Pro-Life Democrat Predicts Senate Health Care Bill Will 'Go Down in Flames' in House, Unless Changes Made The Senate health care bill is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives unless major changes are made, including removal of special "carve outs" for Medicaid funding for certain states and inclusion of language barring taxpayer-funded health plans that cover abortions, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. Faced with the possibility that House Democratic leaders and the White House will try to force the U.S. House to accept "as is" the health care bill that the Senate is poised to pass on Christmas Eve, the pro-life Democrat said the Senate bill differs too much from the version passed by the House to be accepted. "If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames," Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview. CNSNews.com asked Stupak: "Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson's language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?" "No, absolutely not," said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan's Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan. "The Senate bill will not receive support in the House," Stupak said. "If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing." Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special "carve outs" for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid. "That's not what it's all about," he said. "This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it's not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That's not what health care is all about. That's not the policy, that's not the principle behind the bill. In exchange for their votes for the Senate bill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) reportedly obtained $100 million in additional Medicaid benefits for Nebraska and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) obtained $300 million in additional aid for Louisiana. In addition, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) managed to obtain a carve-out for 800,000 Floridians, who will keep their Medicare Advantage plans, while those in other parts of the country are slated to lose their Medicare Advantage plans under the bill's targeted cuts. Stupak was incensed at the special deals. "All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?" Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors "take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept" -- and that the bill would tax people who have "decent" health insurance programs. "Aren't you really going to force more people off health insurance?" Stupak said. He added: "If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests," Stupak said. "I'd have no real desire to vote for this bill the way its being outlined in the media," he said. "I know the bill's not finalized yet, but if that holds true, if they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames." Stupak, who succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health care bill, also firmly rejected language in the Senate bill regarding abortion. The "Stupak amendment," as his provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. But the abortion language in the Senate bill secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), which attempts to segregate taxpayer money from paying for health plans that provide abortion, does not contain an outright ban on taxpayer money going to fund abortion. Stupak, however, added: "Even if they fixed the abortion language, if it's the Senate language, I have to vote for – I'm not voting for it." A transcript of CNSNews.com's interview of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) follows below: CNSNews.com: "Let's talk about the health care bill. Yesterday GOP chairman Michael Steele said, quote, 'The fix is in here. There won't be a legitimate conference. The House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate comes up with. Nancy Pelosi's going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want.' Endquote." "So let me ask you about that. Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson's language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?" Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "No, absolutely not. The Senate bill will not receive support in the House, if they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many abortion items that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing." Rep. Stupak: "I mean, you see certain states getting certain special carve-outs in this legislation – that's not what its all about. This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans its not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve-outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That's not what health care is all about – that's not the policy, that's not the principal behind the bill. There's a lot of strong objections to the Senate bill and what's been done thus far." CNSNews.com: "Okay, do you have – or are you saying -- that you have the votes to stop it, if that's the case?" Rep. Stupak: "Well, what I'm saying is, what you just read is that the House is going to have to accept the Senate bill and it would not be a true conference -- and we're just going to have to accept the Senate bill as is. Well, I'll tell you, it will not be accepted." Rep. Stupak: "Number one, you have certain [states] and certain exceptions. All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we incline to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?" Rep. Stupak: "Secondly, people who have decent health insurance programs – we're going to tax them, aren't you really going to force more people off health insurance? Thirdly, the seniors take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill members are not going to accept. If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests, so there'd be no – I'd have no real desire to vote for this bill the way it's being outlined in the media. I know the bill's not finalized yet, but if that holds true, if they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames." (Click here to listen to the interview) Contact: Pete Winn Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: December 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
December 28, 2009
Pro-Life Democrat Predicts Senate Health Care Bill Will ‘Go Down in Flames’ in House, Unless Changes Made
Do You See What I See?
Do You See What I See? "Today human relations are irregulars and seconds at the closing days of the warehouse sale of life." -- From the book, "Social Amnesia," by Russell Jacoby "O little town of Bethlehem." -- Traditional Christmas carol It was late in the afternoon the Saturday after Thanksgiving. My wife, Lisa, and I had established a temporary safe haven in our kitchen free from the usual chaos that comes with the presence of four joyfully rambunctious children. We'd somehow managed to wrest free a few minutes just to read the paper, enjoy a cup of coffee together, and chat. It was nice! For reasons I did not fully understand at the time, when I read in our local paper that the Salvation Army was experiencing a dramatic shortage in volunteer bell ringers to man its familiar red kettles, I was so shocked I jumped up from the table and searched out the local number. Violet, the gentle lady who answered, mistakenly thought I was someone inquiring about a paid position. When I assured her otherwise, she was so pathetically grateful for my willingness to help them help the poor a wave of shame washed over me. How many times, I thought guiltily, had I brushed past these magnanimous folks, who patiently waited for some sign my heart was a few degrees warmer than the temperature outside? How many times had I been so self-absorbed that these devoted volunteers simply blended into the brick facades behind them? I was mortified when I recall that even though I had occasionally given money, never once had I emerged from my self-absorption long enough to actually "see" them, let alone grasp what their silent vigil stood for. Because I had always looked through them, they never really existed for me. I hastily volunteered for several assignments. (In what was surely a feeble attempt at expiation, I made sure that one of them was on my birthday.) The moral of this story needn't be belabored to tenderhearted pro-lifers. When our culture "looks" at the vulnerable, all too often there is a failure to recognize and therefore an inability to reach out in love and compassion. This is never more true than in our treatment of the unborn, the littlest Americans. However, it wasn't just because of the news account and the subsequent phone call that I saw these kindly souls with new eyes. I was already predisposed, if you will, because Christmas was approaching, to Christians the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. Even those who do not share the faith honor Jesus for his unconditional love for widows and orphans, the sick, and the social outcast, his loving admonition to care for the least among us. This most assuredly included little children, as Luke's poignant gospel account reminds us so beautifully. Jesus healed out of a deep well of empathy and compassion. He restored many whose bodies, hearts, and souls were weighed down with terrible physical and emotional burdens. But he was also teaching us a timeless lesson: unless we are willing to open our eyes, we, too, will be blind to the hurting around us. While it is not my intention to idealize pro-lifers, it would be false modesty to ignore that they demonstrate a tremendous capacity to truly "see" what others either cannot, or choose not, to see. It is no accident that pro-lifers defend unborn babies. Love and concern for the downtrodden, the dispossessed, and the marginalized is what gives their lives a rich unity of purpose. The great hope of the pro-life movement is that despite our nation's descents into inhumanity and indifference, the self-image of Americans is deservedly of a good people, blessed in a unique way. And it is because Americans are fundamentally decent people that the significance of the debate over partial-birth abortion cannot be exaggerated. People needn't be anywhere near where we are to be virtually sent reeling. Witnessing even a simple line drawing of this abomination can turn opinions inside out. A pseudo-serious support for "choice" in the abstract cannot coexist for very long with the concrete reality of this brutal assassination of helpless children. For many, many people, head knowledge will become heart knowledge and ambivalence will be transformed into empathy. Our culture has chosen to willfully suppress what it always knew - - that unborn children are children yet to be born, a classic example of what historian Russell Jacoby once called "social amnesia." But the monstrous evil that is partial-birth abortion - - a procedure that is essentially indistinguishable from infanticide - - is shearing away the excuse people have used from the time immemorial to explain away their complicity in evil: "I didn't know." And because eyes are being opened, ears unstopped, and hearts unshackled, what William McKenna calls our "unforced revulsion" at abortion is finding a wider audience. These telltale signs suggest we are cutting through the static of lies and distortions, establishing a clear channel to convey our message of love and hope for mother and unborn child. One day soon, the ethos of discrimination and brutality toward the unborn will prove itself to have been an aberration, a loathsome interim ethic. And that glorious day will come because you have proven yourselves to be the antidote to the poison of inhumanity, indifference, and injustice. Let me say, humbly, bless you for all you have done. Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: NRLC Publish Date: December 24, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
| NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY (Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.) Sebelius: Everyone Will Pay Into Abortion-Coverage Fund  What constitutes the notion of "public funds"? If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not "public"? Morgen at Verum Serum catches a portion of an interview between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday, in which Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone — and she means everyone. Click here for the full article. Georgetown faculty served as legal counsel to Planned Parenthood  Two Georgetown University law professors have served as legal counsel to Planned Parenthood, according to the university's web site. Professor Peter J. Rubin, according to his web page, "served as counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court for, among others, Dr. Timothy Quill and two other doctors in Vacco v. Quill, a challenge to the constitutionality of New York's ban on physician assisted suicide, and Planned Parenthood in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court challenge to the abortion 'gag rule' imposed in the 1980s upon family planning clinics that received federal funding." Professor Julie E. Cohen, who has taught at Georgetown since 1999, was a "member of pro bono team that represented Bay Area Planned Parenthood affiliates in abortion clinic access litigation" from 1992 to 1995, according to her curriculum vitate. Click here for the full article. Senate Dems Push House to Take Their Version of Health Overhaul  They aren't willing to say they'll roll over, but House Democrats on Sunday offered tacit acknowledgement of the narrow room for compromise Senate Democrats have on a massive health insurance overhaul that passed the Senate with no margin for error. They aren't willing to say they'll roll over, but House Democrats on Sunday offered tacit acknowledgement of the narrow room for compromise Senate Democrats have on a massive health insurance overhaul that passed the Senate with no margin for error. As lawmakers take a recess from the push and pull of Washington's hardscrabble politics, several Democrats on Sunday sounded ready to give in if it means getting the trillion dollar, 10-year legislation into Obama's hands as soon as possible. Click here for the full article. State Has Rising Costs in Defending Abortion Laws  OKLAHOMA CITY - The costs of defending two controversial abortion measures continue to rise. In August, an Oklahoma County district judge tossed out Senate Bill 1878, which would have required a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the abortion and have the details explained to her. Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the measure violated a provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that requires a law to deal with a single subject. The bill also covered the posting of signs in clinics, administration of the "abortion pill" RU-486 and lawsuits. Her ruling has been appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The state spent $97,000 to hire an abortion law expert to defend the law, said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. Click here for the full article. Senate changes 'rules' to protect 'death panels' Fine print would require 67 votes to consider amendments  Majority Democrats in the U.S. Senate pushing for President Obama's vision of a government takeover of health care have inserted in the fine print of the 2,000-plus page legislation a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." The revelation comes from the RedState.com blog, which analyzed the provisions and cited a challenge to the plan from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. After being told by Democrats that the provision changing a standing Senate rule didn't actually change the rule but was just a change in the procedure of the rule, DeMint was frustrated... Click here for the full article. |
December 22, 2009
Sen. Nelson 'betrayed' pro-lifers back home
Sen. Nelson 'betrayed' pro-lifers back home
Some Nebraskans are upset with Senator Ben Nelson over his change of heart on healthcare reform.
Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) was considered the 60th vote Democrats needed to push the massive legislation through with provisions that would require taxpayers to pay for abortions. He agreed to vote in favor of cloture, leaving the early Monday morning vote 60-40 to proceed.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, contends the Democratic lawmaker sold out to pro-abortion forces in the Senate in exchange for several concessions -- among them permanent and full federal aid for this state's expanded Medicaid population.
"That falls directly on us as a [political action committee] and on me personally because I was his biggest defender," she says of Nelson. "I'm taking it very personally that this is a real betrayal." And no pro-life Nebraskan, she laments, is more "devastated" by Nelson's actions than she is.
Nelson, says the pro-life leader, has turned against a heavily pro-life Nebraska -- and "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans" who were counting on him to stand strong.
"The backlash here [in Nebraska] is unbelievable," she exclaims. "I can't imagine that Senator Nelson thinks he's going to run for re-election in 2012." In the 2006 election, Nebraska Right to Life endorsed Nelson rather than a pro-life Republican.
Schmit-Albin believes that when Nelson cast the 60th vote, he lost all pro-life support in Nebraska -- and Republicans in the state, she adds, are extremely upset.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Some Nebraskans are upset with Senator Ben Nelson over his change of heart on healthcare reform.
Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) was considered the 60th vote Democrats needed to push the massive legislation through with provisions that would require taxpayers to pay for abortions. He agreed to vote in favor of cloture, leaving the early Monday morning vote 60-40 to proceed.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, contends the Democratic lawmaker sold out to pro-abortion forces in the Senate in exchange for several concessions -- among them permanent and full federal aid for this state's expanded Medicaid population.
"That falls directly on us as a [political action committee] and on me personally because I was his biggest defender," she says of Nelson. "I'm taking it very personally that this is a real betrayal." And no pro-life Nebraskan, she laments, is more "devastated" by Nelson's actions than she is.
Nelson, says the pro-life leader, has turned against a heavily pro-life Nebraska -- and "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans" who were counting on him to stand strong.
"The backlash here [in Nebraska] is unbelievable," she exclaims. "I can't imagine that Senator Nelson thinks he's going to run for re-election in 2012." In the 2006 election, Nebraska Right to Life endorsed Nelson rather than a pro-life Republican.
Schmit-Albin believes that when Nelson cast the 60th vote, he lost all pro-life support in Nebraska -- and Republicans in the state, she adds, are extremely upset.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion - a 'choice' issue for Democrats
Abortion - a 'choice' issue for Democrats
Congressional Democrats now must choose whether to exclude taxpayer funding of abortion in their healthcare legislation or risk defeat of the entire bill.
Under all existing federal health programs, taxpayer funds are not used for abortions and they do not subsidize private health insurance that pays for abortion either. However, the healthcare bill Democrats are poised to pass in the Senate authorizes federal subsidies for tens of millions of Americans to buy private health insurance that will cover abortion on demand.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, believes it is unlikely the bill that emerges from conference committee will include the House-approved Stupak amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion on demand in public and private health insurance plans. The Stupak amendment, he says, faces a "perilous" future.
"The conference committee will be directly controlled by top Democratic leaders from the House and Senate, almost all of whom are dead set against us -- and they will be working in close concert with President Obama and the White House, who have fought us every step of the way," Johnson explains.
"On the other hand, and this is the most important thing, they need to get a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to pass the final bill. So if we can show that there are enough lawmakers, particularly in the House of Representatives, who will not vote for the final bill unless it contains the Stupak amendment, then they're going to have to make a hard choice."
The pro-life spokesman warns that Democratic leaders and the White House will be trying to "wear down" pro-life Democrats in the House and offer them different inducements so they will "get out of the way" and allow the bill to pass with abortion funding included.
Contact: Jim Brown
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Congressional Democrats now must choose whether to exclude taxpayer funding of abortion in their healthcare legislation or risk defeat of the entire bill.
Under all existing federal health programs, taxpayer funds are not used for abortions and they do not subsidize private health insurance that pays for abortion either. However, the healthcare bill Democrats are poised to pass in the Senate authorizes federal subsidies for tens of millions of Americans to buy private health insurance that will cover abortion on demand.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, believes it is unlikely the bill that emerges from conference committee will include the House-approved Stupak amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion on demand in public and private health insurance plans. The Stupak amendment, he says, faces a "perilous" future.
"The conference committee will be directly controlled by top Democratic leaders from the House and Senate, almost all of whom are dead set against us -- and they will be working in close concert with President Obama and the White House, who have fought us every step of the way," Johnson explains.
"On the other hand, and this is the most important thing, they need to get a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to pass the final bill. So if we can show that there are enough lawmakers, particularly in the House of Representatives, who will not vote for the final bill unless it contains the Stupak amendment, then they're going to have to make a hard choice."
The pro-life spokesman warns that Democratic leaders and the White House will be trying to "wear down" pro-life Democrats in the House and offer them different inducements so they will "get out of the way" and allow the bill to pass with abortion funding included.
