Doctors Refuse to Dehydrate Italian Woman: The Fight Over "Conscience" Has Begun
I believe that the issue of "conscience," that is the right of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals not to engage in intentional life-terminating actions will be huge in the coming decade in bioethics. It has already begun in Italy after a father won the right in court to have his daughter's feeding tube withdrawn. But even though the EU Court has refused to save Eluana Englaro's life, no doctor in Italy will agree to participate in her intentional dehydration. From the story:
Italian officials say they are taking a hands-off approach after a European court rejected efforts to block a father's efforts to let his comatose daughter die.
Italy's ANSA news agency Tuesday said Beppino Englaro has been unable to find a clinic that will facilitate the death of his daughter, Eluana, who has been in a coma for 17 years. "Personally I hope that the woman continues to live, but I can't interfere with the decisions of her father,'' said Edouard Ballaman, president of the regional council of the Northern League.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg Monday rejected an appeal by pro-life organizations trying to block Englaro's efforts on the grounds that only immediate family could be involved in the decision. ANSA said Italy's health minister warned clinics last week not to take part in the removal of the woman's feeding tube.
Judge Greer. Calling Judge Greer! Your courageous assistance is needed again. Calling Judge Greer!
Contact: Wesley Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke Blog
Source URL: http://www.wesleyjsmith.com
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081224_4.htm
December 24, 2008
Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide on May 29-30, 2009
December 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The theme for the Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is: Never Again. The Symposium will focus on building an effective, unified and focused group of organizations and individuals to stop the forward movement of the death lobby in North America and throughout the world.
The Symposium will be May 29 - 30, 2009 at the National Conference Center in Landsdown in Landsdowne Virginia near the Washington DC - Dulles Airport. http://www.conferencecenter.com/gallery/index.cfm. A shuttle service from the Dulles Airport is available.
The Co-Sponsors of the Symposium are:
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Physicians for Compassionate Care - USA, Care Not Killing Alliance - UK, Not Dead Yet - USA, No Less Human - UK, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care - USA, Compassionate Health Care Network - Canada, Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - USA, ALERT - UK, Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics - USA.
The Speakers for the Symposium include:
Rita Marker - International Task Force, Wesley Smith - International Task Force, Alex Schadenberg - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Dr. Margaret Cottle - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Dr. Bob Orr - Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care, Dr. William Toffler - Physicians for Compassionate Care, Dr. Mark Mostert - Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics, Dr. Peter Saunders - Care Not Killing Alliance, Allison Davis - No Less Human, Colin Harte - ALERT, Diane Coleman & Stephen Drake - Not Dead Yet, Bobby Schindler - Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, Randy Richardson - Life for Lauren, Lionel & Renate Roosemont - Belgium, Margaret Dore, Nancy Valko RN, and more.
Nearly every leader who focuses on euthanasia and assisted suicide in North America and the UK will be speaking or attending this Symposium.
The cost for the Symposium will be $199 for a regular registration and $139 for a student or a person with a disability. Registration includes two lunches and one dinner. The room rate at the National Conference Center includes the cost for at least two breakfasts.
There is a limit of 400 total registrants.
Early registration can be done by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081224_5.htm
December 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The theme for the Second International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is: Never Again. The Symposium will focus on building an effective, unified and focused group of organizations and individuals to stop the forward movement of the death lobby in North America and throughout the world.
The Symposium will be May 29 - 30, 2009 at the National Conference Center in Landsdown in Landsdowne Virginia near the Washington DC - Dulles Airport. http://www.conferencecenter.com/gallery/index.cfm. A shuttle service from the Dulles Airport is available.
The Co-Sponsors of the Symposium are:
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Physicians for Compassionate Care - USA, Care Not Killing Alliance - UK, Not Dead Yet - USA, No Less Human - UK, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care - USA, Compassionate Health Care Network - Canada, Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - USA, ALERT - UK, Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics - USA.
The Speakers for the Symposium include:
Rita Marker - International Task Force, Wesley Smith - International Task Force, Alex Schadenberg - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Dr. Margaret Cottle - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Dr. Bob Orr - Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care, Dr. William Toffler - Physicians for Compassionate Care, Dr. Mark Mostert - Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics, Dr. Peter Saunders - Care Not Killing Alliance, Allison Davis - No Less Human, Colin Harte - ALERT, Diane Coleman & Stephen Drake - Not Dead Yet, Bobby Schindler - Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, Randy Richardson - Life for Lauren, Lionel & Renate Roosemont - Belgium, Margaret Dore, Nancy Valko RN, and more.
Nearly every leader who focuses on euthanasia and assisted suicide in North America and the UK will be speaking or attending this Symposium.
The cost for the Symposium will be $199 for a regular registration and $139 for a student or a person with a disability. Registration includes two lunches and one dinner. The room rate at the National Conference Center includes the cost for at least two breakfasts.
There is a limit of 400 total registrants.
Early registration can be done by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081224_5.htm
Pro-Abortion Zapatero Rides Shotgun for Obama in Europe?
Will Spain's Strongly Pro-Abortion Zapatero Ride Shotgun for Obama in Europe?
Abortion and Intolerance: Constants of the Left?
Spain is now undergoing Socialist Party president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's second term. These past years have seen the rampant growth of anti-Catholic and anti-life positions in the government, positions that seem often to go hand-in-hand.
Right now the Spanish congress, dominated by Zapatero's party, is debating a liberalization of Spain's abortion laws. Abortion is supposedly legal only for cases of rape, "fetal defect," and danger to the mother's physical or psychological health. In the case of rape and fetal defect the law allows abortions between 12 and 22 first weeks of pregnancy. For the "health" exception, however, there are no time limits.
But the socialists want more.
Zapatero's party commission was able to proceed without any problems until the testimony of Eduardo Hertfelder, the president of Spain's Institute of Family Policy. With the aid of detailed diagrams, Hertfelder showed how abortion has actually increased in Spain over the last 10 years, to more than double its original rate. He also showed how abortion is the principle cause of death in Spain and of violence against women. The evidence showed that 97% of abortions are performed because of a "risk to the woman's psychological health," which essentially allows abortion to be performed at any time.
Based on these findings, Hertfelder showed that abortion has increased so much in Spain that, calculating only until December 2006, 1,225,000 abortions have been performed in Spain. The socialist argument - that liberalized abortion laws will lead to fewer abortions - rings hollow in the face of the numbers. The fact of the matter is, the law is already flexible enough to allow abortion on demand, but the abortion rate still increases and increases.
The socialists also argue that they want to be equal to other European nations, insisting that the rest of Europe is more liberal than Spain on the topic of abortion. But Hertfelder demonstrated with numbers and data that this is simply not the case.
The two countries that allow abortion by risk of the health of the mother, without any time limits, are Spain and Greece. As for the rest, two out of three of the rest of the EU nations require abortion to be justified by stricter standards. Many of them have instated waiting periods and required consultations before granting permission to abort.
Thus, the Socialist argument collapses on a second count: not everyone in Europe has laws as permissive as the ones the Socialist Party wants to implement in Spain.
At the end of Hertfelder's exhibition, the Socialist leader of the congressional commission accused Hertfelder of manipulating his data. This accusation is ridiculous because the information is readily available on the internet, as well as being officially used for years by the European Parliament. The accusation represented an enormous breach of Congressional protocol, and the opposition party expressed anger and disappointment with Zapatero's authoritarian attitude.
After his presentation, Hertfelder said, "I got the impression that the socialist deputies were very nervous. This attitude demonstrates that the Socialist Party does not want a debate. They are rooted in ideological sectarianism and only interested in hearing that which supports their theses."
In order to support his words, Hertfelder showed that while in France the abortion rate increased to 5% and in England 9%, in Spain the increase was 53%. In addition, according to a survey published by the newspaper The World, 57% of Spaniards do not want a more liberal abortion law. But listening to the people is not the style of Zapatero or his government.
The near future can be very well described by a quote from Jim Hoagland in a Washington Post column, where he said that "If Obama needs a European to ride shotgun, as Tony Blair did with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Zapatero may be the one."
If this is the case, the battle for life over the next several years will be clear.
Contact:Carlos Beltramo
Source: Population Research Institute
Source URL: http://www.pop.org/
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081224_6.htm
Abortion and Intolerance: Constants of the Left?
Spain is now undergoing Socialist Party president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's second term. These past years have seen the rampant growth of anti-Catholic and anti-life positions in the government, positions that seem often to go hand-in-hand.
Right now the Spanish congress, dominated by Zapatero's party, is debating a liberalization of Spain's abortion laws. Abortion is supposedly legal only for cases of rape, "fetal defect," and danger to the mother's physical or psychological health. In the case of rape and fetal defect the law allows abortions between 12 and 22 first weeks of pregnancy. For the "health" exception, however, there are no time limits.
But the socialists want more.
Zapatero's party commission was able to proceed without any problems until the testimony of Eduardo Hertfelder, the president of Spain's Institute of Family Policy. With the aid of detailed diagrams, Hertfelder showed how abortion has actually increased in Spain over the last 10 years, to more than double its original rate. He also showed how abortion is the principle cause of death in Spain and of violence against women. The evidence showed that 97% of abortions are performed because of a "risk to the woman's psychological health," which essentially allows abortion to be performed at any time.
Based on these findings, Hertfelder showed that abortion has increased so much in Spain that, calculating only until December 2006, 1,225,000 abortions have been performed in Spain. The socialist argument - that liberalized abortion laws will lead to fewer abortions - rings hollow in the face of the numbers. The fact of the matter is, the law is already flexible enough to allow abortion on demand, but the abortion rate still increases and increases.
The socialists also argue that they want to be equal to other European nations, insisting that the rest of Europe is more liberal than Spain on the topic of abortion. But Hertfelder demonstrated with numbers and data that this is simply not the case.
The two countries that allow abortion by risk of the health of the mother, without any time limits, are Spain and Greece. As for the rest, two out of three of the rest of the EU nations require abortion to be justified by stricter standards. Many of them have instated waiting periods and required consultations before granting permission to abort.
Thus, the Socialist argument collapses on a second count: not everyone in Europe has laws as permissive as the ones the Socialist Party wants to implement in Spain.
At the end of Hertfelder's exhibition, the Socialist leader of the congressional commission accused Hertfelder of manipulating his data. This accusation is ridiculous because the information is readily available on the internet, as well as being officially used for years by the European Parliament. The accusation represented an enormous breach of Congressional protocol, and the opposition party expressed anger and disappointment with Zapatero's authoritarian attitude.
After his presentation, Hertfelder said, "I got the impression that the socialist deputies were very nervous. This attitude demonstrates that the Socialist Party does not want a debate. They are rooted in ideological sectarianism and only interested in hearing that which supports their theses."
In order to support his words, Hertfelder showed that while in France the abortion rate increased to 5% and in England 9%, in Spain the increase was 53%. In addition, according to a survey published by the newspaper The World, 57% of Spaniards do not want a more liberal abortion law. But listening to the people is not the style of Zapatero or his government.
The near future can be very well described by a quote from Jim Hoagland in a Washington Post column, where he said that "If Obama needs a European to ride shotgun, as Tony Blair did with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Zapatero may be the one."
If this is the case, the battle for life over the next several years will be clear.
Contact:Carlos Beltramo
Source: Population Research Institute
Source URL: http://www.pop.org/
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081224_6.htm
December 23, 2008
Peaceful Singing and Disruptive Counter-Protest
Peaceful Singing and Disruptive Counter-Protest Mark League's 6th Annual "Empty Manger" Caroling Day
The Pro-Life Action League's sixth annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling day was by far the most eventful year yet. For the second year, the League sponsored two tours, one in Chicago and one in DuPage county, visiting abortion clinics singing Christmas carols to bring light and hope to those dark places.
The Chicago tour experienced the sharp juxtaposition of the joy and peace of Christmas and the violence and anger of pro-abortion counter protest.
The Chicago carolers began at Planned Parenthood at LaSalle and Division, where they saw the traditional Christmas Deathscorts in their festive yellow vests. At the Family Planning Associates Washington Street clinic, a group of 30 carolers sang to several women entering the clinic, while counselors tried to persuade them to choose life.
LuAnn Bloom rented a bus for several southside families, and these first two stops were blessed with the presence of several children. The group sang all of the songs on the sheet, some familiar and some new. There was a real feeling of joy and peace from the group.
The mood of the third stop, unfortunately, was not as joyful. As the carolers began to arrive at American Women's Medical Center, so did the opposition. The League had found out the day before that a group was trying to organize a "counter-protest." But since efforts to organize protests of League events in the past had usually been unsuccessful and poorly attended, no one was concerned.
As soon as the protesters saw they outnumbered the carolers—and that a reporter from a local radio station and a video camera from a TV station had arrived—they began chanting their usual slogans: "Who decides? Women decide."
One amusing moment came when the group leader led them in the chant "Pro-choice, that's a lie, you don't care if women die!" The chant was repeated several times before they realized they were saying it wrong.
The carolers lined both sides of the sidewalk, facing each other so they could hear one another singing. One particularly angry girl pushed by pro-lifers reminding them "you can't block the sidewalk." She led them screaming past the solemn singing of the carolers.
When they tired of marching, two of them walked in front of Dan and Corrina Gura's "All I Want For Christmas. . .Is An End To Abortion" sign to try to block the words. So Dan and Corrina hoisted their banner, which is on long poles, high into the air. The protesters raised their arms, but gave up when their cardboard signs flopped over and their stomachs were exposed to the cold weather.
Several or the pro-abortion protesters placed themselves right next to carolers, shouting in their faces. But the carolers continued to sing, ignoring their opposition. "These people are trained to anger pro-lifers and get them to respond," Ann Scheidler said. "It is so important that we do not take the bait, that we do not respond to their anger with our anger. We cannot give them that kind of power." In spite of their best efforts, the protesters could not start a fight.
The carolers soon finished their signing at American Women's and moved on to Albany. There the caroling went smoothly until the very end. Again, only when the abortion advocates had gathered a large enough group did they get out of their cars and head to the clinic's sidewalk.
By that time, though, the group solemnly sang Silent Night and got back in their cars to go to Joe and Ann Scheidler's house for hot chocolate and cookies. There everyone had a chance to talk about the evil they had faced and overcome, and to warm their fingers and toes after such a cold day.
For pictures, please visit:
http://prolifeaction.org/home/2008/carol.htm
Source: Pro-Life Action League
Source URL: http://prolifeaction.org
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_1.htm
The Pro-Life Action League's sixth annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling day was by far the most eventful year yet. For the second year, the League sponsored two tours, one in Chicago and one in DuPage county, visiting abortion clinics singing Christmas carols to bring light and hope to those dark places.
The Chicago tour experienced the sharp juxtaposition of the joy and peace of Christmas and the violence and anger of pro-abortion counter protest.
The Chicago carolers began at Planned Parenthood at LaSalle and Division, where they saw the traditional Christmas Deathscorts in their festive yellow vests. At the Family Planning Associates Washington Street clinic, a group of 30 carolers sang to several women entering the clinic, while counselors tried to persuade them to choose life.
LuAnn Bloom rented a bus for several southside families, and these first two stops were blessed with the presence of several children. The group sang all of the songs on the sheet, some familiar and some new. There was a real feeling of joy and peace from the group.
The mood of the third stop, unfortunately, was not as joyful. As the carolers began to arrive at American Women's Medical Center, so did the opposition. The League had found out the day before that a group was trying to organize a "counter-protest." But since efforts to organize protests of League events in the past had usually been unsuccessful and poorly attended, no one was concerned.
As soon as the protesters saw they outnumbered the carolers—and that a reporter from a local radio station and a video camera from a TV station had arrived—they began chanting their usual slogans: "Who decides? Women decide."
One amusing moment came when the group leader led them in the chant "Pro-choice, that's a lie, you don't care if women die!" The chant was repeated several times before they realized they were saying it wrong.
The carolers lined both sides of the sidewalk, facing each other so they could hear one another singing. One particularly angry girl pushed by pro-lifers reminding them "you can't block the sidewalk." She led them screaming past the solemn singing of the carolers.
When they tired of marching, two of them walked in front of Dan and Corrina Gura's "All I Want For Christmas. . .Is An End To Abortion" sign to try to block the words. So Dan and Corrina hoisted their banner, which is on long poles, high into the air. The protesters raised their arms, but gave up when their cardboard signs flopped over and their stomachs were exposed to the cold weather.
Several or the pro-abortion protesters placed themselves right next to carolers, shouting in their faces. But the carolers continued to sing, ignoring their opposition. "These people are trained to anger pro-lifers and get them to respond," Ann Scheidler said. "It is so important that we do not take the bait, that we do not respond to their anger with our anger. We cannot give them that kind of power." In spite of their best efforts, the protesters could not start a fight.
The carolers soon finished their signing at American Women's and moved on to Albany. There the caroling went smoothly until the very end. Again, only when the abortion advocates had gathered a large enough group did they get out of their cars and head to the clinic's sidewalk.
By that time, though, the group solemnly sang Silent Night and got back in their cars to go to Joe and Ann Scheidler's house for hot chocolate and cookies. There everyone had a chance to talk about the evil they had faced and overcome, and to warm their fingers and toes after such a cold day.
For pictures, please visit:
http://prolifeaction.org/home/2008/carol.htm
Source: Pro-Life Action League
Source URL: http://prolifeaction.org
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_1.htm
Abortion As A Test of Conscience
Abortion As A Test of Conscience
The President-elect appears to have stepped back from some of his campaign promises, but that is speculation. We shall see.
Barck Obama did make a dogmatic statement regarding the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act (FOCA). He said he will propose FOCA, which would eliminate all state and federal restrictions upon abortion. It would purport to force Christian hospitals to perform abortions or close. It would demand that physicians perform abortions or give up their practice.
Whatever happened to freedom of conscience? A hallmark of professionalism in the United States has been that we never force anyone to violate his or her conscience in the performance of a duty.
That is the first line of defense of the pro-life movement. Even more than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited federal funding of many abortions, the idea of freedom of conscience unites all parties in the pro-life movement, which has made progress since the passage of the Hyde Amendment.
There hardly has been a Congress which made no progress on the right-to-life issue. And when progress was stymied at the federal level, many restrictions were enacted at the State level. Most were tested in the federal courts and were held to be constitutional.
It is inconceivable to me that a majority in Congress can't agree upon freedom of conscience. Counting the votes, I doubt that there are enough pro-lifers in Congress to maintain the restrictions previously passed by Congress.
However, even honest liberals would favor allowing a physician to practice medicine consistent with his or her life-saving principles of conscience.
Most Republicans, as well as many Democrats, ran as pro-lifers in the 2008 election. This fundamental issue may become the first test of their commitment to life. If we force hospitals and physicians to perform abortions against their beliefs, in other words in violation of their conscience, then we will be on a downward spiral from which there may be no return.
This will be a test, America. God help all of us.
Contact: Paul M. Weyrich
Source: CNSNews.com
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_2.htm
The President-elect appears to have stepped back from some of his campaign promises, but that is speculation. We shall see.
Barck Obama did make a dogmatic statement regarding the so-called "Freedom of Choice" Act (FOCA). He said he will propose FOCA, which would eliminate all state and federal restrictions upon abortion. It would purport to force Christian hospitals to perform abortions or close. It would demand that physicians perform abortions or give up their practice.
Whatever happened to freedom of conscience? A hallmark of professionalism in the United States has been that we never force anyone to violate his or her conscience in the performance of a duty.
That is the first line of defense of the pro-life movement. Even more than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited federal funding of many abortions, the idea of freedom of conscience unites all parties in the pro-life movement, which has made progress since the passage of the Hyde Amendment.
There hardly has been a Congress which made no progress on the right-to-life issue. And when progress was stymied at the federal level, many restrictions were enacted at the State level. Most were tested in the federal courts and were held to be constitutional.
It is inconceivable to me that a majority in Congress can't agree upon freedom of conscience. Counting the votes, I doubt that there are enough pro-lifers in Congress to maintain the restrictions previously passed by Congress.
However, even honest liberals would favor allowing a physician to practice medicine consistent with his or her life-saving principles of conscience.
Most Republicans, as well as many Democrats, ran as pro-lifers in the 2008 election. This fundamental issue may become the first test of their commitment to life. If we force hospitals and physicians to perform abortions against their beliefs, in other words in violation of their conscience, then we will be on a downward spiral from which there may be no return.
This will be a test, America. God help all of us.
Contact: Paul M. Weyrich
Source: CNSNews.com
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_2.htm
"There Was a Life That Had to Be Cared For"
"There Was a Life That Had to Be Cared For"
"The human imagination can do many extraordinary things. But we can't imagine love. Or perhaps I mean loving: love as a continuous state; one that carries on in much the same way from day to day, changing and growing with time just as people do. The great stories of literature are about meeting and falling in love, about infidelity, about passion. They are seldom about the routines of married life and having children." -- From "I'm not a saint, just a parent" by Simon Barnes, London Times, November 13, 2006
For years I have been fascinated by an insight Philip Yancey, one of my favorite writers, borrowed from theologian H. Richard Niebuhr. I have shared it so often and in so many settings, it's odd that I did not think of using it in my role as editor of NRL News until last month.
Yancey writes, "Before its discovery [the Rosetta Stone] Egyptologists could only guess at the meaning of hieroglyphics. One unforgettable day, they uncovered a dark stone that rendered the same text in Greek, ordinary Egyptian script, and previously indecipherable hieroglyphics. By comparing translations side by side [since they knew Greek and ordinary Egyptian script], they mastered hieroglyphics and could now see clearly into a world they had known only in a fog."
To 98% of the American people, the abortion debate is like that. It is shrouded in a fog of conflicting claims and counter-claims. What can unlock the "secrets" to reveal to them who has the legitimate claim to their allegiance?
For those who honestly don't understand whether pro-lifers or pro-abortionists are right, what you might suggest to them is that they lay the conflicting claims side and side and use the way the two sides deal with the mother and child bond as the contemporary Rosetta Stone.
To pro-abortionists (on their best day), the unborn child is a appendage that can/ought to be cut off if "it" comes into existence at an inconvenient time. It's hard to miss the staggering irony.
Six days a week and twice on Sundays, pro-abortionists accuse pro-lifers of forgetting/ignoring/overlooking the woman. Yet it is they who treat the woman in isolation.
They are the ones who insist on viewing the unborn as if the child, unbeknownst to the mother, were a trunk that mysteriously made its way onto the ship. As mere luggage, rather than a real human being, the unborn child can be tossed overboard without compunction.
We recognize the moral (not to mention biological) poverty of seeing the mother as if she were a solo passenger. This means our task is much more difficult, but far more rewarding.
We care about both. We want both to reach safe harbor.
But there are other categories of powerless people who need our help: babies born with serious disabilities and the medically vulnerable elderly, to name two. If I could, let me briefly talk about babies who used to be called "Baby Does."
A prestigious British think tank not only is recommending limited (or no) treatment for premature babies, it also expressly took disability into account when formulating its heartless guidelines. But at least these children were allowed to be born.
The same kind of advanced technology that allows parents to view their bouncing baby boy in utero also affords them the hitherto secret knowledge that Johnny won't be perfect. Overwhelmingly, the sentence for daring to be imperfect is death.
Simon Barnes and his wife, Cindy, chose otherwise. In a remarkably powerful excerpt from a new book that appeared in mid-November in the London Times, Barnes wrote about his five-year-old son, Eddie, whom they knew before he joined them outside the womb had Down syndrome.
Barnes, the lead sports writer for the London Times, refuses to be "canonized." The title of his piece is, "I'm not a saint, just a parent."
He is the first to admit how easily things could have turned out otherwise. Barnes writes, "At the hospital, when they discovered on the scan that Down's syndrome was a possibility, they very kindly offered to kill him for us."
Had he been married to someone other than Cindy, Barnes writes, "and had that woman preferred to go the way of amniocentesis and termination, I have no doubt that I would have gone along with that, too, and treated parents of Down's syndrome children with a lofty pity."
But "They needn't have bothered," he writes. "The idea of not caring for something in your care is an abomination to her. The idea of not caring for her own child was impossible to contemplate. Amniocentesis? Not a chance, it puts the child at risk. And no matter what such a test would say about the child, she would go ahead. There was a life that had to be cared for."
"There was a life that had to be cared for." Not a bad motto for the Pro-Life Movement.
There will be occasions in the future when people who have formed no alliances will, in essence, throw up their hands in frustration. They will lament, "Who is right?" These situations should be seen for what they are: golden opportunities.
Your answer will be simple. You will ask them to consider which side refuses to choose death over life, refuses to puzzle over elementary human biology as if it were written in Sanskrit, would be incredulous if you suggested they could abandon their own, and refuses to give into despair.
I'll take our chances, won't you?
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Source URL: http://www.nrcl.org
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_3.htm
"The human imagination can do many extraordinary things. But we can't imagine love. Or perhaps I mean loving: love as a continuous state; one that carries on in much the same way from day to day, changing and growing with time just as people do. The great stories of literature are about meeting and falling in love, about infidelity, about passion. They are seldom about the routines of married life and having children." -- From "I'm not a saint, just a parent" by Simon Barnes, London Times, November 13, 2006
For years I have been fascinated by an insight Philip Yancey, one of my favorite writers, borrowed from theologian H. Richard Niebuhr. I have shared it so often and in so many settings, it's odd that I did not think of using it in my role as editor of NRL News until last month.
Yancey writes, "Before its discovery [the Rosetta Stone] Egyptologists could only guess at the meaning of hieroglyphics. One unforgettable day, they uncovered a dark stone that rendered the same text in Greek, ordinary Egyptian script, and previously indecipherable hieroglyphics. By comparing translations side by side [since they knew Greek and ordinary Egyptian script], they mastered hieroglyphics and could now see clearly into a world they had known only in a fog."
To 98% of the American people, the abortion debate is like that. It is shrouded in a fog of conflicting claims and counter-claims. What can unlock the "secrets" to reveal to them who has the legitimate claim to their allegiance?
For those who honestly don't understand whether pro-lifers or pro-abortionists are right, what you might suggest to them is that they lay the conflicting claims side and side and use the way the two sides deal with the mother and child bond as the contemporary Rosetta Stone.
To pro-abortionists (on their best day), the unborn child is a appendage that can/ought to be cut off if "it" comes into existence at an inconvenient time. It's hard to miss the staggering irony.
Six days a week and twice on Sundays, pro-abortionists accuse pro-lifers of forgetting/ignoring/overlooking the woman. Yet it is they who treat the woman in isolation.
They are the ones who insist on viewing the unborn as if the child, unbeknownst to the mother, were a trunk that mysteriously made its way onto the ship. As mere luggage, rather than a real human being, the unborn child can be tossed overboard without compunction.
We recognize the moral (not to mention biological) poverty of seeing the mother as if she were a solo passenger. This means our task is much more difficult, but far more rewarding.
We care about both. We want both to reach safe harbor.
But there are other categories of powerless people who need our help: babies born with serious disabilities and the medically vulnerable elderly, to name two. If I could, let me briefly talk about babies who used to be called "Baby Does."
A prestigious British think tank not only is recommending limited (or no) treatment for premature babies, it also expressly took disability into account when formulating its heartless guidelines. But at least these children were allowed to be born.
The same kind of advanced technology that allows parents to view their bouncing baby boy in utero also affords them the hitherto secret knowledge that Johnny won't be perfect. Overwhelmingly, the sentence for daring to be imperfect is death.
Simon Barnes and his wife, Cindy, chose otherwise. In a remarkably powerful excerpt from a new book that appeared in mid-November in the London Times, Barnes wrote about his five-year-old son, Eddie, whom they knew before he joined them outside the womb had Down syndrome.
Barnes, the lead sports writer for the London Times, refuses to be "canonized." The title of his piece is, "I'm not a saint, just a parent."
He is the first to admit how easily things could have turned out otherwise. Barnes writes, "At the hospital, when they discovered on the scan that Down's syndrome was a possibility, they very kindly offered to kill him for us."
Had he been married to someone other than Cindy, Barnes writes, "and had that woman preferred to go the way of amniocentesis and termination, I have no doubt that I would have gone along with that, too, and treated parents of Down's syndrome children with a lofty pity."
But "They needn't have bothered," he writes. "The idea of not caring for something in your care is an abomination to her. The idea of not caring for her own child was impossible to contemplate. Amniocentesis? Not a chance, it puts the child at risk. And no matter what such a test would say about the child, she would go ahead. There was a life that had to be cared for."
"There was a life that had to be cared for." Not a bad motto for the Pro-Life Movement.
There will be occasions in the future when people who have formed no alliances will, in essence, throw up their hands in frustration. They will lament, "Who is right?" These situations should be seen for what they are: golden opportunities.
Your answer will be simple. You will ask them to consider which side refuses to choose death over life, refuses to puzzle over elementary human biology as if it were written in Sanskrit, would be incredulous if you suggested they could abandon their own, and refuses to give into despair.
I'll take our chances, won't you?
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Source URL: http://www.nrcl.org
Publish Date: December 23, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_3.htm
Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Against Illinois' "Choose Life" License Plates
Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling Against Illinois' "Choose Life" License Plates
U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Is Now the Next Step
Yesterday the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago refused to re-hear a claim involving the sale of pro-adoption specialty license plates in Illinois.
A non-profit group, Choose Life Illinois, Inc., along with a group of private citizens, brought the claim after the state refused to allow the license plates to be sold to more than 25,000 Illinois residents who had signed petitions for them. Proceeds from the sale of plates, featuring the message, "Choose Life," and the faces of two smiling children, were to fund Illinois adoption agencies.
"We are very disappointed that the Court of Appeals has stamped its approval on Illinois' clearly discriminatory refusal to honor the request of over 25,000 Illinois citizens that these 'Choose Life' specialty plates be issued and sold. Our state officials' stubborn refusal to approve these plates has deprived Illinois adoption agencies of precious funds that could have been used to give kids the priceless gift of lifetimes within loving families," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society, which represents the plaintiffs. "We are committed to fighting this battle to the finish and fully intend to take the next step, filing of a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court."
The petition for rehearing sought reconsideration by the judges who handed down the November ruling and also by all other judges in active service on the court.
Brejcha predicts that the highest court will take up the case, as the appellate ruling sharply conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and also clashes with rulings of other federal appellate courts.
A recent decision of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Arizona's similar suppression of a "Choose Life" specialty plate constituted "viewpoint discrimination" in violation of the First Amendment. Because Illinois approved more than 60 other specialty plates promoting a raft of other causes (e.g., environment, anti-war, organ donation, etc.), the plaintiffs believe the state's refusal to issue "Choose Life" plates also constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" in violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Illinois plaintiffs originally had prevailed in their lawsuit, as the federal trial court had ordered Secretary of State Jesse White to begin issuing the "Choose Life" plates, after finding his rejection of the plates to be illegal viewpoint discrimination. On appeal, the Illinois Attorney General's office switched tactics and claimed – so far, successfully – that Illinois had decided to ban any mention of reproductive rights issues on specialty plates because the subject matter is "too controversial." Thomas More Society attorneys argue, however, that once state authorities turn license plates into a "designated public forum" where so many other "controversial" topics are addressed, they must not be permitted to single out this topic for censorship.
Petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court within 90 days of the lower court ruling that the Justices are being asked to overturn. The Illinois "Choose Life" petition will be filed in late March, 2009.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_4.htm
U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Is Now the Next Step
Yesterday the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago refused to re-hear a claim involving the sale of pro-adoption specialty license plates in Illinois.
A non-profit group, Choose Life Illinois, Inc., along with a group of private citizens, brought the claim after the state refused to allow the license plates to be sold to more than 25,000 Illinois residents who had signed petitions for them. Proceeds from the sale of plates, featuring the message, "Choose Life," and the faces of two smiling children, were to fund Illinois adoption agencies.
"We are very disappointed that the Court of Appeals has stamped its approval on Illinois' clearly discriminatory refusal to honor the request of over 25,000 Illinois citizens that these 'Choose Life' specialty plates be issued and sold. Our state officials' stubborn refusal to approve these plates has deprived Illinois adoption agencies of precious funds that could have been used to give kids the priceless gift of lifetimes within loving families," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society, which represents the plaintiffs. "We are committed to fighting this battle to the finish and fully intend to take the next step, filing of a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court."
The petition for rehearing sought reconsideration by the judges who handed down the November ruling and also by all other judges in active service on the court.
Brejcha predicts that the highest court will take up the case, as the appellate ruling sharply conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and also clashes with rulings of other federal appellate courts.
A recent decision of the Ninth Circuit ruled that Arizona's similar suppression of a "Choose Life" specialty plate constituted "viewpoint discrimination" in violation of the First Amendment. Because Illinois approved more than 60 other specialty plates promoting a raft of other causes (e.g., environment, anti-war, organ donation, etc.), the plaintiffs believe the state's refusal to issue "Choose Life" plates also constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" in violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Illinois plaintiffs originally had prevailed in their lawsuit, as the federal trial court had ordered Secretary of State Jesse White to begin issuing the "Choose Life" plates, after finding his rejection of the plates to be illegal viewpoint discrimination. On appeal, the Illinois Attorney General's office switched tactics and claimed – so far, successfully – that Illinois had decided to ban any mention of reproductive rights issues on specialty plates because the subject matter is "too controversial." Thomas More Society attorneys argue, however, that once state authorities turn license plates into a "designated public forum" where so many other "controversial" topics are addressed, they must not be permitted to single out this topic for censorship.
Petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court within 90 days of the lower court ruling that the Justices are being asked to overturn. The Illinois "Choose Life" petition will be filed in late March, 2009.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_4.htm
Caroline Kennedy Comes out with Anti-Life Beliefs
Caroline Kennedy Comes out with Anti-Family, Anti-Life Beliefs
Caroline Kennedy has gone public with her stance on the issues in response to a wave of media inquiries after Kennedy, virtually unknown in the political world, announced her interest in the New York senate seat Hillary Clinton will leave open when she becomes Secretary of State.
As was widely suspected, Kennedy emerged as firmly entrenched in favor of abortion and same-sex "marriage" in keeping with a strongly left-of center persona.
In email responses to questions from the New York Times, Kennedy's spokesman Stefan Friedman described her as supporting "full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
Answering the question "Would she oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion?" came the response: "Caroline believes that young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults, but this should not be required by law."
On the question of late-term abortions, Kennedy was said to "support Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk."
Kennedy told the Buffalo News that she opposes the death penalty.
A Roman Catholic, Kennedy has no public service record and largely avoided the spotlight until she joined Barack Obama's pre-election team earlier this year, and has since consistently expressed a very high opinion of the President-elect and his policies.
NARAL of New York were pleased with the possibility that Kennedy would replace Clinton, saying she was "someone who could take up the mantle that Hillary has sort of started in terms of commitment to reproductive health care."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_5.htm
Caroline Kennedy has gone public with her stance on the issues in response to a wave of media inquiries after Kennedy, virtually unknown in the political world, announced her interest in the New York senate seat Hillary Clinton will leave open when she becomes Secretary of State.
As was widely suspected, Kennedy emerged as firmly entrenched in favor of abortion and same-sex "marriage" in keeping with a strongly left-of center persona.
In email responses to questions from the New York Times, Kennedy's spokesman Stefan Friedman described her as supporting "full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
Answering the question "Would she oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion?" came the response: "Caroline believes that young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults, but this should not be required by law."
On the question of late-term abortions, Kennedy was said to "support Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk."
Kennedy told the Buffalo News that she opposes the death penalty.
A Roman Catholic, Kennedy has no public service record and largely avoided the spotlight until she joined Barack Obama's pre-election team earlier this year, and has since consistently expressed a very high opinion of the President-elect and his policies.
NARAL of New York were pleased with the possibility that Kennedy would replace Clinton, saying she was "someone who could take up the mantle that Hillary has sort of started in terms of commitment to reproductive health care."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_5.htm
"Give Face Transplant Woman Option of Assisted Suicide"
Noted Bioethicist: "Give Face Transplant Woman Option of Assisted Suicide"
Dr. Arthur Caplan, Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the woman who was given an near-total face transplant recently should be offered the option of killing herself if the operation proves unsuccessful.
"The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell," said Caplan. "If your face is falling off and you can't eat and you can't breathe and you're suffering in a terrible manner that can't be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying."
The patient, whose name and age were not released, underwent a 22 hour procedure at the Cleveland Clinic that reconstructed 80 percent of her face after she suffered an undisclosed trauma.
Francis Papay, chair of dermatology and plastic surgery at the Cleveland Clinic explained the surgery at a news conference held last week.
"We transferred the skin, all the facial muscles in the upper face and mid-face, the upper lip, all of the nose, most of the sinuses around the nose, the upper jaw including the teeth, and the facial nerve."
The face transplant was the fourth done worldwide, with two having been done in France, and one performed in China.
The procedure raises the ethical questions of not only what to do in the event of failure of the operation, but also the source of the face used in the transplant and how it was acquired.
Unlike transplants involving vital organs like the heart or liver, face reconstruction is done to improve quality of life, not extend it, and the recipient still runs the risk of life-threatening complications and must take immune-suppressing drugs for the rest of their lives; but this may be the first time a medical ethicist has publicly stated that a transplant recipient should be offered assisted suicide in case of organ rejection.
The AP report indicated the tissue used for the reconstruction was taken from "a female cadaver." The hospital's bioethics chief, Dr. Eric Kodish, said the circumstances and procedures followed for the donation and transplant were "beyond reproach."
The ethical question of the harvesting of organs for transplant and the contentious concept of "brain death" was raised in the controversy over the first-ever face transplant surgery conducted in France in 2005.
Dr. Iain Hutchison, an oral-facial surgeon at Barts and the London Hospital, told the BBC concerning the procedure carried out in France: "The transplant would have to come from a beating heart donor." Hutchison, who is chief executive of Saving Faces - the Facial Surgery Research Foundation, explained, "So, say your sister was in intensive care, you would have to agree to allow her face to be removed before the ventilator was switched off."
According to Dr. John Shea, medical consultant for Campaign Life Coalition, "there is no general agreement that brain death is death." He explained that the "criteria for establishing 'brain death' vary from England to the US and through the other countries of Europe."
The fact that the face used in the Cleveland Clinic operation had to come from a live donor - heart beating and still breathing - in order to be transplanted has not been addressed by University of Pennsylvania ethicist Dr. Caplan.
Contact: Thadddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_6.htm
Dr. Arthur Caplan, Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the woman who was given an near-total face transplant recently should be offered the option of killing herself if the operation proves unsuccessful.
"The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell," said Caplan. "If your face is falling off and you can't eat and you can't breathe and you're suffering in a terrible manner that can't be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying."
The patient, whose name and age were not released, underwent a 22 hour procedure at the Cleveland Clinic that reconstructed 80 percent of her face after she suffered an undisclosed trauma.
Francis Papay, chair of dermatology and plastic surgery at the Cleveland Clinic explained the surgery at a news conference held last week.
"We transferred the skin, all the facial muscles in the upper face and mid-face, the upper lip, all of the nose, most of the sinuses around the nose, the upper jaw including the teeth, and the facial nerve."
The face transplant was the fourth done worldwide, with two having been done in France, and one performed in China.
The procedure raises the ethical questions of not only what to do in the event of failure of the operation, but also the source of the face used in the transplant and how it was acquired.
Unlike transplants involving vital organs like the heart or liver, face reconstruction is done to improve quality of life, not extend it, and the recipient still runs the risk of life-threatening complications and must take immune-suppressing drugs for the rest of their lives; but this may be the first time a medical ethicist has publicly stated that a transplant recipient should be offered assisted suicide in case of organ rejection.
The AP report indicated the tissue used for the reconstruction was taken from "a female cadaver." The hospital's bioethics chief, Dr. Eric Kodish, said the circumstances and procedures followed for the donation and transplant were "beyond reproach."
The ethical question of the harvesting of organs for transplant and the contentious concept of "brain death" was raised in the controversy over the first-ever face transplant surgery conducted in France in 2005.
Dr. Iain Hutchison, an oral-facial surgeon at Barts and the London Hospital, told the BBC concerning the procedure carried out in France: "The transplant would have to come from a beating heart donor." Hutchison, who is chief executive of Saving Faces - the Facial Surgery Research Foundation, explained, "So, say your sister was in intensive care, you would have to agree to allow her face to be removed before the ventilator was switched off."
According to Dr. John Shea, medical consultant for Campaign Life Coalition, "there is no general agreement that brain death is death." He explained that the "criteria for establishing 'brain death' vary from England to the US and through the other countries of Europe."
The fact that the face used in the Cleveland Clinic operation had to come from a live donor - heart beating and still breathing - in order to be transplanted has not been addressed by University of Pennsylvania ethicist Dr. Caplan.
Contact: Thadddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081223_6.htm
Illinois: Unbridled abortion access
"Go to a surrounding state," means Illinois for unbridled abortion access
The "surrounding" state the Planned Parenthood counselor mentions in the video below is Illinois -- the only state in the Midwest with absolutely no restrictions concerning abortion. Over the years, Planned Parenthood clinic counselors in Illinois have been audiotaped giving similar advice, but there's been no concern or investigation authorized by our state legislators. Planned Parenthood is taxpayer-funded and is expanding its services into more Illinois communities.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/12/go-to-a-surrounding-state-means-illinois-for-unbridled-abortion-access.html
The "surrounding" state the Planned Parenthood counselor mentions in the video below is Illinois -- the only state in the Midwest with absolutely no restrictions concerning abortion. Over the years, Planned Parenthood clinic counselors in Illinois have been audiotaped giving similar advice, but there's been no concern or investigation authorized by our state legislators. Planned Parenthood is taxpayer-funded and is expanding its services into more Illinois communities.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/12/go-to-a-surrounding-state-means-illinois-for-unbridled-abortion-access.html
Planned Parenthood Requests $4.6 Billion
Planned Parenthood Requests $4.6 Billion from Obama Administration
Barack Obama's transition team has published a 55-page wish list from Planned Parenthood and over 50 other pro-abortion groups with a $4.6 billion price tag. The document "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," outlines the pro-abortion movement's demands from the Obama presidency in the first 100 days of his administration and beyond. First among their priorities is passing the Freedom of Choice and Prevention First Acts.
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11720
Barack Obama's transition team has published a 55-page wish list from Planned Parenthood and over 50 other pro-abortion groups with a $4.6 billion price tag. The document "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," outlines the pro-abortion movement's demands from the Obama presidency in the first 100 days of his administration and beyond. First among their priorities is passing the Freedom of Choice and Prevention First Acts.
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11720
National DNA Databank
The Bill Nobody Noticed: National DNA Databank
In April of 2008, President Bush signed into law S.1858 which allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. This was to be implemented within 6 months meaning that this collection is now being carried out. Congressman Ron Paul states that this bill is the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database. S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a "national contingency plan" in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".
http://www.naturalnews.com/025116.html
In April of 2008, President Bush signed into law S.1858 which allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. This was to be implemented within 6 months meaning that this collection is now being carried out. Congressman Ron Paul states that this bill is the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database. S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a "national contingency plan" in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".
http://www.naturalnews.com/025116.html
Will Pro-Life Demonstrations be Crushed
Will Pro-Life Demonstrations be Crushed at the Obama Presidential Inauguration
Pro-life activists still unsure if their events will be allowed to take place during the Inaugural Parade and Inaugural week.
The American Center for Law and Justice, who is representing the activists, has sent a letter to the Secret Service and National Park Service seeking a face to face meeting to resolve the matter.
"Pro-life activists are very troubled and concerned that their First Amendment free speech rights will be denied and trampled during the Presidential Inauguration. After meeting with government officials, we were told they could not guarantee our pro-life demonstrations could take place.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/750809033.html
Planned Parenthood Fears Outside Scrutiny
Planned Parenthood Fears Outside Scrutiny - Chooses Closely Linked Group to Implement 'Reform'
Lila Rose, undercover investigator, demands Planned Parenthood release records under mandatory reporting laws
After two undercover videos show Planned Parenthood of Indiana workers refusing to report statutory rape of young girls, Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum released a statement defending her organization, though offering no public apology. Lila Rose, 20-year old president of Live Action, calls for Planned Parenthood of Indiana to publicly release the number of reports they have made to Child Protective Services in conjunction with the number of minors to whom they have provided STD testing, abortion counseling, pregnancy testing, and birth control.
Rose says that comparing these two statistics will begin to give the public a more accurate picture of the extent to which Planned Parenthood fails to report adult-child sexual relationships.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/116119032.html
Lila Rose, undercover investigator, demands Planned Parenthood release records under mandatory reporting laws
After two undercover videos show Planned Parenthood of Indiana workers refusing to report statutory rape of young girls, Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum released a statement defending her organization, though offering no public apology. Lila Rose, 20-year old president of Live Action, calls for Planned Parenthood of Indiana to publicly release the number of reports they have made to Child Protective Services in conjunction with the number of minors to whom they have provided STD testing, abortion counseling, pregnancy testing, and birth control.
Rose says that comparing these two statistics will begin to give the public a more accurate picture of the extent to which Planned Parenthood fails to report adult-child sexual relationships.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/116119032.html
December 22, 2008
Chicago, DeuPage County Caroling at Abortion Facilities
Christmas Caroling at Abortion Facilities
In a move which could be replicated in major cities across North America, the Pro-Life Action League will hold its sixth annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling Day on Saturday, December 20. Two caroling tours will take place, one visiting four Chicago abortion facilities and one visiting four in DuPage County.
"The Christmas story is a story of hope and joy brought into the world by a newborn baby," said League communications director Eric Scheidler. "We want abortion-bound mothers in Chicago and the western suburbs to know that their unborn babies are a gift, too."
The League has saved babies from abortion in past years when their mothers heard the caroling.
"One mother told our counselor that hearing 'Silent Night' made her think about how Mary said yes to God - and then she couldn't go through with the abortion," said Scheidler.
"We encourage more pro-lifers to join this national event," said Scheidler. "Simply print out our booklet and gather a few friends for carols at the abortion facilities in your area."
At each abortion facility on the two tours, pro-life carolers will gather around an empty manger, which symbolizes both the hope that new life can bring as well as the emptiness left behind when an unborn child is killed by abortion.
Download the song booklet here:
http://prolifeaction.org/docs/Carols.pdf
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 19, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_1.htm
In a move which could be replicated in major cities across North America, the Pro-Life Action League will hold its sixth annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling Day on Saturday, December 20. Two caroling tours will take place, one visiting four Chicago abortion facilities and one visiting four in DuPage County.
"The Christmas story is a story of hope and joy brought into the world by a newborn baby," said League communications director Eric Scheidler. "We want abortion-bound mothers in Chicago and the western suburbs to know that their unborn babies are a gift, too."
The League has saved babies from abortion in past years when their mothers heard the caroling.
"One mother told our counselor that hearing 'Silent Night' made her think about how Mary said yes to God - and then she couldn't go through with the abortion," said Scheidler.
"We encourage more pro-lifers to join this national event," said Scheidler. "Simply print out our booklet and gather a few friends for carols at the abortion facilities in your area."
At each abortion facility on the two tours, pro-life carolers will gather around an empty manger, which symbolizes both the hope that new life can bring as well as the emptiness left behind when an unborn child is killed by abortion.
Download the song booklet here:
http://prolifeaction.org/docs/Carols.pdf
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com
Publish Date: December 19, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_1.htm
Prenatal Testing: Considering Ethical Pros and Cons
Prenatal Testing: Considering Ethical Pros and Cons
Though prenatal testing is increasingly more routine, it does not get an ethical green light in all cases and circumstances, clarified a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Carlo Bellieni, director of the department of intensive neonatal therapy at Le Scotte University Polyclinic of Siena, spoke recently with ZENIT about the ethical parameters in which prenatal testing is licit, and even recommended, and when it should be avoided.
He first clarified that prenatal testing can be broadly divided into genetic and non-genetic types.
Prenatal testing of the genetic variety often uses direct tests such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling to study the child's chromosomal makeup, thereby enabling the diagnosis of such conditions as Down Syndrome. Genetic testing can also be indirect, with the use of structural sonograms or analysis of maternal blood.
Bellieni noted that genetic testing does not currently have the aim of curing the child. Testing for certain non-genetic conditions, meanwhile -- things such as growth delay, malformations, fetal suffering -- can lead to treatments and cures, either before birth or shortly afterward.
"Research in itself," Bellieni said, "is always something good." But he cautioned against routine testing that can create a mentality in which parents feel pressured to seek and verify that they are carrying a "perfect child."
Planning to abort
The professor offered some principles for families faced with the possibility of prenatal testing.
First, he affirmed, "Prenatal diagnosis should have a positive intention for the health of the child and the mother."
Statistics show that this "positive intention" is often lacking. As ZENIT reported in September, citing the Washington Post, some 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted.
In one of his monthly bioethics columns, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center, clarified that prenatal testing is gravely immoral if done with the intention of aborting the child if the tests reveal abnormality.
And even if there is no intention to abort, Bellieni went on to note that the risks of prenatal tests for the child must be taken into account. He said that, for example, one in about every 100 or 200 amniocentesis tests results in the death of the child.
Seeking health
On the other hand, as Father Pacholczyk explained in his column, "Prenatal testing is permissible, indeed desirable, when done with the intention of providing early medical intervention to the child."
He cited the example of a disease known as Krabbe's leukodystrophy, saying it "can be successfully treated by a bone marrow transplant shortly after birth. If a diagnosis of the disease is made by prenatal testing, the family can initiate the search for a matched bone marrow sample even before the child is born. That way, valuable time can be saved, and the early intervention improves the likelihood of a good outcome."
The priest noted that other diseases, such as spina bifida, can be treated while the baby is in the womb.
"Prenatal testing which aims to provide diagnostic information to assist in the treatment of an in utero patient represents a morally praiseworthy use of this powerful technology," he concluded.
Getting prepared
Another positive effect that prenatal testing could have, Bellieni noted, regards the psychological serenity of the parents. "In cases especially full of tension," he said, the tests could serve "to calm the couple in case of intense anxiety over their child's genetic health, but this should not be routine, so as not to create the mentality -- in the couple and in the population -- that the first position to have toward a child is to 'verify his normality.'"
Bellieni also had counsel for doctors and specialists who perform the tests. He urged the informed consent of the parents, saying they must be made aware of the objectives and the risks involved in testing.
"In case of diagnosis of pathology, the woman or couple must be directed to the specialist of the pathology in question, with which therapeutic possibilities will be further explored and the real nature of the problem determined," he added. "It might also be of use to involve officially recognized associations of relatives or patients of the pathology in question."
Source: Zenit.org
Source URL: http://www.zenit.org
Publish Date: December 19, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_3.htm
Though prenatal testing is increasingly more routine, it does not get an ethical green light in all cases and circumstances, clarified a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Carlo Bellieni, director of the department of intensive neonatal therapy at Le Scotte University Polyclinic of Siena, spoke recently with ZENIT about the ethical parameters in which prenatal testing is licit, and even recommended, and when it should be avoided.
He first clarified that prenatal testing can be broadly divided into genetic and non-genetic types.
Prenatal testing of the genetic variety often uses direct tests such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling to study the child's chromosomal makeup, thereby enabling the diagnosis of such conditions as Down Syndrome. Genetic testing can also be indirect, with the use of structural sonograms or analysis of maternal blood.
Bellieni noted that genetic testing does not currently have the aim of curing the child. Testing for certain non-genetic conditions, meanwhile -- things such as growth delay, malformations, fetal suffering -- can lead to treatments and cures, either before birth or shortly afterward.
"Research in itself," Bellieni said, "is always something good." But he cautioned against routine testing that can create a mentality in which parents feel pressured to seek and verify that they are carrying a "perfect child."
Planning to abort
The professor offered some principles for families faced with the possibility of prenatal testing.
First, he affirmed, "Prenatal diagnosis should have a positive intention for the health of the child and the mother."
Statistics show that this "positive intention" is often lacking. As ZENIT reported in September, citing the Washington Post, some 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted.
In one of his monthly bioethics columns, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center, clarified that prenatal testing is gravely immoral if done with the intention of aborting the child if the tests reveal abnormality.
And even if there is no intention to abort, Bellieni went on to note that the risks of prenatal tests for the child must be taken into account. He said that, for example, one in about every 100 or 200 amniocentesis tests results in the death of the child.
Seeking health
On the other hand, as Father Pacholczyk explained in his column, "Prenatal testing is permissible, indeed desirable, when done with the intention of providing early medical intervention to the child."
He cited the example of a disease known as Krabbe's leukodystrophy, saying it "can be successfully treated by a bone marrow transplant shortly after birth. If a diagnosis of the disease is made by prenatal testing, the family can initiate the search for a matched bone marrow sample even before the child is born. That way, valuable time can be saved, and the early intervention improves the likelihood of a good outcome."
The priest noted that other diseases, such as spina bifida, can be treated while the baby is in the womb.
"Prenatal testing which aims to provide diagnostic information to assist in the treatment of an in utero patient represents a morally praiseworthy use of this powerful technology," he concluded.
Getting prepared
Another positive effect that prenatal testing could have, Bellieni noted, regards the psychological serenity of the parents. "In cases especially full of tension," he said, the tests could serve "to calm the couple in case of intense anxiety over their child's genetic health, but this should not be routine, so as not to create the mentality -- in the couple and in the population -- that the first position to have toward a child is to 'verify his normality.'"
Bellieni also had counsel for doctors and specialists who perform the tests. He urged the informed consent of the parents, saying they must be made aware of the objectives and the risks involved in testing.
"In case of diagnosis of pathology, the woman or couple must be directed to the specialist of the pathology in question, with which therapeutic possibilities will be further explored and the real nature of the problem determined," he added. "It might also be of use to involve officially recognized associations of relatives or patients of the pathology in question."
Source: Zenit.org
Source URL: http://www.zenit.org
Publish Date: December 19, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_3.htm
Pro-Aborts: ‘Long list’ of desired U.S. abortion policy changes
Pro-abortion groups have 'long list' of desired U.S. abortion policy changes
Abortion advocates have handed over a "long list" of policies they want to see implemented under the administration of President-elect Barack Obama. Their "smart and strategic" list includes the restoration of funding to the United Nations Population Fund and the reduction in the price of birth control pills at college health centers.
"We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the Wall Street Journal. "The Freedom of Choice Act is very important... but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns."
FOCA was not listed in strategic plan submitted to the Obama transition team by a coalition of more than 50 abortion rights advocates.
The Obama administration could also decide whether to cut funding for abstinence education, whether to increase funding for "comprehensive sex education" that includes discussion of birth control, whether to rescind a ban on taxpayer funding for abortions, and whether to overturn regulations that make unborn children eligible for healthcare coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Activists also want to lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.
Obama is expected to restore federal funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) soon after taking office, the Wall Street Journal reports. Investigations by the Population Research Institute and the U.S. Department of State under Secretary of State Colin Powell have linked the UNFPA to China's coercive population control policy.
Pro-abortion rights groups are also opposed to new conscience protection regulations announced on Thursday by the Bush Administration. While federal law requires that doctors and nurses not be compelled to perform abortions, the new rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) clarify that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion.
Many activists on both sides of the conscience protection issue interpret the rule as protecting workers who refuse to participate in providing birth control or other care to which they have conscientious objections.
The new rule could be blocked by Congress. The HHS under an Obama administration could also reverse the regulation.
According to the Wall Street Journal, officials close to President-elect Obama's transition team indicate that they intend to implement change through the HHS regulatory process.
Source: Catholic News Agency
Source URL: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_2.htm
Abortion advocates have handed over a "long list" of policies they want to see implemented under the administration of President-elect Barack Obama. Their "smart and strategic" list includes the restoration of funding to the United Nations Population Fund and the reduction in the price of birth control pills at college health centers.
"We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the Wall Street Journal. "The Freedom of Choice Act is very important... but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns."
FOCA was not listed in strategic plan submitted to the Obama transition team by a coalition of more than 50 abortion rights advocates.
The Obama administration could also decide whether to cut funding for abstinence education, whether to increase funding for "comprehensive sex education" that includes discussion of birth control, whether to rescind a ban on taxpayer funding for abortions, and whether to overturn regulations that make unborn children eligible for healthcare coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Activists also want to lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.
Obama is expected to restore federal funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) soon after taking office, the Wall Street Journal reports. Investigations by the Population Research Institute and the U.S. Department of State under Secretary of State Colin Powell have linked the UNFPA to China's coercive population control policy.
Pro-abortion rights groups are also opposed to new conscience protection regulations announced on Thursday by the Bush Administration. While federal law requires that doctors and nurses not be compelled to perform abortions, the new rules promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) clarify that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion.
Many activists on both sides of the conscience protection issue interpret the rule as protecting workers who refuse to participate in providing birth control or other care to which they have conscientious objections.
The new rule could be blocked by Congress. The HHS under an Obama administration could also reverse the regulation.
According to the Wall Street Journal, officials close to President-elect Obama's transition team indicate that they intend to implement change through the HHS regulatory process.
Source: Catholic News Agency
Source URL: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com
Publish Date: December 22, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_2.htm
Who Decides Who Lives and Who Dies?
Who Decides Who Lives and Who Dies?
Dan Callahan has written: "I doggedly believe we will one way or the other have to set limits on health care for the elderly, even if a specific age limit will not do...a good society ought to help young people become old people, but is under no obligation to help the old become indefinitely older."
When he says "we will" set limits, he means the collective "we." He means that the Medicare system will set limits. When he speaks of "society" helping young people but not old people, he means that Medicare will allocate money to young people but not old people.
Collectivist thinking about health care is not unusual today. After all, Medicare is a collectivist institution.
Collectivism, by common definition: "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government." The "means of production" include all wealth. Wealth is anything that exchanges for a price.
The personal qualities of a person are sources of wealth. The personal qualities include a range of things like decisiveness, knowledge, skills, intellect, will, drive, know-how, emotions, attractiveness, leadership quality, decision-making ability, foresight, empathy, understanding, energy, drive, health, fortitude, stamina, plus moral and intellectual capacities. The personal qualities are used to provide labor and services that are bought and sold.
The vast majority of human wealth is through personal qualities. There is therefore no ownership and control of the means of production without controlling human beings. Collectivism to be collectivism has to be a system that includes control of the personal qualities of each person by all people collectively (which, in reality, means control by government officials and bureaucrats).
Collectivism is totalitarian, the latter meaning a system in which government exercises complete control over each person's life or personal qualities. As Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has written: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul."
Seizure of the person is exactly what collectivism is about. It is about taking the property that each of us has in his person and life. This means we lose the power to make decisions over our own lives. In collectivism, the property in our lives and persons belongs to the collective. Through the centralization of health-care financing and rule-making, Medicare officials and bureaucrats decide who is going to live and who is going to die. Medicare is collectivist.
In Double Indemnity, Edward G. Robinson explains the predicament of Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, who have committed a collective murder of Barbara's husband. "They've committed a murder and it's not like taking a trolley ride together where they can get off at different stops. They're stuck with each other and they've got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery." They are bound together in a collective fate from which there is no escape short of the cemetery.
A person and his life either belong to him or they belong to others. Either we decide as persons how we live and die, or we give up those decision rights to the collective and faceless officials and bureaucrats of government. The trolley we are on is the latter, the totalitarian line. Some of us want to get off. We did not commit the murder. If the ones who want to ride that trolley will let us off, they can continue their ride. That is a peaceful solution. It will mean the end of the U.S. government as we know it. But there is no reason why several governments cannot operate on the territory now under the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
But it is possible that the others won't let us off, because they are collectivists and wish to control us. That sort of basic difference will not go away. It will lead to conflict.
The U.S. government, with the vague and diffuse blessing of majority America and the specific and narrow support of various health-care lobbies, committed a murder in 1965 when it instituted Medicare. On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the death warrant for markets in health care. On our behalf, the protestations of many of us notwithstanding, he placed us and our health-care system on a one-way trip to the cemetery. The murder was suicide by a slow-acting poison that is still spreading through the body politic and the associated economy.
The government already decides who lives and who dies via its large-scale intrusions into markets for health care. The connections to life and death are manifold, but they are beneath the surface of public recognition. They are felt, but they are largely unseen and unremarked. As the trolley approaches the cemetery, we get closer to that time when the government will decide ever more explicitly who lives and who dies.
The future in our government-dominated society is often visible in academia, because that is where the future is created and propagated by intellectual apologists for government. Academic intellectuals quite often act as if they are neutral scientists in search of truth when, in point of fact, they publish lengthy articles in which they accept and often support the premise of big government. Various governments support many intellectuals financially. This is a cozy, self-perpetuating, and thoroughly evil arrangement whereby the government gets to control the minds, if only partially but nonetheless effectively, of those who think they are getting educated. The government-academic nexus often ends up as a totalitarian mechanism.
Duke University began a journal in 1976 called Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. It is still published. The editor spoke of the major ultimate goal as "decent care for the suffering." He did not take to the pulpit to encourage us to help the suffering. He mentioned no religious figures. He did not delve into moral philosophy. He did not speak of how a free people alleviates its own suffering. He spoke instead of "health policy-making" as being the journal's focal point, as befits its title.
I briefly mention the content of the first three articles in the first issue of this journal. The authors of these articles are, as we all are, on the trolley ride to that health-care cemetery, but they do not recognize the basic cause of that fact, which is Medicare. And so they recommend more government measures that actually speed up the trolley and make sure that everyone is aboard when it reaches its destination. Goodwill often combines with ignorance and bad philosophies to produce tragic results.
The first article in the first issue of the new journal was written by Theodore Cooper, Assistant Secretary of Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The title was "Federal Health Policy." The rhetoric of his opening lines is the rhetoric of today, some 33 years later. Obama could have spoken these words penned in 1976 by this government official:
"A host of problems today confronts the health care system. None is new but all are vastly larger and more pressing than ever before. There are problems having to do with the cost of health care, both the cost to individuals and the aggregate cost to society. There are problems concerning the quality of care, access to care, and the appropriateness of the manner and settings in which health care is dispensed...But the super-problem in health is cost. The intolerable escalation of cost throughout the system is pushing it toward significant change."
Connecting any of this to Medicare's existence was beyond Cooper's ken. From where he sat as a bureaucrat in government, Medicare was a given. To him, Medicare was there as an outcome of public policy. He thought that the legislation was an outcome of public demand. He mentioned the public's expectations and the national expectation of health care. He noted that "people expect so much because of the inexorable movement toward the idea that personal health or medical care is a public responsibility. This is an ideological shift..."
