New Obama Rule Would Force Pro-Life Doctors To Perform Abortions

So, where are Doug Kmiec and Chris Buckley now? They were pretty vocal about their "conservatives who support Obama" mantra back during the campaign. They especially liked the attention they recieved as a result.

But now, for some reason, these two are very silent when it comes to the issues that they were certain they had nailed down. Doug Kmiec was convinced that Obama would respect the views of the pro-lifers that Kmiec got to vote for Obama.

Kmiec was nothing more than a useful idiot to Obama since Obama has shown nothing but disdain for and disrespect to pro-lifers whom Kmiec convinced would find a new, elevated status if they voted Democrat last November. How so? Obama's latest proposed rule change would force pro-life medical professionals into performing procedures they find morally objectionable.

Tonight at 9:00 p.m., the Andrea King Show will have Dr. Joe DeCook, Vice President of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Here is what he has to say:

"The administration’s new efforts to overturn the HHS regulation could mandate practices such as abortion or shut down many of the 557 Catholic hospitals around the country that treat millions of US hospital patients. “Revoking the regulation is the first step in removing a doctor of his or her rights to make a decision based on conscience and as a result placing that decision in the hands of the government. This issue will not only effect faith-based institutions, but could cause a dire situation for the entire medical profession.”

Of course. You can't have government-run health care if doctors are free to make their own decisions free of government influence.

The Obama administration has opened the HHS regulation – also known as “conscience clause” – for public comment until April 9, 2009.

You can access this information on-line here:

Andrea King Show

You can send your comments asking the Obama administration not to trample on the beliefs of those medical professionals who hold pro-life views by visiting the following website:

Recently Posted HHS Rules And Notices

Or sending an email to:

proposedrescission@hhs.gov

I'd like to know where Doug Kmiec stands on this issue and if he still stands by his assertion that Obama would somehow be good for the pro-life movement.

Socialist Obama Administration Makes New Power Grab To Seize Private Sector Businesses

I know there are still several libs out there who stamp their feet and whine like little children that Obama is not a socialist. Well, you can put your faux temper tantrums back into the closet for another day. All doubt about Obama's intentions of sending the United States into a socialist disaster similar to that of European nations has been erased.

The White House announced a plan for the government to come in and seize control of private sector businesses. At first, the excuse was that the government should come in and give oversight to any bank or firm that recieved TARP money. Now, they just want to go in and take over any bank, firm or business they feel like.

From the Washington Post:

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers. The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy. The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

There are two major problems with this. First, our government is so incompetant that it is extremely doubtful that they would ever be able to accurately identify a firm that was tottering "towards failure." After all, Sarbanes-Oxley was designed to do just that and it failed to give us notice every single time another Wall Street firm went bankrupt. Apart from that, if the market dictates that is business should fail then the business should fail.

Second, this is nothing more than a socialist power grab, an attempt at seizing the means of wealth and production. Sound like a part of a plan introduced by a radical who lived back in the 1800's and wrote the Communist Manifesto? It should. It is precisely that.

Obama has also mentioned that he wants to put limits on executive compensation in all businesses, whether they recieved TARP money or not.

The Obama Administration has now removed all disguise from their policies. They are most definitely socialists and they are no longer timid about exposing it. Socialism is a disaster and had failed everywhere it has been tried. Certainly, Obama is aware of history.

But I believe that Obama has a more sinister purpose in mind here. He wants his socialist allies in Congress to grant his administration these broad powers to act against the American private sector in order to tighten the devastating stranglehold that socialism will ultimately have on us and our lives.

Is this what Chris Buckley, David Brooks and Doug Kmiec had in mind when they convinced all those people to vote for Obama?

This madness must be stopped.

Wake up America!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power To Seize Firms
Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post
March 24, 2009

The Stem Cell Debacle: Ideology Over Science

If there was any doubt that Doug Kmiec is now officially a useful idiot, Obama erased them when he signed an order allowing taxpayer money to be used for research on embryonic stem cells.

Never mind the fact that embryonic stem cells have never successfully been used in any kind of therapy whereas adult stem cells have been successfully used in hundreds of different treatment for hundreds of thousands of patients. In fact, most physicians agree that embryonic stem cells are so unstable that the outcomes of treatments using them cannot be accurately predicted.

