Obamacare: Supporters Too Touchy About Doctor's Protest Note
Oh, the howling. A doctor unhappy with the passage of Obamacare put up a note stating, "If you voted for Obama–seek urological care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now. Not in four years."
Some are outraged, including a demagogue Congressman who once said Republican House Members wanted patients to "die quickly." From the FNN story:
An outspoken U.S. congressman is planning to file a complaint against the central Florida urologist who posted a sign on his office door warning supporters of President Obama to find a different doctor.
A spokesman for Rep. Alan Grayson, who angered Republicans last year when he said they wanted sick Americans to "die quickly," told FoxNews.com that Florida Democrat is helping a constituent who was affected by the sign to file a complaint next week with the proper authorities. Grayson will also file additional complaints with all relevant boards or agencies, Grayson spokesman Todd Jurkowski said.
Now, if the doctor were really refusing to treat Obama voters, it would be outrageous. But, of course, he isn't. From the Orlando Sentinel story:
Cassell told the Orlando Sentinel that he has not refused to treat any patient for his or her political views and does not quiz patients about their politics, but he also does not plan to take the sign down. "I have plenty of Obama supporters in my patient base and we have a lot of political discussions. I'm not cutting anybody out of their care. I'm not refusing care on the basis of their political beliefs," he reiterated in an exchange with Cavuto. "I hope that more and more Obama supporters come through to find out what all the fuss is about because I think we have to do something about this."
Seems like just a little exercise in the old First Amendment to me. Those who are screaming and yelling merely gave the doctor's modest individual advocacy a big boost. They should have ignored it. By making a federal case out of the note, they just keep Obamacare in the news, and elevate a physician as a key opponent–neither of which is likely to help POTUS's or the law's already poor poll numbers.
Of course, the real problem with Obamacare will not be doctors writing politically provocative notes. Unless we walk back substantial parts of the new law, it might not just be protest signs on office doors but doctors voting with their feet and either getting out of medicine altogether or transforming to a purely non insurance fee for service practice–the kind of thing we have begun to see already with Medicare and Medicaid.
Contact: Wesley Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: April 3, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
Breast-Feeding Would Save Lives and Money, Study Says
The lives of nearly 900 babies would be saved each year, along with billions of dollars, if 90 percent of U.S. women breast-fed their babies for the first six months of life, a cost analysis says.
Those startling results, published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are only an estimate. But several experts who reviewed the analysis said the methods and conclusions seem sound.
Click here for the entire article.
Yes, Indeed, There Is a "Death Panel"
During the debate over the recently enacted health care legislation, media elites and other partisans of unlimited government lambasted critics who insisted that the measure would lead to rationing by way of a federal “death panel.”
At least some of those who took up that derisive chorus are now extolling the same death panel – the Independent Medicare Advisory Board – for its supposed cost-saving benefits.
New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman is enchanted with the Advisory Board, which he says “has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular treatment doesn’t do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save a lot of money.”
Click here for the entire article.
Allen County Indiana OKs Ordinance On Out-Of-Town Abortionists
Despite objections from Planned Parenthood of Indiana, the three Allen County Commissioners on Friday unanimously approved an ordinance that will require out-of-town providers of abortion and other medical services to assure patients can receive followup care in case of complications. As first introduced in 2008 by Commissioner Nelson Peters, the bill would have required doctors performing certain procedures outside hospitals to have admitting privileges at area hospitals. As passed, however, the ordinance requires so-called "itinerant" medical providers to provide the Fort Wayne-Allen County Department of Health, hospitals and others with information on how to contact them or another doctor in case of emergency. The law applies to doctors lacking privileges at area hospitals who live outside Allen County, and failure to comply could result in closure of the facility, a $1,000 fine, or both.
Click here for the entire article.
Tennessee Legislature: Abortionists Must Warn Clients against Coerced Abortion
Overwhelming majorities in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly have passed a law requiring abortionists to post signs in their clinics informing women that it is against the law for anyone to coerce them into having an abortion. The law also applies stiff penalties to abortion facilities that fail to post the signs.
The newly-passed Freedom from Coercion Act, SB 3812, requires abortion facilities to post a sign in large 40 pt. Arial font in their waiting room with the words: "Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of the person's relationship to you, to coerce you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will. You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened criminal offense to coerce an abortion."
Click here for the entire article.
USCCB: Abortion Executive Order Meaningless
A detailed legal analysis from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops of the health care bill has reinforced the bishops' conclusion that the Executive Order that Rep. Stupak obtained in exchange for his vote does little to nothing to solve the abortion-related problems in the bill.
The USCCB memo concludes that “the Executive Order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs (Community Health Centers), and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions; it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute; and it does not strengthen the conscience protections that are there, though it could have in certain limited ways.”
It also points out that, “Where the Order purports to fix a shortcoming of the Act in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the Order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix those shortcomings.”
Click here for the entire article.
Kenyan Parliament Approves Pro-Abortion Constitution
The Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues expressed its deep regret that today, the Kenyan Parliament passed a Draft Constitution which will enshrine a right to abortion in the highest law of the land. The constitution does not contain any meaningful restrictions on abortion, despite recognition of the right to life from conception. Section 26 contains language which allows abortion when in the "opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law."
This is a reversal of previous law on abortion - which required the opinion of two medical doctors who agreed an abortion was necessary for the life of the mother- and will open the door to abortion on demand.
Abortion is also advanced in Article 43 of the Draft which states: (1) Every person has the right- (a) to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care...
Click here for the entire article.
U.S. Study Finds Doctors May Be Euthanizing Dying Children at Parents' Request
A study published in the March edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggests that a few physicians may have killed children who were very sick by giving them fatal morphine doses, after the parents had requested euthanasia.
Dr. Joanne Wolfe, a palliative pain specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston, interviewed 141 parents of children who died of cancer in order to explore the parents' motivation in considering and enquiring about hastening their child's death.
The study found that 19 of the 141 parents, or 13 percent, said they had considered asking about ending their child's life, and 13 parents reported having discussed intentionally ending their child's life. Parents of five children said they had explicitly asked a clinician for medications to end the child's life, and parents of three said it had been carried out with an overdose of morphine.
Dr. Wolfe wrote that the objective of the study was "to estimate the frequency of hastening death discussions, describe current parental endorsement of hastening death and intensive symptom management, and explore whether children's pain influences these views in a sample of parents whose child died of cancer."
"With two US states now allowing legalized physician-assisted suicide," continued Dr. Wolfe, "these discussions may become more frequent. Attitudes toward hastening death in noninfant children with life-threatening conditions have seldom been described."
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he is seriously concerned by the finding of the study that medical professionals may have been willing to break the law and cause the death of a child in response to the request of parents.
"The fact is that if euthanasia of children were legal, such as it is in the Netherlands, there would be little to no protection for these children," Schadenberg said.
"Thankfully the actual number of children who were allegedly euthanized is small. The fact is that these children required excellent care, not death."
Dr. Wolfe observed that the child's experience of pain affects hastening death (HD) considerations by the parents, but many are not given adequate information about the legal options for pain relief, which can include sedating children into unconsciousness.
"Several studies indicate that both caregivers and physicians tend to confuse the unintended adverse effects of intensive symptom management with the intentional hastening of death. In our sample, the 3 families who reported intentionally hastening their child's death described doing so using morphine, which raises the question of whether they had misinterpreted the physicians' intentions. In fact, evidence indicates that opioids can be used safely at the end of life and that their effect on survival, if any, is negligible."
"Our results suggest that more than 1 of every 8 parents report considering HD during their child's illness, and they tended to do so if their child was in pain. In the context of an HD discussion, identifying sources of suffering and clearly explaining effective and legal options, including proportionately intensive symptom management, may ease parents' considerations of hastening their child's death," the report concluded.
Click here for the full text of the study, titled "Considerations About Hastening Death Among Parents of Children Who Die of Cancer".
Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 31, 201
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Mississippi Personhood Amendment Officially on 2011 Ballot
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann has notified Personhood Mississippi that enough valid voter signatures have been certified to ensure a spot on the November 2011 ballot.
The Mississippi Personhood Amendment states "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
"The Legislature of the State of Mississippi has passed just about every restriction on abortion that can be passed. Still, about 3,000 preborn persons are murdered annually here. The churches and pro-life people of Mississippi are rising up to stop this slaughter, to recognize children as innocent persons, and to protect them by love and by law. We believe that the Mississippi Personhood Amendment will be voted into the Constitution, and defended," commented Les Riley, sponsor of the Personhood amendment.
On February 16, the citizen-led grassroots organization Personhood Mississippi submitted over 130,000 signatures, affirming the personhood rights of preborn babies in Mississippi. The Personhood Amendment is the fourth ballot initiative since 1992 to be placed on the State Ballot. This was the first all citizen grassroots led effort to make the ballot in State history.
"Glory to God! Mississippi has become the first state in the South to attempt to end baby-murder by recognizing the personhood of preborn children and protecting them," added Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA.
Contact: Les Riley Source: Personhood Mississippi
Publish Date: April 1, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Planned Parenthood deepens link to breast-cancer group
The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had noble beginnings, launched by Nancy Goodman Brinker in response to a promise she made to her dying sister, Susan Goodman Komen, to do all she could to eradicate breast cancer. Komen succumbed to the disease in 1980 at age 36. Nancy went on to contract the disease herself and is now a survivor.
SGK has a noble mission, "to save lives and end breast cancer forever."
But for years pro-lifers have opposed contributing to SGK because it not only denies that induced abortions may cause breast cancer, it also bestows financial grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Pro-lifers believe that for all the good SGK does, it shoots its mission in both feet by refusing to educate women about the abortion-breast cancer link while funding the United States' largest abortion provider.
Disregarding decades of worldwide studies concluding there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, logic alone says abortion increases the risk.
On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.
But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.
Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.
But abortion blocks that protection.
SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.
And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.
Logic.
It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion's role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission "to save lives and end breast cancer forever."
That would include SGK's relationship with Planned Parenthood.
But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK.
SGK now has a webpage dedicated to defending its involvement with Planned Parenthood, including message points and a letter from a "pro-life Catholic."
Most recently added to the webpage, in March, was an open letter from SGK's chief scientific adviser quoting two Catholic ethicists who "concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood ... specifically and solely for breast health services. ..."
SGK maintains there are certain places in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the sole provider of breast-cancer screening, education and treatment.
I don't believe it, but that is SGK's defense. Even if so, is it really "morally permissible" to cause breast cancer in one room if screening for it in the next?
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest's IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington's largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)
Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.
Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK's board.
Eric was a stand-up guy and responded to most of my initial questions. He explained in an e-mail, "This share represents a minority, non-operating interest in the business which they inherited from one of the original shareholders, a resident of Peoria. I, Eric Brinker, have controlling interest in Metro Centre."
But when I pursued follow-up questions, Eric wrote he was no longer available.
So there is much still unanswered. Why didn't PPGNW cash in its inheritance? Why didn't Eric buy? If the share was willed, it was worth something. The real-estate market was thriving in 2006. It appears both partners are OK with this now four-year-old business partnership.
Eric wrote in his e-mail only "20 of Komen's 122 U.S. Affiliates fund breast-health services through local Planned Parenthood clinics." SGK states the total money given represents "less than one percent of the total granted by affiliates."
My question then is why bother? Why play with fire?
Whatever, the fact remains that the son of the founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, who is also a member of the board, owns a business – a mall – together with a Planned Parenthood affiliate.
The irony. Susan G. Komen's nephew is financially enabling an abortion business.
And condemning more women to develop breast cancer.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: March 31, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Four Michigan Pro-Lifers File Federal Lawsuit Saying Health-Care Bill Makes Them Complicit in 'Grave Moral Disorder' of Abortion
Four pro-life Michigan residents have thrown yet another constitutional challenge onto the pile of claims that have emerged since legal wrangling over the health-care reform law began last week.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit last week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, saying their First Amendment rights are being violated because, under the new law, they will be obliged to buy insurance that funds abortions, and that special tax carve-outs for union members discriminate against others for not sharing the same political beliefs.
The lawsuit alleges that the pro-lifers are being forced to contribute to the funding of abortion, which, according to their deeply held religious beliefs and convictions, "is a grave moral disorder since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being," the complaint reads.
Robert Muise, senior trial counsel for the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal group, said the Health Care Reform Act violates the fundamental rights of conscience and free exercise of religion of pro-lifers -- rights protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, which bars Congress from creating any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of a particular religion.
In order to secure the votes of a number of pro-life House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), President Obama signed an executive order last week clarifying that no provision in the bill should allow for tax dollars to be used on abortions. He clarified that the language of the Hyde Amendment, which is attached to appropriations bills to keep tax dollars from funding abortions, should also apply to this bill.
However, both pro-life advocates and abortion advocates point out that a presidential order cannot override a statute and that President Obama could at any time rescind his order – which the president of Planned Parenthood referred to as nothing more than a "symbolic gesture."
Muise explained to CNSNews.com that his plaintiffs shared that his clients share the view that the language of the health-care bill was "written expressly to circumvent Hyde" – a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion under most circumstances.
The four plaintiffs are unhappy with more than just the potential to pay for abortions; they say they are also not receiving equal protection under the law per the Fifth Amendment.
In the complaint, Muise points out that the law provides exemptions to religious groups who oppose some of the trappings of modern health care, but offers no such exemption for their abortion concern.
Additionally, they say they were denied equal protection when congressional leadership allegedly modified tax provisions in the bill to keep union members from being hit with them.
"Through the enforcement of the Health Care Reform Act, certain organizations, specifically including certain unions, will not be taxed on their health care plans because these because these organizations share the same political views of Defendants and of those currently in power in Congress. TMLC, which does not share these same political views, will be discriminated against in the enforcement of the Health Care Reform Act in that its employees will be taxed for the health care coverage provided by TMLC."
The Senate-passed health care reform bill contained a steep excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" or high-value insurance plans, but the House of Representatives reportedly disliked it because it would hit many union members whose organizations had bargained for better benefits instead of increased wages. After passing the bill, they passed a package of fixes that shrank the number of plans that would be charged by the surtax.
Those issues add to a growing number of constitutional challenges.
More than a dozen state attorneys general have filed suit claiming that the health care reform bill oversteps the enumerated powers of the federal government and encroaches on the states. This suit and others also say the bill oversteps the Article I power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause; and another suit brought in federal district for the District of Columbia that says the law violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing people to pay for medical insurance for the public good, without remittance.
Muise told CNSNews.com he had not seen a bill with so many potential violations of constitutional rights and protections.
"They worked really hard on this one," he said. "They say an ass is a horse made by committee. This is worse than that. It's just a power grab."
CNSNews.com previously reported that, when asked about the constitutionality of the bill, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said the courts could determine those issues later. "(I) can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in," she said just two days before the bill passed the Senate.
Muise, however, took issue with that stance, explaining that as a Marine, he took an oath to defend the Constitution, as did members of Congress.
"If you put something in there knowingly that was unconstitutional," he said, "I would have a real problem with that."
The suit, which was filed March 23 in federal district court in Detroit, names President Obama, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as defendants.
Contact: Christopher Neefus Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: April 01, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Clock ticking for woman in coma
For the time being, a West Virginia hospital won't be permitted to stop life-saving treatment of a woman in its care.
Forty-year-old Rebecca Bennett is on dialysis and in a coma due to complications from diabetes, and Ruby Memorial Hospital previously informed family members that treatment would end March 27 against their wishes. Jeremiah Dys, general counsel for the Family Policy Council of West Virginia and an affiliated attorney with Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), took the case to court.
"What we've done is to allow the family of Becky Bennett to have more time to exhaust all possible remedies for her care," Dys explains. "The focus here, of course, is that the decision as to what type of medical treatment Becky should receive ought to be made by the family and not by the hospital."
