CURRENT NOTE: 

Perhaps the liberal leadership really believes we NEED abortion, to carry out genocide via this form of reproductive racism. Could it be?

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 5939)
On July 29, 2010, Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 5939). This Act, if passed, would permanently establish policies that restrict the use of federal tax dollars for abortion. (Currently, many of these provisions must be renewed in law as part of various annual appropriations bills.)

The present Health 'Care' law contains at least three different policies on federal funding of abortion—none of which is consistent with the Hyde Amendment . . . or with similar longstanding provisions that govern all other health programs. The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is asking citizens to urge those Representatives who have not yet cosponsored H.R. 5939 to do so. To learn more about H.R. 5939, and to contact your Representative, please visit the NCHLA Action Alert center -- http://www.nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=284

If the promoters of the Health act are truly on the side of LIFE, they should have no problem supporting this bill...

NEW! Federal Judge Ruled that Virginia's Lawsuit, Challenging the Constitutionality of Pro-Abortion Health Care, Can Proceed

NEW! Obama Officials Will NOT APPLY Abortion FUNDING LIMITS to Full Health Care Program

NEW! Opposition to Obama's Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Hits New High in Poll

NEW! Congressman Files New Pro-Life Bill to Cut All Federal Funding for Abortions

Retirements by Baby-Boomer Doctors, Nurses Could Strain Overhaul / Health-Care Retirements Looming / Doctors Face Medicare Pay Cuts

Doctors Face 21 Percent Cut in Medicare Payments

** Health Care Fact of the Day
http://www.thecloakroomblog.com/category/healthcarefod/

** Extensive FRC Health Care Resources
http://www.frcaction.org/healthcare

Legal Translation: Newest Health "Care" Proposal Pushes Abortion, No Protection for Major Pro-Life Doctors' Groups

Newly-Unveiled Obama Health Bill Proposal Even More Pro-Abortion According to NRLC: White House set to ram health overhaul through Senate as "budget" reconciliation measure

Commentary: Disapproval Does Not Equal Racism

Abortion Mandate Resurfacing, possibly by 21 Feb 2010 -- 11th Hour...

Barbara Boxer Confirms Nelson's Health Care Deal Does NOT Stop Abortion Funding

AARP -- Opposed to the Values of Most Seniors? Commentary

Analysis: Abortion Funding in Senate Health-Care Bill Stuck Between Reid and a Hard Place

Commentary: The AMA Can Now Defeat a Berlin Wall of Medicine (10Nov09)

MASA Urges AMA to Recall House Health Bill (HR 3962) Endorsement

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill

Surgeon General Koop Letter Against Abortion Funding Closes Harry Reid's Office

Newsbytes on Health bill, 21 November 09 

African-American Leaders Oppose Black Pastors' Endorsement of Pro-Abortion Health Care

In Delivering Care, More Isn't Always Better, Experts Say

Devaluing Doctors -- and Care... A Physician's Commentary

Health Care Reform and Abortion - What's the Truth?

Death Panels: Euthanasia Group Behind "End-of-Life" Counseling

Former Soviet Union, Now Medical Student in U.S.: Where Will I Flee Next?

If Congress passes the House version of Obama Care, the Right of Conscience for Physicians will be eliminated -- this would be the silent FOCA...

House Health Care Bill Gives Doctors Financial Incentive to Push Euthanasia

Pro-Life Blacks, Democrats, Doctors Visited Congress to Oppose Health Care Bill

National Black Pro-Life Union held Press Conference in 2009 Regarding True Health Care

Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Health Care Bill

Health Care Reform Would Allow Planned Parenthood 'Clinics' in Schools...

Federal Judge Henry Hudson Ruled that Virginia's Lawsuit, Filed by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Challenging the Constitutionality of "Obamacare", Can Proceed
The Judge denied the motion to dismiss filed by USDOJ on behalf of HHS. Among his other reasons, the judge cited Eagle Forum's victory in the VAWA case, U.S. v. Morrison (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that Congress' power to regulate activities that "affect" interstate commerce, is limited to activities that are themselves economic in nature. A non-economic activity may not be regulated under the commerce clause, no matter how much it "affects" interstate commerce.

Second, Missouri voters approved the Health Care Freedom Act by 71% of the vote. Proposition C prohibits the government from forcing citizens to purchase health insurance, which was a rebuke of Obama and his administration. It's a loud victory to overturn the unconstitutional Obamacare passed by Congress in March.

"The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said State Sen. Jane Cunningham, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the ballot. These are reasonable victories for true health care freedom in America. [6 Aug 2010, EF News & Notes]

Judge OKs Lawsuit Against Pro-Abortion Health Care, GOP Hopes to Stop Funding
A federal judge ruled today that the lawsuit the state of Virginia and several others filed against the pro-abortion health care law passed in March can go forward. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are pushing a plan to cut off funding for the health care scheme in case the lawsuit or repeal bids fail.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson issued a decision today saying the states can move forward with their lawsuit against the health care law, which allows massive abortion funding.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote. "Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action."

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who is pro-life, filed a lawsuit immediately after President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.

The Department of Health and Human Services, led by pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit but Judge Hudson's decision denies that motion.

Meanwhile, while Republicans may not be able to repeal the pro-abortion health care law next year -- because President Barack Obama would veto such a bill doing so, they are hoping to deny the administration the funds needed to implement it. They are now working on such a message and getting it out to candidates on the campaign trail. [August 9, 2010, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Update, Washington, DC]



Obama Officials Won't Apply Abortion Funding Limits to Full Health Care Program
Although the Obama administration promised it will limit federal taxpayer funding of abortions in the new high risk health insurance programs created under the ObamaCare law President Barack Obama signed into law, officials have said the limits are temporary and apply only to the new program.

As LifeNews.com reported today, the Obama administration appears to have bowed to pressure from pro-life groups that discovered it had authorized abortion funding in three states under the new high risk health insurance programs.

White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle offered further explanation of the new regulation on the official White House blog.

There she admitted that, "The program’s restriction on abortion coverage is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program and the population it serves."

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, responded in an email to LifeNews.com.

“Without blinking, the Obama Administration had approved high-risk pool plans submitted by at least three states that would have funded virtually all abortions – until NRLC raised the alarms starting on July 13," he said.

“This entire episode demonstrates what National Right to Life said in March – there is no language in the new health care law, and no language in Obama’s politically contrived March 24 executive order, that effectively prevents federal subsidies for abortion on demand,” Johnson added. [August 9, 2010, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Update, Washington, DC]



Opposition to Obama's Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Hits New High in Poll
Opposition to the pro-abortion health care bill President Barack Obama signed into law has reached new heights, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. The results come after a pro-life group exposed the way in which the new law would fund abortions in high risk insurance polls.

The Obama administration eventually backed down after the National Right to Life Committee exposed the funding in three states and it promised no funding would occur in the polls the new law created.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds 57 percent of likely voters say the recently-passed health care law will be bad for the country. Thirty-two percent say the health care plan will be good for the United States.

Prior to this survey, belief that the plan is good for the country ranged from 34% to 41%, while those who predict it will be bad for the country range from 49% to 54%.

"That’s the highest level of pessimism measured since regular tracking began following Congress' passage of the law in late March," Rasmussen noted. "Voter pessimism towards the new national health care bill has reached an all-time high."

Fifty-nine percent of all voters now favor repeal of the health care bill compared to 38 percent who oppose repealing it.

These findings include 45% who strongly favor repeal and 28 percent who strongly oppose it. Support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 63%, while opposition has ranged from 32% to 42%. [August 9, 2010, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Update, Washington, DC]




Congressman Files New Pro-Life Bill to Cut All Federal Funding for Abortions
Congressman Chris Smith officially filed is new legislation today that would compile all of the annual provisions that prevent federal funding of abortions into one piece of legislation. The beauty of the bill lies in its ability to make what are annual battles to stop abortion funding permanent federal law.

When it comes to taxpayer funding of abortions from the federal government, pro-life advocates have to fight several battles annually in Congress to ensure abortions are not funded in programs ranging from HHS and USAID to health care and the District of Columbia.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, the chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, is behind the new No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act designed to establish a consistent government-wide prohibition on abortion funding.

Two leading pro-life groups praised the official introduction of the legislation, which likely won't ever enjoy a debate and vote while pro-abortion Speaker Nancy Pelosi runs the House of Representatives.

Family Research Council Action senior vice president Tom McClusky told LifeNews.com that with passage of a health care law that will fund and subsidize abortion, and with efforts by pro-abortion senators to open up military bases to abortion, legislation to enact a government-wide abortion funding ban is needed.

"In the last year, we have seen President Obama and pro-abortion congressional leaders make repeated attempts to eviscerate the long-agreed line on federal funding of abortion. They began by enacting the abortion funding health care law and are now advancing an abortion agenda that includes turning our military hospitals into abortion facilities," he said. [August 9, 2010, LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Update, Washington, DC]
 

Retirements by Baby-Boomer Doctors, Nurses Could Strain Overhaul / Health-Care Retirements Looming /
Doctors Face Medicare Pay Cuts

Since the passage of the health-care law in March, much has been said about the coming swarm of millions of retiring baby boomers and the strain they will put on the nation's health-care system.

That's only half the problem. Overlooked in the conversation is a particular group of boomers: doctors and nurses who are itching to call it quits. Health-care economists and other experts say retirements in that group over the next 10 to 15 years will greatly weaken the health-care workforce and leave many Americans who are newly insured under the new legislation without much hope of finding a doctor or nurse.

Nearly 40 percent of doctors are 55 or older, according to the Center for Workforce Studies of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Included in that group are doctors whose specialties will be the pillars of providing care in 2014, when the overhaul kicks in; family medicine and general practitioners (37 percent); general surgeons (42 percent); pediatrics (33 percent), and internal medicine and pediatrics (35 percent).

About a third of the much larger nursing workforce is 50 or older, and about 55 percent expressed an intention to retire in the next 10 years, according to a Nursing Management Aging Workforce Survey by the Bernard Hodes Group. New registered nurses are flowing from colleges, but not enough to replace the number planning to leave the profession.

"Moving into the future, we see a very large shortage of nurses, about 300,000," said Peter Buerhaus, a nurse and health-care economist and a professor at Vanderbilt University. "That number does not account for the demand created by reform. That's a knockout number. It knocks the system down. It stops it."

According to the census, baby boomers include the 66 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964.

 In an article for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Buerhaus and colleagues Douglas Staiger and David Auerbach predicted that there will be at least 100,000 fewer doctors in the workplace than the 1.1 million the federal government projects will be needed in 2020 under the health-care overhaul.

The authors analyzed the American Medical Association Masterfile survey of the nation's physicians and found that it overestimated the number of active older physicians who are baby boomers.

Using the monthly Current Population Survey of the census bureau, the writers found that older doctors aren't nearly as active as those who are 54 and younger, and that their lack of activity must be taken into account when determining the available level of care after the overhaul has been implemented.

"There's a much more rapid retirement of physicians," Buerhaus said. "What does this retirement mean? This will mean at least 100,000 fewer doctors in the workplace in 2020."

He said the article does not estimate the change in demand or the level of recruitment by medical colleges, which is being beefed up significantly under the health-care law.

Lori Heim, president of the American Association of Family Practitioners, said someone might soon have to replace her. "My age group is looking at when we are going to retire," said Heim, who is 54. "More physicians are changing their practice, doing things that have less calls. They want administrative roles."

Heim said her statement is based on an impression. "I haven't seen any numbers on this." But, she said, her association is among the many that for years have pointed out the shortage of primary care doctors and nurses to the White House and Congress.

Although the association supported the health-care overhaul, it thinks the law does not go far enough to address the workforce shortages projected for the coming decade.

Reform will add demand on top of shortages already projected, and as a result the health-care workforce might not be attractive.

According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 75 percent of nurses said in a survey they think the shortage "presents a major problem for the quality of their work life, the quality of patient care, and the amount of time that nurses can spend with patients."

In a survey by New York University's Christine Kovner, 13 percent of newly registered nurses changed principal jobs after a year, and 37 percent said they were ready to change jobs. A separate report found that the turnover rate for registered nurses was 13 percent. A University of Pennsylvania study called for 30,000 extra nurses per year to be graduated to meet health-care needs.

"I think the big story is . . . the future of nursing is dominated by aging baby-boomer nurses who are going to retire, and we are looking at massive shortages," Buerhaus said. "Others are not picking up the retirements of physicians. There's just not going to be as many doctors as needed out there."
[14June2010,Washington Post, Darryl Fears, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304096.html?hpid=topnews ; N Valko RN, 14June10]

Doctors Face 21 Percent Cut in Medicare Payments
Some at AMA meeting protest cuts in Medicare payments by sending their lab coats to lawmakers.

Doctors with Medicare patients will start seeing a 21 percent pay cut this week after Congress failed to defer the cuts by two more years.

The Senate had until June 1 to avert the cuts. It is not expected to vote by Tuesday, when the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' temporary hold on Medicare claims expires.

Some members of the American Medical Association signed white lab coats instead of a petition to voice their displeasure on Sunday at the group's annual meetings in Chicago. The coats will be delivered to lawmakers in Washington on Friday, a spokeswoman said.

"The Senate's failure to act before June 1 made the 21 percent cut the law of the land," AMA President J. James Rohack said in a statement. "Physicians will start seeing a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments this week that will hurt seniors' health care as physicians are forced to make practice changes to keep their practice doors open" ...  [14 June 2010, Ed O'Keefe, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304348.html?sid=ST2010061304429]

Legal Translation: Newest Health "Care" Proposal Pushes Abortion, No Protection for Major Pro-Life Doctors' Groups

To better inform you about the President's newest healthcare proposal, here is accurate info from 2 very reliable sources (and note: tax funded abortion is very much a part of the "new" proposal):

Source 1:
Since the proposal is designed to make changes to the Senate bill, the omission of any reference to abortion means that the Senate language would govern under the President's proposal. According to the Washington Post, "The president's plan does leave intact language relating to abortion already in the Senate bill."

Groups should be aware that this means the President is adopting the Senate approach which would allow subsidies for abortion coverage and even directly fund abortion through grants to Community Health Centers. Today, National Right to Life pointed out that by increasing funding for Community Health Center's to $11 billion without ensuring funds cannot be used to pay for abortion, the President's proposal actually expands pro-life concerns. Additional concerns including conscience protection issues and back door abortion mandates also remain under the President's proposal to the same extent as they existed in the Senate bill.

This week, as the President hosts a bipartisan health care summit, it is noteworthy that the pro-life Stupak amendment is a key area in which there has been strong bipartisan cooperation, yet it was omitted from the President's proposal.

Source 2
Of course, the issue of utmost importance to pro-lifers is whether the President's September statement holds true: "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

False! Under the administration's "new" plan, this bill would be the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade--with a big chunk of the proposal tagged directly for groups like Planned Parenthood.

Despite public opposition, President Obama reverted back to the Senate's language, which would force taxpayers to fund abortions even if their state opts-out of the coverage. Using a phony argument that the money would be segregated, the government would still draw from taxpayer pools to cover a procedure that Americans overwhelmingly reject.

The President missed his opportunity to adopt the most popular piece of reform, Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) outright ban on government-funded abortion.
To make matters worse, the White House is upping the ante on the Senate's abortion bailout, asking for $11 billion in "community health centers," which can easily be redirected to groups like Planned Parenthood.

The President's package also includes Sen. Barbara Mikulski's (D-Md.) amendment, which would allow the administration to define abortions as "preventative health services" and force private insurers to cover them. As it's currently written, the $6 billion in grants for health co-ops doesn't include a single abortion restriction--nor does the Indian Health Services program. With the health care summit just days away, the onus is on Republicans. They can expose the President's credibility gap on abortion and kill the bill--or sit silent and risk the momentum that got them there.
[23Feb10, AAPLOG]

Newly-Unveiled Obama Health Bill Proposal Even More Pro-Abortion According to NRLC: White House set to ram health overhaul through Senate as "budget" reconciliation measure
A new health care bill proposed by President Obama Monday threatens to expand abortion even more drastically than the health care bills stymied in Congress over the past several months, says the National Right to Life Committee [and other sources].

The White House is threatening to ram the proposal through the Senate on a 51-vote majority using a tactic known as "budget reconciliation".  The process circumvents the need for a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority [per Senate rules put in place by a Democrat majority] by placing the health care overhaul under the heading of a "budget" bill.

"Any member of Congress who votes for the final legislation proposed by President Obama will be voting for direct federal funding of elective abortion through Community Health Centers, and also an array of other pro-abortion federal subsidies and mandates," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson in a statement Monday. [PFLI note: Extra funding for chemical abortions and Planned Parenthood are also included in the Obama plan.]


Johnson pointed out that the earlier Senate bill was itself "the most expansively pro-abortion bill ever brought to the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade."  That bill was brought to a screeching halt in January, thanks to the unexpected victory of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, who handed Senate Republicans the one vote needed to maintain a filibuster.

Among the president's proposed "targeted set of changes to" the Senate bill, Johnson said, none "diminish any of the sweeping pro-abortion problems in the Senate bill, and he actually proposes to increase the funds that would be available to directly subsidize abortion procedures (through Community Health Centers) and to subsidize private health insurance that covers abortion (through the premium-subsidy tax credits program)."

"If all of the President's changes were made," said Johnson, "the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."

(A letter from NRLC to lawmakers detailing the multiple pro-abortion components of the Senate bill is available here.)

Meanwhile, despite Obama's bipartisan health care summit set for broadcast Thursday, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer indicated Monday that Democrats were ultimately willing to push the bill through reconciliation with zero Republican help.

While the White House has "made no determinations on which process to move forward with," he said, "Our proposal is designed to give ourselves maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform."
 
Republicans, and even some Democrats, are skeptical that the Thursday summit will amount to anything more than political theatre.

“I’m not certain what the White House is up to, but it appears they are trying to meld a bill together without, again, any input from Republicans," said Republican Georgia Rep. Tom Price, according to Politico.  

Price was not invited to the health care talks at Blair House on Thursday. "It doesn’t sound like bipartisanship. ... I’m afraid it’s just another photo op.”
[22Feb10, Kathleen Gilbert, DC, www.LifeSiteNews.com, PharmFacts E-News Update, 23Feb10] 

Commentary: Disapproval Does Not Equal Racism
In a rare response to public opinion, politicians around the country are holding town hall meetings to discuss the issues facing Congress and our country, especially health care reform. The politicians—and the media—seem surprised at the anger and discontent they are encountering at these meetings, however.