Such was the story of a nine-year-old Israeli boy who was treated for ataxia-telangiectasia, a disease that causes degeneration of parts of the brain, with fetal stem cells. those fetal (i.e. embryonic) stem cells developed into a brain tumor. Doctors removed the tumor, but it has been gradually growing back since the surgery.

From Scientific American:

The theory is that because these stem cells are fetal cells, they are designed to proliferate and give rise to new tissue, which means they have the potential to produce tumors. The case, write the authors of this week’s case study, should serve as a warning that more research is needed to gauge the safety of these novel therapies. Other stem cell experts echo their concerns and worry that scientists don't yet understand exactly how stem cells used in such treatments behave once inside the body. Treating neurological disorders with stem cells from fetal brains is a "great scientific goal to pursue," but there is simply not enough evidence from animal studies, let alone human studies, to prove it is safe or effective for treating these diseases in children, says Sean Savitz, a neurologist at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

Scientific American predicted this is June of 2006:

Stem Cells: The Real Culprits In Cancer?
Michael F. Clarke and Wichael W. Becker
Scientific American
June 2006

But, is there any hope from any kind of stem cells?

The answer is: Yes. Adult stem cells offer a better hope than embryonic stem cells.

Savitz has just begun enrolling patients in a study on treating adult stroke victims with their own—adult—stem cells. The intent of the boy's treatment must have been to use these fetal stem cells to regenerate tissue lost in certain areas of the brain, Savitz speculates, but he adds, "we don't have a full understanding of how [brainlike] stem cells can generate different cells in the brain." Savitz says that the stem cells used in his trial are not likely to cause cancer because they are adult cells taken from bone marrow that die once they have accomplished their mission of repairing brain tissue. In their study, Savitz and his colleagues will remove cells from the bone marrow of patients 24 to 72 hours after they suffer a stroke, isolate hundreds of millions of stem cells from that marrow and then re-inject the stem cells into the bloodstream. Once inside the body, the stem cells will migrate to the brain and promote new blood vessel growth, reduce inflammation, and rescue neurons at risk of dying, Savitz hopes. And once they have done their job, they will basically commit suicide—unlike fetal neural cells, which tend to set up camp and proliferate, setting the stage for possible tumor formation, he explains.

And Dr. Savitz is not the only physician that feels this way.

Dr. Bernadine Healy recently wrote a blog piece about why embryonic stem cells are obsolete. In her essay, she notes the example of the nine-year-old Israeli boy:

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern. That dream was still alive only a few weeks before this report. Within days of Obama's inauguration, the Food and Drug Administration approved its first-ever embryonic stem cell study in humans: the biotech company Geron's plan to inject highly purified human embryonic cells into eight to 10 patients with acute spinal cord injuries. (The cells are from a stem cell line approved by Bush because it predated his ban.) The FDA should now be compelled to take another look: Are eight to 10 patients enough, or one year of monitoring sufficient, to assess safety? And doctors who participate in the trial will have to ask what every doctor must ask before performing research on a human subject: Were I this patient, would I participate? Would I encourage my loved ones to do so?

I wouldn't want any of my loved ones participating in something like this. Given the track record of embyonic stem cells, it seems more like a death sentence than any kind of avenue for hope.

Again, is there another ray of hope?

According to Dr. Healy:

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient's natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells. A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer. James Thomson, the stem cell pioneer from the University of Wisconsin who was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in 1998, is an independent codiscoverer of iPS cells along with Japanese scientists. Already these reprogrammed cells have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, he has said, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.

So, what we have here is that adult stem cells offer better hope for treating ailments and induced pluripotent stem cells don't have to overcome any ethical hurdles for use. Also, fetal stem cells have a track record of being unpredicatable and are known to cause cancer.

So, why are the leftists so intent on spending money and resources on embryonic stem cells?

Because its keeps the abortion agenda moving forward. No other reason.

If this were about medicine and science, the major push would be to fund adult stem cell research and iPS research.

You can access the two articles on-line here:

Fetal Stem Cells Cause Tumor In A Teenage Boy
Coco Ballantyne
Scientific American
February 19, 2009

Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete
Dr. Bernadine Healy
U.S. News
March 4, 2009

Obama's Radical Pro-Abortion Agenda Makes Doug Kmiec A Useful Idiot

Doug Kmiec's name is going to come up over and over and over again during the next few months. Most notably because he somehow convinced himself and his followers that Barack Obama and the Democrats would make good on a promise to make abortion as rare as possible. Unfortunately, the actions of Obama and the applause he recieved from his fellow leftists shows that Kmiec and his ilk had simply been used to get votes and are now best described as "useful idiots."

Sound harsh? I don't think so. No more harsh than the Dems who so snidely sang "Hey, hey, goodbye" to President Bush at the inauguration of Obama. No, no more harsh than that.

Anyway, Obama's first act of slapping Kmiec in the face was accomplished yesterday when he overturned the Mexico City Policy that forbade the use of federal funds for abortions overseas. Now, money that could be used to help Americans is being sent overseas to end the lives of unborn children and we taxpayers get to pay for it.



Above: Democrats applaud the policy of making U.S. taxpayers foot the bill so that foreign women can kill their unborn babies.

From Tom Strode of the Baptist Press:

Obama ordered the repeal of what has been dubbed the Mexico City Policy. The rule has prohibited international family planning organizations from receiving federal funds unless they agree not to perform or counsel for abortion or lobby in order to liberalize the pro-life policies of foreign governments. ... Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land and other pro-life advocates decried Obama's order. "President Obama was the most radically pro-choice candidate of a major party in American history and pledged to Planned Parenthood that he would never back down on this issue," Land said. "Unfortunately, his executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy may just be the first step in his fulfillment of that campaign pledge to his radical pro-abortion supporters. "With his action today, American taxpayers' money once again will be used in part to fund abortions that end the lives of our fellow human beings in other countries," he said.

And Doug Kmiec convinced millions of pro-life Catholics that this wouldn't happen, that Obama and the Dems would respect their pro-life positions.

Doug, you are most definitely a useful idiot.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Rescinds Pro-Life Funding Policy
Tom Strode
Baptist Press
January 23, 2009

Robert Bork Predicts Liberal Policies Will Endanger Catholic Freedoms

If Doug Kmiec has any credibility left, it will be gone soon. His support of Barack Obama has helped to bring Roman Catholics to a turning point in American History. A century ago, Irish Catholics were mis-treated more because of their faith rather than their ethnicity. With the election of Barack Obama and the leftist policies he and the liberal Dems are embracing, it's starting to look like Catholics are once again going to be looked down upon, only this time by the entire Federal government.

Judge Robert Bork gave an interview to Cybercast News Service, excerpts of which were published by the Catholic News Agency, in which he made several very dire predictions. Among those are a conflict of government policies versus freedom of religion.

From the interview:

"Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t," he said. "You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions," he claimed.

This is just one issue. If the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA) is passed and signed into law, it will require Catholic hospitals to go against their own religious beliefs and kill unborn children.

But, Judge Bork did mention that there was a way around this.

Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied: "Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role." He agreed with the CNS interviewer, Editor in Chief Terry Jeffrey, that such coercion forces someone to act against their religion and could be construed as a violation of the right to free exercise of religion.

That may be the one good thing to come out of an Obama Administration. It will force liberals and other leftists to acknowledge that little known clause in the U.S. Constitution regarding the freedom of religion: "nor prohibit the free practice thereof."

When asked what is happening to America, Judge Bork responded:

Judge Bork said he also thought that America is “now going down a path towards kind of a happy-go-lucky nihilism.” “A lot of people are nihilists,” he continued. “They don’t think about religion. They don’t think about ultimate questions. They go along. They worry about consumer goods, comfort, and so forth. “As a matter of fact, the abortion question is largely a question about convenience. If you look at the polls about why people have abortions, 90 percent of it has nothing to do with medical conditions. It’s convenience. And that’s I think an example of the secularization of an issue that ought to have a religious dimension.” When asked whether a nihilistic society can remain “happy-go-lucky” for long, Judge Bork replied: “I don’t know. I guess we are going to find out.”

Yep. Abortion is simply a way of casting off responsibility for acting irresponsibly. Leftists in America want us to pay for erasing someone else's irresponsibility. I say let those responsible pay for it themselves.

Doug Kmiec and Melinda Henneberger better get their pens ready. If the Democrats spurn the pro-lifers who put them into power and pass FOCA, several million voters will feel betrayed. Kmiec and Henneberger will have become the major dupes in that betrayal.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Jurist Predicts ‘Terrible Conflict’ Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom
Catholic News Agency
January 21, 2009

Doug Kmiec Whines: Catholic Bloggers Are "Tormenting" Him

One of the hallmarks of a good person is integrity. Integrity means admitting that one is wrong whenever one is clearly wrong. I'm sure that most people have integrity in their private lives but when they go public or are made public by other circumstances, the first thing they lose is their integrity.

Unfortunately, Doug Kmiec is one of those people. He made himself public as a pro-life Catholic who offered his support for the extremely pro-abortion Barack Obama and actively campaigned for other pro-life Catholics to join him in his endorsement. Kmiec had somehow convinced himself that Obama and the Democrats in general would respect the pro-life views of himself and those who rallied to his call.

Then, when the hard truth hit, Kmiec was discredited and basically made to look like a fool who blindly led his flock astray. I documented a part of this in my previous blog entry:

Voter's Remorse: Did Pro-Life Catholics (Especially Douglas Kmiec) Get Punked By Obama?
84rules
November 28, 2008

I thought my own posting on the issue was very civil and thoughtful, especialy since it was based on an article by Kmiec's peer journalist, Melinda Henneberger, who wrote the following article for Slate:

Lose-Lose On Abortion
Melinda Henneberger
Slate
November 24, 2008

So, why am I bringing all of this up again?

Because Doug Kmiec is whining about how he is being mistreated by the "right-wing Catholic blogosphere." Actually, what has happened is that there has been a backlash against his support for the most pro-abortion President of all time.

Instead of admitting that he led himself and his followers astray, Kmiec has chosen to abandon his integrity and make himself out to be some sort of victim. He claims that he has been on the recieving end of "missiles of hate" and "ad hominem invectives." Personally, I invite everyone to read my previous blog entry posted above so that they can see that 84rules did nothing of the kind.

The Catholic News Agency has more on this story:

Brian Saint-Paul, editor of Crisis Magazine and InsideCatholic.com, was highly critical of Kmiec’s endorsement of President-elect Obama. He responded to Kmiec’s essay in a Tuesday e-mail to CNA. "While I strongly disagreed with Dr. Kmiec's support for Barack Obama, I have also been sorry to see the personal abuse he's received from fellow Catholics as a result," he wrote. "If those in the Church can't disagree without resorting to playground insults, we're a sad example to the rest of the world." "Having said that, I hope Dr. Kmiec doesn't use the immaturity of some of his critics as a reason to avoid the more legitimate concerns of others. There is a conversation that needs to take place here, and it will require thick skins all around."

That is where Kmiec lost his integrity. I have no doubt that he did recieve some purile hate-mail, but to generalize it to include everyone who has been critical of him shows his victim mentality.

More:

Thomas Peters, who runs the blog “American Papist,” was critical of Kmiec’s comments. "Blog culture is not homogenous. Kmiec ought to be specific when he says he is being attacked by ‘the blogosphere.’ It's like saying ‘the press’ is attacking you, and then proceeding to only mention things said by the National Enquirer," he told CNA in a Tuesday e-mail.

And that is the whole point here. Kmiec is responding to his critics by offering broad-brush accusations with very little, if any, evidence behind them.

More:

"He has attempted to move the debate away from the original argument in question (specifically Obama's record on life issues) into the realm of the character assassination he feels he has been subjected to." "Kmiec constantly points out the vitriolic or silly criticisms he has received, while almost wholly ignoring the substantive disagreements that many prominent members of the pro-life movement have raised in response to his arguments. It shouldn't be surprising that he fares well when he matches himself up against this army of straw men, or in this case, these nameless, faceless ‘bloggers’."

What Kmiec is missing is the reason this whole thing started to begin with. Mark Shea clears that up very nicely:

He suggested that Kmiec received singular criticism because of his unique position. "It's not like there was a huge field of one-time pro-life Catholic leaders who suddenly turned about and started making excuses for Obama's pro-abortion zeal," Shea told CNA. "He was one of the most prominent alleged pro-life Catholic voices out there banging the drum for Obama, a man who has pledged to sign the single most destructive act of pro-abortion legislation in American history. What did he expect?"

Yes, what did he expect? Did Kmiec expect that all pro-life Catholics would be as blind to him as he himself was to Barack Obama?

And finally, the parting shot by Shea:

"I'm not interested in hearing Kmiec moan about how mean people from the bottom of the barrel were to him," Shea told CNA. "I'm interested in hearing his responses to the very intelligent critiques of his position that were offered by a number of very respectable and honorable Catholics."

If Kmiec would like to reclaim his integrity, he would listen to what Mark Shea said.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Catholic Bloggers Respond To Kmiec Criticism
Catholic News Agency
January 14, 2009

Voter's Remorse: Did Pro-Life Catholics (Especially Douglas Kmiec) Get Punked By Obama?

I think it is pretty clear that the answer is "Yes." Obama lied to them and they believed it. Now, many pro-life Catholics are heading into Advent wondering why they had been so eaily led astray by the charismatic Obama and wondering how they had been convinced to support a man who has almost no Christian values in his life at all.

They were lead astray by people like Doug Kmiec who wrote, "While no papal instruction will ever condone the "right to choose," the church does ask for a consistent and realistic defense of life that actually takes steps to reduce the incidence of the practice, not just condemns it. ... Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural."

Unfortunately, Doug forgets that he is not a member of the body that makes policy for the Catholic Church in the United States. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does that. And in their meeting in Baltimore, Maryland in early November, the Bishops drew a line in the sand concerning abortion, Catholic Hospitals and the Freedom Of Choice Act (FOCA).

You see, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would sign FOCA into law first thing after taking office, the moment it hits his desk. Among the provisions of this law are: Forcing Catholic Hospitals into doing abortions and completely removing any requirment for informed consent (i.e. disclosing possible complications of the procedures) and any parental notification. (Without parental notification or informed consent, it would be entirely possible that a teen-aged girl could get an abortion and develop complications as a result of the procedure but her parents would never find out who or what caused them and they would not be able to seek compensation from those responsible.)

Right now, there are freedom-of-conscious laws in 46 states that prohibit the government from forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform morally objectionable prcedures. Doug Kmiec and other pro-life Catholics who supported Obama were betting on Barack Obama and the Democrats being respectful of those laws. It was a sucker's bet.

As the general public begins to gain access to more information that the news outlets deliberately suppressed during the campaign, people like Doug Kmiec are going to be made to look like fools. It is already showing at Slate with one of Doug's peers, Melinda Henneberger who writes:

I have high hopes for President Obama, I was so looking forward to dancing at this party. Yet, although abortion was not a major issue in the race, the pro-life argument that he was the candidate most likely to decrease the need for—and number of—abortions did make it easier for many Catholics to cast their votes for him. I think we should hold him to that commitment now. At the very moment when Obama and his party have won the trust of so many Catholics who favor at least some limits on abortion, I hope he does not prove them wrong. I hope he does not make a fool out of that nice Doug Kmiec, who led the pro-life charge on his behalf. I hope he does not spit on the rest of us—though I don't take him for the spitting sort—on his way in the door. I hope that his appointment of Ellen Moran, formerly of EMILY's List, as his communications director is followed by the appointment of some equally good Democrats who hold pro-life views. By supporting and signing the current version of FOCA, Obama would reignite the culture war he so deftly sidestepped throughout this campaign. This is a fight he just doesn't need at a moment when there is no shortage of other crises to manage.

As noted above, Doug Kmiec led his flock (i.e. his pro-life readers) astray and the Catholic Bishops are exposing him and others like him by openly calling into question Barack Obama's stance on forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform morally objectionable procedures.

Henneberger's column also shows how Barack Obama and the Dems in general have no respect at all for anyone who thinks outside of the leftist philosophy of the Democratic National Committee. Not one ounce of respect, even if those people cast votes in the Dem column.

Those pro-lifers who listened to people like Doug Kmiec and voted for Obama got punked. And they are starting to realize the hard truth about it. I can only guess at how much it hurts them to see that truth. But no amount of confession or penance can ever allow them to go back and change their vote.

You can access Henneberger's complete column on-line here:

Lose-Lose On Abortion
Melinda Henneberger
Slate
November 24, 2008