Bishops v. Obama On Healthcare On implicatiions of Roe V. Wade

Bishops Press Obama to Strike Senate Provision Allowing Federal Abortion Funding

by  

 

FOXNews.com

 

 

A coalition of Christian leaders — including the country’s Catholic bishops — put President Obama on notice Friday that it would vigorously fight any health care reform legislation that allows federal funding for abortions.

 

 

• print
• email
• share

recommend (13)

 

AP

 

Justin Rigali, Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia (AP).

 

 

A coalition of Christian leaders — including the country’s Catholic bishops — put President Obama on notice Friday that it would vigorously fight any health care reform legislation that allows federal funding for abortions.

 

“A health care bill can be a great, great blessing to our country,” Philadelphia Archbishop Justin Rigali said during a press conference Friday on Capitol Hill. “But we make a distinction between health care and killing.”

 

More than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics, issued a joint declaration reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay marriage and pledging to protect religious freedoms.

 

The 4,700-word document, called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” was unveiled one day before the Senate is expected to consider it’s sweeping health care bill that includes a measure permitting abortion funding.

 

“We’re counting on legislators to make sure that this is not part of what’s going to rule the lives of people,” Rigali said. “Any bill that has abortion in it has to be rejected.”

 

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who is among 15 Roman Catholic bishops who have signed the document, forcefully opposes overturning the decades-long restriction on federal funding of abortions.

 

“The archbishop has supported efforts to make certain that abortion is not part of the health care bill,” Joseph Zwilling, director of communications for the Archdiocese of New York, told FoxNews.com Friday.

 

Dolan is calling for the “status quo to remain,” he said, citing current law known as the Hyde Amendment that restricts government abortion funding.

 

Click here to read the document.  

 

A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill’s attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage but an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he’s seen so far on the divisive issue.

 

The abortion dispute threatens to blow up the fragile political coalition behind Obama’s health care overhaul.

 

But Christian leaders insisted Friday that the declaration is not politically motivated, saying it has been in the works for awhile. They called it a mere coincidence that it was unveiled just as the Senate preps to debate its health care reform bill.

 

“This has been under way for a long long time and while there will always be local issues that are reflected in this declaration…..this declaration is meant to bring us all together globally to state the [Christian] principles,” said Archbishop of Washington Donald William Wuerl, adding that the causes in the document transcend politics.

 

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate.

 

So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries’ own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.

 

In the document, the groups contends that Obama’s desire to reduce the need for abortion is “a commendable goal,” but his proposals are likely to increase the number of elective abortions.

 

“The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense,” it says.

 

Other signatories include Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson and a host of seminary leaders, professors and pastors.

 

Despite backlash from critics, there were growing indications Reid would prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the bill toward full debate, expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks. It’s during that debate that the battle over abortion will be joined in earnest. Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill.

 

At the White House on Thursday, health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle praised Reid’s effort to find a compromise on abortion.

 

“It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy,” DeParle told reporters. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.

 

But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops’ conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid’s “is actually the worst bill we’ve seen so far on the life issues.”

 

He called it “completely unacceptable,” adding that “to say this reflects current law is ridiculous.”

 

The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.

 

In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother under the Hyde amendment.

 

The Hyde amendment restrictions apply to Medicaid, military health care and the federal employee health plan. Many states provide abortion coverage to low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they must do so separately with their own funds.

 

Abortion opponents say Reid’s bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition — even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries. “All the money the government has starts out being private money,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “Once the government has them, they’re federal funds.”

 

The restrictive language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services. Abortion rights supporters say that fencing off government funds from private premiums would achieve the same goal, without forcing women to get special coverage for a legal medical procedure now routinely included in many private health insurance plans.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Liberals Attack The Church With A New Stick

Not only are those silly Democrats  flirting  (well actually making out with)  with the   idea  of Universal Heatlh Care, now they  have added a dimension.  I suppose this fight was unavoidable; publicly funded  Abortion to be or not not be?   The fight over the ROE V WADE  decision of 1973  has caused  plenty of damage to the natiuons moral compass. Now throw in a   free abortion or 2  or 100,000 and  that could cause the damage  to  be  irreversable.      Now the yes side of this Healthacare debate can claim that  all  those oppsoed to Unvivseral Healthcare now  oppose a women’s right to choose.   There coulnt be  a worse conflation.  Although I have  yet to hear someone on the other side  state the reverse; thay  if you support this bill you support an abortion.  Throwing this in there makes  it harder for some to support  the bill for sure in whatever form it will take.

 

Tensions Flare Between Religious Leaders and Lawmakers Over Abortion

by  

 

FOXNews.com

 

In an effort that has produced heated public feuds as well as significant changes in proposed health care legislation, religious leaders are zeroing in on followers of their faith in Congress to make sure that taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions. 

 

 

• print
• email
• share

recommend (8)

 

In this Sept. 22 file photo, Rep. Patrick Kennedy gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)

 

In an effort that has produced heated public feuds as well as significant changes in proposed health care legislation, religious leaders are zeroing in on followers of their faith in Congress to make sure that taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions. 

 

The latest confrontation comes between Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., an abortion-rights supporter, and Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, who asked Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion if he maintained his position. 

 

The tension is palpable as senators prepare to take up a version of legislation that pro-life leaders say does not provide the same assurances as the version that passed the House early this month. Catholic leaders were considered key in pushing for the restrictions in the House bill.

 

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop’ Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Monday that his group will “work with senators of both parties” to address their concerns. But his group blasted the Senate health bill on Friday, and Doerflinger said Monday that the conference will oppose it if their concerns are not met. 

 

Here’s a look at some of the lawmakers who are at odds with their religious leaders over the issue: 

 

Rep. Patrick Kennedy 

 

The dispute between Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Tobin began in October when Kennedy criticized Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose health care reform without restrictions on federally funded abortion. Tobin demanded an apology and requested a meeting with Kennedy, but that meeting fell through. Tobin then wrote a public letter calling Kennedy’s position “scandalous” and “unacceptable.” 

 

The latest chapter in the dispute came over the weekend, when Kennedy told The Providence Journal that Tobin instructed him not to take Communion and instructed other priests not to give it to Kennedy either. Though Tobin denied banning Kennedy from receiving Communion elsewhere, he said he did ask Kennedy to stop receiving Communion in 2007. 

 

“He attacked the church, he attacked the position of the church on health care, on abortion, on funding,” Tobin told The Associated Press on Sunday. 

 

But Kennedy, a member of the most prominent Catholic family in American political life, has earned some support in his stand against the church. 

 

Catholics for Choice issued a statement Monday applauding Kennedy and describing Tobin as part of a “small minority of bishops” trying to “intimidate” Catholic lawmakers. 

 

“Despite what this minority of bishops has done — and it is worth noting that the majority of bishops do not seek to use the sacraments as political weapons — prochoice Catholic policymakers continue to stand by their consciences,” the statement said. 

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 

 

Pelosi has a long history of conflict with the Catholic Church. 

 

But the church’s intervention this time around may have helped persuade the California Democrat, who is Catholic, to allow a game-changing amendment. 

 

Before the House passed its health care bill, representatives for Catholic bishops huddled with top officials in Pelosi’s office to discuss the language. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, also called Pelosi to discuss abortion restrictions with her personally. 

 

In the end, an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to impose tough restrictions on federal funding for abortion coverage passed along with the overall health care bill. And the bishops are taking credit. 

 

“It was a good example of how we as a conference can work together to have a positive influence on legislation,” Bishop William Murphy, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, told the Catholic News Service, pledging that the conference would remain “vigilant” on the Senate side. 

 

But the bishops’ harmony with Pelosi may be temporary. 

 

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, told FoxNews.com that he expects Pelosi to try to strip out the Stupak language in conference committee when differences between the House and Senate versions must be ironed out. Donohue was one of 150 Christian leaders who signed a declaration on Friday reaffirming their opposition to abortion and gay marriage. 

 

Pelosi hasn’t shied away from confrontations with the church. She was rebuked by the archbishop of Washington last year after she said in an interview that the church had been inconsistent on its abortion position over the years. At the same time, the archbishop of Denver warned then-vice presidential candidate Joe Biden not to take Communion. Pelosi later met privately with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. The Vatican released a statement at the time saying the pope spoke with Pelosi about “the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.” 

 

Rep. Michael Capuano 

 

Capuano, D-Mass., has also bucked leaders of his Catholic faith to take a firm stand in favor of abortion rights as the health care debate proceeds. He told FoxNews.com recently that he would “tend to vote against” the final bill if it restricted abortion funding — though he voted for the House version weeks ago. 

 

Capuano is focusing on abortion in part because it’s a big issue in the race for the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Both he and state Attorney General Martha Coakley are playing up their abortion rights credentials in the race for the Democratic nomination. 

 

Capuano, though, made clear that he won’t be intimidated by Catholic leaders on the issue. 

 

“I treat them with probably more respect, more deference. But they don’t tell me how to vote,” he said, according to The Boston Globe. 

 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro 

 

DeLauro, D-Conn., was among the female Democratic House members outraged by the Stupak amendment. DeLauro reportedly got in a shouting match with Rep. George Miller, a Pelosi ally, after the House speaker announced in early November that she would allow the amendment on the health care reform bill. 

 

But as a Catholic, DeLauro has drawn fierce criticism from inside the religious community. 

 

Deacon Keith Fournier, founder of The Catholic Way, listed DeLauro among those lawmakers “who supported the funding of the continued killing of children in the womb with tax dollars” in a recent online column. 

 

In an interview with the Catholic News Agency, a representative for The National Right to Life Committee blasted a separate amendment offered by DeLauro on the issue of abortion funding as “ludicrous” and “an insult.” 

 

Sen. Bob Casey Jr. 

 

Casey, D-Pa., is known for his pro-life stance but he’s not been entirely clear on how forcefully he would come down on the issue in the Senate health care legislation. 

 

Expect the Catholic senator to be a target of religious groups seeking tougher language in Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care bill. 

 

“Bob Casey has had an on-again, off-again relationship with some of the bishops in his state,” Donohue said. “I’m sure there’s a tremendous amount of pressure on him to make good on this.” 

 

Casey told CNSNews.com in early November that he supports an amendment to prohibit federal funding from paying for abortion coverage in health care reform. 

 

But then a few days later, his office put out a statement saying he’s not in favor of new restrictions, suggesting he doesn’t want to pursue language akin to the Stupak amendment in the Senate. 

 

Galen Carey, director of government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, told FoxNews.com that his group is hoping to persuade Casey, and even Reid, to change the abortion language in the Senate bill. 

 

“The current Senate bill is a radical departure from the current U.S. government policy,” Carey said. 

 

The Senate bill as written would allow let private insurers that receive federal subsidies to offer plans that include abortion coverage, but the money for abortions is supposed to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries and not from the subsidy money. 

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

 

Anglican Dire prediction

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/11/15/archbishop-duncan-of-the-anglican-church-of-north-america-on-the-anglican-schism.aspx

Archbishop Duncan of the Anglican Church of North America on the Anglican schism

Posted: November 15, 2009, 4:43 PM by Scott Maniquet

Anglican Church

By Charles Lewis, National Post

St. Catharines, Ont. — Archbishop Robert Duncan rejects the term “breakaway” to describe the faction of orthodox Anglicans he now leads.

He argues, instead, that the more than 700 orthodox Anglican parishes in Canada and the United States that have left their national churches behind represent where the vast majority of Anglicans in the world are — and where the rest of the Anglicans will soon be.

Archbishop Duncan, visiting Canada last week for the first time since he became head of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), the first Anglican jurisdiction that crosses national boundaries, earlier this year, says it is the national churches in Canada and the United States — the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA — that are the real schismatics, trading in the Bible and orthodoxy for a trendy form of Christianity that is trying to be popular instead of faithful.

Those institutions have “turned so far to the left” they are now on the road to virtual oblivion, he said, pointing to such innovations as the blessing of same-sex marriage.

“They’ll become irrelevancies,” he said during an interview with the National Post. “People who are looking for a saviour who can save.

They are really looking for how they can shape their lives and what they can trust in. And what the [national churches] are offering is Jesus lite. Folks don’t need a Jesus lite.”

The group faces a series of ugly court battles with the respective national churches over who owns church property. It will likely mean that many conservative Anglicans will have to leave behind church buildings their families attended for generations. But Archbishop Duncan, who is based in Pittsburgh, said in the end it will be the conservatives that will win.

“People will turn to what’s true,” he said while attending an ACNA synod in St. Catharines. “And we’ll have the souls and they’ll get the stuff. We’ll get the future, they’ll get the past. I’d rather have the souls and the future.”

He believes that what is going on in Anglicanism right now is nothing short of a new Reformation, similar to what Luther kicked off in Germany five hundred years ago. For the Anglican Church worldwide, he said, it will be mean a complete shift in orientation away from Canterbury, the historical spiritual home of Anglicanism, to Africa, the faith’s new spiritual home.

“In the year 2000 the Archbishop of Canterbury was second most important Christian leader in the world. In a short space of time that office has utterly been diminished. It shows that the British model of Anglicanism has failed.”

He fully expects either a new “Canterbury” to emerge in Africa, or that the old seat of Anglicanism will remain where it is, but future archbishops will come from the Global South — and be black and brown.

Last week, Rowan Williams, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, said that the future of the worldwide Anglican Church looked chaotic and uncertain. He was reacting specifically to an invitation by Pope Benedict that was made to disaffected Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church.

Many conservative Anglicans feel that Pope Benedict would not have made the offer if the structure was not already weakened.

Archbishop Duncan, however, said he appreciated the gesture by the Pope because it was an acknowledgement that orthodox Anglicanism is a legitimate part of the ancient Church.

He made it clear that ACNA wants to remain faithful to Anglicanism but there will be a small minority of Anglicans with Catholic leanings that will seek a home in Rome.

He also noted that the Anglicanism of the future could learn from the Catholic Church.

“In the 20th century they began to rise to true global leadership. They made extraordinary choices in John Paul II and Benedict who are building a Church for the future. The British system has not produced leaders as capable.”

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/11/15/archbishop-duncan-of-the-anglican-church-of-north-america-on-the-anglican-schism.aspx#ixzz0XM6tdrNH
The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

Palin Media Blitz taking Affect

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/fox-news-poll-palin-going-rogue/

 

Fox News Poll: Palin Going (Not So) Rogue

by Ernie Paicopolos 

 

, FOXNews.com

 

Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, former vice-presidential contender Sarah Palin gets a much higher positive rating than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — and most think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press.

 

 

• print
• email
• share

recommend (15)

As Sarah Palin blankets the media on a whirlwind book promotion tour, the former vice-presidential contender is clearly back on America’s radar screen. Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.

 

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from Nov. 17 to Nov. 18, 2009. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

Click here to see the poll.

 

Palin has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012, along with a host of other Republicans. Among self-identified Republicans in the survey, Palin gets the highest favorable ratings (70 percent) amid a group of other possible contenders for the GOP nomination, including Mike Huckabee (63 percent), Mitt Romney (60 percent) and Newt Gingrich (58 percent). Palin’s favorable score among all voters is 47 percent, up nine percentage points over last July’s reading of 38 percent.

 

Another woman who has often been called divisive over the years is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. When asked if they’d rather spend the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday with Palin or Clinton, the choice does provoke considerable division — with each attracting about 40 percent to a hypothetical turkey fest (Clinton 42 percent; Palin 39 percent). About one in seven Americans (14 percent) volunteers the view that neither would be welcome in their home next Thursday.

 

President Obama recently stated that he “probably won’t” read Sarah Palin’s new book. But his possible opponent in the 2012 elections trails him in personal favorability by only seven points (54 percent to 47 percent). Among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

 

The largest number of Americans seem to feel that those who do buy the Palin book will do so because they really want to read it (35 percent). Just under one-third (29 percent) think book purchasers will do so because it’s a trendy thing to do, and one-fifth (20 percent) feel people will buy the book to show support for Palin.

 

When we asked a similar question in 2003 about Hillary Clinton’s book, a higher percentage thought buyers wanted to read that book (45 percent), but far fewer saw the purchase as a show of support for the former first lady (7 percent).

 

It may have been a savvy move by Palin to agree to an interview with Oprah Winfrey. The powerful talk show host garners the second highest level of favorability among all those tested in the survey (61 percent), behind First Lady Michelle Obama (63 percent).

 

Click here for the raw data.

 

Ernie Paicopolos is a principal at Opinion Dynamics Corporation.

 

• Leave a Comment
• Sort: Newest
• Sort: Oldest

Subscribe to Comments

Sort: Newest

Sort: Oldest

Email
* not displayed

 

Comment RequiredComment

 

FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

 

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to comment. Please login or register below.

 

Already a member of FOXNews.com?

 

Log in now

Username or Email Address

Password

Remember me on this computer

Forgot your password?

or login using a third-party account

 

• 
  

  Reset Password

  To reset your password, please fill in your email below. A password reset link will be emailed to you.

   

Email Address

 

 

Not a member yet?

 

Register Now
On FOXNews.com

It’s FREE and only takes a minute!

 

Get access to:

• Breaking news and access to video and infographics
• Exclusive FOXNews blogs and community features
• Channel info and more!

 

HEALTHCARE IN CANADA GOING UP TOO!

Despite our crowing about being  a better -managed country financially here in Canda, here is this little gem  http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22657129

 

Canadian health-care spending to top $180B Health-care spending in Canada is expected to reach $183.1 billion this year, up more than five per cent from last year, according to a report released on Thursday. The Canadian Institute for Health Information’s annual report on national health spending forecast an increase of $241 per person, raising total expenditures to an estimated $5,452 this year. Health spending has risen since 2008 by more than five per cent, or an estimated $9.5 billion, before inflation. The growth rate is in line with increases over the last seven years, said Chris Kuchciak, CIHI’s manager of health expenditures in Ottawa. Federal, provincial and territorial health ministries are about midway through the first ministers’ 10-year plan to strengthen health care signed in 2004, so money committed then is still going through the system. It’s notable that drug spending has increased by single-digit rates in recent years, compared with double-digit increases in the first part of the decade, when governments tried to moderate drug costs, Kuchciak said. Over the last 10 years, the public-private split in health spending has stayed about the same, with government contributing about 70 per cent and private providers paying about 30 per cent. Hospitals take biggest share Provincial health spending varied depending on the demographics of their populations, health needs and delivery systems. In 2009, total health-care spending is expected to be highest in Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, at $6,072 and $5,970, respectively. Quebec and British Columbia are forecast to have the lowest expenditure per capita at $4,891 and $5,253, respectively. Alberta and Quebec have been opposite ends of the spectrum for about 10 years. Hospitals continue to consume the largest slice of Canada’s health-care spending pie at $51 billion, followed by drugs and then doctors. Spending on prescription and over-the-counter drugs is predicted to reach $30 billion this year, while payments to doctors should add up to more than $26 billion. Start, end of life costs The report also looked at per capita spending by age group, confirming that birth and end of life tend to be the most expensive times in terms of health care spending. An infant under the age of one costs an estimated $8,239 per person. Between age one and age 64, spending averaged less than $3,809 per person. Among seniors, per capita spending jumped to : – $5,589 for those aged 65 to 69. – $7,732 for those 70 to 74. – $10,470 for those 75 to 79. – $17,469 for those 80 and older. Today, seniors account for 44 per cent of total provincial health spending. This has stayed largely the same since 1998 when it was just over 43 per cent. It hasn’t changed significantly over time, Kuchciak said, which is consistent with the fact everyone ages one year at a time. Population aging “moves like a glacier as opposed to this massive catastrophe overnight,” Kuchciak said. “I think policy-makers will be able to respond and react,” with programs. Seniors are also healthier, which makes aging more manageable, he added. The report also used 2007 data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to compare health care spending in Canada to other countries. The U.S. spent almost twice as much as Canada, $7,290 US per capita, versus $3,895 US per capita in Canada. Per capita total health expenditures in Canada were in the top 20 per cent of the spectrum, Kuchciak said, and were comparable to those of France, Austria and Netherlands. External Links National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2009, CIHI

Saskatchewan Women “forced” to travel for Abortions

That was the headline in Friday’s “Edmonton Journal” in a story directly below  the story I discusesd in my previous post.  I will give the exact wording of the frist  1/2  sentence  of the story:  “Many women requiring abortions  in Saskatoon  are being forced to trave out of the city for the procedure”.  I thought abortion was meant to  a choice availible to women not human right?  I am very open to being corrected if I have somehow missed  this fact somewhere.   Apparently the city has one of the earliest cut-off dates  for the  ”procdure”  as  the article keeps calling it  and this leaves women “scrambling” for last minute options.   The article makes this procedure  sound like an emergencyty  kidney transplant  or  other life-saving operation.  If one was to  requre a life-saving abortion , it is doubtful  that they would be able to travel the 236 km or 166 miles  to Regina to get one where the cut off is 16 weeks.

The point of the article is lost of me  as even at 12 weeks women do have time to come up with alternatives. Adoption anyone?

Syrian Terrorist Supporter Arrested then released in Canada

Reports coming out of Vancouver   this past Friday have  Khaled Nawaya , a 34 year-old  Syrian American being   released  a day earlier  after  amonth  B.C. custody after being caught with the following on his person :

1) 1 million dollars  in undeclared cash 

2)A ring  with Hezbollah  markings on it and

3)  A DVD about  the 9/11 attacks

and to add an intangible  fourth  element to his case

4)He was coming to B.C. to be a flight instructor

 So let’s expand on each of these little tidbits  for a moment

1) $800,000  in gold coins  obtainted by his brother who is still Texas  and 70,000 was in cash with about 10,000 in his pockets.  Who keeps that much money in their pockets!?!?  Apparently finding the undeclared money was not enough for Canadian Authorities and charges ahve not been laid despite the fact that  it is illegal to have that much undeclared money  in ones possession.  Apparently  he claims  the  money was insurance settlement.  Do the American  Insurance companies have that much cash in vaults just stashed away  and if not what bank  gave him the money straight up asking no questions?

2)  The Hezbollah rings  weren’t just accidently  acquried by Nawaya , his borther actually made them !  I don’t know which  part of Hezbollah’s  ideology  turns their crank so much that they fashion their own  merchandise. is it the  suicide bombings of the last 25+years , the rockets or the  radical Shia Islam the group espouses.

3)  Just for good measure , why not carry around   merchandise  relating to specific attacks  (this one by Al-Qaida but does it matter?)   It alsmost liek this guy wanted to get caught  to prove somekind of heroism on  his part  in eyes of those who might be watching the media for his story. 

4)  He must have watched the  DVDs a bunch because  he wants to be a flight instructor. 

So the had in custody for month , decided to release him Thursday and   now want to  still check and verify his story. It seems to me that  you would want to verify allof this before he gets to the country and  then maybe  “think” about letting him in.    But then again thats right he had to spend 18 months   going through the proces ofimmigrating to Canada from the U.S.  That begs  the question, why are  you so determined to move to Canada away from your brother?   Some of this may seem circumstantial  but  nevertheles s are there not more  deserving applicants ?  Better, should this guy not be kicked right back out while the investigation goes on  and allow someone else to take his place?  I am sure there logistics involved that would be ahrd to get around but seriously  secrutiy should be spared no exspense.

Britain Following U.S. Lead on the left

Britain has  decided to follow the U.S.  on the global stage  yet again.  Iraq, Afghanistan(quite rightly)on the war on terrorism  and now  quite wrongly on U.S.  war on Capitalism.  Britain’s  Prime Minister   Gordon Brown has declard it “unacceptable” that the few should reap the benefits of the global economy . He uses such buzz words  as  “social contract ” and “global responsibility” to ehnahcne his argument in the article below.  While I am sure this will sit well with other elft leaning governments, where does that leave small business owners and even larger employers? Where is wthe world’s repsonsibility to them?

British PM urges global financial tax

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says a global tax on financial transactions should be considered to fund future bank bailouts.

In a speech Saturday to the Group of 20 finance ministers meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland, Brown said the tax could raise the level of accountability in the financial sector.

“I believe we should discuss whether we need a better economic and social contract to reflect the global responsibilities of financial institutions to society,” Brown told the G20 ministers.

“It cannot be acceptable that the benefits of success in this sector are reaped by the few but the costs of its failure are borne by all of us,” he said.

Brown said a tax on financial transactions would need to be implemented globally.

“Let me be clear: Britain will not move unless others move with us together,” he said of the levy, modelled after the so-called Tobin tax proposed by American economist James Tobin in the early 1970s as a way of curbing speculation on financial markets.

Following the talks, G20 finance officials issued a statement in which they pledged to maintain emergency support for their economies until global recovery is assured.

The statement said economic and financial conditions have improved, but it stressed that recovery is “uneven and remains dependent on policy support.” High unemployment remains a major concern, the ministers said.

With files from The Associated Press

Obama’s First Anniversary

Like people say: “What a difference a year makes!”  President Barack  Obama  “celeberated” the completion  of his first year  as President  only now with the  hoopla  of 2008. He rang in his new year seeing  Two Republicans   come to Gubenatorial  office  in  New Jersey  and  Virignia, states he won handily  last year.  He has also seen no deal on Healthcare finalized  , a worsening  on the war in Afghanistan  and  the Iraq war continues  albeit with less media  coverage.  He has accomplished  to declare  war on Glenn Beck,  Rush Limbaugh  and  Fox News as a whol. He has grown the U.S. defecit by adding a new  stimulus bill(sooon to be added to a 900billion dollar  healthcare injection unless soemthing happens) and he’s bought himself a significant stake in General Motors.  Voters are also rewarding him an approval rating that  barely cracks  fifty percent  and a dissapproval  rating wellinto the 40’s.  So yes  he has brought in changes to how the nation has been governed in recent memor.   Anita Dunn , Van Jones and other non-cabinet   employees of the administration  have helped along a socialist revolution  of change by dissavowing the free market and embracing China’s late Mao Tse Tung.  

I am also wondering about his words in his victory speech that night  in Hyde Park:  “I am am your President too” he said to the 47% of the country that rejected him as their leader . He has rewarded them by belittling descent and  increasing his grip over  every day economic operations  in the country.  Also what happened to his ” Team of Rivals”? The outreach to Republicans by keeping Secretary of  Defense Robert Gates  is barely noticeable since he is dragging his feet on an urgent  plea for troops form the generals in Afghanistan. 

If he wants to win a secomnd term , he must do more to  show decisiveness and moderation in his policies.  Otherwise the old  arguments about his inexpereince and his fraternizing with radicals  will continue and be right!

Anti-Americans Dish it out but cant take it

Last Sundays opinion section of the Edmonton Journal was polluted with more ramblings from CBC   cronies  about how miuhc the Americans hate us.  Chantal Allan  writes  that : “Since the early days of confederation bouts of anti-Canadienism have persistantly propped up in Ameran media… alternating  between the  unabashadely  ignorant  and the absurd to the comically  witty…”  She states that the Chicago Tribune ,in 1867,called us  a “hopeless aimless dependent”  .  What was her point here.  We are entirely   interconnected to whatever happens  to the United States. Their dollar goes up , ours goes down and vice versa. The only reason we can afford our  “universal” heathcare is becasue we didnt invest  large portions of money on defence.  Eighty percent of our trade goes to our southern neighbour,trade without which we would be cripple beyound repair .

She goes on to  praise former Priminister Pierre Tudeau and his cries of “Viva Castro! ”while neglecting the profane remarks  he made about Richard Nixon (well before Watergate) . The  Allan hits a low of lows by declaring the U.S.  conservative media  was to blame for the 2002   freeze in relations bewtween our two great nations.  Indeed one  U.S. commenator said: The U.S. owes it to Canada to slap it out of its shame spiral. That’s what big brothers  do!  She , of course leaves out the part about our Liberals refering  to George W. Bush and his citizenry as morons or “damn Americans”.     

I don’t know what people like her expect.  we do everything  to try and distance ourselves form the U.S. and then expect and big  thank you  from the Americans . Like on Sept 20, 2001  where  Bush declared   ” America  has not greater ally then Great Britain” . Our left-wing media punced  and bush deffended the comment by saying: “you don’t need to thank a brother”.  Maybe that’s the problem. We think we are family and deserve  specially treatment  reagardless of any comments we make  that may be a thorn in the side of the Americans. We( the media) also took offense  to Bush going to Mexico before  Canada after his taking office in 2001.  Maybe they should have  considered his previous job as Governor of Texas  and its proximity to Mexico before delcaring him ignorant  of Canada.  He has been to Calgary ,Edmonton and Montreal since leaving office. 

Jonah Goldenberg of a”National Review” magazine  said we had an EU sensibility and maybe we should conisder that  our policies seem more in-line withtham than the U.S.  before  making any fruther  grumblings about anti-Canadianism.