Citizens who have lost their jobs are lashing out at policies that seem to reward bad business decisions in the auto industry and the financial world. Middle class Americans who oppose a health care plan that is an affront to their moral beliefs are accused of fear-mongering and hysteria.

In  recent local editorials, writers have proposed another reason for the discontent, however: displaced racism. Several writers have blamed the groundswell of angry citizens who feel that no one is listening on the fact that these Americans don’t like President Obama because he is Black.

Unfortunately, that same attitude is a popular refrain in our country. We who disagree with policy are racists who don’t understand policy.

President Jimmy Carter even entered the racism arena following U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s ill-advised outburst during President Obama’s speech on health care. “I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said when questioned at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta.

Now, I admit that I am one of those “one issue” people who are denigrated in the media. I am a pro-life advocate who believes that everything we do, all policies we enact are impacted by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens.

If there is no sanctity of life for our unborn and our elderly, how can we be shocked when that lack of concern for life plays out in our streets and our policies?

I also whole-heartedly agree that our current health care system needs reform—but again, that reform should encompass the sanctity of life.

The truly frustrating point of this, however, is that while I am termed “racist” for not agreeing with Obama’s abortion itinerary, that abortion agenda is the most racist, destructive force in our society.

Make no mistake about it, abortion is impacting our country in ways few people care to consider.

Yes, 51.7 million babies have been aborted since 1970, but what that means to our society is that 30.6 % of our entire under-40 population has been destroyed.

Almost one-third of our future, our tax-payers, our voters have been killed.

Congress subsidized Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, $326 million last year to help accomplish this. According to Cybercast News Service, 62.5% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in predominately Black neighborhoods.

Our President has been very outspoken from the beginning about his pro-abortion plans for our country, yet the current impact of abortion on the African-American community has been devastating.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2004 there were 161 abortions per 1,000 live births in the Caucasian community.

For Hispanics, that number was 211 per 1,000 births.

In the African American community, there were an overwhelming 472 abortions per 1,000 live births.

While comprising only about 13% of our total population, African American women have almost 38% of all abortions.

That is 1,227 black babies aborted every day.

In Alabama, the numbers are even more staggering. African American women still comprise about 13% of the population, but in 2006, they had 55.8% of all abortions.

This is a national horror, yet no one dare raise the issue of racism or genocide. 

The only issue people want to discuss is that a national health care plan should pay for MORE abortions, and Medicaid should pay for more abortions for poor, minority women.

To oppose that plan—or to support a plan that states medical professionals should not be forced to participate in abortions against their moral beliefs, or that “end of life counseling” is not a morally acceptable part of a health care plan—is “displaced racism.”

Alabama has received a lot of bad press in recent months for our high premature birth and infant mortality rates, especially among our minority population.

A lot of reasons are given for these numbers, but a recent report published by the American Physicians and Surgeons links the disproportionately high rate of preterm births among Black babies to the high rate of abortion among Black women.

According to that study, African-American women are at three times higher risk for having a premature birth, and four times higher risk for giving birth extremely prematurely.

In six separate studies, evidence showed that women who had aborted a child had a significant risk of premature birth. Since the abortion rate in the African-American community is 4.3 time higher than non-blacks, abortion was cited as the likely cause for many of these premature births.

 The statistics prove that abortion is systematically destroying the African-American community, yet there is no voice of outrage. When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently interviewed in New York Times Magazine, she discussed her surprise when the Court upheld the Hyde Amendment (which banned federal funding for abortion) in 1980.

She said, “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth, and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.”

 Was anyone offended by the implications of that statement? Was there media righteous indignation at the idea that Roe V Wade was supposed to solve the problem of “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”?

Were there cries of racism from our political leaders at the idea that federally funded abortions were intended to reduce the minority, poor population?

Did our President stand up and denounce Justice Ginsburg?  Not hardly. As they say, the silence is deafening. And THAT is racism.
[Lorie Mullins, Pregnancy Center Director, September 2009]

NEW! 

BREAKING: Abortion Mandate Resurfacing!
"We're in the final stretch, and this is when your voice counts the most.
Let's keep up the pressure and STOP the Abortion Mandate in Health Care!"
 
U.S. House Rep and both U.S. Senators (see below, or www.congress.org) are under great pressure to pass this health destruction bill.

It may be on the floor Sunday, 21Feb, or by Monday, 22Feb10. 

You may wish to contact your members of Congress to tell them:

"Do not support any health care reform bill that does not include the Stupak language to block government funding of abortion!"
 
--> REPRESENTATIVES:
     http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/representatives  
 
--> SENATORS:
   http://stoptheabortionmandate.com/senators  

February 18, 2010 10:20:00 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly is now
reporting that the final health care proposal is
expected to be released by the White House "as early
as Feb 21" -- just three days from today.

Abortion proponents are aggressively assembling a coalition to ram through a health care bill that is fully expected to mandate abortion coverage and government funding of abortion.

With a final version expected out as early as Sunday, it's clear that abortion advocates know they're on the verge of having the votes they need to force this bill through in a way that is filibuster-proof:
"The most likely way forward is for the House to clear
the Senate's health care bill (HR 3590) and for the
Senate to pass a package of changes to it, using the
 filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process. That
set of changes would incorporate the deals struck
with the House, which would then send the new package
to the White House. Obama would first sign the
original Senate bill, then the 'corrections' package.
The last measure signed into law would be the one
that dictates the final shape of the overhaul."

The House passed the Stupak language that
would save lives and protect taxpayers from funding
abortion -- but it was completely stripped from the
Senate version.

With intense pressure mounting for the House to just roll over and pass the Senate version, millions of lives are at stake!

Obama has refused to address the issue of abortion -- and every indication is that he will keep abortion funding as a centerpiece of his proposal.

Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition
 http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com

Barbara Boxer Confirms Nelson's Health Care Deal Does NOT Stop Abortion Funding

A buyer’s chance to return a vehicle under the California lemon law applies for 30 days. Too bad for Senator Ben Nelson (D, Nebraska) the same does not apply to legislative deals cut in Washington D.C. with California’s pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer (D, California) when she talks to reporters 31 days later.

As most of America knows, back on December 19th Senator Nelson became the 60th vote needed to advance the Senate’s version of President Obama’s health care reform legislation – his self-described signature domestic policy initiative.

In announcing his compromise, Senator Nelson’s press release boasted:

    “In negotiations with Senate leaders Nelson won new protections addressing abortion that are more thorough than the Stupak language included in the House health care bill.
    “Nelson’s provisions: (1) ensure that no public funds will be used for abortion; (2) mandate that every state provide an insurance plan option that does not cover abortion; and (3) gives each state the right to pass a law barring insurance coverage for abortion within state borders.
    “‘My values and principles have required me to fight hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions,’ Senator Nelson said. ‘I believe we have accomplished that goal. I also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered, and to provide health insurance options in every state that do not provide coverage for abortion.
    “’I know these limits on abortion are hard for some people to accept, and I respect those who disagree, but I would not have voted for this bill without them.’”

Joining Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada) at the negotiating table representing abortion activists was Senator Boxer who oddly and immediately took heat from her friends in the “women’s groups” for agreeing to the compromise.

Senator Boxer has been mysteriously quiet since the deal was struck with exception to her remarks on the Senate floor prior to the vote when she implored her colleagues with what now probably deserved a Golden Globe this past weekend – “Please don't single out women…What have women done to deserve this? … Why have such a lack of respect for them?”

However, the silence was broken on January 18 when Boxer, according to McClatchy News Service, “said it’s only an ‘accounting procedure’ that will do nothing to restrict [abortion] coverage.”

Senator Nelson made several errors in his negotiations that have been well reported during the past month. At some point he is going to need to go back to the salesman who sold him on what he was agreeing to would go further than the Stupak-Pitts language in the House version of the bill.

The Stupak-Pitts language was not new federal policy. It merely preserved what is known as the Hyde amendment, passed in 1977, which prohibits federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. The state ‘opt-out’ language in the Senate version agreed to by Senator Nelson is smoke and mirrors.

What the Senate passed on Christmas Eve allows the federal government to fund abortions. It is disingenuous for Senator Nelson to think funding for abortions would be segregated. Regardless of any potential ‘opt-out’, the pool of money is there to stay and Senator Boxer is now confirming as such.

158 abortions occur every hour which means 3792 every day. Referencing the data contained in a 2007 Guttmacher Policy Review study would translate to an additional 548 abortions performed each day under the White House endorsed Nelson-Boxer-Reid compromise Senate language – a 15% increase in abortions in our country.

Congressman Bart Stupak (D, MI-01), the champion of the House language, immediately knew the same day Nelson cut his deal that “A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage.”

Was Senator Nelson misled during the negotiations or just out-maneuvered?

Regardless, about now, he is probably wishing he also bought the extended warranty with his deal because he’s going to need it to continue explaining his compromise to the voters of Nebraska. And back in Washington, as the White House and a select group in the House and Senate continue hammering out the differences in their versions of the health care legislation, pro-life Americans must pray for a result like the number one industry in Senator Harry Reid’s state – where the House wins.
[19Jan2010, Matt Smith,  http://www.lifenews.com/nat5892.html
LifeNews.com Note: Matt Smith is a consultant in Washington D.C. and former Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison under President George W. Bush.]

AARP -- Opposed to the Values of Most Seniors? Commentary

AARP’s recent support for Obamacare demonstrates once again the fact that it does not represent the core values of most retired persons. Muted but straight out hostility might be a better description.

In the years ahead, our aging population— those over 50 and therefore eligible for AARP membership—will increase by 30%. In the face of this, AARP leadership is supporting Democrat “healthcare reform.”

This proposes to cut 500 billion from the Medicare and Medicare Advantage Programs. But it doesn’t support adding a single doctor or nurse to these programs.

Obama and his supporters in Congress have publicly promised that these cuts won’t lead to any reduction in benefits, rationing or reduced services.

As the saying goes, if you believe this I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

This is a clear, direct attack on a federal program that has been crucial to the care of senior citizens in the US.

One would think that AARP, which claims to represent those seniors, would raise an alarm. Quite the contrary, this organization has publicly thanked one of the bill’s authors, Representative Henry Waxman, for the bill. Both Obama and AARP have publicly stated that there willbe no cut in benefits, but this is simply impossible and untrue.

For example, Mr.Obama has stated he will cut 177 billion dollars from the Medicare Advantage Program.

This is a supplemental insurance option for seniors that is highly popular. A recent survey showed 97% of those in this program are happy with the care it provides.

Yet the proposed program, which AARP supports, would make deep cuts in this, forcing seniors to either forgo treatment or supplement it even more from their own pockets.

Recently, there has been much publicity about “death panels.” This is an attack upon senior citizens or those who are ill, yet there has been no word of complaint from AARP.

Incidentally, AARP is publicly in favor of gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens and retaining the death tax. Now tell me, do a great majority of seniors agree with these three positions?

AARP tells us that they are not endorsing Obamacare, but they’re running
ads on FoxNews.com telling people to call their congressmen to get those who oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) out of the way.

One ad shows an ambulance, partly blocked by cars getting in the way, hinting that by “opposing reform now” we are killing people.

One doubts if most seniors will buy the lie that AARP is not aggressively forsocialized medicine, for it has long been for socializing everything.

Recall its support for the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 which did become law. When seniors found out about this outrageous bill, and that they were paying for a new government bonanza, their protests were so loud that Congress took the unheard step of repealing it the following year.

Let us also remember that AARP bitterly opposed efforts to reform Social
Security under Bush four years ago, but now strangely, when Obama offers huge cuts in actual coverage in Medicare and Medicare Advantage, suddenly we hear nothing from them about the bill.

This lack of response, we assume, is a tacit endorsement considering the almost hysterical response four years ago. Nor did we hear any response from AARP when President Bill Clinton proposed increasing taxes on Social Security benefits.

Instead of opposing this hardship on seniors, AARP remained silent. In fact, it urged approval of a federal budget which would have increased these taxes.

It is about time that taxpayers, especially senior citizens, realized that AARP does not represent the best interest of the people it supposedly serves.

Rather consistently and almost without exception, it has enthusiastically supported those forces pushing for more and more taxes, and more and more government control.

Seniors would be well advised to support other groups that really do havetheir interests at heart. [Willke, MD, LIfe Issues Today, October 2009, Life Issues Connector]

Analysis: Abortion Funding in Senate Health-Care Bill Stuck Between Reid and a Hard Place
The leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has now found himself in the most unenviable of positions: having to pass a health-care bill that must satisfy both pro-life and pro-abortion legislators who have the power to stall or kill the Senate's legislation.

The successful inclusion of the pro-life Pitts-Stupak amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), the House version of health-care reform that passed late Saturday, has suddenly proved a game-changer in the current debate over health-care reform. As essential as the bipartisan pro-life amendment was to getting health-care reform out of the House, it now has ramifications for the Senate; the whole survival of the Democratic version of health-care reform could turn on the issue of abortion.

On Saturday, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) proved that he and his pro-life Democrats could successfully make the House leadership - Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, both strongly pro-abortion - yield to their pro-life demands. Despite having been summoned for a personal meeting with President Barack Obama and Speaker Pelosi, the resilient Stupak maintained his promise to block the health-care reform bill from coming to a vote until the House was permitted to vote on his amendment. The Pitts-Stupak amendment blocks all streams of federal revenue from subsidizing health-insurance plans that provide abortions, including the public option.

Alternative "compromise" amendments, such as the amendment proposed by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), which would have removed "federal funding for abortion" in H.R. 3962 by hiring contractors to issue checks for abortion, proved futile in breaking apart Stupak's coalition. The measure was vehemently denounced by the National Right to Life Committee as a pro-abortion "money laundering scheme," and was flatly rejected by the US Catholic Bishops, which has put enormous pressure on Democrats to pass only the Pitts-Stupak amendment.

With Stupak unwilling to bow to pressure, Pelosi - desperate to pass the bill before House members went on recess starting Veteran's Day - agreed to allow the House to vote on the amendment, which was added into the bill by a comfortable margin of 240-194.

Pro-abortion legislators, however, are now determined that the Senate not pass its own version of the Pitts-Stupak amendment to their version of health-care reform. Since the bills before the House and the Senate differ greatly, the separate bills will have to be coalesced into one final bill in a conference between representatives of both chambers. Pro-abortion legislators are counting on the Pitts-Stupak amendment - if similar language does not exist in the Senate version - being thrown out in the final "compromise" legislation.

This single bill can no longer be amended and would then go before both chambers for a final vote.

Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have vowed to combat the bill if the Pitts-Stupak language remains. The abortion industry, which has struggled with maintaining enough profit to keep its declining number of clinics operating, has a huge financial stake in health-care reform. Statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute have shown that government subsidies for abortion would sharply increase the number of abortions among Medicaid-eligible women by as much as 20 - 35 percent. The financial incentive to have an abortion - which has an average cost of $413, but can cost up to $1800 - increases when the procedure amounts to a co-pay, with insurance companies reimbursing abortionists the rest of the cost.

Pro-abortion members of Pelosi's caucus have informed her that they are prepared to vote against the final version of the bill, if it contains the pro-life language. That could jeopardize the ultimate passage of the House bill, where the loss of three votes is the difference between life or death.

Yet the situation for the health-care bill in the Senate is much more precarious, and for the Democratic Majority Leader, failing to placate both sides of the divide over abortion could kill the bill.

Reid identifies himself as a pro-life Democrat in the Senate, who opposes legal abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The Senate Democrat, however, leads a largely pro-abortion caucus in the 100 member Senate that has 39 Republicans, two independents, and needs 60 votes in order to invoke cloture on debate and proceed to a vote.

Already the chances of passage in the Senate are complicated by the fact that while the House wants a public health-insurance option, the Senate does not. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, has pledged to filibuster the bill if it includes a public option.

However, Stupak's victory has emboldened pro-life Democrats in the Senate, and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) now poses another filibuster threat to Reid. Nelson told Politico that he wants airtight abortion language as well and if language as restrictive as Stupak's amendment were not included in the bill "you could be sure I would vote against it."

Two other Democratic Senators that may join Nelson are Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Like the House bill before the Stupak-Pitts amendment, pro-life objections to the Senate version are centered around the creation of new funding channels that fall outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from disbursing funds that would go to pay for abortions).
 
A spokesman for Reid also told Politico that the Nevada Senator wants to "ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion," but stopped short of saying how the Senator would accomplish that.

For Reid, offending social conservatives renders his chances of retaining his seat in 2010 much more difficult. On the other hand, Pitts-Stupak language in the Senate version would likely fail to gain enough support to pass among pro-abortion Senate Democrats.

In any event, the pro-life position has emerged as a decisive issue in the passage of the Democratic proposal for health-care reform, perhaps even more decisive and divisive than the battle over the public option. The fate of the bill may ultimately depend on whether the Democratic leadership can successfully buck the adage that "a man cannot serve two masters" and convince one side or the other to forgo core principles for the sake of health-care reform.
[10Nov09, Peter J. Smith, D.C., www.LifeSiteNews.com] 

The AMA Can Now Defeat a Berlin Wall of Medicine

On the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, physicians of the AMA House of Delegates took a stand for freedom in medicine – and likely in America. As Washington politicians push a government and corporate takeover of medicine, physician representatives from around the nation stood up and gave marching orders to the AMA leadership. 

Marching orders that they tell Congress and the American People what is acceptable, what is unacceptable and what is necessary for health system reform.  It is now up to the AMA Board of Trustees to follow the will 17% of America’s doctors represented in the AMA House. 

If they don’t do so, they will forever damage the credibility of the AMA as a trusted organization that stands up for patients and their doctors. It will then be necessary for America to turn to representatives of the 83% of doctors that are not members of the AMA – a number that could grow.

Just as the Berlin Wall separated individuals living under state control from those living under freedom, the Washington takeover will stand as a corporate and government barrier between patients and doctors.

Congressional plans will also substantially increase the cost of medical insurance, force more people into Medicaid which is taken by too few doctors, limit the choice of health financing products and punish doctors who provide the necessary care patients expect to receive. 

After paying their premiums or trusting a government insurance option, they will find that their doctor has been placed on a budget. 

They will find that their doctor will be punished financially and professionally if they go over the budget set by Congress and insurance companies. 

They will also be punished if they provide care that is not approved by committees.  These punishments will break the most critical bond in the patient-physician relationship – trust in your doctor.

But there is hope that the AMA will now stand up and refuse to allow that Berlin Wall of medicine to be built. 

The directive from the AMA House to the Board was clear:  actively and publicly advocate for patients based on specific AMA policies that emphasize freedom.

They will now be required to tell Americans how so many of the bad proposals will penalize doctors who care for patients and oppose these provisions in legislation.  For instance, Congressional proposals passed last week in HR 3962 state that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be granted broad powers to penalize doctors who don’t report private medical data to the public. 

Such public reporting has been shown to lead doctors to avoid the sickest patients since they would get a bad government report card. The AMA will be required to publicly state how doctors should not be punished for going over budget - or for higher “utilization” in bureaucratic parlance. 

Doctors should not be penalized for ignoring committee created “performance” measures that have actually been shown to hurt some of their patients.  Patients should not be denied the right to go to the best hospital or facility in town only for the reason that a group of doctors happen to own it.  Pay of doctors providing vital cancer, heart, brain, spine, joint and other medical care should not be cut simply to give more money to other specialists in primary care.

More importantly, they are now required to advocate for tort reform as a common sense way to cut defensive medicine costs. 

They must also actively and publicly tell the American people a sad and hidden truth: the government denies their rights to privately contract with any doctor they want.  For instance patients are now denied the right to pay an extra $25 or so above Medicare rates simply to see a doctor who won’t make them wait for an hour to see a nurse for ten minutes and the doctor for three minutes. 

They are denied the right to leave a Medicare system that may not cover all services and doctors they want without losing all their hard earned Medicare benefits to pay that doctor.

In fact this will get worse under HR 3962 as a patient that sees any doctor who leaves Medicare for ethical or other reasons will not be allowed reimbursement (to the patient) for hospitalization, tests or treatments from Medicare! 

The new AMA marching orders state that they must support publicly and actively the right to privately contract between patients and doctors to overcome this Congressional denial of patients rights.  Sadly, an amendment to do this was defeated by a Democratic party-line vote hours prior to the final vote on HR 3962.

As Americans remember how freedom was brought to Berlin when the wall was brought down by the quiet efforts of Ronald Reagan, let us resolve not to allow that wall to be built now between doctors and patients. 

The AMA leadership has the chance to stand up now for patient freedom and against government intrusion that penalizes doctors who provide care in the best interest of their patients. 

If they do this, they will be known for fighting for patients, the medical profession and will secure the trust of the American people in the AMA name. 

If they don’t, then Americans must place them with all the other special interests who most value their seat at the table with other politicians. They will know the AMA only as an arm of the state and guardian of the Medical Berlin Wall the state has built. [emphasis added]

Dr. McKalip is a private practice brain and spine surgeon in St. Petersburg Florida, member of the Board of the Florida Medical Association and Immediate Past President of the Florida Neurosurgical Society. 10 November 2009

NEW!

MASA Urges AMA to Recall House Health Bill (HR 3962) Endorsement

The Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA) is urging the American Medical Association (AMA) to recall its endorsement of HR 3962, the health care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives released last week and being pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a vote soon, possibly as early as this weekend. 

“While there are aspects of the health care system that need reforming, HR 3962, with its expansion of government’s role in health care, is not the answer,” MASA President Dr. Jorge Alsip, a Mobile emergency physician, said.

Dr. Alsip and several other MASA physician leaders will travel to an AMA meeting in Houston, Tex., this weekend to urge the national physicians’ association to reverse course on their endorsement of HR 3962.  MASA believes the bill, with its massive overhaul of the health care system, will irreparably damage physicians’ ability to treat patients and patients’ ability to seek quality medical care. 

“HR 3962, proposed as a ‘fix’ for the system’s woes, is the equivalent of using a hatchet when a scalpel is called for,” Dr. Alsip said.  “While we believe some reforms are needed, HR 3962 will do more harm than good for patients.”

MASA’s main objection to the bill is its creation of a new government-run health insurance system, in addition to the lack of meaningful medical liability reform measures and the lack of a fix for the fatally flawed formula used to calculate reimbursements for physicians’ treatment of Medicare patients.

“While President Obama may claim doctors support the bill, neither he nor the AMA speak for Alabama physicians on HR 3962,” Dr. Alsip said.  “We have held town hall meetings across the state and the overwhelming majority of Alabama physicians oppose the approach Congress is taking to health care reform.  As a physician, I wouldn’t prescribe a treatment regimen that would endanger my patient.  HR 3962 won’t make the health care system better; it will make it worse.”
[MASA ROTUNDA, News Release, 6 Nov09, www.masalink.org;
Niko Corley, Montgomery, AL]

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill
Over 11,000 pro-lifers tuned in last night to an emergency webcast by StopTheAbortionMandate.com, where national pro-life leaders briefed listeners on the extent of the threat to human life posed by the House health care bill.

According to coordinator David Bereit, although news of the webcast went out only 13 hours before it began, 11,243 people joined in.  Speakers included Rep. Chris Smith, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life, Kristen Day of Democrats for Life, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, Deirdre McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' pro-life secretariat, and Christian Medical and Dental Associations CEO Dr. David Stevens.

"You know as well as I, ladies and gentlemen, that killing human babies by abortion is not health care," said Congressman Smith of New Jersey, the chairman of the House's pro-life caucus.  The congressman noted that prohibiting federal funding of abortion has been the status quo "across the board," including for the Medicaid Program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, SCHIP, the Department of Defense, and even the Veterans Health Administration.

Smith warned that, included in the language of the "manager's amendment" that will be introduced to try to bridge divides in order to pass the bill, "will almost certainly be a new phony compromise that does nothing but put window dressing on the deadly abortion funding already in the bill."

The leaders once again made clear the bottom line regarding the 1,990-page bill's treatment of abortion funding.  The Capps amendment, proposed as a "compromise" measure in July by the radically pro-abortion Rep. Lois Capps, does three key things: it allows abortion-covering insurance plans to receive government subsidies, establishes a government-run insurance plan that must cover abortion, and requires all U.S. regions to offer at least one abortion-covering health plan.

"They are wanting to make it as complicated as possible," said Americans United for Life President and CEO Charmaine Yoest, "in order to obscure the fact that there is a very simple truth underneath it all: this is a huge expansion in abortion funding and coverage by the federal government, which changes the way that we've approached abortion policy in this country for the last 30 years."

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, whose efforts at a pro-life amendment have posed a significant threat to the bill's abortion expansion, earned praise from the webcast speakers.  Stupak has threatened to arrange like-minded Democrats to block passage of the bill's rule - which must be passed before the bill can be considered by the House - unless Democrat leadership allows a vote by the full House on a Hyde-like amendment for the measure.  Kristin Day, the president of Democrats for Life, called Stupak a "hero." 

"Pelosi has made it very clear so far that she has no intention whatsoever of allowing a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment," said Rep. Smith, referring to the pro-life amendment.  "She wants to keep this issue quiet, and silence the pro-life members of congress who oppose government funding for abortion."

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, focused on the public option and the "powerful legal formula" in the Capps amendment that protects the public option's coverage of abortion.  "Will the Obama administration use that sweeping authority if Congress provides it?  You bet they will," he said.  "And will they use federal funds to pay for those abortions?  Why, certainly they will.  Because the federal agency can spend nothing other than federal funds."

"The claim which has been disseminated by pro-abortion lawmakers and by some of their apologists in the media, that this federal program would pay for abortions but with private funds - although accepted and repeated with a straight face by some gullible journalists - is absurd on its face," he added.  "It's a political hoax."

The leaders noted that the pro-life lawmakers have a formidable opponent in House Speaker Pelosi, who, according to Rep. Smith, has "no intention whatsoever" of allowing the House an opportunity to vote on the pro-life amendment.   "Indeed, Speaker Pelosi believes that if the full House were allowed to vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, it would pass, and so she is determined not to allow that vote," noted Johnson.

Deirdre McQuade from the USCCB affirmed that the U.S bishops are "responding clearly and vigorously" to the health care bill.  The USCCB recently began an all-out campaign against the abortion-laden bill, and asked all American U.S. prelates to join the effort to stop the abortion mandate earlier this month.

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, said that the bill's conscience language protecting doctors objecting to abortion was weak, and liable to be scrapped when the House and Senate bills undergo a merging process.  "I don't think it's any time to relax or celebrate," Stevens said.

In addition, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America noted President Obama's ambiguity on the abortion mandate.  Though claiming that he is personally opposed to federal funding for abortion, Wright reports that Obama "has been personally and aggressively lobbying members of Congress to vote for the current bills," all of which include such funding.

Ultimately, according to the speakers, the pro-life effort against the rules vote - due to occur either today or Wednesday - is the "do or die" moment.

"I believe we can and I believe we will win, but we have to out-think and outwork the abortionists as never before," said Smith.  "Clearly, this is the big one." [Kathleen Gilbert, WASHINGTON, D.C., November 3, 2009, www.LifeSiteNews.com]

Surgeon General Koop Letter Against Abortion Funding Closes Harry Reid's Office

In a bizarre chain of events that appears to put Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's staff in a bad light, Reid's office was closed for 45 minutes as Capitol Hill police scanned a letter that ended up coming from pro-life former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Capitol Police temporarily shut down Reid's office on Wednesday after his staffers alerted them to what they thought was a suspicious letter.

The letter raised eyebrows in Reid's office because it was hand-delivered without a stamp and with Koop's name listed in the upper left-hand corner without an address.

Roll Cal magazine, which covers Congress, reached Koop at his home Wednesday afternoon and he confirmed he sent the letter.

Koop said he wrote a few “beautifully typed” pages about his views on the government-run health care bills pending in Congress.

That the letter would cause Reid's staff to create a panic is “nonsense,” he said.

“I wasn't aware that sending a hand-delivered letter was an offense,” he told Roll Call. “I did it over a weekend. I don't have a lot of secretarial help and I'm 93.”

Koop also told the Capitol Hill newspaper that the letter asked Reid to ensure that no funds be used to pay for abortions in the health care program and that it include a provision to ensure doctors and medical students are not required to perform abortions or refer for them.

“All you need to know is that I sent it,” he said, with Roll Call reporting that a postal clerk alerted Reid's office to the letter and placed it in an outgoing mailbox.
[by Steven Ertelt, November 4, 2009, Washington, DC, www.LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/nat5616.html] 

NEW! 

LSN NewsBytes - US Health Care Reform

* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com. They are presented only for your information.

Compiled by Steve Jalsevac   www.lifesitenews.com  21 November 2009

Obamacare: Senate Version is Assisted Suicide Friendly! - Wesley J. Smith
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/19/obamacare-senate-version-is-assisted-suicide-friendly/


CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $196 Billion A Year for Obamacare, But 24 Million People Will Remain Uninsured
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57454

The $100 Million Vote: Harry Reid Woos Skeptical Democrats
On page 432 of the Senate bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." ABC News has been told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/sen-harry-reid-woes-skeptical-democrats-health-care/story?id=9124461&nwltr=politics_featureMore

The Onward March Of ObamaCare - Joe Ellis
No group has done more to promote the public funding of abortions than the Catholic bishops of America. That might well surprise them, flushed as they are with their success in making a deal in the House in which they supported passage of the Pelosi bill in exchange for an amendment barring public funding of abortions. But when you make a deal with people whose strategic goals are diametrically opposed to yours, you must be careful that what you get is not a temporary tactical retreat that can be reversed at any time, while what you have given is a huge and lasting strategic advantage.

The bishops actually endorsed the bill, and the slim margin of its victory in the House might not have been there without them. Henry Waxman and Pelosi had simply pocketed their priceless gain, and if they could betray the bishops, they would. But the bishops should not have needed to be told this. What none of them seemed able to grasp was that the strategic goal toward which Reid and Pelosi were relentlessly advancing was something that would inevitably remove all of the protections they thought they had negotiated for themselves.

The subsidized public option that Pelosi and Reid want would inevitably drive private insurers out of business, leaving the government as sole provider of health care, including abortions. When that happens government will also control drug prices, as well as conditions of work and pay for doctors.

The archetype of the suicidal short-sighted deal will always be Neville Chamberlain’s Munich pact with Hitler. What Chamberlain got was temporary and unreliable: a promise of no more territorial demands that could be reneged on at any time, from a man who already had a track record of reneging on promises. What he gave in return was a huge and permanent boost to Nazi strength and momentum: Appeasing a hungry monster never works: it grabs what it is offered, and immediately wants more, and more. ...one day the bishops will wake up to find that all their muscle-flexing had only led to the very result that they had most feared.

The bishops, the insurers, the doctors, and the drug companies all need to grasp the rather simple fact that their own strategic goals are fundamentally in conflict with those of Pelosi and Reid, and that the public option is at the center of that conflict. For all of them, making deals that allow the public option bandwagon to gather speed is sheer folly. The only way in which they can genuinely protect their interests is by stopping it, now.
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/18/the-onward-march-of-obamacare-by-john-ellis/

At least in Oz, Universal Health Cover is Good Sense, Not Socialism
An Australian journalist explains why her country’s health insurance system leaves Obamacare in the dust.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/at_least_in_oz_universal_cover_is_good_sense_not_socialism/

“Pulling the Plug on Conscience” - Wesley J. Smith
I believe that the Culture of Death brooks no dissent and we are witnessing the beginning of requirements for health care professionals to either participate in medical procedures that end human life – or be complicit in them by requiring them to refer (for abortion) – the current abortion law in Victoria, Australia.

It is a sad day when medical professionals and facilities have to be protected legally from coerced participation in life-terminating medical procedures. But there is no denying the direction in which the scientific and moral currents are flowing.
I believe that medical conscience is going to be one of the most intense and bitter bioethical issues of the next ten years. The time to prepare to wage the debate is now.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/11/19/pulling-the-plug-on-conscience/

The 2,074-page Senate health care bill would take 34 hours to read cover to cover -- and that's just what Sen. Tom Coburn wants done on the Senate floor. The move is strictly according to Senate rules, which say any senator can demand a bill be read in its entirety before debate begins.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/health-bill-could-get-34-hour-reading-senate/

Abortion Causes Family Feud for Dems
House passage of a sweeping anti-abortion amendment has set off a wave of soul-searching and finger-pointing among abortion rights activists — many of whom thought they’d found a safe harbor when Democrats won the White House and big majorities in Congress last year. “The reality is that we have a Democratic Congress, but we don’t have a pro-choice Congress,” said Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29651.html

CNN's Toobin Complains About Stupak Amendment: 'Marginalizes' Abortion
He accused “many modern pro-choice Democrats,” including the President, of ceding “the moral high ground” to pro-lifers.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/11/17/cnns-toobin-complains-about-stupak-amendment-marginalizes-abortion

African-American Leaders Oppose Black Pastors' Endorsement of Pro-Abortion Health Care
A coalition of African-American pro-life leaders have released a statement in response to the news that a group of black pastors endorsed the pro-abortion health care bills in Congress. They say the bills betray the black community because abortion targets black Americans moreso than other races.

As LifeNews.com reported last week, Bishop Charles E. Blake Sr., a Los Angeles minister from the Church of God in Christ, a predominantly African-American denomination, joined other pastors in backing the legislation.

The endorsement came despite analysis from pro-life groups that the bills contain massive abortion funding and subsidies -- something media outlets and independent watchdog groups have confirmed.

"The black pro-life movement is outraged by the recent endorsement of this administration's health care proposal by some clergy of the Church of God in Christ," today's statement says in response.

"As God-fearing individuals we encourage COGIC leaders to read and evaluate the president's plan, including the Capps-Waxman Amendment, rather than merely parroting his words," they said. "If unborn children cannot depend on the Church to carefully examine this bill to see if their lives will be protected from state-funded genocide, on whom can they depend?"

They said the endorsement does not consider abortion's effect on the black community.

"Over 1,400 black babies each day are lynched out of their mothers’ wombs. Clearly, this rate of prenatal murder in our community outpaces death by heart disease, diabetes, cancer, HIV/AIDS and violent crime combined," they said.

"We find it troubling that this endorsement does not acknowledge the deliberate targeting of the black community by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, nor decry the mental and physiological impact abortion is having on black women across America," they continued.

"We recommend in the strongest terms possible that this endorsement be withdrawn until such time that the Obama administration adds language to the health care proposal that specifically prohibits taxpayer funded abortions," the black pastors concluded.

According to a Los Angeles Times news report, the Church of God in Christ pastors were careful to use language saying they agreed with Obama that abortion funds should not be in the health care bills -- even though massive abortion subsidies and mandates exist.

"In accord with our commitment to Christian teaching, we wholeheartedly affirm the president's position that medical costs related to the abortion of fetuses shall not be covered by healthcare plans funded by this initiative," Blake said at a press conference.

Signers of the new statement include Pastor Stephen E. Broden of Fair Park Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas; Pastor Dion Evans of Chosen Vessels Christian Church in Alameda, California; Reverend Walter B. Hoye of Union City, California; and Reverend Dean Nelson of the Network of Politically Active Christians.

They also include Dr. Johnny Hunter of the black pro-life group LEARN and Dr. Levon R. Yuille, the chair of the National Black Pro Life Congress.

Last week, Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said there is nothing racist about opposing the health care plans pending in Congress because they force taxpayers to finance abortions.

“What really is racist is singling out minorities, who now receive about two-thirds of the abortions in this country, for discriminatory treatment," King explained.

"Those of us who care about the civil rights of all Americans, born and unborn, oppose Obamacare because we oppose the expansion of the most racist industry in America – the abortion industry," she said.
[September 28, 2009, Washington, DC, www.LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/nat5513.html ]

In Delivering Care, More Isn't Always Better, Experts Say
Comment: A. Why not cut "waste, abuse and fraud" now instead of waiting for some gigantic, expensive bill? B. If doctors are rampantly practicing defensive medicine, why not try malpractice tort reform like some states are already doing? C. Rationing in these "reform" bills is inevitable since the President wants to cover about 40 million more people and the supply of doctors and nurses available now is not nearly enough. D. Health savings accounts (high deductible, catastrophic coverage) are a great option for many people and would help people to personally control their own health care costs but the Obama administration won't allow this choice.  
N.Valko, R.N.

A dirty word in health-care reform is "rationing," a term that conjures up the image of faceless government bureaucrats denying lifesaving therapies in the name of cutting costs.

But what if the real issue is not the specter of future rationing, but the haphazard, even illogical, way in which care is delivered today?

Medical professionals say the fundamental problem in the nation's health-care system is the widespread misuse and overuse of tests, treatments and drugs that drive up prices, have little value to patients, and can pose serious risks. The question, they say, is not whether there will be rationing, but rather what will be rationed, and when and how.

"More is not necessarily better," said Bernard Rosof, chairman of the board of directors of New York's Huntington Hospital and a board member of the independent National Quality Forum. "In many cases, less is better."

When the Senate Finance Committee resumes its consideration of health-care legislation Tuesday, the lawmakers will be wading into one of the most complex, emotionally charged aspects of today's $2.4 trillion system. Democrats, feeling politically singed by this summer's talk of "death panels," are struggling to explain how a bill that would take hundreds of billions of dollars out of the system would not affect care.

Republicans, sensing a political opening, intend to highlight provisions they say could lead to the denial of medical services, or rationing.

"We don't want to turn health care over to a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington, who then will determine what kind of health care we have," committee member Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said recently. "And you know that rationing is going to happen."

Critics of the Democrats' bill cite places, such as Canada and Europe, where government experts prioritize the delivery of medical services. Wait times, particularly for specialists, may stretch for weeks or months under such a system, they fear.

"Here in the States, we get access to new drugs and medical devices," said Canadian-born Sally C. Pipes, president of the market-oriented Pacific Research Institute. "I have friends in Vancouver who can't get colonoscopies; they wait six or seven months."

Others, however, see problems of misalignment in the American system, fueled by industry advertising, physician fears about malpractice lawsuits and a culture that craves the latest, greatest everything. The situation here, they argue, is that there is not enough care for some, and too much for others.

Often, people with generous insurance plans can run up large bills and face life-threatening complications from unnecessary care: back surgeries that result in wound infections, when physical therapy might have been a more effective treatment; imaging scans that expose patients to radiation; medication-caused side effects that must be treated.

As much as $850 billion spent on medical care each year "can be eliminated without reducing the quality of care," according to a 2008 report by the New England Healthcare Institute. That is enough money to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million people, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The misuse and overuse runs from simple antibiotics to sophisticated surgeries, Rosof said. More than $58 billion is spent on inappropriate drugs, such as antibiotics for upper respiratory infections that do not respond to medication, according to the institute report. About $21 billion is spent treating non-urgent cases in the emergency department, where physicians rely more on duplicative and costly tests because they are unfamiliar with their patients' histories.

The largest potential area for savings -- up to $600 billion a year -- is the great "unexplained" variation in hospital procedures such as the number of Caesarean sections and coronary bypass surgeries performed. Vaginal delivery is far safer than a C-section, and prescription medicines can stabilize many heart patients without dangerous surgical complications, Rosof said. Less invasive and risky alternatives are also less expensive.

"We will eliminate a lot of harm that comes from the overuse and inappropriate use and misuse of medical interventions," he said. "This is not about rationing. This is about practicing evidence-based medicine."

In theory, Joseph Antos, a health policy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees. One classic example, he said, is the widespread use of full-body scans "by middle-class people who are probably a little neurotic."

"If they want to spend their money on that, that's fine. If they want to spend our money on that, we ought to think about it," he said. "The problem is, there are very few examples of things like full-body scans where it is a no-brainer. When you get down to the specific individual cases, it's very difficult."

In a world of finite resources, it is logical to worry about rationing, said Mark V. Pauly, a professor of health-care management at the Wharton School of Business in Philadelphia. Making greater use of advanced practice nurses is one way to trim costs and maintain high quality, he said. But he suspects there are few instances of such "low-hanging fruit."

Many others express confidence that better data on what works and greater use of electronic medical records will help physicians deliver high-value care. But the shift will also require changes in payment incentives, malpractice laws and, ultimately, cultural attitudes.

In today's system, doctors face increasing pressure to perform expensive tests and procedures they know may not be necessary, or even advisable, said Arthur Kellerman, an associate dean at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta and a physician at that city's Grady Memorial Hospital. Patients routinely arrive in the hospital's emergency room complaining of a headache and asking for a CT scan. Though the costly scan can help detect tumors and aneurysms, Kellerman counsels against it, explaining the risk of radiation exposure.

"We can always revisit it down the road if the problem persists," he tells the patient. Kellerman has just rationed care. But, he maintains, it is the right kind of rationing, based on known benefits and risks. And reducing traffic in the ER helps free up beds, machines and doctors to treat the true emergencies.

As he put it: "In the United States today, we give you all the care you can afford, whether or not you need it, as opposed to all the care you need, whether or not you can afford it."

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
[29Sept09, Washington Post, Ceci Connelly, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803837_pf.html]

Devaluing Doctors -- and Care... A Physician's Commentary (8/09)

Physicians have been cast as the villains in the drama that our national health-care debate has become.

We stand accused of raising charges to private insurers to compensate for low Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements as well as care of the uninsured or illegal immigrants; doing more to get paid more; seeing patients more often than necessary to increase revenue; and providing inefficient and ineffective care to patients in the hospital.

Our motives are impugned. The care we render is being disparaged and our professionalism disregarded -- yet somehow it is assumed that doctors are merely passive pawns to be moved around the chessboard of health care.

Where are the investigative journalists?

How many physicians who are not radiologists own their own MRI machine, CT scanner, PET scanner or other sophisticated diagnostic equipment to which they refer their patients?

Why would President Obama blast pediatricians for doing tonsillectomies for profit, when any intelligent person knows that pediatricians do not do surgery? They care for sick children and refer them to ear, nose and throat specialists when surgery is needed.

Why does no one seem to be aware that surgeons have functioned under a "global reimbursement" system for more than 35 years? Surgeons are paid a set fee for the care rendered for surgery or fracture care for a fixed period (frequently 90 days) regardless of how often they see a patient or how long the patient remains in the hospital.

For that matter, why would intelligent physicians fill their schedules with unnecessary return visits for Medicare/Medicaid patients, who are the lowest payers in the mix, limiting the number of new patients they could see?

And how is it that so many physicians "pass along" the losses of caring for the uninsured or Medicare/Medicaid patients when in fact doctors labor under contracts with big insurers that are basically take-it-or-leave-it with payment rates not much higher than Medicare, which has become the new standard?

I have been a practicing orthopedic surgeon for 40 years.

I have observed profound changes in my profession since the advent of Medicare, changes that have affected patients' access to care. As reimbursements plummeted, internists abandoned hospital care to the new specialty of hospitalists, created boutique practices and stopped participating with health insurance companies.

Physicians in all specialties have been retiring at earlier ages than ever before.

In my own office, our staff has doubled over the past 40 years to enable us to handle the growing stream of government and insurer mandates.

Our reimbursements continue to drop -- with no ability to pass on these costs.

We are not the Mayo Clinic. There is no foundation to provide computers and electronic medical records or research grants to supplement salaries. Everything we do must come out of the reimbursement we receive for the care we provide to each patient.

Total joint replacement surgery for an arthritic hip and knee is a prime example of the difficulties physicians face and of the implications of health-care reform as envisaged by Congress and academic "experts."

In 1971 I was paid $1,000 for a total hip replacement. Today, I would be paid approximately $1,600 for the same service.

There is no multiplier -- a surgeon can only do one patient at a time. We continue in our practice for the immense satisfaction we receive from knowing that this surgery does more to restore a high quality of life to patients than any other surgery, and for the gratitude patients show.

We implant devices because we believe, based on medical literature, that they are the best choices for patients. The overwhelming majority of surgeons have not received fees from implant manufacturers -- many times lowering the profitability of our hospitals.

Consider the implications when a global fee will be paid to the hospital: Then hospital and physician incentives will be aligned, and patients will bear the cost of the search for ever-cheaper implants and techniques, such as a return to cemented total hips.

Forget metal-on-metal bearings, resurfacing, rotating platforms, high-flex knees, navigation systems or bilateral replacements.

And if our hospitals are financially penalized for occurrences such as infection and deep-vein thrombosis after surgery, who will operate on the obese, the hypertensive or the diabetics among us?

Experience with government funding reveals a never-ending spiral of decreased reimbursements in the name of restraining costs. In the end, this will come out of the care we all receive.

At your next visit to your specialist, take a tip from the drug company ads and "ask your doctor": Does he or she plan to retire early if reform legislation passes close to its present form?

Does he or she plan to continue to participate with Medicare/Medicaid or participate with insurers that will not reimburse adequately?

How does your doctor think health-care reform will affect the care you receive in his or her specialty?

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

Health Care Reform and Abortion - What's the Truth? President Obama contends that conservatives are "bearing false witness" about his healthcare reform plan, but one leading conservative says it's the president who's misleading the American public.  [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=652150; One News Now; 21Aug09. ALL Pro-Life Today]

Death Panels: Euthanasia Group Behind "End-of-Life" Counseling Although President Obama and liberal Congressional Democrats have denounced claims that the health care reform establishes “death panels,” it does not help reassure the American public that the nation’s foremost pro-euthanasia group is actively pushing “end-of-life counseling” as a centerpiece of health-care reforms. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082015.html; 21Aug09. ALL Pro-Life Today]

The National Black ProLife Union, a group of African-American leaders, held a press conference in Washington D.C. on August 18. Listen to 3 short video clips at http://www.criticalmention.com/vg/crc/WIN/   

www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com

Also for the complete AAPLOG statement, go to http://www.aaplog.org/latebreakingnews.aspx

Note:  Black unborn babies are killed  at a rate THREE TIMES that of non-black unborn babies.  
The AAPLOG written statement for the press conference follows, in part:

    Caring for each patient, by first doing no harm, has been a core precept of the medical profession since the time of Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath distinguishes doctors and other health care professionals from social engineers; those who want to use medical care as a kind of tool to manipulate society. Any health care reform bills must not force health care professionals to violate the trust at the core of the physician-patient relationship...

    We call on the Administration to amend the Health Care Reform bills to explicitly exclude funding of abortion from the national health care plans. Abortion not only kills the unborn child, but also increases the mother's risk of suicide, depression, substance abuse and other adverse mental health outcomes. The woman who aborts increases her risk of preterm birth and cerebral palsy in subsequent pregnancies. The woman undergoing RU-486 abortion has increased risks of death from infection and massive hemorrhage...

    We also call on the Administration to explicitly confirm and defend the health care professional's right to refuse to participate in procedures which violate that health care professional's conscience, include procedures explicitly forbidden under the Hippocratic Oath: abortion and euthanasia.

Donna J. Harrison, M.D. President. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also made this oral statement on 18Aug09 at the National Black ProLife Union press conference:

    The Hippocratic Oath means I won't kill you, or your grama, or your unborn child. A Hippocratic Doctor vows to protect, not destroy, human life. But, as an obgyn doctor under the proposed health care reform bill, I could lose my job for refusing to kill your unborn child. The doctor who vows not to harm you or your child is protected by three narrow laws, all of which will be wiped out under the proposed health care reform.

    The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists joins in calling on President Obama to keep his promise to protect the right of conscience of all health professionals, not just doctors, but also nurses, midwives, pharmacists, and PA's. who have vowed not to hurt you or your unborn child or any of your family. We call on the President to change the proposed health care reform bills to explicitly include real, not deceitful, conscience protections for all health professionals who work to protect, not destroy, human life.

    Abortion destroys life. Abortion not only kills the unborn child, but also increases the mother's risk of suicide, depression, substance abuse and other adverse mental health outcomes. Abortion increases her risk of preterm birth and cerebral palsy in the next pregnancy. RU-486 abortion increases her risk of death from infection and massive hemorrhage. These and other health risks are well documented in the medical literature.

    Abortion destroys life. And abortion in this country is targeted at Black women. One third of the abortions done in this country are done on black women, even though Black women make up about one sixth of the population. Under the current bill, tax money is used to fund abortion providers, who already expand operations disproportionately to Black Americans. This means more black children aborted. We call on President Obama to explicitly exclude any tax funding of abortions from any proposed health care reform bills.

    And we call on the President to stop all current government subsidy to those organizations who in their roots and in their actions target the black community for genocide.

    Health care is about life. And health care reform must be about making life better, not destroying the lives of people who someone else doesn't want.


Confronting Abortion on Facebook
AAPLOG has a facebook page at    http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Association-of-Pro-Life-OBGYNS/101069505589 .   AAPLOG presents abortion complication related information, and engages in dialogue.  On the "wall" is one set, on the "discussion" page is a more complete presentation.  

Blood Money http://www.bloodmoneyfilm.com/

Former Soviet Union, Now Medical Student in U.S.: Where Will I Flee Next?
My family emigrated from the former Soviet Union to the United States in hopes of finding freedom to act in accordance to their moral beliefs.

My mother was a practicing physician in Ukraine. Going through her medical education, and later practicing medicine, she was never allowed to discuss ethical issues in medicine. There were none.

Physicians were forced to act according to the communist agenda, end of discussion.

It was the government that dictated what physicians must believe, and how they should practice. Abortion was never an issue in the Soviet Union, simply because the communist government dictated that it was not an ethical dilemma, and all physicians were required to perform the procedure. Those who disobeyed could not obtain their medical license or continue their practice.

I became very concerned when I learned about President Barack Obama’s plan to rescind the conscience clause. It made me uneasy to think that my adopted country, which was always proud of its democratic heritage, had begun to remind me of a communist country my family fled ten years ago.

The United States was built on the principles of freedom to believe and practice in accord with personal religious and moral values.

The conscience protection rule is an integral part of protecting these principles.
As a second-year medical student and a future physician, I will be committed to the wellbeing of my patients. I will also be committed to practicing medicine on the basis of my moral values.

If the conscience rule is rescinded and I am obligated to choose between performing an abortion or losing my job, I will choose the latter.
And then where will I flee next?
[Katrina A. Belova, Osteopathic Medical Student, Statement June 17, 2009; http://www.freedom2care.org/docLib/20090619_BelovaKatrina.pdf]

If Congress passes the House version of Obama Care, the Right of Conscience for Physicians will be eliminated -- this would be the silent FOCA (the 158,000-word HR 3200, called “America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”), American doctors will soon face a similar dilemma: obey new government mandates compelling participation in abortion or leave medicine.   Full op-ed: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=33071

House Health Care Bill Gives Doctors Financial Incentive to Push Euthanasia
To hear backers of the government-run health care bill tell the story, pro-life advocates are making up wild-eyed claims about how the measure will push euthanasia. However, one leading bioethicist and a Washington Post Editorial Writer say the bill does give doctors financial incentive to push it.

At issue is Section 1233 of HR 3200, the government-run health care plan that the House will consider when it returns from its August recess.

The measure would pay physicians to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years or sooner if the patient has a terminal diagnosis.

While pro-life advocates say the section opens the door to physicians pushing euthanasia or withdrawal of lifesaving medical treatment, or even basic food and water, backers of the bill call the claims rubbish.

Charles Lane, a member of the editorial board of the liberal Washington Post newspaper, admits in a Saturday column that at least some of the concerns are well-founded.

"As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."

"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist."

"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.

"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues.

He points out the legislation says the doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" even though those are legal and not medical papers. The physician "shall" present "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."

"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable," Lane writes. "What are "key questions"? Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources?' The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"

Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."

"You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach," he concludes.

Bioethicist Frank Beckwith notes Lane's analysis in comments of his own that appeared on the blog of the publication First Things.

"Supporters of H.R. 3200 claim that its end of life counseling provision, section 1233, is merely voluntary for the patient," Beckwith explains.

"But a closer look shows that section 1233 includes conditions and financial incentives for physicians and other health care providers that create a setting in which an elderly patient’s decision to appropriate this option is likely to be less than voluntary," he writes.

Beckwith says anyone with elderly parents should be "deeply concerned" about the section.

"If, let’s say, H.R. 3200 or something close to it were to become law and the public option pushes private insurance into near non-existence (as would surely happen with all the incentives in place), then there will no neighboring state to which to run," he says. "You won't be able to take your business elsewhere, since there will be no elsewhere."

"And to whom will you issue your grievance, a special 'health court,'" Beckwith asks.

Such a court, he says, would be "one likely informed by a youth-worshipping culture and a utilitarian bioethics philosophy that sees the elderly (not to mention, handicapped infants) as burdens that are siphoning away valuable resources that could be put to better use in support of society’s “real persons” and more productive contributors." [
Ertelt
LifeNews.com
August 10, 2009
Washington, DC, http://www.lifenews.com/bio2913.html]

Pro-Life Blacks, Democrats, Doctors Visited Congress to Oppose Health Care Bill
A coalition of pro-life blacks, doctors and Democrats visited Capitol Hill 18Aug09 to press the case for getting abortion out of the Congressional health care bills. They were joined by Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who asked that Congress not expand abortions. The participants held a press conference and took their case to the halls of Congress to meet with members of the House and Senate and their staff.
In a statement, King tells LifeNews.com that the health care legislation takes the wrong approach by targeting unborn children with abortion instead of assisting them with health care.
“The unborn and elderly should be included in health insurance reform as recipients of care, not victims of genocide,” King said.
She said pro-life advocates have no problem with promoting better legitimate health care, but can't support bills that open the door for more abortion funding. [17Aug09, LifeNews.com, Washington, DC]

Planned Parenthood Continues Boasting Close Ties with White House on Obamacare Bill
As calls for protection against abortion in President Obama's health care legislation fall on deaf ears, Planned Parenthood (PP) has made no secret of its continued communications with the White House on its interest in ensuring that "reproductive health" plays a central role in the final version of the legislation.
[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081403.html; ALL Pro-Life Today, 17Aug09]]

Health Care Reform Would Allow Planned Parenthood Clinics in Schools
A measure in President Barack Obama's health care plan could allow for special interest groups like Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion services provider, to operate health care clinics, at taxpayer expense, inside America's public schools. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11483-Dallas-Republican-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Health-Care-Reform-Would-Allow-Planned-Parenthood-Clinics-in-Schools ,
Dallas Examiner; ALL Pro-Life Today, 17Aug09]