Showing posts with label Fabians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fabians. Show all posts

Sunday, February 23, 2014

More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in NYC

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH/EIB: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  So this is a city source: "In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."

So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in 2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking.  Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition.  So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New York City 2012.

And 31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born.  The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions, but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%.  These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there?  Yes, I do.  This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood and eugenics. 

I've always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Well, no it's not, because I know the left. Abortion is the sacrament to them.  But this is just...

These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important issues going.  It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they blame for their lot in life and their plight?

"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it.  You've got Democrat Party identity behind it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of why they're so eager for amnesty, and you might understand why the US birth rate is now dipping below replacement levels, which has all kinds of bad connotations to it, not the least of which are economic. 

END TRANSCRIPT

CNSNews: NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

You can’t make this up. Fred Lucas’ report at CNSNEWS.COM reveals how the Liberal Accounting procedures work, i.e., how they figure a program will be paid for: Not your tax dollars, of course.

“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.’…”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Nov. 14, 2011 that $1 billion in health care grants were a way of 'sparking' the U.S. economy. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(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.

 


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.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.

CNSNews.com  -  h/t to AJ

 

Related Posts


Related:

Obama Caught on Tape Arguing Against Giving Medical Attention to Aborted Babies

Eugenics:  Effective by Instrumentalism

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control? Why is it So Important to Progressives?

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition has Started – PBSpecial Report

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Sterilization of Children… - See links at bottom of article as well

Eugenics and Other Evils

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies

The IL General Assembly destroys audiotapes of its floor debates after transcripts have been written. That is why there is precious little audio, if any, of Barack Obama as state senator making any speeches.

But a pro-life sleuth has found a short audio clip on the Chicago Tribune website of Obama arguing on the IL Senate floor on April 4, 2002, against Senate Bill B1663, a companion bill to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have required an abortionist to call a second physician to assess a baby aborted alive.

Obama advocating infanticide audio mp3

Obama advocating infanticide audio wav

Here is the Senate transcript to ensure the comment is heard in context….

obama floor speech 2.jpg
Obama opposed SB1663 arguing he had “confidence” that the abortionist – who was invested in attempting to kill the child pre-delivery – would not mind revealing his or her botch by calling a 2nd physician to ensure the child was given proper medical attention and revived if possible.

Obama thought it remarkable to suspect an abortionist of having a subjective medical opinion about his new second patient. It didn’t occur to Obama that the abortionist might also be invested in seeing the baby dead to preclude malpractice lawsuits down the road if the baby were found not to have pre-birth diagnosed defects, an overriding reason for these late-term induced labor abortions.

But Obama’s most telling statement from the clip was to say this bill “is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

In other words, if a baby were to survive his or her abortion, the death plan marked out for this child should be carried out nonetheless.

Guy Benson tracked down the pro-life sleuth, who will be interviewed with me on the Sandy Rios show this afternoon at 3:20p CST.
Michelle Malkin is also covering this story, as is The Weekly Standard blog, and RedState.com.
Hotair.com is asking a great poll question, “Did Barack Obama protect infanticide in Illinois?”

Source:  Jill Stanket – h/t to AJ

Related:

Women’s health? The only doctors Planned Parenthood hires are abortionists

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control?  Why Is All of This So Important to Progressives?

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth … – Since this piece was written the AG’s of 12 states have joined the suit being prepared and expected additional states of join the fight.

Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics, which also explains Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin, based on her ideology and history. She was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.

America just celebrated 54 million abortions

You may have seen this already because it was uploaded 9.21.11

However, the gist of the video in the beginning is about how young people do not know who Hitler was and it is about not voting for any politician that would support abortion at the end of the video.

THIS VIDEO IS A MUST SEE... ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE KIDS IN COLLEGE....ARE GOING TO SEND YOUR  KIDS TO COLLEGE .... OR YOU JUST CARE ABOUT AMERICA....BUT  STOP.... IT'S 33 MINUTES LONG SO DON'T CLICK IT TILL YOU HAVE THE TIME TO WATCH IT!

