There are few opportunities for legislation that holds the prospect of gain for EVERYONE who supports it, regardless of party or ideology – but amazingly, the repeal of ObamaCare offers that very opportunity, if our elected officials would but examine the possibilities!!

First and foremost, the majority of America rejects ObamaCare and supports its repeal.  So you’ve got popular support.  For the Democrats, that majority thing ought to be a biggie.  After all, they’re all about direct democracy, aren’t they?  Majority rules, right?

But as I’ve been quick to point out on many occasions, not everything that’s popular is right, and not everything that’s right is popular, so let’s look at some other motivations that might move our members of Congress to action.

Dems should consider that ObamaCare is about to undergo a major review by the Supreme Court.  Even with Kagan participating and not (properly) recusing herself from the case – there is a very strong possibility that at least some part of ObamaCare will be struck down – if not in its entirety!  This would deal a major blow to the party that rammed it through without a single GOP vote, after arm twisting and bribery by Pelosi, generally UNREAD, which had to be PASSED so we could know what’s in it!  Not only was it bad law, passed in an unscrupulous manner against the will of the people, but SCOTUS will also give the slap of unconstitutionality to at least part of it.  That stings.

Why not get out in front of this and defuse it by repealing ObamaCare and making a SCOTUS review moot?

And likewise, GOP, what if SCOTUS only finds PART of ObamaCare unconstitutional?  Do you want to HAVE to live with any part they find legit enough not to strike down?  Are you confident that Kennedy will hang tough with the conservatives on the Court ENOUGH to do away with ObamaCare?  What kind of mixed bag of upheld and struck down provisions might we have to contend with?

But hey, Republicans, here’s the BEST reason to move on repeal.  YOU PROMISED TO!  You were ELECTED to!  The whole point of the Mid-Term Elections was to put you in a position to.  And you’ve forgotten all about it.  That will not sit well come primary season!

Back to the Dems.  Since you took the reins of Congress in January 2007, we watched the deficit climb from 120 Billion at the end of GOP control of Congress, to nearly 15 times that amount at 1.7 Trillion.  We watched the National debt climb from 6 Trillion after 6 years of Bush and 2 wars to nearly 14 Trillion in 4 years of Pelosi/Reid.  So whatever Bush Bashing you may do, and however much you seek to blame Bush and say Obama INHERITED his problems… the American People understand that you are the party of spending with reckless abandon.  A reality, and a perception you may do well to strive to reverse!

The Super-Committee is charged with finding a Trillion in cuts over 10 years.  A pittance!  That’s really only 100 Billion a year… and they can’t do it!  If the automatic cuts kick in, the military will be slashed, and lefty ideologues aside (as they represent only around 20% of the population) the people of America DO NOT want to see the military slashed by 500 Billion!

Repealing ObamaCare will save TRILLIONS over a decade.  All by itself.  Your precious spending programs don’t even have to be touched, and you can claim victory in achieving the spending reduction!

For the GOP, repealing ObamaCare is a victory fiscally, and ideologically, protecting individual rights, reigning in an egregious over-reach by the federal oligarchy.

For all of you.  Repeal would result in an economic recovery far exceeding the wildest dreams or expectations of any program or stimulus the Administration has considered, offered or implemented!  Companies, freed from the shackles of ObamaCare, would loosen the hiring constraints.  Jobs, production, GDP and tax revenues would all climb – and true to Reagan’s quote… a rising tide does indeed lift all boats.  And you could all claim credit for stimulating the economy out of the worst “recession” (depression) in our lifetimes at least!

Back to the Dems.  Are you REALLY supportive of affordable healthcare for people?  Then realize how many companies are ready to ABANDON providing care when ObamaCare is fully implemented!!  I know many of you are idealogically committed to Single-Payer healthcare, and such a collapse of the private and employer provided market would leave a vacuum that you’d feel compelled to fill with Government care… but America resoundingly doesn’t want it!  Given the choice between the private enterprise Hospitals like Barnes, Mayo, Mt Sinai, or Hopkins, and government care like say, a VA hospital, which do you think most Americans would opt for?  Even if they pay for private insurance?

If ObamaCare is SO GOOD for people, why the waivers for so many FOD’s (Friends of Democrats)?  And why is Congress exempt?

ObamaCare is a boondoggle.  It’s an embarrassment to the Dems and CAUSED the massacre of 2010.  It’s impractical.  It’s unsustainable.  And eliminating it will save TRILLIONS.

Truly.  WHAT are y’all waiting for?  How about a nice Christmas present THIS year?  America said THANK YOU for Pelosi’s Christmas Present of 2009 with the November 2010 elections.  Repeal for Christmas 2011 would be a present America would TRULY appreciate!

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

Prior to the American “War Between the States,” the southern states began to nullify those laws passed by Congress they felt were overbearing, or would harm the people of the states in any way. It was a legal approach toward a too powerful federal government, which was created by the states to act as an agent of the states and not as the master of the states.

We don’t see much of that today. The federal government has had a great deal of success through their government run schools of re-educating the citizenry that the states are subservient to the federal government.

There are some reports that at least ten states are currently, or soon will be considering nullification laws in their sovereign states that would make ObamaCare illegal with their borders. Fourteen other states are suing in the courts in an effort to have ObamaCare overturned and tossed out. We wish them all good luck.

If a new bill, which has already been filed in Texas ahead of the 2011 session of the Texas state legislature should pass it would nullify Obamacare. The bill provides penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the “felony” of attempting “to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation” of ObamaCare.

The bill was pre-filed by Leo Berman, a Republican, from Tyler, Texas. It is House Bill 297 in case you would like to look it up.

The bill would simply nullify Obama’s federal health care law in the state of Texas. Texas HB 297 says that federal health care legislation is invalid in the state of Texas, is not recognized by the state of Texas, is specifically rejected by the state of Texas, and is null and void and of no effect in the state of Texas. The bill explains: “The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.”

Just so everyone knows the bill is serious it says, plainly and simply the following: “”a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter.” The bill goes on to say: “assumption of power by the federal government in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872; Pub. L. No. 111-152) interferes with the right of the people of this state to regulate health care as they determine is appropriate …”

Understand this: This nullification of a federal law within a state is legal. It is well within the scope of all the sovereign states. In fact, James Madison often praised as the writer of the Constitution, but undeniably one of those who did said that the states have a duty to assert their power as a sovereign state when the federal government oversteps its authority. Madison had this to say in the Virginia Resolution of 1798: “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Somewhere along the line, Americans have forgotten that the states are sovereign. They are separate countries with their own governments elected by the people of those states. We have forgotten the formation of the federal government was an act of the states, not to create their own master, but to create a servant of the states.

I suspect many of the leaders of the various states are frightened witless that should they buck the federal government, the same thing will happen to them as happened to the southern states when they asserted their right to secede from the union and form their own country over their dissatisfaction with a federal government that had grown, even at that early stage of American history, into a near tyrannical regime. They fear the revenge with which the federal government savaged the southern states. It was called “Reconstruction” and it was damaged the southern states even more than the shooting war.

As a southerner, I am convinced the current federal government has stepped way across the line with ObamaCare and deserves to be confronted with nullification laws in as many states as believe it to be the act of a federal government grown intoxicated with power and intend to use that power to force their will on the people of the states who want no part of the takeover of a huge chunk of the US economy and intervene directly into the lives of Americans who do not want them there.

The states have a right, AND the DUTY, to say no. We will not bow to the will of an out of control federal government that has over-stepped its constitutional restraints.

ObamaCare is a slap in the face to freedom loving Americans across this great land. The states must band together to stop it and destroy it.

J. D. Longstreet

NOTE: Two articles you might enjoy reading on this same subject can be found at:

Tenth Amendment Center

And the

World Net Daily

********************

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

These Republicans are definitely not the “party of no” (as cheap shots would have it)

By Deroy Murdock

NEW YORK — Whether or not the GOP wins the U.S. Senate, several Republican contenders for the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body hope to promote some rather unique proposals. Republicans are running on such ideas as repealing ObamaCare, curbing federal spending, and making permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Those are all fine concepts, but several candidates have gone beyond the old perennials to promote good, less-familiar ideas.

•Among others, California’s Carly Fiorina highlights two particularly intriguing proposals:
First, she recommends something called Jobs for Americans Zones. In these specific geographic areas, federal tax benefits would be coupled with relief from state and local regulations. This would create conditions designed to lure manufacturing jobs back to America that have fled for more appealing economic climates. These incentives would include:

A 10-year tax holiday for facilities repatriated from overseas
A five-year tax holiday for start-ups and expansions
State and local permitting and land-use assistance
Holidays from uncompetitive state and local regulations, such as onerous work rules that boost labor costs

“Carly believes we must compete and fight for every single job,” says campaign press secretary Andrea Saul. “That means both creating jobs at home and bringing jobs back from overseas. She believes we should ensure that the incentives we offer for high-skill and manufacturing jobs are competitive with what foreign governments offer.”

Second, Fiorina advocates something she calls “Letting Americans Pay Down the Debt.” In short, taxpayers could steer part of their levies to curbing America’s $13 trillion in deep-red ink. As Saul explains, Fiorina “understands that, in order to put Americans back to work, get small enterprises back in business and boost economic growth beyond just 2 or 3 percent, we must reduce the stress that record-high federal spending places on our economy. To do that, among many other ideas, she has proposed that Congress give taxpayers the opportunity to designate 0 to 10 percent of their federal tax liability towards debt reduction.”

•Connecticut’s Linda McMahon spotlights congressional pay. She would slash legislative salaries to match the U.S. median income. If McMahon prevailed, congressional pay would plunge from $174,000 to $44,389.

“If Members of Congress want their own salaries to rise, they will need to support policies that will help boost incomes for average Americans,” McMahon spokesman Shawn McCoy elaborates. “Career politicians will probably do their best to block such a proposal, so it might be easier to push for capping Congressional salary until median income catches up.”

Harmonizing congressional and rank-and-file salaries will pry Congress from the bubble of relative affluence that isolates them from their constituents. Members of this Congress might have understood this economy’s thoroughgoing flaccidity if they struggled as hard to pay their bills as do the Americans they represent.

“I won’t take a dime in salary,” says McMahon. “Career politicians run for the U.S. Senate for the perks and the money. I’m not interested in the perks, and I won’t let taxpayers pay me more than a million dollars over six years while Connecticut families are hurting.”

McMahon also says she will limit her own time on Capitol Hill. “I’ll serve only two terms. Period,” she declares. “If you can’t work through an agenda in 12 years, you don’t have an agenda. You have a career.”

•Florida’s Marco Rubio is a one-man think tank. He has unveiled “10 Simple Ways to Lower HealthCare Costs,” “12 Simple Ways to Improve Education,” and “23 Simple Ways to Create Jobs.” Among his “12 Simple Ways to Cut Spending,” these look especially tantalizing:

Reduce the Size of the Federal Bureaucracy. To get spending under control, we must cut the size of the government workforce. To begin, we should freeze federal civilian workforce pay for one year and bring the pay scale back in line with market rates. In addition, we should reduce its size to 2008 levels. To accomplish this without disrupting critical government services, we should implement a policy of only hiring just one civilian employee for every two who leave government.

Freeze Federal Non-Defense, Non-Veterans Spending at 2008 Levels. We should freeze non-defense and non-veterans discretionary spending at pre-Obama levels. In addition, we actually should enforce our goals to cut spending and reduce the deficit by making automatic cuts if politicians won’t. This could save hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years.

Automatic Sunset of Government Programs. We need to end the permanent lease on life that government programs are given. Too often, Congress creates a spending program, increases it’s funding, and never looks back to see if it is actually working. We should mandate that all discretionary spending programs end every 10 years after the Census, unless Congress specifically votes to continue them.

Rubio campaign spokesman Alex Burgos says that the Automatic Sunset already brightens the Sunshine State. “It’s an idea that’s been at work in the Florida Legislature and helps make sure programs are regularly evaluated and properly debated, not passed once and allowed to live on forever.”
Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of brain death. “The other side just is not presenting a serious idea of how to balance our budgets and put us on a stable fiscal footing,” President Obama complained to Richmond, Virginia voters on September 29.

In fact, GOP congressional challengers and incumbents are bursting with worthy ideas for repairing America. Some are wise, albeit oft-repeated. Others are novel and merit further interest.
Whether Leftists like Obama and his Democrat pals on Capitol Hill will listen to such proposals is another matter entirely. After Tuesdays’ vote, those ideas may become too powerful to ignore.

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. This column first appeared on NationalReview.com.

 

WesternFront America

It should be remembered that it was candidate Barack Obama, who said when addressing “reproductive rights,” http://www.rcrc.org/issues/election08_obama.cfm “A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.”

In the intervening two years, a great deal has happened to not only cement those views into public policy but force American taxpayers to fund this deadly agenda, regardless of their religious or moral views on abortion. His message is that there is no fundamental right to life.

Architects of the culture of death such as the National Women’s Law Center salivate over and are emboldened by Obama’s fascination with “reproductive rights.” When the news came out that http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703908704575433714132688140.html “Wisconsin is pushing to expand a controversial program that uses federal Medicaid funds to provide free birth-control pills, vasectomies and other forms of contraception to low-income people, an effort made possible by the federal health-care overhaul,” the NWLC went ballistic because the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Richard Doerflinger observed that such a proposal is guided by “a very dismissive view of women.”

The NWLC was pleased to immediately attack the USCCB, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10082010.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=@sacnsint suggesting it was out of touch with women and was using its influence to further oppress them. Clearly, truth is not part of the NWLC game plan.

In reference to the same program, Matt Sande, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, an American Life League Associate group, pointed out, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/wisconsin_considers_plan_to_expand_family_planning_program_to_teen_boys “Providing free, taxpayer-funded birth control to 15-year-old boys and girls behind parents’ backs is horrible public policy, and we urge the finance committee to block expansion of this offensive program.”

Indeed, Sande and Doerflinger are right. Contraception is dangerous to women, deadly to preborn children and destructive to the human family, each member of which possesses human rights that should be protected by the federal government. Instead, the Obama administration has made a full-time practice of doing all it can to drive wedges between human persons and their rights.

Recently, the pro-death and badly misnamed Catholics for Choice has taken aim at the same teachings of the Church that so enraged the NWLC this week. In an article titled “Religious Freedom & Catholic Health Care,” it opined, http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/healthcare/religiousfreedomcatholicheathcare.asp

Unfortunately, Catholic health care institutions do not provide women with all basic and essential reproductive health services. Catholic health care in the US is regulated by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (the Directives), which were issued not by doctors, ethicists or regulatory authorities, but by the nation’s Catholic bishops. These directives forbid services that contradict church [sic] positions, namely, prohibiting reproductive health options such as:

· abortion

· contraceptive sterilization

· in vitro fertilization and

· prescribing or dispensing contraceptives and contraceptive devices such as IUDs and diaphragms, emergency contraception, and condoms.

It is pitiful that our nation has reached a place where anyone and everyone can take aim at the Catholic Church, her bishops and her teachings while being in complete agreement with the radical agenda of the most anti-life president we have ever had.

Since when is killing a child or polluting the body of a teen with artificial hormones a “service”?

If American Catholics cannot persevere under the guidance of Church teaching because the government is controlling health care, then where are we to go?

My recommendation is that we go in protest to the Congress and to the American people, because this president’s idea of human rights is killing our future.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

The authorities securing the G–20 meeting in Toronto appear to have been caught off guard when peaceful social activists, community organizers and assorted leftists set fire to police cruisers, smashed windows and attacked the hotel where the meeting was held.

Toronto police had to fire tear gas for the first time in history and arrested 900 people.

Unfortunately, this failure to prevent may be our fault here in Virginia.

There is a possibility that crack civil disturbance teams were in Manassas last week to monitor the Tea Party Rally and found themselves unable to relocate to Toronto in time.

But you cannot fault the authorities. I was at that Tea Party rally and it was filled with tough customers.

First of all, you couldn’t throw a rock without hitting a Christian.

Plus, these were the most dangerous kind of Christian: white and unafraid to pray in public. Sure there were some black and brown people in the crowd of over 500, but I’m thinking they were undercover Homeland Security agents.

Thank goodness it didn’t require a show of force to keep these Constitution–toting radicals in their place.

The Tea Party rally was my first time to hear VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli speak and it was something of a letdown. I expected — based on what I’ve read in The Washington Post — to find a grim, human wrecking ball that would incite the crowd to burn any autos sporting a rainbow sticker and then use the resulting illumination to lead an assault on a natural food store.

Instead, the AG displayed a mischievous sense of humor while discussing a federal government that’s no laughing matter. Cuccinelli emphasized that his suit questioning the constitutionality of Obamacare is not about health care, but instead about liberty.

He makes a good point, but I wish he would turn his attention to the Commonwealth, because when it comes to health care interference, Virginia is not without sin.

Recently the Virginia Department of health refused to issue a “Certificate of Public Need” (COPN) for the construction of a new hospital in nearby Haymarket. Both Sentara Healthcare and Prince William Heath System had submitted applications.

Richmond bureaucrats ruled there are already adequate health care services in the county, so neither firm can build.

The question taxpayers should be asking is what right do these bureaucrats have to issue a decree that says the county doesn’t need a new hospital? There is already a mechanism in place that evaluates need. It’s called the market; and the market can efficiently determine the viability of any enterprise without the expenditure of a single tax dollar or the hiring of a bureaucrat.

The entire COPN process is a scam designed to protect the profits of existing healthcare providers, at the expense of healthcare consumers, by preventing new competitors from entering the market.

COPN is another reason government keeps healthcare costs high.

For example, one of my clients wanted to open a new MRI center here. The COPN roadblock meant he couldn’t just build the facility and attract customers. Instead we had to make a case that a new facility would not diminish the market share and revenue stream of existing MRI owners.

(I’ve always wondered why auto dealers don’t try the same market–fixing gambit. With their clout in Richmond, they could support legislation to determine how many auto dealers a county needs. Just imagine what it would do to the price of a new car and repairs if you could only have a single car dealer in each 15 or 20 mile radius?)

Our MRI facility was designed for more powerful machines boasting the latest technology. These were “open” MRIs built for morbidly obese patients who oftentimes literally would not fit into the torpedo tube–sized openings of older units. The advanced MRIs contained stronger magnets needed to penetrate the additional tissue obese patients have surrounding internal organs.

Nothing like it existed in the county at that time and nothing like it exists today, because the Health Department vetoed his application.

As a result patients were denied access to newer technology and the potential savings of competition, while existing MRI facilities dodged a potential threat to their profits. A typical lose–win, market–distorting government decision.

A free market works to keep prices competitive by rewarding efficient, customer–oriented businesses. Think Lasik eye surgery — not regulated by bureaucrats — where prices have gone down as technology advanced. A fixed market — think health care — rewards lobbyists and cartel members while penalizing the customer.

Fights for liberty on the national level are just as valuable on the state level.

The irony is the organization that fought hardest against my client’s MRI application was Prince William Health System. The same people who just had their application for a new hospital denied, presumably because it would compete with nearby hospitals in Fauquier County.

Pardon me while I gloat.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He’s a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker and can be reached at michael–shannon@comcast.net.

 

WesternFront America

An interesting bit of trivia is floating around in the press these days. It seems that between 2002 and 2009, nearly one billion dollars was given to organizations that support abortion in some way. In fact, those dollars were taxpayer dollars. Catholic News Service informs us that http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002528.htm the recent GAO report “looked at government funding given to Advocates for Youth (AFY), the Guttmacher Institute (AGI), International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Population Council of the United States (PCI) and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).”

· Advocates for Youth: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=51 Encourages sexual rights and promiscuity

· AGI: http://www.guttmacher.org/ Planned Parenthood’s research arm

· IPPF: http://www.ippf.org/en/ Spreads Planned Parenthood’s bilge internationally

· PPFA: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Proponent of every sexual evil known to man

· PCI: http://www.popcouncil.org/countries/us.asp Less people is best

· SIECUS: http://www.siecus.org/ Proponents of sex instruction programs

In addition, American Life League’s Rita Diller combed PPFA’s annual reports and found out that it actually took in more than two billion in tax dollars between fiscal years 2002 and 2008. Yet it only spent $657.1 million. So where did the rest of the money go?

The results of these reports are staggering, particularly given the fact that America is in dire financial straits. Diller points out that for the majority of Americans who consider themselves pro-life, a few questions need to be cleared up! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/18/planned-parenthoods-missing-millions/

“Someone … needs to explain to all those people why $2.3 billion in tax dollars have been doled out to an organization that admits to systematically having killed more than 1.8 million preborn babies between 2002 and 2008 and then reports it only spent $657.1 million in federal dollars.”

As an aside, the title of Diller’s Washington Times exposé was “Planned Parenthood’s missing millions,” which led at least one reader to ask whether it was referring to the number of dead babies or dollars.

And then there’s the blame game. While it is true that Obama has carried the funding forward and increased it in many cases, he is not the first president to provide Planned Parenthood those tax dollars out of our pockets. No, that would be the president who signed Title X of the Public Health Service Act into law in 1970, Richard M. Nixon. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib16.html

Since that time, there has never been a president who has worked to end this debacle. This is why the culture-of-death stalwarts continue to receive the fuel that operates their machinery.

Some claim that we have had presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, for example, who are heroes to at least the political segments of the pro-life movement. But even these two alleged defenders of the pro-life position lifted not a single finger, or even a fingernail, to stop the funding. So why make this a partisan issue?

After all, if a man like President Ronald Reagan didn’t stand up to the apostles of death, why can’t pro-life Americans be honest enough to admit that funding for such groups transcends partisan politics?

Here’s a clue. In order to oppose taxpayer funding for organizations like PPFA, AGI and SIECUS, a leader has to be prepared to stand up to what would certainly be one of the most vociferous and long-lasting media tirades in our history.

This person would have to set forth the facts. He or she would have to gather up the courage to point out that the government has no business in population control advocacy, birth control advocacy or abortion advocacy. And should a politician do this, he would need the public, vocal support of the entire United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the evangelical community and other religious organizations with a grasp of this truth: that the only legitimate role of government is to defend and protect its citizens.

That’s all it would take. But upon reflecting back on the past 40 years of political posturing, I confess that such a person may not exist. Or if he or she does exist, then perhaps that person has already decided that the American system of justice toward the innocent is so debilitated at this point that there are better things to do in the service of God and country.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

…Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emanuel

As regular readers are well aware, I’ve spent a great deal of time covering the death and abuse that are part of the British NHS.  We’ve covered that over 20,000 cancer victims die each year because the NHS won’t cover their medications.  We’ve covered the terrible conditions at some NHS facilities, and we’ve covered the lack of care and waiting periods that are part and parcel to any socialized medical system.  Needless to say, the NHS should be viewed as a cautionary warning against a single payer system.

Here are some of the posts here that discuss the carnage that is the NHS.

Does Single Payer Kill? Why Yes, Yes it Does

Does Single Payer Kill?

The Results of Socialized Medicine: Do we Really Want What Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are Selling?

Rationing Your Life Away

Not everyone see’s it that way.  One person, in particular, is Obama nominee Donald Berwick.  Berwick has been nominated to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Like so many other nominees, Berwick seems to have the typical “progressive” elitism, as well as a health portion of reality denial.  Redstate has a great post on the situation, and I will be using the material that they dug up on Berwick.

“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”

Not enough people dying here?

“Berwick complained the American health system runs in the ‘darkness of private enterprise,’ unlike Britain’s ‘politically accountable system.’ The NHS is ‘universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care – a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just’; America’s health system is ‘toxic,’ ‘fragmented,’ because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: ‘I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.’”

Source: American Spectator

Wow, this guy is actually bold enough to openly state that he believes we’re too dumb to manage our own health care.

Also, Berwick is an admitted advocated of a single payer system.

“If we could ever find the political nerve, we strongly suspect that financing and competitive dynamics such as the following, purveyed by governments and payers, would accelerate interest in [our policy ideal] and progress toward it: (1) global budget caps on total health care spending for designated populations, (2) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations, (3) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent, (4) changes in payment such that the financial gains from reduction of per capita costs are shared among those who pay for care and those who can and should invest in further improvements, and (5) changes in professional education accreditation to ensure that clinicians are capable of changing and improving their processes of care. With some risk, we note that the simplest way to establish many of these environmental conditions is a single-payer system, hiring integrators with prospective, global budgets to take care of the health needs of a defined population, without permission to exclude any member of the population.”

Source: Health Affairs

Rationing?  Yes we can!

“NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system [which has] developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.”

Source: In an interview on Comparative Effectiveness Research

Now, we’ve covered NICE before.  NICE is the rationing body in the UK that determines that life saving treatments are not “cost effective.”  As a result, tens of thousands of British citizens die each year from treatable conditions, such as cancer.

The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

OK, here’s the twist; we’ve heard some very similar things before.  Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, is a government adviser on health care.  Here are some quotes from Emanuel.

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Source:  First Things

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

So, they will use rationing per population, just like Berwick suggests.  Here’s some more.

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

Source: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

So, as Glen Beck would suggest, we need to judge Obama by with whom he associates.  He has Emanuel as an adviser, and now, he nominates Berwick.  Both men seem to mirror very similar ideas when it comes to rationing care, and doing so by “population.”  I think it is safe to assume that both men reflect Obama’s beliefs regarding health care.  If they didn’t, why would he appoint or nominate them?

Actually, this is something that Obama does quite often.  He says he’s against censorship, yet he appointed Cass Sunstein and Mark Lloyd, both of whom DO advocate censorship.  His latest nominee to the SCOTUS also seems to think that the state can squelch free speech.  He claims not to be a gun grabber, but his AG is.  He still tries to portray his position as more moderate, and the MSM helps, but his appointees and nominees clearly reflect his true intent.  Basically, his rhetoric goes one way, but his appointees tell the true story.

© Matt Ross

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0

The Liberty Pen

 

WesternFront America

By Johanna Dasteel

It is hard to believe. Many of us are still pinching ourselves, hoping that it was only a dream or, rather, a nightmare, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “the Senate bill” is now law. We now stand face to face with a brave new America, home of a nationalized health care system complete with taxpayer-financed murder, most commonly committed by surgical and medical abortions. Not only does brave new America, under this law, usurp our personal responsibilities to charitably care for our neighbors but a few other dastardly delinquencies will also be carried out under its dominion:

1. It gives Planned Parenthood the financial boost it has been posturing to receive for decades, essentially making it the government family planning agency. STOPP National Director Rita Diller outlined the financial (and deadly) boon in her March 26 commentary entitled “Planned Parenthood’s Obamacare Grand Slam.”

2. It funds abortifacient contraceptives through the new insurance option.

3. It does not provide any conscience protection for health care providers, insurance companies or taxpayers with moral objections to providing and funding fatal assaults on vulnerable human beings, particularly the preborn (medical, surgical and chemical abortions, human fetal research, fertility “treatments”), infirm (severely mentally and physically handicapped, people artificially aided with food and hydration) and elderly.

4. Building on the stimulus package’s health information technology, it will use a cost-efficiency model of health care to determine the course of treatments for U.S. citizens—an affront to the dignity of the human person, especially the vulnerable infirm and elderly.

5. And worst of all, it directly funds abortions; notwithstanding the executive order that merely reiterates the language of the health care law, so now those who did not fit in the “status quo” of the traditional abortion funding bans on Capitol Hill will also face taxpayer-funded deaths.

While some in the pro-life movement talked about upholding the “status quo,” Denver’s Archbishop Chaput instead discussed the “minimum moral standards” necessary for Catholic support of the Senate health care bill in his March 17 column for the Denver Catholic Register http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3583 :

It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health-care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.

Archbishop Chaput’s message fell on the deaf ears of Catholics in the House of Representatives, and, worse, what Archbishop Chaput articulated as the Catholic Church’s “minimum moral standards” are not even met by the “status quo”:

- America funds Planned Parenthood, but this occurred even before the passage of HR 3590. Every cosponsor of Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Service’s Appropriation Bill’s Title X, banning Planned Parenthood from receiving any of those grant monies, will tell you that we have been funding abortion for decades. Funding Planned Parenthood is funding for abortions, not to mention the pornographic materials it bills as “comprehensive sex education.”

- America currently directly funds abortions that kill children conceived in rape and incest. Stupak’s language http://www.necn.com/03/21/10/Stupak-Maintaining-status-quo-on-abortio/landing.html?blockID=201691&feedID=4215 perpetuates this discriminatory policy and maintains this “status quo.”

- The “status quo” perpetuates the fallacy that mothers’ lives must be pitted against their childrens’, that doctors are incapable of providing equal care to both mother and child, that when a mother’s health is compromised while with child, that it is not only justifiable to kill her child because it tugs at the strings of our empathetic sentiments, but that it is necessary. It is never necessary to kill one human being so that another might live. The Hippocratic Oath http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909 , which requires doctors to provide equal care to every person, just as the government is required to give equal protection to every person, is undermined by this “status quo.” Stupak’s language is a continuation of this lie commonly referred to as the “life of the mother” exception.

Stupak’s language, although lauded as adhering to the “status quo”, was clearly not acceptable. So, why were pro-life groups promoting his amendment, saying that it barred the bill from funding abortion and creating the illusion that it would solve the “pro-life problem?” Of course, his language didn’t survive the process, and now many of these same leaders and their faithful grassroots support are feeling deeply betrayed by their gone-in-the-night hero, Rep. Bart Stupak.

Unavoidably, compromise breeds compromise, and, aside from the parliamentary tricks used to pass HR 3590 into law, it is safe to say that the support of now-infamous and so-called “Catholic” and pro-life organizations was instrumental in the passage of the final bill.

In the wake of this health care nightmare, American Catholics have been left confused and asking that dreaded question: “What now?”

I offer a humble suggestion; one that stalwart pro-lifers have been calling for as well: A recommitment to our original focus and intent to win back the right to life of the preborn, essentially ending all of the compromises.

Murder is not negotiable. Lives are not negotiable, nor are they political “issues” with which we can bargain. It is not the role of government to mitigate injustice, but to prosecute and correct it. Until it is formally and legally recognized that the preborn are persons, the prospect of publicly funding their executions will always be on the table and used for political gains.

In a time in which states’ rights are being discussed at length in order to combat Obamacare, it must be noted that there has been a movement afoot for several years now that has been doing just that.

Meet the answer to “what now?”

The human personhood movement has active initiatives in ten states, among them, Amendment 62 in Colorado, to define the term “person” as one that applies to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being. In a time when the federal government is demonstrably turning its back on the will of the people, it is time to reclaim our liberties through our local and state governments. The human personhood movement realized this sooner than the rest of us. I suggest we hop on board and ride the wave of the states’ rights movement so that the preborn, whose very lives are at stake, have a fighting chance.

Let us pray, recollect ourselves and unite on the only thing that can save the pro-life movement: The bedrock principle that every human being is a person, each possessing inherent dignity, and with a claim to certain inalienable rights that we have an obligation to defend, chiefly the right to life, without exception and without compromise. Personhood Now!

Johanna Dasteel is American Life League’s senior legislative liaison.

 

WesternFront America

…for Plotting to Treat Patients

Editor’s Note: This isn’t even meant to be funny; it’s just an exercise in replacing certain words in a news story about a militia with others about healthcare and considering the results.

Federal agents from the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Investigation, and Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Rationing Board swarmed a makeshift health clinic in Michigan yesterday, arresting eight doctors who were audaciously planning to treat patients without government authority.

Agents moved quickly against the group, known as Primum Non Nocere (Latin for “first, do no harm”), because its members were planning to treat patients sometime in April, prosecutors said. Authorities seized Band-Aids in the raid but would not say whether they found any medicine.

The arrests have dealt “a severe blow to a dangerous organization that today stands accused of conspiring to levy war against nationalized healthcare,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.

Authorities said the arrests underscored the dangers of homegrown anti-national healthcare extremism of the sort seen before 2009, when 2,375,000 people who had health insurance died versus the 45,000 people who died with none.

In an indictment, unsealed today, prosecutors said the group began training to treat patients without federal authority before pResident Barack Obama was elected in 2008, each spending about a decade and hundreds of thousands of dollars learning to diagnose and treat patients without some dweeb in the District of Criminals with a six-figure-salaried desk job, thanks to a friend in Congress, telling them how.

Frank Burns, 54, of Clayton, Mich., and one of his sons were identified as the ringleaders of the group. Burns, who was known as “Doc,” organized the group in whitecoat fashion, and members were assigned secret names, prosecutors said. Ranks ranged from “attending physician” to “intern,” according to the group’s Web site.

“It started out as a Hippocratic Oath thing,” said Mary Burns, his ex-wife. “You go to a medicine cabinet. You put a Band-Aid on someone’s cut without permission from the Health Rationing Board. You take your chances. I think Frank started to take it a little too far when he decided to treat hangnails.”

Prosecutors said Burns had identified certain people near his home as potential patients. He and other members discussed luring the people to the Primum Non Nocere offices, using real medicine to treat them, saving a dying patient after a traffic accident, or convincing patients they should tell family members about the care they’d received, according to the indictment. After such actions, the group allegedly planned to spread out into the community and offer their services at discounted rates in a competitive standoff with the law.

“It is believed by the Primum Non Nocere that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more widespread uprising against nationalized healthcare,” the indictment said.

The charges against the eight include seditious conspiracy, plotting to levy war against U.S. health care financing law; possessing medical equipment during a crime of doing no harm; teaching the practice of medicine; and attempting to use a weapon of mass benevolence — homemade tongue depressors. The defendants were sent to Gitmo, the former prison for Islamic terrorists now serving as a holding cell for people who violate national healthcare policy.

Primum Non Nocere says on its Web site its name means “First, do no harm” and describes the words as part of a secret language that, thanks to Obamacare, fewer will now be privileged to know. The group quotes several medical manuals and declares: “We believe that the greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians and now bureaucrats who run them; one knows how to keep people alive, the other knows how to use Microsoft Excel.”

The site features a picture of 17 men in white coats, all holding large stethoscopes, and includes videos of men armed with patient charts running through an emergency room. Each wears a shoulder patch that bears a staff entwined by two serpents in the form of a double helix and surmounted by wings.

Actually, she’s Nurse Wretched.

Originally posted at Feed Your ADHD © SnarkyBasterd

 

WesternFront America

by Michael Hichborn

An old parable http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html tells of an incident between a frog and a scorpion. As the story goes, a frog was about to swim across a river when a scorpion asked him for a ride. The frog, knowing of the scorpion’s deadly tail, said, “How do I know you will not try to kill me?” The scorpion replied, “If I sting you, we will both drown because I cannot swim.” Seeing the logic of his argument, the frog agreed to give the scorpion a lift. However, halfway to the other side, the scorpion stung the frog on its back. As the poison began to take effect, the frog asked, “Why did you sting me?” The scorpion replied, “It’s my nature.”

Last August, I revealed in the ALL Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1-MCsZ5Kg that the Catholic Health Association was promoting President Obama’s health care reform efforts, even though it called for the expansion of government-funded abortion, birth control, sex education and euthanasia. In an attempt to clarify her position, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, agreed to discuss her support of Obamacare with ALL President Judie Brown on Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over on EWTN. http://vimeo.com/6252379 In the interview, Sr. Keehan said, “We are working closely with our bishops, and have been working with our bishops for years now. We are not at cross purposes with our bishops.” Sr. Keehan stated—at least four times—that CHA would compromise on preferences, but not on principles. And when asked if she was willing to withdraw support for health care reform should it not include strict protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm, Sr. Keehan said, “We’ve already said clearly, unless our principles are met, we are not going to be supportive.”

Other organizations, such as NETWORK http://www.networklobby.org/ and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (currently being investigated by the Vatican made similar statements: They said that they supported the efforts of the bishops and called for protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm. However, when the cards were on the table and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied against the reform bill, CHA, NETWORK and LCWR all broke ranks with the bishops and, instead, supported Obamacare.

What happened? Why did these “Catholic” organizations and individuals directly countermand the USCCB and themselves by supporting a bill that expands abortion, birth control and euthanasia? While Sr. Keehan acknowledged a “major concern on life issues,” she focused primarily on what she hopes the reform law will do. http://www.chausa.org/Contenttwocolumn.aspx?pageid=2147484509&terms=%22major+first+step%22

The following is a brief, but sobering, analysis of the health care reform bill signed into law by Barack Obama last week. H.R. 3590 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf contains the following sections:

SEC. 1302 – ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Under subparagraph (b), the Secretary is charged with defining “essential health benefits” to be included in all federally funded health care plans, such as “preventative and wellness services.” Considering that the phrase “pregnancy prevention service” is rapidly becoming the new code for birth control and contraception, the possibility that essential health benefits will include birth control is a real concern.

But that’s not all that’s wrong with this section. Subsection 4 states:

(4) REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION – In defining the essential health benefits under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

…

(D) ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individuals’ age or expected length of life or of the individuals’ present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, or quality of life;

Should birth control be deemed “essential health care” under the former provision then none of the health care plans may deny coverage for it for any reason.

SEC. 1553. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

(a) In General – The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

…
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to apply to, or to affect, any limitation relating to—

(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;

(3) abortion; or

(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

So, you can’t take direct actions toward killing a patient, but you can take away food, water and oxygen, and administer “dangerous” doses of pain medication (even though it may cause death), so long as that is not the intention. Meant to be a conscience protection clause, this section completely redefines acts that “provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.” Specifically excluded from this definition is the withdrawing of medication or treatment, the withdrawing of nutrition and/or hydration and abortion, which is to effectively redefine euthanasia, assisted suicide, mercy killing, etc. Chillingly, clause (4) implies the notion that doctors and offices can be discriminated against if they refuse to administer dangerous “lethal” doses of pain medication so long as their “intent” is not to harm or kill the patient. The double-edged sword there is that doctors who do such things are protected under the Act and doctors who refuse to administer such doses will be discriminated against. So much for prohibiting discrimination!

SEC. 2303. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

This section is extremely confusing because it amends multiple sections of the voluminous Social Security Act, however it is possible to ascertain certain points by following the leads. After making several alterations to the Social Security Act, Section 2303 amends section:

1902(a)(10) of the Social Security Act … (B) by inserting ‘, and (XVI) the medical assistance made available to an individual described in subsection (ii) shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning setting …

Section 1902 (a)(10) outlines what MUST be included in state plans for medical assistance, and section 1905(a)(4)(C) merely says, “family planning services and supplies furnished (directly or under arrangements with others) to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies.”

Current law requires family planning in all state Medicaid programs. However, this new language will allow states to set up special programs to provide family planning (including artificial contraception) to people who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid—for example, if the individual makes too much money to get Medicaid unless she is pregnant (there is a higher income eligibility limit for pregnant women than non-pregnant women). Under this provision, she would be allowed to receive family-planning-only Medicaid in states that choose to participate. In addition, Section 2202, under the title, “Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations for all Medicaid eligible populations” allows family planning clinics to enroll women in family planning under Medicaid on the spot.

Now, “Family planning services and supplies” are not specifically defined in section 1905 (a)(4)(C), and it only provides a circular definition. Since Planned Parenthood and other such organizations define family planning as including all forms of birth control and even abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that this is how it will be defined here as well. To this end, we can say that the new law, as written, requires state plans to provide the full range of birth control, including abortion.

SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), as amended by sections 2951 and 2952(c), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘ SEC. 513. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION.
…

‘ (2) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-

‘ (A) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term ‘personal responsibility education program’ means a program that is designed to educate adolescents on—

‘ (i) both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B); and

‘ (ii) at least 3 of the adulthood preparation subjects described in subparagraph (C).

‘ (B) REQUIREMENTS – The requirements of this subparagraph are the following:
…

‘ (iv) The program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy among youth and sexually transmitted infections.

Title V of the Social Security Act is the MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT. Section 2953 of the new health care law creates a new section under that title, which amounts to sex education. This new section expands new title funds for organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the purpose of indoctrinating children in all forms of birth control. Planned Parenthood already receives social security grants through Titles III, VI and X of the Public Health Service Act and Titles XIX and XX of the Social Security Act; this section provides yet another vein of blood-money to the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continuing in the same section:

(b) Purpose –

‘ (1) IN GENERAL – The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a)(1) to a State is to enable the State (or, in the case of grants made under subsection (a)(4)(B), to enable a local organization or entity) to carry out personal responsibility education programs consistent with this subsection.

Clearly, the intention of the program is to indoctrinate kids in all forms of birth control. Regardless of whether or not there is an “opt-out” clause for individuals to whom this education applies, the fact of the matter is that more federal funds will be used to indoctrinate kids in immoral practices.

SEC. 4101. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS

(1) PROGRAM – The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.

This section opens funds for grants to create school-based health centers. These health centers provide a vast array of services and, while this section specifies that it will not allow for the performance of abortions, it says nothing of birth control or contraception. Given broad statements such as “comprehensive primary health services,” it is not unreasonable to assert that this language includes birth control. And considering the parameters set for establishing and operating these health centers, it is possible that Planned Parenthood could potentially become such an entity.

There have been numerous analyses of this particular piece of legislation explaining other areas of concern, so the real question is why did CHA, NETWORK and LCWR break with the USCCB and support this law? Either these groups did not carefully analyze the bill, as they claimed, or they willfully deny that these sections exist. Either way, one thing is clear. These progressive organizations, which have enjoyed a long relationship with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, did exactly what they will always do; they placed political expediency above Catholic principle. In other words, the USCCB—and by extension, millions of preborn babies now in greater danger because of this law—was stung by these groups because “it’s their nature.”

Michael Hichborn is director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project http://www.canon915.org and a researcher for Reform CCHD Now. http://www.reformcchdnow.com

 

WesternFront America