Ben Johnson

News, ,

ObamaCare’s first glitch-ridden day; Taxpayers could eventually fund 10 percent of annual abortions

Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – If you watched the news today, you might believe it was the only part of the government that was functioning. While the media presented images of the federal government closing monuments that do not close, they stated that the new law allowing citizens to sign up for ObamaCare was open for business.

President Obama held a press conference on the eve of the partial government shutdown to tell the Republican-controlled House, “The Affordable Care Act is moving forward.”

“That funding is already in place. You can’t shut it down,” Obama taunted yesterday afternoon.

By 8 a.m. Eastern time, the website HealthCare.gov and associated toll-free phone numbers went live to enroll citizens in local health care exchanges.

The new health care law could finance as much as 10 percent of all abortions nationwide each year. The Charlotte Lozier Institute found that the total number of taxpayer-funded abortions could increase by 18,397 in one year. But the number could range from 71,000 to 111,500.

There are indications this was part of the law's design. Roll Call newspaper reported than an anonymous source within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) told it “the multistate plans will help [the Obama administration] ‘ensure that in each exchange, there is at least one plan available that covers abortions beyond those allowed by the Hyde Amendment and at least one plan that does not cover abortions beyond those permitted by the Hyde Amendment.”

Aside from direct funding for abortion, Planned Parenthood will benefit from providing contraceptives and vouchers for health care performed by others.

Planned Parenthood affiliates in Iowa, Montana, and New Hampshire also received $655,000 in taxpayer funds to hire and train “navigators.” These Planned Parenthood employees would have access to a vast federal database of sensitive information, including the Social Security number, tax form, bank account, and medical records of every single U.S. citizen.

Navigators are supposed to use this information to help citizens sign up for the best insurance plan based on their circumstances. However, it opens the door to identity theft, fraud, and invasion of privacy.

The navigators' training manual, Health Insurance Marketplace Navigator Standard Operating Procedures Manual, instructs navigators, "Do not leave documents that contain PII [Personally Identifiable Information] or tax return information on printers and fax machines" and to “double-check that the recipient’s fax number is correct, and that someone is able to pick up the faxed information immediately.”

Many of the players involved also raise eyebrows. The British company that received a $1.25 billion federal contract from HHS to process applications in the 36 federally operated state exchanges, Serco, is under investigation by the UK's Serious Fraud Office for allegedly charging the government for services it had not rendered.

Planned Parenthood itself recently agreed to a $4.3 million Medicaid fraud settlement with the state of Texas and is under national investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Nonetheless, Iowa had no navigators as of Friday – an indication the law is, in the words of Congressional critics, “not ready for primetime.”

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

The law's stated purpose is to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. But despite the federal expansion, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 33 million Americans will still be uninsured 10 years from now, when the price of the law will reach $1.8 trillion, or double the $900 billion originally promised. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 13 percent of uninsured Americans even knew enrollment began today.

A Gallup poll found one-quarter of uninsured people plan on paying the fine for violating the individual mandate instead.

Two-thirds of respondents say they will buy insurance, but only 48 percent say they will use the ACA's state exchanges to do so. More than one-third (36 percent) say they certainly will not.

Under the law's terms, anyone 27 years of age or older must sign up for health insurance by March 31, 2014, or pay a fine of $95 or one percent of income, whichever is higher. Penalties increase in the coming years. Penalties rise to $695 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016.

The Obama administration is appealing to its core constituencies to enroll, swelling the rolls of the newly insured.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the National Council of La Raza are marketing ObamaCare to Hispanics.

Meanwhile, lesbian activist Maria De La O wrote in The Washington Post today, “ObamaCare is good for the LGBT community, whether like me, you currently enjoy employer-sponsored health care via a partner’s job, or whether like one in three of us, you currently don’t have health insurance at all.”

This morning's rollout proved less than triumphant, as Americans found the HealthCare.gov's servers swamped. Once they got in, the website proved bug-ridden and unhelpful. President Obama predicted “glitches and bumps,” joining HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in likening the unveiling to Apple computer's occasionally fixing bugs in its software.

But “every glitch is a human being" who could become frustrated, said a former Bush-41 administration Medicare director.

Already, the law is less popular by the day, the opposite of what Congressional Democrats predicted when they passed the law in 2009. A growing number of companies are cutting back workers' hours to avoid ObamaCare costs.

And as premiums rise, a larger percentage of low-income Americans may be priced out of the market altogether.

House members, many of them elected during the historic blowout 2010 midterm elections, attempted to defund ObamaCare or postpone its implementation for one year during the government shutdown battle – something President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney likened to extortion

“The president seems to say that any effort to continue the health care debate is an effort to undo his reelection,” said former Virginia Governor John Gilmore, who is now president of the Free Congress Foundation. “Remember, the House of Representatives got elected, too.”

“Why is the House disqualified from participation?” he asked. “Does the president's view challenge our Constitutional system?” 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook