“Tuesday’s election garnered at least 53 new pro-life votes in the House. Conversely, only 151 winning House candidates were endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action, meaning just 34.7% of the 435 representatives in the 212th Congress will be reliable pro-abortion votes….”
Continue reading at the Washington Post.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m annoyed that they put this article in the ”On Faith” section despite the fact that you said nothing religious at all. Other than that, I wouldn’t change a thing. Nice job, Jill!
Yeek! The WashPo!
Make sure you wash your hands thoroughly after handling that one, Jill! :) I admire your courage for going into dens of iniquity and chaos, like that!
I could be wrong, but I don’t sense any real desire by anyone in politics (or at least very many of them) to want to do much of anything on the “pro life” issue. I’d be surprised to see any significant efforts in that direction.
Hal,
Maybe you sense that because you live in the western U.S. in liberal land. Or maybe it’s wishful thinking.
The real pro-life issue up for debate involves expanding healthcare to more women and children. You know, that major policy move Jill Stanek lambasts for supposedly subsidizing abortion and for being too “socialist.” Their beloved Rand Paul criticized women for Kentucky women having too many babies on Medicaid. But wouldn’t it make sense that if you want women to keep their babies, you’d support programs that provide resources for them to do so?
And so I keep asking. Many of you respond saying you are involved in direct service work to help pregnant women. That’s great. But why support a woman who, at every opportunity, denounces policy efforts that seek to HELP prenant women rather than simply OUTLAW abortion? If you’re afraid of expanding the government, how will you make sure every woman in this country has access to these critical resources?
Oh and Janet, the Children’s Health Insurance Program expands access to care for kids who need it. You mentioned Hawaii awhile back; check out this link:
http://www.coveringkids.com/news/Section_184.asp
And from FamiliesUSA:
“CHIP has a long history of reducing disparities in health coverage among children. From 1998 to 2007, the overall rate of uninsured children decreased from 15.4 percent to 11.0 percent (see Figure 1). 2 And for children of color, CHIP has been even more important. For instance, in 1998, roughly 30 percent of Hispanic children; 19 percent of black children; and 17 percent of Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander children were uninsured, compared to 10 percent of white children. After CHIP had been in place for 10 years (by 2007), those numbers dropped to approximately 20 percent for Hispanic children, and 12 percent for black, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacifi c Islander children, compared to 7 percent for white children 3 (the uninsured rate for American Indian and Alaska Native children was highly variable 4).
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/chipra/racial-and-ethnic-disparities.pdf
Hal, you keep dreaming that while we make steady gains. That’s how the tortoise won, you know, by pressing on while the rabbit took a nap.
Hey Hal!
Hoping all is well with you and yours.
We haven’t gone toe to toe in a while…probably ’cause we’ve gone round and round and we both end up where we started.
All I’ll say about your comment is that you have grossly underestimated the passion, dedication and commitment of our side. The God that you haven’t had the pleasure of meeting yet is stirring hearts and awakening His Bride, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, I’m not making a promise or a prediction, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if child-killing on demand was criminalized in our country again in the next 4 years.
Great piece Jill!!!
Megan,
It’s good to see that you do believe in some pro-life issues (caring for women and the children that they choose to bear). You are still misguided in thinking that government can do a better job than the private sector. The numbers you present regarding Chip, even with its additional funding, leave much to be desired. Everyone in HI is not insured. I’m sure the numbers of children and women actually being treated are much better because emergency rooms will not turn them away. (Having insurance is not the same as having access.) I might say if the politicians really cared, they’d be over in Hawaii themselves driving buses of school children and their pregnant mothers to clinics. We don’t live in a perfect world and the libs think that throwing more money at a problem cures everything, and that the fiscally-responsible conservatives don’t care because they don’t believe in over-extending on credit. I suppose you would call me uncaring because I don’t throw money in every Salvation Army kettle at Christmastime. (?) I wish I could, but I have to make choices because I can’t do everything. Why is government expected to be different?
Why must you lambast Jill in your posts? She does more to help the cause for caring for women and their babies by getting the latest news out in the blogosphere, with more heart than anyone else I know!
Janet,
These are actually issues I’m very concerned about. I’m applying to work in my county WIC department as a nutrition counselor for the spring semester :) And you’re right–simply throwing money at situations is not really effective. There needs to be some kind of systemic evaluation showing program effectiveness. The biggest indicator of failure in my book is lack of a built-in mechanism for evaluation (I’m thinking about abstinence-only education programs :)).
CHIP has been evaluated, and it is effective in getting children insurance coverage. However, CHIP is a piecemeal approach–doesn’t mean all eligible children will sign up, receive the care they need, or get reimbursed for that care. But I don’t think privatizing healthcare will ensure greater access to these services–this will be just another piecemeal approach to solving the country’s problems. If anything, there needs to be a public-private collaboration. I believe Minnesota’s hospitals are taking a step in the right direction.
The biggest indicator of failure in my book is lack of a built-in mechanism for evaluation (I’m thinking about abstinence-only education programs ).
Megan,
You’re right, evaluation of some programs isn’t easy, but you can’t consider them a failure because it is difficult to measure. That’s the job of scientists – to analyze data the best they can. I am quite confident that abstinence education (sorry, off-topic) has as much of an effect on kids as drug-education programs. There’s no reason not to. You don’t see such outrage at drug education programs as AE. Most abstinence-education programs include more information than “Just say no”, and where they don’t, well that’s the schools’ or parents’ prerogative. Then you’ve got valid issues of freedom of speech, morals, etc… (but, when have we always agreed with everything our teachers taught us, anyways? We take it for what it’s worth and move on…)
As for your last point, there already is private-public collaboration in healthcare. Look around. Why are you not working for a private nutritionist so as to free up government funds for healthcare access at emergency rooms? Because it gives you a government job. Who can blame you, right? What are you doing for collaboration on the private side?
Your column was an enjoyable read, Jill.
Hi Janet. If you research the SA position on abortion, you might not feel so bad about walking past those kettles.
Actually Janet, this is an internship/volunteer position. I don’t want to take money away from government programs, if at all possible. :)
And I have been looking around. Health care reform is a case-in-point, mandating that everybody enroll in a private plan if they are able to. And if the govt. offers incentives for insurance companies to subsidize preventive services, people will hopefully take advantage of them. You know, to avoid uninsured folks from getting too sick, showing up at the emergency room, and draining cash from the hospital, i.e. taxpayers. It’s a beautiful system :)
Hi Ed,
I would be willing to accept that abortion might be somewhat restricted in the next four years. (parental notification, things like that) I would be flabbergasted if abortion is banned outright in the next 4 years or the next 40 years. I just don’t see that ever happening. But, I’ve been wrong before. (never thought GWB would get a second term).
“I’m not making a promise or a prediction, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if child-killing on demand was criminalized in our country again in the next 4 years.”
Child-killing is already quite illegal. Abortion, however, will remain legal for as long as this country exists.
Joan:
Starting back at ground zero: An abortion kills a child.
Yeah, and fur is murder, etc.
I just love the naive optimism!
“What to expect from the new pro-life Congress”
It is a Congress with an increased number of members who are or claim to be pro-life. There is a difference. Being anti-choice was not a major platform in their campaigns. They will not repeal the healthcare act. They will not remove funding from PP.
Megan,
Health care reform is NOT an example of a collaborative effort between the private and public sector. It’s a government takeover. I’m talking about doctors in private practice who also work in government subsidized clinics or travel to impoverished areas to donate their vacation time.
~ ~ ~
Fed Up,
Thanks for the heads up. Actually, there are other charities I choose to support, that was just a charity I mentioned because it is a well known one. I like to do my research.:)
It’s a government takeover.
Preach it, Janet! IMHO it’s also a slap in the face to the uninsured they purportedly wanted to help when they started drafting PPACA in the first place. HALF (48%) of the uninsured are going to be dumped into Medicaid, a program we already know is fraught with problems and failing miserably. That’s what those who can’t get private insurance get. What do the big government elitists get? 100+ new agencies, thousands of new bureaucrats with spiffy new offices and salaries/benefits higher than those of the average worker. The Dems found a way to bloat themselves but could only put private insurance within reach for half the uninsured? Shameful.
Q: What kind of healthcare does Sarah Palin have right now? But I guess she’s not a government “elitist,” so we can’t do a comparison between what she has access to and what kind of care the average American receives.
And actually. FU, you’re patently wrong about expanding access to private insurance. Employers are going to have to provide it, whether through existing insurers (as in Massachusetts) or insurance plans organized in state health exchanges. Plus there will be prohibitions against turning people away for having preexisting conditions. And by pulling in the healthy twenty-something demographic, there will be more money in the risk pool. So overall: increased access.
And by the way, any form of insurance coverage is better than no coverage. Even kids fare better when insured, even if it is by Medicaid: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/730062. Public programs are flawed, to be sure, but quiite simply they allow people to access care they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.
And finally, “what do the big government elitists get? 100+ new agencies, thousands of new bureaucrats with spiffy new offices and salaries/benefits higher than those of the average worker.”
Ha, so PPACA will only expand the job market to include…existing government employees?? That doesn’t seem to make sense. In fact, I’m sure many “average workers,” i.e. casualties of the economic collapse, would be happy to take a position in a government bureau rather than remain…unemployed, especially if, like you claim, the “salaries/benefits are higher than those of the average worker.”
Ummm, Megan, read the law. Even Dems acknowledge the swelling of Medicaid rolls under Obamacare. Having Medicaid doesn’t mean access to care. Does it increase access for some? Yes. Does it increase access for all? No, depends on the situation, as you are surely well aware. Putting half the uninsured into a failing program is disgraceful in my book. But feel free to crow about it if you like.
With respect to the employer mandate, you fail to acknowledge that employers can opt for the penalty instead. Another factor you don’t mention is that employers are hit with higher taxes if they hire (or continue to employ) someone who elects to take a subsidy or has a family member who takes the subsidy. The law incentivizes employers to discriminate against lower income people.
The more people like you fail to acknowledge the serious problems in the law, the more you help our side. I thank you for that :-)
Health care reform should spark debate. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal. But I’ll maintain that some access, or nominal access, is better than being completely uninsured. But if you have an antidote to the problems inherent to increasing Medicaid rolls w/out mandating greater reimbursement–and this is surely a problem–I’d like to hear it.
You do raise some important points in the second paragraph. Ostensibly tax penalties will force employers to provide suitable insurance for their employees, but this depends on the severity of the penalty. Also, taxes for people receiving govt. subsidies would, in theory, prompt employers to offer better care plans. But then again, maybe employers wouldn’t hire people who “look” like they’d be receiving government subsidies. On the flip side, low income people typically take lower-paying jobs in the first place, and companies will be hard-pressed to find “higher-income” people from filling labor-intensive, blue collar-type jobs. Also, the point of employer-based coverage in the first place was to make companies competitive for a limited pool of employees (WWII). Workers do, and will have bargaining power. If one company won’t hire them, some other company willing to pay the tax fee in lieu of raising wages might just take that risk.
But you do point to a bigger issue here: the benefits/disadvantages of employer-based insurance. As it stands, employers are disincentivized from hiring people with disabilities and people with overt health conditions, like smokers. If, like you caution, PPACA tax penalties for employers would disincentivize the hiring of low-income peole, the question is how much prospective employees would need to disclose about their insurance coverage/health status, and whether non-disclosure would be protected under HIPAA laws. The question remains: is employer-based insurance coverage even a system worth saving? Is it a just system, as it stands?