Thursday, July 29, 2010

Eugenics Then and Now

A new exhibit is opening at the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie, Illinois. The name of the exhibit is "Deadly Medicine: Creating The Master Race".  What comes to mind immediately is the Nazi eugenics program. But on further thought, our own eugenic history comes to mind as well.  
The exhibit takes visitors on a chronological journey, from the origins of the eugenic movement, to how that theory was used to foster racism and discrimination and eventually torture and murder.
Long before the Nazi Holocaust, in the United States Margaret Sanger was laying the groundwork for a eugenics movement that ultimately became Planned Parenthood. In fact, the influence of Margaret Sanger's International Planned Parenthood Federation on our world, is so complete, that its' slogans and values are dominating moral standards throughout the world today.
Ms. Sanger's rational for limiting the number of children for the poorer classes of people is pure eugenics. She would have liked to require parents to apply for licenses to have babies, in order to control the number of children they might have. She also advocated sterilization for the poor. 
Unlike Adolf Hitler's violent approach through the death camps, Margaret Sanger successfully encouraged, what she would call, peaceful and sanitary methods of racial purification. She advocated payment for the privilege of sterilization. She devoted her entire life to what she called her "cause", the international birth control movement. She fought Christian traditions in her successful effort that struck down laws forbidding the distribution of contraceptive devices and information. As we all know contraception led to abortion.
In 1942 Margaret founded Planned Parenthood of America and established the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau, which financed the development of the Pill. She also financed and engineered the immigration of Germany's Dr. Ernst Graefenberg, one of the pioneers of the IUD (intrauterine device).
Margaret Sanger's theory of racial superiority was that social economic situations in life are determined by one thing; man's inherent ability to survive. This ability has a wide spectrum, ranging from the very fit to the absolutely unfit, to survive.  In 1936 Margaret Sanger participated in the round table discussions of the American Eugenics Society.
Now back to our new exhibit. Susan Bachrach is the curator for the exhibit in Skokie. She said, "It was very surprising to me, to see how much widespread support there was for this idea of eugenics. Today we like to say eugenics was some kind of pseudo-science. But we shouldn't say that, when looking at it in the context of time. It's very important to realize that this wasn't just something on the fringes. It was taken seriously". She continues, "When it comes to eugenics there's a huge whitewash that continues to go on. The United States was very strong in the eugenics movement, and that can be seen in state sterilization laws".
Just as Margaret Sanger extolled the principles of eugenics in America, so too in Germany, Karl Vinding and Alfred Hoche wrote, "Authorization of the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life, a book defending the principles of eugenics".
In 1938 Joseph Goebbels said, "Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked. Our objectives are entirely different. We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world." Germany's involvement with eugenics begins after World War I. Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966. Her influence has left a world-wide footprint, which does not lessen the footprint that Nazi Germany left on the world. Together, they've enshrined the principles of eugenics world-wide.  

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Eliminating the Ugly American

Imagine that you could pick who or what your child looked like. Sounds like a fantasy or a horror story, depending on your perspective. But, it's not far fetched. California Cryobank is a 30-year-old fertility business. In an effort to be hip, and meet the needs of the NOW generation, they have announced a new program. It's called "Donor-Look-A-Like".
In California sperm donors, by law, must remain anonymous. But, being the insightful people they are, they conceived (that's a double entendre) a way to make choosing the sperm women want for their children, easier and certainly more palatable.  
How does it work? The potential mother can search by hair color, eye color, height, weight, ancestry, level of education, area of education and last but not least, religion. Wow! Hmmm. I wonder if the company provides this information to increase sperm sales, or if they're just interested in America becoming beautiful.
The reproductive assistance industry is unregulated. We know this from Octomom. I wonder how her eight babies are fairing? I hope well. But, I'm not so sure. Hopefully this so called industry has recognized, that it is not in the best interest of women, babies or society, to have a single mom implanted with and produce 8 babies. IVF clinics have the freedom to conceive or kill embryos for any reason. Sex-selection and traits dominate business.
We may be writing this blog a bit too flip. Babies are important. IVF and Donor Look-A-Like programs cheapen our society. They make children a commodity. If you don't fit the beauty picture, or the sex that your parent may want, then you're expendable.
Recent studies on donor conceived children found they were more likely to be delinquent or have substance abuse problems. If society really cared for its' children, it would protect them from a business whose only interest is the bottom line.

New Videos

Three new videos from the Docs4PatientCare leadership:

Friday, July 16, 2010

Women Have A Right To Know

Here's everything you wanted to know, and have a right to know about Ella.  Our Federal Drug Administration (FDA) is looking after you. Or is it? A panel recently recommended full approval of the FDA for marketing Ella. Ella is used in Europe. But it is being marketed in the US as an emergency contraceptive. Wrong! Ella is not Plan B. And even some experts would tell you Plan B is far more than an emergency contraception. Emergency contraception? What an oxymoron. What are we talking about? Think about it. Emergency contraception, after the fact?
Ella has a different mechanism than Plan B. Let's explore. Plan B is called the morning after pill. Another oxymoron. Plan B can prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus. No matter how we distort the facts, no implantation, no live baby. Ella has other properties. Ella is a selected progesterone receptor modulator. What does this mean? It blocks progesterone and thereby starves a developing baby of a needed protein. In other words, it starves a baby to death. Only RU486 is approved and has the similar properties.
In Europe, European Medicines Agency (EMEA), equal to the FDA, said Ella causes abortion in animals, including rats, rabbits, guinea pigs and macaques (similar to monkeys). The EMEA says Ella is embryotoxic at low doses, when given to rats and rabbits. "Given Ella's molecular similarity to RU486 and this animal data, it is reasonable to conclude that Ella will abort human pregnancies."
In fact, Ella causes the death of an embryo that is already implanted in it's mother's womb, besides preventing implantation after fertilization. Wow! A real death pill. I'll bet their going to make a killing in profits, and that' no oxymoron.
Our FDA studied limited data on Ella. Since Ella works like RU486, and we know RU486 has morbidity and mortality associated with it's use, one would think that the FDA would study Ella. The FDA has admitted, that six women have died as a result of taking RU486. One has to ask how many countless others have died, but never been reported. If the FDA approves Ella, women have a right to know the risks associated with it.  
FDA admits one case, in which a baby exposed to Ella in utero, had developmental problems. Despite this information, the FDA Advisory Panel did not suggest further studies on Ella's potential for birth defects in utero or breast feeding.
Would you prescribe this pill? What are we doing to our young women? Aren't we supposed to be protecting them? Is not Ella an assault on women? RU486 even had feminists objecting to the risks associated with it's use. Have we gone down the road so far in our assault on women? Did the FDA Advisory Panel have any women recommending Ella?

Tuesday, July 13, 2010


Even Time magazine knows China has some problems. A one child policy in China has resulted in the abortion of millions of babies over the years.
The magazine notes that China has totalitarian social policies, and those policies have unanticipated consequences. For instance; a fertility rate below replacement, a gender imbalance and a plethora of  men without females to balance the population.
Let's take these issues separately. A fertility rate below replacement means that there will not be enough people in the work force to sustain the economic level China now enjoys. If indeed everyone enjoys the same economic level. I think they have a distribution problem. But, that aside, let's go to the next issue. A gender imbalance; because males are valued over females in China's culture, there obviously has been a growth spurt in males. What does an overbalance of males in a society mean? It becomes more militaristic. There are fewer children born because traditional families do not exist. A rise in homosexuality occurs, criminal gangs leading to trafficking in women. All are social plagues.
Last, but not least, a country that promotes a one-child policy, has little regard for human life, whether you're male or female. The old will not be taken care of in a society that does not value human life. This is a culture shift for China. Not only will abortion be tolerated, but euthanasia will rise.
Estimates show, that by 2050 one third of the Chinese will be elderly, and there will be no one to there to carry the load.  

Health & Human Services At It Again

HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebilius, (never met an abortion she didn't like), is charged with writing most of the rules and regulations that will implement the newly passed Health Care Bill.
The new health care law directs HHS, to accept applications for grant program, that will supposedly help states provide support services to teens and pregnant women. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Indian Tribes and all US Territories are eligible to apply for the federal grants by the August 2nd deadline. HHS is on record, that it will award up to 25 grants in the amounts of $500,000 to $2 million per year. This is our tax-payer dollar, and we want to be sure that it goes to help women, not support Planned Parenthood or other organizations that promote and provide abortions, as the solution to a crisis pregnancy.
Questions from the pro-life community have arisen. Crisis pregnancy resource centers have provided these services for years, without government funding. Many see the new grant program, as a way for the Obama Administration to funnel dollars to Planned Parenthood and other organizations, that provide abortion services.
HHS has said, that any group is eligible to apply, and those that do receive funds, must use them in compliance with the program's requirements. Yes, and do you think requirements will change as time goes by? Do we really want the government stipulating the requirements for helping pregnant women and teens. How many bureaucrats will it take to run the grant program? How much of my tax dollar will go to really helping someone, or to paying somebody's salary?
The government provides $350 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider. How much more will we be giving, if they are found eligible for the grant? Do we have doubts that they will be found eligible for the grant?
How about you? What do you think? How should your tax-payer dollar be given, if at all? But that's already been taken care of by the Federal Health Care Bill, which contained more than most people knew.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Kenya Resists 30 Pieces of Silver

Kenya is drafting a new constitution. This draft includes abortion. If the draft is ratified, abortion on demand, will be allowed by a loophole in the wording. I think that's called linguistic gymnastics. This draft for the new constitution is scheduled for a vote August 4th.
Christian churches in Kenya are united and under attack because of their position against making abortion a constitutional right. Perhaps the proponents of abortion need to remember, that Kenya is a Christian country. They don't believe killing is a solution to social problems. Kenya has a large Christian majority, that is 69% pro-life, according to a recent poll. Kenya also has a fertility rate of 4.56 children per woman. This high fertility rate has made Kenya a target for international population control groups and abortion lobbyists.
Never at a loss for words, Vice-President Joe Biden has visited Kenya on behalf of the Obama Administration. In fact, he re-affirmed President Barrack Obama's support, saying, "We are hopeful, Barrack Obama is hopeful, I am hopeful (notice all the singulars in this quote) you will carry out these reforms to allow the money to flow." Again, never at a loss for words, Biden continues, "As you prepare to write a new history for your nation, resist those who try and divide you, based on ethnicity or religion or region, and above all fear." Vice-President Biden was fully informed and aware, that both the Catholic and Protestant churches are opposing the constitution because of the pro-abortion provision. They don't want the Obama Administration's payoff of 30 pieces of silver. 
Not everyone in America agrees with our Vice-Presidential spokesman. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, earlier this year, urged Kenyan law-makers to retain the protection for the unborn that are presently in their constitution. Representative Fortenberry said, "It is appalling that leaders in Africa are being systematically pressured to slacken their abortion laws, in the belief that such a policy prescription leads to economic progress. It is also scandalous, that abortion is misleadingly being attributed as "reproductive health care".
Contrast the Administration's actions to the Christian response in Kenya. In March, the Anglican Church of Kenya Archbishop Eliud Wadukala said, "We all have said, that God values life, and life begins at conception. That is a principle, and we all seem to  have agreed on that aspect."  Canon Peter Karanja of the National Council of Churches told Inter Press Service, "Life is sacrosanct. The definition of life must be stipulated in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution."
There's a price to be paid for standing on principle. On June 3rd, two bombs exploded at a "vote no" rally, killing 5 and injuring at least 75. On July 3rd, Bishop Joseph Segal of the Redeemed Gospel Church, a strong advocate for life and a leader in the "vote no" campaign, was assassinated brutally in his church.
Perhaps the blood of the martyrs will seed the "vote no" movement.  


Dr. Berwick and Other Health Care Disasters

Here is a link to a power point presentation on the current state of health care reform that I gave to the Republican Women of Wheeling Township last month.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Planned Parenthood At It Again

Following Jay Leno's enlightening interviews with John Q. Public, about what the 4th of July was all about and who was the main general involved with that date, as well as, who we fought to gain our independence from; and the dismal and horrifying reality that nobody knew the answers to these questions, Planned Parenthood steps in once again with their own holiday contribution.
On 9/11 they offered free abortions to widows of heroes who may have found themselves pregnant before the disaster.  We're not sure if anybody really took up such an offer. Widows were heroines too. They had their babies, a lasting remembrance of the heroes who lost their lives. But, undaunted, here's Planned Parenthood's contribution to the celebration of our country's birthday; the date John Q. Public did not know the reasons for.
Celebrating death as a solution to all of our problems, Planned Parenthood pressed for military abortions at taxpayer-funded military based hospitals, by issuing an action alert. Planned Parenthood president Cecily Richards wrote, "This 4th of July, among the outdoor cookouts and firework displays, countless politicians and members of Congress will give speeches to honor the men and women serving in our nation's military. Right now, women serving abroad in the US military, are denied the basic freedom to make their own medical decisions because abortion is banned at military hospitals and bases. Even if it threatens her health (a buzz word for unlimited abortions) a service woman who becomes pregnant while serving with our forces overseas, is required to venture out to a local facility."
Really Cecily?  How absurd! Men and women serving in the armed forces are in Harm's Way overseas. They preserve and protect our country; often with their own blood. Our job at home, is to preserve and protect our country for their return. Not advocate for the killing of their unborn child. 
All of this came about because Senator Roland Burris, you know the guy right? He's from Illinois. He has his own mausoleum, even though he's not even dead yet. The walls of his mausoleum are engraved with his left-slanted, scintillating biography, to help John Q. Public remember him. Hope he has better luck than poor George. Wow! His lasting legacy will be his efforts destroy unborn babies and the morale of our women serving in the armed forces. He's joined by his usual gaggle of suspects. Now Planned Parenthood is supporting his efforts. What a surprise.
Burris offered an amendment to the Senate Armed Services Military Funding Bill, that would overturn decades of a ban on abortion at tax-payer funded military bases, both at home and overseas. The fight is on in the Senate.

Barak Obama's Creepy Health Care Czar

As a physician, I have seen first-hand how Congress’s new health care law has left patients struggling to understand what the future holds. In this period of uncertainty, President Obama has clarified the changes we can expect by nominating Dr. Donald Berwick to the post of Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). If Dr. Berwick's extensive writings are any indication, the United States is now headed decisively towards a European-style socialized medical system.

Upon taking charge of CMS, Dr. Berwick will control vast portions of American health care. In addition to its other responsibilities, CMS currently runs Medicare and Medicaid, and sets rules for all of health care finance. As a result of the new law, CMS will soon have expanded control over how medical providers are paid, innovations are instituted, and the manner in which $500 billion in cuts to Medicare will be made. The Administrator of CMS truly holds one of the most powerful positions in our health care system -- where he leads, all of American health care will follow. That is why it is so disconcerting to find that Dr. Berwick's writings ooze with praise for the United Kingdom's socialized National Health Service (NHS).

Just two years ago, Dr. Berwick wrote, “Cynics beware, I am a romantic about the [UKs] National Health Service; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." In particular, Dr. Berwick praised the spending caps, central planning, and avoidance of the free market that have characterized the NHS for 60 years. There was no doubt in the minds of the editors where Dr. Berwick stood – the cartoon accompanying the editorial depicted a man wearing an American flag tie and sporting a large “I ♥ NHS” button on his lapel.

Indeed, Dr. Berwick regularly employs anti-free market rhetoric in his support for centralized, government control of health care. In 2006, Dr. Berwick characterized America's dependence on "market forces for constructive change" as "playing with fire." In 2004, he praised "the consistent focus of government" as an "immense resource for progress" in improving the NHS.

In fact, throughout his 156 published medical articles, editorials, interviews, and speeches, Dr. Berwick has consistently and enthusiastically praised socialized health care systems in general and the UK’s NHS in particular.

In contrast, the American people made it crystal clear during the recent health care debate that they did not want socialized medicine. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress pandered to this desire by pledging that Americans could keep their doctor and insurance plan if they so desired. Credible experts’ concerns that the new health care law would result in a de facto government takeover were greeted with derision. Despite this, President Obama has now validated some of our worst fears by selecting to head the all-important CMS an individual who is a well-known devotee of socialized medicine and who emphatically rejects the idea that Americans with their should make their own autonomous medical decisions.

The first battle in health care reform was over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a law that was rammed through Congress by the Democrats over the strong objections of the American people. The next battle will be over who is put in charge of the changes dictated by this new law. Americans need to step forward once again and reject Dr. Donald Berwick’s nomination. An unequivocal message must be sent to President Obama that he should instead choose a person who honors and respects the will of the people.

Originally posted at Illinois Review.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Catholic Health Care & Chucky

Just like Chucky, they keep coming back. Only this time it's the Catholic Health Association (CHA) against the US Bishops. Like Chucky the demonic doll that would not die, the Catholic Health Association took the wrong path on the yellow brick road and continue to support President Obama's Health Care, in spite of the bishops condemnation.
All of this came about after our president met with insurers and commissioners about implementing his health care reform. Catholic Health Association immediately took the opportunity to praise and laud the legislation. Of course they did. They were the key players. After all, they got more than a pen.
"Once fully enacted, we are confident, that the Affordable Care Act will provide access for more affordable insurance products, and a greater sense of security for over 32 million people in this country that currently lack these protections. We continue to applaud the president for his strong leadership in this important area."  Hmmmm. I thought their leadership was the Roman Catholic Church, as personified in the teaching authority of the bishops. Hmmmm. "Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." I have to ask the CHA, who are these 32 millions people anyway? Every heard of the rule of law? Ever heard of the rule of the Church?
The statement also came on the heels of remarks by Cardinal Francis George, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), who re-emphasized earlier this month that CHA's endorsement dealt a "wound to the Catholic unity" and "weakened the moral voice" of the Catholic hierarchy, by giving Catholic Democrats political cover to vote for the bill.   
According to LifeSiteNews, pro-life leaders last week issued a challenge to CHA to prove its' fidelity to the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church by supporting the Protect Life Act, which would amend the federal health care legislation to bar public funds from going to abortion. The Catholic Health Association has not answered's request, to date.
Chucky's not dead yet. Catholic Health Association is relentless in their disobedience.