Organ donation, when properly managed, is a positive, humane process which allows the healthy organs of a consenting individual to be transplanted into another for purposes of extending that person’s life. Kidney, heart, lung and other transplants have become commonplace as are waiting lists for patients needing transplants.
What could make such a humane process controversial? Here are the ways:
Some groups/medical people want to redefine death so that organs can be taken from individuals who have not suffered complete brain death. This might include people who are unconscious. The reasoning used is that the unconscious person is not providing the same value to society as the patient (or patients) who would benefit from the unconscious person’s organs. Of course, removal of the unconscious person’s organs would be the cause of death, making this concept highly controversial.
Legislation has been introduced in some states, most recently in Colorado, for what is called “presumed consent.” What this means is that you are presumed to have consented to organ donation unless you indicate otherwise. This approach is common in Europe but has been rejected in Delaware, Illinois and New York for fear that it smacks of coercion. Colorado introduced a bill and quickly jettisoned it when it caused a furor of ethical concerns.
In Belgium, where euthanasia is legal, Belgian eugenics doctors are harvesting what they call “high quality” organs from patients who have been euthanized. Several Belgian doctors presented a power point at a medical conference stating that 20% of the 705 people who were euthanized had neuromuscular disorders. These patients had “high quality” organs which could be made available to decrease the number of patients on transplant waiting lists. To make it more palatable, they have developed a “protocol.
What all of these controversial procedures do is to undermine trust. If you are a person who who wants to benefit another through organ donation, you need to be assured that there are not competing interests which could shorten your life or view you as a less valuable member of the human family.
It is well past time for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI) to be defunded from receipt and use of our taxpayer dollars.
PPWI receives millions of those dollars each year through family planning programs, a Medicaid Waiver program, and grants. PPWI has “sold” itself for years as an organization that cares about youth and women. Yet, in reality, this organization preys on youth and women by:
Using taxpayer dollars to detrimentally brainwash youth, many times keeping its activities secret from parents.
Operating three large Wisconsin abortion clinics which kill thousands of unborn children each year.
Using taxpayer dollars to “counsel” women and then refer them to its own abortion clinics from which it profits financially — a horrendous conflict of interest!
Challenging laws in court which attempt to limit abortions or recognize other compelling interests.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), is a $1 billion dollar industry which receives $363 million in federal and state taxpayer dollars in the form of grants and contracts. Currently PPFA is embarked on a strategic course to expand its abortion business nationwide, partly by requiring all of its affiliates to perform abortions by 2013. It is outrageous that taxpayers are forced to underwrite an organization that profits immensely from the destruction of human life.
Legislation has been introduced in Congress to deprive Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving federal taxpayer dollars. In Wisconsin, several opportunities will present themselves this legislative session to finally defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from state taxpayer dollars. Wisconsin Right to Life will be at the forefront of this effort.
Compassion and Choices (C & C), the leading American pro-euthanasia group, is promoting efforts to legalize assisted suicide in Vermont, Hawaii and Montana. Bills have already been introduced in Hawaii and Montana with intense lobbying occurring from both sides of the debate.
In Vermont, legislation to legalize assisted suicide has been proposed but not yet introduced. The new Governor of Vermont campaigned on a platform to legalize assisted suicide. Vermont overwhelmingly defeated such a measure in 2007, but a new legislature and the Governor make the situation there dire. C & C and its allies have publicly stated they will have an early “win” in 2011 in a New England state (probably Vermont) and move on to a ballot initiative in 2012 in another New England state (probably Maine or Massachusetts).
The Montana battle is interesting due to a court decision in late 2009 which left in doubt whether assisted suicide is legal in that state. Bills to both prohibit and legalize assisted suicide are being promoted with a hearing scheduled for February 9 on the bill to overturn the court decision and prohibit assisted suicide.
In France, the French Senate just defeated a measure to legalize assisted suicide by a 170-142 vote. This is a significant defeat as proponents of euthanasia have been active in Europe for years with major victories in The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Read article about the French Senate defeat here.
Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist, said at his arraignment last week that he could understand why he was being charged with the murder of a woman patient, but didn’t understand the seven counts of killing seven babies who survived his abortion attempts. His job was to produce a dead baby and, apparently, severing the spines of babies who survived was just part of the abortion process.
Gosnell’s defense attorney tried to provide a rationale by explaining that Gosnell believed he was providing medical care for the impoverished and he did it for four decades. “That’s his belief and he’s entitled to it,” said the attorney.
It is unexplainable why patients, staff and health department officials overlooked for decades the appalling conditions at Gosnell’s clinic.
The Grand Jury report states: “Semiconscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners, covered with blood-stained blankets.” When agents raided the clinic, there was blood on the floor, the unmistakable stench of urine, and cat feces on the floor.
Finally, for the sake of women and children, Gosnell has been shut down. The new Governor of Pennsylvania is appalled at the shocking discovery that Health Department officials looked the other way and allowed the House of Horrors to exist. Governor Corbett has ordered a full investigation into what went wrong.
By now, everyone knows about the unbelievable abortion practice uncovered in Philadelphia, where abortionist Kermit Gosnell engaged in practices so horrendous they defy belief. Mothers died and living aborted babies were killed. Charged with eight murders, it is apparent from the Grand Jury report that these were just the tip of the iceberg.
Where is Planned Parenthood on this story? Or, Pro-Choice NARAL? Their silence is deafening and a sign that they want to protect abortionists anytime, anywhere, regardless of how grotesque and extreme their practices are. A Time magazine writer says the story was “about poverty, not Roe v. Wade.”
It’s pretty hard not to be outraged by the extensive details in the Grand Jury report:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Pennsylvania Department of State knew of the clinic violations and the filthy clinic conditions and did nothing. The Pennsylvania Department of Health stopped doing inspections in 1993 for “political reasons.” Then Governor Tom Ridge allowed the Department to cease inspections because they would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
Hospital officials who treated women with major complications did nothing.
An official with the National Abortion Federation said “It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected.” She never told authorities about it. “We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion,” she said.
Sedatives were administered by staff who had no medical training and did not know what they were doing.
The report said there were some babies, “the really big ones,” that Gosnell did not want to perform even in front of his own staff. So, he scheduled these for Sunday with only his wife, who was not medically trained, in attendance. Since the abortions routinely done during the week were babies in the sixth and seventh months of pregnancy, “the Sunday babies must have been bigger still.” Gosnell took the records of these abortions home and destroyed them.
According to NBC Philadelphia.com, “Perhaps more disturbing than an alleged sociopathic doctor who told his staff that babies’ movements after birth were ‘reflexes,’ and that shoving scissors in the back of the neck of a breathing child was ’standard procedure,’ is the fact that this group of people believed and accepted Gosnell’s practices and allegedly followed suit.”
A House of Horrors for certain — stunning and shocking. In many ways, also guilty are those who looked the other way, allowing the maiming and killing of women and children for decades.
Thirty-eight years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion for any reason at any time during pregnancy in all 50 states. In spite of the passage of decades, January 22 will forever be regarded as a day of infamy and pain by millions of Americans.
Over 53 million American unborn children have lost their lives in that time span to abortion. Untold numbers of mothers, fathers, grandparents and family members have been devastated by the loss of a child in this despicable manner. They are left scarred and in pain.
As a society, we collectively grieve the tremendous loss. Who are the millions? What would they have contributed to our culture and our lives? The enormity of the impact on society is too difficult to grasp or comprehend.
In store is a brighter future, fueled by our young people who will not let this human rights abuse stand. We look forward with hope and optimism to that shining moment when society says – no more – and abortion becomes unthinkable.
All eyes are on Iowa. Not only is it one of the states where notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart wants to move his grisly practice, but it is an experimental playground for Planned Parenthood and telemed abortions.
First, you need to know what a telemed or web-cam abortion is. The web-cam system allows an abortionist in a major city to “counsel” a woman diagnosed as pregnant in another part of the state about an abortion over a circuit video system. After the “counseling” is completed, the abortionist then releases, via remote control, a drawer containing abortion pills at her location. She is not physically seen by the doctor.
The drugs used are the RU 486 abortion pill and a prostaglandin. This dangerous two-drug procedure comes with significant risks and side effects.
Planned Parenthood has “tested” this procedure on over 2,000 women in Iowa with plans to spread it nationwide. An official complaint was registered in Iowa that the law was being violated but the Iowa Board of Medicine recently decided not to discipline the abortionist performing web-cam abortions.
What does this mean for Wisconsin? We already know that Planned Parenthood owns telemed machines. We also know that RU 486 chemical abortions jumped from 19% of all Wisconsin abortions in 2008 to 27% in 2009. We are not yet able to connect the dots and say definitively that Planned Parenthood of is doing telemed abortions in Wisconsin. Nonetheless, Wisconsin Right to Life intends to pursue a legal prohibition of telemed abortions here.
Yesterday we as a nation observed Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. I wonder how he would respond to the fact that more African-Americans are killed through abortion than by any other cause. His niece, Dr. Alveda King, has become an inspirational voice against abortion. She believes her uncle would have supported the protection of human life in the womb.
The numbers are stark. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that African-American women have 35% of abortions in the United States. African-American women have an abortion rate of 33.9 abortions per 1,000 black women of childbearing age. That is more than three times the rate of white women whose rate is 10.8 abortions for every 1,000 white women of childbearing age.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) finds itself right in the middle of the horrendous destruction of so many African-American babies. As so aptly documented by Dr. Randy O’Bannon of National Right to Life, PPFA’s core market is “poor women of color.” PPFA with its urban strategy has, unfortunately, convinced government officials and a large portion of the public that it is just “helping” people in need. PPFA then pockets all of the government monies and pads its bottom line as the nation’s largest abortion provider.
This week’s raging debate about whether rhetoric incites violence is fascinating and all too familiar. Over the decades of legalized abortion, a few have decided to take the law into their own hands and vandalize abortion clinics and even kill abortionists. Wisconsin Right to Life and National Right to Life have immediately and publicly condemned such actions as inconsistent with our mission to protect human life and empathized with those who have been victimized. That has not stopped proponents of abortion from vociferously claiming that our opposition to abortion “incites” such violence. In effect, they are trying to silence our efforts to inform about the plight of unborn children in the womb, or vulnerable adults. Of course, they ignore the violence done to the child in an abortion procedure.
Attempting to politicize a tragedy is old hat to Wisconsin Right to Life. We respectfully suggest that focus be correctly placed on condemning acts of violence and the individuals who perpetrate them, not trying to paint an entire movement with the same brush.
Rationing health care is no longer a dirty word and is openly discussed. The Wisconsin Medical Society (WMS) is proposing a system to ration care for Medicaid patients ala Oregon. “Oregon ranks services and refuses to cover a fourth of them because of budget constraints,” states David Wahlberg in a Wisconsin State Journal article.
Make no mistake — the problem is real. Wisconsin faces a $1.2 billion shortage in Medicaid funds. Adding to the crunch are the requirements of the federal stimulus bill and Obamacare which penalize states financially if they reduce eligibility. The stated goal of the WMS in proposing an Oregon-type regime is to reduce costs without removing people from the Medicaid roles and/or reducing payments to doctors. WMS sees this as a way to equalize care. Spokesperson Dr. Tim Bartholow says: “We want as many people as possible to have access to some care, rather than let some have terrific access and other people have none.”
WMS presented its proposal to Governor Walker for consideration. According to the news article, Walker and other governors have already asked the White House for permission to cut Medicaid rolls.
If rationed care is approved for Medicaid patients, could Medicare be far behind? Do we really want either insurance companies or government boards to decide what treatment patients should receive? There is no question that our health care system, as great as it is, needs reform. Not the Obamacare kind, but reform that doesn’t ration care and gives patients more control over treatment options.