Tag: Health care

The tax in sheep’s clothing: How abortion funding sneaks into the health care bill

TBLeave a comment

Charmaine Yoest, the President and CEO of Americans United for Life, recently wrote an editorial in the March 4 edition of the Wall Street Journal about the health-care proposal that is headed for a Sunday vote in the House of Representatives. One of the reasons the bill has been delayed in its return to the House is that a group of Democrat senators are withholding their approval based on the bill’s abortion language. As you may recall, when the bill passed in the House earlier this year, attached to it was a provision known as the Stupak Amendment. In simplest terms, it said that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions. This amendment was proposed by Michigan representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat.

When the bill went to the Senate and was approved there, the Stupak amendment was not part of the bill. Another form of that amendment, not as strong in its terms, was a part of the bill. Likewise, the reconciled bill, written by the White House, has language similar to the Senate version. In her editorial, Yoest argues that this kind of deception is deliberate by President Obama and his administration:

Over the past year, language similar to the Hyde Amendment [banning federal funding for abortions] was crafted by Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R., Pa.) and inserted into the health-care bill that passed the House. When asked about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in November, Mr. Obama talked around the issue. He said that “there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment.” When asked if Stupak-Pitts struck this “balance,” the president replied “not yet.”

That’s an odd reply. The question of abortion funding doesn’t have any Zen to it: The funding is either prohibited or it’s not.

In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the president “doesn’t believe this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion.” But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that “this shouldn’t be a debate about abortion” before concluding that there were discussions in Congress about “how to adjust [the abortion language bill] accordingly.”

Apparently, his definition of “adjust” means opening up the spigot for the abortion lobby. The president’s latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn’t include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president’s plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on “community health centers,” which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

The president, in his zeal to get this bill passed, feels comfortable saying that there is a lot of misinformation out there. Perhaps that’s the information coming from the president. At the AUL Web site, there is a chart that explains how your tax dollars can be used to fund abortions even without having them go directly to abortion services (click on the image to see it larger).

Yoest, in an interview below last week on the Albert Mohler radio program, goes on to explain how this can all take place under the new legislation. This may seem hysterical to some, but there are some principles that are too important to be brushed aside, even for something that may be considered worthwhile. And this health care bill is hardly worthwhile.

http://idisk.mac.com/thebrott4-Public/CharmaineYoestinterview.mov

Help from the government: The introduction of ‘therapeutic nihilism’

TBLeave a comment

Joe Carter, writing last week at his First Things blog, takes a hard look at how the Netherlands has fallen steeply into the pit that is assisted suicide. It’s not a pretty picture, as he examines how the Netherlands has consistently expanded the ways doctors can help you kill yourself — or kill you without your permission — with government approval. The latest foray is legislation that would allow assisted suicide for anyone who has reached the age of 70 and has grown tired of living:

In any other country, such a proposal might be considered radical and shocking. But in the Netherlands—the country that first legalized euthanasia—the change in the law will merely decriminalize a practice that has been occurring for decades. An examination of how this formerly conservative, tradition-bound culture could adopt what the modern Hippocratic Oath refers to as “therapeutic nihilism” is useful for understanding how the other nations will begin to accept euthanasia in the near future.

Carter goes on to explain how this has crept into Dutch law little by little to the point where the medical community has been given the benefit of the doubt to the point where it is the one doing the policing authority when it comes to reporting abuses, if at all.

According to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, of the 135,675 deaths recorded in 1995, 3,600 (2.4%) were the result of a doctor-assisted termination of life while another 238 (0.3%) were cases of assisted suicide. The most disturbing statistic, however, is that 913 (0.7%) were terminations of life without the express request of the patient. For every three lives ended at the request of the patient, one person was killed without consent. While it is assumed that these cases consisted of terminally ill patients with no chance of survival, no one in the Netherlands knows for certain. Because the numbers are based on self-reporting by physicians, no accurate data exists to determine exactly how many Dutch citizens have been killed against their will.

Another comprehensive survey by Dr. Paul J. van der Maas in 1996 showed that the situation had indeed worsened since 1990. The total number of cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide had risen by a third from 2,700 to 3,600, with an estimated 60 percent not being officially reported. The number of cases of euthanasia without request by the patient also remained high, with 900 cases being reported. Although the government passively accepted the practice, doctors were still legally susceptible to prosecution if a disgruntled family member disagreed with the killing of their relative. Legislation to decriminalize euthanasia, which had been repeatedly proposed since 1984, was finally passed on April 10, 2001. A criminal liability exclusion was added for doctors who willingly reported their actions and demonstrated that they have satisfied the criteria of “due care.”

This is the kind of “culture of death” that not only exists, but exists with the approval of the government. If you are shocked by this, then that is good. When “tired of living” — aside from any physical illness — becomes an accepted reason for ending a person’s life, then we know that something has gone horribly wrong.

Useful resources on bioethics from STR: Abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research

TBLeave a comment

Stand To Reason is a great organization that puts out great material to help Christians think more clearly about their faith and give a gracious, even-handed defense of it. This page has some great resources from STR and other places that are useful when talking about issues such as abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia.

Here are just a few of the topics addressed:

Abortion really is a part of Obama’s plan. That’s no lie.

TBLeave a comment

The Associated Press reported Wednesday in one of its “Fact Check” stories that some “myths and half-truths” are taking hold to raise opposition to the massive health care overhaul constructed by President Obama and his Democratic allies. One of the items addressed in the article was the idea that the health care overhaul would have federal dollars paying for abortions. This is what the article said:

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don’t.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

Opponents say the prohibition on federal money for the procedure is merely a bookkeeping trick and what matters is that Washington would allow abortion to be covered under government-subsidized insurance.

Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of “not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.” Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.

Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.

Here are some things to consider. Public funds are public funds. If someone wants to sign on to the public plan, they will not be able to sign on to just a portion of it. Since the House bill classifies abortion as “an essential service,” abortion will be covered under it. Abortion providers who perform these “services” for those under the public plan, they will be reimbursed by the federal government from the treasury. In addition, because of that classification, private insurance plans will have to provide coverage for them as well. The result, the number of abortions will increase and the number of providers increased to cover the government-mandated coverage.

The idea that President Obama said the U.S. should continue its tradition of “not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care” should be taken with a grain of salt. The part in the quotations is what he said. He did not, however, say we should continue that policy. He merely was observing what the current situation was. If his words mean anything, I would also listen to what he said in the video clip below. The president and his allies like to talk a lot about disinformation being put out there about his health care proposals. I would say a lot of it is being offered by the president himself when it comes to covering over explicit statements he has already made.

I do not want innocent people killed for the sake of birth control. I do not want to be forced to pay taxes so others can do this. I believe there are many others who feel the same way. If you want to read a comprehensive discussion of this particular issue, I would encourage you to look at this fact sheet done by the National Right to Life.

Don’t buy this lemon: Publicly funded abortion on demand

TBLeave a comment

President Obama and his allies, in used car salesman mode, are pushing a massive health care overhaul bill in front of Congress, pestering them to sign it! sign it! sign it! And don’t mind the small type or the cost. Well, you should worry about the small print, because there are things you should not want to be a part of.

For instance, during a committee meeting on July 9, Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland slipped in an amendment that would provide public funding for abortion. At CNSNews.com, they recount the interaction between Mikulski, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania as they query Mikulski as to just what her amendment is providing. She is evasive, but it is clear that she is pushing an amendment that will provide for federally funded abortion in a health bill. So much for freedom of choice.

Meanwhile, a Guttmacher Institute review of literature found that in 20 of 24 studies, the number of abortions went down where public-funding restrictions were in place. The results were inconclusive in the other four studies. If  President Obama, who as Candidate Obama stated that he wanted to reduce the need for abortion, is serious about seeing that happen, then he would not be in such a hurry to pass a health care bill that pushes abortion on all taxpayers. But, based on his record in his short time in office, he doesn’t appear to take the words he spoke on the campaign trail or to Pope Benedict seriously. And that is a tragedy.

Click on image to see video of Sen. Mikulski as she answers questions from Sens. Hatch and Casey about her amendment.
Click on image to see video of Sen. Mikulski as she
answers questions from Sens. Hatch and Casey about her amendment.

The chilling words recounted

TBLeave a comment

ultrasoundGretchen Naugle, wife of Desiring God resources director Lukas Naugle, recounts at A Beautiful Work a disturbing episode in her life:

This month marks a strange anniversary of sorts for me. It was 2 years ago this month that I was sitting in a chair looking at my unborn baby in 4D. She was precious! We had previously found out that our baby had several “markers” for down syndrome and had enlarged kidneys which may have required surgery upon birth. Thus we were monitored more carefully and had a ton more ultrasound shots at a hospital. This was the first level 3 ultrasound with this pregnancy (I had had one with my 3rd with no problems). I got to gaze upon my baby for almost a full hour – it was wonderful! I was there alone as my husband was out of town. The specialist doctor called me in after the ultrasound to go over the findings. The first words out of his mouth to me were “Well you will have to come in tomorrow for your abortion because of how far along you are.” I was utterly shocked and devastated. All I could do was mutter “What??????” He then proceeded to tell me that my baby had more “markers” for down syndrome and it didn’t look good. I was more shocked that his automatic assumption was that I would abort my baby. I almost couldn’t comprehend what he was telling me in that office. All I wanted to do was run as far away from that man as possible.

Read the rest of the post to see that, unfortunately, Gretchen’s encounter is not that uncommon for women with babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Take your medicine but put your trust in God

TBLeave a comment

Albert Mohler gives sound counsel regarding the recent case in the news about the parents who refused allowing their son to get chemotherapy to treat his cancer due to religious reasons:

As a Christian theologian, my concern is also directed to those who oppose medical treatment on what are claimed as biblical grounds.  The Bible never commands any refusal of legitimate medical treatment.  I am unspeakably thankful for modern medicine, for antibiotics and anesthesia and chemotherapy and dialysis and diagnostics.  The list goes on and on.  There is no Christian prohibition against legitimate medical treatment.  I believe that God heals, that we should pray for healing in Christ’s name, and that our lives are in God’s hands.  I believe that all healing comes ultimately from God, but that He has given us the blessings of medicine for the alleviation of much suffering and the treatment of disease.  There is no conflict here.

There are serious issues of medical ethics in the case of some treatments, even as there are excruciating dilemmas that confront physicians, patients, and parents.  Those must be acknowledged, but they are not the issues at stake in these cases.

In these cases I advise what the great Reformer Martin Luther advised — take your medicine and put your trust in God. For parents, this means to give your child the best care that modern medicine can offer, and to entrust your precious child to God and to God alone.

 

HT: Tim Challies

Medicare has a gun to your head

TBLeave a comment
John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:
“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar
it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far
higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute
(www.aei.org).
The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.
So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them
“greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken
from every paycheck they earned.
But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.
“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.
Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good
conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry
about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six
working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is
four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.
Medicare is unsustainable.
“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.
That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.
Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

John Stossel at Townhall.com reports on how Medicaid is a drag on our economy that is only going to get worse:

“This program, Medicare, is essentially ripping my generation off,” Zach Hadaway said.

Policy experts say the kids are right.

“The government spends around $6 on seniors for every dollar it spends on children, and yet the poverty rate among children is far higher,” said Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org).

The federal government stiffs the young in favor of the old.

So I told the La Posada seniors that the kids called them “greedy geezers.” They said, “We’ve paid our dues.” Money was taken from every paycheck they earned.

But, in fact, the average Medicare beneficiary today collects two to three times more money than he paid in.

“I would argue that this is not only unfair, it’s downright immoral,” says billionaire Pete Peterson.

Peterson is a rarity: a senior who decided he cannot in good conscience accept Medicare. He and his foundation (www.pgpf.org) worry about the looming fiscal disaster. When Medicare began in 1965, six working-aged people paid for each Medicare recipient. Now the figure is four. It will get worse as baby boomers like me retire.

Medicare is unsustainable.

“There is $34 trillion sitting off the balance sheet, waiting for future generations to pay,” Herzlinger said.

That’s how much more Medicare money government has promised than it has budgeted. It’s the price of about 30 Iraq Wars.

Stossel says that calls to lower health care costs won’t have much effect, according to figures by the Congressional Budget Office. And there is fat chance it will be changed by vote, since seniors are a much more cohesive voting bloc than younger people.

No, Mr. President. Killing is killing

TBLeave a comment

As the president comes out today to tell us that we need comprehensive health care reform in our nation, I think this is something we should think on. Who will make reforms for the most defenseless in our country?

John Piper’s response to President Obama on abortion

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he released this statement,
We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.
To which I say:
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.
* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.
* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.
Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.
We have hope in our sovereign God.

From the transcript:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, [President Obama] released this statement,

We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

To which I say:

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women; you are authorizing the destruction of 500,000 little women every year.

* No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for one million little human beings every year.

* No, Mr. President, killing our children is killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. You may say it is a private family matter over and over and over, and still they are dead. And we killed them. And you, would have it remain legal.

Mr. President, some of us wept for joy at your inauguration. And we pledge that we will pray for you.

We have hope in our sovereign God.