Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘health care’

dark_chocolate_2048px_02The following blog was written by Karee Santos.   Perhaps it is tongue-in-cheek.  I think it’s inspiration.  Hobby Lobby won their Supreme Court case.  The privately-owned, Christian company is not forced to betray their conscience by providing employee “health care” that includes four contraceptives that are potential abortifacients. (Note: Irrational feminists and abortion advocates seem to overlook the fact that HL’s health care plan does include coverage of 16 contraceptives.  What does this tell you?)  Karee’s blog is worthy of your consideration ~

The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity fitness as sexual partners political savvy anger.  The battle cry seemed to be “we want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”

“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:

1. Many people want dark chocolate.
2. Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
3. Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
4. The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.

The social, medical, and economic benefits of such a scheme are clear. Politicians would be wise to start a political party based on these principles, or at least incorporate these ideas into the plank of an already-existing party platform. Not only would chocolate-for-free garner even more popular support than contraception-for-free, it would also encounter less opposition. Consider this:

1. Chocolate appeals to men, women, and children of all ages, whereas contraception would only arguably be beneficial for men and women of child-bearing age.
2. Chocolate does not contain synthetic hormones that may raise the risk of cancer and harm the environment by polluting our streams.
3. Chocolate does not cause a small but real risk of increased blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and stroke.
4. No one (as far as I know) has a religious objection to eating chocolate or providing free chocolate to others.

So I say, forget free sex. We want free chocolate. Are you with me?
Karee Santos is a happily married mother of six. She blogs in English at Can We Cana? and in Spanish at Comencemos en Caná. This article was originally published at Can We Cana?

The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity  fitness as sexual partners  political savvy  anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”

“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:

  1. Many people want dark chocolate.
  2. Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
  3. Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
  4. The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.

– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf

The Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby allowing corporations not to pay for abortifacient contraceptives on conscience grounds infuriated many. Some activists responded by rearranging the goods on Hobby Lobby shelves to spell out slogans such as “Pro-Choice” and “All Women Deserve Birth Control” in order to demonstrate their mature femininity  fitness as sexual partners  political savvy  anger. (For more equally emotional responses, click here.) The battle cry seemed to be “We want our non-procreative sex and we want it for free!”

“There is this new attitude that ‘if my pleasure is something I deem good, then you should pay into it and enable me as well,'” commented one of my friends on Facebook. With utterly inescapable logic, she concluded that, based on this reasoning, the government should subsidize her daily ration of dark chocolate as well. The argument is as follows:

  1. Many people want dark chocolate.
  2. Eating dark chocolate every day has proven health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease.
  3. Decreased risk of high blood pressure and heart disease leads to lower medical costs to be borne by individuals and the healthcare system.
  4. The government should therefore provide dark chocolate for free.

– See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_we_all_deserve_free_yummy_dark_chocolate#sthash.GHEbMBzN.dpuf

Read Full Post »

In the last four years, human life has been placed more at risk.  The “right to life” that America promises to guard and protect has diminished.  The life of the unborn – and, therefore, also the born – has been declared of value only if that life is convenient and wanted.

In the last four years and under a government that seems to have another allegiance, a cruel blow has been dealt to the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and the guardianship of children.  Generations will pay dearly.

Here’s what I see.  The king sets himself and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us” (Psalm 2:2-3).

In the past four years, this government has passed over the Creator of life in the scramble to feed the ravenous coffers of Planned Parenthood (PP).  “Opportunity Centers,” PP’s friendly neighborhood sterilization chambers, are set up in strategic locations to reach America’s daughters so they don’t have to worry about pregnancy.  Is there a reason why abortion clinics are strategically set in the middle of African American neighborhoods?  Strange, isn’t it, that one of their own would allow this to happen.   Under no other American presidency has there been such a tight bond between the one who is to defend life and the institution which makes a profit from destroying life.

In the last four years, Americans have been put at risk by an economic burden that threatens to suck the very life out of us.  What kind of leadership pits the young against the old, the “haves” against the “have nots,” and, in general, one citizen against another?

In the last four years, the vibrancy of life that grows out of time-honored marriage and family has been slowly drained away at the altar of progressivism.  But, two men and two women are not a “good fit” (Genesis 2:18).  Faith and science walk hand in hand to prove that social experiments – those trendy ideas that go against the very structure and design of civilization – have terrible consequences.

In the past four years, pedophilia, sex trafficking and all forms of sexual deviancy have risen to dangerous levels.  The hope of desensitizing society and changing the penal code system so that all manner of sexual lust and imagination can be practiced has, indeed, been realized.

In the past four years, the government has determined to take over the health care system. But, human lives will fall between the cracks of a cold and monolithic structure.  The government, after all, is not a person with heart and hands to care.  As to efficiency, well, take a good look at the U.S. Post Office or federally (as opposed to locally) run schools.

In the past four years, people of faith have been told they must deny their faith in order to pay for deeds and services that go against God and conscience.  Under government health care, church-supported schools, social services, and hospitals must cover the sterilization, abortion producing drugs, and birth control of employees.  To refuse places church or private Christian business under penalty of heavy fine.  Will it be God… or Caesar?

In the past four years, the life of every American citizen is more at risk because this government would rather build relationships with America’s enemies than strengthen our defense.  When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was gutted and in-the-field-experienced soldiers sequestered, our president bowed to those who seek jihad against American men, women and children.

The Lord of creation does not stand far off.  He has not forgotten those who call upon Him.  He defends the fatherless and oppressed.  He has shown us what is good.  What does He ask of us?  “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

So, please.  Vote.  Vote as if your life depends on it.

Then, in the words of Winston Churchill (the man whose bust was removed from the White House four years ago): “Stay calm.  Carry on.”

Read Full Post »

Question: Where would society be if Christians stopped practicing charity and compassion outside the church walls?

Professor Alvin Schmidt has the answer.  His entire book, How Christianity Changed the World (Zondervan, 2001, 2004) is worthy of your read.  For now, I would like to provide you with excerpts from my friend’s book most appropriate for this discussion of the health care mandate.  Alvin is a very respected acquaintance of mine who has, over the years, been a popular pro-life workshop and keynote presenter.  He has been kind to encourage my speaking and writing.  Alvin is a retired professor of sociology, faithful Biblical Christian, and involved U.S. citizen.  Considering the times in which we find ourselves, I highly recommend your read of Professor Schmidt’s meticulous documentation of Christianity’s influence on the world.

From the earliest years of Christianity to the ninth century, charity needs in the West were regularly provided for by the church.  Church-dispensed charity declined sharply after the death of Charlemagne in 814.  Feudal lords were to take care of the poor on their lands, but they did so inadequately.  By the sixteenth century, charity had become largely secularized.  By the twentieth century, state welfare payments replaced much of the churches’ charity.  Today, millions who receive state welfare payments in the Western world probably know little or nothing about the fact that the payments they receive are largely the result of Christianity’s influence.

Modern state welfare grew out of the Christian practice of charity, but it’s important to note that government programs, welfare, and even health care cannot be equated with Christian charity.  State programs operate on the basis of coercion; funds are involuntarily gathered by means of enforced taxation.  This violates the spirit and method of true Christian charity.  Christian-based charities and organizations serve others by using funds that are donated or freely given as love-offerings.

Government welfare programs are at odds with Christian charity because they often produce unintended harmful effects by unintentionally encouraging the loss of individual responsibility and even rewarding it.  One such effect has been the continued rise in the rates of children born out of wedlock, a trend that has steadily increased from the mid-1960s to present day.  In 1960 the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 5.3 percent of all births in the U.S., while in 1998 it was 33 percent (an increase of nearly 600 percent).  Another consequence of government welfare has been the rewarding of the indolent, which nullifies the Christian admonition: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).  Imprudent charity is not a good thing.  Another effect of government welfare programs at odds with Christian charity is that they often foster political demagoguery by pandering to the voters who are recipients of social welfare.  Political demagoguery, or appealing to the emotions of a certain group of people, clearly violates Christian charity, not only because it uses deception, but also because it benefits the selfish interests of the demagogues or leaders who reap political gain by presenting themselves as advocates of welfare.  This is Roman liberalitis, not Christian caritas.

