 163, pages 58–60, which – whether you like it or not – grants federal bureaucrats full access to both your private medical records and personal bank account for automatic fund withdrawals. You read that right...
 
Here's how it works: In order to "standardize electronic administrative transactions," the government issues you a handy-dandy "machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card" to "enable electronic funds transfers" from your private bank account.
 
But lest you worry about having to deal with any of those pesky "choices" or confusing "decisions," Uncle Sam promises to "be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions."
 
Got that? Our "authoritative" federal government will not permit you to place any "constraints" on its access to your bank account. (Yea! Big Brother's got your back! How could anyone be opposed this kind of government coddling? One question, though: Will Uncle Sam pick-up our "non-sufficient funds" fees?)
 
And then there's the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee." This lovely government-appointed panel of bureaucrats is to consist of "medical and other experts" who get to "recommend covered benefits."
 
Other experts? What in the Rahm Emanuel is that supposed to mean?
 
Grandma neither wants – nor can she survive – a liberal Democrat-appointed, "one-size-fits-all" panel of distinguished experts in the field of "other" deciding what medical services she will or will not be allowed to receive. We're not numbers on a page, Mr. President. We're people.
 
But this brings us back to the aforementioned threat of "standardization." As with every socialist nation that has adopted its own version of ObamaCare, standardized, universal healthcare, is – and always will be – an abysmal "healthcare rationing" failure. It's no longer you and your doctor deciding what's best for you and your family; it's Big Brother.
 
Keep in mind; we've only covered three provisions here. H.R. 3200 is nearly 1,100 pages of wonderfully ambiguous little nuggets just like these, which grant the government unlimited loopholes to do whatever it pleases with your life and well-being.
 
Where's my America?

Contact: Matt Barber
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Publish Date: August 12, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.

"Disaster plans leave disabled behind"

In the midst of a national debate on healthcare rationing of the elderly, disabled, and informed comes this, posted on Drudge this morning. in the Washington Times:

    Four years after Hurricane Katrina exposed major deficiencies in the capacity of governments to evacuate and care for the disabled during a natural disaster, America's most vulnerable citizens are barely considered in most emergency plans, according to a report being issued Wednesday by the National Council on Disability.

    The report says huge gaps exist in those emergency plans despite an executive order issued by President Bush in 2004 urging federal and local governments, as well as private organizations, to consider the unique needs of the disabled when planning rescues and preparing to provide emergency shelter....
Click here for the full article.


ObamaCare Shocker: Send in the Social Workers

The proposed Obama government healthcare bill has a government snitch network built into it, allowing social workers to gain access to your home under the pretext of checking on your new baby, or soon-to-be-born baby. It will result in many many more children being taken from families by state Child Protective Services agencies. This is the fulfillment of a long-held dream by child protection agencies to gain access to homes, without first getting a report of abuse or neglect, as currently required by law. Mandated visits to homes by government agents has been a favorite cause of Hillary Clinton, and of the radical bureaucrats running the U.S. Administration of Children and Families.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Abort Feds Try to Detect 'Lone Offenders'

[Baby Murdering] federal authorities have launched an effort to detect lone attackers who may be contemplating politically charged assaults similar to the recent murders of a Kansas abortion doctor and a Holocaust museum security guard. The effort, known as the "Lone Wolf Initiative," was started shortly after President Obama's inauguration, in part because of a rising level of hate speech and surging gun sales. "Finding those who might plan and act alone, the so-called lone offenders ... will only be prevented by good intelligence [sic], the seamless exchange of information among law enforcement at every level, and vigilant citizens reporting suspicious activity," said Michael Heimbach, the FBI's assistant director for counterterrorism.
Click here for the full article.


Swine Flu Vaccine Should Not Be Given to Children in Schools

On April 26, a national public health emergency was declared by officials in the U.S. Departments of Health and Homeland Security. We were told it was necessary to declare a national emergency because people were getting sick from a new swine flu virus that began in Mexico and might cause a deadly influenza pandemic. So far, the vast majority of people who get sick with swine flu have symptoms that are no worse than the regular flu and recover completely.
Click here for the full article.


Obamacare: Seniors Know They Will Not Be Better Off

A recent Gallup Poll found that only 20% of seniors think that Obamacare will improve their health situations. From the story:

    “We are not talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Obama said, trying to assuage the audience. But Obama is talking about finding hundreds of billions in savings from Medicare — cuts supporters say will trim fat from the program — including slashing $156 billion in subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a privately-administered Medicare program…

    A July 31 Gallup poll found that just 20 percent of Americans aged 65 and older believe health care reform would improve their own situation, noticeably lower than the 27 percent of 18- to 49-year olds and 26 percent of 50 to 64-year olds who say the same.

My only question is: What’s up with that 20%? The cuts to the already strained Medicare budget are sure to impact the quality of care they receive, the president’s closest advisers on health care see seniors as the problem and cost cutting as the answer, and the scent of rationing is in the air.  I mean, what does it take to learn that someone isn’t on your side?
Click here for the full article.

They Really Do Believe We Are Idiots

They Really Do Believe We Are Idiots

"Liberal religious groups announced on Monday they are teaming up with President Barack Obama in a national campaign to counter the surprisingly vehement conservative opposition to his plan for overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry this year. Organized by liberal-leaning evangelicals, some mainline Protestant clergy, and some Catholic groups, it will include Obama participating in a call-in program with religious leaders streamed on the Internet on August 19, prayer meetings and nationwide television ads."

     From "U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight," which appeared yesterday in Reuters.

When a reporter and/or media outlet is behind you, your vocal support for something or another is "passionate," "caring," even "prophetic." When they don't, that same intensity is "vehement," "fueled by anger," even (to quote Democratic congressional leaders) "unAmerican."


Jim Wallis

Some of the same religious leadership that helped Obama navigate the political shoals last year are putting the band back together again, this time in an attempt to blunt massive grassroots resistance to health care "reform." Let me talk about a few of the particulars.

If you believe a lot of the "mainstream" press, resistance is either synthetic, bought and paid for by those "opposed to health care reform," ill-informed, and/or stoked in part (as Reuters put it yesterday) by "Christian and conservative radio," and/or leaders of the "religious right."

As you undoubtedly know from watching television or reading accounts, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are fighting back.

The two-fold strategy appears to be (yet AGAIN) to marginalized anyone who wants an explanation of how they are going to square various circles, and to (yet AGAIN) stop talking about specifics (which always gets them into loads of trouble) and return to the kind of sparkling generalities that Obama specializes in.

That's where the Religious Left comes in the form of something called "People of Faith for Health Reform and its "40 Days for Health Reform." One of the usual suspects is Jim Wallis, who told Reuters that "his group's mission is to keep universal health-care coverage alive as a 'moral issue.'"

According to NPR, the division of labor goes like this. The Obama Administration has rolled out a website to contest "wild rumors" about its health care initiative and to "call out misinformation." (Gulp! ) So what is the role of this "coalition of progressive religious leaders"?

"Argue morality," or, according to Liz Halloran, "more specifically, what members characterize as the moral and religious imperative of providing 'inclusive, accessible' health care coverage and the need for a civil discourse about the issue, says Jim Wallis of the progressive Christian group Sojourners, one of the coalition sponsors." (Keep that "civil discourse" comment in mind.

So, let's look at the ad... (click here)



True, there is one statement that is unobjectionable. A pastor looks in the camera and says, "God's given us a spirit not of fear but of love and action."

But the rest of the ad is the usual us v. the "special interests" drivel that is the hallmark of those who insist you either accept the thrust of the Democrats health care "reform" sight unseen, or you want nothing.

The first statement in the 30-second ad tells you all you need to know: "Special interests in Washington are spending millions to block health insurance reform," followed by "Killing reform will boost their profits." In case anyone misses the point a moment later a woman opines, "The special interests are strong."

However, thanks to NPR, there can be little doubt of the campaign's real motivation.

"According to Gordon Whitman of the PICO National Network, a faith-based community organizing group that is also one of the coalition's sponsors, the group's effort will focus on moderate, swing districts where 'religion is significant to public life.'"

They really do believe we are idiots, don't they?

Switching gears but to a related subject, there's been an enormous amount written about "Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years," as the Washington Post described it. How much should we be worrying about this?

Let me offer the concluding paragraphs of "Facing the Challenge of Health Care Rationing," a page one story in the July/August issue of NRL News, written by NRLC's Burke Balch, JD. Mr. Balch, director of NRLC's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics wrote the following.

The House legislation, as reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, contains provisions to promote advance directives like "living wills," including:

1) Medicare reimbursement for consultations about "advance care planning" between health care providers and their patients when they enter Medicare, every five years thereafter, and if they become seriously ill;

2) requiring private and public health care plans to give potential enrollees the option to establish advance directives; and

3) a public education campaign, toll-free telephone hotline, and clearinghouse to promote advance directives and other advance care planning.

Advocates of such measures frequently cite the cost savings if, as they expect, this promotion results in more directives rejecting lifesaving treatment. "We refer to the end-of-life discussion as the multimillion-dollar conversation because it is associated with shifting costs away from expensive ... care like being on a ventilator in an ICU, to less costly comfort care ...," said Holly Prigerson of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. National Right to Life strongly encourages the execution of a pro-life advance directive, the Will to Live.

However, the pro-life fear is that efforts to push patients and prospective patients to prepare advance directives may in practice become a means of persuading or pressuring them to agree to less treatment as a means of saving money. Moreover, governmental promotion of advance care planning must not include the "option" of assisted suicide.

It is critically important that pro-life citizens make their voices heard while senators and representatives are at home during August, and after they return to Washington in September. The contemplated restructuring of America's health care system will affect the life--and death--of every American.

Source: NRLC
Publish Date: August 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

The Unborn Child: Amazing Beyond Words

The Unborn Child: Amazing Beyond Words



As early as 30 weeks old, unborn babies startled when they heard a low sound, but then became accustomed to it as it was repeated. Getting used to a stimulus and showing no reaction after repetition is called habituation. "Habituation is a form of learning and a form of memory," co-author Dr. Jan Nijhuis of Maastricht University Medical Center in The Netherlands told LiveScience.

Thirty-week-old babies stopped responding to the sound after about 13 repetitions. If another round of stimulation began 10 minutes later, these babies took only a few times to ignore the noise, LiveScience reported. Older babies, about 34 weeks old, remembered the sound up to four weeks later.

Unborn babies younger than 30 weeks did not show evidence of memories.

However, Nijhuis said that the type of stimulus used in the study may not be the best one to reach younger unborn children, and further research is needed, according to LiveScience.

"It seems like every day we find out marvelous new things about the development of unborn children," said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research for the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund. "We hope that this latest information helps people realize more clearly that the unborn are members of the human family with amazing capabilities and capacities like these built in from the moment of conception."

Taking ultrasound technology to the next dimension, a design student has developed a new technique to create three-dimensional plaster models of unborn babies that expectant parents can hold and forge an even closer bond with their children.

Brazilian Jorge Lopes, a PhD student at the Royal College of Art, displayed the models in a London exhibition beginning July 27, according to the London Times. "It's amazing to see the faces of the mothers," Lopes told the Times. "They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it."

Lopes uses a technique called "rapid prototyping," which takes ultrasound and MRI scans of the unborn babies and "prints" them with a plaster powder instead of ink. The plaster builds up, layer by layer, until it creates a perfect 3D replica of the baby.

Two of the models are of Lopes's own son. "It's my son with 13 weeks and almost 16 weeks. We're having a baby in August," Lopes told ABC News. When he held the completed models, "I was crying. Of course, it's--amazing to see. And, you know, you can see the umbilical cord and everything."

An obstetrics clinic in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is conducting a trial to use the technology. Testers will include a blind woman, who would actually be able to feel the body and face of her unborn baby, the Times reported.

"Prenatal bonding is really important for postnatal bonding," ultrasound pioneer Stuart Campbell, head of obstetrics and gynecology at King's College London, told ABC News. "To have a model of the child they can carry around with them and feel and touch, to me, must help that process."

Contact: Liz Townsend
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: August 6, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Sounds "worse than it is"?

Partial-Birth Abortion: Sounds “worse than it is”?



The other day I was at a library book sale. . .my heaven on earth.  I was browsing in the Politics section for that perfect find–a new release hardcover from one of my favorite authors or commentators and all for the bargain price of $2 (never found one, by the way).  A woman and her friend were across the row of books from me and I overheard the following statement:

“Partial-birth abortion is just a made up term in order to sound worse than it really is.”

I’m not kidding.

And I wanted so desperately to ask her, “Just what part of the partial-birth procedure is not EXACTLY as the name (aka “made up term”) implies?”  But I didn’t.  And now I’m blogging about it (venting about it) here.

