Terri Schiavo Revisited: Brother Bobby Schindler Speaks

There was not a dry eye in McGivney Hall's Keane auditorium Wednesday as more than 150 students watched a short video of photos and footage from the life of Terri Schiavo-a Florida woman whose tragic medical condition riveted the nation and Congress five years ago.

The video presentation followed a talk given by Bobby Schindler, the late Terri Schiavo's brother and advocate from the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, sponsored by the CUA student organization Students for Life.

Schindler's talk addressed the misconceptions surrounding Schiavo's death, its treatment by the media, and its ongoing impact in today's culture, in a presentation both emotionally moving, and factually startling.

For many, Schiavo's controversial 2005 death after suffering a traumatic brain injury in 1990 that left her severely disabled, was a vague memory. Current CUA students were between grades 7 and 10 when Schiavo died and for many the details of the case were unclear.

According to Schindler, this confusion exists for most of America because of the misleading coverage the case received in the mainstream media, the many rumors that circulated about its details, and a common atmosphere of both ridicule and acceptance surrounding the event that has developed in pop and media culture.

But Schindler's primary message was a call for awareness in the present day. "The reason why we're still talking about this case, why it's so important, is because this issue did not end with Terri," he said.

Schindler began his presentation by declaring false much of what is now assumed about the case. "She was not in a coma, she was not in a persistent vegetative state, she was certainly not brain-dead. There were no machines, no respirators, dialysis machines, nothing at all hooked up to her keeping her alive, other than food and water."

On February 5th, 1990, Schiavo collapsed in her apartment for reasons still unknown. The lack of oxygen to her brain for several hours left her with what is termed a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Her injury resulted in difficulty swallowing and she was put on a feeding tube.

Schindler explained that in the years following her injury, Schiavo made progress. She was able to go out in a wheelchair and was beginning to say certain words, he said. However, in 1993 her husband and legal guardian Michael Schiavo stopped all rehabilitation and Terri was confined to a nursing home.

"If you do that to anybody with this type of brain injury, they are going to naturally deteriorate, and Terri did," Schindler said. Over the course of the next twelve years, Michael Schiavo and Terri's family became engaged in a legal battle over Terri's life; Michael argued that her wish would be to die, and her family sought the right to care for her at home.

In 2005 after a series of court cases, Congress stepped in, passing a bill giving cases like Terri's the right to a federal review. A federal judge ruled that the original court decision on Terri's case would stand and that her feeding tube would be removed.

"This case is often talked about as an end-of life issue; it's not. She wasn't dying. She didn't have a terminal disease. Doctors said that Terri quite possibly could have lived a normal life span," Schindler argued. Many doctors have argued, however, that Terri's condition was irreversible.

Feeding tubes by law are considered extraordinary means of keeping a person alive. "The health care profession now recognizes food and water as artificial life support," Schindler said. "Food and water have been defined as medical treatment." While debate continues within the medical community, Schindler firmly expressed his belief that food and water should not be denied to patients in Terri's position.

After two weeks without food and water, Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31, 2005 at the age of 41. Schindler called it a "brutal death."

Schindler and his family formed the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation (now the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network) as a response to this experience. He described the organization's mission as "advocating for people who are not dying, who are only being sustained by food and water."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year in the United States about 1.7 million people sustain a Traumatic Brain Injury. The CDC reports, "TBI is a contributing factor to a third (30.5%) of all injury-related deaths in the United States." (www.cdc.gov) It is also a signature injury of troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Schindler said these figures are what give the issue such relevance today. "I think this is an issue that's going to touch everyone, either directly or through a family member," he said.

But he also sees his sister's case as part of a larger cultural movement. "We are now deciding whether someone should live or die based on what they can and cannot do," he said. "This is not only a life issue," he said, "but a disability rights issue."

In April, a controversial episode of the TV show Family Guy aired mocking the Terri Schiavo case. Schindler said that such instances in pop culture reveal a "prejudice" against the disabled and "a dangerous apathy in our society."

The distortion of the case in the mainstream-media is nothing recent, according to Schindler. He quoted journalist Nat Hentoff, who wrote in 2003, "The reporting on the fierce battle for the life of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo has been the worst case of this kind of journalistic malpractice I've seen."

Students who attended the event commented on this misrepresentation. Sophomore Meghan Dietzler said, "I didn't even realize that she was not on life support or brain dead. I believed what the media told me, and I thought my family was pretty informed about it."

"I didn't realize how much of an issue this was, or that it affected so many people in our country and in our culture," said sophomore Mary Linn.

Most students were also touched on an emotional level. Freshman Cassian Utrie explained, "This stuff moves you because it's real."

The president of Students for Life, senior Deirdre Lawler said, "I think it was very powerful to hear him talk about it from a personal perspective….These issues can become abstract very easily."

Asked about the club's reasons for bringing Schindler to campus, Lawler said, "We were really excited to have Bobby to represent another facet of our mission which is to promote a culture of life, and his story is very important to address another way in which that culture of life is threatened."

Vice president of SFL, senior Ryan Cooley said, "The intentionality here was to promote and highlight an issue that often goes unspoken of and misrepresented."

Paul Krugman admits to death panels.

Thread by me.

New York Times Columnist Says Death Panels Needed to Fix Economy

When former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned about the potential for “death panels” under ObamaCare that would make life and death medical decisions for patients, she was scoffed at and dismissed as off base.

Now, an economist who is a columnist for the New York Times says death panels may be needed as a solution to fix the troubled economy.

Paul Krugman appeared on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent conclusions from the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Krugman said the death panels won’t come into play now but would down the road.

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now,” he said.

Krugman said if the debt commission “were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, ‘OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all.’”

“In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the healthcare reform,” he added.

Krugman immediately came under fire for the comments on the Internet and he quickly posted a clarification on his blog.

“I said something deliberately provocative on ‘This Week,’ so I think I’d better clarify what I meant, which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again,” he wrote. “So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes.”

“What I meant is that … health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care,” he added.

Krugman admitted death panels are “politically impossible” but said they may happen someday.

Some pro-life advocates are saying the ObamaCare bill, once implemented could put “death panels” in place now by using competitive pricing and cost analysis in a system similar to the British government-run health care system that make medical treatment decisions that have cost patients their lives.

Palin first wrote about death panels on Facebook in August 2009 and she elaborated on her first post a week later.

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?”

Noel Sheppard of the conservative media watchdog Newsbusters responded to Krugman’s comments.

“This may have been “deliberately provocative,” but so were Palin’s comments which he now seems to be somewhat agreeing with albeit without having the nerve to admit it,” he says.

“To cut Medicare costs in the future – an essential part of budget balancing according to Krugman – the government is going to have to decide which procedures it will cover and which it won’t. These decisions will admittedly involve a cost-benefit analysis. This means the individual’s rights are being subordinated to the government’s financial interest,” Sheppard said.

“As the government has deep budgetary problems, the cost-benefit analysis will naturally morph towards financial restraint thereby further limiting a patient’s options and therefore his or her rights,” he concluded. “If only such dangers were better explained to the public before Congress voted on this bill in March.

Ethel Fenig also commented at the American Thinker blog about the Krugman remarks.

“They laughed when Sarah Palin said Obamacare would require death panels to control medical costs. But for some reason no one laughs when New York times columnist Paul Krugman says the same thing. Maybe because he won–inexplicably–the Nobel Prize for Economics,” she writes.

They can call it anything they want, but it's rationing.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Berwick Wants to Do Away With 80% of “Dinosaur” Patient/Doctor Office Calls

First they did away with house calls, now Donald Berwick wants to dramatically restrict office calls. Or at least, that’s what the temporary (recess appointment) Medicare chief and rationing proponent advocated in a document he wrote and published before entering government while the head of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.

In Escape Fire: Lessons for the Future of Health Care, Berwick makes a breathtaking proposal that would seem to guarantee each of us all the health care we want, whenever we want to receive it . From page 42:

The new system of access can be summarized in one phrase: “24/7/365.” The access to help that we will envision is uncompromising, meeting whatever need exists, whenever and wherever it exists, in whatever form requested.

Whoa. That certainly doesn’t sound like the Donald Bewick who has waxed romantically about the rationing board NICE and the UK’s NHS.

So, how do we square the two Donald Berwicks? There’s a catch! Berwick simply restricts the scope and meaning of “whatever need exists, whenever and wherever it exists, in whatever form requested” so that, as implemented, it would eliminate most face-to-face patient/doctor interactions. Again, from page 42:

Access 24/7/365 begins to be achievable only when we agree—scientists, professionals, patients,payers, and the health care workforce—that the product we choose to make is not visits. Our product is healing relationships, and these can be fashioned in many new and wonderful forms if we suspend the old ways of making sense of care.

The access we need to create is access to help and healing, and that does not always mean—in fact, I think it rarely means—reliance on face-to-face meetings between patients, doctors, and nurses. Tackled well, I believe that this new framework will gradually reveal that half or more of our encounters—maybe as many as 80 percent of them—are neither wanted by patients nor deeply believed in by professionals…
The health care encounter as a face-to-face visit is a dinosaur. More exactly, it is a form of relationship of immense and irreplaceable value to a few of the people we seek to help, and these few have their access severely curtailed by the use of visits to meet the needs of many, whose needs could be better met through other kinds of encounters.

Dinosaur? “Healing relationships?” (Gobbledygook alert!) 80%!

Sure some efficiencies can be realized by having doctors available by phone, using e-mail, and having test results sent by computer. This is already done in some plans, such as my mother’s Kaiser Permanente Medicare program. But chat rooms, “group visits of patients” (what about privacy?), and other hands off methods, can only do so much and go so far. Moreover, doctors use face-to-face meetings for more than just exams. Sometimes, a doctor can take one look at a long-time patient who might be unwell and tell that something is amiss. In short, doctors need to see patients.

Berwick is thought of by some as a visionary. He is certainly dedicated to bringing new ideas to the practice of medicine. But it seems to me that when he wrote that we all should have total access whenever and however we want it, he wasn’t being straight. He was really talking about another method of restricting care. Moreover, it is one thing for younger and healthier patients to use more modern methods of communication. It is another for the elderly and the relatively uneducated. We aren’t all into I-phones.

That is why I fully expect–and want–his formal appointment as Medicare head to be rejected by the U.S. Senate. Let him go back to the non profit sector where he can bubble over with ideas and promote futuristic medical procedures and processes–outside of the corridors of real power.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

All the talk in the world means nothing unless it actually happens.

Thread by me.

Cardinal Burke: It’s ‘very clear’ pro-abort politicians should be refused Communion

ROME, November 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On the eve his elevation to the Cardinalate on November 20, Archbishop Raymond (now Cardinal) Burke told a Vatican Radio interviewer that his stand on refusal of Communion to pro-abort politicians or public figures is based on “the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church” – namely, that a person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion.

Cardinal Burke spoke to Tracey McClure on November 19 about some of the challenges faced by the Church in the United States.

Cardinal Burke has never hesitated to make bold public statements in defense of the culture of life, and is viewed as a personal hero and the best of allies by those who are active in promoting faithful Catholic education, as well as those within the pro-life and pro-family movements. Notably, he has upheld and defended Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction that persistently pro-abortion politicians or public figures must not be admitted to communion until they publicly repent.

McClure first described Burke “as a man with very firm ideas about the moral rectitude of those who profess Catholicism - ideas that don’t always sit comfortably with everyone - and I’m thinking of some of the remarks you’ve made about pro-abortion politicians, for example, receiving Communion - the Holy Eucharist - in the United States.” He then asked the Cardinal if he ever feels discouraged because people “aren’t getting the message.”

“I think it’s only natural to be tempted to discouragement, and I’ve had those temptations,” Cardinal Burke responded. “For instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition - she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke explained that the sanction on receiving Communion for a person who publicly dissents from Church teaching is intended to “avoid for the person - himself or herself - committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

“It is discouraging that either members of the Church claim not to understand this or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Burke said.

“I look at it this way,” he continued. “This response on the part of many in the church comes from living in a society that’s completely secularized, and the thinking that is marked - the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church - is not easily understood by those who are bombarded day in and day out with a kind of God-less approach to the world and to many questions. So, I try not to get discouraged but try to continue to speak the message in a way that people can understand.”

Cardinal Burke expressed his understanding of the difficulty faced by his fellow priests in dealing with this issue.

“It’s difficult ... it hasn’t been easy for me to face this question with a certain number of Catholic politicians. And, I’ve had a number of priests speak to me and tell me how difficult it is when they have individuals in their parish who are in a situation of public and grave sin ... and so, they look ... to the bishop for encouragement and inspiration in dealing with this.”

However, the cleric said that is necessary to preach this message “in season and out of season, and whether it’s being warmly received or not being received or being resisted or criticized.” He stated that his committed stand on Church teaching is not only “speaking the truth with love as the Holy Scriptures say,” but that “when a bishop takes appropriate pastoral measures in this regard, he’s also helping very much brother bishops, and also the priests.”

Listen to the Vatican Radio interview with Cardinal Burke here.

The real truth about abortionists.

Three threads by me.

The pro-abortion movement and the psychopathic mentality

November 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When I read the words of pro-abortion leaders like Colombian psychologist Florence Thomas, who calls unborn babies “tumors” and says that they are only human if their mother wants them, a disturbing question comes to mind: what is, fundamentally, the difference between this type of perspective, so often expressed by abortionists, and the clinical definition of a “psychopath”?

Although the stereotypical image of a psychopath is that of a serial killer, or a dangerous madman locked in an asylum, psychologists tell us that such people only represent a small minority of those who fall under the category of a “psychopath.” In fact, we are told, our society contains a larger number of psychopaths than we may suspect, and psychopaths may even disproportionately occupy positions of importance in business, government, and other important fields.

While psychopaths are theoretically capable of committing murder and other acts of cruelty without remorse, the definition of a psychopath is much broader than the image evoked by popular culture. According to mental health professionals, a psychopath is someone who is fundamentally lacking in human empathy, who sees other human beings as mere objects of manipulation. The relationships of a psychopath are typically superficial and fluid, and are often sexually promiscuous. The psychopath has a fundamentally egoistic, selfish personality, unable to transcend his own personal sense of self to recognize the dignity of others.

Psychologists estimate that up to four percent of the population falls under the definition of a “psychopath,” ranging from the more tame manifestations, which are included in the broad category of sociopathy or anti-social personality disorders, to the more extreme cases of serial killers. They are often able to deceive others with a veneer of sanity and reasonableness that hides their fundamentally predatory nature.

“Psychopathic” movements

The four percent figure, if accurate, implies that the United States includes a population of more than twelve million psychopaths or sociopaths, and globally the figure would theoretically reach into the hundreds of millions. This startling statistic inevitably raises the question: is it possible for psychopaths to group themselves into movements based on their common inclinations? History suggests that this can, and indeed does happen.

The classic candidate for a “psychopathic movement” is that of the National Socialist or Nazi Party, which came to power in Germany in the 1930s through a series of economic catastrophes and inept decisions by the German political establishment. Adolf Hitler himself has been diagnosed posthumously with psychopathic tendencies, and many Nazis exhibited symptoms of the same. Moreover, although the majority of Nazis and the Germans who cooperated with them were probably not clinically psychopathic, the movement as a whole seemed to be predicated on a fundamentally psychopathic mentality, one that disposed of human beings as mere fodder for the racial aspirations of the German state.

The same tendencies have been found in other mass movements arising in the last century, especially Marxism, which left an unprecedented toll of tens of millions of deaths by execution and induced starvation in order to achieve its political ends. Again, although it is unlikely that most Marxists are clinical psychopaths, their movement has repeatedly spawned regimes that behave precisely the way one would expect of the most extreme sufferers of the disorder.

The troubled mentality of the pro-abortion movement

In light of the clinical definition of a psychopath, and the historic manifestations of “psychopathic” movements, it is difficult to avoid the comparison between psychopathy and the perspective that is openly expressed by many leaders in the global pro-abortion movement.

Florence Thomas is only one example of the troubled thinking that seems to characterize pro-abortion leaders. Her comparison of her own unborn child to a “tumor,” that is, a diseased piece of tissue, is not only unscientific; it suggests a mind that is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to transcend itself and empathize with the humanity of another. Her claim that a fetus is only human if it is desired by its parents is almost a caricature of ego-centrism, implying that one’s personal wishes confer dignity and rights on other people. The conclusion of Thomas flows inevitably from her premises; she believes that women should be free to kill their unborn children for any reason, in order to preserve their “freedom.”

Thomas’ thinking is echoed throughout the anti-life and anti-family movements of our age. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the modern birth control movement, spoke with the chilling rhetoric of eugenics when she dismissed children who are “unwanted” by their parents, referring to them as “human waste” in her 1920 work, “Women and the New Race.”

“Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only the wanted child who is likely to be a social asset,” wrote Sanger, who also asked, “Can the children of these unfortunate mothers be other than a burden to society—a burden which reflects itself in innumerable phases of cost, crime and general social detriment?” In another chapter she infamously states that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

The famous Princeton “bioethicist” Peter Singer applies the same fundamental principle embraced by Thomas, Sanger, and others, but takes it to a more explicit conclusion. Singer acknowledges that unborn children are human beings, but openly denies that they have a right to life, unless their parents want them. Moreover, Singer extends this reasoning to infants after birth as well, offering a moral endorsement of infanticide.

“The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing,” writes Singer in the second edition of his book, “Practical Ethics.” “Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents ... So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.”

“It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability,” Singer continues. “Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have. Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.”

Singer’s explicit endorsement of infanticide should be unsurprising to pro-life activists, who are aware that children who survive abortions are often left to die without medical help. A fundamental indifference to human life and the personhood of others is endemic among pro-abortion thinkers, which should bring pro-lifers to ask ourselves if we are really understanding our opponents in this debate.

In reading Florence Thomas’ recent account of her abortion, a tragically flawed personality comes to the surface. A brilliant woman with much to offer the world, Thomas faced a profound moral dilemma at the age of 22, and was hardly able to recognize it as such. She blithely refers to sexual intercourse with her boyfriend as “love,” as if she has no inkling of the concept beyond a physical act of pleasure, without any commitment or spiritual dimension. She dismisses her unborn child as a “tumor,” and says that she has never felt the slightest remorse for her decision to kill it.

As a human life and family news reporter, I have become all too accustomed to this mentality, and my response has changed over the years from feelings of outrage to a calm, resolute commitment to fight the culture of death and its perverse mentality by systematically exposing it. However, I increasingly find myself experiencing another response when I report such stories: a great sadness in the face of people who seem to be missing something fundamental in the deepest levels of their psyche, something that they may never have known by experience.

Are they suffering in silent desperation or are they utterly oblivious to their loss? Did they freely choose this path, or are they victims of something beyond their control? Ultimately, is there anything that can be done for them, or are they doomed to play their grim role in the global empire of death? I do not know, and cannot know. I can only pray for them, and leave it in the hands of a merciful God.

Women and the New Race, by Margaret Sanger (full text)

Excerpts from Practical Ethics, by Peter Singer, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217

____________________________________________________

Survey: 300 “Doctors” Do Late Abortions, 140 When Baby Feels Pain

With controversial late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart getting national attention over plans to expand his abortion business, a little-known 2008 study is gaining new attention.

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization previously affiliated with Planned Parenthood, released a study in 2008 titled “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.”

The study found there were at least 1,787 abortion “doctors” in the United States but it revealed stark numbers when it comes to those who do abortions later in pregnancy.

Of the 1,787, the study found that “[t]wenty percent of providers offered abortions after 20 weeks [LMP], and only 8% at 24 weeks [LMP].”

Though the numbers seem small, that translates to at least 300 “doctors” who who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP like LeRoy Carhart and, of those, 140 willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks LMP.

Mary Balch, an attorney who handle state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, says the numbers are important because mainstream media outlets have attempted to make it appear there are very few practitioners willing to do late or late-term abortions.

“In an interview with Colorado abortionist Warren Hern published online November 5, 2010, Time Magazine perpetuated the prevalent myth that there are few, if any abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy,” she told LifeNews.com. “The Washington Post’s Rob Stein also furthered the myth in a November 10 piece saying that Carhart is ‘is one of the few in the country to perform abortions late in pregnancy.”

“The truth is, abortions in the fifth month of pregnancy and later are widely available,” she added.

But National Right to Life may have found a way to put these abortion practitioners out of business — by using a new type of state law that drove Carhart to seek opportunities to do late abortions elsewhere.

Carhart’s decision to move operations resulted from Nebraska’s enactment of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act earlier this year. The law took effect October 15 and it protects unborn children in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy or later by prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks following conception.

“Nebraska’s groundbreaking law protecting pain-capable unborn children is an example for other states in the nation,” Balch says. “LeRoy Carhart’s hopscotching around the nation to find areas that allow abortion for any reason, at any time, underscores the need for other states to pass similar legislation to put Carhart and the hundreds of other abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy out of business.”

“That more than 140 abortion providers are willing to kill unborn children who are capable of feeling the excruciating pain of abortion is a tragedy – a tragedy that we can easily stop in the state legislatures,” Balch told LifeNews.com.

The legislation is sorely needed because there are more late abortions and late-term abortions taking place in the United States than most people probably realize.

A May 2010 briefing by the Guttmacher Institute reveals .5% of the estimated more than 1.2 million elective abortions performed annually in the United States are on unborn children at 21 weeks LMP (19 weeks postfertilization) or older.

This translates to roughly 18,000 abortions annually – a substantial number of which probably occur at 22 weeks LMP or later, which is past the point that the best evidence indicates that the unborn child is fully capable of feeling pain (a point that may well occur earlier).

Balch says those findings are generally corroborated by the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance Report for 2006, released in November 2009.

In the 43 reporting areas for 2006 which reported gestational age to the CDC for its report, at least 1.3%, of abortions were performed at 21 weeks or later and several states either submitted no data or did not accurately report the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

Not only does the legislation have the effect of prohibiting late abortions, Balch says it has a tremendous educational value by showing the public how abortions cause great pain for unborn children.

“Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain,” the NRLC attorney notes. “In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks postfertilization, fulfills that function.”

Scientific studies dating back to 1987 confirm the existence of fetal pain at 20 weeks postfertilization (22 weeks LMP).

The ability to target late and late-term abortions via this state legislation is so important that NRLC is planning a state legislative forum for pro-life leaders and state legislators on December 7.

“With pro-life electoral gains on November 2, the spring legislative sessions gives us a tremendous opportunity to enact a variety of protective pro-life laws in many states and put an end to abortions after the unborn child is capable of feeling pain,” Balch concludes. “Our number one priority at the state level is protecting mothers and their unborn children from the abortion industry and we have pro-life legislative majorities across the country to help make that happen.”

____________________________________________________

United States Sees 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973

Americans saw a political milestone this month as more pro-life lawmakers were elected to the House of Representatives than ever before, but the nation also quietly reached a less joyful mark.

In January, the National Right to Life Committee provided a new analysis of the total number of abortions done in the 37 years since the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court handed down its controversial ruling — allowing virtually unlimited abortions at any time throughout pregnancy — in January 1973. The NRLC analysis found that 52 million unborn children had been killed in abortions as of January.

The analysis also found that the best estimate for the current number of annual abortions in the United States — involving both the surgical abortion procedure as well as the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 — is 1.2 million.

As a result, the United States likely passed the 53 million abortion mark on November 1 — the day before Americans went to the polls to vote in a pro-life House majority and target President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion allies for defeat.

Obama has done everything in his power to advance abortion and continue that pro-abortion legacy of the Supreme Court, including naming two more pro-abortion jurists in Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. He has also expanded that 53 million abortions by authorizing abortion funding in various instances and decreasing funds for abstinence education.

In its survey of abortion numbers, NRLC goes to the source by relying on the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, which receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves.

That’s because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade.

“Because of these different methods of data collection, GI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform,” NRLC explained in January.

Digging into the numbers, the NRLC analysis from earlier this year showed abortion numbers rising in the 1970s and, in the 1980s, abortion eventually mainstreamed itself to the point that about 1.55 million abortions were done annually until the early 1990s.

At that point, as crisis pregnancy centers began turning the corner with the use of ultrasounds, pro-life state legislation began to take hold and the Internet allowed the pro-life perspective to flourish, abortions began to decline.

“After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s,” NRLC says.

The Guttmacher Institutes most recent abortion figures, from 2005, confirm the downward trend from a high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990 to 1.2 million that year. Without any hard figures in the last few years, NRLC estimates the number of abortions from 2006 to today at the same rate of 1.2 million that GI reported.

To calculate the overall number of abortions, NRLC includes the hard figures from 1973-2005, the estimates for the last few years and also includes the Guttmacher Institute’s admission that its own figures are likely about three percent lower than the actual totals because of potential errors in reporting.

National Right to Life estimated that, in January, there have been 52,008,665 abortions using either surgical or the abortion drug (RU 486) method since Roe v. Wade.

NRLC director of research and education Randy O’Bannon talked with LifeNews.com at that time about the figures.

“Abortion has taken a terrible toll on America. We’ve now lost more than 52 million of our sons, daughters, friends, and neighbors and we are a much poorer nation for it,” he said.

“Over the past twenty years, however, we have seen that pro-life efforts can make a difference, as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has declined from 1.6 million to 1.2 million a year. We’ve still a long way to go, obviously, but we see that pro-life legislation, education, and outreach can save and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” O’Bannon added. “Our task is great, but our cause is just.”

Peter Singer can hardly be considered human himself.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Peter Singer Says Full Moral Status Not Earned by Babies “Until After 2 Years”

I was alerted by Nat Hentoff about an assertion made by Peter Singer–as reported in the Catholic Eye–at a Princeton conference around the abortion question, in which he claims that human beings don’t possess full moral status until after the age of two. I checked it out for myself. Yup. From my transcription of Panel II on 10/15/10 (press “Event Videos,” 20101015-panel two, to link to access streamed session) :

Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.
Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.

If you declare a human being to be intrinsically unequal–which is what denying full moral status to young children does–it can’t help but promote discrimination, and must eventually affect public policy and law once anti equality attitudes become widely accepted. I mean, that is how slavery was justified–that people with black skin did not possess full moral status. A different, but certainly odious, outcome would similarly result by denying full moral status to children before the age of two.

That point aside, what did Singer say the public policy should be, which is just a way, in my view, of weaseling out of the implications of his beliefs. Starting at 56:22, after stating he no longer holds that an infant does not have a right to life until 1 month after birth because it is “not a practical suggestion,” Singer says:

Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time, although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.

The last comment is very telling. Abortion was once widely disdained, and was nearly universally illegal except for medical reasons. It is now broadly accepted because our perception of the value of fetal life changed, and is legal throughout most of the West. If we accept Singer’s views that children, perhaps past the age of two, do not possess full moral status, it would similarly change our perceptions about their lives, and ultimately lead to horrible practices and a concomitant change in public morality and law.

The Netherlands and its infanticide permissiveness further illustrates this process. Dutch doctors commit infanticide and nothing is done about it by authorities, even though it is technically murder, even though doctors have publicly published the guidelines they use in deciding which babies to kill. And there is already talk about full legalization of infanticide–which was the incremental method used to move general euthanasia for those age 16 and up to full legality in the Netherlands.

We need to hear very clearly what Peter Singer advocates, and understand the consequences that would flow from accepting his brand of utilitarianism. Then, we need to run in the opposite direction and fully embrace human exceptionalism. That is the only way to protect the lives of the weak and vulnerable specifically, and more broadly, guarantee universal human rights.20101015-panel two, to link to access streamed session) :

Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.
Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.

Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time, although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.

The Schindlers understand that what happened to Terri can happen to anyone if the public is allowed to forget about it.

Thread by me.

Bobby Schindler: Society Ignores Terri Schiavo But Health Care Rationing Not Going Away

Last week, former U.S. President, George W. Bush released a memoir of his tenure in office called “Decision Points.” In this 500-plus page account, Bush revisits a number of official and personal events, as well as choices that shaped both his presidency and his attitudes in private life.

I was disappointed to learn that Bush’s actions in March of 2005—that led to the passage of Terri’s Law—were not a part of this account. On March 20, 2005 in what was called the Palm Sunday Compromise, Congress passed “Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”—a law that gave the Federal court access to review of the case to dehydrate my sister, Terri Schiavo, to death. President Bush left his home in Texas—in the middle of the night—to return to Washington, D.C. in order to sign this bill into law.

Some would praise him as a pro-life hero and a friend to the disabled. Others sharply criticized him for involving himself in a state circuit case. Yet nearly all would remark that his actions were extraordinary and historic.

Why, then, has Bush not recounted that experience in his memoir? A friend has reasoned with me that Bush may have some regrets over the matter, or even embarrassment with how it was handled and eventually politicized by both politicians and the corporate media.

I tend to think there is something more at play. Indeed, no major media outlets or political pundits have revisited Terri’s case since her death in 2005. It’s almost as though a memorandum has been circulated warning those in positions of influence that Terri’s name is political poison, or that the notion of forced death died with Terri on that day in March.

Unfortunately, it did not. As we have seen through our work to protect the lives of disabled people, cases like Terri’s persist. They just simply aren’t getting the “face time” anymore.

People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and so many others were tremendous supporters of Terri’s rights in the years we fought to protect her life. Now they’ve fallen silent on the issue, and it’s an issue that isn’t going away. It is most troublesome.

Care rationing and the act of denying profoundly disabled people ordinary care (such as food and hydration via feeding tubes, antibiotics, etc.) is as prevalent now as it was when Terri’s case was making its way through Florida’s Sixth Judicial Circuit. The reason you don’t hear about such things is clear: media leaders and public servants simply won’t talk about them.

There appears to be a fear of taboo in mentioning the Schiavo case, and perhaps that’s because of how it played out and how polarizing it ultimately became. But, let’s not forget that Terri’s case was one that was watched across the globe, was discussed by civil liberties proponents, in religious communities, through groups serving the needs of disabled people, and even in the halls of Congress.

This was no small story and it brought to light a very scary proposition: that your rights fall into incredible jeopardy the moment your life is touched by a disability or complicated illness.

The danger hasn’t gone away. Indeed, it might be getting worse. But the conversation that favors life has dried up. The debate over privacy interests has been dismantled. And the awareness of the rights of disabled and ailing people is all but a memory.

When you do hear chatter or witness opinion on life and death, it’s nearly always on the side of death. Recently economist and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, opined that the answer to our current financial crisis is a combination of sales taxes and death panels. There’s that term again.

But Krugman is not alone. There are plenty of proponents of recent health care legislation that would be happy to tell you that cooler heads need to decide who’s fit to live and who’s entitled to receive wanted care. Not surprisingly, they oftentimes point out older Americans and those with incurable conditions as the ones who are no longer viable.

If we are to protect our own lives then we must reject such notions and be keenly aware of how the laws work, how to advocate for ourselves, and why it’s important to do so. That includes the sharing of knowledge on difficult cases, similar to Terri’s, and how they find their way into our country’s courts.

My sister’s situation presented a unique opportunity for those in the public eye to bring forward the issues surrounding health care, disability, personal liberties and retained rights. And prior to her death, they did. My family and others touched by this issue were grateful. But, where are they now?

It may go without saying, but rarely does a day go by that I don’t think about my sister and the suffering she was made to endure. I’m also very much aware that there are countless others who face the same fate, particularly so since the organization we established in Terri’s memory receives hundreds of calls from people who are desperate for help in defending a loved one’s life.

When Terri died, President Bush issued the following statement:

“Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.”

He’s correct, of course. But if Mr. Bush is not writing and reflecting about it today—and if we’re not talking about it—then we’re not educating people like we should. Consequently, we’re not doing what’s necessary to spread that message. We’re pushing the issue aside and pretending it’s no longer a problem. Avoidance and denial of what happened to Terri is not going to save lives or protect the liberties of individuals today and in the future. Aggressively working to teach the public the truth about this vital topic so that innocent Americans can never be starved and dehydrated to death again is the right course and commitment.

The people who do not value your life have plenty to say; and they are rather bald-faced about it.

If people like President Bush truly believe the lives of vulnerable people are worthy of protection, they need to come back to the table and defend those lives with vigor and resolve— now, tomorrow and for years to come.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

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.

New York Times Columnist Says Death Panels Needed to Fix Economy

'Pro-Life' - Activist Frank Pavone: Tea-Party is the 'Home' of Defending Life

Wesley J. Smith: Berwick Wants to Do Away With 80% of “Dinosaur” Patient/Doctor Office Calls

Cardinal Burke: It’s ‘very clear’ pro-abort politicians should be refused Communion

[Nat Hentoff] Real death panels coming our way

The pro-abortion movement and the psychopathic mentality

Survey: 300 “Doctors” Do Late Abortions, 140 When Baby Feels Pain

United States Sees 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973

Closure of Two More Abortion Clinics Continues National Trend

Wesley J. Smith: Peter Singer Says Full Moral Status Not Earned by Babies “Until After 2 Years”

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

Bobby Schindler: Society Ignores Terri Schiavo But Health Care Rationing Not Going Away

Remembering Terri on Her Birthday, December 3, 1963