Christian charity fosters freedom from all forms of slavery.  Government welfare tends to create a permanently dependent class.  The essence of slavery is being dependent on someone or some entity for one’s livelihood.  This demoralizes human beings.

Government welfare induces many people to think that government should pay for their needs that they feel they cannot afford.  Apparently when the government pays for people’s needs, it does not appear as though others are paying for them. Such thinking forgets that the government has no funds except those taken by means of compulsory taxation.  And that is what distinguishes state welfare programs from Christian charity.  Remember Christ’s example of the Good Samaritan?  He gave, not because he was coerced, but because he had a heartfelt, voluntary desire to help someone in need.

Finally, government programs are different from Christian charity because Christ said that His followers were to give “a cup of water in My name” (Mark 9:41.  Government welfare is not offered in the name of Jesus Christ.

Note: The second printing of How Christianity Changed the World
includes a Bible study for personal or group use.

THANK YOU PROFESSOR SCHMIDT!

Read Full Post »

I believe we have a problem in our culture because we have been deceived.  We have believed the lie about our identity.

Labeling ourselves — first and foremost — “sexual beings,” we have, indeed, given ourselves license to live a sensual and highly sexualized life.

This impacts how we see ourselves and others.  It impacts our choices.  It is, so we’ve been led to believe, who we are.

But, why does this concern me?  Why do I almost seem obsessed with this single topic?

Because it very well may affect what happens to me as I grow older and near the end of my life.

You see, my generation of baby boomers is 76 million strong.  But, my son’s generation is only 17 million.  Now, let’s consider the state of the economy.  Health care. Legalized abortion in all U.S. states for any reason at any time before (and even after) birth.  Legalized euthanasia in some states.

If I am what I’m told I am — a “sexual being” — then what happens when I’m not thinking, looking, or acting so sexual?  What happens when that isn’t the driving force of my life?  What happens when this not-so-sexual-anymore woman doesn’t attract a man’s attention?  Develops fine lines and wrinkles?  Slows her pace?  Appears less productive, but more costly?  Requires more patience and care from others?

My identity matters.  So does yours.  I am not — first and foremost — a sexual being.

I am far more than that.  I am God’s own possession.  Of such great value that Christ gave His life for me.  I am the daughter of the King.  A treasure of great worth.  A vessel for honorable use.  A woman alive to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called me (1 Peter 2:9).

Don’t label me a “sexual being.”  I am more than that.

Read Full Post »

Below are excerpts from a statement issued by Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of my church body, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), in response to a recent HHS decision which affects religious freedom.   

We are deeply distressed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) recent decision to require nearly all private health plans, including those offered by religious employers, to cover contraceptives.  This will include controversial birth-control products such as “Ella” and the “morning after pill,” even though the FDA warns that such drugs can cause the death of a baby developing in the womb.  The LCMS objects to the use of drugs and procedures that are used to take the lives of unborn children, who are persons in the sign of God from the time of conception, and we are opposed to the HHS’ decision mandating the coverage of such contraceptives.

This HHS action relates to a provision in the “health care reform” legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) signed into law in 2010 . . . The Concordia Health Plan (CHP), the LCMS church workers’ health plan, has been maintained as a “grandfathered” plan.  As such, employers and workers participating in CHP would not be subjected to the mandate.  However, many religious organizations do not have grandfathered plans and cannot avail themselves of the extremely narrow religious-employer exemption, which only is applicable to religious employers that primarily serve and employ members of their faith.

For centuries, Lutherans have joyfully delivered Christ’s mercy to others and embraced His call to care for the needy within our communities and around the world.  In a nation that has allowed more than 54 million legal abortions since 1973, we must consider the marginalization of unborn babies and object to this mandate.

In addition, I encourage the members of the LCMS to join with me in supporting efforts to preserve our essential right to exercise our religious beliefs.  This action by HHS will have the effect of forcing many religious organizations to choose between following the letter of the law and operating within the framework of their religious tenets.  We add our voice to the long list of those championing for the continued ability to act according to the dictates of their faith, and provide compassionate care and clear Christian witness to society’s most vulnerable, without being discriminated against by government.