I understand that not everyone accepts the name of this procedure–the AMA, for example, or Planned Parenthood (big surprise), which calls it an IDX, Intact Dilation and Extraction.

But what I take issue with is the complete spin that pro-choice proponents, activists, politicians and abortion providers perform here.  If you are upset that pro-lifers are calling it partial-birth abortion (upset that we are calling apples apples instead of papayas), then tell me exactly and specifically where a partial-birth abortion is NOT a partial-birth abortion.

Here is a description of the partial-birth abortion procedure, as appears of the National Right to Life website:

“This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant — or even later into pregnancy.* Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.”

If you would like a definition from a neutral group, rather than pro-life advocates, here is the definition put out by the Congress in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

“The Congress finds and declares the following:  (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion–an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child’s body until either the entire baby’s head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby’s trunk  past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child’s skull and removing the baby’s brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then  completes delivery of the dead infant–is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.”

Wikipedia says, “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the terms ‘partial-birth abortion’ and ‘intact dilation and extraction’ are basically synonymous”.

Do I need to go on?  Would I have had to show this woman pictures and diagrams of partial-birth abortions to prove to her that babies really are partially born before they are brutally aborted?

I get frustrated when people would rather believe political spin than use their God-given intellect to acknowledge the facts.  I get frustrated when I see on people’s Facebook page the day after Dr. Tiller, the late-term abortionist, was murdered, “flags at half staff in honor of a hero.”  I get frustrated when people would rather hold on to things they incorrectly think are their “rights” rather than acknowledge that these innocent babies are born in God’s image and it’s their right to be protected.  But I have to remember that God calls me to love, even those people that frustrate me.  And I know that as much as he hates abortion, and as much as I believe he wants us to stand for truth, defend life and get actively involved to varying degrees, I also know that he also (not instead, though) wants us to love.

So I press on to love, even though I’m frustrated.

Source: Standing on Truth
Publish Date: August 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-lifers released from 'economic bondage'

Pro-lifers released from 'economic bondage'

A contingent of pro-lifers in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, is breathing a collective sigh of relief.



Bryan J. Brown and several other defenders of the unborn staged major pro-life demonstrations at a Ft. Wayne abortion clinic in 1989 and 1990 and, as a result, were hauled into federal court before U.S. District Judge William Lee. Brown, a former attorney with the American Family Association, recalls the injunction issued by the court almost two decades ago.
 
"In some respects, it backfired because the federal injunction that they gained actually put a sidewalk counselor right on the front steps of the abortion clinic," he explains.
 
"But then a few months later we were told we had to pay the abortion clinic $61,000 in attorney fees, [and] that these would have to be paid directly to the abortionists to pay their ACLU...or NOW attorneys."
 
With interest over the years, that fine ballooned to about $350,000, but their consciences would not allow them to pay it -- a decision that later prevented Brown from entering the Indiana Bar Association.
 
Last week, however, Judge Lee vacated the order, dismissing the long-standing judgment. Brown says he has been set free from "economic bondage" to the abortion industry. "Thank you, William C. Lee, for playing Abraham Lincoln and setting this economic slave free," he writes on his blog site.
 
In the meantime, Brown's family had purchased the old abortion clinic and established the pro-life ArchAngel Institute instead.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: August 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obama silent about provisions for abortion

Obama silent about provisions for abortion



The Obama administration has initiated an effort to dispel what it describes as "wild rumors" about health-care reform, but, perhaps tellingly, it does not seek to deny that current congressional proposals will result in government funding of abortion.

In his weekly radio address Aug. 8, President Obama sought to dismiss what he described as "the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia or cut Medicaid or bring about a government takeover of health care."

"That's simply not true," Obama said. "This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance."

The White House launched a new website Aug. 10 to disprove "some common myths" about what it, as well as the president, called "health insurance," instead of health-care, reform. At the "Reality Check" site, staff members addressed what the White House described as "wild rumors and scare tactics" about such issues as euthanasia, health-care rationing, the plan's impact on small businesses and Americans' ability to keep their private insurance plans.

Neither Obama nor his White House mentioned abortion, however. There is a reason behind the White House's refusal to label abortion coverage in health-care reform as a rumor, a pro-life legislative expert told Baptist Press.

"The bills President Obama is pushing in Congress could create the biggest expansion of abortion in America since Roe v. Wade," said Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, in a written statement for BP. "The president is evading questions on the issue because he does not want to draw public attention to the sweeping pro-abortion provisions that are in the bills.

"Both Senate and House bills would, for example, create a nationwide federal insurance plan, the 'public option,' that would pay for all abortions," Johnson said. "Also, both bills would create a huge new program that would subsidize private plans that cover elective abortion.

"Unfortunately, much of the institutional news media is helping Obama hide these provisions," he said, "by disseminating unsophisticated and often flatly inaccurate descriptions of what the bills contain."

Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that struck down all state laws prohibiting abortion, legalizing the practice nationwide.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) reported in an Aug. 3 analysis that a health-care bill in the House of Representatives "does allow insurers to include abortion as a benefit and also allows federal money to be used for abortions." The ERLC said in its nine-page document that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200, would undoubtedly be interpreted to mandate abortion funding.

The Associated Press acknowledged in an Aug. 5 article that congressional measures would permit "a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions."

Obama -- while largely avoiding the subject of abortion lately -- was more direct when he was a candidate and told Planned Parenthood during a 2007 speech that abortion coverage is "at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose." He also said that "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care."

Some of the criticisms targeted by Obama and his White House do not qualify as "outlandish rumors," according to various reviews of the health-care proposals.

Regarding concerns about the promotion of euthanasia, White House domestic policy director Melody Barnes said in a video on the "Reality Check" website that the proposals will not force euthanasia on anyone. There is "absolutely nothing mandatory about" even obtaining a living will, Barnes said.

In its analysis, however, the ERLC said a section in the House bill that likely would provide education about decisions near the end of life "could essentially encourage the premature death of the elderly" and could produce a "slippery slope that potentially leads to euthanasia."

A writer for The Washington Post said the provision in question, Section 1233 of the House bill, is not completely harmless.

The writer, Charles Lane, said in an Aug. 8 article the end-of-life consultations every five years are not "purely voluntary" and permit physicians to "initiate the chat and [the section] gives them an incentive –- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist."

In those counseling sessions, many senior adults would "bow to white-coated authority," agreeing to "end-of-life directives" they normally would not, he said.

That section of the bill "goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it," Lane wrote. "Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach."

On rationing, Kavita Patel, a doctor who works in the White House's office of public engagement, said on a video on the "Reality Check" site that health-care rationing already occurs. Insurance companies practice it, she said.

"The reality right now is that there is widespread rationing in the form of health insurance telling you what you can and what you can't have," Patel said. "But the notion that the government will interfere with what you have -- it really is laughable."

The ERLC's analysis, however, said health-care rationing would result if the House bill is enacted in its present form, and, even if the public option does not survive, rationing would be likely because of the requirements imposed on private insurance companies.

In addition, according to the ERLC, government officials, rather than private citizens, would determine the type of health care received by Americans under the public option established by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

Three House committees have approved H.R. 3200. A Senate panel has endorsed a health-care reform proposal, but the Senate Finance Committee is seeking to craft a bipartisan version. Both chambers are in recess until Sept. 8.

Source: BP
Publish Date: August 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.

ABC Reports: It's Real People, REAL Mad

ABC News seemed to file a report that refutes the left wing mantra that all the outrage over Obamacare is fake, manufactured, or invented by a “Brooks Brothers rent-a-mob” with coverage of the local folks that confronted Blue Dog Democrat Frank Kratovil (D, Maryland) as he attempted to avoid a townhall meeting on his recess. Kratovil employed the Democrat’s newest form of avoidance by trying to set up one-on-one meetings with his constituents instead of the regular townhall styled meeting and in that way avoid the confrontations that whip up crowds.
Click here for the full article.


White House Blocks Opposition From Staged Obama Town Hall Event

In an effort to protect the the saintly image of Barack Obama as his popularity plummets to new lows, the White House has ensured there will be no opposing voices to the Obamacare agenda when the President makes a town hall appearance in New Hampshire tomorrow. The Secret Service will also be keeping a close eye on the throngs of protesters that are likely to gather outside. However, the many liberal commentators who rightly slammed President George W. Bush for his numerous scripted town hall meetings are noticeably silent in their criticism of Obama’s similarly staged event.
Click here for the full article.


Assisted Reproduction Rates (playing God) Increasing Worldwide

Globally, the use of assisted reproduction technology, or ART, to overcome fertility problems continues to increase, and multiple births remain a concern, according to a new report. "There was no real surprise in the trends, which are consistent with previous trends," Dr. Jacques de Mouzon told Reuters Health. ART is an umbrella term for fertility techniques such as in vitro fertilization or ICSI, in which a sperm is injected directly into an egg in the lab. In the journal Human Reproduction, de Mouzon from Bicetre Hospital in Paris, France and his colleagues present the Eighth World Report on ART, looking at the global practice and results of ART for the year 2002.
Click here for the full article.


Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?

During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) had been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in a number of countries, among them Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines. In October 1994, HLI received a communication from its Mexican affiliate, the Comite’ Pro Vida de Mexico, regarding that country’s anti-tetanus campaign. Suspicious of the campaign protocols, the Comite’ obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists. Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a naturally occurring hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy.
Click here for the full article.


Feds Consider 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' Involved In Tiller Shooting

A federal investigation is underway to determine if more than one person was involved in abortion doctor George Tiller's death, Kansas authorities said. Federal agents, who declined to comment on an investigation, have spoken with many who have visited Roeder since the shooting, including two convicted abortion clinic bombers and several people who signed a declaration defending the killing of abortion providers, the Kansas City (Mo.) Star reported Monday. "This guy has been in the hard-core anti-abortion circle for a long time, and there has been a pattern of communication and encouragement among these people," Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said. Supporters of Roeder deny a conspiracy, including Jennifer McCoy, a Wichita resident who visits Roeder, the Star reported. McCoy was convicted in the 1990s of trying to burn abortion clinics in Virginia.
Click here for the full article.

Nine Republicans Vote to Confirm Sotomayor Despite Philosophical Differences With Her

Nine Republicans Vote to Confirm Sotomayor Despite Philosophical Differences With Her


Sonia Sotomayor receives congratulatulations at the federal courthouse
in New York after being confirmed by the Senate as the nation's first
Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009.
(AP Photo/New York Law Journal, Rick Kopstein)

Republican senators who decided to support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court said their job was to examine whether she was qualified and not whether they agree with every decision she has made and will make.
 
On Thursday, nine Republicans joined 59 Democrats in voting to confirm the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Thirty-one senators, all Republicans, voted against her nomination.
 
The nine Republicans voting to confirm Sotomayor were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kit Bond of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mel Martinez of Florida, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
 
“Well, Supreme Court justices often surprise the presidents who appoint them,” Sen. Lamar Alexander told CNSNews.com. He said he felt comfortable voting for Sotomayor despite their philosophical disagreements. “My judgment came down to this: Is she well qualified for the position or not? My job is not to nominate her – under the Constitution – it’s to decide if she’s qualified to the position. I think she clearly is.”
 
Alexander also said that if Republicans want more conservative nominees, they need to work harder at winning elections. “I would prefer a Republican justice,” he said, “but for that to happen we’re going to have to work a little harder in the next election.”
 
Alexander explained that his vote was motivated by a desire to move the Senate back toward a spirit of bipartisanship where senators examine a nominee’s objective, academic qualifications rather than simply their political party.
 
“I also would like to get us back to the practice in the Senate of not just voting on justices based on whether they’re on our political side or not,” he said. “I objected strongly to that when [then] Sen. Obama opposed [Chief] Justice Roberts and it wouldn’t be right – if that were wrong for him to do – for me to oppose Judge Sotomayor.”
 
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told CNSNews.com that he was “not uncomfortable” with his vote for Sotomayor, noting that he has voted for many justices with whom he did not agree.
 
“She will be a very careful student of the law, follow judicial precedent. I think she will be a very excellent constitutional lawyer,” Lugar said. “I believe that she’s a very well-qualified jurist, with 17 years during which she has demonstrated her judicial abilities, and that meets the criteria I’ve always used.”
 
Sen. Susan Collins said Sotomayor “is clearly qualified” to sit on the Supreme Court.  “I suspect that I’m not always going to agree with her decisions, but that’s a statement I could make about any of the justices.”
 
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Sotomayor opponent, said that Republicans had been urged by Minority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) to examine the judge’s record and make up their own minds.
 
“Nobody has pushed this nomination. Everybody was told by Mitch McConnell to analyze the matter and make your own decision on what you think is the right thing to do,” Sessions said.
 
Sessions said there was also a debate over how much Republicans wanted to defer to President Obama. “There is a question of deference,” Sessions said. “How much deference should you give to a president’s nomination? Years ago Republicans gave very high [amounts] of deference, Democrats did not. And as of two years ago, when [Justice Samuel] Alito and [Chief Justice John] Roberts came along, they opposed two fabulously qualified judges and even filibustered Judge Alito -- and President Obama participated in that.”
 
“I think that’s too low a standard, when you have people of that quality who are committed to judicial restraint, who are not out to promote political agendas and I think they [Democrats] should have given deference to them,” said Sessions.
 
Sessions said that many Republicans wanted to vote for Sotomayor, but were prevented from doing so because of philosophical differences.
 
“I think many people wanted to vote for Judge Sotomayor, she’s a very nice and gracious lady and our first Hispanic [nominee] and so they were desirous to vote [yes],” said Sessions.  “Senator McConnell, when he was here as a staffer, used to believe that deference should be very high. [However], the Constitution doesn’t require any such thing, it requires each senator to vote [based] on what they think is right.
 
“All things being equal, you’d like to support the president’s nominee,” Sessions said.  “But if you think that the nominee has a philosophy of judging that is not good for the American legal system, you shouldn’t vote for them.”

Contact: Matt Cover
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: August 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

ERLC analysis says House health care bill 'dangerous'

ERLC analysis says House health care bill 'dangerous'


Pictured is the actual health-care reform bill entitled the America's
Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200 sitting in Senator McCain's
spot during the hearing.

The health-care reform bill making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives "is extremely dangerous legislation to the health and wellbeing of most Americans" for a variety of reasons, the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics entity says.

The proposal -- America's Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200 -- would endanger the lives of the unborn and elderly, increase taxes and health-care costs, and extend government's reach into Americans' private lives, according to an analysis by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).

While acknowledging the measure's 1,018 pages and voluminous citations make "it nearly impossible to figure out what everything in the bill actually means," the ERLC says it can report "with absolute certainty" the proposal "will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty."

The commission posted the nine-page analysis (click here) Aug. 3 as the House began a five-week recess. Three different House committees have approved H.R. 3200. Some House members returned to their districts to face combative crowds expressing their opposition to the legislation at town hall meetings.  Click here for the House Health Care Reform Discussion Draft

Health-care reform in the Senate is focused on the Finance Committee, where its chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D.-Mont., is leading an effort to craft a bipartisan agreement. The Senate went into recess Aug. 7.

President Obama, meanwhile, continues to urge Congress to act on the issue, one of his primary legislative initiatives.

In its analysis, the ERLC cites the following among the problems it sees in H.R. 3200:

-- The bill is certain to result in mandated, federal funding of abortion.

-- A program in the measure that likely would provide education about decisions near the end of life "could essentially encourage the premature death of the elderly" and could produce a "slippery slope that potentially leads to euthanasia."

-- Rationing of health care would result if the bill is enacted in its present form, and, even if the public option does not survive, rationing would be likely because of the requirements imposed on private insurance companies.

-- Government officials, rather than private citizens, would determine the type of health care received by Americans under the public insurance option established by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

-- Individuals and employers would be taxed if their private insurance plans are not acceptable to the federal government.

-- Hospitals will be penalized if patients have to be re-admitted, possibly prompting health-care institutions to keep people longer than necessary or to refuse to admit them.

-- Americans would pay higher taxes to fill a public health fund.

-- Private insurers may not be able to write new policies for potential customers.

-- The government would be permitted to access citizens' financial records, as well as their bank accounts for the transfer of electronic funds.

-- "Home visitation programs" would be established by which the government could make "voluntary" visits to families with small children or families expecting babies for the purpose of improving the "well-being, health and development of children."

-- An advisory committee led by the U.S. surgeon general will recommend benefits to be received by citizens.

-- A Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be established, which could result in therapies and drugs being evaluated on a cost basis instead of a clinical basis, critics have said.

The analysis explains how an amendment approved in the House Energy and Commerce Committee July 30 does not maintain the current policy preventing federal funds for most abortions but actually explicitly includes abortion coverage under the legislation. An abortion rights advocate, Rep. Lois Capps, D.-Calif., sponsored the amendment, and pro-lifers on the committee fell two votes short of defeating it.

"Though the amendment does not add abortion as an essential benefit, it does allow insurers to include abortion as a benefit and also allows federal money to be used for abortions," except for Department of Health and Human Services funds, which are barred from underwriting abortions, the ERLC analysis says.

"At this time, abortion is not explicitly defined as an essential benefit in the bill," according to the analysis. "However, the terminology in [Section 122 of the bill] is vague enough to allow for abortion. It could easily fall under the 'Preventive Services' requirement. An advisory panel appointed by a pro-abortion president is certainly going to come to the conclusion that abortion should be included in the essential benefits package. And if they did not, the courts are certain to interpret this new law in conjunction with Roe v. Wade and mandate abortion funding from the bench."

Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 to prohibit Medicaid funds from paying for abortions. The Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion.

The ERLC and other pro-life organizations have urged voters to contact their members of Congress regarding health care legislation during the recess, which ends Sept. 7. The ERLC has encouraged visits to district and state offices, as well as phone calls to senators' and representatives' Washington offices through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and emails by clicking here.

ERLC interns Brian Barnes and Jesse Williams wrote the analysis. Barnes is a student at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va., and Williams is a student at the University of South Carolina School of Law in Columbia, S.C. Barrett Duke, the ERLC's vice president for public policy and research, edited the document.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: BP
Publish Date: August 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Urgent Petition Launched To Block Plans For New International Late-Term Abortion Clinic

Urgent Petition Launched To Block Plans For New International Late-Term Abortion Clinic


Abortionist LeRoy Carhart

Operation Rescue has launched an on-line petition aimed at stopping abortionist LeRoy Carhart from opening an international late-term abortion clinic in his target city of Wichita, KS. The petition is considered an urgent priority in a larger campaign to block Carhart from resuming unpopular post-viability abortions in any state.

In order for Carhart to operate legally in Kansas, he must have an arrangement for treatment of emergency cases with a local hospital. Wesley Medical Center was the only hospital that would allow such an arrangement with local abortionists, including Carhart's former employer, the late George Tiller and his now closed Women's Health Care Services.

"We have confirmed that Carhart does not currently have an arrangement with Wesley Medical Center or any other local area hospital. Therefore we are petitioning Wesley to deny any attempts by Carhart and his associates to establish an agreement or plan for patient transport and/or admission to Wesley," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Because Carhart would target women for post-viability abortions from around the world in much the same way Tiller did, people everywhere are asked to sign this petition.

"The need is urgent. Carhart has announced that he is in negotiations now to open a post-viability clinic in Wichita that would attempt to draw women from every state and beyond for abortions in their latest stages of pregnancy. Wesley is the key to protecting women and their viable babies from such a predatory abortion business. But we must act now, before Carhart finalizes his plans," said Newman.

The petition is just one more facet to the larger "Keep It Closed" campaign aimed at preventing Carhart from resuming late-term abortions in any state.

Other aspects of the campaign have included a formal request to the Nebraska Attorney General for a comprehensive investigation into Carhart's abortion business, and an event scheduled for August 28-29 in the Omaha area that will include a rally, street activism at Carhart's Bellevue abortion clinic, and a training session for local pro-life activists.

"We plan to hand-deliver the petition to Wesley Medical Center," said Newman. "We encourage supporters to sign now then forward the petition link to their friends and family, and post it to their social networking sites. Working together using the power of the Internet, we can reach more people faster than ever and prevent this horrific late-term abortion clinic from opening."

READ AND SIGN THE PETITION

Source: ProLifeBlogs.com
Publish Date: August 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Teachers Dissatisfied with Pro-Abortion, Homosexualist NEA Turn to Ethical Alternatives

Teachers Dissatisfied with Pro-Abortion, Homosexualist NEA Turn to Ethical Alternatives



After the National Education Association (NEA) last month confirmed its support for abortion and same-sex "marriage," one teacher's association is reporting an influx of new members seeking an ethical alternative source of liability insurance and other benefits.

The American Association of Educators (AAE) says that more teachers are discovering their legal options, after the NEA in its July convention voted down an attempt to end the group's abortion advocacy, and strengthened their support for same-sex "marriage."

In addition, they say, teachers coming to the AAE have expressed outrage with retiring NEA general counsel Bob Chanin's speech at the same convention, where he launched into a tirade against "right-wing bastards" who are challenging the organization's liberal politics.

As the largest teacher's association in America, the AAE says it can provide teachers with liability insurance, access to legal assistance, and supplementary insurance benefit plans - all without the politics of the NEA.  Although many American teachers are unable to break free of paying union dues, says the group, the story does not end there.

Gary Beckner, AAE's Executive Director, said many teachers are unaware of the legal options available to keep their dues from supporting the NEA's liberal politics.

"The Supreme Court has said that even though teachers may be a part of a collectively bargained contract in a district, and have to pay them dues for that representation ... that's all they have to pay for legally," Beckner told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) this week.  "They do not have to pay for any part of the dues that union collects that goes to anything other than representation."

Beckner noted that some states have established a percentage of union dues teachers are allowed to keep if they wish only to pay for representation.  When a teacher chooses to become an "agency-fee only payer," he said, the union will drop them from many of their usual benefits, such as liability insurance - which is where the AAE comes in.

"The biggest perk [in joining the AAE] that most teachers like is that we charge them for what they really want, which is liability insurance, legal protection, and professional development, without the politics," Beckner explained.  "The perk is what we don't do.  We don't spend their money on things that they don't want to have their money spent on."

Beckner said the AAE has received "a lot of calls" from interested teachers in recent weeks - a phenomenon he says tends to correspond with the annual outrage of conservative teachers following each NEA convention.

"It comes this time every year when teachers start looking," he said, "but it also seems to come this time every year right after the NEA convention. ... Every year there's another straw, and it's too much for many camels' backs out there, and they start looking."  As for this year, he said, "of course, it was because of Bob Chanin's speech. ... There have been a lot of comments about the Chanin speech this year."

In his speech, Chanin opined that the NEA was "effective" "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power."

What, then, makes the AAE effective?

"Just the opposite of what [Chanin] said," Beckner told LSN.  "Because we do care most about kids.  Because every decision we make is in the best interest of children first.

"There are some times when we make decisions that, maybe, would keep us from growing quicker than we would," he noted. If a given policy or legislation on the state or local level is not in the best interest of children, "then we just don't take a position for it," he said.

"Sometimes that inhibits our growth, but at the same time, it attracts the kind of teachers that really care about children first," said Beckner.  "And that's the difference between this association and the NEA."

Click here to visit the AAE website.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: August 7, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.

Democrat Congressman Yells At Constituent Who Ask About Health Care

It is amazing how our betters in Congress hate being petitioned by their constituents about a health care bill that could ruin our medical system. And Speaker Pelosi calls people like the doctor in this story who dared to ask his Congressman a question, “Un American.” No, unbelievable.
Click here for the full video.


Recession Means Fewer Babies; US Births Fell 2 Percent

There aren't just fewer jobs in a recession. There are fewer babies, too.
 
U.S. births fell in 2008, the first full year of the recession, marking the first annual decline in births since the start of the decade and ending an American baby boomlet.
 
The downturn in the economy best explains the drop in maternity, some experts believe. The Great Depression and subsequent recessions all were accompanied by a decline in births, said Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health and epidemiology.
 
And the numbers have never rebounded until the economy pulled out of it, she said, calling the 2008 recession the most likely culprit for fewer babies.
Click here for the full article.


Mexicans debate legal reform to protect State of Queretaro from abortion

Beginning on Monday, August 10, some 50 organizations will participate in the first public debate in the Mexican state of Queretaro on the prohibition of abortion, possibly resulting in a reform of the state constitution.

Among those expected to participate are the Knights of Columbus, the Association of Catholic Psychologists, as well as other pro-life groups.

The president of state legislature’s Constitutional Committee, Marco Antonio Leon Hernandez, said it was important for citizens to be allowed to voice their opinion on an issue as delicate as abortion.
Click here for the full article.


Mandated abortion coverage threatens health care reform, U.S. bishops’ official says

Tom Grenchik, director of the U.S. bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat, has said that mandated abortion health care coverage and funding is “a line we can never cross,” charging that some U.S. leaders are threatening health care reform by forcing Americans to accept such mandates in proposed reform bills.

Writing in a Friday column on the U.S. bishops’ web site, Grenchik said that health care proposals need to be examined during the congressional recess to see how well they provide affordable quality health care and how they impact immigrants and the poor.

“But one thing is certain,” he emphasized. “The bills approved so far by House and Senate committees include mandated abortion coverage and abortion funding, and that is a line we can never cross.”
Click here for the full article.


Sotomayor Sworn In

Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in Saturday morning as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court in a brief ceremony that completed a remarkable ascent for a Puerto Rican girl from the South Bronx. Sotomayor, 55, rested her left hand on a Bible held by her mother and raised her right hand as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered a pair of oaths that made her the 111th justice to serve on the nation's highest court. The chief justice, who had slightly flubbed the wording of the oath of office when he swore in President Obama in January, held a piece of paper containing the oath for Sotomayor. Occasionally Roberts looked down as he recited the words.
Click here for the full article.


Children To Be Given Untested Swine Flu Vaccine

The swine flu vaccine which will be offered to 12 million children in the UK may not have been tested on infants by the time the first batches arrive. Pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the jabs do not have any paediatric safety data for the drugs, which could be distributed to children in the autumn. The first consignment of the vaccine is due to arrive at the end of this month but drugs firms have only just begun trials on adults. Trials on children may not start for a few weeks.
Click here for the full article.


Teaching U.S. Kids the Pro-Abort U.N. Way

It's horrible enough to think of the way school children have been deliberately and unnecessarily frightened by the teaching in American schools about "global warming." Since the 1980s it has been part of the curriculum in schools throughout the nation, convincing a lot of children that the Earth was doomed. It was difficult enough to grow up as I did knowing that the Soviet Union could annihilate most of the population with nuclear missiles or that their brand of communism could destroy the liberties Americans take for granted.
Click here for the full article.

Thirteen Million Abortions A Year in China, (that is 13,000,000)

Thirteen Million Abortions A Year in China, (that is 13,000,000)

China performs about 13 million abortions every year, mostly for single young women state media said Thursday in a rare disclosure of sensitive family planning statistics.

This is 35,617 abortions a day, equivelant to over 10 - 9/11 attacks a day!  NOT INCLUDING CHEMICAL ABORTIONS!
 
The China Daily newspaper said the real number of abortions is believed to be even higher since the 13 million accounts for procedures in hospitals but many more are known to be carried out in unregistered rural clinics. Also, about 10 million abortion pills are sold every year in China, the paper said.

China Says 'One Child' Policy Will Be 'Strictly Enforced For Decades'


China says its one-child policy, initiated in 1979, has helped
to reduce the country's population by 300- to 400-million people.
(Photo: Shanghai Population and Family Planning Commission)

China has rejected suggestions that it is easing its controversial "one-child" population control policy, following reports that authorities in Shanghai are encouraging eligible couples to have a second child.
 
The news made headlines, with media reports saying the 30-year-old population policy was being "relaxed" or "eased." But Beijing denied this was the case.
 
"Officials say [the one-child policy] will be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come as overpopulation is still a major concern," the Xinhua state news agency reported.
 
There is nothing new in the fact that many Chinese couples who are themselves only children are allowed to have a second child (exceptions are also allowed for ethnic minorities, rural dwellers and other categories). In Shanghai, regulations in place as far back as 1997 state that "couples who meet any one of the following conditions can have a second birth … both parties are only child in their family."
 
What is new is that family planning officials in China's biggest city and commercial center are now actively encouraging couples in that category to have their permitted second child, in a bid to counter the rapid graying of Shanghai's population and prevent future labor shortages.
 
The city's family planning chief, Xie Lingli, told Chinese media last week that officials would make home visits to eligible families and ensure they were aware of their right to have a second child. Emotional and financial counseling would also be offered.
 
According to Xie, 97 percent of families in the city of nearly 19 million people have only one child. At the same time, more than 21 percent of the total population is aged over 60, a proportion that is expected to rise to around 34 percent by 2020.
 
"The rising number of retirees will put pressure on the younger generation and the social security system," she said.
 
'Pragmatism, not repentance'
 
Demographers and economists have long warned about the long-term effects of China's birth limitation program. One expert projects that the number of Chinese people over 60 will rise from more than 140 million in 2008 to 200 million by 2015.


Concerned about the economic implications of a rapidly graying
population, family planning officials in Shanghai are encouraging
eligible couples – those without siblings – to have a second child
as permitted under longstanding regulations.
(Photo: Shanghai Population and Family Planning Commission)

But human rights advocates, pro-lifers and others are concerned about the more immediate costs. China's policy is notorious not just because it denies individual citizens the right to make their own decisions on family size, critics say, but because it gives rise to numerous other human rights abuses.
 
They range from punitive fines for illegal, or "out of plan," births – China Daily reported last March that the fines are between three and eight times the average per capita income – to forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations carried out by officials aiming to meet quotas set by Beijing.
 
In a society where male children are preferred for traditional and economic reasons, sex-selective abortions of baby girls continue, despite a ban on the use of nonmedically necessary ultrasounds to determine gender.
 
A study in the British Medical Journal in April found that there were 32 million more males than females in China under the age of 18. "Sex selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males," the British and Chinese researchers found.
 
"Although sex selective abortion is illegal, proving that an abortion has been carried out on sex selective as opposed to family planning grounds is often difficult when abortion itself is so readily available," they argued.
 
Reggie Littlejohn, an expert on the one-child policy and founder of a new coalition called Women's Rights Without Frontiers, points to less obvious rights violations also arising from the policy. These include the theft of children and, in a country where an increasingly skewed gender balance means millions of Chinese men will struggle to find brides, sex slavery and trafficking.
 
According to the World Bank and the World Health Organization, around 500 Chinese women commit suicide every day. The State Department's 2008 human rights report said "many observers" believe that the one-child policy contributes to the high suicide rate.
 
"Even a two-child policy is a gross violation of fundamental human rights," John Smeaton, director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Britain said of the reports from Shanghai. "Apart from the brutal way in which the Chinese authorities enforce population policy – forced abortions, forced sterilizations, punitive fines etc. – couples have the right to have as many children as they want."
 
Smeaton noted that Shanghai officials were giving pragmatic reasons for their approach. It "doesn't mean they are repentant for the crimes they and other population controllers have committed under the 30-year one-child policy and are continuing to commit."
 
'No official policy causes more harm to women and girls'
 
Citing the one-child policy, the Bush administration from 2002 withheld funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which operates in China, in line with U.S. legislation prohibiting funds for any agency that "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."
 
The UNFPA has long denied that its work in China supports coercive measures, and President Obama this year reversed the policy.
 
Nonetheless, advocates like Littlejohn are seeing some positive signs, noting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out against coercive family planning.
 
