WHY ARE PRO LIFERS SUPPORTING PRO ABORT CANDIDATES?
In California the work of recruiting volunteers to work for candidates for the Primary starts this weekend. All up and down the state Republican county committees, Young Republicans, Republican women’s Club and Pro life groups are being beseeched by candidates to get out the vote.
But, just how worthy of your support are these candidates? In the 40 years I’ve worked to support the Republican Party and the Pro Life cause it has been only the rare candidate who has honored his or her campaign promises to respect life or reduce taxes, honor any of the Constitutional amendments or the Party Platform much less even listened to the pro life or conservative taxpayer.
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory is currently under fire from the feds for refusing to comply with the elimination of privacy in bathrooms. Good for him but he’s all alone.
In California, Sacramento area Assembly member, James Gallagher took the floor of the Assembly to eloquently declare his opposition to the all-gender bathroom bill, AB1732. He was the only one. Listen to his statement as compared to that of Asm Eggman, (D-Fresno) speaking in favor.
Three Republicans broke ranks with their Party to provide the winning votes to pass that bill, Catharine Baker, (District 16-Danville), Brian Maienschein (Dist 77-San Diego) and Ling Ling Chang, (Dist 55-Brea). Also each of these Assembly members have coauthored and/or voted for an inordinate number of Democrat authored bills. (See Note #4)
The urgent email I received encouraging me to get out and work for Catharine Baker bragged about the amount of taxes she has saved the taxpayer so she deserves re-electing. Well, as a matter of fact she hasn’t saved the taxpayer one little dime. She has voted for bills that fund $millions of taxpayer dollars to Obama health care provider programs, Planned Parenthood and the State Public Health Dept’s Maternal and Child Health sex instruction and education programs – I & E. (see note #1) plus she has stated to the media that she opposed the Second Amendment gun ownership. She also coauthored the Governor approved Right to Die legislation which starts on June 9.
Does this look or act like a Republican? Why are we supporting her? She votes like a Democrat but gets free campaign assistance from the Republicans. When are we going to wake up and realize that we have allowed ourselves to be been taken advantage of?
This time Baker has gone even further and has, herself authored a bill so egregious to the Pro Life position and people she originally claimed to represent.
Her 2016 bill, AB 2263, Protect Victims and Reproductive Health Care Providers, sponsored by Planned Parenthood has slip-slided it’s way through Assembly committee hearings and is now in the Senate awaiting a hearing date. Our letter of opposition was not given official committee recognition, nor was there any other opposition listed.
Through AB2263 Assemblywoman Baker has covered Planned Parenthood with the status of victims of intimidation and acts of violence by pro lifers as their latest sociopathic attempt to gain respectability and compassion for their own acts of violence against the innocent unborn.
Assemblywoman Catharine Baker is empowering them to charge acts of pro life violence and intimidation while they employ the power of the state to inflict intimidation on law-abiding, life respecting citizens hoping to silence all protesting of abortion and to shut down the Center for Medical Progress.
AB 2263 seeks to amend the Safe at Home program which began in 1994 as a protection for victims of Domestic violence. In 1999 It was expanded in light of the O.J. Simpson court case to include victims of sexual abuse. It was again expanded, 2004, to include Reproductive health care workers, volunteers and patients.
While the current law protects these groups from exposure to the public it left out one important step according to an Aide in Baker’s office. It did not provide for Reproductive Health Care workers, nurses, volunteers and patients to remove their home address from property records. They charge that this still leaves this group exposed to victimization by those who would disagree on abortion rights.
CRLC is of the opinion that this amendment is a sham. It is intended directly to be used as a tool against the Center for Medical progress and David Daleiden, specifically, in an effort to discredit these good people in a court of law. (See Note #5)
It is also intended to be a tool of intimidation against those wonderful people who stand outside abortion clinics even in the rain risking their lives and health to pray the Rosary and offer assistance to women. Perhaps we should have stood outside the Legislators offices?
Planned Parenthood employees, we suggest, suffer greatly from guilty consciences. They view anything, praying, distributing pro life material, showing pictures of aborted babies, as terroristic and intimidating measures by pro life people. Baker and Planned Parenthood want us silenced. (See Note #6)
Asm Baker has admitted to the media that she is pro choice, anti second Amendment, anti parental notification for vaccinations, pro increased taxation as determined by her support for taxing all MCOs, i.e. health care insurance providers at one, increased rate, all-gender bathrooms (Ting bill 1732, Single-user Restrooms, AB1808 Mental Health Services for Minors without parental consent; and, now silencing pro life people.
And, yet, Conservative and pro life groups and individuals continue to support her while she gets the funding and endorsement of the abortion business community. She has the best of both worlds and she uses it to her advantage, not to that of the district residents.
The main reason Baker (no relation to former legislator Bill Baker) and others in the past years, has been supported by Republican party officials is always to protect the Republicans against loss of the required 2/3rds vote on bonds and funding bills. But what good does that do when she and other legislators, spend most of their time voting with the Democrats? (See Note #4)
Pro Life pregnancy counseling groups and education groups have labored long and diligently to create a caring and compassionate citizenry, but we have to face the hard fact that we have lost the fight in the legal and political arena. Legislators are not sensitive to our demands to stop the killing by defunding Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars.
Perhaps Donald Trump has it right. The Republican Party has become quite sensitive to his ability to gain attention. He knows that he’s in charge. What are Pro Lifers in charge of? Pro Lifers now have to spend our time raising thousands of dollars for court cases instead of being able to spend it on assisting pregnant women and sexualized and trafficked children.
Are we going to continue to allow Democrats and Republicans to give our hard earned dollars to the Planned Parenthood type killing fields? You now have your absentee ballots in hand. The phone is ringing waiting for your dollars and support. What are you going to do?
Note #1. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ie/Pages/default.aspx
California Department of Public Health/Maternal child Adolescent Health. $1,120,000 of General funds (our tax dollars) allotted to I & E programs-Information and Education - just one of their programs and for only 3 years. It is used to develop and teach sex ed curriculums.
Note #2: AB 2263 went through 3 Title changes before this one: Protect Victims and Reproductive health Care Providers is the official title of the bill. However, in lobbying material being distributed by Baker’s office, the Title appears to be Safe At Home Program: record of Title Security. The title, like the bill itself, is meant to disguise the purpose and intended target.
Note #3: Safe at Home began in 1994 as a protection for victims of Domestic violence. In 1999 It was expanded in light of the O.J. Simpson court case to include victims of sexual abuse. It was again expanded, 2004, to include Reproductive health care workers, volunteers and patients.
During that same time, 2001, CRLC published a 50 page report on the pro abortion clinic Directors, clinic owners, clinic doctors found guilty in a court of law for crimes of stalking, killings, arson, and much more, and delivered it to every member of the state legislature. It has now been updated to this year.
Note #4, Assemblymember Brian Maienschein, has coauthored has coauthored 16 of 29 Democrat bills and Ling Ling Chang has coauthored 17of 73 such bills. Baker has coauthored 43 out of 99 bills.
Note #5: Section 6209.5 of the Government Code wording was last amended in 2007 with Senate bill 1356 by then Sen. Leland Yee, (D-S.F) to add Reproductive health Care Workers to the list of victims of domestic or sex abuse violence. This section of the Government Code is now referred to as the Safe at Home.
Note #6: Safe At Home was designed originally to provide special protection to victims of domestic violence or stalking. It required the California Secretary of State’s Office to administer a program of allowing participants to use a free P.O. Box instead of their home address for receiving first class mail, opening a bank account, completing a confidential name change, filling out government documents, registering to vote, getting a driver’s license, enrolling a child in school.
Note #7: A request for information from the state on the number of persons who have sought this protection, in the most current accounting indicates that 3001 persons in general have signed up. Under the Code section 6254, protecting health care workers no one has signed up for any part of it.
Camille Giglio, Director
California Right to Life Committee, Inc1980
The House of Representatives Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives released a new set of documents this evening from their investigation that PROVES Planned Parenthood profited from the sale of aborted baby parts.
The documents are part of the exhibits for the Panel’s hearing tomorrow morning on “The Pricing of Fetal Tissue.”
Watch the hearing live TOMORROW MORNING at 10 AM Eastern/7 AM Pacific:
You can also join me and others on Twitter to live-tweet this historic event.
Planned Parenthood has lied to the media, to Congress, and to the American people for the past 9 months, falsely asserting they received no “financial benefit” from harvesting little baby hearts, brains, and lungs.
The documents show the biggest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the country, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, receiving up to 5-figure sums every month from their business partner StemExpress in exchange for aborted body parts. The documents prove that StemExpress did all the work inside the clinics at no cost to Planned Parenthood, yet still paid Planned Parenthood for every salable-quality baby part. You can read more about how Planned Parenthood profits from baby parts in CMP’s white paper released last month.
I spent two-and-a-half years undercover, in close contact with Planned Parenthood leaders and their partners in the criminal enterprise of selling baby parts. But I am still sick to my stomach whenever I see the lists of tiny, perfect baby organs paired with price lists and dollar signs.
Let tomorrow be the moment that we reclaimed our values that no life is expendable, that no one can own another person, and that every human being is worth more than the sum of his or her body parts.
The Center for Medical Progress is a 501(c)3 non-profit and we rely on your generous support to continue our groundbreaking investigative journalism work. Please consider making a tax-deductible gift of any amount here: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/donate/
Please share these links and spread the word. Together in the fight,
When health care becomes dangerous to life
On Sunday, April 4, 2016, The Contra Costa Times (Bay Area News Group) published a guest editorial entitled: The Psychology of Medical Aid in Dying. http://www.eastbaytimes.com/opinion/ci_29710339/guest-commentary-psychology-medical-aid-dying.
The author, Teresa Thomas, PhD. is a licensed neuropsychologist and owner of a for-profit business in Alameda. One of the services that she provides, as listed on her website, is examination of patients to determine the presence of Dementia. Her findings of Dementia would be useful for family members, to submit for Medicaid coverage for the patient and/or for family members to apply for Guardianship authority over Mom or Dad.
There is a cryptically written special notice on her website which is worth reading to show how cleverly the niche health care industry constructs it’s wording to signal to certain groups what it is really doing while the general public has no clue. It reads, in part: Medicare is accepted for medically indicated services…on a case to case basis.
She has been affiliated with several hospitals and medical centers in the Bay area including Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, i.e., the county hospital.
The Contra Costa Times commentary, like another one a few weeks ago, https://www.seniorly.com/about#/ should have had a notice of advertisement attached because, in reality, that’s what it was.
Referring to the Medicaid involvement…this means that the taxpayer is footing the bill for the “under-served” in your community who have no insurance or is on public welfare. See a very good U.S.News and World Report article about that, Californians can choose to die – with the help of Taxpayers, at: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/in-california-government-to-pick-up-the-tab-for-death-with-dignity. So, the state authorized doctors, nurses, mid-wives, nurse assistants, and now pharmacists to assist in the killing of patients, but we, the taxpayers, are once again, stuck with the bill just as in abortion. There are exemptions for religious reasons for doctors and hospitals who don’t want to participate, but, we the faithful in the pews, are not exempt from underwriting this horrific new means of reducing the population, set to begin on June 9, 2016.
California Healthline Daily Edition published a report that once the pharmaceutical company, Valeant, maker of the drug of choice for Physician-Assisted Suicide heard that California had passed the Aid-in-Dying legislation it doubled its drug’s price. It retails, according to the article, for “more than $3,000.00. California Healthline, March 23, 2016. Cost of Aid-In-Dying Medication Doubled to More Than $3,000 Last year. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/16/drug-shortage-creates-hurdle-for-death-with-dignity-movement
Surprisingly, the Sen. Lois Wolk Aid-in-Dying bill, SB 128, from the 2015 session is still listed as Pending – This was the original Aid-in-Dying bill. This bill was presumed to have been shelved in favor of the 2b15 bill by Susan Eggman submitted to the Governor’s special session call, which passed quickly.
SB1002, End of Life Option Act: Telephone Number, is awaiting action in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It’s supporters include The Hemlock Society, Death with Dignity, National Assn of Social Workers, Ca Chapter, and the California Commission on Aging.
The original purpose of the slew of Aid-in-Dying bills was, we were all assured that she had the confidentiality of her doctor to discuss such a private matter. Now, this bill exposes the true goal of the Assisted Suicide agenda; to establish a hot line, state funded call center, where the public can supposedly get information on death and dying issues. Thus, once again, the taxpaying, employed, citizen member of society is footing this enterprise.
By the way, the Teresa Thomas article mentions that no family member is permitted to speak for the terminally ill patient, but that is incorrect. A family member can sign a POLST form authorizing palliative-care-only which has the same effect as administering a death producing drug. The patient is dead at the end of the treatment whether it be by swallowing a pill or starving to death through palliative “care.” The first is quicker, the latter more compassionate, so they say. I guess letting your loved one starve for two weeks is some new form of compassionate caring.
Note: To learn more about the right of psychologists to be involved in such exams. I spoke with Ron Panzer, RN. Of the Hospice Patients Alliance headquartered in Rockford, Mi. He has published a very definitive book on the subject of Stealth Euthanasia: Health Care Tyranny in America: Hospice, Palliative Care and Health Care Reform. Here is his reply: Teresa E Thomas shows as a psychologist licensed by the State of California in good standing (simply means she is licensed and has not lost her license and no complaints have been filed against her). so, she’s “legit” legally. Does that mean she’s ethical in what she’s doing? Not at all. But then again, the State of California is known as being really strange compared to much of the USA, like a different planet or country at least. She is very pro right-to-kill.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT. The following bills are in the:
ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE. (Health committee office 916-319-2097)
AB 2810 by Susan Eggman, Aid-in-Dying Prescription Drugs: Medi-Cal Coverage, currently in the Assembly Health Committee, will authorize that the drugs be provided to Medi-Cal patients with “state-only funds” and refers to this as a benefit to the dying patient. The reasoning goes: if the welfare patient doesn’t have the money to afford this expensive drug, then he/she will have to suffer the pain and anguish of dying without medically provided aid-in-dying. These funds do not belong to the state. This money is the taxpayers in the amount of approximately $2.5 million for 445 potential patients and its being used in ways that tax payers should be loudly protesting. Also consider that this $2.5 million is largely going to come from the newly found money being provided by the increase in taxation of Managed Care Insurers.
Without fanfare or announcement, Governor Brown’s proposed 2016 Budget recommends $2.3 million dollars to allow California to purchase lethal drugs for Medi-Cal patients who want their physician to help them commit suicide. For the complete story please go to California Catholic Daily for April 7, 2016”: http://cal-catholic.com/?p=23255
AB1954, Autumn Burke, (D-L.A.) Health Care Coverage: Reproductive health Care Services.
Official Summary: Requires every health care service plan contract or health insurance policy to provide coverage for reproductive and sexual health care services through out-of-network providers under specified circumstances. Prohibits those plan contracts or insurance policies from requiring an enrollee or insured to receive a referral in order to receive reproductive or sexual health care services.
It appears to be more firmly mandating the authorizations contained in a 2013 Pharmacy Practice bill, SB493 by Sen. Ed Hernandez. SB493 authorized pharmacists to write prescriptions for and administer more easily accessed birth control pills and devices including Hormonal contraceptive shots, to “women” without a physician’s authorization. It will be heard on April 19 in the Health Committee.
Ms Burke is a member of 21 legislative committees. She is, apparently related to a former legislator and L.A. Supervisor, Yvonne Braithwaite Burke of Los Angeles.
The bill, SB 493, contained three segments, the 3rd and final segment was activated last Thursday, April 7, 2016. CRLC appeared on the NBC Today Show with a brief response to the negative aspects of this bill affecting family communication and encouraging secrecy. We were also contacted by the San Jose Mercury News for a comment which appeared today, 4/9/2016. The opening statement in the Mercury News underscored the secrecy aspect when it stated that This portion of the 2013 bill was “quietly introduced today…”
AB2507, Richard Gordon, (D-San Mateo), Telehealth: Access. It calls for setting up an extensive communications component within the Health dept to enable the state to be the provider of first choice for citizens to become informed of their health care options.
It would appear that this bill is a companion piece to SB1002, Bill Monning, End-of-Life Option Act: Telephone Number which is sitting in the Senate Appropriations committee pending a hearing date. Sen. Committee, (916) 651-4101, Ricardo Lara,(D) Chair. This bill sets up a separate toll-free phone line for information regarding End-of-Life Options. The taxpayer will be paying for the consultation between doctor and patient, the phone system to inform the public of their choices in dying (but not living) and the medication to kill oneself.
Assembly Health Committee members: (Health committee office 916-319-2097)
Assembly Member Jim Wood (D) [Chair]
Assembly Member Brian Maienschein (R) [Vice-Chair]
Assembly Member Susan Bonilla (D)
Assembly Member Autumn R. Burke (D)
Assembly Member Nora Campos (D)
Assembly Member David Chiu (D)
Assembly Member Matt Dababneh (D)
Assembly Member Jimmy Gomez (D)
Assembly Member Lorena S. Gonzalez (D)
Assembly Member Roger Hernandez (D)
Assembly Member Tom Lackey (R)
Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian (D)
Assembly Member Kristin Olsen (R)
Assembly Member Jim Patterson (R)
Assembly Member Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D)
Assembly Member Freddie Rodriguez (D)
Assembly Member Miguel Santiago (D)
Assembly Member Marc Steinorth (R)
Assembly Member Tony Thurmond (D)
Assembly Member Marie Waldron (R)
FRAUDULENT “CONSENT“ FORMS TO OBTAIN BABY BODY PARTS. Says the Center for Medical Progress. http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2016/04/statement-on-planned-parenthoods-fraudulent-consent-form-for-aborted-baby-parts/.
DON’T FORGET: David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress will be in Contra Costa County on the evening of April 22nd. You are invited to hear him speak and to consider a donation to allay the costs of the multiple lawsuits brought against David and the CMP by Planned Parenthood, its’ lawyers and judges. Call 925-820-1432 to RSVP.
Camille Giglio, Legislative Analyst
March 9, 2016.
On Sunday, 2/28/16, my local California newspaper, the Contra Costa Times (Bay Area News Group) carried a commentary by Arthur J. Breischneider, owner and operator of several Bay area managed care facilities called Seniorly. He was promoting managed care for everyone, declaring that everybody needs a caretaker, even the caretakers need caretakers and he had just the organization to provide that need. The article was basically a promotional piece for government funded and managed care, but he was given space on the commentary page to make it look like he had something worthwhile to say.(1)
He did his best, in this article to make you feel bad if you aren’t taking care of someone else. He also made you feel like a victim because the job of care-giving is burdensome requiring a great deal of of your time and energy.
And, yes, providing care for home-bound persons, is one of today’s workforce development programs. The government has realized that it must demonstrate to the taxpaying public that it seeks to economize somewhere and also recognizes that it is less expensive to provide low-level, government trained assistance that will keep the patient at home rather than in an expensive facility or in and out of emergency rooms.
In other words, You shouldn’t really be the one caring for your family member because that takes you out of the taxpaying category if you remain at home providing care. You should be bringing in a caregiver for Mom and taking advantage of the respite services that the government has provided for you, at taxpayer expense of course.
Regarding Mr. Breischneider. This isn’t concern for you or your family member’s welfare, it’s workforce development and extra money in his pocket and extra money going to the state in the form of taxes that these insurers are going to have to pay now. http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_29563106/guest-commentary-taking-care-yourself-when-youre-taking.
Where, you ask, will this extra money come from? The state’s legislators just voted in special session and the Governor signed, a huge new health care bill ; SB2b, by Ed Hernandez (D-L. A.) and AB1b by Asm Tony Thurmond, (D-Richmond). Changing the method of and amount of taxes Managed Care Organizations, ( think Metlife, Kaiser, Blue Shield, Blue Cross, any HMO) will have to begin paying retroactively to the government. This requires every Managed Care organization in the state to be taxed at a rate of 8.84%, a figure used by the state Department of Health Care, rather than the 3.9% charged under the Knox-Keene Act.
Currently MCO’s that accepted Medi-Cal patients were taxed on their profits at the higher rate and those which did not were taxed at the lower rate. However, those that paid the higher rate also got reimbursed from the feds at a higher rate thereby making the other MCO’s somewhat jealous. Now, thanks to a 2004 court case, Myers v State Board of Equalization, brought by a public interest non-profit called Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, they will all be taxed at the higher rate but will also be required to pay this higher rate retroactively in the amount of $10.5 Billion. Also, the tax to be paid by all the MCO’s will be based on number of clients rather than on profits. The more clients the more taxes collected. (1)
Some Republicans voted, in the recent and still active special session on health care, for the expanded taxation required by both the Hernandez bill, SB2b and the Thurmond bill AB1b, thereby allowing the state to realize a new source of funds - of $1.3 billion yearly in federal matching funds which will go into the General Fund.
If the state had not created this new taxing schedule, Republicans whimpered, the feds, through this lawsuit, would have been able to keep $1.3 Billion of California taxpayer dollars to itself rather than returning it to the state. In other words by framing it as a benefit to the taxpayer the feds were able to get the state to agree to collect more taxes for the feds and themselves while the taxpayers foot the bill for everything. (2)
For the sake of Public appearance the Republicans negotiated a spending plan for this $1.3 billion: paying down the unfunded mandates, some disability payments, nursing home reimbursement and salary increases. Already some Democrats are considering bills to raise salaries for their special interest pals.
This article was titled Dealers in Illusion to make a point. Next time you read an article about health care and the government struggling to find ways to contain costs, remember that it is probably you, the taxpayer, who is actually paying more in taxes for a reduced amount of care or concern about patients. It’s all about finances and how the government can get more of your money without disturbing your tranquility or realization that you are being had, once again.
Fox TV news played a clip from a campaign talk given by Bernie Sanders recently. He was, apparently asked by a member of the audience why everybody needed (government provided) health care. Bernie’s answer was: “ because we are all human beings.” Behind that nice sounding statement lurks the hard reality of who is going to pay for all the things that Bernie and friends think are due to us (or forced upon us) simply because we are all human beings? That’s pure Socialism.
Bernie and Hillary and even Donald all want us to also have abortions and euthanasia which we are paying for ourselves with increased taxes. And they want your money to pay for everybody else to have these things as well…just because we are human beings. And, they want Social Workers appointed to every body from birth to death. They want children under government scrutiny along with their parents, from birth. They want the government to use education to plan everyone’s life path, job placement and housing placement…just because we are human beings. And, they have to find ways to sell us these ideas so that we will quietly accept and pay for our own enslavement.
And, now, we learn of a House Resolution, Hres 552, asking approval for funding the training of Health Coaches. (See definition in footnotes). Now the Government has succeeded in raising the ridiculous to the heights of honor. We can all become busy bodies. (4)
- Seniorly, We strongly believe that there is a community out there for everyone at every step in life. https://www.seniorly.com/about/
- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, according to its website, changed its name to Consumer Watchdog.org. This group’s main objective, it would seem, is suing the government regarding health care insurance and other issues. In 2004 it provided its legal services to a group suing the Los Angeles Dept of Educaton on the grounds regarding a lack of sufficient services to school children with Autism. http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/about/
- SB2b, Ed Hernandez, Medi-Cal managed care organization tax:
Imposes a three-year managed care organization provider tax (MCO tax) on health plans, with different taxing tiers and based on enrollment assessed during a base year period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. Continuously appropriates funds from the MCO tax for purposes of funding the nonfederal share of Medi-Cal managed care rates. Reduces the amount of the Corporate or Gross Premium taxes that specified health plans and insurers are required to pay for the three years of the MCO tax assessment. Sunsets these provisions June 30, 2020.
If the state would not cooperate with the federal mandate to change its MCO taxing schedule the feds would retain $1.3 billion in matching funds, funds which California taxpayers had paid. It would simply be divided up amongst other states.
The Myers v Brd of Equalization Decision declared that the state owed the federal government $10.5 billion retroactively because they had been taxing Medi-Cal insurers at the lower Knox-Keene rate of 3.9% on total revenue. Under the new ruling all insurers will be charged the same rate of 8.84% based on number of insured, not on profits. Senate Committee On Public Health and Developmental Services, 2/10/2016
- Laws Relating to Health Care Plan in California , Department of Managed Health Care. http://wpso.dmhc.ca.gov/regulations/.
- Dr. Sears Wellness Institute. WHAT IS A HEALTH COACH?
A Certified Health Coach helps others achieve their health and wellness goals by providing science-based, trusted information, positive encouragement, and continued motivation. In 2007 world-renowned Dr. Sears and a team of experts developed a Health Coach Training that provides the education and tools to help make a positive difference in the lives of others. The training is based on the four pillars of health: Lifestyle, Exercise, Attitude and Nutrition.
Californians for Parental Rights’ Parental Notification Initiative appears to be one of the few pro life, family petitions still standing. Please contact California Petitions@CAParentalRights.org to obtain petitions. Petitions will still be available through January.
Sadly other petitions have failed to meet the required number of signatures for admission to the 2016 balloting. Such petitions as; the Privacy Rights issue (no boys in the girls’ Bathrooms) and ousting state Senator Richard Pan for his atrocious piece of legislation, SB 277, mandating that all children be vaccinated have received only lukewarm interest even amongst practicing Christians. This defies good sense, tramples parental authority, endangers the lives of possibly up to 20% of children who experience negative reactions to the myriad of shots required by this law.
Several articles have appeared this last week or so reporting that Planned Parenthood is encouraging HIV positive persons to be sexually active without alerting their “partners” of their HIV status. Actor Martin Sheen has apparently embraced that philosophy whole-heartedly as he brags about the hundreds of partners with whom he has been intimate, often without telling them of his HIV status.
I guess this is why Pan wants all children vaccinated, so that when they are in Planned Parenthood sexual health classes and taught that it’s okay to have sex at any age, any time, any way, they can be sexually active supposedly without fear of contracting HIV. However, he fails to provide the ratio of those who do end up as active cases.
The more students who become disabled due to Gardasil and other social disease vaccines, the more will expenses rise to educate these students as special needs recipients, and the supply of highly qualified and trained employees will fall
When I say 20% I am using the figure most often quoted by the media as the proportion of negative, harmful effects of the vaccinations. The currently popular use of this idea of medicine by “Best Practices” means that it’s a gamble and around 20% of students lose the bet.
Here’s Pan’s reaction to the news of the failed petition drive as quoted on the internet.
In a statement, Pan called the defeat a “ victory of science over the politics of fear and intimidation” and castigated “anti-vaccination zealots” who “used fear, intimidation and discredited information to try to defeat our bill.”
“With this recall threat behind us, I am more committed than ever to serving the people of the 6th District and working to build a healthy California,” Pan said.
What a sham. If anyone used intimidation, and fear and negative labeling of parents it was Pan and his cohort of so-called scientists. It is his legislation that will prohibit any child not vaccinated from obtaining a public school education. That’s intimidation. That’s downright blackmail.
CALIFORNIA REPLACES FREEDOM OF SPEECH WITH FORCED SPEECH.
The ninth Circuit Court won’t stop Forced Speech. It has given its approval to the piece of legislation by San Francisco legislator, David Chiu, mandating that pro life pregnancy centers inform potential clients that they have a right to obtain an abortion. http://cal-catholic.com/?p=21896.
The following comes from a December 1 Courthouse News Service release by Nicholas Iovino:
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The Ninth Circuit on Thursday refused to block a new California law that requires pregnancy care centers to notify patients about state-funded contraception and abortion services.
FORTY-THIRD ANNIVERSARY RECOGNITION OF ROE V WADE
STANDING UP 4LIFE: Friday, January 22nd, Oakland, California.
TIME: 12 NOON – 2:00 PM
WHERE: OAKLAND CITY HALL, 1 FRANK OGAWA PLAZA.
(Between 14th & 15th at Clay St.)
EVENING: CONVERSATIONS4LIFE: Benefit Dinner
WHERE: ST. STEPHENS PARISH HALL
1101 Keaveny Court
Walnut Creek (near: Geary Rd @ Pleasant Hill Rd.
Hosted by: Issues4Life Foundation, Walter B Hoye, Director.
To learn more about Roe v Wade please visit our website: www.callifeadvocates.org/blog to watch and listen to the C-Span presentation by AUL Legal Counsel, Clarke Forsythe and UC Berkeley Law Professor Melissa Murray. If you can’t attend the West Coast Walk for Life the next best thing would be to give an hour to watching this interview on a look behind the scenes of the Supreme Court’s activities surrounding passage of Roe v Wade.
Ca. Right to Life Committee, 1920 Monument Blvd #309, Concord, Ca 94520, 925-899-3064.
We are a 501 (C)-4 non-profit approved organization dealing in public policy research and information on education and health issues that affect the value of the family and the of life itself.
We are are an all volunteer organization, not a membership organization. Our information and research is available online to anyone. We do appreciate receipt of donations, however, to help pay the costs of providing this service. It requires approximately $4,000.00/ year to enable us to provide the public with this information,
California Right to Life Committee.
We pray that you are well and filled with the energy needed to continue the cause of defending life in 2016. Here are a few interesting items to start off the year:
- Giving recognition to the 43rd Anniversary of Roe V Wade to be commemorated with the yearly Walk for Life in San Francisco: please visit our webpage at www.callifeadvocates.org/blog and click on the C-Span presentation of the Judicial history behind Roe v Wade. The two interviewees are: Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel for Americans United For Life and Melissa Murray, UC Berkeley Professor of Law in the area of Reproductive Rights. The total disregard for our Constitution and the rule of law on this case is truly astounding.
- Attend the 12th Annual Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco. Link to www.walkforlifewc.com for a schedule of events. David Daleiden of Center for Medical Progress and Alveda King are the featured speakers.
- Assisted Suicide in California is not yet official. This piece of horrendous legislation was passed during a special session of the legislature called by Governor Brown to discuss how to find the financing for health care issues. Little in that regard was solved. However the Assisted Suicide bill was improperly included in the session and railroaded through to a vote of approval and it is listed as “enacted” meaning registered, and signed by the Governor on December 10, 2015. Any bill approved in a special session has 91 days following the closing of the special session before it is activated. The Special Session is still open. There is only a “call for Recession.”
- Eleven, mostly health care, bills which we opposed were happily vetoed by the Governor along with 89 other assorted bills in other than the health or education fields. However, the authors of those 100 bills have placed them back on the agenda for consideration of an override vote canceling the vetoes.
- Congress passed the Every Student a Success Act – ESSA- S. 1177, authored by Republican Lamar Alexander, long an advocate of federal control of education, and NY Democrat Patti Murray, long time friend of Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood; as an authorization to make a sweeping expansion in the education agenda of the country. Upon a somewhat closer look at S.1177 it becomes frighteningly obvious that this bill is merely a receptacle for every hair-brained scheme that both the Dems and Reps have regarding “best practices” for the proper rearing of the Whole Child. So far I’ve counted 38 other bills amended into this bill which, if standing alone would never pass. And, by the way, many of these bills are reflected in the 11 bills mentioned above. They are in the area of : pupil mental health, preschool, ethnic studies, home visiting, community-based services, workforce development and a variety of totally unrelated issues such as pardoning some prisoner who died in 1913.
So, stay healthy, take your vitamins, keep your computers running and your outrage in overdrive.
This is a state Constitutional Amendment, as has been the case with the previous petitions. This initiative will be targeted for appearing on the November, 2016 General Election Ballot. This ballot has until March to turn in signatures. But, Please don’t let that slow you down in gathering up some petitions and getting them signed as soon as possible.
This petition is one good way to remove the secrecy surrounding teen abortions. Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers would not be able to perform secret abortions on minors under the age of 18 without parental notification being sent prior to the performance of the abortion.
This basically same petition has appeared on ballots in previous years. Each time it has gained more "YES" votes until now, the last time, it was at a 47% approval rating. Many more people have now been exposed to the truth of Planned Parenthood’s business with sales organs which may help push the vote over 50.1%.
The benefit of this being a constitutional amendment is that, unlike a Referendum initiative such as the Assisted Suicide petition, the voter is not saying Yes or NO to an already approved piece of legislation which vote the legislators can basically ignore by merely re-voting a new piece of legislation. A Constitutional Amendment is the creation of a new law approved by the voters, the citizens, and can not be amended by the legislature or by a simple court lawsuit.
If the time was ever right for a victory for the babies, it is this election. It can happen if enough signatures get collected to put it on the ballot. Places for collection: your own neighborhood, your extended family, your clubs, your churches, your workplace, the BART train stations. You can stand and carry a clipboard and approach anyone to ask for their signature
Signature gatherers must be 18 years of age or over and registered voters. Petition signers must be registered voters and they must sign with the same signature as the one they used to register to vote.
If you would like to pick the petitions up in large numbers I would ask you to please call to make arrangements for pickup. If all you need are a small handful they can be mailed to you.
Please call the Right to Life phone number - 925-899-3064 or email us at email@example.com and provide your name, address and how many petitions you would like. If you are picking up a large amount I will give you the address.
Please help all that you can.
Ca. Right to Life Committee, Inc
November 30, 2015
By Camille Giglio
Though there is much information online pro and con regarding Assisted suicide, Hospice care and palliation,
few people have connected all the dots leading up to the 2015 California Legislature’s passage of Assemblyman Susan Eggman’s End-Of-Life legislation. Or, whether it was properly passed and Chaptered.
I offer you a very brief historical look at how it has come about that Americans can now be embracing the once abhorrent idea that suicide could be a positive addition to medical “care.” In 1892 with the apparent blessings of then President Teddy Roosevelt, there was formed (without benefit of the legislative process) the US Commission on Uniform State Laws. The Commission consisted exclusively of lawyers. It was considered that there were some laws so important that they needed to be incorporated into the laws of every state. This Commission saw to that end. It has seen 300 such laws incorporated into every state’s set of laws.
Of those 300 laws the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act – UAGA- is considered to be one of the utmost of importance. This law, created in 1967 was revised 3 times. First in 1967 when Nixon was in power and at about the time of the first heart transplant, 1987 under President Reagan, 2006 under G. W. Bush and the latest, 2009, under Pres. Obama. It is now referred to as the RUAGA – Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.
This last revision seems to have come very close to the time of a Center for Medicare Services amendment to their fee schedule which authorizes payments to the medical doctors and personnel for their services. This final revision added payments to Doctors and others for end-of-life consultations with patients. (See link below)
Each revision expanded and strengthened the authority of the medical profession to refuse to provide medical treatment for certain, specified patients and to expedite and legislate organ donations for the large population of patients awaiting transplants.
Just as with the donation of pre born organs, profiting from the procurement and transportation of adult organs is prohibited. However, transplant doctors and teams and research centers began to understand that this is a profitable business.
The purpose of these latest revisions was to accommodate the 1987 Harvard Medical School Commission’s work on legalizing organ donations from “living” donors and to protect the medical profession from criminal charges in removing organs from still living though “brain dead” patients.
http://www.societyandmedicine.columbia.edu/organs_challenge.shtml. The Challenge of Living Organ Donors.
The Ad-Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School Commission redefined irreversible coma changing the definition of death from that of the stoppage of the heart and circulatory system, to that of the cessation of all brain functioning. However, this stoppage of brain functioning does not stop the human body from continuing to process food and fluids, to grow hair or beards, heal wounds, allow young girls to experience menstruation or to allow comatose pregnant women to continue to nourish their preborn babies until that baby becomes viable. Transplanting organs successfully requires removal of “fresh” human organs from a donor to a recipient. To obtain that required a change to the definition of what constituted a dead person. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=340177.
Sarah Palin received extreme derision from Dems and Republicans for her declaration that ObamaCare contained death panels. So, the authorization of ObamaCare to pay doctors to have end-of-life talks with their patients was removed from the legislation. Removed, but not done away with.
The California 2015 End-Of-Life legislation generally referred to as the Assisted Suicide Legislation, provides physicians with reimbursement through Obama Care to hold end-of-life talks and planning conferences for patients to consider just how and when they will consent to have their lives ended. It will end either when their intact, one-of-a-kind organs are removed and/or they are deemed to be too financially burdensome for their community. Study: Many face barriers in end-of-life care by Barbara Feder Ostrov, a re-print by Contra Costa Times, 11/28/15, of a Kaiser Health News article. http://khn.org/news/deficiencies-in-end-of-life-care-extend-across-ethnicities/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-to-now-pay-for-end-of-life-counseling-for-terminally-ill/ MediCare to Pay for end-of-Life counseling for terminally ill.
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-sheets-items/2015-10-30-2.html. Proposed policy, payment, and quality provisions changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2016.
Elizabeth Hanink has provided a worthwhile reminder of the dangers of physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, like many others who report on this subject, she missed a very important element within the right-to-die movement.
This movement has one goal, euthanasia, and at least two ways to get there: the hard way and the soft way. Compassion & Choices, which promotes physician-assisted suicide, represents the former. As Hanink points out, it has received millions from George Soros. (The IRS 990 form for Compassion & Choices of Oregon, apparently the organization’s home office, indicates that it had at least $20,812,163 in expenses, with salaries for four executives at $621,235 in 2014.)
On the other hand, the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC), the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC), the Altarum Institute, and other groups represent the softer, gentler pathway to imposed death, called “palliative care.” Palliative care is generally thought of as a type of pain management for the chronically ill and dying, but the dictionary definition of palliation is “to cover something.” And covering up an imposed death is what these groups are all about. CAPC trains palliative-care professionals to work in hospital inpatient units, intensive-care units, and emergency rooms, and in rehab centers and even community healthcare organizations. All these groups have legislated and lobbied their way into a protected, increasingly profitable, and rapidly expanding niche within the world of health care.
Consider the University of California San Francisco’s Palliative Care Program, which has received $750,000 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $153,000 from Soros’s Project on Death in America and other private foundations, and $726,640 from the National Institute on Aging. An article at the website of the James Irvine Foundation, which gave the program its 2011 Leadership Award, described its work thus: “Palliative care is often healthier for the patient’s family members, who are at greater risk of depression if they’ve watched their loved ones suffer. It is also more cost efficient: Research shows that by providing realistic options and ensuring that care is consistent with what patients and families want, medical centers can reduce useless interventions and save thousands of dollars for every patient cared for by a palliative care service” (emphasis added).
This more moderate wing of the right-to-die movement makes its arguments based on utilitarian principles. As part of its communication strategy, it encourages discussion of goals of care and reminds patients of the so-called indignities of pain and the potential loss of inheritance due to expensive treatment. The point being: Die now, save yourself and your family the inconvenience of a non-planned death, save the state the cost of treating your health problems, and free up space in a hospital bed when someone more deserving could be using it.
Those opposed to this utilitarian philosophy tend to fall into a trap. We accept the notion that all death is humiliating, pain-filled, and undesirable for the family, and as Hanink points out, “even the Catholic Church does not insist on futile or extraordinary treatment or suffering.”
Catholics often quote Pope Pius XII’s 1957 definition of the “ordinary means” of sustaining life as those “that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another” — as opposed to extraordinary means, which the Pope said “would be too burdensome for most men and would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult.” Unfortunately, euthanasia proponents have also been using these outdated definitions to their own advantage in order to justify limiting traditional medical treatment. In fact, the Society for the Right to Die Handbook (1981) makes explicit mention of this papal statement as a “landmark” success for the right-to-die movement.
Today, extraordinary means not only “too burdensome” but too expensive. And the question really is, “Are you, the patient, valuable enough to the community to be worthy of that treatment?”
Ironically, palliative care does not cut down on the costs of health care; it increases the costs by creating jobs for teams of palliative physicians, nurses, chaplains, and social workers; jobs for healthcare preventive groups, consultants, hospice workers, residential-care facility personnel, bereavement specialists, and new government bureaucrats, such as those who staff “Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment” registry offices, and lots of measurement specialists setting “best practices” standards of palliative care, including palliative spirituality, all while seducing vulnerable, trusting citizens to advance the cause of the “new” business of healthcare planning.
Your foremost “right” is the right to life, along with liberty and the ability to seek happiness and eternal salvation. Beware death as a salesman knocking at your door.
ELIZABETH HANINK REPLIES:
Patricia Ryan and Camille Giglio make good points, and doubtless we can find unity in distinctions. I am sure, of course, that the NOR editors hope that among their readers there are more than a few non-Catholics.
To the specifics: Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, who works tirelessly on the international scene, believes strongly in the value of a broad-based network of people opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide. His website, www.epcc.ca, is well worth visiting.
We can also find much to do in our own backyard. Susan Talamantes Eggman, sponsor of California’s End-of-Life Options Act, which is now working its way through the legislature, stated before the members of the assembly that she is a practicing Catholic and reported meeting with various clergymen as she worked on the bill. Several other supporters of the proposed law did likewise. The right to physician-assisted suicide is part of the California Democratic platform, and many of the people who vote for Democrats are Catholic.
According to the most recent Pew research, 67 percent of white Catholics believe that a person has a moral right to suicide when he is in a great deal of pain with no hope of improvement. Hispanic Catholics show smaller numbers but, like white Catholics, when it comes to having an incurable disease or having a life that is a burden to self or others, many think that suicide is a right. Physician-assisted suicide wins the approval of about half of all white Catholics. The numbers for Hispanic Catholics are still well above a quarter of those polled.
A close look at palliative care would make for an entire book — and it has. Briefly, Camille Giglio is correct: Palliative care is big business and very much a part of the aid-in-dying movement. The vocabulary surrounding it is rife with misuse. Still, her definition is too narrow. The term properly refers to reducing the impact of a disease and easing its symptoms without curing the underlying disease. In itself, palliative care can help suffering and seriously ill patients endure, and need not limit needed medical care. It is a shame that because some misuse the help medicine can offer, others might be deprived of assistance or fear it. Nor has everyone who supports palliative care fallen into a utilitarian trap that would make extraordinary mean “burdensome” or “too expensive.” We have an obligation to protect our lives, to the extent we can, even if it costs us, and to accept suffering if there is no moral means of avoiding it. Is there a risk that in consenting to palliative care or hospice, we leave ourselves open to abuse? Yes, and that is a fact of American life today.
I don’t accept, of course, that all deaths are “humiliating, pain-filled.” Nor need any be, if we rightly order what is true, accept what help medicine offers, and recognize that we are in God’s loving care.