They Thirst: The Disturbing Trend to Deny Basic Needs to the Dying

*One of the most read articles on +Catholic Ponderings+ is my series on end-of-life care (1,300 targeted page views for the opening article in the series and counting). The subject continues to be one that most of us will struggle with and very few people want to talk about. 

As the faithful continue their bold battle for unborn children, the fight for the protection of the elderly, nearing the natural end of life, is heard as a vapid whisper. Their fight takes place on a more intimate battleground. Loved ones are left struggling with difficult decisions, often with very little guidance or support. This does not even begin to take into account people who have no family or loving friends charged with overseeing their care. 

There is a frightening trend in our culture to judge the value of life by a perceived quality.  Medical professionals frequently press their views upon caregivers at a time when they are most vulnerable. The higher your number in years, the more likely you are to be relegated to a category of diminished value. There are few medical professionals who believe life has intrinsic value and will give support and encouragement to caretakers with that in mind. If a life is deemed to be of little or no value, the time a loved one has remaining on earth may be hurried along. In such situations, water and food come to be viewed as a pharmaceutical intervention and not the basic needs for all human life they truly are.  As Catholics, most of us can confidently profess our support for all life from natural conception until natural death.  The reality of the latter touches each of us in varying degrees, as not all of us will find ourselves in a position of responsibility for the care of a dying person. There are as many stories about end of life care as there are individuals. 

For me, this is a very personal situation that has forever changed my view of end-of-life care. Having been appointed Health Care Proxy by my dear grandmother several years ago, I now have the final say on all of the direct care she receives.  We had spoken at great length about her wishes and she had hoped to make all decisions easier by checking boxes she found to be appropriate on a “Living Will.” I knew then that I would consent to the removal of any machines that were keeping her alive or to sign consent for any procedures which were deemed helpful to her hypothetical affliction. What was unknown to me, as I would imagine the case would be for countless others, was that I could not appreciate the vast ocean of gray area I would be forced to face.  

For my family, the quandary is due to my grandmother’s increasing cognitive impairment contrasted with her good physical health. As a resident of a skilled nursing facility, she can no longer care for her own hygiene, is unable to feed herself, and spends her days in a geriatric chair. Her mind has failed to the point where she can only make her longing for food or water known to others on rare occasions. Add to these difficulties the fact that she will often retreat to the inner sanctum of her thoughts and become unresponsive. Despite daily visits by family members who attempt to waken her, she revisits these periods of retreat with increasing frequency.

 

At a regularly scheduled care plan team meeting, we requested that she have anxiety medication administered at regular intervals, instead of waiting for her to begin showing signs of severe agitation. My grandmother had been suffering from bouts of great anxiety and fear, most often as the late afternoon hours approached. The physician agreed to the need for the medication in order to keep her more comfortable.  The result of this change in medication plan led to a conversation of comfort care based upon notes contained in her file.  My mother, her two sisters, and I had agreed that we wanted her to be kept comfortable years ago.

Unbeknownst to any of us, “comfort care” is a loaded topic and one that can have different meanings. For us, to be kept comfortable meant very basic creature comforts including her psychological, physical, and spiritual comfort. We wanted her to be kept as pain-free as possible, to be able to eat food that she enjoyed, and to be surrounded by people who were as concerned for her as we were.  The physician, on the other hand, looked through notes and told us that if we wanted comfort care, she should no longer receive her anti-hypertensive and thyroid replacement medications.  He could not understand why we wanted her to receive these medications based upon our request for her to be kept “comfortable,” and we could not believe the absurdity of the question. We spent an hour poring over her blood tests among various other medical reports.  All reports indicated that her body was functioning within normal limits for a woman of her age despite her quickly failing cognitive abilities due to Vascular Dementia. The physician also went on to explain that if my grandmother at some point was unable to eat or drink by mouth for whatever reason, we were declining artificial hydration and nutrition by choosing “comfort care,” a.k.a. palliative care.  By designating “comfort care,” we were also refusing x-rays to determine a possible fracture in a hypothetical fall, blood tests to check her thyroid and other medical levels we wished to monitor. We quickly explained the marked difference between our definition of comfort and theirs. Thankfully, the family members all agreed this was certainly not our intention and asked that we continue to be informed of any health concerns as they arise so that we may decide what is best in each situation. We had nearly consented to hastening her death and were naively ignorant about more than we had imagined.

