More on Health Care Reform

I thought this cartoon from TownHall.com pretty much sums it up. Even the Democrats aren't on board with this thing.

I have found one more reason to be against it. The title of this article from Health Freedom pretty much sums it up: "Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct 'Interventions' in Private Homes"

They quote directly from the proposed bill. Method E of Subtitle C call for "providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services" Folks, regardless of how you feel about vaccines, do you really want government officials coming to your house to giving vaccines to your kids whether you want or agree with them or not. This a very bad idea if you believe in any kind of parental rights when it comes to vaccines.

UPDATE: OneMom claims in the comments that I am over the top on this. She may be right. This may simply be a way for senior citizens to get their flu shots at home instead of travelling to a clinic. If that is the case and it is an appointment type thing, I am fine with that. But I do stand by my principle: I don't want the government thinking they have the right to come into my house without a warrant or explicit permission by me.

Parental Rights in the State of Texas

Thanks to JR at A Keyboard and a .45 I have been alerted to a new parenting law introduced in Texas by Texas Rep. Alonzo that makes me cringe. The proposed law talks of ensuring that children are a priority and a good education, etc. Here are the things that popped out at me.

From Article 1-
The child has a right to live in a home where "the child is treated with respect". I agree with this, but I can see the government (or judges) twisting this to: It is disrespectful to the child to swat, ground from the prom, limit friendship choices, etc.

It even specifies later that "any form of discipline that humiliates or demeans the child" would be banned. I can see this being almost anything but time outs.

This phrase "access to a quality education" opens the door to homeschool regulation.

This one "receive appropriate medical, dental, vision, and mental health services" bodes of more regulation of people who oppose vaccinations or medical birth or Western medicine all together.

Article Two largely deals with "Family Education Centers". Somehow I can't really imagine that these will be based on God-centered biblical parenting. One of the things new parents are supposed to learn is to "develop short- and long-term family goals". Now I can only imagine that these would be more in line with the State's goals and less in line with God's goals.

Needless to say, I will do my part in fighting this rubbish. Parents are responsible for the character molding, health, education, and training of their children. The State needs to get the c*** out. (The stars are for OneMom's benefit.)

Terrible, Good, and Something to Look Into

We will start with some terrible news. Great apes have been given human rights in Spain. Here are some quotes from LifeSiteNews. I added the bold.

A Spanish parliamentary committee yesterday gave its support to a resolution that would grant so-called "great apes" the rights to life, liberty and freedom from torture.

According to numerous mainstream reports, the environmental committee's resolution is supported across party lines and is expected to be passed by parliament, thereby coming into effect as law.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project (GAP). "We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening."

According to a Reuters report, it will also become illegal to keep apes in circuses, or for the purposes of television commercials or filming.

Since it's inception GAP has lobbied in favor of a UN Declaration on Great Apes. That Declaration demands, "the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

"The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law."
The list of "moral principles or rights" includes the three "rights" included in the Spanish parliamentary committee's resolution. Currently, however, it is not clear what penalties, if any, would be levied against an ape should an ape violate these moral principles by, for example, killing or injuring a human being or another ape in a case where it was not necessary for self defence.

To those who have been observing events in Spain these last several years under the socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, it comes as no surprise that such an unprecedented resolution would be passed first in Spain.

As bioethicist Wesley Smith explains on his blog in a post on the Spanish resolution, "Of course the purpose of this isn't to merely improve the treatment of great apes - which could be accomplished as it already has been in some places via normal animal welfare statutes. Rather, the explicit point of the GAP is revolutionary - to demote human beings from the uniquely valuable species and into merely another animal in the forest.

"Once people accept that premise," he continues, "Judeo/Christian philosophy goes to the guillotine allowing the utilitarian agenda to proceed unhindered, leading in turn to the moral value of the weak and vulnerable among us becoming archaic, resulting in their loss of the right to life and being used instrumentally for those deemed more valuable. (Lest you think we exaggerate, check out Peter Singer's writings, and who can deny that his values are triumphing?)"

Smith concludes, "In the world being born out of the ashes of the sanctity/equality of human life ethic, value will be subjective and rights temporary - depending on one's individual capacities rather than humanity. And we will see apes - animals (and eventually other animals), which are completely oblivious about the hue and cry being mounted against human worth in their names - being viewed as more important than some humans."

Note how evolution, socialism, and the UN are all tied in to this. As a side note, I would love to see the US get out of the UN.

Now on to some good news. Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned DCs hand-gun ban. To me this proves that the Court can still read the Constitution and rule in favor of the people. I find that encouraging.

The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, saying individuals have the right to own guns.

In a 5-to-4 landmark decision Thursday, the high court struck down the 32-year-old ban, saying it violates the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court also struck down the city's requirement that legally-owned firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled in the home, saying that makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

And now I leave you with something to look into. I was unaware that many vaccines use human fetal tissue. I was also unaware that there are ethical alternatives. http://www.cogforlife.org/ was recommended on Faith2Action.org's Hot Battle Action Steps. If you go to COGForLife.og, there is a link on the left side that says vaccine sources. It gives a list of vaccine brands that use non-human fetal material for the vaccines. So, if you vaccinate your children, ask your doctor for the brands that don't use baby parts.

Vaccines Linked to Autism

WorldNetDaily has a story about the recent ruling in "vaccine court". The ruling was made in favor of an autistic child. She developed autism after her 18-month well baby visit. She had received several shots some of which contained thermosil. Here are some clips from the article.

This case echoes the stories of thousands of children across the country," said NAA President Wendy Fournier. "With almost 5,000 similar cases pending in vaccine court, we are confident that this is just the first of many that will confirm what we have believed for so long – vaccines can and do cause children to regress into autism."

Fournier called on the Centers for Disease Control "to acknowledge that the current vaccine schedule is not safe for every child and as with the administration of any medicine, individual risks and susceptibilities must be considered for each patient."

The Department of Health and Human Services said its Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, or DVIC, "has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

Kirby said that for most affected families, the fine distinction between claiming that vaccines did not "cause" autism but instead aggravated a condition to "manifest" as autism is a fine distinction that is not so important.

While it's too early to tell, he said, "this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is 'absolutely no link' between vaccines and autism."
It also puts the federal government's vaccine court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy, he said.

"DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component," he pointed out. "And, they insist, it's simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder. Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case."

The bottom line, he said, is that the public will demand to know what is going on inside the U.S. federal health establishment.

"The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way – and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions," Kirby writes. "Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away."

The key words contained in the concession, he says, are "aggravated" and "manifested."
"Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all," Kirby argues.

"When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don't say 'his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death,'" he continues. "No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today."

Whatever the government's further explanation, says Kirby, "they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case: The United States government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism. And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it."