Could Health Care Reform be Deadly for Some? Two Sarah’s and Baby Jayden Capewell
I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, 'They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him.'
Governor Sarah Palin wrote '…is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels?'
Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and all truly Pro-Life people of good will have succeeded in bringing to the forefront the most important concern of all, our obligation to protect human life and human dignity. Federal Funds must not be used to promote the taking of innocent human life through intentional abortion, PERIOD. No matter how many times the danger of this happening is denied by proponents, it remains. It is most clearly present in any so called “Public” or “Government” Option. The Anti-Life effects of such a “Government Option” has all but killed any hope the US administration had of receiving support from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
As Bill Donohue notes in the article published below this story: “No segment of American society has been more supportive of universal health care than the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Moreover, this isn’t something new: the bishops have a long-standing commitment to health care reform. Their support, then, for the very bills endorsed by the president should be a slam dunk. Just the opposite is true—they’ve walked away from the table. All because of abortion.”
There are other concerns which have been brought to the forefront in this debate, such as the dangers attendant to an increasingly federalized approach to administering and providing Health Care services. Not only because it could violate the important principle of subsidiarity but because it presents the danger of placing perceived efficiency over solidarity, thereby “commodifying” compassion and placing the decision to deliver health care to the very young, the seriously ill and the disabled. In short, it will result in the rationing of health care to the poorest of the poor.
Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal Wednesday entitled “Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care.”
The opinion piece was subtitled “The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers”. Oh, I know, some members of the rude and disrespectful pundit class will use this as one more opportunity to disparage her. I wish they would actually deal with her well presented and reasonable concerns about rationing. These concerns are not only valid; they speak directly to the fundamental flaw in the proposed Health Care Reform.
Governor Palin wrote “…is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.”
She is not the only woman named Sarah whose words fed my serious reservations today. The other woman is named Sarah Capewell. Her tragic story of the loss of her little son made me even more cautious over where some of the alleged “Health Care Reform” plans may be headed. I read an article in the “UK Daily Mail”, entitled 'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'. It was written by Vanessa Allen and Andrew Levy. It detailed the horrific failed plight of Sarah Capewell to save her own child from Government Health care rationing in the U.K.
She lost her son Jayden due to the decision of the NHS, the Health Care System in Great Britain - a system similar to what some have proposed for the United States of America - to let him die, for economic reasons. They had also refused to treat her in her efforts, while she was pregnant, to prolong his time in her womb and slow an early birth. Over economic concerns and alleged efficiency they refused any attempts to save Jaydon. The movement galvanizing around this violation of fundamental human rights and decency is set forth ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Hillary better be prepared, House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa says
- E.W. Jackson Wins Nomination as Republican Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
- 'Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was!' Virginia GOP nominee says
- Food stamps hang in the balance as lawmakers debate cost
- News to ruin your morning: IRS official who targeted conservatives for audit now oversees your Obamacare compliance
- Culture of Corruption, Obama pays Sarah Ingram extra for her harassment of conservatives
- Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?