Long and short of it…I’ve been advised to stay as far away from politics as I can get.  I’m going to share the same story with you that someone else shared with me just a while ago.

A farmer has a few acres of land.  He wants to be an apple grower.  A successful apple grower.  And in the profession of farming, like in life, you reap what you sow.

The farmer has one problem.  He’s the kind of person who tends to take things at face value.  Far more than he should actually.  There is information coming in to him about all these things that would be “good” for him to do to succeed as a farmer, and this information is coming in from a lot of different sources.  But he doesn’t verify the information, to make sure that it is true.  He just accepts it at face value and allows it to influence his actions.

Long and short of it is that he because he responds to situations this way, he ends up leaving himself wide open to being misled and deceived on a lot of different things.  In the long run, this limits his ability to succeed and has an impact on what he reaps.

A day in time comes when the farmer is provided with enough of insight to realize…he’s the kind of person who can be easily deceived by things in life. He hates this about himself.  He hates the way it has influenced his life.  He hates the way that it has limited his ability to succeed.  He hates the kind of impact that it has had on his family.  There are a lot of things about it he despises, through and through.

After this time, the outlook that the farmer has on life completely changes.  He becomes more guarded, questioning things in a way that he never did before.

Something else happens for the farmer as well.  He finds himself with almost a sixth sense.  If there’s something in a situation that a person could be deceived by, he senses it.  He may not be able to tell you all the details of what or why, but he knows that it exists.

It’s an eerie kind of thing to watch that farmer now, because in a metaphorical sense, he can look at a basket of apples and say “there’s a rotten one in the bunch, and if you don’t get it out, it will ruin the whole basket”.  Someone might respond by saying, “Looks all right to me”.  But after all the farmer has gone through, if there is one thing he knows, it is this….

Looks can be deceiving.  Human beings can be deceived by the way things seem to be.

In the story that I’ve related to you….I’m the farmer.  The advice that I’ve been given is based on the reality that there is a lot of deceitfulness that goes on in politics, and because of things that have taken place, when the potential to be deceived exists…I’ll pick up on it like that farmer senses a bad apple in a basket.

Problem with it is…that it can drive other people totally nuts!!

And after today, I’m inclined to agree on that point.

So, for those that I might have driven to the brink of distraction today, I hope you will accept this apology.

My family knows that this is the kind of person I have become.  It drives them nuts, too.  I can assure you of that.

All the same, they do question things more with me around.  So it does serve a positive purpose.

In 2008, we heard the slogan of “Hope and Change” and of “fundamental transformation” of America.  At the time, candidate Barack Obama made numerous statements about what kind of change we might see where that transformation was concerned….it was to be a post-racial America; an America where lack of health insurance coverage did not exist; an America where jobs for the middle-class would be plentiful; an America where high-quality education would be provided…on and on the promises for the future, for “Hope and Change”, were presented and talked about.

Since that time, what has the reality become?  Higher national debt.   Less job availability.  Citizens losing their homes.  Greater dependency on government welfare.   Regulatory stifling of jobs. Suppression of religious freedom.

The promises and the outcomes do not match, do they?

What we will be hearing for the next 6 months is that the current administration, under President Obama’s leadership, “needs more time”.  Time for what?  To move forward.  To bring about “progress”.

This time, we need to be asking more questions.  And we should be encouraging other Americans to ask more questions as well.

Moving forward …in what direction?  By what methods?  For what purpose?  To gain or accomplish what objectives?  With what outcomes in mind?

What this diary is intended to do is provide a forum where we take what we have learned about President Obama and his administration, what their methodologies of choice have proven to be in the past three years, etc., and we compile it in a way that allows us to know what kinds of questions to ask.

How will this help us?  By giving us a baseline of the right kinds of questions that we can also share with our fellow citizens this time around.

Whether we like him or not, Mitt Romney is going to need our help if he’s going to pull in a win in November.  What help we may or may not be willing to contribute can come in many different forms…money, boots on the ground, and just plain, old simple networking. 

I’m just one person, and there can be questions that I wouldn’t think of that someone else might.  There can be details that someone else might see that I do not see.  There can be facts that someone else is aware of that I do not know.

So, can we work together on this for the sake of putting together data and facts, and be ready to ask and answer the right questions this time?

If so, start listing them below.

The challenges to Obama’s health care initiative didn’t begin in the conservative legal academy. They didn’t even really blossom in the conservative legal media or think tanks. The real energy of these challenges arose out of those Tea Party town halls throughout the summer of 2010, in response to a longing to return to constitutional values, states’ rights, and ideas of individual liberty that have been dead for almost a century. (emphasis mine)

So sayeth the “esteemed” Dahlia Lithwick in her most recent article entitled “It’s Not About the Law, Stupid”.  For those who aren’t familiar with Ms. Lithwick, she is a Canadian citizen who graduated with a B.A. in English from Yale in 1990.  Since the date of her graduation, her singular purpose in life seems to have been to ingratiate herself into American society in such a way that she is capable of presenting “credible” writings and opinions on American law.  Ms. Lithwick is the senior editor of Slate and a contributing editor to Newsweek.

I have no means of explaining why Ms. Lithwick seems to believe that American citizens should lend credence to anything she has to say on the matter of Obamacare.  She is neither a lawyer nor a health care policy expert.  She is not an American citizen, and quite obviously, as displayed in the closing words of the above quote, she doesn’t even remotely begin to understand the desire that law-abiding citizens have to see our Constitution, along with all of the rights and responsibilities included in it, protected and preserved within this country.

Yet she has interjected herself into a discussion that is of primary concern to American citizens all the same.  What’s more, she’s done so in such a way to project aspersions on the American legal system, and specifically on the five conservatives Supreme Court justices.  If you’re looking for something to set your blood boiling, read the entirety of her article.  It’s filled with little more than attempts at projection that would support her narrative of why the individual mandate will be upheld while demeaning the integrity of the more conservative justices on SCOTUS at the same time.  Take this comment, for example:

So that brings us to the really interesting question: Will the Court’s five conservatives strike it down regardless? That’s what we’re really talking about next week and that has almost nothing to do with law and everything to do with optics, politics, and public opinion. (emphasis mine)

The aspersions cast on the American legal process by Ms. Lithwick’s article are irritating to say the least, but I have to admit that I chuckled in spite of my irritations upon reading the above statements.  Realistically speaking, the general consensus is that it is the liberal justices, i.e. Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan, who are far more likely to see the hearings as nothing more than a political opportunity, and that our hopes for having Obamacare reviewed fairly within the context of the law lies in the hands of the five conservative justices.

Ms. Lithwick seems desperate to persuade her viewers to believe otherwise.  In fact, a number of liberals now seem desperate in their efforts to reassure themselves that Obamacare will be affirmed rather than rejected.  You can view their efforts for yourself here, here, and here, for starters.  Ms. Lithwick even alludes to such herself in her article….

The only question is whether they [the conservative Supreme Court justices] will ignore it all to deprive the Obama of one of his signature accomplishments (and again, emphasis mine)

In this context, the “signature accomplishment” of “the Obama” is also a key building block for following through with the “fundamental transformation of America” that would cause our nation to become a more socialistic society rather than a republic.  Rejection of the individual mandate by SCOTUS would signify upholding the fundamental principles of rule of law and support for our republic.  Of all things to occur, particularly during an election season, this has to be their greatest fear.

On the other hand, if SCOTUS upholds the individual mandate…what then?  Just from the comments that have been made in various articles written by liberals (and of course, seeing that they are rarely if ever truly honest, evaluating what they may be hoping for and why requires a bit of speculation), I think they are hoping that if the individual mandate is upheld, this will signal acquiesce (if not support) on part of SCOTUS for the fundamental transformation of America to be completed.  The opposition to Obamacare, and through it socialism, will be refuted and silenced.  The right wing “nuts”, “extremists” and “racists” would be left dispirited and discouraged, unable to generate enough public support to win the election in November of 2012.  This is what I believe them to be hoping for and striving to accomplish in the articles they are currently presenting to the public.

I suppose it is possible that the outcome they desire could become a reality, but I do not think it will take place in this way.  After all, there is evidence to substantiate that the majority of Americans (56%) still favor repeal of Obamacare.  There is also evidence to substantiate that 72% of Americans, spanning across the entire political spectrum, see the individual mandate as being unconstitutional.  It would be far more likely for opposition to increase and for the ranks of those who support protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States to grow larger still.  In short, upholding the individual mandate could have the opposite effect of what liberals, in their never-ending “all-knowing” intelligentsia sort of way, are hoping will come to pass.

It stills remains to be determined what SCOTUS will decide.  I can only hope and pray that all of members of SCOTUS will uphold their Constitutional duty in evaluating Obamacare within the context of the law rather than one of the political machinations and manipulations presented to them by anyone.

As for We the People, I hope that we will be of like mind in proving liberals wrong…in showing them, in no uncertain terms, that they do NOT define the outcomes of this for us.  We define the outcome.  We define it with our determination and persistence.  We define it with our enthusiasm.  We define it with our loyalty and allegiance to the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty.

And most of all, we define it with our votes.

Come November, let’s prove to them beyond any shadow of doubt that the battle for our nation is not yet over…not even close.

The USA Today was the first to respond to the outcome of vote to repeal the IPAB this afternoon.  In their article, the author describes the quandary currently being faced by lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

The GOP has branded the Independent Payment Advisory Board a rationing panel, and Republicans hope the symbolic 223-181 vote to repeal it will persuade seniors that they, and not the Democrats, are the best stewards of Medicare.

IPAB would have the power to force cuts to service providers like drug companies if Medicare costs rise beyond predetermined levels. A Republican Medicare plan announced this week would also limit Medicare cost increases, but rely more on market competition.

(snip)

All sides agree that Medicare as currently structured will not be able to pay its bills in the long run. The main options to control costs are unpalatable: tax increases, benefit cuts and cost shifts to middle- and upper-income retirees. Most Republicans and Democrats also agree now that there has to be a limit on future Medicare increases. The question is how.

Republicans would convert Medicare into a system dominated by private health insurance plans closely regulated by the government. Future retirees would get a fixed payment to buy either private coverage or sign up for a new government plan modeled on traditional Medicare. They count on competition among the plans to help keep costs in check, but the annual government payment would also be limited by tying it to a measure of economic growth.

(snip)

Obama and the Democrats would take a far different approach to cost control, and that’s where the IPAB board comes in.

IPAB has the power to force payment cuts to service providers if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to substitute its own plan for savings. But the law explicitly forbids the board from rationing care, shifting costs to seniors, or cutting their benefits. The Democrats would put the burden on service providers, such as drug companies, insurers and eventually, hospitals

I’ll give the USA Today this much credit…most of the points from the article that I’ve included above are true.  Both Republicans and Democrats agree that Medicare costs are on an unsustainable path.  They do have very different ideas about how to solve the problem.

But this is as much truthfulness as was included in the article.  The author had the opportunity to expand on one of the most significant points pertaining to IPAB when they included this in the article:

Obama has yet to name anyone to the panel, whose 15 members must be confirmed by the Senate. Government economists are forecasting a period of manageable Medicare costs, meaning that IPAB’s services may not be needed until sometime around the end of the decade.

Since the author of the USA Today could not bring themselves to be totally honest about the subject with their readers, I’ll attempt to elaborate on the key point now.

The members of IPAB are appointed by the President, not elected.  The Independent Payment Advisory Board is just that…Independent, with no constraints, not even from Congress itself.  So the choice made by the President could have a tremendous impact on not only on our entire health care system but also in regards to who lives and who dies in this country.  The voices of those we elect to represent us, locally, would become completely and totally moot.

In considering the facts stated above about IPAB….let’s suppose for a second that President Obama wins the election in November, 2012.  We’ll take it even further and speculate that appointees to IPAB could have the same kind of mindset that has been displayed by Ezekiel Emanuel, who has served as health care advisor to President Obama. What kind of impact could this have on IPAB’s role in our society?

Well, we can evaluate this for ourselves by recalling earlier remarks that Mr. Emanuel has made:

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.”

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

(snip)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a “complete lives system” for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. “One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

(snip)

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.” (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009). (emphasis mine)

And for those who might be questioning whether the likes of someone such as Ezekiel Emanuel could be genuinely sincere in their viewpoint regarding the very young, you’re more than welcome to view recent reports of post-abortion discussions by medical ethicists.  They are sincere in this….deadly sincere, as the case may be.

It would all come to down to who is appointed to IPAB to implement these “cost-saving decisions”.  Actually, it all comes down to the mentality, mindset and ideology of the President who appoints the members of IPAB.

Obamacare is a horrible piece of legislation.  It’s more than a threat to just our freedoms and liberties…it’s a threat to our autonomy on even having the right to live.

I know that as Conservatives we should be waiting for and pursue full repeal of this legislation, but I for one would be thankful beyond what I could name if this single part of  the legislation is repealed NOW.

The likelihood that it will be is slim.  All the same, I hope that anyone reading this will recognize the tremendous threat that IPAB via Obamacare represents to all Americans, present and future, and that they will share this information with others to ensure that the truth is known.

Well, after vomiting thoroughly and crying for a while, I’m ready to rant! 

Let’s begin with this article at the Weekly Standard, which discusses an article entitled “After-birth Abortion:  Why Should The Baby Live?” that was written by medical ethicists and printed in the “esteemed” Journal of Medical Ethics last month.  (The original article has been pulled from Internet access since the date it was published.)

The argument made by the authors?—?Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both of them affliliated with prestigious universities in Australia and ethicists of pristine reputation?—?runs as follows. Let’s suppose a woman gets pregnant. She decides to go ahead and have the baby on the assumption that her personal circumstances, and her views on such things as baby-raising, will remain the same through the day she gives birth and beyond.

Then she gives birth. Perhaps the baby is disabled or suffers a disease. Perhaps her boyfriend or (if she’s old-fashioned) her husband abandons her, leaving her in financial peril. Or perhaps she’s decided that she’s just not the mothering kind, for, as the authors write, “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”

The authors point out that each of these conditions?—?the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome??—??is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either. Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time

Oh, yes, by all means…we must eliminate this human being before any claims of awareness can be made.

But they don’t stop there, of course.

