Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
SIMPLE FACTS: THE TRUTH ABOUT ‘OBAMACARE,’ DYING AND HEALTH CARE RATIONING Posted: Wednesday August 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm EST by Judie Brown
I am not an expert on health care rationing and end-of-life questions. But I know how to find experts, and the leadership of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, certainly qualifies. Executive director Elizabeth Wickham, Ph.D. and her associate, Ione Whitlock, have dedicated their lives to these matters. LifeTree’s Medical Decisions at the End of Life brochure provides the following answers to frequently asked questions:
What is palliative care?
Traditional palliative care is symptom management at life’s end. Symptoms such as nausea, shortness of breath, and pain can usually be mitigated or "palliated." Unfortunately, some palliative care groups are now training physicians to introduce palliative care (comfort care rather than cure) very early in the diagnosis of a chronic condition or terminal illness. This trend blurs the distinction between ordinary pain control and end-of-life care (palliative care). Moreover, terminal sedation and withholding hydration (see below) are often part of the mix.
When should food and water be withheld?
Death by starvation and dehydration is painful and inhumane. Withholding food and hydration is imposed death, unless the food/water cannot be assimilated, as when death is imminent—when the patient is actively dying, and death is expected within 24–48 hours.
Nancy Valko, RN, notes: “When people are truly [actively] dying and the body's organs begin to shut down, we often see people lose their appetite and desire to drink much. This is a process that can protect a person from suffering from fluid overload at the end and the dying person remains comfortable. But this is very different from a deliberate decision to ‘fast’ to death.”
What is terminal sedation?
Not to be confused with control of physical pain, the goal of terminal sedation (TS, also known as “palliative sedation” or “total sedation”) is “to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) in order to relieve the burden of intractable suffering.” TS is controversial, and has been called a legal alternative to assisted suicide. Too often TS is used when a patient is not activelydying, and is combined with removal of food and fluids. Withholding food and water can only lead to death. To offer total irreversible sedation to a patient might convey the idea that he or she is a burden, or that his or her life is probably not worth living.
Should I be an organ donor?
Pope John Paul II’s 2001 address to the International Congress of the Transplantation Society insists there be moral certainty that death has occurred before the transplantation of any unpaired vital organ. Unfortunately, in medicine today determination of death (brain death and non-heart-beating death) set standards which are much less stringent than the Holy Father's guidelines. Examples of organs/tissues safe to donate after true death are corneas, heart valves (but not the entire heart), bones, skin, ligaments, and tendons.
How, and why, have medical ethics changed?
Several factors have contributed to changes over the years:
1) Bioethics: Hospitals and medical schools have appointed bioethicists as ethics experts. Bioethics, as currently practiced, focuses on quality of life. Bioethics expert Dianne Irving, Ph.D., explains that whereas “traditional medical ethics focuses on the physician's duty to the individual patient, whose life and welfare are always sacrosanct,” the “focus of bioethics is fundamentally utilitarian, centered, like other utilitarian disciplines, around maximizing total human happiness.” Too often, bioethics shifts the emphasis from improving quality of life, to assessing quality of life — weighing the benefits and burdens of life itself.
2) An entrenched right-to-die belief system:… From Supreme Court cases, to state living will laws, to physician education, the mission was to popularize the concept of forgoing life-sustaining measures. Partnership [for Caring—a right-to-die group] disbanded, but many of its members are now in policy-setting positions in hospice and palliative care organizations at the national level. Visit www.lifetree.org/timeline for more information.
In the rush toward a new, federally controlled health care system, there is a distinct possibility that in their hysteria, its supporters will leave many of these questions either dangling in thin air or completely ignored. It is my considered opinion that health care “reform” advocates will answer very few such questions factually, with evidence to support their claims.
Finally, many ask whether or not health care “reform” could lead to rationing of health care. This is not a crazy question. To find answers, I did some research.
Did you know that Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D., the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, has written on the question of health care rationing? In fact, he has a long history of being deeply involved in end-of-life care discussions, and his statements do not provide comfort.
Wesley J. Smith, who studies bioethical questions, has examined Dr. Emanuel’s views. He believes that in his January 31 Lancet article, Dr. Emanuel did not “explicitly” advocate rationing “now based on age.” However, Smith pointed out,
The same can’t be said of an article he wrote in the Hastings Center Report, in which he explicitly advocates rationing based on what appears to be a quality of life measurement. From the piece:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.
Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
A lot of people are frightened that someone who thinks like Emanuel is at the center of an administration seeking to remake the entire health care system. Having read these two articles, I think there is very real cause for concern.
Terri Schiavo’s brother, Bobby Schindler, who has been deeply involved in defending the vulnerable so that nothing like the horrors she died from will happen to others, likewise has words of warning about health care rationing:
Much has been written warning us about the dangers of Obamacare, but mostly in terms of what it would mean for the elderly and perhaps the chronically ill. Unfortunately, I have not seen any reports of what will happen to those like Terri—the cognitively disabled. However, from what I am reading and what is being proposed for health care reform, I think it is safe to say that those like Terri don’t stand a chance. Especially, if the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) is formed that will put bioethicists in charge of who can and cannot receive treatment.
We are in grave danger any time health care decisions are taken out of the hands of individual patients and their families and placed into the hands of government bureaucrats whose decisions are based on cutting costs rather than valuing the dignity and equal worth of every human life.
Finally, I defer to Zane F. Pollard, M.D., a pediatric ophthalmologist for Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (a nonprofit organization), who wrote the following regarding “Obamacare”:
I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list.
Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.
Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.
Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.
Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous…
The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.
Your breakdown of the medical conditions and how they will be treated is well done. Pro-life leaders should read and re-read it and be ready to teach it to family, friends, church members, pastors, etc. The "man on the street" ignores some issues because he does not understand them, and he doesn't want to appear uninformed. It's up to us to inform him. HELEN CINDRICH | August 12, 2009
GEORGE SOROS AND OBAMACARE Posted: Tuesday August 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm EST by Judie Brown
There is a man whose money has facilitated a wide variety of projects in this country and abroad. His name is George Soros, and his ventures run the gamut from politics to helping the poor. Among them, there is his extraordinary work in the area of palliative care (pain relief), death and dying.
In view of the rant currently being propagated by the Pallimed blog, which is a commentary on news and items of interest to hospice and palliative medicine, there is a need to dig deeper and explore the underlying philosophy among those who are outraged that people like me are saying something negative about their agenda.
When those in the business of providing pain relief to patients charge forward with negative descriptive adjectives, meant to demean the work of people like myself and the LifeTree experts, you can pretty much conclude that we are on to something. If not, the supporters of Obamacare would be using logic rather than pointing fingers and attempting to relegate us to the right-wing fringe.
It’s a free country, but the facts are essentially unchanging regardless of the hysteria. In the real world where people live and die, a recent e-mail from a hospice nurse reminds us that all is not well in health care:
How grateful I am to have run across your website! This may be an answer to a desperate prayer! I am a nurse who has practiced for 17 years. I am horrified about hospice, and how they routinely and blatantly murder patients on a regular basis, and somehow convince the patients and their families that their actions are "merciful" and reduce suffering when in actuality they are increasing the suffering of these patients and refusing any life-sustaining and true comfort measures. I feel so powerless to convince people about the truth of hospice, since many have used and been fooled by them and their propaganda. …[I]t is going to be hard to convince people about the truth of hospice, since they have worked very hard to create "trust" in people who clearly don't know the truth. People need to know the truth; they need to know about how hospice KILLS and does not comfort.
I realize that her comments are anecdotal, and that not every hospice is cost-cutting by killing, but she’s not the only one from whom I’ve heard. Situations like this one and the one I described in a previous commentary, “Imposing death in a government-run hospice,” are not the sort of reports people want to hear, but the truth always stands alone.
And that brings me back to Mr. Soros. One of the facts I learned from LifeTree experts is that Soros is fundamentally necessary to this entire brainwashing cabal who want us to believe that pain relief can mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the patient is “comfortable” and perhaps even comatose due to overdosing.
As LifeTree makes perfectly clear on their website:
The Obama administration wants "palliative care" (e.g., pain control) because it is a cost-saving alternative to curative treatment. "Palliative care" is presented as both symptom management and curative. That is misleading, and deliberately so. "Palliative care" is symptom management. "Palliative care" has been defined and cultivated by the same people who are pushing universal coverage. Soros-funded doctors have spent the past decade establishing "palliative care" as a new medical sub-specialty. "Palliative care" is a cost-savings device.
LifeTree is by no means a lone voice. Marie Jon, a news analyst and religion writer recently opined
If Obamacare is passed, the same insidious protocols — "Advance Care Planning" — will be set into place to cut the cost of his massive government healthcare program. Our senior citizens will receive mandated appointments for counseling that will determine if they receive minimal medical treatment or are told to go home and die. They will be offered assistance and instructions on how to take their own lives.
Marie sites the actual legislation and quotes from it in the same way we and others have been doing.
John Griffing penned a sobering evaluation of the current Obamacare bill:
… if HR 3200 becomes law, "due process" regarding someone's life will become a question for bureaucrats. When all is said and done, the ultimate result of the proposed bill is to transfer to government the unprecedented power of determining who lives and who dies.
Once a government adopts this utilitarian stance toward human life, anything becomes possible. Suspend for a moment your jaded response to Hitler references, and note that in Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people[i] "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination"[ii] or those "unworthy of life."[iii] 5,000 of these victims were children. The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of "medical experts." Thousands were sterilized. By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially "unfit."
Although the methods have grown more subtle and the language more libertarian, our attitudes are not so very different in America today. We casually discuss whether people with certain afflictions merit the costs necessary to keep them alive. Quality of life trumps sanctity of life in most quarters. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicide methodology, once unthinkable, is now an acceptable topic for polite conversation.
George Soros is the money behind much of the creative planning that has gone into the Obamacare proposals addressing care at retirement age and beyond. If one examines the history of the Open Society Institute, Soros’ first and foremost think tank, it would not be news to learn that Soros wanted to create change in the way Americans speak about a number of things including death.
In 1996, Soros launched Project on Death in America. The aim of the project was a simple one: “Change the culture of dying.” Writing on the success of the project, Gary LaMarche, vice-president of the Open Society Institute, explained that from the beginning, Project on Death in America was focused on change, on the involvement of politics in health care and the Soros vision of what dying should be like.
Between 2001 and 2003, Soros funded a study group with specific attention paid to palliative care. In his reflections on the project and death in America, Soros tells the reader:
My mother’s death was more recent. She had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand the means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn’t particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life, and I’m glad she didn’t.
Soros’ commitment to a benevolently utilitarian program involving pain relief and palliative care is evident in the work of the Project on Death in America. It is not unfair to suggest that the apparent ambivalence Soros has toward assisted suicide further suggests a less than humanitarian, Christ-like perspective that could well be what is permeating the Obamacare proposals. It is no secret, after all, that Obama and Soros have a great deal in common. Soros became an Obama fan early on and his ability to pour huge sums into a project he likes is nearly legend.
Michelle Malkin, a commentator whose work is always carefully documented, has revealed precisely how deep Soros’ financial support for Obamacare goes. The numbers may overwhelm you, as they did me, but we have to understand the man is a billionaire and he likes what Obama is proposing. Wing nut? You decide…
So why do I care? I have a concern for those in our culture who have been and could be ever more marginalized, even to death, by programs, projects and laws that create an illusion of good while advancing an agenda of evil.
Former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Time to go, Grandpa,” reminds us:
To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here … the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one's cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one's parents to endure such agony?
When all the name-calling is set aside, the tortuous debates have ended, and America is left with what I hope is a failed attempt to nationalize health care over the bodies of the vulnerable, one wonders who will be found to be accurate in their assessments and who will not. Only time will tell.
In the interim, the web of deceit has been finely woven and the spiders are working overtime to snap up the unsuspecting.
Judie, You were terrific on EWTN.
Thank you for holding to your principles. You were right on target
and understand what the Health Care Bill will do to the American Public.
God Bless you for standing up for
what is right and not being taken in
by the lies of the present administration. Maureen Daley
P.S. Sister Carol has been taken in.
She needs our prayers. She is comprimising her principles. God help her. Maureen Daley | August 14, 2009
It is horrible what this administration is trying to impose on the American Citizens with the lack of end of life care both to the patient and the mandate to we physicians of what we can and can not do. We did take the Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm". If we will have to give up our integrity to not give the qualitiy of care that we were taught to give, this will cause a massive retirement of physicians. This in and of itself will cause further rationing of care and lead to worsening of the problem of people not getting care. Are people not seeing the moral implications that this government-run healthcare will place on the physicians? Marie Gronley, M.D. | September 12, 2009
CHRIST-CENTERED HEALTH CARE REFORM Posted: Monday August 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm EST by Judie Brown
Recently, there have been a lot of deliberations, speeches and commentaries concerning so-called health care reform, including my own. But perhaps it is time to step back from this discussion and examine what a health care plan would look like if one took into consideration what the Lord might do. We have some pretty reliable indicators of that in the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. We know that the starting point for all aspects of any health care package has to be respect for the dignity of the human person.
Recognizing this essential principle, we can glean wisdom from these writings. For example, in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II taught,
If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment "You shall not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenseless human beings, who find their ultimate defense against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God's commandment.…
Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (Section 57)
This infallible teaching, written in 1995, should be the basis for every pro-life organizational statement, letter to politicians and action alert to rank-and-file Catholics throughout this nation. There can be no justice without recognition of the basic truth enunciated above.
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.
"Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action." (Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980)
As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal" (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor [The Splendor of Truth], encyclical letter, 1993).
