By  Willie Soon and Paul Driessen

Newly proposed air pollution rules impose exorbitant costs for illusory health benefits.

In December 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency released new Clean Air Act “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Once again, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson touted the supposedly huge benefits of controlling emissions of mercury (Hg) and other air toxics from U.S. coal- and oil-fired power plants (or electric generating units, EGUs).

The people of Idaho may welcome this new rule, since EPA’s miraculous modeling machine has promised to prevent “six premature deaths” and create “up to $54 million” in health benefits by 2016 – even though not one coal-fired EGU in Idaho fits the EPA’s final rules. Even the District of Columbia, which has only one oil-fired unit, will somehow, magically realize “up to $120 million” in health benefits, presumably from new restrictions on coal-fired units in Maryland or Virginia.

The average U.S. citizen, however, can be excused for no longer being willing to be penalized by EPA – the Extreme Punishment Authority – for such minimal, imaginary and manufactured benefits.

In fact, the final rule may be the most expensive one ever devised by EPA. And yet, even EPA admits, the alleged “hazards to public health” from mercury and non-mercury emissions from American EGUs are “anticipated to remain after imposition” of the new regulations.

As to benefits, EPA computer models claim Hg emission cuts will reduce average per person “avoided IQ loss” by an undetectable “0.00209 IQ points,” with estimated “total nationwide benefits” of $500,000 to $6.1 million by 2016. For the electric utility sector, says EPA, net job creation from the rules will be “not statistically different from zero” and could be between minus 15,000 and plus 30,000 jobs.

In fact, the new regulations will likely eliminate tens of thousands of jobs annually, especially in energy-intensive industries that rely on low-cost electricity to survive and face growing competition from foreign companies that pay far less for energy, labor and raw materials. Small businesses will also get hammered.

“EPA cannot certify that there will be no SISNOSE from this rule,” the agency admits. “SISNOSE” is EPA-speak for “significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.” In other words, the rules are likely to inflict significant economic harm on small businesses, and thus on the health and welfare of numerous (former) small business owners, employees and families. The agency failed to explain why it has once again ignored the adverse impacts on human health and welfare caused by its rules.

EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3% of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds, and thus in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97% comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit. (The “missing” mercury comes from foreign sources and from volcanoes, subsea vents and other natural sources.)

To see how extreme EPA’s scenarios are, consider five more egregious errors in the final regulations. First, EPA admitted it could “calculate risk” for only 3,100 (4%) of the continental USA’s 88,000 watersheds.

Second, for over 60% of the 3,100 watersheds it did model, EPA took only one or two fish mercury measurements – making it virtually impossible to adopt even valid 75th-percentile fish mercury values. There is a breaking point where extremely poor statistical sampling renders EPA’s pretentious number crunching, conclusions and rules invalid. That breaking point has clearly been reached.

Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they themselves catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime. That’s less than 1% of U.S. women. For the rest of American women (who eat mostly ocean fish, purchased at a grocery, on a far less regular basis), EPA’s rules are irrelevant.

Fourth, EPA admits that only 22 to 29% of its computer-modeled watersheds are “at risk” from EGU mercury, even when it erroneously assumed that at least 5% of total Hg deposition into the watersheds came from U.S. power plants. If the modeling criteria were tweaked only slightly – to reflect average freshwater fish consumption rates for American women, and require that at least 15% of total mercury deposition be attributable to EGUs – not one U.S. watershed would be at risk.

Finally, EPA ignores the presence of selenium in nearly all fish. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury (MeHg), mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form.

Combining any series of small probability scenarios results in a near-zero likelihood that the events will actually happen. If each of five scenarios has only a 20% chance of happening, the likelihood that all five will happen is 0.032 percent.

As the preceding analysis suggests, the probability that all the EPA’s improbable scenarios will actually happen is virtually zero; the likelihood that its new regulations will benefit human health is also zero.

However, EPA still stubbornly “disagrees that [mercury] exposure levels in the U.S. are lower than those in the Faroe Islands.” Exposure to MeHg in the U.S. is “the same” as in the Faroe Islands, EPA insists.

The agency is simply wrong.

Extensive medical and scientific studies demonstrate that average Americans are exposed to at least 5 to 10 times less MeHg than average Faroe Islanders. The islanders consume large quantities of pilot whale meat and blubber – which is high in methylmercury, high in PCBs and low in selenium. As a result, their blood mercury concentrations can be up to 350 times higher than the mean blood mercury levels measured by the Centers for Disease Control for average American women.

The Faroe Islands study is irrelevant to mercury exposure risk for average Americans. EPA’s use of that study is deceptive. American women and children are safe from any likely threats from mercury.

To top it off, EPA itself proclaims: “The emissions limits in today’s rule are technology-based … and do not need to be justified based on their ability to protect public health.”

In other words, if the technology exists to eliminate these pollutants, the agency will impose the new regulations – regardless of their cost, their effect on electricity prices and reliability, their impact on factory and other jobs, and whether the rules actually do little or nothing to improve human health.

It has become increasingly obvious that EPA’s real goal is to assert its authority over ever-increasing segments of our economy; reinterpret medical and scientific studies to fit its regulatory agenda; and replace as many coal-fired power plants as possible with costly, unreliable renewable energy systems.

American voters, elected officials and courts need to challenge these radical, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, demand an end to EPA’s distortion of science and reality – and reverse these flawed rules.

Willie Soon is a natural scientist with strong interest in mercury and public health issues. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality.

 

WesternFront America

“The electromagnetic field is the perfect secret agent: you cannot see it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, and its effects are slow but relentless.” -By Volter Hertenstein, MP Bavarian Parliament

I ask NWVs to post this column on a Friday because it does require many hours of reading to fully understand the issue. By necessity, this new column is two parts as I’m trying, as I did in my first column, to put as much credible information all together in one place to make it easier for everyone fighting this new silent killer. We’re all pressed for time. Thank you to everyone who sent in reference material in our efforts to share the truth and what we can do to stop this madness.

There is a major war being waged in this country, although you’d never know it by the silence from the old, disgraced media (ABC, CBS, NBC) and all the cable “news” networks. This new assault on our bodies and privacy is over another relatively new piece of technology that allegedly will save energy; it will also cost tens of thousands of jobs for meter readers. When I say millions of Americans are up in arms over this, I am not exaggerating.

If you are unfamiliar with this issue, please read my first column first on this to get a full understanding of how dangerous those ‘smart meters’ are and why you don’t want one on your home or business. It contains not only my battle against having one installed on my house (update in Part II), but the very best expert opinions from individuals who have studied wireless RF (radio frequency) for decades:

My fight against the ‘smart meter’

Since that column was published, my email box has been overflowing with questions, which I will address as best I can in this column. Hundreds of emails describe how people’s health has suffered serious deleterious effects after the meters were installed – before the individual even knew about possible dangers to their health. When I say utility companies are forcing this installation of those meters, I am not exaggerating. I know of one instance here in Texas where a utility company installation man forced his way onto the person’s property and physically pushed the lady of the house mulitple times (in other words, he assaulted her) in his attempt to install the meter after she told him she did not want the meter installed and to get off her property. I have spoken with her on the phone, but due to legal reasons, cannot be more specific right now.

Wisconsin Utilities Bullying Customers Over Smart Meters

“The nationwide roll-out of transmitting radio frequency utility meters, known as smart meters, has intensified since the federal push and funding for them came through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Wisconsin utilities got $21.5 million of the $3.4 billion awarded for smart grid projects, including meter installation. But people who are sensitive to the effects of microwave radiation and electrical fields cannot tolerate the new source of emissions. And some Wisconsin utility companies have been bullying their paying customers who have resisted the installation of smart meters, or requested their removal for health reasons.

“In fact, the chronic bursts or pulsing of smart meters have not been proven to be biologically safe for anyone. Current federal standards are grossly out of date, not taking into account the growing levels of microwave radiation exposure people now get 24/7 from various sources. Furthermore, FDA/FCC standards are based solely on the heating effect of microwave radiation on a large, grown man, ignoring numerous studies that point to other effects, including irregular heartbeats, melatonin depletion, which affects sleep, and abnormal mast cell proliferation, which affects the immune system and inflammation levels.”

Here are just two examples from California:

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Wowak Enabling Illegal “Smart” Meter Installations

“Despite Public Outcry, Sheriff Refuses to Enforce County Law Banning Wireless Network – Santa Cruz, CA- “This morning at approximately 7:45am, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a “smart” meter protest at the Wellington Energy yard at 38th and Portola in the unincorporated Opal Cliffs area of Santa Cruz County where PG&E contractors Wellington Energy are based. Wellington has been installing wireless “smart” meters throughout the county, violating ordinances in Capitola, Watsonville, and the County[1] that prohibit installations due to urgent concerns about health impacts from the meters’ wireless pulses, which have been measured at 100 times the strength of a cell phone[2], as well as privacy violations, ongoing accuracy issues and a series of fires and explosions caused by the new meters.

“Thousands of people have submitted written health complaints to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and in May the World Health Organization made an earth shattering declaration- that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones, cell towers, wifi, and “smart” meters, has been linked with a number of cancers. “Smart” meter radiation is now categorized as a class 2b carcinogen in the same cancer causing category as lead, DDT, and engine exhaust.[3] Nevertheless, PG&E continues to maintain that their meters are safe.”

Two More Arrested at Santa Cruz County Smart Meter Protest – PG&E Covering Logo on Trucks to Sneak into Backyards as Illegal Installations Begin

Santa Cruz County, Calif.- “Two people were arrested Friday afternoon by Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Dept. for peacefully blocking smart meter installation trucks as they attempted to drive out of a yard in the Pleasure Point neighborhood of Santa Cruz County. PG&E has stated that they do not intend to respect laws in Santa Cruz County, Capitola, and Watsonville that prohibit wireless meter installation- laws that were passed to protect the public from identified health and safety risks from the new meters. The two protesters who are affiliated with StopSmartMeters! were charged with misdemeanor obstruction, and released with court date in August.”

Why are utility companies pushing so hard to install one of those dangerous meters on every house, apartment, retail and commercial building in this country? Because of something called the $2 trillion dollar ‘Smart grid’ and BIG money. Advocates for the ‘smart meters’ (especially those who stand to make billions of dollars destroying your body) claim they save energy. One State Attorney General doesn’t see it that way:

State of Connecticut – Office of the Attorney General George Jepsen
Jepsen Urges State Regulators to Reject CL & Ps Plan to Replace Electric Meters
February 8, 2011

“To evaluate the technical capabilities and reliability of the advanced metering system, state regulators previously approved a limited study of 10,000 meters. Between June 1 and Aug. 31, 2009, CL&P tested the meters on 1,251 residential and 1,186 small commercial and industrial customers, who volunteered and were paid for their participation in the study. The company reported its results to the DPUC on Feb. 25, 2010. “The pilot results showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage,” Jepsen said.”

