If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
(the rest of the article is here)
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The blog for Massachusetts Citizens for Life: the pro-life movement in the Bay State since 1973.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
article: "Too Many (Other) People"
(excerpt from this article)
As a left-leaning Rutgers law professor in the early 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that the Roe v. Wade abortion decision was the product of "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of," she recalled in a recent New York Times Magazine interview.
Her expectation was that the purported right to abortion created in Roe "was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them."
Ginsburg doesn’t specify which parts of the human population "we" should cull, or how the creation of an abortion "right" would necessarily be a prelude to creation of a system in which abortion would be required in some circumstances. She told the Times that the question was effectively rendered moot by the Supreme Court's Harris v. McRae decision, which upheld a ban on Medicaid funding of abortion. That decision, handed down in 1980, indicated that her "perception" of the issue "had been altogether wrong," Ginsburg concludes.
But this means that there was an interval of roughly seven years during which Ginsburg, a well-informed and influential academic, believed that America was creating a eugenicist system in which abortion would help reduce "undesirable" populations – however those populations would be defined. This was what Roe had wrought, Ginsburg believed for several years, and if she ever experienced misgivings about it, she managed to keep them private.
Another question worth examining is this: Where did Ginsburg – a rising star in academe long before being tapped to fill the Rosa Klebb seat on the Supreme Court – get the impression that American policy-making elites were discussing the use of welfare subsidies to bring about the attrition of "undesirable" populations?
If I may be permitted a modest venture in speculation, I’d suggest that Ginsburg, sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, became at least superficially acquainted with the writings of John Holdren or of like-minded people in the most militant branch of the population control movement.
(... read more -- excerpt from this article)
As a left-leaning Rutgers law professor in the early 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that the Roe v. Wade abortion decision was the product of "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations we don’t want too many of," she recalled in a recent New York Times Magazine interview.
Her expectation was that the purported right to abortion created in Roe "was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them."
Ginsburg doesn’t specify which parts of the human population "we" should cull, or how the creation of an abortion "right" would necessarily be a prelude to creation of a system in which abortion would be required in some circumstances. She told the Times that the question was effectively rendered moot by the Supreme Court's Harris v. McRae decision, which upheld a ban on Medicaid funding of abortion. That decision, handed down in 1980, indicated that her "perception" of the issue "had been altogether wrong," Ginsburg concludes.
But this means that there was an interval of roughly seven years during which Ginsburg, a well-informed and influential academic, believed that America was creating a eugenicist system in which abortion would help reduce "undesirable" populations – however those populations would be defined. This was what Roe had wrought, Ginsburg believed for several years, and if she ever experienced misgivings about it, she managed to keep them private.
Another question worth examining is this: Where did Ginsburg – a rising star in academe long before being tapped to fill the Rosa Klebb seat on the Supreme Court – get the impression that American policy-making elites were discussing the use of welfare subsidies to bring about the attrition of "undesirable" populations?
If I may be permitted a modest venture in speculation, I’d suggest that Ginsburg, sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, became at least superficially acquainted with the writings of John Holdren or of like-minded people in the most militant branch of the population control movement.
(... read more -- excerpt from this article)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Economic ruin from our aborted generation
The media occasionally speaks about "aging populations" as though an entire society naturally ages, but what that really speaks of are declining birthrates and aborted children. If we didn't abort an entire generation of taxpayers, there wouldn't be a social security crisis. If we let the country's population grow instead of letting them die at the hands of the abortion industry, we would have an expanding economy and not a contracting one.
Look at the careful words chosen by this British editorial:
All those terms mean societies that dislike children, countries that have ruined their young and have thrown them away rather than let them grow and prosper. Women deserve better than abortion, and deserve more options and real choices than the ones society is foisting upon them now. Even in the face of this major 'demographic winter' and 'aging' of our population, what message do colleges send to pregnant women in their midst? Right now, a pregnancy center is in every major community and yet how many women realize how many good choices are all around them?
We will turn this 'winter' into a spring of life only by continuing the battle, pushing for real choices for women, supporting families and once again loving every life.
Look at the careful words chosen by this British editorial:
No doubt Ireland has been the victim of a savagely tight monetary policy - given its specific needs. But the deeper truth is that Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the US, and Japan are in varying states of fiscal ruin, and those tipping into demographic decline (unlike young Ireland) have an underlying cancer that is even more deadly. The West cannot support its gold-plated state structures from an aging workforce and depleted tax base.
All those terms mean societies that dislike children, countries that have ruined their young and have thrown them away rather than let them grow and prosper. Women deserve better than abortion, and deserve more options and real choices than the ones society is foisting upon them now. Even in the face of this major 'demographic winter' and 'aging' of our population, what message do colleges send to pregnant women in their midst? Right now, a pregnancy center is in every major community and yet how many women realize how many good choices are all around them?
We will turn this 'winter' into a spring of life only by continuing the battle, pushing for real choices for women, supporting families and once again loving every life.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tad on Frozen Embryos
The question of what to do with frozen embryos has been a dicey one in pro-life circles, considering the numbers of children frozen and the snowflake babies who are born through this process. While not encouraging more embryo donation, and thus more life destruction through the process, Fr. Tad explains that the most moral thing to do would be to keep them frozen in the hope that science can one day rescue them or that they die naturally and peacefully rather than turn them over to science for barbaric testing or killing them without giving them a chance.
Obama appoints advisor who wanted forced abortions and sterilizations
In a stunning appointment, Barack Obama has appointed John Holdren, a man who in 1977 co-authored a book that advocated forced abortions and forced sterilizations as a way to control so-called 'overpopulation'
Holden, of course, taught locally at Harvard.
Then again, it's one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer but quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution," as Holdren did in "Ecoscience" in 1977. (article)
Holden, of course, taught locally at Harvard.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Vietnamese abortions skewing births
Matching the trends in other countries like China and India, Vietnam is now seeing an alarming rise in the number of male births. Where normal and natural births achieve harmony, peace and order, abortion sows division, despair and chaos. No one knows what the effect of having all these extra men will be, ones without a potential spouse and in a part of the world prone to major military conflicts.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
New website: Healthcare for Gunner.com
Students for Life of America Executive Director Kristan Hawkins has a young son recently diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis, and has released a website detailing the way in which healthcare proposals would affect him. The website, Healthcare for Gunner, approaches the healthcare debate not only from a pro-life perspective, but from a uniquely pro-child one as well.
New website: "Here is the Blood"
Lila Rose, known for her undercover work exposing the racist donations accepted by Planned Parenthood as well as Planned Parenthood's repeated cover-up of rape, as part of her group Live Action has released a website called "Here is the Blood" (warning: graphic images).
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Abortion case potentially coming up before the Supreme Court
from the article:
Two years after the Supreme Court last ruled on abortion restrictions, a new test case is likely on its way to the Court, perhaps reaching there by next Fall. Responding to an order by the Justices to take a new look at a Virginia abortion ban, the Fourth Circuit Court on Wednesday upheld the law. The en banc Court divided, 6-5, in sustaining the law against claims that it would criminalize the most common method of abortions performed in the second trimester.
Two years after the Supreme Court last ruled on abortion restrictions, a new test case is likely on its way to the Court, perhaps reaching there by next Fall. Responding to an order by the Justices to take a new look at a Virginia abortion ban, the Fourth Circuit Court on Wednesday upheld the law. The en banc Court divided, 6-5, in sustaining the law against claims that it would criminalize the most common method of abortions performed in the second trimester.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Keeping Churches and Pastors faithfully pro-life
Charlie Coudert is a longtime pro-life activist who leads a monthly vigil outside the Framingham Union hospital which provides abortions. In Charlie's July letter he included some material of interest to our many Catholic members, that encourages them to have their priests pledge fidelity to church teachings and documents that support and affirm life. You can find that pledge here. These documents are a project of Human Life International, which does great work trying to reduce abortions globally. HLI's head, Fr. Tom Euteneuer also spoke two months ago in Worcester, to the dinner for Visitation House which is the feature story on the front page of the most recent MCFL News.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Reality vs. the media
The media is reporting gleefully that the aftermath of the Tiller murder has put the pro-life movement in supposed "disarray" - yet the opposite is true. It seems the only time the media likes to talk about abortion is when an abortionist is killed, not every other day of the year when 3,600 children are being killed through surgical abortion daily. If the media were to ask any of the 2000 pregnancy centers, or statewide right-to-life chapters lobbying for legislative change, or the many pro-life committees based out of religious communities, they'd hear that nothing has changed, and the goal of protecting the unborn, helping parents and making a better society more receptive to life is still the job of everyone in the movement.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Abortion as a "blessing"?
You have probably heard about the Cambridge, Mass. Cambridge Divinity appointment of Katherine Ragsdale, featured here in the Phoenix. The article goes to great lengths to explain Ragsdale's infamous "abortion is a blessing" statements in Alabama, as well as rationalize why 'common ground' with us pro-lifers is misguided, and that abortion is never a 'tragedy' because, well, a woman chooses it.
The article fails, of course, to put in context that Ragsdale sits on NARAL's board and that board provides the political cover for an multi-billion dollar publicly supported industry involved with the destruction of children for any reason.
It's so telling to read her words and the obvious contradictions within. Ragsdale is obviously a very intelligent woman, and well-spoken, but she says certain things without even considering their implications:
From the article:
How can a scientific or moral truth be so subjective that it depends on one's own personal beliefs? That would make it not a moral principle, but a matter of personal interpretation. There has to be an objective truth: either the fetus is a child or it is not, but to cop out and say that it depends on what you want to believe is akin to saying that a baby chicken is only a real chicken if you want it to be, other people can disagree and perhaps it's not a chicken at all. Her line of logic is purposefully anti-logic, it is the cold, calm rationalization of forcing what you want to be true over the objective truth.
Her bad logic continues later in the article:
What, I wonder, does she mean by "it"? What is "it"? And by saying "babies they want" she's clearly contradicting her earlier statements that "it" is not a baby. She's saying that until "it" is born, the baby is not a baby, but in the same sentence, just a short few words later, she acknowledges that some babies are wanted and the aborted babies are unwanted, but it shows that she recognizes that they are both babies.
I can't fault Ragsdale, she is obviously so wrapped up in pro-abortion politics, organizations, and self-identity politics that it is likely an enormous intellectual mountain to climb to state the obvious: that abortion kills a child. And I hesitate to too easily castigate the media and the Phoenix, for they are likely surrounded by a climate that doesn't engage these ideas and issues in a competitive way-- they all blindly accept Ragsdale, and look to her as the authority figure. They are reporters who don't know, so they seek out whom they trust to know for them, and are getting bad answers.
No, friends, the uncomfortable blame lies with us. The blame lies on our shoulders because these lies continue without our constructive corrections. These appointments go unchallenged because we give up on the world. We hear too often religious people excuse their own personal inaction because they 'see signs of the end times' or because there's "no hope" or because things are "too far gone" and they let these things continue. We focus on the overwhelming problems and get dispirited, whereas, instead, we need to challenge ourselves each and every day to continue taking constructive pro-life action to help save the unborn. When we hear a pro-abortion argument we need to correct it. When we see a pro-choice politician we need to respectfully engage them, when we find the pro-choicers in our own family, we need to dialogue with them, and when we see a woman in need we need to continue speaking to her and bringing her to the many wonderful pregnancy centers around the state.
The blame lies with us, the challenge is upon us, and the future will change because of you.
The article fails, of course, to put in context that Ragsdale sits on NARAL's board and that board provides the political cover for an multi-billion dollar publicly supported industry involved with the destruction of children for any reason.
It's so telling to read her words and the obvious contradictions within. Ragsdale is obviously a very intelligent woman, and well-spoken, but she says certain things without even considering their implications:
From the article:
"I suppose it's possible for an intelligent, faithful person to still believe that there's no moral difference between a zygote and a baby," Ragsdale allows. "But there's no reason for most of us to believe that. And I don't."
How can a scientific or moral truth be so subjective that it depends on one's own personal beliefs? That would make it not a moral principle, but a matter of personal interpretation. There has to be an objective truth: either the fetus is a child or it is not, but to cop out and say that it depends on what you want to believe is akin to saying that a baby chicken is only a real chicken if you want it to be, other people can disagree and perhaps it's not a chicken at all. Her line of logic is purposefully anti-logic, it is the cold, calm rationalization of forcing what you want to be true over the objective truth.
Her bad logic continues later in the article:
"That's the tragedy in most cases," she continues. "That birth control failed, that they might want to have a baby but the economics are such that they can't possibly afford it, that we don't have healthcare, that women can't choose to have the babies they want. There's a tragedy."
What, I wonder, does she mean by "it"? What is "it"? And by saying "babies they want" she's clearly contradicting her earlier statements that "it" is not a baby. She's saying that until "it" is born, the baby is not a baby, but in the same sentence, just a short few words later, she acknowledges that some babies are wanted and the aborted babies are unwanted, but it shows that she recognizes that they are both babies.
I can't fault Ragsdale, she is obviously so wrapped up in pro-abortion politics, organizations, and self-identity politics that it is likely an enormous intellectual mountain to climb to state the obvious: that abortion kills a child. And I hesitate to too easily castigate the media and the Phoenix, for they are likely surrounded by a climate that doesn't engage these ideas and issues in a competitive way-- they all blindly accept Ragsdale, and look to her as the authority figure. They are reporters who don't know, so they seek out whom they trust to know for them, and are getting bad answers.
No, friends, the uncomfortable blame lies with us. The blame lies on our shoulders because these lies continue without our constructive corrections. These appointments go unchallenged because we give up on the world. We hear too often religious people excuse their own personal inaction because they 'see signs of the end times' or because there's "no hope" or because things are "too far gone" and they let these things continue. We focus on the overwhelming problems and get dispirited, whereas, instead, we need to challenge ourselves each and every day to continue taking constructive pro-life action to help save the unborn. When we hear a pro-abortion argument we need to correct it. When we see a pro-choice politician we need to respectfully engage them, when we find the pro-choicers in our own family, we need to dialogue with them, and when we see a woman in need we need to continue speaking to her and bringing her to the many wonderful pregnancy centers around the state.
The blame lies with us, the challenge is upon us, and the future will change because of you.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Sneak peak into our July issue...
The four main stories will be:
1. Legal problems around adoption
2. Teen outreach and related mental health issues
3. Undiagnosed elderly depression
4. An article on the way to pass Laura's Law
If you have any thoughts or contributions, please contact Helen Cross and let us know. Especially if you know individuals who have had experiences with related topics, we would love to hear from you! You can reach Helen Cross at chapters-at-masscitizensforlife-dot-org
1. Legal problems around adoption
2. Teen outreach and related mental health issues
3. Undiagnosed elderly depression
4. An article on the way to pass Laura's Law
If you have any thoughts or contributions, please contact Helen Cross and let us know. Especially if you know individuals who have had experiences with related topics, we would love to hear from you! You can reach Helen Cross at chapters-at-masscitizensforlife-dot-org
"Social Egg Freezing" and overplanning modern motherhood
This story in "Essential Baby" covers women who are freezing their eggs in order to get around the natural decline in their fertility when they lack a father. On one hand, this seems like a convenient way for working women to deal with their ticking biological clock while managing the pressures of the workplace. But on reflection, the relationship to pro-life is that it makes the children a commodity, and we allow ourselves to 'plan' our lives and children become too managed. We forget the wonder of the unexpected, and the virtue in dealing with the unplanned. Prof. Tony Esolen spoke about many of these topics last fall for Mass Citizens. We have social problems that we solve through science, when considering our high level of wealth and success we really ought to be considering changes in our culture and attitudes that foster communities and a climate where an unplanned pregnancy is welcomed. We want a family, career and meaningful relationships/marriages, and these three things are not in competition with one another and can be balanced instead of 'solved' through technology.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The death of George Tiller
George Tiller, infamous doctor known for performing partial-birth and late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas was shot and killed yesterday in his church. The emotional trauma of abortion, fostered and reinforced by abortionists and the abortion industry, will sadly only be furthered by this act, not alleviated. The violence also denies the powerful opportunity for conversions, such as those by Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCorvey. The murder of George Tiller inflicts emotional distress like the abortions he routinely provided, and will not save any babies. It's a sad day in many ways, not the least of which is the knowledge that one 67 year old man has died, and thousands more babies are going to die tomorrow. We live amongst a culture of death.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Reason: "Is the Abortion Debate Changing?"
Typically pro-choice libertarian magazine Reason, published by the CATO Institute, published a piece today titled "Is the Abortion Debate Changing?" that seeks to interpret the recent array of poll results that shows Americans shifting more to a pro-life political position.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Map of Chapters and other Pro-life activity
Here is a map in Google of the various pro-life activity around the state. Let us know if you find this useful by emailing feedback to us at chapters-at-masscitizensforlife.org
The Health Risks of Removing Old Laws
Boston's Dig Magazine recently wrote an article featuring MCFL Executive Director Marie Sturgis on the dangers of removing old state laws that protect women's health.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Boston Globe: "Clinic's move is resisted"
Clinic's move is resisted
Neighbors cite abortion protests
By James O'Brien
Globe Correspondent / May 14, 2009
A Brookline medical facility that provides abortions is facing opposition to its proposed relocation across town to Harvard Street, with a number of neighbors saying they are not opposed to the procedure, but rather to the abortion protesters already demonstrating on their sidewalks.
read more
Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an antiabortion group, said in an interview she did not keep track of whether any of her members were among the protesters, but said of the events, "The point is education, to let those neighbors know what will go on there. You've heard about not liking the messenger. But the message is valid."
Even the demonstrators with a graphic sign "or dressed as the Grim Reaper do have a message," said Sturgis. "What is this new entity, this new clinic going to do? They're going to kill children."
Neighbors cite abortion protests
By James O'Brien
Globe Correspondent / May 14, 2009
A Brookline medical facility that provides abortions is facing opposition to its proposed relocation across town to Harvard Street, with a number of neighbors saying they are not opposed to the procedure, but rather to the abortion protesters already demonstrating on their sidewalks.
read more
Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an antiabortion group, said in an interview she did not keep track of whether any of her members were among the protesters, but said of the events, "The point is education, to let those neighbors know what will go on there. You've heard about not liking the messenger. But the message is valid."
Even the demonstrators with a graphic sign "or dressed as the Grim Reaper do have a message," said Sturgis. "What is this new entity, this new clinic going to do? They're going to kill children."
Polls show more pro-lifers than pro-aborts
Gallup is admitting what you and I already knew: there are more pro-lifers than pro-abortion people. The grassroots pro-life movement is working, and it's winning.
Online sidewalk counseling resources
Msgr. Reilly from the Helpers of God's Precious Infants, a Catholic group focused on "Sidewalk Counseling" has a variety of resources available online that we recently ran across. Geared to religious and specifically Catholic pro-life activists, these resources are invaluable for approaching women as they enter a clinic. In related news, the lawsuit challenging the Massachusetts buffer zone law has been making progress with much hope for pro-life activists.
40 Days for Life: The Next Step
Lee from Westboro passed along the link for 40 Days for Life's "Next Level" phone conversation transcript. There are many good ideas about organizing and work, especially for religious pro-lifers, on how to take non-violent constructive action outside clinics and to help reduce abortions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)