The hospital has agreed to continue treatment until April 9, giving the family time to find another facility to care for Bennett. But despite this situation, the ADF attorney reports that the West Virginia law does not need to be clarified.
"The state law is abundantly clear on this," he assures. "The decision for medical intervention does not belong to the hospital; it belongs to the legal surrogate for the patient, and in this case, that is the daughter of Becky Bennett, Sierra Kisner."
The clock is ticking for the family to find another hospital to take over. The problem is that the family has no money and no insurance.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: April 1, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion protest set at Aurora clinic following settlement with city
Good Friday rally planned at Planned Parenthood facility
Since the clinic opened in October 2007, Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood has held daily protests and prayer vigils outside the brick facility on East New York Street, one of Planned Parenthood's largest clinics in the nation.
After several heated confrontations with Aurora police and city officials, anti- abortion groups filed a lawsuit two years ago against the city charging that their First Amendment rights were being violated. The groups alleged police and other city officials were restricting how and where they could conduct their protests.
Last week, the city reached a settlement with the abortion opponents that recognized their right to protest while setting guidelines for demonstrations and use of graphic abortion photos.
Click here for the entire article.
Off-duty Ventura cop who hosed an abortion protester will not face charges
No charges will be filed against a Ventura police officer accused of spraying an abortion protester with water during an off-duty confrontation outside his church, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office announced today.
Cpl. Jon Hixson, 46, was cited on suspicion of battery after his fellow officers responded to a disturbance Sunday morning on a sidewalk outside First Assembly of God Church, 346 N. Kimball Road, police said. Hixson, a Santa Paula resident, is a parishioner at the church.
In a prepared statement, the District Attorney's Office said the Ventura Police Department presented evidence that Hixson sprayed Todd Bullis of Ventura with water from a garden hose and spray bottles. Bullis is an anti-abortion activist who was protesting with several others in front of the church.
"While the spraying of water constituted a technical battery, no significant harm was done, and prosecution of a battery charge would not be a responsible use of public resources," the district attorney said. Click here for the video of the event.
Click here for the entire article.
Tenn. Senate OKs abortion anti-coercion signs
Wednesday, the House approved the companion bill 87-8 -- a measure that would require abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs. Lawmakers must now work out differences before the measure heads to the governor for his consideration. Any type of coercion to have an abortion is prohibited under current law. But sponsors said some women may not know that and the sign simply spells out what's in the law. The legislation would require clinics to conspicuously post signs that would read in part: "It is against the law for anyone, regardless of the person's relationship to you, to coerce you into having or to force you to have an abortion." Facilities that don't comply could be fined as much as $2,500.
Click here for the entire article.
Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman
A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers did not employ excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a visibly pregnant woman for refusing to sign a speeding ticket.
The lawyer representing Malaika Brooks said Monday that the court's 2-1 decision sanctioned "pain compliance" tactics through a modern-day version of the cattle prod.
"To inflict pain on a person if that person is not doing what the police want that person to do is simply outrageous," said Eric Zubel, the woman's attorney. "I cannot say that loud enough."
Click here for the entire article.
Planned Parenthood: Helper or deadly solution?
A new Planned Parenthood abortion facility is under construction in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Olivia Gans of the Virginia Society for Human Life (VSHL) suspects Planned Parenthood is again "spreading their really tragic remedies for very real problems that many women in the state are facing in dealing with an untimely pregnancy."
"It saddens us at VSHL to see Planned Parenthood launching itself in another region of the state as some kind of a real helper for women, when in fact all they offer are deadly solutions," she comments.
Click here for the entire article.
Pro-life Democrat sees flaws in executive order, urges further action
![]( "Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) remarked today that the new health care bill is")
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) remarked today that the new health care bill is "a major step in the wrong direction" in defending the unborn. Concerned that the executive order on abortion funding will likely be overturned by the courts, he reported that the order may undercut its own claims to apply Hyde language to the legislation.
He added that the bill's problems can be corrected before its changes go into effect in 2014 and should be fixed regardless of whether President Obama's executive order functions as promised.
Click here for the entire article.
Remembering Terri Schiavo
It's been five years since Terri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by court order in America. Some of us will never forget that terrible two-week period.
Terri was a medically-dependent young woman who had suffered severe brain damage in the early 90s. She might have recovered the facility of speech. She might have been able to use computers to indicate her thoughts and wishes—had she received the proper rehabilitation in time. But she didn't. Civil Rights advocate Bob Destro, a law professor at Catholic University, said the real story of Terri Schiavo was America's inability to come to grips—even today—with disability. "Our fears, prejudices, and lack of knowledge strongly influence the medical, legal, and, yes, political judgments we make."
Terri's fearless attorney, David Gibbs, has written the story of that lonely fight to save an unoffending woman's life. Fighting for Dear Life is his testament to that struggle. We still need to understand more about disability, Gibbs said, because these cases are not going away. Today, in Afghanistan and Iraq, many more young Americans are suffering traumatic brain injury due to IEDs. In previous wars, such wounded warriors might not have made it off the battlefield.
Gibbs laid out six principles we should have learned to uphold:
1. Food and water, even if administered by intra-venous tube feeding—are never extraordinary care.
2. No court should allow someone to die without something in writing on that person's wishes.
3. We need greater skill and safeguards in testing before a diagnosis of "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) is made.
4. A spouse who enters into "other relationships" should be disqualified from making life-ending decisions for his/her legal spouse.
5. Federal courts get to review all death sentences for convicted killers; no less should be granted to medically fragile persons.
6. Immediate family members should have standing in court to challenge hospitals or their "ethics committees" when a futile care judgment has been rendered.
FRC's Cathy Ruse, our senior legal analyst, pointed out that Terri's long and drawn out death was, in the words of Nat Hentoff, the "longest public execution in U.S. history." Terri was not dying. She had no disease. Her life was simply inconvenient to her husband, who had, as they say, "moved on." (He had also moved in. See point No. 4 above.) And, most appropriately in this Holy Week, Cathy pointed to those words of Jesus on the Cross: "I thirst."
Terri's brother, Bobby Schindler, spoke of the terrible toll on the Schindler family of their daughter's cruel death. Bobby is Terri's brother. He said their father's death was surely hastened by the trauma of not being able to protect his daughter in her agonizing death. Agonizing it was, too. The family was not allowed even to give her cracked ice.
Nor Holy Communion.
David Gibbs brought hopeful messages of heroes of that dark period. He praised President George W. Bush for rushing back to Washington to sign legislation that permitted the Terri Schiavo case to be heard in federal court. Gov. J.E.B. Bush also labored on the side of the angels in this case. David Gibbs gave kudos to the Congress of 2005 that passed emergency legislation to try to save Terri's civil rights.
There was one U.S. Senator at the time who agreed that Terri's case might at least be heard in federal court. That senator, a former constitutional law professor, acted in accord with ninety and nine others in that body. But he later said he wished he had not concurred in the Unanimous Consent decree. He said it was "the one thing he regretted" in his Senate career. That senator is now the President of the United States.
Terri's case is not forgotten. Each year on March 31st, there is a memorial Mass at Ave Maria University, in Florida. Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, was present as Terri was dying. He will celebrate the Mass.
Terri will also be remembered in my family. At that time, our daughter was dating a young man at Calvin College. She related to me his reaction to Terri's plight:
"I thought a husband was supposed to lay down his life for his wife." When that same young man, six months later, asked for our daughter's hand in marriage, I had no hesitation in saying yes. Would you?
Contact: Robert Morrison Source: FRCBlog
Publish Date: March 31, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Proves Pro-Life Movement Still on the Offensive
Recent victories for the pro-life movement in Illinois demonstrate that the movement is still alive and well, despite the lingering sting of the passage of national health care legislation including federal funding for abortions. The Pro-Life Action League is celebrating wins in Springfield and Chicago that indicate the pro-life cause will not be set back by "Obamacare;" rather, it makes it even more important for prayer warriors, sidewalk counselors, protesters and pro-life supporters to continue to fight for life inside and outside the Illinois border.
On Friday, new legislation passed in the Illinois House of Representatives without HB6205, the "Reproductive Health and Access Act" (RHAA) bill that would have made abortion a "fundamental right" in Illinois and required taxpayer funding of Medicaid abortions. A statewide pro-life campaign of prayer, calls, e-mails and visits with state reps convinced legislators to table the bill for the second year in a row, as it never came to the floor for a vote.
Yesterday (March 29th), a judge dismissed a case brought by the ACLU challenging the validity of Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Pro-lifers have fought to see the Act enforced since it was first signed into law in 1995. The law remains stayed while the ACLU appeals the ruling, but the Pro-Life Action League is hopeful teenage girls in Illinois will soon be legally protected from secret abortions.
"The fact that we are able to celebrate two recent victories in Illinois, even in the face of the national health care bill that passed last week, shows that the pro-life movement is gaining ground in Illinois," said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "We hope to use this renewed vigor to fight for the lives of the unborn and their mothers across the country and put an end to abortion in America."
Contact: Stephanie Lewis Source: Pro-Life Action League
Publish Date: March 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Physicians' Group Sues Sebelius Over Health-Care Reform Law
Just a week after the passage of the sweeping health-care reform bill, a physicians' association is suing to have the law overturned because the doctors believe it contains numerous violations of the U.S. Constitution.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue are named as the defendants in the lawsuit, which was brought to the federal district court in Washington, D.C., by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a group of physicians that believe they are already over regulated.
"If the (bill) goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it," said Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of AAPS. "Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients."
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which President Obama signed into law last week, will cover over 30 million uninsured Americans largely by expanding the reach of Medicaid and imposing an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. It is funded partly by a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare. AAPS has issues with all of the provisions.
In AAPS v. Sebelius, the physicians' group, which includes several conservative members of Congress who are doctors, said the health-care law violates "various restrictions on federal action" found in Article I of the Constitution, along with the Fifth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Medicare Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Specifically, the group would like the court to:
-- overturn the mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance "as outside the authority of Congress to enact and the federal government to enforce";
-- to declare the federal government's imposition of standards for qualifying plans as impermissible;
-- to declare the bill "unenforceable in its entirety" because it "cannot because funded without the insurance mandates";
-- and to order that Sebelius and Astrue "submit an accounting on the solvency of Medicare and Social Security," from which the government intends to use $500 billion and $50 billion respectively to fund the bill.
"The requested relief is necessary to preserve individual liberty and choice under Social Security, as well as to prevent the PPACA from bankrupting the United States generally and Medicare and Social Security specifically and from unconstitutionally denying individual (and state) liberty from ultra vires federal dictates," the group said in its complaint.
Ultra vires claims are any made outside the enumerated powers of a given entity, such as the Constitution.
AAPS, which Orient estimated to have over 5,000 members, is the first group to challenge the health-care bill on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, the last clause of which says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
AAPS legal counsel Lawrence J. Joseph, who submitted the complaint, explained that when the Secretary of Health and Human Services sets criteria that private insurers must meet, she is "spreading costs to private parties" by driving up the cost of premiums. The additional money that customers must pay, Joseph says, "represents a regulatory taking, without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
Orient concurred, asserting to CNSNews.com that stipulating no discrimination based on pre-existing conditions drives up premiums and takes private dollars for public use.
"If you allow people to buy insurance when they're already sick, just like if you got them to buy homeowner's insurance when their house is burning down, the premiums have to go up – and the community rating increases the premiums of all people who are at lower risk, especially the young and the healthy," she said. "They will be required to subsidize those who have an unhealthy lifestyle, those who are just older, those who have chronic diseases, and so they will not be able to buy insurance at a premium that matches the claims they're likely to make."
The Fifth Amendment argument joins a cavalcade of other constitutional grievances that also appear in this suit and are often invoked by conservatives. For one, the lawsuit challenges the notion that the Commerce Clause in Article I, which allows Congress to regulate interstate transactions, applies to the bill.
Congressional Democrats have relied upon it heavily to justify the bill's provisions, but the AAPS lawsuit claims that "Nothing in Article I or elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to require individual citizens, with no direct connection to or contract with the federal government, to purchase health insurance, and nothing in Article I or elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to set the acceptable terms of health insurance for individuals."
Additionally, the suit claims that the health-care reform bill violates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves the powers not enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government to lie with the states.
The congressional Democratic leadership, however, has disagreed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released a fact sheet in September arguing the constitutionality of the bill after many of her members received brutal welcomes from the seeds of the Tea Party in their home districts during the summer recess.
In it, the Speaker's Office takes the position that the Tenth Amendment cannot restrict the federal government's Commerce Clause powers, which it says they say are "essentially unlimited" in the health care realm.
"Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."
That kind of regulation, however, could have dire consequences for the health care industry, according to the president of AAPS, Dr. Orient.
"A huge number of decisions are being delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services concerning what's to be covered, what's to be paid for, practices guidelines, priorities to be set," she said. "(A) lot of small practices or solo physicians will be driven out of practice simply because they cannot afford to meet all of the bureaucratic requirements for documentation and recording and keeping track of thing. So, we're going to see a dramatic transformation in the way medicine is practiced."
Doctors will not be working for the good of their individual patients, she said, but rather they will be forced to be meeting the societal goals that are imposed by central planners."
The suit was filed March 26, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and will now await scheduling.
Orient said several members of Congress were among the ranks of the AAPS, including Reps. Dr. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), Dr. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Dr. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Dr. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.).
Contact: Christopher Neefus Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 31, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Hillary Clinton's Comments on 'Legal, Safe Abortion' Stir Canadian Debate
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waded into an explosive political debate in Canada Tuesday, with remarks on abortion certain to have embarrassed her hosts at the end of a two-day Group of Eight meeting.
After a disclaimer that she would not speak for Canada, Clinton proceeded to lay out a position in opposition to that taken by conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, linking maternal health promotion in poor countries to "access to legal, safe abortion."
Earlier this year, Harper announced that Canada would place the promotion of maternal and child health in the developing world at the center of its leadership of the G8.
The country holding the rotating presidency of the group of the world's leading industrialized nations customarily chooses a priority theme, which forms the basis of the agenda for the annual G8 summit. Canada hosts this year's event in Ontario's Muskoka district in late June.
Harper's announcement focused on needs such as clean water, inoculations, nutrition and the training of health care and maternity staff, but it quickly sparked a debate over whether the policy would, or should, include abortion and contraception.
The advocacy group Action Canada for Population and Development launched a campaign pressing for the G8 initiative to include "a commitment to sexual and reproductive health care and services and family planning."
On March 16, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon declared that the maternal and child health initiative "does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives."
His comments set off a storm of controversy, and Harper two days later conceded that the policy would not exclude contraception. But he said his Conservative Party government did not wish to open a debate on abortion.
The official opposition Liberal Party then introduced a parliamentary motion stating that Canada's G8 initiative "must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options." After a day-long debate, the motion was defeated 144-138, after three Liberals broke party ranks to vote with the government.
On Tuesday, at a press conference in Quebec after a meeting of G8 foreign ministers, Clinton was asked in the light of the "debate in Canada," whether she thought contraception and abortion should be included in the G8 maternal health care focus.
"I'm not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I've worked in this area for many years," she replied. "And if we're talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion."
The Toronto Star described the comment as a "grenade in the lap of her shell-shocked Canadian hosts."
Even the Liberal Party in its efforts to force the government's hand did not go as far as Clinton in referring directly to abortion, relying instead on veiled references.
In its defeated parliamentary motion, the Liberal Party did not use the word "abortion," but instead urged Ottawa not to emulate the Mexico City policy. Under the Reagan-era policy, known by critics as the "global gag rule," agencies receiving U.S. funding were required to certify that they were not carrying out or promoting abortion. The policy was rescinded by President Clinton in 1993, reinstated by President Bush immediately on taking office, and again rescinded by President Obama in the early days of his presidency.
(The motion said, "the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a 'global gag rule' that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.")
In her remarks Tuesday, Clinton also said she did not believe governments should be involved in citizens' family planning decisions. She cited China's "one child" policy as well as the promotion by Romanian authorities during the communist era of families of at least five children.
"It is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion or any other basis," she said. "But I've always believed that the government should not intervene in decisions of such intimacy."
'Real health care'
Harper's critics seized on Clinton's comments about "access to legal, safe abortion," saying they proved the prime minister was driven by ideology and was out of touch with G8 allies.
Attempts late Tuesday to get a response to Clinton's comments from a leading Canadian pro-life organization, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), were unsuccessful.
Last week, CLC national president Jim Hughes said Canadian opposition lawmakers seemed to be "obsessed with the view that the only help we can provide women for their babies is to prevent or eliminate them."
"Canadians want real health care for women in the developing world and oppose the use of health care terminology to force abortion and sterilization on those women," added CLC national organizer Mary Ellen Douglas.
"Our resources can make a difference to mothers who are desperate for care for themselves and their babies in countries where even the basic necessities are an unknown luxury," she said.
The maternal health initiative will be discussed in greater depth when G8 ministers responsible for international development meet in Halifax, Nova Scotia in April.
Contact: Patrick Goodenough Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 31, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
American Woman Charged with Assisting in Suicide
In New Zealand, authorities have filed charges against an American woman who admitted in a BBC documentary that she assisted in a suicide there. Susan Wilson of North Carolina now denies she did anything except sit next to the deathbed of Audrey Wallis in 2007, according to the New Zealand Herald.
Wilson is accused of providing a lethal drug to Wallis and receiving $12,000 in compensation. However, Wilson cannot be forced to face the charges since assisted suicide is not included in the extradition treaty between the United States and New Zealand, the Herald reported. "The warrant will remain active should the defendant choose to return to New Zealand at any stage in the future," Detective Sergeant Scott Armstrong told the newspaper.
Wallis's death was initially thought to be an overdose, since she "was not terminally ill at the time she committed suicide—but was addicted to painkillers and suffering mental health problems," according to the Herald. But the BBC broadcast a documentary in 2008 that included statements from Wilson describing her trip to New Zealand to assist in Wallis's suicide.
Ironically, euthanasia activist Lesley Martin filed the complaint that led to the charges against Wilson. Dignity NZ, Martin's organization, is seeking legalized assisted suicide, while the notorious Philip Nitschke's group Exit International flouts current law and publicizes ways people can kill themselves. Nitschke has been speaking in Susan Wilson's defense and communicating statements from her, the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA) reported.
Martin's complaint was based on the documentary and on statements from Wallis's friend Annette Houghton. "Three weeks before Audrey died she withdrew $12,000 from her bank account," Martin told the Herald. "So once Annette and I spoke we worked out that it was highly likely Wilson had assisted Audrey to die and needed further investigation."
After the charges were filed, Wilson sent an e-mail to Nitschke denying her involvement in the suicide. She said Wallis asked her for details on how to kill herself. "Susan provided that information, sat with her when she ended her life using helium to cause anoxia, and received compensation for air fares and accommodation to visit NZ totaling $2000." Nitschke said in a statement, according to NZPA.
Contact: Liz Townsend Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
Proposed Law Requires Missouri Prosecutors to Be Notified If Teen Seeks Abortion
The Missouri House has passed legislation requiring prosecutors to be informed when teenagers seek abortions. The legislation passed Tuesday would apply when people younger than 18 inquire about getting an abortion -- even if they do not go through with it. Supporters say the intent is to help identify men who may have impregnated teens through rape. Other parts of the bill would create a new crime of coercing a woman to obtain an abortion and expand the information that must be provided to a woman 24 hours before an abortion. Some House members said their goal is to reduce the number of abortions in Missouri.
Click here for the entire article.
Legislature passes rewrite of abortion laws
Kansas legislators were close Tuesday night to approving a bill designed to strengthen state laws regulating late-term abortions, but supporters didn't have a veto-proof majority in both chambers. The Senate passed the bill 24-15. The Republican-controlled House was expected to give its approval late Tuesday night, sending the bill to Democrat Gov. Mark Parkinson, an abortion supporter. The measure would allow patients or family members to sue doctors if they have evidence an abortion violated state law. Also, doctors would be required to report more details to the state about abortions performed after the 21st week involving fetuses that are found to be viable, or able to survive outside the womb.
Click here for the entire article.
Pregnant Student Privacy Rules Approved
The San Diego Unified school board decided to change a controversial policy that had mandated that school staff contact parents if they discovered that a student was pregnant or considering an abortion, ending nearly three years of debate and uncertainty over the rules. Planned Parenthood and other advocates for changing the rule said it brought the school district in line with state law. The new rules state that student pregnancy or other sensitive medical information is confidential. The revised policies also permit students to leave campus without notifying their parents if they need to obtain confidential medical services, which can range from alcohol counseling to abortion.
Click here for the entire article.
Baltimore Archdiocese Files Lawsuit To Block Crisis Pregnancy Center Signs In City
The Archdiocese of Baltimore on Monday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks to block an ordinance requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post signs stating they do not provide abortion services and information. The suit names as defendants the city of Baltimore and its mayor, City Council, health commissioner and health department. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien said the ordinance "is a clear violation of these centers' constitutional rights to free speech and their free exercise of religion" (AP/San Francisco Examiner, 3/29).
According to the Baltimore Sun, the ordinance requires that a "limited-service pregnancy center" posts an easily readable sign in English and Spanish stating that the center does not offer abortion and birth control services, nor does it provide referrals for such services. Centers that fail to comply within 10 days of being cited could be fined up to $150 per day.
Click here for the entire article.
Oklahoma House Passes 3 Abortion Regulations
The Oklahoma House has approved three pro-life bills by wide margins. All of the Senate-passed bills were passed by the House on Monday. The first prohibits abortions based solely on the sex of the child. A second known as the Freedom of Conscience Act allows health care professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. The third bill makes it illegal for anyone other than a physician who is physically present to administer the chemical abortion pill, RU-486. It also requires physicians to file a report under certain circumstances. All three provisions were included in a single bill passed by the Legislature last year that was overturned by an Oklahoma County judge who ruled it violated the state Constitution's single-subject rule.
Click here for the entire article.
Nebraska Senate Passes 'Pain Prevention' Regulations
It's called the Abortion Pain Prevention Act. It would ban abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy. Julie Schmit-Albin, the executive director of Nebraska Right To Life supports it. "It will draw a new line in the sand a new standard to say if these babies can feel pain then why are we allowing these babies to be killed." The bill is sponsored by the speaker and supported by the governor but not every member of their party supports it. Not to mention groups like planned parenthood and the aclu who see it as a constitutional quagmire. Laurel Marsh is the executive director of ACLU Nebraska. "First it bans abortions that would be performed prior to fetal viability and second there's an inadequate provision to protect the health of the pregnant woman." Click here for the video report.
Click here for the entire article.
Illinois Pro-Lifers Get a Court Victory
Attorneys prepare for appeal of ruling.
Parents are one step closer to being notified if their underage daughter is considering terminating her pregnancy, after a judge dismissed a challenge to the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act today (March 29th).
Cook County Court Judge Daniel Riley did impose a stay of his decision that will allow the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) time to file an appeal. The ACLU confirmed in a statement it "will move swiftly to appeal."
The law passed in 1995, but has been stalled in the for years by legal challenges.
The act requires physicians to notify the parents of an underage woman at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.
The Thomas More Society has led the battle to revive the law.
"Today's ruling represents a great step toward ending underage secret abortions in Illinois," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the group. "This written decision represents the first time an Illinois court has upheld the Parental Notice Act of 1995 against the ACLU's challenge. We look forward to the day that abortion providers are made to respect the rights of parents to know before their daughters are taken for abortions."
Mailee Smith, staff counsel with Americans United for Life, said the ruling has broad implications in protecting the health and welfare of minors outside of Illinois.
"Minors from other states come to Illinois to avoid their own state parental notice laws," she explained.
Contact: Nima Reza Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Why Rep. Stupak is Wrong
When, after a grueling race, a contestant fails to make it over the finish line, he has several options. One is to expect thanks for trying. Another is to declare that, contrary to what you just saw with your own eyes, he not only crossed the finish line but won!
The latter has been the response of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) to organizations such as National Right to Life who have respectfully but unambiguously criticized Mr. Stupak for accepting a meaningless executive order from the most pro-abortion President since Roe v. Wade was handed down. I'm not going to quote Mr. Stupak's more intemperate remarks, because I strongly suspect that at some point he may regret them.
Because of the Obama executive order, it is Rep. Stupak's position that the Senate measure the House voted in favor of (and which President Obama signed into law) fits the pro-life bill. That simply is false.
"The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions described in NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives," as NRLC pointed out a week ago Sunday.
Over the weekend columnist Kathleen Parker, not one of us, wrote a piece under the headline, "Federally funded abortions are in our future."
There are places where we disagree with her analysis. For example, there are grounds to believe Community Health Centers may already perform abortions. But Parker's five-word summary why CHCs in the future will for sure perform abortions is completely persuasive: "There's nothing [in the new law] to stop them."
"By statute, CHCs are required to provide all 'required primary health care services,' defined to include 'health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians,'" she writes.
"Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Voil."
There's more. In defending his actions, Rep. Stupak wrote an op-ed that appeared Saturday in the Washington Post. The bottom line of his defense is, "I and other pro-life Democrats struck an agreement with President Obama to issue an executive order that would ensure all Hyde Amendment protections would apply to the health-care reform bill."
Parker does a good job explaining how Obama's executive order may be much ado about something, but is nothing ado about stopping the funding of abortion. "For one thing, the Hyde Amendment is a rider that must be lobbied and attached each year to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill," she wrote. "Under its terms, the amendment applies only to those funds."
Moreover, "Rather than following the usual course of funding community health centers (CHCs) through the Labor/HHS budget, the health-care-reform measure does an end run around Hyde by directly appropriating billions of dollars into a new CHC fund. Because the Obama administration's 'fix-it' bill did not include the abortion-ban language proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), those billions appropriated to CHCs simply are not covered by Hyde."
Obama has unfailingly tried to keep his commitment to his pro-abortion allies, just as Bush unfailingly kept his commitments to pro-lifers. Skip the opinions of those with an involvement in the issue.
Why would anyone without a dog in the hunt possibly believe that Obama and his pro-abortion Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would expend 15 second to assure that federal money not pay for abortions?
Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
