Saturday, June 27, 2009

Lessons From The Iranians (Part II)

The Iranians are marching in the face of death over a meaningless election, and here in America, we do not even vote. In 2008, 57% of the voting age population turned out to vote for the president of the United States. When a presidential election is not involved, federal elections yield 37% of voters. It only gets worse as you get into local elections. So why do people not vote? Perhaps a sense that their vote does not matter or a lack of understanding or caring? I personally feel that we are accountable to God for our vote and for doing all that we can to keep our nation free. The next vote that I miss will be because I am dead. But it is more than just showing up for the vote. An ignorant vote cast is worse than not voting. I feel we are also accountable to God to cast educated votes; that we know the issue and the candidate and understand it completely when we cast our vote. Many Iranians are dying for a chance to have a vote that is counted. We must cast our vote that does count.

By not voting, voting ignorantly, or voting on purpose for socialism, our nation is on the path to losing our freedom. Our constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. Why are we voting for socialism? Because people are scared. Scared of the sour economy, scared of bad times ahead, scared of being responsible for themselves. And so our nation marches off into socialism, choosing to trade freedom for the mirage of security. However, this security will not happen. Socialism has never in the history of the world provided more than a temporary security or prosperity for a nation, and socialism will not give American citizens security or prosperity. It only has ruin to offer.

We have been told that the gospel will spread all over the world in the latter days. That the gospel will expand to countries we never thought possible. In my life, I have seen the gospel allowed in countries I never thought possible such as Russia and East Germany. President Bush brought some freedom to Iraq. With this, missionaries may one day be allowed in the Middle East. Who would have thought? President Bush enabled a little piece of freedom in the Middle East, and we must continue to support additional freedom. We must support freedom in any way we can for Iran. What if this is God’s plan? What if freedom comes to Iran, and one day missionaries are able to enter Iran? It is an exciting time, and I, for one, support this chance for political and possibly religious freedom for Iran.

President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints called on the members of the church to get involved in the political process; to write letters, make phone calls, vote, and do whatever each individual can to be involved in the political process. President Gordon B. Hinckley wanted each individual to know that we can have power to make a difference, and we must use this power. This was a call to me to become more politically involved, to do all I can to promote the cause of freedom and to support the constitution that God blessed us with. And thus, this blog was born.

Iranian Protestations

The Iranians are protesting and marching in the streets over a fraudulent vote. They voted recently in an election and felt, correctly, like their vote counted for nothing. They are marching for a voice, for freedom. And for this, what do they get? They are being plowed down like animals, shot and thrown off bridges. This is happening so far away, and Iranians are so different from us. Should we care? We can learn many lessons from the Iranians.

So what was this fraudulent election all about? You need first to understand the power structure in Iran. Iran is controlled first and foremost by (supposedly) Allah (God). Under God, Iran is controlled by the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has all of the control over everything that matters. Then there is a 12 man Guardian Council. Under this is an 88 member Assembly of Experts, and finally is the president. The president can actually do nothing and is completely subordinate to the Ayatollah. He is essentially meaningless. The Iranian people were given two choices for president hand selected by the Guardian Council (and really by the Ayatollah). So really, neither choice was a free choice or a good choice for the Iranians. However, this vote over the new president is what started all of the protests because the winner of this election was not the candidate who received the most votes.

So here we have a somewhat meaningless election that was fixed. And the Iranians revolted. They had had it. They are so hungry for freedom of any kind that they continue to fight in the face of probable death over this election. As an American with still some of my freedoms intact, I feel it is my duty to support freedom and free agency for all. I am no better than the Iranian, and I want them to live free as well.

The question remains, does Obama support freedom for all? And why did it take so long for him to say anything at all condemning the murder of the Iranians by their government? Jonah Goldberg had an excellent post in the National Review online explaining Obama’s foreign policy position. Obama would like to solve foreign problems by negotiation and “talking”, even when it comes to terrorist regimes such as Iran. Goldberg put it best when he said, “If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama’s plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama’s plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.” So if Obama does not support the Iranian people, he has lost our best chance to overthrow this dictatorial and terrorist regime. A regime that just so happens to have the desire and may be close to the capability of destroying our own nation with their nuclear weapons. If Obama does not support the Iranian people, support freedom, then who will?

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

4 Health Care Solutions

1) Limited Government. The government, through Medicare, currently reimburses doctors for 81% of the cost of medical treatment on Medicare patients. How do doctors make up the 19% difference? They charge more for their patients who have private insurance. So, through Medicare, the government is already a huge factor in the ever climbing costs of health care. A single payer plan, or socialized medicine, that Obama is currently proposing (he claims it is not a single payer plan, but the public option he is proposing in the end turns his proposal into that), would essentially put the whole nation on Medicare. Private insurance would go out of business. And then we are left with everyone on Medicare, and medical bills not being paid 100%. How will doctors and hospitals then make up the difference? Lower quality care. How will the government make up the difference? Rationing. So the #1 health care solution is to not implement socialized medicine. I would like to see the dissolution of Medicare altogether in favor of a program in which we could save for our future health care needs tax free in the same manner in which we save for our retirement with a 401K.

2) Health Savings Accounts. These accounts are available for those who have high deductible health insurance plans. It can be likened to an IRA, but for your health care. You store your contribution or your employer's contribution in a health savings account tax free. Whatever you do not use from this account each year rolls over to the next year. In this way, you can invest your health care dollars. You use this account to pay for your medical bills.

This is the way for the future because each individual pays themselves for their health care expenses. Your insurance only kicks in after you meet your high deductible, so ideally you do not use your insurance unless you have an unforeseen accident or disease. In this way, you continue to invest this money each year at a profit to yourself.

If individuals pay for their own health care costs, they will shop around more for better deals. They will make better decisions and not receive so many unnecessary tests and procedures. One of the highest costs to health insurance providers is when the consumer chooses a name brand drug instead of a generic one. If the consumer is paying the entire price of the drug themselves, they will be more likely to choose a generic one, and if they don't, it doesn't hurt others as their insurance provider is forced to supplement the cost of the name brand drug because they pay for it all themselves. All of these name brand drugs and unnecessary tests and procedures are a leading cause of skyrocketing health care costs that will be eliminated when the issue of cost is introduced into the health care decisions of consumers. This will increase competition among doctors and cause prices to begin to be reduced as doctors fight for patients and do not want to lose them to a lower priced doctor. Also, your health insurance premiums are significantly reduced when you take upon yourself more of the costs of your care.

3) Tort Reform. According to Bloomberg, 10% of the current cost of healthcare is due to malpractice lawsuits. The amount awarded to those filing malpractice lawsuits is arbitrarily decided upon by juries. Punitive amounts and awards for pain and suffering are subjective, and juries tend to award these in an excessively high amount. Although no one wants doctors to be unchecked regarding malpractice, runaway lawsuit costs jack up the price of malpractice insurance greatly. This in turn leads to a higher cost of medical care for everyone as some of the cost is passed on to the patient's insurance provider. Tort reform is needed to cap punitive damages that can be awarded in lawsuits.

Malpractice insurance costs have led to the shortage of ob/gyn doctors in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Washington D.C. In 2004 in Florida, the average malpractice insurance premium was $195,000. In Dade County, Florida it was $277,000. The more malpractice lawsuits filed in a given area, the higher the likelihood becomes that ob/gyn doctors will just relocate rather than pay these premiums. My own ob/gyn just left private practice due to the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance. Although he has not been involved in malpractice lawsuits, he can no longer afford to pay for the insurance and remain in private practice.

The high incidence of malpractice lawsuits also causes doctors to prescribe unnecessary tests and procedures to protect themselves in the event of a lawsuit. This increases the cost of health care for everyone.

4) Emergency Room Visits (Illegal Immigrants). In the past six years, nine people from Austin, Texas accounted for 2,678 emergency room visits costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million. Illegal immigrants use the emergency room for all of their health care since they can not be turned away and do not have to pay for their care.

A couple of years ago I was in the emergency room with my husband for some cancer complications. Our doctor kept having to leave periodically as he was dividing his time between my husband and another patient. He was so apologetic and so mad because the other patient eating up his time was an illegal immigrant who was in for a toothache. The illegal immigrant did not have dental insurance or the money to pay for a dentist visit, so he was trying to get the ER doctor to fix his tooth. The doctor said it was very hard to even help him since he had not studied dentistry. So not only was taxpayer money spent on this illegal immigrant's toothache, but patients like my husband who are in for an emergency cancer complication have their care compromised to make room for these ridiculous and costly non-emergencies racked up by non-Americans.

The estimated cost of illegal immigrant health care in just California is $1.4 billion per year. This is paid for by taxpayers. Hospitals also lose money on this as well. At least one hospital in Arizona has filed for bankruptcy and may close because of money lost on illegal immigrants. Reform needs to make it harder to visit the ER without being able to pay for it, and the United States needs to put a complete stop to the free health care being offered to illegal immigrants.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Secret Combination: Planned Parenthood

Jon Voight has recently called Obama a false prophet. I completely agree with this assessment. This led me to ponder secret combinations and what combinations Obama has taken the reigns over. I do not think secret combinations are all that mysterious. We know from the Book of Mormon that they are among us now. But are they secret from us? Some, perhaps, but I think that some of them are very prominent organizations, they just have an agenda they would like to keep secret or day-to-day operations that are secret. Their organization may have a public and stated agenda, but what their actual goals are are far more sinister and hidden. I thought about which secret combinations receive support from their false prophet Obama.

The first secret combination I have chosen to highlight is Planned Parenthood. Publicly, their stated agenda is family planning; to provide knowledge to women on how to avoid pregnancy and disease or how to nurture a fetus once pregnant. This sounds like a worthy cause. However, they are, of course, the largest abortion provider in the nation, aborting 200,000 fetuses each year. In 2007, they provided one adoption referral for every 62 abortions they performed and provided prenatal care to one woman for every 27 who received an abortion. It is obvious that their main priority in "family planning" is family reduction via abortion. These statistics do not lead to the conclusion that they are trying to offer women choices once pregnant.

Planned Parenthood receives $50 million each year in taxpayer money through the Title X program, $50 million each year through Medicare, and additional money through other various government funding for a total of $254.4 million each year in taxpayer dollars. So, yes, you all currently fund abortion through your tax dollars. Planned Parenthood also receives an exorbitant amount of private donations from some very large corporations you most likely do business with, and an especially large amount from Warren Buffett.

Planned Parenthood was founded in large part by Margaret Sanger. As proud as Planned Parenthood is of Margaret Sanger, they would like to hide some of her history. A supporter of negative eugenics back when Nazi Germany was on the rise, Sanger believed birth control would be the best way to prevent an expanding population of handicapped, minorities, indigenous, and other groups deemed undesirable. Sanger has said, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." She thought of blacks, immigrants and indigents as "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."

On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

In Sanger's quest to exterminate blacks, she was somewhat successful as black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion.

On marital sex:"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

These quotes were compiled by Diane Dew.

As you can see from some of the views of the founder, Planned Parenthood is a family planning agency that began with not a very family friendly founder. The views of the founder, as well as the views of those currently running the organization are not views I agree with. And yet I am forced to help pay for their operating costs through taxes. The secret agenda of Planned Parenthood is population reduction, sexual liberation for women, and money making through federal money through abortion. Indeed, the biggest secret of this secret combination is that it works toward the breakdown of the family.

Planned Parenthood does everything possible to avoid telling parents of minors about abortions, and has even sued for the right to not tell parents in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Several undercover operations have been done with Planned Parenthood including one by the Students for Life of America. It has been determined from these that Planned Parenthood regularly does not report sexual abuse cases between older men and underage girls. Instead of reporting these cases, they will simply help the underage girl get birth control or an abortion.

They obviously care nothing for the women they are "helping". They are an organization with a political agenda.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Will You Break The Law To Save Your Life?

Will you break the law to save your life? This choice may be coming soon to you, courtesy of Obama and socialized health care.

Virginia Postrel tells of her battle with breast cancer in the article "My Drug Problem" in The Atlantic magazine. With the traditional ways of fighting breast cancer, Postrel was faced with a 50% odds of recovery. However, the drug Herceptin would give her a 95% chance of recovery. She has achieved full recovery thanks to Herceptin, but the drug cost her insurers $60,000. Postrel details how in New Zealand, Herceptin was not allowed for early stage breast cancer by their socialized health care. It was simply too expensive. That is how socialized health care works. It is advertised as free and comprehensive health care, but there is simply no way, with a taxpayer system, to pay for every drug and treatment. In New Zealand, if you wanted to use Herceptin to fight cancer, you had to pay for it on your own.

Most countries that have socialized health care work much the same. You have your "free" and socialized health care for your basic health needs. Don't get me wrong, your quality will still be less than that of the "broken" current health care system here in the U.S., but you will have your basic health care. However, the only way to keep the system functioning, monetarily, is through rationing. As soon as you get cancer, if you want the comprehensive cancer care you can currently get in the U.S., you must pay for it with your own money.

In the United Kingdom, there are several treatments and drugs that are not allowed by their socialized health care. For example, if you get kidney cancer, there are four new therapies to treat the disease, none of which are allowed in the United Kingdom's health care. If you want to survive the cancer, you must pay for the therapy yourself. They have looked for ways to prevent cancer patients from being able to get these therapies and drugs with their own money, for this is not equal treatment. Some would like it to be against the law. After all, this is what socialized health care is all about - equal health care for all. They would rather everyone just die if the treatment is not approved by the government. However, it has turned into only the rich survive, because the poor don't have access to these same treatments.

What really blows me away is that a two-tiered medicine has become the norm for countries like the UK and France. You have socialized health care for your basic needs, and then you have a private health insurance for your superior health care you need in addition to your basic needs, such as if you get cancer or some other disease that requires more comprehensive and expensive treatment. So these countries with socialized health care also have private insurance! So then you still have the "problem" of the uninsured who can't afford private insurance for when they REALLY need health care, and all of the problems with socialized health care such as deteriorating quality and rationing.

Canada is infested with private clinics that you must go to for cancer drugs. But the government won't pay for these. We are constantly touted the success of these countries with socialized medicine, but we never get the real story. In fact, in Canada in 2007, there was a Canadian woman who lived in Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets. Calgary did not have the room or quality of care for her to deliver her babies there. She had four neonatal intensive care babies that simply could not be accommodated anywhere in Canada. So she left the big city of Calgary and traveled to Great Falls, Montana to give birth to her babies there. Our health care has problems, but is socialization our solution? And if we move to socialized health care and it destroys our health care to this point, what country will we travel to if we need more specialized care?

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Health Care For All...Hip, Hip, Hooray?

Politics were not widely discussed in my home growing up. I knew my parents voted Republican, but I did not know much about any of the issues. When I was 15 years old, I was assigned in my debate class to learn and be able to debate both sides of the issue on socialized health care. Going into my research, I had no biases, opinions, or previous knowledge about the issue. Given the best arguments for each side of the issue by my teacher, I very quickly came to the conclusion that socialized health care is very bad for citizens. At 15 years old, I knew it would never be a good thing. The more I have learned and researched the issue since this, the more resolute I am in this conviction.

Obama and the democrats are trying to bring socialized health care to the United States. They are trying to get this legislation passed before the end of the year. They know the longer it takes, the more opposition they will see as people realize how bad this will be for them. They are essentially trying to quietly sneak it through before anyone realizes what is happening.

The plan is simply to start by taxing the employer provided health care plans of those who currently have health care and take this tax money to pay for health care for those who are not currently insured. This will facilitate a move into complete government controlled health care. This plan has no methods to control health care costs, so costs will continue to rise. It does nothing to fix any of the problems health care currently has, it will just make it more expensive. And then, later on when everyone's health care will be controlled by the government, there will be extra taxes for risky behavior, since this risky behavior could possibly affect your health. Would you like to pay an extra tax to eat an unhealthy meal, play in the sun, drive your car, and etc.? The list could go on and on. It is all about control. If the government can control your health care, they can control your health behavior, and the goal of this is to have total control over you. The goal of many government programs ultimately is about control and power. Socialism brings much power and control to politicians.

Many doctors currently will not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients since the government sets prices for these patients. These patients are simply not profitable for the doctors. Universal health care will run much the same. As the government sets health care prices, it will no longer be profitable to become a doctor, what with all the financial and time risk involved in becoming a doctor. We will not have quality doctors in the future for our children. It will no longer be profitable to find new drugs and new cures for diseases if the government can put a ceiling on how much a company can charge for a given drug. With no way to recoup the cost of creating a drug and getting it to market, companies will no longer find these new drugs and cures.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Obama Schools Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez has referenced Obama's nationalizing of General Motors and said that if he isn't careful, Obama will become more socialist, more left than Chavez. Chavez believes himself to be more conservative than Obama.

Obama is a socialist. He genuinely believes that the rich people in this world got that way through taking advantage of the poor. He does not see the struggle and time put into achieving this wealth, he only sees the plight of the poor, whether they got that way through laziness and bad decisions or not.

I have a relative who went through years and years of medical school and all of the training that comes after this. These were years of financial struggle and financial risk, as well as years of time given up for training. He related the story of an encounter with an old acquaintance who, upon discovering my relative was on the path to becoming a doctor, told my relative that he must really love school and that the old acquaintance could never become a doctor since he didn't love studying. To this my relative replied that he did not love the financial and time sacrifice of becoming a doctor, but he did it for financial stability in the future. What does this struggle represent to Obama? Absolutely nothing except a doctor who rode on the coattails of the poor that did not choose to go to school. It makes no sense to me, but to a socialist, it is only fair to spread this wealth around to all. To take from my relative and give to the poor, even if they are a drug addict, is ideologically the morally correct thing to do for Obama.

Obama is not trying to destroy America, he is simply a socialist. However, we know socialism does not work. This has been proven time and time again. Obama is not trying to destroy America, but it is happening before our eyes notwithstanding.

I do believe that Obama wants to level the playing field at all costs. He does know the financial devastation this will cause to the majority of Americans, but to him the end justifies the means. He knows that most Americans will be hurt dramatically by the ailing economy and emptied 401K retirement plans. It is just better to him that everyone is equal with the poor, even the struggling middle class. Obama also wants us more equal to the rest of the world. If that means the end of United States superiority, then so be it, and perhaps all the better for it.

Capitalism and American freedom began with the shot heard around the world. It is going, going, about to be "gone with [but] a whimper" (Pravda). I am not even sure American citizens know it is happening. California fell based upon the voters voting in the wrong politicians time and time again. Is it too late for our nation? Definitely not. But we for sure voted for the wrong person in Obama. It is not too late. It is time to fight for our freedom. It is imperative to make informed voting decisions in 2010 and 2012.

Obama Drives General Motors Off into the Sunset

When companies are no longer financially sustainable, they are able to enter into bankruptcy. Sometimes they don't emerge from bankruptcy; but, sometimes bankruptcy law allows these companies to restructure and renegotiate contracts. These companies reemerge a stronger and more competitive company.

General Motors was at the verge of bankruptcy. This was the obvious solution for them. Their main goal in bankruptcy should have been to rid themselves of unsustainable legacy costs by renegotiating their contracts with the UAW (United Auto Workers union). Legacy costs are health care and pensions that are promised to workers at the auto plants after they retire - even long after they retire. Many of these workers receive health care and pension money for more years in retirement than they actually worked. Because of these legacy costs, GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care, compared with $300 per vehicle at Toyota (Drezner).

This would have been the solution and perhaps only possible salvation for GM. However, Obama stepped in with taxpayer money and then took a 60% stake in GM. Instead of allowing the company to move through a beneficial bankruptcy process, Obama has taken charge of the company and will put it through a political bankruptcy in which GM will be transformed in the way that Obama thinks is right instead of what would actually save the company. Obama is relieving the company of none of these legacy costs. These costs which have made the company unable to compete will still bog it down. Obama's answer has been to cut advertising, cut many divisions (selling Hummer to a foreign nation so we may never be able to buy it here again, and divesting Saturn, Saab, and Pontiac), and by closing down hundreds and maybe thousands of dealerships. These are individually owned dealerships, some of which are being given 3 weeks to close. These are U.S. citizens, private business owners, being told to take a hike by the government as their businesses are taken from them. Something like this should be taken care of by the free market and not by government intervention.

This is socialism, pure and simple. The government (Obama) has taken taxpayer money and taken the majority stake in a company. This move was not agreed to by the American people. In fact, most Americans do not approve of this happening. So not only does the government now own GM, but Obama is calling the shots. Obama, who has no experience running a company, not even a taco stand, is telling GM to divest some profitable lines of cars, to shut down hundreds of dealerships, and to cut advertising budgets. Obama has appointed 31 year old Deese to dismantle GM. Deese is attending Yale Law School and has not graduated yet. Deese has no experience with the automobile industry. Not only this, but the government has set up outrageous CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. This means that of all the vehicles sold by a dealership, the average of all these vehicles must run at 27.5 miles per gallon. These standards hold some of the responsibility for the financial problems that drove GM to this precarious situation. This makes it so that a dealership must keep a large inventory of small, fuel efficient cars on the lot to make up for the less fuel efficient SUVs on the lot. The smaller cars do not sell as well and lose profitability for the dealership. Obama is attempting to raise the CAFE standard which would make it very difficult for any dealership to sell any SUVs. Indeed, Obama is attempting to legislate away the very existence of SUVs. Rush Limbaugh even makes the very credible claim that, kept on this path, you may no longer be able to purchase an SUV of any kind of the United States by the year 2016.

Obama has purchased GM and is currently running it. He is forcing hundreds of dealerships out of business, and, through CAFE standards, is attempting to manipulate other car companies as well. This is pure socialism. The ease with which this all has taken place is very scary. Obama has also purchased many major banks. These banks that have taken or been forced to take federal bailout money are so handicapped by the federal restrictions that go with this money, that many are trying to find a way to give this bailout money back. Obama says he wants to sell his share of GM as soon as possible; but, as we see with the bank situation, even if GM is sold to a private buyer, the taxpayer bailout money that has already been given to GM and Chrysler will keep them at the beck and call of Obama. This destructive meddling by the government spells out the end for GM. As Obama drives GM off into the sunset, he takes with him the livelihood of thousands of Americans.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Aborting Away Our Future

I spent a summer in the Middle East some years ago. On one of these days, I found myself in a beautiful, tree-enclosed clearing up at the top of a hill. Early history of this clearing reveals a sordid past. It was a "sacred" clearing, one in which the people of the nearby land would gather at twilight to dance and worship some idols placed on the side of the clearing. They would burn some sacrifices to their idols each night. The sacrificial lambs? The newborn babies that were born, but were not wanted. These sacred rituals allowed the people to celebrate their promiscuity and to continue their numerous sexual encounters without the burden of the undesirable side effect of creation of human life.

I was so completely shocked that this was the history of this beautiful clearing. My innocent upbringing would not allow me to fully come to terms with this horror at this time. My thoughts were that if our society ever got to this point where we did this kind of thing, we should all tremble before God for what repercussions would befall us.

Some months went by before I realized that our society does have a ritual of this sort in abortion. It is an answer to many for irresponsibility. Fiercely protected by liberals, it has become a defining issue of our day. If myself and many other Americans were to choose just one issue we could vote on, this would be it. This is the supreme issue of our day. When Roe v. Wade made abortion legal back in 1973, I believe it was easier for people back then to attempt to justify abortion, to pretend that the fetus was not real. Technology was not as good back then. However, now with ultrasound being used regularly early in pregnancy, it can easily be seen that a 9 week old fetus has a heartbeat, a head, limbs, and can move. Now that it can't be disputed that there is life inside the womb before its movement can even be felt, it is harder to support abortion. I believe this is why the pro-life movement currently has its most supporters and continues to add to the ranks.

In conversing with several pro-choice acquaintances, I have noticed a similarity. These pro-choicers have told me that they would never have an abortion themselves, but they support the right to choose for other women. When pressed as to why they would not have an abortion themselves, I have been told that they believe it is wrong to have an abortion. Why would it be wrong to have an abortion? Because they are allowing for the possibility that it is murder of the fetus. But if it might be murder, and they would not do it, why would they support it for others? It makes no sense to me. Would they support murder of adults for others but not for themselves? And would they support the murder of an unwanted baby that had been born minutes ago like they did in the ancient Middle East clearing I visited so many years ago? Where do you draw the line? In partial birth abortions, the infant has essentially been born. Do you draw the line at a live baby that is not yet 24 hours old? Has not been taken home from the hospital yet? Whose head has not come out of the birth canal yet? 24 weeks in the womb? 12 weeks? 9 weeks?

Back in college, I had a professor who taught a business course, but was fond of philosophizing. She spoke of different attitudes of different times. She told us that we could not judge actions of others in times past because we can not say with surety that we would have done the "right" thing when the "wrong" thing was accepted and prevalent at the time. I believe some of the issues discussed were stoning, slavery, and a variety of other issues. I do not agree with this reasoning. Abortion for me is that issue. Legal and fairly widely accepted today, I am a staunch advocate for life, opposed to any type of abortion.

Some abortion facts from The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform: 42 million abortions per year, 1.37 million in the U.S. in the year 1996, 52% of abortions are women younger than 25 years old, black women are 3 times as likely as a white woman to have an abortion, and hispanic women are 2 times as likely, 64% of abortions are performed on women who have never been married, 93% of abortion are performed because the child is not wanted, and only 52% of abortion occur before 9 weeks of pregnancy.

An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.

If universal health care comes to the United States, I can guarantee you that all abortions will be paid for with taxpayer money. Partial birth abortions are performed from weeks 24-36 of pregnancy. In this method, the viable baby is actually delivered except for the head which is stabbed so the brain can be sucked out. All abortion is murder. Partial birth abortion is an especially brutal murder. Our current president supports this.