This is why we at American Life League have insisted that any health care reform proposal must absolutely exclude abortion, contraception, human embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. A just health care proposal will honor the human person first and foremost—without regard to his age, health or condition of dependency. Such a plan would not place cost first and human dignity second.
In his most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI explains how we should care for the poor, the indigent and those on the fringes of society, whom we are called to serve unselfishly:
Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbor; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). (Section 2)
In other words, without a union between Christ’s devotion to man and the secular framework for just health care, there can be no real reform that serves the needs of everyone, especially those most at risk in the current cultural and political climate.
The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbors, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practice this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis [state or society]. This is the institutional path—we might also call it the political path—of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. (Section 7)
Finally, as if communicating directly with the U.S. lawmakers who are addressing health care reform at this very moment, Pope Benedict points out,
The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that "a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized” (Evangelium Vitae). (Section 15)
As Pope John Paul II told the world in Evangelium Vitae, “There can be no true democracy without a recognition of every person's dignity and without respect for his or her rights” (Section 101).
For the past several weeks, we have not heard or seen any evidence that the various health care “reform” proposals address, in any way, the fundamental principles set forth by these popes. It is undeniably true that many would say that such requirements are akin to imposing Catholic teaching on a nation that is proud of its diversity and ability to remain divorced from any particular creed. However, I would respond that even if one is not of a particular religious tradition, one should wish to be just and civil in one’s dealings with others, whether discussing a preborn child at his earliest moment, an elderly person facing death or a severely disabled citizen who requires care and treatment.
Health care "reform" proposals that contain provisions for rationing of care, as well as coverage for abortion or human embryonic stem cell therapy, represent a callous disregard for the dignity of the human person and are therefore unjust to their core. Such reprehensible recommendations must cease.
What is needed for authentic health care reform is justice founded in truth, from which the charity ingrained in our American tradition will flow. Nothing less will suffice.
CHRIST CENTERED-HEALTH CARE REFORM: Great article! I wish everyone would read this and keep it in their hearts.
You are a breath of fresh air in these very difficult times.
Thank you so much!
Patty Palmquist
p.s. By God's grace, I found you recently. Since then, I have been sending out your articles to my entire email list on the health care reform. May God give them eyes to see and ears to hear. Patty Palmquist | August 10, 2009
Judy,
I agree with you on these most fundamental issues - human life is most sacred. However, looking beyod that, this so-called health care reform is not justified even if all the life issues are treated properly in it. The control of one's health care leads to the control of the person. If the government runs it you will be a subject rather than a free citizen. David W. Rusch | August 11, 2009
Dear Judie,
Is what I have read about the St. Vincent de Paul Society and abortion true? I find their denials very interesting. Kay Thompson | August 11, 2009
And, if anyone were to reject these principles solely because they are set forth by popes, they can decide if the alternatives - exemplified by the Third Reich and the U.S.S.R. are preferable.
Abraham Lincoln was not a Catholic, nor a member of any other organized religion, but that did not stop him from holding justice and morality to be the foundation of good governance. David Volk | August 11, 2009
Patty
Thank you and God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 14, 2009
Dear Kay
St. Vincent de Paul Society is now saying that they do not support Obama Care, but at the same time they are not setting forth the Catholic principles that should be acknowledged in any health care reform bill, namely
no abortion
no contraception
no sterilization
by human embryonic stem cell therapies
no assisted suicide
no euthanasia
The Obama Care proposals are cost cutting proposals, and people will suffer terribly and die, I am afraid. The messages that the St. Vincent De Paul Society is sending are confusing, to say the least.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD DESPISES PARENTS Posted: Friday August 7, 2009 at 2:56 pm EST by Judie Brown
There’s something very sinister about an organization that uses the word “parenthood” in its name and then makes every effort to ensure that parents have absolutely no say when their minor daughters seek to use birth control or abort their grandchild.
Right now in Alaska, true to form, Planned Parenthood is using its alleged concern for minor children’s so-called privacy rights as a pathetic excuse for opposing parental rights. The Alaska Family Council has received the go-ahead to put an initiative on the ballot that would require parental notification before a minor can have an abortion.
Now that the measure has been certified by Alaska’s lieutenant governor, the signature-gathering process can begin. But PP wants it stopped. Clover Simon, president of PP in Alaska, argued,
"The Alaska constitution has very specific rules about what a citizens initiative can and can't do. And one of those rules is that it cannot create court rules. We feel like owe anyone who is going to vote on this issue… a very clear and legal law to vote on and this does not meet those requirements."
Alaska's Channel 11 (KTVA) reports on Jim Minnery, president of Alaska Family Council, who knows why PP is working to stop the initiative:
He says it was certified by the state last month and believes it will hold up in court.
"It's not a surprise," he said. "Because typically that's the response that Planned Parenthood has. It's just a desperate attempt to try to again thwart the will of the people by Planned Parenthood…”
Planned Parenthood says the initiative doesn't take into account girls who may have abusive parents or parents who aren't around at all.
This is the standard argument PP uses when any organization attempts to put a law in place that would uphold the authority God gives to parents when He blesses them with the gift of a child. PP pushes an agenda that not only portrays parents as incompetent, but does all it can to literally steal children’s souls, as Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood International, has made perfectly clear time and time again.The headline of a brochure he wrote for American Life League always grabs the reader’s attention: “Planned Parenthood sells sex, but merely as bait to steal souls—your children’s souls. This is why we must fight Planned Parenthood!”
PP perceives any attempt by citizens to preserve or restore legal recognition of parental authority as a threat to its business—a business that revolves around brainwashing young people into believing that their sexual urges cannot be controlled, but should be expressed. As Jim makes clear, “There’s no question that as an organization, Planned Parenthood considers sexual activity between unmarried young people to be a good thing—and that society as a whole should adopt this mindset.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. American Life League does not believe that any parent should be in the position of having veto power over whether or not their grandchild lives or dies. Such proposals reek of a mentality that accepts abortion as long as the minor’s parents agree that the preborn child should die. Merely because a parent agrees to the abortion of his or her grandchild does not justify the direct murder of that child.
However, our years of experience with PP and its anti-parent philosophy lead us to conclude that PP cannot tolerate even the slightest, most ineffective recognition of parental authority. It views the best parents as being uninvolved, disinterested parents who view their children as property and welcome PP as the savior rushing in to do their job for them.
This is a huge problem in our culture today and was certainly foreseen by wise men like Pope John Paul II, who pointed out in Familiaris Consortio (1981),
[S]igns are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: …serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality. (Section 6)
And he reiterated and clarified what the Catholic Church teaches on the right of parents to be their children’s primary educators:
The task of giving education is rooted in the primary vocation of married couples to participate in God's creative activity: By begetting in love and for love a new person who has within himself or herself the vocation for growth and development, parents by that very fact take the task of helping that person effectively to live a fully human life. As the Second Vatican Council recalled, "Since parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. For it devolves on parents to create a family atmosphere so animated with love and reverence for God and others that a well-rounded personal and social development will be fostered among the children. Hence, the family is the first school of those social virtues which every society needs.”
The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others. (Section 36)
Pope John Paul II foresaw the manner in which PP would use law, courts and classrooms to drive a wedge between parents and their children, thereby usurping parental authority. This is why he defined, with absolute clarity, the difference between morally grounded parental sex education versus sex instruction by those who do, in point of fact, want to steal souls:
Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents.
In this context education for chastity is absolutely essential, for it is a virtue that develops a person's authentic maturity and makes him or her capable of respecting and fostering the "nuptial meaning" of the body. Indeed Christian parents, discerning the signs of God's call, will devote special attention and care to education in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality.
In view of the close links between the sexual dimension of the person and his or her ethical values, education must bring the children to a knowledge of and respect for the moral norms as the necessary and highly valuable guarantee for responsible personal growth in human sexuality.
For this reason the Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles. That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity -- while still in the years of innocence -- by opening the way to vice. (Section 37, emphasis added)
We agree with Pope John Paul II’s every word. He was indeed a prophet for our time. Clearly, the foundation of American society is at risk of crumbling because of the dissolution of the family, the erosion of parental authority and the divorce that has occurred between God’s truth and the fundamental meaning of the human person, including his sexuality. Man is, after all, not an animal but rather a child of God, created in His image and likeness, and capable of self-control.
PP must be stopped; it must not succeed in its ongoing war against parental authority, and this includes its current attempt to thwart the democratic process in Alaska. Every person has a duty to stand up and be counted in defense of parental rights, which begin not with parental notice prior to abortion. Their restoration requires the total removal of PP from the social landscape. That is the only way to effectively rid the culture of PP’s toxic influence.
Become an expert on effectively accomplishing this today:
Learn how to exercise the power of being a parent by reading Jim’s Parent Power!! book.
“For the sake of our children’s souls, we must protect them from any program provided or influenced by Planned Parenthood—wherever and under whatever guise it may be offered” (Planned Parenthood steals souls brochure available from American Life League’s Pro-Life Store).
The Pope seems to be the only leader speaking about this. Everyone else wants to be 'politically correct.' Nick | August 8, 2009
You're not even allowed to have dental work done without parents permission, no surgery, no nothing until 18! Next lets just allow them to buy cigarettes, have surgery, etc. They want to take away all the parents rights to raise our children. We're not even allowed to teach them that gay is wrong, that cussing is wrong. America needs to go back to where we were founded! elisabeth | August 14, 2009
CATHOLICS, HEALTH CARE 'REFORM' AND THE HOUSE OF JELL-O OBAMA BUILT Posted: Thursday August 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm EST by Judie Brown
In the past week, we have seen multiple negative responses to our views on supposedly Catholic institutions’ involvement with the Obama administration’s health care “reform” plan. We have also seen attacks by leftist “Catholic” entities on our friends at Family Research Council.
Apparently, criticism of the Obama proposals have engendered a bit of ire on the part of some, including Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, who wrote in his blog, “Catholics United will be working in key states throughout the August Congressional recess to correct inaccuracies about health care reform proposals and to build support for health care reform within faith communities.”
Korzen also continued his verbal attack on FRC: “The Family Research Council's continued effort to distort the facts leads one to wonder whether the group's true intent is to derail health care reform. Instead of issuing misleading attacks and inciting fear, the Family Research Council would do better to support efforts aimed at implementing abortion-neutral policies in health care reform legislation.”
Please note that Korzen accuses FRC of making statements that “distort the facts” and are “misleading.” He then goes on to suggest that everyone should agree that as long as health care reform legislation is “abortion neutral,” we should be pleased.
In essence, his argument is that regardless of whether the federal government even belongs in the business of dictating health care policy, Catholics United is sticking with the program. This seems to be the consensus among some similar entities as well, including Catholic Charities USA, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and the Catholic Health Association.
In fact, just recently CCUSA not only disputed our report, calling it “inaccurate,” but its president, Father Larry Snyder, also claimed, “These attacks appear to be politically motivated by opponents of health care reform. They are distortions of the truth and disingenuous. Catholic Charities USA will continue to work to reform health care in a way that is consistent with the teachings of our faith.”
The problem with such statements, particularly from Father Snyder, is enormous. First of all, Father Snyder is intimately involved with the Obama administration, having accepted an appointment to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Father Snyder sits on the President’s Advisory Council with none other than Harry Knox, a militant homosexual activist who has described the Knights of Columbus as the “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.”
Furthermore, just a few days ago, on behalf of CCUSA, Father Snyder publicly expressed his gratitude for receiving a five-year, one hundred million-dollar contract from the federal government. Reportedly, the funds are earmarked for disaster relief.
All of this leads one to wonder what exactly Obama has been stirring up. His administration has been persuading various so-called Catholic leaders that—regardless of Catholic magisterial teaching—there is a seat at the table for Catholics who will set aside the tragedy of abortion for the supposedly greater cause of “reforming” health care, via Obama’s virtual fiat.
InsideCatholic.com’s director, Deal Hudson, who addressed the same problems in his commentary “Why Catholics will not get abortion out of the Obama health care bill,” asked,
So why should either Congress or the White House be afraid of Catholic criticism of the health care bills as they now stand? Yes, the USCCB has made its official statements, but there's no great roar of opposition to the prospect of federally funded abortion services as a part of universal health care.
As far as the public's perception is concerned, the "Catholic" imprimatur on health care reform has come from Catholic Charities USA, the Catholic Health Association, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. (God help us if L'Osservatore Romano weighs in on this!)
The good news is the two-month delay in voting on the bill. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, told the National Catholic Register, "Right now, these bills are a moving target.… But we will stay on top of it and continue to educate the public."
Whether or not abortion services remain in the health care bill will be a definitive test of the bishops' ability to educate and to put the "fear of God" in the Congress and the White House. It is a test, I fear, they will fail.
Amen, Deal!
We also have the prominent Catholic commentator and author Philip Lawler, explaining to those with ears to hear and eyes to see, that the health care “reform” problem has been created by the same administration that has done all within its power to ensure that abortion is freely available to anyone and everyone. Lawler’s compilation of the facts is irrefutable. He points out, in introductory comments, “The following information-- which is not my own work, but the work of astute friends in Washington, DC-- provides all you need to know about the Obama White House plans regarding abortion and health-care reform.”
Yet the “Catholic” panderers continue to add the powder and water to Obama’s Jell-O!
What America is facing is potentially cataclysmic, but for Catholics, the situation is even worse. Most Catholic leaders are not listening to the voices of reason and are not leading the flock along the road to Calvary. Instead, they apparently prefer the road to slavery under the Obama regime. They are also largely overlooking the question of subsidiarity, recently addressed by noted Catholic scholar and commentator Jeffrey Mirus, Ph.D. in “The Problem(s) with Federal Health Care”:
With respect to life issues, the United States Federal government has demonstrated a fairly consistent immoral ideological bent over the past fifty years, an ideology more or less continuously evident in court decisions and frequently manifested in both Congress and the White House. Therefore, we must ask ourselves why any fundamentally moral person would wish to place medical care in the hands of the Federal government at all?
Perhaps Americans have become so supinely dependent on government over the past few generations that they cannot conceive of any other solution to widespread social concerns than to shift more power to the highest possible governmental level. This knee-jerk reaction, unfortunately often exhibited even by Catholic bishops, amounts to a sort of instinctive violation of the principle of subsidiarity—one of the cornerstones of Catholic social teaching. The principle of subsidiarity, which holds that authority over human affairs should always be vested at the lowest feasible organizational level, is essential to human dignity because it is the only way to preserve the immense good of deep personal involvement in arranging one’s own affairs. As subsidiarity crumbles, tyranny and—in well-organized modern nation states—totalitarianism are the inevitable result. One would think the history of the twentieth century had already made this abundantly clear.
It is time for each Catholic—whether lay, ordained or consecrated—to rethink the path the American Church is following at this moment. The problem underlying this entire situation and the one that has troubled me the most is this:
Forty years ago, when I first became involved in fighting against abortion, I heard from my pastor (an incredible Catholic priest who never hesitated to preach about sin, hell and the need to confess one’s sins) that abortion was an act of murder. In fact, Father Willenberg, God rest his soul, was the first person to point out that even one abortion is a scourge upon our nation.
At that moment in time (1969), unbeknownst to me, the federal government, in conjunction with Planned Parenthood and its allies, was setting the wheels in motion for a program known as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. This was and is a federal funnel for pouring tax dollars into the coffers of pro-abortion organizations.
Since that time, the federal government has gotten deeper and deeper into the contraception and abortion funding business. The government has turned a blind eye to science, to rational thought and to God. So why are the USCCB, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association leadership now apparently willing to trust the very same federal government with taking over health care in America? Or even to simply “reform” it?
When a government condones wholesale murder and calls it “reproductive choice,” what could these supposedly Catholic leaders be thinking?
Now is the time for sincere prayer, for recommitting ourselves to stopping this juggernaut some call health care “reform” and, especially, for humble reassessment of government’s proper role concerning respect for the dignity of the human person.
Now is not the time for Jell-O, which is another name for lack of fortitude.
Hi Judy,
Here's humble suggestion that would take the health care for the poor to a new level. Lt's do it ourselves.
Gob bless you,'Dave
Many years ago I spent considerable time and effort calculating the number of poor families in the US and how we might respond to their needs. I wrote a letter to the Denver Catholic Register with my conclusion. Briefly, I suggested that, if each parish adopted 2 poor families, poverty in the US would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish (or church, as I would invite our Protestant friends to participate) determine how many families they would support. The average was two/parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities from those in the parish, education, and health care. Each parish would voluntarily provide all the essentials. And poverty vanishes and the Good Samaritans (as we are called to be) provide all to them.(isn???t this the object lesson the parable?) The response was less than favorable from readers of the DCR. I do not wish to go there now but just to say that I believe this approach is more relevant and appropriate today then ever.
The current ???crises??? in health care is a perfect example of the need for action on the part of our church. I am of the belief that the poor are not the responsibility of government, that Caesar???s involvement can only mean destruction of the dignity and sanctity of human life. I cannot help but wonder why the Bishops, who I admire greatly on many issues and in their depth of faith, support Caesar???s approach to health care if certain conditions are met. I continue to be amazed that the pressure they (rightly) promoted to resist FOCA is not being brought to the forefront in the current climate where Caesar is attempting to confiscate 10% of the Nation???s wealth. Is the sanctity of life less important for the unborn and the vulnerable if there is the promise of an underlying desirable (in their view) reward, in this case health care for everyone? And what convinces that there is really basic health care for everyone? I have certainly not been convinced.
Let me just say: The right to life is a fundamental right. Nothing precedes it, nothing is more profoundly important than this. This said, the extension of this fundamental right to other areas that support this fundamental principle is not so simple, nor might it be correct. In my humble opinion, a ???fundamental right??? is one which you or I can enjoy without the imposition on others to make it happen. No other needs to be made to provide the umbra to my right to life. It is, without imposition on others. Any extension of this, for example, to the provision of food, shelter, or health care, as a basic extension to my right to life, requires either the virtue of charity or compulsion to provide these life necessities. I submit that compulsion is outside the proper avenue of nurture, unless we see Caesar as a morally necessary player.
If Caesar is a necessary and invited participant, then how do we reconcile the compulsion that follows with the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Remember those who expect rewards from Caesar must pay the price, and it will no doubt cost the innocent their lives.
The Catholic Church provides wonderful health care for about 10% of the population of the US. Is it not possible for the Church to also provide health insurance for those in need? Remember the two families per parish description at the beginning of this little essay. Can not we provide the needed help or even form a national health insurance company that provides insurance on one???s ability to pay? Can this be the more appropriate answer than the current interesting but, to me, not understandable, approach to helping the uninsured? Surely we can do better than Caesar.
David W. Rusch, Ph.D. | August 6, 2009
Excellent Judie! The confusion caused by the above named RC groups is certainly not of God. What 'I don't understand' (perhaps that could be a title of an article that's been simmering in my brain) is how "professionals" at the USCCB can ask for "Universal Health Care Reform" when that term is already 'loaded' and co-opted by forces that are aligned with the culture of death and possibly even against our Constitutional Republic?!!!
It's to late to "baptize it" that term!
The USCCB may, by virtue of having Bishops as members, rightly set out moral principals to help guide voters and legislators: but, from viewing the material they've published (even weighing the good statements pointing out some of the intrinsic evils which are not to be contained in any law) - it is EASY to get the impression that they are telling Catholics that this particular bill is good except for this or that article/paragraph.
In effect, it seems they are stepping WAY beyond their competence to teach regarding faith and morals - stepping in to the realm of high stakes political gamesmanship, Constitutional principals, economics, etc.
In other words: yes, there needs to be reform...but THIS present reform?
Wonder what Bishop Sheen would say? Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 6, 2009
Hi Judie,
I applaud you for your forthright article. I have become increasingly aware of the battle within the church. When Pope John Paul II wrote Veritatis Splendor, The Splendor of Truth it was challenged by Charles Curran, a Catholic Theologian and known dissident. I truly believe that in the end, the truth will set all of us free. Keep up the good work. Gerry Anderson | August 6, 2009
I was very shocked that two prominant catholic programs that serve the poor would be fooled by government lies that are between the lines of the Obama Health Care Plan. Have they forgoten about praying to our Father for the needs of the poor or have they become dependant like you said to all the current services available from the government but they are not free they have paid for them with the cost of thier souls and conciience . Dolores M Rufenacht | August 7, 2009
Wait a minute, according to you the government has no business in health care. Yet you are fighting for the govenment to rule that abortion is a crime.
Are you not asking to have it both ways? Ignatius | August 7, 2009
Your position is absolutely correct Judie. Your voice is one of the few voices of sanity these days.
You are absolutely correct about the pandering of the USCCB and others. The CU group is also a fringe of heretics.
Making deals with the devil is never a good game to play. Better to suffer the division and turmoil here by standing up for the truth as our Lord promised we would, than be separated from Him later.
Charlie Charlie | August 7, 2009
Hello Judy,
I have been a Roman Catholic since the day I was baptized 58 years ago.
I love my Holy Mother Church. However, I sincerely wish that ALL members of the USCCB would crack down on the clergy,politicans, and all Catholics, as well as follow Church teachings themselves. Abortion and Euthanasia are both miurder of a living human being. Ratioing health care is a grievous human rights violation that will result in suffering of the patient as well as his or her family. It too will result in death. Sins against the Ten Commandments as well as Church teachings. Any Catholic- priest, nun, politician, lay person who supports or embraces Obama's Health Reform is violating the aforementioned and should be dealt with by the shepherds of the Church accordingly. Additionally it should be noted that this plan will not insure the uninsured until 2013 - after many who were rationed will be dead and many uninsured will be dead. Leaving the social security payments of those who have died to the government coffers. Thus all paid in all these years becomes the property of the state. Sounds like we are rapidly tumbling in to socialism at the hands of Barack Obama and his cronies. robin lutz | August 7, 2009
Dear Ignatius
#1: health care is not the proper role of government which was founded by our founding fathers to defend and protect us, not medicate or provide health insurance for us on their terms.
#2 the government, by protecting us, should not permit murder of an entire class of innocent people which is exactly what abortion is. Murder is a crime.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 7, 2009
Thank you for compiling such an excellent explanation of why we Catholics cannot support Obama's reform plans.
Even my husband who has supported my sidewalk counseling for six years and who sits on the board of a Maternity Home, didn't see the problem with healthcare reform until I pointed it out. We really need you to continue to educate us young and old, so we can be out there doing God's work not Obama's work. Maria Rugg | August 7, 2009
ONE STEP FOR DEATH, TWO STEPS FOR LIES Posted: Wednesday August 5, 2009 at 4:27 pm EST by Judie Brown
My, oh my, how evil can you get? Now we have a chemical abortion pill approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that is available—thanks to the powers that be—by prescription to young girls under age 17, and over the counter to girls 17 and older. The new pill is designed to make it easier—or so they say—to solve the problem of “unprotected sex.”
The pill, known as Plan B One-Step, was hailed by Planned Parenthood, which commented,
We all like to be prepared. That is why it's a great idea to keep some Plan B in your medicine cabinet or bedside table in case of an accident. Having the morning after pill on hand will let you take it as soon as possible after unprotected intercourse, when it is most effective. If you are younger than 17, you can ask your health care provider for a prescription that you can fill ahead of time.
Obviously, Planned Parenthood is always elated when a new deadly chemical is added to its arsenal. But, as usual, it denies the facts by making specious claims, such as its comment that Plan B One-Step will work to prevent pregnancy. Not once has it admitted that such chemicals can end the life of a preborn child, whose life begins at fertilization, not implantation!
The Plan B One-Step web site further complicates the matter by telling the visitor, “Plan B One-Step is not an abortion pill. It won’t work if you’re already pregnant. If you take Plan B One-Step and are already pregnant, it will not affect your existing pregnancy.“
Note the clever use of the word “existing,” which is supposed to convince the unsuspecting female that if a baby is going to be procreated, this pill will not affect that baby. Scientific evidence, however, is not in agreement. Neither is the Plan B One-Step web site, if you read between the lines.
Simply by going to the “prescribers” section of the same web site, we found this:
HOW PLAN B ONE-STEP WORKS
There are many misconceptions about emergency contraception, so it’s important for your patients to know that Plan B One-Step works similar to regular birth control pills; it simply contains a larger dose of the hormone levonorgestrel. Plan B One-Step works primarily by:
Preventing ovulation
Possibly preventing fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or egg
Altering the endometrium, which may inhibit implantation
Plan B One-Step is not effective once the process of implantation has begun. It will not affect an existing pregnancy or harm a developing fetus.
Plan B One-Step should be taken as soon as possible. When taken as directed, approximately seven out of eight women who would have gotten pregnant will not become pregnant after taking Plan B One-Step.
For those who have not studied the role that the endometrium plays in the ability of the preborn child to implant in his mother’s womb and continue receiving the nourishment he requires, it should be noted that if the endometrium is altered, that baby may not be able to implant at all and he will subsequently die. This fact, based on science rather than sinister sidestepping, is not addressed anywhere on the web site.
textbook, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, by Moore and Persaud (page 532),
Postcoital birth control pills? Ovarian hormones (estrogen) taken in large doses within 72 hours after sexual intercourse usually prevent implantation of the blastocyst, probably by altering tubal motility, interfering with corpus luteum function, or causing abnormal changes in the endometrium. These hormones prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills. Conception occurs but the blastocyst does not implant. It would be more appropriate to call them "contra-implantation pills." Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term abortion could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy.
This statement is not a quote from a pro-life manual, but rather a textbook written by human embryology experts. And yet the folks advocating the use of this pill apparently believe they are better prepared to inform the public, based on a perspective that denies scientific facts for the sake of eliminating babies.
Further, when the Plan B One-Step web site advises the prescriber that the pill does not affect the “process of implantation,” this is disingenuous.The preborn will have already died because he or she could not implant!
Not only that, but the idea pregnancy does not even begin until implantation, which is entrenched among culture-of-death proponents, is once again presumed to be true when it is clearly, unequivocally and patently untrue.
Stop Planned Parenthood International has been on top of this subject since day one and, in a recent media release, presented the truth in plain English:
Planned Parenthood and the birth control industry would have you believe Plan B One-Step cannot cause an abortion. That is a lie.
In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a Terminology Bulletin that “officially” changed the definition of “conception” from the union of sperm and egg to implantation. As a result, the medical establishment does not call the killing of a human being prior to implantation an abortion. But that is just semantics.
Unfortunately, the birth control industry and Planned Parenthood—the nation’s largest abortion chain—have tricked many women into aborting their tiny children. Plan B One-Step, Plan B, the birth control pill, the IUD and other hormonal birth control products can all cause abortions. Period.
So, the next time you hear that Plan B or Plan B One-Step cannot cause an abortion, you will know the truth. Plan B products kill [babies].
To be informed is to be forewarned. It has always troubled me that so many young women are misled into believing that the solution for an “unwanted” or “unplanned” pregnancy is to ingest chemicals that could kill a baby and will cause other physical damage now or later in life. These facts are, again, denied or otherwise dismissed by culture-of-death gurus as nothing more than the ranting of fanatics.
But facts don’t stand or fall because of someone’s opinion; they can be documented. For example, John Wilks, noted educator and learned pharmacist, wrote Why This Pharmacy Does Not Dispense the Pill for Birth Regulation Reasons,in which he includes a long list of physical problems directly linked to the pill, including (but not limited to) the following:
Cervical cancer
At least 15 scientific papers since 1988 have reported on the increased incidence of cervical cancer in pill-users. The main results from these studies are:
Long-term use of more than 5 years was linked to a 100% increased risk of cervical cancer.
Duration of pill-use beyond 12 years had the highest increased risk of 340%. (Lancet, 1994)
Women starting the pill at an earlier age were at an increased risk compared to those starting later.
The pill may be a risk factor for all the early pre-cancerous stages, as well as invasive cancer.
For every 100,000 women aged 20-54 who had used the pill for 8 years, there were an additional 125 cases of cervical cancer. (Schlesselman, J.J. Obstet Gynecol 1995).
To my mind, there is only one reason why the pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment and the Planned Parenthood types concur in an ongoing indoctrination campaign: money!
Money talks, preborn people die, women suffer and the beat goes on…
what do you think about this dear?
"I've heard the critics complain about the costs of change. I'm confident that at the end of the process, the change will be paid for-fairly, responsibly, and without adding to the federal deficit ... What I haven't heard the critics discuss is the cost of inaction. If we don't reform the system, if we leave things as they are, health-care inflation will cost far more over the next decade than health-care reform. We will pay far more for far less-with millions more Americans uninsured or underinsured." -Sen. Edward Kennedy, "The Cause of My Life," Newsweek, July 27, 2009
NETWORK August 2009 Media Action
Write a letter-to-the-editor to urge action on healthcare reform that works for everyone
As members of Congress head to their home states and districts for the August congressional recess, we must elevate the urgent need and moral imperative for healthcare reform.
Submit Letters-to-the-Editor to push for healthcare reform that guarantees access to quality, affordable healthcare for all people, especially those who are most vulnerable.
Here are some tips and talking points to help you take action:
1. Refer to a recent article published in the newspaper about healthcare reform.
2. Express the values that frame your vision of a just healthcare system.
Example: As a person of faith, I am called to treat everyone with dignity and compassion and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable.
3. State the problem with the status quo in healthcare.
Example: Our country's broken healthcare system miserably fails this moral standard-it excludes too many, delivers care inequitably and offers compassion only to those who can afford it. Without action by Congress to pass healthcare reform this year, the current situation will only worsen. We'll be paying more for less and the ranks of people without realistic access to care will swell.
4. Describe how healthcare reform is the solution.
Example: We need healthcare reform that guarantees everyone access to quality, affordable healthcare. To fulfill this vision, I urge our representatives and senators to support legislation that makes a public plan option available to individuals and small businesses to ensure that life circumstances or a small payroll doesn't put adequate health insurance out of reach. The security of our families, businesses and nation as a whole depends on building a stable system of healthcare that includes everyone and eliminates all barriers to necessary care.
5. Call to action your fellow citizens and elected leaders in Congress.
Example: The moment is now for engaged citizens, members of Congress and President Obama to put political differences aside and work together to pass healthcare reform legislation. We can't wait any longer to begin building a healthcare future that affirms our sacred bonds of community, extends care and compassion to all and promotes a healthy, whole society.
6. Check your letter for spelling, grammar, clarity and length. Be sure you know the newspaper's submission requirements. Most require letters to be under 250 words.
7. Send a copy of your published letter to NETWORK at networkupdate@networklobby.org and to the offices of your Representative and Senator in Congress.
Note: you can find information about contacts for your local and national media on our website. Go to http://capwiz.com/networklobby/dbq/media/ and enter your zip code.
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
ignatius | August 5, 2009
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Mr Ambassador
As widely expected, the US officially has its new envoy to the Vatican: the Senate confirmed Miguel Diaz as ambassador to the Holy See last night.
Nominated for the post by President Obama in late May, the 45 year-old theologian said he'd relocate to the ambassador's residence at Villa Richardson "as soon as possible"; in keeping with Vatican custom, on his arrival Diaz will present his credentials to Pope Benedict, who'll then offer a public address on the Holy See's assessment of things American, highlights and lowlights both.
Born in Havana and raised in Miami, Diaz is the first Hispanic to hold the post and the ninth Vatican ambassador since full diplomatic relations were established between Rome and Washington in January 1984.
Ignatius | August 5, 2009
Many years ago I spent considerable time and effort calculating the number of poor families in the US and how we might respond to their needs. I wrote a letter to the Denver Catholic Register with my conclusion. Briefly, I suggested that, if each parish adopted 2 poor families, poverty in the US would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish (or church, as I would invite our Protestant friends to participate) determine how many families they would support. The average was two/parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities from those in the parish, education, and health care. Each parish would voluntarily provide all the essentials. And poverty vanishes and the Good Samaritans (as we are called to be) provide all to them.(isn???t this the object lesson the parable?) The response was less than favorable from readers of the DCR. I do not wish to go there now but just to say that I believe this approach is more relevant and appropriate today then ever.
The current ???crises??? in health care is a perfect example of the need for action on the part of our church. I am of the belief that the poor are not the responsibility of government, that Caesar???s involvement can only mean destruction of the dignity and sanctity of human life. I cannot help but wonder why the Bishops, who I admire greatly on many issues and in their depth of faith, support Caesar???s approach to health care if certain conditions are met. I continue to be amazed that the pressure they (rightly) promoted to resist FOCA is not being brought to the forefront in the current climate where Caesar is attempting to confiscate 10% of the Nation???s wealth. Is the sanctity of life less important for the unborn and the vulnerable if there is the promise of an underlying desirable (in their view) reward, in this case health care for everyone? And what convinces that there is really basic health care for everyone? I have certainly not been convinced.
Let me just say: The right to life is a fundamental right. Nothing precedes it, nothing is more profoundly important than this. This said, the extension of this fundamental right to other areas that support this fundamental principle is not so simple, nor might it be correct. In my humble opinion, a ???fundamental right??? is one which you or I can enjoy without the imposition on others to make it happen. No other needs are necessary to provide the umbra to my right to life. It is, without imposition on others. Any extension of this, for example, to the provision of food, shelter, or health care, as a basic extension to my right to life, requires either the virtue of charity or compulsion to provide these life necessities. I submit that compulsion is outside the proper avenue of nurture, unless we see Caesar as a morally necessary player.
If Caesar is a necessary and invited participant, then how do we reconcile the compulsion that follows with the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Remember those who expect rewards from Caesar must pay the price, and it will no doubt cost the innocent their lives.
The Catholic Church provides wonderful health care for about 10% of the population of the US. Is it not possible for the Church to also provide health insurance for those in need? Remember the two families per parish description at the beginning of this little essay. Can not we provide the needed help or even form a national health insurance company that provides insurance on one???s ability to pay? Can this be the more appropriate answer than the current interesting but, to me, not understandable, approach to helping the uninsured? Surely we can do better than Caesar.
David W. Rusch | August 5, 2009
Will there be PAYBACK for the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Will there be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers?
If a right-to-lifer gets counterterrorized TO DEATH, will that be murder, or JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE?
WHO would be the most effective TARGETS for anti-right-to-lifist counterterror?
WHERE do they LIVE?
"Remember, NEVER do anything dramatic to a protester at an abortion clinic. That would be bad publicity for the clinic. All together, children: 'Pick one protester and follow him home!' That way you can include his family in your counterprotest."
operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com OperationCounterstrike | August 5, 2009
It would be good to remind readers that Plan B is given out in Massachusetts Catholic hospitals, apparently with the approval of the Cardinal/Archbishop, to women who ask for it and say they have been raped. Charles O. Coudert | August 5, 2009
IMPOSING DEATH IN A GOVERNMENT-RUN HOSPICE? Posted: Tuesday August 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm EST by Judie Brown
A very dear friend of mine recently lost her husband to cancer. He and his wife had very little time to actually prepare for this event. He was diagnosed on May 18 and died only two months later. The sadness is overwhelming for his family, of course. The reality of how he was treated, however, is beyond shameful. I want to tell you this story because America is standing at the crossroads right now.
My friend’s wife explained to me, just yesterday, that a famous poem came to mind as she was reflecting on the abuse her husband suffered from nurses in a hospice run by the Veterans Health Administration. “The Hollow Men,” by T. S. Eliot is the subject of ongoing analysis, but it is the final two lines of that poem, “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper,” that stuck in her mind. And as she related her experiences to me, it became a stark reminder that we do indeed live in a culture of death.
Can you imagine a nurse asking a man—in the final throes of cancer—what level of pain he is suffering, and then when he told her, hearing her tell him that what he described as his pain was “impossible”? Had his wife not been there, only God knows what this nurse might have done. She had obviously set herself up as an expert judge of whether someone else was actually experiencing excruciating pain.
And then there was the problem with his lungs, which kept filling up with fluid. While he was in the hospital, a tube inserted into his body to drain the lungs of fluid was cleaned frequently. But once he arrived at the hospice, the nurses explained to his wife that they do not clean those tubes and would not do so, because the doctor’s orders specified that the tube was not to be cleaned.
Again, had his wife not been at his side to intercede for him and demand that they clean that tube, he would have died earlier, suffocating due to the negligence of others.
It is always heartbreaking to be with a loved one as death approaches. But in this case, in addition to her sorrow over the death of her husband of 41 years, what she witnessed in that hospice will be indelibly imprinted on her memory as well.
My husband and I frequently spoke with her during those last heart-wrenching weeks of her husband’s life. Each time she explained that she could not leave his side and had to sleep in his room, my husband would suggest that she needed her own rest and should not sacrifice her own health. She always replied the same way: “He needs me. I must be there with him.”
Thank God she was! Having now heard her reasons, my husband clearly understands that when it comes to medical care for the elderly and those facing death, a new low has been reached on the scale of “cruel compassion.” And while it is not a unique experience, it could become a federally mandated one, if “Obamacare” becomes law. It’s all about cost cutting, after all!
This real-life account very poignantly illustrates why we at American Life League are doing all we can to sound the alarm, in cooperation with many other concerned Americans. The vultures are hovering, and we have little time to rally opposition to this assault on the vulnerable, the weak and the dying. Some may say that my words are alarmist and that no such threat exists. To them I would say, “Tell that to my friend who witnessed the preview first-hand, in a government-run facility!”
President Obama has an agenda, and sadly, it is not the one he publicly proclaims. You may recall hearing in the news, just a few days after our friend passed on, how the president discussed his grandmother’s death. He did not go into details, of course, but his words were unsettling, nonetheless. According to the Washington Post,
Polls show that senior citizens are more skeptical about health-care reform than any other age group.
One woman asked Obama about "rumors" that under the proposed legislation, every American over age 65 would be visited by a government worker and "told to decide how they wish to die."
First, Obama joked that there aren't enough government workers to undertake such a task. Then he got serious and personal, mentioning that his grandmother, who died shortly before Election Day last year, had a medical directive.
"It gave her some control ahead of time so that she could say, for example, if she had a terminal illness, did she want extraordinary measures even if, for example, her brainwaves were no longer functioning? Or did she want just to be left alone?" he said. "You know, that gives her some decision-making power over the process."
Obama’s reference to a “medical directive” and the “control” his grandmother allegedly had are not a simple aside. They represent his convictions, as evidenced when he
suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care… He added: “Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Palliative care or painkillers, as he suggested, can be used for evil, as I have already pointed out in a previous column. Not a single one of us can control the fact that he or she will die, but it is important to remember that unprincipled “compassion” in the hands of those caring for someone at risk can cause premature death. Fiscal concerns about freeing up beds for younger patients, or saving a few dollars on medications or surgeries can have deadly results.
This is not just a problem that we might face in an Orwellian future. If you do not agree, visit the Life Tree web site and read the timeline entitled “Two Decades to an American Culture of Death.” It is all there, it is all documented and it is not a comedy. The people who espouse killing are deadly serious.
As the timeline preface states, you will learn
how a handful of progressive foundations and quasi-government agencies set out to provide equitable distribution of health care, and in the process, created a duty to die and a culture of death. And how they hope to secure their legacy . . .
Featuring the collaboration of: the Hastings Center, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), George Soros' Project on Death in America (PDIA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), AARP, Choice in Dying, and a number of prestigious universities, to name only a few.
This is but one more reason why this fundamental question must be asked about the Obama healthcare reform initiative:
Does anyone think that a government as committed to abortion, contraception and sex instruction as this one is should be trusted to apply ethical principles to healthcare reform?
Imposed death may save money, in the view of some, but when I think about my friend’s husband, I realize even more clearly that the hollow men are in charge and, to paraphrase T. S. Eliot, many a person’s life will end not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Judie, you are SO right about the silence of the Catholic Church regarding the atrocities of the proposed health "care" plan. We are encouraged to deluge our politicians - please tell me HOW CAN WE MOTIVATE OUR CATHOLIC OFFICIALS!!! WHAT A DISGRACE!!! Marie Ferretti | August 4, 2009
Marie,
I have to disagree with you about the Church remaining silent about the Health Care Plan. The Pope didn't remain silent. Judie Brown didn't remain silent. So why accuse the Church of remaining silent? There were people who did speak out. Not everyone remained silent. Nick | August 5, 2009
Pro-Life Story: My Conversion Posted By Tiffany A. Conn on May, 29 2007 When I was old enough to finally understand what being pro life and pro choice was I decided I wouldn't take an opinion on it because I saw the problems it caused, how it was and ... Read
