Planned Parenthood: Keeping Politics out of the Doctor's Office?

The "Springfield News-Leader" published a "Voice of the Day" letter today offering a slanted view of what a regulation President Bush signed into law will accomplish.

Alison Gee, Southwest Missouri's Planned Parenthood Vice President, described the regulation as "a midnight regulation," though, in an earlier post, I referenced "Baptist Press" (BP) had reported the Health and Human Services Department had been working on the regulation for much of this year and had introduced the proposal in August. After its introduction, a 30 day comment period followed. In fact, the report from BP had stated (or warned) that critics of the measure were charging it was "an eleventh-hour move," so, no surprise Gee erroneously represented it as "a midnight regulation."

It's a topsy turvy world when the ten commandments are meekly removed from a government office because it offended one man but a nationwide effort is made to force doctors, pharmacists and pharmacist assistants to deal in abortion and abortion drugs against their own moral consciences. Or, should I say, there is an outcry against any regulation protecting those doctors, pharmacists and assistants from providing services and prescriptions which are in contradiction of their own moral code? In other words, your right to an abortion trumps the doctor's right to decline giving you one?

This morning, I followed the hot link provided by the News-Leader at the online edition of the paper:

"Join us. Visit www.plannedparenthood.org to learn more."

...What I found at the link, originally, was a replacement of the home page with a blatant call for money. Under a snowy, pine tree laden, peaceful blue, starlit banner, Planned Parenthood invited those who landed there to support "Choice on Earth":

"We have this special page up for just a few short days instead of the regular Planned Parenthood homepage because right now, we have a special opportunity: A long-time supporter will match, dollar for dollar, every online gift that we receive through December 31, 2008, up to a total of $300,000."

That is what I found the first time I clicked on the News-Leader's hot link. When I went back to pick up the link for this blog entry the link had been updated to direct the reader to the Planned Parenthood homepage. At the home page is a prominent "Choice on Earth" fund raiser notice.
Directly below the "Choice on Earth" contribution notice, the reader is invited to:

"Learn more about issues and elections at the website of our advocacy and political arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund."

Political arm!??? Wait a minute! Didn't Gee promise in her "Voice of the Day" letter today:

"We will fight this and use all of our power to keep politics out of the doctor's office."

???

Yet, they have a political arm? If their intent is to keep politics out of the doctor's office, why the need for a "political arm?"

Apparently, they just want to keep politics out of the doctor's office if it goes against their own political agenda. You see, it's okay to offend the moral conscience of doctors, pharmacists and their assistants through political activism, just don't offend Planned Parenthood by exercising your own right to be politically active in a cause that counters their own political agenda.

Bully, bully.

Gee wrote:

"President Bush is continuing to take his ideology and politics and smother women's ability to make fully informed decisions about their health care."

The regulation isn't about Bush "smothering" a woman's ability to make fully informed decisions about health care. It is about protecting the rights of doctors and pharmacists not to have to provide a procedure or prescribe drugs which cause a moral dilemma for them, individually. But, those very critics of the regulation have already sought the inclusion of funding for abortion in any national health care coverage plan president elect Barack Obama might seek so, it shouldn't come as a surprise these pro-abortion activists care little about the individual rights of people unless it goes along with their own agenda. (See BP's report on that, here.)

In this case, I see Bush trying to protect peoples' rights and Planned Parenthood trying to force others to provide services for an activity the former oppose on spiritual or moral grounds and, not stopping there, Planned Parenthood won't really be happy until they force every American taxpayer whose moral conscience is in opposition to abortion to financially support any woman's choice to abort.

In fact, the regulation does nothing to smother women's ability "to make fully informed decisions about their health care." Planned Parenthood can still inform women and women will still have a choice as to whether they want to abort a baby or choose another option, such as putting the baby up for adoption.

It's really about money, your money and my money. Planned Parenthood wants you to think without more of your willingly donated money, today, and future mandated tax dollars, their ability to "fully inform" women about their health care will be hindered or "smothered." They want to force all doctors and pharmacists to provide abortions and prescription drugs which some doctors are conflicted about providing. They want providing those services and prescription drugs forced upon those doctors and pharmacists to make the choice of abortion more convenient for women who want them and they want all of us to eventually be forced to foot the bill with our tax dollars.

Should women have the right to have a convenient abortion? Women can certainly get one but, poor things, it might not always be as convenient for them as they might like. They might have to make a day trip. What a pity.

I know people who have to travel to Kansas City or St. Louis to get treatment for certain illnesses so, should the taxpayer be forced to provide money (through the government) to every hospital in the nation so that all treatments and procedures are convenient to every single patient who needs those treatments or procedures that might be currently unavailable in their own cities, at their local hospitals and clinics? Is convenient "availability" what should dictate the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, even at the expense of individual moral conflict?

I have a cousin who is often forced to travel to Little Rock, Arkansas to receive the veteran health care benefits she needs. She can get them, but it's less than convenient for her and she often has to make the trip under physical duress, something which isn't often the case for women choosing abortion.

President Bush signed a regulation to affirm "the right of doctors and other health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object," not to deny women access; accessibility to abortions was not affected one whit by this regulation. Abortions are as available to women today as they were the day before Bush signed that bill.

Yes, Alison Gee, let's do ensure we keep politics (and money grubbing) out of the doctor's office.

This Week at Baptist Press: Groups try to Advance NON-Reproductive Rights

As one of its issues to watch, this week Baptist Press (BP) pointed readers to President elect Obama's transition Web site, where a 55 page report signed by over 60 abortion rights groups are urging the president elect to include abortion coverage as part of any national health care plan he might consider after he takes office.

Ironically, while the report includes "Health" in the title it also suggests it advances reproductive rights. The full title of the report is, "Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration."

Let me get this straight so you will understand my bias. I am pro-life, not pro-abortion. I also understand that those who support abortion rights prefer the title, "pro-choice." I don't care how they want to be identified, a rose is a rose whether called a Diana, Princess of Wales™ or a Double Delight™ . And, I'm not sure how abortion advances the "reproductive rights" of women, it seems to me it actually promotes the opposite. They would like the taxpayer to be forced to fund abortions, in other words, what they really seek is to advance a woman's right NOT to reproduce through abortion. I wonder, what does NOT reproducing have to do with reproduction? In my opinion, it would have been more honest to have titled it "Advancing Non-Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration," or "Advancing Taxpayer funded Abortions and Health in a New Administration." These advocates care not one whit whether it is against some taxpayer's individual ethical and moral convictions or sensibilities to abort babies for health reasons or just because they are currently inconvenient.

Pro-Life Susan B. Anthony List's President, Marjorie Dannenfelser was quoted in the article as stating, "After a decade of common-sense restrictions on taxpayer funding, the abortion industry thinks it deserves a bailout from President-Elect Obama."

Dannenfelser recommended pro-life advocates contact their senators through their Web site at: www.sba-list.org/abortionbailout to seek their opposition of the taxpayer funded abortions that these pro-abortion groups seek.

Meanwhile, BP reported, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under our current President, George W. Bush, announced a regulation intended to protect doctors' and health care providers' rights,"to refuse to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object."

BP pointed out, HHS was working on the regulation for much of this year and introduced the proposal in August. A 30 day comment period followed.

"The Christian Medical Association (CMA) reported 41 percent of its members said in a survey they had been "pressured to compromise Biblical or ethical convictions.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fruit of the Spirit or Not, Manners Matter

I wonder how many other local bloggers work on a blog entry and then delete it? This is one I wrote tonight and considered deleting, it wouldn't have been the first time. I've always questioned why anyone wants to hear (or read) my opinion anyway? Who am I? Who cares what I think?

Here's a blog I wrote. I don't know if anyone will be interested in reading it or not. I don't know if it sounds like I'm preaching. I don't know if it will make someone mad or if it will make someone think and inspire them or if they'll read halfway through it and think, this is boring but, bloggers blog even when they have nothing to say. I think I had something to say tonight. You all can be the judge of whether it's of any value or not. Personally, I think I just like talking to myself most of the time anyway, working through my own thoughts. Anyway, read it if you want to. - Jackie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would think it would take a lot of political experience to learn how to gracefully lose a hard fought campaign for an office, either at the local, state or federal level.

I'm thinking of how well Senator John McCain handled losing the Presidential election compared to how Senator John Kerry reacted to his loss in 2004. Kerry didn't make any huge blunders post election but, he didn't handle it with the same level of grace that McCain handled it.

I said it takes "political experience" when maybe, that isn't exactly true. I don't know, maybe it goes deeper than that. I just know that losing is something that people, if they are blessed, are taught to accept, it doesn't come naturally to be graceful when you've lost something. It's a learned reaction. Sort of like when we don't really like the meat loaf but we say, "that was delicious," anyway. It's just the polite thing, the right thing to do, even if it goes against the grain and even if it's a "little white lie."