In addition to to the serious health risks from ‘smart meters’, the other major issue people have is privacy.

Spring 2011 – Industry Week – Leadership in Manufacturing

“The demand portion includes how to control energy inside the consumer space: smart meters on buildings, smart thermostats and smart appliances, to name a few.” How to control your energy use in your own home. “In the initial stages of smart-grid development, companies, governments and consumers have focused on changing attitudes on the demand side, Geschickter says.” Conditioning by those who will control how much power is “allowed” into your home, apartment, business. ‘Smart meters’ are nothing but surveillance without a warrant.

Billions of Taxpayer $$$ Wasted on Risky Technology

“This is federal coercion on a grand scale. President Obama is pushing to expose most U.S. citizens to constant radiofrequency/lectromagnetic radiation (RF/EMR) everywhere. Wireless broadband sends RF/EMR throughout an area rather than directly through a shielded wire or cable to the electronic device being used. Constantly exposing everyone inside and outside of their homes and workplaces in over 98% of the U.S. to unprecedented levels and frequencies of RF/EMR with wireless signals is a dangerous, unsanctioned, mass experiment done without consent that must not occur. This initiative risks our finances, our health, privacy, cyber security, the ability of people with medical device implants to function and more.

“If this radiation were a drug, increasing the dose and type would not be allowed without thorough evaluation of safety because like drugs, it can cause changes in the biology of the body. This radiation promotes degenerative diseases and premature aging even at levels of RF/EMR below FCC limits. Numerous other risks to human health from radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation exposure, particularly to children and persons with disabilities, at levels below the current FCC limits are summarized in the review articles published in the March 2009 issue of Pathophysiology that are based on The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) (The BioInitiative Report).

“Many people who have developed a hypersensitivity to this form of radiation and struggle to shield themselves from increasing levels of this energy throughout the United States wonder where they can go to escape from the widespread wireless radiation of this proposal.

Smart meters send and receive wireless RF/MW signals throughout homes and businesses. These smart meter RF/MW levels are far higher than those already reported to cause health risks. Compliance is not safety, since the existing FCC safety limits are under challenge, and have already been called ‘insufficient to protect public health’ by some federal agencies.

“Medical Device Malfunction Risk from Electromagnetic Interference. Wireless broadband RF/MW radiation can cause medical devices to malfunction. Medical implants such as those to control the shaking of Parkinson’s disease are turned off by the electromagnetic interference(EMI) caused by the signal. Spurious RF signals are already reported in published studies to interfere with critical care equipment, ventilators, pain pumps, wireless insulin pumps and other medical devices.”

Dirty Electricity – “Dirty Electricity tells the story of Dr. Samuel Milham, the scientist who first alerted the world about the frightening link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic pollution, and human disease. Milham takes readers through his early years and education, following the twisting path that led to his discovery that most of the twentieth century diseases of civilization, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and suicide, are caused by electromagnetic field exposure.” Very important.

Health Concerns Grow:
Consumers Are Getting Sick From Wireless Smart Meters

Last year, one state says no to ‘Smart Grid’ — for now

Smart grid technology rollout stalls in Hawaii
Hawaii regulators scuttle plan for expanded rollout of smart grid technology

HONOLULU (AP) — “Hawaii regulators have rejected plans for a broad expansion of smart grid electric technology that would have been paid for by residents and businesses. Hawaiian Electric Co., the state’s primary utility, had envisioned a $115 million smart grid project reaching 451,000 locations on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island. But the utility’s proposal fell apart when the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission on Monday denied a request for expanded testing of the technology on Oahu. The “smart grid” concept relies on installing new electric meters that can wirelessly communicate with the utility, allowing it to better distribute power and handle additional renewable energy.”

Maryland PSC Denies BGE’s Stimulus-Funded Smart Meter Request – June 23, 2010

“The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) on Monday issued an order denying Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.’s (BGE’s) application to deploy smart meters to all its customers because ratepayers would be saddled with financial and technological risks. The move “deeply disappointed, frustrated, and frankly surprised” the utility, because the smart grid project had received a $200 million federal stimulus grant from the Department of Energy last October—the largest amount awarded to a utility.”

Some progress has been made regarding protecting your privacy (you have to read my first column to get the facts on the mining of data from your home and selling it).

PG&E Smart Meter Invasion of Privacy – short video you should watch
Same threats I have received from Reliant Energy & ONCOR

Propaganda piece: Oncor Brings Smart Grid to 3 Million Texans, Privacy Intact

Oklahoma State House Passes Smart Grid Privacy Bill

Texas – Smart Meter Data Belongs to the Customer – March 17, 2011

“In Texas, lawmakers actually did something good related to the smart meter debacle– they included in the law that the data about your electricity usage belongs to you, the customer.”

Can the data still be harvested from third parties tapping into the wireless transmission? I am told yes and it is happening.

After the cow is out of the barn:

California Decides on Data Access and Privacy Standards for Smart Meter Data

“Many young companies have sprung up based on being able to access consumers’ Smart Meter data and package it in some meaningful form.”

Smart Meters and Security: Locking Up the Grid

“Public utility companies are really hot right now for smart grids — electrical grids that use Internet technology and special meters to make energy delivery more efficient. However, they’re getting static from both lawmakers and security researchers who say they’re dragging their feet in making sure their systems are secure.

“Despite reports earlier this year about spies penetrating the computers that help control America’s electrical grid, utility companies appear to be slow in clamping down on security, and that perception has led to a tongue-lashing from a House of Representatives committee.

“U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D, N.Y.) as accused the utilities of exploiting a loophole that allows them to avoid complying with Federal cybersecurity requirements. Also, a security researcher’s revelations of flaws in the smart meters utilities are installing throughout the country added fuel to the fire.”

That report was back in August 2009 and California has just now gotten around to issuing guidelines regarding data mining? Lovely.

As I mentioned in my first column, several individuals got together, pooled their money and hired an energy attorney to represent them at a hearing in front of the Maine PUC (Public Utility Commission). They won; here is the press release:

Skelton, Taintor & Abbott Wins Landmark Smart Meter Case

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Of course, the “customer” out there in Maine has to pay a price for opting out to protect their health: “Choosing a digital smart meter with the wireless transmitter turned off will carry an initial charge of $20, plus a monthly charge of $10.50. Keeping an existing mechanical meter will cost $40 upfront, plus $12 a month. The cost of relocating an existing meter is highly variable, but typically expensive.” Shame on those commissioners for sticking to the people of their state instead of forcing the utility company to replace the meter with an old analog meter at no cost to the consumer.

PART TWO: Can you opt out of having a ‘smart meter’ in your state? What if I already have one installed? Should I file a lawsuit? Is there a state or federal law requiring a ‘smart meter’ be installed on your home or business? Update on my case. For part two click below.

Click here for part —–> 1, 2,

Additional Research Resources:

More key publications on the dangers of wireless RFs – including cell phones from the International EMF Alliance

MR AND RFR updated news from around the world August 2010 to March 2011

DNA Damage and Genotoxicity

March 30, 2011 New Studies by Prof. Yuri Grigoriev et al, Biophysics, 2011,
Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection, Moscow (Russian Federation)

Smart Meters, Dirty Electricity and Disease – short video you should watch

A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients
Associated with Increased Cancer Incidence in a California School

BioInitiative Report:

A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

Wireless Safety Summit to be held in Washington, DC, Oct. 5 & 6, 2011
Click here for full details on the summit and more

Additional information:

1 - Smart Grid: How Secure Will You Be?
2 - The General Government’s big propaganda site
Unconstitutionally stealing the fruits of your labor:
3 - LADWP Received $60 million for Smart Grid Project
4 - Smart Meter Consumers Anger Grows Over Higher Utility Bills
5 - The Smart Grid/Smart Meter Scam
6 - Smart meters: California PUC issues sweeping data access orders
(170 pages) – forget your health concerns
7 - PUC Admits SmartMeter Health Crisis; Opt-Out Plan Falls Short
8 - The Netherlands – Smart energy meter will not be compulsory

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

 

WesternFront America

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Ever wonder what’s really in the food sold at grocery stores around the world? People keep asking me, “What ingredients should I avoid?” So I put together a short list that covers all the most toxic and disease-promoting ingredients in the food supply. These are the substances causing cancer, diabetes, heart disease and leading to tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary health care costs across America (and around the world).

If you want to stay healthy and out of the hospital, read ingredients labels and make sure you avoid all these ingredients:

Acrylamides – Toxic, cancer-causing chemicals formed in foods when carbohydrates are exposed to high heat (baking, frying, grilling). They’re present in everything from bread crusts to snack chips, and because they aren’t intentional ingredients, acrylamides do NOT have to be listed on labels.

Aspartame – Chemical sweetener that causes neurological disorders, seizures, blurred vision and migraine headaches. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030918_a…)

Autolyzed Proteins – Highly processed form of protein containing free glutamate and used to mimic the taste-enhancer chemical MSG.

BPA (Bisphenol-A) – A hormone mimicking chemical found in nearly all food packaging plastics. Active in just parts per billion, BPA promotes cancer, infertility and hormone disorders. It also “feminizes” males, promoting male breast growth and hormone disruption (http://www.naturalnews.com/032860_B…).

Casein – Milk proteins. Hilariously, this is widely used in “soy cheese” products that claim to be alternatives to cow’s milk. Nearly all of them are made with cow’s milk proteins.

Corn Syrup – Just another name for High Fructose Corn Syrup (see below). Frequently used in infant formula products (http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_S…).
Food Colors – FD&C Red #40, for example, is linked to behavioral disorders in children. Nearly all artificial food colors are derived from petroleum, and many are contaminated with aluminum.

Genetically Modified Ingredients – Not currently listed on the label because the GMO industry (Monsanto and DuPont) absolutely does not want people to know which foods contain GMOs. Nearly all conventionally grown corn, soy and cotton are GMOs. They’re linked to severe infertility problems and may even cause the bacteria in your body to produce and release a pesticide in your own gut. If you’re not eating organic corn, you’re definitely eating GMO corn. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_G…) Learn more at www.ResponsibleTechnology.org or watch my GMO music video (hilarious) at www.NaturalNews.com/NoGMO

High Fructose Corn Syrup – A highly processed liquid sugar extracted with the chemical solvent glutaraldehyde and frequently contaminated with mercury (http://www.naturalnews.com/032948_h…). It’s also linked to diabetes, obesity and mood disorders. Used in thousands of grocery items, including things you wouldn’t suspect like pizza sauce and salad dressings.

Homogenized Milk – The fats in the milk are artificially modified to change them into smaller molecules that stay in suspension in the milk liquid (so the milk fat doesn’t separate) (http://www.naturalnews.com/022967_m…). While it makes milk look better on the shelf, it’s also blamed for promoting heart disease and may contribute to milk allergies. Raw milk is healthier, which is why the government had outlawed it (http://www.naturalnews.com/029322_r…).

Hydrochloride – When you see anything hydrochloride, such as Pyridoxine Hydrochloride or Thiamin Hydrochloride, those are chemical forms of B vitamins that companies add to their products to be able to claim higher RDA values of vitamins. But these are synthetic, chemical forms of vitamins, not real vitamins from foods or plants. Nutritionally, they are near-useless and may actually be bad for you. Also watch out for niacinamide and cyanocobalamin (synthetic vitamin B-12). (http://www.naturalnews.com/032766_c…)

Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein – A highly processed form of (usually) soy protein that’s processed to bring out the free glutamate (MSG). Use as a taste enhancer.

Partially Hydrogenated Oils – Oils that are modified using a chemical catalyst to make them stable at room temperature. This creates trans fatty acids and greatly increases the risk of blocked arteries (http://www.naturalnews.com/027445_f…). It also promotes what I call “sludge blood,” which is thick, viscous blood that’s hard to pump. This is usually diagnosed by doctors as “high blood pressure” and (stupidly) treated with blood-thinning medications that are technically the same chemicals as rat poison (warfarin) (http://www.naturalnews.com/023149_d…).

Phosphoric Acid – The acid used in sodas to dissolve the carbon dioxide and add to the overall fizzy-ness of the soda. Phosphoric acid will eat steel nails. It’s also used by stone masons to etch rocks. The military uses it to clean the rust off battleships. In absolutely destroys tooth enamel (http://www.naturalnews.com/021774.html). Search Google Images for “Mountain Dew Mouth” to see photos of teeth rotted out by phosphoric acid: http://www.google.com/search?q=moun…

Propylene Glycol – A liquid used in the automotive industry to winterize RVs. It’s also used to make the fake blueberries you see in blueberry muffins, bagels and breads. (Combined with artificial colors and corn syrup.) See shocking “Fake Blueberries” video at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=7…

Sodium (Salt) – The processed white salt lacking in trace minerals. In the holistic nutrition industry, we call it “death salt” because it promotes disease and death. Real salt, on the other hand, such as “dirty” sea salt or pink Himalayan salt, is loaded with the trace minerals that prevent disease, such as selenium (cancer), chromium (diabetes) and zinc (infectious disease). Much like with bread and sugar, white salt is terrible for your health. And don’t be fooled by claims of “sea salt” in grocery stores. All salt came from the sea if you go far back enough in geologic time, so they can slap the “sea salt” claim on ANY salt!

Sodium Nitrite – A cancer-causing red coloring chemical added to bacon, hot dogs, sausage, beef jerky, ham, lunch meats, pepperoni and nearly all processed meats. Strongly linked to brain tumors, pancreatic cancers and colon cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024.html). The USDA once tried to ban it from the food supply but was out-maneuvered by the meat industry, which now dominates USDA regulations. Sodium nitrite is a complete poison used to make meats look fresh. Countless children die of cancer each year from sodium nitrite-induced cancers.

Soy Protein – The No. 1 protein source used in “protein bars,” including many bars widely consumed by bodybuilders. Soy protein is the “junk protein” of the food industry. It’s made from genetically modified soybeans (often grown in China) and then subjected to hexane, a chemical solvent (http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_s…) that can literally explode.

Sucralose – An artificial chemical sweetener sold as Splenda. The sucralose molecule contains a chlorine atom (http://www.naturalnews.com/027491_a…). Researchers have repeatedly found that artificial sweeteners make people fat by actually promoting weight gain (http://www.naturalnews.com/024543_h…).

Sugar – The bleached, nutritionally-deficient byproduct of cane processing. During sugar cane processing, nearly all the minerals and vitamins end up in the blackstrap molasses that’s usually fed to farm animals. (Blackstrap molasses is actually the “good” part of sugar cane juice.) Molasses is often fed to farm animals because every rancher knows that farm animals need good nutrition to stay alive. Amazingly, conventional doctors don’t yet realize this about humans, and they continue to claim that eating sugar is perfectly fine for you. Sugar promotes diabetes, obesity, mood disorders and nutritional deficiencies.

Textured Vegetable Protein – Usually made of soy protein which is extracted from genetically modified soybeans and then processed using hexane, an explosive chemical solvent (see Soy Protein, above). Widely used in vegetarian foods such as “veggie burgers” (most of which also contain MSG or Yeast Extract, by the way).

Yeast Extract – Hidden form of MSG that contains free glutamate and is used in many “natural” food products to claim “No MSG!” Yeast extract contains up to 14% free glutamate. You’ll find it in thousands of grocery store products, from soups to snack chips. I even once spotted it used on fresh meat!

Food label tricks

Here’s a trick food companies frequently used to pack more sugar into their products without making sugar look like the first ingredient:

Ingredient labels, you see, must list the most prominent ingredients first, and some consumers might freak out of they saw a box of cereal that said, “Sugar, whole grain wheat, corn” and so on. Instead, the company uses 3 or 4 different forms of sugar to distribute them farther down the label, like this:

“Whole grain wheat, sugar, corn syrup, corn syrup solids…”

This way, the first ingredients looks like “whole grain wheat” when, in reality, the cereal might be over fifty percent sugars!

How to buy honest food

• Shop are your local farmer’s market, food co-op or CSA.
• In the USA, look for the USDA Organic label on foods. This is a legitimate claim to being certified organic. It’s one of the few programs run by the USDA that actually has integrity.
• Read the ingredients labels! If you see names of chemicals you can’t pronounce, don’t buy it.
• Buy more unprocessed food ingredients and make your own meals rather than buying ready-to-eat, processed foods, which are almost universally formulated with disease-promoting ingredients.
• GROW some of your own food! The best food you can ever eat is food from your own garden.

How to learn more about what’s really in your food

Read NaturalNews. I’m the editor of NaturalNews, and I cured my own borderline diabetes, high cholesterol and near-obesity using nothing but healing foods.

The more you read NaturalNews, the more you’ll learn about what to avoid in your foods and what to BUY that’s loaded with nutrition! We cover natural cures, superfoods nutrition, juicing, raw foods, nutritional supplements, healing herbs and much more. You can subscribe to our free email newsletter using the form below.

We teach you what the mainstream food industry doesn’t want you to know (and what the mainstream media won’t dare report).

If you want to learn the truth about food, read NaturalNews. Lots more to come…

Some of my favorite nutrient-rich superfoods include…

(No, these are not sponsored links. Just stuff I personally enjoy and purchase on a regular basis to blend into superfood smoothies!)

• Boku Superfood (www.BokuSuperfood.com)
• LivingFuel (www.LivingFuel.com)
• Enerfood (www.EnerHealthBotanicals.com)
• Pure Synergy (www.TheSynergyCompany.com)
• Rejuvenate! (www.IntegratedHealth.com)
• Healthforce Nutritionals (www.HealthForce.com)
• X-Balance (www.SGNNutrition.com)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033162_food_ingredients_chemicals.html#ixzz1TVhHoOdQ

Originally Published at Natural News

 

WesternFront America

By Alan Caruba

Over the course of the first four elements of The BPA File, we have documented a massive, global campaign to ban bisphenol-A, BPA, a chemical that has been safely used for more than a half century to protect metal and plastic containers for food and liquid against spoilage and the resulting hazard to health.

Every day, somewhere in the nation and the world, there is a constant repetition of lies regarding BPA They frequently target the fears of mothers of newborn infants, but also allege a wide variety of other health threats including a healthy sex life for men and women.

In the same fashion that the global warming hoax was spread and maintained by a campaign that asserted that everything from frizzy hair to blizzards was the result of a dramatic warming cycle that was either happening or predicted to happen, the effort to ban BPA uses the same technique.

The campaign is pursued by a coalition of environmental and consumer activist groups that depend on such scare campaigns to maintain funding and secure members who can be relied upon to ignore or reject the science that disputes such campaigns.

In May 2011, the Miami Herald published what read like a news release by the Natural Resources Defense Council that asserted “Bisphenal-A associated with obesity, lower sperm counts, and pre-cancerous changes in the body is found in the bodies of 90 percent of Americans. Now a study shows that you can halve your levels of BPA and other chemicals within three days through a change in diet.”

Three distinct “scares” are captured in this news release, all aimed a fears regarding health, but none of them reflect the fact that trace amounts of BPA is routinely excreted and thus poses no threat. It also fails to reveal that the “studies” always involve administering large amounts of BPA to laboratory mice in a fashion that does not reflect actual exposure.

The ultimate target of the anti-BPA campaign is the widespread use of plastic containers of food and liquids, along with its use to line the insides of metal cans for that purpose.

From its earliest origins, environmentalists have sought to ban chemicals in general even though plastic has transformed and enhanced life around the world. In the U.S., the average life expectancy in the last century rose from thirty-seven in 1900 to the current seventy-eight years!

Earlier this year, the German Society of Toxicology released a review of more than five thousand previous studies of BPA exposure that concluded that BPA “exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.” Researchers concluded that BPA is neither mutagenic nor likely to be a carcinogen.

This, however, has not deterred the constant repetition of lies asserting that BPA is a health threat, nor a variety of efforts, including proposed State bans on the use of BPA. In April 2011, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a 14-page report that included three pages of intensely documented notes, that refuted efforts by the Maryland legislature to ban infant formula and baby food packaging that contains more than 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA.

“In public policy, bad ideas have an unfortunate tendency to spread,” said Dr. Angela Logomasini, PhD. Efforts in Maine, Maryland, and even in Congress to ban BPA portend a host of food-born diseases and even death if such bans continue to be enacted.
The source of these bans is the environmental movement that first came to public notice when they succeeded in getting DDT banned. The result has been a rise in malarial deaths in nations that followed suit and in the swift explosion of the bed bug plague in the U.S.

So vast have been the campaigns against the beneficial chemicals that protect human health that a word was coined to identify the phenomenon—chemophobia. It is an irrational fear of chemicals when, in fact, the human body is a chemical factory, producing chemicals for digestion, hormones, and others, all the while cleaning the body of chemicals it rejects.

Simple common sense suggests that parts-per-billion of any substance cannot possibly pose a risk or threat.

In his book, “The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment”, published by the Cato Institute, author Indur M. Goklany, wrote “In keeping with its origins of technological skepticism, the precautionary principle has also been increasingly invoked as justification, among other things, for international controls, if not outright bans, on various technologies, which—despite substantial benefits to humanity and, in some cases to certain aspects of the environmental—could worsen other aspects of the environment or public health.”

At the heart of environmentalism is the core belief that humans are endangering the Earth by the use of the remarkable technologies that have been developed in the past century.

That is why, by spreading lies about sperm counts, endocrine disruption, and non-existent threats to infants and adults via plastic and metal containers of food and liquids, the ultimate agenda to reduce the worldwide human population is central to the campaign against the use of BPA.

There are no feasible substitutes for BPA. Banning it will guarantee the people will die.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

By Paul Driessen

Proposed EPA rules will do more harm than good for human health, especially for minorities.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his policies would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket” and “bankrupt” any company trying to build a coal-fired generating plant. This is one promise he and his über-regulators are keeping.

President Obama energetically promotes wind and solar projects that require millions of acres of land and billions of dollars in subsidies, to generate expensive, intermittent electricity and create jobs that cost taxpayers upwards of $220,000 apiece – most of them in China.

His Interior Department is locking up more coal and petroleum prospects, via “wild lands” and other designations, and dragging its feet on issuing leases and drilling permits. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency is challenging shale gas drilling and fracking, and imposing draconian carbon dioxide emission rules, now that Congress and voters have rejected cap-tax-and-trade. That’s for starters.

The beat-down of hydrocarbon energy goes on. Oil, gas and coal provide 85% of the energy that keeps America humming, but the administration is doing all it can to take it out of our mix. American voters, consumers and workers may want more drilling, mining and use of hydrocarbons, to get the economy going again. But the administration has a different agenda.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has unveiled another 946 pages of regulations that she claims will protect public health. The regs cover 84 “dangerous pollutants” that are already being scrubbed out of power plant emission streams by a host of innovative technologies. In fact, coal-fired generators now emit a fraction of what they did just 40 years ago.

The most frequently cited of these pollutants is mercury. Higher doses cause well-known ill-health effects, from severe neurological damage to brain damage and death. However, it has been all but eliminated in herbicides, light switches, thermometers and other products.

Its presence in coal and power plant emissions is likewise minimal and declining. The last serious cases of human health impacts from mercury poisoning in the US occurred decades ago – and coal-fired power plants remain the largest source of US-based manmade mercury only because other human sources are essentially gone.

Nevertheless, EPA and its anti-energy, anti-job allies like Climate Progress and Greenpeace are using mercury to spearhead their latest campaign against a fuel that provides half of all US electricity, and up to 95% in many manufacturing states.  Even worse, they claim minorities somehow are especially at risk from mercury and other power plant pollutants. They even went so far as to hold a people-of-color-only press conference, to stir up fears and persuade minority interest groups to support the new regulations.

A few elemental facts put the alleged “dangers” power plant mercury emissions in perspective – which EPA and its fellow campaigners steadfastly refuse to do. They also illustrate how EPA abuses science, statistics and tax-funded “education” campaigns to promote needless public anxiety and expand its control over our lives, jobs and consumer choices, on a host of pollutants that pose little actual risk.

First and foremost, we are talking about a mere 41 tons of mercury per year. If that sounds like a lot, consider the following.

The United Nations Environment Program estimates that the cremation of human remains results in 26 tons of atmospheric mercury per year – from mercury-silver amalgams in teeth fillings.

China’s coal-fired power plants emit six times more mercury than their US counterparts, and power plants worldwide emit nearly twelve times as much, according to UN and other data. Since the atmosphere, jet streams and weather systems are global phenomena, all this mercury is mixed with US emissions,

But even these manmade sources are dwarfed by natural sources.

According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, forest fires in the Lower 48 States and Alaska annually put over 44 tons of mercury into the air. Root systems carry naturally occurring mercury from soils into their leaves and wood; forest fires release the mercury into the atmosphere and also “roast” it out of burned soils. (Maybe it’s time to ban forest fires – and wood-burning stoves.)

Recent studies by two Cambridge University scientists calculate that man and Mother Nature discharge up to 9100 tons of mercury into the global atmospheric every year. Most comes from volcanoes, but subsea vents (the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and elsewhere), geysers and forest fires also play major roles.

In other words, US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air that we Americans breathe. Even eliminating every ounce of this mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5% of that pollutant in America’s atmosphere.

And yet EPA & Company demand that we do just that – at a cost of billions of dollars per year, to “protect” us from infinitesimal or imaginary risks.

Perhaps our helpful bureaucrats and activists could put a Plexiglass bubble over the entire United States, to keep those evil natural and Chinese gases out; plug Old Faithful and Kilauea; keep people (especially minorities) away from Yellowstone National Park; and ban curly mercury-enhanced CFL bulbs.

Add up everything EPA is doing to tax, obstruct and penalize coal use, and we are looking at huge increases in electricity prices. These skyrocketing prices will hammer family budgets, especially in minority communities, impairing nutrition and health, making it harder for many families to heat, cool and pay for their homes, and increasing illness and death.

Soaring energy prices will also force numerous companies to outsource manufacturing operations and jobs. Electricity is a major cost for factories, offices, stores, hospitals and schools. Every price hike hits them with another $10,000 to $1,000,000 or more in new annual expenses that they must pass on to consumers – or address by laying off more employees, whose families then suffer even more.

These hard realities must be viewed against 8.9% national, 11.6% Hispanic and 15.3% black joblessness.  (These figures do not include people who have given up on finding a job, or have been forced to take part-time or temporary work.) EPA’s unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are being completely disingenuous when they say their latest ten-pound stack of rules will bring one milligram of net benefit to human health and welfare, especially for minorities.

EPA’s special “stakeholder briefing” on March 16 certainly conveys the correct image. Environmental activist groups are holding the stake that this rogue agency intends to pound through the heart of America’s economic recovery and civil rights progress.

EPA needs to start basing its policies and rules on science, reality, common sense, and comprehensive public health considerations. Congress needs to reassert its authority over EPA.

Both need to focus on responsible, science-based air and water quality standards that address real health and economic needs – and recognize that “human health and welfare” means more than eliminating every vestige of US manmade emissions, especially when we can do absolutely nothing about the vast majority of natural and manmade global emissions.

America – and our economic and civil rights progress – are waiting.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

WesternFront America

Gruesome pictures on cigarette packs only serve to demonstrate just how ignorant the US Government thinks Americans really are.

I live in a state that was, more or less, financed by tobacco for over 200 years. Within two blocks of my home are three tobacco warehouses where tobacco was trucked in by farmers and sold at auction. I, myself, have followed the auctioneer down the long rows of tobacco as each pile was auctioned off to the highest bidder. I still savor the memory of the aroma of freshly cured tobacco on the floors of those warehouses.

It was a wonderful time here when the tobacco-selling season opened. Money was everywhere. A farmer could truck in a load of tobacco in the early morning and leave the warehouse in the afternoon with a roll of bills large enough to choke a horse. They headed for the retail district of town, ASAP, to pay off loans and buy the needed clothing, etc, for their families and supplies for the next years planting. The sidewalks of our town were so crowded with shoppers that often one would have to walk in the street because maneuvering the sidewalks was impossible. Cash flowed like water.

That is all gone now. The city is a ghost of its former self. The county is now one of the poorest in the state. And I resent the hell out of it.

Look, I am a smoker. I have been since pre-school age. I am now a few months shy of my 70^th birthday and I am still smoking.

I smoked cigarettes, a pipe, and cigars, and I carried a plug of chewing tobacco in my hunting vest when I was in the swamps or fields hunting. I never liked to smoke in the forests and swamps for fear of accidentally starting a fire. So rather than smoke, I would chew tobacco.

Today I only smoke cigars and a pipe.

I like tobacco. I always have. I intend to smoke, because I enjoy it, until my life is up on this plain on existence.

Love of tobacco sort of runs in my family. My maternal grandfather used tobacco products all is life. He only lived to be 96 years old. My paternal grandfather did the same thing but he was not as fortunate for the Lord called him home at the relatively young age of 93. (One of my most prized possessions is his pipe.) My father was a cigarette and pipe smoker until he expired at the age of only 89.

My aunts died in their 80’s and 90’s and they were smokers, too.

One of my greatest joys in life is to “PO” a non-smoker who might dare to look exasperated when I light up my pipe.

See, I don’t give a rat’s rear-end whether you favor or disfavor smoking. I really, really, could not care less. It is a personal choice I made many decades ago, and I like it, and I make absolutely no apologies for it.

That said — it irritates me no end that the government, which derives tons of cash off taxes from the sale of tobacco products, has the audacity to pressure me — and all smoking Americans — to quit. It is none of the government’s business what I choose to do with a legal product.

When they finally make the sale of tobacco products illegal, I intend to grow my own, shred it, and continue to smoke ‘til my dying day.

As to those god-awful pictures they are proposing placing on cigarette packs, I suppose we will have to bring back the old plastic and metal cigarette cases, within which, one could slide a complete pack of cigarettes hiding the logo and the government’s scare art. Cigarette smokers may continue to smoke without looking at those disgusting government propaganda posters splashed across the packages.

Another thing that really, and I mean R E A L L Y ticks me off about the “holier than thou” anti-smoker crowd is they totally ignore the dangers posed by the use of alcohol, which is indisputably far more dangerous to a consumer’s health than a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. How about some pictures of an auto crash with dead bodies lying all about the pavement alongside empty beer and whiskey bottles. No, that is not going to happen because the authorities, the “Health Police,” and so darned hypocritical and, most likely, many are consumers of alcohol products, themselves. Being the elitist snobs they are, they are going after only those who offend them — and drunks obviously do not offend them. I wonder how many of those elitists “Health Police” have DUI tickets they’d rather we not know about? Huh?

This is simply another case of our elitist government flexing its muscle and demonstrating its power over we “peons” by intervening in the lives of the private American citizen.

This is also another reminder that America is no longer a free country. We have a lot of rogue government agencies in Washington with the power to pass rules and regulations, which have the power of law. That, absolutely, must be brought to a screech halt.

In my opinion, there is no need for the majority of those interventionist agencies and the new US House of Representatives, where all spending bills must originate, ought to begin defunding those agencies and starving them out of existence just as soon as they are sworn into office.

Ronald Reagan once said: “Government is not the answer to our problems. Government IS THE PROBLEM.” Some of the agencies, I’d personally like to see disbanded and done away with include: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and all of Obama’s Czars and Czarinas. And that just scratches the surface for the list of agencies that serve only to harass the American public and American business. It is a very long list, indeed.

The government is too big, too intrusive, too powerful, and too full of itself. It needs to be brought to heel, which is where an American representative republic belongs in the first place.

The “Health Police” have crossed the line with their gruesome scare tactics on packs of cigarettes and I sincerely hope, when their budget comes up for review soon, it will be cut to near zero in order to bring some control and humility to their agency and remind them who they work for. They, apparently, have it backwards.

Oh, I am happily puffing on my pipe as I write this piece. If you don’t like it, may we suggest – well — you know what you can do with your objection.

J. D. Longstreet

 

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