In the two years since that meeting, our family has been tested repeatedly both by the people charged with her direct care, and in issues of morality.   One such example took place recently when my grandmother’s common cold progressed to visibly difficult breathing.  The nurse listened to her lungs and agreed with our concern.  Due to the late hour and unavailability of the in-house physician, we requested that she be taken to the hospital emergency room for x-rays and diagnosis. Our concerns were confirmed and she was diagnosed with pneumonia and was severely dehydrated.

 

She was eventually admitted to the ICU at the hospital and quickly began to show great improvement. With the help of the IV fluids and strong doses of antibiotics, she was growing more aware and thankfully consuming soups, stewed fruit and any beverages she was offered.  Her health was so improved over the course of a few days that she was transferred to a medical floor within the hospital. Unfortunately, when people who suffer from confusion begin to feel better in an unfamiliar setting, they grow increasingly anxious. The on-call physician ordered an anti-anxiety medication for her but it had a horrible effect.  She became totally unresponsive to all attempts to awaken her. Family members broke up the day into shifts so that someone was always at her side, beginning with late morning and through to the late evening. We hoped that she was catching up on her sleep after being so sick and would awaken the next day.  That was not the case.  Instead, after an attempt by a well-intentioned staff member to feed an unresponsive person breakfast, she choked and was referred to a respiratory therapist for a swallow evaluation.

A “nothing by mouth” order (NPO) was placed on her door. The situation had become a grave one, leaving loved ones praying for Godly intervention. She was discharged from the hospital the next day without warning and family members raced to her bedside at the skilled nursing facility. We were amazed and joyful to find her wide awake in her bed and eating voraciously. Before we had arrived, she had asked for food and they ordered her a tray of pureed and liquid foods. Her social worker entered the room and shared with us the report she had received from the hospital. They said that their recommendation was that “comfort care measures be put in place.” The social worker added, “I’m not ready for her to be on comfort care.”  We assured her that we were not ready either.  An emergency care meeting was arranged to discuss my grandmother’s care once again. As both health care proxy and protective granddaughter, I looked straight into the doctor’s eyes and stated, “We do not want to kill my grandmother by withholding nutrition or hydration just because her brain does not function properly.” He assured me that no such thing would be allowed to happen and that he now understood our wishes. He proceeded to give the nurse an order for urinalysis and a blood test. They finally understood our desires for my grandmother’s care.

My grandmother’s mental acuity continues to wax and wane as she carries forward her vulnerable, yet necessary, march to eternity. I am blessed to act as intermediary on behalf of my beloved grandmother. The responsibility is colossal, the weight of which became much more evident as we have been presented with decisions of such magnitude. Our call to value all human life does not mean we know how to proceed in such situations as Christians and this needs to change.

I was overwhelmed by the volume of articles available in my online search for information. Some articles were helpful, some offensive. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website offers several documents on End of Life issues. As with many other sources, the denial of artificial hydration and nutrition was discussed in regard to someone in a “vegetative state” and this did not apply to our situation. I needed a checklist or document that clearly gave bullet-points to consider issues that took into account my deep faith and love for my grandmother. I found just what I needed in a two page document “Preaching Points on Nutrition and Hydration” available through the National Catholic Bioethics Center website at ncbcenter.org. In the document, one statement offered an affirmation of exactly what my heart was telling me.

“What will be the cause of death?” If the answer is dehydration and starvation, and artificial nutrition and hydration can be easily supplied and assimilated, then not supplying them is a form of euthanasia. Unconsciousness is not a fatal disease. No one dies of unconsciousness.”

Our fight is not over and the bigger fight has barely begun: the struggle to provide the basic needs for all aging and otherwise infirm people, and honoring Jesus Christ within each of them. Caregivers and their loved ones hunger and thirst, both literally and figuratively, as they struggle to carry their crosses. May each of us heed the call to be more like Simon of Cyrene, easing the burdens of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

*Since writing this article, my grandmother passed away. After yet another bout with dehydration/UTI/sepsis, she was finally eating and drinking fairly well. She ate her favorite meal - a turkey dinner and had some soda. According to her caregivers, one moment she was alert and the next moment her head slumped and she was gone. We fought for her right to appropriate care up to her final week in this life. It never got easier to communicate our wishes clearly, or to have them received (and carried out) the way we wanted them to be. It is my hope that others will find support and comfort in my articles on the topic, and as always, I welcome comments or questions either below this post, or in the blog e-mail: catholicponderings@yahoo.com 

$1 Mandatory Abortion Surcharge - 'Accounting Procedure'

If you have a cellphone, you've probably griped at some point about the insane surcharges that are added onto your bill. You cannot opt out, unless you are willing to get rid of your cellphone. In New York,  we have paid $1.20 every month for over a decade into a state mandated fund intended to assist counties to update their 911 programs. In 2010, $190 million was collected and only $9.3 million was actually disbursed to the counties in New York. I cannot imagine anyone being against having an emergency response service in our communities. Most of us have benefited at one time or another by having police, ambulance, or fire services just a few moments away thanks to an efficient 911 dispatch system. Governments are important for a civilized society, but why do we sit idle when we are being forced to pay, or overpay, for things that do not benefit us as they promised? HERE is the legislation calling for a repeal in NY.

Once something becomes law in the U.S., like most places, it may take decades to repeal. This includes legislation that is unpopular with the vast majority of voters, but the officials we elect sponsor the programs. If they received the majority of votes by constituents, certainly those elected are much wiser and more experienced than the voting public. Right?

Enter PL 111-148, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the less-than-affectionate moniker, Obamacare. Open the linked document if you must, but consider yourself warned; it is a 906-page .pdf file. On page 53, you'll find that the secretary of Health and Human Services has a lot of power to determine what will be paid for and the cost of services provided. Those of us enrolled in the healthcare program won't be charged more than $1 per month for abortion coverage so that others may exercise the their right to abortion. But - but - we won't have to pay for abortions, right? That is what we are promised by the government. This cannot be right - Kelly and others are stupid, know-nothing-right-wing-woman-hating-homophobic-ignorant-pigs, right?



Accounting procedure. If I had withheld a few numbers on my 1040 form this year, or moved numbers from the income field to the expense field, it would have been an 'accounting procedure.' Just pay the surcharge to a 'special account' and hide your head under your pillow. You'll be paying for 'services' that won't deny women their rights, but you won't be told what the services are just in case it might make you feel uncomfortable.

Only a dollar. Human flesh is still cheap.

When Jesus came to Golgotha, they hanged Him on a tree, 
They drove great nails through hands and feet, and made a Calvary; 
They crowned Him with a crown of thorns, red were His wounds and deep, 
For those were crude and cruel days, and human flesh was cheap. 
--From When Jesus Came to Birmingham by G. A. Studdert-Kennedy 



More on the story HERE and HERE.


Let the government know what YOU think about the HHS mandate and Obamacare by filling out the form HERE. I did.

Catholic Women Can Speak for Themselves, Thanks!

From WomenSpeakForThemselves.com:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON'T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable -- but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking "women's health" in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of "costless" birth control with "equality," note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

Helen M. Alvaré JD Associate Professor of Law George Mason University (VA)*

Kim Daniels JDFormer CounselThomas More Law Center (MD)

As a woman, were you born inferior due to your fertility and require fixing with a birth control pill? If that repair doesn't take, does your inferiority need to be repaired with surgery? Mr. Obama and his administration, along with other Planned Parenthood supporters, say that you are broken without their intervention. Does that make sense to you?


Ladies, you may click HERE to add your name to the growing list of women who wish to let Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, Ms. Fluke and Ms. Sebelius that they don't speak for us! Help spread the word!


Where are the women? The question should be "where is the media to report on the women who are not being heard?"  The Catholic Information Center hosted a panel of women in opposition to the HHS Mandate. It is lengthy, but I urge you to watch the video linked HERE. If indeed you are opposed to the HHS Mandate, it will be worth your time. Legal and constitutional implications of the mandate is discussed and you will be educated on various points that have not been discussed elsewhere.


Does this woman speak for you?

HHS Mandate Updates March 7, 2012

The fight to retain our religious liberty continues to mount. In the media, Catholics are referred to as outdated, anti-choicers, oppressors, and totally barbaric in our treatment of women. This is the Garden of Eden all over again. The serpent taunting Eve, insisting that she needs to be enlightened and will be much better for eating the forbidden fruit. It is difficult to sift fact from the enormous amount of fiction circulated by the secularists. I wanted to give you some updated information and will continue to post new information as it is available. The more we educate ourselves on the situation, the better we will be prepared to act.

Cardinal Dolan

Timothy Cardinal Dolan released a new letter to all U.S. Bishops on March 2, 2012 and it may be found HERE.

Some highlights of the four-page memo:

• We will once again dedicate ample time at our Administrative Committee meeting next week, and at the June Plenary Assembly, to this critical subject. We will continue to listen, discuss, deliberate and act.
• We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans. We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it.
• We are grateful to know so many of our fellow Americans, especially our friends in the ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, stand together in this important moment in our country. They know that this is not just about sterilization, abortifacients, and chemical contraception. It’s about religious freedom, the sacred right of any Church to define its own teaching and ministry.
• In the coming weeks the Conference will continue to provide you, among other things, with catechetical resources on the significance of religious freedom to the Church and the Church’s teaching on it from a doctrinal and moral perspective. We are developing liturgical aids to encourage prayer in our efforts and plans on how we can continue to voice our public and strong opposition to this infringement on our freedom.
• The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.” That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable “accommodation.”
• At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. [...] Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.
•  ...our bishops’ conference, many individual religious entities, and other people of good will are working with some top-notch law firms who feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono. In the upcoming days, you will hear much more about this encouraging and welcome development.

Ms. Fluke testifies about her right to birth control.
Washington Post

Unless you've been living in a cave (and who could blame you?), you have heard and/or seen the testimony before Nancy Pelosi and her committee teary-eyed individuals, touched beyond compare. Ms. Fluke shared the horrendous burden of paying for her own birth control pills. 

As with all radicals targeting the Church today, Ms. Fluke's story proved to be much more interesting upon further investigation. As reported by Stephen Gutowski:

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.  

It seems that Ms. Fluke is a radical prop embraced by the sex-obsessed left, and not the financially barren birth control deprived law student the media and radical left wing sold her to be. Read the entire article by Mr. Gutowski HERE.

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

Many have been filed lawsuits against the mandate, including Priests for Life. They have asked others to add their names to a Citizens Amicus Brief in Support of Priests for Life vs. Sebelius. You may do so HERE.

President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary

You may contact Ms. Sebelius and tell her to Stop the HHS Power Grab by going to Catholicvote.org HERE.

Did you know that there is going to be a nationwide rally in defense of religious freedom? Please click HERE to learn more. In Buffalo, it will take place at Senator Schumer's office (contact info. HERE) and in the Diocese of Rochester, it has been reported that one will take place in Canandaigua (further info. will be found in comments on the Cleansing Fire post HERE). 

Did you sign the petition yet? Go HERE to learn more and add your name.

________________________________________________

Edited to add: I came across an article written by law professor Robert K. Vischer in First Things. He argues that the current trend to fight against sharia law in some of our states is a fight against religious freedom. The article is very interesting and one I find important to consider as Catholics and other groups are engaged in a fight to retain our own religious liberty.

March 12, 2012: This just in from Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life:

The eight lawsuits so far, arranged by the date they were filed, are as follows:

November 10, 2011 Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius 
December 21, 2011 Colorado Christian University v. Sebelius 
February 9, 2012 Eternal Word Television Network v. Sebelius 
February 15, 2012 Priests for Life v. Sebelius 
February 20, 2012 Louisiana College v. Sebelius 
February 21, 2012 Ave Maria University v. Sebelius 
February 21, 2012 Geneva College v. Sebelius 
February 23, 2012 Bruning v. Sebelius (This is the one whose plaintiffs include the states of Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.)

President Obama and the Church

"Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history." --President Obama





"This has not been a fight of our choosing.  We’d rather not be in it.  We’d prefer to concentrate on the noble tasks of healing the sick, teaching our youth, and helping the poor, all now in jeopardy due to this bureaucratic intrusion into the internal life of the church.  And we were doing all of those noble works rather well, I dare say, without these radical new mandates from the government.  The Catholic Church in America has a long tradition of partnership with government and the wider community in the service of the sick, our children, our elders, and the poor at home and abroad.  We’d sure rather be partnering than punching." --Timothy Cardinal Dolan


"Practically, we’re told that the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception. There are properly medical reasons, in some circumstances, for the use of contraceptive pills, as everyone knows. But even if contraceptives were used by a majority of couples only and exclusively to suppress a possible pregnancy, behavior doesn’t determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin." -- Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.


"The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics." --President Obama


"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation" --President Obama


"I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story." --President Obama




Did you take the +Ponderings+ poll on President Obama yet?  Click HERE.


Stand up for religious freedom! VISIT THIS SITE

Take Action to Defend Religious Liberty

Find other ways to take action by clicking HERE.

Don't buy what the mainstream media is selling. This is not about birth control or "those crazy Catholics."





UPDATE: "Senate votes, 51-48, to table the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers and insurers to opt out of parts of the Obama health care law -- in particular, birth control -- on moral or religious grounds."


Click HERE to read the USCCB News Release


How did Catholic Senators vote? Read about it at the National Catholic Register.

Buffalo Area Catholics Confront Rep. Kathy Hochul

A line has been drawn in the sand, and President Obama and his supporters have made their contempt for religious freedom known by proceeding with the HHS Mandate. Sadly, many such supporters are among the nearly 70 million American Catholics. The outstanding turnout of over 100 Catholics from the Diocese of Buffalo at a town hall meeting with Rep. Kathy Hochul (D) was due to the concerted efforts of  WLOF Catholic radio, the Catholic Men's group MOJC, and Fr. Leon Biernat. With only two days notice, they were able to move Catholics to attend this meeting which took place last Friday morning. It must also be mentioned that WGRZ News in Buffalo is very supportive of the local Catholic community and did an excellent job providing coverage.

Click HERE to view all footage provided by WGRZ.

Call to Action: Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

UPDATE 2/2/12 and URGENT:  Have you signed the petition on the White House website yet?  CLICK HERE to SIGN.


Under the fine leadership of Cardinal designate Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the USSCB, an unquestionably quick call to action has been heralded against the recent attack against the rights of every Catholic in the United States.   

Dated January 20, 2012:

WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.

Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”

To take action, go HERE.

Read other +Ponderings from the past about the Obama administration and Ms. Sibelius HERE. 

*See also USCCB January 23, 2012 News Release HERE

"So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- "

Heretics among us are receiving thanks from the leader of Planned Parenthood, each of them requiring our prayers - each of them needing to be fitted for asbestos suits - just in case. From Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood President, on our recent Health Care Reform bill, now law:




"Some ask why didn't we yell even louder than we did? Why didn't we overturn the Hyde amendment, which has unfairly prevented poor women from having their health insurance -- Medicaid-- pay for abortion? The simple and discouraging truth is that we have an anti-choice House of Representatives. With the help of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's political action committee, things got better in 2008, with the election of 28 new pro-choice members of the House and, more importantly, eight new pro-choice U.S. senators. But if you're scoring, when the House voted for the first time on the Stupak abortion ban, 64 Democrats voted in favor of the ban. There are way too many members of Congress who are opposed to women's rights and who vote that way every session -- Republicans and Democrats.

...

And in the last days, when Congressman Stupak and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to bring down health care reform completely over their narrow demands, the true heroine for women's health was Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She never blinked. In the final hours, when congressional leadership and the White House were scrambling for any vote they could get to reach the magic 216, Speaker Pelosi put herself in the way of the anti-choice steamroller. In private and in public, she vowed that there would be no health care bill if it included the Stupak abortion ban.

And in the final days before the bill was passed, it was the Roman Catholic nuns who most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform. This brave and important move, demonstrating that they cared as much about the health care of families in America as they did about church hierarchy, was a critical demonstration of support. Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice, as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time he should.

...

It has been a long and difficult process to get health care passed, and the work isn't over yet. But we need more than health care; we need women and men elected to office who will stand up for our health and our rights, even when it's hard. So here's to the women leaders in Congress -- and to the nuns -- and to the women everywhere who were counting on them. They need our gratitude and our support."--Huffington Post

"Sister" Simone Campbell

____________

When Catholics are given a pat on the back by the leader of Planned Parenthood, everyone must take notice.  Obviously, the one receiving congratulatory 'warm fuzzies' has strayed far from the Shepherd. 

Washington Continues Challenge of Eighth Commandment

It seems that the truth-challenged (politically correct term for liar, just so as not to offend anyone) leader of the United States does not approve of the Stupak Amendment in the Health Care Bill which recently passed by a narrow margin in the House of Representatives. This story was reported in many media outlets, but I wanted to be certain to link to a 'news' site which is not wholly offensive to the leftists (ie: FOX News). From CNN:

In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Obama adviser David Axelrod reiterated the president’s position on how abortion should be handled in the debate over health care reform.
“The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,” Axelrod told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. “He’s going to work with the Senate and the House to try to ensure that at the end of the day the status quo is not changed.”
Asked specifically whether the Stupak amendment changed the status quo, Axelrod replied “I think it’s fair to say the bill Congress passed does change the status quo. But I believe there are discussions ongoing as to how to change it accordingly.”
King asked Axelrod whether the president would sign a final health care bill that contains the Stupak amendment. Likening it to Obama’s position on the public health insurance, Axelrod said Obama “believes both these issues and can and will be worked through before [the final bill] reaches his desk.”

You may recall his address to Congress on September 9th. He stated with great conviction
"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

Will the real President Obama please come forward?

"A bad name and disgrace will you acquire: 'That for the evil man with double tongue!'" -- Sirach 6:1b

'Cat out of the bag' on Abortion Inclusion in Health Care Bill(s)

Well, you can tell me that you are telling the truth, Mr. President. You can tell everyone all day, every day, BUT it just isn't so. In his address to Congress last month, the President said the following:

"And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." (Applause.) Transcript

Just prior to that statement, a voice cried out from the chamber shouting, "You lie!" I contend that the Representative from South Carolina knew what was coming and got the 'cart before the horse'. In an earlier +Ponderings+, I shared with you the findings of Factcheck.org in regard to abortion and the health care proposals before Congress. Bottom line: the President was not being truthful. Bearing false witness. Lying.

I also posted on the Hatch and Enzi amendments to the bill. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The Hatch amendment failed 13-10 on a mostly party-line vote. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) joined Democrats in opposing it, while Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota was the lone Democrat in favor.

The panel also rejected an amendment Mr. Hatch said was needed to ensure the government doesn't discriminate against health-care providers who refuse to perform abortion procedures for moral or religious reasons.

What is that, Mr. President? What did you say about abortion not being included in the health care plan? What was it you said about conscience laws?

As a candidate, President Obama "declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president."

--John Boehner on Thursday, September 10th, 2009 in a statement from the Minority Leader's office

Was the House leader correct? Yes, after some fact checking, PolitiFact found that indeed that is the absolute truth.

I have personally written Senator Chuck Schumer twice now, receiving a standard reply both times. One such reply was posted HERE. Very much like discourse with a tree.

+ + +

When praying the Hail Holy Queen at the end of the Rosary, I often think about the poor banished children of Eve, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Just who are these mourning and weeping children? The aborted children or the people who do what they can to protect the unborn and continue to be told nothing but lies. I'm not weeping, but I am sufficiently frustrated.

US Health Care Reform: Support the Hatch - Enzi Amendments

On September 22, the Senate Finance Committee began markup of its health care reform bill, America’s Healthy Future Act. The bill is written in a descriptive or conceptual form and was introduced by committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) as the chairman’s Mark.
Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Michael Enzi (R-WY) have submitted amendments to correct flaws in the chairman’s Mark on abortion and conscience rights. It is especially important that the following amendments be supported:
1. Hatch Amendment #C14: Abortion Funding Prohibition. The Mark authorizes federal tax credit subsidies for private health benefits packages that cover elective abortion. Everyone purchasing such a package would be required to pay a surcharge to help pay for others’ abortions. This is contrary to longstanding federal policy, including the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program, where benefits packages with elective abortion may not receive federal support. Hatch Amendment #C14 prohibits federal funds authorized or appropriated in the Mark from being used for abortion and the cost of plans that cover abortion, except to save the mother’s life, or in cases of rape or incest. Insurers wanting to offer broader abortion coverage may do so only in a supplemental policy funded solely by the private premiums of those who choose to purchase it.
2. Hatch Amendment #C13: Nondiscrimination on Abortion. The Mark lacks a provision in current law that prevents government bodies receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion (Weldon Amendment). Hatch Amendment #C13 states that a federal agency or program, or state or local government receiving federal funds under this Act, may not discriminate against individual or institutional health care providers that decline to perform, refer for, or pay for abortion. Identical language has already been approved as part of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s version of the health care reform bill, H.R. 3200.
3. Enzi Amendment #C15: Respect for Moral and Religious Convictions. The Mark does not apply longstanding federal policies on conscience rights in health care to this new program. Enzi Amendment #C15 ensures that governmental bodies receiving funds under this bill may not discriminate against health care providers who do not provide specific items or services to which they have a moral or religious objection. This amendment respects conscience and religious freedom beyond the abortion context. --NCHLA

For more current blog entries on issues related to Health Care, please click HERE.

"Funding programs that aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is essential" -- Sen. Charles Schumer

Found this in my inbox today:

Dear Mrs. H_____:

Thank you for your letter opposing the health care reform that lacks a ban on federal funding for abortion.