Testifying before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee last April, Clinton said "I consider any governmental imposition that imposes government policy on women to be absolutely unacceptable. And I feel strongly about forced sterilization, forced abortion or any other egregious interference with women's rights."
 
Clinton said she had said as much in Beijing in 1995, when as First Lady she attended the U.N.'s Fourth World Conference on Women.
 
In her speech at that event, she said, "It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will."
 
Littlejohn was recently invited by the new White House Council on Women and Girls to give a presentation on China's one-child policy. She said Wednesday she had a "very warm" reception.
 
"Those present seemed genuinely concerned about the violence to women and girls caused directly and indirectly by the one-child policy," she said. "As I told them, there is no other official policy in the world that causes more suffering to women and girls than China's one-child policy."
 
Obama established the White House Council on Women and Girls by executive order in March, saying its mission was "to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls."

Information from Associated Press via CNSNews.com.

Contact: Patrick Goodenough
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: July 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Euthanasia and Health Care Reform

Euthanasia and Health Care Reform



Catholic League president Bill Donohue discusses Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, the health care reform bill that was introduced in the House:
 
There is language in this section of the bill that implies that the federal government may become involved in euthanasia. So over the past two days, July 27-28, Catholic League staff contacted the following persons, committees or offices looking for clarification:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi; Rep. John Dingell; Rep. Rob Andrews; Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr.; Rep. Charles Rangel; Rep. Pete Stark; Rep. Henry Waxman; Rep. George Miller; Rep. Dale Kildee; Rep. Carolyn Maloney; Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius; HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aging; HHS Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation for Discretionary Health Programs; HHS Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation for Mandatory Health Programs; HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; HHS Congressional Liaison Office; HHS Office of Human Services Policy; HHS Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy; HHS Office of Planning and Policy Support; HHS Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation for Human Services; Ways and Means Committee; Education and Labor Committee; Energy and Commerce Committee; Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Budget Committee; White House Health Reform Office.

No one with whom we spoke said the government is entering the business of euthanasia. But this is not enough. We need to know exactly what is meant by the following: "An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available...." We also need to know exactly what is meant by "The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning...." The public has a right to know exactly what is meant by terms like "end-of-life services" and "quality measures." Now is the time to settle this issue.

Contact healthreform@hhs.gov

Also read: Obama's 'Department of Death with Dignity' and Assisted Suicide and Your End-of-Life Chat With Your Doctor as well as House Health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled and Euthanasia and Health Care Reform

Contact: Susan A. Fani
Source: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Publish Date: July 29, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Assisted Suicide and Your End-of-Life Chat With Your Doctor

Assisted Suicide and Your End-of-Life Chat With Your Doctor



Fifteen years ago, Colorado's governor Richard Lamm got himself in trouble by saying elderly people have "a duty to die and get out of the way."

Lamm knew how much end-of-life care costs. About one-third of Medicare's budget goes for costs incurred in the last one year of life, and 40% of that goes for expenses in the last one month of life.  It is so much cheaper if old people just do their duty and get out of the way rather than use hospitals, expensive tests and surgeries, and medications.

Congress knows this too, which is why they include Section 1233 in the proposed health care reform bill.

Under Section 1233, doctors get paid to sit down with all patients over 65 years old to talk about end-of-life issues.  The idea is to encourage people to sign living wills and enter hospices rather than getting expensive treatments. Since hospice provides only pain relief and palliative care, everyone else saves money. Under the new rules, you enter hospice when you have only 18 months to live, compared to today's six months– so this way you speed things along even faster for us.  In states where physician-assisted suicide is legal, end-of-life talks would no doubt include assisted suicide, the cheapest option of all.

The lawmakers  pushing cheap "end-of-life" healthcare call it the "complete lives system." The idea is that old people have already led "complete lives," so it's time for them to do their duty, as Lamm put it.

The lawmakers behind these proposals are compassionate. They don't like that dying people suffer, and they don't like that a 90-year-old with cancer takes a government Handy Van to chemotherapy, while a baby in Africa dies because he can't get clean water.  In fact, none of us like that, and we all agree something has to be done.

The problem is putting our compassionate ideas into practice. Even very smart compassionate people are not smart enough to make every decision for everyone else.  And what happens in practice is that most people want every treatment possible at the end of their lives.  Who gets to decide which people get which treatments?

Jane Strum spoke up at a presidential press conference in July 2009. Five years ago, her mother got a pacemaker at age 99 years, and is still alive today. Under the new government plan, Strum asked, would there just be cut-offs at certain ages, or would doctors be able to consider factors likes a "certain spirit? A certain joy of living?" Her mother's doctors considered those things.

President Obama answered Jane Strum like this.

"We can let doctors know, and we can let your mom know," he said, "that maybe this is not going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

In this particular case, however, if you believe she would be better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller, you believe she would be better off dead.

Let's look at the particular cases of Randy Stroup and Barbara Wagner, who have cancer. They are sort-of old people: Stroup is 53 years old and Wagner is 64. They both got letters from the state of Oregon, which pays their medical expenses. The letters said that Oregon won't pay their cancer treatments because each has only a slim chance of living more than five years.  However, the good news is that Oregon will pay for a painless, doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as "comfort care," and including it as just another choice for them, like taking painkillers.  They could choose to be humanely put to sleep, the way you'd do for a beloved pet.

What this means is that some of the most caring people among us are willing to reduce each of us to a bunch of numbers, statistics, and risk factors because they think this will make things better for humanity as a whole.  It is medicine by accountancy. Accountancy has no philosophy or art in it. It lacks what Wordsworth called "the sweet sad music of humanity."

The New York Times reports that six Senators are sitting around a table making these decisions. There are no doctors, nurses, nursing home attendants, psychologists, medical ethicists, theologians, priests, rabbis, artists, shamans, and wise elders in their discussions. Congress alone decides who must do the noble thing and die for our country, the same way they make laws deciding who gets the criminal death penalty and who must go to war.

One of the first things they decided was to exempt themselves from healthcare reforms like Section 1322 and vote to keep their own healthcare plan just the way it is, thus avoiding end-of-life chats, issues of "complete lives," duties to die, and assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is like the line from the movie, "Young Frankenstein," when Igor whispers, "Wait, Master, it might be dangerous. You go first."

Since Congress is proposing this, and since the way is very dangerous, they should go first.

For a continuation on this story, please read the following article: House Health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled and Euthanasia and Health Care Reform and Obama's 'Department of Death with Dignity'

Contact: Jane St. Clair
Publish Date: July 29, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.