The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian?—?a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

They get you coming and going, these guys. They assume?—?and they won’t get much argument from their peers in the profession?—?that “mentally impaired” infants are eligible for elimination because they will never develop the properties necessary to be fully human. Then they discuss Treacher-Collins syndrome, which causes facial deformities and respiratory ailments but no mental impairment. Kids with TCS are “fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails,” and are therefore, to spare them a life of such unpleasant awareness, eligible for elimination too?—?because they are not mentally impaired. The threshold to this “right to life” just gets higher and higher, the more you think about it.

The left has just revealed in all their hideous glory how determined they are to define what “right to life” means within our society.  They are the “elites”.  They are the “intellectuals”.  They are the ones in their own self-defined wisdom who possess the ability to address such issues.  What’s more, they even admit as much in the apology that was posted at the Journal of Medical Ethics, just before the article was pulled into oblivion and hidden from public eyes.

“We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened,” they wrote. “The article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments.” It was a thought experiment. After all, among medical ethicists “this debate”?—?about when it’s proper to kill babies?—?“has been going on for 40 years.”

Now, for the rant…

I’ve never, ever, called anyone an idiot before in my entire life.  No matter how disgusted I might be or how foolish and ignorant I believed their opinion to be, I just didn’t do it.  But these people are idiots of the highest degree!!!  Dangerous idiots!!

Let’s take a second and think about IPAB, or the Independent Patient Advisory Board that is included in ACA, otherwise known as Obamacare.  If the left is allowed to define for us who does and/or does not have the “right to life”, then they could use this as an excuse to eliminate (although the proper word should probably be exterminate) anyone they choose.

They could stipulate that an amniocentesis is required for any and all pregnant females, for the purpose of drawing genetic material that might identify any genetic defects of the child, and they would be in the position to determine whether or not that child lives or dies.  In such a case, abortion could be mandated.

They could stipulate that human beings who have what would be defined as “special needs” would not be allowed the “right to life”, and that care for these human beings will be prohibited under the law.

They could stipulate that anyone who suffers a traumatic injury that would require highly-intensive specialized health care for long periods of time are not “productive members of society” and therefore should be denied the “right to life”, and provision of care for these citizens would be prohibited under the law.

The list just goes on and on and on the hideous crimes against humanity that could be perpetuated under the guise of “providing for the general well-being of the public”.

Conservatives, we have to get organized against this!  We have to make sure that we are educated and aware as to the facts of any and all efforts being made by the left attacking our freedom to even live and breathe in this nation of ours!

There is only one website that I’m familiar with that contains information about legislative measures that are being pursued to protect all human beings in this nation of ours from the pro-death agenda (and we are now to the point that we can’t call it anything other than “pro-death”) of the left.

http://www.nrlc.org/  (National Right to Life Committee)

If you know of other sites or if there are groups you are aware of that are attempting to play an active role in protecting and preserving the right to life of all citizens in our country, please share that information in the comments.

Thank you for reading.

Mar. 14, 2012

Dear Speaker Gingrich,

As far as I’m concerned, you are the “man for the times”, sir.  Our nation very badly needs a dose of the kind of creativity and ingenuity you have been presenting to find long-term solutions to our problems.  However, it seems that a significant portion of the general public disagrees with me on this, Speaker Gingrich.  I’m saddened by it to say the least, but not totally disheartened because of secret hopes of my own which are described below.

You alone can make the decision to stay in the race or withdraw from it, sir.  If you determine that withdrawing from the race is the best choice to make, then perhaps you will consider staying proactively involved in this year’s electoral battle, even to the point of taking a leadership role in that battle, by focusing your many talents and abilities into another front of this battle we’re waging.

With the above possibility in mind, I’m just going to “throw” this idea at you, as the saying goes.  If you determine that it is feasible and something you would be willing to do, you can take it from there.

We all know that the left is very organized in their efforts.  I have no doubt that we will be seeing just how organized they truly are in the months to come.  They will be utilizing every tool that they have to their advantage to help President Obama in his quest to gain “more time” from the American people, and given their proclivity for being unscrupulous in their usage of such tools, underestimating them is the worst choice we could make right now.

As we go into the summer, a few economic forces could come into play, such as rising gas prices, that could increase retail prices for goods, put greater pressure on business owners (particularly small business owners), and drain more expendable income out the little that remains in the pockets of many American citizens.  The mental and emotional impact of these economic forces on individual consumers could generate a broad spectrum of responses that range from severe discouragement to extreme anger.

For the left, they often attempt to use emotive reasoning as a basis for presenting their case and drawing more people to their side politically.  In this particular situation, I believe they are also attempting to manipulate economic forces in such a way that it would be dispiriting and disheartening to those of us on the right end of the political spectrum.  If they can succeed in this, get us discouraged or disheartened, then this could assist them in winning the election in November simply via a decrease in the number of voters exercising their right to vote.

We genuinely need an organized effort coming from our side to counter their efforts, sir.  It is possible that individuals such as yourself, Ms. Palin, Mr. Perry, and others who might be interested in doing so, could provide We the People with an inspirational influence that keeps our spirits high, even in the face of tough times.  This might be accomplished and achieved via a project of such some…a freedom-lovers tour…that puts an emphasis on freedom, liberty, and preserving our Constitution.  It is also possible that incorporating a few Tenth Amendment issues, such as school choice, could help to expand interest in the message coming from our end of the political spectrum and draw more people to our side.

If such an effort is successful, it could assist us in keeping enthusiasm high going into the months ahead, which could have significant impact on down-ticket Congressional races in the fall.  This type of effort could also be a means of countering the left’s attacks with a positive organized effort of our own, which might earn and gain us greater respect with the general public.

It is only a suggestion, Speaker Gingrich, but I hope that you or others might take it seriously.

I wish the best of success to you, sir, regardless of what you might choose about whether to remain in this race or to withdraw from it.  Many thanks to you as well for your love of our country, your obvious belief and confidence in We The People, and your desire to provide leadership in these tough times.

Respectfully……

The following video came to me via personal email this morning.  I wanted to share it with others at RS because the message it presents is one of faith that we can carry with us each and every day in these uncertain times we’re facing.

This is an interview of the pilot that should have been in the pilot’s seat on Flight 11, Sept. 11^th, 2001.  He relates the series of events that occurred during the day on Sept. 10^th of that year, and then draws a correlation about how those events have served to reinforce his sense of purpose and direction in life.

The pilot’s message is one of living life with a sense urgency and focusing on the final outcomes….of hearing “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”.

As a Christian, I genuinely enjoyed the video, and my thanks go out to those who took the time to present it.  It’s so easy, when faced with uncertainty in the world around us, to become distracted by events or to get caught up in what’s going on, mentally and emotionally.  And in doing so, we can forget to be consciously aware of our actions and of the opportunities that God provides for each and every day.

God tells us that we each reap what we sow.  Things don’t always go the way we want them to go.  There are many things in life itself that we have no control over whatsoever.  But in all things, regardless of what kind of circumstances may exist, we face the same challenge…it all comes down to what kind of seed we choose to sow.

It is within our means to choose to sow the kind of seed that will reap blessings.  Blessings aren’t always limited to this earthly life or to ourselves as individuals.  They can spill over into the lives of those around us and into the context of all eternity as well.

God is providing us with opportunity after opportunity to determine what kind of seed we will choose to sow.  Just because those opportunities come to us via tough times doesn’t mean that what we choose no longer matters.  It does matter.  It can make all the difference in the world in the long run.

