If Barack Hussein Obama wins this election and creates a national heath system, what will happen when a pro-life mother learns she is carrying a baby with some form of disability?
Will the government require an abortion so the system is not "stuck" with the carrying costs of this child? Every national health care system ends up less efficient than projected and with costs billions more than anticipated. Is it too far fetched to suggest they will "eliminate" "unnecessary burdens" on the health care system for the "greater good" of the nation?
So, you ask, what about my freedom of religion on this issue? The government may say, look, if you want to have the child, that's fine, but they will not qualify for national health care - you will have to find a way to pay for it on your own. Which, with the private options we now have, this would be a possibility. However when a national system drys up these options by putting all the healthy people in a national system - where will we turn?
I am not sure how likely this is, but two facts haunt me. First, Barack Obama voted three times in Illinois to kill babies who were born alive after a failed abortion.
Second, our government, even under George W. Bush, already forces pro-life citizens to subsidize the operations of Planned Parenthood to the tune of more than $250 million annually. Planned Parenthood operates with a budget of nearly $1 billion annually. About a third comes from private donations. Another third from murder fees. Another third comes from us - the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood kills more than 225,000 babies each year.
I am opposed to national heathcare primarily for common-sense economic reasons. The government almost never improves something that is already a challenge for the private sector.
Yet, in the case of a liberal Congress led by an even more liberal Barack Obama, I fear a far graver danger.
Is this an unlikely scenario? I hope and pray it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment