Judie Brown
Eliminate undesirable folks and call it health care
By Judie Brown
A plan for health care should be a plan that takes care of all people — not a plan that eliminates lives. News reports abound with stories about free birth control under the new health care law. Judie Brown takes a look at the impact this would have on our society.
Obamacare has taken on a new identity in the media, and the headlines tell the tale. According to an Associated Press title, "Contraception could be free under health care law." http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/31/1403532/health-overhaul-may-lead-to-free.html The same story on a different venue was tagged, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39937597/ns/health-womens_health "Birth control may be free under health care overhaul."
Even though contraception was, at one time, something entirely different from abortive birth control, the two words are interchangeable these days — but that's not the real story. During the entire time that health care reform was being promoted, and then shoved down the throats of the American taxpayers, nobody admitted to the fact that the law would require tax dollars to be used for abortion or birth control services as part of a comprehensive program designed to protect the health and welfare of women.
No, those words were never spoken because the public was not supposed to know what was really in that bill until it was the law of the land. For as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, told America during a March speech to the National Association of Counties, http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/ "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Pelosi also told her audience during that same speech, http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576"We need to focus on the next generation, not the next election."
She has never said — nor have any of her partners, including the president — that the focus on the next generation would be extremely selective, if not downright eugenic in nature.
Why would a national health care bill possibly provide free birth control pills, which can abort babies? Well, according to abortion-minded http://www.annals.org/content/140/8/620 physician, David Grimes, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1220988 "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."
The "preventive medicine" to which Grimes refers, and about which Pelosi is so pleased, is actually the use of a prescription drug, really a recreational drug known as the birth control pill, for the express purpose of eliminating the possibility of carrying a preborn child to term. In other words, whether the birth control pill works http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Birth_control_pill#Mechanism_of_action by preventing ovulation, stopping the sperm by thickening the cervical mucus, or thinning out the wall of the uterus, the baby — if conceived — has little chance of living.
Grimes opined some years ago, http://www.annals.org/content/138/3/238.1.full "Major medical organizations as well as the federal government concur that implantation defines the beginning of pregnancy. Fertilization is a necessary but insufficient step toward establishing pregnancy." Grimes' innovative definition of pregnancy eliminates the need for any dishonest doctor to admit that the pill can kill a preborn baby.
Imagine it. A national health care law that has the potential to control the population by eliminating the illegal or legal minority's progeny and defining these goals as helping everyone be healthier. Apparently Pelosi's hopes for the next generation include a free-to-the-user ethnic cleansing birth control program.
This subversive propagandizing is based on the 1920's Margaret Sanger philosophy that, in order for there to be more for the fit, there has to be less of the unfit — http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm meaning the poor, the minorities and anyone else perceived to need controlling.
TOMORROW: What do average Americans think about the possibility of free birth control pills provided at their expense?
© Judie Brown
November 4, 2010
A plan for health care should be a plan that takes care of all people — not a plan that eliminates lives. News reports abound with stories about free birth control under the new health care law. Judie Brown takes a look at the impact this would have on our society.
Obamacare has taken on a new identity in the media, and the headlines tell the tale. According to an Associated Press title, "Contraception could be free under health care law." http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/31/1403532/health-overhaul-may-lead-to-free.html The same story on a different venue was tagged, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39937597/ns/health-womens_health "Birth control may be free under health care overhaul."
Even though contraception was, at one time, something entirely different from abortive birth control, the two words are interchangeable these days — but that's not the real story. During the entire time that health care reform was being promoted, and then shoved down the throats of the American taxpayers, nobody admitted to the fact that the law would require tax dollars to be used for abortion or birth control services as part of a comprehensive program designed to protect the health and welfare of women.
No, those words were never spoken because the public was not supposed to know what was really in that bill until it was the law of the land. For as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, told America during a March speech to the National Association of Counties, http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/ "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Pelosi also told her audience during that same speech, http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576"We need to focus on the next generation, not the next election."
She has never said — nor have any of her partners, including the president — that the focus on the next generation would be extremely selective, if not downright eugenic in nature.
Why would a national health care bill possibly provide free birth control pills, which can abort babies? Well, according to abortion-minded http://www.annals.org/content/140/8/620 physician, David Grimes, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1220988 "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."
The "preventive medicine" to which Grimes refers, and about which Pelosi is so pleased, is actually the use of a prescription drug, really a recreational drug known as the birth control pill, for the express purpose of eliminating the possibility of carrying a preborn child to term. In other words, whether the birth control pill works http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Birth_control_pill#Mechanism_of_action by preventing ovulation, stopping the sperm by thickening the cervical mucus, or thinning out the wall of the uterus, the baby — if conceived — has little chance of living.
Grimes opined some years ago, http://www.annals.org/content/138/3/238.1.full "Major medical organizations as well as the federal government concur that implantation defines the beginning of pregnancy. Fertilization is a necessary but insufficient step toward establishing pregnancy." Grimes' innovative definition of pregnancy eliminates the need for any dishonest doctor to admit that the pill can kill a preborn baby.
Imagine it. A national health care law that has the potential to control the population by eliminating the illegal or legal minority's progeny and defining these goals as helping everyone be healthier. Apparently Pelosi's hopes for the next generation include a free-to-the-user ethnic cleansing birth control program.
This subversive propagandizing is based on the 1920's Margaret Sanger philosophy that, in order for there to be more for the fit, there has to be less of the unfit — http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm meaning the poor, the minorities and anyone else perceived to need controlling.
TOMORROW: What do average Americans think about the possibility of free birth control pills provided at their expense?
© Judie Brown
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
