Eugenics Watch: On The Need To Restrain Scientists: 1905 Penn Governor Sam Pennypacker Vetoes Bill To 'Prevent Idiocy'

Junk Science
Steve Milloy, May 31, 2018

In his 1905 veto of what would have been the first and eugenics-aimed compulsory sterilization law in the U.S., Pennsylvania Gov. Samuel Pennypacker stated:

Scientists, like all other men whose experiences have been limited to one pursuit, and whose minds have been developed in a particular direction, sometimes need to be restrained. Men of high scientific attainments are prone, in their love for technique, to lose sight of broad principles outside of their domain of thought.


Read Gov. Pennypacker’s entire statement…

###

I return herewith, without my approval Senate Bill No. 35, entitled “An Act for the prevention of idiocy.”

This bill has what may be called with propriety an attractive title. If idiocy could be prevented by an act of assembly, we may be quite sure that such an act would have long been passed and approved in this state, and that such laws would have been enacted in all civilized countries.

The subject of the act is not the prevention of idiocy, but it is to provide that in every institution in the state, entrusted with the care of idiots and imbecile children, a neurologist, a surgeon, and physician shall be authorized to perform an operation upon the inmates “for the prevention of procreation..”

What is the nature of the operation is not described but it is such an operation as they shall decide to be “safest and most effective.” It is plain that the safest and most effective preventing procreation would be to cut the heads off the inmates, and such authority is given by the bill to this staff of scientific experts. It is not probable that they would resort to this means for the prevention of procreation, but it is probable that they would endeavor to destroy some part of the human organism.

Scientists, like all other men whose experiences have been limited to one pursuit, and whose minds have been developed in a particular direction, sometimes need to be restrained. Men of high scientific attainments are prone, in their love for technique, to lose sight of broad principles outside of their domain of thought.

A surgeon may possible be so eager to advance in skill as to be forgetful of the danger to his patient. Anatomists may be willing to gather information by the infliction of pain and suffering upon helpless creatures, although a higher standard of conduct would teach them that it is far better for humanity to bear its own ills than to escape them by knowledge only secured through cruelty to other creatures.

This bill, whatever good might possibly result from it if its provisions should become a law, violates the principles of ethics.

These feeble-minded and imbecile children have been entrusted to the institutions by their parents or guardians for the purpose of training and instruction. It is proposed to experiment upon them, not for their instruction, but in order to help society in the future. It is to be done without their consent, which they cannot give, and without the consent of their parents or guardians, who are responsible for their welfare. It would be in contravention of the laws which have been enacted for the establishment of these institutions. These laws have in contemplation the training and the instruction of the children.

This bill assumes that they cannot be so instructed and trained. Moreover, the course it is proposed to pursue would have a tendency to prevent such training and instruction. Everyone knows, whether he be a scientist or an ordinary observer, that to destroy virility is to lessen the capacity, the energy and the spirit which lead to effort. The bill is, furthermore, illogical in its thought.

Idiocy will not be prevented by the prevention of procreation among these inmates. This mental condition is due to causes many of which are entirely beyond our knowledge. It existed long before there were ever such inmates of such institutions.

If this plan is to be adopted, to make it effective it should be carried into operation in the world at large, and not in institutions where the inmates are watched by nurses, kept separate, and have all the care which is likely to rendered procreation there very rare, if not altogether impossible.

In one of these institutions, I am reliably informed, there have only been three births in ten years. A great objection is that the bill would encourage experimentation upon living animals, and would be the beginning of experimentation upon living human beings, leading logically to results which can be readily forecasted.

The chief physician, in charge at Elwyn, has candidly told us, in an article recently published upon “Heredity,” that “Studies in heredity tend to emphasize the wisdom of those ancient peoples who taught that the healthful development of the individual and the elimination of the weakling was the truest patriotism — springing from an abiding sense of the fulfillment of a duty to the state.”

To permit such an operation would be to inflict cruelty upon a helpless class in the community which the state has undertaken to protect. However skillfully performed, it would at times lead to peritonitis, blood poisoning, lockjaw and death.

For these reasons the bill is not approved.

SAML. W. PENNYPACKER
Governor of Pennsylvania
1905

[Source: Henry H. Laughlin’s ‘Eugenical sterilization in the United States’ (Chicago: Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago, 1922), on page 3] 


Thank You Mr Milloy, Junk Science, and Governor Pennypacker.

EUGENICS WATCH: Assisted Suicide Bills Dead In New England

freebeacon
Bill McMorris
April 1, 2018 5:00 am

Two of the most liberal states in the country killed off legislation that would have legalized assisted suicide.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts and Connecticut have shelved bills that would have allowed doctors to prescribe lethal medication to patients with terminal diagnoses. Activists, who prefer the term medical aid in dying, were hopeful that heavily Democratic majorities in both states would pass the bill, and Massachusetts, in particular, seemed receptive to assisted suicide after the state's top medical association withdrew its opposition to the practice and pledged neutrality on the bill.

The Massachusetts Medical Society's stance, however, inspired backlash from doctors across the state. Former society president Dr. Tom Sullivan joined physicians across the state in February to lobby lawmakers against legalization. He told the Washington Free Beacon he was "overjoyed" when he learned that lawmakers would table the bill. "The legislature agreed that it doesn't make sense to reverse a practice that's at least 2,500 years old," he said referring to the Hippocratic Oath. "I think the testimony of other doctors made them recognize that many physicians are opposed [to assisted suicide] … it's a call for us to do more and educate not only the public and legislators but our own physicians to take care of dying patients."

Mark Rollo, a primary care doctor and Air Force veteran, said doctors needed to step up to personally lobby lawmakers after the medical society's "gutless" neutrality stance. He said legislators were persuaded about the unintended consequences of legalization would have on insurance companies incentives to withhold more expensive life-extending treatments in favor of pushing suicide.

"I think the most important message in our victory is the reality that PAS would have become a cheap medical procedure that would have steered the vulnerable toward suicide and favored the white, wealthy, and well insured," Rollo said. "The poor, people of color, and people with disabilities would have received the all too familiar denial of care letters from insurance companies and from Medicaid, refusing to cover expensive care but offering to pay for suicide pills. We the people say no thanks."

Supporters of assisted suicide at Compassion and Choices were disappointed in the results. Spokesmen for the group said denying the bill would hinder the wishes of terminal patients. Marie Manis, Massachusetts campaign director for Compassion and Choices, said it would extend the suffering of the seriously ill.

"The tragedy is terminally ill Massachusetts residents with six months or less to live will not have this option to peacefully end their suffering if they need it before the legislature revisits this issue next year," she said in a statement.

Matt Valliere, executive director of anti-assisted suicide Patients Rights Action Fund, said many patients have been spared pressure to opt for suicide.

"We welcome the Massachusetts Health Committee's unanimous vote to send dangerous, regressive bills H1194/S1225 to ‘study,' effectively killing the push for legalized doctor assisted suicide for the session," he said in a statement. "Assisted suicide is not medical treatment. It is bad public policy that puts a great many at risk of deadly harm through mistakes, coercion, and abuse."

The legislative battles drew pro-life activists from across the country to pour into the states. Deanna Wallace, spokesman for Americans United for Life, visited the Connecticut statehouse with other activists to speak out against assisted suicide. She said the failure to pass the legislation in the heavily Democratic states demonstrated momentum for upholding prohibitions against the practice.

"The recent victories in Connecticut and Massachusetts continue the overwhelming trend in state legislatures against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. In the past 23 years, there have been more than 200 failed attempts to legalize this dangerous practice, showing clearly that the momentum is on the side of the pro-life movement," Wallace said. "Americans United for Life will continue to fight to protect vulnerable people such as the elderly, ill, and disabled from this type of fatally flawed legislation."

Assisted suicide is legal in six states and Washington, D.C. While the groups celebrated their victories in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the Hawaii house passed assisted suicide and the Democratic governor has indicated he would sign it. Tim Appleton, Compassion and Choices' Connecticut campaign manager, said the group has not given up hope of returning to states that have rejected assisted suicide.

"The fight for medical aid in dying will continue, but for some terminally ill Connecticut residents, next year will be too late," Appleton said in a statement. "There's too much at stake to stop the fight, and we're confident that Connecticut residents will one day join the 1 in 5 American adults who have access to this compassionate option."

Dr. Sullivan, the former Massachusetts Medical Society president, said he is prepared to wage the battle again and plans on visiting the Rhode Island statehouse in the coming weeks as it weighs legalization. He said more must be done to ensure patients have access to palliative care and hospice care to ease suffering in a person's final months.

"I know this is going to be a never-ending battle," Sullivan said. "This isn't just a medical issue it's a moral, cultural, and social issue … We know this is another alarm call that we need to do more for people who are suffering and depressed that has led them to desire to end their own lives."

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Assisted Suicide, Connecticut, Massachusetts. Bookmark the permalink. 





Thank You Mr McMorris and Free Beacon.

Researcher At Japan Stem Cell Institute Falsified Nearly All Images In 2017 Paper

retraction watch
Jan 23, 2018

An investigation by Kyoto University in Japan has found a researcher guilty of falsifying all but one of the figures in a 2017 stem cell paper.

Yesterday, Kyoto University announced that the paper’s first author, Kohei Yamamizu, had fabricated and falsified data in the Stem Cell Reports paper. According to the investigation report, none of the other authors were involved in the data manipulation.

Yamamizu works at the Center for iPS cell Research and Application (CiRA) at Kyoto University, directed by Shinya Yamanaka, a Nobel Prize winner for his pioneering work in stem cell biology.

A spokesperson for the journal told us that the authors disclosed the problems last week and Stem Cell Reports will be retracting the paper, published last February.

In the university’s official statement, Yamanaka said:

I am saddened to report that our internal investigation has concluded that a specially-appointed assistant professor at CiRA falsified and fabricated the data used in a 2017 research publication for which he was the first and corresponding author.  

In his university announcement, Yamanaka apologized for the situation:

As CiRA Director, I feel a strong responsibility for not having been able to prevent research misconduct at our institute and sincerely apologize to all who support us and our research activities…Kyoto University is now deliberating its punishment toward the above specially-appointed assistant professor, the professor who supervised the researcher and myself.

Yamamizu is still listed as an assistant professor at the university; the university did not release the name of his supervisor.  

We reached out to Jun Yamashita, the 2017 paper’s last author and the principal investigator in the department where Yamamizu works, as well as Yamamizu.

A university spokesperson, who responded on behalf of Yamanaka, told Retraction Watch:

The main conclusions of the paper depended heavily on the fraudulent data.

The spokesperson also explained that the university has not received allegations regarding other papers by Yamamizu, and his other work is not in question.

According to the university’s announcement, last year, the university was informed about potential problems with images in the paper. The university “attempted to recreate some of the figures presented in the paper using original data,” but “found the conclusions in the paper were not consistent with the preserved data.”

In July, the university’s initial inquiry prompted a formal investigation of the paper, “In Vitro Modeling of Blood-Brain Barrier with Human iPSC-Derived Endothelial Cells, Pericytes, Neurons, and Astrocytes via Notch Signaling.” The paper has been cited nine times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

The university, which conducted its investigation from September 11 to January 9, found that Yamamizu had falsified data in the six main figures in the paper, as well as in five of the six supplementary figures.

In his statement, Yamanaka wrote:

We take misconduct very seriously. We will reevaluate our research management to strengthen our research ethics and to regain public trust in our research.

According to the Mainichi:

CiRA, the research institute for induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells for which Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2012, has a strict research management system to prevent wrongdoings. All researchers get their notes on experiments checked at least once every three months and if a research paper is to be published, the researcher must submit research materials such as original data and images. ..At the same time, the center had only made its researchers submit study materials, but failed to check their contents in detail. In reality, the submission rate of such data was not 100 percent…when Yamanaka checked Yamamizu’s notes for the first time after the issue surfaced, he thought they were insufficient.

In 2014, the Nobel laureate apologized for so-called “poor record keeping,” according to the Wall Street Journal, after questions arose regarding a 2000 paper on which he was lead author. Although a Kyoto investigation confirmed the paper’s conclusions, Yamanaka said he no longer had lab records to support the images.

Hat tip: Lemon-Stoism, Author of world fluctuation watch

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at retractionwatchteam@gmail.com.

DOJ Launches Investigation Into Planned Parenthood

dailycaller
Robert DonachieCapitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
8:53 PM 12/07/2017



The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s dealings in fetal tissue parts, Fox News reports.

The DOJ requested documents from a Senate committee that investigated allegations Planned Parenthood illegally profited from the sale of the parts of aborted babies. The Center for Medical Progress exposed the abortion giant’s practice of harvesting and distributing the parts in a series of explosive videos published in 2015.

“The Department of Justice appreciates the offer of assistance in obtaining these materials, and would like to request the Committee provide unredacted copies of records contained in the report, in order to further the Department’s ability to conduct a thorough and comprehensive assessment of that report based on the full range of information available,” the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, Stephen Boyd, said in a letter obtained by Fox News.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley requested that Planned Parenthood undergo DOJ and FBI investigation in a December 2016 committee report: “The report documents the failure of the Department of Justice, across multiple administrations, to enforce the law that bans the buying and selling of human fetal tissue,” Grassley wrote. “It also documents substantial evidence suggesting that the specific entities involved in the recent controversy, and/or individuals employed by those entities, may have violated that law.”

Planned Parenthood has repeatedly denied any claims that it has violated any laws or ethical standards when it comes to fetal tissue. A Republican-backed law banning profit from the sale of fetal tissue passed in 1993 is at the heart of the allegations.

Follow Robert on Twitter


Thank You Mr Donachie and the DC.

Vengerov: The Bach Chaconne; In Memoriam At Auschwitz

History can be and is being rewritten on a daily basis by leftists enthralled with collectivism.

Since the history of NAZI Germany is too well documented to ignore, a common tactic employed by collectivists is to characterize it as a Far Right movement, which is a bald faced lie. Hitler was up to his eye teeth in squabbling bureaucrats. 

The term NAZI itself is an acronym for National Socialism, and how anyone can twist That into being a Right Wing political creed is one hell of a leap of, . . . .

Psychiatrists:

• The Men Behind Hitler
• Hitler's Unwanted Children

Next up is the coal yard at Dachau and American GIs after they liberated the camp.

The bodies and men with their hands above their heads at the wall are NAZI SS.

Was killing them, as prisoners of war, legal?

Not according to the 1929 Geneva Convention.

You don't have to imagine the horrors they witnessed first hand that drove them to it.

There are photographs all over the internet.

And even with that, you'll never convince a collectivist that what they're pushing ultimately delivers society to that same place.



Thank You Mr. Vengerov.

EUGENICS WATCH: Tenn. Judge, 'Get Sterilized For Reduced Jail Time'

They're "BAAA-aack". Actually, 'they' never left.

CNSnews
By Michael W. Chapman | July 26, 2017 | 3:50 PM EDT 

To apparently help repeat drug offenders take more responsibility for their actions, Tennessee Judge Sam Benningfield is offering prison inmates free sterilization and implanted birth control in exchange for reduced time in jail, as reported by News Channel 5 in Nashville. 

“I hope to encourage them to somewhat finally take personal responsibility and to give them a chance, so when they do get out not to be burdened again with additional children," said Judge Benningfield in a July 20 interview. Benningfield is the General Sessions judge in White County, Tenn.


read more


Anyone with an interest in 'Behavioral Health' remembers how California and others sterilized the societal undesirables back in the 30s, and so inspired the NAZIs with their progessive thinking that the NAZIs - Without our Bill of Rights - progressively murdered off 11 Million undesirables in their 'Behavioral' camps.

Way to go Judge.

Your ideological forebears must be so proud of you.

EUGENICS WATCH: Canada May Extend 'Right To Die' To Mentally Ill: A Terrible Idea Based On A Terrible Lie

It was unmitigated Evil in NAZI Germany.

Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler, (9 part series)

Reviving it in Canada doesn't clean the NAZI extermination camps off of it. This, is Government Compassion/Socialism/Central Planning/The Greater Good.

CNSNews

By Eric Metaxas | May 10, 2017 | 1:58 PM EDT

We could have predicted this: Canada may extend the “right to die” to the mentally ill. It’s an evil idea.

In 2015, Canada legalized physician-assisted suicide. We have talked about the Canadian decision several times on BreakPoint. In March, in fact, we talked about how many Canadian doctors who had originally indicated a willingness to be the “physician” in “physician-assisted suicide” were having second thoughts.

Now, there’s a campaign to extend what Canada calls “physician assistance in dying” beyond the terminally ill to include the mentally ill. This comes as no surprise to those who have followed the trajectory of Belgian and Dutch laws, which have served as a model for the rest of the world.

Not only is this a terrible idea, it’s also what’s to be expected if, as Wesley J. Smith told Fox News, “society broadly accepts the agenda of killing as an acceptable end to human suffering … We eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferers.”

But even if you don’t believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, and even if you could rationalize physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill, extending this “right” to the mentally-ill is an idea that should be resisted at all costs.

The reason why lies in how “mentally ill” is defined. The expression “mental illness” is a broad category that includes different psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and clinical depression, to name but a few.

While these disorders are different in their symptoms and how they are treated, they share one vital characteristic: a disconnect between what the person’s mind says is true about, well, almost everything, and what is actually true. As a friend of mine has put it, “our minds can be terrible liars.”

There’s a reason that arguably the greatest book ever written about living with mood disorders was entitled “An Unquiet Mind.” People who live with mental illness, especially bi-polar disorder, depression—as I do—and anxiety disorder, spend a lifetime reminding themselves that just because they think something—a “something” that nearly always portends evil, suffering, and despair—does not make it true.

And that’s just the medical side. As 1 Peter tell us, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” The “devouring” takes various forms, one of which is to make us miserable. How? By lying to us about, well, everything.

The Adversary’s goal is to induce despair, which Thomas Aquinas defined as “ceasing to hope for a share of God’s goodness,” and make us call God a liar when He tells us in Psalm 34, “Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the stalwart one who takes refuge in him.”

The distortions caused by mental illness, coupled with what Christians know about our Adversary, render the notion of consent in the Canadian proposal absurd. When you hear, “please let me die,” you can never be certain whose words you’re hearing: the person’s, the illness’s, or the Adversary’s.

None of this is to deny that mental illness can be painful, even excruciating. Even for the devout Christian, it can seem like a dark wood from which there is no escape.

But in virtually every instance, that, too, is a lie. The late James Cavanaugh, a Jesuit priest, once wrote that “If we could count the fears, both small or large, that once hounded us, and then thank God for each dreaded outcome never met, we would reach no end to gratitude.”

The Canadian proposal, if adopted, ensures that vulnerable people will never know how wrong they could be and, thus, experience the gratitude Cavanaugh wrote about.

All of which makes assisted suicide for the mentally ill a terrible idea based on a terrible lie.

Thank You Mr Metaxas and CNS.

Eugenics Watch: Colorado Disability Rights Advocates Hold 'Funeral March' To Protest Assisted Suicide Legislation

CNSNews
 Lauretta Brown | August 10, 2016

Ed; You're used up and just too expensive to keep. 
http://usdebtclock.org

"If [Govt.]spending were the solution we wouldn't have the problem."

Disability rights advocates from the groups ADAPT and Not Dead Yet held a “funeral march” to the secretary of state office in Colorado on Monday to protest a proposed ballot initiative, which will likely end up on Colorado’s November ballot, that would legalize assisted suicide in some cases.

The Colorado End-of-Life Options Act would allow someone suffering from a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less to receive life-ending drugs if the individual expresses a voluntary wish for such a prescription and is deemed by a physician to have “mental capacity.”

Proponents of the ballot initiative delivered more than 160,000 signatures last week to the secretary of state’s office, according to the Colorado Independent, which is more than the number necessary to get the measure on the ballot in November. The office has 30 days to ensure that at least 98,492 signatures are valid. 

The protesters marched two and a half miles from the Atlantis Community Center to the Colorado secretary of state’s office where they held a wreath laying ceremony.

“We are engaging in this street theater to educate the community about how legalization of assisted suicide will cause people to needlessly lose their lives through mistakes, coercion and abuse,” said Dawn Russell, an ADAPT advocate in a press statement preceding the march.

ADAPT is “a national grass-roots community that organizes disability rights activists to engage in nonviolent direct action, including civil disobedience, to assure the civil and human rights of people with disabilities to live in freedom.”

“Elder abuse, and abuse of people with disabilities, are a rising problem,” said Anita Cameron, another ADAPT advocate, and Not Dead Yet board member. “With legalized physician-assisted suicide, an heir or abusive caregiver may steer someone towards assisted suicide, witness the request, pick up the lethal dose, and even give the drug — no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?”

“Colorado’s suicide rate is among the highest in the nation,” Cameron added.  “This bill will promote suicide to one class of disabled citizens, rather than provide suicide prevention. That is discrimination.”

Not Dead Yet is “a national, grassroots disability rights group that opposes legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia as deadly forms of discrimination against old, ill and disabled people. Not Dead Yet helps organize and articulate opposition to these practices based on secular social justice arguments. Not Dead Yet demands the equal protection of the law for the targets of so called ‘mercy killing’ whose lives are seen as worth-less.”

Thank You ADAPT, Not Dead Yet, Ms Brown and CNS.

Eugenics Watch: Experts Debate Expansion Of Assisted Dying Legislation To Psychiatric Patients

madinamerica
In The News July 6, 2016

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that adults with a “grievous and irremediable” condition have a right to medically assisted suicide. In an effort to legislate this right, a parliamentary committee was formed that suggested extending this definition to nonterminal medical conditions, including psychiatric disorders. In response, the Canadian Medical Association Journal printed an editorial by bioethics and public health experts Scott Kim and Tudo Lemmens. Kim and Lemmens argue that extending assisted dying laws to include patients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders “will put many vulnerable and stigmatized people at risk.

The Canadian government recently passed bill C-14, which did not extend the assisted dying measures to psychiatric conditions, but the editorial warns that this issue may not yet be settled, as the government has indicated that it is still studying the issue.

“Arguments for including mental illness as an eligible condition for assisted dying almost always focus on severe depression. The assumption is that doctors can accurately determine medical futility and decisional capacity, with the implication that no ineligible person would receive assisted death,” Kim and Lemmens write. “However, evidence suggests this focus is too narrow and fails to consider real threats to patients with mental illness.”

Previous studies out of Belgium, and the Netherlands reveal that patients who would meet the “irremediable” standard for assisted dying with severe depression might actually be able to achieve remission if given access to high-quality treatment.

“The assumption that only patients with true irremediable depressive disorders would have access to assisted dying — after careful assessment of their decision-making capacity based on rigorous thresholds — is not supported by evidence,” they write.

Another concern is that some patients who request assisted dying while in an extreme state might not meet the criteria for mental capacity necessary to make such a final decision. While “psychiatric diagnoses should not be equated with incapacity,” the authors point out that past research has shown that psychiatrists report difficulty evaluating decision-making capacity.

“We believe there is a serious gap between the idealized basis upon which assisted dying for patients with psychiatric conditions is advocated and the reality of its practice, as reflected in evidence from Belgium and the Netherlands.” The conclude. “A policy for access to assisted dying by nonterminally ill patients with psychiatric conditions will put many vulnerable and stigmatized people at risk.”

****

Kim, S.Y. and Lemmens, T., 2016. Should assisted dying for psychiatric disorders be legalized in Canada?. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal= journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. (Abstract)
--Justin Karter , News Editor

Thank You Mr Karter and MIA.


Atta boy. Let's Take the Industrial Money/Campaign Donations/Bribes and Pass Another Law.

So what happens when the Crapitalist (contraction of Crony and Capitalist) Welfare State goes broke and decides it has to trim expenses it can no longer afford?

After all, these people Are incurable.

usdebtclock.org

Oops. Too late for such worries now.

And it's That Broke because?

Mind Control Tops U.S. Healthcare Spending

Lost productivity, Lifetime Disability payouts. Support mechanisms. A lifetime of Tax funded professional misdirection called Psychotherapy. Just "Learn To Live With It because We have bills to pay and we're not really enamored of doing anything but sitting on our asses at Tax Payer Expense."

RAMS, Cultural Crapulence In San Francisco

Full Pro. All the way.

Psychiatric Treatment is fraud and should be criminally prosecuted as such, period. It's sold/packaged as a Suicide preventative. Since it is Fraud from the ground up there is no such thing as 'Voluntary' treatment. It's ALL forced treatment.

Suicides Rise Dramatically With Increasing Psychiatric Care

After mental health professionals Put the patient not just down on the mat but clean through it and under it, . . . One More piece of legislation will assure that those patients Right To DIE is protected, . . . at the discretion of the people, And the Legal System, who put them there in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_privilege

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_jurisprudence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

Not even John McClane could stop this mob.

Eugenics Watch: California Doctor Opens Practice To Help People Die

What is a 'Right'?

In California it's something to manufacture out of whole cloth for money and votes.

fiercehealthcare
by Joanne Finnegan |
Jun 8, 2016 2:36pm

In anticipation of California's new right-to-die law, which goes into effect June 9, a Berkeley, California physician has set up a practice that will focus on patients considering using the End of Life Option Act, according to The Mercury News.

Lonny Shavelson, M.D., 64, a former emergency department doctor, has opened what may be the only specialized medical practice in the Bay Area, and possibly the state of California, focused solely on patients seeking the assisted suicide option under the new law, the newspaper said.

Shavelson will consult with both patients and other physicians about the law which allows mentally competent, terminally ill patients to ask doctors for a prescription for medication to end their life when they choose. Physicians have the right to choose whether to assist patients.

Shavelson has opened his practice, Bay Area End of Life Options, which will help people who cannot find a doctor to help them, the publication said. "There will be a larger demand from patients who want to consider physician aid-in-dying than there are physicians who will be willing to work with them on it," Shavelson told the newspaper. But Shavelson said he plans to talk to patients about why they want a prescription to end their lives and how he might address their fears in ways that preclude taking a lethal dose of pills.

Physicians--and particularly oncologists--in California are grappling with the new law, which has raised ethical and moral questions about whether it is right for a physician to help a patient die, as FiercePracticeManagement previously reported.

- read the article

Thank You Ms Finnegan and FH.

Funny how protecting Women's health means blowing Trillions to create major depressive disorder by killing the economy, $500 Million to murder the unborn through Planned Parenthood, $201 Billion to cripple and kill thought criminals, Right to Die laws, . . . . and Open Borders to rebuild their own voter base after killing off Anyone (which means Everyone) with a Dollar sign on their backs.

And A DOJ that gets it's azz slammed in a Major Rebuke by a Federal Judge whose just plain Fed Up.

Federal Court Throws 'Rulebook' At Obama's 'Intentionally Deceptive' DOJ In Scorching Smackdown

The Obama Govt. Assembly Line.

Eugenics: First Thing We Do Let's Kill All The Handicapped (in America, Today)

townhall

Mike Adams

|

Posted: Jun 02, 2016 12:01 AM

The so-called handicap justification for abortion suffers from the same flaw as nearly every other argument for abortion. It simply assumes that the unborn child is not human. If you don’t believe me then try a little experiment the next time you hear someone try to use this justification. Simply say, “I agree. The best way to eliminate handicaps is to kill all children with handicaps.”

The response will be swift and emphatic. It always is. The person arguing that detecting a handicap during pregnancy can justify abortion will inevitably offer the same point of clarification: “No, I’m not saying that we should kill handicapped children. I’m saying we should abort them before they become handicapped children.” When they offer such a “clarification” you’ve caught them begging the question on the central issue in the abortion debate, which is simply, “What is the unborn?”

Ultrasound technology may seem like a friend to proponents of the so-called handicap justification for abortion. But it is not. We are usually unable to detect handicaps such as Down syndrome and cerebral palsy (CP) until the second trimester of pregnancy. This is long after we are able to detect with certainty the sound of a baby’s heartbeat. This is problematic for the pro-choice science-denying fundamentalists.

Even those who refuse to accept the clear scientific consensus that life begins at conception – and we’ve only known this since the Civil War - must recognize the significance of the heartbeat. It means that we are dealing with a living being that is actively participating in the process of developing itself from within. It is undeniable proof that the entity in the womb is living long before any handicap is detected, much less confirmed.

But those who are forced to admit that the unborn handicapped child is human still have to deal with the question of what makes humans valuable. Persuading them that the handicapped child is of equal value is not easy in our culture. After all, we live in a country where major political candidates are no longer disqualified from office for openly mocking the handicapped. In our country, the pursuit of pathological narcissistic self-interest often Trumps any modicum of common decency.

Put simply, the debate over the handicap justification for abortion forces us to confront squarely the question of whether human value is determined by a) what we are (our basic human nature), or b) what we can do (our basic human functions).

If you believe that our value is determined by our basic human nature there simply is no way to defend the handicap justification for abortion. If you posit human function as the source of human value then you have argued consistently by defending the right to abort handicapped children. However, while you have argued consistently you have also argued dangerously.

Indeed, the implications of applying functionalist justifications for aborting children with Down syndrome are simply too dangerous to ignore. Consider the following:

*Down syndrome children are more impulsive than the average person. But the same can be said for gamblers, debtors, alcoholics, drugs addicts, and most criminals. Is this a justification for killing them, too?

*Down syndrome children are slow learners. If this justifies killing them then would we also be justified in killing all children with learning disabilities?

*Down syndrome children often have delayed language and speech development. If this justifies killing then may we also execute the mute?

Similarly, the implications of applying functionalist justifications to aborting children with CP are also too dangerous to ignore. Consider the following:

*The primary effect of CP is impairment of muscle tone, motor functions, balance, control, coordination, reflexes, and posture. Would we also be justified in killing those without CP who happen to display similar characteristics – such as being uncoordinated, out of shape, or just displaying bad posture?

*People with CP also exhibit oral motor dysfunction, such as swallowing and feeding difficulties, speech impairment, and poor facial muscle tone. Can we also kill people with lisps? How about those who are in dire need of facelifts although they don’t actually have CP?

Somehow some people do remain so calloused as to deny that the handicapped are equally as valuable as the rest of us - despite the fact that they share our basic human nature. However, they must surely be troubled by the error rate in detected handicaps during pregnancy. How would those calloused individuals respond to the following? ...

*A beautiful young woman came walking up to me with tears in her eyes after I gave a speech on the topic of this column. She was diagnosed with Down syndrome when she was in her mother’s womb. Her mom wanted to have her. Her dad wanted her aborted. Mom won that argument and now her dad has to live with the fact that his daughter knows he wanted his perfectly healthy daughter to be killed.

*A teenaged black man walked up to me after another speech I gave on the topic of this column. He was tall, athletic, handsome, and confident. He shared with me the story of how two medical doctors told his mother he had CP and therefore should be aborted. The third doctor she visited happened to be a Christian. That third said the other doctors were wrong and that the abortion should not take place. The mother believed him and months later she bore the perfectly healthy son.

Progressive advocates of abortion would never tolerate such errors among advocates of capital punishment. Of course, the question is not whether the pro-choicer is a consistent human being. It is simply whether the handicapped are valuable human beings. In other words, are they among those neighbors Jesus talked about in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

As a society, we will be judged by whether we lift them up or simply pass them by.

Thank You Mr Adams and Townhall.