Charmaine Yoest in the WSJ

March 8, 2010

Charmaine Yoest is president and CEO of Americans United for Life. She a prudent and active worker on the issue of communicating the desires of ProLife Americans to power in Washington. I also think she’s considered a gadfly or worse by those who see Abortion as a settled right in all situations. She writes in the Wall Street Journal:

It’s now becoming clear that Barack Obama is willing to put everything on the table in order to be the president who passes health-care reform. Everything, that is, except a ban on federal funding for abortion.

Last September, the president promised that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Yet the legislation most likely to move forward in Congress would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The White House knows how to turn Mr. Obama’s September commitment into legislative action. I met with senior White House officials and told them that only adding a so-called Hyde Amendment to the health-care reform bills would fulfill the president’s promise to protect Americans from subsidizing abortion.

The Hyde Amendment dates back to the 1970s, when congressional leaders discovered that Medicaid was paying for nearly 300,000 abortions a year. This had not been an intended outcome of the Medicaid program, which was created in 1965 with strong bipartisan support. So in 1976 Rep. Henry Hyde introduced an amendment to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill prohibiting taxpayer funds from paying for abortions.

Similar amendments have been added to health-care bills ever since. Without specific language prohibiting the practice, history has shown that the courts or administrative agencies end up directing government dollars to pay for abortions.

I especially like her conclusion:

The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that sound soothing like “balance” and “adjust.” Meanwhile, the courts are rendering precedent with stark words like “mandatory.”

When confronted by House Minority Leader John Boehner about abortion funding during the health-care summit last week, the president dropped his head and looked down at the table. How revealing.

See the entire Opinion piece in the March 4th Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575100091815276712.html


Reconciliation by force

March 4, 2010

ObamaCare via forced reconciliation in the Congress is bad public policy.

The Senate Bill will fund a huge expansion of abortion funding in the United States.

Note this “reconciliation” process is not the right vehicle and the President and the Democrats know it’s not been used for this type of expansion of government ever before.  Don’t believe the Democrat’s line that it’s a tool that ‘the Republicans have used in the past for their agenda so we can too.’’

What we can do.

  1. If you have a Democratic Representative write them.  Specifically and clearly even bluntly tell them that if they vote for the reconciled bill that you will certainly vote Republican in the fall and vote for any other available Democrat in the primary elections coming up very soon.  This is especially true if your Representative is a “maybe”.  (I’ll try to post any stories I can find about the current “handicapping” on the hill as I find them.  I’d appreciate leads to this if you find any.)
  2. If you have a Republican Representative write them to thank them for their principled stand.

Speaker of the House Pelosi says that it’s the right thing to do:

“But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”

She’s wrong.  We don’t need it for ethical considerations for life and for government intrusion into our finances and our healthcare.

As to the politics and the minds of the American voter this is a wasteland of Government intervention that won’t work.  Those voters who don’t know this already will soon find out.  We will respond in the Congressional elections this fall.  The Wall Street Journal says it better than me:

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don’t like it, “then that’s what elections are for.”

In other words, he’s volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

See the whole essay printed in yesterday’s WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

See also two other good news article in the same edition: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099561273510680.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704486504575097991322077542.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&


Conscience clause for Medical Professionals

November 25, 2009

When Religious Beliefs Play a Role in Medical Care

Columbia Law School Hosts Debate on Conscience Objections in the Medical Profession

New York, Nov. 23, 2009 — Under the First Amendment, a healthcare provider’s religious beliefs should be accommodated, but the question remains to what extent.
 
Steve Aden, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney in the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, tackled this question in a recent debate at Columbia Law School.
 
The issue of conscience objections in the medical profession gained increased attention when the Bush Administration, in its final days, promulgated a provider refusal rule. It expanded the right of health care workers and institutions to refuse to provide medical care, counseling, and referrals for religious or moral reasons.

Read the entire article at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2009/november2009/medical-conscience

Scientific Doubt

November 24, 2009

On the topic of “settled science” there was a recent (illegal) release of internal communications among the “humans have caused global warming” set.  The dialog appears to be more than just doubting and laughing at the “global warming doubters” set.  It appears to be a scheme amounting to a conspiracy to suppress science that they don’t agree with.

What does this have to do with Abortion?  I’m referring to the Abortion Breast Cancer link where one commenter here has declared “with a few exceptions, the big, well-designed, robust studies say no link, and the studies which report a link are small, design-flawed, and biased.” With the kind of suppression of science that the global warming types are doing that’s exactly what you’d see and get.  I’m no conspiracy theorist; however this revelation in the debate over Global Warming points out that people – scientists included – can see what they want to see and call their opponents names rather than seeking truth.

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY | NOVEMBER 23, 2009

Settled Science?

Computer hackers reveal corruption behind the global-warming “consensus.”

By JAMES TARANTO

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

Read the entire article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html#printMode

referenced articles are at the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1

and the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html

Update:

Here’s an Op Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.  Same conclusion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mg=com-wsj#printMode

Dec 2nd update:  More science from a reasonably eminent scientist and a small bibliography of their works:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html#articleTabs=comments#comment680436


Fact Check on Abortion in Health Care

November 2, 2009

Fact Check – funded in large part by the Annenberg Public Policy Center – tries to be reasonably impartial though it errs to the left.  Even they think that the Health Care Reform bills as currently written include expanded coverage for Abortion services.

Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?

Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.

August 21, 2009

Updated: August 25, 2009

Summary

Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.” But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. “President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new “public” insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/


Vatican Authority to Reject Diplomats – a wide ranging dialog.

May 6, 2009

We (Laura and I) are exploring some interesting ground on the Internet.  Please see the debate and discussion at:

Pope rejects all of Obama’s ambassadors for being pro-choice

Someone commented “at” me.  (Here’s their entire post #1639 so I can be properly accused of editing them. http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/TFQP2A7JORFA3VCDF/post1639)
Arrogant… Gee, that word keeps coming up, doesn’t it?

I replied: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/TFQP2A7JORFA3VCDF/post1645

I agree. You should at least use a thesaurus or something when insulting me. I’m not offended. I’m a volunteer here to teach. By definition the vernacular includes vulgar language. We don’t formally have High English and Low English like German has Hochdeutsch and local dialects. English does however have what your mother used to call “polite conversation.” Try it.

Now back to the real argument.
1. Does the state have the right to decide that a baby in utero is “human enough” to have human rights?
2. How do you propose that be measured in law? Is it gestational age, viability, implanted or not?
2a. What about healthy human embryos in vitro?
2b. What about selection in vitro or in vivo for gross abnormality? Downs Syndrome? sex? hair color?
(Later I added: 2c. 50% out of the birth canal?  99% out of the birth canal?  When the village elders check that it has no deformities?)
3. How do we decide? What decisions are her’s alone? Her parents’ if a minor? Her husband’s? Her boyfriend’s? Her sperm donor’s? Her anonymous sperm donor’s? Her doctor’s? Her school’s? Her university’s? The courts’?(here’s a tough one) Her statutory rapist’s?
4. What current laws are just? Which are unjust?
5. What social attitudes do not conform to the reality of the ethic you propose?
6. Who should pay for the legal procedures for citizens? legal residents? non-legal residents? residents of foreign lands?(ie via foreign aid)
7. What professions should be required to participate as part of their job?(pharmacists, doctors, nurses, aid workers, diplomats, etc.)
8. Just to get back to the point of this forum: What political and diplomatic actions are justified for the Vatican State to see their Choices on these matters are respected?

Answer these and we’ll be getting somewhere. Paint your picture and I’ll paint mine. Your’s looks pretty ugly and presented in this light – not behind the cover of democratic-sounding “Choice” – will be offensive to most Americans.


Notre Dame “Evades Common Sense”

April 30, 2009

Exclusive Interview: Cardinal Rigali Says Notre Dame Defence of Obama Honor “Evades Common Sense”

By Kathleen Gilbert

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, April 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Philadelphia’s Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, weighed in on the Notre Dame scandal in an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com today.  Rigali called the school’s decision to honor President Obama a “most unfortunate” decision that “must not happen again,” and criticized the school’s defense of the decision as one that “evades common sense.”

President Obama is due to give the commencement address and receive an honorary law degree at Notre Dame May 17.

“My reaction is that it is most unfortunate,” said Rigali.  “It’s most unfortunate because of the confusion it causes; it’s most unfortunate because of the message that it gives with regard to the importance of human life; it’s most unfortunate in regard to the confusion that it causes also in the ordinary people – the students, the graduates, the families … but above all, it is most unfortunate because the value that is attributed to life through the recognition of an honorary degree in this regard is just not acceptable.”

Asked to give his opinion on the unprecedented backlash from U.S. bishops and thousands of Catholic laity over Notre Dame’s decision, Rigali said he believes that “something very positive is going on in our country along with all the negative things – that there is a greater and evolving understanding of the value of human life in many, many people.”

“The backlash is due to a great extent the reaction of people who through their intuition, through their common sense, they know that this is just not an acceptable way to take a position on something that is so important,” he said.

See the whole article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042803.html