One of the things that was discussed in my Sunday School class this morning was that people, often, don't send thank you notes anymore. One lady in my class even spoke up and said she'd attended a bridal shower where the bride-to-be didn't even know she was supposed to send thank you notes for the gifts she'd received. I've been to weddings and showers where I have taken a gift or enclosed money in a card and never received acknowledgement for the gift, myself.

As an anecdote, I've been working with some girls, they're all sisters, who ride the bus to our church. I know their Mom works on Sunday, I don't know about their Dad, I've only met him once but he seemed like a nice enough guy. But, anyway, I've been bringing a quarter, 50 cents in quarters, sometimes a dollar in quarters, and giving them to the girls to put in the offering plate. If I give them more than one quarter, I let them decide whether to put it all in the plate or keep a portion of it. It's given me an opportunity to talk to them about tithing but, something I didn't count on was the opportunity it afforded me to talk to them about being thankful for what they did get rather than asking for more. It seemed no matter how many quarters I gave them they wanted to know if I had more quarters, and if I did, could they have them? Anyway, Robin pointed out in Sunday School this morning that manners seem to have fallen by the wayside, not in all cases, but it might be true in the majority of cases.

Thanksgiving is behind us and we all, those of us who are Christians and believe in God and that good things come from Him, anyway, spent time thanking Him for the things we have been blessed with. I thank Him for ongoing blessings, today. Having a church to go to and grow. Having opportunities to serve Him, hopefully not just in church but beyond. Sweet little moments when gently, I can tell a child to say thank you for what they got and be grateful, rather than always asking for more and explaining that doesn't just go for when I give you a quarter, they should carry that with them whenever anyone, anywhere, gives them something. That simple thank you without the follow up of, "can I have more" that is known as having good manners is an important lesson in our society. In a day of made-in-China-throw-away-toys, some children aren't taught that anymore and instead of complaining about bad parenting maybe we could create or craft little moments in their lives to give them those messages they might not be receiving at home. Just a thought.

Anyway, back to losing elections. I'm feeling generous, I think I have a weakness for that, when it comes to human failure. You see, I've failed a lot, at a lot of things. When it comes to losing gracefully, sometimes it's hard to say the right thing when your heart is telling you something else. Grace is when you do it anyway, when you say the right thing even though your heart is, maybe, screaming a different tale.

During the course of some of the local campaigns I noticed some unseemliness going on between this one and that one which caused me to stop and think about how difficult it is not to argue. I know I have a difficult time when I think I'm right and someone else is wrong not to "straighten them out," on the error of their ways, we all think we're the right one, don't we? Candidates for office have to be careful in their reactions.

You know, I think there once was a day when we all were more careful about our reactions. Certainly, there is something to be said for being out in the open, for sharing our opinion but, people used to talk about how to share opinions, that they should be shared gently, with kindness and love. Christians sometimes talk about doing that in the Church, about offering correction to a brother or sister in Christ with love as the motive, in gentleness and in kindness. Someone, I think, brought that up in Sunday School this morning too, because we were talking about how Christians show they are different. It was discussed that might be an excellent area to show that Christians are different, by showing kindness when we lose or are angry and have no reason to show kindness. I'm thinking it might even be more important to show kindness when we win.

Compassion was another word discussed in my Sunday School class. There could be more compassion for losers, in my opinion. No one likes to lose, and I'd think that someone who has opened their lives to total scrutiny, put their political philosophy and ideology on the line for all to see and often spent a lot of their own money on their campaigns, only to be rejected, might be deserving of a bit more compassion. Sometimes they might not react and respond with grace, sometimes maybe they could have spent a little more time in retrospection before they wrote that hot-headed letter to the editor of a local paper.

I can't help but wonder how I'd have reacted.

James 3:2; 7-12:

2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

There's a lot to say for that old cliche, "Walk A Mile In My Shoes."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Aunt sent some political quotes:

My Aunt, the one who sent me the Bible book puzzle, sent me some quotes tonight. Many of them I had already seen but they were enjoyable to read again. Here's a couple of them that you might have already read but I hadn't seen before:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!"- P.J. O'Rourke

"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin."-Mark Twain

Here's a couple I had read but are worth repeating:

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."-Ronald Reagan (1986)

"I don't make jokes... I just watch the government and report the facts."-Will Rogers

Thanks, Aunt _____! (She's an anonymous source :)

New Rasmussen Report indicates voters see a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans on off-shore drilling question

According to a Rasmussen Report (telephone survey) 61 percent of Americans believe Congress should reconvene immediately and vote to lift the ban on off shore drilling; 67 percent of Americans identify the Republican party leadership as supporting the lifting of that ban; and 77 percent say the issue will assist them in their decision as to who they'll vote for in Congress in the upcoming election.

48 percent of Democrats think that even though they perceive it is their own party leadership fighting against lifting the ban, they should reconvene immediately and do so.

Read more....

Young Political Contenders: Inexperienced or Unjaded?

Idealistic or Naive?

I was inspired listening to the Vincent David Jericho Program on KSGF this morning. He was asking about whether there was an "age bias" against younger candidates who ran in the primary election Tuesday. A discussion with callers ensued. I found it refreshing to hear some older, elderly callers call in to discuss it. You can listen here (beginning about 9.28 in).

A couple of definitions of youthful from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary are:

"having the vitality or freshness of youth: vigorous"

"having accomplished or undergone little erosion"

One of the definitions of idealism found at the same source is:

"literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature"

In a few more months my body will hit the half century mark. With age seems to come a bit less energy and a few more aches and pains but, in conversations with some of my peers, I find that I haven't lost a lot of the naivety that is associated with youth. I haven't lost some of the idealism I had when I was still in high school. I haven't lost the dream, if you will, that if you work hard, if you are honest, if you strive to live a life of integrity, if you pour 100 percent of your energy into something and give it the best you can, you can make a difference in whatever field you choose to work.

I don't think I want to lose some of that naivete, sure there are bad connotations associated with being naive, "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment," but less than one might think, it depends on your perspective. Other definitions are:

"marked by unaffected simplicity*"

"not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation"

*Simplicity:

"the state of being simple, uncomplicated, or uncompounded"

"freedom from pretense or guile"

"directness of expression"

Wait a minute. I just realized that though I, and many of the callers to Jericho's program had no problem with youth, as I go through these definitions associated with youth: vitality and freshness; little erosion; imagination; simplicity; uncomplicated; freedom from pretense or guile; directness, I see why youthfulness doesn't fit into the political establishment. It's becoming simple and uncomplicated to me!

Perhaps political office is a bit like sex, some people value the clean slate of virginity while others covet the experience of a partner who has had lots of previous partners. However, experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good lover any more than years of holding political office is an indication a politician is a good representative of the people.

As a matter of fact, a large quantity of sexual experience brings with it more opportunity for sexually transmitted disease. Likewise, long inductees into the political realm may have become infected with the disease of losing the idealism of youth and the naivete, imagination, idealism, uncomplicated simplicity that goes with inexperience in the political realm. Many establishment, experienced, older incumbents feel they've had to face the reality that little change can occur in the current local, state and national political atmosphere and once infected with that mentality, certain cases may be incurable.

Hulshof needs to stop negative attacks against Minority Candidate

I am really tired of all the negative attacks Kenny Hulshof is making against Sarah Steelman for running negative ads against him.

Shouldn't he be talking about his plans for Missouri!?

Negative, negative, negative. He should be ashamed of himself. What does he have against a woman Governor?

;)

Obama addresses his "followers"

I had Nightline on, still do in fact, and something struck me. It isn't the first time I've heard it. When Charles Gibson came on and announced that Obama was going to speak to the crowd live he said Obama was going to speak to his "followers." Like I said, I've heard it before but the thing is, I don't think I've ever heard any other candidates supporters referred to as "followers."

Have you ever heard:

Clinton followers?

Romney followers?

McCain followers?

Huckabee followers?

Have you even heard of Paul followers?

What about Nadar followers?

I find that very interesting. Why do you suppose the media refers to "campaigns" and "supporters" when discussing any other candidate but when they refer to Obama supporters they become "followers?" Or, am I mistaken? I'm not an Obama supporter but if I was I'd find that very offensive.

Update: Well, I'll be darned. I did a google search for Clinton followers and got a return of 465,000, McCain, 324,000, Huckabee, 195,000. When did it become common to refer to a candidate's supporter as a "follower?" I don't like it. I don't "follow" political candidates, any of them. I might support some of them. I might like or endorse some of them but I don't "follow" them. Geesh. Is this a new thing this year or did I just fall off a turnip truck? :0

The Newest Element

I received this in an e-mail this morning, along with wishes for a Happy New Year from a friend of mine. ~ Thanks, Alice! The author is unknown:

Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction which would normally take less than a second to take anytime from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of two to six years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which some of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as the critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. ~ Author unknown