Posted on 01/25/2010 5:42:38 AM PST by Daniel T. Zanoza
RFFM.ORG EXCLUSIVE
OP-ED by Andy Martin
Although the abortion end of the pro-life controversy justifiably generates the most attention, the fastest growing population in America is not babies. It is senior citizens. Pro-life issues at the end of life are as critical as those at conception.
Last summer Governor Sarah Palin generated liberal media controversy by creating the term “death panels” to describe Barack Obama’s “health reform” proposal to direct doctors to become involved in estate planning. While the terms “death panel” was not used anywhere in the statute, the obvious implication of being told by your own doctor to “get your affairs in order,” at the direction of the federal government, was that someone was prepared to “pull the plug.”
We may not have yet reached the dramatic dimensions of the movie “Soylent Green,” but we are not far removed either.
The pro-life implications of death were vividly reinforced during the past few months when I lost a close friend. He had been given a “death sentence” several years ago, and managed to prolong physical deterioration. Over the summer, my friend developed paralysis. But instead of saying, as they would have under ObamaCare, “Well, that’s enough,” his doctors performed surgery and restored movement.
As the end appeared, there was no effort to spare care. I learned of the new approach to hospice care: in-home hospice treatment. Throughout my friend’s final days the medical staff was focused on treatment, not death.
No one during my friend’s treatment used the term “pro-life.” But when you juxtapose our existing medical system with Obama’s plans to limit or cut off care to imperiled individuals, we have a growing pro-life crisis. The existing treatment protocol for senior citizens is “pro-life.” Obama wants to reverse that bias.
If we cheapen treatment at the end of life, inevitably we will also cheapen the origins of life.
Today, most of the energy in the pro-life movement is concentrated on the issue of abortion. I believe we also need a senator who is focused on the end of life. The pro-life challenge we face now is how we treat persons who are already alive but may be as helpless as the unborn in their ability to communicate their needs and desires.
Today Illinois conservative voters face a crisis of confidence. Most pro-life organizations have “endorsed” one of my opponents. Directly or indirectly, my opponent purchased this support for cold, hard cash. But this candidate has no pro-life credentials and, indeed, no public record of any sort prior to mid-2009. His sole claim to being a “conservative” is reading off a list of talking points and claiming to be a “Reagan conservative.” Ronald Reagan had an extensive public record when he ran for office. He did not appear out of nowhere.
This candidate (my opponent) has also refused to address other issues important to social conservatives. He says discussion of these questions is beneath him.
Would you trust that kind of stealth candidate with your life? Very doubtful. And yet so-called social conservatives are afraid to speak out and admit they made a mistake. There is a climate of fear on the right, again motivated by thirty pieces of silver. Is it any surprise that liberal Republicans and homosexual activists such as John McGovern control the Illinois Republican Party? There is no doubt where they stand.
My commitment to life, my commitment to the values which are central to the Roman Catholic faith (I am an Episcopalian) and my commitment to preserving life at both ends of our existence are not in doubt.
Contact Andy Martin 30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406 Chicago, IL 60611-4723 (866) 706-2639 www.AndyforUSSenator.com andyforussenator@aol.com
*IL politics ping*
From a Chicago politician? Is this the internet powerhouse Andy Martin?
The euthanasia issues often take a backseat to the slaughter of the unborn, but of course those at the end of life are just as valuable and deserve just as much dignity and the right to life.
He is at best a gadfly. If we want to take out Kirk, Patrick Hughes is our best chance.
The best candidate, in that race, is Don Lowery. He’s pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, and anti-illegal alien. He was a judge, for 26 years, and a state’s attorney for four years. Hughes never ran for office, before this year. Lowery was in the army, with tours in Korea and Vietnam. Please read his site, www.JudgeLowery4USsenate.com.
If all Illinois conservatives vote for Lowery, he’ll win the primary. If that doesn’t happen, the conservative vote will split, helping Kirk win. I met Hughes and Lowery, and I already voted for Lowery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.