Weekend question

This out from Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (click to enlarge)...

obamacare.jpg

CBR entitled a press statement accompanying the release of the graphic above, "New Obama-Joker poster as outrageous as Obama-Care," writing...

The far left's campaign to hijack the nation's health care system is diabolically clever. Mr. Obama is the increasingly scary pitchman whose game is "hide the ball." He diverts attention from the malfeasance of congressional co-conspirators who draft abortion and euthanasia bills which carefully avoid trigger words such as words "abortion" and "euthanasia."

These Culture-of-Death lawmakers quietly confer on unelected bureaucrats the authority to later broaden abortion access and ration elder care (amounting to constructive euthanasia). All-the-while, the state-run media parrots White House talking points and Democrat Members of Congress hide from constituents whose patriotism and virtue they question when any dare resist.

Freedomsfool2009 has taken the Obamacare Joker image and added animation...

Read CBR's short analysis of Obamacare here. CBR is also asking those opposing Obamacare to fax the Obamacare Joker and press release to the White House at 202-456-2461.

Weekend question: What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of the Obamacare Joker?


Comments:

I think faxing the Joker and the press release to the White House is going to be counterproductive. It will only further harden their hearts, if that is possible, and it invites them to continue the downward spiral of rhetoric, the use of union thugs at public meetings, etc.

We are far better off writing our own letters to our lawmakers.

Posted by: Bill at August 22, 2009 3:33 PM


Given the hubris of mockery he displays, in particular with his latest mocking of his own administration over the current healthcare point drop (what he meant with that wee-weed up comment), the laughs it produced, his arrogance at mocking constituents (for instance he mocked Joe the Plumber, talking about him at another rally) again producing laughs, the laughing about the terror his administration introduced in NYC and NJ with the Statue of Liberty fly-over and his laughing about it a week later. Then yes - I think the Joker mask makes a lot of sense.

Even his latest comment about being partners with God in matters of life and death - is he serious?

This is all fun and games to him, because he doesn't treat the people of the United States with a respectful gravitas.

He's mocking everyone -including his own people.

Now he's pulling off the greatest heist in history, backed by Hollywood and the culture of death.

Faxing it to the WH won't work. Talking with your neighbor about his mocking ways with a lot of evidence - that changes things. We need to unite as a country, not divide over a president.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at August 22, 2009 3:37 PM


This is disgraceful lie.
Check WEB MD or numerous non-corporate supported sources for the truth. Insurance industry will stop at nothing to defeat reform.

CLAIM: Reform will lead to government subsidizing abortion.

THE FACTS: PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking web site, says the legislation contains nothing that would require the use of taxpayer money for subsidizing abortion. An amendment in House legislation aims to ensure that federal funds are not used for this coverage.

Obama noted recently that 'we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.'' PolitiFact also says people could have a choice of a health plan that has payment for abortion coverage, and one without it. It's possible that women with subsidized coverage could buy a plan that has abortion coverage. The final wording on this issue, though, won't be clear till later in the process.

Posted by: sharon at August 22, 2009 4:19 PM


I think it is unnecessarily provocative and distracting to do the Joker thing. In a way it almost trivializes what BHO is talking about by adding an overlay of controversial imaging and, as Bill said above, it may quite possibly be counterproductive.

We were used to seeing the president of the past eight years regularly pilloried and made to look like a dunce. But now there is a new game in town. This one is to be treated with kid gloves and they circle the wagons around him.

Posted by: Jerry at August 22, 2009 4:24 PM


Sharon,
Remove my picture from your blog. I am not Carla Sauer-Iyer. Whoever that is.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 22, 2009 4:29 PM


Hmmm...how about...instead of "a fact-checking website"...I go by the words of the elected representatives themselves instead? In which case, they've already said that abortion WILL be covered in the health care plan. Otherwise, why would EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. to forbid abortion from being included be struck down immediately by democrats? Why would NARAL Pro-Choice America and the nations single largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, be pushing so hard to get this passed?

Enjoy your kool-aid, Sharon. I'm not having any.

I'm not stupid, Sharon. The American people are by and large not stupid. I'm not falling for your idiotic nonsense. You can take your slanted internet propaganda machine and shove it where the sun don't shine, kiddo.

Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 5:25 PM


I think it is unnecessarily provocative and distracting to do the Joker thing.
Posted by: Jerry at August 22, 2009 4:24 PM

I agree, Jerry. It detracts from the message.

This is disgraceful lie.
Posted by: sharon at August 22, 2009 4:19 PM

One who posts a pic of Carla claiming she's someone else is hardly in a position to accuse others of lying.

Check WEB MD or numerous non-corporate supported sources for the truth.

Again, one who's not done her own research is not in a credible position to tell others where to find the truth. 30 seconds on google shows you have the wrong Carla pic on your blog. And you want to cite sources to us? BTW, do you think the St Pete Times is a nonprofit? Isn't it a corporate source? Read the bills, then get back to us, 'kay?

PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking web site, says the legislation contains nothing that would require the use of taxpayer money for subsidizing abortion.

Politifact is hardly an unbiased source but they are correct in stating that. It's also correct to state that nothing in the bill prohibits covering abortion. In fact, if you read the bills, you see that political appointees are given broad authority to insert nearly anything, including abortion, into coverage after the bill is passed. And certain sections of the bill can be taken to imply abortion even if not stated directly. Nice try.

Obama noted recently that 'we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.''

He also just said that the American people shouldn't "micromanage" what benefits are or are not covered. He'd rather let Washington bureaucrats do that for us. Nice try.

The final wording on this issue, though, won't be clear till later in the process.

Exactly. AFTER the bill passes the president's czars and appointees will determine the details that will affect our daily lives. If you read the bills, you'd be aware that the intent is to cover abortion based on other provisions in the bill. And perhaps most telling of all, do you honestly think PP would support a bill if they thought it was going to exclude abortion?

Posted by: Fed Up at August 22, 2009 5:58 PM


Hey folks, I know this isn't about the Joker thing but I really need those of you who are Christians to help me out. My friend just called me a few moments ago and I really need to ask you to pray for a friend of hers who just found out she is pregnant. Her boyfriend wants her to get an abortion. I told my friend about the physical and emotional dangers of abortion (just briefly, I didn't want to lose her attention by going into too much detail), and told her that if her friend walked into an abortion clinic asking for information, that they would immediately try to sell her an abortion (which is what they do). I let her know about crisis pregnancy centers in her friend's town and other surrounding towns and she said she would call her friend right away to tell her. My friend had never heard of CPC's before(!).

So anyway, please pray for this woman. I don't even know her name but I just hope and pray she looks at the facts, goes to a good crisis pregnancy center to learn about her other options, and chooses life for her child. Please pray with me that her child's life will be spared and that God will help this woman have the strength to either raise the child herself or that the child will be adopted by a loving family. Please also pray with me that she will not allow pro-abortion lies and misinformation to gain a foothold in her heart and put blinders on her eyes.

Thanks everyone in advance! A child's life depends on our prayers now, I did all I knew how to do for the moment (and I told my friend to let me know if her friend needs me to look up any other resources or help for her, and I will).

I don't know what else to do for this woman. I don't know her and can't talk to her in person (she lives in the state I just moved from, halfway across the country). Next time I talk to my friend I will tell her to give her friend my phone number if she wants to talk to me directly.

Posted by: army_wife at August 22, 2009 6:22 PM


Army Wife, it sounds like you did the right thing. I hope and pray that this woman will choose not to abort. The majority of women who abort do it because they are pressured to. I am so thankful that you were able to let her know about CPC's and I hope that she will check one out!

Posted by: Bethany at August 22, 2009 6:38 PM


Praying, Armywife.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 22, 2009 6:41 PM


Prayers, Army Wife. Would OptionLine.org be a helpful resource?

Posted by: Fed Up at August 22, 2009 6:47 PM


I think this sort of sensationalism is actually counterproductive to our goal. When you start playing these sorts of games, your goal to abolish the opposition makes you more and more like them.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 22, 2009 8:11 PM


Army Wife,
I am praying for this woman and for your friend to be able to reach her with hope. I pray for her to be reached with compassion and understanding. That she will be strong and courageous in the face of the pressure from her boyfriend, like my friend K. who fought against the pressure of her ex-husband who told her to either abort or get out. She fought for the life of her child and was put out (there were no pregnancy care centers in her area), but even as a non-believer God helped her by sending people to help to her. It wasn't easy but she made it, she became a believer in Christ, she later re-married a great man who was a good dad to her son and her ONLY child is a 25 year old man today. She never knew that he was going to be the only child she could ever have, but God knew. By the way, she used to be a counselor at our local CPC, where she helped women in her situation, many pressured by boyfriends to abort. God can make a way, where there seems to be no way.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 22, 2009 8:44 PM


As long as we remember our core ideals, would being like them in certain respects be a bad thing? They've been awfully successful thus far. I'd say if anything, we should start studying them and then apply their means to our ends.

I think we should do the same thing with foreign nations in regards to our educational system. If Japan's educational system is so much better than ours, we should copy it and use it here.

Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 8:45 PM


Oh, minus the copious amount of lying they do. No, I will not tell a lie intentionally just to further my agenda. Nobody should do that. But embracing popular culture, yeah, we might look into that.

Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 8:53 PM


I don't care for the Joker face, it reminds me of the Al Jolsten black face in reverse, I think it can be counterproductive because it can have racial overtones. I know some may say that is not the meaning but we are trying to encourage and unite all races to be a part of the pro-life movement. I don't think it is worth the risk of being offensive. I would like to hear what someone like Dr. Alveda King or Day Gardner thinks about the picture.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 22, 2009 9:01 PM


I think it's sad that we have to worry about every single little thing being (intentionally?) misconstrued as "racist" these days. I thought this was America for a second...

Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 9:07 PM


Hey Xalisae how are you? I just remember something you said to me a while back "we need to unite against our common enemy, the killing of innocent unborn babies". Have you ever heard the saying "you could win the battle but lose the war". Think about it, if A.A. prolife leaders in this fight (I am not talking about the pro-aborts)were to say this is offensive to them, is it worth it? I think we have a lot of uniting to do and we can find plenty of ammunition against the most pro-abortion president ever elected, (who happens to be A.A.) without this. Think it over for a while.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 22, 2009 9:49 PM


Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 5:25 PM
"I'm not stupid, Sharon. The American people are by and large not stupid. I'm not falling for your idiotic nonsense. You can take your slanted Internet propaganda machine and shove it where the sun don't shine, kiddo."

xalisae
"slanted Internet propaganda machine" Wow. I am a fifty something, disabled woman, in a wheelchair with oxygen tubes stuck in my nose and a two year old computer. Thanks for saying I am a propaganda machine - it makes me feel important and kinda powerful. Hey maybe the truth is stronger than fiction. Go ahead, hit the "scare me button" again. I got some fight left in me.

"shove it where the sun don't shine, kiddo."
Are you one of those who are "praying for me"? I really appreciate the prayers and I want to thank everyone who offered. Usually I ask people if they would like me to pray for them. Some people use prayer as a weapon. You know they pray like, "You're so stupid, I'll have to pray God fixes you cause no one else can." Is that what "where the sun don't shine means?"
Can I pray for you?

Again, I ask - DO YOU WANT TO WIN THE ARGUMENT OR SOLVE THE PROBLEM. When you distort the facts, misrepresent what people say and make hysterical claims...you may win a small victory. But you will not stop a single abortion.

You have a President who was born to a mixed race couple, with a teenage mother. If anyone knows the value of one life - he's the poster child. Yet you demonize him. Poor planning.

Posted by: sharon at August 22, 2009 11:26 PM


Oh, no, I agree. My statement was mostly just expressing general dismay at the effectiveness of using divisive tactics by those on the extreme left to obfuscate more important matters and generally make the country a worse place to live.

It wasn't so much in the context of pro-life/pro-choice, but just overall nasty tricks used on the other side.

Posted by: xalisae at August 22, 2009 11:31 PM


please see the link >

http://about-orphans.blogspot.com

Posted by: Stella at August 23, 2009 3:27 AM


Reading comprehension is not your strongest suit, is it?

I wasn't addressing you personally as a propaganda machine. I was talking about the website to which you were directing us. As another poster here has commented, it's less than forthright in its intentions.

Also, you don't need many tools to help spread disinformation these days. Any computer with internet access is capable. Depending on how good it was when you bought it, a 2 year old machine isn't that bad, so don't sell yourself short there, champ.

Gianna Jessen was born alive during a saline abortion and suffers from severe physical disabilities-among them cerebral palsy. She manages to do all right for herself. No matter how hard you might have it, stay hopeful, because things will get better. I hope you find good health one day.

And no, I will not be praying for you. I don't pray for anyone, including myself. As I've mentioned time and time again, I happen to be an atheist. I am a non-believer. My friends here tell me that they pray for me, and I appreciate it because I know it means I am in their thoughts and they truly want what is best for me, it's just that our ideas about what exactly that is might be different. I do give them equivalent (in the realm of atheism) thoughts quite often when I see something that makes me think of them, and I wish what is best for them as well. If that includes their faith, then good. I am glad when they are glad, and if they are the most happy in worship, then I cheer and applaud them for having the faith to believe in the unseen that I do not. However, you seem only to want to wield your faith as a weapon, and that I cannot nor will I ever laud. I would therefore appreciate you not praying for me. I would pity you, but from your last comment, I think that's exactly what you want me to do, and I've never been very good at being manipulated. Sorry.

Ok...Let me show you the video I watched of this democrat representative SAYING EXPLICITLY that abortion WILL BE COVERED in the healthcare plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTYvK4h44RU

So please, tell me now, how exactly did I "distort the facts, misrepresent what people say and make hysterical claims"? IT WAS SAID IN THE VIDEO, BY HER!!! And I'm sure I'm not just hallucinating the tweets from leaders of PP and NARAL saying (I'm paraphrasing now, m'kay?) "WE SUPPORT THIS BILL!!!!!" They are publicly saying this stuff! It's not some imagined conspiracy! Please tell me anything I said which even remotely borders on conjecture! Show me ONE SINGLE AMENDMENT expressly forbidding abortion being covered in the bill that's been allowed to be added, please!

And no, Sharon. That does not demonstrate the value that HE has for one life. That shows the value his family placed on one life. He's the one (and I do mean "one", since he was the only guy who did) who voted against BAIPA. That tells me that he obviously DOES NOT place value on ANY lives. Maybe his own, but not many others if he could do such a thing as that. I'm sure Mao Zedong's mommy and grandma were just super-sweet too.

Aaaaand...for the record...our side stops abortions all the time. That's what the sidewalk councilors and crisis pregnancy help hotline guys do with their time. Until we can make it illegal, all we can do is try and talk people down from it.

Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 3:56 AM


Mods, I inserted spaces in the url because I'm paranoid about the spam filter. If I don't need all that, and they can be taken out, could someone please help me with that when you get the chance? Thanks for all of your help (all of the time, not just now, when I want something. :P )

And thank you Jill, for a great (censorship-free) blog! (I don't say that enough. Thank you.)

Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 4:00 AM


Sharon,
I asked you to take my picture down from your blog. I am not Terri Schiavo's ex nurse!!! Sheesh. I am a post abortive mom and a moderator here on Jill's blog and you are LYING about me. You will find your words have no credibility here if you continue to misrepresent me.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 6:06 AM


Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 4:00 AM
------

xalisae - as long as you don't use "http://" at the front the spam filter doesn't kick in. That makes it a copy/paste into the browser's address field instead of clicking on a link.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 23, 2009 6:57 AM


X,

"If I don't need all that, and they can be taken out, could someone please help me with that when you get the chance?"

I'm not sure what you mean... do you mean not give your links their own line? Like run it right next to your text? I won't be around the rest of this morning, but hopefully some other mod will see this and help out.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 7:10 AM


Thanks to those of you who are praying for my "friend of a friend". I hope I did the right thing. I hardly ever "say the right thing", especially when I'm on the spot like that (ADHD reduces brain function considerably when the person is under pressure - I have ADHD, so I guess that explains why I have that particular trouble), but I tried my best. That was a huge shock to me, just kind of out of the blue. As a matter of fact, when my friend called I happened to be sitting in front of the computer looking at another pro-life blog I keep up with.

It would have helped if my friend were pro-life (she's apparently pro-choice, because the first concern she voiced after saying "her boyfriend wants her to get an abortion" was "isn't that going to hurt?"). Sigh. I'll let you all know if I hear any more news about this situation.

Fed Up, thanks for the website. I previously did not know about that website. I will pass it along as soon as it is a decent hour for calling in the Midwest (they're an hour earlier than me now).

Thanks again for all the prayers. I'm worried sick about this lady and her baby.

Posted by: army_wife at August 23, 2009 7:20 AM


This is MORE EFFECTIVE than anything that Jill Stanek has EVER DONE to make people aware of abortion and bring an end to it occuring in the USA.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at August 23, 2009 7:21 AM


Good morning, xalisae. Here's an article that might interest you. There's video and transcript of senate committee discussion of Sen. Mikulski's amendment 201. It's a good example of the intent of some legislators to cover abortion without making specific reference to it.

www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51051

Here's text of the amendment they're discussing.

blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/mikulski-201.pdf

Posted by: Fed Up at August 23, 2009 7:23 AM


armywife,
I am still praying and would love to call your friend of a friend myself. I am in the Midwest. :)
I would be happy to help out in any way I can.
You can email me too. OH and did you know that 80% of relationships break up after an abortion? Especially if the man pressured a woman to abort their flesh and blood. So having an abortion to "save the relationship" is BS. A real man protects and cares for a woman and his child.

Zeke,
I disagree. The most effective thing Jill Stanek has ever done is hold a little boy with Down Syndrome until he died after an abortion. And then SHE TOLD THE WHOLE WORLD ABOUT IT!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 7:30 AM


xalisae, thanks!

Chris, I learn something new every day!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 7:31 AM


Chris, Jill and Bobby,
I usually just go in and add the http://
Hope that is ok.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 7:38 AM


Interesting comments. I especially like this one: "Enjoy your kool-aid, Sharon. I'm not having any."

Supporting the presently offered ObamaCare bill(s), which simply name the person or agency that will make the big decisions "later" is the precise equvilent of asking someone to sign a blank page contract, and saying "I'll just fill in the details later".

Really, Sharon, do you think we are that stupid?

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 23, 2009 7:52 AM


Supporting the presently offered ObamaCare bill(s), which simply name the person or agency that will make the big decisions "later" is the precise equvilent of asking someone to sign a blank page contract, and saying "I'll just fill in the details later".

So well put, Doyle! As I understand the senate bill, you are correct not only about the minimum benefits (such as abortion) that have to be covered in a qualifying plan, but also the amount of "shared responsibility" payment due at tax time. Page 104 authorizes the Secretary to "establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage".

Isn't it interesting that on page 117 our senators have determined in advance that their own policies through FEHB will be considered qualifying coverage? The HHS and Treasury Secretaries will determine how much "compliance tax" the rest of us have to cough up if we choose to keep existing coverage that's not considered qualifying.

Posted by: Fed Up at August 23, 2009 8:33 AM


Posted by: carla at August 23, 2009 7:38 AM

Thanks Carla!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 23, 2009 8:42 AM


Carla,
When you take down the picture of the young woman you have chosen to target - I will do the same for you. Till then, what's good for the radical right is good for the moderates as well. At least I have not asked my readers to throw stones at you.

xalisae,
Civility not YOUR strongest suit? Time and again you resort to crude insults. That's what happens when your only weapon is to silence you opponents.

Again you cut and paste to suit your needs. You hear only what you wish to hear and hope that you can make the world deaf to anything that might challenge your presentation of the "facts"

In the 535 member of Congress (House 435 Senate 100) there are members from very liberal districts and very conservative. On the liberal side there are people who think any restrictions on abortion is an infringement on reproductive rights. On the conservative side we have those who think that birth control (all forms) should be illegal and we should criminalize sex education. Rep Zoe Lofgren is from San Jose just south of San Francisco - not exactly representative of middle America. In addition, the video has been clipped so severely that you cut off the Congresswoman in mid sentence.

There is no final bill. All this premature hysteria is like judging the cake before it's baked.
Never the less.....
the Hyde Amendment to the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's 1978 appropriations bill. The Hyde Amendment bans the use of Medicaid funds for abortions except in cases where rape or incest was promptly reported to authorities, where the mother's life was in danger, or where "severe and long-lasting physical health damage" would accrue to the mother if the pregnancy were carried to term. This last condition must be certified by two physicians. The constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, which limited the right to choose to those with the means to pay, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Hyde Amendment does allow payments for drugs or devices to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum and for termination of ectopic pregnancies.

If your concern is really the unborn children then why on earth wouldn't you support getting more pregnant women the medical care they need? The health care reforms would not consider pregnancy a "pre-existing condition" and it would make insurance affordable for poor women who might be driven to consider abortion because they lack medical coverage. Or what about women who have difficult pregnancies because complications go undiagnosed? How many lives could be saved?

Are you protecting the UNBORN or the Health Insurance industry profits?

No Doyle, I'm not stupid either. You wear a lot of hats don't you? Does United Health figure in there?

I realize that I am all alone here. After all, I talking to people who are looking for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. Not the brightest people on the planet. But maybe someone will see through the manufactured hysteria. Will understand that the real goal has nothing to do with babies and every thing in the world to do with greed.

Posted by: sharon at August 23, 2009 8:51 AM


Sharon. Factcheck.org disagrees with you.

Here's the final line from their report:

"As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions."

I'll link to the article in a seperate post, as it will be held in moderation.

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 9:16 AM


http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 9:17 AM


"The health care reforms would not consider pregnancy a "pre-existing condition" and it would make insurance affordable for poor women who might be driven to consider abortion because they lack medical coverage."

Posted by: sharon at August 23, 2009 8:51 AM

Excellent point, Sharon. They will even be able to get the pre-natal care they need.

Question, though...Does anyone know if public aid in individual states already cover this? I'm wondering, because Illinois has public aid that covers medical care, including pregnancies, prenatal care, etc., WIC which helps with formula, etc., after the baby is born, and food stamps/monthly checks for the poor and needy.

I'm just wondering if all of the states have programs already in place to help pregnant women, or if this healthcare bill would actually be a good thing for pregnant women as Sharon stated????

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 9:19 AM


Marie, states all have Medicaid for pregnant women, prenatal chip, and WIC.

Almost all pregnant women who can not afford private insurance qualify for these programs. The income requirements are much higher for these programs than traditional medicaid.

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 9:28 AM


Thanks, Lauren. That's what I thought, but wasn't sure if all states had public aid.

So, I guess my next question, is that if all states do provide healthcare through public aid, then who in this country does the healthcare bill help? I'm getting the impression that the very small minority of people without healthcare are those who CHOOSE not to have it, illegals and people who would much rather have nice cars and a nice home than purchase their own healthcare insurance.

As I've stated before, I couldn't afford my dependent's coverage through my employer, so I did ALOT of research, applied to many insurance providers, and found a very good healcare plan for my dependent's needs through Blue Cross & Blue Shield for $99.00 every OTHER month.

The ONLY thing that I can surmise from this healthcare bill, is that some people are going to make oodles of money off of it by having their agendas met. I'm so glad that We the People can see through it and are standing up for it!

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 10:06 AM


army-wife, are you the same 'army-wife' from the Babyzone message boards? Just curious. I'm 'Rachelsmama' from the Trying To Conceive After Loss board. Not sure if we're allowed to ask that on here.

Posted by: Pamela at August 23, 2009 10:14 AM


As far as I know, every state has a program to help uninsured/underinsured women under a certain income bracket. When I was in nursing school, we qualified and I had excellent prenatal care and l&d for the child born at that time... and when we got on our feet afterwards, it transitioned first into a secondary insurance (that covered the deductibles and co-pays not covered by my new insurance) until we were stable. It was handled beautifully, everyone was really great, and they were genuinely excited with every move up the "ladder" that we made towards complete self-sufficiency.

One of the reasons I hate ObamaCare is that I don't want anything to interfere with Arizona's current system. It WORKS. I work in an inner-city county hospital and I work with the families who use it and it WORKS for families, for women, for children...

Posted by: Elisabeth at August 23, 2009 10:58 AM


I'm getting the impression that the very small minority of people without healthcare are those who CHOOSE not to have it, illegals and people who would much rather have nice cars and a nice home than purchase their own healthcare insurance.

Marie, unfortunately that's not true. Mr. Alexandra paid for insurance, about $500 monthly, for nearly 10 years, but when he had to actually use it (for a tumor on his spine) his company wasn't too happy. (It was Oxford, which is a pretty good company.) As soon as he got a clean bill of health, they terminated their relationship with him, which meant he had to find another insurance plan. If anyone knows of any insurance company willing to extend coverage to a man who's just gone through a year of medical treatment, let me know. He found himself without insurance not because he couldn't afford it, but because the insurance he had paid for to rely on in times of need dropped him by the side of the road after he actually needed it, and then it was too late to sign on with another plan.

In NY State, three years ago when I looked into it, I made too much to qualify for Medicaid. I would have qualified had I been pregnant, but for normal medical coverage, no. I was NOT making a lot of money at all; not enough to afford the insurance options that were available to me.

I do not have a nice car. I do not have a nice home. I am not "an illegal." My partner does not have a nice car or a nice home, and he is not "an illegal." Neither of us chose not to have insurance.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 23, 2009 11:05 AM


Alexandra, you show a very big flaw in our insurance system.

If an individual does not have a group to buy with, options are limited. If your company offers bad or no benefits, you are spit out into a system that isn't great by any stretch of the imagination.

Often it means co-insurance instead of co-pays, high deductables, and low yearly limits. It also means you can be ridered out of full coverage, or dropped all together.

The republican house bill addresses this issue.

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 11:18 AM


Alexandra,

I see your point. But, if the reason Mr. Alexandra was terminated from his employment for the reason you said, isn't there some type of legal action you can take? If not, can't he get employment with a company that doesn't look at pre-existing conditions?

I know my employer has that type of plan. We recently had a new employee start that had a slough of health problems, along with his spouse, (he talked about this openly) and they were not denied enrollment.

Alexadra, could you afford the type of insurance that I have for my dependent? It's not through my employer, I got it on my own, and it's $99.00 every other month. That's 50 bucks a month. If not, could you pick up a very part-time job to pay for it?

I'm just one of those people, i guess, that doesn't give up too easily and accept my situation the way it is. I'm a firm believer in "where there's a will, there's a way". However, I'm not saying our health care system isn't flawed, and I know that there will always be an exception (or several) in my scenarios.

I'm very happy for both of you that Mr. Alexandra got a clean bill of health!

I just can't see why we have to overhaul the healthcare for the entire nation when we could just address the problem areas instead. Why can't we take baby steps in healthcare reform instead of overhauling the entire system hoping that it will work. And if it doesn't, Pandora's box will be very hard, if not impossible, to close.

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 11:32 AM


Lauren, I know, this is one of the biggest flaws with our current system. I'm not using it as an example in favor of single-payer insurance or anything -- just refuting Marie's point that the only people who don't have insurance are those who don't WANT insurance.

I think that the only way you can have for-profit companies running healthcare is if you make it so that the way in which they profit is regulated. Otherwise they profit by taking someone's money for a decade, denying him half the treatment he needs when he needs it, and refusing to cover him anymore now that he's "a risk." We are constantly reminded that corporations are not charities, and yet for some reason we have been sold for so long on the idea that insurance corporations are charitable enough to be ethical in the manner in which they profit. Bull.

Marie --

I see your point. But, if the reason Mr. Alexandra was terminated from his employment for the reason you said, isn't there some type of legal action you can take? If not, can't he get employment with a company that doesn't look at pre-existing conditions?

No, there is no legal action. Companies are apparently allowed to terminate coverage based on a change in risk factors -- I think they are required to see the risky illness through its duration, hence why Mr. Alexandra's company stuck by him until he was healthy. Oddly, if he'd never recovered, he might still have that insurance.

He was VERY lucky and was able to find a job with employer-offered insurance. In our industry, such a thing is highly unusual. It was serendipitous; just as his insurance was on its last days, a teacher who was filling of a dozen city-wide positions that are relevant to his industry quit her job, and for some reason the school approached him about becoming a teacher. These circumstances were really highly unusual; if this was to happen to any of our similarly-self-employed friends, they would probably not have the same opportunity. I don't know too many people in many industries, 35 and under, who have job-provided insurance. Job competition is extremely fierce in NYC, and insurance is becoming more and more rare.

In addition, it would be extremely preferable to still have him buying his own insurance, even if it had doubled to $1000/month in cost. He makes significantly less money now, works double the hours, and doesn't really enjoy his job. Plus we have the added expense and time constraint of working towards his master's, which he needs to be doing if he is to be allowed to teach. These circumstances have been much more of a burden to us than higher monthly bills would have been, had there been an option to pay higher bills. He used to volunteer -- no time for that. We used to set aside money, donate money, spend money at the dentist. No money for that (we both get annual dental visits as birthday gifts from our parents).

I would absolutely 100% afford the insurance you have for your dependent. I searched high and low, visited many low-income aid centers, etc, but the lowest I was able to find was several hundred dollars higher than what you pay. I am not living in poverty, but I do live carefully. I work more than one job at a time already -- usually two, occasionally more.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 23, 2009 11:51 AM


I have a friend who lives in NY who was talking about having several independent non profits provide insurance.

I'm not familiar enough with the implications of non-profits to really comment on this, but I thought some of you might have more knowledge on the issue.

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 12:15 PM


Alexandra,

I'm glad that Mr. Alexandra was able to fall into such a great position with health insurance! My mother was a school teacher, and yes, HAVING to get a Masters degree was definitely a problem! They ended up freezing her salary for the last 5 or 6 years, then she retired. She was too old and too close to retirement to spend the money/time to get the masters for the higher pay. It's a good thing you guys are young!

I went through Blue Cross Blue Shield. I think it's available in New York, but I'm not sure if the same plans are in NY as they are in IL. However, what I did, was opt for the plan that was for hospitlization only. I pay 100% for Dr.'s office visits and 100% for prescriptions. I'm really blessed that my dependent doesn't have to go in much!

Anyway, I chose a high deductible as well, to keep my costs low. Recently, my dependent tore the ACL. We went to the ER and I paid the $125.00 copay. (actually, PAYING the $125.00 on a payment plan with the hospital!) BC/BS would also cover the specialist for aftercare, and the surgery if needed as well. For all of the other bills that incurred, I went on a payment plan, and pay them what I can. I'm not made of money either, and I really have to watch where every penny goes. It may not be the palace of plans out there, but my dependent is covered for the things I can never afford.

I don't know your age or marital status or parental status, but I know a recent bill was passed that allowed dependent coverage (by parents plan) to cover their unmarried children until the age of 29 in New York. No restrictions on income!

By the way, that's an excellent idea for a B-day gift! I wish my parents would do that for me :)

just an idea....

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 12:22 PM


We do have BCBS here but that option was not available to me. I'm very healthy in general, have rarely been sick in my life, but had some less-than-common health struggles in the past -- lost a full scholarship to a great college because of extended medical leave, actually. I was hospitalized, and while it was a brief hospitalization, it has "tainted" my health history, in the eyes of many insurance companies.

I did hear about parents being able to cover their grown children -- that would definitely be something I'd look into. Fortunately NY has domestic-partner coverage, since same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. A quick trip to City Hall cleared my insurance up -- or would have, if the insurance company wasn't a total piece of crap. For some reason it's contesting the date of application and making me wait for the open enrollment period, so I won't have coverage for some months still.

Here's to hoping.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 23, 2009 12:30 PM


Alexandra,

It's probably the same if you were to look into your parents insurance. I know on my employer,s plan, one does have to wait until open enrollment to add that dependent, but maybe with the new law going into effect one can add the dependent without having to wait for open enrollment.

Anyway, here's a part of the article i just googled for you :)

"The new law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, will allow parents to keep an unmarried child who doesn't have health insurance on their policy. The child does not have to be financially dependent on the parents or live at home."

Go New York! I know in Illinois the age is lower...not by much, but I like New York's better! I remember that vets can be covered until they are 30. I think that's in the Senate bill that was passed. Also, COBRA went to 18 months here, and 36 in New York. Not sure about New York, but in Illinois, the former employee only pays 35% of the employers cost. That's a good law, too! You just can't quit your job or get fired for doing something really stupid!

Have a great day! Here's looking at the light at the end of the tunnel!!!

:)

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 12:42 PM


Sharon said:

"Civility not YOUR strongest suit? Time and again you resort to crude insults. That's what happens when your only weapon is to silence you opponents."

Then in the same comment, Sharon said:

"After all, I talking to people who are looking for Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. Not the brightest people on the planet. But maybe someone will see through the manufactured hysteria. Will understand that the real goal has nothing to do with babies and every thing in the world to do with greed."

So, based on your own logic, it is safe to assume that you are resulting to crude insults because your only weapon is to silence your opponents. Neat.

Posted by: Janette at August 23, 2009 12:44 PM


Alexandra,

Sorry...one more idea:

You can always pick up some good 'ol catastrophic insurance during the lapse of coverage between now and open enrollment. I remember having to do that once due to the 90-day waiting period. I think I paid $150.00 for the 6-month insurance plan. In case something HUGE came up that I know I'd never be able to afford, the $150.00 was definitely worth it!

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 12:46 PM


Alexandra, since you mentioned domestic partnership, I assume you aren't married. I believe that most insurance plans consider marriage a qualifying event that allows one to add to his insurance plan. I assume you have other reasons to or not to marry, and insurance isn't exactly romantic, but it might be an option.

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 12:51 PM


Ha, could I say "I assume" any more?

Posted by: Lauren at August 23, 2009 1:01 PM


Lauren, I think that with marriage, it would be the same as with domestic partnership -- domestic partnership is considered a qualifying event. I'm currently in a paperwork war with the company but we're not far off from open enrollment so it's looking like I'm just going to have to enroll under that, instead. Major headache.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 23, 2009 1:03 PM


Sharon,
This is not my blog. It is Jill's.
Email Jill Stanek.

I AM NOT THE NURSE THAT TOOK CARE OF TERRI SCHIAVO!
You are misrepresenting me on your blog. Remove my picture. I have a right to pursue legal action. Remove my picture from your blog.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 1:33 PM


Sharon,

Sadly, you lack wisdom in your cause. Sadly, with your posting of misinformation, you look foolish.

As I have warned in my comments left on your blog (which you refuse to post), you need to remove my wife's picture from your blog and remove all references to her and the nurse named Carla in the Schiavo case.

Please understand your risk. I am asking you respectfully to remove her picture.
Carla's huband

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 1:43 PM


Carla can you post the url of Sharon's blog? You can email me if you like. I'd like to check it out.

to Sharon: what on earth could be your purpose to do this to Carla except to harass her?
In the end it will only make you look stupid since the information you've posted on your blog is misleading and simply wrong. What's more is that you KNOW it to be wrong.

Posted by: angel at August 23, 2009 1:51 PM


This is Sharon's blog.

http://mselaineyus.blogspot.com

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 2:01 PM


From Sharon's web site:

"Yesterday I got involved in the hornets nest that is
The radical right to life movement. When they failed to counter my words with threats or condemnations – they blocked my comments. So here it is -......... "

OK, that makes no sense at all. Apparently she wanted a fight and we wouldn't give her one. (I didn't read the rest of her post, why bother?)

Carla, I'd do a screen capture before she takes it down if you haven't already. No one should use your picture without your permission.

Posted by: Janet at August 23, 2009 2:16 PM


From Sharon's web site:

"Yesterday I got involved in the hornets nest that is
The radical right to life movement. When they failed to counter my words with threats or condemnations – they blocked my comments. So here it is -......... "

OK, that makes no sense at all. Apparently she wanted a fight and we wouldn't give her one. (I didn't read the rest of her post, why bother?)

Carla, I'd do a screen capture before she takes it down if you haven't already. No one should use your picture without your permission.

Posted by: Janet at August 23, 2009 2:16 PM

Posted by: Janet at August 23, 2009 2:18 PM


See, it's funny, because she thinks she's getting involved with the radical right...and she found some christians, moderates, liberals, a couple atheists, and the like.

BOY, ISN'T HER FACE RED?

Other than posting a pic of Carla with a fake story, which is beyond infuriating, I think she's kinda just a gullible left-leaning feminist who doesn't know who to scream at anymore. I feel kinda bad for her, really.

Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 2:25 PM


This is a comment in response to Sharon's latest one. Sharon, who seems to have bought radical feminism from a catalog and found what actually arrived at her doorstep to be quite different from the picture. To make herself feel better about it, she then bought a pack of lies about the pro-life movement and other people closer to the other side of the spectrum. She reasoned that even though her side espoused some things that weren't exactly savory, at least she wasn't like us, because we were downright disgusting. That's not it at all, sharon.

But I digress:

Ya got me. Civility actually isn't my strong suit at all. I'd rather be truthful than civil.

How exactly am I trying to silence you? I'm not going to your house to gag you, I can't have the mods take down your comments, I haven't asked Jill to ban you. You're just as free to talk as I am. If you don't like what I am saying, you are free to speak up about it, as you have been doing.

"...you cut and paste to suit your needs." Yeah, I know. I shouldn't waste all that time looking up FACTS and stuff. It just muddies the water of debate, right? But silly old-fashioned me thinks-for some reason-that facts and truth are kind of important when dealing with literally matters of life and death.

I'm sorry, should I only listen to the representatives YOU think are telling the truth? The ones who just don't talk about abortion at all, or dance around the issue without any real answer? The ones who are better at being disingenuous to their constituents? Does denying the facts and cherry-picking the information you want to hear work very well for you in other areas of your life?

The FACT is that Rep. Lofgren is a democratic congressperson. The FACT is that the democrats are pretty much single-handedly drafting this bill. The FACT is that the democrats have enough votes to have the ultimate authority over what does or does not go into it. The FACT is that a democratic congressperson stated outrightly herself that abortion would be covered, and abortion should be covered. No, lady, I will not ignore facts to suit your worldview.

There is no final bill, but there are amendments being voted on and added. And if you will actually READ FedUp's post, one of those amendments expressly provides for abortion coverage. The Hyde amendment doesn't allow MEDICAID FUNDS to be used for abortion-THIS BILL IS NOT MEDICAID! Are you intentionally trying to be misleading? Do you feel you need this bill, so you are rationalizing it to yourself as you rationalize it to us? It's not working, nor will it work. It might work for you, but not us.

Pregnant women are covered with Medicaid. I've been poor and pregnant. I've gotten great coverage with Medicaid. Try again.

I don't give a flying flip about health insurance companies or their profits. Personally, I think everything should be done through non-profit companies and the current companies should be restructured. I've worked for a non-profit before, and it was glorious.

I support healthcare reform. I DO NOT support socialized medicine and taxpayer-funded abortions in the guise of healthcare reform.

Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 2:32 PM


X: I don't think WE understand. Christians are now terrorists. Did you check out the link she has on this page?
The "crooks and liars" site "Sharon" linked to has comments on it proposing that violence be done to Christians and comparing them to the Muslim extremists who committed 9/11.

I think Sharon is a deeply disturbed woman. I think absolutely NO ONE, let alone a young 15 year old, would share the details of a rape to a complete stranger in the manner that Sharon has related. I doubt the veracity of the other dramas as well.
As has been shown time and again by researchers of various positions, almost all abortions are done for convenience and for selfish reasons. Few are done for rape or for health reasons.

I also wonder about the "blog". It is one page with no prior posts. This is a set-up by a proabort.

Posted by: angel at August 23, 2009 2:38 PM


"I also wonder about the "blog". It is one page with no prior posts. This is a set-up by a proabort."

Posted by: angel at August 23, 2009 2:38 PM

I noticed that too.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
:)

Posted by: Janet at August 23, 2009 2:53 PM


I hope you guys have your virus protection updated and ON!

Posted by: Marie at August 23, 2009 2:57 PM


sharon: "No Doyle, I'm not stupid either. You wear a lot of hats don't you? Does United Health figure in there?"

We're all used to your semi-lucid ramblings, sharon... but what in blazes are you hissing about now? Are you just taking shots in the dark, or what?

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 23, 2009 4:57 PM


When I was active in the rescue movement in the late 80's I met a lady, a believer who was wanted to participate. So we allowed her to join us.

A few days later a common friend came to me and relayed a letter from her/his pastor asking that we not include this lady in our activities.

It turned out she was a very emotionally wounded soul who sufferred from multi-personality disorder and some other associated issues. She is a believer like the rest of us who is in the process of be healed and restored.

Sharon reminds me of this lady, not the MPD part, but the woundedness.

Radical feminism has not contributed to her healing. In fact the bitterness of the propaganda has only re-inforced her distorted view of herself and others.

From my experience person in that condition is closer to being touched by God than someone who has not sufferred the life wounds that Sharon has.

My advice would be to allow her to post, as long as it is within the guidelines and then not respond. Just let her vent, she needs to relieve the emotional pressure built up over a lifetime.

Right now she is 'muddied spring', when things in her life then she will be able to enter into a meaningful dialog.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at August 23, 2009 5:55 PM


Carla, I pray that "Sharon's" harrassment and slander of you will stop. If she refuses to cease misidentiying you, I hope you can get a quick resolution to this. As I noted in my earlier post about her in a different article, I questioned her truthfulness about visiting an abortion mill and meeting so many different women who were all "hard cases" at the same time. She is either a pro-abort trouble-maker on the prowl who is here to distract from the purpose of this website or a disturbed person that needs help. I think kbhvac's suggestion to ignore is a good one at this time.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 23, 2009 6:30 PM


Profiler L:
As I stated in a post that was dropped - in the story I explain that there were 13 women that day. I told you the story of three of them. The three that I never forgot. There were other women there that would make great targets for your group hate attacks.
As for Carla, I mistook her for someone else and corrected it. I will remove her picture when she removes the picture of the young woman you've tied to you whipping post.I am asking you respectfully to remove her picture.

Posted by: sharon at August 23, 2009 6:51 PM


I like the Obama Joker. I believe it illustrates BO's true nature, an evil man promoting the genocide of the most innocent among us.

The MSM continues to worship and fawn over him as some type of god. This PR campaign is a big lie. Anyone that champions genocide deserves jail time, not hero worship. I believe the "Joker" imagery helps to counter this type of propaganda.

I don't believe nice, polite dialogue has gotten the ProLife Movement anywhere in the past 36 years. We need to speak boldly and plainly.

Abortion is genocide. It is evil. It is wrong. It is a morally heinous act. The fact that it is legal in our country shows just how corrupt our nation has become.

BO voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the ban on partial birth abortions. He is in favor of some fourth rate "doctor" delivering the feet, legs, hands, arms and torso of a perfectly viable little baby, and pucturing the little child's skull and sucking his/her little brains out. (I'm sorry for the graphic description but sometimes we need to be reminded of what we're fighting against and who we're fighting for.)

BO is an evil man. The world needs to see him depicted that way.

Posted by: Ed at August 23, 2009 7:55 PM


Pamela, I don't recall being even registered on BabyZone but I may have been many, many moons ago (If I registered, it was years ago)... if the person that you're talking about is someone who is CURRENTLY active on that site then no, I'm definitely not her. Sorry! :-)

Posted by: army_wife at August 23, 2009 7:56 PM


Sharon...you state you are 50 something, in a wheelchair with oxygen tubes. Aren't you at all afraid that a president who has no compassion for a little helpless baby is going to look at you, calculate how much you are costing the system and assemble a death panel to pressure you into euthanasia? Afterall, according to the very men who Obama has claimed shaped his views, saving the life of one teenage is equal to saving the lives of 14 85 year olds. sheesh! I myself am 29 and I know middle age is coming fast. Its scary to me to think that my life will be reduced to no value. God forbid I develop any kind of medical problems...I myself may face euthanasia one day. And I do believe that day is coming. Respect for human life has already been greatly eroded. We have allowed the government to control us from cradle to grave. And our government answers to no one, not us and certainly not our Creator!

Posted by: Sydney M at August 23, 2009 8:04 PM


Ed, you might have a good point. You don't think the painted white face is too much? I am not worrying about placating the pro-aborts just want to not offend the A.A. pro-life fighters like Dr. Alveda King. I have heard her speak a couple of times and she is AWESOME, especially when she shares what Daddy King said to her when she told him she was about to abort one of his grandbabies "That's no blob of tissue, that's a baby, we don't kill our babies in this family." (slight paraphrase).

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 23, 2009 9:00 PM


One more time, Sharon. This is not my blog. It is Jill Stanek's blog. She puts up pictures of whomever she wants to and writes about whatever she wants to.

Address your concerns about that post to Jill Stanek.

Take my picture off your blog.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 10:03 PM


Sharon,
Thank you for realizing I am not the Carla who cared for Terri Schiavo. We are making some progress.

Take my picture off your blog.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 23, 2009 10:06 PM


Yes, I think ignoring Sharon might be the best thing for her, since she's doing it to me anyway. Ta-ta, sharon my dear. :)

Posted by: xalisae at August 23, 2009 10:09 PM


Hey Prolifer L,

I believe the Joker character from Batman is race-neutral. Both Cesar Romero and Heath Ledger painted their faces white which were white to begin with. I suppose that someone could try black make-up as a base for an Obama Joker character but someone could probably consider that racist too. The point is that Heath's make-up in particular is very effective in making him look especially sinister, which I consider to be an accurate portrayal of BO.

An army is made up of all kinds of forces performing various functions and equipped with suitable weapons to accomplish specific objectives. I wouldn't expect this poster to be posted at a crisis pregnancy center, adoption agency or ministry to post-abortive moms.

But the Church of Jesus Christ in America has fallen asleep and has allowed this War against the Unborn to continue unabated for 36 years. Sure we've passed some laws that have had some incremental benefit but as you know the slaughter continues, day after day, by the multiplied thousands.

We are called to be God's Army, His soldiers for Righteousness, Truth and Justice. It is our responsibility to defend the weak, the vulnerable, the unborn. We need to remember who elected the most hostile, violent enemy of the Unborn in the history of American politics to the Highest Office of our Land - THE SO-CALLED "CHURCH".

What is it going take to shake the stupified Church from her apathy, her malaise, her lethargy, her lukewarmness? Just like the images from war-torn Viet Nam turned public opinion against that conflict, we need bold provocative imagery to turn the tide of public opinion against the satan-inspired genocide of our children.

So how should this imagery be used? Where should it be distributed? I'd like to see it inserted into every church bulletin in the country. I'd like to see it featured on Fox, The O'Reilly Factor. I'd like to see it featured on the daily ProLife show on TBN (wait a minute, does TBN have a daily Prolife show?) Well God bless the Catholics! I'm quite sure they have at least a weekly ProLife show on their channel.

I'd like to see it on billboards. The imagery obviously isn't suitable for children. So while parents are explaining to their children that there are bad people in the world and that they shouldn't go with strangers, they can also explain that some bad people are even mean to little babies.

Then we can only hope that the little child asks their Mom or Dad, "Are you doing anything to protect the little babies?"

We need to inspire more children like 12 year old Lia from Ontario, who's reached hundreds of thousands with her ProLife message.

The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is called to boldly confront her generation with the Truth of God's Word.

Thou shall not kill.

May the genocidal atrocity that abortion is be fully exposed to the conscience of the American public. The killing stops now.

Posted by: Ed at August 23, 2009 10:51 PM


Ed, I do see your point and am also think that the church of Jesus Christ has not done as much as it should to stop the killing of unborn innocent babies. No more sitting in the pews, I agree we need innovative, call-to-action, rally the troops stategies spear-headed by the church but encouraging non-believers who believe in the right to life to join us (like some of the bloggers here). I am very active in organizations, CPCs, working with youth, giving presentations and recruiting young adults to join the fight. Would love to hear your and others ideas on this topic.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 24, 2009 11:24 AM


Hey L,

Sounds like you're doing a lot of work for the cause in your neck of the woods.

I've got three mills within 2 miles of my home killing 4,000-5,000 children per year "serving" (more like preying on) the eastern half of Detroit and some of the adjacent suburbs. We've got a great core of committed Catholic intercessors and sidewalk counselors affiliated with Helpers of God's Precious Infants at the two larger mills. Based on the number of turnaways, we estimate we've saved 10-15% of the babies who were potential victims of abortion.

Apparently, someone tried to conduct a 40 Days for Life campaign at these mills last spring but was unable to generate enough interest in the local churches to support the effort. I'm trying to contact that person to try to work together if not this fall, in the spring.

There were numerous churches in my area with little white crosses planted in their lawns last Holy Week symbolizing the plight of the unborn. Yet recruiting sidewalk counselors and intecessors has been difficult.

I'm a single parent and recently assumed ownership of a small business so I haven't been able to commit as much time to it as I would like to. I sense God stirring hearts though and I believe we will be increasing the effectiveness of our seiges significantly by next spring.

When the time is right, I may try to contact you offline to compare presentation notes.

Thanks for all you are doing. :)

Posted by: Ed at August 24, 2009 5:47 PM


Sydney M,
Since my diagnosis, I wanted to make a plan to avoid burdening my kids with end of life decisions in the midst of fear and grief. When I was offered the opportunity to do a "Living will" I jumped at the chance. However, as much as I thought I was ready, I still had lots of unanswered questions. I had to consult my religious advisor and my doctor before I could finish. It is more complicated that most people realize. Do you wish to be resuscitated? Intubated? Do you want to be put on life support? If on life support do you wish to be fed?

If you don't plan ahead, the medical professionals are forced to use all available methods to keep you alive. Even if that means you are no more alive than a clock radio.

That was my greatest fear, that some hot shot EMT would feel obligated to keep me alive at all costs. I would be in some kind of purgatory on life support when there was no chance of survival and my soul would be trapped and I would be prevented from going home to God. I think our technology has advanced ahead of our medical ethics.

I am also very much against transplants and I wanted to make sure that no one got the urge at the last minute to give me someone else's heart. It is not for me. Other's may make another choice but for me it would be wrong.

So, I consulted, thought it over, talked with family and friends and finally put it on paper and got it notarized. I am ashamed to admit that getting it notarized was difficult for me. I was glad that the visiting nurses helped with that.

So I guess, you can say I've seen the so called "death panel" and they've seen me. The "living will" is seven years old. Still tacked to the front door. I still get all the services I need and no one has pulled this granny's plug.

Carla,
You are in the same position as Red Queen. If she asks me to take your picture down I will. If you ask Jill - will she do the same? I have done nothing that Jill hasn't done over and over and over and over. Only no one I've pictured has been murdered as a result.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 6:47 PM


About the blog:
It's an old blog that I haven't used for a long time. I've been busy working on some stories to honor some of the incredible women in my life (theanorexicscookbook at wordpress) Now, I'm going to use the blog for women's health issues and insurance reform.

You see, my daughter got pregnant when she was only 18. She didn't have insurance and her boyfriend was working at a low wage joy. They were just kids. She didn't go to the doctor for a long time and had a very complicated pregnancy. She developed preeclampsia and I nearly lost her. As she went into surgery for an emergency C-section, she told me "Mom, keep the plane in the air for me." I'm terrified of flying and white knuckled holding on the arm of the seat till the plane lands. My daughter once said it looked like I was holding the plane up. The image stuck. Whenever I was worried she'd say, "Hey, Mom, you holding the plane up?" I held the plane up and Thank God she is healthy and I have one fabulous grandchild. She would not survive a second pregnancy.

I don't want young women to die giving birth. I don't want them to choose abortion just because they can't afford the medical bills.

I think being Pro-life (and in spite of your condemnations I am) means being pro Universal health care. It should be a right not a luxury for the very rich.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 7:18 PM


Sharon,

Your daughter waited too long to apply for medical insurance. When I was pregnant with my first, I had medicaid by the time I was 12 weeks along. It would have been sooner had we realized we were pregnant earlier.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 7:40 PM


If you marry the father, you can't get medicaid. AT 19 all he could get was an manual labor job. He barley made minimum wage. Even though they were dirt poor - they made too much money to be eligible for medicaid.

Most of the uninsured are working poor and usually women. What would happen to those women if they didn't have to worry about medical care during a difficult pregnancy?

I worked for 40 years and rarley had insurance. I lived in fear of the day one of my kids got sick.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 8:15 PM


I call bull-hockey on that one. If he was "barely making minimum wage", with her pregnant, they would've been eligible.

My fiance and I were hard up when I was pregnant with my first, and he made a pretty good bit above minimum wage, and we were eligible.

Posted by: xalisae at August 24, 2009 8:19 PM


If you marry the father, you can't get medicaid? Funny, I was married to the father. Either you're confused or that was a pretty bad typo.

Regardless, I'm right there with X. If he was barely making minimum wage, there should have been no problem.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 8:26 PM


Bull hockey? Yipes.
Medicaid is a state program. Each state sets the qualifications. Don't get sick in Nevada, they'll send you to California. Or at least they did. Now Ca is broke. Maybe they're sending them to AZ? In the olden days, they just sent them to the Mustang ranch.

Seriously though:

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 28 million people were uninsured for all of 2005 and 2006 and that 18.5 million of them were uninsured for at least four straight years. That does not sound like a “temporary” problem, and the picture today is almost certainly bleaker.

Various analyses have tried to decipher just who the uninsured are. These are the main conclusions, with the caveat that there is overlap in these numbers:

THE WORKING POOR The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that about two-thirds of the uninsured — 30 million people — earn less than twice the poverty level, or about $44,000 for a family of four. It also estimates that more than 80 percent of the uninsured come from families with full-time or part-time workers. They often cannot get coverage at work or find it too expensive to buy. They surely deserve a helping hand.

THE BETTER OFF About nine million uninsured people, according to census data, come from households with incomes of $75,000 or more. Critics say that is plenty of money for them to buy their own insurance. But many of these people live in “households” that are groups of low-wage roommates or extended families living together. Their combined incomes may reach $75,000, but they cannot pool their resources to buy an insurance policy to cover the whole group.

Still, about 4.7 million uninsured people live in families that earn four times the poverty level — or $88,000 for a family of four — the dividing line that many experts use to define who can afford to buy their own insurance.
(cut and paste from NYT)

And then again about insurance and abortions:

Simple. Anyone who needs financial help to buy health insurance would not be able to buy policies that include abortion coverage.
I think the law as it stands means that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortion. That would include a subsidy for health insurance.

There is a way to get prenatal coverage for poor working women and not fund elective aborions. But you gotta tell the truth and quit with the joker fetus emails.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 8:28 PM


Sharon,

The law refers to medicaid, but the health reform plan isn't medicaid.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 8:32 PM


Huh? You are lost in the Forrest and looking for trees. Yippes.

They were both working at low wage jobs when she got pregnant. She kept working long past time when she should have. Didn't realize that standing on her feet eight hours a day as a sales girl was not healthy. Didn't get the regular check ups. The two incomes together made her ineligible. She didn't want to go on Medicaid. Hated the idea of being a welfare mom -wanted to be responsible. She was young and foolish. And I nearly lost her.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 8:32 PM


The Hyde Amendment is Federal.
Gimme a break here. I just want to get health insurance for young women. I want healty pregnancies and healty babies.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 8:37 PM


Was she ineligible or didn't she want to be on Medicaid? Which was it? Besides which, not getting health insurance is far less responsible than going on Medicaid.

Also, it's forest not forrest. Unless you're talking about Tom Hanks.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 8:40 PM


Sharon,

We want healthy pregnancies and women and babies as well.

What we don't want is to see those healthy babies and pregnancies terminated with taxpayer money.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 8:42 PM


Mary Rose -
I won't waste energy on someone who willfully misunderstands. Forrest. Forest. What ever.


Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 9:02 PM


I was married and on Medicaid AND working AND making above minimum wage when I was in nursing school. We still qualified. I call BS on that claim. When I graduated from nursing school we quickly moved off of the system after a period of stabilization where Medicaid was our secondary insurance covering only co-pays and deductibles not covered by my primary insurance.

Posted by: Elisabeth at August 24, 2009 9:18 PM


Willfully misunderstands? I'm just trying to cut through the bull. You say in one comment first that your daughter couldn't get medicaid and then that she wouldn't. Which was it? Seems like a fair question to me.

You don't want to waste your time on me, fine. Quite frankly, you were never going to convince me that your daughter couldn't get medicaid despite being broke, because I've been there. You're talking to too many women who've been there to think that you can give half truths. Either your daughter isn't being 100% honest with you, or you're not being 100% honest with us.

As for the forest/forrest bit, that wasn't misunderstanding. I knew what you were saying. It was a correction followed by a joke. Which, quite frankly, I meant to cut tension, but it clearly just hit on a nerve. I apologize for offending and admit my own Grammar Nazi status.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 9:25 PM


1) daughter gets pregnant.
2) boyfriend gets low pay job as laborer
3) daughter gets low pay job as sales girl
4) they make too much money to qualify for medicaid.
5) i tell daughter to quit job. she's on her feet 8 hours and if she quits she will qualify for medicaid.
6) she doesn't quit till she ends up in the ER.
7) THEN she get medicaid.

NOW I don't know what state you live in - but I raised two kids on a single salary and I was never eligible for medicaid. I also constantly stayed ten bucks ahead of the earned income credit.

I tried searching for a list of the medicaid qualifications - state by state. And it changes every year.

But that was never the point. Like most dis-tractors - you want to nit pick.

The point is - they both worked and didn't have health insurance or medicaid. Believe me or not.

Are you pushing that bull-hockey about the "death panels" and calling me a liar? Wow.

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 9:50 PM


Me: Talking about the health of pregnant women -especially the working poor who make too much for medicaid and have no health insurance at work. Hoping to find health insurance reform that will cover her without funding elective abortions. My daughter's high risk pregnancy motivates my concern.


MaryRose: interrogating me about the medicaid requirements 15 years ago when my daughter was pregnant.

Is it the unborn you care about or being right? If you had to choose between being right and saving a child - which would it be?

Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 10:03 PM


Sharon,

Did I say anything about the "death panels"? Actually, I haven't addressed the euthanasia aspects of the health care plan at all, as in ever, except in conversations with my husband. Blast me all you want (calling me a detractor, assuming how I feel about certain issues), but I have addressed ONLY what you brought up.

I said either you or your daughter isn't telling the whole truth. Something is missing here.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 10:07 PM


Oh, yes, Sharon, that's an accurate picture of the conversation. I have been victimizing you all along.

I'm just saying, medical insurance for pregnant women is VERY MUCH available. If it wasn't as available 15 years ago, perhaps I owe you and your daughter an apology. But nowadays, if you're pregnant, it's getting difficult NOT to qualify. In fact, some states automatically approve the medicaid applications for all pregnant women regardless of income.

But you didn't clarify that this was 15 YEARS AGO. I absolutely think pregnant women who can't afford insurance should be covered. Absolutely! I don't believe that Obamacare is the way to go about it, particularly because many of those who endorse said bill would rather see the pregnancy terminated than followed through.

And at this point, even IF abortions WEREN'T covered, you're going to get a more pro-choice lean on the OBs you get through Obamacare. That, in and of itself, is enough for me to dislike it.

Sharon, I haven't been victimizing you. I've been saying part of this story is missing. And here, you seem to be revealing it. The story is 15 years outdated. I'm sorry for your daughter that she experienced what she did. She really ought to have gotten herself insured asap regardless of how she had to do it. I highly doubt she would find herself having as much trouble anymore.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 10:49 PM


"I think being Pro-life (and in spite of your condemnations I am) means being pro Universal health care." -Posted by: sharon at August 24, 2009 7:18 PM

Now, you posted this in the same conversation about your blog, so I know for certain that there is no confusion over which sharon is which.

Which is why I wonder why a pro-life woman would also write, "What if I took that name of someone on your blog, and made them a target? I can post there name, investigate them, post a photo, incite people to fill there hearts with hatred and send them hate mail. What if some crazy person decided to do them harm? Am I to blame? At least take down the picture. Your need to target others says more about you than your pro-forced childbirth stance." as per aforementioned blog.


Oooohhhhh... Wait.

Oh, Sharon, I'm sorry for what you've been through, and I'm more sorry that you've not been able to find healing. I hope that Christ might work in your heart.


Anyone reading this, I would encourage you to read the post from 8-19-09 entitled "Hairy Armpits to the Feminist Razor"... suddenly, Sharon's mind is unveiling itself much more clearly. Just add the http://

mselaineyus.blogspot.com/2009/08/hairy-armpits-feminist-razor-my-dear.html

Posted by: MaryRose at August 24, 2009 11:24 PM


I did read that a few days ago, Mary, and that's why I mentioned what I did in a previous post about Sharon's feminism, and the fact she seem to be having trouble reconciling their anti-life rhetoric with her attempt at pro-life philosophy.

I think she's a very confused individual. I think that she is taking out her anger at the feminist movement for pitting mothers against their children on us. I don't know why. I rather pity her.

Posted by: xalisae at August 25, 2009 12:11 AM


X,

Yes, your posts make more sense now, too. I'd missed it until now. I feel a bit foolish, really, for wasting my time. Oh, well.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 25, 2009 12:49 AM


Oh ladies, it's a piece about the women's movement. It's an essay, based on my own experience many years ago and the status of women today. Oh sheesh. Never mind. I am fishing in a dry lake.

I never understand deliberate cruelty or deliberate ignorance. Why such hatred? Why so quick to judge me as somehow unworthy?

Each time I read these posts, I can't help but see all of you in a circle stoning some woman for not being "holy" enough. And then Jesus comes and because he knows your hearts, knows your secrets and your sins, tells you that the sinless one can cast the first stone.

My way is not to kill doctors or to damn women. But to find a way to make abortion obsolete.
I guess I understand why you don't want that. You need abortion. Without it you have no stones.

I'm leaving now. I pray that whatever awful hurt has caused you to close your heart like a fist - will ease with time - and you find forgiveness and peace. And yes, I pray the same thing for myself as well.

Posted by: sharon at August 25, 2009 2:33 AM


Yes, Sharon, we read it. And, our comments reflect the gist of what we derived from it. Do you think you're the only woman who is aghast and dismayed at what the word "feminism" has by and large come to stand for and to mean?

Where is this cruelty you're talking about? (I'll not mention the "ignorance", for I fear that was merely your attempt at being insulting)

Who here has said, "Let us kill the doctors!!" and been met with cheers and applause, with guns loaded and strategies drawn up?! If you sincerely want to change the women's movement from one that seems to be so currently dependent on the ability to freely and legally kill unborn children, you sure do seem to believe and fall in line with the rest of their untrue rhetoric 9 times out of 10. You will never make progress until you break from the pack. They will only mock and deride you because you think you need them. All they have to offer you is hate, though. Hate of our babies. Hate of men. Hate of ourselves for our biology. I would rather be a feminist because I'm proud to be a woman, not because I want to try to be a man. I recognize that women wanting to play football is just as valid an endeavor for us as baking a cake, and I DON'T believe we must sacrifice our children to NARAL at the alter of egocentricity to accomplish such things. I nor anyone here thinks you are unworthy. As a matter of fact, I think you might be on the cusp of something great if only you could reconcile the conflict of philosophy going on within you right now. You don't seem to realize that their is a third path between "bbq'd fetus" and "forced childbirth under any circumstances", and that more often than not, we pro-lifers (and particularly we FEMALE pro-lifers) tread that middle ground. Of course the people towards the other side of that road speak more loudly-they feel more strongly about more aspects of abortion than those in the middle. But that doesn't change the bulk of our base. Women have been kicked out of NOW for being pro-life. I haven't been booted from the pro-life movement for being pro-contraception! You might feel more comfortable over here, where the lockstep is a little looser, dear.

I don't share your idea about "making abortion obsolete". Making something obsolete implies that it has been useful in the past. I don't believe that abortion is helpful, necessary, or useful. Sometimes, legal abortion kills one woman. Women still die of "safe, legal, and rare (almost 4,000 a day? Rare?)" abortion. Sometimes, legal abortion kills 2 women. Sometimes the women that are killed are pregnant with another female who dies with her. 50% of the time, legal abortion kills one woman. Statistically, about half the abortions preformed will kill a developing female. 100% of the time, legal abortion hurts a woman. They may not like to admit it, but you can see it.

You, like so many others I've seen, have been fed a line that people like us would oppose the termination of a pregnancy if a mother's life was at risk. It wasn't that way before Roe, and it certainly wouldn't be that way now. Why do you think they had people tracking abortion statistics for legal abortions pre-Roe vs. Wade? Dr. Bernard Nathanson admits that their side lied about women dying in illegal abortions. Why do you choose to believe things which have been admitted to be lies?

I hope you get over the things which make you feel victimized. That's no way to live. You are strong. You don't need bad influences in your life.

Posted by: xalisae at August 25, 2009 7:49 AM


As a note, I'm sure we can agree that we'd all want whatever can be done to prospectively save a baby's life WHILE ALSO ensuring the mother's well-being to be done, but wouldn't begrudge a mother her life if it became an unfortunate necessity.

Posted by: xalisae at August 25, 2009 8:23 AM


Sharon,
Please explain why my picture is still on your blog?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 25, 2009 8:41 AM


Sharon, I have a question for you:

What was different about the fetus within you when you were experiencing a pregnancy you were forced to terminate

from

the fetus which became your adult daughter which was within you when you carried to term?

Posted by: xalisae at August 25, 2009 10:52 AM


Carla,

I think she did already in a post up a bit.

She wants Jill to take down the picture of "Red Queen" from the "Pro-abort blog encourages pregnant mother to jump off abortion cliff" article in the August archives.

Jill,
We know Carla is stable, but we don't know so much about Sharon. So I'll ask...can you please take down the picutre of Red Queen so we can end this madness? Carla surely doesn't need the stress. And, it's already in archives.

pretty please?

Posted by: Marie at August 25, 2009 7:52 PM


Actually from what I have gathered Sharon wants ME to take down the Red Queen picture and has yet to communicate that to the author of this blog. Jill Stanek. I told Jill not to take it down. It's her blog.

No worries, Marie. I have some lawyer friends to talk to.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 25, 2009 9:18 PM


Carla,

wshew! I'll stop worrying about you then!

It's just that I think you are THE most sincere, caring, selfless and helpful person on this blog. (there are many, but you're "the most", in my opinion!) I just hate to see someone try to hurt a person who spends her life trying to undo the hurt in other's. Life just isn't fair.

I'm really sorry that Sharon is doing this to you, Carla. If she only knew....

Posted by: Marie at August 25, 2009 9:47 PM


It's just that I think you are THE most sincere, caring, selfless and helpful person on this blog. (there are many, but you're "the most", in my opinion!) I just hate to see someone try to hurt a person who spends her life trying to undo the hurt in other's. Life just isn't fair.

I'm really sorry that Sharon is doing this to you, Carla. If she only knew....
Posted by: Marie at August 25, 2009 9:47 PM

HERE, HERE!!!!

Marie, Carla's shared experience and her peace in Christ might actually set off Sharon's anger more. Perhaps this is precisely *why* she chose Carla's for this attack. She's hurt, and broken, and needs Christ's fulfillment. I pray for her (right before I pray for me!) now, as I realize that I may have not only wasted my own time, but done damage to the work He's done in her.

Actually, I'm quite curious to know if she's actually bothered to inform Red Queen that her image is in use... This seems to me to be far deeper-seated than simple concern over the use of the young lady's image.

Posted by: MaryRose at August 26, 2009 1:12 AM


Thank you both!! :)
So not hurt, just annoyed. You want to use my picture, then ask my permission. Simple Simon. I heart manners.

On the other hand I am as feisty as can be and my righteous anger can get stirred up!! I have a lot of fight in me over abortion. Too many lost and lonely years and now I want to STAND and SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE!

I will go to Sharon's World now and again and say hello to my picture and move on.

I am so glad you are both here!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 26, 2009 6:59 AM


MaryRose,
I'll join you! And remember..you can't stop God's will! If He's been working in her, that work won't be damaged unless He allows it to be.

Carla,
I and countless others are glad you are here as well.

Both of you ladies, have a wonderful day & may God continue to bless each of you.

Posted by: Marie at August 26, 2009 7:56 AM


Praying for Sharon as well. God bless.

Posted by: Janet at August 26, 2009 10:51 AM


I will pray for Sharon as well. God bless you Carla and I am praying this situation will be resolved soon.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 26, 2009 1:12 PM


Praying for Sharon too. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 26, 2009 1:16 PM