New letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL!

An amendment (the Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment) has been added to the healthcare bill that supposedly removes taxpayer funding of elective abortion.

It does not.

Analysis by National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5607.html) reveals that the amendment is complex subterfuge, and that all cases of elective abortion will still be permitted - and funded - by other provisions of the bill.

As you are no doubt aware, Creigh Deeds' candidacy for governor was rejected locally 71.85% to 27.25%. If you support this bill, which local voters such as myself are adamantly against, the same may happen to you next year.

Healthcare "Reform" - mandatory abortion coverage

The current healthcare "reform" plan requires - REQUIRES - all insurance plans, public or private, to pay for abortion.

There are many problems with this.

One, I'm a single man. Why should I have insurance for childcare, whether killing the baby or live birth? And why should my parents in their senior years be required to have childcare insurance coverage?

Two, I don't want to pay for other people's elective abortion. And most people agree with me; a Zogby poll last year says 71% of Americans don't want insurance to be required to cover abortion.

Three, I believe abortion kills babies. 82% of Americans believe there should be at least some limits on abortion, and 11% believe all elective abortion should be illegal.

In contrast, President Obama is part of the only 9% of Americans (Harris) that believes that abortion should be legal for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. But more than that, he wants it paid for at taxpayer expense.

Why? Some experts believe that the purpose is population control. This will come in two ways.

One, many people will choose abortion over children. Some women will gladly take the simplicity of a minor surgical procedure (nevermind that only one of the two patients will survive the process) to the extended difficulty of a pregnancy followed by the pain of the birth. And some people, given the choice between meeting their obligations as human beings and actually caring for their own children or discarding their own offspring as "inconvenient" will take the easy way out. Then factor in that they don't actually have to pay for even the abortion themselves, and you have a "no-brainer".

Two, we will soon see encouragement to reduce childhood disorders. We will see efforts to reduce issues like Down's Syndrome, autism, and the 2% of all children who are technically "mentally retarded". How will these be reduced? Simple - fetal tests. And if the baby, that is, "fetus" has signs of a concern, the mother will be advised to abort the child. Later, this "advice" may become stronger. Parents have recently become legally criminal for not having their children vaccinated as instructed; parents may soon become required to kill "substandard" children. Obviously, these steps will require that the abortion be funded.

There may be portents of a third step to come later. Obama's "Science Czar", John P. Holdren (director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) has written (another reference) that he does not believe a child to be a "human being" until he, excuse me, "it", is several years old, and then only if "given the opportunity to develop properly" including "essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food". Those who don't "develop properly"? They are never deemed human at any age, and as such can be eliminated without consequence. You know, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians - anybody the ruling authority deems to have a negative influence in society. I would hope that one individual with radical ideas will not unduly influence the rest, but you never know.

I would have hoped that the second phase would not come in my lifetime, if at all. This is the stuff of science fiction, and not the good kind. But experts are now expecting this to come soon. Phase One within months, if the current "reform" passes, and Phase Two soon afterward. On the other hand, it has only been sixty-some years since the third phase was used extensively in Europe.

Abortion is murder. But murder is also murder.

Some over-zealous individual (or nutjob, or psycopath - I don't know his story) killed an abortion doctor Sunday morning.

Yes, I believe abortion is wrong. But murder is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a wrong done for the right reasons is still wrong.

How should this have been handled? Since elective abortion is murder, the laws should reflect such and those who do elective abortions under such law should be found by the courts to be guilty of murder. (No, the law should not be retroactive, as no laws should be.) The law should then act and serve justice. If a murder is, for some reason, not legally considered such (whether unborn children as now, or members of unfavored ethnicities as in the past), then the law should be changed, not the enforcement of laws.

However, this individual who murdered the doctor finds himself in the same place he wished the doctor. The doctor is legally not guilty and the individual guilty. When these persons come before God for judgment, they will both be deemed guilty of the same crime.