The LCMS, a church body of sinners redeemed by the blood of Jesus, has affected the lives of millions of people with care, aid, housing, health care, spiritual care and much more.  We have been a force for good in this nation, promoting education, marriage and giving people the tools and assistance to be good citizens.  We live and breathe Roman 13:3-7.  The governing authorities are “God’s servant for good.”  We pray for our President and those in authority . . . 

Increasingly we are suffering overzealous government intrusions into what is the realm of traditional and biblical Christian conscience.  We believe this is a violation of our First Amendment rights.  We will stand, to the best of our ability, with all religious and other concerned citizens, against this erosion of our civil liberty.  Come what may, we shall do everything we can, by God’s grace, to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).  (February 3, 2012)

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, California’s Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law legislation that requires the state’s schools to teach the contributions of people who are lesbian, bisexual, “gay,” and transgender.

S.B. 48 makes California the first state in the union to pass such a law.  It was authored by Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, a homosexual.  The law requires textbooks be re-written to include information about LBGT Americans and “present them in a positive light.”

Students as young as six will be affected.  Parental notification is not required.  Parents cannot opt their children out.

The governor says the bill prohibits “discrimination in education.”  He stated that “history should be honest.”

For the sake of honesty:

  1. What is the driving force behind this law?  What is the desired outcome?  Who does it benefit?
  2. To whom are children entrusted: their parents or the school?
  3. If parents teach God’s Word to their children because it protects them from harm, why would the governor, teacher’s association, or school want to contradict parents?
  4. Why does the bill prohibit teachers and textbooks from telling students that homosexuality is a risky lifestyle?  The practice of homosexuality carries with it the highest rate of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, high cancer rates, and earlier deaths.

It has always been a good thing to teach young people about the contributions of earlier Americans.  But, honestly, where is the textbook describing the contributions of George Washington the heterosexual?  Clara Barton the heterosexual?  Martin Luther King, Jr. the heterosexual?

Apparently S.B. 48 is California’s eighth school sexual indoctrination law forcing itself on parents and children.  What will this trend in sexual trail blazing leave behind?

Read Full Post »

“All the people care about is the economy.”

“The people aren’t interested in ‘social issues’ like abortion, homosexuality or gay marriage.”

“There they go again,” reports MSNBC and others.  “The ‘radical right’ is working abortion and marriage into the conversation.”

Rightly so.  Social issues, as they are called, are moral issues.  The legalized killing of preborn human children is a moral issue.  Re-defining marriage is a moral issue.  Teaching our children that homosexuality is just a choice on the “sexual menu” is a moral issue.

Everything has a moral component.  The government has a moral obligation to protect “life and liberty,” to maintain a strong military, and to live within its means.  It should encourage responsible, orderly behavior and a good work ethic.  It should protect families from drug cartels, terrorists, and enemies from within and without.

Anyone running for office should have moral integrity.  Moral character.  Moral and ethical fiber.  It’s not just my opinion, but God’s mandate that people who rule a nation should respect the life that He creates.  Anyone who compromises on issues such as abortion, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia has lost (or never had) a moral compass.

Those who seek to experiment with marriage and family float rumors.  They say that Americans don’t really care about same-sex “marriage.”  They add: If someone is against gay “marriage,” then they must be against homosexuals.  Not true.  People who believe they are homosexual are persons, too.  They are  people loved by God.  But, God is the Creator of marriage and, therefore, He alone defines it.  God created marriage for one man and one woman because it’s the best environment for children, it connects children to their biological origins, and it brings two opposites — male and female — together to mentor boys and girls in the way God intends for them to go.

Moral integrity is practiced — or not practiced — on Wall Street and in every business.  In education.  In health care.  In courts of law.  In the military.  In homes.  And during election cycles.

My eyes have seen that men and women who defend the sanctity of human life generally have a moral compass not only in place but in operation.  Leaders — in the home, community, church, and government — who value the life that God creates and redeems in Jesus Christ are imperfect leaders to be sure, but they are accountable to someone other than themselves.  Their God determines right and wrong.  Their neighbors matter.  Their choices reflect hope for a new generation.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »