Conscientious Objectors Not Allowed In Health Care
Feb 28, 2009 Political
The Obama administration is great at manipulating the media. Of course, that is not an overly difficult task because most of the media are drinking from his Kool Aid dispenser. It is well known that the way to slip stuff in with little media attention is to slip it in on a Friday evening. Fortunately we have the Internet where people look for things and post about them. The latest turd was dropped last night:
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives. The Anchoress
The administration of The Evil One is doing this under the guise that the Bush initiative is misleading and confusing. They, of course, need to rewrite the thing or get rid of it all together.
This rule allows those health care professionals who are opposed to abortions to refuse to give counseling for them or to provide them. There is nothing wrong with people in the health care arena refusing things that they are opposed to. It is up to the health care professional to inform the patient of this and to indicate that the patient will have to look elsewhere for those services. It might go like this:
Patient: I really don’t want to have a baby and I have given it a lot of thought and I want an abortion. Can you schedule me for that?
Doctor: I’m sorry, I don’t believe in abortions so you will have to find another provider who does them.
What is difficult about that?
Those who oppose this method are worried that the conscience of some people will keep them from doing their jobs. The oft cited example is a pharmacy worker who will not dispense contraceptives, especially the “morning after” pill.
First of all, there are plenty of workers at pharmacies that will dispense the medication. Secondly, there are plenty of pharmacies for people to go to. There will be NO complete denial of services but people might have to go to a different place to do business. Scientologists do not believe in the use of psychotropic medication but I imagine that does not stop them from becoming pharmacists or from working in one. The government has not stepped in to ensure the people who need medication for their mental health are protected.
This is a slippery slope which might end up having the government dictate to health care providers that they have to provide abortion services even if they are opposed to them.
What will happen if health care providers are not allowed to practice within the confines of their beliefs? There will be fewer doctors in fields where abortions are performed. How will this extend? There are a lot of hospitals that are run by religious organizations. Will they be forced to provide abortions (or any other) services to which they are opposed?
King Hussein of America is already known to be in favor of unlimited abortion. He opposed legislation that allowed children born alive after a botched abortion to receive care. Despite what people say, and no matter why, he opposed it. His entire platform on this subject is pro abortion though he skillfully lies about it. There is a “Pro Life Obama” website that was funded by George Soros designed to specifically obfuscate The Evil One’s position on the subject. Gateway Pundit points this out.
This is one piece of a bigger puzzle. First they will tell doctors that they must provide services that they are opposed to. Then they will tax us to death to provide “cheap” health care for everyone to put private insurance providers out of business. After that everyone will be on the government’s health care rolls.
It won’t be long before some bean counter is deciding what treatments are allowed based on age, lifestyle and cost.
The United States of America will become the United Socialist States of America and we will have a “wonderful” system like they do in England.
Socialists do not take over all at once. They slowly chip away at things until one day the population wakes up and realizes it no longer has control of its own destiny.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas
Obama and his liberal comrades are working on making this happen.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abortion, communists, conscience, health care, hussein, lies, norman thomas, Obama, socialists
Obama Voted For This Kind Of Murder
Feb 5, 2009 Political
Barack Obama is in favor of infanticide, of this there can be no debate. He voted against the right to life for infants born alive after a botched abortion. What this means is that when an abortion fails and the child is born, it is left alone somewhere without care until it dies. I believe that life begins when blood begins to flow in the “product of conception” which is around 14 days after sperm meets egg. The Bible says that the life is in the blood and that is when the blood arrives. By the time most women find out they are pregnant, the blood has begun to flow and life has begun.
Reasonable people can debate this point of view and take positions in favor of or against abortion but no reasonable person could conclude that a baby who is born alive is not a human life. In reality a human exists in the womb long before it can survive outside the womb. We do not say a person on life support is no longer a human even though that person is unable to survive without help. Even when the embryo does not look like a person the DNA says that it is a human.
How does the culture of death embraced by the pro abortion groups play out? What happens when Obama’s infanticide position is put into practice? We found out from an incident in Florida.
An 18 year old woman decided to have an abortion and something went wrong. Her baby was born at 23 weeks while waiting for the death doctor to murder it. An unlicensed worker cut the umbilical cord of the live child and threw the baby in the trash. The decomposing corpse was found about a week later by police who were alerted about the incident. The autopsy shows the child had air in its lungs indicating it was alive when it was born. This child was murdered in a fashion supported by Barack Obama.
Only [Dr] Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips. Buffalo News
There is no way that any rational person could conclude that this child was not a human being and there is no way to deny that it was alive. This amounts to murder and the clinic should be shut down and the person who did this should be sent to prison for life for murdering this defenseless infant.
At 23 weeks it is unlikely the child would have survived but that is a decision that God and nature have to make, not some hack owner of a murder factory. Children have lived when born this early but we will never know this child would have. That chance was removed because of the same thing Obama supported when he was in the Illinois Senate.
This is disgusting and should sicken everyone who hears about it.
The sad thing is it will not.
Obama won’t be sickened. This is a guy who does not want his daughters punished with a pregnancy.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Rules Regarding Our Rights
Dec 27, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.
I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).
It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?
The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.
Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.
Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.
Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.
The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”
Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.
As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.
Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…
Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: abortion, free speech, gun control, Second Amendment, voting
The Democratic Party Left The Chavez Family
Oct 30, 2008 Political
The Democratic party was once a great party in this country. It stood for the common man and it laid claim to proud veterans who served this country in uniform and then as civilian elected officials. The party might have had positions that ran contrary to what I and most other conservatives believe but they had a platform and they stuck to it. Then the party started to go downhill. They were infiltrated by Communists in the 50s and after JFK (who was not great, just popular) they have had platforms that have become increasingly Socialist. Under decades of Democrat control of government welfare has increased and social spending has skyrocketed. Items that they promise to fix never get attention. Education, health care, poverty and any number of other things are discussed before the election but then forgotten after. Their social policies created the environment where this economic meltdown occurred and now that money is tight they want to cut defense spending by 25%. Defense spending is about 25% of the entire budget. Most goes to social programs. Top this off with their horrific stance on the murder of unborn children and it is easy to see that the party has left its better days behind.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat but he became a Republican and he declared that he did not leave his party, his party left him. I read a letter to the editor of the University of New Mexico Daily Lobo that was written by an alumnus named Steve Chavez. It is a telling letter and I think it expresses the same sentiments that Reagan did with regard to the Democratic Party:
Editor,
For the first time since the big bang, all my immediate family are defecting from the Democratic Party to vote for John McCain and Republicans for Congress and Senate. Why?
The Republicans had a wide variety of candidates to choose from, which included the far right to McCain, who was labeled as “too liberal” by the Republicans. The Democrats, on the other hand, seemed to stack the deck with presidential and congressional candidates such as Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, who started on the left, reached to the far left and then went beyond to the Twilight Zone. Take for instance the top three presidential candidates: Barack Obama voted No. 1 Liberal, Hillary Clinton No. 2 and Biden at No. 3. But what’s interesting is who is No. 4. He is Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont who is also an admitted socialist and a frequent speaker at Communist Party USA conventions along with many other Democrats in Congress, including Maxine Waters, of the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” who meets with peace groups like United for Peace & Justice, which is run by Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party USA.
Another issue concerning my Catholic family is Obama’s stance on abortion. Two in my family have been pro-choice until now. Our Republican sister brought up a serious point during our last Easter picnic. She told us the story of Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who found a baby from a botched abortion in a janitor’s room left to die alone. She could not help the choking baby survive due to the extreme policy of the hospital, so she held the baby and had to watch it suffer for 45 minutes until the baby died. How many other babies are left in the closet to die alone after being born? Stanek has been revealing that Obama voted “no” to the Born Alive amendment four times. That’s beyond pro-choice when a baby is born, isn’t it? You can read more about her story at JillStanek.com and the exact Obama votes and excuses.
Many in my family are veterans, and in 2004, they voted for President Bush and the Iraq War. They will now vote for a fellow veteran, McCain, who was tortured by Communists in Vietnam while Jane Fonda, John Kerry and the Communist-led peace movement were literally spitting on them. They couldn’t possibly vote for Obama since he is aligned, supported and funded by the same movement that continues to spit on the troops. When they heard the leaders of the peace movement say, “the terrorists are the real freedom fighters,” they took that as a stab in the back, as those “freedom fighters” are killing their fellow Americans.
My informed Republican sister asked, “Name me one moderate Democrat?” After an afternoon of Easter egg hunting, us life-long Democrats couldn’t think of one. She mentioned Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s vice presidential candidate in 2000. He was kicked out of his own party for supporting the Iraq War. He is a liberal on 99 percent of issues, but that one issue was enough for him to be kicked out? He now supports McCain. Therefore, since McCain is a liberal Republican, which would be close to a moderate Democrat – which seems is a contradiction of terms – we must vote for the nearest thing to the middle road where most of us are. If you are voting for change for change’s sake, you will be voting for a ticket to the left of an admitted socialist. How can you be to the left of a socialist?
S. James Chavez
UNM alumnus
It would appear that the Chavez family feels that the party has, as it did Reagan, left them. The candidates for president were among the most liberal in the party and the eventual winner, Barack Obama, is the most liberal Senator in the country. He is 3 spaces left of a Communist supporter.
Barack Obama might very well become the next president of this country but I believe there are many families like the Chavez family that will decide that Barack Obama is not the right person for the job and that his views are too radical for this country.
The Chavez family is telling the Democratic party and its nominee to keep the change…
Obama And Black Genocide
Oct 19, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has undying support for Roe vs. Wade and he said in the last debate that he believed the issue was decided properly by the court. Of course it was not and as a so called Constitutional Scholar he should have known that. The issue is not addressed in the Constitution so it should be left to the states or to the people. Here is an interesting point of view by way of the National Black Republican Association:
In a powerful video with personal testimonials, key black conservative leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., talk about how their faith influences the policies and politics they support. These black Americans state eloquently why they support Sen. John McCain and cannot, in good conscience, support Sen. Barack Obama. A primary reason cited by these black American leaders is Obama’s radical position on abortion, including the fact that Obama voted four times in the Illinois Senate against the bill that would provide health care to babies born alive after a botched abortion.
Why is the issue of abortion so important to black American leaders? Black communities are being devastated by abortion which is tantamount to black genocide. 35% of abortions in the United States are performed on African-American women, while they represent only 12% of our nation’s female population. According to the 2000 Census, 14 million (17 million as of 2007) African-American children have been killed through abortion. This means that more African-American babies have been killed by abortion during the past 30 years than the total number of African-American deaths from all other causes combined, including AIDS, heart disease, cancer, violent crimes and accidents. This is a crisis in black America that Obama does not care about. [all emphasis in the original] NBRA
The video that is addressed can be found here. It is about 9 minutes long and very informative.
Planned Parenthood started and continues with a goal of eradicating the black race and the Democratic Party has always been more than happy to help out. The Democrats are the ones with the history of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings as well as formation of their strong arm, the KKK. Democrats have long held disdain for blacks and only use them in order to gain votes.
With the Hispanic vote being courted so heavily and the numbers of them increasing, blacks will soon be replaced by Hispanics as the favorite disadvantaged group in America but only as long as Hispanics vote without question, for Democrats and while blacks are being eradicated through abortion.
The Democrats’ Missing History
Obama Misleads on Abortion Votes
Telling Quote from NYT:
“It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the negro vote. They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the negroes. That was manifestly the lesser of two evils. . . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained.”
–Editorial, “The Political Future of the South,” New York Times, May 10, 1900 [emphasis mine]
Found in this article:
Whitewash: The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget.
Tags: abortion, black genocide, democratic racism, Obama, planned parenthood