Thanks for coming to my post! I have chosen to focus on abortion related to the Health Insurance Reform legislation because I am deeply moved by the poor voiceless children in the womb. I am interested in protecting and defending the right to life for these unborn children, from conception to birth. Some of these children would have been my brothers and sisters in the Faith, and I am morally obligated to protecting them. FYI: This desire seems to have directly comes from my Christian faith and fear of God. Before I committed myself to God as my Savior and Lord, I was apathetic and self-centered and didn't care at all for the unborn, but after I was moved by God's Spirit, it was as if a switch had flipped in my heart, and I started to feel great compassion and even had tears of sorrow for the unborn who are murdered and those that continue to be threatened. BTW, if you aren't moved like me before I was reached by God and would like to be moved, then I and would encourage you pray to seek Jesus of the Bible. I can share more about that on request. Also you can see my links on djweichelt.net (and get my email there) to learn more about our need for the Savior.
As I needed to fact check my previous post, following up from accusations of posting propaganda and falsities, and also not researching and even praying, I decided it was reasonable to do more, as previously I didn't do any significant additional research. Now I can report the results of the research from the Internet, including pro-life web sites, whitehouse.gov, Fact Check, and a pro-choice page. I found there are vast differences in interpretation of the bill related to abortion, and because I can't go to the bill itself, and read it in a short time, as there are multiple bills that are too large for to read (the house bill is 1000 pages) and no doubt they are written in complex and perhaps vague legal terms, I had to go with those I trust to do a good job researching and interpreting this (and then verify their research the best you can). All this takes significant time to try to deal with all the issues, however, at some point you have to post to move on and risk not pleasing everyone. Also this takes discernment of the various opinions, so please bear with me if you disagree, as my commentary is the only the most honest and best one I can provide to this date.
My results: My previous understanding was backed up, that abortion would likely be expanded with the current version(s) of congress's Health Insurance Reform bill(s):
1. Abortions will most likely be payed for with the people's tax dollars.
2. Abortions coverage will most likely be mandated to be available to everyone in a private and the public option. This is a huge expansion of abortion availability.
3. Abortion rates would no doubt increase with the mandates in availability and with the federal subsiding of the uninsured (or the poor).
4. There is no opt. out for those that are moral opposed to abortions (aka conscious protection) for anyone, including those in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.).
Note: I didn't use footnotes because my understanding is well document and researched from my primary source (click on this link to see), for points 1-3, from National Right To Life. In the current legislation, which contains a House version and a Senate version, abortion is addressed stealthily in the categories that are considered essential or minimum benefit standards. “Preventive services” is one of the several categories of services, mandated by the Kennedy bill as “essential benefits,” that would no doubt include elective abortion. In the current administration, which is ardently pro-choice, the pro-choice HHS Secretary and the administrators, most of who were appointed by the President, would no-doubt want to allow this. Note: Even if a future pro-life administration comes along after this one, they can not disallow abortion under the Capps Amendment. Even without that amendment and they wanted to changes the coverage, I believe that the federal courts would then be able to mandate elective abortion coverage anyway. Also the current administrators would likely consider abortion as essential as "Reproductive care" as it is considered essential by the President and no doubt his appointed HHS secretary and the government administrators.
These elective abortion mandates are all covered in the public plan, which is for everyone who is not already in a private plan or for those that want to go over to this (for cost savings perhaps). Under the House bill's Capps Amendment however, the people in the public plan pay mandated premiums on the public plan. People would have no option but to buy coverage of elective abortions. That is tax-payer funding under the guise of premiums to the government. Under the Capps Amendment the public option specifically includes abortion with these premiums, and it mandates abortion coverage in private insurance coverage as well. This is an expansion given that most insurance providers current do not provide coverage for elective abortions (see my link for the stats).
In the Senate Bill, under Sen. Mikulski's amendment, groups like Planned Parenthood (PP is probably the top abortion provider), would receive additional and significant private and tax-payer funding. Private insurers would need to fund these organization as well, and there is no clause exempting tax-payer money going to these organizations.
By the way, attempts by various pro-life members of congress to add a Hyde amendment abortion restriction on the bills have been blocked or voted down. You might wonder: Why doesn't the Hyde Amendment cover this already? This amendment prohibits HHS appropriation funds (medicare, medicaid, etc.) from going to pay for abortions. The bill we are talking about will most likely sidestep the HHS appropriations by becoming it's own special appropriation(s). By the way, the Hyde amendment isn't all the secure. It is up for it's annual vote in congress in Sept. and if doesn't make it through congress and the President's veto, we will see abortions covered with tax-payer funding for all the other medical plans the government funds (medicare and medicaid, etc.), as we did before the Hyde Amendment passed (from 1973 to 1976)
There is no abortion opt. out (conscious protection) for anyone in the medical provider system (any faith-based hospitals, doctor, nurse, insurance carrier, etc.). So hospitals and medical providers, that refuse to provide such "essential services" can loose the federal funding, be fined, loose enrollment of patients, and be terminated. Source from a MD. Some may be forced to sell-out literally or figuratively, or even outsource the abortion related services they can not morally perform (this will directly create more demand for abortion clinics in such cases). Note: I heard yesterday that Catholic hospitals make up 15% of the total and there are many other faith based hospitals. Also if there was no existing Federal Conscience Clause (carried over from President Bush), as President Obama has desired to revoke it, then I can also see how individuals could be charged with patient abandonment, loose there license and ability to do there work, and easily bankrupt them and their families (with debt they have from school loans).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Abortion and the Obama Health-Care Plan: the Essential Facts
I just read this article, and want to share this... the Obama Health-Care Plan pay for abortion with taxpayer money, force faith-based medical providers to provide abortions, make abortion more available, and probably increase abortion rates by at least 30%.
Abortion and the Obama Health-Care Plan: the Essential Facts "by Phil Lawler, August 4, 2009 The following information-- which is not my own work, but the work of astute friends in Washington, DC-- provides all you need to know about the Obama White House plans regarding abortion and health-care reform:"
Abortion and the Obama Health-Care Plan: the Essential Facts "by Phil Lawler, August 4, 2009 The following information-- which is not my own work, but the work of astute friends in Washington, DC-- provides all you need to know about the Obama White House plans regarding abortion and health-care reform:"
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Homosexual Marriage in Iowa
Earlier last month seven Iowa supreme courts justices decided that marriage in Iowa should include same-sex, or homosexual couples, overturning the existing law which said it was between one man and one women. Last week the governor took that court opinion and effectively executed it into law, and there are no restrictions other than what was already available for one man and one woman. So same-sex people can get married here or come in from out of state to get married here. If they come from out of state they may not have their marriage observed in their own state under the Federal DOMA act and the states existing laws (30 have marriage amendments and 12 or so others have DOMA laws still in place). As a US citizen here in Iowa, there are several problems I have with this:
1. As an American Christian*, or one with a dual citizenship in Heaven and in the US, I see the most obvious problem here, the problem with legalizing something that God has called sin or immoral (for more info, see "Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective").
*(If you aren't a Christian I hope you learn more about how and why, and make a decision, click here or contact me, or see Why I am a Christian. Also, if you don't believe in the Bible and it's moral absolutes, I can understand how you can not see the Bible as authoritative. How can it be absolutely true? I plan to blog on this more for you soon but here is a links for your own study: Is the Bible Really True? If you have any questions or want to discuss this more please contact me. )
The courts are operating as a secular institution, and they don't have any moral framework other than their own interpretation of the existing constitution. They are interpreting the state Constitution obviously in light of the existing cultural mandates against discrimination and including sexuality in that. Not sure how they are using case law, but I wouldn't doubt that this is part of the reason for their view of right and wrong. They do not see themselves under the rule of the Creator and have fear of Him. If they did fear God they would want to make sure that God's morality was maintained and instituted. This is what traditional morality is about. They choose to be effectively atheistic or agnostic, and independent of faith. However this was not the situation with the courts traditionally. Coral Ridge Ministries published "10 Truths About Americas Christian Heritage" which shares how the move of the courts to the secular, was recent. "The Supreme Court declared we were a Christian people in 1892 and 1933.". By the way, the US Founding Fathers were mostly Christian, and wanted Christian principles to rule: "Historians have noted that “the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document” and the most cited source in Founding eradocuments.". Also "“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” President John Adams voiced this view of the Founders, further stating, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”" Here is an additional source on the Founding Fathers heritage and Christian views: Constitutional lawyer, and conservative radio host, Mark Levin speaks at the FRC. He sites how the idea of being under God, whom our life and liberty come from, is and was central to our countries foundation and preservation.
Also the court's ruling said they don't choose between religions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't operate according to a Judeo-Christian moral view. They claimed that there is disagreement within the Christian church, so they used no religious arguments in their decision. It's true there are liberal Christian churches that endorse homosexuality as not being immoral, however, they do not interpret the Bible in the way that is consistent with how it was written, but in another way, as a revisionist and liberally in light of the current culture (with such a bias).
If we are created, then we are accountable to God (see May 3rd, Sermon from my church). If the government, or state, doesn't submit to God, then it will either abdicate its role and allow a moral void that will contribute the fall of our society with no absolute morality, or take the place of him and institute there own corrupt morality. This is a view held by the founders and is backed by the Bible. The whole point of government, according to the Apostle Peter, was to simply keep the maintain moral social order to separate right from wrong (see my blog post on Church and State - for Christians). Also if you don't believe you are created, then I encourage you to check out this: Case for a Creator and consider Intelligent Design with Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
2. The IA Governor simply agreed with the court and chose to implement the court's opinion, which is not how things are to work. The legislative branch passes laws and the courts interpret the laws according to the Constitution. Because of the separation of powers, the courts don't rule over the others. The Governor should wait on implementing anything until the legislative branch can come up with new laws and also let the people vote on a marriage amendment (as there is such interest to protect the definition of marriage, as in 30 other states they have in defining marriage between a man and a woman). By the way, I understand the governor claims to be for traditional marriage like President Obama is, and promised to uphold it in 2008: “We’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,”. Instead the governor refused to use his rights and responsibilities to the people, to hold implementing same-sex marriage acts until the legislative branch and/or people have a say. Also BTW, Mike Huckabee on his Sunday Huckabee show, said he contacted several top notch constitutional lawyer, in every case they said you don't just have do something because a court made a ruling, you still have the right and responsibility to always make sure the people and their elected representatives are in agreement with it. See this link to his show to the video from the show with Bob Vander Plaats, who is very involved and may run for IA Governor next year.
3. A side note, the Democratically dominated IA congress has blocked the peoples' call for the marriage amendment to come to the house floor recently, so the governor needs to be voted out of office next year to get the executive order to stay same-sex marriage soon. I would support Bob Vander Plaats for Governor to defeat the incumbent, Chet Culver-D, as Bob would execute such an executive stay. The soonest the marriage amendment can be brought up (according to the state Constitution) would be after two sessions where it was voted on in the congress (that equals two years from next year, or 2012). A Constitutional Congress can be enacted in 2010 as well but it's dangerous with a Democratic congress, considering what they might want to put in it, and I don't know how the process works.
4. The legislative branch can impeach judges and the Governor. I would support this, but don't expect it, yet still have asked for it from my representative. I found out about that from Alan Keyes who noted this in his Loyal To Liberty blog.
5. The court decision is not good according to this blogger. I'm no law expert but it makes sense, the courts decision injected sexuality, feelings, and emotions into the marriage contract which originally didn't originally exist, so they are out of bounds. What is the intent of the marriage contract? To allow people to be legally bound, observed by the state, which has nothing to do with sex in marriage.
6. What is marriage? It's something God instituted for man between man and woman. The courts can't redefine this in the Bible or the Bible believing church. They aren't imposing their views on the church now in IA, but they do muddy the waters with a secular / state understanding of marriage. This will lead to the public educational system teaching the moral relativism that comes from such a ruling. Teaching children that homosexuality is as valid and as moral as heterosexuality. This has been done without and despite parental consent in MA to even children in kindergarten (see this documented case).
7. What does it matter otherwise? It does matter as it affects other case law, and opens the door for legal battles in other states and on the federal level. On a personal note, I got married in Iowa but didn't mind much that Iowa was involved, I would not have cared but I can get marriage benefits on my taxes and they want to know for some reason. The benefits I have would extend to others and thus potential lower the benefits in the future to one man and one women married people.
By the way, some consider divorce more of a threat to marriage than this, like Rick Warren, and perhaps they are right, however, the moral issue here will not go away, and people must speak out against wrong morality with their voices and votes (as they have in 30 other states with constitutional Marriage Amendments).
1. As an American Christian*, or one with a dual citizenship in Heaven and in the US, I see the most obvious problem here, the problem with legalizing something that God has called sin or immoral (for more info, see "Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective").
*(If you aren't a Christian I hope you learn more about how and why, and make a decision, click here or contact me, or see Why I am a Christian. Also, if you don't believe in the Bible and it's moral absolutes, I can understand how you can not see the Bible as authoritative. How can it be absolutely true? I plan to blog on this more for you soon but here is a links for your own study: Is the Bible Really True? If you have any questions or want to discuss this more please contact me. )
The courts are operating as a secular institution, and they don't have any moral framework other than their own interpretation of the existing constitution. They are interpreting the state Constitution obviously in light of the existing cultural mandates against discrimination and including sexuality in that. Not sure how they are using case law, but I wouldn't doubt that this is part of the reason for their view of right and wrong. They do not see themselves under the rule of the Creator and have fear of Him. If they did fear God they would want to make sure that God's morality was maintained and instituted. This is what traditional morality is about. They choose to be effectively atheistic or agnostic, and independent of faith. However this was not the situation with the courts traditionally. Coral Ridge Ministries published "10 Truths About Americas Christian Heritage" which shares how the move of the courts to the secular, was recent. "The Supreme Court declared we were a Christian people in 1892 and 1933.". By the way, the US Founding Fathers were mostly Christian, and wanted Christian principles to rule: "Historians have noted that “the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document” and the most cited source in Founding eradocuments.". Also "“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” President John Adams voiced this view of the Founders, further stating, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”" Here is an additional source on the Founding Fathers heritage and Christian views: Constitutional lawyer, and conservative radio host, Mark Levin speaks at the FRC. He sites how the idea of being under God, whom our life and liberty come from, is and was central to our countries foundation and preservation.
Also the court's ruling said they don't choose between religions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't operate according to a Judeo-Christian moral view. They claimed that there is disagreement within the Christian church, so they used no religious arguments in their decision. It's true there are liberal Christian churches that endorse homosexuality as not being immoral, however, they do not interpret the Bible in the way that is consistent with how it was written, but in another way, as a revisionist and liberally in light of the current culture (with such a bias).
If we are created, then we are accountable to God (see May 3rd, Sermon from my church). If the government, or state, doesn't submit to God, then it will either abdicate its role and allow a moral void that will contribute the fall of our society with no absolute morality, or take the place of him and institute there own corrupt morality. This is a view held by the founders and is backed by the Bible. The whole point of government, according to the Apostle Peter, was to simply keep the maintain moral social order to separate right from wrong (see my blog post on Church and State - for Christians). Also if you don't believe you are created, then I encourage you to check out this: Case for a Creator and consider Intelligent Design with Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".
2. The IA Governor simply agreed with the court and chose to implement the court's opinion, which is not how things are to work. The legislative branch passes laws and the courts interpret the laws according to the Constitution. Because of the separation of powers, the courts don't rule over the others. The Governor should wait on implementing anything until the legislative branch can come up with new laws and also let the people vote on a marriage amendment (as there is such interest to protect the definition of marriage, as in 30 other states they have in defining marriage between a man and a woman). By the way, I understand the governor claims to be for traditional marriage like President Obama is, and promised to uphold it in 2008: “We’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,”. Instead the governor refused to use his rights and responsibilities to the people, to hold implementing same-sex marriage acts until the legislative branch and/or people have a say. Also BTW, Mike Huckabee on his Sunday Huckabee show, said he contacted several top notch constitutional lawyer, in every case they said you don't just have do something because a court made a ruling, you still have the right and responsibility to always make sure the people and their elected representatives are in agreement with it. See this link to his show to the video from the show with Bob Vander Plaats, who is very involved and may run for IA Governor next year.
3. A side note, the Democratically dominated IA congress has blocked the peoples' call for the marriage amendment to come to the house floor recently, so the governor needs to be voted out of office next year to get the executive order to stay same-sex marriage soon. I would support Bob Vander Plaats for Governor to defeat the incumbent, Chet Culver-D, as Bob would execute such an executive stay. The soonest the marriage amendment can be brought up (according to the state Constitution) would be after two sessions where it was voted on in the congress (that equals two years from next year, or 2012). A Constitutional Congress can be enacted in 2010 as well but it's dangerous with a Democratic congress, considering what they might want to put in it, and I don't know how the process works.
4. The legislative branch can impeach judges and the Governor. I would support this, but don't expect it, yet still have asked for it from my representative. I found out about that from Alan Keyes who noted this in his Loyal To Liberty blog.
5. The court decision is not good according to this blogger. I'm no law expert but it makes sense, the courts decision injected sexuality, feelings, and emotions into the marriage contract which originally didn't originally exist, so they are out of bounds. What is the intent of the marriage contract? To allow people to be legally bound, observed by the state, which has nothing to do with sex in marriage.
6. What is marriage? It's something God instituted for man between man and woman. The courts can't redefine this in the Bible or the Bible believing church. They aren't imposing their views on the church now in IA, but they do muddy the waters with a secular / state understanding of marriage. This will lead to the public educational system teaching the moral relativism that comes from such a ruling. Teaching children that homosexuality is as valid and as moral as heterosexuality. This has been done without and despite parental consent in MA to even children in kindergarten (see this documented case).
7. What does it matter otherwise? It does matter as it affects other case law, and opens the door for legal battles in other states and on the federal level. On a personal note, I got married in Iowa but didn't mind much that Iowa was involved, I would not have cared but I can get marriage benefits on my taxes and they want to know for some reason. The benefits I have would extend to others and thus potential lower the benefits in the future to one man and one women married people.
By the way, some consider divorce more of a threat to marriage than this, like Rick Warren, and perhaps they are right, however, the moral issue here will not go away, and people must speak out against wrong morality with their voices and votes (as they have in 30 other states with constitutional Marriage Amendments).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
