Both.

Tim Tebow is a Heisman trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida.  As a home-schooled kid from a Christian family, he shatters the stereotype that kids taught by their parents at the kitchen table grow up to be abnormal, socially stunted adults.  Arguably the best college football player in the country, Tebow remains centered in his faith and family.

Pam Tebow was serving as a missionary in an orphanage in the Philippines with her husband Bob and Tim’s older siblings when she was pregnant with Tim.  She suffered from a parasitic infection, and doctors predicted a still birth and advised Pam to abort the baby for her own health.  She refused, and gave birth to a healthy, full term baby boy.

Focus on the Family has sponsored a 30 second add to appear during Superbowl XLIV, which features the Tebows and include some sort of “choose life” message.  And you know how pro-women groups feel about people choosing life.  They really can’t stand it, can they?  It’s interesting to me that they get so angry about it.  I mean, if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, why do they get so upset about women choosing not to do it?

The Women’s Media Center and the National Organization for Women are going absolutely bonkers, accusing Focus on the Family of being “extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,” and pushing an “anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health providers and their patients.”  Whoa, that’s harsh.

So what does Tim Tebow have to say about the ad and about his mother’s decision to choose life?

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe…[T]hat’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

Bravo to the Tebow family for standing firm in their beliefs in the face of tough opposition.  I applaud you for not being afraid to exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech.  Even if that speech is difficult for some people to hear.  And to those that would deny the Tebows, Focus on the Family, and CBS the 30 second advertisement, I have two words for you: mute button.

Well, it looks like the Senate has its 60 votes to pass the health care bill through.  A bill so fantastic that votes had to be bought by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lord knows how many others.  There were a few whose votes couldn’t be bought.  So the Democratic leaders resorted to threatening their family members unless they supported the bill.

Not only is the health care bill so stellar that Senators had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it, but it’s going to be voted on at 1 o’clock in the morning, four days before Christmas.  Some perspective for you- no one will see any benefits from this bill until 2013 (if ever), yet it’s being rushed through in the middle of the night during a time when most Americans have turned off their TVs and put down their newspapers in the hopes of having a joyful holiday season with their friends and family.  I understand doing what we have to do, but this is NOT something that couldn’t easily wait until January.

During debate on the Senate floor today, Senator Tom Coburn made some excellent points and observations on why this health care bill is not a health care reform bill, but only an unsustainable health care coverage expansion.  Sen. Coburn is one of only two practicing physicians in the Senate (the other is Senator John Barrasso), so he speaks from the unique perspective of being both a doctor and a politician.

Sen. Coburn pointed out that there are zero guarantees that taxpayers won’t finance abortions, zero prohibitions on the rationing of health care, and zero Senators required to enroll in either Medicaid  or another government run option.  The Republicans proposed amendments to disallow the use of federal funds to finance abortions or the rationing of health care, but the Democrats voted down the measure.  Let me ask you this: If funding for abortions and rationing of care aren’t part of the plan for this bill, why wouldn’t the Democrats put those amendments in?  That’s like a bookie betting on a game to get others to bet as well, without actually putting any money into the pot.  The bookie ends up making money, and I’ve read enough crime dramas to be pretty sure that that’s highly illegal, not to mention immoral.

What does this health care bill do besides use tax payer money to provide abortions and limit care to those the government deems “unworthy” due to age or lifestyle or previous health?  It creates ten new taxes, and seventy-one new government programs.  There are 1,697 times that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will write regulations, and 15,000-20,000 new government jobs will be created to carry out this legislation.  That’s funny, I thought the idea was to create more DOCTORS to treat more patients at an affordable price, but I guess a job-is-a-job-is-a-job, right?  Maybe those four out of ten doctors that said they’d consider quitting the practice of medicine if this bill passes can apply for a job with the government.

Another thing in the bill is the word shall.  It’s in there a lot- 3,607 times at last count.  What’s significant about the word shall?  It takes away your options.  The bill does not say, “You may choose to purchase health care insurance in the event that you become ill or injured,” it says, “You shall purchase health care insurance, whether you want it or not!”

That’s the individual mandate that you’ve been hearing about.  It is the first tax in United States history that will tax you for simply existing.  It’s not based on your work or purchases or decision as to whether to take the toll road or surface streets.  It’s a tax that you can choose not to pay by choosing not to breathe.  And even though I’m not a doctor, I’m fairly certain that breathing is pretty important.

That’s not right! You may be saying to yourself.  No, it isn’t right. It’s completely unconstitutional. And more likely than not, it will be completely unenforceable in court.  Which means that no one will buy health insurance until they are sick or injured. And given that the bill will require health insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and place limits on how much they may charge their customers, they will inevitably go bankrupt.  Leaving the only option the government option.  That, my friends, is called socialized health care, and it has never worked well.

