The abortion of a child of any ethnicity or color is a tragedy that impacts a whole nation. But one thing the latest numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tell us is that abortion continues to exact a particularly devastating toll on minority communities.
The CDC annual “Abortion Surveillance” for 2010 found a 3.1% drop in abortions from 2009, on top of a 4.6% drop from the previous year. Because the substantial decline in abortion across the board in the last twenty years (upwards of 400,000 fewer a year by the Guttmacher Institute’s more exact count), clearly raw numbers of abortions have gone down for virtually all demographic groups, minorities included. This is obviously good news and an indication that the drop that began in 1990 continues to the present day.
However, what these latest numbers confirm is that declines seem to have been greater among whites than among minorities. Put another way, demographic data from the latest CDC report clearly show that abortion continues to have a hugely disparate impact on minorities.
There is an important caveat: There are significant limitations in the CDC’s numbers. Several states, including the most populous, California, do not report their numbers to the agency. And even among those that do, the data is not necessarily gathered and sorted in the same way.
Not every state asks about race or ethnicity, so precision is difficult. But in the 28 reporting areas  that identified both race and ethnicity, 35.7% of abortions were performed on what the CDC refers to as “black” women, 21% were performed on Hispanics, and 6.5% were done on non-Hispanic women identified as being of “other” race or ethnicity (Table 12 in the CDC’s Abortion Surveillance for 2010).
This means that 63.2% of abortions in those reporting areas were done on minorities, or nearly two thirds.
Tallying up figures from the 2010 Census, minorities constitute 44.1% of the population: Hispanics (16%), Black (13%), Asian (5%), Native American (0.9%), Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (0.2%), “Other” (6%), or some mixed race category (3%) 
If 44.1% of the population is responsible for 63.2% of the abortions, unborn children in those communities are clearly under assault. It is obvious that abortion mills located in or near minority communities are doing high volumes of business.
It is possible, of course, that statistics from “missing states” could tilt the balance back towards the middle, but unlikely. While states not reporting both race and ethnicity to the CDC include predominantly white northeastern states like Vermont and New Hampshire, and Midwestern states such as Nebraska or North Dakota, other large states with significant minority populations such California, Florida, and Illinois were also not included.
If anything is likely, it is that the percentage of abortions to minorities is higher.
The drop in abortions across the board for all racial and ethnic groups shows that pro-life legislation, education, and outreach have had an impact, but these statistics are an indication that there is more work to be done in these particular minority communities.
Planned Parenthood and its allies in the abortion industry market themselves to these communities, doing Latino outreach, bringing in hip-hop celebrity spokespersons, offering themselves as allies to the poor, yet, not surprisingly, the presence of an abortion clinic has never done anything to “aid” these hurting communities.
In 2004, women, many of them minorities, told researchers from Guttmacher that abortion was not something they wanted, but was sometimes what they thought was their only option. For their sake, for the sake of their children, we need to make sure that minority women know of and have access to life-affirming and life-preserving alternatives.
Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…
 The CDC uses reports from both state health departments and those from health departments in Washington, DC and New York City.
Dr. Randy O’Bannon, National Right to Life Committee
“Similar to the way the unprecedented engagement of young Americans was instrumental to Barack Obama’s electoral successes in 2008 and 2012, enrollment by Millenials is also instrumental to the successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act….As we head into a vital period for recruiting young people into the Healthcare.gov Marketplace, serious concerns abound..”
So concludes a major nationwide survey of 2,089 18-29-year-olds conducted by the Harvard University Institute of Politics from October 30 to November 11, 2013.
Here are some major findings:
56% disapprove of the Affordable Care Act (ACT) with only 39% in favor.
Less than 1/3 of the uninsured under the age of 30 plan to enroll for health insurance through the exchanges.
By a 5-1 margin, millenials believe that health care costs will increase; by a 2-1 majority, they believe that the quality of care will decrease.
President Obama’s approval rating among this population has plummeted from 55% in February of 2011 to only 41% in the Harvard survey.
Those surveyed were 49% male and 51% female. The survey has a + or - error margin of 2.1%
A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China, published last week in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, “Cancer Causes and Control,” showed that the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%. In this meta-analysis (a study of studies in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. combined all 36 studies that have been published through 2012 on the ABC link in China.
These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review.” This is a reference to the 1996 review and meta-analysis that I compiled with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center, and published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal. Our study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.
Noteworthy is that the Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangla Desh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.
The new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, its findings are even stronger, for several reasons:
1. The link is a slightly stronger one, i.e., 44% v. 30% risk increase with abortion;
2. It shows what is called a “dose effect”, i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (89% risk increase with three or more abortions). Risk factors that show such a dose effect have more credibility. Although previous studies of the ABC link were a bit more heterogeneous and the dose effect less clear, it has been shown that the risk increase is greater the longer the pregnancy continues before abortion. Hence, an 18-week abortion increases the risk more than a 12-week abortion, and a 12-week abortion increases the risk more than an 8-week abortion.
3. In their new meta-analysis Huang et al. put to rest the main argument used to discredit the ABC link, variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument. The argument goes like this. Due to social stigma that is attached to having an induced abortion, healthy women are more likely to deny prior abortions in their medical history study questionnaire than are women who’ve developed breast cancer. Hence, the argument goes, it would erroneously appear that abortion is more frequent among women who’ve had an abortion.
Huang et al. dispatch of this canard. They explain, “The lack of a social stigma associated with induced abortion in China may limit the amount of underreporting and present a more accurate picture of this (abortion-breast cancer) association.” (This invokes an argument—the absence of social stigma– used by authors in an earlier Chinese study that did not find an ABC link.)
4. Huang et al. then proceed to explain why two earlier high-profile studies in Shanghai (including the one noted above) did not find the link. They do so essentially by citing and pursuing the argument I articulated in the “British Journal of Cancer” in 2004, and more importantly, proving the point by performing a “meta-regression” of all the Chinese data.
In my 2004 published letter, I explained that the Shanghai population was unsuitable for studying the ABC link in the usual manner, because the prevalence of induced abortion was too high in the general population.
In essence, the value of epidemiology is to identify exposures—like abortion—which may increase the risk of a given disease—like breast cancer—by comparing those exposed to the typical, unexposed population.
But when the prevalence of the exposure becomes the rule rather than the exception—as in the Shanghai studies, where the majority of women had had at least one abortion—the unexposed women are not typical.
Instead they are women who have had no or fewer children and/or started having children at a later age, all of which put them at higher breast cancer risk.
Hence, comparing women who’ve had an abortion to women who are at elevated risk for other reasons makes the risk due to abortion tend to disappear. Huang et al.’s meta-regression analysis showed a clear tendency for the risk due to abortion to decline as the prevalence of abortion among the healthy population increases, among all the studies in China.
As noted above the Huang study follows two new studies from India and Bangla Desh which reported breast cancer risk increases of over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.
As I have shown in previous stories for NRL News and NRL News Today, objective research like this has been relentlessly targeted by the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, medical journals, breast cancer charities, and especially, government agencies such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
This assault culminated in a 2003 international phony “workshop” by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent. Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth,” NARAL and their ilk have unapologetically and publicly attacked pro-life pregnancy resource centers for “lying” to women by telling them about the ABC link. In places like Maryland and San Francisco and Austin and New York City, they even went so far as to enact laws to muzzle these women helping centers. Thankfully, most courts have struck down such laws as violations of free speech rights–so far.
It is really frightening when you start doing the math on the impact of abortion on a population of over a billion women—in India and China alone: Just a 2% lifetime risk of breast cancer due to abortion—a very conservative estimate—means upwards of 10 million women getting breast cancer, and millions dying from it. Hopefully, the day is near when the official purveyors of public health information—like the NCI—will no longer be able to deny the ABC link. The new Chinese meta-analysis should hasten that day considerably.
Dr. Joel Brind
Editor’s note. Joel Brind, Ph.D. is a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York; Co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, Somerville, NJ; and a frequent contributor to NRL News Today.
This month, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) was proud to announce her sponsorship for legislation that would nullify and negate hundreds of state and federal limitations on abortion - including legislation in Pennsylvania that was used to convict infamous murderer and abortionist Kermit Gosnell.
Baldwin said in a press statement on November 13:
“I’m proud to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act because every American woman deserves the freedom to exercise her constitutional rights by making personal health decisions for herself and her family with a trusted doctor, and without political interference.
Our bill makes it clear that states can no longer enact laws that unduly limit access to reproductive health services and do nothing to further women’s health or safety.
