You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘euthanasia’ tag.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019, Justin Trudeau had this to say to Canadians who support life in the womb:

The LifeNews article says that the Canadian prime minister was speaking at a townhall meeting in Hamilton, Ontario, when he made the remark in response to a question from a university student about free speech:

“If you’re pro-life then you are ridiculed and insulted, but if you’re pro-choice then you’re praised,” the student told Trudeau, according to the National Post. “And I just want to know if this [free speech] is important to you.”

Trudeau then launched into a short speech on the importance of women being able to do what they want with their own bodies. Ultimately:

“An organization that has the explicit purpose of restricting women’s rights by removing rights to abortion, the right for women to control their own bodies, is not in line with where we are as a government and quite frankly where we are as a society,” Trudeau said.

According to the article, pro-life organisations will continue to be barred from receiving federal grant money from the Canadian government. This is a recent development (emphases mine):

In the past, both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations have received grants to offer jobs to young adults. However, pro-abortion political leaders recently cut off grants to groups that will not bow to the altar of abortion on demand.

The new requirement by Trudeau’s government prompted a massive outcry from the public. Hundreds of charities, religious groups and other non-profits are protesting the government’s demand that they support the killing of unborn babies for any reason up to birth.

Canadian taxpayers pay about $200 million a year to support the youth-based program, which provides funding for businesses and non-profits to offer temporary summer jobs to youth ages 15 to 30. It is a way the government encourages young people to get hands-on training before entering the workforce full-time.

The new 2018 grant application requires groups to say that they respect “reproductive rights,” including abortion on demand, as one of their core values. Groups cannot submit the online application unless they do, according to the Post.

Canada has some of the most pro-abortion laws in the world, allowing abortions for any reason up to birth and forcing taxpayers to pay for them in many cases. Common sense regulations such as parental consent for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and other basic measures are non-existent. Many of its provinces now force taxpayers to pay the full cost of abortion drugs for women.

Euthanasia also is legal across Canada.

This is very sad news indeed, especially as taxpayers have no say about financing this programme under such terms.

slipperyIn light of yesterday’s post on a European murdering his disabled daughter in France and Paralympians around the world comes the issue of legalised euthanasia for children.

The Netherlands, Luxembourg — and now Belgium — all allow young people to request euthanasia. In the first two countries, a child must have attained the age of 12 in order to do so.

In Belgium, no minimum age exists.

Naturally, proponents of this astounding legislation say it will be used only in the rarest of cases involving terminal illness.

That reminds me of the Roe v Wade debates when abortion supporters said the procedure would only be requested and used when the mother’s health was at risk. I recall discussing the issue with my fellow classmates in Catholic secondary school. I posited that it would eventually become a form of birth control. My classmates told me that I was being alarmist: ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Who would actively seek out an abortion?’

Hmm. Millions of women around the world, a number of them more than once. Tens of millions of foetuses who were divinely intended for this world and never saw it.

From abortion it was but a short step to euthanasia.

In 2005, Gallup’s poll on the subject found that a majority of Christians in the United States support euthanasia: 75% of Catholics, 70% of Protestants and 61% of Evangelicals. A majority of Catholics and Protestants also support physician-assisted suicide, PAS — 60% and 52%, respectively — although only 32% of Evangelicals do.

Now we have children who will be able to ask for the means to end their lives. It may start with the terminally ill but it will surely end up with unhappy youngsters of all kinds. No doubt, some of their parents and other family members will encourage them.

Els van Hoof, a Belgian senator, was one of a small number who voted against the bill. Christian News reports that she told the BBC (emphases mine):

In the beginning, they presented a law that included mentally ill children,” she noted. “During the debate, supporters of euthanasia talked about children with anorexia, children who are tired of life—so how far does it go?”

Paediatrician Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer disagrees:

” … there are children we try to treat but there is nothing we can do to make them better

We are not playing God—these are lives that will end anyway,” he argued. “Their natural end might be miserable or very painful or horrifying, and they might have seen a lot of friends in institutions or hospitals die of the same disease. And if they say, ‘I don’t want to die this way, I want to do it my way,’ and that is the only thing we can do for them as doctors, I think we should be able to do it.”

We all die. The point is dying when the Lord decides it, not us. So, contrary to what van Berlaer says, we are playing God by determining not His timescale but our own — for our comfort and convenience.

Thirty-eight Belgian paediatricians issued a statement countering this perspective, noting:

Even the most complex medical cases can be solved in the current legal framework, with the means and expertise at our disposal,” the translated statement says. “For whom is this legislation therefore designed?”

Children in Belgium are not suffering,” it continues. “The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospitals and at home.”

The law passed the lower house in late February 2014. Christian News tells us that most Belgians oppose it. Catholic Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard observed:

The law says adolescents cannot make important decisions on economic or emotional issues, but suddenly they’ve become able to decide that someone should make them die

This ties in tangentially with America’s Cass Sunstein — an early Obama adviser and a father himself — who advocates animal rights over those of humans. This World Net Daily article tells us that he agrees with Jeremy Bentham, one of the stars of Britain’s Enlightenment of the 18th century. Bentham once wrote:

A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old.

Similarly, another of Obama’s early ‘point people’, John Holdren, said that he would favour seizing babies from unwed mothers who refused to have abortions. A chilling thought. In the 1970s, he co-authored a book with Paul and Anne Ehrlich on population control and other aspects of ecoscience. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment still appears on course syllabi on some college campuses. The three authors propose forced marriage or compulsory adoption as well as mandatory sterilisation. They justify it this way:

Policies that may seem totally unacceptable today to the majority of people at large or to their national leaders may be seen as very much the lesser of evils only a few years from now.

That is, sadly, all too true.

Back now to children’s euthanasia. Many of you probably read about this story when it was being debated at the end of last year and early this year. Of its passage into law, business magazine magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes warns:

As euthanasia becomes more accepted—and we become more numb to the horror of murdering people like this—we’ll descend to the next abomination: pressuring the sick to discontinue treatment for a likely fatal illness in the name of ‘saving scarce resources’ for people who have more years ahead of them.

Indeed, we have only to go to the Wikipedia entry for Voluntary Euthanasia to read the rationale, which anyone in the Benelux countries might now hear and adults in many other nations may be given:

Not only will PAS and euthanasia help with psychological suffering and give autonomy to the patient, PAS can help reduce health care costs and free up doctors and nurses. By keeping a terminally-ill patient alive, the patient must pay for any medical necessary procedures. These procedures can include x-rays, prescribed drugs, or any lab tests that needs to be performed. All of these procedures can run up a medical costs. Since the bills will continue to come for the patient, they will lose more of the money they would want to leave behind for their family. If the patient wants to end the suffering, the reason for racking up the bills and keeping the patient alive are lacking (13). Also, the costly treatment to keep the terminally-ill patient alive from medical funding cannot be used for other types of care, like prenatal, where it would save lives and improve long-term quality of life.[37] Along with reduced health care costs, more doctors and nurses could be freed up. A shortage of medical staff is a critical problem hospitals face and studies have found that understaffed hospitals make many mistakes and provide less quality care. Attending to terminally-ill patients, who would rather die, is not the best use of the medical staff. If PAS and euthanasia were legalized, more staff would have time to care for others and there would be an increase in the quality of care administered.[36]

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia can lower health care costs, free up doctors and nurses, and give back the right to the patient to practice autonomy. By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, each terminally-ill patient is being discriminated against because they are not able put this option into action. Those patients because of their disability do not have the same right as any other person in the United States.[37]

To be fair, the article does explore the opposing right-to-life argument.

However, let’s look at how these arguments could make villains out of religious people — Christians or others — who wish for their relative to die in hospital without assisted or self-imposed suicide.

When families keep the terminally ill in hospital, doctors and nurses could well look upon these people as robbing others of good health. Family requests might end up being ignored. Relatives might be shunned. They might be expected to perform nursing and hospital orderly duties themselves.

The patient will be viewed as a ‘bed-blocker’, a term used of the elderly in Britain’s NHS in the early 1990s. Since then, a number of NHS doctors have written on elderly patients’ admittance forms to casualty the letters DNR: Do Not Resuscitate.

It is ironic that, given our greater overall life expectancy and medical advances, that more of us — children included — will be destined for the scrapheap because we are mere inconveniences to our families or physicians.

God? Who needs Him, eh? We can now take care of all our life and death issues ourselves.

“…all who hate Me, love and court death.” — Proverbs 8:36

“…sin, when full grown, gives birth to death.” — James 1:15a

Once again, thanks to a serendipitous trawl of the Net, I happened across two online posts, at least 15 years apart, which discuss the same topic: what America (and the rest of the West) must be on guard against.

First, from the 1990s, a few excerpts from an article by Cutting Edge Ministries‘ director, David Bay. It’s called ‘Six-Step Attitudinal Change Plan’ and was originally broadcast on radio. This is one of those items which if I had read it when he originally posted it, I would have passed it by without a second glance.  However, it ties in so well with what Linda Kimball (Patriots and Liberty) and I have been discussing for the past few weeks that it is really a must-see.  Most emphases in bold below are mine. Those in red are mine; the rest are in the original.

The moral bankruptcy of our society is well-documented.

Few people understand why we have become morally bankrupt. However, when we look at society through the eyes of God, through the Bible, we can easily see why we are facing the unprecedented troubles today …

Now consider the following news briefs:

Three weeks ago, we showed that America has rejected our traditional Christian Values Foundation, replacing it with a Satanic Values Foundation. Once we view our daily news with this focus, we can easily see why we are facing daily crimes of great variety and incredible atrocity. But, this is only part of the horror; the rest of the story is that most Americans subscribe to many Values of Satanism without realizing that they have also fallen victim to this trap. To quickly review:

Again, we quote the Satanic Bible, the most common Values:


    • Personal selfishness, i.e., greed and pride.
    • Physical lust.
    • Anger.

The elevation of these Satanic values to the level of encouraging its members to deliberately indulge in them has produced tremendous societal effects:

    • Strong desire for power over others.
    • Strong desire for accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
    • Strong sexual desires, to be satisfied no matter who might be harmed.
    • Life becomes cheapened, losing God-given sanctity.
    • Obsession with violence and murder.
    • Lack of compassion or empathy for those individuals who are handicapped or who are ill.
    • Obsession with death. Death symbols begin to appear in society, and followers begin to fix their minds on death. Remember, hard-core Satanism demands human sacrifice, the younger the better. If our theory is correct, we should be able to see our society killing the innocent …

The Six Step Attitudinal Change Plan works like this:

    1. Some practice so offensive that it can scarcely be discussed in public is advocated by a RESPECTED expert in a RESPECTED forum.
    2. At first, the public is shocked, then outraged.
    3. But, the VERY FACT that such a thing could be publicly debated becomes the SUBJECT of the debate.
    4. In the debate, sheer repetition of the shocking subject gradually dulls its effect.
    5. People then are no longer shocked.
    6. No longer outraged, people begin to argue for positions to moderate the extreme; or, they accept the premise, challenging, instead, the means to ACHIEVE it.


1. According to Newsweek magazine, December 25, 1989, respected American officials, both liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, have begun to call for the legalization of drugs, claiming all our efforts have miserably failed.

2. At first, the public is shocked and outraged. This outrage has been led by other respected American officials …

3. Even discussing drug legalization at such high levels in our government gives the issue a stamp of legitimacy.

4. This war of words provides the sheer repetition necessary to dull the public’s opposition.

5. People are now becoming less shocked by the proposal.

6. No longer shocked, the focus of the debate shifts to moderating the extremes of both sides of the debate.

So we can see just as in the case of abortion, a compromise will then be reached that will legalize drugs in a limited manner. Several years later, American public opinion will have been changed sufficiently to allow for ever-wider legalization. (This point is very key: Limited acceptance of the controversial proposal is always fatal, because it opens the firmly-shut door just a crack. This tiny beginning then allows the door to be systematically opened wide.)



TV, Newspapers, and Magazines are strongly supporting the campaign for public acceptance of homosexuality. TV shows, movies, and articles in printed media have been consistently presenting a picture of validity and normalcy in the homosexual lifestyle. Simultaneously, Governmental Agencies, certain elected officials, and our courts have been actively re-shaping laws which promote this normalcy theme. Clearly, our entire society is moving rapidly and strongly toward full acceptance, and Mass Media is leading the charge.

Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? (Genesis 18:16-19:29). God’s actions amount to a NATIONAL capital execution. Consider the scene: God’s Holy Angels, bodily incarnated as men, visit Lot’s house to warn him to flee Sodom before God’s physical judgment falls. Homosexual men have seen these angels enter Lot’s house, so they surround the house and loudly call to the angels to come outside so they could have homosexual relations with them …

The entire society of Sodom was supportive of homosexual activity … God not only condemned this societal support, He physically destroyed the cities in punishment …

We see this kind of societal support for homosexual behavior in America. But, there is more, as Lesbianism is now being promoted in women’s magazines, on T.V., and in newspapers.

We have gone through all 6 steps of the Plan are now in the process of opening the door wide.

Heterosexual Adultery

Today, we see a steady Mass Media drumbeat to convince Americans that traditional Judeo-Christian values governing heterosexual relationships is out-of-date and has been replaced. Thus, we see TV sitcoms which depict couples living together without being married and even raising children together …

Newspapers feature article after article which depict real-life situations in which men and women, living together without being married, appear happy and prosperous.

Sexual Perversions

Pornography is the avenue by which the Six-Step Attitudinal Change Plan has traditionally worked in America. Both mediums of printed material and video material has changed the values of many … All the mediums of Mass Media are now running many articles on real-life stories of sexual perversions. Even when the tone of the article is negative, even horrific, sheer repetition is at work.

EXAMPLES: 3. ADVANCE DEATHMAKING As Desirable/Noble/Courageous/ Advantageous To Society


Americans are being convinced that Individual Euthanasia is a right which society should protect and advance …

After the Jewish Holocaust, many Jewish scholars studied German society to discover how the nation of the Martin Luther Christian Tradition could turn into one of the greatest mass killing machines in history. One study, The Nazi Doctors, by Robert Lifton, states emphatically the Nazi Holocaust could never have occurred if the intermediate step of Euthanasia had not first occurred. The individual’s “right to die” very quickly became the government’s “right to kill“.

German Public Opinion was molded by films showing incurable people being “helped” by sympathetic physicians. Medical Committees were set up in local communities comprised of local physicians, to decide whether a person was medically incurable, and thus eligible for euthanasia. German public acceptance for Euthanasia was begun by activist doctors, was promoted by activist doctors, and throughout the Mass Death Camps, was directed by activist doctors …

This is one of the concerns I have about David Cameron’s Big Society localism.  It could potentially spiral out of control very quickly, in this way or in others. Earlier this summer, the BBC featured a television show about British author Terry Pratchett, an Alzheimer’s victim, who discusses and investigates euthanasia.  He would like to have it when the time comes.  So, already, we have the respected source and we are becoming accustomed to the idea of death on demand.

EXAMPLES: 4. Reduce “Overpopulation” of the Earth

… What are the New Age answers to this `horrible’ over-population of the earth? We have listed just two of their answers; please understand they are utilizing the Six Step Attitudinal Change Plan to achieve their goal. Remember the supreme importance in this Plan of Point #4, creating a tremendous battle in the media and in the streets between opposing sides. This battle creates the sheer repetition necessary to erode people’s opposing attitudes.

Abortion on Demand

When all 6 points of the Six-Step Attitudinal Change Plan have properly completed, the door has been opened just a crack to allow the objectionable process and only in certain circumstances. Then, the door is systematically forced open wider and wider, until the point is reached where the formerly objectionable practice is occurring constantly and for whatever reason. Clearly, we have been at this point with abortion. Since 1973, over 27 million American babies have been killed!! Every abortion prevents the population of the earth from getting larger, thus contributing to their goal of reducing the world’s population by two-thirds! …

This is true.  Britain’s Daily Mail carries many stories on doctors advising abortions for the possibility (!) of a club foot or cleft palate; the latter can be operated on quite routinely and if the first cannot, custom-made orthopaedic shoes and physiotherapy enable the person to walk reasonably well.  This was true even when I was growing up in the 1960s.  So, if any doctor suggests an abortion for either of these conditions, just say no.

Sarah Kliff looked at American abortion data for Newsweek magazine in 2010 and from data gathered from a reproductive rights think tank, the Guttmacher Institute, calculated that 40% of American women have had abortions40%! She writes (emphases mine throughout):

This is, to be fair, a crude estimation. It does not factor in some teenage abortions, although it does get most of them, since both the pregnancy and abortion rates of 18- to 19-year-olds are much higher than those of 15- to 17-year-olds (see tables 2.2 and 2.3 of this Guttmacher report for the data). Nor does this estimate take into account how many of those 45 million abortions were among women having more than one, which could reduce the overall percentage. At the same time, women who had abortions pre-Roe are left out, as are those who had illegal abortions post-Roe (yes, that still happens). Working with the data that we do have on the prevalence of abortion, I think 40 percent is a pretty good, albeit imperfect, estimate.

If anything, I believe the debate among our readers really hits home one of the main points of my story: since we do not talk much about abortion, we generally underestimate just how prevalent it is.

Keep in mind that it’s not the cool, clinical procedure as presented in the media.  It’s not like going for a botox treatment at lunchtime.  There are many variables involved — physical and emotional.  Many women live with the trauma for the rest of their lives.  It can also have a knock-on effect on the way they relate with other people — friends, families, boyfriends or colleagues.

Next up from 2009, we have a post from Todd of Blue Collar Philosophy who has a train of thought similar to that of David Bay of Cutting Edge Ministries (the first article).  Below are extracts from his post, ‘The Great Evangelical Collapse’.  It outlines a book he hopes to publish.  Todd, by the way, was a former Dead head (as in Grateful) and has a Master’s degree in the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics.

Book Summary

My manuscript centers on the conflict and influence the liberal spirit of the age is having on Christianity in America. The particular manifestation of this spirit of the world is humanist/liberal/progressive and ultimately satanic and it stands in total opposition to an orthodox/conservative biblical view of the world.

Chapter 1. Death of a Dead Head: From Jerry to Jesus

I use my testimony as an opening chapter to set up the how ideas have consequences. The ideas that are dominating American society and politics stem from the spirit of the age which stands in total opposition to the truth of God’s Word in the Bible. Ideas are inherently religious in nature and inform our notions of truth and have radically different effects on our ethical views and how we live. I explain my life and liberal world view before becoming a Christian and how radically my life changed afterward.

Chapter 2. The Dual Crisis

This chapter further details the liberal spirit of the age and its influence on America’s cultural life. The wars of the twentieth century have left mankind in a dual crisis of meaning and value. America’s consumer mentality, coupled with this crisis, has led to a fast food religious and moral outlook that ultimately places the justified self, the autonomous person at the center of the moral universe

Chapter 3. Homosexuality: Liberation from Self-Control

This new justified self cannot be restrained in the pursuit of the satisfaction of any desire it may have. When meaning and value are assumed to be relative then everything is up for grabs including human sexuality. A radical gay rights agenda has developed around the idea that homosexuality is just another normal expression of human sexuality and ought to be accepted as such. Tolerance is no longer putting up with something one disagrees with but is now synonymous with complete acceptance which also entails promotion. I put forth a broad response to this agenda by looking at the biological, philosophical, theological, and political reasons to reject this agenda based on a sexual act.

Chapter 4. Abortion and Euthanasia: Culture of Death

The assault on the Christian view that life has value in that it was created by God has disastrous consequences for the defenseless among us. I respond to the arguments in favor of abortion and euthanasia by articulating a view of human personhood that is not relative or emergent based on some subjective criteria that constantly changes. Under this liberal view, life has value only if those who stand in power say it does and there is no way to check such arbitrary assertions. Only by grounding the value in life in it being a unique creation of God can personhood not be compromised.

Chapter 5: Democracy in Crisis

This liberal spirit is also undermining our democracy. Through relativism, multiculturalism, and pluralism the foundation of Democracy is being destroyed. Removing self-control and value will usher in a new form of totalitarian government in America. With the removal of internal restraint people see no reason to refrain from satisfying their immediate desires no matter how perverse they may be. In order for Democracy to survive people need to exercise self control

Chapter 7: Biblically Based Renewal

The only institution that can respond and challenge this liberal spirit of the age is the Christian church. The tragedy is that the Christian church in America is falling under the same sway of this worldly spirit. Christians have accommodated and compromised their faith to such an extent that there is little difference in how they live. Christians who claim to be against abortion or say homosexuality is a sin voted for a liberal candidate like Barack Obama who would not stand against infanticide as a state Senator. He is also advocating for gay rights. There is a widening gap between what Christians say they are for and the consistent application of such affirmations to their lives. This allows for relative qualifications of the objective moral absolutes stemming from God’s Word. A Christian will assert that he or she is personally against abortion “but” and fill in the rest. Any such qualification reveals a compromised faith that in the end is no different from someone with no faith at all. Christians need to return a biblically based world view that stands alone and independent from the influences of the world. This will help begin to transform the Christian church in America so that it can address the problems in our society as well …

We have spiralled downhill considerably over the past 20 years. Think back 50 years.  These events and modes of thought would have been unimaginable then.  It’s certainly time to pray and study the Bible.

In the fevered excitement accompanying Nick Clegg’s rise in the polls over the past few days, how many people know exactly what the Liberal Democrats — the wheelie bin party — support?  (Today’s graphic comes from the conservativehome blogs, outlining yet another LibDem policy.)

The Sun commissioned YouGov to do a poll published on Sunday, April 18.  All the policy questions were taken from the Liberal Democrat platform.  Interestingly, people dislike most of their policies.

Did you know about these?  Questions and results which the Lib Dems are worried about:

Tax: Scrap income tax on earnings of less than £10,000 a year. The £17billion cost of this will be paid for by a tax on bigger houses, a tax on airline flights, restricting tax relief on pensions savings for higher-rate taxpayers, and attempting to clamp down on tax avoidance.

Support: 66%

Oppose: 20%

Don’t know: 14%

Defence: Replace Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system and develop a variant that is a lot cheaper but less powerful and possibly easier to detect and stop.

Support: 37%

Oppose: 37%

Don’t know: 26%

Europe: Give the European Union more powers on justice issues, bank regulation, the flow of asylum seekers, limiting climate change and cooperate more on security and defence.

Support: 18%

Oppose: 65%

Don’t know: 17%

Euro: scrap the Pound and join the Euro when the conditions are right.

Support: 21%

Oppose: 65%

Don’t know: 14%

Immigration: Give an amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants who have lived in Britain for ten years, speak good English and don’t have a criminal record.

Support: 35%

Oppose: 49%

Don’t know: 16%

Prisons: Allow 58,000 criminals a year to do community service instead of going to prison by banning jail terms of less than six months.

Support: 33%

Oppose: 50%

Don’t know: 17%

Public sector pay: Limit pay rises for public sector workers for the next two years to £400 a year.

Support: 57%

Oppose: 24%

Don’t know: 19%

Higher education: scrap university tuition fees over six years, and increase taxes to pay for this.

Support: 31%

Oppose: 48%

Don’t know: 20%

Voting: Change the voting system for electing MPs, so that individual constituencies become much larger and parties are represented in parliament broadly in line with their national vote.

Support: 54%

Oppose: 16%

Don’t know: 29%

Energy: Stop any new nuclear power stations from being built and attempt to solve the energy crisis by coal-fired power generation plants and wind turbines instead.

Support: 32%

Oppose: 41%

Don’t know: 27%

Some of these things sound pretty good until you start thinking about what the Lib Dems are leaving out.  Here are my questions:

Tax: So will there be a mansion tax on larger houses?  How large does that house have to be before it qualifies?  And even more tax to pay on our flights?   

Europe: Give the EU more powers to step all over us?  No, thank you.  He says he’d give us a referendum on whether to leave the EUThat’s a sop to UKIP voters to prevent them from swinging to the ToriesDon’t believe it.  How will they pose the question? It’s bound to be in some way that gets us all to say, ‘Yes!  Let’s stick with the EU bureaucracy!’ Instead vote Tory to hold ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron to his cast-iron promise on this subject.   

Euro: So we join when the conditions are right.  What are those conditions?  Who determines them?  Do we get a referendum?

Immigration: Are there 1m illegal immigrants who have lived here for 10 years, speak good English and don’t have a criminal record? How do the Lib Dems know?  If we have 1m of these, how many other illegal immigrants do we have living here?  The mind boggles.

Public sector pay: The £400 a year — is that across the board?  Is it the same for everyone’s salary?  £400 a year will mean more to a lower-salaried worker than a hospital administrator.

Higher education: Will there be a mansion tax for the rich to stump up to pay?  Before Labour brought in tuition fees, this cost was borne by every taxpayer.

Energy: Are coal-fired power generation plants and wind turbines enough?  Why not move into nuclear power, or won’t that sit well with the party base?

This is sheer hell.  And, no, Labour wouldn’t be bothered by any of this if they plan to move into a coalition government with them. 

But there’s more … abortion and euthanasia

Catholic commentator Cristina Odone, writing for the Telegraph, says the Lib Dems are big on abortion and euthanasia:

This is a Jekyll and Hyde outfit. It’s not just the party of Nick Clegg, with his lovely bright wife and faith school-educated children. It’s the party of Dr Evan Harris.

Dr Harris believes in euthanasia – and, I mean, really believes. He was instrumental in ensuring that legalising euthanasia became Lib Dem party policy …

Dr Harris also believes our present abortion laws are too strict, and the fact that an astonishing fifth of pregnancies are terminated is of no great import. No wonder he is known as “Dr Death” by his critics.

… as the subject turns to the ethical or religious issue of the day – faith schools, say, or teenage pregnancies – I watch him turn pop-eyed with bilious indignation. He becomes almost a caricature of the National Humanist Society spokesman: God is bad, his followers mad.

Labour still has a rump of Christian socialists. The Tories are relatively sympathetic to faith. The Lib Dems are now the most secular party in the Britain – and not in a good way.

And still more … giving violent criminals the right to vote

The Lib Dems — since Ming Campbell was their leader — have wanted to give the right to vote to hardened criminals in preparation for their release. Labour in Birmingham have distributed leaflets to highlight this fact and include some local notorious criminals.  According to a commenter on conservativehome, where this was raised, it’s because — get this —

a European Court of Human Rights decision in which judges from such long-standing democracies and respecters of human rights such as Hungary, Germany, Spain and Bulgaria have found Britain deficient.

Oh, right, so, those countries — all of which have endured totalitarianism at some point in the last century — find Britain deficient?  Give over!  This is what I mean by being concerned about handing even more powers to Europe!  NO!

Just remember: vote yellow, get Brown. 

Message to UKIP voters: It’s immaterial whether you are mad for David Cameron — vote Tory and we’ll pressure him to come good on his ‘cast-iron’ promises. 

For more articles see:

Nick Clegg defends Liberal Democrat stance on Europe

‘Nick Clegg’s appeal “will last as long as an insect bite”‘ (‘clegg’ means ‘horsefly’, apparently)

‘Nick Clegg tries to hide Liberal Democrat Euro-federalism’

‘Lib Doomed’

‘Warning as Libs Lead Poll Race’

‘Absent Liberal Democrat Donor Convicted of Fraud’

‘Inconvenient truths for leaders who got debate facts wrong’

‘Leading Lib Dem quits over sex scandal’

The New York Post isn’t wasting any time delving into what’s really behind the proposed health care bill in the US.

In a guest editorial dated July, 24, 2009, former NY Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey quotes top Obama advisers on the gist of the legislation.  First up is Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel, who is not only the health policy advisor for the OMB but a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research (whaaaat?).  He said:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

Then, he has a go at doctors:

Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, ‘as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others’.


So, what does he want?  Rahm’s brother thinks that ‘communitarianism’ should guide (force?) doctors’ decisions:

… medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those ‘who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia’.

He defends this by saying:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.

That has to be some of the worst reasoning I’ve read in years. It doesn’t even make sense. It would appear that he doesn’t want you taken care of at all, if he can help it. 

Well, Mr Emanuel, let’s hope you never find yourself of being old and infirm.  Or, would you, as part of the new ruling elite, have a different plan to the rest of Americans?  By the way, folks, your legislators are likely to have their own health care plan — much like the one you used to have until it was legislated away by people who haven’t even read the bill!

But, there’s more.  Americans — you have been spoiled by progress and scientific advances.  Ezekiel Emanuel says so:

Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too ‘enamored with technology’ and is determined to reduce access to it …

Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: ‘Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians’ offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms.’

That’s too much to expect when you’re sick in the country that leads the Western World?  Meanwhile, this bill will provide open access by the government and who knows who else into your finances.  So, it’s okay for them to take your money — and it’s likely you’ll be paying more for fewer options and less choice — but they won’t even be able to provide you with a pleasant atmosphere whilst you’re being diagnosed or receiving treatment? 

Then we move on to Dr (!) David Blumenthal, another Obama advisor:

He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending. Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they’re ‘associated with longer waits’ and ‘reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices’ (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it ‘debatable’ whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you’ll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

But it gets worse.  Back to Ezekiel Emanuel for the closer:

Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.

Some of you have been working extremely hard making your Congresscritters aware of the provisions of this bill. 

For those who haven’t, it is imperative you know what this bill really means for you and your family.

The health care bill hasn’t been voted into law yet, and the August recess is almost here for America’s ‘Congresscritters’. 

If you are American or have family living in the US and haven’t had a chance to read this bill, you might want to.  It’s unlikely US legislators have.  And they’ll be voting on it! 

Here are parts which might pose ethical dilemmas or issues for you or your families.  I’ve taken this pretty much verbatim from the link:

  • Page 65, Sec 164 — a payoff subsidised plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organisations (e.g. ACORN)
  • Page 95, Lines 8-18 — The Government will use groups, e.g. ACORN and Americorps, to sign up individuals for the Government Healthcare plan
  • Page 170, Lines 1-3 — Any NON-resident Alien is exempt from individual taxes, so Americans will pay
  • Page 203, Line 14-15 — ‘The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.’ Yes, it says that
  • Page 239, Line 14-24 –The Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
  • Page 241, Line 6-8 – Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty they have, they’ll all be paid the same
  • Page 253, Line 10-18 — Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc., their value as humans?
  • Page 272, Sec 1145 — TREATMENT in CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
  • Page 298, Lines 9-11 — Doctors who treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission will be penalised by the Government
  • Page 354, Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs, e.g. DOWNS SYNDROME, people!
  • Page 425, Lines 4-12 — Government MANDATES Advance Care Planning Consultation. Think Senior Citizens’ end of life?
  • Page 425, Lines 22-25, page 426 Lines 1-3 — Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you to death
  • Page 427, Lines 15-24 — Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends
  • Page 430, Lines 11-15 — The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of your life
  • Page 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
  • Page 472, Lines 14-17 — PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANISATION. 1) a monthly payment and 2) a community-based org. Like ACORN?
  • Page 489, Sec 1308 — The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage.

I have read that there is a provision for mandating the period of time that must elapse between pregnancies, but I haven’t found that particular line.  The Advance Care Planning Consultation, from what I have read, is about counsellors advising the elderly about death.  There are to be five counselling sessions to make sure the elderly patient is comfortable with the idea.  So, this sounds nice but also quite sinister. 

There’s more at the link, including arranging for payment, which enables the government to see your financial details. To what extent is unclear.

For a doctor’s perspective, please click here.  Dr Vliet suggests a few things you can do today, before it’s too late.

But, hey — everything’s for the ‘common welfare’, right? 

‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’  Very postmodern.

(In case you’re wondering, this bill seems much more restrictive than the NHS in the UK, but then the NHS came about in 1948.  And, in the UK, we can have private health insurance if we wish.  We also don’t have community-based organisations like ACORN involved.)

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,528 other followers


Calendar of posts

July 2021
25262728293031 - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,654,172 hits