The reality is that Medicare came into being as the result of decades of lobbying by various health care businesses and organizations, not as a result of public demand. Cooper's reaction shows that bureaucrats who administer the program need not and may not understand the politics of Medicare's beginnings or the economics of its replacement of markets in health care. What they see is a huge demand after the program is put in place, and they then rationalize that as a shift in ideology when it is really an expression of economics operating within the new political framework. And those who have that sort of belief, caused by witnessing the public demand under that program, do not realize that the demand exists just as powerfully in markets prior to government's entry. They cannot recognize the government program as a source of problems that did not exist in unhampered markets, and they cannot recommend the termination of the government operation, which, by the way, employs them. Instead, to complete their rationalization, they seek to find fault with the markets and to fantasize that people in general wanted government health care.
Medicare, no matter how it came into being, is now operating as an independent cause of social change. It is now fueling the trolley's movement. Because Medicare pools health care money, it creates a problem for government bureaucrats of deciding who will get that money. They then invoke arbitrary criteria. For example, seeing that elder care costs more money per person than middle-age care, they decide to allocate less to the elderly and more to the middle-aged. They then argue that this is fair and just. Seeing that procedure A is more expensive than procedure B, they control (lower) the price of procedure A, and this creates excess demand for procedure A. The number of rules, restrictions, and controls is endless. Medicine becomes a branch of politics.
The second article, again from 1976, reviewed national health insurance proposals. It said that the 1972 platforms of both parties spoke of comprehensive coverage. It said that the cost of a cradle-to-grave coverage was estimated as $285–$580 billion (in today's dollars). We may note here that then, as now, government always under-estimates costs. The article spoke of a Massachusetts plan, just as several years ago Governor Romney of Massachusetts achieved a lot of publicity with his health insurance plan. Congress, we are told, was considering three proposals; and "The first is Senator Kennedy's proposal..." That hasn't changed either.
Health insurance covering all Americans is an aim of the current administration. It will probably be enacted in some form. They'll probably dedicate it to Senator Kennedy. The trolley ride to the cemetery continues. The last stop is the death of markets in health care, replaced by a totalitarian system.
The third article, written by several members of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, began by informing us that "Since 1965, the federal government has become the principal purchaser of health care services primarily through its financing of the Medicare and Medicaid programs." These health care professionals were on the receiving end of various laws passed by Congress in 1972 to deal with the problems of Medicare (cost increases, waste, deterioration of quality). But these laws created even more paperwork and cost! The authors called for quality care, while they bemoaned "the sheer quantity of paperwork that will force providers to hire additional staff," whose cost detracts from actually doctoring and nursing the ill. They complained about "the unbelievable crush of paperwork..." Then, not recognizing that Medicare and Medicaid were the source of the resulting problems of cost and excess demand or not willing to call for their termination, these authors called for changes in the control systems. This tinkering has now gone on for 43 years.
Dan Callahan's book on setting health care limits came out in 1987. The topic of rationing health care and the duty to die emerged in academia. One could find ancient writers who believed that the elderly should die, perhaps with society pushing them to die, so that resources would be made available for the young. The modern resurgence of interest in this topic was due to the government's presence and prominence in medical care. Since the government controls the resources going to medical care, it has to say where they go and who gets them. As long as the government controls health care, it has to say who lives and who dies. The academics get into the act by advising government whom to kill, how to kill them, who should get the supposedly-released resources, who should get a CT-scan and who should not, and so on. Academics think, and they think about every aspect of the issue except one, which is getting the government out of health-care markets. The academics accept collectivism. It is their bread and butter. It is their mother's milk. They analyze health care in the name of efficiency and occasionally in the name of justice. We are supposed to repose and take our guidance on these matters from the priests known as professors (not from the renegades of that class).
Adam Smith begins his inquiry into the wealth of nations by mentioning: "Such [savage] nations, however, are so miserably poor, that from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts."
Is America now in the class of savage nations that is so miserably poor that we are given to intellectual pondering about the destruction of old people? Do such investigations, ideas, and deeds naturally accompany the killing of infants? Do they naturally accompany socially-approved abortion? They do. These are all birds of a feather.
America's turn to savagery does not originate in America's being poor. Americans were poorer centuries ago without discussing the killing of old people and babies. Taking care of elderly persons has always been costly. Medicare brings out into the open the fact of resource limitations that always beset mankind. It exacerbates the rationing problem by centralizing all resources and decision-making. But, as we have seen, Medicare itself reflects the same factors that imply savagery, by which I mean brutal, merciless, and vicious.
Savagery is associated with a cluster of other ideas and beliefs that have a grip on American thought. They include collectivism, which is against a person having property in his own mind, body, and life; that is, having control over his own mind, body, and life. For once one owns and controls others, even via a collective sense of ownership, the sense of restraint that governs behavior when each of us has property in ourselves disappears. We are free to act as we will, and that allows a broader scope for our more evil and selfish impulses. Another of these ideas is collective utilitarianism, which is an attempt to tote up the costs and benefits of policies to broad collectives. Once we abandon the idea that each of us is a person who makes decisions for himself over his life, and replace that with the idea that a person's essence arises by virtue of belonging to some collective group, and the idea that everyone within a group is the same, the way is open to mistreating vast numbers of persons by labeling them and treating them all in government-specified ways.
The Holy Bible expounds a social philosophy that is entirely at odds with the collectivization of medical care. There is no room for discussions of euthanasia and age-based rationing in such commandments as "Thou shalt not kill," and "Honour thy father and mother." There are no tradeoffs of young for old in "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." Can anyone doubt the meaning of "Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old"?
Professor Margaret P. Battin wrote an article in 1987 titled "Age Rationing and the Just Distribution of Health Care: Is There a Duty to Die?" After 24 pages of intense mental gymnastics that attempted to figure out what people would think about old-age medical care if they were placed in a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, she decided that thou shalt kill if there is a substantial scarcity of resources. (Who will decide that little matter?) She decided that one need not hearken to thy father after all and one might despise thy mother's life as long as the resources released from this will be indeed transferred to the young. She also spoke up for talking older people into agreeing to end their lives. Her language was not as blunt as mine. A sample: "Nevertheless, whether death in old age is feared or welcomed is very much a product of social beliefs and expectations, and these not only undergo spontaneous transformations but can be quite readily altered and engineered."
As more and more retirees go on Medicare and the costs rapidly escalate, the government shall more and more explicitly be making life and death decisions. What we think is civilization in this regard is actually savagery.
Contact: Michael S. Rozeff
Source: LewRockwell.com
Source URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com
Publish Date: December 20, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_4.htm
Dan Callahan has written: "I doggedly believe we will one way or the other have to set limits on health care for the elderly, even if a specific age limit will not do...a good society ought to help young people become old people, but is under no obligation to help the old become indefinitely older."
When he says "we will" set limits, he means the collective "we." He means that the Medicare system will set limits. When he speaks of "society" helping young people but not old people, he means that Medicare will allocate money to young people but not old people.
Collectivist thinking about health care is not unusual today. After all, Medicare is a collectivist institution.
Collectivism, by common definition: "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government." The "means of production" include all wealth. Wealth is anything that exchanges for a price.
The personal qualities of a person are sources of wealth. The personal qualities include a range of things like decisiveness, knowledge, skills, intellect, will, drive, know-how, emotions, attractiveness, leadership quality, decision-making ability, foresight, empathy, understanding, energy, drive, health, fortitude, stamina, plus moral and intellectual capacities. The personal qualities are used to provide labor and services that are bought and sold.
The vast majority of human wealth is through personal qualities. There is therefore no ownership and control of the means of production without controlling human beings. Collectivism to be collectivism has to be a system that includes control of the personal qualities of each person by all people collectively (which, in reality, means control by government officials and bureaucrats).
Collectivism is totalitarian, the latter meaning a system in which government exercises complete control over each person's life or personal qualities. As Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has written: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul."
Seizure of the person is exactly what collectivism is about. It is about taking the property that each of us has in his person and life. This means we lose the power to make decisions over our own lives. In collectivism, the property in our lives and persons belongs to the collective. Through the centralization of health-care financing and rule-making, Medicare officials and bureaucrats decide who is going to live and who is going to die. Medicare is collectivist.
In Double Indemnity, Edward G. Robinson explains the predicament of Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, who have committed a collective murder of Barbara's husband. "They've committed a murder and it's not like taking a trolley ride together where they can get off at different stops. They're stuck with each other and they've got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery." They are bound together in a collective fate from which there is no escape short of the cemetery.
A person and his life either belong to him or they belong to others. Either we decide as persons how we live and die, or we give up those decision rights to the collective and faceless officials and bureaucrats of government. The trolley we are on is the latter, the totalitarian line. Some of us want to get off. We did not commit the murder. If the ones who want to ride that trolley will let us off, they can continue their ride. That is a peaceful solution. It will mean the end of the U.S. government as we know it. But there is no reason why several governments cannot operate on the territory now under the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
But it is possible that the others won't let us off, because they are collectivists and wish to control us. That sort of basic difference will not go away. It will lead to conflict.
The U.S. government, with the vague and diffuse blessing of majority America and the specific and narrow support of various health-care lobbies, committed a murder in 1965 when it instituted Medicare. On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the death warrant for markets in health care. On our behalf, the protestations of many of us notwithstanding, he placed us and our health-care system on a one-way trip to the cemetery. The murder was suicide by a slow-acting poison that is still spreading through the body politic and the associated economy.
The government already decides who lives and who dies via its large-scale intrusions into markets for health care. The connections to life and death are manifold, but they are beneath the surface of public recognition. They are felt, but they are largely unseen and unremarked. As the trolley approaches the cemetery, we get closer to that time when the government will decide ever more explicitly who lives and who dies.
The future in our government-dominated society is often visible in academia, because that is where the future is created and propagated by intellectual apologists for government. Academic intellectuals quite often act as if they are neutral scientists in search of truth when, in point of fact, they publish lengthy articles in which they accept and often support the premise of big government. Various governments support many intellectuals financially. This is a cozy, self-perpetuating, and thoroughly evil arrangement whereby the government gets to control the minds, if only partially but nonetheless effectively, of those who think they are getting educated. The government-academic nexus often ends up as a totalitarian mechanism.
Duke University began a journal in 1976 called Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. It is still published. The editor spoke of the major ultimate goal as "decent care for the suffering." He did not take to the pulpit to encourage us to help the suffering. He mentioned no religious figures. He did not delve into moral philosophy. He did not speak of how a free people alleviates its own suffering. He spoke instead of "health policy-making" as being the journal's focal point, as befits its title.
I briefly mention the content of the first three articles in the first issue of this journal. The authors of these articles are, as we all are, on the trolley ride to that health-care cemetery, but they do not recognize the basic cause of that fact, which is Medicare. And so they recommend more government measures that actually speed up the trolley and make sure that everyone is aboard when it reaches its destination. Goodwill often combines with ignorance and bad philosophies to produce tragic results.
The first article in the first issue of the new journal was written by Theodore Cooper, Assistant Secretary of Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The title was "Federal Health Policy." The rhetoric of his opening lines is the rhetoric of today, some 33 years later. Obama could have spoken these words penned in 1976 by this government official:
"A host of problems today confronts the health care system. None is new but all are vastly larger and more pressing than ever before. There are problems having to do with the cost of health care, both the cost to individuals and the aggregate cost to society. There are problems concerning the quality of care, access to care, and the appropriateness of the manner and settings in which health care is dispensed...But the super-problem in health is cost. The intolerable escalation of cost throughout the system is pushing it toward significant change."
Connecting any of this to Medicare's existence was beyond Cooper's ken. From where he sat as a bureaucrat in government, Medicare was a given. To him, Medicare was there as an outcome of public policy. He thought that the legislation was an outcome of public demand. He mentioned the public's expectations and the national expectation of health care. He noted that "people expect so much because of the inexorable movement toward the idea that personal health or medical care is a public responsibility. This is an ideological shift..."
The reality is that Medicare came into being as the result of decades of lobbying by various health care businesses and organizations, not as a result of public demand. Cooper's reaction shows that bureaucrats who administer the program need not and may not understand the politics of Medicare's beginnings or the economics of its replacement of markets in health care. What they see is a huge demand after the program is put in place, and they then rationalize that as a shift in ideology when it is really an expression of economics operating within the new political framework. And those who have that sort of belief, caused by witnessing the public demand under that program, do not realize that the demand exists just as powerfully in markets prior to government's entry. They cannot recognize the government program as a source of problems that did not exist in unhampered markets, and they cannot recommend the termination of the government operation, which, by the way, employs them. Instead, to complete their rationalization, they seek to find fault with the markets and to fantasize that people in general wanted government health care.
Medicare, no matter how it came into being, is now operating as an independent cause of social change. It is now fueling the trolley's movement. Because Medicare pools health care money, it creates a problem for government bureaucrats of deciding who will get that money. They then invoke arbitrary criteria. For example, seeing that elder care costs more money per person than middle-age care, they decide to allocate less to the elderly and more to the middle-aged. They then argue that this is fair and just. Seeing that procedure A is more expensive than procedure B, they control (lower) the price of procedure A, and this creates excess demand for procedure A. The number of rules, restrictions, and controls is endless. Medicine becomes a branch of politics.
The second article, again from 1976, reviewed national health insurance proposals. It said that the 1972 platforms of both parties spoke of comprehensive coverage. It said that the cost of a cradle-to-grave coverage was estimated as $285–$580 billion (in today's dollars). We may note here that then, as now, government always under-estimates costs. The article spoke of a Massachusetts plan, just as several years ago Governor Romney of Massachusetts achieved a lot of publicity with his health insurance plan. Congress, we are told, was considering three proposals; and "The first is Senator Kennedy's proposal..." That hasn't changed either.
Health insurance covering all Americans is an aim of the current administration. It will probably be enacted in some form. They'll probably dedicate it to Senator Kennedy. The trolley ride to the cemetery continues. The last stop is the death of markets in health care, replaced by a totalitarian system.
The third article, written by several members of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, began by informing us that "Since 1965, the federal government has become the principal purchaser of health care services primarily through its financing of the Medicare and Medicaid programs." These health care professionals were on the receiving end of various laws passed by Congress in 1972 to deal with the problems of Medicare (cost increases, waste, deterioration of quality). But these laws created even more paperwork and cost! The authors called for quality care, while they bemoaned "the sheer quantity of paperwork that will force providers to hire additional staff," whose cost detracts from actually doctoring and nursing the ill. They complained about "the unbelievable crush of paperwork..." Then, not recognizing that Medicare and Medicaid were the source of the resulting problems of cost and excess demand or not willing to call for their termination, these authors called for changes in the control systems. This tinkering has now gone on for 43 years.
Dan Callahan's book on setting health care limits came out in 1987. The topic of rationing health care and the duty to die emerged in academia. One could find ancient writers who believed that the elderly should die, perhaps with society pushing them to die, so that resources would be made available for the young. The modern resurgence of interest in this topic was due to the government's presence and prominence in medical care. Since the government controls the resources going to medical care, it has to say where they go and who gets them. As long as the government controls health care, it has to say who lives and who dies. The academics get into the act by advising government whom to kill, how to kill them, who should get the supposedly-released resources, who should get a CT-scan and who should not, and so on. Academics think, and they think about every aspect of the issue except one, which is getting the government out of health-care markets. The academics accept collectivism. It is their bread and butter. It is their mother's milk. They analyze health care in the name of efficiency and occasionally in the name of justice. We are supposed to repose and take our guidance on these matters from the priests known as professors (not from the renegades of that class).
Adam Smith begins his inquiry into the wealth of nations by mentioning: "Such [savage] nations, however, are so miserably poor, that from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts."
Is America now in the class of savage nations that is so miserably poor that we are given to intellectual pondering about the destruction of old people? Do such investigations, ideas, and deeds naturally accompany the killing of infants? Do they naturally accompany socially-approved abortion? They do. These are all birds of a feather.
America's turn to savagery does not originate in America's being poor. Americans were poorer centuries ago without discussing the killing of old people and babies. Taking care of elderly persons has always been costly. Medicare brings out into the open the fact of resource limitations that always beset mankind. It exacerbates the rationing problem by centralizing all resources and decision-making. But, as we have seen, Medicare itself reflects the same factors that imply savagery, by which I mean brutal, merciless, and vicious.
Savagery is associated with a cluster of other ideas and beliefs that have a grip on American thought. They include collectivism, which is against a person having property in his own mind, body, and life; that is, having control over his own mind, body, and life. For once one owns and controls others, even via a collective sense of ownership, the sense of restraint that governs behavior when each of us has property in ourselves disappears. We are free to act as we will, and that allows a broader scope for our more evil and selfish impulses. Another of these ideas is collective utilitarianism, which is an attempt to tote up the costs and benefits of policies to broad collectives. Once we abandon the idea that each of us is a person who makes decisions for himself over his life, and replace that with the idea that a person's essence arises by virtue of belonging to some collective group, and the idea that everyone within a group is the same, the way is open to mistreating vast numbers of persons by labeling them and treating them all in government-specified ways.
The Holy Bible expounds a social philosophy that is entirely at odds with the collectivization of medical care. There is no room for discussions of euthanasia and age-based rationing in such commandments as "Thou shalt not kill," and "Honour thy father and mother." There are no tradeoffs of young for old in "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD." Can anyone doubt the meaning of "Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old"?
Professor Margaret P. Battin wrote an article in 1987 titled "Age Rationing and the Just Distribution of Health Care: Is There a Duty to Die?" After 24 pages of intense mental gymnastics that attempted to figure out what people would think about old-age medical care if they were placed in a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, she decided that thou shalt kill if there is a substantial scarcity of resources. (Who will decide that little matter?) She decided that one need not hearken to thy father after all and one might despise thy mother's life as long as the resources released from this will be indeed transferred to the young. She also spoke up for talking older people into agreeing to end their lives. Her language was not as blunt as mine. A sample: "Nevertheless, whether death in old age is feared or welcomed is very much a product of social beliefs and expectations, and these not only undergo spontaneous transformations but can be quite readily altered and engineered."
As more and more retirees go on Medicare and the costs rapidly escalate, the government shall more and more explicitly be making life and death decisions. What we think is civilization in this regard is actually savagery.
Contact: Michael S. Rozeff
Source: LewRockwell.com
Source URL: http://www.lewrockwell.com
Publish Date: December 20, 2008
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081222_4.htm
Before you buy your teen a cell phone
Before you buy your teen a cell phone
If someone in your family has a new cell phone on their Christmas list, you might want to get to Santa before he packs his sleigh.
The latest generation of cell phones offers an expanded array of features -- some which may put your teenager at risk. New wireless technology allows users to download digital video content and other material directly from the Internet to wireless handheld devices such as the feature-rich cell phones and iPods.
While cell phones allow parents and their children to communicate more easily at any time of day, the phones are increasingly being used for less-than-wholesome activities, including the transmission and receipt of sexually explicit content.
The Sex and Cell Phones publication warns that every child is at risk -- directly or indirectly -- because of the "sexually explicit content delivered over the Internet by computers and wireless technologies." The booklet notes, "Each day in our nation, young people are victimized by those who seek to steal their innocence and corrupt their minds."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29546&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed1219
If someone in your family has a new cell phone on their Christmas list, you might want to get to Santa before he packs his sleigh.
The latest generation of cell phones offers an expanded array of features -- some which may put your teenager at risk. New wireless technology allows users to download digital video content and other material directly from the Internet to wireless handheld devices such as the feature-rich cell phones and iPods.
While cell phones allow parents and their children to communicate more easily at any time of day, the phones are increasingly being used for less-than-wholesome activities, including the transmission and receipt of sexually explicit content.
The Sex and Cell Phones publication warns that every child is at risk -- directly or indirectly -- because of the "sexually explicit content delivered over the Internet by computers and wireless technologies." The booklet notes, "Each day in our nation, young people are victimized by those who seek to steal their innocence and corrupt their minds."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29546&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed1219
Rights and Dignity of Life within the Human Family
Anna Zaborska and Cardinal Antonelli Promote Rights and Dignity of Life within the Human Family
At the initiative of Dr Anna Záborská, Member of the European Parliament for Slovakia (KDH), and Carlo Casini (UDC-MEP for Italy), more than 50 pro-life and pro-family leaders from Germany, Austria, France, United Kingdom, Spain, Slovakia, Italy, Croatia, Belgium, Switzerland, Romania and Poland met in Strasbourg last week during the European Parliament Plenary Session to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Leaders have been gathered by FEFA (European Forum for Human Rights and the Family) with the special involvement of the Italian Movimento Per la Vita and the Familiokratos-Coalition.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/885159017.html
At the initiative of Dr Anna Záborská, Member of the European Parliament for Slovakia (KDH), and Carlo Casini (UDC-MEP for Italy), more than 50 pro-life and pro-family leaders from Germany, Austria, France, United Kingdom, Spain, Slovakia, Italy, Croatia, Belgium, Switzerland, Romania and Poland met in Strasbourg last week during the European Parliament Plenary Session to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Leaders have been gathered by FEFA (European Forum for Human Rights and the Family) with the special involvement of the Italian Movimento Per la Vita and the Familiokratos-Coalition.
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/885159017.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)