These past few days have made me sit up and nearly claim that this Administration is blatantly overstepping it authority against a freedom in America: The FREEDOM to have children at our will and the RIGHT to live our lives without government involvement/mandates.
From CNS News:
Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate
March 1, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
In her own words; Sebelius in Video.
Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics–and members of other religious denominations that share those views–to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation’s Catholic bishops have published letters saying: “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty.”
“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.
The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.
During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.
“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.
Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.
Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.
Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”
Murphy again sought clarification.
“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.
Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.
Why is THIS coming out NOW in the world stage? **Warning: May upset some people reading the following***
ETHICISTS ARGUE IN FAVOR OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS‘ AS NEWBORNS ’ARE NOT PERSONS’
February 27, 2012
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.
The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.
The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”
And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.
The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.
The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:
The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.
First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.
‘JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS’ STANDS BY PUBLICATION OF ‘AFTER-BIRTH ABORTIONS’ ARTICLE
February 28, 2012
Yesterday, The Blaze reported the logic of two ethicists who suggested that termination of a newborn — a practice they called “after-birth abortion” — should be allowable on the basis of newborns having the same status of that of fetuses. The article by Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) has since written a post on its blog stating that it has received several emails questioning its decision to publish such an article in a respected journal on ethics. JME stands by its decision. Here‘s what the journal’s editor Julian Savulescu writes:
As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.
The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.
Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.
The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.
Savulescu also writes that those with opposing views to Giubilini and Minvera are welcome to write well-thought, “coherent” responses for consideration for publication in the journal.
Savulescu also responds to several “hostile, abusive, threatening responses” that were made in the comments section on the Blaze’s post about the journal article. He writes that he considers many of the comments disturbing and as showing that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
JME is a peer-reviewed journal owned by the Institute for Medical Ethics and BJM group. According to its website, it features stories on the “ethical aspects of health care, as well as case conferences, book reviews, editorials, correspondence, news and notes.”
What is “Third Way” Communitarianism ?
Daughters of France, Daughters of Allah by Marie Brenner in Vanity Fair, April 2004: “A new code word for anti-Semitism has entered the language— “communautarisme”—and Ramadan has been instrumental in its spread. …”
“The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of Business and the Decline of the Nation State,” by Viven A. Schmidt, Daedalus, Vol. 124, no. 2 (Spring 1995). “WHEN GEORGE BUSH ANNOUNCED the beginning of a new world order, he had in mind a world in which democratic governments would together keep peace in the world and make it possible for everyone to be free to prosper in a liberalizing international economy.”
The Individual and the Community by Tibor R. Machan Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – September 1991. “Communitarians wish to place community and individual on a collision course, saying there is some kind of balance that is needed between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community. But if we consider that ‘community’ means simply a lot of other people than oneself, this makes for majority rule. And if we consider that such other people usually leave it to a few who will speak out in their behalf, we will have a few community representatives dictating to the rest of us what we must do and what our ‘responsibilities’ are.”
The New Democrats are Third Way communitarians. Here’s the list of New Dems in American politics. President Bill Clinton embraced Communitarian values and was elected on a Communitarian platform (although few Americans know this about him). The New Covenant: Responsibility and Rebuilding the American Community, Remarks to Students at Georgetown University by Governor Bill Clinton on October 23, 1991.
The Third Way enjoys favor from both parties. (This partly explains why Democrats like Hilary Clinton and John Kerry support exporting violent overthrowing of foreign governments, and Bush and leading Right Wing Republicans support formerly Leftist programs like Community Service Laws and Faith-Based Initiatives. Senator Bayh’s “new” Third Way bipartisan group includes Dem and Republican Senators, and it expands daily. Most American Mayors have embraced Communitarian values. We will experience more confusion as to what each party represents as American voters get closer to the next election, and to the final global solution.)
The Obama Smoke Screen about Contraceptives: More in the Lines of Our Totalitarian Eugenicist-in-Chief and World “Sustainability” (Population Control)
[T]he sick motivations behind the HHS mandate is a form of eugenics and ironic class warfare: Obama does not want the poor to procreate.
To put the point even more directly, Obama does not want the Catholic poor to procreate. Like Planned Parenthood’s twisted foundress, Margaret Sanger, Obama is a chilly eugenicist at heart who fears a backwards America “punished” by the babies of unenlightened breeders. China boasts a one-child policy; Obama’s is more like a zero-child one. Without a universally subsidized right to sterilization, contraception, and abortion via Obamacare, his Brave New World would falter and fail to materialize. . . . .
The essential character of secularism is totalitarian. For all of its chatter about religion as a “private” matter, for all of its nonsense about the “privacy of the bedroom,” nothing under secularism in the end is actually private. The social engineers of Obamacare will determine the birth control methods of the unwashed. They will dictate the terms of man’s beginning through eugenic abortion and his end through death panels. And to gratify the bloodlust of bigots, they will leave the stained bill for the reviled religious to pay.
As part of his “smart power” strategy, Obama announced the initative on May 5, 2009, only a few weeks after his inauguration.
A convenient outbreak of the H1N1 virus, Obama claimed, reminded him of the “urgent need for action.”
- An outbreak in Indonesia can reach Indiana within days, and public health crises abroad can cause widespread suffering, conflict, and economic contraction. That is why I am asking Congress to approve my Fiscal Year 2010 Budget request of $8.6 billion — and $63 billion over six years — to shape a new, comprehensive global health strategy. We cannot simply confront individual preventable illnesses in isolation. The world is interconnected, and that demands an integrated approach to global health.
One of the listed “urgent needs” is to “Avert millions of unintended pregnancies.”
[The] Obama Global Health Initiative is not an Obamainitiative at all, but merely his continuation and expansion of the UN’s global population control program, which is a priority concern for some of the world’s wealthiest elites who want to see the planet’s human population drastically reduced. The real initiators of Obama’s GHI are Bill Gates, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller, the World Economic Forum, the Clinton Global Initiative, the United Nations Foundation, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
The Gates connection to the GHI is so extensive that it is probably not an exaggeration to say the Obama Global Health Initiative represents the successful transfer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s global health policies into official U.S. policy, with the costs also being transferred to the U.S. taxpayers.
If my math is correct, U.S. taxpayers are funding the aversion of “unintended pregnancies” twice–with Obamacare and through Obama’s Global Health Initiative.
But, there’s more. Jasper wrote that, on May 2010, the Times of London reported on a “secret meeting” of the world’s leading billionaires, “at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel Prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University,” where they “struck on a plan . . . to curb overpopulation.” Emphasis added.
- Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. . . . . The Times reports that, according to an attendee, “a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”
Science Czar John Holdren’s Eugenicist Idol….Harrison Brown; Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein’s Life/Lives Systems (Darwinism). Rockefeller Subsidized Government Programs (NSSM 200) http://tinyurl.com/nakvd6
Agenda 21, Project 60, Sustainable Growth: Worldwide Socialism via the United Nations. CHANGE the CONVERSATION
The November 2012 elections will NOT be Democrat vs. Republican
It WILL be government control/mandates and tyranny vs. Individual rights and FREEDOMS.
“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”