Contact: Jim Brown
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."
"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."
Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."
"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..
"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.
Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."
Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."
"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."
Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."
"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..
"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.
Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."
Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Senate Abortion Language is No Compromise, Pro-Life Dem Says
Senate Abortion Language is No Compromise, Pro-Life Dem Says
D
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said that so-called abortion compromise language in the Senate health-care bill is no such thing. Stupak, leader of a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House, called the Senate language "unacceptable" and vowed to oppose it.
"While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health-care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable," Stupak said in a statement released over the weekend.
"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," he said.
The Michigan congressman could not be reached for comment because all federal government offices were closed Monday in the aftermath of a weekend blizzard that shut down the nation's capital and much of the Eastern seaboard.
Stupak, who succeeded in getting a pro-life amendment attached to the House version of the bill which bars federal taxpayer support of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake, held out hope that fellow Democrats would again acquiesce to his demands and produce a health-care bill he can support, saying he hoped their differences on abortion could be resolved in conference.
Republican Party leader Michael Steele cast doubt on that idea, however, declaring that "the fix is in" and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would forgo conference negotiations and instead opt to push the Senate bill through the House.
"The fix is in here – there won't be a legitimate conference (committee), the House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate bill (sic) comes up with, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi is going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want," Steele said Monday in a telephone news conference from Washington.
Pelosi's predicted "capitulation" would presumably involve acceptance of the fact that the Senate bill does not include a "public option" -- government-run health insurance -- which Pelosi supports and the House bill does include. But arguably, the biggest bone of contention is the abortion "compromise" of Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
The controversial abortion compromise involves a Democratic plan to try and segregate federal health insurance subsidies from private insurance premiums, mandating that only the latter can be used to pay for abortions.
This "segregation" works by prohibiting a health insurer from using "any amount attributable" to a federal subsidy to pay for abortion.
"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
"(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)," the bill reads.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called this provision an "accounting gimmick" on Saturday.
"Under Reid's 'manager's amendment,' there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish "allocation accounts" when elective abortion is a covered benefit," Boehner wrote on the "Republican Leader" blog.
These "allocation accounts" would, if passed, segregate public and private funds, permitting only private funds from being used to pay for abortions. Individuals would then be forced to pay an "abortion surcharge" out of their own pocket, regardless of whether will ever have – or be able to have – an abortion.
"In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies [one which covers abortion], the issuer of the plan shall -- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment [for abortion services]," the bill states.
This would mean that federal funds, while not being used to pay for abortions directly, would still be used to subsidize the cost of having an abortion, since without the federal subsidy the health plan would be unaffordable.
"In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions," Boehner said.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., said the provision would "put the federal government in the business of subsidizing elective abortions."
"Even though there are these accounting provisions that require people to take a second step of making another payment to cover abortion, they are still paying with a government subsidy," Perkins told CNSNews.com.
Perkins. meanwhile, said that "nothing short of Stupak (language) is acceptable to pro-life Americans."
Members of the Senate voted early Monday morning 60-40 along party lines to invoke cloture on the Reid health-care bill -- a parliamentary procedure which shut off debate and is expected to bring the legislation to a vote before Christmas.
Contact: Matt Cover
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
DRep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said that so-called abortion compromise language in the Senate health-care bill is no such thing. Stupak, leader of a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House, called the Senate language "unacceptable" and vowed to oppose it.
"While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health-care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable," Stupak said in a statement released over the weekend.
"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," he said.
The Michigan congressman could not be reached for comment because all federal government offices were closed Monday in the aftermath of a weekend blizzard that shut down the nation's capital and much of the Eastern seaboard.
Stupak, who succeeded in getting a pro-life amendment attached to the House version of the bill which bars federal taxpayer support of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake, held out hope that fellow Democrats would again acquiesce to his demands and produce a health-care bill he can support, saying he hoped their differences on abortion could be resolved in conference.
Republican Party leader Michael Steele cast doubt on that idea, however, declaring that "the fix is in" and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would forgo conference negotiations and instead opt to push the Senate bill through the House.
"The fix is in here – there won't be a legitimate conference (committee), the House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate bill (sic) comes up with, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi is going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want," Steele said Monday in a telephone news conference from Washington.
Pelosi's predicted "capitulation" would presumably involve acceptance of the fact that the Senate bill does not include a "public option" -- government-run health insurance -- which Pelosi supports and the House bill does include. But arguably, the biggest bone of contention is the abortion "compromise" of Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
The controversial abortion compromise involves a Democratic plan to try and segregate federal health insurance subsidies from private insurance premiums, mandating that only the latter can be used to pay for abortions.
This "segregation" works by prohibiting a health insurer from using "any amount attributable" to a federal subsidy to pay for abortion.
"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
"(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)," the bill reads.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called this provision an "accounting gimmick" on Saturday.
"Under Reid's 'manager's amendment,' there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish "allocation accounts" when elective abortion is a covered benefit," Boehner wrote on the "Republican Leader" blog.
These "allocation accounts" would, if passed, segregate public and private funds, permitting only private funds from being used to pay for abortions. Individuals would then be forced to pay an "abortion surcharge" out of their own pocket, regardless of whether will ever have – or be able to have – an abortion.
"In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies [one which covers abortion], the issuer of the plan shall -- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment [for abortion services]," the bill states.
This would mean that federal funds, while not being used to pay for abortions directly, would still be used to subsidize the cost of having an abortion, since without the federal subsidy the health plan would be unaffordable.
"In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions," Boehner said.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., said the provision would "put the federal government in the business of subsidizing elective abortions."
"Even though there are these accounting provisions that require people to take a second step of making another payment to cover abortion, they are still paying with a government subsidy," Perkins told CNSNews.com.
Perkins. meanwhile, said that "nothing short of Stupak (language) is acceptable to pro-life Americans."
Members of the Senate voted early Monday morning 60-40 along party lines to invoke cloture on the Reid health-care bill -- a parliamentary procedure which shut off debate and is expected to bring the legislation to a vote before Christmas.
Contact: Matt Cover
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Q&A: The Senate's abortion compromise
Q&A: The Senate's abortion compromise
WASHINGTON - The Senate is on the verge of passing a health care bill that includes a compromise on federal funding of abortion. Pro-life groups and pro-choice groups, though, are not happy with the compromise language, promoted by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Following are a few common questions, with answers, about the compromise:
-- What would the compromise language do?
It uses funding segregation language that has been criticized by pro-lifers for months. The compromise: 1) forces enrollees in private insurance plans receiving government subsidies to write two checks -- one for their premium and the other for elective abortion coverage, and 2) allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized plans (the latter of which, pro-lifers say, already was allowed). Insurance companies would be forced to keep the abortion coverage money separate from the federal subsidy money. The Washington Post reported that everyone in the policy -- men included -- would have to write a separate check for abortion coverage.
-- How is it different from the pro-life Stupak amendment that was attached to the House's health care bill?
Very different. The Stupak amendment prohibited elective abortions from being covered in government-subsidized plans. Under the Senate bill, the plans can cover such abortions.
-- Why has there been so much controversy surrounding the issue?
Because current law prohibits the federal government from funding insurance plans covering elective abortions. Medicaid is prohibited from covering elective abortions, as are insurance plans for federal employees. Congress' own insurance plans, for instance, cannot by law cover elective abortions. The Senate health care bill would be a dramatic change in policy, pro-lifers say.
-- How have pro-lifers reacted to the compromise?
By heavily criticizing it. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called it "a pitiful excuse for a compromise that looks far more like surrender." National Right to Life released a statement saying the "so-called 'firewall'" between federal money and private money "is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs." The organization also said "there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee." Nebraska Right to Life -- which endorsed Nelson in 2006 -- said Nelson "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans who saw him as the last man standing" in the way of "expansion of government funding." Americans United for Life said the bill's opt-out option for states "makes abortion coverage normative" and "turn[s] on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion." All the major pro-life groups are urging senators to filibuster and defeat the bill. The Weekly Standard posted an article that said even if a state opts out, it would leave, for instance, "Nebraska's voters entirely vulnerable to paying for California's and New York's abortions."
-- Pro-lifers have said a change in policy could lead to an increase in the abortion rate. How?
If the bill passes, there will be women under the new plans who, for the first time, have abortion coverage. There would be no financial deterrent to an abortion, as there is for them now. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute this summer reported that about 25 percent of the women in Medicaid who would have had an abortion chose instead to give birth because they were barred from using public money.
-- How have pro-choice groups reacted?
They, too, are opposed. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said the Nelson language "is essentially an abortion rider" that shames women and "creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month." Richards added that it is "highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the compromise language "outrageous" and "unacceptable." But both women acknowledge the compromise does not go as far as the Stupak amendment.
-- What has Nelson said?
He released a statement saying, "I have strongly held views on the subject and I have fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. I believe we have accomplished that goal. I have also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered, and to provide health insurance options in every state that do not provide coverage for abortion."
-- What happens now?
If the Senate bill passes, the political battle will move to a joint House-Senate conference committee, which will work out the differences between the two bills. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the pro-life congressmen who sponsored the House amendment, released a statement saying he looks forward "to working with members of the House, Senate and the Obama Administration to find common ground on this issue and draft language that guarantees continuation of current law of no public funding for abortion." He called the compromise language "not acceptable" and added it would be "a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage." He said the "segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."
-- Wouldn't the Hyde amendment apply to the health care bill?
The Hyde amendment, which prevents elective abortions from being covered under Medicaid, would not apply to the new health care bill. The Hyde amendment, as well as the Stupak amendment, allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.
-- Has any polling been done on this issue?
A CNN poll in November found American adults are against "using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it" by a 61-37 percent margin.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
WASHINGTON - The Senate is on the verge of passing a health care bill that includes a compromise on federal funding of abortion. Pro-life groups and pro-choice groups, though, are not happy with the compromise language, promoted by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Following are a few common questions, with answers, about the compromise:
-- What would the compromise language do?
It uses funding segregation language that has been criticized by pro-lifers for months. The compromise: 1) forces enrollees in private insurance plans receiving government subsidies to write two checks -- one for their premium and the other for elective abortion coverage, and 2) allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized plans (the latter of which, pro-lifers say, already was allowed). Insurance companies would be forced to keep the abortion coverage money separate from the federal subsidy money. The Washington Post reported that everyone in the policy -- men included -- would have to write a separate check for abortion coverage.
-- How is it different from the pro-life Stupak amendment that was attached to the House's health care bill?
Very different. The Stupak amendment prohibited elective abortions from being covered in government-subsidized plans. Under the Senate bill, the plans can cover such abortions.
-- Why has there been so much controversy surrounding the issue?
Because current law prohibits the federal government from funding insurance plans covering elective abortions. Medicaid is prohibited from covering elective abortions, as are insurance plans for federal employees. Congress' own insurance plans, for instance, cannot by law cover elective abortions. The Senate health care bill would be a dramatic change in policy, pro-lifers say.
-- How have pro-lifers reacted to the compromise?
By heavily criticizing it. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called it "a pitiful excuse for a compromise that looks far more like surrender." National Right to Life released a statement saying the "so-called 'firewall'" between federal money and private money "is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs." The organization also said "there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee." Nebraska Right to Life -- which endorsed Nelson in 2006 -- said Nelson "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans who saw him as the last man standing" in the way of "expansion of government funding." Americans United for Life said the bill's opt-out option for states "makes abortion coverage normative" and "turn[s] on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion." All the major pro-life groups are urging senators to filibuster and defeat the bill. The Weekly Standard posted an article that said even if a state opts out, it would leave, for instance, "Nebraska's voters entirely vulnerable to paying for California's and New York's abortions."
-- Pro-lifers have said a change in policy could lead to an increase in the abortion rate. How?
If the bill passes, there will be women under the new plans who, for the first time, have abortion coverage. There would be no financial deterrent to an abortion, as there is for them now. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute this summer reported that about 25 percent of the women in Medicaid who would have had an abortion chose instead to give birth because they were barred from using public money.
-- How have pro-choice groups reacted?
They, too, are opposed. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said the Nelson language "is essentially an abortion rider" that shames women and "creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month." Richards added that it is "highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the compromise language "outrageous" and "unacceptable." But both women acknowledge the compromise does not go as far as the Stupak amendment.
-- What has Nelson said?
He released a statement saying, "I have strongly held views on the subject and I have fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. I believe we have accomplished that goal. I have also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered, and to provide health insurance options in every state that do not provide coverage for abortion."
-- What happens now?
If the Senate bill passes, the political battle will move to a joint House-Senate conference committee, which will work out the differences between the two bills. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the pro-life congressmen who sponsored the House amendment, released a statement saying he looks forward "to working with members of the House, Senate and the Obama Administration to find common ground on this issue and draft language that guarantees continuation of current law of no public funding for abortion." He called the compromise language "not acceptable" and added it would be "a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage." He said the "segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."
-- Wouldn't the Hyde amendment apply to the health care bill?
The Hyde amendment, which prevents elective abortions from being covered under Medicaid, would not apply to the new health care bill. The Hyde amendment, as well as the Stupak amendment, allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.
-- Has any polling been done on this issue?
A CNN poll in November found American adults are against "using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it" by a 61-37 percent margin.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
GALVESTON, Texas - Nearly half of women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, will experience high bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the hip or lower spine within two years of beginning the contraceptive, according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The study, reported in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was the first to show that women on the birth control shot who smoke, have low levels of calcium intake and never gave birth are at the highest risk for BMD loss. The researchers also found that high risk women continued to experience significant losses in BMD during the third year of the use of the contraceptive injection, especially in the hip - the most common facture site in elderly women.
DMPA is an injected contraceptive administered to patients every three months. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than two million American women use the birth control shot, including approximately 400,000 teens. DMPA is relatively inexpensive compared with some other forms of contraception and doesn't need to be administered daily, which contributes to its popularity.
The study followed 95 DMPA users for two years. In that time, 45 women had at least five percent BMD loss in the lower back or hip. A total of 50 women had less than five percent bone loss at both sites during the same period.
By and large, BMD loss was higher in women who were current smokers, had never given birth and had a daily calcium intake of 600 mg or less - far below the recommended amounts. Moreover, BMD loss substantially increased among the women with all three risk factors.
The researchers followed 27 of the women for an additional year and found that those who experienced significant BMD loss in the first two years continued to lose bone mass.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
GALVESTON, Texas - Nearly half of women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, will experience high bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the hip or lower spine within two years of beginning the contraceptive, according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The study, reported in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was the first to show that women on the birth control shot who smoke, have low levels of calcium intake and never gave birth are at the highest risk for BMD loss. The researchers also found that high risk women continued to experience significant losses in BMD during the third year of the use of the contraceptive injection, especially in the hip - the most common facture site in elderly women.
DMPA is an injected contraceptive administered to patients every three months. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than two million American women use the birth control shot, including approximately 400,000 teens. DMPA is relatively inexpensive compared with some other forms of contraception and doesn't need to be administered daily, which contributes to its popularity.
The study followed 95 DMPA users for two years. In that time, 45 women had at least five percent BMD loss in the lower back or hip. A total of 50 women had less than five percent bone loss at both sites during the same period.
By and large, BMD loss was higher in women who were current smokers, had never given birth and had a daily calcium intake of 600 mg or less - far below the recommended amounts. Moreover, BMD loss substantially increased among the women with all three risk factors.
The researchers followed 27 of the women for an additional year and found that those who experienced significant BMD loss in the first two years continued to lose bone mass.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Federal court sides with Louisiana Town Against Abortion Protesters
NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court has ruled that a central Louisiana town isn't liable for the actions of a police officer who violated the constitutional rights of a group of street preachers. A lower court ruled that Columbia Police Officer Robert Miles violated the First Amendment rights of World Wide Street Preachers Fellowship members when he threatened to arrest them if they didn't end their abortion protest outside a church in February 2005. But the judge also concluded that Columbia wasn't liable because the street preachers failed to prove that Miles' actions resulted from a town policy or custom. The group appealed, but a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld last year's ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert James.
Click here for the full article.
Democrat Accuses Health Care Opponents of Racism
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised eyebrows during the health care debate Sunday night when he called conservative Americans "lunatic fringe."
"They are desperate to break this president," Whitehouse said. "They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. It is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist."
Bob Parks, a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network, said Whitehouse would quiet all dissent, if he could.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Remains A Key Obstacle to Final Passage of Health Care Bill
Washington - Twice now, abortion was almost a deal-breaker. This time, it was a deal-maker. But of the hundreds of deals cut to keep health care legislation alive, the hardest to retain may be the Senate's abortion compromise -- achieved after 13 hours of negotiation.
The volatile issue remains the biggest threat to getting a history-making bill to President Barack Obama.
Deals are the lifeblood of legislation. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got $100 million more for her state, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman stripped the bill of a government insurance plan and Ben Nelson won a slew of favors for Nebraska -- all in exchange for their votes.
Click here for the full article.
"Craven Betrayal": Associates Baffled by Nelson's Mysterious About-Face
Fear that "Nelson could have been using the abortion issue as a bargaining chip all along for the other concessions"
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Saturday that he had decided to support the amended health bill that allows federal funding of abortion, he set to work defending the decision in terms more familiar on the lips of his liberal colleagues: emphasizing the need for a compromise, and highlighting the greater good of the health of millions of Americans. Yet Nelson left behind a still-reeling pro-life and conservative constituency questioning what could have prompted the sudden change in the senator - who days before seemed so placidly settled in his convictions against the bill, particularly regarding abortion.
Click here for the full article.
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Federal court sides with Louisiana Town Against Abortion Protesters
NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court has ruled that a central Louisiana town isn't liable for the actions of a police officer who violated the constitutional rights of a group of street preachers. A lower court ruled that Columbia Police Officer Robert Miles violated the First Amendment rights of World Wide Street Preachers Fellowship members when he threatened to arrest them if they didn't end their abortion protest outside a church in February 2005. But the judge also concluded that Columbia wasn't liable because the street preachers failed to prove that Miles' actions resulted from a town policy or custom. The group appealed, but a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld last year's ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert James.
Click here for the full article.
Democrat Accuses Health Care Opponents of Racism
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised eyebrows during the health care debate Sunday night when he called conservative Americans "lunatic fringe."
"They are desperate to break this president," Whitehouse said. "They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. It is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist."
Bob Parks, a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network, said Whitehouse would quiet all dissent, if he could.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Remains A Key Obstacle to Final Passage of Health Care Bill
Washington - Twice now, abortion was almost a deal-breaker. This time, it was a deal-maker. But of the hundreds of deals cut to keep health care legislation alive, the hardest to retain may be the Senate's abortion compromise -- achieved after 13 hours of negotiation.
The volatile issue remains the biggest threat to getting a history-making bill to President Barack Obama.
Deals are the lifeblood of legislation. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got $100 million more for her state, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman stripped the bill of a government insurance plan and Ben Nelson won a slew of favors for Nebraska -- all in exchange for their votes.
Click here for the full article.
"Craven Betrayal": Associates Baffled by Nelson's Mysterious About-Face
Fear that "Nelson could have been using the abortion issue as a bargaining chip all along for the other concessions"
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Saturday that he had decided to support the amended health bill that allows federal funding of abortion, he set to work defending the decision in terms more familiar on the lips of his liberal colleagues: emphasizing the need for a compromise, and highlighting the greater good of the health of millions of Americans. Yet Nelson left behind a still-reeling pro-life and conservative constituency questioning what could have prompted the sudden change in the senator - who days before seemed so placidly settled in his convictions against the bill, particularly regarding abortion.
Click here for the full article.
December 21, 2009
Senate healthcare bill passes 60-40
Senate healthcare bill passes 60-40
I'm sure most have heard by now. This is all so dastardly and frustrating, sickening really. Can't believe it's happening. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's Senate floor speech, given about 1a EST this morning right before the vote is a sobering must read....
Tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high. And, that's appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit. It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take. And none of us take it lightly....
But make no mistake: if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night.
Here are just some of the deals we've noticed:
$100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States - the bill doesn't say where - and no one will even step forward to claim it.
One state out of 50 gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself - while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab.
The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company - just one insurance company - based in his state.
Do the supporters of this bill know all this? Do they think it's a fair deal for their states, for the rest of the country?
The fact is, a year after this debate started few people could have imagined that this is how it would end - with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o'clock in the morning. But that's where we are.
And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen?
So I'd like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what happened - and what's happening now.
Everyone in this chamber agrees we need health care reform. The question is how?
Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we've proposed targeted steps to do it. Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach.
And the result has been just what you'd expect.
The final product is a mess - and so is the process that's brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate, and reminded us all how these things have been handled throughout history.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but 6 members of the Senate. The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. All but 8 senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation. The proponents of this bill felt differently.
In a departure from history, Democrat leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and government intrusion, that, in the end their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.
In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms Americans were promised.
It was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake - which is exactly what this bill will be if it's passed. Because, in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it's about a $2.3 trillion dollar, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes its price go up.
"The plan I'm announcing tonight," the President said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
"My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family..."
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
And, on taxes? "No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said.
He said he wouldn't cut Medicare.
People who like the plans they have wouldn't lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
That was then, and this is now.
But here's the reality: the Democrat bill we're voting on tonight raises health care costs. That's not me talking -- that's the administration's own budget scorekeeper.
It raises premiums -- that's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
And, it plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars It forces people off the plans they have -- including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn't raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
And, twelve months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers who made these same promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that won't bend the cost curve, that won't make health care more affordable and that will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road.
Now, I understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling, and, I don't doubt for a moment their sincerity.
But, my message tonight is this: the impact of this vote will long outlive this one frantic, snowy weekend in Washington. Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation.
And, Americans have already issued their verdict: they don't want it. They don't like this bill -- and they don't like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.
Let's think about that for a moment. We know the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
And yet, the people who wrote it won't give the 300 million Americans whose lives will be profoundly affected by it so much as 72 hours to study the details.
Imagine that: when we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we're being asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight.
How can anyone justify this approach? Particularly in the face of such widespread and intense public opposition.
Can all of these Americans be wrong? Don't their concerns count? Party loyalty can be a powerful force. We all know that.
But Americans are asking Democrats to put party loyalty aside tonight -- to put the interests of small business owners, taxpayers, and seniors first.
And there's good news -- it's not too late.
All it takes is one. Just one. One can stop it -- or every one will own it.
My colleagues: it is not too late.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
I'm sure most have heard by now. This is all so dastardly and frustrating, sickening really. Can't believe it's happening. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's Senate floor speech, given about 1a EST this morning right before the vote is a sobering must read....
Tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high. And, that's appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit. It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take. And none of us take it lightly....
But make no mistake: if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night.
Here are just some of the deals we've noticed:
$100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States - the bill doesn't say where - and no one will even step forward to claim it.
One state out of 50 gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself - while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab.
The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company - just one insurance company - based in his state.
Do the supporters of this bill know all this? Do they think it's a fair deal for their states, for the rest of the country?
The fact is, a year after this debate started few people could have imagined that this is how it would end - with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o'clock in the morning. But that's where we are.
And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen?
So I'd like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what happened - and what's happening now.
Everyone in this chamber agrees we need health care reform. The question is how?
Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we've proposed targeted steps to do it. Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach.
And the result has been just what you'd expect.
The final product is a mess - and so is the process that's brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate, and reminded us all how these things have been handled throughout history.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but 6 members of the Senate. The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. All but 8 senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation. The proponents of this bill felt differently.
In a departure from history, Democrat leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and government intrusion, that, in the end their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.
In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms Americans were promised.
It was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake - which is exactly what this bill will be if it's passed. Because, in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it's about a $2.3 trillion dollar, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes its price go up.
"The plan I'm announcing tonight," the President said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
"My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family..."
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
And, on taxes? "No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said.
He said he wouldn't cut Medicare.
People who like the plans they have wouldn't lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
That was then, and this is now.
But here's the reality: the Democrat bill we're voting on tonight raises health care costs. That's not me talking -- that's the administration's own budget scorekeeper.
It raises premiums -- that's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
And, it plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars It forces people off the plans they have -- including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn't raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
And, twelve months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers who made these same promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that won't bend the cost curve, that won't make health care more affordable and that will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road.
Now, I understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling, and, I don't doubt for a moment their sincerity.
But, my message tonight is this: the impact of this vote will long outlive this one frantic, snowy weekend in Washington. Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation.
And, Americans have already issued their verdict: they don't want it. They don't like this bill -- and they don't like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.
Let's think about that for a moment. We know the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
And yet, the people who wrote it won't give the 300 million Americans whose lives will be profoundly affected by it so much as 72 hours to study the details.
Imagine that: when we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we're being asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight.
How can anyone justify this approach? Particularly in the face of such widespread and intense public opposition.
Can all of these Americans be wrong? Don't their concerns count? Party loyalty can be a powerful force. We all know that.
But Americans are asking Democrats to put party loyalty aside tonight -- to put the interests of small business owners, taxpayers, and seniors first.
And there's good news -- it's not too late.
All it takes is one. Just one. One can stop it -- or every one will own it.
My colleagues: it is not too late.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion clinic escort strikes Planned Parenthood investigator Lila Rose
Abortion clinic escort strikes Planned Parenthood investigator Lila Rose
San Jose, Calif. - Legal charges are pending against a male Planned Parenthood escort who struck pro-life activist Lila Rose on the hands on Thursday outside an abortion clinic. She warned that the surprising attack should not help create a "double standard" that hinders clinic protesters' free speech rights.
Rose, the president of Live Action Films who has led undercover investigations into the abortion provider, was not injured in the attack.
She was on a public sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Jose, California with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to alternatives to abortion, a statement from Live Action says.
Shortly before noon on Thursday, she interacted with a uniformed male Planned Parenthood escort.
According to Rose, she spoke to the escort from the public sidewalk and asked him if he was familiar with the abortion procedure.
The escort then approached her rapidly from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, "You idiot. You've caused so much trouble. You piece of crap."
Rose asked if she could show him a picture of what abortion "really does to a baby." The escort then struck Rose on the hand, knocking literature and a Bible to the ground.
According to Live Action Films, the police report said Rose stepped further back on the sidewalk and the escort stepped toward her.
He was visibly shaking and said "It's a woman's choice!"
To this, Rose responded "What about the baby's choice?"
The escort said "It's not a baby!" and turned and walked away.
Police were called and interviewed Rose and several witnesses. She suffered no injuries in the attack, but charges of assault and battery are pending.
In a Friday e-mail Rose told CNA that she was "very surprised" at what happened. She said the escort appeared to recognize her, which has not happened before at a clinic.
"Unborn children face much, much worse...they are violently denied their very lives, and they are totally defenseless," she added.
Rose emphasized that pro-lifers have the right to free speech on public sidewalks.
"If this right is infringed upon by threatening physical contact, the law must intervene and the guilty party must accept the consequences."
Saying that pro-life sidewalk counselors are subjected to "the most rigorous scrutiny," she warned that a double standard could be created if threatening physical contact against sidewalk counselors is allowed.
Rose also reported "good news": a woman who thought she was pregnant and was considering abortion turned around. One of the parents and their daughter at the clinic then drove the woman and her friend to a crisis pregnancy center.
She told CNA that her organization has not heard anything from Planned Parenthood.
Live Action in a statement said it maintains a "strong commitment to non-violent public discourse."
"We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort's attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence," the statement said.
Source: CNA
Publish Date: December 19, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
San Jose, Calif. - Legal charges are pending against a male Planned Parenthood escort who struck pro-life activist Lila Rose on the hands on Thursday outside an abortion clinic. She warned that the surprising attack should not help create a "double standard" that hinders clinic protesters' free speech rights.
Rose, the president of Live Action Films who has led undercover investigations into the abortion provider, was not injured in the attack.
She was on a public sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Jose, California with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to alternatives to abortion, a statement from Live Action says.
Shortly before noon on Thursday, she interacted with a uniformed male Planned Parenthood escort.
According to Rose, she spoke to the escort from the public sidewalk and asked him if he was familiar with the abortion procedure.
The escort then approached her rapidly from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, "You idiot. You've caused so much trouble. You piece of crap."
Rose asked if she could show him a picture of what abortion "really does to a baby." The escort then struck Rose on the hand, knocking literature and a Bible to the ground.
According to Live Action Films, the police report said Rose stepped further back on the sidewalk and the escort stepped toward her.
He was visibly shaking and said "It's a woman's choice!"
To this, Rose responded "What about the baby's choice?"
The escort said "It's not a baby!" and turned and walked away.
Police were called and interviewed Rose and several witnesses. She suffered no injuries in the attack, but charges of assault and battery are pending.
In a Friday e-mail Rose told CNA that she was "very surprised" at what happened. She said the escort appeared to recognize her, which has not happened before at a clinic.
"Unborn children face much, much worse...they are violently denied their very lives, and they are totally defenseless," she added.
Rose emphasized that pro-lifers have the right to free speech on public sidewalks.
"If this right is infringed upon by threatening physical contact, the law must intervene and the guilty party must accept the consequences."
Saying that pro-life sidewalk counselors are subjected to "the most rigorous scrutiny," she warned that a double standard could be created if threatening physical contact against sidewalk counselors is allowed.
Rose also reported "good news": a woman who thought she was pregnant and was considering abortion turned around. One of the parents and their daughter at the clinic then drove the woman and her friend to a crisis pregnancy center.
She told CNA that her organization has not heard anything from Planned Parenthood.
Live Action in a statement said it maintains a "strong commitment to non-violent public discourse."
"We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort's attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence," the statement said.
Source: CNA
Publish Date: December 19, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Rejected By Rotary
Rejected By Rotary
KCCI (a CBS Affiliate in Des Moines) reported yesterday about a woman whose application was rejected by Rotary. They report:
A Des Moines woman rejected for membership by the local chapter of the Rotary Club said Friday that she believes it's because she works at Planned Parenthood.
Susy Robinette said she has spent a lot of time looking for answers in the prospective member packet that she received from the Rotary Club of Des Moines this fall.
The Des Moines Rotary Club is one of the 50 largest in the world with 334 members. It recently rejected Robinette's application to become a member.
"I kept reading through here. Is there something here I'm missing, but no," said Robinette.
Robinette is a former television news director and anchor who now is Chief Development Officer for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
Apparently just 11 members need to object to an application for membership in order to turn them down.
What do you think is this fair? There is a right to association that is present and a person's occupation/position on abortion is not a protected class so she certainly doesn't have legal recourse. She also may be making an assumption it is due to her employment with Planned Parenthood. She also says she's disappointed and embarrassed… so she runs to KCCI? What does that say about her?
Contact: Shane Vander Hart
Source: Caffinated Thoughts
Publish Date: December 19, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
KCCI (a CBS Affiliate in Des Moines) reported yesterday about a woman whose application was rejected by Rotary. They report:
A Des Moines woman rejected for membership by the local chapter of the Rotary Club said Friday that she believes it's because she works at Planned Parenthood.
Susy Robinette said she has spent a lot of time looking for answers in the prospective member packet that she received from the Rotary Club of Des Moines this fall.
The Des Moines Rotary Club is one of the 50 largest in the world with 334 members. It recently rejected Robinette's application to become a member.
"I kept reading through here. Is there something here I'm missing, but no," said Robinette.
Robinette is a former television news director and anchor who now is Chief Development Officer for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
Apparently just 11 members need to object to an application for membership in order to turn them down.
What do you think is this fair? There is a right to association that is present and a person's occupation/position on abortion is not a protected class so she certainly doesn't have legal recourse. She also may be making an assumption it is due to her employment with Planned Parenthood. She also says she's disappointed and embarrassed… so she runs to KCCI? What does that say about her?
Contact: Shane Vander Hart
Source: Caffinated Thoughts
Publish Date: December 19, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
One-child global policy proposed
One-child global policy proposed
WASHINGTON -Worldwide adoption of China's population-control policy, which is marked by forced abortion and sterilization, is the answer to environmental problems, a Canadian writer says.
"A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently.... The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate," National Post editor-at-large Diane Francis wrote Dec. 8.
"Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict."
The world's leaders, meeting at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, are failing to address the problem by proposing "giant wind farms" and "cap-and-trade subsidies," Francis said.
"None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed," she wrote.
That's incredible, a pro-life bioethics specialist reacted.
"Can you believe it? China -- an unmitigated tyranny -- has become, among the hysterics like ... this writer, the country with policies worth emulating!" Wesley Smith wrote on his weblog Dec. 10. "Not one word decrying the terrible human rights violations of imposed abortion, female infanticide and China's explicitly eugenics policies.
"And yet, we are told the global warming agenda is so progressive, so humane," Smith said. "Anyone who doesn't see the potential that global warming could become the pretext for destroying human freedom and imposing death culture policies just isn't paying attention."
China has enforced population control on its people since 1979. Its policy limits couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. Parents in cities may have second babies if the husband and wife are both only children.
Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported.
The policy's severity has forced China's fertility rate (1.75 live births per woman) lower than replacement level, meaning its numbers are in a steep drop. Exclusive of immigration, 2.1 births per woman is the fertility level that ensures a non-declining population.
Importantly, the low birth rate means an age and gender crisis loom for China within the next two decades.
The most recent Chinese population survey indicates there are 120 males for every 100 females. The typical human population ratio would consist of 105 males to 100 females, meaning -- by Chinese government estimates -- that by the year 2020 there will be 24 million more men than women. The result will be dim marriage prospects, contributing even more to the lack of childbirths.
The dearth of children also means China eventually will lose its comparative labor advantage to competing countries such as India and Bangladesh. Population projections show that by 2030, India will become the world's most populous country, with 1.53 billion citizens compared to China's 1.45 billion. On top of that, China's shrinking working-age population will have to shoulder an increasing workload (financial and otherwise) of caring for a massively elderly population.
Chinese demographers also predict that in 2025 there will be a generation of only children in China. These children will have no siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins resulting in a social phenomenon of familial aloneness not seen on this scale.
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 18, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
WASHINGTON -Worldwide adoption of China's population-control policy, which is marked by forced abortion and sterilization, is the answer to environmental problems, a Canadian writer says.
"A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently.... The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate," National Post editor-at-large Diane Francis wrote Dec. 8.
"Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict."
The world's leaders, meeting at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, are failing to address the problem by proposing "giant wind farms" and "cap-and-trade subsidies," Francis said.
"None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed," she wrote.
That's incredible, a pro-life bioethics specialist reacted.
"Can you believe it? China -- an unmitigated tyranny -- has become, among the hysterics like ... this writer, the country with policies worth emulating!" Wesley Smith wrote on his weblog Dec. 10. "Not one word decrying the terrible human rights violations of imposed abortion, female infanticide and China's explicitly eugenics policies.
"And yet, we are told the global warming agenda is so progressive, so humane," Smith said. "Anyone who doesn't see the potential that global warming could become the pretext for destroying human freedom and imposing death culture policies just isn't paying attention."
China has enforced population control on its people since 1979. Its policy limits couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. Parents in cities may have second babies if the husband and wife are both only children.
Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported.
The policy's severity has forced China's fertility rate (1.75 live births per woman) lower than replacement level, meaning its numbers are in a steep drop. Exclusive of immigration, 2.1 births per woman is the fertility level that ensures a non-declining population.
Importantly, the low birth rate means an age and gender crisis loom for China within the next two decades.
The most recent Chinese population survey indicates there are 120 males for every 100 females. The typical human population ratio would consist of 105 males to 100 females, meaning -- by Chinese government estimates -- that by the year 2020 there will be 24 million more men than women. The result will be dim marriage prospects, contributing even more to the lack of childbirths.
The dearth of children also means China eventually will lose its comparative labor advantage to competing countries such as India and Bangladesh. Population projections show that by 2030, India will become the world's most populous country, with 1.53 billion citizens compared to China's 1.45 billion. On top of that, China's shrinking working-age population will have to shoulder an increasing workload (financial and otherwise) of caring for a massively elderly population.
Chinese demographers also predict that in 2025 there will be a generation of only children in China. These children will have no siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins resulting in a social phenomenon of familial aloneness not seen on this scale.
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 18, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion Healthcare Bill is Unacceptable and Unconstitutional
Abortion Healthcare Bill is Unacceptable and Unconstitutional
If passed, the Liberty Counsel is ready to bring it court
WASHINGTON, - Liberty Counsel opposes the current Senate healthcare bill because it still funds abortion. If the bill becomes law, Liberty Counsel is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide coverage up to the standards required in the bill.
On Saturday, Senate President Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a 383-page so-called "Manager's Amendment" to his 2,074-page pending bill (H.R. 3590). Amendment 3276 requires that the federal government violate the principles of the Hyde Amendment by funding abortion. The funding goes through a complicated bookkeeping scheme similar to the Camps-Waxman accounting scheme which the House rejected when it adopted the Stupak-Pitts amendment on November 7.
Unfortunately, it appears that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) succumbed to the Chicago-style politics of "pay-to-play" when he compromised his opposition to abortion funding after negotiating a deal for his home state of Nebraska to receive full federal funding to expand Medicaid insurance for the poor. The other 49 states have to split the costs of Medicaid with the federal government. The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on Saturday opposing the bill because of its coverage for abortion and because it does not permit those who oppose abortion to opt-out from the federally subsidized plan.
On Sunday the Congressional Budget Office Director admitted that the prior cost figures on the bill were inaccurate, stating to Sen. Reid: "The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them."
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, released this statement on the Senate bill: "It is unconscionable that Senator Harry Reid would push forward a bill in the middle of the night that no one has had the time to read and that he would force the Senate to work up to the evening hours on Christmas Eve. While the world celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, Senator Reid is holding every Senator hostage in order to pressure them into submission so that he can force every American to fund abortion. The spirit of the Roman Emperor Herod who killed every baby boy two years old and under in order to preserve his political dynasty still lives in the halls of Congress. This shameful farce is not about healthcare. It is about politics. It is not about the well-being of the American people. It is about scoring a political victory. In the end, this power-play will be the undoing of every person who votes for the abortion bill." Staver concluded: "This bill is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the authority to require every person to carry insurance coverage and is without authority to fine employers whose policies do not provide the coverage mandated by the legislation."
Source: Liberty Counsel
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
If passed, the Liberty Counsel is ready to bring it court
WASHINGTON, - Liberty Counsel opposes the current Senate healthcare bill because it still funds abortion. If the bill becomes law, Liberty Counsel is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide coverage up to the standards required in the bill.
On Saturday, Senate President Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a 383-page so-called "Manager's Amendment" to his 2,074-page pending bill (H.R. 3590). Amendment 3276 requires that the federal government violate the principles of the Hyde Amendment by funding abortion. The funding goes through a complicated bookkeeping scheme similar to the Camps-Waxman accounting scheme which the House rejected when it adopted the Stupak-Pitts amendment on November 7.
Unfortunately, it appears that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) succumbed to the Chicago-style politics of "pay-to-play" when he compromised his opposition to abortion funding after negotiating a deal for his home state of Nebraska to receive full federal funding to expand Medicaid insurance for the poor. The other 49 states have to split the costs of Medicaid with the federal government. The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on Saturday opposing the bill because of its coverage for abortion and because it does not permit those who oppose abortion to opt-out from the federally subsidized plan.
On Sunday the Congressional Budget Office Director admitted that the prior cost figures on the bill were inaccurate, stating to Sen. Reid: "The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them."
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, released this statement on the Senate bill: "It is unconscionable that Senator Harry Reid would push forward a bill in the middle of the night that no one has had the time to read and that he would force the Senate to work up to the evening hours on Christmas Eve. While the world celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, Senator Reid is holding every Senator hostage in order to pressure them into submission so that he can force every American to fund abortion. The spirit of the Roman Emperor Herod who killed every baby boy two years old and under in order to preserve his political dynasty still lives in the halls of Congress. This shameful farce is not about healthcare. It is about politics. It is not about the well-being of the American people. It is about scoring a political victory. In the end, this power-play will be the undoing of every person who votes for the abortion bill." Staver concluded: "This bill is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the authority to require every person to carry insurance coverage and is without authority to fine employers whose policies do not provide the coverage mandated by the legislation."
Source: Liberty Counsel
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
How well do we Support Teen Girls Deciding Against Abortion?
One of the great contributions to social advocacy in this region is the biennial publication of "Children of Metropolitan St. Louis," a report that presents telling data on how children are faring in this region. The report's ninth edition recently was released by Vision for Children at Risk — a leading child advocacy organization. It found that more than 22 percent of the region's approximately 535,000 children live in ZIP codes "where risks to their well-being are severe." The gap between "have" and "have not" is growing, and the disparities resulting from that gap "disproportionately affect the area's minority population."
Click here for the full article.
Oklahoma Judge Extends Restraining Order on Abortion Regulation
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma County judge has scheduled a Feb. 19 hearing on a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a new abortion law. District Judge Daniel Owens on Friday extended a temporary restraining order that blocks enforcement of the measure, which would, among other things, require doctors to report personal information about women who seek abortions and for the information to be posted on a public Web site. The measure was set to go into effect Nov. 1. In the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights argues that House Bill 1595 violates the single-subject rule of the Oklahoma constitution. The group successfully challenged another Oklahoma abortion law last year on the same grounds.
Click here for the full article.
Aurora Police Investigating Gun Incident Outside Planned Parenthood
Did an off-duty Chicago police officer flash his badge - or a gun - at a protester Wednesday outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora? Police say the 41-year-old officer and his 31-year-old female companion were parked near the facility, 3051 E. New York St., about 9:15 a.m. when they were met by 31-year-old Naperville resident Rachelle Crile, a "counselor" for the Pro-Life Action League, a group that tries to offer alternatives to women considering abortions. The group tried to stop the clinic from opening a few years ago and often pickets there.
Click here for the full article.
Down syndrome advocates will March for Life again in 2010
Families of children with Down syndrome will walk together for the 2nd year in a row at the March for Life in D.C. on January 22, 2010.
KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) was formed by Eileen Haupt and Leticia Velasquez, parents of children with DS, for the purpose of gathering families to walk together in the March for Life, raise awareness of the tragically high abortion rate of DS babies, and to share the joys that their children bring into their lives....
Click here for the full article.
Stop Seeking Abortion Compromise; Oppose Entire Health Care Bill
"Stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo"
WASHINGTON - Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, issued the following statement upon hearing news Sen. Bob Casey is set to introduce "compromise" legislation on abortion as part of the Senate health care reform bill: "We call on the leaders of the pro-life movement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic members of Congress to stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo, which treats human beings as property; to stand firm against band-aid compromises; and to oppose the entire deplorable health care reform bill. "We must not forget this health care reform bill denies justice to all and abrogates the rights of human beings to function with government in a supporting role. Instead, this bill perverts the role of government by making it dictatorial, arbitrary and empowered to end the lives of innocent human beings as a cost-saving measure.
Click here for the full article.
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
How well do we Support Teen Girls Deciding Against Abortion?
One of the great contributions to social advocacy in this region is the biennial publication of "Children of Metropolitan St. Louis," a report that presents telling data on how children are faring in this region. The report's ninth edition recently was released by Vision for Children at Risk — a leading child advocacy organization. It found that more than 22 percent of the region's approximately 535,000 children live in ZIP codes "where risks to their well-being are severe." The gap between "have" and "have not" is growing, and the disparities resulting from that gap "disproportionately affect the area's minority population."
Click here for the full article.
Oklahoma Judge Extends Restraining Order on Abortion Regulation
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma County judge has scheduled a Feb. 19 hearing on a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a new abortion law. District Judge Daniel Owens on Friday extended a temporary restraining order that blocks enforcement of the measure, which would, among other things, require doctors to report personal information about women who seek abortions and for the information to be posted on a public Web site. The measure was set to go into effect Nov. 1. In the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights argues that House Bill 1595 violates the single-subject rule of the Oklahoma constitution. The group successfully challenged another Oklahoma abortion law last year on the same grounds.
Click here for the full article.
Aurora Police Investigating Gun Incident Outside Planned Parenthood
Did an off-duty Chicago police officer flash his badge - or a gun - at a protester Wednesday outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora? Police say the 41-year-old officer and his 31-year-old female companion were parked near the facility, 3051 E. New York St., about 9:15 a.m. when they were met by 31-year-old Naperville resident Rachelle Crile, a "counselor" for the Pro-Life Action League, a group that tries to offer alternatives to women considering abortions. The group tried to stop the clinic from opening a few years ago and often pickets there.
Click here for the full article.
Down syndrome advocates will March for Life again in 2010
Families of children with Down syndrome will walk together for the 2nd year in a row at the March for Life in D.C. on January 22, 2010.
KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) was formed by Eileen Haupt and Leticia Velasquez, parents of children with DS, for the purpose of gathering families to walk together in the March for Life, raise awareness of the tragically high abortion rate of DS babies, and to share the joys that their children bring into their lives....
Click here for the full article.
Stop Seeking Abortion Compromise; Oppose Entire Health Care Bill
"Stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo"
WASHINGTON - Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, issued the following statement upon hearing news Sen. Bob Casey is set to introduce "compromise" legislation on abortion as part of the Senate health care reform bill: "We call on the leaders of the pro-life movement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic members of Congress to stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo, which treats human beings as property; to stand firm against band-aid compromises; and to oppose the entire deplorable health care reform bill. "We must not forget this health care reform bill denies justice to all and abrogates the rights of human beings to function with government in a supporting role. Instead, this bill perverts the role of government by making it dictatorial, arbitrary and empowered to end the lives of innocent human beings as a cost-saving measure.
Click here for the full article.
December 18, 2009
A MERRY CHRISTMAS? SENATE EYES DEC. 24 VOTE ON HEALTH REFORM
The Senate is heading toward a Christmas Eve vote to pass landmark healthcare legislation, but instead of holiday cheer, Democrats and Republicans are digging in for trench warfare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is determined to finish work before the Christmas holiday and has set a schedule that would end with a final vote on the evening of Dec. 24. "We're going to finish this healthcare bill before we leave here for the holidays," Reid declared on the floor Thursday. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has told colleagues that he will not give any ground on procedural hurdles and is prepared to call Reid's bluff on a Christmas Eve vote, said a senior GOP aide. Some Republicans say they will also require Democrats to return to Washington the following week to approve an increase of the debt limit.
Click here for more on this story...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)