[valkyrieanne]

I haven't been able to read through the whole thread, but that was my initial reaction to the article. It's an astoundingly intrusive proposal and I cannot believe it's real. The source is World Net Daily, which at times can be sensationalistic.

The primary sources are the White House pages describing the plan in detail, and the British Medical Journal article (both predating the WND article.) I'm not going to go back through the thread and re-link to them (they've already been linked-to about a dozen times.) Read the *primary sources.* It's all there.

Whether Congress would actually pass and fund something like that is another story. Keep in mind that Congress passed No Child Left Behind - even when many Bush supporters poo-pooed it, as in "It's just a campaign promise; it won't go anywhere." My point is that something like this *could* pass - after all, it's "compassionate" and "for the children."

[Don Joe]

Read the *primary sources.* It's all there.

No, no, no, don't you understand LOGIC?

If you can claim dissatisfaction with one of the tertiary sources -- over anything, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand -- the only rational course is to dismiss the matter out of hand.

[Dane]

The primary sources are the White House pages describing the plan in detail, and the British Medical Journal article (both predating the WND article.)

And Medical Journals never ever write hyperbolic articles, correct.(/sarcasm)

[Corin Stormhands]

The primary sources are the White House pages describing the plan in detail

The White House pages do not refer to the entire population. They specifically refer to People/Youth with Disabilities.