My hope and my prayer is that we can find the courage, strength of will, determination, perseverance, and conviction to put the opportunities we have to good use, in all that we do, each and every day.

To all my fellow Christians and patriots at RS, may you have a blessing-filled day today and for many days to come.

Just some brief information about this…

There’s a piece of legislation, H.R. 452, in the House of Representatives that we should keep a close eye on during this month.  Its purpose is to repeal IPAB, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Boards (also known as the “death panels”).

This legislation has 227 cosponsors in the House and has been passed by the Energy and Commerce Health subcommittee by a vote of 17-5.  The legislation now proceeds to the Senate.

H.R. 452 is also receiving strong support from doctors:

Last week, 24 medical organizations representing 350,000 doctors urged Congress to repeal Medicare’s new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). That’s the right prescription for improving American health care and protecting access to innovative treatments for seniors. Unless repealed, IPAB will quash medical innovation and make it even harder to adopt Medicare reforms that can improve quality and lower costs.

An important part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, IPAB was designed to address a real problem: the unsustainable growth in Medicare spending. At present, there is a $280 billion gap between the premiums and payroll taxes flowing into federal coffers and the Medicare checks being sent out. As 10,000 more seniors join the roles each day, the red ink will threaten the program’s future.

(snip)

Ironically, Medicare payment cuts already required by the Affordable Care Act will make many providers “unprofitable”, according to Medicare’s own actuary. Although IPAB is prohibited by statute from “rationing” access to care, slashing reimbursements will drive more providers to limit services for Medicare recipients – creating de facto rationing.

Price controls distort health care spending and services. IPAB will only increase the distortion, because it exempts hospitals and hospices from cuts until 2019. During the interim, cuts will fall most heavily on physicians, Medicare Advantage plans, medical device makers, and pharmaceutical companies.

Thus the uneven burden of IPAB’s cost discipline will penalize some of the most innovative and potentially cost-saving technologies – like new (and expensive) drugs for Alzheimer’s, which might save money in the long run by keeping patients out of nursing homes. IPAB’s focus on year-to-year cuts also discourages Medicare from implementing quality and cost-containment programs that might save money over the long term.

One of the most important elements of IPAB is accountability:

Finally, IPAB is nearly unaccountable. Unlike other federal rulemaking bodies, the board faces no obligation to engage in public notice and comment, no judicial review of its decisions, and no appeal of its directives. Even Congress has had its hands tied by IPAB. It must review IPAB’s recommendations on a “fast track”, and they can’t be overruled without a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate. Even then, Congress’ only option is to propose its own cuts of the same size or greater.

We need to eliminate this section of O-care, if we can.  And with doctors on board, if we as Conservatives will rally behind them, there’s a chance that we can succeed.

So check out the list of co-sponsors and see if your own personal “Congress critter” is listed.  If not, why not drop them a note letting them know that you support repeal…and that you are paying attention!

Prelude:  I’m not sure how to explain to people what we’re looking at right now regarding Medicaid expansion, but I’m going to try to do it anyway, because this is an important factor that has to be taken into consideration as it pertains to what lies ahead.  Take this in the context of just another reason to keep O-care front and center. 

Do you remember back in 2009 when the conversation about O-care first began?  The argument being presented by the Dems was that we have 32 million people uninsured in our country and that this needed to be resolved.

What they didn’t tell everyone at the time was their primary vehicle of expansion for resolving this issue is the expansion of Medicaid enrollment.  Of the 32 million people they mentioned, approximately ½ or 16 million people were targeted to be enrolled in Medicaid.

Then we have to add into the scenario that we’ve lost approximately 6 million jobs since 2008.  So rather than 16 million people, we could easily be looking at 22 million people (not including the dependents of those who may have lost their health insurance via a subscriber’s loss of their job).

To do a little benchmarking, in June of 2009, 46.9 million people were enrolled in Medicaid.  This was before the rise of unemployment really began to take its heaviest toll.

According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) data for National Health Expenditures (NHE) report for 2009:

NHE accounted for 17.6% of GDP (it has since increased to 18%)

Medicare spending equaled $502.3 billion (20% of NHE)

Medicaid spending equaled $373.9 billion (15% of NHE)

Doing a little basic math, if 46.9 million were enrolled in Medicaid in 2009 at a cost of $373.9 billion, the cost per person within the Medicaid program was approximately $7,972.  Suppose we add the potential increase in enrollment of 22 million to the 46.9 million provided in the 2009 data.  This equals 68.9 million people.  Then multiply this by the cost per person of $7,972 and we see that this increases costs of the Medicaid program to $549.2 billion dollars. This exceeds the current amount we are investing into Medicare each year!

Mandated expansion of Medicaid has already begun.  It wasn’t slated for implementation until 2014, but because of the reductions in disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments that are incorporated into the formula for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, and the fact that DHHS has scheduled these reductions to begin in 2013, regardless of what states and/or health care organizations might wish for…this doesn’t leave the state or health care providers with a lot of options.

The necessary increase in taxes at the state level to cover the required expansion of Medicaid has been projected to reach approximately 34% average per state.

Medicaid is our “sleeper” entitlement program that genuinely deserves a higher level of scrutiny than it has been receiving so far.   

The basic premise of the amicus brief filed by the Institute of Justice addresses four primary points.

•  THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE VIOLATES THE LONGSTANDING AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL ASSENT THAT IS AT THE HEART OF ALL CONTRACTS
• THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ERASES THE DISTINCTION, LONG ACKNOWLEDGED BY THIS COURT, BETWEEN THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AND THE POWER TO COMPEL IT
• THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A “PROPER” EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POWER UNDER THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL ASSENT
• THIS COURT SHOULD ENFORCE APPROPRIATE LIMITS ON CONGRESS’S POWER

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t even attempt to construct explanations pertaining to the information included in the amicus brief.  I hope one of the legal eagles here at RS might consider chiming in and sharing their knowledge of the legal system by explaining a bit more about the implications of this brief.

Just passing along the following information and the video, folks.

“If government-mandated health insurance is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) case is argued in March 2012, the Institute for Justice warns in its amicus brief that there will be dire and predictable threats to individual liberty and voluntary relations that have been the foundation of American contract law for centuries.

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute’s Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ’s brief, said, “The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power.”

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle.

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice’s brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.”

Aaaannnndddd, we have ourselves a majority, folks!

This is the best news I’ve heard in a while.  Check it out:

Question:

As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine.  Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional?

Results:

All Americans         20% say Constitutional while 72% say Unconstitutional

Democrats              37% say Constitutional while 56% say Unconstitutional

Independents         21% say Constitutional while 70% say Unconstitutional

Republicans              6% say Constitutional while 94% say Unconstitutional

Oh, yeah, I like those results!!!

But wait, want to hear what one of the Democrat Representatives of House, Kathy Hochul (NY), had to say pertaining to the issue of Constitutional versus Unconstitional as it applies to O-care?

Yes, the general gist of Rep. Hochul’s comments are directly in response to questions posed to her about contraception.  However, her response does display the general attitude that Dems have had all along, i.e. that there’s no reason for them to consider that “old, outdated” Constitution when making their decisions.

They are a law unto themselves, don’t you know???

November, come quickly!!!

PPACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is a truly horrendous piece of legislation.  Even if the socialized health care model was actually successful, which we know for a fact based on the evidence seen in other nations that it isn’t…Obama and the left went for over-kill in what they had written into PPACA.   All we truly need is an effective system that wisely utilizes economic resources.  They went for the “Bentley” of socialized health care models!

It’s important that we keep this information front and center all the way through the election in 2012.  In an effort to do my small part, I’ll be posting diaries that provide data about the events scheduled to take place.  Some of the lists are long, so I’ll break it into smaller diaries, keeping the lists to approximately ten items per diary.

The general point of these diaries is to develop enough familiarity with the law to recognize and understand in what ways our lives will be impacted, what the projected costs influences might be, how to communicate the scope of change to our fellow citizens, and to identify the points at which another type of approach would be far more cost-effective.

Here’s a partial list of what will be taking place this year in the category of Medicare.  I’m drawing my information from this PPACA timeline, in case you want to check it out for yourself.  I’ve attempted to provide at least one link to each item.  What I will say about the links is CONSIDER THE SOURCE.  For example, if a link is to CMS, you’re likely to get only pro-policy statements from this source, which doesn’t imply totally objectivity about the topic matter.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Data

Deadline for the Secretary to confidentially provide physicians with their benefits claims data for use in measuring the use of resources.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Payment

For Medicare fee-for-service program, deadline for the Secretary to provide new value-based component for physician payment formula related to cost and quality of care

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Payment Cuts

Deadline for the Secretary to recommend to Congress options around expanding Medicare’s hospital-acquired condition payment policy to include other institutions: rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals, outpatient departments, inpatient psychiatric facilities, cancer hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical centers and health clinics.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Cuts to Physicians

Cuts bonus payments for participating in PQRI (Physician Quality Reporting Initiative) to 1%.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Transparency

HHS may give standardized extracts of Medicare claims data for specified geographic areas to qualified public and private entities to evaluate provider performance

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

Deadline for the Secretary to establish an “accountable care organization” whereby providers would accept a pre-determine reimbursement amount for treating at least 5,000 patients, and may keep some of the money if they provide care at less than the reimbursement amount.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Home Health Demonstration

Note: the above link presents the HHA program in the state of Minnesota.

Deadline for the Secretary to begin a demonstration project testing a payment model for providers who give care in patient’s homes, particularly for chronically ill beneficiaries.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Cuts to Medicare Advantage

Deadline for the Secretary to transition to a new formula for calculating benchmark payments in Medicare Advantage.

Note: The above is a Heritage Foundation sourced article.  Quote from the article:

Low-Income and Minority Seniors Hit Hardest. The deep reductions in MA payment rates and services covered will hit low-income and minority seniors disproportionately hard. Hispanic Americans are twice as likely to be enrolled in MA plans as is the average Medicare beneficiary; African Americans are 10 percent more likely. Almost 300,000 Hispanics and over 800,000 African Americans will lose access to MA. MA and would-be MA enrollees with incomes under $30,000 per year will lose a total of $38.5 billion in health care services from PPACA cuts.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Medicare Advantage

Medicare Advantage plans must start to allocate rebate payments according to the following in order of priority (1) reduce cost-sharing requirements , (2) cover preventive benefits , and (3) add fee-for-service benefits

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Dual Eligibles

Start date for when the Secretary may eliminate cost-sharing for drugs to dispensed to dual eligibles receiving care in their home or community instead of in an institution

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Prescription Drugs

Deadline for health plans participating in Part D to use utilization management techniques when dispensing drugs to enrollees in long-term care facilities.

Enough for one diary.  See ya’ next time.

Earlier today, I had to transport a family member to and from the hospital for minor outpatient surgery.  The health care facility in question was an hour’s drive from home.  During the return trip, we tuned the radio in to listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show for today.  It was then that I had the opportunity to listen to clips of Daniel Hannan’s speech at the CPAC gathering last week.

I wasn’t expecting to find it inspirational.  I wasn’t expecting to find encouragement for Conservatives in this battle we are facing.  I definitely wasn’t expecting to find myself thankful that, for whatever reasons, the surgery had been delayed for an hour or so.  Yet each of these things, I found.

Many of us as Conservatives know beyond any shadow of doubt that if our nation continues on its current course of further implementation of socialistic policies, we will go the way of other nations, such as Greece.  It’s one of the things we’ve been fighting against, desperately seeking a path forward that allows us to prevent the same course of events that have occurred in Greece, and in other European nations as well, from happening here.

We are not Europe.  We are The United States of America…the land of the free and the home of the brave.  We have our own way of doing things that has served us well for over two centuries.  Liberty and freedom have been the cornerstones on which our nation was founded that allowed us to have the opportunity to succeed in becoming the leader of the free world.  And by no stretch of the imagination are We The People simply willing to turn our backs on that legacy of liberty and freedom.

Hearing such things from the lips of other Americans doesn’t sound unusual or uncommon.  Hearing them come from the lips of a member of British Parliament, on the other hand…well, that does stand out as somewhat unusual, doesn’t it?

After returning home, I proceeded to find a video of Mr. Hannan’s speech.  It’s included at the end of this diary and I hope that those who have the time to do so will watch the entirety of it.  For those who may not have the time to do so, here is a basic 6-point list of items Mr. Hannan covered in his speech:

1)      It is when we are optimistic that we win. 

2)      The source of optimism comes from the freedoms and liberties provided to us through the Constitution of the United States. 

3)      Fighting for decentralization and reduction of power of government is the RIGHT thing to do!

There’s an incredible ring of truth and wisdom to Mr. Hannan’s words of warning to America if we follow the same path of greater centralization of government that has occurred in the European Union.  For all that we as Conservatives might speak of President Obama’s seeming “incompetence” of leadership, Mr. Hannan makes the point very vividly that there is indeed a specific kind of leadership that is being provided…a leadership that will culminate in the Europeanization of the United States of America.  He presents no illusions to the fact that the people of the nations under that policy of politicization become “less prosperous, less independent, less democratic, and less free”!

4)      “There is still time to turn aside”

5)      If we want to turn aside, we have to strive for electing Conservatives to Congress.

6)      Every Congressman we pursue electing to office should take the oath to defend and uphold the Constitution seriously.  

Mr. Hannan ends his speech with the following words of encouragement:

“Let me end…let me end, my friends, with a heart-felt imprecation.  From a British Conservative who loves his country to American Conservatives who still believe in theirs.  Honor the vision of your founders.  Cleave to the most sublime constitution devised by human intelligence.  Don’t be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of your fathers and disinherits your children.  Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation of which, by good fortune and God’s grace, you are privileged to be part.”

If there was ever an affirmation that we as Conservatives stand in the right by fighting to roll back the tide of creeping and blatant socialism that has been stealing away our liberties and freedoms, hearing it come from someone who has already traveled that path provides that affirmation!!

Thank You, Mr. Hannan.  May God bless you as well, sir!

First, we can look at the information provided in NPR article, entitled “Romney’s Unlikely And Persuasive Defense Of The Individual Mandate”.

Here’s one juicy tidbit to consider:

Said John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, “Romney has given in this entire presidential campaign last evening what I believe is the most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate.”

Want another to chew on?  Try this one:

And while Romney insisted that the Massachusetts law and the federal law differ in significant ways, McDonough, who was intimately involved in the development and passage of both the Massachusetts and federal health laws, insists that’s not really the case.

“The similarities go far far beyond the mandate,” he said. For example, “the essential architecture of the insurance reforms in the Affordable Care Act are taken wholly from the Massachusetts health reform law.”

Just words on a page, right?

Okay, then, how about something of a visual/verbal comparison instead….

Ladies and Gentlemen…

straight from the jowls of the marvelous body of liberal intelligentsia, Think Progress…

Romney and Obama on Healthcare!!

Just a preview of what’s to come.  That’s all.

This is the conclusion to the Abortion “Onion”.  To summarize what has been discussed in Layer 1, Layer 2, Layer 3 and Layer 4:

Abortion is an industry. 

Fetal tissue harvesting is a lucrative business.

Pro-choice advocates have adamantly protested against laws that would promote patient safety and quality of care. 

Planned Parenthood is being allowed to establish themselves as an accrediting body providing accreditation services to service providers that obtain business referrals from Planned Parenthood.    

And they want NO external oversight involved!!!  

Just to reiterate a few points, here are portions of an interview conducted with Carol Everett, a former director of four abortion clinics and owner of two, who has since become a pro-life advocate:

Q. What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?

A. Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.

Q. Abortion is supposed to be a “safe” experience. What complications did you witness?

A. In the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing over 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500. Common complications that take place are perforations or tears in the uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies. The doctor might cut or harm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A complication that is rarely publicized is the one in which the doctor perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through the vagina, resulting in colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, some must live with the colostomy for the remainder of their lives

From the testimony of those who have worked within the industry, we know that the financial implications pertaining to the abortion industry do play a significant role in relationship to what goes on within the industry itself.  We also know that the “rare, safe and legal” canard that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice advocates use to describe abortion is little more than a cover-up to hide the financial emphasis within the industry as a whole.

As Conservatives, in fighting against abortion, we usually tend to look at funding derived from taxpayer sources and individual pieces of legislation such as the Sonogram law, ban on human embryo patents, fetal pain abortion laws and others.  What I have hoped to present in providing information in this series is to show that pro-life advocates also have another option as well…the option of regulatory measures, including accreditation and credentialing.

If we do not challenge Planned Parenthood now where regulatory measures are concerned, then the most likely outcome is that they will establish a monopoly, both economically and as an acting governing body for legislative issues.    

We have new allies on the horizon, found in pro-life champions representing minorities within our society.  For example, we have pro-life allies such as Eduardo Verastegui (a Latino actor/producer whose video “Dura Realidad” is included below) and ad campaigns within the black community coming from organization such as the Radiance Foundation.  Here’s one of their recent ads:

By recognizing our allies and joining forces with them in what ways we can, we increase our chances of succeeding in protecting the sanctity and dignity of human life…and that is what this battle is all about! 

I deliberately saved the “Dura Realidad” video until last.  And before readers come to it, I will remind them once again of the quote that was made on the Planned Parenthood website:

In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

By using the word “demise” in their onsite instructions, Planned Parenthood indicated very plainly that they are completely and totally aware of the fact that they are contributing to the death or termination of existence of a human life!  There is no other explanation or any excuse that can be offered to explain this away.

The Dura Realidad video provides a clear example of the culmination of Planned Parenthood’s activities.  But please take FULL ADVANCE WARNING…this video begins with a brief introduction from Mr. Verastegui, but then includes very graphic images of aborted babies.  The images themselves are very powerful, as is the conclusion of the video.

It is the reader’s choice to determine whether or not they want to watch the video, but it is my responsibility to tell them in advance that it is indeed graphic in the images that it provides!!

With that being said, I’ll offer my thanks to those who have read this series, and may we join forces for a stronger alliance in the days to come!

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1,  Layer 2 , and Layer 3.

In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified.  The first point is that abortion is industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed.  The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind.  They don’t.

In the third part of this series, the position of pro-choice advocates in opposition to accreditation and other legal measures (which they call TRAP laws) that would promote patient safety and quality of care was discussed.

Where we left off is why pro-choice advocates are so adamant in their opposition to these kinds of laws?

Here’s the secret…they are adamantly against practices such as accreditation when they are conducted by external organizations!!!

As it stands at the present, accreditation requirements vary from state to state.  There is a list provided at The Joint Commission (TJC) website that provides detailed information pertaining to accreditation requirements for each state.  For example, in the state of NY, it states this:

“Accredited status” means the full accreditation by nationally-recognized accrediting agency(ies) determined by the commissioner.
(Note: the Joint Commission has been designated as an approved accrediting body)

1. Licensee practices in which office-based surgery is performed shall obtain and maintain full accredited status.
2. A licensee may only perform office-based surgery in a setting that has obtained and maintains full accredited status.

The context of the law in New York defines office based surgery as

Any surgical or other invasive procedure performed outside of a hospital, diagnostic and treatment center or other Article 28 facility in which moderate sedation or deep sedation or general anesthesia is utilized to provide comfort to the patient in order to perform the procedure. Only one surgical procedure is specifically included in the definition of OBS – liposuction of greater than 500cc’s of fat.

Based on the law in NY, this would mean that any and all abortions that (1) use conscious sedation/general anesthesia and (2) involve performing a D&C or D&E would have to be performed in a TJC accredited facility.  If the provider fails to do so, then they are violating the law and should be held accountable for it.  (Question…I wonder if any pro-life advocates are following up on this to check the status of abortion providers under the office-based surgery law in New York???)

Within this context, if the state assigns an organization such as The Joint Commission to be the accrediting body in the state, this ensures that there is external oversight on provision of abortions and the abortion industry as a whole.  The external accrediting body is required by law to report any violations or failures to meet the standards.  These reports could conceivably close down these office-based surgery facilities or greatly limit the scope of practice until such time as the facility meets the required standards.

This is the threat that pro-choice advocates recognize.  This is why Planned Parenthood Federation of America is in the process of legally obtaining the right to act as an accrediting institution in various states.

Here’s what is provided for office based surgery centers in the state of Washington:

Accreditation or certification. Within three hundred sixty-five calendar days of the effective date of this rule, a physician who performs a procedure under this rule must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following:

(a) The Joint Commission;

(b) The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care;

(c) The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities;

(d) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; or

(e) Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation, for facilities limited to office-based surgery for abortion or abortion-related services.

That’s correct!  In the state of Washington, PPFA is the accrediting agency for abortion providers, many of whom obtain their patient referrals AND their livelihood via local Planned Parenthood offices.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is putting themselves in a position to establish their own procedural guidelines in defining what is to be reviewed under audit, how it is to be reviewed, and when it would become necessary to report any and all violations.

For the purpose of putting this into a realistic context, let’s go back to the situation of Dr. Gosnell.  Dr. Gosnell was a licensed M.D., so he could be approved under the credentialing standards.  However, he had numerous complaints of medical negligence that had been filed against him over the years.  In an audit conducted by external accrediting body, it would be required to take these reports into consideration to determine if credentialing status should or should not be allowed.  Within the scope of having PPFA act as self-accrediting entity, if they know that reporting these types of complaints could either close the facility or place the facility in a position of providing greatly reduced access to abortion services, would they be honest and uphold the law by providing accurate information?

The person performing anesthesiology in Dr. Gosnell’s practice was a 15-year-old with no education or training of any sort that qualified them to administer anesthesia.  If such a case occurred under a PPFA audit, and reporting the discrepancy might mean that the facility would be either closed or placed on limited status, would they report the discrepancy?

Another possible scenario…the law specifically states that the person administering anesthesia and the person performing the office-based surgery can not be the same person.  Yet there have been numerous reports and law suits that have occurred when anesthesiologists have been allowed to perform both functions in Planned Parenthood facilities.  If PPFA is a self-accrediting body, would they report these violations or would they establish some procedural means written into their accreditation and auditing process that allows them to bypass this requirement?

By establishing self-accrediting status and setting themselves up to become the regulatory body for abortion services, PPFA is also putting themselves in a position to obtain almost complete and total control over the abortion industry as a whole!  And this is being done primarily at the expense of American taxpayers!

From the funds provided for fetal tissue research via NIH to funds provided via Medicaid, it is the American taxpayers who pay for the sustenance of the abortion industry.

This isn’t the end, folks.  Tell me again how many years Roe vs. Wade has been the law of the land in this nation?  We’ve fought the fight over the years, but there’s still much more to do.

That’s what Abortion “Onion”: Layer 5 is all about.

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1 and Layer 2.

In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed.  The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind.  They don’t.

This is where we will pick up on this next layer of the Abortion “Onion”.

For those who may be reading this who are somewhat skeptical in believing that pro-choice advocates, who continuously and repetitively present themselves as the champions of protecting and preserving a woman’s right to “safe” and “legal” abortion, could be against any kind of rules that require the abortion industry to be regulated by an external source, here’s the stated position of Cecil Roberts, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

The onslaught of new laws threatens more than our rights. It also threatens women’s health, by forcing them to delay needed care while they navigate a bureaucratic and political gauntlet. Studies show that when abortion care is delayed in pregnancy, risk of complication increases. By requiring women to take time away from work, arrange child care, and travel hundreds of miles to hear lectures and sit out mandatory waiting periods, the new laws won’t reduce the need for abortion. But they will surely push it later into many women’s pregnancies. This is the cost of letting politicians impose their values on our health care. Women who once received safe, timely care will now experience needless delays and avoidable medical complications. (emphasis mine)

News Bulletin for Ms. Roberts:  Conservatives aren’t all that interested in letting politicians impose their LIBERAL values on our health care either!!!

What kind of laws in specific are pro-choice advocates objecting to?  Perhaps this NARAL article on “Targeted Regulation on Abortion Providers”, commonly referred to as TRAP laws, will explain it:

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers—but not other medical professionals—in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Common TRAP regulations include those that restrict where abortion care may be provided. Regulations limiting abortion care to hospitals or other specialized facilities, rather than physicians’ offices, require doctors to obtain medically unnecessary additional licenses, needlessly convert their practices into mini-hospitals at a great expense, or provide abortion services only at hospitals, an impossibility in many parts of the country. (emphasis mine)

What unnecessary and burdensome regulations are they referring to?  The answer is being legally required to comply with accreditation requirements.  Accreditation establishes standards that promote patient safety and high quality health care.  The standards are high, and they can increase the costs in provision of care in comparison to an environment where no standards exist.  In addition to what I’ve already mentioned previously, the accreditation process also evaluates medical credentials of health care providers, such as having those pesky little things called licenses and being credentialed to provide health care services within a specific realm of practice.  The charge that has been made that the regulatory measures do not apply to other medical professionals is untrue to an extreme.

This is what they are complaining about??? That physicians’ are required to have the appropriate licenses?  That they have to comply with laws that promote patient safety and quality of care?

Pro-choice advocates have rallied behind the slogan that abortion is “safe, legal and rare” for years on end.  We know that it is not as “rare” as they would like to have the general public believe.  Now, they would sacrifice “legal” and “safe” as well????

They claim that it is their concern for protecting a woman’s right to receive abortions that motivates them.  Is that the ONLY reason they object so vehemently to TRAP laws?  Or could there be other reasons…reasons that they would rather the general public not think about?

Check in on Abortion “Onion”: Layer 4 to find out!! 

(Note:  I’ll be finishing this up by Monday, with Abortion “Onion” Layers 4 and 5)

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1.  By the conclusion of the first diary, two specific points had been identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

The next step will be to address a few specifics about how the health care industry in general is regulated.

Certification and Accreditation

Organizations who receive federal funding assistance from either Medicare or Medicaid must comply with specific requirements that have been established by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and administered via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be considered certified as a participating provider and receive reimbursement from these federally-funded programs.

Certification often occurs through the accreditation process conducted by a third party, such as The Joint Commission.  Here’s how it works:

If a national accrediting organization, such as The Joint Commission, has and enforces standards that meet the federal Conditions of Participation, CMS may grant the accrediting organization “deeming” authority and “deem” each accredited health care organization as meeting the Medicare and Medicaid certification requirements. The health care organization would not be subject to routine Medicare survey and certification process.

In other words, TJC provides the oversight and performs the audits that allow an organization to maintain its status as a participating provider.

Type of organizations that are accredited by TJC

Ambulatory Health Care

Behavioral Health Care

Critical Access Hospitals

Home Care

Hospital

Laboratory Services

Long Term Care

Office-Based Surgery

Eligibility requirements for office-based surgery accreditation(TJC source).

• The organization or practice is composed of four or fewer licensed independent practitioners performing operative or invasive procedures. Multi-site office-based surgery practices are also limited to a combined total of four or fewer LIPs.

• The organization or practice must be physician owned or operated, for example, a professional services corporation, private physician office or small group practice. “Physician” includes dentist or podiatrist.

• Invasive services are provided to patients. (Practices only providing procedures such as excisions of skin lesions, moles, warts and abscess drainage limited to the skin and subcutaneous tissue are typically not surveyed under the OBS standards.)

• Local anesthesia, minimal sedation, moderate sedation or general anesthesia is administered. (Includes laser eye surgery using topical anesthesia.

Invasive Procedure

According to both of these pro-choice sources, here and here, either dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E) are the methods of choice for abortions past the date of the abortion “pill”.  And even Planned Parenthood acknowledges the usage of these methods in many cases.  Three separates sites, (here, here, and here) provide information defining both D&C and D&E as invasive procedures.

Anesthesia

The Abortion USA site above provides interesting information pertaining to local, conscious or general sedation that may be used during an abortion.

Summary

To summarize all of the information that has been provided so far into one comprehensive statement:   Based on the information available, abortion may include performing an invasive procedure that involves local, moderate, or general anesthesia.  As such, abortion providers should be required to meet the standards for office-based surgery accreditation.

Accreditation in and of itself would not eliminate abortion, but it will require practitioners providing abortions to be held accountable, thus preventing continuation of the type back-alley events that were seen in the cases of Dr. Gosnell and Dr. Brigham.

If pro-choice advocates are genuinely concerned about preventing situations where medical negligence and back-alley operations could occur, which would conform perfectly with their contention that abortion is “safe” and “legal”, then by use of simple common sense, they would support accreditation of abortion providers.

Why then have they been opposed to requiring abortion providers to meet accreditation standards?  

We’ll pick up with pro-choice opposition to accreditation standards in Layer 3, so watch for it.

In closing, I’d like to point out a statement currently displayed at the Planned Parenthood website:

In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

There’s one word in this statement that pro-life advocates should be drawing attention to over and over again.  Do you know what it is?

Demise!  By definition, the word “demise” pertains to death or termination of existence.

A prerequisite for death is life.  How can death occur without life?  

A few days ago, mbecker posted a diary that shares information about events taking place in the states of Connecticut and New Jersey that pertains to indictment of two physicians who have been charged with murder in relation to late-term abortions.    I was greatly heartened to hear how our legal system is responding to these situations, and even more so after the events that occurred in the state of Pennsylvania earlier in 2011 pertaining to Dr. Gosnell.  (For those who are not familiar with Dr. Gosnell’s story, you can find that information at this link.)  Dr. Gosnell has since been convicted of 8 counts of murder…seven children and one adult.

These two cases indicate what may be a developing trend that could bring about the end of abortion on demand.

There is also another shift in trends that has been taking place, namely that fewer doctors are considering participating in abortions.

Both trends indicate that pro-life advocates may have a door of opportunity that is opening to them to bring about changes that would serve this nation well in protecting and preserving the sanctity of human life.

Since the implementation of Roe v. Wade, our society has moved in the direction of believing that abortion on demand is a right that women are “entitled” to receive.  It’s a portion of the “entitlement culture” that has established by government that we don’t often consider in these terms.  Challenging this mindset will not be easy.

This won’t be a case of waving a magic wand and suddenly having Roe v. Wade disappear from our society.  Realistically speaking, above and beyond the scope of this law, there are specifics pertaining to the abortion industry itself that could prove to be far more significant obstacles in bringing about changes than simply a mentality of “entitlement”.

The only way to understand what those obstacles truly are requires understanding how the abortion industry works.  Unfortunately, understanding the specifics of how the abortion industry works is a bit like peeling an onion…if you do manage to succeed in peeling back a layer, you find another layer right before you…and you feel like crying the entire time.  Even for myself, I’ve only managed to peel back a few layers so far.

Trying to delve into all the information at one time is a bit much, so I’ll only lay out the basic premise for sustenance of the abortion industry in this diary, and then attempt to present other “layers” as time permits.

If there are obstacles that I do not mention that others are aware of, please feel free to share them.

Motivation within the Abortion Industry to Sustain Abortion on Demand

In both of the legal cases mentioned above, aborted babies were found in freezers at the facilities of the physicians involved.  In response to a comment made another RS poster, MBecker asked a few important questions.  Why were the bodies of these babies kept?  Why were they frozen?  Is it possible that they were kept for fetal tissue harvesting purposes?  (And I’ll add another possibility as well, i.e. that these physicians were fully aware of the fact that their activities were illegal and could not take the risk of following the law pertaining to bio-hazard waste retrieval procedures).

If you go back and look at the information that was provided in the article, you’ll see that the number of murder charges filed against Dr. Brigham (a total of ten, five first-degree and five second-degree) doesn’t even come close to the total of 35 bodies that were found in the freezer.  The same type of scenario presented itself in Dr. Gosnell’s situation as well.  So apparently these bodies weren’t being kept solely because the abortion that had been performed was illegal and the physician was trying to conceal evidence of such.  This indicates that there could be another reason these bodies were kept…which brings us to the possibility of fetal tissue harvesting.

Fetal tissue harvesting for profit is illegal, but there is a legal path, i.e. the Anatomical Gift Act, coupled with the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, by which fetal tissue harvesting can take place and it legally allows money to exchange hands.

Note:  At this point, I’ll add an “irony alert”…in an earlier diary that I had posted on this topic, I had included a link directly to a quote from a Planned Parenthood website pertaining to the manner in which exchange of funds for fetal tissue harvesting does take place.  Someone has since “killed” the page.  It no longer exists.   I do still have access to the information provided within that quote, which I’ll include here:

Both (NATO Act and NIH Revitalization Act) do permit, however, “reasonable payments” associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the tissue (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1993). (Emphasis mine)

It’s a relatively simple process.  Mother wants abortion and signs consent to release tissue for donation. Abortionist donates tissue to tissue broker, who then donates tissue to research facility. Research facility pays tissue broker a processing fee and tissue broker pays abortionist a site fee and/or procurement fees. Somewhere in all of that, abortion referral agencies get a cut on the action. Research facilities get grant from NIH for fetal tissue research, partially driving the demand for fetal tissue.  No money goes to the mother.

To get an idea of the type of research being funded by NIH, you can check out the information being provided in this article regarding the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle.  According to the article, during the year 2009, this laboratory filled requests for more than 4,400 fetal tissue and cell lines.  The NIH grant provided to the laboratory was in the amount of $579,091.  For one year.  For one facility.  Just for research alone.  This doesn’t even begin to consider money that could exchange hands for commercial products developed from fetal tissue research.

The same scenario is true at the University of Wisconsin, where there is currently a legal challenge to this practice.  Plus University of California and Texas A&M.  Plus who knows how many other universities, organizations and business entities are involved.

The point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a lucrative business.  Very lucrative.  There is a legal path that allows it to occur, i.e. the path of research and development.  Within this context, it is one of those reasons why sustaining abortion on demand is deemed to be a necessity to those directly and/or indirectly involved in the abortion industry.

Okay, so this ends “layer 1” of the Abortion Onion.  Jump into the discussion if you’re interested.

What options do you see so far that Conservative might have in attempting to stem the tide of abortion on demand?

I can’t say that I’m a John Strossel fan, but he hit the nail on the head in his recent article entitled “ObamaCare Abominations”.   The article explains why the uncertainty of Obamacare has been having such a negative impact on our economy.  And the primary underlying key to understanding that uncertainty exists in the words “the Secretary will determine…”.

Brad Anderson, CEO of Best Buy, added that Obamacare makes it impossible to achieve even basic certainty about future personnel costs:

“If I was trying to get you to fund a new business I had started and you asked me what my payroll was going to be three years from now per employee, if I went to the deepest specialist in the industry, he can’t tell me what it’s actually going to cost, let alone what I’m going to be responsible for.”

You would think a piece of legislation more than a thousand pages long would at least be clear about the specifics. But a lot of those pages say: “The secretary will determine …” That means the secretary of health and human services will announce the rules sometime in the future. How can a business make plans in such a fog?

Strossel then moves on the topic of employer mandates and the hidden tax increases in our future.

Of course, we were told that government health care would increase hiring. After all, European companies don’t have to pay for their employees’ health insurance. If every American employer paid the $2,000 penalty and their workers turned to government for insurance, American companies would be better able to compete with European ones. They might save $10,000 per employee.

That sounded good, but like so many politicians’ promises, it leaves out the hidden costs. When countries move to a government-funded system, taxes rise to crushing levels, as they have in Europe

And of course, there is also the increase in government spending as related to GDP.

“We’ve had an agreement in this country, kind of unwritten, for the last 50 years, that we would spend about 18 to 19 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on the federal government. This is a tipping point. This takes us to 25 to 30 percent. And that money comes out of the private sector. That means fewer jobs. This is a game-changer.”

Do we the people want more jobs in our economy?  Then one of the first things we should be striving to do is to repeal Obamacare.

Sure, we’ll still have rising health care costs to contend with.  But with Obamacare gone, at least then we have a chance to identify other options that are a bit more employer-friendly and will allow growth and development in the private sector of our economy.