Archive for ObamaCare

White House lied about Gruber’s role in ObamaCare

Posted in Abortion and Crime, Gruber, ObamaCare, ObamaCare and abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

Back in December of 2014, I took a look at the White House visitor logs and noticed that the ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber was a busy man.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Another interesting visitor was Donald Berwick who visited the White House numerous times. Berwick once acknowledged that ObamaCare was a redistribution of wealth which would ration health care.

See Berwick’s email logs here.

Now, 20,0000 new e-mails show that Gruber who espoused abortion as eugenics had a larger role in drafting ObamaCare than previously thought.

Gruber white house lied

This contradicts reports from top officials including Obama who claimed Gruber’s role was minimal after he embarrassed the administration for calling the American people stupid.

Nancy Pelosi, the House Majority leader at the time ObamaCare passed, who told the American people that they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, also claimed that she didn’t know who Gruber was even though she had touted his work years earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/c/embed/2642df8c-6b6b-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d

The Obama administration initially downplayed Gruber’s role in the Affordable Care Act as evidenced in the video below during a 2012 press conference at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Australia:

Now, thousands of previously unreleased emails provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal showed that Gruber played a much larger role in drafting ObamaCare and was in touch with key Obama advisers during the ObamaCare process.

A July 2009 email even indicates Gruber was invited to meet with the President, “to talk about cost control.”

A report from the Washington Examiner reveals more:

    Shortly after last fall’s election, tapes surfaced of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber smugly describing how deception, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” had been “critical” in allowing Democrats who controlled Congress to ram Obamacare through in 2010.

    This was important because the law Gruber helped write restructured nearly a fifth of the national economy and upended many people’s healthcare arrangements. The Obama administration paid him some $400,000 for his efforts, and he also managed to snag millions more dollars for consulting gigs with various state Obamacare exchanges.

    When Gruber’s comments surfaced, no one ran away from him as quickly as President Obama, who dismissed him as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” The president and his officials pretended that Gruber had been a bit player in the passage of the law.

    It turns out, however, that this was as wildly inaccurate as Obama’s promise that his reforms would allow people to keep their health plans if they wanted to.

Now that the e-mails have surfaced disproving the President’s claim that Gruber’s role in ObamaCare was minimal, pundits are accusing the White House of lying.

GRUBER’S EUGENICS IDEAS:

While apologizing for his insulting statements to the American people Gruber was also grilled on controversial eugenics like statements he made on abortion, referring to the poor as “marginal children” and calling for “positive selection.”

Grubers abortion paper creepy eugenics

In Gruber’s 1998 paper, “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child,” he concludes that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments.

Gruber ab saves billions

In 2006, Gruber authored another paper with Phillip B. Levine, Elizabeth Oltmans Ananat, and Douglas Staiger called, Abortion and Selection, where they again use terms like “marginal child” and “positive selection through abortion.”

Abortion and Selection Jonathan Gruber

Two earlier papers investigated the implications of such positive selection through abortion for the quality of cohorts born after abortion legalization. Gruber, Levine and Staiger (GLS, 1999) found that the legalization of abortion led to significant improvements in the circumstances of children born into cohorts where abortion was legal. Such cohorts of children lived in households with lower rates of single motherhood, welfare receipt and poverty, and experienced lower infant mortality than nearby cohorts of children. Donohue and Levitt (DL, 2001) focused on a relevant outcome for children at older ages and young adults, crime.1 They found that increased use of abortion in the 1970s resulted in lower crime rates among the cohorts born in that era when those cohorts were in their late teens and early 20s,” the paper reads.

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

Effect of abortion birth rates distance

Interestingly, the paper thanks Jonathan Gruber for providing research assistance, “We thank Jonathan Gruber for comments and Eileen Aguila, David Autor, and Tara Gustafson for outstanding research assistance.”

Abortion decreases welfare

Back to his paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that the there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

freakonomics

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

Unwanted children are disadvantaged

Gruber’s group finally concludes that “unwanted children” will grow up “disadvantaged” writing, “Most importantly, taken together with earlier results (Gruber, et al., 1999), our findings suggest that the improved living circumstances experienced by the average child born after the legalization of abortion had a lasting impact on the lifelong prospects of these children. Children who were “born unwanted” prior to the legalization of abortion not only grew up in more disadvantaged households, but they also grew up to be more disadvantaged as adults…Overall, our results provide further evidence that abortion is associated with differential selection and its impact is persistent.”

So, if Gruber and his friends can conclude that the fertility rates among “Non-White” women drop substantially when abortion is legal and then claim that a reduction in crime also follows legalized abortion- what subtle messages are they implying?

Since it’s inception, we know that abortion has been a tool for the eugenics movement and we also know clearly – just who- that movement seeks to target.

I may not be an MIT economist, but, I can do the math here – and so can you.

In fact, so did Justice Department when they discovered that members of the the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) joked about how Black abortions reduce crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.

abortion_is_black_genocide_10_sticker_rectangle

The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

The Ferguson police officer eventually resigned.

Black abortions reduce crime joke Ferguson officials said DOJ

Posted in Black Lives Matter, DOJ, Ferguson, Gruber with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2015 by saynsumthn

Without getting into the politics of the Ferguson police shooting case, the Justice Department has unveiled some disturbing e-mails from the Ferguson city officials linking black abortions to a reduction in crime.

Ferguson DOJ Investigation

This week, the Justice Department announced the findings of its two civil rights investigations related to Ferguson, Missouri, today. The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The Justice Department also announced that the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

They DOJ wrote this about the stereotype of Black abortions reducing crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.

abortion_is_black_genocide_10_sticker_rectangle

The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

In fact, abortion is the number one killer of the Black Community prompting pro-lifers to challenge the Ferguson #BlackLivesMatter hashtag because Black leaders were not protesting abortion.

David Clark Jr

A tweet sent by Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke about the Ferguson protests went viral after he joined in the criticism of the black communicates’ failure to protest abortion, it
read, “If only these faux protesters were asked by media about all the black on black killing or black babies aborted in US every year.

David A Clark abortion tweet

In addition, recent ideas linking African American abortions to crime reduction have been spread through abortion radicals as well. Case in point is a blog I recently published about ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber.

freakonomics

Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

Abortion decreases welfare
In Gruber’s paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

According to Life News, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, Donahue and Levitt concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s, Life News reported.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

But, when the Obama administration wanted someone to develop his Health Care plan- he turned to Gruber. Now the Obama DOJ criticizes Ferguson officials for the using the exact same racist ideology. Anyone confused?

Pro-life leader compares Medicare abortion to ‘Obama Phones’

Posted in Medicare Abortion, ObamaCare with tags , , , , , on February 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

Easy find? ObamaCare plans that include abortion giant Planned Parenthood

Posted in ObamaCare and abortion, Planned Parenthood ObamaCare with tags , , , , , , , , on February 3, 2015 by saynsumthn

A headline today over at The Stanek Report reads: Obamacare: Still nearly impossible to find info on few “pro-life” plans

Stanek Report ObamaCare Jan 2015

It links to a Townhall story, from the article:

    Americans seeking health care coverage on the Obamacare exchange system have two weeks left in the 2015 open enrollment season. For individuals and families seeking to avoid purchasing coverage of elective abortion, the process has been – and continues to be – tricky.

    Indeed, none of the troubles besetting the Affordable Care Act has been more emblematic than its massive imposition on consumer conscience. As the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) and Family Research Council (FRC) research teams have confirmed, it is nearly impossible for pro-life consumers to identify and access health care plans that do not trespass upon deeply held beliefs about the value of all human life.

    The groups’ joint project, ObamacareAbortion.com, sheds light on elective abortion coverage in the 2015 Obamacare plans and allows consumers to make a more informed choice.

Lozier abortion ObamaCare map

At the end of January 2015 Kaiser Family Foundation reported:

    This lack of transparency was the impetus for a U.S. General Accounting Office review of the availability of abortion coverage in 2014 Marketplace plans.

    The report found that among the states without Marketplace abortion coverage bans, in five states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont) there were no Multi-State plans offered, and all of the Marketplace plans in those states included abortion coverage. This meant that consumers in those states who wanted to secure a plan without abortion coverage did not have that option. While it is stipulated in the law that at least one Multi-State plan in each Marketplace is required to exclude abortion coverage, there is a transitional period to implement this policy (ending in 2017).

PPObamaCareLearnMoreNewSite

_____________________

But, while pro-life people try to find out which plans will avoid the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, over at abortion giant Planned Parenthood, all you need to do is enter your “zip code” to find out which plans include Planned Parenthood.

Coincidence? I think not!

Plans include PP Zip

And there is a Planned Parenthood plan finder page:

Planned Parenthood ObamaCare lan Finder

And what does Planned Parenthood advertise on their healthcare “Plan” website under: Maternity Care?

ABORTION SERVICES!

PP Abortion Services on ObamaCare

    What maternity care services are covered?
    Every plan will cover essential maternity services. Plans on the Marketplace will offer some prenatal services and screenings for free with no copay, as well as breastfeeding counseling and services. However, the other covered services and copay amounts vary greatly from plan to plan, so make sure you know what and how much a particular plan covers before selecting it. For Medicaid, all covered pregnancy-related services (prenatal care, labor, delivery, and post-natal care) are covered for free, with no copay.
    If you are pregnant or just had a baby and are covered under your parent’s plan, please keep in mind that your parent’s plan may not cover your newborn. It’s important to call your parent’s insurance provider to see if you can add your newborn to the plan.

    After you give birth, you may also be eligible for a special enrollment period, which means you will have 60 days to enroll yourself and your child, or just your child, into a new, more affordable health plan in the Health Insurance Marketplace. To find a plan that meets your needs and to see if you could be eligible for financial help, click here. You or your newborn may also be eligible for low-cost or free coverage through Medicaid or CHIP.

    If you need to consider ending a pregnancy, it’s important to know that abortion coverage will vary from state to state and plan to plan. Some states have banned coverage of abortion altogether, and some plans just don’t cover abortion services and procedures.

    Learn more about abortion services.

    Does the plan cover your current provider (a specific doctor, OB-GYN, or health center you prefer, such as Planned Parenthood)?
    Insurance plans have a “network” or list of providers where you can use your insurance. Not every plan will include every provider, so check to see if your current provider is included in the plans you are considering.

    If you want to have Planned Parenthood as an option for care, make sure you choose a plan that includes us as a provider.

PP Abortion Services on ObamaCare LARGE

WH visitor logs for Jonathan Gruber and Donald Berwick

Posted in Berwick, Gruber with tags , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

I took a look at the White House visitor logs posted recently and noticed that the ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber was a busy man:

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs Large

Jonathan Gruber WH Logs

( Details on Subject Titles here)

Another interesting visitor was Donald Berwick who visited the White House numerous times. Berwick once acknowledged that ObamaCare was a redistribution of wealth which would ration health care.

Donald Berwick WH Visits part 1

Donald Berwick WH Visits part 2

Planned Parenthood “Heck Yes” to Ginsburg comes on heels of Gruber abortion comments

Posted in Abortion saves taxpayers, Gruber, Maafa21, Mark Crutcher, Planned Parenthood Ginsburg, Planned Parenthood poor care, Planned Parenthood Poor Women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Saves Taxpayers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

On the heels of a video by disgraced ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber who said that abortion would save the taxpayers money because it would basically eliminate the poor, comes Planned Parenthood’s “Heck Yes” on another eugenics leader who said something similar.

No sooner did eugenics documentary and Planned Parenthood history film producer, Mark Crutcher release a statement comparing Jonathan Gruber’s comments on abortion to statements made by Supreme Court Justice and radical abortion advocate Ruth Bader Ginsburg – that – abortion giant Planned Parenthood gave her the “Heck Yes” award.

Planned Parenthood Ginsburg Heck Yes

There were times in 2014 when we just wanted to stand up and give a round of applause,” writes the eugenics founded Planned Parenthood organization,”When people spoke up for women’s health and rights so boldly, so bravely, so perfectly, we couldn’t help but cheer them on. As this year comes to a close, we took a look back with Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s Best and Worst of 2014, and asked you to vote for the top “Heck Yes!” moment of the year.

Drumroll please…
And the Winner Is:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Planned Parenthood continues, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us our “Heck Yes!” Moment of the Year for her scathing dissent in the Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby. In June, she wrote that the Court’s ruling — which lets some bosses deny their employees birth control coverage — is so startlingly broad that it can override the health care needs of employees and their dependents across the country.

“There were so many gripping lines from her 35-page dissent it’s hard to pick our favorite. In one of the most ominous, she warned that the precedent being set “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

Maafa21 logo

Life Dynamics president, Mark Crutcher writes on his blog, “In 2009, we released Maafa 21 – a 2 hour documentary in which we proved that the legalization of abortion had nothing to do with women’s rights, or choice, or reproductive freedom or any of the other sales pitches you hear from the abortion lobby. The truth is, abortion was legalized as an instrument of eugenics and racial genocide.

RuthBaderGinsberg

“Ironically, within a few months after we released Maafa21, the most radical abortion enthusiast on the U.S. Supreme Court issued a statement to the New York Times that confirmed exactly what we were saying. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“Here’s my question: when she said that abortion was legalized to deal with populations we don’t want to have too many of, do you get the feeling she was suggesting that there might be too many rich white people in the world? Or is it possible she might have had some other folks in mind?

And the answer is clear – YES she did. if you want to know who Ginsburg was referring to- watch the film Maafa21 – which is available to view in full on the website http://www.maafa21.com.

Jonathan Gruber CSPAN Hearings Dec 9 2014

Ironically, just yesterday during a Congressional hearing with ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie exposed the very thing that Ginsburg stated in 2009 during his questioning of Gruber.

(Partial Transcript Below: )

MASSIE:I have a question for you have you. Have you had any ethics training at MIT or Harvard ?

GRUBER: I as a condition for receiving federal grants we have to take a human subjects

MASSIE: okay so this is a little bit philosophical what I’m gonna ask you now but you’re doctor of philosophy so to speak. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deceive someone for their own benefit?

GRUBER: Uh…I’m not aware circumstances in which I ..

MASSIE: Could you could you imagine maybe an adult could withhold information from children for their own benefit?

GRUBER: I guess

MASSIE: Now so if you understand that then you understand why my constituents are so offended by your proposition that it’s okay to deceive or obfuscate for somebody’s benefit compounding the insulted you delivered to them is the fact that they pay your salary . Do you did you understand fully why it was so insulting? You patronize them you were condescending.

GRUBER: I was

MASSIE: And my colleagues on the Democrat side of the isle are upset with you simply because you committed candor- you said what you thought- you said what they were all thinking -when they wrote road Obamacare – that they knew what was best for my constituents. I submit to you my constituents are not your children. And they have the right to self-determination. So this gets me to another instance where you commit candor.

In 1997 you co-authored a paper entitled , “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances who was the marginal child?” On page twenty you conclude that abortion legalization appears to be associated with an improvement in the average living circumstances and birth outcomes among a birth cohort and on page 26 you state that your research indicates that the legalization of abortion saved the government fourteen billion dollars in welfare payments through 1994.

Is providing more access to abortion – is that a worthy social outcome to achieve cost savings for the government?

GRUBER: That is uh not what my paper was about. It was a philosophical paper it was about empirical facts…

MASSIE: tell us what you meant by this sentence by 1993 all cohorts under the age 18 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of 1.6 billion dollars per year from positive selection. What did you mean by positive selection? Because in this paper you’re talking about providing more access to abortions to a socio-economic strata of our constituents.

MASSIE: What did you mean by positive selection?

GRUBER: In that paper, we were studying the characteristics of children who were born before and after abortion was legalized. By comparing those characteristics you can infer the characteristics as a ….

MASSIE: So what’s you inferred I find chilling. What you inferred is that if we reduce the number of people of children born life would be better for the rest of us still living. Specifically, you seem to suggest that if we eliminate or reduce the number of poor people that are born this will make life better for all Americans. And this gets me to my final point, which is the Independent Payment Advisory Board, my constituents fear that this is in fact a method by which Obamacare will ration health care for the elderly and therefore implement cost savings for Medicare. So, my question to you is, is your philosophy on abortion, that it can save money and improve outcomes, have any implications in the realm with end of life care? You argue that abortions for poor (?) children raise the average living circumstances in your paper, for the rest of us and save the government money. So, Dr. Gruber, if there are fewer elderly people, particularly poor elderly people, wouldn’t that save a ton of money to? As an economist wouldn’t that would save money too and do you understand the dangerous implications of going down this path?

GRUBER: I have no philosophy of abortion. I have no philosophy of end of life care. My job’s an economist is to deliver the empirical facts ( ??) can make the necessary..

MASSIE: And what would your facts be on the elderly?

GRUBER: I don’t understand the question?

MASSIE: the end of Life Care? Do you advocate that the federal government should ration that?

GRUBER: no I …

MASSIE: as an economist would it save money?

GRUBER: I do not advocate the federal government’s should ration end of life care.

MASSIE: thank you, I yield back.

Crutcher summarized Gruber’s comments well, “Gruber tried bobbing and weaving around Congressman Massie’s questions but, in the end, it was clear his position was that legalized abortion has allowed our country to kill off the children of the poor and, thereby, provide a higher quality of life for those who are still living. In one of his previous writings he had described the victims of abortion as “marginal children” and referred to the process of eliminating them as “positive selection.” During his testimony he refused to define exactly what “positive selection” means, but you’d have to actually be as stupid as Gruber thinks you are not to understand what he was saying.

“So let’s recap. Now we have not one, but two, radical, high-profile, godless abortion supporters, confirming what we documented in Maafa 21. First, Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits that eugenics was the driving force behind the legalization of abortion, and then Jonathan Gruber admits that it’s working exactly as it was intended. And make no mistake, everyone at the top of the abortion lobby food chain has also known that this was the agenda since day one. They know that this issue is about political power, money, race and eugenics, but unlike Ginsburg and Gruber, they don’t go out in the public and talk about it.”

Read Crutcher’s full statements here.

Worth reading is my blog: Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg : population control a national policy

ObamaCare architect wants to die at 75 and he retains the right to change

Posted in Ezekiel Emanuel with tags , , , on September 22, 2014 by saynsumthn

One of the architects of ObamaCare, Ezekiel J. Emanuel just published an op-ed stating that he wants to die at 75.

Why I Hoe to Die at 75

In Emanuel’s, Why I Hope to Die at 75, he claims he is not advocating euthanasia, “Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. Today I am, as far as my physician and I know, very healthy, with no chronic illness. I just climbed Kilimanjaro with two of my nephews. So I am not talking about bargaining with God to live to 75 because I have a terminal illness. Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority.”

Nope he is, “talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.”

Emanuel calls living long a “loss” saying that it, “It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.”

But 75 defines a clear point in time: for me, 2032, ” Emanual writes, “It removes the fuzziness of trying to live as long as possible. Its specificity forces us to think about the end of our lives and engage with the deepest existential questions and ponder what we want to leave our children and grandchildren, our community, our fellow Americans, the world. The deadline also forces each of us to ask whether our consumption is worth our contribution. As most of us learned in college during late-night bull sessions, these questions foster deep anxiety and discomfort. The specificity of 75 means we can no longer just continue to ignore them and maintain our easy, socially acceptable agnosticism.”

he finishes by giving himself an out-a right to change his mind- because, like all good liberals, he does not believe in absolutes, “Seventy-five years is all I want to live. I want to celebrate my life while I am still in my prime. My daughters and dear friends will continue to try to convince me that I am wrong and can live a valuable life much longer. And I retain the right to change my mind and offer a vigorous and reasoned defense of living as long as possible. That, after all, would mean still being creative after 75.”

Read the full op-ed here.