But as the Weekly Standard noted, this legislation is quite radical in it’s scope and breadth to undermine and overturn state limitations on abortion - many which came in direct response to the grisly Gosnell trial.
The Weekly Standard reports:
In fact, the Democrats’ new abortion bill is so radical it would lead to the invalidation of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act–a law, which has been on the books since 1989, that was used to convict Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell earlier this year. In addition to being convicted on three counts of murder for killing infants after they had been born, Gosnell was convicted under the Abortion Control Act for successfully killing 21 infants in utero past Pennsylvania’s gestational limit on abortion (a limit that’s just two weeks later in pregnancy than the limit established recently by Texas).
Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee told THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that Blumenthal’s bill “would invalidate nearly every provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, including the prohibition on performing abortion after 24 weeks except in acute medical circumstances, which was used to prosecute Gosnell. Abortion until birth would be explicitly protected, as long as a single physician asserts that it would protect ‘health,’ including emotional health.”
According to National Right to Life, this legislation would also nullify many state laws that ban abortions after 20 weeks, choosing a nebulous standard of “viability” instead.
The bill explicitly prohibits any ban on abortion before “viability” (the point at which the child can survive independently of the mother), and dictates that only “the treating health care professional” (the abortionist) may determine whether “viability” exists in any given case. This provision, among others, would invalidate the laws enacted by 10 states since 2010, which declare that unborn children are capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks fetal age, and that generally prohibit abortion after that point.
The bill would also require every state to allow abortion even after viability if “the treating physician” (the abortionist) asserts that it will avoid “risk” to the “health” of the pregnant woman. At a November 13 press conference, in response to a question from a reporter for The Weekly Standard, Blumenthal acknowledged that “health” includes a doctor’s personal assessment of psychological health.
A June 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that 44% would support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks in their state. And just 28% say abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances.
Call it the “daughter” of FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, which was a major priority of abortion proponents during the Clinton years and endorsed by Barack Obama during his 2008 run for President. FOCA was designed to nullify all existing state abortion restrictions.
The new bill, the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” was introduced on February 13 in the Senate (S. 1696) and House (H.R. 3471) with numbers of co-sponsors, all of them Democrats, including our own Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.), the bill’s main sponsor stated upon introduction: “In states like Texas and Wisconsin, legislatures are passing bills with the false pretext of protecting health when their only objective is to obstruct and curtail access to safe and legal abortions and reproductive services. These laws are largely unconstitutional, and some measure of certainty and clarity is required to preempt these regulations and laws so women are not deterred in their very personal decisions based on their own values on how they want to use their constitutional rights.” He adds that the Women’s Health Protection Act is “a clear and certain response to” a “cascading wave of restrictions” on abortion enacted by the states.
Obviously, pro-abortion groups are stunned by the vast number of laws enacted in the states, including Wisconsin, which are common sense measures designed to provide women knowledge and safety for women.
According to Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Federal Legislative Director, “The new bill is labeled the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act,’ but it would more accurately be titled the ‘Abortion on Demand Until Birth Protection Act.’ Under this bill, the unborn child has no more rights, from conception until birth, than a malignant tumor. This is an extreme pro-abortion ideology far removed from the views of the majority of Americans.”
Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC Director of State Legislation states that: “The bill, if enacted and upheld by the federal courts, would generally prohibit any level of government — federal, state, or local — from applying any regulations that ’single out abortion and that do not apply to ‘medically comparable procedures.’” Blumenthal says it would be “for doctors to decide” what “medically comparable” means.
The bill is backed by all major pro-abortion groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and NARAL. President Obama has not yet taken a position and it is unclear if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow a vote on the measure. Blumenthal told the newspaper Roll Call that, “As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues.” Indeed, Senator Blumenthal, and we know they do not stand for abortion on demand until birth.
The deadly act of euthanasia knows no limits once it is begun. Euthanasia has been widely practiced in Belgium for years, limited to people who are at least 18 years old. But nothing satisfies proponents of euthanasia who are determined to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities. Legislation to accomplish that goal will be voted on by the Belgium Senate on November 26.
Dr. Peter Saunders CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization, states that “euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia.”
Saunders believes the practice is out of control because there is no regulation and the process is fraught with conflicts of interests. Saunders continues: “If the euthanasia law in Belgium has taught us anything, it is that in Belgium the euthanasia doctors have been given all of the power in contrast to the patients who are given lethal injections.”
And now, the Belgian proponents want to include children in this horrendous practice. A travesty, for certain.
As National Right to Life News Today reported last month, there appears to be a strong likelihood the United States Supreme Court will take up the issue of the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections. The justices will make that decision in private later this month.
The most high profile case is Hobby Lobby, a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores, which has won twice in court.
In September the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. If the justices do, it would be the second time the High Court addresses some aspect of ObamaCare. (The HHS mandate are regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare, formally known as the “Affordable Care Act.”)
In October lawyers for Hobby Lobby also asked the Supreme Court to decide whether David and Barbara Green will be required to provide and pay for the coverage they object to on religious grounds. And because both parties have asked the High Court to intervene, and because there are conflicting circuit court decisions, it is likely the justices will step in.
Back in July, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton granted the company a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate. Prior to that the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, which employs more than 13,000 full-time workers.
An article written by Sam Baker for Monday’s National Journal makes a key point. It’s not just that “Three of five federal Appeals Courts that considered the matter have ruled at least partially against the mandate,” it’s that where the Obama administration has prevailed it’s been on questions of legal standing, not the legal merits.
This leads Baker to argue that a likely Supreme Court intervention “is bad news for the administration’s signature policy achievement.”
Baker does an excellent job spooling out the complexities in understandable language. He leans on the 10th circuit majority opinion written by Judge Timothy Tymkovich.
Citing a previous U.S. Supreme Court, the majority concluded, according to Baker, “that corporations (and not just the people who own them) can exercise First Amendment rights.”
What follows is a lengthy but helpful quote from Baker.
“Therefore, Tymkovich wrote, a corporation can sue over government mandates that offend the religious beliefs of its owner. He said the mandate was a ‘substantial burden’ on the company’s religious beliefs; that the government had not demonstrated a compelling interest in restricting its religious freedom; and that if the government had such an interest, it could find a less intrusive way to follow through. Those three criteria determine whether First Amendment infringements are legal,” and the Obama administration hasn’t won on those grounds even once. “Its victories have all been on questions of legal standing. …
”But when an Appeals Court has considered the mandate’s actual legal merits, either from a company or its owners, it has blocked the mandate.”
“If the Supreme Court combines the cases to reach a broad ruling, and especially if it opens the door to new legal protections for corporations, the White House could find itself ruing the defeat of a crucial policy next summer, rather than celebrating the two-year anniversary of the Court’s landmark decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.”
In June 2013, the Wisconsin state legislature enacted Sonya’s Law which was signed by Governor Walker in July. Sonya’s Law has two main provisions:
Require that a woman seeking an abortion have an ultrasound to give her more knowledge about her unborn child.
Require that an abortion provider have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic for the safety of the woman.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI) and others immediately challenged the admitting privileges requirement in federal court, claiming that this portion of the new law would close two Wisconsin abortion clinics and reduce another to 50% of current operation. This challenge is a fascinating study in the thought process of PPWI. It was widely believe that the ultrasound requirement would be challenged, but when faced with a threat to its economic well-being, PPWI chose to fight the admitting privileges. The ultrasound requirement took effect immediately.
Why are admitting privileges important? For the safety of the woman, plain and simple. Here is a common scenario played out at abortion clinics here and in other parts of the country. The woman experiences complications from her abortion requiring immediate care at a hospital. An ambulance is called which takes the woman to a hospital. When she arrives, there is no one there who knows why she is there, what procedure she had, her medical history, etc. She is on her own to explain her situation. Is this good health care for women? We think not which is why Wisconsin Right to Life strongly supported the admitting privileges portion of Sonya’s Law.
Texas enacted a similar law requiring admitting privileges which was also challenged in federal court. The enjoined the law, stating that the law’s “admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” The Texas Attorney General appealed the injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the lower court and allowed the law to go into effect while the constitutionality is reviewed. The law’s challengers filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to block the law. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Justices voted against the emergency application, allowing the law to continue in effect.
The Wisconsin law is also following a twisted path. The challenge to Sonya’s Law’s admitting privileges provision was filed in federal court in Madison where Judge William Conley enjoined the law. The Wisconsin Attorney General appealed the injunction to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which has not ruled on the appeal. The trial scheduled in the lower court in Madison for November 25 -26 is delayed until the 7th Circuit rules.
Watch for new developments on what has become the newest hot button issue in the abortion wars.
They were in on it from the beginning, so it is hardly surprising to see Planned Parenthood now not just promoting, but standing poised to reap the financial benefits of ObamaCare.
After working and spending a great deal to get Obama elected, Planned Parenthood was one of the privileged groups invited to the President’s “health care summit” at the White House early in Obama’s first term in March of 2009. Though it was unknown what final shape the healthcare plan would take at the time, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards offered her organization as a model of what the Planned Parenthood website termed “a safety-net health care provider and entry point into the health care system for millions of men and women.”
Planned Parenthood fought for and defended the health plan, pushing to get it passed in March of 2010, and then helping to keep in office the politicians needed to keep it from being modified in any significant way that would threaten either the plan or their abortion empire. Obama and his Senate allies responded in kind, defending and promoting the abortion giant and making federal funding of Planned Parenthood the one non-negotiable in high stakes budget talks.
It has been a very profitable relationship for Planned Parenthood.
Today, as ObamaCare begins it rollout, Planned Parenthood stands poised to bring in hordes of new customers, rake in even more money, and further expand its already massive abortion empire.
Lest anyone forget, Planned Parenthood is already America’s largest abortion chain and is flush with cash, much of it taken from the pockets of taxpayers, performing 333,964 abortions in 2011, more than a quarter of all abortions done in the U.S., and bringing in nearly $1.2 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending 6/30/12.
Planned Parenthood is, of course, doing the standard thing that political groups do, issuing press releases, sending spokespeople out to talk to the press, penning op-ed pieces, but as someone who stands to gain from new legislation, has gone much further.
Go to the website today and you’ll see a box in the main graphic on the front page declaring “OBAMACARE + PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS A perfect match!” You can click a link to “GET THE FACTS.” Before leaving the front page, though, just below the place where you can enter information to “Find a Health Center” in your area, there is a box where you are offered the opportunity to “Find a HEALTH PLAN in the marketplace that includes Planned Parenthood.” All you need to do is type in your Zip Code.
Both links on the health plans appear to go to section of the website which will talk up what visitors to Planned Parenthood’s website might identify as popular benefits of the law, such as kids staying on parents’ health care plans until age 26, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and subsidies for health insurance.
Some explanation of the new bureaucracy with “exchanges,” “navigators,” different categories of plans, etc. is given, but little to nothing about problems with the ObamaCare website, or the possible cancellation of current policies. There is a cost calculator on at least one of Planned Parenthood’s pages on the health plans connected to a group called “Get Covered America” which is part of “Enroll America,” but it is unclear how the numbers are generated or how reliable they may be.
Over and over, of course, there are links to “find a Planned Parenthood health center near you” or to find plans that include Planned Parenthood.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. As NRL News Today reported on September 5, 2013, three Planned Parenthood affiliates have qualified to serve as “Navigators” under the new health plan, receiving federal funding to the tune of over $655,000.
Navigators are employees paid to help people pick a health plan and complete their applications. In the process, they will help consumers figure out if they qualify for subsidies to cover their insurance premium costs or for other government assistance such as Medicaid.
Though Navigators are supposed to “[p]rovide information and services in a fair, accurate, and impartial manner,” that they work through Planned Parenthood will be hard for applicants to miss and it seems difficult to imagine that those Navigators won’t share about all the “wonderful” services that Planned Parenthood offers.
States that operate their own exchanges may fund “in-person assisters” that perform many of the functions done by Navigators. Minnesota is one such state and gave the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate a grant to help enroll residents in the exchange.
Planned Parenthood affiliates in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have also been designated as “Certified Application Counselor” (CAC) organizations, meaning that, though they will not be paid by the exchanges, as the Navigators or in-person assisters may be, these affiliates can certify paid staff or volunteers as official counselors to help people through the process according to what the CACs see as the “best interest” of the applicant.
Even if one somehow believed, against all the evidence, that these new health insurance enrollment plans really did serve the “best interests” of the uninsured (and the previously insured now joining their ranks), and even put aside their radical abortion agenda, it would still be difficult to see Planned Parenthood’s motives as pure here.
Let Paul Knepprath, vice president for policy and public affairs for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California make some of Planned Parenthood’s less well advertised motivations plain for you.
Speaking before a California Building Standards Commission meeting considering higher building standards for health care clinics (i.e., requirements stipulating that only union plumbers can do the work) on November 5, 2013, Knepprath said the following:
The Affordable Care Act is being implemented as we speak, on January 1, people getting coverage.
There’s an expectation of expansion of facilities statewide to take in the new people who have insurance, but also those who will be in expanded Medi-cal program here in California.
Thus, there will be a redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state.
At what pace I don’t know but the issue of an exemption for some of the building standards is a very important one to Planned Parenthood.
The cost associated with meeting the higher standards are significant in some cases and they are important especially for organizations like ours that are serving the very poorest of Californians and trying to get them the health care that they need.
What Knepprath has done here is to explicitly connect the roll out of ObamaCare to the “redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities” to address the influx of new patients brought in by the expansion of insurance coverage.
The more people that Planned Parenthood signs up for ObamaCare, the more patients they expect to have coming to their clinics. And, in California alone, they anticipate such significant numbers that they are already thinking in terms of the “redevelopment and building of new clinic facilities across the state.”
California, as regular readers of NRL News Today know, recently passed legislation to allow nurse practitioners (and other non-physicians) to perform abortions, thereby significantly expanding the pool of potential abortionists in that state.
Now, with a steady stream of new patients and new money flowing in from ObamaCare, one expects that Planned Parenthood is anticipating opening and staffing countless clinics, not only in California, but throughout the U.S.
And given that abortion has long been one of their biggest money-makers and a “service” that Planned Parenthood has been adding to so many of its “health centers” across the country, you can bet that a lot of those new centers will be abortion clinics, funded by dollars generated by the “Affordable Care Act.”
Should you expect any different when you tag the largest abortion chain as a legitimate promoter and provider of “health care?”
Dr. Randall O’Bannon, National Right to Life Committee
It’s Veterans Day, so there is an ever-so-slight lull in the barrage of criticism aimed at the botched rollout of ObamaCare’s health insurance exchanges. But there have been developments that warrant out attention.
The most interesting (because it comes from President Obama’s hometown newspaper) and most succinct was an editorial in The Chicago Tribune. Here’s the 73-word, power-packed lead:
“President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment is teetering. The Obamacare website is a national punch line. Millions of Americans, repeatedly reassured by Obama that they could keep their doctors and health plans, are discovering that they can’t. Their insurance policies are being canceled. The price of new coverage is substantially higher. The new coverage may force them to choose new doctors. And the law says they have to buy insurance or pay a fine.”
The only rebuttal Obama and his supporters have is to try to lay the blame elsewere (the “evil” insurance industry is always a first response). That includes Republicans who have opposed ObamaCare from the get-go. The implication is if they hadn’t, while things wouldn’t necessarily be perfect, the roll-out of ObamaCare would have been infinitely better.
This, of course, is to get the cart before the horse. Republicans opposed ObamaCare because they believed it was wrong in principal for the government to assume control over 1/6th of the economy, a foolish attempt that could not possibly work.
The only Obama response is the tiresome mantra that he tried like mad to work with Republicans, the biggest whopper in an administration that treats the truth as if it was radioactive.
Here’s what the Tribune said in its editorial:
“Democratic leaders forced the law through Congress without a single Republican vote.”
In a word, yes.
But it is the Obama Administration’s lethal combination of arrogance and incompetence that has stirred a boiling pot of resentment.
“The architects of Obamacare brushed aside sharp warnings from tech wizards that the computer system wasn’t tested and ready. They piled hundreds of pages of last-minute regulations on insurers. They forced insurers to cancel policies by the thousands because those policies fell short of the soup-to-nuts coverage required by the law.”
However, from the President’s perspective, the most dangerous issue going forward is what did he know and when did he know it? Or, to be slightly more charitable, what did he not know because he couldn’t be bothered? The Tribune editorial ominously suggests it was the former:
“The American public is having a credibility-shattering debate about the president: Did he not bother to learn the details of the law before he told us we could keep our doctors and our insurance, or did he know the truth and flat-out lie?”