- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Keeping Abortion Out of Health Care
Evangelical writer Jim Wallis has until now remained strong on the idea that nationalized health care should not force Americans to pay for killing unborn children. But, as May push comes to July shove, Wallis's liberal friends are giving him a "wedgie." Now, he seems to be wavering. He says he hopes that abortion will not become a "wedge issue," one that will prevent us from enacting a sweeping takeover of the health care industry.
Let's unpack that wedge issue comment. It stems from the pens of leftist thinkers like Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas? To such minds, the right to life of one-third of a nation is merely an annoyance, the death of millions of innocent unborn children is a distraction from the real business of politics -- the redistribution of wealth. Lenin said it before Frank and more succinctly: Kto kovo -- who gets?
Abortion is not a wedge issue at all. It is a bridge issue between the parties, between religious and ethnic groups. President Reagan recognized that. He reached out -- successfully -- to Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Abortion was a major factor in Reagan winning the votes of 27 percent of Democrats. The Reagan Democrats were the key to his astounding political victories. For millions of Catholics and Evangelicals, the party of their parents was the Democratic Party. Reagan echoed FDR's "rendezvous with destiny" and let it be known he had voted for FDR four times.
Abortion was an important factor in Reagan's first landslide in 1980. President Jimmy Carter's refusal to support federal funding of abortion spurred the third-party challenge of Independent John Anderson. Anderson's direct mail appeals to liberal lists pounded away at the theme of extending full federal funding to abortion-on-demand. It was, in fact, the only major policy difference he had with Carter. Anderson's appeal fatally weakened Carter's campaign in several states. Anderson's strong pro-abortion position enabled him to tip into the Reagan column such states as Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin When Reagan carried some states previously thought to be liberal bastions, the effect was one of shock and awe. Reagan's powerful performance contributed mightily to his success as an extraordinary politician. For millions of blue-collar Democrats, Reagan's values were their values.
Reagan made a point of addressing major religious groups; he spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention in 1980. This was President Carter's own denomination. Reagan told this largest legislative gathering in the world "you can't endorse me, but I can endorse you." The SBC messengers got the message -- and cheered heartily.
As President, Reagan spoke of his opposition to abortion to the Knights of Columbus in 1982 and the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983. He became the only sitting president to publish a book. In 1984, he wrote: Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. Reagan's historic 1984 landslide was certainly not about abortion alone.
For Reagan's most vocal opponents, abortion was key. Lawrence Lader, the co-founder of NARAL, wrote: "Abortion is central to everything in life and how we want to live it." This explains why advocates for the government takeover of health care are so adamant about including abortion coverage.
Harold Ickes, Jr. is well-known in liberal circles. He's been a fund-raiser for his party and a key backer of Bill and Hillary Clinton for decades. As long ago as 1988, he weighed in in his home state of New York against then-Sen. Al Gore. This was Gore's first run for President and arguably his best shot. Gore came into New York State with 25 percent in the polls -- leading a crowded Democratic pack. But Ickes was outraged by Gore's position against federal funding of abortion. Ickes led a chorus of boos against Gore at a big meeting of liberal donors. Gore's standing in the New York Democratic primary plummeted. He won just 10 percent of the vote and limped out of the Empire State. Gore's campaign collapsed and he turned around on federal funding of abortion.
Why would Ickes' wealthy fellow liberals care so much about federal funding for abortion? After all, New York State, led by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, would continue to pay for abortions. And Ickes' friends would themselves never need a public subsidy in order to avail themselves of abortion.
With Ickes and his fellow travelers on abortion it is absolutely essential that we cease calling it wrong. Federal funding for abortion is the indispensable piece of the puzzle. They have had abortion-on-demand -- what they always wanted -- ever since Roe. The Supreme Court has only rarely failed to deliver on their radical pro-abortion agenda.But it fell short in Harris v. McRae (1980) -- and then only by the slenderest of margins, 5-4. In that important case, the Court's majority said that the Hyde Amendment forbidding the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions was constitutional.
For men like Ickes denying federal funding impermissibly taints abortion. There's something wrong with it if the federal government cannot fully and generously pay for it. For them, 48 million abortions are not enough.
Abraham Lincoln went to New York City 128 years before Al Gore went there. He recognized that his opponents would not be satisfied with holding their slaves in bondage, selling their slaves across state lines, and even pursuing their runaway slaves into the free states. So what else could Lincoln's adversaries want? "This, and this only," he famously said at Cooper Union "[We must]: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly -- done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated -- we must place ourselves avowedly with them."
This is why Harold Ickes, Jr. and Barack Obama cannot yield on abortion-as-health care.
Obama sincerely wants to end all the controversy over abortion. He wants to end it by including abortion in his government takeover of health care. Then, he hopes, we will have to cease calling it wrong. Then, it will be officially designated as an indispensable and indisputable part of a mandated federal benefits package.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Lu| 7.29.09 @ 8:48AM
Never in my life have I wittnessed a more evil group of people that are now in office. If they believe in abortion they should start with their familes and their lives.
KyMouse| 7.29.09 @ 8:53AM
Excellent, Mr. Blackwell. Pro-abortion people do indeed fight against anything that implies that killing babies in the womb is wrong. With that viewpoint, they slam the door on any discussion of limiting abortion. As has been said many times by many people, the hatred expressed toward Sarah Palin had much to do with the fact that she refused to kill her new baby, Trig. Her refusal implied that aborting babies who have developmental delays is wrong.
I wonder of Lawrence Lader noticed the irony in his own comment that "abortion is central to everything in life and how we want to live it." To them, causing the deaths of babies is central to life -- a delusion straight from Hell.
Tony in Central PA| 7.29.09 @ 8:59AM
Can anybody on the left see the moral incoherence creating a " right " for abortion on demand and simultaneously claiming you want to reduce it ? No matter how much the movers of the popular culture and our government try to popularize abortion and make it an unquestioned right, they can't win. The human conscience can't be erased by indoctrination or judicial decree. Natural Law really exists and it can't be revoked.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 7.29.09 @ 9:00AM
Once obumassiah completely controls the healthcare system, the evil of abortion will be the least of our worries.
Appleby| 7.29.09 @ 10:01AM
I am a devout Catholic and stnd foursquare against abortion -- and ready to help any girl or woman who seeks another answer.
To anyone who thinks abortion is The Answer I would ask, "What on earth is the question?"
To those who believe that abortion is kind of a Reset Button that will make you an UnMother and cause your pregnancy to have not happened, consider this:
A little boy once got hold of a hammer and a bag of nails, and spent a happy afternoon pounding nails into his mother's Hepplewhite breakfront. Mother discovered what he had done and spanked him soundly and sent him to his room. When his punishment expired, he penitently came to his mother and said "Mama, I have pulled all the nails out of your breakfront."
"Fine," said Mama. "Now pull out the holes."
Ben Trovato| 7.29.09 @ 10:19AM
A woman's body is hers and hers alone. Nobody has the right to tell her what she "must" do with it. If she wishes to rent it out or sell it, she has that right. If she becomes pregnant, she only has the right to carry the fetus or call for an abortion. What's the matter with everyone, that they wish to have control over women to the extent that they have no say as to what they can do with their own, most prescious possession - themselves.
Alexandra| 7.29.09 @ 10:33AM
Sorry, Ben. A woman's body may be her own, but when she's carrying a baby, then she has another life to consider. That's LIFE, not just a bunch of tissues to be discarded by some evil twit. That's called murder. Read your Bible....
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 10:36AM
How You’ll Be a Criminal Under ObamaCare and More… links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ds80| 7.29.09 @ 11:19AM
Ben Trovato, your post ("A woman's body is hers ... etc. ") paints you as firmly in this world and of this world - no religion or faith necessary for you, no sir: just secular humanism, because, well, why should you trouble yourself with messy things like morality and purpose?
Virtues rests in being selfless, not in clinging to self as a "most precious possession". When your worldview ends at the end of your own nose, it's easy to accept abortion, prostitution, theft, dishonesty ... and so on ... as just "choices".
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 11:45AM
Obamarama in Healthcare: Let’s enjoy Barack’s gaffes, mistakes, blunders and the othe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
KyMouse| 7.29.09 @ 12:50PM
Ben Trovato, none of us has the absolute right to do whatever we please with our bodies; for example, we aren't allowed to put our bodies inside vehicles and drive them down public streets at 140 m.p.h.
I used to own a wooden garage in which several neighborhood boys held their "secret" club meetings. The day finally came when I decided to tear down that garage, which I had every right to do, as its owner. But when the man with the sledgehammer came to tear it down, I made sure that none of those boys was inside before he started swinging. The garage was mine to do with as I pleased, but it would have been wrong for me to have it demolished if doing so would have hurt one of those children. A woman has the right to do many things with her body, but if her child is inside, she should consider his/her safety first.
Abortion is nothing like having a tooth pulled or a tumor removed. A child in the womb is not part of the mother's body, but is dependent upon it for about nine months. A mother, who is female, can give birth to a son, who is male -- they are two different people.
In addition, abortion hurts and even kills women. Please Google "Lou Ann Herron" and "Synthia Dennard" to read what happened to two of them. Lou Ann bled to death while her abortionist finished his lunch; Synthia died when her abortionist severed an artery. And abortion has killed more than 50 million babies since 1973.
Darl| 7.29.09 @ 12:54PM
Ben Trovato when you say the word abortion do you mean that a woman should have the right to tear the legs and arms off her baby, crush the skull and have its beating heart suctioned through a catheter to its death in a suction bottle? I don't believe that anyone could truly believe that this is OK. Wake up! The mother could be seriously injured or killed as well. Anyone under the age of 36 years old should count their lucky stars that their mother loved them enough to keep them.
Michael Tomlinson| 7.29.09 @ 2:26PM
The news is reporting Pelosi's "bitches" or the blue dogs are ready to roll over and vote for their master's health care bill. What you bet it ends up paying for abortion once it is passed.
Anyone who believes the blue dogs are conservatives and to be trusted is a jackass!
Tony in Central PA| 7.29.09 @ 4:13PM
The second and third biggest lies in the promotion of abortion are that abortion has no negative consequences and that its for the benefit of women. I wonder how many women over the years in America have had their lives ruined by an abortion ? How many women were unable to forgive themselves and gave up on motherhood ? How many women suffered depression, developed substance abuse or committed suicide ? Proabortion groups would have us believe the number is zero.
As far as abortion benefitting women, there have been 40 to 50 million abortions in the US since 1973. I'm fairly certain none of these involved women who managed to get pregnant on their own. How often were the decisions to have an abortion preceded by a man telling the woman that the baby isn't his problem ? It was real sleight of hand to make abortion seem like it was a benefit for women when in reality it has served as a boon for the worst possible sort of selfishness in male behavior.
Flu dead don't need it| 7.29.09 @ 6:40PM
Warning: Swine Flu Vaccine Coming Soon
Bill Haymin July 05, 2009By Dr Mercola
www.mercola.com
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/04/Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon.aspx
Specialty drug maker Baxter International Inc. says it's in "full scale" production of a swine flu vaccine. The vaccine will be commercially available in July.
The company made its announcement one day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu a global pandemic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 45 swine flu deaths nationwide.
The National Vaccine Information Center will hold its 4th conference in Washington DC October 2-4 of this year: http://www.nvic.org/Events/overview.aspx I will be speaking there as will some of the leading experts in vaccines in the world. Clearly the best vaccine conference in the world and it is only held every few years. If this is of any interest to you I would strongly encourage you to attend.
Sources:
Washington Post June 13, 2009
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) June 18, 2009 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As I predicted in my first swine flu alert, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/28/Swine-Flu.aspx a fast-tracked swine flu vaccine was promptly ordered, and will be available as early as July. Pharmaceutical giant Baxter claims it has patented technology that cuts the usual vaccine development time in half, to about 13 weeks instead of 26.
Although many governments and health organizations are probably celebrating this feat, you have no reason to join in the festivities. In fact, you have good reason to fear being exposed to this new swine flu vaccine more than the swine flu itself.
You are virtually guaranteed that no safety evaluations will be performed prior to the reckless unleashing of this untested vaccine.
And, making matters worse, your children may be the first guinea pigs in this public vaccine experiment against a previously unseen hybrid of human, bird and pig viruses.
School Children May Face Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations
I was hoping mandatory vaccinations would not happen, but it now appears as though that's exactly what we might be facing in the near future.
In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx warns that there is a campaign underway to turn schools into virtual vaccination clinics, and children will be the first to be injected with experimental swine flu vaccines.
Part of the reasoning for this is that it appears people over the age of 50 have more cross-reacting antibodies against the current swine flu virus, whereas children who have never been exposed to any of the strains before are more vulnerable.
The Post Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09156/975227-114.stm#ixzz0HahlAjDA&C recently reported experts saying, "if the new H1N1 flu comes back in force this fall, it might be better to vaccinate children first," because "in the early stages of the epidemic this spring, the new flu strain has caused "explosive outbreaks" among schoolchildren who have no immunity to it."
Again, it's troubling to see health officials using the term "explosive outbreaks" for a flu that in the vast majority of cases has been reported to be very mild.
Such inflammatory language is simply uncalled for.
Making matters worse, they want to target children who have underlying health problems, i.e. the most vulnerable of the group, which means any potential problems with this untested vaccine will have the capacity to do maximum damage.
Why are We Putting Up With the Same Mistakes Again?
The current evolution of public health decisions has disturbing similarities to previous swine flu vaccine catastrophes'. The last swine flu threat emerged in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.
However, within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the experimental vaccine. Several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after their injections. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.
Meanwhile, the deadly swine flu pandemic itself NEVER materialized…
When a vaccine is developed in a mere 13 weeks, you can be virtually assured that it has NOT had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness.
The way I see it, we now stand poised to experience a repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of healthy young boys and girls.
The real kicker, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible have immunity from any lawsuits http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/01/03/vaccine-makers-getting-inoculated-from-lawsuits.aspx -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.
Absolutely no one stands to be liable if this vaccine turns out to be a health disaster.
Governments Take Unnecessary "Code Red" Attitude to Flu Threat
The U.S. Congress handed over unprecedented power to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) after 9-11, and they're chomping at the bit to exercise it now that the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded the swine flu threat to Phase 6, Pandemic status.
But really, the word 'pandemic' only means that a new virus is spreading across the world. It says nothing about its level of physical danger.
So far, the swine flu has claimed a mere 332 lives WORLDWIDE http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_01a/en/index.html (as of July 1), 116 of the deaths occurred in Mexico.
To keep this in perspective, the regular flu (not the swine flu) has allegedly killed 13,000 in the U.S. since January, http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/04/28/US-seasonal-flu-kills-13000-since-Jan/UPI-64801240974841/ although there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/10/30/flu-deaths.aspx However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu, and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started hyping up this exotic new "killer flu"?
Despite the indications that the swine flu is more a pandemic nuisance than a pandemic killer, the U.S. Congress responded to the CDC's public health emergency declaration by handing over one billion dollars to a group of drug companies, including Baxter, to fast track experimental swine flu vaccines that may include whole live, dead, or genetically engineered human and animal flu viruses.
Additionally, nearly all vaccines contain a variety of adjuvants – potentially dangerous chemicals used as preservatives and/or to boost the vaccine's potency by affecting your immune system, http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm such as thimerosal. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/07/23/mercury-vaccines-part-eight.aspx
But the 'code red' attitude to this phantom threat doesn't end there.
Barbara Loe Fisher warns in her article, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Gov Flu Dead don't need it| 7.29.09 @ 6:41PM
Warning: Swine Flu Vaccine Coming Soon
Bill Haymin July 05, 2009By Dr Mercola
www.mercola.com
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/04/Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon.aspx
Specialty drug maker Baxter International Inc. says it's in "full scale" production of a swine flu vaccine. The vaccine will be commercially available in July.
The company made its announcement one day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu a global pandemic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 45 swine flu deaths nationwide.
The National Vaccine Information Center will hold its 4th conference in Washington DC October 2-4 of this year: http://www.nvic.org/Events/overview.aspx I will be speaking there as will some of the leading experts in vaccines in the world. Clearly the best vaccine conference in the world and it is only held every few years. If this is of any interest to you I would strongly encourage you to attend.
