Posted by: Ed | February 4, 2010

News the Public Needs to Know

The Washington Post published two articles this week that bolsters the pro-life side of the argument in two areas: abstinence and end-of-life issues.

The first article appeared on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 regarding a recently published study on abstinence-only education programs. Researchers conducted a study between 2001-2004 that had four groups of children involved. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post article (click here to read the entire article):

Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.

The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

The lead researcher made a statement that can be seen as almost reconciliatory towards pro-lifers who have fought for abstinence-only education programs.

“I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence,” said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. “Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used.”

The second article was published on Thursday, February 2, 2010. A study was conducted on 54 patients in a “vegetative state” to see if their minds were working or not. The study found that some of the patients could indeed hear, react, and respond to outside stimulation. Here is an excerpt (click here to read the entire article):

One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person’s would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

“It was incredible,” said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. “These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies — even blink an eye or move an eyebrow — but yet are entirely conscious. It’s quite distressing, really, to realize this.” …

“This should change the way we think about these patients,” said Nicholas D. Schiff, an associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. “I think it’s going to have very broad implications.” …

As many as 20,000 Americans are in a vegetative state, meaning they are alive and awake but without any apparent sense of awareness, and 100,000 to 300,000 are in a related condition known as a minimally conscious state, in which they exhibit impaired or intermittent awareness. It is unclear what proportion of these patients would be affected by the study’s findings.

The message of pro-life Americans remains the same: all life is precious and valuable regardless of its state of being. For decades Americans have witnessed our values hijacked by a culture that tells us over and over through the popular media that the value of human life, both born and pre-born, is based on what that life contributes or “brings to the table.” “They” set the measuring stick by which “they” determine that value, and “they” use science to bolster their argument for promoting death as a “kind” and “worthy” alternative to life. What will they say as science refutes one of the very yardsticks they use to determine whether it’s time to pull the plug on someone’s beloved family member? Who do you want advocating for your loved one if they end up in a state where they are calling out for your help and compassion but their voices are locked inside them and you cannot hear their cries?

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But..., Sexual Purity | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | January 24, 2010

LCMS and the 2010 March for Life

I participated in my 9th March for Life in Washington DC last week. It was a great day to be in the nation’s capital to show our legislators that we want them to pass laws that defend human life (or correct ones that don’t). After hearing from pro-life legislators from the Senate and the House, we also heard from priests and pastors of the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church, and Evangelical Christians.

According to the organizers, there were 200,000 marchers present in the District along with almost 75,000 “virtual” marchers on the Virtual March for Life website hosted by AUL Action (see article in the  Washington Times).

LCMS World Relief and Human Care had several staff members (including me) participating. We have posted our photos, articles, and interviews on the LCMS website in the LCMS 2010 March for Life Newsroom.

1 Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: ,

Posted by: Ed | December 14, 2009

Forced Abortion in China

I’ve written before about abortion in China, but click here to read (or hear) today’s Chuck Colson Breakpoint message about the testimony of a Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion.

Here is an excerpt from that message:

A Chinese woman called Wujian—not her real name—recently testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about China’s brutal one-child policy. Four years ago, Wujian became pregnant with an “illegal” baby—one conceived without a birth permit.

In an effort to protect her child, Wujian hid in a shack in a remote area. She was lonely and frightened, but took pleasure in feeling her baby begin to move inside her.

But when family planning officials learned where she was, they broke into the house and dragged Wujian into a van. She was taken to a hospital, where she found dozens of other women who had just undergone forced abortions. Some were crying, some were screaming, and one was rolling around the floor in agony. They were, Wujian said, “just like pigs in the slaughterhouse.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the estimated number of abortions worldwide in 2003 (latest estimate available) was 41.6 million abortions. They estimate that, excluding China, the number of abortions was 26.4 million. That would mean an estimated 15.2 million abortions occurred in China during 2003. That is 37 percent of the entire world’s abortions; and apparently, many of them are forced upon the mothers.

Please read or listen to the message from Chuck Colson, then share it with everyone you know. This kind of brutality against women and babies in the womb must be stopped. Click here to read the entire message and links to how you can make your voice heard.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags:

Posted by: Ed | November 5, 2009

Quality Indicators for People with Dementia

Here’s something new for pro-life Americans to be concerned with that showed up in the manager’s amendment to H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act; click here to download a copy.

A new section was added that should cause everyone to question where this so-called “health care reform bill” is heading. The new section is called “Quality Indicators for Care of People with Alzheimer’s Disease” [Sec. 1446].

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop quality indicators for the provision of medical services to people with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias and plan for implementing the indicators to measure the quality of care provided for people with these conditions [Sec. 1446(a)].

Although the wording is ambiguous since this will be a plan that the secretary of Health and Human Services will be creating, it would appear that the services to be provided to patients with mental illnesses will be determined on the quality indicators that are developed. Will this mean that people with a “lesser” so-called “quality of life” be denied medical services? This is but one sign of the intended health care rationing to come if H.R. 3962 were to be enacted.

Meanwhile, an amendment was introduced by Representative John Boehner (OH) (click here to read it) in order to substitute H.R. 3962. It would strike everything after the enacting clause of H.R. 3962 and insert an entirely new bill. This amendment would codify a permanent ban on tax-payer funds from being used to fund abortions and it will codify a conscience protection clause.

The Boehner amendment would explicitly prohibit tax-payer funding of elective abortions, including any monies held in a trust fund to which tax-payer funds were deposited [Sec. 602 of Boehner amendment, amending Title 1 of the United States Code]. Additionally, the amendment would provide for conscience protection by stipulating a penalty for anyone or any entity which discriminates against an individual or any health care entity (e.g. a hospital) for their refusal to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions” [Sec. 602 of Boehner amendment, amending Title 1 of the United States Code].

During the summer, Representative Bart Stupak (MI) and Representative Joseph Pitts (PA) submitted an amendment to H.R. 3200 that would explicitly ban usage of tax-payer funds for abortions (click here to read it). They would like to introduce the same amendment to H.R. 3962, but speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi (CA) is trying to push a “rule” so that there can be no vote on additional amendments to H.R. 3962.

Contact your representative today to tell them to support pro-life amendments and to vote NO on Speaker Pelosi’s rule that would ban a vote on pro-life amendments to H.R. 3962. You can find information on how to call your representative on the National Right to Life webpage by clicking here. This is imperative. The vote on Pelosi’s rule is expected to happen on Friday night (November 6) and the vote on the whole bill is expected to happen on Saturday night (November 7).

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 4, 2009

Biofuels and Health Care

The manager’s amendment to H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act was released last night; click here to download a copy.

After a quick review, I have not seen any changes to the parts of H.R. 3962 that deal with abortion. Therefore, tax-payer funded abortions and all the other concerns I have highlighted remain in the bill (e.g. see “Is Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?“). No one knows for sure when the bill will be voted on, but now that the manager’s amendment has been introduced, the full vote can come as soon as Friday night (November 6).

But what I am really curious about is a new section added to H.R. 3962: “Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit” [Sec. 555]. This new section will amend the Internal Revenue Code so that it covers tax credits for producers of biofuels.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t a health care reform bill actually deal with health care reform? What in the world is a biofuel credit adjustment doing in something as important as this?

It’s not too late to contact your representative and tell them to stop the madness and work on real health insurance and tort reform. Click here to go to the National Right to Life website for more information on how to do this.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 4, 2009

Health Plans Forced to Provide Assisted Suicide Counseling

Another little gem found in H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act involves the requirement for your health insurance plan to provide and pay for assisted suicide counseling.

Section 240 requires that all companies offering a qualified health benefits plan to “provide for the dissemination of information related to end-of-life planning to individuals seeking enrollment in Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered through the Exchange” [Sec. 240(a)(1)]. This section also explicitly states that the insurance company cannot promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing [Sec. 240(a)(3) and Sec. 240(d)(1)].

The problem is that that this section does not “preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life decision-making” [Sec. 240(d)(3)]. Oregon, the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, does not consider their legislation to have allowed “suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” Instead, they consider their legislation to have allowed patients to make a choice to face “death with dignity.” In fact, it is called the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, as is the Washington version passed into law last year.

Thus, your health insurance plan will now be required to promote and pay for “death with dignity” consultations in those states that have passed such legislation. Why is it that this bill is interested in promoting life-ending programs rather than life-saving or life-extending programs?

For more information on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Oregon Department of Human Services . For more information on Washington’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Washington Department of Health.

H.R. 3962 is just plain wrong for America; it does not protect human life and our well-being at any age or any stage as it purports to do; instead it does exactly the opposite: it promotes death and the devaluation of human life.

It is imperative that you contact your senator or representative today via mail, phone calls, and emails. Go to the National Right to life for assistance with how to do this by clicking here.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 4, 2009

Forced to Buy Health Insurance?

H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, includes this little gem:

Section 501 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer is not enrolled in a Health Insurance Exchange qualified health benefits plan at any time during the taxable year, then he will be charged “a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) [of the Internal Revenue Code] with respect to the taxpayer” [Sec. 501(a), amendment to Part VIII, subchapter A, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code]. To see what 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code is, click here .

Maybe it’s just me, but…it sounds dangerously “totalitarian” that my government thinks it has the right to tell me what I must buy – whether it’s a product or a service, like insurance, when it affects only me. According the US Census Bureau, 47 million Americans are uninsured; but many of those folks actually are eligible for health insurance but don’t know it through Medicaid or SCHIP and many of those folks actually choose not to have health insurance even though they can afford it. The American Spectator wrote that a Blue Cross Blue Shield study estimated that the actual number of uninsured Americans is really closer to 8.2 million; click here to see the article. More recently, the Wall Street Journal also publish an article questioning the number of uninsured Americans; click here to read the article.

Yes, we need to help those folks who truly can’t afford health insurance, but H.R. 3962 is not the answer since it includes legislation such as taxing people  (substitute the word “fine”) who don’t want to have health insurance for whatever reason; and taxing people who don’t to participate in a health plan that uses it’s conglomerate funds to pay for services that the person has moral or religious objections to.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 3, 2009

HR 3962 – Tax Surcharge on High Income Earners

I spent most of the past four days reading and re-reading sections of H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act and have come across some surprising details. Click here to download a PDF version of the bill.

For example, Section 551 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer has a “modified adjusted gross income” that exceeds $1,000,000, he will be assessed a 5.4 percent surcharge on the amount over $1,000,000 [Sec. 551(a), amendment to Part VII, subchapter A, chapter 1, Internal Revenue Code]. And oh, by the way, this “shall not be treated as a change in a rate of tax” [Sec. 551(c)].

There is no stipulation in the bill that these funds would or would not be used for health insurance; that these funds would or would not be used to help pay for premiums to the public health insurance option for those who can’t afford it; or that these funds would or would not be used to help offset the start-up costs associated with the public option–set at $2 billion in H.R. 3962.

Maybe it’s just me, but…what in the world does this have to do with health care? And how does this help provide health insurance for those who are uninsured?

Contact your representatives today and tell them to stop HR 3962. Click here to go to the Susan B. Anthony List webpage to send a message to your elected officials.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 2, 2009

Is Tax-Payer Funded Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?

On October 29, 2009, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act. This is the reconciled bill between the competing bills introduced in the House over the summer, including H.R. 3200. Supporters of H.R. 3962 claim that there is a provision that states tax-payer funded abortions will not be allowed according to the bill, so I thought I’d take a closer look to verify their claim. All references to sections are to H.R. 3962 unless otherwise noted.

Section 222 defines what the “Essential Benefits Package” is meant to include. All plans eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange need to meet these minimum services. Unlike H.R. 3200, there is no language H.R. 3962 regarding options for family planning.

Section 321 establishes a Public Health Insurance Option. The public health insurance option is prohibited from providing abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(A)]. However, the public option is allowed to provide abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(B)].

In an effort to defend their claim that there will be no tax-payer funded abortion provision in the bill, proponents of the bill state that the restrictions placed on abortion by the Hyde amendment would fall under this definition and thus prevent the public health insurance option from funding abortions. This defense is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the Hyde amendment only prevents tax-payer funded abortions specifically through Medicaid and appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. It does not address the other potential funding sources for the public health insurance option, such as income tax surcharges and employer penalties for not providing health insurance.

Secondly, the Hyde amendment needs to be renewed every year; so if it is not renewed, then during the next plan year, tax-payer funded abortions can be a part of the public health insurance option.

Finally, this prohibition in H.R. 3962 is placed only on the essential benefits package and does not apply to enhanced or premium benefits packages; thus the public health insurance option can, in fact, provide for tax-payer funding abortions.

For a detailed description of how the Hyde amendment may not apply in this situation, go to the Susan B. Anthony List’s special website called Stop Hyding. Please note that although their website refers to H.R. 3200, the logic and the law are applicable to H.R. 3962 as well.

Aside from the funding issues, as of the time of this writing the only abortion coverage prohibited to the Department of Health and Human Services is partial-birth abortion, which is banned by Federal law. However, if the law changes to allow partial-birth abortions, e.g. if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed as President Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, then tax-payer funded abortions through the public health insurance option would include even these types of abortions.

Do you think it’s right that your tax dollars go to ending human life in the womb? And what about your health insurance provider? Will they be forced to pay for abortions if they morally object to the practice? Will you end up paying for abortions because your premium payments into the health insurance are then used to pay for an abortion that someone else chooses?

H.R. 3962 includes a subsection entitled “Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package” [Sec. 222(e)]. This section prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner to mandate that abortion be covered in the essentials benefits package of a qualified health benefits plan [Sec. 222(e)(1)]. The caveat is that the abortion services are described in Sec. 222(e)(4)(A) and (B) which describe abortion coverage for the public health insurance option. As discussed above, the only type of abortion currently banned is partial-birth abortion and the only funding restriction is based on Medicaid payments.

Thus the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner can, in fact, mandate that your health insurance provider cover abortions in the essential benefits package.

If you don’t want to pay for abortions your tax dollars, it is imperative you contact your representative in Congress today! It is scheduled for a vote by the full House of Representatives later this week. For information on how to contact your representative, see the National Right to Life’s webpage by clicking here.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Abortion, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by: Ed | November 1, 2009

The VA’s “Your Life, Your Choices” Document

In all the hullabaloo regarding H.R. 3200 over the summer, one document that was regarded as an example of how the government would treat end-of-life decisions was the Veterans Affairs’ document Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions.

I had previously written on the LCMS World Relief and Human Care website that this document uses derogatory terms such as “vegetable” when describing a patient. Another problem that I saw was that the document asks the patient to evaluate his life based on what he can or cannot do rather than the inherent value of human life as bestowed upon him by our Creator and through the sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

In H.R. 3200, the advance care planning consultations were mandatory. Enough people made their voices heard and in the current bill in front of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3962, this section has been made voluntary and optional.

But the concerns still remain and the VA’s document is still a good example of what a government document on advance directives and end-of-life decisions would look like. The VA has removed the document from their website and you can no longer obtain it on-line from them. But you can still download it from my blog by clicking here.

Leave a Comment

Posted in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Maybe It's Just Me, But... | Tags: , , ,

Older Posts »

Categories