Archive for August 2009
Tell mother that her son is “dead and not coming back.”
By Nathan A. Cherry
Martinsburg, WV – Angela Lanciano Moreno looks like she hasn’t slept in a week. That’s because she hasn’t. Her son, 22 year old Christian is in the intensive care unit at City Hospital, Martinsburg, West Virginia after a heroine injection. But this is far from just a case of substance abuse.
After just a few days in the hospital, doctors told Angela that Christian had no brain activity and they would be pulling life support; despite Angela’s ardent protests. (Click here for the full article)
”(The doctors) told me as of this morning that, even though I am his legal guardian, that if two of them declare him brain dead after all of the heroin is out of system, they have the right and will unplug him.”
All of Lanciano’s requests for more treatment, or further tests have been met with stern resistance by hospital doctors. In talking with Angela this morning she told me,
“When the heroine is out of his system they will declare him brain dead. I requested a 24-hour e.e.g. and they said it was not necessary.” Read the rest of this entry »
Here’s a “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” article for today:
To support safer sex on campus, West Virginia University is rolling out the Condom Caravan.
It provides students a convenient and affordable way to buy condoms, with 30 varieties on sale starting next Tuesday.
Regular prices are a quarter apiece, or five for $1. But bargain hunters will want to hold out for Thrifty Thursdays, when they’re 10 cents all day.
The Condom Caravan will be held Tuesdays at the Student Health Service in the Health Sciences Center, and at different locations every Wednesday. Hours are from 5 to 7 p.m.
The first caravan will be outside the dining area at the Towers dormitories Wednesday.
Thrifty Thursdays are at the WVU Health Promotion Office at Health Sciences.
There are several problems that immediately come to mind.
To add credibility, we now refer you to the Wall Street Journal:
Some Democrats have been searching for a compromise approach. An amendment approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee [Capps Amendment] would allow coverage of abortion, but the money would have to come from the portion of the premiums that are paid by the individuals. A sliver of those monthly premiums would be segregated and abortion services would be reimbursed from that separate account.
The amendment also says there would have to be at least one plan that covers abortion and one that doesn’t in every part of the country. State restrictions on access to abortion would remain in place. [emphasis added]
The article also makes it clear that the National Organization of Women, as well as Planned Parenthood, are increasing their lobbying of key legislative leaders to demand that “reproductive rights” be included in whatever Health Care overhaul discussion takes place.
From the Family Research Council’s blog, Tony Perkins makes this rebuttal to President Obama:
In it’s most recent publication, the public interest group, “West Virginians for Affordable Health Care” regurgitates many of the talking points from the White House in an attempt to debunk the, in the words of the President, “extraordinary lie[s]” of pro-life groups across the country opposed to the recent Health Care proposal.
In one section of it’s patronizingly titled, “Sense and Nonsense” article is the following “exchange”:
NONSENSE: Health reform will lead to rationing health care.
SENSE: “Rationing” occurs in health care and other goods and services whenever demand exceeds supply. Organs, for example, are precious commodities, and their donation is strictly regulated by national guidelines. Rationing is necessary and inevitable. Allocation of the swine flue vaccine this fall will provide a practical experience of rationing. If the demand for the vaccine exceeds the supply, we will have to decide who will receive the first million doses available.
Rationing might be better described as an appropriate allocation of resources. In an essay in the Washington Post [sic], an infectious disease specialist wrote, “the unspoken truth among doctors is that we objectively or subjectively ration care, and often don’t tell patients or their families.” Health reform would make such decisions an allocations more transparent and accountable.
Oh, I get it. It’s not rationing, its, “an appropriate allocation of resources.”
Recent studies show that abortion harms women, abstinence far more successful in the classroom.
By Nathan A. Cherry
Martinsburg, WV - “The thought of the word “abortion” should be unthinkable.” These words were spoken recently by Alveda King at a locally organized pro-life event at Rocky Mount High-School. I wish more people had this mind-set when it came to the murder of innocent children.
Ms. King, relative of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became a staunch pro-life supporter after her own abortion experiences before accepting Christ in 1983. At the community event she said,
“This country was founded upon the respect for personal freedom; nobody should go against his or her conscious or moral values in order to keep their job. This is what abortion will do.” (Click here for origin)
Ms. King is referencing an open letter written to President Obama regarding his proposed health-care reform in which abortion on demand will be included at tax-payer’s expense; and doctors and nurses will risk losing their jobs for refusing to perform abortions on religious grounds.
Amazingly it would seem that all that is needed to reduce abortion rates is a little education on abstinence and the potential hazards for a woman’s health that exist from abortion.
“Abstinence is the first line of defense in preventing abortion. A woman does have the right to choose. But her moment of choice comes before she has made the choice to become sexually active. We need to educate people on that moment of choice,” said Marica Brown, director of the “Worth Waiting 4” program. Read the rest of this entry »
Last week, some 140,000 people gathered on a conference call with religious leaders to discuss President Obama’s Health Care proposal. The President himself decided to jump on the call too and explained why extending health care to millions in the form of a socialized system was a “moral imperative.”
The “leaders” of the call appear to be many of the religious left who have been asked to advise President Obama on matters of faith and social justice. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has been promoted to chief spokesman for the group, appearing on several news networks touting the “moral imperative” of extending health care or attempting to make the case that health care is a human right. Establishing something as a “human right,” of course, is a liberal’s way of guilting the rest of society into accepting their agenda without question. After all, do you know anyone who is against anything that is a fundamental right of a human?
At the outset, it is offensive to the idea of religious liberty that many of the voices speaking against Obamacare have been silenced and discounted as promoting “malicious myths,” while the pluralistic, religious left continues to receive accolade for stroking the President’s agenda. If President Obama were serious about coordinating the religious community on healthcare, why did he not include Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson or Jim Daly in the discussion? His answer, undoubtedly, would be because they represent a more “activist” mindset in what should be a serious and civil discussion on health care. Ok, but that begs the question: aren’t Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren and the rest of the crew labeled as “religious leaders” equally labeled as activists? Or does it mean something different when they are just called “organizers?”
If President Obama were serious about seeking the “moral imperative” on health care, why would he not consult theologians like R.C. Sproul, D.A. Carson, and Al Mohler? Or even Rabbi Daniel Lapin and Father Frank Pavone? By keeping such serious minds from the table, President Obama has demonstrated that religious freedom means only those who agree with and commit to promoting his agenda. In so doing, he has erected another wall separating only those churches that confront his moralisms with Scriptural authority from influencing the discussion of state.
But there is a legitimate question that we seemed to have skipped over in the race to the August recess: is health care a “human right?”