Sources:
Washington Post June 13, 2009
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) June 18, 2009 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As I predicted in my first swine flu alert, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/28/Swine-Flu.aspx a fast-tracked swine flu vaccine was promptly ordered, and will be available as early as July. Pharmaceutical giant Baxter claims it has patented technology that cuts the usual vaccine development time in half, to about 13 weeks instead of 26.
Although many governments and health organizations are probably celebrating this feat, you have no reason to join in the festivities. In fact, you have good reason to fear being exposed to this new swine flu vaccine more than the swine flu itself.
You are virtually guaranteed that no safety evaluations will be performed prior to the reckless unleashing of this untested vaccine.
And, making matters worse, your children may be the first guinea pigs in this public vaccine experiment against a previously unseen hybrid of human, bird and pig viruses.
School Children May Face Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations
I was hoping mandatory vaccinations would not happen, but it now appears as though that's exactly what we might be facing in the near future.
In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx warns that there is a campaign underway to turn schools into virtual vaccination clinics, and children will be the first to be injected with experimental swine flu vaccines.
Part of the reasoning for this is that it appears people over the age of 50 have more cross-reacting antibodies against the current swine flu virus, whereas children who have never been exposed to any of the strains before are more vulnerable.
The Post Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09156/975227-114.stm#ixzz0HahlAjDA&C recently reported experts saying, "if the new H1N1 flu comes back in force this fall, it might be better to vaccinate children first," because "in the early stages of the epidemic this spring, the new flu strain has caused "explosive outbreaks" among schoolchildren who have no immunity to it."
Again, it's troubling to see health officials using the term "explosive outbreaks" for a flu that in the vast majority of cases has been reported to be very mild.
Such inflammatory language is simply uncalled for.
Making matters worse, they want to target children who have underlying health problems, i.e. the most vulnerable of the group, which means any potential problems with this untested vaccine will have the capacity to do maximum damage.
Why are We Putting Up With the Same Mistakes Again?
The current evolution of public health decisions has disturbing similarities to previous swine flu vaccine catastrophes'. The last swine flu threat emerged in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.
However, within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the experimental vaccine. Several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after their injections. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.
Meanwhile, the deadly swine flu pandemic itself NEVER materialized…
When a vaccine is developed in a mere 13 weeks, you can be virtually assured that it has NOT had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness.
The way I see it, we now stand poised to experience a repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of healthy young boys and girls.
The real kicker, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible have immunity from any lawsuits http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/01/03/vaccine-makers-getting-inoculated-from-lawsuits.aspx -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.
Absolutely no one stands to be liable if this vaccine turns out to be a health disaster.
Governments Take Unnecessary "Code Red" Attitude to Flu Threat
The U.S. Congress handed over unprecedented power to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) after 9-11, and they're chomping at the bit to exercise it now that the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded the swine flu threat to Phase 6, Pandemic status.
But really, the word 'pandemic' only means that a new virus is spreading across the world. It says nothing about its level of physical danger.
So far, the swine flu has claimed a mere 332 lives WORLDWIDE http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_01a/en/index.html (as of July 1), 116 of the deaths occurred in Mexico.
To keep this in perspective, the regular flu (not the swine flu) has allegedly killed 13,000 in the U.S. since January, http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/04/28/US-seasonal-flu-kills-13000-since-Jan/UPI-64801240974841/ although there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/10/30/flu-deaths.aspx However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu, and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started hyping up this exotic new "killer flu"?
Despite the indications that the swine flu is more a pandemic nuisance than a pandemic killer, the U.S. Congress responded to the CDC's public health emergency declaration by handing over one billion dollars to a group of drug companies, including Baxter, to fast track experimental swine flu vaccines that may include whole live, dead, or genetically engineered human and animal flu viruses.
Additionally, nearly all vaccines contain a variety of adjuvants – potentially dangerous chemicals used as preservatives and/or to boost the vaccine's potency by affecting your immune system, http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm such as thimerosal. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/07/23/mercury-vaccines-part-eight.aspx
But the 'code red' attitude to this phantom threat doesn't end there.
Barbara Loe Fisher warns in her article, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Republicans needExtermination| 7.29.09 @ 7:10PM
News
World
National News
State News
Warning: Swine Flu Vaccine Coming Soon
Bill Haymin July 05, 2009By Dr Mercola
www.mercola.com
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/04/Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon.aspx
Specialty drug maker Baxter International Inc. says it's in "full scale" production of a swine flu vaccine. The vaccine will be commercially available in July.
The company made its announcement one day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu a global pandemic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 45 swine flu deaths nationwide.
The National Vaccine Information Center will hold its 4th conference in Washington DC October 2-4 of this year: http://www.nvic.org/Events/overview.aspx I will be speaking there as will some of the leading experts in vaccines in the world. Clearly the best vaccine conference in the world and it is only held every few years. If this is of any interest to you I would strongly encourage you to attend.
Sources:
Washington Post June 13, 2009
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) June 18, 2009 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As I predicted in my first swine flu alert, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/28/Swine-Flu.aspx a fast-tracked swine flu vaccine was promptly ordered, and will be available as early as July. Pharmaceutical giant Baxter claims it has patented technology that cuts the usual vaccine development time in half, to about 13 weeks instead of 26.
Although many governments and health organizations are probably celebrating this feat, you have no reason to join in the festivities. In fact, you have good reason to fear being exposed to this new swine flu vaccine more than the swine flu itself.
You are virtually guaranteed that no safety evaluations will be performed prior to the reckless unleashing of this untested vaccine.
And, making matters worse, your children may be the first guinea pigs in this public vaccine experiment against a previously unseen hybrid of human, bird and pig viruses.
School Children May Face Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations
I was hoping mandatory vaccinations would not happen, but it now appears as though that's exactly what we might be facing in the near future.
In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx warns that there is a campaign underway to turn schools into virtual vaccination clinics, and children will be the first to be injected with experimental swine flu vaccines.
Part of the reasoning for this is that it appears people over the age of 50 have more cross-reacting antibodies against the current swine flu virus, whereas children who have never been exposed to any of the strains before are more vulnerable.
The Post Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09156/975227-114.stm#ixzz0HahlAjDA&C recently reported experts saying, "if the new H1N1 flu comes back in force this fall, it might be better to vaccinate children first," because "in the early stages of the epidemic this spring, the new flu strain has caused "explosive outbreaks" among schoolchildren who have no immunity to it."
Again, it's troubling to see health officials using the term "explosive outbreaks" for a flu that in the vast majority of cases has been reported to be very mild.
Such inflammatory language is simply uncalled for.
Making matters worse, they want to target children who have underlying health problems, i.e. the most vulnerable of the group, which means any potential problems with this untested vaccine will have the capacity to do maximum damage.
Why are We Putting Up With the Same Mistakes Again?
The current evolution of public health decisions has disturbing similarities to previous swine flu vaccine catastrophes'. The last swine flu threat emerged in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.
However, within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the experimental vaccine. Several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after their injections. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.
Meanwhile, the deadly swine flu pandemic itself NEVER materialized…
When a vaccine is developed in a mere 13 weeks, you can be virtually assured that it has NOT had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness.
The way I see it, we now stand poised to experience a repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of healthy young boys and girls.
The real kicker, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible have immunity from any lawsuits http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/01/03/vaccine-makers-getting-inoculated-from-lawsuits.aspx -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.
Absolutely no one stands to be liable if this vaccine turns out to be a health disaster.
Governments Take Unnecessary "Code Red" Attitude to Flu Threat
The U.S. Congress handed over unprecedented power to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) after 9-11, and they're chomping at the bit to exercise it now that the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded the swine flu threat to Phase 6, Pandemic status.
But really, the word 'pandemic' only means that a new virus is spreading across the world. It says nothing about its level of physical danger.
So far, the swine flu has claimed a mere 332 lives WORLDWIDE http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_01a/en/index.html (as of July 1), 116 of the deaths occurred in Mexico.
To keep this in perspective, the regular flu (not the swine flu) has allegedly killed 13,000 in the U.S. since January, http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/04/28/US-seasonal-flu-kills-13000-since-Jan/UPI-64801240974841/ although there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/10/30/flu-deaths.aspx However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu, and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started hyping up this exotic new "killer flu"?
Despite the indications that the swine flu is more a pandemic nuisance than a pandemic killer, the U.S. Congress responded to the CDC's public health emergency declaration by handing over one billion dollars to a group of drug companies, including Baxter, to fast track experimental swine flu vaccines that may include whole live, dead, or genetically engineered human and animal flu viruses.
Additionally, nearly all vaccines contain a variety of adjuvants – potentially dangerous chemicals used as preservatives and/or to boost the vaccine's potency by affecting your immune system, http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm such as thimerosal. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/07/23/mercury-vaccines-part-eight.aspx
But the 'code red' attitude to this phantom threat doesn't end there.
Barbara Loe Fisher warns in her article, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Flu Dep program| 7.29.09 @ 7:16PM
Flu Vaccine!
by Dr. Patricia A. Doyle – Pak Alert Press April 26, 2009
I am making a plea to everyone who reads this, please, please DO NOT TAKE ANY VACCINE THAT IS PURPORTED TO ‘PREVENT’ THIS FLU.
Remember 1976 and the so called Swine Flu outbreak that was purported to be a coming pandemic? It only infected recruits at Ft. Dix. Why? Because I believe that the so called Swine Flu virus infected the recruits due to the vaccines they were given. Whether the government developed the Swine Flu 1976 virus and infected the recruits as a means to test the public to see if people would comply with a call to take vaccination against Swine Flu, or the recruits became infected via contaminated vaccine they were given as part of the recruit regimen, that outbreak was as phony as they come. I was one of the people duped into taking a Swine Flu shot and it made me so sick. I was sick in bed for three months after taking the vaccine.
Do not take seasonal flu vaccine if you are told that it could help prevent this brand new Swine Flu variant. It won’t do a thing to prevent this flu. What it will do is serve up new genetic material to the Swine Flu virus that I have dubbed Spanish Flu 2, the Sequel. The Spanish Flu variant will use the gene sequences in the vaccine in humans to develop more of the changes that make the virus more readily infect humans. We do not want to give this virus more human genetic material so that it will infect humans more readily person to person. This is what vaccinated individuals do for pandemic strains.
There is also a safety issue in any experimental vaccine, much like the one in 1976. Some people even feel that such a vaccine for pandemic strain might require more than one vaccination which could actually be a binary set up. The first shot might just add some genetic code that stays dormant in the body until one gets the second vaccine shot which then serves to only cause infection. It could trigger Guillain-barre syndrome, Typhus or some other condition.
Don't let them kill you| 7.29.09 @ 7:20PM
Flu Vaccine should be carried out on all congress members from the same batch used on the public from their own areas. If it's not good for them it's not good for you.
KyMouse| 7.29.09 @ 7:46PM
Tony in Central Pa., you've made a great point. A 2004 report entitled "Forced Abortion in America," from the Eliot Institute, said that about 60 percent of abortions are the result of coercion, not the mother's choice. The "choice" to kill the baby is the father's, or the mother's parents, or even well-meaning friends who put pressure on her.
Beyond that, the Washington Post reported in late 2004 that murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and mothers of newborns. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, has put it this way: "Pro-choice men are the number-one perpetrators of violence against pregnant, pro-life mothers."
The "right to choose"? Many women are, through intimidation or violence, denied the right to choose to give their babies life. The RIGHT to abort very quickly became the OBLIGATION to abort.
And in cases of incest, abortion hides the father's crime, almost guaranteeing that the abuse will continue.
ds80| 7.29.09 @ 9:33PM
Advocating a "right to choose" is like advocating for gravity to work. We all have free will and can choose ... just as gravity attracts. "Choice" is the "progressive", "enlightened", "sophisticated" obfuscation of the inherent evil of abortion.
Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 12:02AM
The American Spectator : Keeping Abortion Out of Health Care | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 12:02AM
The American Spectator : Keeping Abortion Out of Health Care | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DeathofFreedom| 7.30.09 @ 6:05AM
This President cares only for campaigning. He bends over for gays, for minorities and so he agrees to anything that gets him points. Americans were fed up with republicans so they voted for change, now people are just going to have to change government again. Why does he agree to abortion? He feels if a woman makes a mistake she should not be punished with a baby so he sees no wrong in getting rid of it. He said this when he was campaigning so people knew how he felt and still they voted him in. Duke University gave him an honorary degree. He is all about POWER and CONTROL and he will have power and control over the American People. Well there is the Change You Can Believe In.
Appleby| 7.30.09 @ 9:48AM
"Pro Choice" is all about the male parent of that baby's desire to spend his entire youth tom-catting, carving notches on his bedpost, and suffering no consequences.
It is also, however, about those males who WOULD step up and do the right thing, marry the woman and provide for his child, except for all the people screaming HER BODY, HER CHOICE!
Why is it always only about the woman (or the girl)?
KyMouse| 7.30.09 @ 11:38AM
Appleby, you've reminded me of a New York case in 1988 in which a Mr. David Ostreicher charged that his wife used her pregnancy as a bargaining chip, threatening to abort their baby if he didn't destroy a pre-nuptial contract. He told a reporter, "The issue is whether she has the right to hold a fetus hostage. Can a woman say, 'Unless you buy me a Mercedes, I'm going to have an abortion?' Are her rights that supreme?"
In re: Unborn Baby H (in 1988) , a trial judge discovered that the only reason one woman wanted to abort her baby was so she could look good in a bathing suit.
A bit of good news is that in 2003, a Gallup poll found that over 70% of people would support legislating that a husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to abort their baby.
Men who need to heal after losing their baby to abortion can find help at www.safe-havenministries.com/formen; www.care-net.org; www.rachelsvineyard.org; and www.nrlc.org.
By the way, Appleby, your excellent question reminds me of a cartoon I keep on my bulletin board (I think the cartoonist's name is S. Kelley, but it's hard to read). It depicts a woman and a man, and shows abortion's double standard pretty clearly:
"This is a woman who got pregnant and decided not to be a mother. She's pro-choice."
"This is a man who got a woman pregnant and decided not to be a father. He's selfish, inhumane, a deadbeat dad."
Appleby| 7.30.09 @ 11:52AM
KyMouse you are right on the money with the double standard cartoon. Until we agree that the woman who 'decided not to be a mother' (which is impossible because once you are pregnant you ARE a mother, no matter what you do with the baby) by killing her child is also a selfish, inhumane deadbeat, the culture will not change.
(By the way, a man who has gotten a woman pregnant IS a father; what he has decided not to become is a Daddy.)
matt jones| 7.30.09 @ 11:57PM
The problem with this article, with everything the pro birthers want is that notion of wrong. this notion of being right because the other is wrong. this is a failed perspective always have been, always will be. calling abortion wrong, is a good way of distracting people- the blue collar as the author put it from the real issues of why these women seek abortion, why there are problems, that issues are far more multi dimensional than people would like them to be. such a nature is oft called in to question and for good reason too- and that is because, with any lack of comprehensive overview comes a binary system of right and wrong which enables propaganda in the stronngest way- by asking for an answer, not an investigation. this is the reason for the failure of probirthers, this is the reason for the sucsession of propaganda, this is the only reason that values are now based, not on making society better, but protecting it, something that conservatives have supported and encouraged for all of their years in and out of office.
Pingback| 7.31.09 @ 5:23PM
Abortion Common Ground - Jim Wallis - God’s Politics Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 11:50AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Breitling Watches
Replica Burberry Watches
Replica Bvlgari Watches
Replica Cartier Watches
Replica Chanel Watches
Replica Chopard Watches
Replica Christian Dior Watches
Replica Concord Watches
Replica Corum Watches
Replica D&G Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
replica jersey| 9.7.09 @ 3:10AM
As one of the many who followed along passively, but intently, I'd like to come out and say thanks and good luck.Because the article is so wonderful and I just can't stand by to be silent.Congrats to this great masterpiece,you have done a good job,and do feel comfortable to vist ours site,ie.Ugg Shoes ,
air jordan shoesThanks again and much grace on your head for tomorrow.Looking forward to your
next masterpiece.
replica watches| 9.8.09 @ 9:40PM
Buy best quality replica watches from our watch replica store. We carry all replica watches brands,Omega, Breitling, Rolex, Cartier, etc.
omega watches
replica watches