The government is not compassionate. We already see rationing in government run health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The government already comes between elderly and/or underprivileged patients and their doctors, deciding what treatments and procedures may be done, regardless of the patient’s personal history or the doctor’s recommendation.  Why on Earth would it be a good idea to expand government control of health care, when Medicare and Medicaid are inarguablly broken and on the verge of bankruptcy?

People are compassionate. Doctors are compassionate. Neighbors and family and benefactors are compassionate.  Let’s focus on incentivizing the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, creating transparency so that we can choose and purchase our own health care insurance based on value and quality, and assisting those facing tough times that need some extra help.  That’s true reform.  This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lead our once liberty-loving country into a single-payer health care system.

In the words of Ronald Reagan during a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

The government is not compassionate.

I always giggle when I hear that tag line, a fun way to remind women to do self breast exams in between their annual *girly* doctor visits.  It’s easy to do, but easy to forget about.  Seriously Chicas, 5 minutes once a month, feel your boobies!  The main thing you’re looking for is change.  Some bumps and lumps are normal, but anything that feels like a pebble, or any noticeable changes warrant a call to the doctor.

My mom taught me that when I was a teenager.  My gynecologist reminds me every year to do it.  During the entire month of October (breast cancer awareness month), I’m bombarded with reminders to feel my boobies!

Breast cancer is fairly common (about 12% of women will develop it at some point in their lives), and extremely treatable if found early (the five year survival rate exceeds 96% for cancer found early).  Which is why it’s important that all women pay attention to their breasts!

It’s hard to imagine anyone with half a brain in their head saying otherwise. Yet somehow, a bunch of someones are saying just that:

The new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, state that routine mammograms aren’t necessary for women of average cancer risk in their 40s, and that women between 50 and 74 years old don’t need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year. They also recommend that physicians abstain from teaching women how to examine their breasts for signs of cancer because of a lack of evidence that it is of any benefit.

What is the U.S. Preventative Task Force, anyway?  As it turns out, it’s a government funded panel of doctors that makes recommendations to medical community on how best to prevent illness and disease.  Government funded?  Sounds like someone’s not wanting to pay for all those unnecessary mammograms if that health care bill passes the Senate.  Yeah, much better for that money to fund elective abortions.

What will the Preventative Task Force panel come up with next?  Denying that using condoms help prevent the spread of STDs and protects against pregnancy?  Maybe hand-washing isn’t really effective in stopping the spread of viruses or infections.  Do pregnant women really need to see doctors or give birth in a hospital?  Maybe they’ll ban in home thermometers, because they cause too many false alarms with parents rushing their child to the doctor when there’s nothing wrong with them other than a fever.

Gosh, people on a panel that will be able to make recommendations to the government on what treatments should or should not be offered on the government health care plan… What was that term again?

Oh yeah.

Death panels.

The Secret Service is investigating a poll posted on Facebook recently.  The poll asked: “Should Obama be killed?” The possible answers were “no,” “maybe,” yes,” and “yes if he cuts my health care.”

Bob Beckel, one of my favorite love-to-hate liberals, came out swinging against the person responsible for the poll, demanding that he or she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“This is the kind of garbage that’s generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it’s going way over the line…It’s got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail…If they don’t like what Obama is doing, then maybe they ought to go out and vote for someone else.  But relying on this kind of attack is un-American and unacceptable.”

Those of us on the right apparently just can’t help ourselves sometimes.  We’re so full of angry hate and hateful anger that we do things like throw bricks and sticks at cops while we’re protesting.  Wait, those were liberal, anti-capitalist protesters?

Well, it’s those Fox News Channel worshipers that bring posters to rallies depicting President Obama as Hitler.  Or was it the fringe group La Rouche, which advocates a single-payer health care system (not exactly a right-wing position)? At least we never saw Bush-as-Hitler propaganda from liberals during the eight years he served as our President.  Nope.  Never.  Not once. Ok, maybe once or twice…

Who killed Dr. Tiller, the man who preformed partial birth abortions on babies that would have most likely survived outside of the womb?  That one HAS to be a right winger.  Definitely a crazy, anti-choice, right-wing extremist.  Or maybe accused gunman Scott Roeder was a nut job that refused to pay taxes, believed himself to be above the law, and was clearly not associated with either liberals or conservatives?

Was it former Republican President George W. Bush that called everyone who disagreed with his politics racists and accused them of being part of a conspiracy?  Or was it former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?  These things are so hard to keep track of, you know.

If the Secret Service ever finds the person that posted the “Obama death poll” on Facebook, I would like to politely ask Mr. Beckel to apologize for associating him or her with the right-wing.  Because I can speculate with some confidence that that person is NOT a right-winger.  After he apologizes, maybe Mr. Beckel can point out some instances of the “garbage that’s generated from the extreme right against Obama,” because I sure can’t find it.  All I can find are concerned citizens that are finally speaking up for themselves and the welfare of our country.  They had the audacity to ask Congress to reign in the spending of money that we don’t have.  Some of those crazy right-wingers actually asked their congressmen to read the bills on their desk before they signed them!  The horror!

Questioning our representatives is not garbage.  Holding our elected officials accountable is not garbage.  Attending peaceful protests, town hall meetings, or city council meetings is not garbage.  Don’t let anyone tell you that it is.

For the past few weeks, my mind has been wrapped around the health-care debate.  Just hearing the words government option sends chills down my spine.  My body (which incidentally enjoys being taken care of by quality health-care) responds to those words with an increased heart rate and sweaty palms.  The idea of government taking part in the practice of medicine SCARES the heebeejeebees out of me.

The main line of defense for the pro-government-health-care-option (or whatever it’s being called today… co-ops, isn’t it?) crowd has been to mock that fear; to question it and make it seem ridiculous.  They say I’m backwards and uninformed for not wanting to follow Europe’s example of socialized health-care, where life is apparently much better than it is here in the US.  They say I’m silly for thinking I won’t get to keep my private health insurance.  They say I’m mean and selfish for not wanting to pay higher taxes to provide health-care for those that cannot afford it.  They say that due to the preventative treatment allowed by government run health-care, quality of life for all will improve, babies will never die, and we’ll finally achieve immortality (or something like that).  How could I be afraid of all of that goodness?

What am I afraid of?

I’m afraid I’ll lose my private health insurance. President Obama has stated point-blank that his plan is to lead the US into a single-payer system, using a so-called government “option” as a transitioning period.  Let me break it down for you.  The government says, “Don’t worry, of course you can keep your private health insurance (although we’re going to tax you so much that you won’t have any other realistic option than to accept the government plan)!”  Do you see how this hurts the middle class?  Only the extremely wealthy will be able to afford private health insurance once you add in all the taxes and fees associated with it.  The rest of us will be forced to accept the government care if we want any coverage at all.  The middle class is the one that will suffer the most, as they are forced to surrender their private insurance and accept the waiting lists and rationing that come with government health-care.

I’m afraid of waiting lists and rationing.  I’m afraid of getting too sick or too old, when the cost-benefit ratio for keeping me alive is no longer worth it to a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. Health-care will be rationed in a socialized system, as we’ve seen in the UK, in Finland, in Canada, and many others.  I’m afraid of being told it’s my patriotic duty to die, so the cost of keeping a person alive can go to someone perceivably healthier than myself.  I’m afraid of unnatural selection, when at 22 weeks pregnant and in premature labor, I might be denied drugs like magnesium sulfate and terbutaline (which would stop contractions and mature the baby’s fetus’s lungs), because not only are they expensive, but the cost of caring for a preemie in the NICU can be upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I’m afraid that my quality of care would plummet.  If I need life saving treatment, I don’t care if my doctor is a one-armed albino that speaks in haiku’s and has a tendency to skip everywhere he goes.  I just want him to be an expert in the area I need treatment.  At the same time, I don’t think someone should become a doctor just because he or she might add “diversity” in the medical field.  It is discriminatory to give grants/promotions/benefits/special treatment to people based on their skin color, height, weight, the size of their ears, or because they pick their nose.  Ok, I take that last one back.  Anyone that picks their nose during a medical school entrance interview should not be allowed to become a doctor.  At the same time, the pool of intelligent and dedicated individuals willing to work themselves to the bone to become good doctors would shrink.  Too many people considering medical school might take a look at the bureaucratic red tape nightmare of government health-care and say, “No thanks!”

I’m afraid breakthroughs in medical technology will come to a halt. Since 1945, 87 of the 143 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine awarded have gone to Americans.  American doctors and scientists have pioneered transplant surgeries, chemotherapy, and vaccinations in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Will there still be breakthroughs when the government decides what kinds of care physicians can provide to what kinds of patients?

I’m afraid that my children and grandchildren will be paying for this.  French health-care is often touted as one of the best systems in the world, yet it is currently causing a huge deficit in their economy.  In the US, Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupting us and leading to higher taxes and inflation.  How long before our country bankrupts itself?

I’m afraid that my tax dollars will be used to fund abortions, something that I’m morally opposed to.  Religious schools don’t receive tax-payer money because it would be unfair to require people morally opposed to religious education to pay for it.  How is requiring me to pay for abortions any different?

I’m afraid this is just be the beginning, as Ronald Reagan warned in a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

What am I afraid of?

Government health-care, that’s what.

