Category: Health care

ABC News’ misreporting of stem cell research

TBLeave a comment

Watching the ABC World News Sunday, anchor Dan Harris reported that there are indications that President Obama will soon be “freeing up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.” He then went on to say that this would reverse the policy under President Bush who “banned funding for stem research.”

That’s not just misreporting, it’s untrue. Before President Bush, federal funds were nonexistent for research on embryonic stem cells. In fact, what ABC News is not reporting is that President Obama and those who think like him would expand funding and research. In other words, this would not only give the go-ahead to kill more embryos in the name of scientific research, it would devote more federal funds to do this. To compare, the Bush policy devoted federal funds for research on embryos that already existed. Nothing was cut, it was just that federal funds weren’t devoted to the increase. Also, it should be noted, nothing was restricted as far as private funds going to this type of research.

But, the reporting by ABC News and others totally obscures this in a way that is diabolical. They are lying to you, the listener. This television report even misrepresents what’s reported on their own site. These kind of episodes either represent journalistic laziness or, worse, intentional misleading. They deserve the scorn directed their way by outraged viewers.

Wait and suffer: Look at Canada and learn something

TB1 Comment

What can we learn from our neighbors to the north? How about the dangers of universal (socialized) health care.  In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Nadeem Esmail explains what kind of dangers we would face if President Obama and the Democratic Congress force through more measures like Schip:

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario’s government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He’s challenging Ontario’s government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When the government pays, there are strings attached, and often we’re the ones who are caught up (or hung) in them. Esmail, who is the director of Health Performance Studies at The Fraser Institute, is based in Calgary. He says that instead of helping the needy members of a society, universal health care like Canada’s instead does most damage to the neediest in a society:

The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec’s prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The experiences of these Canadians — along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 — show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

In the wake of the 2005 ruling, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have tried unsuccessfully to fix the long wait times by introducing selective benchmarks and guarantees along with large increases in funding. The benchmarks and the guarantees aren’t ambitious: four to eight weeks for radiation therapy; 16 to 26 weeks for cataract surgery; 26 weeks for hip and knee replacements and lower-urgency cardiac bypass surgery.

Canada’s system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go. Americans can only hope that Barack Obama heeds the lessons that can be learned from Canadian hardships.

Timing is everything: The foolishness of U.S. law

TBLeave a comment

This is the world in which we live. A Florida woman, who was seeking an abortion as an 18-year-old, sued a doctor, a clinic and its staff because her daughter was born alive and then put into a trash bag. The murderer, who was not present at delivery but later “cleaned up,” had his license to practice medicine revoked because he falsified records by saying he was present for delivery.

There are no heroes in this tragic story, where a matter of minutes changes an action, in the eyes of the law, from legal and “safe” (for the mother, not the child) to shocking and harmful (to the mother’s mental health, apparently). From the report, which points out, “(t)he state attorney’s office …said its criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and no charges have been filed. A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion, police said when the incident occurred in 2006.”:

The baby’s mother, Sycloria Williams, sued [doctor Pierre Jean-Jacques] Renelique, the clinic and its staff in January, seeking damages.

She alleges in her suit that “she witnessed the murder of her daughter” and said she “sustained severe emotional distress, shock and psychic trauma which have resulted in discernible bodily injury.”

“This is not about a pot of gold,” said Tom Pennekamp, her attorney. “What this is about is right and wrong and making a statement, making sure it doesn’t happen to other young women.”

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant. She went to a clinic to get an abortion on the morning of July 20, 2006, after receiving medication and instructions the previous day.

Renelique was not at the clinic, however, and Williams was told to wait for him. She was given two pills and told they would make her ill. When she complained of feeling ill, clinic staff members gave her a robe and told her to lie down in a patient room, the suit says.

Renelique was still not present when Williams “felt a large pain” and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.

“The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued. Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed.”

A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby’s umbilical cord, the suit said. She “then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can.”

Staff at the clinic did not call 911 or seek medical assistance for Williams or the baby, the suit said.

Renelique arrived at the clinic about an hour later and gave Williams a shot to put her to sleep. “She awoke after the procedure and was sent home still in complete shock,” the suit said.

Police were notified of the incident by an anonymous caller who told them the baby was born alive and disposed of.

Gallup poll: Most disagree with president on Mexico City policy

TBLeave a comment

A new Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of Americans disagree and only 35 percent agree with the president about his decision to reverse the Mexico City policy:

Obama’s decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it.

Not surprisingly, this was the one early decision he made that didn’t get wall-to-wall media coverage. Likewise, there was scant coverage when 250,000 marched in Washington to mark the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and call for change.

Obama appointee has interesting take on the law

TBLeave a comment

From the blog of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) comes this shocker: James B. Steinberg, President Obama’s nominee to be the next Deputy Secretary of State, claimed in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. Mr. Steinberg stated that the Mexico City policy, which bars taxpayer funding of abortions overseas, “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.” Here is the Q&A:

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

DeMint explains in the same post that this statement is a direct contradiction of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Rust v. Sullivan, in 1991. But then again, this is all about change, not about laws and things like that.

HT: NRO’s The Corner

Richard Doerflinger: A happy, pro-life warrior

TBLeave a comment
Richard Doerflinger was one of six recipients at Fridays Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.
Richard Doerflinger was one of six recipients at Friday's Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.

NRO recently did an interview with Richard Doerflinger, who was one of six recipients last Friday at the first-ever Life Prizes in Washington, D.C.

Doerflinger is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for almost 29 years. He monitors, analyzes, and responds to federal and medical developments on life issues. He writes and he educates—colleagues, bishops, Congress, the media.

During the interview, Doerflinger was asked how devastating the Freedom of Choice Act  would be in this country:

We have said this is the most extreme piece of abortion legislation ever introduced in Congress. It would elevate abortion to the status of a “fundamental” right, and call on all public-health programs not to “discriminate” against abortion—in other words, any government effort to support childbirth would also be mandated to support abortion to the same extent. It would overturn hundreds of modest pro-life laws passed over the last 35 years—conscience clauses, public-funding restrictions, informed-consent and parental-involvement statutes, and so on.

Doerflinger also discusses in the interview how effective former President Bush was in eight years in promoting pro-life issues and how his stance on stem cell research has been totally misrepresented. I encourage you to read the interview. To read more about the Life Prizes and those who were recognized, go here.


Obama reverses Mexico City Policy

TB1 Comment

In a move that wasn’t unexpected, Barack Obama lifted a ban on giving federal funds to international groups that perform abortions and provide abortion information, known in some circles as the Mexico City policy. In contrast to his high-profile announcement of the plan to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist camp, this order was done quietly. As one person put it, Obama is friend of the terrorist, not the terrorized. Here is the report from the Associated Press:

The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.

Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world’s poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.

Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.

The story also said that the new president plans on adding funds in the next federal budget for the UN Population Fund. So, as Obama has made clear, he respects those who disagree with him on abortion but that apparently means he doesn’t bother to listen to them.

Thinking of Roe v. Wade today and our new president

TBLeave a comment

Robert P. George doesn’t mince words in this essay for The Witherspoon Institute on the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade  and Doe V. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion in this country. Specifically, he’s clear that he’s not wishing the new president success:

Barack Obama is trying to win over religiously serious Catholics and Evangelicals, without altering in the slightest his support for abortion, including late-term and partial-birth abortions, the funding of abortion and embryo-destructive research with taxpayer dollars, the elimination of informed consent and parental notification laws, and the revocation of conscience and religious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and other healthcare workers and pharmacists. He will ultimately fail. We must see to it that he fails.

To be clear, here is Obama’s stated agenda, from the whitehouse.gov site:

Reproductive Choice

  • Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.
  • Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims

And, to those evangelicals who got behind Obama, George has strong words for you as well:

In this project, Obama is being served and abetted by a small number of Catholic and Evangelical intellectuals and activists who have been peddling the claim that Obama, despite his pro-abortion extremism, is effectively pro-life because of his allegedly enlightened economic and social policies will reduce the number of abortions. This is delusional. The truth is that Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to serve in the United States Senate or seek the Office of President of the United States. The revocation of the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy, funding limitations on embryo-destructive research, informed consent laws, parental notification statutes—all of which Obama has promised to his pro-abortion base—will dramatically increase the number of abortions, and will do so for reasons that have been articulated by the abortion lobby itself. It is the pro-abortion side that tells us that the Hyde Amendment alone has resulted in 300,000 fewer abortions each year than would otherwise be performed—and that is why they so desperately want it to be repealed. Yet the putatively pro-life Obama apologists claim that the man who pledges to repeal it is going to reduce the number of abortions. Let me say it again: this is delusional.

The president-elect: Open for (his kind) of questions

TBLeave a comment

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is asking you, the American public, what’s on your mind and to ask Mr. Obama about it. That’s all good, except when a good question gets marked as “inappropriate” and is withdrawn. What qualifies as inappropriate? When you ask, like Justin Taylor did,

“Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?”

Not all questions are created equal
Not all questions are created equal