ABORTION

- Another side of the coin.

 When, in the course of a Society, the element of change is introduced, there seems to be an appropriate, opposite, and equal knee-jerk reaction from one, or another, group in that Society. So it has been with our Nation’s struggle on the issue of abortion, and it may be interesting to note that modern society in the United States has wrestled with the question since its inception.

If we were living in Church-State, all this would have been settled long ago, but we don’t. Our style of democracy has been crafted in such a manner as to dictate a “separation of Church and State”. The founding Fathers of this Country wrote a Constitution that greatly reflected the reasons for rebelling and forming a sovereign Nation which were exactly that; a true separation of two strong entities that mix about as well as oil and water: Church and State.

The best of my research points to the fact that the U.S. Government has never actually paid for a woman to have an abortion with exceptions under three very precise conditions. Being criminally involved, or medically compromised are the only areas our government has a constitutional mandate to step in and protect women.

This, from “factcheck.org.”

Q: Will all legal abortions be covered by federally subsidized health insurance policies in state "high-risk pools"?

A: No. The Department of Health and Human Services says the only abortions covered will be those in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered.

Statement of HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus on the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan Policy

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President’s related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

The U.S. Constitution does stipulate that the Government is responsible for protecting its citizens form enemies both foreign and domestic. Domestic law enforcement enables our Government to protect us inside our borders.

**Footnote: Seeing Though the Smoke

It would be easy to miss the fact that Pennsylvania’s official solicitation called for coverage of all state-legal abortions. The press release issued by the state insurance department on June 28, announcing the new program, made no mention of abortion at all. Intrepid readers could click through to find the official solicitation document describing the program more fully, but it contained phrasing the casual reader could interpret as restricting abortion coverage rather than permitting it.

At one point the document states: "Elective abortions are not covered" (page 14). But the term "elective" isn’t defined, and so isn’t very meaningful.

The operative language starts on page 12, where it says: "The benefit package will include the following core of specific services …" followed by a long list that includes, on page 14, "only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105." Those are the sections of Pennsylvania law that cover abortion. So — when all the verbal smoke is cleared away — the solicitation states that the program "will" cover "only" abortions that are legal. That doesn’t leave out much.

The first section cited, for instance (Section 3204), allows abortions that a physician deems "necessary … in the light of all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." The only abortions that the state law forbids a doctor from finding "necessary" are those "sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child." [1]

We asked the state insurance department how that official document can be squared with its July 15 press release saying women would have to pay for abortions out of their own pocket. Department spokeswoman Melissa Fox told us this, in a July 21 e-mail message:

Pennsylvania Insurance Department’s Fox: Due to the aggressive time-frame to submit proposals Pennsylvania, as well as other states, I’m sure, needed to insert "placeholder" language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package. That was the case not just for the abortion issue, but also mental health benefits. Once the clarifying guidelines are issued, the language in the proposal will be adjusted accordingly.

So the story now is that in the haste to meet a deadline, "placeholder" language was inserted, to be adjusted later. But whatever Pennsylvania officials intended, the stated federal policy is now clear: No abortions will be covered by the temporary risk pools except for those in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

– Brooks Jackson

Source:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/

Via other means, the Government has made it safer and more readily available for those women who make the choice of aborting an unborn fetus/child. Making the abortion process safer and more available, a long standing problem of “collateral” medical damage has been avoided. In the same way we don’t condemn men for getting vasectomies, or using condoms, a women’s right to choose should run as true to our National Heritage of democratic rule. If indeed any religion or church should feel that women must regard a fertilized egg in the womb to be the point at which life begins, then that postulate is their Constitutional right within the confines of their congregation. That, then, becomes an issue between the woman and her church.

The one guarantee that our Constitution does afford is the right to practice religion as one sees fit. The question of allowing women their right to choose on this issue boils down to a moral and religious question. The United States Government is not in the business of legislating morality or religion, and that is as it should be in a democratic system of governance.

In conclusion, I would ask that the Federal and State governments get on the same page and revisit any and all “laws” regarding abortion, so the public has an absolutely clear definition of a woman’s protection under the law. [1] I would also make one small suggestion that law regarding abortion should, most definitely, be written by women, not men. I am, obviously, taking the position that a woman has every right to make her own decision about abortion and any other uniquely female issue.

[1]: Rewriting vague and obtuse laws to be exacting in their intent and content.

Readin', Writin', and 'Rithmetic........

                                                                                                             11/18/2013

The “dumbing” of America has just about reached its goal!

I have been writing about this very subject now for about five years. My first stab at it was an article concerning Michelle Rhee and her attempt to transform our Nation’s school system. The more I

researched this woman, the more skeptical I became about her motives and her process. It soon 

became clear to me that she was off on the wrong track. She neglected to link Corporate America 

and its money and power to the Public Education System in this Country. If I didn’t feel that this 

phenomenon was unremarkable, I wouldn’t have given it much ink. I could make a long story of it, 

here, but I will spare you the drudgery.

In a nutshell, my first-hand experience with this problem 

happened when I was able to continue my “higher” education at the ripe old age of forty three. I had 

always felt that I had received a better than average education throughout my youth. It wasn’t until I encountered students at the college level that were about half my age that I realized just how good my childhood education was.

I swear on a stack of cheeseburgers that none of these “kids” could put a complete thought down on paper. They couldn’t do Mathematics without a calculator. They had absolutely no idea what was happening socially, economically, or politically in this Country, not to mention the rest of the World. And, so it was that from that point on I was very aware that something sinister and counterproductive was going on with our Public School System. Whenever I see the likes of this “dumbing” of America, I have to ask who’s pulling the strings; 

who’s spending the money; and, who are the Power Brokers behind the scenes.

The article, below, comes to much the same conclusion as I did. Corporate 

America has had their sleazy little fingers in the pie for some forty years. 

They have executed the old “divide and conquer” theory by creating a Nation 

of numbskulls who will drink their Kool-Aide, and toe the line. What better 

Labor Force could any CEO want?

Monday, 18 November 2013 08:50

The Fraudulent 1% Campaign to Stigmatize Public Schools as "Socialist Failures"

PAUL BUCHHEIT FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Right Wing Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast called the public school system a "socialist regime." Michelle Rhee cautions us against commending students for their 'participation' in sports and other activities.Privatizers believe that any form of working together as a community is anti-American. To them, individual achievement is all that matters. They're now applying their winner-take-all profit motive to our children.

We're Sliding Backwards, Towards "Separate and Unequal"
In 1954, the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education seemed to place our country on the right track. Chief Justice Earl Warren said that education "is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms." Thurgood Marshall insisted on "the right of every American to an equal start in life."

But then we got derailed. We've become a nation of inequality, worse than ever before, worse than during the racist "separate but equal" policy of Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA shows that "segregated schools are systematically linked to unequal educational opportunities." The Economic Policy Institute tells us that "African American students are more isolated than they were 40 years ago."

The privatizers clamor for vouchers and charters to improve education, but such methods generally don't serve those who need it most. According to a Center on Education Policy report, private schools serve 12 percent of the nation's elementary and secondary students, but only one percent of disabled students. Forty-three percent of public school students are from minority families, compared to 24% of private school students.

Meanwhile, as teachers continue to get blamed, the Census Bureau tells us that an incredible 38 percent of black children live in poverty.

The Underprivileged Have Been Cheated Out Of Taxes
A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) report revealed that total K-12 education cuts for fiscal 2012 were about $12.7 billion.

Almost 90 percent of K-12 funding comes from state and local taxes. But in 2011 and 2012, 155 of the largest U.S. corporations paid only about half of their required state taxes. That comes to $14 billion per year in unpaid taxes, more than the K-12 cuts.

Untaxed and Unqualified Foundations Want To "Save Our Schools"
The "starve the beast" mentality allows the privatizers to claim that our "Soviet-style" schools don't work, and that a business approach must be used instead. Philanthropists like Bill Gates and Eli Broad and Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch and the Walton family, who have   little Educational experience among them, and who have little accountability to the public, are promoting "education reform" with lots of standardized testing.

But according to the National Research Council, "The tests that are typically used to measure performance in education fall short of providing a complete measure of desired educational outcomes in many ways." Diane Ravitch notes that the test-based Common Core standards were developed by a Gates-funded organization with almost no public input. Desperate states had to adopt the standards to get funding.

Bill Gates may be well-intentioned, but he's a tech guy, and his programming of children into educational objects is disturbing. One of his ideas is to videotape teachers and then analyze their performances. The means of choosing 'analysts' is unclear. Another Gates idea is the Galvanic Skin Response bracelet, which would be attached to a child to measure classroom engagement, and ultimately gauge teacher performance. It all sounds like a drug company's test lab.

As noted by Ravitch and others, philanthropic organizations tend to contribute to "like-minded entities," which are likely to exclude representatives of the neediest community organizations. They are also tax-exempt. And when educational experiments go wrong, they can just leave their mess behind and move on to their next project.

Getting Past Our "Exceptionalism"
If we're willing to look beyond our borders for help, we will see the short-sightedness of our educational "reforms." Finland's schools were considered mediocre 30 years ago, but they've achieved a remarkable turnaround by essentially challenging their teachers before they're entrusted with the welfare of the children. Most Finnish teachers are unionized, and they undergo rigorous masters-level training to ensure proficiency in the teaching profession, which is held in the same high esteem as law and medicine. In keeping with this respect for learning, government funding is applied equally to all schools, classes in the arts are available to all students, and tuition is free.

As a result, Finnish students, who are not subjected to standardized testing, finish at or near the top of international comparisons for reading, math, and science.

It's not just Finland with such impressive results. Research at the National Center on Education and the Economy has confirmed that educational systems in Japan, Shanghai, and Ontario, Canada have prospered with an emphasis on the preparation of teachers for the essential task of instructing their young people.

A Strong Community Leads To Individual Success
George Lakoff summarizes: "The Public provides freedom...Individualism begins after the roads are built, after individualists have had an education, after medical research has cured their diseases...

Public education is vital to the promise of equal opportunity for all. But it will only succeed if we work together as a community, and stop listening to the voices of profit and inexperience.

Paul Buchheit

7355 W Ibsen

Chicago IL 60631

773-727-2345

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, a writer for progressive publications, and the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org).paul@UsAgainstGreed.org

Source:

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18319-the-fraudulent-1-campaign-to-stigmatize-public-schools-as-socialist-failures

I Have Rights, Too!

- But, do I actually exercise all of them?

In the United States of America, you have a few “rights” not afforded other folks around the Globe. Most of these “rights” are predicated on your age, and most of these “rights” are illegal for you to engage in if you are not yet eighteen years old. If you have come of age, in most instances you have the right to:

·        Vote
·        Drink an alcoholic beverage
·        Sign legally binding documents
·        Get married
·        Become an astronautServe in the military

·        Own a firearm
·        Get a legal abortion
·        Become a Federal Legislator
·        Become President
·        And, of course -

                                                  - Yup, been there, too.

This is just a short rendition of a very long list of “rights” we enjoy as citizens of this Nation. I’m certain that you can easily add to this list. My point is, just because you have the “right” to do something, do you actually do it? I can only speak for myself, so I will attempt to come up with a fairly accurate accounting for some of the “rights” I do, and don’t, exercise.

·        I must say that I do vote, and have done so ever since I turned eighteen. I guess it was instilled in me by my parents, and fortified by my three years of military service. But, I do find that, military service or not, a vast majority of people in this Country never have, or will, see the inside of a polling place. I guess they can’t be bothered, and don’t feel their vote means anything. In my eyes, this is the largest travesty plaguing our democracy. 

                                                                                                                               

·        As far as drinking alcoholic beverages, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I was about thirteen when I first imbibed. But, I know people who have never touched the stuff.

·        The very first legally binding contract I signed was with the U.S. Army. Since then there have been many. It’s been my experience that there are a lot of folks who have never, nor will they ever, sign a legal document during their lifetime.

·        When it comes to marriage, I’ve been down the aisle three times, and that’s all I’m going to mention about that. There are certainly those who choose not to marry, and that statistic is rising at an alarming rate.

                                     

·        I’ve covered the military thing, now I can toss being an astronaut (fear of heights), becoming President (fear of Republicans), being a Federal Legislator (fear of Republicans).

•         As far as the question of getting an abortion, first of all I do not possess any of the needed body parts. But, if I did, I’m can pretty much say for certain that, with my brand of sexually active lifestyle, I would have opted to exercise that “right” once, perhaps more.. With my attitude, in general, I would have opened a can of “whoop-ass” on anybody who tried to stop me. There isn’t a government or church on the face of this Earth that has the “right” to force a woman to take a pregnancy to full term. It is her decision, and hers alone. And, if you don’t have that necessary parts to be a “her”, then you are a “him” and have no leg to stand on. So, shut up                                          and sit down!                                       

·        Now let’s tackle the “right to bear arms”, as per the 2^nd Amendment to our Constitution. Having had the opportunity to play with guns when I was nineteen, I made the very conscious choice to not bear arms in my tenure as a civilian (43 years). So, just how Many Americans exercise this “right” to bear arms? The answer I found was actually more than I would have guessed, but, even though more people own guns that vote, gun ownership in this Country is definitely a scourge against our National character.

        “Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55         million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns). 
Some recent estimates:

- A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.

- A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per 100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns per capita)

- A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including     nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually." ^[1]

Although our Federal Government downplays the amounts, the sales of your typical assault rifle reached an all-time high of 100,000 units in 2010 ^[4]. Why all the fascination with assault rifles? I can only conclude that everyone who purchases such a weapon yearns to be in uniform. Take a quick look at a couple of reviews of the most popular models:

“The M16-A2 is the standard issue rifle. It's carried by pretty much every soldier in a combat zone. Most people simply call it the M-16. The M-16 has been around in one version or another since the Vietnam War (the first version, the M16A1 entered Army service in 1964). Its longevity is creditable to its usefulness as a general assault weapon. It's quite simply one of the finest military rifles ever made (although advocates of the M-4 Carbine may argue with me). The rifle is lightweight, simple to operate, and puts out a lot of lead.” ^[2]

”The AK-47 design history started as the Germans had designed and manufactured the StG44 assault rifle. The German research showed that most fire fights took place within 300 meters, as the power and range of other weaponry was excessive for small arm fire fights, armies had the need for a rifle with submachine gun abilities, like for example large capacity cartridge, and selective firing. Although the StG44 (Sturmgewehr 44) was not the first assault rifle to have these features. The Italian Cei-Rigotti and Russian Fedorov Avtomat where the predecessors.” ^[3]

I have fired both these weapons in a relatively humid, hot environment, and I can say with certainty the AK-47 was the all-around winner. It seemed to tolerate dirt, mud, and water more successfully than the M16-A2. The M16’s predecessor, the AR15 was a total disaster with constant malfunctions and misfires. The AK-47 is also more easily field stripped and cleaned. At the time, a thirty round clip was not made available for the M16-A2. The extra ten rounds made a world of difference when you needed maximum fire power.

Having said that, I cannot for the life of me understand, or rationalize, the civilian ownership of a weapon even remotely similar to these two. I would prefer that we lived in a Nation and at a time where the ownership of firearms wasn’t at all necessary. I’m enough of a realist to understand that will never happen as long male machismo rules the World. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll live long enough to see what a difference women rulers and leaders would make.

Here are a few more statistics for all the “stat-geeks” among you:

“In 2009, in a declaration made as part of the court case Heller v. District of Columbia, which challenged D.C.’s assault weapons ban, NRA research coordinator Mark Overstreet reported that, from 1986 to 2007, at least 1,626,525 AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles were produced and not exported from the United States. Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS background checks to project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by 50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently available in the United States.” ^[5]

 “*Correction, December 20, 2012: This post originally and incorrectly referred to the AR-15 semi-automatic as an "assault rifle." Though the AR-15 could be correctly referred to as an "assault weapon" or an "assault-style rifle," an "assault rifle" specifically refers to a rifle with fully automatic firing capability. The language in the post has been corrected to reflect this distinction.” ^[5]

“There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was also subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.

Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,^[35] these features became legal in most states.^[36] Since the expiration of the ban, the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.

At least five states (NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT) regulate possession of AR-15 rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of certain manufacturers' models. For example: the "A3" tactical carbine pictured above is legal for sale and possession in the United States generally, but is illegal for sale in California and the Colt AR-15 is banned by name in New Jersey.” ^[2]

[1]:  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[3]: http://www.armedforces-int.com/projects/ak_47_assault_rifle.html

[4]: http://theweek.com/article/index/239812/the-assault-weapon-an-instant-guide

[5]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html