Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Charlie Gard’s Mom Won’t Give Up: “If He’s Still Fighting, We’re Still Fighting” (Please keep on Praying for a Miricle for Baby Charlie) Carl

Charlie Gard’s Mom Won’t Give Up: “If He’s Still Fighting, We’re Still Fighting”

 INTERNATIONAL   STEVEN ERTELT   JUL 3, 2017   |   1:10PM    LONDON, ENGLAND
Charlie Gard’s mother is still defiant in the face of a court decision allowing a hospital to revoke life support from her son even though she and Charlie’s father do not want it removed. Charlie’s parents are desperately trying to get him to the United States for an experimental procedure that could save his life as he battles a rare disease.
Charlie is the little boy who is dealing with a rare disease and whose doctors are preparing to remove his life support over his parents objections.
Charlie’s parents have exhausted their legal options as court after court has denied them the ability to provide proper life-saving care and medical treatment for their son. They have been prevented from taking Charlie from Britain to the United States for an experimental treatment that could save his life. Gard, the 10-month-old baby in the United Kingdom who is afflicted with a rare mitochondrial disease, will have his life support withdrawn after his parents lost their appeal to transport their son to the United States for an experimental treatment.
Charlie’s mother Connie Yates sent out a response on social media following a tweet from president Donald Trump saying that he would help Charlie if possible.
Yates thanked both President Trump as well as Pope Francis who spoke up over the weekend on Charlie’s behalf. Yates added: “If he’s still fighting, we’re still fighting.”
Leading pro-life organizations and disability rights campaigners have been fighting for Charlie speaking out on social media on his behalf. Now President Donald Trump has joined that chorus.
Trump’s support came after Pope Francis weighed in on their side — offering his prayers for Gard, and asking that his parents’ wishes be respected.
“The Holy Father follows with affection and emotion the story of Charlie Gard and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” read a July 2 statement issued by Vatican spokesman Greg Burke.
“He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”
Pope Francis also used his Twitter account to send a clear pro-life message to the world.
When his parents asked to take their son home to die, their request was denied. Gard’s life support machines were to be turned off Friday, but the courts allowed the parents to have more time with their child before his death.
“Baby Charlie,” as he came to be known, cannot breathe on his own, has seizures, and suffered severe brain damage as a result of his disease. In March, doctors told Charlie’s parents that they did not believe that they could do anything further to treat their son, and recommended that they withdraw life support. Despite the grim diagnosis, Charlie’s parents raised over $1 million to move him to the U.S. for treatment, but the European Court of Human Rights ruled against them on Wednesday and will not permit them to treat their son.
The court said that they did not believe that the experimental treatment in the U.S. would benefit Charlie, and that it would cause him “significant harm.”
“The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”
On Facebook, Charlie’s parents said that they were “heartbroken” and that they were aghast that they were not permitted to choose when or where their son would die. Previously, they have said that they would like their son to pass away at home, not in a hospital. They are not permitted to take him home, and they say that the hospital is “rushing” to turn off the ventilator.
Charlie entered Great Ormond Street Hospital in London in October and was diagnosed as suffering from a form of mitochondrial disease that causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Subsequently his parents discovered that 18 people in the United States had been treated with an oral medication of naturally occurring compounds to remedy this rare condition. Reports have not identified the doctor who initially agreed to treat Charlie, but it was noted that his parents were aware that no cure was promised.
The main argument offered by the hospital to countermand parental authority was to protect Charlie’s “best interests.” However, attorneys for Charlie’s parents argued that the hospital was basically holding Charlie hostage, violating several articles under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to life, liberty and family privacy.
Terri Schiavo’s brother Bobby Schindler has weighed in on the situation.
“Charlie Gard’s life is more valuable than British and European bureaucrats realize,” explains Bobby Schindler, President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.
“The central issue of the Charlie Gard struggle,” continues Bobby Schindler, “is not about rationing, limited resources, or even life support. At issue is whether universal healthcare means that bureaucrats and judges will determine appropriate treatment, or whether parents like Charlie’s with the energy, finances, and physicians to care for their child will be allowed to do so.”
The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network has served more than 2,500 medically vulnerable patients and families. The Network been instrumental in similar parental rights cases, particularly the case of Jahi McMath who is now home with her family, and baby Joseph Maraachli who was ultimately allowed to die peacefully in his sleep from natural causes at home, surrounded by loved ones.
Schindler added: “We don’t need judges posing as anguished moral philosophers, weighing what makes a life worth living. We simply need them to rule on whether mothers and fathers have an inalienable right to care for their own children. Are we better off in a society where government officials are encouraged literally to separate loved ones from each other? Is it better for Charlie Gard to live and die at home with his family, or in a state institution?”


Oregon House Passes Bill for Free Abortions for All, Including Illegal Aliens (What the Hell is Wrong with You people in Oregon House?) Carl

Oregon House Passes Bill for Free Abortions for All, Including Illegal Aliens

 STATE   MICAIAH BILGER   JUL 3, 2017   |   10:26AM    SALEM, OREGON
Oregon House Democrats pushed through a radical pro-abortion bill to force health insurers and taxpayers to pay for free abortions for residents and illegal immigrants.
The Reproductive Health Equality Act passed the Oregon House on Saturday without a single Republican vote, according to The Washington Times. The bill passed in a 33-23 vote before moving to the state Senate for consideration.
The pro-abortion bill would require health insurers to provide free abortions to patients without a co-pay. It also would set aside $10.2 million tax dollars for abortions, contraception and other reproductive health services for 2017 through 2019 in Medicaid, much of which pro-life advocates say will go to Planned Parenthood, the report states.
Pro-life Republicans tried to block the bill but did not have enough votes to succeed.
Gayle Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to Life, described the bill as a huge gift to the nation’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood.
“This terrible legislation is just another example of how Oregon’s largest abortion provider’s only real concern is for their financial bottom line,” she said in a statement. “The Oregon Health Authority testified that HB 3391-B will provide almost $500,000 more for abortions. Make no mistake: most of this money is going to Planned Parenthood.”
The pro-life organization noted that Planned Parenthood has been doing more abortions and fewer real health care services in the past few years. This is according to the abortion group’s own annual reports.
In a statement, Oregon House Democrats indicated that the bill is a direct response to President Donald Trump and pro-life federal lawmakers. Right now, U.S. Senate lawmakers are debating a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood of hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
The Oregon Democrats responded, “Even while the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress are trying to strip away reproductive rights [abortion], Oregon is ensuring access regardless of income, citizenship status, gender identity, or type of insurance.”
Here’s more from the report:
The measure provides an abortion exemption for churches and religious nonprofits, notably Providence Health Plans, a Catholic-sponsored health-care group that covers 260,000 Oregonians and had threatened to exit the individual and group insurance markets if forced to cover the procedure.
Republicans called the exemption too narrow, while Oregon Right to Life said it came with it the creation of a program “that will provide free abortions to Providence plan enrollees,” but that the cost is still unknown, as is the impact on insurance costs.
“How much will insurance rates spike by forcing all insurance plans to cover abortions with no co-pays or deductibles?” asked the pro-life group.
Oregon Right to Life said the exemption is not protective enough.
“While there is a so-called religious exemption within the bill, it does not guarantee insurance options that do not cover abortions,” the group explained. “Currently, almost all insurance companies in Oregon offer plans that cover abortions, but that is not a requirement under law. HB 3391-B would force health insurance companies to cover abortions and leave it up to them whether to provide a separate abortion-free plan for religious organizations.”
Oregon Democrats claimed the bill is about ensuring access to “health care,” but it really is about abortion. And their pro-abortion beliefs represent just a small minority.
Polls consistently show that many Americans think abortion is morally troubling because it involves the killing of an innocent human being’s life. What’s more, polls indicate that poorer Americans are some of the least supportive of taxpayer-funded abortions.
A Politico/Harvard University poll in October 2016 found that voters who make more than $75,000 were more supportive of forcing taxpayers to fund abortions (45 percent in favor), while those who make $25,000 or less were strongly against it (24 percent in favor). In other words, the people most likely to qualify for a Medicaid-covered, taxpayer-funded abortion are the ones who oppose it the most.
Overall, the poll found very little support for taxpayer-funded abortions. Just 36 percent of likely voters supported the issue, while 58 percent opposed it. These findings are consistent with previous polls from various groups.
Action: To ask your elected officials to vote no on HB 3391, please click here.


Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *