Friday, May 17, 2013

Watching Obamacare Unravel

Defining Ideas: by Richard A. Epstein (Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow and member of the Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity Task Force)

The “Affordable Care Act” is becoming an unsustainable mess. It’s time to scrap it entirely.


On Friday, May 10, President Obama ventured into Ohio to give a Mother’s Day defense of the sagging fortunes of his signal achievement, the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law, the President assures us, “is here to stay”—a comment that is best regarded as a threat and not a promise. His conclusion was not coincidental; support for the ACA has dropped from 42 percent to 35 percent between November 2012 and April 2013.

epstein
Illustration by Barbara Kelley

This recent drop in popularity is not a function of some detailed analysis of the ACA’s key provisions. Rather, the public seems to feel that the sheer complexity of the program makes it highly unlikely that it will be able to take effect in any form by its ostensible January 1, 2014 start date. The most obvious difficulty in implementation stems from the unwillingness of many states to participate in its two gargantuan initiatives, even with heavy federal support: the private exchanges (now called “marketplaces”) for individuals, and the Medicaid extension to additional individuals.

Growing Pains for the ACA

The most up-to-date report from the Kaiser Family Foundation reveals extensive resistance on both fronts. The ACA’s new marketplaces are said to allow ordinary individuals to shop for their own policies. This modest goal sounds easy, but it is not. As the current rules demand, all enrollment must be possible online, in person, by phone, fax, and mail. In addition to a website, the exchanges must provide “culturally and linguistically appropriate assistance,” along with a navigator program to promote public awareness. They must offer seamless linkage with other public initiatives, and accurate information on premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies, all under a program whose key provisions are not yet fully worked out. Already, HHS has distributed over $3.6 billion to states for implementation, with more to come.

Yet for all of these Herculean efforts, at present, only 18 states have opted to create their own exchanges, and seven are planning for a partnership exchange in cooperation with the federal government. A whopping 26 states have defaulted on their option, leaving the feds to pick up the pieces. Similarly, only 29 states have opted into the ACA’s Medicaid extension program, even though it promises substantial federal support early on. Twenty states have already opted out of the program and two are weighing their options.

At this point, the total administrative burden on the federal government has massively increased. Yet neither the federal government nor the states have the human or financial resources to discharge these tasks in a timely fashion, making it highly unlikely that these exchanges will be up and running by January 1, 2014. To achieve that goal, the various private participants on the exchanges must design and post their policies by October 1, 2013.

Unfortunately, these private insurers cannot do their part unless they have enough information to accurately price the “essential minimum conditions” required under the ACA. At present, it is estimated that only around 2 percent of the current plans meet the ACA’s outsized legislative ambitions. Nor can the federal government set up, all at once, the federal exchanges that are needed to make this system work. Similarly, the tepid reception to the Medicaid extension program only stretches scarce government resources. With each passing day, it becomes clearer that the entire process is backing up.

Then there is the matter of the initial 21-page enrollment form that the Department of Health and Human Services first released to the public. The President’s speech crowed that HHS has compressed that form to 3 pages, making it shorter, analogous to private enrollment forms. Yet like everything else about the ACA, his point is a public relationships ruse that has already backfired. As Grace-Marie Turner has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, much of the reduction in form length comes from shrinking the font, or from relegating key parts of the basic application to separate forms. Needless to say, HHS has just announced a $150 million grant for its navigation program to help people work their way through the now abbreviated form.

The ACA’s Grim Cost Estimates

The President’s Mother’s Day offensive touts the ACA’s benefits while making only a passing reference to the current implementation difficulties. Most disturbingly, the speech reveals that the President cannot grasp that no insurance program can work unless it can bring its revenues and payouts into line with each other. The President avoids these budgetary issues by putting, as is his wont, the matter in personal terms, by insisting, for example, that all people get coverage for preexisting conditions at standard rates. In speaking of cancer survivor Natoma Canfield, he said:

A few years ago, her insurance company charged her over $6,000 in premiums, paid for only $900 worth of care, told her they'd jack up her rates another 40 percent anyway—even though she'd been cancer-free for more than a decade. Despite her desire to keep her health insurance—despite her fears that she would get sick again—she finally just had to surrender her coverage. Couldn't afford it. Hung her fortunes on chance. And just a few weeks later, she fell ill, and was diagnosed with leukemia. Just days before health care reform became a reality.

His compassion for Ms. Canfield’s woeful situation is to be commended. But two key blunders reveal the President’s naiveté. First, it is incorrect to suggest that Ms. Canfield got a raw insurance deal because she only received $900 worth of care for her $6,000 of insurance payments. The only way any insurance system can work is for some policy holders to receive less than their premium dollars to free up funds to care for the sick. Second, the refusal of the insurer to renew the policy at older rates doesn’t look unjust when the cancer reoccurred just as it had feared.

No one can say in the abstract whether 40 percent was the right markup. But the President has precipitated a budgetary crisis now that “companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive, or drop your coverage if you get sick, or discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.” If these individuals are to receive insurance at bargain rates, the program must be able to find added revenues from other individuals to cover the financial short-fall lest the entire program go belly up, leaving everyone worse off.

Getting Health Insurance: A Civic Duty?

This last point has not escaped Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the key drafters of the ACA. In his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Emanuel pleaded with the “young invincibles” to enroll in the healthcare program from, as he notes, “a menu of subsidized options.” But why should they? As noted, the entire system of exchanges operates on the view that the young and the healthy should be required to contribute enough to cover not only their own costs, but those of the groups who get low rates, lifetime coverage, and protection for preexisting conditions. This prompts Emanuel to suggest, “Every commencement address by an administration official should encourage young graduates to get health insurance.”

Emanuel’s expansive view of civic duty plays the game both ways when he accuses individuals who don’t purchase health insurance of “freeriding” on the public. But their purchase of insurance will allow the preferred plan recipients to free ride on them. Let young people buy their own coverage at market rates, and both forms of freeriding will vanish without the public relations campaign.

The gravity of this financial hit remains, for there is no place for anyone, young or old, to hide themselves from a tide of red ink. The President misleadingly has said that right now the 85 percent of Americans who have private coverage do not have to trouble themselves with doing a thing, because their protections are already built into the ACA “with a wide array of new benefits, tough new consumer protections, stronger cost control measures than existed before the law passed.”

But this glittering array of benefits does not come cheap. The current statutory definition of essential minimum benefits is so lavish that no one knows whether that coverage can be afforded at reasonable rates through the private sector. Right now, our collective generosity will mean that the cost of individual coverages in the United States on the exchanges could move up by about 32 percent, in light of the new coverage requirements based on best actuarial estimates.

Unfortunately, what the President neglected to mention is that there is no assurance that employers will decide to keep that coverage once the costs are brought home. It turns out that the penalties for employers will be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 to dump their coverage, which is far less than the $16,000 or so that it costs them to maintain the existing coverage. It takes little imagination, therefore, for employers to announce to their employees that they will divide the gains from dropping their current coverage through a salary increase of say $7,000, which makes it likely that the public exchanges will be inundated with new applications for coverages even at the higher rates now predicted for the bloated ACA coverage. That cost could be in the hundreds of billions if even 10 percent of the roughly 157 million individuals now covered through employee plans find that their coverage has been terminated. Ordinary people are hurt both ways.

Deregulate Now

In this sorry state of the world, the only short-term mechanism that could stop the general blood-letting is a much-needed reversal that pushes back all the key dates for running the plan. The respite in question should not be used only to iron out the difficulties in securing the needed coverage. It should be used to update the information base to decide whether the ACA, on which billions have already been squandered, is so unsustainable that it should be scrapped in its entirety.

As I have noted before, there is only one type of reform that can make progress in meeting the three goals of a sensible health care system: cost reduction, quality improvements, and public access. That reform requires massive deregulation of the many market impediments that are already in place. Lower the costs, drop the excessive mandates, and thin out administrative costs, and people will flock back to the system voluntarily. Do none of these things, and we can be treated to yet another round of presidential anecdotes that ignore the systemic social costs caused by these initiatives.


Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. His areas of expertise include constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights. His most recent books are Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011), The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Press, 2009) and Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (Oxford Press, 2008).

Related:

Sebelius Spends Your Taxes On Community Organizations

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Incredible: The Official in Charge of the IRS Office Responsible for Targeting Conservative Groups Now Heads the Agency’s Obamacare Office

SarahHallIngram1

Incredible… It Just Keeps Getting Worse: The Official in Charge of the IRS Office Responsible for Targeting  Conservative Groups Now Heads the Agency’s Obamacare Office

TheBlaze/TV:

Well, this can’t be good.

It appears that the official who oversaw the Internal Revenue Service office responsible for targeting conservative groups has moved on from that post and now heads the agency’s Obamacare division.

Sarah Hall Ingram Used to Head IRS Office Responsible for Conservative Targeting, Now Heads Agencys Obamacare Office

From ABC News:

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

Grant said Thursday he would resign as commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division on June 3, TheBlaze reported. He was appointed to the post just eight days ago.

Here’s a May 8 press release announcing his extremely short-lived promotion.

Grant, Kay Named to IRS Leadership Posts

But here’s something ​really ​interesting: Ingram received more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012, slightly before and well after her office started targeting conservatives, the Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott reports.

“Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009,” the Examiner report adds, “then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.”

News that the IRS official heading the agency’s Obamacare office used to run the division responsible for conservative discrimination comes on the heels of House Speaker John Boehner calling for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

“Fully repealing ObamaCare will help us build a stronger, healthier economy, and will clear the way for patient-centered reforms that lower health care costs and protect jobs,” Boehner said shortly after the House passed a “repeal Obamacare” measure.

“Obamacare empowers the agency that just violated the public’s trust by secretly targeting conservative groups,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-In.) added. “Even by Washington’s standards, that’s unacceptable.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his reaction to the Ingram revelation: “stunning, just stunning.”

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image C-SPAN. This post has been updated.

Related:

IRS official who oversaw unit targeting Tea Party now heads ObamaCare office

IRS official in charge during tea party targeting is now directing the agency's health care unit

‘Scandalous Hat Trick’: Sarah Palin Shreds Obama & His Scandal-Embroiled White House

The President's Non-Answer on IRS

Obama Fires IRS Commissioner as Scandal Grows

The President’s Non-Answer is an Admission that the White House Knew What the IRS was Doing

Confused by Obama’s Incredibly Brief IRS Statement? Here’s Krauthammer’s Take

Pelosi on IRS: It’s Bush’s Fault – Really??

Obama Administration Under Siege From 3 Huge Scandals: Here’s Why It Could All Come Crashing Down

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Mocks Obama Team’s “I Know Nothing” Response to Scandals with “Sgt. Schultz” Clip!

IRS, Benghazi, and the AP: What do all three scandals have in common?

Why the IRS Scandal Should Lead to Obama’s Impeachment

IRS apologizes for targeting tea party groups

Obama is Putin or Chavez, Not Nixon

Benghazi, IRS Create Perfect Storm Threatening Obama's Credibility

Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals: ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Will Progressives Underwrite Obama’s Impeachment… You Be the Judge

You Cannot Love and Honor What You Don’t Know or Miss

Philadelphia DA calls abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell a 'monster' after he cuts deal for life in prison without parole or right to appeal

"Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."  - Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams

Abortion Clinic Deaths

PHILADELPHIA (TheBlaze/AP) — A Philadelphia abortion doctor convicted of killing three babies who were born alive in his grimy clinic agreed Tuesday to give up his right to an appeal and faces life in prison but will be spared a death sentence. The news comes just one day after Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of the babies who were delivered alive and killed with scissors.

In a case that became a flashpoint in the nation’s abortion debate, former clinic employees testified that Gosnell routinely performed illegal abortions past Pennsylvania’s 24-week limit, that he delivered babies who were still moving, whimpering or breathing, and that he and his assistants dispatched the newborns by “snipping” their spines, as he referred to it (read TheBlaze’s full coverage here, including information on the victims).

Prosecutors agreed to two life sentences without parole or appeals, and Gosnell was to be sentenced Wednesday in the death of the third baby, an involuntary manslaughter conviction in the death of a patient and hundreds of lesser counts including infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance.

Prosecutors had sought the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person, and his victims were especially vulnerable given their age. But Gosnell’s own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be executed before his appeals ran out.

Gosnell has said he considered himself a pioneering inner-city doctor who helped desperate women get late-term abortions. Defense lawyer Jack McMahon said before the sentencing deal that his client’s bid for acquittal was a battle.

Philadelphia DA calls abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell a 'monster'

FOX NEWS/PHILADELPHIA: – The Philadelphia abortion doctor was sentenced Wednesday to a third life term for killing an aborted baby that he described as so big it could "walk to the bus."

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted earlier this week of first-degree murder in the deaths of three babies born alive, then stabbed with scissors. He was given two life sentences Tuesday in a deal with prosecutors that spared him a potential death sentence, and the third sentence was handed down Wednesday.

"Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."  - Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams

The Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams released a statement Wednesday afternoon calling the case "arguably the most gruesome" he's seen.

"I will not mince words, Kermit Gosnell is a monster. Any doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is a murderer and a monster."

Gosnell was also sentenced to 2 1/2 to five years in prison for the 2009 overdose death of a patient. The sentences are consecutive, meaning Gosnell, 72, will spend the rest of his life in prison.

The case has made Gosnell a flashpoint in the nation's bitter debate over legalized abortion.

Prosecutors argued that Gosnell savagely killed late-term babies born alive by severing their spines, and taught several staff members the technique. Nine former clinic workers were convicted in the case, and four others pleaded guilty to murder.

Despite the notoriety of the case, Gosnell has seemed oddly serene in court during the two-month trial, and apparently sees himself as a medical pioneer and tireless advocate for inner-city patients.

"I wanted to be an effective, positive force in the minority community," Gosnell told The Philadelphia Daily News in a 2010 interview, when he predicted he would be "vindicated" of the allegations in a harrowing grand jury report. He chose not to address the judge during Wednesday's sentencing.

But prosecutors said he grew increasingly reckless as he accumulated millions of dollars from his rogue clinic, which was described as a "pill mill" for addicts by day and an "abortion mill" by night.

The jury spent 10 days deliberating before finding that Gosnell had killed babies or had them killed. And the jury found him complicit in the death of the 41-year-old patient, a Virginia woman who was repeatedly sedated by his untrained medical assistants.

Gosnell was also convicted of hundreds of abortion law violations for performing illegal, third-term abortions or failing to counsel women and teens. Gosnell was acquitted in the deaths of four other infants.

Prosecutors have declined to comment on the verdict, citing a gag order that was expected to be lifted Wednesday when Gosnell's sentence is finalized.

Prosecutors had planned to seek the death penalty because Gosnell killed more than one person and his victims were especially vulnerable given their age. But Gosnell's own advanced age had made it unlikely he would ever be executed before his appeals ran out.

Gosnell did not testify, and called no witnesses in his defense. But McMahon branded prosecutors “elitist” and “racist” for pursuing his client, who is black and whose patients were mostly poor minorities.

Gosnell's lawyer, Jack McMahon, said his client accepts the verdict and isn't sorry he went to trial. He said Gosnell gave up a somewhat better deal early on but wanted to air the issues in court and is satisfied that he did so.

"He wanted this case aired out in a courtroom and it got aired out in a courtroom in a fair way. And now he's accepting what will happen. He's an intelligent guy," said McMahon, who said Gosnell would now plead to federal drug charges that are still pending.

The sentencing deal, reached after hours of terse negotiations Tuesday, spares Gosnell's family the task of pleading for his life in court, McMahon said. Gosnell has six children, the youngest of them a teenager born to his third wife, who has also pleaded guilty in the case.

"He's a proud man. To bring his young family into court was something he did not want to do," McMahon said.

A 2011 grand jury investigation into Gosnell's alleged prescription drug trafficking led to the gruesome findings about his abortion clinic. During an FBI raid, authorities found 47 aborted fetuses stored in clinic freezers, jars of tiny severed feet, bloodstained furniture and dirty medical instruments, along with cats roaming the premises.

Prosecution experts said the Delaware teen carrying Baby A, whose death Gosnell was sentenced in Wednesday, was nearly 30 weeks pregnant when Gosnell aborted her fetus. A second baby was said to be alive for about 20 minutes before a clinic worker snipped the neck. A third was born in a toilet and was moving before another clinic employee severed the spinal cord, according to testimony.

A fourth baby let out a whimper before Gosnell cut the neck, prosecutors alleged. Gosnell was acquitted in that baby's death, the only one of the four in which no one testified to seeing the baby killed.

McMahon has argued that none of the fetuses was born alive and that any movements were posthumous twitching or spasms.

However, the gruesome details of Gosnell’s operation came out more than two years ago during a grand jury investigation of prescription drug trafficking. Authorities raiding Gosnell’s clinic for drugs instead found bags and bottles of fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments and cats roaming the premises.

Partisans on both sides of the nation’s polarized abortion debate were quick to weigh in after the verdict. Abortion foes said the case helped to illustrate the disturbing reality of abortion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Related:

America’s Warning

VERDICT: Jury decides fate of Gosnell

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Sebelius Spends Your Taxes On Community Organizations

Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey – Author of Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Investors.com Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was criticized last week for soliciting private contributions to Enroll America, a non-governmental organization run by former Obama campaign operatives.

The real monkey business is what the secretary is doing with taxpayers' money — pouring it into community organizations.

The pretext is that community organizations will do a better job than government employees in enrolling the uninsured in ObamaCare. But the likelihood is that these community organizations will steer the uninsured into the Democratic Party.

And beware. The Senate immigration bill tries to repeat this unsavory use of community organizations. It pays community organizations to educate immigrants about American civics and the path to citizenship.

Last week's brouhaha came about because Sebelius raised money for Enroll America after House Republicans refused to approve more funding for ObamaCare enrollment efforts.

So what is Enroll America? Its board of directors is made up of insurers and hospital organizations that will benefit from enrolling millions of people in ObamaCare. But its management is 100% political.

Its president is Anne Filipic, formerly deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement in the White House, where she networked with community organizers. Before that, she had a top job at the Democratic National Committee, and before that she managed Obama's victorious 2008 Iowa Caucus bid.

To design a media campaign, Enroll America hired Lake Research, which also manages messaging for Acorn, MoveOn.org, LaRaza and 39 members of Congress, all Democrats.

Sebelius' fundraising for Enroll America was inappropriate, but it's minor compared with delivering taxpayer dollars to community groups.

Yet Sebelius isn't breaking the law. Amazingly, the Obama health law requires that community organizations be hired as "navigators" to enroll the uninsured.

So far Sebelius has announced $45 million in navigator grants. Who qualifies? You don't have to know math or insurance, but rules announced April 5 specify you have to match the race, ethnicity and language preferences of the neighborhood that will be targeted.

The odious presumption is that only Asians can assist Asians, only blacks can enroll blacks, only Harlem residents can help Harlem residents.

In addition to navigator grants, last week, HHS announced $150 million for community health centers to "hire and train staff to conduct community outreach efforts." Behind those weasel words is the truth that many community health centers engage in political activism.

The National Association of Community Health Centers states that part of its mission is registering people to vote and collecting patients' signatures on desired legislation. Employees hired by the community health centers can say and do things government employees can't. That's the problem.

Monday, May 13, 2013

VERDICT: Jury decides fate of Gosnell

Newborns killed after surviving 'late-term' abortions

WND Editor’s Note: The graphic descriptions and images here may be upsetting to some readers.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell (Photo Credit: AP)

PHILADELPHIA – Kermit Gosnell, the notorious Philadelphia abortionist who reportedly took millions of dollars from his business, was found guilty today of three counts of first-degree murder for delivering live babies and then killing them by snipping their spinal cords with a scissors.

The verdict means the jury will reconvene shortly in order to recommend a penalty – either life in prison or death – to the judge in the case.

He was acquitted on one count of first-degree murder for the death of a fourth baby, and was found guilty of a lesser charge than third-degree murder for the death of a woman who came in for an abortion.

The case, which included 258 total counts against Gosnell, also listed counts of infanticide, racketeering, performing third-trimester abortions and failing to follow the state’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. It revealed insider details of the abortion industry in the U.S. few wanted to hear.

LifeNews.com described from testimony the three cases for which Gosnell will be sentenced:

  • Baby A: He was delivered to 17-year old Shaquana Abrams at 29.4 weeks gestation, according to an ultrasound record. He did not fit into the plastic shoe box that Gosnell tossed him in. A worker said she saw the baby pull in his arms and legs while Gosnell explained the movements as “reflexes,” telling her the baby really didn’t move. Then he cut the baby’s neck.
  • Baby C. Intact baby of 25 weeks gestation. Worker testified that she saw Baby C breathing for 20 minutes. She told the court she saw Lynda Williams lift the baby’s arm and watched as the newborn drew it back on its own power. Then the baby’s neck was “snipped.”
  • Baby D. Described by witnesses as 12-15 inches long with the head the size of a “big pancake.” He was delivered into a toilet and a worker said she saw the baby struggling, using swimming motions in an attempt to get out of the toilet bowl. Then the baby’s neck was “snipped.”

Philly.com reported the state’s prescribed punishment for first-degree murder is either life in prison without parole or death by lethal injection.

The jury also found Eileen O’Neill, 56, Gosnell’s codefendant, guilty of two counts of theft by deception and two of conspiracy.

The newspaper reported he was arrested in 2010 by agents investigating drug dealing. The newspaper said, “As they searched for evidence in the drug investigation, agents found other more shocking evidence: unsanitary conditions including blood and body fluids on the floor and furniture, the odor of a pet store permeated the building from Gosnell’s cat, fish and turtles, and the remains of aborted fetuses and fetal parts stored around the clinic.”

Within days, Gosnell’s medical license was suspended and with weeks, authorities moved to close the business permanently.

No criminal charges resulted against state officials, but a handful of lawyers and supervisors for the health department were fired for failing to make sure inspections were done at the business.

Theoretically, Gosnell still faces trial on the charges that emanated from the drug raid. Other business workers mostly had pleaded guilty to charges.

The jury rejected the defense arguments that Gosnell was being prosecuted for racist reasons.

Witnesses in the courtroom told reporters Gosnell appeared shocked when the guilty verdicts were read.

Gosnell’s defense attorney, Jack McMahon, speaking to reporters after the announcement of the verdict, said Gosnell was “disappointed and upset” at being found guilty.

“As we started the case there were eight homicide cases, seven infants and one adult woman, the jury should be commended for their efforts, even if I don’t always agree. I have confidence in the jury and how they proceeded, but we did feel a lot like salmon swimming upstream.”

Gosnell, who has been held behind bars during the trial, was led back to a sheriff’s van for return to jail.

Found in Gosnell’s background was the “Mother’s Day Massacre.” The event was given the name because Gosnell and his partner, Harvey Karman, bused 15 poor women from Chicago to Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic to do the abortions on Mother’s Day in 1972.

Operation Rescue Senior Policy Adviser Cheryl Sullenger told WND in an interview that Gosnell and his partner not only did the abortions before Roe v. Wade, they were using an experimental method.

“It was called the super coil, a plastic ball with razor blades on it. They would insert the coil into the woman’s uterus to induce an abortion,” Sullenger said. “I don’t think any of the women knew they were guinea pigs, that they were being used as an experiment.”

The blades were gel-coated and laid down. The device was designed so that when the woman’s body temperature melted the gel, the blades sprang up to cut the baby, thus inducing the abortion.

“Most of the women experienced complications and needed additional medical treatment,” Sullenger said. “One women ended up needing a radical hysterectomy.

“That’s why they call it the Mother’s Day Massacre,” Sullenger said.

That, she said, was the beginning of Gosnell’s long career in the abortion industry.

Most of the attention in the Gosnell trial has focused on the four babies that were the subject of the four first-degree murder charges, Babies “A,” “C,” “D” and “E.” Convictions came for the first three.

However, Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” apparently was the location of other gruesome activity. Among the more macabre discoveries was Gosnell’s collection of baby body parts and how they were kept.

Philadelphia Medical Examiner Dr. Sam Gulino told a Washington Post reporter that he had to deal with frozen baby body parts.

“It was really an unprecedented situation. It was the first time I had to deal with fetal remains that had been frozen. All I could do was allow the remains to thaw so that I could examine them,” Gulino told the paper.

Altogether, Gulino told the Post, he had received all or part of 47 fetuses, most of them aborted well into the second trimester. At least a couple, he determined, likely would have been viable outside the mother’s womb.

Kermit Gosnell

That’s just the beginning of the list of bizarre discoveries.

The Blaze compiled a list of abuses Gosnell and his staff are alleged to have committed:

  1. Gosnell allegedly treated his minority clients with much less respect than his white patients. Considering that he was named, according to the AP, in more than 40 malpractice suits, the clinic head would purportedly perform abortions for Caucasian women in cleaner locations (he assumed whites were more likely to complain about him).
  2. In addition to the murderous allegations against Gosnell, eight former employees of the clinic have pleaded guilty (some to third-degree murder) and have spoken in great lengths about the terrifying conditions at the clinic.
  3. A 15-year-old girl allegedly helped facilitate abortions – including on potentially live babies – at the clinic. Ashley Baldwin, now 22, claims she worked nearly 50 hours per week. Even more shocking, she allegedly helped give women the drugs needed for the procedure – and apparently assisted throughout. Baldwin said that she saw aborted babies move on at least two occasions following abortions (in one instance, she said “the chest was moving”).
  4. Gosnell purportedly used untrained and low-paid staff to conduct nearly 1,000 abortions each year. The charge for a procedure in the horrific conditions mentioned? Between $350 and several thousand, depending on how far along the pregnancy was. Prosecutors believe he made millions from the practice. Authorities claim the clinic brought in about $15,000 per day.
  5. Speaking of “untrained,” prosecutors claim, according to the Gospel Coalition, that Gosnell is not certified to work in either gynecology or obstetrics.
  6. In the grand jury report, the clinic was said to smell of animal urine and blood stains were on blankets and furniture inside of the office. Not surprisingly, sterilized instruments were unheard of inside the establishment. And somehow the state had failed to inspect – or even visit – the clinic since 1993.
  7. In March, Adrienne Moton, a medical assistant at the clinic, provided sickening details about her alleged actions at the clinic, claiming that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies; she said that another worker – and Gosnell himself – did the same. But that’s not the worst part. Moton also claimed that she once killed a baby after it was delivered in a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors. Moton plead guilty and has been in prison since 2011.
  8. Another former employee, Sherry West, shared yet another horrifying story. She claims that she was once called to the back room at the clinic, where aborted babies’ bodies were apparently kept on a shelf. Once there, West heard a live baby among the bodies cry out. The screaming child “really freaked” her out, she told the court. “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” she said, noting that she previously referred to the babies as “specimens,” because it was easier to mentally handle what was going on at the clinic.
  9. Then theres Robyn Reid’s story. She was only an 87-pound teen when she went to the clinic in 1998. Accompanied by her grandmother, she was looking for an abortion. But once she made it to the office, Reid changed her mind. But Salem-News.com writes that the doctor allegedly forced an abortion on her. “Gosnell ripped off her clothes and restrained the girl. When she regained consciousness 12 hours later at her aunt’s home, she discovered that an abortion had been performed against her will,” the website reports.

Sketch of courtroom drama by Operation Rescue.

The jury also considered a third-degree murder charge for the death of 41-year-old Bhutanese immigrant Karnamaya Mongar.

In his closing arguments, Prosecutor Ed Cameron reminded the jury of the woman’s past.

“She survived 20-years in a refugee camp after fleeing her country (Bhutan). She was privileged to come to the land of the free. She found a new life here, but that came to an end when she met Dr. Gosnell,” Cameron said.

“The defense says she died of a respiratory infection, but we have testimony that says she was very healthy. She died because she kept getting more drugs,” Cameron said. “We had a toxicologist testify that the levels of the drug meperidine (Demarol) exceeded safe levels. In his view the drugs killed her.”

Crime Library reported that University of Pittsburgh Medical School Anesthesiology Department Chairman Dr. Andrew Herlich testified that in Mongar’s case, drug doses were “outrageous.”

“Mr. Herlich opined that if average-sized adults, with no particular sensitivities to the drugs, were given two custom doses within four hours, most would stop breathing,” Crime Library reported.

Further evidence of Mongar’s death came from an autopsy, LifeNews.com reported in March.

“Assistant Medical Examiner Gary Collins confirmed that the woman, 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar … died from the abortion due to Gosnell and his staff’s medical incompetence in terms of administering a proper amount of anesthesia rather than her dying of some other cause.”

However, Mongar wasn’t the only Gosnell patients to die as the result of a botched abortion.

LifeNews.com reported in April the death of Semika Shirelle Shaw.

Filthy Gosnell waiting room, recorded by LifeNews.com.

“Semika Shirelle Shaw was killed in March, 2000; two days after Gosnell perforated her uterus during an abortion. She developed sepsis and died, leaving two children motherless. A lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount two years later.

“Marie Smith is lucky to be alive after having had a botched abortion by Gosnell in 1999. She developed a high fever and slipped into unconsciousness a week after her abortion. She was rushed to the hospital where the source of her condition was confirmed,” the report said.

Said Smith: “They showed me X-rays and said he [Gosnell] left an arm and a leg inside me. I almost died. I thought he knew what he was doing, but I guess I was wrong.”

Gosnell has been named in over 40 lawsuits in the past 20 years.

One was filed by Dana Haynes, who had an abortion by Gosnell in November 2006. Haynes alleges that Gosnell lacerated her uterus, cervix and her small bowel during the abortion, LifeNews.com reported.

Trial testimony also focused on clinic staff and their lack of qualifications to perform the duties Gosnell assigned. Prosecution witness Kareema Cross, who worked at the clinic from 2005 through 2009, said she went to school to become a medical assistant and that she was not certified to give medication.

Cross testified: “No, I didn’t learn how to give medication. I was never certified to give medication.”

The lack of training and certification is reported to have been one of the major causes of problems at Gosnell’s clinic. As a result of the lack of training and experience, Cross testified that patients were frequently overmedicated.

“Most of the staff gave medication, but we weren’t certified. We would give the medication and frequently the patients complained about their arms swelling from too much medication,” Cross testified.

Some of the clinic staff left their jobs because of fears caused by medication errors. LifeNews.com reported that clinic worker Latosha Lewis said that she left the clinic because she overdosed a patient.

“She stopped doing so in 2007 because she overdosed a woman and was worried about whether she would ever come out of anesthesia. She also said she stopped administering Cytotec, a drug that caused powerful and often unpredictable contractions around the same time,” LifeNews said.

It said Lewis also testified that the equipment was outdated and that Gosnell often reused disposable medical instruments.

“Lewis indicated that Gosnell’s equipment was outdated and never inspected, and that he often reused disposable curettes, which is the sharp-ended tube that enters the womb in abortion procedures and applies suction for the removal of the pre-born baby and other tissues and fluids,” LifeNews said.

Cross testified she was also not certified to do ultrasounds. However, Cross said her lack of experience and training didn’t stop Gosnell from giving her that job as well.

“I wasn’t trained on how to do ultrasounds. At the clinic, Dr. Gosnell trained me on how to use the ultrasound device, for about ten minutes. Then he turned me loose to do them,” Cross testified.

Cross testified that she couldn’t give the exact number of ultrasounds she performed.

WND reported that trial testimony frequently revealed how often Gosnell was absent from the clinic, especially during the late-term abortions.

“We did a lot of second trimester abortions. I can’t say exactly how many. He was almost never there during a second trimester abortion,” Cross testified.

The issue of medication was again raised during the portion of the testimony on second trimester abortions.

Cross said workers would simply give medications based on a chart hanging on the wall.

“There was no monitoring equipment to know how much medication [was] giving intravenously. The medication we would give was Lorazepam,” Cross said.

Lorazepam is classified by the National Institutes of Health as an anti-anxiety drug.

“There was no monitoring equipment in the room. There were no monitors, no blood pressure monitors,” Cross said. “We had a defibrillator but I don’t know that we ever used it.”

Throughout the trial, questions were raised concerning how many people and organizations knew about Gosnell’s operation.

In February 2010, Pennsylvania’s Planned Parenthood CEO Dayle Steinberg told Philadelphia’s WHYY that she wasn’t aware of the clinic’s conditions.

“We do anticipate that women who might have scheduled appointments for abortion procedures at the Women’s Medical Society will be calling Planned Parenthood,” Steinberg said during the WHYY interview.

WHYY reported Steinberg confirmed knowing Gosnell had provided abortions in Philadelphia for many years, that she hadn’t heard of problems.

Baby Boy B, image at Operation Rescue.

However, after Gosnell’s clinic was raided, Steinberg’s story changed. Phllly.com, the Philadelphia Inquirer and WHYY website reported Steinberg saying, “The Gosnell trial has shifted the focus off the high-quality services we provide. These are criminal, horrendous . . . acts and should be appropriately punished.”

Revelations about the clinic condition also prompted Steinberg to admit that staff at her clinics were frequently treated to Gosnell clinic horror stories. Steinberg told Philly.com, “We would always encourage them to report it to the Department of Health.”

WND also reported that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, believes that the prosecution did its duty.

King believed that Gosnell should be found guilty because of his recklessness in dealing with the patients.

“The prosecution has demonstrated that there was always consciously a disregard for the women and the babies,” King said. “The prosecution has shown that there are at least seven babies who died as a result.

“I believe there were many more who were injured, harmed, and killed by Dr. Gosnell and his staff’s conscious disregard of all the women and those babies.”

Prosecutor Ed Cameron clearly believes the case against Gosnell has been proven, and that reckless disregard for the patients has been shown.

WND reported that Cameron illustrated his point by contrasting how his dog was treated when he was put down, Gosnell’s treatment of his patients – mothers and babies.

“My dog got better treatment than these babies and these women,” Cameron said. “First they gave him a shot to help him sleep. Then they took him to a room, and once he was asleep, they gave him the shot so that he would not wake up.

“They treated my dog with dignity,” Cameron said. “My dog was cremated. [Gosnell] took these babies and put their parts in Lime-Aid jars.

“Those babies didn’t stand a chance,” Cameron told the jury.

In his closing statement, Cameron also said the ultimate issue is human dignity.

“Pennsylvania law requires that once a baby leaves the mother, he be treated with dignity and respect like a human being,” Cameron said. “But the question we need to ask that man sitting over at the table: Are you human? To med these women up and to cut these babies’ necks is not human.”

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, is calling the case a “watershed moment.”

“The discovery of his horrific practices helped shed light on an abortion industry that has run amok without oversight or accountability for decades, and has prompted significant changes in abortion laws and attitudes toward enforcement in several states,” he told LifeNews.

Clinic worker Ashley Baldwin testified about watching Massof slit the necks of babies that moved or breathed “five or 10″ times. Massof, repeating what he had been taught by Gosnell, told her that that it was standard procedure to cut the spine in all cases.

Baldwin’s testimony:

Q: These larger babies, when Dr. Steve was there, did he ever – was he ever there when any of the larger babies precipitated?

A: Yes.

Q: Babies that would move?

A: Yes.

Q: So, Dr. Steve – what would Dr. Steve do with babies that moved?

A: The same thing.

Q. The same thing. And how many time did you see Dr. Steve?

A: A lot. He told me that – don’t worry about it. They are not living. It is just a reaction.

At one point, Cross testified, staff member Lynda Williams placed a baby on the counter, and it was breathing and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them.

After playing with the baby, Williams slit its neck, Cross said.

Gosnell’s clinic isn’t the exception, Priests for Life National Director Father Frank Pavone told WND in an interview that Gosnell’s clinic is the “rule.”

“This trial simply exposes the abortion industry for what it is. Gosnell’s clinic isn’t unique. I’m afraid it’s the norm,” Pavone said.

King would agree.

“So because Dr. Gosnell is the most visible tip of the iceberg today – he’s the rule not the exception to the rule. He’s visible evidence of the rule – that abortion kills babies, sometimes kills women, it hurts human beings,” King said.

Pavone believes that there’s more at stake than the fate of Gosnell. Abortion itself is on trial.

“When we hear the things that are coming out of the testimony, nothing is shocking us because we’ve heard it all before,” Pavone said. “The fact that Roe v. Wade made abortion legal did not make it safe. We see all sorts of corruption in unregulated facilities. Sadly this is only more of the same.”

Newsbusters noted that the local tax-funded National Public Radio station WHYY described Gosnell as “a physician who had worked in our community for 30 years, cared for women in all of that time.”

But the NPR station also noted that the jury “didn’t hear from one character witness or one person who was put on the stand to say that he was a competent physician.”

Actress Patricia Heaton took to Twitter to give her opinion: “Gosnell is just the less sanitary version of what goes on every day … the cheapening of human life. Lord have mercy.”

WND also reported earlier that the discoveries at Gosnell’s clinic were startling. A partial list reported by WND includes:

  • Rusty and filthy abortion equipment has been brought into the courtroom to document unsanitary conditions.
  • Medical records appear to have blood and other stains on them.
  • Gosnell’s staff acted as though they were doctors, even though some had little or no medical training.
  • Medications, including anesthetics, found in the office had expired years earlier.
  • A defense attorney blamed a woman, Bhutan immigrant Karnamaya Mongar, for her own death, since she left several blanks on her medical form. Prosecutors said she spoke little English and likely was unaware she needed to provide information.
  • Patients appeared to repeatedly get overdoses of drugs for their abortion procedures, including Mongar.
  • Photographs of the bodies of babies, revealed gaping wounds in the back of their necks. According to testimony, Gosnell or staff members routinely snipped their spinal cords to make sure they were dead. Operation Rescue said: “The babies were all intact and had the appearance of being partially mummified or dried. The brownish-black skin had shrunk as it dried, revealing the upper spinal column that authorities say was pierced with scissors in order to snip the spinal cords of newborn babies born alive during abortions by Gosnell.”
  • Photographs were introduced of babies’ feet, or even whole legs, Gosnell had preserved in jars.

Prolife activist Lila Rose, whose LiveAction.org has released undercover videos revealing how abortion businesses say they would not help an infant born alive during an abortion, said the government needs to investigate the procedures.

“We believe in human rights for everyone – human rights for the child in the womb, the child outside the womb, and true protection and medical care for women. Not the brutality that goes on during these procedures,” she said during a rally Wednesday in Washington.

Congress also is beginning to consider further restrictions on abortions in the District of Columbia as a result of the controversy over the born-alive babies.

And Pavone wrote in the Washington Times that the procedure of abortion not only kills the unborn, but also the abortionist.

Pavone wrote:

“David Brewer, a former abortionist, tells his story: ‘I can remember that day watching the first abortion . I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand, and I saw an arm. You know, it was like somebody put a hot poker into me . I had a conscience and that hurt. That was a very hard experience for me to go through, emotionally. So I did what a lot of us do throughout our life, we don’t do anything. I didn’t talk with anybody about it. and do you know what happened? I got to see another abortion. You know what? That one hurt, too. But I kept seeing abortions, and it hurt a little bit less every time I saw one. Do you know what happened next? I got to sit down and do one . The first one that I did was kind of hard. It was like hurting again like a hot poker. But after a while, it got to where it didn’t hurt’ (Testimony at ‘Meet the Abortion Providers’ conference in Chicago).

“So yes, I am not at all surprised that Dr. Gosnell is cool, calm and collected, smiling even as he listens to those accusing him of murder. Abortion destroys the abortionists themselves.”

Related:

Gosnell Found Guilty of First Degree Murder in ‘House of Horrors’ Abortion, Murder Trial

Philly Abortion Doctor Guilty in 3 Babies' Deaths

Gosnell Jury Is Hung on Two Counts in Abortion Doctor’s Murder Trial — Here Are the Details

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Mother's Day: 4 Gifts That Last Longer Than Just One Day

Mother's Day: 4 Gifts That Last Longer Than Just One Day (ABC News)

Mother's Day: 4 Gifts That Last Longer Than Just One Day (ABC News)

Forget flowers and spa treatments. The stuff moms really want can't be bought.

"What they really want is to be less stressed," said Bruce Feiler, a family expert and author of best seller "The Secrets of Happy Families: Improve Your Mornings, Rethink Family Dinner, Fight Smarter, Go Out and Play, and Much More."

Feiler knows the perfect gifts that promise to give mom the ultimate stress relief - relief that lasts a lot longer than just a day.

Here are four ways to make mom happier:

1) Tackle the hardest part of the day - de-stress mom's morning

"You stop any mom on the street and ask them what's the worst time of the day, they're going to say the morning," Feiler said.

Researchers have found that the highest stress times in families occur in moments of transition. The hour after everybody wakes up in the morning and the hour after everyone comes home in the evening are particularly vulnerable, according to Feiler.

Feiler recommends these additional tips:

Create a morning checklist where kids are responsible for checking off their own obligations.

Choose alternate weeks where different members of the family play "morning captain."

Assign days of the week where children either prepare breakfast or serve as sous chef for a parent.

Besides reducing parental yelling, you'll help your kids. Children who plan their own schedules and evaluate their own work build up their brains and learn to take more responsibility.

Feiler suggested transferring responsibilities to the kids, that way mom doesn't have to nag them to keep on schedule.

"You can assign a child certain days of the week where they are the captains of the morning, so it is their job to actually monitor everybody else to make sure they get the things done," he said.

2) Reduce sibling fights

Studies have shown siblings between the ages of 3 and 7 clash three and a half times per hour.

Feiler addressed this problem in his house with the help of a course from the team at the Harvard Negotiation Project.

Feiler implemented the following actions:

When problems erupt, we separate them to allow them to cool off.

Then we ask each party for three alternatives.

Usually, they insist theirs is the only option, but eventually, they relent. Then we bring them back together.

At that point, with so many options on the table, a solution usually arises fairly easily.

3) Spice up mom's date night

Instead of the usual dinner and a movie, steal an idea from Hollywood hit "500 Days of Summer" and try out karaoke night.

Feiler said if you want to improve your relationship, try something novel with your partner.

Here are some date night ideas:

Helen Fisher of Rutgers has observed that couples who participate in activities that are unusual or different.

Take an art class

Drive to a new part of town

Cook a new recipe and flood their system with the same chemicals as couples just falling in love.

4) Let her win every argument for a month

All families have conflict and those who control and manage that conflict can make their family happier.

"Tell your wife she can win every argument for a month, what that means is when you're getting it when you're disputing, whatever you're disputing, you get to the point and you say this is your month to win," Feiler said.

Here are some other tips:

Alternate who gets to win arguments every week. That way, just when a fight threatens to overwhelm an evening, the pre-assigned winner claims the prize and harmony is restored.

In honor of Mother's Day, why not extend Mom's week to a month. By then, Father's Day will be just around the corner, and maybe she'll return the favor.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Forum: How do you feel about minors being able to buy the Morning After pill without prescription or parental notification?

JoshuaPundit on May 06 2013Forum

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question:How do you feel about minors being able to buy the Morning After pill without prescription or parental notification?

The Razor:I spoke to the wife who is a family physician about this. She believes the pill should be offered to all girls of reproductive age, and not just the 15 year olds with ID. Although she is pro-life and believes that life begins at conception, she believes the pill is a lesser of evils when it comes to abortion although she is concerned that girls would use it as a form of birth control instead of using contraception. I agree with her on this issue, but am worried about the abuse of the pill since it would be easier to take after sex than taking the contraceptive pill every day, and may be cheaper too for some girls who do not engage in frequent sex. Since the pill is only effective within a day after sex, it could lead to more unwanted pregnancies if girls fail to obtain and take the pill in time. There are unintended consequences with any law, and side effects for every medication, and I’m worried that we will soon find out both.

The Noisy Room: It’s a very bad idea. It’s an effort to supersede the authority of parents in the rearing of their children. It presumes to grant minors State awarded rights that exceed those of the people responsible for their upbringing. It’s also an effort to impose an artificial standard of morality well below what is viable for the survival of a society.

This is a communistic tactic that forwards the fundamental principle of turning children against their parents to enforce legitimacy of State ownership of children. It is collectivist manipulation meant to divide families and do away with a sense of right and wrong, which is normally fostered in the traditional natural family unit. Blurring the lines of right and wrong is a precursor to the elimination of morality and from that, of religion, which is traditionally the vehicle of morality.

Actions such as the unsupervised use of the Morning After Pill lead to government control and the disavowment of parental oversight. This is the goal of Marxists/Communists. They need children who are trained to hate and disobey their parents, but who will obey those they perceive as heroic; those who give them what they want whether earned or not; right or wrong. You saw this in Cambodia’s Pol Pot who instituted a massive youth gang called the Khmer Rouge. They murdered millions; one-third of their own nation. Pol Pot created a society of pure, youthful Communism, which was a ghastly murderous tyranny.

Programmed youth are separated from and indoctrinated with hate for their parents. Left unchecked, the youth gravitate towards Big Brother. They not only hate their parents, but the State goads them into turning them in and/or killing them. You see it time and time again throughout history. If children can absolve themselves of responsibility for random sexual encounters and don’t have to answer to their parents or suffer any repercussions, they are one step closer to the collective of the Marxist State. Prescribed permissiveness in and out of the classroom becomes all the children know and respect. They respect and cleave to the government and law enforcement; they shun and deride their families. Children consider themselves equal to adults in all ways and through State indoctrination come to support and implement a pervasive police State willingly. Selfishness becomes a desirable trait and loyalty to the State becomes the rule of the day. The Morning After Pill that caters to those as young as 15, coupled with secret, cheap abortions brings our youth one step closer to the killing fields.

Bookworm Room: As the parent of minors, I think it’s appalling. The Left will always justify this kind of rule-making or legislation by pointing to those teenage girls who have dreadful home lives, and are at risk of being physically hurt if they confess to a pregnancy. Yes, those are real situations, but I’ve never seen any evidence that they are anything but a small minority. In the real world, parents whose daughters come home pregnant are not going to be happy, and they may yell at their daughter, but they don’t abuse her. They rally around her. In other words, they are family and they are there for her. (In this regard, I think the movie Juno was pretty accurate.)

The facts on the ground mean that the state’s motive in making birth control and abortifacients available to ever younger girls isn’t because it’s trying to protect a small minority of at-risk girls. Rather, it’s trying to break down the family unit. Sex is a great way to force that schism because, next to hunger, sex is the most powerful motivator. By promising children sex, and lots of it — without any messy consequences such as disease or pregnancy — the state ensures that children look to the state as the bountiful provider. The message is a simple one: We’ll make you happy; your parents will make you sad.

Of course, no one is looking at the very real consequences of the state’s handing out sex like an addictive drug. The state pours toxic hormone soups in adolescent bodies; treats those young bodies with powerful antibiotics; alienates young minds and emotions from those who are most likely to love them; and sends the message that human sex, rather than creating powerful, life-long emotional bonds, has no more meaning than (and about as much charm as) bovine, canine, or feline sex. No wonder the girls who graduate from the hook-up culture in college, don’t feel liberated but, instead, just feel used and emotionally frozen. They have been used — not just by the men who get the girls, but by an all-powerful state that has as its goal the end of individuals’ control over their own bodies.

Lastly, there’s also something profoundly wrong about a government that, even as it criminalizes adult men and women who have sex with children, does everything it can to encourage children to have sex. I don’t have a good word to describe that. Revolting? Hypocritical? Sleazy? Obscene? Immoral? I think all apply.

David Gerstman from Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: The MSM will tell you when polling data supports their premises. You might have seen a news item recently that people who self-identify as pro-choice outnumber those who consider themselves pro-life.

That is true.

The latest Gallup poll surveying attitudes towards abortion indeed found that 48% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice but only 44% consider themselves pro-life.

But the same survey also shows that 52% of Americans believe that there should be some restrictions on abortion and only 28% support an unfettered right to abortion. (18% believe that abortion should never be legal.)

What’s going on? The MSM generally support an unconditional right to abortion. The MSM only consider such a position to be pro-choice. Reasonable restrictions are considered to be violations of a fundamental constitutional right. Most Americans though, disagree. They believe that abortion should not be outlawed in entirely, but that there can be common sense restrictions on abortion.

Consider something else. Since 1996, over 60% of Americans support abortions in the first trimester. For the second trimester that percentage drops to under 30% and under 20% for the third trimester. The abortion absolutists will raise a hue and cry over the latter two figures, if they bothered to report it. But they won’t because they know it’s a losing issue.

One of the more contentious issues is that of parental notification. A teenager who has a tumor would require parental notification before she would undergo surgery. In many states, though, her parents would not have to be told if she were to undergo an abortion.

This ruling allowing a teenager to obtain a morning after pill seems one more effort to undermine parental authority. It is also a way of enshrining as an unconditional right a procedure that most Americans think should be reasonably limited.

Sara from The Independent Sentinel: It’s crazy. We are talking about children who aren’t old enough to buy cigarettes but they are old enough to buy the morning after pill.

That’s extreme and the President feels comfortable with it because the science is solid.

Is that all we are reduced to now – if the science is okay, that’s enough?

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Share

Related:

What does the Stripping of Rights of Parents to Home Schooling mean?

Obamacare's secret plan: Destroy and 'rescue'

Exclusive: Dr. Lee Hieb explains how health bill creates disaster – on purpose

scarydoctor-340x170WND: The real name of Obamacare – a name known only to a few policy wonks and politically correct medical students – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA. With a name like that, who could object to it? Who would be against “patient protection” or “affordable” when it comes to a government-funded program such as Medicare? Really, who would want “unaffordable,” though that’s generally what we get in government spending programs? But what does “Affordable Care” really mean?

Although Obamacare is fluid, being rewritten hourly, as of this moment, the plan is to create “accountable care organizations,” or ACOs. These will be defined by geographic areas that contain a certain number of patients. Currently, for example, a pilot ACO blankets a large area of northwestern Iowa.

You the patient, at first, won’t know that you “belong” to the ACO. But the government has assigned you, if you are a Medicare recipient, to a specific ACO. The ACOs will then be held responsible for quality – as defined by government – and for cost containment.

I recently attended a pie-in-the-sky, rah-rah session given by the CFO of one of the new pilot ACOs. He went into great detail about the good deal awaiting those hospital systems that play the game well. The details, as he admitted, are somewhat lacking, as the rules continue to be written. But I got the big picture. The big picture is: This is a three-step shell game to bring about the death of private practice medicine in America.

Here is how it will work.

Step one: America will be sliced up geographically into ACOs, which will gather all sorts of patient-care data for the feds and will be paid a fee for service at Medicare rates. The ACOs will be lauded as the saviors of medicine and given bonuses for quality and cost containment. Currently, they are being offered a 50-percent cash rebate for any savings they bring about. Patients can choose to go anywhere for care, in or out of the ACO. Private practitioners outside the system will be “allowed” to keep practicing, they will not be forced to join the ACOs – that would be un-American – but these small practices will be unable to survive the regulatory burden of Obamacare. So, these doctors will retire early, or close up shop or simply go to work for the ACOs, where they will do better financially.

Step two: Once private practitioners are squeezed out of existence, there will be no competition. The ACOs will be the only show in town and totally under the thumb of the federal government. At this point, the bonus money will go away, and the feds will squeeze down payment to doctors and hospitals. (The CFO who spoke at our meeting may think the federal government is willing to leave free money on the table for him to pick up, but that only is doled out to favored political donors, not to producers. The bonus is simply another bribe historically given to businesses by government in order to make them vassals of the state … and businesses never seem to learn.) Small hospitals will have to consolidate under big ones or go out of business. At this point, to prepare for the final step, rumblings of problems in the ACOs will start.

Step three: As government reimbursements diminish and there is no private option, the system will fail to deliver adequate care. Patients won’t be able to get appointments or timely surgery, doctors will complain, hospital staffs will strike and in general the system will implode. Government, always ready to leap into the breach (and reminiscent of the precedent of the Reichstag fire), will declare a national crisis and push through emergency legislation – that is already in the system – to nationalize health care. Hospitals will be taken over by the feds, doctors and nurses and all necessary personnel will have no choice but to be government employees, and at this point patients will be assigned to the ACOs without any choice in the matter. At the stroke of a pen health insurance will cease to exist, and perhaps the companies who sold insurance will be placed in charge of administrating these ACOs. (This road is already being paved as big companies like Blue Cross are given government contracts to administer Medicare.)

Think this can’t happen? Even some of the ACO administrators admit they are being set up to fail. But fail to what end? To the goal which has been the goal all along: establish a national health service ala Canada or England or Sweden. This is not a medical or societal evolution; this is programmed incremental revolution, and we – like the Russians and French and Cubans – will pay the price, because when free market medicine goes, so goes freedom. The power that brings about this government takeover will not limit itself to medicine. It will consume every facet of the social and economic life of America.

Libertatem requiescant in pace.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Gun Advocates Celebrate 'Secret' Obamacare Provision Forbidding Exec Order To Regulate Guns And Ammo

Harry_Reid_official_portrait_2009_crop1Forbes -  Cross-Posted at AskMarion: A shot heard ’round the blogosphere, Vice President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the administration might bypass Congressional participation to regulate guns in favor of using the executive order produced the inevitable choirs of “I told ya so” as Biden’s sound bite appeared to provide the proof that Obama was, indeed, coming for your guns.

But this time, the gun advocates were ready with more than just angry recriminations.

Acting with an assist from CNN, right-wing bloggers and gun advocates in the know, let loose with a tidbit of information they have, no doubt, been long chomping at the bit to unleash—the revelation that there is already a law on the books that would prevent the government from making good on Biden’s tantalizing suggestion, a law that would actually prevent the government from collecting data on firearm ownership and more.

And what might that law be?

Obamacare…

That’s right—it turns out that there is, indeed, a provision buried deep in the thousands of pages that is the Affordable Care Act entitled, “Protection of Second Amendment Rights”. You’ll find it in Section 2716 part c of the Affordable Care Act although, to save you the trouble, I have re-printed the provision below for your perusal.

Certainly, one strains to imagine how anything touching on gun ownership, the Second Amendment, etc. could find its way into a health care reform bill just as it confounds the imagination to contemplate who might have been responsible for adding such a clause in the first place. Obamacare is, after all, primarily the creation of a President who gun advocates have long believed is out to strip them of their firearms—not to mention a law written, supported and passed by those in Congress identified as coming from the “far left” of the political spectrum under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.

So, how did such a strange provision find its way into health care reform?

You might be surprised to learn that the language was offered in a Senate amendment proposed by none other than Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. While this news may come as a shock to those who view Reid as a leader of the left, politics will always trump ideology and—in the State of Nevada—politics dictates that running for office as a gun supporter is a way better idea than seeking office as a gun regulator. So, it should shock nobody that Senator Reid is a long-time gun rights advocate who has consistently counted upon the support of the NRA when running for election in his home state.

As for Reid’s reasons for burying a pro-gun measure into the body of the Affordable Care Act, the Majority Leader is said to have been concerned that the NRA planned to take an active position against the passage of Obamacare and decided, no doubt with the permission of Reid’s friend, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre, to head the problem off at the pass by putting language in the bill that would mollify the gun lobby.

Further, there was concern that a conspiracy theory then in circulation among right-wing circles—a meme suggesting that the Obama Administration had cleverly planted language in the ACA that could be used as a tool to get to the guns—would further erode public support for the legislation. For these reasons, Reid determined to insert some cozy language for the gun people into the Senate version of the ACA—language certain to escape public review at a time when the conversation was far more focused on hot button subjects like death panels, taxes and mandates.

For these reasons, the following language did, indeed, become a part of the nation’s controversial health care reform law:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. ‘‘

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

If you count yourself among those who object to any legislation or executive order that could limit or delay your ability to buy a flamethrower at the local gun show, this is certainly language that will put a smile on your face as this provision limits opportunities to collect and keep data on those who own firearms while creating some roadblocks when it comes to government’s ability to track whether or not you keep a weapon in your home, etc.

However, before you fire off a few rounds in celebration, you might want to take a good hard look at the actual draft of this section of the health care reform law because, unless you suspect that the President plans to put any newly proposed controls over firearms under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I’m afraid you don’t really have much to celebrate.

The provision in question bars the HHS Secretary, anyone in the Secretary’s ‘chain of command’, and health professionals covered by this section of the ACA, from engaging in the collection of gun data through the ordinary course of the services they provide. By way of example, were someone to come into the emergency room for treatment of a nasty gunpowder burn, the attending physician would likely ask how the injury took place. When the injured answers by noting that something went wrong when firing his Bushmaster at the target range, this law prevents the physician, hospital or anyone else from feeding the information to a government data base and further prevents the HHS Department from collecting such data.

The law additionally prohibits the government from making the argument that, since guns can be deleterious to the health and wellness of people, it would be within the goals and objectives of the ACA to collect data on who has weapons in the effort to protect the health and wellness of of Americans. In other words, HHS cannot create a data base to collect info on guns under the theory that guns injure people’s health so they need to know where the guns are.

So, the good news for the gun folks is that the ACA is, indeed, prevented from being used as a weapon in the ‘War on Guns’ under the guise that guns are bad for people’s health. They can also take solace in the fact that the law prevents government from collecting any gun data resulting from information obtained in the course of medical providers doing their thing—much as HIPAA prevents such information from being used for a variety of purposes.

Beyond that, if you imagine that this obscure section of the Affordable Care Act is going to block the Administration from exercising whatever legal authority it may have to regulate guns in America, I’m afraid you will be quite disappointed.

I think all would agree that should the President resolve to use his executive powers to create a data base or any other regulatory provision, it is far more likely that such regulation would fall within the ambit of the Justice Department—not Health & Human Services—and nothing in the ACA prevents such data collection, or any other regulatory efforts, which would fall outside the limited jurisdiction created in Obamacare with respect to firearms.

So, to our friends at Breitbart and the others who believe they have discovered gold in their effort to prevent the administration from acting on its desire to bring sanity to our gun laws, I’m afraid you are going to have to reload as Obamacare is just not the magic bullet you are looking for.

Related:

What Piece of Seemingly Benign Advice From an NRA Speaker Has Liberal Sites Up in Arms?