Thursday, February 25, 2010

Haiti & Life

Wow! America thinks it's really helping Haiti. Haiti, a country that is almost 100% Catholic. Unfortunately Haiti, an economically broke nation without a rule of law, suffered a devastating earthquake, which killed millions of people. This quake also left millions homeless. It devastated any structure that may have been helpful to a society that suffers.
The Catholic Basilica and the Seminary were devastated. The Archbishop of Haiti, as well as all the seminarians, were killed in the quake. This disaster for the Church and it's outreach to the people of Haiti, has now necessitated complete rebuilding. But in spite of this tragedy, the faith continues.
Enter Planned Parenthood. As always, there immediate response to a disaster is to eliminate the unborn children. Thus ensuring their primary agenda and goal, which is eugenics.  Eugenics are always presented as a good to society that has a grossly mis-informed population. By eliminating poor people, they hope to ensure a "perfect race". Their answer to poverty, sickness and suffering, is always depopulation.
Now, shipments of medical aid to Haiti are being delayed by a massive condom overload.  These desperately needed supplies along with food and water, have been blocked for weeks by a massive supply of condoms, dominating the space in the main storage facility, supplied by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
Medical supply buildings in the developing world being taken up mostly by condoms and severely lacking in health care supplies is not new.  In the aftermath of the Rwandan Massacre, it was noted that the military personnel referred to the UN and other foreign aid as "covering the country with rubber."
President of United Families of Africa in Enugu, Nigeria, Carol Ugochukwu, stated that the United Nations is trying to "exterminate the whole race" with their promotion of condoms. He further expressed exasperation, that Canad, the US and Europe wasted most of the time at the UN conferences, trying to gain approval for homosexuality, while the needs of African women such as food, shelter, and clean drinking water were largely ignored." "Bige organizations," she said, "spend so much money, but when they find out you are dealing with all that (dying children and mothers) they are not interested. You have to say you are dealing with reproductive rights before you are given support.
She concluded, "(Westerners) now come in with condoms - condoms are everywhere! They spend so much money on condoms and the make our children promiscuous."
So too in the United States. Condoms have increased promiscuity and abortion.
Now, condoms are blocking delivery of life-saving medical supplies to tens of thousands of earthquake victims in Haiti.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Health Care Bill Proposed by Obama

If you think President Obama wants to find common ground on the abortion issue, think again. Yesterday, the President revealed the changes he wants in the Senate Health Care Bill.
Any members of Congress, who vote for the final legislation proposed by President Obama, will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, as well as an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates.
If all of the President's changes are made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand, through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand, and would authorize federal mandates, that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.
Remember, the Senate passed H.R. 3590 in December. The Senate bill, through the amendment process, was the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either House of Congress, since Roe v Wade. The Senate bill, as passed, contained 7 distinct problems pertaining to abortion policies. Remember, the House bill H.R. 3962 contained none of these pro-abortion components, because of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, that prohibited federal funding of abortion.
President Obama proposed "a targeted set of changes to" the Senate passed bill. None of President Obama's proposed changes diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill. And he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures, through Community Health Centers, and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion.
If all of the President's changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand, through Community Health Centers, which institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand. The legislation would authorize federal mandates, that would require even non-subsidized private plans, to cover elective abortion.
In other words, the Senate bill, due to a last minute amendment, provides $7 billion dollars for the nation's 1,250 Community Health Centers, without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand. These funds are entirely untouched by the Hyde Amendment, that currently covers Medicaid.
This bill would also force rationing of life saving medical treatment, and probably many other life issues concerns.
President Obama is indeed living up to his title, as the most pro-abortion president that this country has ever elected. He is not interested in common ground. Nor is he interested in making abortion safe legal and rare. With his input on health care, it is evident that he is fulfilling his promise to the national abortion groups, that supported his election.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Organ Transplantation

Last year was a milestone in organ transplantation. We celebrated 50 years in 2004, a Golden Anniversary of a Golden Age of utilitarianism. In today's transplant society, parts of organs, including kidneys and livers from healthy people, surpassed the number of transplanted organs obtained from so-called "cadavers".
In 2004 another ethical debate surfaced. Issues involving organ transplant came to the surface. In fact, the prestigious Kennedy Institute Journal of Ethics, devoted an entire issue involving, "Is the donor really dead?" Some ethicists suggested, expanding donation beyond brain death and non-heart beating organ donation (NHBD). By redefining death and/or providing exceptions to the dead donor rule. One ethicist said, "a patient, while still competent, may choose to have organs removed prior to death, through an advanced directive."
Ethicists cited an Ohio poll, which showed public confusion over the terms, "brain death", "vegetative state" and "coma" describing a living or dead person, as an opportunity to change the rules about organ donation. Some ethicists say that the public is not greatly concerned about brain-death issues. In fact, most of the public does not know anything at all about non-heart beating organ donation, where a person is declared hopelessly ill, but not brain dead, and has his or her life-support removed. When (or if) the heart stops, organs are removed for transplantation.
Because the demand for organs exceeds the supply, many ethicists and transplant experts are trying to develop new ways of increasing organ donation, usually, almost always without public input or awareness. In fact, the controversial issue of NHBD was developed in the early 1990's, to allow families or even conscious people on ventilators to withdraw life-support, so that organs can be harvested if or when the heartbeat stops, without a diagnosis of brain death. I would wager, most people are not aware of this. 
Strategies are being developed, to increase organ donation rules requiring a patient or family consent for organ donation,  to "presume consent", which legally assumes that everyone is willing to be an organ donor, unless they have documented objections.
Illinois has a 1st donor consent law passed January 1, 2010. This law requires that organ donation is acceptable, if the person has signed the back of their driver's license. It eliminates consent issues from family members.
The prestigious journal Critical Care Medicine, published an article by Drs. Robert D. Troug and Walter M. Robinson in which they stated, "We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs, and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying, should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead".
As you can see there are many ethical dilemmas in organ donation, including, "is the donor really dead?" More will follow

Friday, February 12, 2010

Planned Parenthood & Your Child

Planned Parenthood should be named Planned Barrenhood. If they can't accomplish that through offering abortions, they're certainly trying to do it through a new program called "Stand and Deliver", Sex, Health & Young People in the 21st Century.   If this program doesn't increase STD's, nothing will. As everyone knows, STD's can cause sterility, or an increase in ectopic pregnancies, or miscarriage. The appalling rate of STD's shows that comprehensive sex education programs are not doing the job. Young people still believe in absolutes. Black and white is still the color preference of the young. There are no gray areas in sexuality. You either do or you don't. Planned Parenthood, of course, would encourage you to 'do'. Abstinence Only programs seem to be the only one that is working.
Here's a highpoint of a landmark scientific study, showing how abstinence education works. 1. Subjects were Afro-American students. 2. The controls and results were so accurate, that even the Obama Administration admitted, the evidence may open the door for abstinence only grants. 3. The results are stark; 33% of abstinence educated students had sex within 2 yrs., vs. 52% of students who were only taught about 'safe sex'.
Sex education classes, that promote abstinence only, reduced teen pregnancy and STD's. A recent poll showed, that Black American parents were much more likely than white, to support abstinence only education. Eighty percent of those polled, said it was the parent's responsibility to teach their children about sex.
The Obama Administration has virtually eliminated funding for abstinence only classes. What will Barrack do now?  The evidence is overwhelming. Everyone knows it. But, Planned Parenthood has just put out a new Sex-Ed program called; "Stand and Deliver". The subtitle of the program, From Choice, a World of Possibilities. You bet, possibilities!  Increased sexually transmitted diseases, sterility, increase in abortion, the disintegration of our society and the demoralizing of our young. 
Remember, condoms don't protect the heart. Neither do they protect from STD's. They only protect funding from an administration that is dedicated to promoting the values Planned of Parenthood.   

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Will of the People

WOW!  Scott Lee Cohen resigns. That's all well and good. But really, was it? I don't think his resignation was voluntary. For those of you reading, let me recap the Cohen debacle. Scott Lee Cohen was the Democratic candidate for Lt Governor. The media, and I'm sure the Party, knew his unsavory past. Mr. Cohen has a long reported record of having difficulties with women. One such instance reported but no prosecuted, was a knife incident. Supposedly, Mr. Cohen held a knife to the throat of his then girlfriend, Aka a masseuse, but in real life a prostitute. He was charged with battery, but no charges were formally pressed. His wife, not the hooker, had an Order of Protection. Because Mr. Cohen supposedly became violent while taking steroids.  Boy, this is quite a biography for a candidate. Who, if elected, is a heartbeat away from the governorship. Blago pales in comparison.
Enter Speaker of the House Mike Madigan .. After Mr. Cohen was duly elected by the citizens of Illinois, Mr. Madigan thought perhaps Mr. Cohen's past might be a deterrent to winning the gubernatorial election in November. Illinois politics at it's best, considering the last 3 governors have been indicted.
On a more serious note, this case has long range ramifications. First of all, Mr. Cohen was duly elected. Should pressure from a party overturn the will of the people? If so, whose next?  I think a government that overturns the will of the people is called socialist or a dictatorship. Is that where the United States is going? The information on Mr. Cohen was available for anyone who is a serious voter to discover. The vetting process of the Democrats surely revealed his skeletons. So the question has to be posed, what is the hidden agenda in the decision of the Democrats, to place pressure on an elected candidate and force their resignation?
Oddly enough, Mayor Daley understands. And has articulated that in the public square. He placed the blame on the media, not Mr. Cohen, and not the vetting process, and certainly not on his friend Mike Madigan. More to come. For instance, who will take Mr. Cohen's place on the ballot? The Democratic Party can and will decide that. Is this Democracy? If so, we are in real trouble.

Montana Legalizes Assisted Suicide

In a moment of supreme decree, the Supreme Court of Montana legalized assisted suicide in a split decision. On the one hand, the Montana Supreme Court decided, there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. On the other hand, the Montana Supreme Court ruled, there is no law that specifically prohibits suicide.
The Euthanasia Lobby did not get everything it wanted. But they did acknowledge, the court opened the door, to legalizing assisted suicide in Montana. I think it's a schizophrenic decision. The Court stated, that a constitutional right to assisted suicide, did not exist in Montana. But, then found that the Montana law allows consent to be used as a defense for physicians who assist a suicide.
The Euthanasia Lobby was denied a constitutional right. But, the Court legalized assisted suicide by stating, that if prosecuted, the physician could use the defense, that the patient had consented.
In the dissent, Justice Rice stated, "The Court has badly misinterpreted our public policy. Assisted suicide has been explicitly and expressly prohibited by Montana Law for 114 years ... the policy of the law is to protect human life, even the life of a person who wishes to destroy his own. To prove that the victim wanted to die would be no defense to murder."
Wesley Smith, a consultant to the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, stated, "The decision was very odd because, since Vacco v. Quill, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously, that there is relevant and legal distinction between removing unwanted life support and assisted suicide.
The Court's decision can be reversed by the Legislature. The Montana Legislature must pass a law that prohibits assisted suicide. This may be very difficult to do, since there's a shift in the elected representatives in Montana. This points out a valuable tool. Voters must ask their candidates where they stand on assisted suicide; and vote accordingly.
Since no legislative framework for assisted suicide exists in Montana, physicians are not likely to rush to kill. Illinois probably will face the same dilemma. If not in this legislative session, one in the future.