PPACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, is a truly horrendous piece of legislation.  Even if the socialized health care model was actually successful, which we know for a fact based on the evidence seen in other nations that it isn’t…Obama and the left went for over-kill in what they had written into PPACA.   All we truly need is an effective system that wisely utilizes economic resources.  They went for the “Bentley” of socialized health care models!

It’s important that we keep this information front and center all the way through the election in 2012.  In an effort to do my small part, I’ll be posting diaries that provide data about the events scheduled to take place.  Some of the lists are long, so I’ll break it into smaller diaries, keeping the lists to approximately ten items per diary.

The general point of these diaries is to develop enough familiarity with the law to recognize and understand in what ways our lives will be impacted, what the projected costs influences might be, how to communicate the scope of change to our fellow citizens, and to identify the points at which another type of approach would be far more cost-effective.

Here’s a partial list of what will be taking place this year in the category of Medicare.  I’m drawing my information from this PPACA timeline, in case you want to check it out for yourself.  I’ve attempted to provide at least one link to each item.  What I will say about the links is CONSIDER THE SOURCE.  For example, if a link is to CMS, you’re likely to get only pro-policy statements from this source, which doesn’t imply totally objectivity about the topic matter.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Data

Deadline for the Secretary to confidentially provide physicians with their benefits claims data for use in measuring the use of resources.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Payment

For Medicare fee-for-service program, deadline for the Secretary to provide new value-based component for physician payment formula related to cost and quality of care

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Payment Cuts

Deadline for the Secretary to recommend to Congress options around expanding Medicare’s hospital-acquired condition payment policy to include other institutions: rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals, outpatient departments, inpatient psychiatric facilities, cancer hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical centers and health clinics.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Cuts to Physicians

Cuts bonus payments for participating in PQRI (Physician Quality Reporting Initiative) to 1%.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Transparency

HHS may give standardized extracts of Medicare claims data for specified geographic areas to qualified public and private entities to evaluate provider performance

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

Deadline for the Secretary to establish an “accountable care organization” whereby providers would accept a pre-determine reimbursement amount for treating at least 5,000 patients, and may keep some of the money if they provide care at less than the reimbursement amount.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Home Health Demonstration

Note: the above link presents the HHA program in the state of Minnesota.

Deadline for the Secretary to begin a demonstration project testing a payment model for providers who give care in patient’s homes, particularly for chronically ill beneficiaries.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element: Cuts to Medicare Advantage

Deadline for the Secretary to transition to a new formula for calculating benchmark payments in Medicare Advantage.

Note: The above is a Heritage Foundation sourced article.  Quote from the article:

Low-Income and Minority Seniors Hit Hardest. The deep reductions in MA payment rates and services covered will hit low-income and minority seniors disproportionately hard. Hispanic Americans are twice as likely to be enrolled in MA plans as is the average Medicare beneficiary; African Americans are 10 percent more likely. Almost 300,000 Hispanics and over 800,000 African Americans will lose access to MA. MA and would-be MA enrollees with incomes under $30,000 per year will lose a total of $38.5 billion in health care services from PPACA cuts.

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Medicare Advantage

Medicare Advantage plans must start to allocate rebate payments according to the following in order of priority (1) reduce cost-sharing requirements , (2) cover preventive benefits , and (3) add fee-for-service benefits

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Dual Eligibles

Start date for when the Secretary may eliminate cost-sharing for drugs to dispensed to dual eligibles receiving care in their home or community instead of in an institution

Implementation Date: 01/01/12        Element:  Prescription Drugs

Deadline for health plans participating in Part D to use utilization management techniques when dispensing drugs to enrollees in long-term care facilities.

Enough for one diary.  See ya’ next time.

Earlier today, I had to transport a family member to and from the hospital for minor outpatient surgery.  The health care facility in question was an hour’s drive from home.  During the return trip, we tuned the radio in to listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show for today.  It was then that I had the opportunity to listen to clips of Daniel Hannan’s speech at the CPAC gathering last week.

I wasn’t expecting to find it inspirational.  I wasn’t expecting to find encouragement for Conservatives in this battle we are facing.  I definitely wasn’t expecting to find myself thankful that, for whatever reasons, the surgery had been delayed for an hour or so.  Yet each of these things, I found.

Many of us as Conservatives know beyond any shadow of doubt that if our nation continues on its current course of further implementation of socialistic policies, we will go the way of other nations, such as Greece.  It’s one of the things we’ve been fighting against, desperately seeking a path forward that allows us to prevent the same course of events that have occurred in Greece, and in other European nations as well, from happening here.

We are not Europe.  We are The United States of America…the land of the free and the home of the brave.  We have our own way of doing things that has served us well for over two centuries.  Liberty and freedom have been the cornerstones on which our nation was founded that allowed us to have the opportunity to succeed in becoming the leader of the free world.  And by no stretch of the imagination are We The People simply willing to turn our backs on that legacy of liberty and freedom.

Hearing such things from the lips of other Americans doesn’t sound unusual or uncommon.  Hearing them come from the lips of a member of British Parliament, on the other hand…well, that does stand out as somewhat unusual, doesn’t it?

After returning home, I proceeded to find a video of Mr. Hannan’s speech.  It’s included at the end of this diary and I hope that those who have the time to do so will watch the entirety of it.  For those who may not have the time to do so, here is a basic 6-point list of items Mr. Hannan covered in his speech:

1)      It is when we are optimistic that we win. 

2)      The source of optimism comes from the freedoms and liberties provided to us through the Constitution of the United States. 

3)      Fighting for decentralization and reduction of power of government is the RIGHT thing to do!

There’s an incredible ring of truth and wisdom to Mr. Hannan’s words of warning to America if we follow the same path of greater centralization of government that has occurred in the European Union.  For all that we as Conservatives might speak of President Obama’s seeming “incompetence” of leadership, Mr. Hannan makes the point very vividly that there is indeed a specific kind of leadership that is being provided…a leadership that will culminate in the Europeanization of the United States of America.  He presents no illusions to the fact that the people of the nations under that policy of politicization become “less prosperous, less independent, less democratic, and less free”!

4)      “There is still time to turn aside”

5)      If we want to turn aside, we have to strive for electing Conservatives to Congress.

6)      Every Congressman we pursue electing to office should take the oath to defend and uphold the Constitution seriously.  

Mr. Hannan ends his speech with the following words of encouragement:

“Let me end…let me end, my friends, with a heart-felt imprecation.  From a British Conservative who loves his country to American Conservatives who still believe in theirs.  Honor the vision of your founders.  Cleave to the most sublime constitution devised by human intelligence.  Don’t be the generation that cuts itself off from the wisdom of your fathers and disinherits your children.  Never be afraid to speak to and for the soul of this nation of which, by good fortune and God’s grace, you are privileged to be part.”

If there was ever an affirmation that we as Conservatives stand in the right by fighting to roll back the tide of creeping and blatant socialism that has been stealing away our liberties and freedoms, hearing it come from someone who has already traveled that path provides that affirmation!!

Thank You, Mr. Hannan.  May God bless you as well, sir!

First, we can look at the information provided in NPR article, entitled “Romney’s Unlikely And Persuasive Defense Of The Individual Mandate”.

Here’s one juicy tidbit to consider:

Said John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, “Romney has given in this entire presidential campaign last evening what I believe is the most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate.”

Want another to chew on?  Try this one:

And while Romney insisted that the Massachusetts law and the federal law differ in significant ways, McDonough, who was intimately involved in the development and passage of both the Massachusetts and federal health laws, insists that’s not really the case.

“The similarities go far far beyond the mandate,” he said. For example, “the essential architecture of the insurance reforms in the Affordable Care Act are taken wholly from the Massachusetts health reform law.”

Just words on a page, right?

Okay, then, how about something of a visual/verbal comparison instead….

Ladies and Gentlemen…

straight from the jowls of the marvelous body of liberal intelligentsia, Think Progress…

Romney and Obama on Healthcare!!

Just a preview of what’s to come.  That’s all.

This is the conclusion to the Abortion “Onion”.  To summarize what has been discussed in Layer 1, Layer 2, Layer 3 and Layer 4:

Abortion is an industry. 

Fetal tissue harvesting is a lucrative business.

Pro-choice advocates have adamantly protested against laws that would promote patient safety and quality of care. 

Planned Parenthood is being allowed to establish themselves as an accrediting body providing accreditation services to service providers that obtain business referrals from Planned Parenthood.    

And they want NO external oversight involved!!!  

Just to reiterate a few points, here are portions of an interview conducted with Carol Everett, a former director of four abortion clinics and owner of two, who has since become a pro-life advocate:

Q. What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?

A. Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation. Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.

Q. Abortion is supposed to be a “safe” experience. What complications did you witness?

A. In the last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing over 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500. Common complications that take place are perforations or tears in the uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies. The doctor might cut or harm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A complication that is rarely publicized is the one in which the doctor perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through the vagina, resulting in colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, some must live with the colostomy for the remainder of their lives

From the testimony of those who have worked within the industry, we know that the financial implications pertaining to the abortion industry do play a significant role in relationship to what goes on within the industry itself.  We also know that the “rare, safe and legal” canard that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice advocates use to describe abortion is little more than a cover-up to hide the financial emphasis within the industry as a whole.

As Conservatives, in fighting against abortion, we usually tend to look at funding derived from taxpayer sources and individual pieces of legislation such as the Sonogram law, ban on human embryo patents, fetal pain abortion laws and others.  What I have hoped to present in providing information in this series is to show that pro-life advocates also have another option as well…the option of regulatory measures, including accreditation and credentialing.

If we do not challenge Planned Parenthood now where regulatory measures are concerned, then the most likely outcome is that they will establish a monopoly, both economically and as an acting governing body for legislative issues.    

We have new allies on the horizon, found in pro-life champions representing minorities within our society.  For example, we have pro-life allies such as Eduardo Verastegui (a Latino actor/producer whose video “Dura Realidad” is included below) and ad campaigns within the black community coming from organization such as the Radiance Foundation.  Here’s one of their recent ads:

By recognizing our allies and joining forces with them in what ways we can, we increase our chances of succeeding in protecting the sanctity and dignity of human life…and that is what this battle is all about! 

I deliberately saved the “Dura Realidad” video until last.  And before readers come to it, I will remind them once again of the quote that was made on the Planned Parenthood website:

In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

By using the word “demise” in their onsite instructions, Planned Parenthood indicated very plainly that they are completely and totally aware of the fact that they are contributing to the death or termination of existence of a human life!  There is no other explanation or any excuse that can be offered to explain this away.

The Dura Realidad video provides a clear example of the culmination of Planned Parenthood’s activities.  But please take FULL ADVANCE WARNING…this video begins with a brief introduction from Mr. Verastegui, but then includes very graphic images of aborted babies.  The images themselves are very powerful, as is the conclusion of the video.

It is the reader’s choice to determine whether or not they want to watch the video, but it is my responsibility to tell them in advance that it is indeed graphic in the images that it provides!!

With that being said, I’ll offer my thanks to those who have read this series, and may we join forces for a stronger alliance in the days to come!

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1,  Layer 2 , and Layer 3.

In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified.  The first point is that abortion is industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed.  The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind.  They don’t.

In the third part of this series, the position of pro-choice advocates in opposition to accreditation and other legal measures (which they call TRAP laws) that would promote patient safety and quality of care was discussed.

Where we left off is why pro-choice advocates are so adamant in their opposition to these kinds of laws?

Here’s the secret…they are adamantly against practices such as accreditation when they are conducted by external organizations!!!

As it stands at the present, accreditation requirements vary from state to state.  There is a list provided at The Joint Commission (TJC) website that provides detailed information pertaining to accreditation requirements for each state.  For example, in the state of NY, it states this:

“Accredited status” means the full accreditation by nationally-recognized accrediting agency(ies) determined by the commissioner.
(Note: the Joint Commission has been designated as an approved accrediting body)

1. Licensee practices in which office-based surgery is performed shall obtain and maintain full accredited status.
2. A licensee may only perform office-based surgery in a setting that has obtained and maintains full accredited status.

The context of the law in New York defines office based surgery as

Any surgical or other invasive procedure performed outside of a hospital, diagnostic and treatment center or other Article 28 facility in which moderate sedation or deep sedation or general anesthesia is utilized to provide comfort to the patient in order to perform the procedure. Only one surgical procedure is specifically included in the definition of OBS – liposuction of greater than 500cc’s of fat.

Based on the law in NY, this would mean that any and all abortions that (1) use conscious sedation/general anesthesia and (2) involve performing a D&C or D&E would have to be performed in a TJC accredited facility.  If the provider fails to do so, then they are violating the law and should be held accountable for it.  (Question…I wonder if any pro-life advocates are following up on this to check the status of abortion providers under the office-based surgery law in New York???)

Within this context, if the state assigns an organization such as The Joint Commission to be the accrediting body in the state, this ensures that there is external oversight on provision of abortions and the abortion industry as a whole.  The external accrediting body is required by law to report any violations or failures to meet the standards.  These reports could conceivably close down these office-based surgery facilities or greatly limit the scope of practice until such time as the facility meets the required standards.

This is the threat that pro-choice advocates recognize.  This is why Planned Parenthood Federation of America is in the process of legally obtaining the right to act as an accrediting institution in various states.

Here’s what is provided for office based surgery centers in the state of Washington:

Accreditation or certification. Within three hundred sixty-five calendar days of the effective date of this rule, a physician who performs a procedure under this rule must ensure that the procedure is performed in a facility that is appropriately equipped and maintained to ensure patient safety through accreditation or certification and in good standing from one of the following:

(a) The Joint Commission;

(b) The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care;

(c) The American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities;

(d) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; or

(e) Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Abortion Federation, for facilities limited to office-based surgery for abortion or abortion-related services.

That’s correct!  In the state of Washington, PPFA is the accrediting agency for abortion providers, many of whom obtain their patient referrals AND their livelihood via local Planned Parenthood offices.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is putting themselves in a position to establish their own procedural guidelines in defining what is to be reviewed under audit, how it is to be reviewed, and when it would become necessary to report any and all violations.

For the purpose of putting this into a realistic context, let’s go back to the situation of Dr. Gosnell.  Dr. Gosnell was a licensed M.D., so he could be approved under the credentialing standards.  However, he had numerous complaints of medical negligence that had been filed against him over the years.  In an audit conducted by external accrediting body, it would be required to take these reports into consideration to determine if credentialing status should or should not be allowed.  Within the scope of having PPFA act as self-accrediting entity, if they know that reporting these types of complaints could either close the facility or place the facility in a position of providing greatly reduced access to abortion services, would they be honest and uphold the law by providing accurate information?

The person performing anesthesiology in Dr. Gosnell’s practice was a 15-year-old with no education or training of any sort that qualified them to administer anesthesia.  If such a case occurred under a PPFA audit, and reporting the discrepancy might mean that the facility would be either closed or placed on limited status, would they report the discrepancy?

Another possible scenario…the law specifically states that the person administering anesthesia and the person performing the office-based surgery can not be the same person.  Yet there have been numerous reports and law suits that have occurred when anesthesiologists have been allowed to perform both functions in Planned Parenthood facilities.  If PPFA is a self-accrediting body, would they report these violations or would they establish some procedural means written into their accreditation and auditing process that allows them to bypass this requirement?

By establishing self-accrediting status and setting themselves up to become the regulatory body for abortion services, PPFA is also putting themselves in a position to obtain almost complete and total control over the abortion industry as a whole!  And this is being done primarily at the expense of American taxpayers!

From the funds provided for fetal tissue research via NIH to funds provided via Medicaid, it is the American taxpayers who pay for the sustenance of the abortion industry.

This isn’t the end, folks.  Tell me again how many years Roe vs. Wade has been the law of the land in this nation?  We’ve fought the fight over the years, but there’s still much more to do.

That’s what Abortion “Onion”: Layer 5 is all about.

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1 and Layer 2.

In the first part of this series, two specific points were identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

In the second part of this series, elements of the healthcare industry, primarily certification and accreditation were discussed.  The point was made that if pro-choice advocates truly wanted to keep abortion “safe” and “legal”, they would wholeheartedly be supporting accreditation of any kind.  They don’t.

This is where we will pick up on this next layer of the Abortion “Onion”.

For those who may be reading this who are somewhat skeptical in believing that pro-choice advocates, who continuously and repetitively present themselves as the champions of protecting and preserving a woman’s right to “safe” and “legal” abortion, could be against any kind of rules that require the abortion industry to be regulated by an external source, here’s the stated position of Cecil Roberts, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

The onslaught of new laws threatens more than our rights. It also threatens women’s health, by forcing them to delay needed care while they navigate a bureaucratic and political gauntlet. Studies show that when abortion care is delayed in pregnancy, risk of complication increases. By requiring women to take time away from work, arrange child care, and travel hundreds of miles to hear lectures and sit out mandatory waiting periods, the new laws won’t reduce the need for abortion. But they will surely push it later into many women’s pregnancies. This is the cost of letting politicians impose their values on our health care. Women who once received safe, timely care will now experience needless delays and avoidable medical complications. (emphasis mine)

News Bulletin for Ms. Roberts:  Conservatives aren’t all that interested in letting politicians impose their LIBERAL values on our health care either!!!

What kind of laws in specific are pro-choice advocates objecting to?  Perhaps this NARAL article on “Targeted Regulation on Abortion Providers”, commonly referred to as TRAP laws, will explain it:

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers—but not other medical professionals—in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Common TRAP regulations include those that restrict where abortion care may be provided. Regulations limiting abortion care to hospitals or other specialized facilities, rather than physicians’ offices, require doctors to obtain medically unnecessary additional licenses, needlessly convert their practices into mini-hospitals at a great expense, or provide abortion services only at hospitals, an impossibility in many parts of the country. (emphasis mine)

What unnecessary and burdensome regulations are they referring to?  The answer is being legally required to comply with accreditation requirements.  Accreditation establishes standards that promote patient safety and high quality health care.  The standards are high, and they can increase the costs in provision of care in comparison to an environment where no standards exist.  In addition to what I’ve already mentioned previously, the accreditation process also evaluates medical credentials of health care providers, such as having those pesky little things called licenses and being credentialed to provide health care services within a specific realm of practice.  The charge that has been made that the regulatory measures do not apply to other medical professionals is untrue to an extreme.

This is what they are complaining about??? That physicians’ are required to have the appropriate licenses?  That they have to comply with laws that promote patient safety and quality of care?

Pro-choice advocates have rallied behind the slogan that abortion is “safe, legal and rare” for years on end.  We know that it is not as “rare” as they would like to have the general public believe.  Now, they would sacrifice “legal” and “safe” as well????

They claim that it is their concern for protecting a woman’s right to receive abortions that motivates them.  Is that the ONLY reason they object so vehemently to TRAP laws?  Or could there be other reasons…reasons that they would rather the general public not think about?

Check in on Abortion “Onion”: Layer 4 to find out!! 

(Note:  I’ll be finishing this up by Monday, with Abortion “Onion” Layers 4 and 5)

This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1.  By the conclusion of the first diary, two specific points had been identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

The next step will be to address a few specifics about how the health care industry in general is regulated.

Certification and Accreditation

Organizations who receive federal funding assistance from either Medicare or Medicaid must comply with specific requirements that have been established by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and administered via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be considered certified as a participating provider and receive reimbursement from these federally-funded programs.

Certification often occurs through the accreditation process conducted by a third party, such as The Joint Commission.  Here’s how it works:

If a national accrediting organization, such as The Joint Commission, has and enforces standards that meet the federal Conditions of Participation, CMS may grant the accrediting organization “deeming” authority and “deem” each accredited health care organization as meeting the Medicare and Medicaid certification requirements. The health care organization would not be subject to routine Medicare survey and certification process.

In other words, TJC provides the oversight and performs the audits that allow an organization to maintain its status as a participating provider.

Type of organizations that are accredited by TJC

Ambulatory Health Care

Behavioral Health Care

Critical Access Hospitals

Home Care

Hospital

Laboratory Services

Long Term Care

Office-Based Surgery

Eligibility requirements for office-based surgery accreditation(TJC source).

• The organization or practice is composed of four or fewer licensed independent practitioners performing operative or invasive procedures. Multi-site office-based surgery practices are also limited to a combined total of four or fewer LIPs.

• The organization or practice must be physician owned or operated, for example, a professional services corporation, private physician office or small group practice. “Physician” includes dentist or podiatrist.

• Invasive services are provided to patients. (Practices only providing procedures such as excisions of skin lesions, moles, warts and abscess drainage limited to the skin and subcutaneous tissue are typically not surveyed under the OBS standards.)

• Local anesthesia, minimal sedation, moderate sedation or general anesthesia is administered. (Includes laser eye surgery using topical anesthesia.

Invasive Procedure

According to both of these pro-choice sources, here and here, either dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E) are the methods of choice for abortions past the date of the abortion “pill”.  And even Planned Parenthood acknowledges the usage of these methods in many cases.  Three separates sites, (here, here, and here) provide information defining both D&C and D&E as invasive procedures.

Anesthesia

The Abortion USA site above provides interesting information pertaining to local, conscious or general sedation that may be used during an abortion.

Summary

To summarize all of the information that has been provided so far into one comprehensive statement:   Based on the information available, abortion may include performing an invasive procedure that involves local, moderate, or general anesthesia.  As such, abortion providers should be required to meet the standards for office-based surgery accreditation.

Accreditation in and of itself would not eliminate abortion, but it will require practitioners providing abortions to be held accountable, thus preventing continuation of the type back-alley events that were seen in the cases of Dr. Gosnell and Dr. Brigham.

If pro-choice advocates are genuinely concerned about preventing situations where medical negligence and back-alley operations could occur, which would conform perfectly with their contention that abortion is “safe” and “legal”, then by use of simple common sense, they would support accreditation of abortion providers.

Why then have they been opposed to requiring abortion providers to meet accreditation standards?  

We’ll pick up with pro-choice opposition to accreditation standards in Layer 3, so watch for it.

In closing, I’d like to point out a statement currently displayed at the Planned Parenthood website:

In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

There’s one word in this statement that pro-life advocates should be drawing attention to over and over again.  Do you know what it is?

Demise!  By definition, the word “demise” pertains to death or termination of existence.

A prerequisite for death is life.  How can death occur without life?  

A few days ago, mbecker posted a diary that shares information about events taking place in the states of Connecticut and New Jersey that pertains to indictment of two physicians who have been charged with murder in relation to late-term abortions.    I was greatly heartened to hear how our legal system is responding to these situations, and even more so after the events that occurred in the state of Pennsylvania earlier in 2011 pertaining to Dr. Gosnell.  (For those who are not familiar with Dr. Gosnell’s story, you can find that information at this link.)  Dr. Gosnell has since been convicted of 8 counts of murder…seven children and one adult.

These two cases indicate what may be a developing trend that could bring about the end of abortion on demand.

There is also another shift in trends that has been taking place, namely that fewer doctors are considering participating in abortions.

Both trends indicate that pro-life advocates may have a door of opportunity that is opening to them to bring about changes that would serve this nation well in protecting and preserving the sanctity of human life.

Since the implementation of Roe v. Wade, our society has moved in the direction of believing that abortion on demand is a right that women are “entitled” to receive.  It’s a portion of the “entitlement culture” that has established by government that we don’t often consider in these terms.  Challenging this mindset will not be easy.

This won’t be a case of waving a magic wand and suddenly having Roe v. Wade disappear from our society.  Realistically speaking, above and beyond the scope of this law, there are specifics pertaining to the abortion industry itself that could prove to be far more significant obstacles in bringing about changes than simply a mentality of “entitlement”.

The only way to understand what those obstacles truly are requires understanding how the abortion industry works.  Unfortunately, understanding the specifics of how the abortion industry works is a bit like peeling an onion…if you do manage to succeed in peeling back a layer, you find another layer right before you…and you feel like crying the entire time.  Even for myself, I’ve only managed to peel back a few layers so far.

Trying to delve into all the information at one time is a bit much, so I’ll only lay out the basic premise for sustenance of the abortion industry in this diary, and then attempt to present other “layers” as time permits.

If there are obstacles that I do not mention that others are aware of, please feel free to share them.

Motivation within the Abortion Industry to Sustain Abortion on Demand

In both of the legal cases mentioned above, aborted babies were found in freezers at the facilities of the physicians involved.  In response to a comment made another RS poster, MBecker asked a few important questions.  Why were the bodies of these babies kept?  Why were they frozen?  Is it possible that they were kept for fetal tissue harvesting purposes?  (And I’ll add another possibility as well, i.e. that these physicians were fully aware of the fact that their activities were illegal and could not take the risk of following the law pertaining to bio-hazard waste retrieval procedures).

If you go back and look at the information that was provided in the article, you’ll see that the number of murder charges filed against Dr. Brigham (a total of ten, five first-degree and five second-degree) doesn’t even come close to the total of 35 bodies that were found in the freezer.  The same type of scenario presented itself in Dr. Gosnell’s situation as well.  So apparently these bodies weren’t being kept solely because the abortion that had been performed was illegal and the physician was trying to conceal evidence of such.  This indicates that there could be another reason these bodies were kept…which brings us to the possibility of fetal tissue harvesting.

Fetal tissue harvesting for profit is illegal, but there is a legal path, i.e. the Anatomical Gift Act, coupled with the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, by which fetal tissue harvesting can take place and it legally allows money to exchange hands.

Note:  At this point, I’ll add an “irony alert”…in an earlier diary that I had posted on this topic, I had included a link directly to a quote from a Planned Parenthood website pertaining to the manner in which exchange of funds for fetal tissue harvesting does take place.  Someone has since “killed” the page.  It no longer exists.   I do still have access to the information provided within that quote, which I’ll include here:

Both (NATO Act and NIH Revitalization Act) do permit, however, “reasonable payments” associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the tissue (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1993). (Emphasis mine)

It’s a relatively simple process.  Mother wants abortion and signs consent to release tissue for donation. Abortionist donates tissue to tissue broker, who then donates tissue to research facility. Research facility pays tissue broker a processing fee and tissue broker pays abortionist a site fee and/or procurement fees. Somewhere in all of that, abortion referral agencies get a cut on the action. Research facilities get grant from NIH for fetal tissue research, partially driving the demand for fetal tissue.  No money goes to the mother.

To get an idea of the type of research being funded by NIH, you can check out the information being provided in this article regarding the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle.  According to the article, during the year 2009, this laboratory filled requests for more than 4,400 fetal tissue and cell lines.  The NIH grant provided to the laboratory was in the amount of $579,091.  For one year.  For one facility.  Just for research alone.  This doesn’t even begin to consider money that could exchange hands for commercial products developed from fetal tissue research.

The same scenario is true at the University of Wisconsin, where there is currently a legal challenge to this practice.  Plus University of California and Texas A&M.  Plus who knows how many other universities, organizations and business entities are involved.

The point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a lucrative business.  Very lucrative.  There is a legal path that allows it to occur, i.e. the path of research and development.  Within this context, it is one of those reasons why sustaining abortion on demand is deemed to be a necessity to those directly and/or indirectly involved in the abortion industry.

Okay, so this ends “layer 1” of the Abortion Onion.  Jump into the discussion if you’re interested.

What options do you see so far that Conservative might have in attempting to stem the tide of abortion on demand?

I can’t say that I’m a John Strossel fan, but he hit the nail on the head in his recent article entitled “ObamaCare Abominations”.   The article explains why the uncertainty of Obamacare has been having such a negative impact on our economy.  And the primary underlying key to understanding that uncertainty exists in the words “the Secretary will determine…”.

Brad Anderson, CEO of Best Buy, added that Obamacare makes it impossible to achieve even basic certainty about future personnel costs:

“If I was trying to get you to fund a new business I had started and you asked me what my payroll was going to be three years from now per employee, if I went to the deepest specialist in the industry, he can’t tell me what it’s actually going to cost, let alone what I’m going to be responsible for.”

You would think a piece of legislation more than a thousand pages long would at least be clear about the specifics. But a lot of those pages say: “The secretary will determine …” That means the secretary of health and human services will announce the rules sometime in the future. How can a business make plans in such a fog?

Strossel then moves on the topic of employer mandates and the hidden tax increases in our future.

Of course, we were told that government health care would increase hiring. After all, European companies don’t have to pay for their employees’ health insurance. If every American employer paid the $2,000 penalty and their workers turned to government for insurance, American companies would be better able to compete with European ones. They might save $10,000 per employee.

That sounded good, but like so many politicians’ promises, it leaves out the hidden costs. When countries move to a government-funded system, taxes rise to crushing levels, as they have in Europe

And of course, there is also the increase in government spending as related to GDP.

“We’ve had an agreement in this country, kind of unwritten, for the last 50 years, that we would spend about 18 to 19 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on the federal government. This is a tipping point. This takes us to 25 to 30 percent. And that money comes out of the private sector. That means fewer jobs. This is a game-changer.”

Do we the people want more jobs in our economy?  Then one of the first things we should be striving to do is to repeal Obamacare.

Sure, we’ll still have rising health care costs to contend with.  But with Obamacare gone, at least then we have a chance to identify other options that are a bit more employer-friendly and will allow growth and development in the private sector of our economy.

Do you hear that banging sound?  That’s the sound of opportunity banging away at the Republicans’ door!  Take a look:

For the first time in the history of the Associated Press poll, a majority of Americans, 52%, say President Obama should not be reelected while only 43% say he deserves another term. As recently as last May, those numbers were reversed with 53% saying Obama deserves reelection, while 43% said he didn’t deserve four more years.

Obama’s overall job approval rating has also fallen sharply with only 44% of Americans approving, while 54% disapprove. As recent as this June, those numbers were flipped with Americans approving of the job Obama was doing as president by a 60% to 39% margin.

Going issue by issue, the numbers are even worse for Obama. Only 29% of Americans support Obama signature domestic accomplishment, Obamacare, while 49% oppose the reform. And as the Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate next year, the poll found that 84% of Americans believe the federal government should not have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance. Only 15% believe the federal government should have that power.

Majorities of Americans also disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy (60% disapprove), health care (55% disapprove), the federal budget deficit (62% disapprove), taxes (52% disapprove), immigration (56% disapprove), unemployment (53% disapprove), and gas prices (57% disapprove). The only domestic issues that Obama is has positive numbers on are the environment (55% approve), energy (50% approve), and education (53%).

Overall, 76% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction and 80% rate the economy as poor.

An interesting note to consider is that Obama’s approval rating amongst Independents has dropped dramatically…38% approve while 59% disapprove!

And then there’s this as well:

As for how to balance the federal budget, more [voters] now favor cutting government services as the best means to bring federal spending into balance. Sixty percent think lawmakers should focus on budget cuts over tax increases. That figure had been as low as 53 percent in August, during the showdown over raising the country’s debt limit.

The biggest shift on that question has come from independents. In the August poll, 37 percent said lawmakers should focus on increasing taxes and 42 percent said cutting services. Now, that divide stands at 28 percent for raising taxes and 59 percent for cutting services.

All of these totals are in favor of Republicans.  Each and every one of them.  Republicans even have a slight lead of 1.5% against Obama in the upcoming election.

I’m glad for the lead over Obama, but…1.5%?  That’s all?  Given all the data included above, shouldn’t it be more than this?  Is there any way to increase that lead?  I think there is!

We all know what we are fighting against, although we may express it different ways sometimes (like saying Obama, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, etc).

This is the primary season.  The emphasis has been on competition between various candidates.  That’s to be expected.

But if you look at the data that has been presented above, we do have a very real opportunity NOW.  That door of opportunity may not stay open forever.  If we can articulate what we are fighting FOR along with what we are fighting AGAINST, it might let us begin to increase that lead against Obama NOW.  It could also generate the kind of enthusiasm and motivation that increases interest in and participation for Republicans in the race NOW.

How well do we articulate what we are fighting FOR?  Do we even know what that is?  What is it?  Freedom?  Liberty?  Limited government?  Lower taxes?  Decreasing regulations?  Getting rid of Obamacare?  Growth and development in the private sector that would generate jobs, jobs, JOBS?  Is it preserving the “shining city on the hill”?  Is it restoration of the American spirit?  Is it preservation of the American way?

What ARE we fighting for?  And why?

What do YOU think it is?

The video below is an interview that was recently conducted with Star Parker on the topic of why and how government’s influence in welfare is doing more harm than good.

For those who may not be familiar with Ms. Parker, here’s the following information provided at the website CURE:

Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal   Education, a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank which promotes market based public policy to fight poverty.
Before involvement in social activism, Star Parker had seven years of first-hand experience in the grip of welfare dependency. Now, as a social policy consultant, Star is bringing new energy to policy discussions on how to transition America’s poor from government dependency.

She is a sought after expert on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC and for national radio, television, and print interviews, nationwide.

Star has a BS degree in Marketing and Business from Woodbury University and has received numerous awards and commendations for her work on public policy issues. She consults with Republican legislators on numerous urban issues, lectures on anti-poverty initiatives at more than 180 colleges and universities and serves on advisory boards for several national organizations.

I always enjoy hearing Ms. Parker’s viewpoint on the issues.  The interview below is no exception.

No, I’m not trying to “beat a dead horse”.  Truthfully, I believe abortion to be the killing of a human life equal to murder.  My impression is that a lot of other Conservatives are in agreement on that point and would prefer to see abortion treated the same as murder within the context of the law.  This is where it gets problematic from my viewpoint, so I’m posting this diary to try to learn what options other Conservatives might be considering on how this issue can be addressed.

Let’s say that the most logical place to start in treating abortion as murder is to place strict legal consequences on doctors and/or patients who may be directly involved in an act of abortion.  Is a law of this type likely to act as a deterrent to this form of murder?  Yes,  it is likely to do so.  However, in order for the intent of the law to succeed, very strict enforcement of the law would have to be implemented.  If the law isn’t strictly enforced, then the same type of scenario occurs that has been observed with immigration, where individuals take the law into their own hands and violate the law because they are fully aware that enforcement is lax and their chances of getting away with breaking the law are greater.

When it comes down to the issue of how to enforce the law, this is where I start seeing problems.  In a case of murder, the person who has been murdered has some sort of individual identification, i.e. name, address, age, gender, race, social security number, etc.  Even if the identification is simply “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” of specified age, weight, height, race, gender, etc., some form of identification exists.

There is currently NO system in place that allows individual identification of a child in the womb.  If this is to be treated within a legal context in the same manner that murder is treated, wouldn’t some sort of identification system have to be established?  What sort of individual identification would be used for that child?  What mechanisms would be used to obtain the information that there is a child in the womb so that individual identification is established?  Would the law require that every health care provider to turn in the name and personal information of any woman who receives a positive test of being pregnant so individual identification for that child can be established prior to birth?

Suppose a mechanism can be developed to establish identification, what then?  Would the law demand that pertinent information be turned in to government every time a prenatal examination takes place so that the government can follow the progress of that child’s development in the uterus as an effort to protect the life of that child?

What about the women who just go to the pharmacy and get an early pregnancy test?  Would there be regulatory measures implemented stipulating that these purchases have to be “controlled”?  Would pharmacists be required to turn in individual information about each female that purchases an EPT?  Would government then follow up with review of documentation turned in by healthcare providers to determine if a “possible murder” has occurred? What kind of evidence would be required legally to prove or disprove that a murder has taken place?  Is it even possible to obtain such evidence?

Or would EPT’s be banned altogether to prevent this from even being an option for females?

What about things like the “morning after pill”?  Will these be banned?

How many agencies at the federal and state level would be required to enforce the law?  How many government employees would be required to enforce the law?  How much would it cost to enforce the law?  Depending on how much and to what extent this law is expanded, doesn’t it actually increase government rather than decreasing or limiting it?

So, what happens during those periods of time when Democrats might be in a position to have greater influence in Congress or in the White House?   Would enforcement of the law become lax?  Or would there be safeguards in place to prevent this from happening?  Depending on what happens within our society, could proactively pursuing and requiring that this type of identification system be established be used against the welfare of an unborn child if used in the context of population control?

I just have a lot of questions about what Conservatives in general may be really looking for in regards to public policy or laws pertaining to abortion, so I’m throwing questions out there to see what other people might be thinking about this.

Prelude:  For those who may be under the impression that I’ve withdrawn from RS due to my health, thank you for your concerns but that isn’t the case.  I have a very real opportunity to make significant changes in my living conditions, and I need to spend my time wisely by focusing on this opportunity.  Yet when I read this story, it touched me so deeply that I could not help but invest the time in sharing it with other RS readers.  It’s a break away from the “heat” of politics in that it reminds us of how precious life truly is.

Have you heard the story about Stacie Crimm?    Stacie was a 41-year-old woman who found out that she was pregnant after many years of wanting a child and being told that she could not become pregnant.  Stacie was apparently ecstatic over the news of her pregnancy.  Then things began to go terribly wrong.

Stacie developed severe headaches and double-vision while tremors wracked her body.  With her family’s encouragement, Stacie proceeded to visit several physicians, and after completion of CT scan, the diagnosis was made…Stacie had neck and head cancer.

Rather than choosing chemotherapy treatments that might have saved her own life, Stacie made the choice to give her child a chance to live by refusing to participate in what could be life-saving treatments for herself but could severely damage or kill her unborn child.

Stacie died shortly after her daughter, Dottie, was born.

Read the story.  It’s as heart-touching and inspiring as any I’ve ever seen.

No greater love has any man that s/he can willingly choose to lay down their life for another human being.  No greater love.

I’ll include the last part of the article here, because thanks to the actions of a few determined individuals, Stacie does get the opportunity to hold her daughter and look into her eyes before they were parted by death.

On Sept. 8, Crimm stopped breathing and once again was resuscitated. Hospital doctors and nurses warned the family that she likely was dying.

“Her heart had stopped. She quit breathing. She was technically dead, and then they brought her back,” said Ray Phillips.

But she had not yet held the baby whose life she had chosen above her own.

She’d never touched the golden fluff of fuzz framing her baby Dottie’s angelic face. Never counted those fingers as tiny and perfect as a doll’s. Never looked into those dark blue eyes.

But a quiet yet determined nurse and mother, Agi Beo, couldn’t bear to think of Crimm’s emotional pain.

“She was in the last stage with the brain tumor. And she never got to see the baby,” Beo said.

“This baby was everything she had in this world.”

With Crimm’s death imminent, Beo worked with nurse Jetsy Jacob to step up their questioning of the family, healthcare professionals and disease experts about Crimm’s condition, including her staph infection. They talked to Neoflight, the medical center’s neonatal transport team, about using a capsule-like ICU to safely move Dottie.

When his sister regained consciousness later that day, Phillips asked what she thought about possibly seeing Dottie. Crimm’s eyes popped open and she raised her hands as if to ask where was her child.

Nurses wheeled Dottie down the hallway to her mother moments later. Phillips said doctors, nurses and others clad in protective gear gathered as nurses carefully lifted the baby from the incubator under her mother’s watchful eye.

They placed the baby on her mother’s chest. Mother and child gazed into each other’s eyes for several minutes. She smiled at the baby who at last lay in her arms.

No one said a word. No one had a dry eye.

Stacie Crimm died three days later.

Last week, Ray Phillips fulfilled his last promise to his sister. Healthy, 5-pound Dottie went home to live with Ray and Jennifer Phillips and her four new siblings

(I’ve spent about the last five minutes ROFL…finally down to chuckling, so I think I can write this now.  I would have loved to have been present to watch this happen…)

Early in her lecture on American democracy at the private Christian college in Pennsylvania earlier this week, Piven spouts the usual drivel, suggesting Tea Partiers aren’t comfortable with Barack Obama as president because he’s black. The comment drew displeased expressions and a few boos. Piven looks at the audience with an intrigued expression and asks, “Are you all Tea Partiers?” Undeterred, she continues. One Tea Partier in the crowd spoke up further. “As long as he follows the Constitution, we don’t care what color he is,” the protester says audibly. His rebuttal draws cheers from the crowd.

But later, she tries again: The Tea Party, she says, convinces itself it’s less racist than it is by propping up a candidate like Herman Cain. The students aren’t convinced. Eventually, it’s Piven who’s forced to concede: She clarifies that she doesn’t think the entire Tea Party is motivated by racism or that racism is the only motivation. The Tea Party, she says, is an “authentic” movement. My, how gracious

How gracious indeed!  And how totally typical of liberals to display their arrogance in public!

Liberals really don’t understand Conservatives, so I’m going to “spell it out” for them, just to make sure it’s in plain language.  Conservatives are, for the most part, pretty laid back.  A lot of us do tend to try to maintain higher moral standards than most liberals do.  This being the case, we aren’t much inclined to shoot of our mouths at the spur of a moment without thinking it through first.  (We do believe in such old-fashioned things as “prudence”, you know.)  Plus, we have everyday ordinary lives with priorities we attend to.  We don’t spend our time sitting around scheming and conniving about how we can manipulate a society of people to conform to an image that we “deem” to be acceptable.

So liberals may have had a relatively free hand in the past on the “scheming and conniving” of our society, and they basically take Conservatives for a bunch of “patsys”, i.e. easy prey.  But that’s where they underestimate Conservatives, simply because they don’t understand us.  For Conservatives, there is a such a thing as that “line you don’t cross”.  See, it takes a lot of “stuff” [the redacted kind or otherwise] to get a Conservative genuinely and truly angry.  Irritated, aggravated and frustrated…yes, that’s often displayed.  Truly and genuinely angry?  That’s far more rare.

But liberals, in their self-proclaimed wisdom and blatant arrogance, have crossed that line, shoving their plans and goals for our society and our nation down our throats in the manner that they have during Obama’s term.  Conservatives are hitting our breaking point, so to speak.  And when that happens, we do become…far more outspoken than we would be otherwise.

Ah, poor Ms. Piven.  What a terrible experience, to be reduced to a laughingstock in such a way!  /sarc

She’s right up there with Ms. Pelosi now, I guess.

Overall assessment of where things stand:

The FBI is preparing to launch a nationwide facial recognition service.  The Institute for Energy Research estimates that we will lose 28GW of power-producing capacity due to EPA regulations.  The Institute of Medicine has released it’s recommendations to DHHS for government-defined health benefit packages.  The current administration is facing not one but two separate scandals, Fast and Furious and Solyndra.  Our national debt is over $14 trillion dollars and climbing with each day that passes.   More than 50 million people are on Medicaid, and a recent CMS ruling will ensure that  17 million more people can be enrolled nationwide.  Close to 10 million people are receiving extended unemployment benefits.  More than 40 million people are on food stamps.  We have 22.5 million government employees.  Unemployment is steady at 9.1 % of our population (14 million people).  44.6% of these individuals have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more.   Unemployment projection forecasts indicate that this rate will be increasing during the next few months, with the potential to reach 10.3% by April of 2012.  Presidential job approval is at an average of 42.1 %.   Congressional job approval is at an average of 13%.  The number of people who believe that our country is heading in the right direction is at an average of 20.8%  70% of people polled say our country is currently in a recession.   Just 6% of people polled believe most politicians keep their campaign promises.  Only 4% of Americans say that they have a great deal of trust in politicians.  (What’s even worse, the same poll shows that the level of confidence American’s have in themselves is lower now than it has been since prior to 1974!)

This is a limited assessment.  A full assessment is far more revealing.

Just to make use of a little visual imagery in setting the context, imagine for a moment that you are suspended at some fixed point above the earth’s surface.  You are looking down on the surface of the earth and you see a giant, swirling vortex.  In the center of that vortex is a gaping hole, the bottom of which can not be seen.  Nation after nation is being caught up in that swirling motion, including our own.  And although you are suspended from a distance, you can sense and feel the swirling motion all around you.

Now, relate the vortex itself to socialist/Marxist policies.  In American society, the swirling motion is perpetuated by liberalism, slowing pulling our nation towards the center of that vortex.

The bottomless hole is our nation’s future.

It’s a bleak, daunting image, isn’t it?

But for America, isn’t too late.  Not yet, at least.  There is still one hope that remains to us…Conservatism.  Conservatism is the best hope for our nation’s future.

What’s more, opportunity is knocking at the door for Conservatism to be the wave of the future.  Actually, it’s a bit more than knocking…it’s banging so hard that it threatens to knock the hinges out of the frame!

77% of this nation’s population sees itself as being other than liberal.  (Liberalism isn’t supported by a plurality of people in this nation)

72.2% of this nation’s population believes that America is on the wrong track.  (What track are we on again?)

Hidden within a recent Gallup poll is the information that 53% of 18-34 year olds support government intervention in support of traditional values.   Does that sound like an incentive for America’s future?

Oh, I know what people might say.  “But what can we do when we have the MSM against us?”  This is the age of a new media and Conservatives have voices of their own, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, plus many others all across this great land of ours.

The day of allowing the MSM to dictate the narrative in this country needs to come to an end.

An old wise saying presents a common sense answer…where there’s a will, there’s a way.  The question is…do Conservatives have the will?  Do we have the will to present a message of hope for our nation’s future with Conservatism at the helm?  Do we have what it takes to be the leaders for the future?

America’s best hope is Conservatism.  It’s a winning message.  

When the president said the unemployed couldn’t wait 14 more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill

(snip)

The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. The White House gives moderates little morsels of hope, and then rips them from our mouths. To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used.

Welcome to the real world, Mr. Brooks!  Living life under liberal policies isn’t a pleasant reality, is it?  Even though much is said by those on the left about how much they care about the “working class”, it isn’t genuine or sincere.  It never is.  It’s always about politics.  It’s always about an agenda.  Their desire to put agenda and politics first and foremost makes them totally incapable of being able to act in a manner that might actually be best for the people of this nation as a whole.

All of the comments made about how the narrative of left is dictated by class welfare are very much so true.  The depth of their desire for power and control is absolutely staggering.  They are driven by a deep-seated need as the elite to have the “masses” indebted to them for their so-called “benevolence and generosity”.  Given that they do see all incomes earned as being the “government’s money”, then of course what little the commoners manage to keep for their own sustenance and survival is only at the hands of such a benevolent and generous benefactor.  Such things appeal to their ego and vanity, satisfying their desire for lofty status in our world.

In the conceit of their wisdom, those on the left would rather by far that the common people are made to beg to them like dogs begging a morsel at the table of it’s master than to grant to us dignity, a sense of self-worth independent of their actions, and freedom and liberty to actually succeed of our own accord in our day to day lives.

The principles upon which their ideology is based are not new by any stretch of the imagination, Mr. Brooks.  Those same principles have enslaved millions upon millions of people to bondage of subservience to government in modern day human history.  They may make attempt after attempt to alter the terminology and to clothe their ideology behind a sugar-coated context, but the principles upon which their ideology is based remain the same.

What’s more, the general public of our nation is now at a point of rejecting what the left has to offer.  This above and beyond all else is what the polling data relating to the direction that our country is going in tells us.

Like a caged animal who has invested everything they have and everything they are into the success of an ideological agenda, those on the left are now living in a spirit of fear for their very survival.  Yet the door of opportunity has not completely closed to them, not just yet.  As long as President Obama remains in office, hope remains.  From their viewpoint, if success in implementation of their agenda requires “doubling down” and political corruption…so be it.  There is no conscience, moral or ethical, that will stand in their way, not even their own.

For this reason above all others, those of us who live in the status of “commoners”, at least within the definition of the liberal elite, know that we have to stand solidly against the liberal agenda.  Our founding fathers granted to us the greatest of gifts…a Constitution that supports balance of power.  In the wisdom gained from their realm of experiences, they knew that these mechanisms supporting balance of power were the single greatest hope for this nation to prevent tyranny imposed on the people of this nation as a whole by those driven by a desire for power and control within any type of agenda.

So, Mr. Brooks, what now?  A sap you may have been, but will you continue to be one?  In your article, you’ve condemned those of us on the right for what you identify as being “intransigent and mean” behavior, but the simple truth remains there before you just as it does for every other American citizen…this is a moment of choice in defining which direction our nation goes in from this point forward.

We have a choice to make as to what things we will stand for and what we stand against, sir.  What will your choice be?

Will you choose freedom and liberty?

Or do you choose to continue to play the sap?

There is more than one branch of social conservatism.  I’m writing this diary for the purpose of trying to clarify between the two branches of compassionate conservatism and a new type of conservatism that is on the horizon.  (BTW, I did try to keep this short…but it didn’t come out that way)

The first branch of social conservatism being considered in this diary operates primarily on what is called the principle of “compassionate conservatism”.

Compassionate conservatism’s version of triangulation retains, but in a radically transformed manner, the anti-elitism injected into the party in the Nixon era. Republicans had previously used affirmative action, ­welfare, busing, housing, and crime to identify Democrats as elitists who took the side of enlightened opinion against working-class whites, without themselves suffering the economic consequences. By contrast, compassionate conservatism encouraged Republicans to present themselves as allies of the poor and minorities, and to insist that “liberal elites” in the Democratic party were the defenders of ineffective bureaucracies and a morally debased culture. Instead of embracing racial resentment, compassionate conservatism preached, Republicans should rebrand themselves as the party of racial solidarity — the allies of the moralizing agents of the inner cities.

(snip)

As a substantive matter, therefore, compassionate conservatism sought to advance traditionally liberal ends by conservative means. [emphasis mine]

It raises a lot of questions, doesn’t it?  What traditionally liberally ends are implied?  Greater power of government?  Greater expansion of government?  Greater dependency on government?  More government intervention as a means of resolving social ills?

For all intents and purposes, compassionate conservatism was “an authentic project of the conservative intellectual and political elite”, adopted for political reasons, namely as a “”forward-leaning” strategy designed to use conservative means to satisfy citizens’ (generally liberal) expectations of governmental responsibilities.”

There are social conservatives who are true compassionate conservatives, but this term doesn’t apply to all social conservatives, which leads us to the second branch of the social conservatism being considered in this diary.

Proving the mere existence of this branch of social conservatism is difficult to do at this point.  It doesn’t have any definitive label that I know of.  It is an “in-process” development, so to speak.  Part of it results from traditional social conservatives who were left with limited options when compassionate conservatism took the lead in our nation during the past two decades.  They may originally have given the compassionate conservative branch the benefit of the doubt, but this has since changed.  Some traditional conservatives were simply misled and deceived by the political strategy but have since made the decision to return to their traditionalists roots.

There IS evidence that this new branch exists AND that it is growing (particularly among the 18-29 year old age group), for those who might be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.  It is reflected in hundreds of articles, and in thousands of comments, each and every day.  But because this branch technically hasn’t been referenced by any specific name, or at least not one I’ve been able to find, all I can do at this point is to try to present what I see being represented in this branch of social conservatism.

Someone had previously questioned the association this new branch has with fusionism.  After doing some research on fusionism, I think there probably are some strong similarities between fusionism and this new branch of social conservatism.  This branch staunchly supports a return to Constitutional law, putting the rule of law back in its proper place and restoring balance of power in government.  It is a return to more traditional values, including the value of life itself, rather than continuance of moral relativism.  It is a return to specific portions of Reaganism, i.e. limited government, less taxes, a strong military, national sovereignty, and an optimistic belief in this nation and its people.  I’m not all that sure that it holds to the fusionism belief that American foreign policy should be to seek to end totalitarian regimes.

What this branch of social conservatism includes that I didn’t see mentioned in research on fusionism is that it also puts a significant amount of emphasis on the following things:

1)      Spending public funds wisely (fiscal prudence, fiscal accountability, etc.) (And it’s as much about getting the best deal for the dollar as it is about cutting spending or reducing the deficit.)

2)      Individual accountability (in a societal context, which goes back to the emphasis on human development, including moral and ethical standards, within a society or culture)

3)      Long-term outcomes (quantitative data, not “good intentions” analysis)

These three things appear to be the foundational blocks for this branch of social conservatism, with the greatest of the three probably being individual accountability.

The greatest single comparison between compassionate conservatives and this second branch of SoCons is primarily this…that compassionate conservatives see government as being the answer to the problem whereas the new SoCons are far more realistic in acknowledging when government is not only part of the problem but also often the root cause of the problem.

This isn’t my grandaddy’s Republican Party any more.  It isn’t even my daddy’s Republican Party.  Our nation is facing a totally new scope of challenges now, and we either rise to meet them or watch our country slide into ruin.

A lot of questions have been raised about legislating morality.  Do I believe that this second branch of SoCons would consider legislating morality?  Let me put it this way…how many people reading this would consider BBA as an effort to legislate morality?  Because I could make the argument that this is exactly what it is.

There are plenty of cases where economic and social issues overlap and intertwine to the point that they can’t be easily separated.  Given the circumstances that our country is facing, it is imperative (on economic, social, moral and ethical basis) to implement actions that reduce both government spending and our national deficit.  We could gut and/or eliminate government agencies, which might serve as a short-term fix, but it won’t resolve the long-term spending problems unless the behaviors of those spending the money change, correct?  That’s where qualifiers for government spending, i.e. prudent versus imprudent, come into play.  BBA enforces prudent spending behaviors of living within our societal means.  This type of legislation influences long-term social and economic outcomes by putting mechanisms into place that act as a deterrent, guarding against any continuation of the reckless and imprudent spending habits that have been displayed by our federal government.  “Prudent” IS a qualifying adjective based on historical moral standards.  Therefore, it could be argued that enforcing a BBA is a means of legislating morality.

Do I believe this new group of SoCons would support BBA?  Oh, yeah, most of them do, along with plenty of FiCons, TEA Party supporters, Independents, some moderates and libertarians.  Why do all these people support this legislation?  Because the spending situation has gotten out of hand and there needs to be corrective action to restore balance.

Making sure that balance is maintained is part of our role as citizens.  Even though there could be and often is a moral imperative that motivates pieces of legislation to be passed into law, this doesn’t mean that every piece of legislation passed into law on the basis of moral imperatives is going to be an extreme imposition on personal freedoms.

I could write more.  For example, this new group of SoCons, especially those in the younger age group, seems to be a bit more flexible than traditional SoCons in considering options and alternatives that might provide long-term solutions to the problems our nation is facing.

But this diary is long enough already.  So I’ll just leave this open for discussion and debate.  I’m sure that other people who find themselves either morphing or melting into this new group of SoCons will have plenty to add.

Thanks for reading.

Afterthought:  I’ve only been actively involved in politics for about the last four years, which makes me a relative “newbie”.  So if what I have described has another name or label that I just haven’t discovered as of yet, will someone PLEASE identify that for what it is? I may be a SoCon, but I’m not of the compassionate conservative type, and it is getting troublesome constantly trying to define what group I’m in when I don’t know what it is called.

Preface:  As a Christian, I believe that life begins at conception and abortion is an act that takes the life of a human being.  As an American citizen, I do not agree that taxpayers should be required to support funding for elective abortions.  All in all, I would prefer to see some type of intervention that stems the tide of abortion in our country.  With that being said, if such intervention is lacking, the need for greater regulatory measures within the abortion industry as a whole to protect the patient’s right to receive the best quality of care is very quickly reaching a point where it must be addressed.

Generally speaking, conservatives are anti-regulatory.  We want limited government, not expanded government.  We want government to stay out of our lives as much as possible.  That’s how most of us respond when we consider regulatory measures, isn’t it?  But not all regulatory measures are “bad”.  There can be and are times when regulations serve a very positive purpose, with a prime example being the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood is on the proverbial war path against any type of restriction or regulation that will limit their ability to continue to operate within their self-regulating status quo.

Cecile Richards: “Stopping the Assault on Women’s Health and Rights”

The onslaught of new laws threatens more than our rights. It also threatens women’s health, by forcing them to delay needed care while they navigate a bureaucratic and political gauntlet. Studies show that when abortion care is delayed in pregnancy, risk of complication increases. By requiring women to take time away from work, arrange child care, and travel hundreds of miles to hear lectures and sit out mandatory waiting periods, the new laws won’t reduce the need for abortion. But they will surely push it later into many women’s pregnancies. This is the cost of letting politicians impose their values on our health care. Women who once received safe, timely care will now experience needless delays and avoidable medical complications

Also see:

“Planned Parenthood Fights Defunding Laws”

“Planned Parenthood Juggles Multiple Lawsuits”

Ms. Richards and the Planned Parenthood pro-choice gang may find legal recourse to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood facilities.  They are currently in the process of stalling or undoing what individual states have managed to accomplish and achieve regarding abortion industry reform even as we speak.  Abortion is an element of the health care industry, and a very lucrative portion of the industry at that.  It is an element of the health care industry that has not faced regulatory oversight regarding any safety or quality of care measures other than those that the leader of the industry, i.e. Planned Parenthood, chooses to pursue.

Our court system seems to be judging in favor of the current status quo within the abortion industry, with the latest blow being a federal court decision to block portions of the sonogram requirement put into place by the Texas legislature.

On each front where the abortion industry has been challenged, pro-choices forces have managed to bend the will of our legal system to conform to their own demands.   Yet the single greatest fear of the abortion industry as a whole continues to be regulation via what pro-choice advocates define as TRAP (Target Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws.

What are TRAP laws, and how do they impede women’s access to health-care services?

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers—but not other medical professionals—in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Common TRAP regulations include those that restrict where abortion care may be provided. Regulations limiting abortion services to hospitals or other specialized facilities, rather than physicians’ offices, require doctors to obtain medically unnecessary additional licenses, needlessly convert their practices into mini-hospitals at a great expense, or provide abortion services only at hospitals, an impossibility in many parts of the country. (emphasis mine)

Think for a moment about what they protesting against:

(1)    Regulatory measures that stipulate an abortion should be provided in a facility with the equipment needed to address any and all adverse effects that may occur during the abortion process.

(2)    Regulatory measure that require facilities be licensed

(3)    Regulatory measures that require physicians have valid training and licensing for abortion procedures

They do not want any type of regulatory measures that would interfere in any way with their ability to provide abortions at will.  Neither do they want to see any type of oversight activity that would require those regulations to be enforced.  They make no pretense at all to cover up their resentment of any efforts to regulate the industry, stating very plainly that an increase in regulatory measures would increase operating costs for providers and thus become an obstacle that gets in the way of abortion access.  TRAP Laws are their greatest fear, above and beyond loss of funding.

Not only are they calloused to the termination of an unborn child, they are ruthlessly calculating to the mother’s right to safe and quality care as well.  If this type of gross negligence existed in any other area of the health care industry, it would generate an outrage of huge proportions.  In the abortion industry…all we hear are the cries of pro-choice advocates about how regulatory measures would hinder “women’s rights” and interfere with a woman’s “right to choice”.

These people, who claim to care about women’s health and women’s right, are more than willing to leave the door of opportunity for our nation to see more doctors like Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

They do not stand for health and rights of women…they are pro-abortion.  Nothing more and nothing less.

It’s bothered me quite a bit lately to see conservatives taking so much of an anti-(whatever) response to situations rather than presenting a pro-conservatism approach.  I’ve been guilty of it myself, and I’m taking myself to task on it, too.

For one thing, taking an anti-(whatever) approach is usually reactive rather than proactive.  Also, when we take an anti-(whatever) stand, we leave no doubt what we stand against but don’t always communicate what we stand for.  When we fail to communicate what we stand for, we leave ourselves wide open for liberals to put their own interpretation of our position and attempt to use their interpretation as a means of swaying public opinion.

Confused?  I’ll try to explain what I mean by those statements.  Take this article posted at the NYT as an example.  The article, written by Mr. Charles Blow, is basically presenting a pro-liberalism position arguing for greater government intervention on the issue of abortion.  Here’s the basic premise that the author uses on which to support his argument:

According to a report issued this week by the Guttmacher Institute, the unintended pregnancy rate has jumped 50 percent since 1994, yet a July report from the institute points out that politicians are setting records passing laws to restrict abortion. It said: “The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005 — and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010.” Add to this the assault by conservatives on Planned Parenthood, and what are we saying?

This is what we’re saying: actions have consequences. If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex. You must be punished by becoming a parent even if you know that you are not willing or able to be one.

This is insane.

Even if you follow a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex, as many on the right seem to do, you must at some point acknowledge that it is the child, not the parent, who will be punished most by our current policies that increasingly advocate for “unborn children” but fall silent for those outside the womb

The author proceeds to present a specific line of logic in making his argument for greater government intervention and then concludes with the following statement:

We have to start this conversation from a different point. We must ask: “What kind of society do we want to build, and what kinds of workers, soldiers and citizens should populate that society?” If we want that society to be prosperous and safe and filled with healthy, well-educated and well-adjusted people, then the policy directions become clear

It wouldn’t be difficult take the comments the author has made and respond to it with an anti-liberal, anti-abortion, anti-statism, anti-(whatever) type of position.  The author’s comments associating “a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex” with legislative restrictions of abortion is a gross distortion of conservatism if there ever was one.   It would be easy to blast this as sheer moronic stupidity and a desperate effort on the part of the author to portray conservatism as being irresponsible in regards to our society as a whole and liberalism as being responsible towards society as a whole.  There are plenty of anti-(whatever) responses that could be made to an article of this sort.

But if I took an anti-(whatever) stand in responding to the author’s comments, does it actually present the strength of conservatism to those who might read what I have written?  Not really.  And anyone reading my responses would come away from it with a clear idea of what I as a conservative might stand against but very little would have been communicated about what I stand for.

The very least that I could do would be to present a contrast and comparison, isn’t it?  Even on the issue of individual accountability, which is one of the basic precepts of conservatism, I could point out that liberalism supports the belief that individuals are incapable of developing the human qualities and traits that allow them to make mature, responsible decisions in how they respond to the situations that they face in life and therefore does not lend itself to generating the kind of environment that encourages development of any sense of accountability on the part of the individual.  Conservatism, on the other hand, very much so supports the belief that individuals are not only capable of developing these types of qualities and traits but also that it is benefits our society as a whole when they are encouraged to do so, and goes to great lengths to encourage individual accountability.

I could present the contrast-and-comparison argument that whereas liberalism supports expansion of government and places responsibility for far too many social issues on the shoulders of government, conservatism contends that it is ultimately the choice and responsibility of the individual that makes the difference in the long run.

Perhaps I could say that the generation of social safety nets supported by liberalism often ends up being little more than a crutch that encourages excessive dependency on government.  By comparison, conservatism supports independence from government, where the individual accepts both the rights and responsibilities associated with freedom to the extent that they choose of their own accord what kind of person they will become, what kind of life they will live, and to what extent they will succeed in contributing to our society as a whole separate from any dependence on those safety nets.

As I said in the opening statement, there is a lot of anti-(whatever) that is being presented by conservatives at the moment.

The question that has been going through my mind lately is this…if we support conservatism, why aren’t we focusing more on what conservatism stands for rather than what it stands against?

Which of the two gives us a greater chance to persuade other citizens in our nation to choose conservatism?

Richard Trumka has just announced the new agenda AFL-CIO will be pursuing.  Here are the most pertinent comments:

In an interview with The Huffington Post, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the current climate “absolutely” the worst he has seen during the course of his 40-year career in organized labor. His 11-million-plus federation has been forced to adjust, he said, and is making a concerted push to expand their campaign operation so the organization can better pressure lawmakers while in office, and not just on the campaign trail

(snip)

“What we are now focused on is doing a couple of things differently,” Trumka said. “In the past, we would build our structure six to eight months before the election,” he added. “Now we’re not going to do that. We’re going to focus our resources on building a structure that has total fidelity towards America’s working people, both union and non-union working people. We’ll do it 12 months a year, so they’ll be able to transition from electoral politics, to advocacy, to accountability with no effort. And it will continue to build greater strength for workers after the election and in between elections.”

The comments from the AFL-CIO chief provide a detailed outline of the vision he has in store for a tinkered — but still-powerful — campaign apparatus. To execute that vision, the union federation is outfitting itself with some new tools, including a super PAC that will allow it to raise unlimited funds from corporations, individuals and other unions.

The AFL-CIO doesn’t just plan to extend its political engagement, but to hyper-localize it as well

This article was posted over at the Huffington Post website.  In reading through the comments made in response to the article, apparently there are some Democrats who do understand that if our nation doesn’t have the kind of environment that actually encourages business development, the opportunity for Unions to move forward on any agenda of this type are going to be extremely limited.  In fact, many of those responding to the article actually agreed with the fairly conservative position that Unions may have served a positive purpose in our society many years ago, but what our country needs most right now is to eliminate any obstacles that get in the way of free enterprise so that we can see improvements in our overall economy.

Please note that Trumka mentions building a structure that has “total fidelity” to both union and non-union people.  He also mentions that the AFL-CIO has plans to “hyper-localize” as well.  I’m going to suggest that the means by which the Unions intend to accomplish these goals is by application of specific methods that Cold Warrior has already mentioned here.  Since his explanation of what is likely to happen is better by far than any I could present, I would recommend taking the time to read what he has presented.  If those who support Union goals succeed at this on local levels, they will have greater influence in policy decisions, even in right-to-work states.

As conservatives, we need to be able to present a coherent policy position to the general public that might persuade them that the conservative vision for our country is indeed the best option open to us in order to turn our nation around.

Rather than trying to define how this should be done, I’m going to ask each person who reads this to post who is interested in doing so to post a comment below stating how they would go about presenting a conservative point of view on these issues.

Just look at it as a sharing of conservative ideas.