Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care?

This is a brave--well-written article, something we seriously need to ponder while the children (Congress) are at recess.
July 22, 2009
By: James Lewis
American Thinker

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.

The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?

Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.

Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world.

Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told.

Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps.

Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants.

So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.

Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication:

Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life?

There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?

But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal.

The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is:

Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease.

I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice.

Pro-Life Catholic Nurse Threatened, Forced to Assist in Late-Term Abortion at Mount Sinai Hospital in NY

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City

A lawsuit has been filed against Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City for requiring a nurse who had a long record of expressing conscientious objection to abortions to help in the dismemberment of a live 22-week-old preborn child.

The case is being brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, which also is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the hospital from retaliating against the nurse, Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo.

"Compelling Mrs. DeCarlo to assist in this abortion against her religious beliefs exposed Mrs. DeCarlo to brutal psychological harm," said the document seeking the injunction. "By assisting she was forced to witness the killing of a 22-week-old preborn child by dismemberment.

"Because it was included in the requirements of her nursing duties as an assistant on the case, Mount Sinai forced Mrs. DeCarlo to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother's body by with forceps, and then after the surgery, to view the bloody body parts in the specimen cup, put saline in the cup, and take it to the specimen area," the injunction request explains.

This happened even though according to the hospital's own protocols, the abortion was not so urgent that it would have required her assistance, and there was more than enough time to summon another nurse, the complaint said.

A hospital spokesman declined to comment in a WND telephone call seeking information, instructing that the request for a statement be submitted via e-mail. An e-mail response said the hospital wouldn't comment.

The ADF explained that the hospital has known of the nurse's religious objections to participating in the death of a living unborn baby since 2004. Nevertheless, they ordered her to participate, threatening her with disciplinary measures if she refused, she allged. The hospital then dramatically cut her on-call assignments after she refused to sign a statement promising to participate in future abortions.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn’t be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience. Federal law requires that employers who receive funding from tax dollars must not compel employees to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, but this nurse's objections fell on deaf ears."

The case alleges the abortion was set up by the hospital because the mother had been diagnosed with preeclampsia, but DeCarlo knew such a condition can be treated without the necessity of an abortion.

When she was told the unborn child was alive, she immediately objected to Dr. Noel Strong, the resident assigned to the case. A series of calls to the nursing supervisor, Fran Carpo, and her supervisor, Ella Shapiro, followed.

The orders came back from Carpo that DeCarlo must assist in the procedure.

"Mrs. DeCarlo repeated her longstanding objection and pleaded with Ms. Carpo that Mount Sinai not force her to assist in this abortion against her strongly held religious beliefs. Mrs. DeCarlo asked Ms. Carpo to call other nurses to the case since so little time had elapsed before Mrs. DeCarlo had voiced her objection. Ms. Carpo said that Ms. Shapiro had insisted that Mrs. DeCarlo assist on the case, and had prohibited Ms. Carpo from even trying to call other nurses to cover the case. Ms. Carpo also said that Dr. Silverstein had yelled at her over the phone in opposition to any delay in the case as a result of Mrs. DeCarlo's request for accommodation," the document explains.

Then the threats began.

"Ms. Carpo said that if Mrs. DeCarlo did not participate in the case, Mrs. DeCarlo would be brought up on charges of 'insubordination and patient abandonment,'" the complaint states. "A charge of patient abandonment would severely jeopardize Mrs. DeCarlo's employment and her nursing license and consequently her career and her and her family's livelihood."

Even DeCarlo's tearful pleas to be allowed to get her priest on the telephone to explain her religious objection were ignored.

The case at the time was designated by the hospital as Category II, which means the doctors wanted the procedure done within six hours – more than enough time to bring in a replacement nurse, the lawsuit said.

According to the request for the injunction, federal law doesn't allow the hospital to do what it did.

"Mount Sinai is bound to respect Mrs. DeCarlo's conscience rights by virtue of several laws, but most notably 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c). Mount Sinai has voluntarily subjected itself to this statute by receiving hundreds of millions of federal Health and Human Services dollars in recent years," the request said. "This statute … states in no uncertain terms that Mrs. DeCarlo is protected from discrimination by Mount Sinai in the conditions or privileges of her employment on the basis of her religious objection to assisting in abortion.

"Mount Sinai blatantly violated Mrs. DeCarlo’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c) on May 24, and it continues to do so by condoning the violation and insisting that it can compel her or other employees again or penalize them by removing them from on-call shifts," it said.

It said the injunction is essential because of the imminent danger to employees.

"Mount Sinai must not and cannot force employees to assist in procedures they consider to be brutal murder. But rather than honoring that trust it has resorted to brash bullying tactics against the one employee to ask that her rights of conscience be respected," the request said.

DeCarlo's injuries include the trauma from the procedure.

"She has felt intense emotional, psychological and spiritual suffering from having to participate in something she considers profoundly immoral and unjust. She has missed several days of work, has had trouble sleeping, and has had nightmares about the killing of this child. She has even had to deal with feelings of estrangement from God and family members," the law firm said.

According to the allegations, after the incident, the hospital retaliated against DeCarlo "because of her request that it honor her religious objection to assisting in abortion, and because of the grievance procedure that she filed. First Mount Sinai officials failed to assign Mrs. DeCarlo to her usual 8–9 on-call shifts in August."

WND previously reported on a similar conscience rights case brought by a nurse in Louisiana in which the state Supreme Court ordered a trial.

The hospital in the case had demanded that the nurse's complaint be dismissed.

That case also is being handled by the Alliance Defense Fund. It was brought on behalf of nurse Toni Lemly, who had worked in the St. Tammany Parish Hospital. She sued when she objected to dispensing the "morning after" abortion pill because of her religious beliefs and was demoted.

The hospital's lawyers sought to have her case dismissed out of hand, and when that attempt failed, went to the state Supreme Court. The high court, however, issued a single-word ruling on the hospital's demands: "Denied."

"The hospital declined several reasonable suggestions made by Lemly, a nurse for 23 years, that would have enabled the facility to continue administering the pill while allowing her to abstain from dispensing it herself," the ADF report said. "The hospital chose not to act on any of her suggestions."

WND reported earlier when Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, urged people to contact the White House to express their views on the subject of conscience rights.

"We don't want to kill our patients," she said in an interview with Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND.

There also is an online petition campaign on the issue at Freedom2Care through which people can contact the Department of Health and Human Services.

The issue is getting hotter under President Obama's leadership. Since his election, Obama also has repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions and overturned the nation's ban on experimenting on human embryos for stem cell research.

He's also installed in his administration's highest levels several strongly pro-abortion politicians, including former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, now health secretary.


If this is not a case that proves the importance for upholding Conscience Protection, I don't know what is. Be advised folks, obama is trying like hell to overturn conscience protection, despite his flowery rhetoric to the contrary. If you believe that our healthcare professionals should be free to object to procedures that are morally wrong and contrary to their beliefs, then you MUST ACT TODAY, before it's too late. Please, contact your state representatives and tell them to,
"Retain the conscience regulation & stop abortion mandates! Enforce the laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The government has a special responsibility to ensure that the conscience rights of health care providers are fully protected.”
God Bless! ~Georgia

Join the Freedom2Care Campaign
Contact Elected Officals:
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
U.S. Senators
U.S. Representatives
State Governor
State Legislators

Obama "Not Familiar" with Key Provision in Healthcare that Outlaws Private Insurance

Heritage Foundation: During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."


Obama able to quote a republican before he can quote the healthcare bill he is trying to push:


Related Aricles: Obama May Have to Wait for Healthcare Passage

State-run healthcare in Oregon tells dying cancer patient: Your policy does not include life-extending drugs; only physician-assisted suicide

Now, more than ever, I am convinced that "O"care is really: NoCare.
But, don't take my word for it.
Folks, before you fall into the trap of believing that universal healthcare is the answer to the healthcare problem in our country, I strongly urge you to DO YOUR RESEARCH, NOW!! Don't let others do it for you. The answers you find will speak for themselves. These articles are a good starting point. Time is of the essence. All our lives wait in peril.

(See a related articles below)
Eugene, Oregon(CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

“I think it’s messed up,” Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” she said. “I get angry. Who do they think they are?”

A doctor appealed to Genentech, the company that markets Tarceva in the U.S., to cover Wagner’s medication. On Monday Wagner was told the company would cover the drug treatment for a year, after which she could re-apply for the drug.

“I am just so thrilled,” Wagner said. “I am so relieved and so happy.”

According to the Register-Guard, Oregon oncologists say they have seen a change in state health policy, saying their Oregon Health Plan patients with advanced cancer are no longer covered for chemotherapy if it is considered comfort care.

“It doesn’t adhere to the standards of care set out in the oncology community,” said Dr. John Caton, an oncologist at Willamette Valley Cancer Center. He said many studies have found that chemotherapy in a palliative setting decreases pain and time spent in the hospital and increases quality of life.

Officials of LIPA and the state Health Services Commission, which sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, say they have not changed their coverage of recurrent cancer patients, but have only clarified the rules.

Related Article: Oregon Offers Terminal Patients Doctor-Assisted Suicide Instead of Medical Care (July 2008)

Hitler's T4 Program Revived in Obama's Healthcare 'Reform'

Liberal Smear Tactic Against Liveaction.org's Lila Rose: Labels her "mean, vindictive and harsh" in her attempt to "take down" Planned Parenthood

Be forwarned folks: what you are about to read is casuistry at its' finest: what really goes on in the mind of a liberal. This could be hazardous to your health. My advice: take a few deep breaths in between sentences. Then, smile and be HAPPY that you are NOT a liberal. And, if you are, take a deep breath and consider having a change of heart, FAST! Moms for Life is a blog by someone who was once an ignorant liberal and is now a happily informed conservative.
Decide for yourself. Watch this video (dated July 13, 2009)
Then, read Julie Driscoll's atrocious article from D.C.'s Examiner.com below:


Liveaction.org’s Lila Rose claims to care about women and girls: Are you kidding me? By Julie Driscoll.

The right-to-lifers were in Chicago this week, standing on Michigan Avenue with their fetus signs and pro-life message. They stood quietly, they didn’t protest, they didn’t harass passersby, they just stood for hours with their signs, silently transmitting their message. Two blocks away there’s a Planned Parenthood clinic, but from what I could see, its patrons came and went unmolested by these protesters.

I disagree with the message, but I respect the right of those men and women who stood on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue to deliver it.

On the other hand, we’ve got young Lila Rose of liveaction.org, who lurks around Planned Parenthood clinic and baits workers into allegedly making statements contrary to law and Planned Parenthood's own policy. I cordially invite Rose to come on out to Chicago, slink into Planned Parenthood clinics with a tape recorder taped to her thigh, and do her little lights, camera, action gig. See, in Illinois – and about a dozen states in all -- state law requires the consent of all parties to a recorded conversation. Take a look at this screen grab of liveaction.org's map – apparently Rose’s dedication to her cause doesn’t extend so far as to risk her own fanny in jail, or risk being sued, or risk any other unpleasant legal matter. The states with red dots indicate locations where Rose has launched her vendetta against Planned Parenthood. Notably absent from her map are any red dots in Illinois. Illinois law allows for both criminal penalties and civil suits in cases of Lila-Rose-like surreptitious taping. I’m guessing we’re safe from her antics here.

She did, however, launch a few in California and a couple in Connecticut, other states where the all-party consent rule is in place. From liveaction.org’s website:

“Los Angeles California 2007
Live Action Investigation"
Lila Rose went undercover into two Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles clinics, posing as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. Rose was told by clinic staff, ‘Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.’”
Violation: California law required Planned Parenthood to report this clear case of statutory rape to law enforcement, but both clinics investigated failed to do so.
Action Taken: Planned Parenthood admitted no wrongdoing, but threatened to sue Lila.”

Hmm . . . since she apparently didn’t record this conversation, or the ones in Connecticut, I suppose we’re just supposed to take her word that these things actually happened? And how good is the word of a woman who admittedly spends a lot of her time lying – specifically, to Planned Parenthood workers all over the country? Planned Parenthood claims the tapes are edited, but Rose denies it -- I guess, again, we’re supposed to believe Rose’s statements that it’s all true, despite her history of lying for the cause. Liveaction.org claims to post the “full footage” of the videos on its website – uh, sorry guys, but entire segments can be edited out of tapes. I’m not bitin’.

Rose’s Mona Lisa Project cites this mission statement: “We hope that our project will lead to criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood so that their business practices will be forced to comply with governing laws that protect young girls.” Ah, yes, this is a woman who is all about protecting young girls and women. What Rose doesn’t mention in her pro-life mission is that abortions constitute only about 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services – the other services it offers benefit women, girls and men nationwide, including abstinence counseling, breast/testicular exams, child sexual abuse prevention, date rape education, dating violence, eating disorders, menopause, pregnancy, labor and delivery, safe sex, sexually transmitted infections, and women’s reproductive health. Ninety-seven percent of the services offered are preventive services.

So, let me get this straight: Rose claims to be on a mission to protect girls and women – by targeting an organization that devotes its resources to doing just that. Rose, this paragon of pro-life virtue, is campaigning to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood clinics – clinics that provide valuable health services to women and girls. According to Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokesperson Diane Quest, “Any removal of public funding would only serve to deny women, men, and young people critical preventive health care.”

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ms. Rose spends a whole lot of time slithering into Planned Parenthood clinics, in the hopes of catching a worker off guard and saying something questionable – all in the name of protecting women and girls. Assuming that a Planned Parenthood worker doesn’t immediately call the authorities upon hearing the confession of a bogus “14-year-old” who was allegedly impregnated by her adult boyfriend, where’s the report of Rose’s follow-up to see if, in fact, Planned Parenthood did report these incidents at a later time? Does she really think she’s providing a valuable service to women and girls in this country by callously attempting to deny them affordable counseling and health services?

I think otherwise. Like any fanatic, Rose doesn’t seem to care much about those she harms, as long as she accomplishes her pro-life mission. She’s apparently latched on to what she considers a wellspring of opportunity – the alleged compromising of young girls -- to attempt to get Planned Parenthood clinics in hot water, and I’d be surprised if she gave one thought to the fate of the young girls she outs.

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition said of Lila Rose, “So now with Lila, you bring this young, fresh college student that completely blows any stereotypes away. No one is going to accuse Lila of being mean, vindictive and harsh.”

Except, maybe, me – I’ll say it. Lila Rose is not only mean, vindictive and harsh, she’s also astonishingly careless with the lives of women and girls who depend on the very organization she works to bring down.

Hidden Abortion Mandate in Healthcare Reform Bill

Healthcare Reform Bill Rejects Freedom of Choice

This brilliantly written article explains how this bill rejects our freedom to choose a provider and the freedom of the provider to choose not to perform abortions.
Don’t let the government strip patients of choice and innovation in health care. Join HandsOffMyHealth.org today and make your voice heard!


Rejected 'conscience clause'
Possible stumbling block for health care reform
By Mary Claire Kendall | Friday, July 17, 2009
The Washington Times

Just before Independence Day, President Obama, Rome-bound, told reporters he favors a "robust" policy protecting health care workers whose consciences forbid them to perform abortions and other morally objectionable practices. His words, however, diverge from his deeds.

While almost everyone agrees abortion is terrible, somehow, when inconvenient unborn human life intrudes, it too often becomes the default "choice."

Promises of "robust" conscience protections notwithstanding, the president's $635 billion off-budget reserve fund for remaking American health care includes eight principles that deny both consumers' freedom to choose their health care provider and health care providers' freedom to choose not to kill unborn babies through abortion.

In February, Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, tried to remedy this situation by attaching a conscience clause to the budget. This ninth principle -- although nonbinding -- was defeated 56 to 41 along mostly party lines. Three Republican senators -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (now a Democrat), Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted against; three Democrat senators -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted for the provision.

On Monday, Mr. Coburn reintroduced his amendment in the key Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pension, where it was again promptly voted down along party lines -- though Mr. Casey broke ranks -- clearing the way for passage of the committee's health reform bill two days later.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, acting chairman while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, continues to convalesce, claimed current law protects consciences. However, according to a Senate source, this is a "manifestly phony argument" since the Hyde Amendment forbidding federal funding of abortion, thereby protecting consciences, is a rider attached to the health appropriations bill requiring annual renewal. Given the current climate, this is a tenuous protection at best. Furthermore, my source indicated, Mr. Dodd looked pained to make this argument knowing just how phony it was.

Make no mistake, if Congress does not deal honestly with this issue, it has the potential to derail health care reform.

But, consider the even greater consequences of failure to include a conscience clause.

Health care reform without a conscience clause would force Catholic and other faith-inspired health care facilities, true to their mission, to shutter, thus depriving the poorest of critical health care. In Virginia alone, 11 Catholic hospitals serve one-third of the population.

The possibility that health care reform could be fast-tracked through reconciliation, rendering it filibuster-proof -- potentially enacting abortion-on-demand nationally by a simple majority vote -- would be the worst possible outcome.

Far better to work through this very difficult issue -- which is every bit as difficult, if not more, than bridging the differences over health care reform strategy -- than to shove through "phony" conscience protections just to get a bill. It won't be easy. But, then, like John F. Kennedy, Mr. Obama's mantra is apparently not to shy away from challenges.

In early May, the White House worked to meet this challenge by bringing together those on opposite sides of abortion's divide; yet by month's end, a crazed fanatic had snuffed out the God-given life of Kansas late-term abortion doctor, George Tiller.

Cormac Burke -- Irish priest and prolific author -- reflected earlier this year on the root causes of this cultural divide at a Witherspoon Institute/Ethics & Public Policy Center forum on "feminine identity," commenting that he found the United States in the 1950s palpably wholesome. But, when he returned in the late '60s, he was stunned to see how jaded Americans had become.

The twin sexual and psychedelic revolutions were pivotal to this cultural change, paving the way for the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, making it official that "free love" is not free.

Now, 36 years later -- 50 million aborted children having paid the "free love" tab with their lives -- if health care reform liberalizes abortion laws further, the cost will climb. And, the wounds will fester, causing increasing radicalization on both sides in the same way black enslavement catalyzed the fanaticism of John Brown -- in Herman Melville's words, the "meteor" of the Civil War.

Only by respecting consciences can we avert the tragedy of America becoming an even larger killing field -- both of doctors who practice the healing arts, however misguided they might be; and of the unborn, who will never know the beauty of life, let alone the thrill of liberty.

What a wholesome change if, as he has promised, Mr. Obama's health care bill, in fact, offers "robust" conscience protections for health care providers and patients.

But, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, should we "trust but verify" and ask if this means Mr. Obama now backs the Coburn conscience clause? From the Senate Health Committee's vote, the answer is apparently not, which makes Mr. Obama's promise of "robust" conscience protections sound like more smooth-talking from a man desperate for a health care bill, no matter the cost.

Mary Claire Kendall was special assistant to the assistant secretary for health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 1989-93.


Related Articles:

Inside the Monstrous Obamacare Beaurocracy

House health care bill 'outlaws private insurance'
Obama on cost of 'reform': 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'

Abortion mandate slipped into bill
Despite detection by pro-life senators' radar

Silent FOCA: Abortion Expands in Health Care

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

Senate Dems Call for Government-Run Insurance Option; Want Fee on Companies Not Offering Insurance