Video:  "180" Movie -  Award Winning Documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism

Short excerpt:

In a shocking little booklet (click for PDF) entitled “Ancient Eugenics” written in 1913 by “late scholar” Allen G. Roper, this incrementalism is further elaborated upon. The way to build this future eugenic state, Roper argues, is not by an open decree or oppressive measures. For the trick to work, it must be a thing of the long haul.

http://ia600302.us.archive.org/23/items/ancienteugenicsa00ropeuoft/ancienteugenicsa00ropeuoft.pdf

 

Eugenics: Effective by Incrementalism

Jurriaan Maessen  -  Infowars.com  -  February 21, 2012  -  h/t to AJ

Every time we read about another technocrat (biocrat may be a more accurate description) stating that the planet should be liberated from “excess humans”, some obscure manuscript in a long-forgotten library rattles with glee. For the eugenic idea does not originate with some sadist in a United Nations office building. It is a practice, rather, that has been tried and tested by many civilizations and tribes in earth’s history- and now perfected at the hands of a biocratic elite hellbent on seizing the human body, constricting the human mind, and by doing so, subdue all of mankind.

The biocratic thought is simply this: in order to achieve total control over the body and the mind, both components must be made dependent on a specific cure for a specific ill. A feigned ill is usually preferred, as it can be made to go this or that way just as they see fit. By presenting themselves as well-doers, the biocrats raise the perfect guise behind which they can exercise eugenic power in full impunity. They regard their work as a great work, a sacred exercise. Like the human offerings of old, this too is performed as a sacrifice to be laid at the feet of some dark deity.

True culture-changes, the biocrats know, are not spontaneous- nor are they the children of sudden revolutionary acts. It is by the hand of gradual variations, the tiniest adjustments, that humanity is led towards the biocratic society.

In a shocking little booklet (click for PDF) entitled “Ancient Eugenics” written in 1913 by “late scholar” Allen G. Roper, this incrementalism is further elaborated upon. The way to build this future eugenic state, Roper argues, is not by an open decree or oppressive measures. For the trick to work, it must be a thing of the long haul.

“(…) compulsion”, writes Roper, “or guidance, however veiled, is foredoomed to failure in the case of an institution which can only rest on inclination or an innate sense of duty. Moreover, “custom is lord of all,” and custom can only be modified gradually and in the course of centuries”

“Modern Eugenists”, the author goes on to say, “have recognized that, if there is to be Eugenics by Act of Parliament, the Eugenic ideal must first be absorbed into the conscience of the nation.”

The author, a fierce proponent of eugenics himself, also shows us a glimpse into the mind of the biocratic utopians: those who believe themselves to be equal to God and therefore permit themselves the leisure of deciding who lives and who dies.

The author traces the idea of exterminating the weak in favor of the strong’s survival back to the ancients. Roper does not, as you would expect, limit his search to the ancient Greeks. He descents even further into the past until he reaches the very beginnings of man.

“The preface to a history of Eugenics may be compiled from barbarism, for the first Eugenist was not the Spartan legislator, but the primitive savage who killed his sickly child.”

“While they (the “savages”, as Roper tends to describe early man) lived their short lives, the weakly, the deformed, and the superfluous were a burden to the tribe. Human law, superseding natural law, strove to eliminate them at birth. This was the atavistic basis on which subsequent Eugenics was built.”

Infanticide, therefore, as a means to preserve the tribe. Roper states outright that eugenics flows from the killing of baby’s. Any lapse in this human endeavor will be compensated by nature, Roper says:

“Nature, forging additional weapons, hastens the elimination of the unfit by disease.”

But the author makes clear that:

“Modern Eugenics is based on Evolution not a passive form, but one that concedes some latitude to the guiding action of the human will.”

“While infanticide is everywhere disappearing”, Roper writes, “there remain still the principles simultaneously developed. Three centuries ago Eugenics was the Utopian dream of an imprisoned monk. A century later Steele, more in jest than in earnest, suggested that one might wear any passion out of a family by culture, as skilful gardeners blot a colour out of a tulip that hurts its beauty. But neither science nor public opinion was ready to respond. It was not till late in the nineteenth century that the crude human breeding of the Spartans, in altered form and in new conditions, became the scientific stirpiculture of Galton.”

