The Teen Mom: Problem or Symptom?

The Teen Mom: Problem or Symptom?



“Every minute a woman dies from maternal causes,” proclaimed Dr. Yves Bergevin of the UNFPA, as he took the podium on the opening day of the United Nations 2010 Commission on the Status of Women. 

“Rigid, moralistic abstinence-only programs of the type promoted under previous federal policy . . . are a failed experiment,” the Guttmacher Institute chorused in a recent news release, citing the 3% increase in teen pregnancy in the U.S. during 2006 as proof.

Inflated maternal mortality and teen pregnancy statistics—especially from countries where data is scarce—were in vogue during the next two weeks among feminist activists pushing for universal use of family planning, globalized legal abortion, and a new multi-billion dollar UN “women's” super-agency as the maternal mortality panacea.

“You can't die of pregnancy if you aren't pregnant,” Dr. Bergevin announced, “so universal access to family planning is our most immediate, effective impact to reducing maternal mortality.”

Adolescent pregnancy is the problem behind most maternal mortality, according to UN organizations, and the essential and most effective solution, they eagerly claim, is family planning—candidly defined by Dr. Bergevin as “the classic package, which includes condoms, oral contraceptives, injectables, Depo-Provera, the long term methods, implants, and, once a family has decided they are no longer interested in having children, the permanent tubal ligation and vasectomy.”

Joining the UNFPA's chorus, UNICEF's report asserts, “It is estimated that up to 100,000 maternal deaths could be avoided each year if the need for contraception was effectively met.” It goes on to claim that in countries where birth rates are high, “family planning, in line with national policies, could prevent about one third of maternal deaths.”

“Each year, nearly 70,000 girls aged 15-19 die from pregnancy-related complications,” the UNICEF report declares. “Mothers younger than 15 are at even greater risk, being five times as likely to die in childbirth as women in their twenties.”

But, “Is adolescent pregnancy the problem, or the symptom of the problem?” Dr. Monique Chireau asked a table of UN delegates. At the invitation of the Population Research Institute and hosted by the Mexican UN Mission, Dr. Chireau, a Duke University expert in Obstetrics and Gynecology, brought a fresh and scientific voice to the UN debate on solving maternal mortality and adolescent pregnancy.

“I am putting forth the idea that adolescent pregnancy is a symptom of a decline within a society.” Dr. Chireau continued, arguing for a new methodology in the UN approach. “We have to take a step back and look at the societal risk factors for why young women become pregnant.”

There is insufficient comparison of the greater risks unmarried teens in war torn and dangerous environments face throughout pregnancy than those of married, adolescent mothers in stable societies, Dr. Monique Chireau explained. Medical studies show both that “girls in the 11-14 year old range have the highest risk” of dying during or after pregnancy. Further, teen pregnancy is an economic issue, as pregnant adolescents tend to drop out of school, have incomes at or below the poverty level, and are rarely able to achieve educational and economic parity with their peers.

A frequent argument for the expansion of abortion is that it prevents maternal mortality and adolescent pregnancy, Dr. Chireau explained, “But though Chile has very restricted abortion laws, it has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.” Incidentally, Chile has excellent data records and good primary maternal health services.

“Adolescent pregnancies are high in areas with low birthrates, with the exception of South Africa,” Dr. Chireau pointed out, comparing a series of world maps. “Rates of adolescent pregnancy, male and female suicide, homicide, and depression overlap.”

“England,” Dr. Chireau continued, “has the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy in western Europe.” Despite 10 years of intensive efforts by the Labor Party, “using typical prevention strategies including expanding sex education, increasing availability of contraception, and increasing access to abortion (without parental consent), the teen birthrate has continued to rise by 5 to 10% per year and 50 percent of teen pregnancies in England end in abortion.” As a developed nation with prevalent primary health care, maternal mortality remains low in Britain, but put the same 5 to 10% increase in adolescent pregnancy, as caused by sex education, abortion, and contraception, into a developing nation and their maternal mortality might easily skyrocket.

In fact, published medical papers call into question the current sex education and abortion strategies for reducing adolescent motherhood, but—oddly enough—these studies are virtually ignored. A paper published in the British Medical Journal in 2002 did a careful systematic review in meta-analysis (a method detecting small differences in benefit or harm) of 12 electronic databases, 10 key journals, and contact with the authors and found that primary prevention strategies—standard sex education and family planning—“do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, improve use of birth control among young men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies in young women.” Also, the same meta-analysis “show that some interventions increase pregnancy and STD rates.”

Another, brand-new, published study, financed by the federal government and conducted by Dr. John Jemmott and a team of University of Pennsylvania researchers, found abstinence-only education programs to be markedly superior to sex education in delaying adolescent sexual activity. 662 African American grade-school students, mostly 12 years old, were divided into three programs, an abstinence-only program targeting reduced sexual intercourse, a safer sex-only program targeting condom use, and a longer combined abstinence and safe sex curriculum. In the next two years, 52% of the kids in the safe sex program had became sexually active, followed by 42% of those in the combined program, and only 33% of those in the abstinence education had engaged in sexual activity.

The Guttmacher Institute, excited about Obama's new Office of Adolescent Health and the $114.5 million dollar initiative for increasing sex education and condom use, was quick to say of Jemmott's study: “The results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious.” (Emphasis added)

“90% of parents want their kids to be taught to abstain from sexuality,” said Dr. Miriam Grossman, author of Unprotected, in her presentation during the CSW. Investors Business Daily reports that “teens who practice abstinence perform better academically and are nearly twice as likely to graduate from college.”

Teen pregnancy increased almost every year when sex education programs were the norm in public and private schools. Only during the early 1990s with increasingly widespread abstinence education did adolescent pregnancy rates shift into the steady and significant 41% decline from the peak in 1990 to the all-time lows between 2000 to 2005.

Guttmacher prefers to claim, “The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens.” But they cited no proof for this claim and had no better teen pregnancy results to show from the 35 states that continued sex education in public schools or the several states that declined to participate in the abstinence education programs of the previous presidency.

Dr. Chireau called for a new paradigm from the U.N. and the U.S. that effectively deals with adolescent pregnancy by addressing the root causes of societal decline, poverty, teenage insecurity, depression, rape, and broken homes. She encouraged social programs that reintegrate troubled teens into society, foster responsibility, stable families, and abstinence education, provide primary health care for teens in developing nations, and in other ways obviate the risks of adolescent pregnancy.

“Sex education and reproductive health” Dr. Chireau concluded, “as a methodology shown to not solve the problem, should not be continued, and especially in countries where one peso spent for reproductive health care means that peso can't be spent on primary health care.” Too bad Obama just scrapped more than $170 million in annual funding for abstinence education.

Contact: Joan Claire Robinson
Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: March 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

The Next Steps on Abortion

The Next Steps on Abortion



Since the night of March 21, conversations in pro-life quarters are dominated by speculation as to why Representative Bart Stupak ultimately abandoned his epic campaign to guarantee that our nation’s new health care regime would avoid channeling new federal dollars into abortion, and protect health care workers’ consciences.
 
Few pro-life activists and scholars really believe that Stupak sold his soul for $7,000 odd dollars of airport projects in Michigan.  Equally few believe that Stupak was actually convinced that the promised presidential executive order could legally accomplish what Stupak’s amendment to the House bill certainly could.  That leaves enormous party pressure as the likely culprit.
 
Yet as psychologically and politically arresting as these speculations are, the pro-life movement shouldn’t make the mistake of lingering over them. It’s time to take the political and moral capital we managed to garner during the health care battle, and use these where they can do some good: legislation to apply the safeguards of the Hyde Amendment and of various federal conscience laws to every area of our new health care apparatus where they’re needed. 
 
Recent statements by none other than President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have given Hyde Amendment funding limits new visibility and robust credibility. It’s as if suddenly everybody’s on board with the idea that while abortion is legal, we certainly don’t want to fund it broadly!
 
It doesn’t even matter that Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s endorsement of Hyde-type funding limits were made in the course of their mischaracterizing the abortion-related contents of the Senate health care bill.  Or that President Obama’s most recent invocation of the Hyde Amendment was in his health care executive order which is quite unlikely to legally alter what the newly signed health care law actually does respecting abortion funding.

Throughout the health care debate to today, it has been clear – via polling and public reaction – that strict limits on government funding for abortion is a popular concept.
 
Its popularity did not emerge out of thin air. It has been growing for a while.  Polls over the last few years have shown a growing percentage of voters willing to assume the “pro-life” label.  The nearly decade-long debate over partial-birth abortion -- a form of abortion where the fetal head is stabbed while nearly completely delivered of the mother – and the Supreme Court’s unsparing description of this procedure in its Gonzales v. Carhart opinion, received widespread media coverage.

So did Justice Ginsburg’s frank admission to the New York Times  (Magazine, July 7, 2009) that she had always assumed that Roe v. Wade was intended to “set up Medicaid funding for abortion” for “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
 
After 37 years of legal abortion, perhaps the country is finally understanding it not in terms of “rights” and “progress,” but in terms of violence, poverty and loss.  Who wants to put the government behind that? Not President Obama, Speaker Pelosi or Senator Reid.  So now is the time to legislate based upon their promises, and the nation’s growing disaffection with abortion itself.

Contact: Helen M. Alvare
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Planned Parenthood Endangering Women with Remote Abortions

Planned Parenthood Endangering Women with Remote Abortions

  

A new report by the pro-life group Operation Rescue (OR) tackles the increasingly popular practice of “telemed” chemical abortions, which OR charges is putting women at “unacceptable” risk, as well as pushing up insurance costs due to the exorbitant rate that Planned Parenthood typically charges insurance companies for the procedure.

A telemed abortion is abortion via a teleconferencing service. Mothers seeking an abortion go to a clinic that has no physician on staff, and they then briefly visit with an off-site abortionist that appears on a computer monitor and explains the medical abortion procedure to them. Afterwards, the abortion drug RU486, also known as Mifepristone, is prescribed.

According to Operation Rescue, “The patient is never physically examined by the medical doctor prescribing the drugs – or any other, for that matter – and never sees the abortionist again.”

“Telemed” abortions like these are quickly becoming a cornerstone of Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.  OR says that according to a receptionist with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, “medical abortions are offered in 16 clinics throughout Iowa, but only four of the clinics actually have doctors. At the other twelve, smaller clinics, telemed abortions have become routine.”

The problem of a lack of clear medical oversight in these abortions is emphasized by the fact that Mifeprisone, the main medical component of such abortions, has been linked to 8 deaths, as well as 1,100 serious complications, in the U.S. alone. According to OR, “medical abortions carry a 7-20 percent failure rate,” in which cases women would need to have the abortion completed surgically.

While medical abortions are often billed as a “hassle-free” alternative to surgical abortions, the risks that such abortions present were dramatically highlighted for the world recently by the pair of pro-abortion women who announced their plan to “Twitter” their medical abortions – that is, to issue regular electronic updates about the progress of the procedure. The first woman to do so expressed a desire to “demystify” the procedure, and the second said she wished to imitate the first.

In one case, however, instead of the few hours of bleeding that the mother expected, the abortion dragged out of a space of two weeks, during which she complained of "sharp" pain, cramping, bleeding, nausea, and headaches – discomfort that she evidently attempted to quell by popping the narcotic Vicodin, with little success.

In the other, the woman known only as "Nextthurs,” began tweeting her abortion on February 28. However, after three posts complaining about "bleeding like a stuffed [sic] pig all day," the tweets mysteriously ended.

In fact, Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, the inventor of the medical abortion drug, has in the past highlighted the serious nature of using it: "It's insulting to women to say that abortion now will be as easy as taking aspirins. It is always difficult, psychologically and physically, sometimes tragic."

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, in releasing the new report on telemed abortions, that "The telemed abortion presents risks to women's lives and health that are completely unacceptable."

“The lack of access to a licensed physician throughout this risky and painful abortion process is shocking, and likely illegal. Money obviously means more to Planned Parenthood than the lives and safety of women."

Operation Rescue also revealed in its report that Planned Parenthood in Iowa charges insurance companies a whopping $1,000 for this doctor-less medical abortion - the highest in the nation by far - even though their overhead costs are much less than other clinics that have a licensed physician on site. Women who pay cash for the same procedure are charged $500, half the amount insurance companies must pay.

OR pointed out that this overbilling effectively drives up the cost of health insurance for everyone.

"Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is making a killing on medical abortions," said Newman. "Planned Parenthood is gouging insurance companies twice the price of their cash abortions. That's how they can afford to keep their smaller clinics running.

"And if taxpayers are forced to fund these abortions, there's no telling how much they will charge, because government funding is a blank check."

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Euthanasia and the danger of Putting Loved Ones Out of Our Misery

Euthanasia and the danger of Putting Loved Ones Out of Our Misery



Anyone who knows up close what it is like to have a loved one die of Alzheimer’s  can’t help but sympathize with the pain of a husband watching his wife fade away from the dread brain disease. I’ve been there. My uncle died Alzheimer’s.

But legalizing euthanasia for people with dementia would open the door to mercy killing precisely because it is so hard on families.  Indeed, the story of a husband who wants his wife mercy killed illustrates the point precisely.  From the story:

    Jack Barnes, 81, has been married to his 80-year-old wife Faye for 59 years. He said they have had a long, fulfilling life together and now his wife wants to “die with dignity,” but North Carolina law does not permit euthanasia. N“It doesn’t make sense to keep her alive,” he said. “She’s basically dead.”

No, she’s not. She is profoundly disabled, and I think that gives her a greater claim on all of us for  love and care, which honors her dignity and her equality.  And indeed, those services are available for people in Faye’s condition–as they were for my uncle.

    But things should never get that far, said Carol Long, director of adult daycare at Onslow County Senior Center. Long not only works with the elderly, she cared for her mother who was stricken with Alzheimer’s disease for 15 years before her death in 1999. “No way would I ever consider euthanasia,” she said. “Alzheimer patients don’t know they have the disease. They are comfortable with their situation. Who is suffering the most is family and caregivers who cannot see past the need for 24 hour care.”

Indeed.  My aunt suffered for her husband.  My mother suffered for her brother. My cousin suffered for her father. I suffered every time I visited and held him in my arms–my wonderful uncle.  And therein, in the guise of compassion, lurks pronounced danger to the medically defenseless:

    Barnes said he doesn’t feel the laws in North Carolina will change in time to help him or his wife, but maybe the next generation could be spared the pain he has endured watching his wife die in increments.

Barnes is undoubtedly a loving husband at a loss over his terrible loss.  That leads to despair and the desire to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

But there would be others who would have different motives–easily masked by “compassion,” such as the killer George Delury.  Besides, the moment we declare some of us are killable, they will have ceased to be “us,” but become “them.”  That should unacceptable in even the most difficult circumstances.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

Health Reform Law Includes $250 Million For Abstinence-Only Programs



A "little-noticed provision" in the recently signed health care reform law (HR 3590) will grant $250 million over five years to state programs encouraging teens to remain abstinent until marriage as a way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, the Washington Post reports. The provision, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), offers "at least a partial reprieve" for abstinence-only programs, which faced a complete federal funding cutoff under President Obama's first two budget proposals. The health reform law also includes $75 million per year over five years for a new "personal responsibility education" program, which would fund programs that teach both contraception and abstinence.
Click here for the entire article.


Two Southern States Take Action Against Abortion
 


The South Carolina Senate has passed H 3245, which requires a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion.

Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, said he expects the State House to come up with its own version of the measure when it reconvenes in a couple of weeks.

The Georgia Senate passed SB 529, which bans coerced abortions and abortions based on gender preference or race. The bill now goes to the Georgia House.

"We think it's a good step forward towards protecting and affirming the sanctity of life at all stages," said Eric Cochling, vice president of public policy for the Georgia Family Council.
Click here for the entire article.


Celebrate life by defending it against abortion, encourages pro-life expert



In a recent article for the newspaper, “El Grafico,” Mexican pro-life expert Carolina Beauregard applauded actions by 18 of the country's states to establish legal protections for the unborn and encouraged the remaining states to pass similar pro-life laws.

Beauregard, who advises several Mexican pro-life groups, wrote that the constitutional reforms protecting life in 18 Mexican states advanced with the overwhelming majority of political parties and strong support by the people.  She added that support for the right to life is on the rise, despite efforts by some groups in opposition.
Click here for the entire article.


Pro-Lifers Complain 'Moonlighting' Police Prevent Them From Gathering

Local police moonlighting at Planned Parenthood as baby killing security guards are harassing Prolifers



Abortion opponents are accusing town police of harassing them while they stand outside the Planned Parenthood facility, a charge Police Chief Joseph Petruch denies. "The police officers get on the PA system and go out of their way to harass us while we're praying," said Robert Kuna, a member of St. Patrick Catholic Church in Chesterton and Chesterton Right to Life, who complained to the Town Council during its meeting Tuesday night. He asked the Town Council why Merrillville police are being used as security for Planned Parenthood, whose office is located on Connecticut Avenue. Petruch said the off-duty officers are there to preserve the peace and he defended them from Kuna's harassment charges. "I met with my officers and back them 100 percent. We don't need someone from somewhere else to come here and tell us how to run our department," Petruch said.
Click here for the entire article.


Judge Won't Drop Murder Charge In Fetus Death



An Idaho District Court judge has denied a defense motion to drop one of two murder charges filed against a 25-year-old Moscow man after his wife and unborn child died in June 2009. Silas Parks is charged with two counts of murder and one count of arson for allegedly strangling or suffocating Sarah Parks and then setting fire to their residence. Attorneys for Parks asked that the murder charge pertaining to his unborn child be dropped due to the early stage of the pregnancy. Sarah Parks was estimated to be 19 to 20 weeks pregnant.
Click here for the entire article.


N.C. Eugenics Survivors Seek Justice



It has been 40 years since Elaine Riddick heard the words, but she still remembers them like yesterday: "The doctor told me I had been butchered." In 1968, at just 14 years old, Elaine became one of the thousands of victims of North Carolina's forced sterilization program. Quietly and efficiently operating from 1929 until 1974, the program's purpose was to weed out the "unfit" of society by stopping them from reproducing. Elaine is sitting in a quiet apartment high above the noise of Atlanta traffic. A well-dressed, poised and dignified African-American woman in her mid-50s, it is difficult to imagine her as the young girl that she describes.
Click here for the entire article.

Legislative Update: Illinois FOCA Bill (HB 6205)

Legislative Update: Illinois FOCA Bill (HB 6205)

 

HB 6205 - The FOCA bill was put back into House Rules this afternoon and that means it's DEAD!

 

No vote was taken on the bill because it significantly lacked votes for passage.  Although the sponsor has the power to extend the deadline and keep this bill alive on the House floor, the fact that it did go back to the Rules Committee strongly indicates the battle is over.

 

Thank you for all of your good work in helping to defeat this horrible bill.

 

The House of Pro-Life Democrats Divided on Health Care Bill

The House of Pro-Life Democrats Divided on Health Care Bill

  

The capitulation of Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan and his group of fellow pro-life Democrats to President Obama's health care plan has overshadowed the resoluteness of pro-life Democrats who did oppose the measure, including the one pro-life Democrat who stood firm in changing his vote from "yes" to "no" in small part over the bill's abortion-promoting provisions.

Abandoned by Stupak and his fellow pro-life economic liberals, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) cast his vote against the Senate's health care reform bill, because it did not have the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was included in the House bill. The Stupak-Pitts amendment sought to prevent federal dollars from both subsidizing abortions directly through federal subsidies and financially supporting the bottom line of insurance companies that subsidize abortion coverage.

In a statement about his health care vote, Lipinski explained, "of great concern to me and to a significant majority of my constituents, this bill changes current federal policy and provides funding for abortion. This is not acceptable. It is in direct contradiction of the Hyde Amendment, which for more than three decades has prohibited federally funded abortion."

He also added, "I do not believe the last minute effort to address these concerns through an Executive Order is sufficient because there is every indication that federal courts would strike down this order, and the order could be repealed at any time in the future."

Just hours before the scheduled Sunday vote, Stupak announced that he and his group of Democrats would be voting "yes" on the Senate health care bill, holding aloft an executive order from President Obama that he said would prevent abortion funding in the bill, but which pro-life critics have dismissed as merely a "reiteration" of the Nelson-Casey language already in the problematic Senate bill.

Pro-life advocates were stunned by Stupak's sudden reversal, since he had firmly opposed the Nelson-Casey language as inadequate, until the 11th hour. The Nelson-Casey language allows insurance companies offering abortion coverage to benefit financially from federal subsidies, so long as only their private funds pay for abortion services – a solution national pro-life groups denounced as an accounting gimmick.

The deal left Lipinski out in the cold as the only economic liberal who nevertheless cast a "no" vote for a health care reform bill he otherwise might have been able to support had it included Stupak's language.

"He took a great principled stand in voting against the Senate bill, and we deeply respect that," Mary Harned, a member of AUL's legal counsel, told LifeSiteNews.com.

In contrast, Harned said that Stupak and his bloc "squandered" an "amazing opportunity to insist that there be a statutory prohibition of federal funding for abortion included in health care reform" by accepting the president's executive order in exchange for their votes.

Harned disagreed with the statement from some conservative commentators that "there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat," and that if anything, the whole health care debate was encouraging because some Democrats did identify themselves as pro-life - while they did not succeed in making all the changes they needed to the bill, "at least the dialogue got rolling."

"We're not a Republican organization, we work on both sides of the aisle," said Harned. "We still dream there's hope that more pro-life Democrats will run for office and take a principled stand that the Democratic Party should not embrace the abortion lobby's agenda."

Lipinski (Ill.-3) joined 18 Democrats with mixed or complete pro-life records scored by National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to vote against the Senate bill and for the motion to send the bill back to the Senate with changes. Those Democrats are: Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.-2), Marion Berry (Ark.-1), Mike Ross (Ark.-4), John Barrow (Ga.-12), Jim Marshall (Ga.-8), Ben Chandler (Ken.-6), Charles Melancon (La.-3), Collin Peterson (Minn.-7), Travis Childers (Miss.-1), Gene Taylor (Miss.-4), Ike Skelton (Mo.-4), Mike McIntyre (N.C.-7), Heath Shuler (N.C.-11), Dan Boren (Okla.-2), Jason Altmire (Penn.-4), Tim Holden (Penn.-17), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.-4), and Jim Matheson (Utah-2).

Democrat Reps. Artur Davis (Ala.-7), Stephen Lynch (Mass.-9), Zack Space (Ohio-18), and John Tanner (Tenn.-8) voted against the Senate health reform bill, and also voted against the motion to recommit.

Twenty other Democrats with mixed or complete pro-life records scored by NRLC, and who had previously indicated they would change their votes from a "yes" to a "no" over Stupak language, ultimately voted for the Senate bill - the last hold-outs being Stupak and a half-dozen pro-life Democrats won over by Obama's promise of an executive order. They were Reps. Jerry Costello (Ill.-12), Joe Donnelly (Ind.-2), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.-8), Baron Hill (Ind.-9), Bart Stupak (Mich.-1), Dale Kildee (Mich.-5), James Oberstar (Minn.-8), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.-all), Steve Driehaus (Ohio-1), Charlie Wilson (Ohio-6), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio-9), Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.-3), Christopher Carney (Penn.-10), Paul Kanjorski (Penn.-11), Mike Doyle (Penn.-14), James Langevin (R.I.-2), Solomon Ortiz (Tex.-27), Tom Perriello (Va.-5), Alan Mollohan (W.V.-1), Nick Rahall (W.V.-3).

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Lipinski: "Exec order will likely be overturned by courts"

Lipinski: "Exec order will likely be overturned by courts"

John Kass is Chicago's most beloved columnist if you're conservative and anti-corruption and most hated columnist if you're liberal and part of the Democrat machine.

Kass's Chicago Tribune piece today was on Congressman Dan Lipinski, the only member of Bart Stupak's bloc of pro-life votes who stayed strong and voted against the healthcare bill in the House a week ago tonight.

Lots of money lines. Here's one: "People have asked me, 'If it was good enough for Stupak, why wasn't it good enough for you?'" Lipinski said. "The executive order most likely will be overturned by the federal courts. The order does not trump the law."...

Lipinski's father Bill has always been dear to my heart as being a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act despite the fact Christ Hospital was in his district. He took a tough political stand.

I found out last week the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.



Here's the column...

Lipinski lonely but proud to be pro-life Democrat

Congressman stands up to naysayers in White House after voting against health bill

    The only IL Democrat in Congress to vote against Obamacare was on the phone.

    U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski - one of the few pro-life Democrats who didn't cave in to White House pressure - was explaining how it felt to be very much alone.

    "It was rather lonely, yes," Lipinski said of voting against President Barack Obama's federalized health care agenda. "But I could not vote for a bill that would change the status quo on funding for abortion."...

    By voting "no," Lipinski has put a target on his back for smears from the WH staffed by the guys from Chicago.

    "There were aspects of the president's package that I liked. Helping people get insurance, that sort of thing. But we weren't really voting for health reform. We were voting for a bill that is financially unsustainable. And I couldn't support that bill," he said.

    As a Roman Catholic against abortion, he's formally a pariah among most Democratic elites. And predictably, he's been attacked by unnamed WH sources in media reports. Who's behind that? Perhaps when WH chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (D-Tomczak) asks me out to lunch, he'll tell me.

    Lipinski said that his "no" vote was about more than abortion.

    "I looked through the analysis, I determined it was not a good bill," Lipinski said. "It's not sustainable. It will cost more than we can afford."

    Democrats argue that the health care plan will eventually save money when (or if) cuts in Medicare for senior citizens kick in.

    But Lipinski, son of the former congressman and longtime 23rd Ward Democratic boss Bill Lipinski, knows that politicians quiver when faced with cutting existing benefits to seniors who vote in big numbers.

    "You cannot tell seniors on Medicare that they're going to see cuts, or that they can't see the doctor they've been seeing, or can't go to the hospital they're used to," he said. "It's not going to happen. It's not politically feasible."

    Lipinski is my congressman, representing the Southwest Side of Chicago and southwest suburbs. He was one of only 34 Democrats who opposed the bill that passed the House 219-212.

    Pro-life Democrats, led by MI's Bart Stupak, argued that Obama's massive health plan could allow federal funds for abortion. Stupak demanded an amendment in the legislation explicitly forbidding that possibility.

    But Stupak caved, after the president promised an executive order that would ostensibly do what Stupak asked. It was just a political fig leaf giving Stupak cover for abandoning his principles. It didn't convince insiders on either side of the abortion debate. And it didn't convince Lipinski.

    "People have asked me, 'If it was good enough for Stupak, why wasn't it good enough for you?'" Lipinski said. "The executive order most likely will be overturned by the federal courts. The order does not trump the law."

    Being a pro-life Democrat must be a lot like being a pro-life newspaper columnist. Sometimes you get awfully chilly.

    "It's not just about being against something, it's believing that every individual deserves dignity and respect, whoever they are, at whatever stage of life they're in," Lipinski said. "That is something I hear my Democratic colleagues say. And I say that it's self-evident that the individual is there at conception."

    Lipinski has degrees in mechanical engineering, economic systems, and political science. He's not a biologist.

    "We know that at conception, the genetic code is there, for a unique individual. This is not something that is just a religious belief," Lipinski said. "If you look at what we know about reproduction, you can see it."

    And I can see that the sliming of Lipinski continues by those unnamed WH sources. Last week's media spin was that Lipinski's father installed him in Congress for great health care. Dan Lipinski is a diabetic. Therefore, the spinners whispered, Lipinski is a hypocrite for voting against the president.

    "But none of the attacks are true about my health care," he said. Lipinski said he had health insurance as an assistant professor at the University of TN when he took a leave of absence to campaign for Congress. And since his election, he's been on the federal plan.

    "I had health care," he said. "If someone has a problem with how I voted, then address my concerns about the legislation. But they use ad hominem attacks based on 'facts' that are incorrect."

    Lipinski's real problems are that he voted "no" and he upholds the teachings of his faith on abortion. These must surely be considered grievous secular sins in some quarters of the WH.

    "And I thought we transcended the politics of the past. What happened?" Lipinski asked sarcastically.

    He reports that in his predominately Catholic and conservative district, the support for his "no" vote is running 3-1 in his favor. If that's accurate, then he did the smart political thing by voting "no."

    Smart politics or not, Lipinski is part of a tiny minority in his party. That bothers the WH, but it doesn't bother him.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate

States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare's Abortion Mandate



Legislators in over a dozen states are considering a pro-life plan that would opt their states out of a major abortion mandate in the health care reform bill passed last Sunday.

The legislation, developed by Americans United for Life (AUL), intends to take the abortion-health care fight to the states. It exploits a provision in the Senate health care bill that explicitly allows the state-run health insurance exchanges to prevent federal money from subsidizing health insurance companies that offer co-pays for abortion.

The proposed model legislation is called the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act." In a statement, Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL, said AUL's legal team would work with state leaders to tailor legislation to each state's particular needs.

"The states are very interested in this, we are getting inundated with requests for the language," said Mary Harned, a health care expert on AUL's legal team, in a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

"This legislation is explicitly allowed in the language of the health care reform bill. So it is definitely something that is appropriate and that can be done," continued Harned. "We will certainly see some opposition to the bill in the state legislatures."

The legislation also cites federal court precedents that would support any state's decision to prohibit federal subsidies to abortion-providing health insurers. The bill states the "decision not to fund abortion places no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy" and that "it is permissible for a State to engage in unequal subsidization of abortion and other medical services to encourage alternative activity deemed in the public interest."
 
The model bill also cites an analysis of the Guttmacher Institute that showed that women are more likely to opt for abortion, when it is subsidized with taxpayer dollars, especially in the case of women on Medicaid.

AUL informed LifeSiteNews.com in an e-mail that so far state legislators from Kansas, Georgia, Delaware, Kentucky, California, Oregon, South Carolina, New Mexico, Ohio, Maine, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Maryland had contacted them regarding how to enact opt-out legislation in their own states. AUL said they have received hundreds of similar requests via e-mail and are still sorting through them.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Roe v. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al.

Roe v. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al.



Have you ever noticed the way certain people selectively apply what they claim as "constitutional rights"?

This question occurred to me as I thought about the actions of the Congress and president last week. But, before I get to that, a little background is in order.

Back in 1973, a Supreme Court at the height of its activist history wrestled with a constitutional justification for allowing the indiscriminate slaughter of unborn babies in the infamous Roe v Wade case.

"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority decision.

Here's your chance to participate in the restoration of America! Be a part of WorldNetDaily's Taking America Back national conference this fall

Search the Constitution as you might for the word privacy or any synonym and you will come up empty. But seven justices were determined to overturn duly enacted abortion laws throughout the United States, so they located this right in the due process clause. Ironically, it is the due process clause that forbids the taking of life, liberty or property without an impartial hearing. Yet, this decision ensured tens of millions of lives would be snuffed out with no due process. But the court found support for this "privacy" argument in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.

In case you are unfamiliar with the term "penumbra," perhaps a dictionary definition will help you:

   1. "the partial or imperfect shadow outside the complete shadow of an opaque body, as a planet, where the light from the source of illumination is only partly cut off."

   2. "the grayish marginal portion of a sunspot."

   3. "a shadowy, indefinite, or marginal area."

Does that help?

In other words, the court understood it was dealing in the realm of shadowy, indefinite and marginal areas of the law – but it was still, on this admittedly shaky basis, willing to pronounce death sentences on millions.

I present this history to you not to scoff at the idea of "privacy rights." I believe I have a right to privacy. It just may not be constitutionally protected. It may not be the business of the federal government to protect it. It certainly isn't clearly enumerated.

Given that the federal government demands every year all the fine details of my most personal and private financial business so that it can determine its fair share of my earnings, I would have to say the government represents the biggest threat to my privacy rights, not my benefactor or guardian.

However, I will point out, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are among America's most ardent defenders of the unconscionable, abominable Roe v Wade decision. So, we should assume they, like Blackmun and his six black-robed cohorts, believe the Constitution absolutely protects individual privacy – especially in what they would call "medical procedures." Would that be a safe assumption? Would that be a fair statement of their position?

More precisely, as supporters of Roe v Wade, they believe the state had no compelling interest to involve itself in the purely "medical" decision a woman makes when she decides to terminate her pregnancy. They further believe the state has no role involving itself between doctor and patient on the basis of "privacy rights."

That was the legal cornerstone of Roe v Wade.

Are you with me so far?

Last week, Obama, Pelosi and Reid conspired to railroad through Congress legislation that places the state directly between every doctor and every patient in the country – not just for abortions, but for every medical procedure and consultation that takes place in America henceforth.

Do you see a slight contradiction in logic here?

Or does this suggest to you Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al. were never so concerned about privacy as they were in striking down all legal restrictions against abortion?

Where is the right to privacy when the government gets to mandate what kind of insurance you buy and, thus, what kind of medical care you receive?

What kind of bodily integrity do we have when the government forces us to pay for something that directly relates to our bodies and their care and maintenance?

In other words, what business is it of the government's?

If the government had no business protecting the life of an unborn child because it would violate the mother's right to privacy, how can the government justify its intrusion into the most personal and private medical decisions of every American?

Contact: Joseph Farah
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

March 31 Marks Fifth Annual National Memorial for 'Terri's Day'

March 31 Marks Fifth Annual National Memorial for 'Terri's Day'



Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, will be the celebrant and homilist at the Annual National Mass for Terri's Day Wednesday night, March 31 at the Ave Maria Oratory of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida.

"On March 31, five years ago, Terri Schiavo died a court mandated and government enforced death," said Fr. Pavone.  "I saw for myself, as I held her hand and prayed at her bedside, that this death was not 'peaceful' and 'beautiful' as euthanasia advocates want us to think. Moreover, as health care is placed more and more in the hands of the government, we have to be more vigilant than ever to protect the Terris of today and tomorrow."

"Terri's Day" was established by Terri's family and Priests for Life to foster education, prayer, and activism to counter discrimination against the disabled. We urge Churches, schools, organizations, families, and individuals to observe this day. Suggested prayers and activities are at www.TerrisDay.org.

The National Mass for Terri's Day will be held on March 31 at 5:00 pm, at 5040 Ave Maria Boulevard, Ave Maria, FL 34142.  A light reception will follow.

Contact: Margaret
Source: Priests for Life
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Women Agree that Abortion Has Detrimental Psychological Effects

Women Agree that Abortion Has Detrimental Psychological Effects



A large majority of French women say that there are too many abortions in their country, and that abortions "leaves psychological traces that are difficult for women to experience" according to a recent national poll.

The study, which was done at the behest of the French Right to Life Alliance (l'Alliance pour les droits de la vie - ADV), found that 83% of women believe that abortion does lasting psychological damage, and 61% believe that there are too many abortions in France.

Sixty-seven percent said that women should be educated about the possibility of putting their children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

At the same time a large majority, 85%, also said that they supported the "right" to have an abortion, although the question submitted to them did not specify in which cases it would apply.

Moreover, the study also showed that increasing numbers of French women believe that the skyrocketing abortion rate among French youth is due to premature sexual intercourse, the rise of pornography, and lack of parental guidance.

The abortion rate among French minors increased 30% between 2001 and 2007, and more than 200,000 unborn children are killed in their mothers' wombs by surgical abortion every year in France, according to statistics reported by the newspaper La Croix.

However, increasing numbers also agreed with the notion that the problem is related to the rejection of contraceptives, which are offered free to French youth.

The poll received answers from a representative sample of 1006 women, taken between February 19 and 23 of this year.

The French media have widely reported the large percentage of respondents in favor of the "right" to abortion, but have mentioned little of the rest of the poll to their readers.

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

Pro-Aborts At New York Times Don't Like Pro-Life Subway Ads



The woman in the ad is young and has a short, hip haircut, the kind you see all over the East Village. Her solemn face is half in shadow. "I thought life would be the way it was before," the copy reads. And then: "Abortion changes you." The campaign, which has run in New York subways for the past month, makes a sweeping claim, but as anti-abortion strategies go, it is relatively oblique — a far cry from a brick in the window or a death threat to a member of Congress. A young woman pondering a difficult choice might check out the Web site abortionchangesyou.com, highlighted on the ad, which would lead her to the personal narrative of a woman troubled by her own abortion.
Click here for the entire article.


School's Abortion Referral Puts Spotlight On School-Based Health Centers



County health officials say they will try to spell out more clearly the range of services available to minors after an incident in which a pregnant Ballard High student got an abortion, apparently without her mother's knowledge, some time after visiting a school-based health-care center. The consent form parents and guardians sign for children to use the county-administered health centers states, "Youth may independently access reproductive-health care at any age," but it does not explicitly cite abortion. "Not every individual is aware of what is included in 'reproductive-health care,' " acknowledged T.J. Cosgrove of Public Health — Seattle & King County, which runs the centers for the school district. "We're going to work constructively with our partners and experts in adolescent health to strategize the best ways to communicate that."
Click here for the entire article.


Abortion Activists Protest Lackadaisical Enforcement of Killing Regulation in Baton Rouge



About 10 anti-abortion activists protested Thursday what they called lackadaisical enforcement by state government of abortion clinics. Alan Levine, secretary of state Department of Health and Hospitals, said he wants the Louisiana Legislature to change state law and give him more authority to shut down abortion facilities. "I'm pro-life but that has no relevance to this. I have to enforce the law," Levine said. "I'm willing to take the action but I can't overstep my boundaries." Protest leader Richard Mahoney wasn't buying that explanation. "DHH has egg on their face," Mahoney said. "These people got away with crime after crime with only a slap on the hand." Pointing at the abortion facility on Colonial Drive, Mahoney said DHH officials have had knowledge of improper staffing, dangerous procedures and mishandling of prescription drugs for years yet refused to shut down the Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge Inc.
Click here for the entire article.


Our Society Will Be Worse Off If We Reject Down Syndrome Children



We like to think we care deeply about those who suffer. We like to believe we are willing to do whatever we can to help those burdened by intellectual or physical disability. It seems to resonate with the way we believe we ought to act towards our fellow human beings. But there are indications our society is moving towards avoiding having to associate or engage with the disabled, particularly the intellectually impaired. The situation of the disappearing Down syndrome babies in Australia in the past few decades is a case in point. Of about 300 pregnancy terminations in NSW every year due to detected birth defects, 77 per cent are associated with a chromosomal abnormality. The most common is Down syndrome.
Click here for the entire article.


Personhood Is Certified To Be On Ballot In Colorado

The Colorado Personhood Amendment's signatures have been certified, and the Personhood Amendment will be on the Colorado ballot in November. Personhood Colorado has sponsored a ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution recognizing the Personhood rights of all humans, from their biological beginning to their natural death. The Amendment states: "Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."
Click here for the entire article.

Related...

Planned Parenthood Says It Will Fight Against Personhood in Colorado



After many attempts, abortion is back on the ballot. A Colorado anti-abortion organization submitted enough valid signatures to put an anti-abortion initiative on the November ballot. Personhood USA failed to get the initiative approved back in February when the Secretary of State Office's said most of the signatures were invalid. Since then, the organization has collected 76,000 signatures, which is 20,000 more than the requirement. Personhood's effort wasn't easy. A similar measure was attempted in 2008. But 73 percent, or 1.7 million voters rejected the measure. The amendment would give unborn fetuses human rights in the state constitution. Planned Parenthood, a pro-choice health care organization, said they are willing to fight until the measure, once again, dies. "This is much more dangerous than it sounds. With this campaign, whether we're fighting a legal challenge or campaign, we are certainly prepared to fight this measure once again," Monica McCafferty said, a spokesperson with Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains.
Click here for the entire article.

Democrats Send Obama Health Care ‘Fixes’ Bill

Democrats Send Obama Health Care 'Fixes' Bill



Washington (AP) - Congressional Democrats sent the final piece of landmark health care legislation to President Barack Obama, before heading home to face a skeptical electorate.
 
The last legislative chapter in the wrenching national debate over Obama's health overhaul plan came Thursday night in the House, as Democrats approved -- for the second time -- a package of fixes to the sweeping health bill Obama signed two days earlier. The measure includes better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle-class families.

Contact: Erica Werner
Source: Associated Press via CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article. 

How the new Health Care Law Limits Senior Citizens’ Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives

How the new Health Care Law Limits Senior Citizens' Right to Use Their Own Money to Save Their Own Lives



Section 3209 of the health care bill signed into law on March 23, 2010 effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment.

Medicare—the government program that provides health insurance to older people in the United States—faces grave fiscal problems as the baby boom generation ages. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those now working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the retired population will increase, while the proportion of the working population will decrease. The consequence is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink.

In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall – an unlikely and politically difficult proposition. The second alternative—to put it bluntly but accurately—is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen would mean less treatment, including less of the treatments necessary to prevent death. For want of treatment, many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will. The third alternative is that, as the government contribution decreases, the shortfall could be made up by payments from older people themselves, so that their Medicare health insurance premium could voluntarily be financed partly by the government and partly from their own income and savings.

It is not widely understood that, as a result of legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 undertaken at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative had become law. Under the title of "private fee-for-service plans," there is an option in Medicare under which senior citizens can choose health insurance whose value, under the law in effect through 2010 [endnote 1], was not limited by what the government may pay toward it. These plans could set premiums and reimbursement rates for providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.

This means that such plans would not have been forced to limit treatment, as long as senior citizens were left free to choose to pay more for them. Medicare covers everyone of retirement age, regardless of income or assets. Yet, because of budget constraints, the Medicare reimbursement rates for health care providers tend to be below the cost of giving the care—a deficit that can only accelerate as cost pressures on Medicare increase with the retirement of the baby boomers. To cope with this, providers engage in "cost shifting" by using funds they receive in payment for treating privately insured working people to help make up for what the providers lose when treating retirees under Medicare. Thus, comparatively low-income workers often effectively subsidize higher-income retirees.

However, when middle-income retirees are free voluntarily to add their own money on top of the government contribution, through a private fee-for-service plan, they stop being the beneficiaries of cost-shifting and become contributors to it. Thus, preserving this option without premium price controls would not only have allowed retirees who could afford it to reduce the danger of being denied treatment; it also would have resulted in the ability of providers to provide more treatment to those who cannot afford to add additional funds on top of the government contribution. See generally the Powell Center's webinar on affording health care without rationing.

Section 3209 of the new law indirectly amends the section in the Medicare law as it previously existed that allowed private fee-for-service plans to set their premiums without approval by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) by adding, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection."[endnote 2] This gives statutorily unlimited discretion to refuse to permit private-fee-for-service plans to charge premiums sufficient to offset the reductions in the Medicare government contribution.

Theoretically, of course, the federal bureaucrats given this new authority could choose not to exercise it. That seems highly unlikely during the Obama Administration, however, since on February 22, 2010 the President specifically proposed that the health bill include a provision under which Medicare Advantage plans (which, as noted, include the private-fee-for-service plans) would explicitly "be prohibited from charging seniors more than they would pay for services delivered under the traditional Medicare program."[endnote 3] While this explicit prohibition was not included in the final law (presumably because rules governing the "reconciliation" procedure did not permit it), it clearly demonstrates the policy stance of the Administration, which under Section 3209 it will now have authority to implement.

TECHNICAL EXPLANATION
Understanding how the health care bill that became law on March 23, 2010 gave power to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to limit senior citizens' right to add their own money requires following a complex trail within the bill and existing law to understand the effect of Section 3209. Under pre-existing law [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(i) & (ii)] [endnote 4], the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to "negotiate" the premiums to be charged by private Medicare plans ("Medicare Advantage" health insurance plans) – meaning that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in HHS can keep a Medicare Advantage plan from participating unless it agrees to charge a premium acceptable to CMS– , but this authority did not apply to private fee-for-service plans [42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv)] [endnote 5] – meaning that CMS had no power to impose a premium price control as a condition of participation for private fee-for-service plans, which could be excluded only if they failed to meet other applicable standards.

Section 3209 effectively trumps this crucial exemption by giving CMS the absolute and standardless discretion to reject premium "bids" by any Medicare Advantage plan, including a private fee-for-service plan. Specifically, it would add this subparagraph:

( c) Rejection of Bids.–
( i ) In general.–Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.[endnote 6]
This means that the previous law that effectively forbade the Secretary to exclude a private fee-for-service plan on the basis that CMS considered its premiums to be too high has been trumped by the new ability of the Secretary to reject "any or every" premium bid submitted by a private fee-for-service plan.

ENDNOTES

[1] Section 3209 takes effect with regard to plans that will be in operation in 2011. See Section 3209( c).

[2] Section 3209 is found on page 904-905 of the engrossed Senate-passed bill.

[3] The proposal appears under the heading, "Title III . . . Guaranteeing Benefits for Seniors by Ending Overpayments to Insurance Companies."

[4] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B) reads, in relevant part (emphasis supplied):

(B) Acceptance and negotiation of bid amounts.
(i) Authority. Subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), the Secretary has the authority to negotiate regarding monthly bid amounts submitted under subparagraph (A) . . . in exercising such authority the Secretary shall have authority similar to the authority of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with respect to health benefits plans under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code [5 USCS §§ 8901 et seq.].
(ii) Application of FEHBP standard. Subject to clause (iv), the Secretary may only accept such a bid amount or proportion if the Secretary determines that such amount and proportions are supported by the actuarial bases provided under subparagraph (A) and reasonably and equitably reflects the revenue requirements (as used for purposes of section 1302(8) of the Public Health Service Act [42 USCS § 300e-1(8)] [relating to the standards for setting different rates for individuals and families and for individuals, small groups, and large groups]) of benefits provided under that plan.
[5] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(6)(B)(iv) provides:
(iv) Exception. In the case of a [private fee-for-service] plan described in section 1851(a)(2)(C) [42 USCS § 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)], the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply and the provisions of paragraph (5)(B), prohibiting the review, approval, or disapproval of amounts described in such paragraph, shall apply to the negotiation and rejection of the monthly bid amounts and the proportions referred to in subparagraph (A).
The "provisions of paragraph (5)(B)" incorporated by reference are:
(B) Exception. The Secretary shall not review, approve, or disapprove the amounts submitted under paragraph (3) or, in the case of an MA private fee-for-service plan, subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B) of paragraph (4).
Paragraph (4), subparagraph (A)(ii) reads "the amount of the Medicare + Choice [now called Medicare Advantage] monthly basic beneficiary premium"; paragraph (4), subparagraph (B) reads "Supplemental benefits. For benefits described in section 1852(a)(3) [42 USCS § 1395w-22(a)(3)], the amount of the Medicare + Choice monthly supplemental beneficiary premium (as defined in subsection (b)(2)(B)). "

[6] The new subparagraph ( C ) has been added to 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-24 (a)(5). Since the language of subparagraph (a)(6)(B) that prevents the Secretary from "negotiating" private fee-for-service plan premiums is based on incorporating by reference subparagraph (a)( 5)(B), as explained in the previous note, and because clause ( i ) of (a)(5)'s new subparagraph ( C ) prevents subparagraph (B) from being construed to limit the Secretary's authority to reject bids, it effectively makes meaningless the premium negotiation prohibition of subparagraph (a)(6)(B).

Source: Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics Blog
Publish Date: March 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NPR Ban the word "Pro-Life"

NPR Ban the word "Pro-Life"



Lyondon Johnson created National Public Radio in 1967 when he signed a Congressional act. NPR is funded in part by tax money from state governments, universities, corporate foundations, and individual donors, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  NPR also is famous for a notoriously extreme Left-wing slant in its news coverage and on the air commentary.  Please follow the link below to the NPR Style Memo and see if you think this statement is anywhere near the world of reality: "This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible."  Repeat, "neutral as possible." Are they delusional radicals or just intellectually dishonest or both? Be sure to read the NPR definition of "neutral" language in the style memo below.

NPR has now decreed that no announcer shall be permitted to ever again use the term "pro-abortion" or "pro-life" and from now on the world is divided only into people who are "pro-abortion rights" or "anti-abortion rights."  Bias in the media?  Its all in your imagination of course.  But if you want to read the official internal NPR Memo with the new style rules, CLICK HERE.

But if you still favor "the rights of unborn children" and want to criticize Obama for being "against the rights of unborn children" I think it is still OK to use those terms on IR until the Federal Thought Police show up to arrest all of us. I have to sign off now, I hear them knocking on my door as we speak.

Contact: Mark Rhoads
Source: IllinoisReview
Publish Date: March 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Life with Down Syndrome baby 'normal and beautiful,' says blogger

Life with Down Syndrome baby 'normal and beautiful,' says blogger



Professional photographer and blogger Kelle Hampton recently discussed her experience in giving birth to a baby with Down Syndrome in January telling CNA that life for her and many other families with a disabled child is "beautiful and normal."

In an interview with the online ParentDish on Tuesday, Hampton recalled how her blog, "Enjoying the Small Things," received 2,000 hits for her Jan. 29 post which candidly detailed her emotional experience in giving birth to her daughter, Nella Cordelia.

"I knew the minute I saw her that she had Down Syndrome and nobody else did," Hampton wrote in her January blog post after giving birth. "I held her and cried. Cried and panned the room to meet eyes with anyone that would tell me she didn't have it. I held her and looked at her like she wasn't my baby and tried to take it in."

"And all I can remember of these moments is her face," Hampton noted. "I will never forget my daughter in my arms, opening her eyes over and over ... she locked eyes with mine and stared ... bore holes into my soul. Love me. Love me. I'm not what you expected, but oh, please love me."

Hampton recounted how she and her husband had no indicators that Nella had Down Syndrome before her birth.

"My experience, although painful, is still beautiful to me," Hampton told ParentDish, "and having my beautiful, perfect daughter placed in my arms was still a reward and holding her and loving her took the pain away so much more quickly than if I would have had to deal with the news for 20 weeks prior."

"I wouldn't have done anything differently if we were to have found out Nella had D.S. during the pregnancy," Hampton told CNA in a separate interview on Thursday. Considering that many parents who undergo testing for Down Syndrome are given the option of aborting their pre-born babies if the results are positive, Hampton said that "although I do not judge anyone who has different views than mine, I would ask anyone considering termination to at least talk to other families with children with Down syndrome."

"It has been such a comfort for me to see pictures of children and talk to other parents, realizing how normal and beautiful their lives are," she underscored. "Nothing much changes but for the addition of a little more love and the acceptance of a few more challenges, but we make that same commitment when we welcome any child, regardless of special needs."

Click here for Kelle's birth story.

Source: CNA/EWTN News
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.