Connect with us

Healthcare

Justice for the unborn: HHS defines life as ‘beginning at conception’

Published

on

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) changed its strategic plan for 2018-2022 in order to protect the unborn.

Background

Previously, the plan stated in its introduction that “HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving Americans at every stage of life.” The new plan adds after “every stage of life,” the words, “beginning at conception.” It also adds the words after “serving,” “and protecting.”

We’ve stated the obvious for decades. Science has confirmed it many times. However, for some reason, the pro-life position is still “controversial.”

For example, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was unable to give a direct answer to a question about when a baby’s life becomes worth protecting.

It is astonishing that this question needs to be asked at all, but even more astonishing was Richards’ answer.

Answering the question presented by Doug Wagner of WHO Newsradio in Iowa, Richards was flummoxed, stating, “Well, I don’t really, actually—I don’t know that there’s an exact answer for that… [b]ecause what the point is (inaudible) that women have and there are, as you know, restrictions on women’s ability to terminate a pregnancy—and when they can, but until a pregnancy is viable they have the right to make that decision.”

Planned Parenthood CEO: ‘I don’t know’ when preborn humans get rights; that’s not ‘the point’ | The Pulse | LifeSite

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/planned-parenthood-ceo-when-preborn-humans-get-rights-is-not-the-pointThe unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations.

Analysis

Her answer is quite interesting, since Richards’ employees have been caught on camera laughing about harvesting fetal organs from viable unborn babies, and, to my knowledge, she hasn’t condemned it.

But assuming Richards finds out what anyone who isn’t a radical abortionist knows, that a baby is fully formed in the womb at around eight weeks, would she close down her organization? Of course not. Because it’s not just about abortion, it is about a godless worldview on the Left. The Left is largely secular and does what it can to banish God and religion from the public. As such, they become gods, and, as gods, they can decide what is life and what is not.

As one of my favorite commentators, Steve Deace, pointed out in a tweet on Sunday in response to Richards outrageous statement, that “actually it’s the only point you unrepentant murderess.”

Deace’s response may sound harsh to some, but it’s true nonetheless.

The Takeaway

I don’t believe that everyone who is pro-choice is necessarily a murderer, but there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, the latter describing Richards, and most of the Left. As such, it is truly telling that Richards tolerates, and even seems to support, the frivolous behavior of her employees selling dead fetal organs and shilling for abortion-on-demand, among many other evil acts showing the disregard they hold for human life.

Planned Parenthood, and the radical abortion movement as a whole, is the face of true evil. And for that, I fully agree with Deace.

And I applaud HHS, and President Trump’s, decision to change its strategic plan. It may only be mere five-word addition, but it truly makes a difference in the attitude towards life of President Trump and his administration. For someone who stated a mere fifteen years ago on TV that he was “very pro-choice,” Trump’s move is truly courageous. And even if it’s a small step to address the travesty of abortion, and even if one doesn’t like the president for other reasons, we on the pro-life side should applaud him for his growth and change of heart here.

Follow Jeremy Frankel on Facebook and Twitter, and subscribe to his YouTube channel.

Jeremy Frankel is a Human Resource Coordinator based in New Jersey. An Orthodox Jew, he is also a writer for The Daily Wire and Red Alert Politics. You can follow him on Twitter at @frankeljeremy.

Federalists

The Obamacare Debacle: Why we need a second political party

Published

on

By

Sometimes you simply hope that your predictions will be wrong and that events will miraculously turn out differently; unfortunately, this is not one of those times. Most people with a modicum of common sense anticipated that the Republicans would now take the blame for the troubles of Obamacare, and that has come to pass.  The aphorism ‘You broke it, you bought it’ comes to mind, and while somewhat unfair to the situation, perception is reality in the world of politics.

Tear it down and start over.

While not endeavoring to reign blows upon a deceased equine, this is why the Republican party needed to keep its promise on Obamacare. It’s also the reason why it’s time to sweep away the old and begin anew with a brand new second major political party. That phrase was deliberately used because it has become quite evident that the Republican and Democratic parties have started to merge in far too many ways.

The Obamacare debacle is a prime illustration of this unfortunate merging. O’Sullivan’s First Law explains this to a fair degree since the denizens of a certain party will – over time – want to keep the bureaucratic levers of power with the false idea that they can have it run more efficiently. Besides the simple expedient of term limits, a new party could start anew with a mandate to avoid this political trap.

An illustration from the world of engineering seems more than appropriate in this instance. There are times when a machine or structure has become so riddled with worn out or failed components that it is far better to simply scrap or tear it down and build something from scratch. The aphorism is to start with a clean sheet of paper such that the old assumptions and constructs are swept away in favor of something entirely new and innovative. “We’ve always done it this way” is replaced with questioning skepticism with regard to what works, and what doesn’t.

Existing components that have proven to be of service can be utilized in the new construct but only if they meet certain criteria, not simply because they are carried along with everything else of the old. By the same token, members of the old party can become a vital part of the new but only if they are up to the task.

The final word on the Republican party.

It is more than likely that the people responsible for that bureaucratic mess will use it to good political advantage against those who opposed it in the first place. We should be getting rid of governmental interference in the free market, but instead will see a complete control with national socialist healthcare [i.e., the ‘single payer’ deception].

There is no other choice than to limit the damage now with a new party that will stay true to conservative principles. The results of the alternative are too horrible to contemplate.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Chuck Schumer threatens Obamacare fix over GOP tax bill repealing individual mandate

Published

on

Chuck Schumer threatens Obamacare fix over GOP tax bill repealing individual mandate

Chuck Schumer went after the GOP’s proposed tax plan today, saying the bill the Democrats currently support to bail out Obamacare, Alexander-Murray, will not get their support if Obamacare’s individual mandate is repealed.

“Any Republican senator who thinks they can pass the individual mandate and then turn around and get Alexander-Murray passed is dead wrong.”

The Senate Minority Leader has supported the plan to save the Affordable Care Act, but is now holding it hostage to try to preserve the individual mandate that forces millions of Americans to pay for health insurance they don’t want.

Further Reading

Chuck Schumer: Democrats won’t back Alexander-Murray if Obamacare individual mandate is repealed

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chuck-schumer-democrats-wont-back-alexander-murray-if-obamacare-individual-mandate-is-repealed/article/2640780Republicans on Tuesday added repeal of the individual mandate, which requires Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, to their tax overhaul bill. Senate GOP leaders also said that if it were to pass, they would also be willing to take up a bipartisan bill known as Alexander-Murray, which includes payments to insurers and flexibility for states. The proposal was meant to win over centrist Republicans, who worry about some of the projections from the Congressional Budget Office showing that 13 million more people would be uninsured in a decade if the individual mandate were to be repealed.

Continue Reading

Healthcare

It’s a health issue: The left opens up a new front in the war on liberty

Published

on

By

Its a health issue The left opens up a new front in the war on liberty

The desire for control has differentiated Left from Right, now the Left is using health concerns to further this effort

The desire for control on the part of the Left is the main difference between the two sides of the political divide. As a general rule, Left continually advocates increased government control with everything from taxation to climate change. One of the Left’s newest methods is to use health issues with nary a concern over those pesky notions of liberty and freedom.

The Left began using this with the 2nd amendment, with everyone’s health and safety taking precedent over that restraint on the government. And now they are expanding the assault, moving into the areas of free-speech

The Leftist case for restricting liberty due to health concerns

Back in June the LA Times published an Op-ed basing the need for restricting free-speech on health issues:

The case for restricting hate speech

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nielsen-free-speech-hate-20170621-story.htmlIn fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders.

And most recently the New York Times published an opinion piece titled: We’re Sick of Racism, Literally In that opinion piece, the author asserts that one doesn’t even experience racism ‘in person’ to have an adverse impact on their health:

Worse, we know that racism doesn’t have to be experienced in person to affect our health — taking it in the form of news coverage is likely to have similar effects.

The piece concludes with this:

We shouldn’t need the specter of disease to denounce hatred in all its forms. Racism, bigotry, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, should have no place in our society. But the illness associated with discrimination adds injury to insult and magnifies the suffering of these times.

The Takeaway

One can easily see where this is going to lead. Soon enough it will be more important to remove the restraints of the 1st and 2nd amendments on the government due to health concerns – no matter the consequences to liberty – because who can argue against better health for everyone?

The problem is that history has shown that increasing Leftist control has always lead to far worse consequences than detailed in these opinion pieces.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.