There it is. Eugenics existed for countless millenniums. Now, in the last fifty years or so, the mainstream media will make you believe eugenics does not exist. It’s a conspiracy theory, they claim. To understand where the eugenics movement of the early 20st century- and by extension the Rockefeller-funded environmental movement of today, draw their inspiration from, the following quote must be read in its entirety:

“The Ancients attempted to combat the wasteful processes of Nature by eliminating the non-viable at birth; our efforts, on the contrary, have been directed to the prolongation of their lives. Instead of sacrificing the unfit in the interests of the fit, we have employed every resource of modern science “to keep alight the feeble flame of life in the baseborn child of a degenerate parent.”” (…) “There is the female infanticide of China and the Isles of the Southern Pacific, the male infanticide of the Abipones of Paraguay, and the indiscriminate massacre of the Gagas, who, killing every child alike, steal from a neighbouring tribe. There are the Indians who offer up children to Moloch or drown them in the Ganges; the Carthaginians sacrifice them to Kronos, the Mexicans to the rain god. There is the murder of twins and albinos in Arebo, and the cannibalism of the Aborigines. In Mingrelia, ” when they have not the wherewithal to maintain them, they hold it a piece of charity to murder infants new born.” There are the Biluchi, who kill all their natural children, and there is the modern factor of shame. Co-existing with all these various practices there is the definitely Eugenic motive. Among the Aborigines, all deformed children are killed as soon as born. The savages of Guiana kill any child that is “deformed, feeble, or bothersome.” The Fans kill all sickly children. In Central America “it is suspected that infant murder is responsible for the rarity of the deformed.” In Tonquin we hear of a law which forbids the exposing or strangling of children, be they ever so deformed. In Japan, deformed children were killed or reared according to the father’s pleasure. Among the Prussians the aged and infirm, the sick and deformed, were unhesitatingly put to death.”

“Unhesitatingly put to death”, thus ends the quote. The biocrats who pull the strings of the scientific dictatorship are very much aware of the origins of their belief-system, which is firmly rooted in the ancient practice of infanticide. Roper continues to say modern eugenicists have refined the ancient practices of primitive man to the degree that in modern times the state is the deciding factor. Roper:

“Limitation of numbers, though it does not itself constitute “aggeneration” of the race, improves to a considerable degree the individuals of which the race is constituted. When the undesired children are out of the way, more attention can be paid to the desired. The savage bred recklessly, compensating his recklessness by infanticide, but a natural law of civilization has superseded the artificial law of primitive man. Control of reproduction, and resulting from it a falling birth-rate and a diminished death-rate, is a tendency which, first showing itself in Imperial Rome, is conspicuous today in every civilized community.”

Roper also mentions the obsession of the biocrats, including Plato, with numbers:

“Obsessed by the idea of the mean and a mystic doctrine of numbers, he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

The idea that numbers have a mystical dimension is prevalent amongst biocrats. The before-mentioned statement is also reminiscent of the Georgia Guidestones, which reads:

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

“(…) there is”, Roper continues, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”

Although Roper invokes the Platonic way of conducting eugenics- quick and openly- he states that to the modern eugenicist “the chronic pauper is the victim of the germ-plasm- heredity.”

“With increased knowledge to justify restrictions”, Roper explains, “the modern state may be purged of the pauper more slowly, but no less surely, than the Platonic state of the Laws.”

Since 1913 two World Wars have raged over the earth, leaving a pile of dead in their wake. Eugenics became a thing of the state. In Nazi-Germany, eugenics was the norm, in Europe and the United States it became a more or less covert enterprise. Finally, the UN was constructed to make sure that the ancient Eugenic ideal would be preserved and passed on into the 21st century on a global scale.

What is the Real Purpose of Birth Control?  Why is it So Important to Progressives?

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy

UN Ordered Depopulation of 3 Billion People by Food Malnutrition has Started – PBSpecial Report

Vaccines ARE (In Many Cases) Germ Warfare

Sterilization of Children… - See links at bottom of article as well

Eugenics and Other Evils

Saturday, February 11, 2012

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

h/t to ProgressingAmericahttp://tinyurl.com/727ter6 and to AJ

It is time that people themselves read the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and demand that their Congressman and Senators read it and work to repeal and replace it.

If for no other reason… A vote for any of the 4-GOP candidates, whoever becomes the nominee, will guarantee the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and removal of the government from our HealthCare! A vote for Obama is a vote for socialized medicine, rationing and a long list of surprises yet to come. 2012 will be the last chance to get rid of ObamaCare because of the way its tentacles will spread.

Jack Lew appeared on Fox with Chris Wallace this morning and said there would be no additional compromise on the mandatory birth control mandate… “We have set out our policy” said Lew.

WALLACE: You say it’s consistent. The Catholic bishops are clearly not satisfied with it — if I may, sir. They have issued a statement that says that they view the decision by the president, the revision, with grave moral concern.

Let’s put up their statement on the screen.

“Today’s proposal involves needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion — government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.”

And, sir, they call on Congress to block the president’s policy.

LEW: No, I think the president’s policy does not do that. It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or may for benefits they find objectionable. But it guarantees a woman’s right to access. We think that’s the right solution.

There are others who opposed women’s access to contraception. They have different views than we do. I’m not going to speak to the motives of any of the parties. But it’s quite significant that a range of Catholic organizations has embraced this.

We didn’t expect to get universal support of the bishops or all Catholics. I think that what we have here is a policy that reflects bringing together two very important principles in a way that’s true to the American tradition. And that’s what the president is trying to do.

There are others who want to have a clash over it. We want to bring these two principles together.

WALLACE: But you say you’re not going to get universal support. There are others — this is the conference of Catholic bishops. This is the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country. They deal with grave moral concern and they say it should be turned around.

LEW: I can’t speak to the differences within the Catholic Church.

WALLACE: How do you respond to their statement that this government coercion?

LEW: I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to health care in this country. They thought this was a very good solution. They understand what the policy is.

WALLACE: So, the bishops –

(CROSSTALK)

LEW: I think our policy is the right policy. I think that there’s broad support, but they’re not universal support for it. And we think this is right way to go.

WALLACE: So, you’re not going to change despite what the bishops say.

LEW: Our policy is clear.

WALLACE: Your policy is clear. Meaning, no revisions to the revisions?

LEW: We have set out our policy.

WALLACE: And that’s it?

LEW: We’re going to finalize it in the final rules. But I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties. And, you know, we think that that’s the right approach.

WALLACE: Mr. Lew, I think it’s fair to say this is precisely why so many people and I understand, you can argue whether it’s the majority or minority — but why so many people are opposed to Obamacare, because they are concerned with the idea that the government can mandate what people have to do, what private businesses have to do, what even religious institutions have to do.

LEW: I think the notion that this is about should we provide basic health care to all Americans is not the issue. You know, there are differences to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is the right approach. We think providing coverage to tens of millions of Americans and making sure that we have a health care system that provides the kind of care that people need that will help drive down the cost of health care in this country is a very important thing.

This is — this question of the impact on religious institutions is something we took very seriously right from the start. That’s why when the policy was announced; we said it would take 13 months to transition it in a way that would be respectful of those differences.

So, I think we’ve addressed that. I think that this concern is one that people can disagree, you know, on the margins about. But we have addressed the core issue — no institution that has, non-profit institution that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services. But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.

We think that’s the right approach.

· Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth … – Since this piece was written the AG’s of 12 states have joined the suit being prepared and expected additional states of join the fight.

· U.S. News – Catholic TV network sues US over birth control mandate

Related:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama Is Losing the Contraception Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Let us not forget who is behind this bill… Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

ObamaCare… Hits, Misses and Perhaps a Look into the Future

Bilderberger Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN… a Concept He Has Been Found to Promote Many Times Before…

Cross-Posted at Ask Marion the Daily Thought Pad to Knowledge Creates Power and to True Health Is True Wealth!! at 2/11/2012 10:59:00 PM

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

Is the Timing of the War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments… Another ObamaCare Revelation, God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention by Many Americans?

The present issue of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring (through ObamaCare) that all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions is being framed as a fight over contraception. It is not an issue of contraception! It is an issue of religious liberty and an assault on the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

No politicians ever go after the Roman Catholic Church… Why? Because it is suicidal. Also, with everyone salivating to get the Hispanic voting block, who are almost all Catholics, this recent news of anti-religious freedom in ObamaCare resulting in a battle with the Catholic church could be Obama’s Waterloo.

Jews, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, a coalition of people of faith and even Atheists are standing with the Catholics on this matter. 90% of all Americans identify themselves as being related to some religion, even if not practicing.

So the question is, is the timing of this realization of one of the coming horrors in ObamaCare a huge mistake by Team Obama and perhaps an intervention by God in answer to all the prayers for help and guidance being said by God fearing Americans daily? Or is the primary focus of the left more about creating division and chaos to fundamentally transform America than getting elected… or re-elected?

Take a good look back at the famous ‘Fabian’ Window… the group the Progressives stem from. The Fabian Window is a view into the Heart of the New World Order Agenda, and yes that is former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair standing by that sinister Window!

The founders of the Fabian Society are depicted in the famous stained-glass Fabian Window[1] designed by George Bernard Shaw. The window was stolen in 1978 and reappeared at Sotheby's in 2005. It was restored to display in the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics in 2006 at a ceremony over which Tony Blair presided.

The thud of the sledgehammer is getting louder and more frequent every day. Those who care about the country and about individual freedoms should take heed of that sound. Those who worry about the unbridled power of the federal government would do well to study the Fabian Window. It should be installed in the White House; it is how the President sees the world. We have given him a very big hammer indeed. And he is using it to remould us in ways we could never have imagined. Starting in 2010, it is time to take his hammer away.

The stained glass window was designed by George Bernard Shaw in 1910 as a commemoration of the Fabian Society, and shows fellow Society members Sidney Webb and Edward R. Pease, among others, helping to build 'the new world'. Four Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw founded the London School of Economics with the money left to the Fabian Society by Henry Hutchinson. Supposedly the decision was made at a breakfast party on 4 August 1894. Artist Caroline Townshend (cousin of Shaw's wife Charlotte Payne-Townshend and daughter of Fabian and Suffragette Emily Townshend) created the Fabian window, according to Shaw's design in 1910. Also included in the window besides Shaw and Townshend themselves, were other prominent Fabians such as H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

Uber-Progressive and Obama puppetmaster and Hillary Clinton mentor, George Soros, is a graduate of the London School of Economics. Coincidence?

Obama denigrates religion, covers up religious symbols when he speaks in churches, and proclaims that we are not a “Christian” nation. In fact, we are a Christian nation, but not exclusively so, and far more tolerant of all believers and disbelievers than the Arab countries from whom he courts favor. In those countries you may be maimed, banished or killed if you are not Muslim. Freedom of religion in those countries is but an empty phrase in constitutions that exalt Islam over all other religions. Is Obama remolding our religious heritage? …Taken from CFP’s Beware the Obama Fabian Window. Many feel that Obama is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing on the Fabian Window Coat of Arms.

Remember, Obama’s weakness is religious people. He doesn’t have the churches and true Bible reading/God fearing Americans behind him. So they are poking us to get us worked up to standup as a focus point making us the fringe and bringing us head to head with the left… the unions, OWS, avowed Progressives, etc.

Below are just a few of the article and perspective on this subject:

Obama appointee Muzzled Army Camplains and forbade them from reading Catholic Archdiocese Letter

Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments

· Archbishop to U.S. Troops: Obamacare Reg ‘Blow to a Freedom You Have Fought

Monday, February 06, 2012 7:42:08 PM · by Nachum - Cybercast News Service ^ | 2/6/12 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle. “It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote.

· Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate

Monday, February 06, 2012 7:39:21 PM · by Salvation · 8 replies - CatholicVote.org ^ | 02-06-12 | compiled by Thomas Peters

Updated: *167* Bishops (More Than 90% of Dioceses) Have Spoken Out Against Obama/HHS Mandate by Thomas Peters7 days ago In the past I’ve compiled a list of all the bishops speaking out on a particular controversial issue (for instance, over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama) — here are the bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate.[See my ongoing coverage of Obama/HHS's war against religious liberty here, here, here and most recently here. I'm also tweeting more updates @AmericanPapist.] If I have missed anyone please let me know in the comments! And please double-check that your bishop really is not there...

*Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

If the federal government can succeed in forcing people to violate their faith, it will have the power to force anyone to do anything. It is therefore sad but not surprising that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to USA Today this week to spin rather than explain her boss’s decision to force people and entities all over the country to fund abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization against their consciences.

However, one of the most startling comments came from former Democrat Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper who said that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to cover the cost in full for contraception, sterilization procedures, and the “week-after“ pill ”ella” that can induce early abortions.

For those of us who have followed and fought against the passing of ObamaCare that knew about every ugly detail that has come to light since its passing… and there are many more to come, the amazement about its content keeps creating amazement for us.  Government-run healthcare is the crown jewel of socialism and the ugliness contained within has only begun to surface. How dare an elected official who voted on this type of freedom changing bill say, “If I had known….” Read the bills, pay readers, have your staff read it.  There really should be a penalty to pay by these people. Election 2012 or the Supreme Court Ruling will be our only chance(s) to rid ourselves of ObamaCare!!

This is not a matter that will just blow over, even though the White House is starting to back peddle on this issue for now; but this is a glimmer into our future if Barack Obama is re-elected. Those in the trenches know that any and all of the compromises we see during this election year will be rescinded as soon as Obama is re-elected.

This fight is much larger than this single issue… As Father Morris stated on Hannity the other night and again today on The Factor… “This is the fight over Freedom of Religion”, the very issue that America was founded on! The Left’s siege on churches has begun!!

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!  Similar remarks from Speaker Boehner, Senator Marco Rubio and congressional politicians from both sides of the aisle. 

Ask Marion~

Related:

Beck Asks Panel:  How Do You Teach People Values When They Are Raised in a Secular World?

Rubio Crushes Obama's and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC

Friday, February 3, 2012

Susan G. Komen Foundation Reverses Stance on Cutting Funding for Planned Parenthood

Pro-Life Groups Hail 'A Major Victory for Life' & Now Susan G. Komen Foundation Reversed Their Decision

race

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity has reversed its decision to halt funding of breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood, the organization announced Friday.

In a statement, Komen for the Cure Founder and CEO Nancy Brinker apologized for “recent decisions” and said the organization would continue to fund Planned Parenthood.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Brinker said.

The reversal comes after three days of intense backlash over Komen’s announcement that it had adopted new criteria that excluded Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation. Planned Parenthood is currently at the center of a congressional probe into whether taxpayer money was used to fund abortions. Brinker said Friday they would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” she said. While the statement says Komen will not halt current funding, it does not necessarily guarantee future grants.

Brinker’s full statement is below, via the Dallas Morning News, which first broke the story:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Reverses Stance, Pledges to Continue Funding Planned Parenthood

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

As The Blaze previously reported, the charity was accused of caving to anti-abortion activists opposed to funding Planned Parenthood because of the abortion services it provides.

Friday’s announcement is a dramatic about-face for the organization. On Wednesday, Brinker released a video vowing Komen for the Cure would “never bow down to political pressure.”

“The scurrilous accusations being hurled at this organization are profoundly hurtful to so many of us who put our heart, soul and lives into this organization,” she said. “But more importantly, they are a dangerous distraction from the work that still remains to be done in ridding the world of breast cancer.”

According to the Associated Press, the grants that Planned Parenthood affiliates used for breast exams and related services totaled $680,000 last year. At least one top Komen official quit over the decision to halt funding, and 26 U.S. senators signed a letter urging the charity to reconsider.

Both Komen and Planned Parenthood reported donation spikes in the aftermath of the initial announcement: Brinker said Thursday donations had been up 100 percent in the last two days, while Planned Parenthood reported bringing in about $650,000 in 24 hours. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in the wake of Komen’s decision.

This post has been updated since it was first published at the Blaze

Related:

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

Evelyn Lauder, Founder of Pink Ribbon, Dies at 75, of Non-Genetic Ovarian Cancer

UPDATED: How to donate: Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

Monday, January 30, 2012

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.

Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

Bioethicists Suggest Killing Universally and Irreversibly Disabled Person Not Morally Wrong

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Duke University (Photo: Duke University)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.

This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”

Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:

“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”

[...]

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”

Bioethicists Suggest Killing Universally and Irreversibly Disabled Person Not Morally Wrong

Franklin Miller of the National Institute of Health. (Photo: NIH Department of Bioethics)

While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.

[...]

Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.

The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip:

Related:

Eugenics in Action

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

The president of the National Right to Life Committee has penned a new column in which she says the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation is tied to the abortion industry by virtue of its support for Planned Parenthood.

Carol Tobias writes in Legatus, the magazine for Catholic business professionals, that it is natural for Americans to want to help Komen because of the connection most people have to breast cancer, which affects hundreds of thousands of women on an annual basis.

“Almost everyone in America knows a woman who has had breast cancer. Some of those beloved friends and family members may have died from it. So when an organization like Susan G. Komen for the Cure conducts fundraising projects for research, it’s difficult to say no,” Tobias writes. “We’re encouraged to help by buying a certain brand of yogurt or a certain soft drink. Pink ribbons pop up on products everywhere. We can buy items we would normally buy and feel good about helping find a cure.”

But Tobias questions the connection between Komen and Planned Parenthood.

“So if Komen’s mission is to find a cure for breast cancer, why are they giving huge sums of money to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider?” she asks. “According to its Form 990,Komen affiliates gave more than $550,000 to affiliates of Planned Parenthood in 2010. A year earlier, they donated over $731,000. Komen says the grants are used to fund breast exams and mammograms. However, numerous reports confirm that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms. What Planned Parenthood does do is abortion.”

Tobias says Planned Parenthood bills itself as a legitimate health care provider but it is really an abortion business, citing figures from its own annual reports showing abortion comprises a large percentage of what it does.

“The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has carefully crafted a public image as a protector of women’s health. PPFA is also the largest abortion chain in America. It is fully in the abortion business and its bottom line depends on performing more and more abortions,” Tobias writes. “According to PPFA’s 2008-2009 Annual Report, its affiliates performed 332,278 abortions in 2009 — about 27.4% of all abortions performed in the United States. That’s more than double the number that its affiliates performed in 1990, even as the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. dropped 25% during that period.”

“In fact, 12% of its clients receive abortion services, according to a February 2011 Planned Parenthood factsheet. Therefore, nearly one out of every eight women walking through the door of a Planned Parenthood clinic has an abortion. Of the services Planned Parenthood reported that would have involved pregnant women (abortion, prenatal care, adoption referrals), 97.6% were for abortion,” Tobias continues.

Komen defends its donations to Planned Parenthood by saying they only go for breast screenings (that women can do on their own or with a partner or friend) but Tobias says Komen is helping the abortion business build its customer base by getting women in the door for non-abortion reasons.

“Considering all the money that Planned Parenthood takes in, why in the world would Komen divert money that could be put toward breast cancer research to this abortion behemoth? Federal government grants to PPFA are, by law, not allowed to pay for abortion per se, but the money is certainly used to build infrastructure and promote the organization. Komen, too, says the funds it gives PPFA are not used for abortion, but it helps to bring new clients through the door,” the NRLC president says.

The Right to Life president also says Komen needs to begin educating women about the abortion-breast cancer link.

“Komen’s support of the nation’s largest abortion provider is ironic in that, while Komen works to find a cure for breast cancer, Planned Parenthood is providing a “service” that contributes to the increase of breast cancer. There is a substantial body of evidence to show that getting an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Joel Brind, Ph.D., one of the foremost researchers to make the abortion-breast-cancer link, estimates that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year are attributable to induced abortion,” Tobias concludes. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure has created the public image of an organization doing good. Unfortunately, when you think Komen, you have to also think Planned Parenthood; and when you think Planned Parenthood, you have to think abortion.”

Source: LifeNews.com

Side Note:

I have just moved into a new neighborhood.  There is a woman’s clinic down the way that at first glance looked like an all purpose women’s health clinic, but since I walk by there almost daily I quickly realized that it is really an abortion clinic.

Then one day I walked by and there was a new sign:

Abortion Clinic Austin near ESD

To me there was something hauntingly troublesome about the sign. It is a sales pitch offering implied redemption for the women they pray upon.  They have now added a second one.

Abortion Clinic Austin near ESD - 2

Do good women have abortions?  Of course they do. And in large part because of clinics like this and the agenda of planned parenthood.

Everyone who supports clinics like these and is considering an abortion for any reason really needs to do their due dilligence before going through this procedure:

  • Read up on Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood and her beliefs and goals.
  • Read up and watch a few videos on abortion
  • Check into adoption as an alternative.
  • Really alk to someone who has had an abortion more than 5-years prior.
  • Talk to a member of the clergy even if you are not a church-goer even a believer.
  • Check out eugenics and the proponents therof, (using abortion, selective breeding ideas, vaccines and death panels)

Abortion is a decision that could haunt you the rest of your life.

And whether you want to think about it or not, you are taking a life… the life of your unborn child.

And there is a bigger agenda behind the abortion movement!

*Since the sign was put up a local church has adopted this clinic for 24/7 prayre vigial for 40-days and 40-nights.

Ask Marion~