Public school helps student get abortion — thanks, WCIC!

A public school in Seattle reportedly helped a student to get an abortion during school hours without notifying her parents:

SEATTLE — The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter’s abortion during school hours.

What I would tell the mother, though, is that by sending your child to a public school, you are essentially giving up control over that child and handing it to the state.

But this is another example of how public schools see themselves and their role. Thanks, WCIC, for helping these schools do their job!

Advertisements

Stupak and Nelson: PLINOs?

The other option for Congressman Stupak is even more distasteful. Maybe he was playing games all along? We have seen that routine before when it comes to congressional Democrats and abortion funding in the Obama health care package. Remember the principled stand against abortion funding taken by Senator Ben Nelson? That stand led to the now famous Cornhusker Kickback. After securing his home state pork, it became clear that Senator Nelson was never really standing as much on principle as he was on politics.

via Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest. There really is no other option | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

Are Stupak and Nelson just Pro-Life In Name Only?

Difficult logic

Joel Comm, an opponent of the ill-advised health care “reform” being shoved down America’s throat, tweeted this argument:

Only a corrupt government would shove through legislation that the majority of Americans are opposed to

I think it’s politically stupid for them to do this, and I share the sentiment, but ultimately you can’t rule by polls (or Poles).

What if a government was trying to pass legislation that was good for America, but the majority of Americans opposed it for, say, racist or immoral reasons? Would it then be wrong for the government to pass it despite public opposition? There’s a mechanism called “elections” that’s supposed to take care of bad government. (Whether these “election” things do their job is another argument.)

I do believe this is more about control than health care. It’s been that way since Bismarck. Those in favor of government-dominated health care even admit it:

Whoever provides medical care or pays the costs of illness stands to gain the gratitude and good will of the sick and their families. The prospect of these good-will returns to investment in health care creates a powerful motive for governments and other institutions to intervene in the economics of medicine. Political leaders since Bismarck seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party’s interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power. Similarly, employers often furnish medical care to recruit new workers and instill loyalty to the firm. Unions and fraternal societies have used the same means to strengthen solidarity. On more narrowly commercial grounds, insurance companies also gain advantage from serving as middlemen. To be the intermediary in the costs of sickness is a strategic role that confers social and political as well as strictly economic gains.” — Paul Starr in The Social Transformation of Social Medicine, 1982.

Starr is a Princeton U professor of sociology and public affairs who advised Hillary Clinton during her effort to implement universal health care.

Health care vote on ‘Sabbath’?

Rep. Steve King of Iowa and talker Glenn Beck are upset the health care vote apparently will take place on Sunday, which King calls the “Sabbath.”

“They intend to vote on the Sabbath, during Lent, to take away the liberty that we have right from God,” King said on Beck’s radio program Thursday, the Hill reports.

Beck chimed in, “Here is a group of people that have so perverted our faith and our hope and our charity, that is a — this is an affront to God.”

Yeah, well, not really. The Sabbath is the seventh day. Nowhere in the Bible–although Beck’s a Mormon, meaning he has extra scripture–does it say the first day is the Sabbath. And not all Christians observe a pre-Easter season called “Lent.” And if the people calling for this Sunday session aren’t believers, then why should they care, anyway? So of all the procedural objections, this is perhaps the lamest conservatives have come up with. They would have gotten more sympathy by pointing out that the session will conflict with NCAA basketball tournament games.

Census: Fill it out or else … please?

U.S. citizens are required by law to fill out their census forms, according to 2010.census.gov.

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

In fact, it’s stated that we’re required to fill it out right on the envelope.

Why, then, is the government spending, likely, millions of dollars advertising and begging people to respond to the census?

March 16 press release:

The U.S. Census Bureau will be back on the race track as the primary sponsor of the No. 16 Ford Fusion driven by Greg Biffle when the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series visits Bristol Motor Speedway this weekend.

March 15 press release:

As 2010 Census forms arrive in more than 120 million mailboxes across the country this week, several 20-foot-high replicas of the form began touring the nation today.

A typical radio PSA:

[JOSH] An important civic duty.

And there’s this one:

It’s your opportunity to help your community get what it needs for the next 10 years.

But nowhere is it mentioned that if you don’t do it, there’s a fine of up to $100, which, let’s face it, is only a night out for the family at Longhorn Steakhouse.

Still, it’s interesting to see the government soft-pedaling something required by law as “an important civic duty” and to be spending so much money to convince people to do something they’re required to do anyway. I imagine that prosecuting scofflaws would be much more expensive than the fine, but would it be more expensive than sponsoring a NASCAR team? The PSAs may be free, but I know I’ve heard them in some prime-time spots.

I wonder if they’ll do the same if an individual insurance mandate becomes law.

Buying health insurance is an important civic duty. It’s your opportunity to pay for someone else’s poor lifestyle choices. And if you don’t, well, the fines start at $670.

Dem leadership: Fewer children, less spending

Rep. John Stupak, a Democratic pro-lifer, is telling National Review Online that Democratic leadership in the House has sank to new lows when it comes to abortion and health care.

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

So if money for abortion is included in the health care bill, that means fewer people will eventually need health care, thus lowering costs later.

If this is an accurate reflection of what House Dems are telling Stupak, then it’s the most chillingly cynical takes on this issue I’ve yet heard. “Kill them and then we’ll save money down the road.” This reveals that what this is about for Democrats is not helping people, but taking power.

The amazing Obama flight from reality

George Orwell would have been in awe of Barack Obama, who tops his previous doublespeak every time he opens his mouth.

Obama will unveil his health care legislative plan this afternoon. His remarks are breathtaking in their contempt for the intelligence of the average American.

I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.

Yet this is exactly what the Democratic health care legislation will do on both counts.

I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance.

Yet your legislation will take away that control in an unprecedented way.

I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone.

Note the word “alone.” Need to extend that power to government bureaucrats.

I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

They may be the only ones left after government starts determining health care costs and drives the rest of the medical profession out of the profession or overseas.

The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable.

It makes them partners with the government, which is showing itself in this action to be completely unaccountable to the American people.

It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer.

Which is one of the problems. Third-party payment shields the consumer patient from the real cost of their medical care.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

Unless your employer, which is what this new plan is supposedly built on, drops that plan.

 If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Unless your doctor leaves the profession or shutters his/her practice due to lack of proper compensation. Or unless a government plan or government-approved plan doesn’t want to send patients to that doctor.

This guy just doesn’t get it, and I’m beginning to think he never has.

A response to ‘Beelzabubba’s’ post

A response to my post “The law of unintended health care consequences” was so interesting, I wanted to re-post it and give my response in that fresh post:

Law of Unintended Consequences? Is that like when someone who opposes universal health cares gets tossed out by a money-grubbing insurance company? Or their wingnut co-op plan goes belly up? And they find themselves crying to the gubmint to help them? That’s called irony.

No, the law of unintended consequences is when you think you’re doing something that will result in benefits, but don’t or can’t anticipate other results that are not beneficial. Kind of like introducing animals to a region where they have no natural predators. They tend to get out of control, such as the European sparrow or Japanese beetles. Another such example was Legionnaires’ disease. An “improved” venting system was put in place in a hotel that hosted an American Legion conference, and the participants ended up getting sick because of a bacillus that became harmful when spread in water droplets. (Look under “Mystery solved” here.)

As for “money-grubbing insurance companies,” while I don’t like health insurance companies, they are far, far down on the list of industrial profits, number 86, to be exact. Here’s a link.

The entire insurance business would be a lot better off without mandates, as well. Plus, most people who are insured likely won’t get “tossed out” because they’re insured through their employer. Those deals typically can’t exclude based on pre-existing conditions.

I’m not sure which “wingnut co-op plan” you’re talking about. If it’s Samaritan Ministries, which I work for and am a proud member of, that “wingnut co-op plan” has been in business for 15 years and represents 14,000 households. There are two other health care sharing plans as well: MediShare and Christian Healthcare Newsletter. Samaritan alone shares about $3 million a month in medical needs. We are growing at a rapid pace, as well, as Christians strive to get out from under health insurance and government dependence.

Your argument, also, is based on something that hasn’t happened. We haven’t gone bellyup. And if we did, the “gubmint” would be the last institution I’d appeal to for help for my family. First I would look to our extended family for help, then to the church. I do not plan on accepting any Social Security payments or Medicare when I retire, even though I have been paying into it my whole working life. I don’t think it would be right for me to take money that was exacted from another person under threat of imprisonment.