I feel dizzy and sick from reading this article about a Brooklyn nurse  who was strong-armed into assisting with a late term abortion at the risk of losing her job.

 Bosses told the weeping Cenzon-DeCarlo the patient was 22 weeks into her pregnancy and had preeclampsia, a condition marked by high blood pressure that can lead to seizures or death if left untreated.

The supervisor “claimed that the mother could die if [Cenzon-DeCarlo] did not assist in the abortion.”

But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient’s life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.

Her pleas were rejected, and instead she was threatened with career-ending charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.

She stated:

“I emigrated to this country in the belief that here religious freedom is sacred,” Cenzon-DeCarlo said. “Doctors and nurses shouldn’t be forced to abandon their beliefs and participate in abortion in order to keep their jobs.”

Religious freedom only seems to be sacred these days as long it involves “dignified” sati.  I have to wonder, if the nurse was falsely led to believe this was a neccessary procedure to save the life of the mother, did the hospital lie to the mother as well, or did the hospital lie for the mother?  Either way, it’s simply unacceptable. 

Galen Sherwin (the director of the New York Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Rights Project) said,

“The law provides protections for individuals who object to performing abortions, but at the same time, health-care professionals are not permitted to abandon patients.”

What about the baby? Who’s patient was the baby?  Why does a woman’s right to an abortion for any reason supersede a fully formed, tiny little person’s right to life? I can’t decide if that’s discrimination based on the age or the residency of the baby. Maybe both.

Did you hear about the baby botched abortion of a 23 week old fetus? The autopsy revealed that the baby’s lungs had filled with air, proof of a live birth. The umbilical cord was cut, and the live baby was tossed into a bio hazard waste receptacle. No, not in Mexico or China. No, not pre-Roe v Wade. This happened in Florida in 2006. Read about it here.

As a general rule, I tend to keep quiet on the abortion issue on here. But the revelation of this baby killed and tossed in a garbage can to die, coupled with President Obama lifting the ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions as a method of family planning in other nations, have riled me enough to speak out on the topic.

Abortion has long been hailed by liberals as a legitimate form of family planning. Pro-choice, they call it, the choice of a woman to be pregnant or not. Well, I am absolutely, 100% pro-choice in this arena. Of course a woman can chose to not be pregnant! All she has to do to make this choice a reality is to not have sex. “But that’s unrealistic!” the liberals tell me. I’m pretty sure that God gave us free will, reason, and (even if sometimes limited) intelligence to make the best decisions we can. If a woman so desperately doesn’t want to become pregnant, to the point that she would pay someone to suck her unborn baby out of her womb with a vacuum, then I respectfully suggest she keep her legs shut, as abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

The botched abortion baby caused tears to roll down my cheeks, in sadness at that little life ended. Who knows who that little could have grown up to be? Who knows the impact that little girl might have had on the world? And then I became indignant. Why was it perfectly legal and acceptable to kill that helpless little girl only moments prior to when it become a crime scene? Why was that baby denied the right to life simply because she still lived in her mother’s body? What magical thing happened the moment her skin hit the air for the first time? How did every cell in her being cease to be part of her mother’s body and transform into a separate person? I’m afraid the science of that eludes me.

It’s so tempting to be persuaded by the argument that it’s just part of a woman’s body, and we should all have control over own bodies, but that’s not what abortion is about. Legalized abortion puts the power to end another being’s life without just cause into the hands of every pregnant woman.

We are living in an era of bailouts. Is anybody responsible for the decisions they make anymore? Every time a decision is made, there are consequences to that decision. Eating too much ice cream will cause you to gain weight, making risky business decisions might cause you to go bankrupt, and having sex (even with protection) might cause a pregnancy. Today we have liposuction, government bailouts, and abortion, all which take away the decision maker’s responsibility for living with the consequences of their decisions and actions. How can anyone be held accountable, or taught to learn from their mistakes when they are never forced to face any consequences?

I do not believe abortion falls under the umbrella of women’s rights, and I certainly don’t see any discrimination in taking away a woman’s right to chose whether or not she wants to end the life of her progeny for no good reason. Abortion isn’t about women’s rights, even though it’s touted as the pinnacle of it. Women’s rights are suffrage, right to contraceptives, equal opportunity, equal pay, right to own property, right to an education, right to enter into legal contracts, or any other thing that a man has a right to. A man does not have the right to chose whether or not to end his unborn child’s life, so why should a woman?

Every time I hear of abortion, my heart cries out for the victims. For the babies that never got to take a breath of air, for the mothers that have been lied to about the development of their baby in utero or unduly pressured by others, for the fathers that were told it was none of their business, and for countless others that have been hurt and are still suffering from abortion. And it makes me absolutely ill that my tax dollars are now being used to fund abortions overseas.

Let’s put an end to fetuscide, shall we?