UFI

Archive for July, 2009

Healthcare Costs Could Cut Live

In The Family on July 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Today we are facing a push by those in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide to gain widespread public acceptance of these practices and legalize them in countries around the world. The United States is currently faced with health care reform that may open the door for euthanasia and assisted suicide, all in the name of “cost cutting” and “efficiency.”

As of 2009, forms of assisted suicide or euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in the three American states of Oregon (via the Oregon Death with Dignity Act), Washington (by Washington Initiative 1000), and Montana (through a trial court ruling).

Current Issues

Assisted suicide and euthanasia reflect how we value life for all people – including the elderly and those that suffer with disabilities and illness. It is clear that there are vulnerable populations that must be protected legally, socially and medically. These people must be given the greatest amount of care possible, not ushered toward premature death through legislation, policies, lack of appropriate treatment, etc. Once the door is opened to allow “aid in dying,” we fundamentally and irreversibly change the way we view human life and the value we put on it.

Supporters of assisted suicide and euthanasia express the need for compassion and dignity as terminally ill people struggle in pain at the end of their lives. No one would argue against a need for compassion and dignity as people struggle in pain, but as one author put it, this is truly “compassion run amok.” Compassion does not require taking the life of someone, even if they are enduring great difficulty and pain. Voices now speak out in favor of allowing severely depressed people, even teenagers, to end their lives. We cannot accept the notion that some people deserve to live more than others, and allow society to embrace policies that promote the killing of a vulnerable segment of our population.

Carrie Gordon Earl explains that “physician-assisted suicide opens the door to euthanasia abuses. Allowing physicians to cross the line into killing does not stop with willing patients who request it. A case in point is in The Netherlands where doctors have practiced physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia for more than a decade. Two Dutch government reports, conducted in 1990 and 1995, found that, on average, 26 percent of euthanasia deaths in Holland were “without the explicit consent of the patient.” In 1995, 21 percent of the patients who were killed without consent were competent. Dutch physicians have also extended the practice of euthanasia to include comatose patients, handicapped infants and healthy but depressed adults. In 1996, a Dutch court found a physician guilty of euthanizing a comatose patient at the request of the patient’s family. Although the court determined the patient was not suffering and did not ask to die, the doctor was not punished. In 1995, Dutch physician Henk Prins was convicted of giving a lethal injection to a baby born with a partly formed brain and Spina bifida. The court refused to punish Prins. That same year, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that physician-assisted suicide might be acceptable for patients with unbearable suffering but no physical illness. A 1996 survey of Dutch psychiatrists found 64 percent of those responding “thought physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric patients could be acceptable.”

While these examples may seem extreme, they reflect a view that not all people should be allowed to live, especially when there are financial costs to consider.

“Escalating health care costs coupled with a growing elderly and disabled population set the stage for an American culture eager to embrace alternatives to expensive, long-term medical care. The so-called “right to die” may soon become the “duty to die” as our senior, disabled or depressed family members are pressured or coerced into ending their lives. The move toward managed care also threatens to promote euthanasia as more and more doctors are offered financial incentives to decrease the number of health care dollars spent per patient.

United States Issues

As U.S. President Obama’s healthcare reform plan, H.R. 3200, makes its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate, it has touched off more debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide. “A health economist warns that President Obama’s government-run healthcare plan may result in denying care to a significant number of Americans, especially senior citizens. Conservative opponents of President Obama’s healthcare plan argue that a government takeover of healthcare will allow Washington bureaucrats to use “comparative effectiveness research” to dictate to doctors which treatments they should prescribe and how much those treatments should cost. Critics say this will lead to rationing of care.”

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) says the House healthcare bill essentially tells senior citizens to “drop dead.” Despite their promise to care for our seniors, Democrats have decided that it’s too expensive to care for my senior constituents and everyone else’s constituents,” she contends.

President Obama recognizes that under his proposed system there will have to be rationing of care and that it is not feasible to cut costs and give everyone the treatment they may want. In a “town hall” meeting he discussed these issues and left many people wondering if this bill opens the door to a thinly disguised form of euthanasia – simply denying the care needed by elderly or disabled people would most likely hasten their death.

Throughout the world, citizens of a variety of nations are faced with policies and legislation that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. These practices devalue human life and create a society that takes advantage of its most vulnerable members. In the United States and in Canada we must stand now against legislation and “reforms” that do not value life. We have an opportunity to make our voices heard and stand for life.

We must stand up and let our voices be heard!

- 3 things you can do to stand for life –

1. Let your government officials know that euthanasia devalues life and cannot be accepted in any society that values its citizens.

2. Send this link to 10 of your friends and family – people must be educated on this issue so that we can make a difference.

3. Donate to UFI – If protecting your life is important to you, please consider making a $25, $50 or even $100 donation today to help us continue to stand for life.

Make a difference and STOP Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill

In Uncategorized on July 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Thursday, July 23 join pro-family leaders for an emergency webcast on how to make a difference during this crisis.

Leaders in the movement will be present on the webcast to discuss action steps that you can take to block this legislation from passage. They include: Reps. Chris Smith and Joe Pitts, and CWA’s Wendy Wright.

The webcast takes place this Thursday at 9 p.m. EST (6 p.m. Pacific, 7 p.m. Mountain, 8 p.m. Central). It will be 70 minutes long. No fee.

Registration for the event is available at: www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com

For more information read the UFI Weekly news alert.

The current status of the same-sex marriage battle

In Same-Sex Marriage, The Family, Uncategorized on July 9, 2009 at 11:52 am

There are new disturbing developments within New England and Washington, D.C.  and a new battleground has opened up in the state of New York. The current administration has made bold moves in direct defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and a new development has begun in contravention of California’s recent state Supreme Court victory.

NEW ENGLAND

The majority of New England has recently shifted towards supporting homosexual marriage. With Massachusetts and Connecticut having already legalized the practice, the legislatures of Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire recently also passed bills permitting the same thing. This leaves Rhode Island as the final state within that region that does not allow for the practice, although it does agree to recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.

We are delighted that Stand for Marriage Maine announced that they have collected more than the 55,087 signatures needed to place a People’s Veto on the November ballot. With the collection of these signatures, it is proof that there are still many who want to restore marriage to its tradition al roots between an man and a woman.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the nation’s capital, the city council voted on April 7th to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Upset by the council’s decision without any public input, a coalition of individuals, including many African-American ministers, filed a referendum questioning the decision. Though the referendum was defeated, the group supporting traditional marriage plans to file an appeal with the D.C. Superior Court. In addition a Republican-led group of lawmakers also introduced a bill in the House that seeks to define marriage in the District of Columbia exclusively between a man and a woman.

In the meantime, the White House’s actions surrounding same-sex marriage have been appalling. Beyond just declaring June 2009 as Gay Rights Month, President Obama further violated the intent of the federal Defense of Marriage Act by extending full benefits to all domestic partners of federal employees. Seeking to assuage a vocal group of constituents, federal tax dollars have been misused, said Wendy Wright, president of the conservative Concerned Women for America:

“Barack Obama’s order demeans marriage and misuses taxpayer dollars. It violates the intent of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines for the federal government that marriage (and thus all the benefits that come with marriage) is only between a man and a woman,” said Wright. “It generates untold costs and creates an incentive for fraud. Workers could claim anyone of the same sex is a ‘partner’ or seek coverage for multiple serial partners.”

Similar efforts have been made by other Democrats in the House, who have introduced a bill entitled the Reuniting Families Act. It blatantly redefines immigration policy by allowing for same-sex partners to be defined as “immediate family” for the purposes of reuniting in the United States. Without a marriage certificate, verifying the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships would be difficult.

NEW YORK

In May, the New York State Assembly voted by a majority to legalize same-sex marriage. Since that time, however, there has been great infighting amongst the Republican and Democrat members of the Assembly that have resulted in a gridlock of many forms of legislation, leaving the same-sex marriage result at a standstill. More news from this state on this particular issue is likely to emerge in the near future as their state legislature works to resolve its leadership disputes.

CALIFORNIA

On the west coast the battle over the California Supreme Court’s decision continues as a new case has been filed against the State of California in the hopes that the case will eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Initiated by a surprising new ally of the gay rights movement, former solicitor general Theodore Olson has filed a federal case against the state of California’s Proposition 8 in the hopes of it reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Olson has long been an attorney associated with representing conservative causes, and surprised many with this recent move. Though the outcome of the current Supreme Court’s justices on this issue is relatively uncertain, Olson’s case, entitled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-CV-2292, argues that gay people are being denied their rights under the Constitution’s due process and equal-protection clauses. In character with the unbelievable power of the U.S. Supreme Court, should it choose to consider the case, all of the respective statewide battlegrounds outcomes could become irrelevant.

ACT NOW

Voters in each state where marriage has been re-defined or where the battle rages on have been ignored by policy makers and activists. The will of the people continues to be trampled under by those that have no respect for our nation’s way of governing. It is time to make your voices heard by contacting your elected officials and even the U.S. Supreme Court. Tell them that the people deserve to be heard!

In some states, referenda and initiatives are a possible alternative. Also, getting involved in the next election today is an integral way to make your voice known. The future of the family depends on you.

Most important, support organizations that support and advocate for the family. Without the needed financial donations, we cannot continue to inform, educate and be there to make a difference.

Genetically Engineered to be a “Donor Child”

In Abortion, Stem Cells, The Family on July 2, 2009 at 12:26 pm

A newly released movie, “My Sister’s Keeper” has brought the controversial topics of parental rights and designer families to the box office. In this thought provoking movie Anna, the main character, was created to be a “donor child” for her older sister Kate who has leukemia. The parents choose to conceive Anna through genetic engineering to ensure that she was perfect genetic match with Kate. Thus, Anna can donate blood, bone marrow and whatever else is necessary to keep her elder sister alive.

Anna loves her sister and never complains. Then, 11 years later, Kate’s kidneys begin to fail and she’ll need one of Anna’s. Anna finally says no. She hires a big-shot lawyer and takes her parents to court seeking “medical emancipation.”

This movie is very timely on the current issues with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and generations of designer families. “Designer families” are becoming more and more popular with European and American couples. Using today’s technology to “design” the number, type and sex of their families has geneticists, ethicists, pro-life and pro-family experts alarmed over the potential harm this practice will have on children, families and society as a whole, and especially on women.

We want to hear from our readers, Do you think it is ok for a family to genetically engineer a child in hopes of saving another?