Only 63% of Catholics approve contraception mandate

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
Survey research was pioneered by Columbia University sociologists during World War II. By the time I was studying for my doctorate in sociology at New York University in the 1970s, the scientific nature of survey research had made great strides. But much depends on the methodology, as well as the questions asked.
The New York Times is reporting today that a majority of Catholics (it does not cite the percentage, either in the article or on the New York Times/CBS Poll website) “are at odds with the [Catholic] church’s official stance.”
A survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that 55 percent of all Catholics, and 63 percent of those who attend church weekly, are opposed to the Obama mandate.
A Rasmussen survey found that 77 percent of Catholics oppose the Obama mandate.
What’s going on? The Times asked respondents, “Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?” Notice there was no mention of the religious liberty implications, nor of the issue of exemptions. It’s just about free services for women.
Pew asked whether there should be an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions that object. Similarly, Rasmussen asked whether “individuals should have the right to choose between different types of health insurance plans.”
In short, how the question is framed affects the answer. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the Times asked about the real issue.

Be careful whose statistics you believe  on this. There is dissent on the Church teaching on contraception, but I have seen numbers as high as 98% of Catholics approving of the Obama mandate. That is utter nonsense!

Breaking news: Republicans prepare two page repeal of Obamacare

Called the end to the "overturning of the job killing health care bill", it is the overturn of Obamacare.
Sen Schumer is already screaming that seniors will be abandoned. Horsefeathers, this is typical Democrat posturing to drum up opposition. It may not have enough votes to overcome Obama's veto, but its something that must be done. NOW.
Nice work, a good sign that the House is listening.
Plus the new governors, like Scott Walker of WI is authoring his AG to sue to say that the bill will go to the Supreme Court.
The battle has been joined. I wish them Godspeed.

Clarifying what "Death Panels" are

Both Lisa Graas and I are fans of conservative pundit, Cal Thomas, but she felt, as I do, that his description of what Sarah Palin meant as "Death Panels" required clarification. It is not hairsplitting to distinguish between discussion of last wishes and denial of care as Lisa explains over at her site.

That is a reference to rationing by the IPAB. Note her reference to Ezekiel Emanuel who proposed a utilitarian system of rationing, which is what the IPAB has the potential to be…with or without end-of-life counseling. For example, if a Down Syndrome child has RSV, a system of rationing wouldn’t require any end-of-life counseling to result in the deteriorating health or death of the child. The only thing necessary for that would be a rationing board (IPAB) saying “no treatment for Down Syndrome children”. The child, then, never even gets to SEE a doctor, let alone any kind of ‘counseling’ coming into play. Understand? (That is, of course, a hypothetical scenario.)

The President, after Palin’s initial note, then came out and mentioned the end-of-life-counseling which she then responded to.

By the way when you find yourself in this situation as you most surely will someday, the National Catholic Biotethics Center has a 24 hour hotline to help counsel you and some general guidelines here
The most important point in discussing end of life care is WHOM you are discussing it with, your faithful pastor, or an agent of death like Judge Greer, who presided over Terri Schiavo's dehydration murder (and is mercifully retiring now).
This is why overturning Obamacare has to be the new Congress' first priority.
.
Read Lisa Graas's post here.

I called in to speak with Marc Germaine

I just spoke against Obamacare as a caller on the Marc Germaine Show, trying to discuss why I feel that my daughter will eventually be denied care. In deplorable talk show host dodge, Germaine tried to reframe the debate in a way that he was comfortable, asking unrelated questions like "what objective reasons can you use to prove that we have the best healthcare system in the US?" He went so far off track to keep me from discussing death panels statement of Paul Krugman that he tried to test my knowledge of Japanese health care system.
I was trying doggedly to stick to my point that denying intellectually disabled children care was no solution to the lack of services which many people suffer. I referred to "Healthcare for Gunner" Press Conference on Capitol Hill and Justice for Annie, and I think Marc Germaine was feeling a bit threatened, as he departed from his civil tone and became snarky and dumped my call.
He did say he would like to continue the debate, and I'm ready when he is. I will keep him on topic or I won't debate. I have the facts lined up on my side which proves that Obamacare will not help more Americans obtain access to health care, and I did get to mention that three Catholic hospitals in PA will be closing for fear of being forced by Obama to provide abortions. Read more here.

New York Times Columnist Says Death Panels Needed to Fix Economy | LifeNews.com

New York Times Columnist Says Death Panels Needed to Fix Economy | LifeNews.com
Paul Krugman mocked Sarah Palin for saying that Death Panels were part of the program, and now he glibly says they are part of it.
Go figure.

Vote YES on Colorado Prop 62!

Counter the lie that Obamacare doesn't fund abortion

 from PRI;            


                      Does Obamacare Fund Abortion?

Let Us Count the Ways.

by Steven W. Mosher

When Obamacare was signed into law in March, the President assured Americans that it does not, in any way, shape, or form, fund elective abortions. He even signed an executive order to this effect. The only problem with Obama's claims, which are being repeated by politicians like Harry Reid and partisan groups like Democrats for Life of America, is that they are not true.

The only real abortion restriction in Obamacare was in fact removed before the President signed the bill into law. This was the so-called “Stupak-Pitts Amendment”, named after Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joe Pitts, that was inserted into the House version of the bill. This amendment applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice (despite what Harry Reid has claimed), since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether. (We will talk about these in a minute.)

The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

In exchange, the President with great fanfare signed an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding. The problem is that it does no such thing, because it can't: An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President's piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn't know this. His political allies certainly do. The head ofPlanned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

So what is all this presidential posturing really about? Was it merely an effort to provide some political cover for “pro-life” Democrats who voted for Obamacare despite its abortion funding? If so, it hasn't worked, to judge from the polls, which currently show most of them going down to defeat by large margins on November 2nd.

Most voters understand that, since there is no blanket restriction on abortion funding in the health care legislation, they will wind up paying for abortions, at least in some circumstances. Let me give you three of the Obamacare provisions that will, in my opinion, inevitably lead to abortion funding:

• Money for so-called “Community Health Centers”: Many of these Community Health Centers will be run by Planned Parenthood and other groups that see abortion as an essential service and, without abortion-restricting language in the bill, money that goes to these centers will be used to pay for abortions.
• Money for federal insurance plans: Obamacare will provide two or more state-sponsored insurance plans. According to the bill, only one of these plans actually needs to have restrictions on abortion—meaning that federal dollars will almost definitely be paying for abortions in the other state plan. And even this restriction is limited, and will have to be renewed every year.
• Money for “temporary high-risk pools”: Obamacare provides 5 billion dollars for “temporary high-risk pools” that will cover people with pre-existing conditions until the actual health care exchanges kick in 2014. This money goes straight to the states and is administered by them. Without abortion restrictions, the states are free to use this money to fund abortions if they feel like it. And in fact, some of them tried to do just that … until complaints by National Right to Life forced HHS to promise it would actually enforce Obama's executive order. This will last only as long as it takes to file a court challenge, however.

Vice President Biden has been going around the country saying that Obamacare is wonderful, but that it is simply “too complicated” to explain to the rubes out in the hustings. We disagree on many grounds, but most of all because it will force us—and all Americans—to pay for the execution of our unborn brothers and sisters.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.

Don't vote for any politicians who will not revoke Obamacare.

Young woman dies of neglect in UK hospital, texting her demise

Jo Dowling, age 25,  young woman was a fighter. She had survived for years, despite Cystic Fibrosis, however, an infection, left untreated in a UK hospital in Milton Keynes, UK killed her.
And she texted the entire horrific scene, leaving those of us who are approaching the same socialized medicine, wondering why we would want this in our nation. And those of us who are parenting disabled children wonder if Jo was allowed to die because of her Cystic Fibrosis. She was on the waiting list for a lung  transplant.

Read the entire story here.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3075533/Girl-texted-pics-of-herself-dying.html

HHS vows to enforce Hyde Amendment

It s so important to stay current on the latest doings of the Obama Administration and to raise a stink when abortion is funded. The Department of Health and Human Services is responding to the furor, caused by the blogosphere, I assume since it wasn't on the news. I suspect it is merely a coverup, but it's interesting to know that if we watch them and raise a stink when the Hyde Amendment is violated, they are worried.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) alleged that the PCIPs were going to enable the funding of elective abortion in Pennsylvania (PA) and New Mexico (NM), and possibly more states. Of the three plans that NRLC could analyze, only South Carolina had restrictions on elective abortions.
The allegations sparked a furor that provoked the HHS into clarifying Wednesday that the agency intends to apply Hyde Amendment restrictions to the PCIPs. This, however, was only after they amended an earlier statement purporting that the health care reform law and the executive order prohibited PCIPs from covering elective abortion

Read the entire story at Life Site News.

Catholic Health Association Sr Keehan defiant to Cardinal George reprimand

Even though Cardinal George reprimanded the CHA CEO for making  pro-abortion Obamacare possible. Sr Keehan is unprepentant, sticking a finger in the eye of the Cardinal by reaffirming her support of Obamacare.
Well, bishops, the time for definitive action is here. Will you respond?
Strip CHA of the term "Catholic", and Sr Keehan of her religious status. She has exommunicated herself by becoming an accomplice to milliions of abortions. May God have mercy on her! Here is her statement.

Once fully enacted, we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will provide access to more affordable insurance products and a greater sense of security for over 32 million people in this country that current lack these protections.

And to deny life to millions of children of the poor. This is a great source of scandal in the Church, that a sister using the name "Catholic" made this travesty possible.

UPDATE: Ms Osman, a USCCB official is denying that Cardinal George cricized Sr Keehan, blaming CNA for mispreporting. The lockstep liberals in the room, NCR, America, Commonweal are supporting Ms Osman who says Cardinal George did NOT criticize Sr Keehan for supporting Obamacare.
The only way to resolve this dispute is by releasing recordings of the conversation, NOT transcripts.
Cardinal George, tell us what you said, please, stand by your brave position in correcting Sr Keehan!!
Read the story on Life Site News.
and Catholic Vote Action.


HT Pewsitter.com