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.

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

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.   

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.

Exit Pill

I wonder if we'll ever develop an Enter Pill. We have now, an Exit Pill. This is a creation of Dr. Death. Dr. Death's name is Phillip Nitschke, and he is from Australia. Dr. Death is the director of the euthanasia advocacy group "Exit International". This group believes,"All seniors of sound mind should have the option of a peaceful death, at the time of their choosing, should this be their wish."

 

Wow! I'm glad he's not my doctor. Just think. He developed this pill just for you. Maybe he's hopeful that seniors will forget and take his pill. Since Medicare covers Viagra, is there a Morning After Pill for this one?

 

The pill is made from a dormant from of Nembutal, a drug outlawed in Australia and New Zealand, for human use. In order to be used as Dr. Death intends, the pill must be reconstituted in liquid form. The activation kit, with the chemicals needed for reconstitution, is still being developed. It may be on the market for Christmas in 2010. 

 

Dr. Death is on a speaking tour in British Columbia, San Francisco, Anaheim and Washington state. I'm sure he is promoting his agenda.   

TB

You thought swine flu was a pandemic. So did the government. They said so. However, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has said, Tuberculosis is the top single and infectious killer of adults worldwide. It lies dormant in 1 in 3 people, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Of those, 10% will develop active TB and about 2 million people a year will die from it.

 

In a recent expose' a 19 yr old Peruvian man studying English, in all places, Florida, developed an extremely drug resistant (XXDR) TB. WOW! I think he developed it in Peru. Because it's never been seen in the US. XXDR TB is so rare that only a handful of other people in the world are thought to have it. Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe we should be testing for TB, as long as we're body scanning for bombs. However, that's difficult to profile. Better that they come and spread a drug resistant disease to America. Al Gore might like it. It will reduce the population. Copenhagen may develop a treaty.

 

Just as the government should have known about the Christmas Day bomber, since he was profiled by his own father, the WHO has issued a warning that has been ignored. In April 2009, WHO held it's 1st drug-resistant TB conference. The message was clear. The disease has already spread to all continents, and is increasing rapidly. Even worse, WHO estimates, only 1% of resistant patients receive appropriate treatment.

 

The 19 yr old Peruvian underwent 3 months of futile treatment in a Florida hospital, then was sent to a state hospital. The state hospital is only partially funded. His treatment cost Florida tax-payers an estimated $5 million. The director of the state hospital says, this seems like an astronomical amount to spend on someone who 'se not an American citizen.

 

About 60 million people visit the United States every year, and most are not screened before arrival.  Eighty-two percent of the multi-drug resistant patients in the US were foreign born.  And we're worried about swine-flu? The government's worried about swine-flu? Some states passed legislation, later rescinded, that would mandate vaccination for swine-flu?  Something's crazy here. No mandate for people coming into the country to be screened for TB.

 

Even crazier, in July 2009, after 19 months on the tax-payer, the 19 yr. old, now 21, packed a suitcase and walked out the hospital door into Florida' streets. Hope he's not coming to a theatre near you.  

Assisted Suicide

Death With Dignity's fund raising appeal states, "The team is coming together. The time-line is coming together. The plan is coming together ... and now the time has come." What? What time? This group wants financial support to identify the next state most likely to pass a law or initiative to legalize assisted suicide.

 

Members of this mafia include Compassion & Choices (formerly The Hemlock Society). Along with "Death With Dignity", they spearheaded the 2008 initiative that legalized assisted suicide in Washington state. Now, they're targeting states that they think are vulnerable.

 

In Montana, on December 5, 2009 (1 month after Washington legalized assisted suicide), District Judge Dorothy McCarter, ruled in favor of the constitutional challenge of Compassion & Choices. The suit was orchestrated by Compassion & Choices' legal director Kathryn Tucker. The suit argued that physician "aid-in-dying" a euphemism for assisted suicide, is a right under the Montana Constitution.

 

Oral arguments took place on September 2, 2009. Assistant Attorney General Anthony Johnston representing the state, stated, "That when the people of Montana adopted their constitution, they did not include physician-assisted suicide." He further stated that the legislature, not the courts, should change the law. The court's ruling, in this case, is pending.

 

Connecticut, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania all have legal challenges to legalize killing. Is your state next?

 

Hippocrates separated the physician role in 500 BC. Before Hippocrates physicians were both healers and killers. God help us if present day physicians blur the distinction between healer and killer. Of course Obama's health care bill has already done that, and through the Congress.  

Eggs 4 Sale or Rent

In 2007, the New York state legislature, committed $600 million to stem-cell research. Most of the money is ear marked for embryonic stem-cell research. On June 11, 2009, the Empire State Stem-Cell Board, which is responsible for administrating the funds, passed a resolution authorizing up to $10,000 to be used to compensate young women, who donate their eggs for research.

 

A fire storm was created. Women's health was a big issue. After all, in order for eggs to be harvested, the ovaries have to be stimulated by drugs. These are powerful hormones, and the long-term effects on women's health and future fertility, are not known.

 

Now, a pro-life feminist group has filed suit to block the use of New York state taxpayer funds, to pay women recruited to donate their eggs for embryonic stem-cell research. Good! Finally, women taking care of women. The suit was filed in New York's Supreme Court last Friday.

 

The National Institute of Health guidelines for embryonic stem-cell research recommends no payments for egg donor. The National Academies of Sciences Guidelines, also recommend, no payments or in kind cash be paid for egg donation.

 

Does the Empire state know better?

White House Press Secretary

White House Press Secretary, remarks of October 7th, 2009, again demonstrates, that the White House is a partner in an ongoing smuggling operation. If successful, will result in funding of abortion on demand, by the federal government.

 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated on October 7, 2009, "Well, I don't want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there's a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion, that isn't going to be changed in these health care bills." With this statement, Mr. Gibbs, in essence repeated a discredited claim made by President Obama himself, on August 20th, when the president said,  "There are no plans, under health care reform, to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing the Hyde Amendment. Let's be clear about that. It's just not true."

 

In response, Douglas Johnson Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee (NLRC) said, "Gibb's statement is one more proof, if any more were needed, that the White House is actively engaged in a political smuggling operation - an attempt to achieve funding of elective abortion by the federal government cloaked in smokescreens of contrived language and outright deception. There is no current federal law, that would prevent the new program created by the pending health care bills, from paying for abortion on demand - and the White House knows that well. Only language written directly into the bills, would prevent government funding of abortion - but such language has been blocked by the Democratic chairman of 5 Congressional committees, with the White House cooperation, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is refusing the allow the House to even vote on adding a true Hyde Amendment to the Health Care bill."

 

I don't call that 'safe legal and rare'.  I also don't call it, 'coming to middle ground'.  I call it like it is, full support of abortion on demand.