As the father of two daughters, I share your deep respect for the sanctity of life and realize the importance of honoring one’s moral and religious heritage. I also value the freedom of all American citizens to base their personal choices on their own values and moral convictions. I also support measures that aim to reduce the number of abortions, and I believe that education and prevention are critical to achieving that.

The decision to have an abortion will never be an easy one, nor should it be. While I believe that every woman should have the right to make her own decision, in counsel with her physician, family, and religious adviser, I also believe that funding programs that aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is essential.

Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this or any other matter.




Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm . Thank you.

_________________

My response:

Dear. Senator Schumer:

Why do you think it is important to reduce the number of abortions performed if you support abortion rights? Either they are acceptable or not - which is it, Senator?

You stated the following:

"...funding programs that aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is essential."

Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies begins before a pregnancy begins - not after. How does abortion reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, Senator? It only encourages further reckless behavior. It is not a method of birth control, sir. It is a method of genocide. It leaves women with life-long emotional scars knowing that they took the life of their own child. Most women who abort their child have done so several times. In a nation where it is a federal offense to trample a sea turtle egg, we encourage irresponsible sex and the subsequent killing of our children. Children that are wanted - desperately - by parents across the country. To pay for such an abomination in the name of every tax paying citizen in American is shameful.

I got it - abortion is legal in the U.S. That is painfully clear. Why must I pay for them? It is all blood money and you sir, should be ashamed. There is a reason that Americans are so displeased with Congress - you do what you want, how you want without any regard for the majority of your constituents. You are not the senator of NYC - you are a New York State Senator.

Sincerely,

Kelly

__________________________

The Senator on the issue of abortion:

• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
• Expand contraceptive services for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
• Protect the reproductive rights of women. (Jan 1993)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
• Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception. (Jan 2009)

Obama's Health Care Speech - Fact Check

Obama's Health Care Speech

From Factcheck.org:

"The president said "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." But the House bill would permit a public option to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That's true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage."

Abortion

The president insisted that no federal money would pay for abortions:

Obama: [U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.

The truth of that depends on what is meant by federal dollars. Actually, as we've written before, under Democratic legislation now before Congress, the public option would cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother and could cover all abortions if the administration chooses, and as Obama once promised. Private insurance plans purchased with the help of federal subsidies to low- and moderate-income workers also could cover all abortions, as many, if not most, private plans do today.

Under an amendment adopted by a House committee, abortions would be paid for by the "public option" only with money collected from policyholders in the form of premiums, not with money collected from taxpayers. But is money collected by the government and paid out to abortion providers by the government œfederal dollars"? The anti-abortion side says yes. And the same goes for federal subsidies given to low- and moderate-income persons to help them buy insurance. If they use those dollars to buy private policies that cover all abortions, does that mean federal dollars go to fund abortions? Again, abortion foes say yes.

The advocates of abortion rights argue otherwise. They say the House bill would be an extension of longstanding policy under the Hyde amendment, which forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life, but also allows states to use their own Medicaid money to fund other abortions (and 17 of them do). In any case, the matter is not so simple or clear as the president would like it to seem."

______________

And...

From the USCCB, press release September 10, 2009 (taking the President at his word):

WASHINGTON—Calling it an important contribution to a crucial national debate, officials speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed President Obama's September 9 address on health care reform, particularly his statements regarding abortion and the uninsured.

"We agree that 'no one should go broke because they get sick,'" said Kathy Saile, Director of Domestic Social Development at the USCCB. "That's why the U.S. Bishops have worked for decades for decent health care for all. The Catholic Church provides health care for millions, purchases health care, picks up the pieces of a failing health system, and has a long tradition of teaching on ethics in health care. Health care reform that respects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We welcome the President's speech as an important contribution to this essential national debate and task."

"We especially welcome the President's commitment to exclude federal funding of abortion, and to maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care," said Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB. "We believe that incorporating essential and longstanding federal laws on these issues into any new proposal will strengthen support for health care reform. We will work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that these protections are clearly reflected in new legislation, so no one is required to pay for or take part in abortion as a result of health care reform."

"We agree with the President that there are details that need to be ironed out," said Saile. "And with his address last night, we see the opportunity to work towards a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity, access for all with a special concern for the poor, and inclusion of legal immigrants. We also see the possibility of meeting the bishops' goal to pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience and a variety of options, and restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers."