“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” ~ Mother Teresa
Abortion is one social issue that tends to divide people. You have two camps, one being pro-life, and the other being pro-choice. One thing both sides can agree upon is that society would be much better off if there wasn’t a demand for abortion.
Thomas Jefferson and the members of the Second Continental Congress affirmed that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I believe that they rightly placed ‘Life’ as the most important unalienable right endowed to us by God. Government’s main duties are to protect life, liberty and property rights. We cannot protect liberty or property if we do not protect life; especially the right to life of the unborn.
As it stands in the United States, the US Supreme Court decided in 1973 (in conflict of the 10th Amendment) that abortion is a fundamental right. To many people, taking the life of an unborn life is nothing short of murder. Allowing abortion to continue is a violation of their conscience. Certainly using their tax dollars for state-sponsored abortion violates their moral convictions.
Abortion is legal in the United States and has been for almost 40 years. Presidents, Congressmen and Supreme Court judges have come and gone, but the decision has stood, despite pledges to overturn it from pro-life groups and politicians.
Although this is an issue which the founders believed should be handled at the state level, I do respect the rule of law. However, I do not feel it is right to take tax dollars from those who believe abortion is murder, and subsidize it.
Because I agree with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors," I will work to end forced taxpayer funding of abortion in Minnesota.
Joe Atkins, who received the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Endorsement this year (http://www.prochoiceminnesota.org/media/press/20120806.shtml), may claim the contrary but his voting record indicates that he is strongly pro-choice. Here are a few examples:
- In the 2008-2009 Health and Human Services Budget, an amendment to “Prohibit Public Funding of Abortions” was presented to the Minnesota House. Joe Atkins voted against it. The bill failed by just four votes.
- In 2012, HF2341 was passed by the Minnesota House and Senate which stated that, “Prescribing Physicians must be present when abortion-inducing drugs are administered.” Joe Atkins voted against this as well. In a procedure like abortion, shouldn’t a doctor be required to be present, if only for the health of the mother?
- In 2012, HF1921 was passed by the Minnesota House and Senate which simply required licensing and inspections of facilities which perform more than 10 abortion procedures a year. Joe Atkins voted against this as well. While Joe voted against allowing adults to purchase higher-powered fireworks due to safety concerns, he seemingly does not have those same types of safety concerns about abortion facilities.
As your Representative, I will fight to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion. For those abortions which we cannot prevent, I will work to ensure that they are provided in a safe manner, by a trained professional.
I think it’s time to elect a representative with the courage and conviction to stand up for every Minnesotan’s right to life. All life is sacred and must be protected.
When we live free, we live better.
With my dentist, I pay the bill and I decide what he does. Period. He who pays the piper calls the tune. http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/freedom-and-the-power-to-choose With my doctor, I also pay the bill, either directly, or indirectly (through insurance). In any case, I get to decide. If the insurance company decides not to "cover" my choice, I still decide, but I may have to pay. With the IPAB, it goes beyond simply recommending treatment. The IPAB (and/or other PPACA mechanisms) impose institution-wide penalties on providers that do not "measure up". In a sense, I am not allowed to pay the bill, so I don't get to decide. Remember, Medicare and Medicaid started out as "insurance" with the feds paying the bills. The cost of that got out of hand, so they were forced to cut costs, and they did so simply by paying providers less. This is why doctors are "dropping" medicare patients. This is why the "doc fix" keeps getting passed in Congress. This is why doctors who treat medicare patients are not allowed to take private payments. This is also why the feds, having failed to control costs, are seizing control of medicine, and trying to force doctors to do what they consider "best practices", with no provision for you or me paying the bill - or getting to decide. The IPAB is different.
With regards to your "scare" that doctors do not accept Medicare: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-column-miller-medicare-idUSBRE87E15N20120815 "This issue is monitored closely by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent Congressional agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare. The agency's most recent annual survey of Medicare patients found that just 2 percent of beneficiaries had problems of any kind finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare - the same percentage of patients aged 50-64 with private insurance who report problems. Likewise, just 2.1 percent report trouble of any kind finding specialists willing to accept Medicare, compared with 2.3 percent for patients with private insurance." That article further states that the cost of administering Medicare is growing at a lower rate than private health insurance. Further debunking your claims.
There is no "scare" about Medicare. It's true. Doctors make less money with Medicare patients. That's why many doctors or hospitals have stopped taking Medicare patients. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/06/study-one-third-of-doctors-wouldnt-take-new-medicaid-patients-last-year/ http://host.madison.com/news/local/health_med_fit/madison-clinic-s-decision-to-stop-taking-new-medicare-patients/article_70520894-72c8-11e1-a7d0-0019bb2963f4.html Google "doctors stop taking medicare" and enjoy. I am amazed by the link you posted. I quote: "Obamacare does cut $700 billion in Medicare spending over a 10-year period. But the cuts are adjustments in payments to Medicare providers, which are mostly meaningless to patients." Wow. So the Medicare can cut their payments to doctors, and the doctors will not be affected at all? Cool. I wonder how that would work with my dentist. "Hi, I'm going to pay you half of all my future bills, but you have to do all the same work." I don't think so.
"Here’s the correlation she found between how much a state pays its Medicaid doctors (indexed as a percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate) and the percent of physicians accepting new Medicaid patients:" That means once again, i have debunked your Mediscare claims.
That's why every year when the Medicare "cuts" come around in Congress, the Congress passes the "doc fix", which raises the Medicare reimbursement rates to closer to market rates. That's why the "doc fix" does, and is why it is a "must pass". It's time to wake up and recognize Econ 101, and stop pretending that it can be ignored. Repeating nonsense does not make it true.
"Here’s the correlation she found between how much a state pays its Medicaid doctors (indexed as a percent of the Medicare reimbursement rate) and the percent of physicians accepting new Medicaid patients:" Those are not my words. Those are from the very article you posted. Thus far I have shown - That Medicaid paitents have no more difficulty than privately insured patients in obtaining doctor appointments - Reimbursements by state Medicaid NOT Medicare are responsible for doctors leaving the system - The cost of administering Medicare has not gone up faster than private insurance. All you do is state right wing talking points, and walk away when some challenges them !!!
Medicare may have "low overhead", but it also has "massive fraud". A Google search for "medicare fraud rampant" again brings up volumes of material confirming that there is a serious problem. Again common sense - the solution is to work harder to catch fraudsters - driving up "overhead" costs. For better or worse, reality is catching up with Medicare, and these discussions are largely academic. My post: http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/the-end-of-medicare outlines the reality.
Similarly on Social Security, I asked you to factually contradict someone you had criticized. Your answer. "Search on google". Well Donald. If you "Search on Google", one can even prove that Obama is a citizen of Kenya !!!
"Nonsense" - that was a word you used. Not me. And of course used no verified facts to back up your words. Would it be safe to say that most of your positions are just your opinions and are mostly not entirely based on facts. Just "search google"
Is this procedure that is be used on an unviable fetus. If so do you have an alternative or would u prefer the mother to die. How come u won't provide any context to your vast medical knowledge ? I cannot pass judgement on nonsensical medical criteria like "legitimate rape"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WiQNPk_2G8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyKc6nPw6C4&feature=related My apologies for not giving more complete information. Thanks for the serious questions.
Now certainly you are not making up some FAKE MEDICAL term like legitimate rape are you ? On youtube, i can even prove to u that Obama is a Kenyan citizen. Honest
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion Likewise, I'm sure you're not suggesting that abortions don't actually occur as described in the videos I posted, right?
Or is it like "legitimate rape" where the right invents a medical terminology that does not exist and then runs away from it when questioned.
You've responded at least five times, giving all kind of excuses, however you claim you are too busy ? If you cannot name that one single procedure, how do i know you are not making it up. Why is this not similar to how right wing made up a new crime called "legitimate rape" and then ran away from it when people started asking questions ? How can i judge something when you can't even name the procedure ?
Which one of the abortion procedures you point to in the above link points to this ?
Dilation and evacuation-breaking babies bones or pulling limbs off, sometimes achievable without pulling the baby apart. Suction aspiration-sucking the baby out. Induction-Salt water burns the baby and creates an unlivable situation.
"Partial birth abortion is not a medical term; ... The term "partial birth abortion" was coined in 1995 by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in hopes it would spur anti-abortion response. " So you want me to comment on a "procedure" that was made up by non-doctors ?