Lest We Forget: Obamacare Hurts the Doctor-Patient Relationship [Video]

Dr. Carrie Triepel summarizes how Obamacare won't meet its stated objectives of reducing costs and covering all the uninsured, in addition to limiting the ability of doctors to treat their patients.



Link to video.

Additional Information:

The PPACA (Obamacare) Part 1, Caroline Triepel
The PPACA (Obamacare) Part 2, Caroline Triepel
The PPACA (Obamacare) Part 3, Caroline Triepel
The PPACA (Obamacare) Part 4, Caroline Triepel
The PPACA (Obamacare) Part 5, Caroline Triepel

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Has Real Costs [Infographic]

CatholicVote's third infographic in a series is out. This one focuses on the real costs to healthcare, charities, and relief services, see below.

To illustrate the consequences of the HHS mandate and perhaps put things in a little better perspective, let's continue to consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

As mentioned in a previous post, the average size of a Catholic elementary school in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is around 300 children, with an average operating budget of approximately $1.3 million. Tuition covers approximately $900,000 of this, with the remainder being covered by fundraising, grants, investments, etc.

For argument's sake, if we assume it takes 25 full-time faculty and staff (with benefits) to operate such a school and the school keeps offering health care benefits to full-time employees, but refuses to violate their consciences by providing the mandated services and incurs instead the prescribed penalty of $100 per person per day, that would mean an additional annual cost to the school of $912,500, which is an increase in operating expenses of about 70% and more than what they take in from tuition.

That means, even if operating expenses and staffing were directly proportional to enrollment (which they are not), and fundraising and the like could be maintained at a fixed dollar level (which would be unlikely in the extreme), they would have to turn away more than 200 of their 300 students (209 to be exact in this scenario). The other options would be to more than double the price of tuition to cover the "conscience tax," or increase fundraising and other revenues by 225%. That's a lot of wrapping paper, magazine subscriptions, marathon pledges, silent auctions, ...

Keep in mind that each child forced out of the Catholic school increases Minnesota's public education cost by about $10,000. Statewide this translates to $600 million in additional annual education expense to cover Minnesota's 60,000 Catholic school students. $600 million. That would be like adding more than half to the amount of the projected deficit for the state government's next fiscal year. But it's every year.

Therefore, in less than two years, the alleged benefit that Minnesota will receive in increased federal money to cover the newly eligible participants under the Medicaid expansion provision of Obamacare would be wiped out completely from the perspective of the taxpayers. (They will have to pay more somewhere, someway, whether at the state, or county, level.) Even in these days, $600 million per year in public funds is still real money. But, of course, we are supposed to believe this won't affect the middle class.

To what end? All that to support Obamacare, which by the government's own estimation will fail to do what it ostensibly is intended to do in covering all the uninsured. That's a pretty lousy trade for limiting our ability to live out our first freedom. Again, social justice my foot. Obamacare puts politics ahead of children.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information and the statistics on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

Other Posts in the Series

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Hurts the Disadvantaged [Infographic]

CatholicVote's second infographic in a series is out. This one focuses on the underprivileged, see below.

To illustrate the consequences of the HHS mandate and perhaps put things in a little better perspective, let's continue to consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

The average size of a Catholic elementary school in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is around 300 children, with an average operating budget of approximately $1.3 million. If this small school is forced to close because it is unable to operate under the debilitating penalty, which could easily exceed 50% of it's operating budget, that's an additional $3,000,000 burden on Minnesota taxpayers (more than a half billion dollars total for all the Catholic school students across the state), and the children affected in just this average school will include:

• 12 students who receive Title I services (more than 1,100 in just this archdiocese)
• 14 students who receive special education services (1,300 total across the archdiocese)
• 75 students who receive need-based financial aid (7,500 across the archdiocese)
• 150 students who receive subsidized transportation (15,000 across the archdiocese)

More public education cost and less student achievement, including for many children who are underprivileged. Social justice my foot.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information and the statistics on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

Other Posts in the Series

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions

Lest We Forget: Obamacare's War on Faith Affects Millions [Infographic]

CatholicVote has launched a series of infographics describing the ill effects of Obamacare's assault on religious liberty. The first installment is below.

Making It Real - A Look at Catholic Schools

To make it even easier (I hope) to get your head around the consequences of the HHS mandate and put things in a little better perspective, let's consider just one type of institution, the case of Catholic schools, in one region.

In the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis alone, the Catholic Church educates 30,000 students in grades K-12 in 93 schools.

Set aside that it costs a local Catholic school about 60% what it does to educate a child in the average Minnesota public school. And set aside the improved effectiveness of Catholic schools to educate as measured by test scores, graduation rates, and college/military placement rates. Ignore that. Now what would that mean to the state's residents?

It would cost Minnesota taxpayers an additional $300,000,000 per year to educate these children if their Catholic schools were forced to close and they had to attend public schools, not to mention the additional children from the Dioceses of Crookston, Duluth, New Ulm, St. Cloud, and Winona, thereby affecting the bottom lines of millions of Minnesotans. Because families of Catholic school students are already paying taxes to support their local public schools, this $300 million is an unfunded additional burden to be carried. Please tell me again how Obamacare does not affect middle class taxes.

Image: CatholicVote

For more information on Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, visit AimHigher.org

Lest We Forget: Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence [Video]

Cry all you want about the solidarity and social justice of this non-universal universal health care scheme, but at some point everyone will have to face the fact that the probability of it working anywhere near as intended is zero.



Link to video.

Now, I know this is not slavishly accurate, but it is correct in the main. And if you dispute that, consider this from Thomas Sowell:

One of the strongest talking points of those who want a government-run medical care system is that we simply cannot afford the high and rising costs of medical care under the current system.

First of all, what we can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing anything. We will either pay those costs or not get the benefits. Moreover, if we cannot afford the quantity and quality of medical care that we want now, the government has no miraculous way of enabling us to afford it in the future.

If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse," as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven't they done that already?

Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do?

If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system? (emphasis added)

What could possibly go wrong? Indeed.

(HHT: CV)

The Day After

I have been fighting my inner Krauthammer since my initial posts yesterday (here, here, and here -- with updates!) on SCOTUS' Obamacare decision, and I have decided I can only hope to contain it.

There's plenty of analysis out there as to what John Roberts' behind-the-scenes motivations might be, what does the decision mean for healthcare, or the economy, what do we do next, ...

Jonah Goldberg's G-file newsletter today captures my view on the whole the-chief-justice-is-a-genius-who-just-maneuvered-the-president-into-his-very-own-Marbury-v.-Madison bit:

"Why do you keep calling it a tax?" Justice Breyer asked the solicitor general during the oral arguments for Obamacare last March.

The whole room burst into laughter.

But apparently not Chief Justice Roberts.

Despite the fact that pretty much every lower court found this tax claim laughable; despite the fact that President Obama indignantly insisted it wasn't a tax; despite the fact that the administration largely ignored the tax question in its defense of the law; despite the fact that the Congress made every effort to insist the mandate penalty was not a tax -- short of carving "this is no tax" with a potato peeler into their collective foreheads . . .

Justice Roberts concluded it is, in fact, a tax. ...

[M]y problem with this is that this is b.s. ...

Yes, yes: I know. Already numerous people I respect are praising Roberts for playing the "long game" (See: Jay Cost, Sean Trende, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, et al.) I get the argument: The decision rolled back the Commerce Clause; it created new political limits on expanding government (in effect, everything the nanny state wants to do now has to be called a tax to get over the constitutional plate); it restored the reputation of the Court so that future conservative decisions will be more readily accepted; it showed Roberts is the tortoise and Obama the hare.

Meh.

Look, I'll be delighted if all these things turn out to be true. But as a conservative, I'm skeptical of these three-carom-shot approaches to politics. I remember all of the people who wondered whether it would be better if McCain lost in 2008 (including me!). It turns out Ed Koch's mother was right when she told him, "It's always better to win than to lose." Everyone hailing Roberts's brilliance is in effect congratulating Jack for bringing home the magic beans -- before they grow into a giant stalk. He traded the cow of overturning Obamacare now for some "long game" beans that might one day grow into something cool. It is an un-conservative tendency to credit one man with being able to plan that far out into the future.

The argument you hear a lot is that Roberts was a genius for figuring out how to gut the Commerce Clause while still preserving the Commerce Clause. But you know what else he could have done? He could have gutted the Commerce Clause and overturned Obamacare! How? By simply ruling what he believes and signing on with Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas. Instead we're being told that win-lose is better than win-win. Not. Buying. It.

Moreover, what Roberts did is not in his job description. Whatever his motivation -- whether it was to defend the Court's reputation or his own, or if it was to deliver some ingenious slow-acting poison to the Nanny State -- that's not what justices are supposed to prioritize. If he's the umpire he claims to be, he should be umping.

(emphasis added)

And as for what's next, that one is simple for me. Obamacare is worse than you think it is.





And the threat to religious freedom is real. I'll go so far to say I think the law is not only wrong, it is immoral beyond repair. It may even be evil in its application, which has only just begun. That means the path is repeal and start over. There will be more to come on that (hey, we have until November now), but, in the mean time, my focus is on the Fortnight for Freedom, which continues apace.

And for those who are wondering, here is the wikipedia link to Marbury v. Madison.

Now That Obamacare is Just a Political Issue UPDATED

Here are three takes that summarize things fairly well.

From CATO@Liberty:

The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is not constitutional under the Commerce Power, which was how Congress framed the mandate to avoid a political backlash from calling it a tax. Congress and the president swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. Yet the Court upheld the mandate as a valid use of that disavowed taxing power. What Congress said the individual mandate is, the Court said is not constitutional. What Congress said the mandate is not, the Court ruled is constitutional. Everybody got that?

Where does that leave us?

The Supreme Court just enacted a law that Congress never would have passed.
The Court just told Congress it is okay to lie to the people to avoid political accountability.

From Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List:

“From the outset, Obamacare is fundamentally flawed legislation because it makes American taxpayers complicit in the deaths of countless unborn children,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Today’s decision to uphold the individual mandate to force individuals to purchase health care plans that offend their conscience is incredibly disappointing.

“Over the last four years, President Obama has revealed his loyalty to the abortion industry. At no time was this clearer than during the health care reform debate, when he fought tenaciously for the largest expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. As the presidential race heats up, the Susan B. Anthony List will continue to remind American voters where the President’s allegiance truly lies. We will not stop fighting until every U.S. taxpayer is freed from under-writing the abortion business.”

And, finally, Obamacare has become the largest tax increase in the history of the world (I don't think that's hyperbole). During one of the nation's largest recessions--possibly double-dipping now. If you think that will support the middle class, you are a moron. Literally. From the Greek (not the Joe Biden sense of "literally").

Update:

The USCCB sent out this text message as the bishops renew plea to repair Obamacare:

After today's ruling, the contraception mandate still remains. Keep up your prayers and action for religious freedom!

Update 2:

From National Right to Life:

“All voters who care about the value and dignity of human life must do everything they can to elect Mitt Romney and a Congress who are committed to repeal of ObamaCare,” said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. “If President Obama wins re-election, it will mean massive abortion subsidies and it will put the lives of millions at risk through systematic government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the ObamaCare law is a call-to-action for the right-to-life electorate to work to elect a Congress and president this November committed to repealing ObamaCare in 2013, in order to prevent a future in which abortion insurance will be heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers and federal bureaucrats will be authorized to ration life-saving medical treatment.

Update 3:

From my congressman, Rep. John Kline:

Update 4:

From Larry Kudlow on the impact to the economy:

Twenty new or higher taxes across-the-board are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors, and bad for families.

A tax is a tax is a tax, according to Judge Roberts. But he forgot to say that if you tax something more, you get less of it. ...

Obamacare is not just a huge tax hike. It’s also a major new spending entitlement that’s already pegged at $2.5 trillion and will increase the federal debt burden much faster than the GDP expands.

In other words, tax, spend, regulate, borrow. The Obama mantra. ...

Bankrupting the economy is not exactly a job-creator.

Obamacare Decision In Plain English UPDATED

From Amy Howe of scotusblog.com:

The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

Update

Link to the decision can be found here.

What This Morning May Bring UPDATED

Update (bumped to top)

Obamacare appears to have been upheld as constitutional in the main. Now it gets interesting... Expect potential nullification challenges from several states (although the limitations on Medicaid expansion may prevent them), and, of course, repeal just joined the economy as a primary issue for the fall. Welcome to a long, hot summer.

Original Post

I am not one for predicting what the Supreme Court will do, but my growing unease since the Arizona decision on Monday is reflected in the Intrade market regarding the question of the individual mandate being declared unconstitutional by it's drop of 10% in the last two days since that decision was announced.

The individual mandate is, of course, at the center of the legal challenge, but it is not all that is wrong with a law that I find to be bad, bad, bad. To review the bidding...

As I noted following the passage of Obamacare:

If I have to buy insurance to drive a car, that's fine. I don't have to drive. I can walk, ride a bike, take the bus, whatever.

If I have to pay an airport tax to help defray the costs of the TSA, that's fine, too. I don't have to get on an airplane. I can walk, ride a bike, take the bus, whatever.

This bill says that I have to purchase health insurance. I don't have to drive or fly, but I do have to live.

There's a world of difference in coercing the execution of a private contract simply because you exist vs. usage requirements for public goods/services (driving), or engaging in potentially exploitive (pornography or prostitution), or dangerous behavior (public narcotic use or recklessness). But my objection to this law goes beyond the individual mandate. It violates the principle of subsidiarity at both the state and individual levels. It doesn't provide for conscience protections (or has very limited ones). Its costs have been obfuscated and when fully implemented will be nearly 3x what was advertised at its passing. The promise of my getting to keep my insurance, if I liked it at the time of passage, is patently false. It will create dislocations in reimbursements to service providers, or access to services. In the end, it actually still won't ensure everyone has coverage because of the incentives built in for adverse selection. I could go on.

On a more personal level, my self-insured employer has already started taking compliance steps that have increased my out of pocket costs by thousands of dollars, with less coverage and fewer plan options. I've been able to hold my job (and had to hold my job), so I haven't had to face the issue of pre-existing conditions, deniability for which is a real problem in today's "market." Yes, the current law's guaranteed issue provision works to that situation. However, beyond my incomplete list above, I just don't think such relief will be anything but temporary, i.e., the situation will be unsustainable before I reach retirement age because of costs, or unacceptable because of rationing--I just don't buy it; I don't think it will work and it will cost a lot of people a lot more money. There are alternate remedies that better address the underlying problems.

Regardless any elements of noble intent and desirable features, I think it is a bad law that addresses the wrong problem. The health care problem in need of reform is insufficient (a term I'll stipulate) access to needed and affordable health care services. Congress' remedy here is to coerce the execution of private contracts in a derivative market, namely the health insurance market that serves the health care services market. To what end? To correct problems that Congress itself created through price controls, anti-competitive constraints, and guaranteed service requirements. Yeah, that's not gonna work.To apply general tools to specific problems is to fail.

Solve the problem. And that means starting over.

Oh, the Fun It Would Be If It Were the DOJ's Response

Thanks to the Regular Guy, I am acquiring a taste for The Other McCain, to wit, this parodied response (by Smitty) to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law:

Dear 5th Circuit...

So, like, this is a response to your way totally uptight letter dated April III, MMXII. Noting that it was dated, you know, April III, we figured that this was three times an April Fool’s joke, or something.

And so we’re including with this little memo your three single-spaced pages. Yeah, you might think “They’re blank!”, and stuff. But we worked totally hard to get a single space character on each one. Get it? Single spaced? (read more)

Update:

Alas, no. Although the Attorney General's letter included this:

The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described here in.

Nice walk-back.

40 Days for Life - Lent 2012 Campaign - Wraps Up

From campaign director Shawn Carney:

Day 40 reminds me of Augustine's famous advice: "Pray as though everything depends on God; work as though everything depends on you."

You have done just that. We've seen faithful volunteers in 258 cities pray, fast, do community outreach and hold peaceful vigils in front of 258 of the most hopeless places in our world.

Your prayers have brought one thing in particular to the public right-of-way ... HOPE.

Hope is what the abortion industry is afraid of. Hope is what makes women scheduled to have abortions turn around. Hope is what leads abortion workers out of that industry. Hope is what transforms our world.

It is amazing what can happen when you go to the sidewalks and let the love of Christ be present in places that thrive on hopelessness.

This could not be done without your faith, courage and selflessness.

Let me be the first to say thank you for your efforts these past 40 days. Your prayers sent a clear message. Here's a great example from this campaign.


from Auburn Hills, Michigan:

When Seth Peters heard that Planned Parenthood was planning a 17,000 square foot abortion center in Auburn Hills, "minutes away from my parents' house, where I had been lovingly raised and where I still call home, I was heartbroken and angry."

He signed up to bring a 40 Days for Life vigil to the proposed location -- joining other community voices speaking out against the abortion chain’s plans. He received support from many local sources.

Adjacent property owners had previously filed suit, noting that deed restrictions would not permit an abortion facility there. Planned Parenthood may be tied up in court -- but not about to give up.

"Planned Parenthood is hungry for this site," Seth said, noting that it sits near a low-income neighborhood, a college campus and a wealthy suburb -- all prime targets for abortion.

He pushed ahead with vigil plans, even though a number of people didn't see the need for prayer at a place where abortions are not currently taking place. "That is unfortunate," he said, "because it's a bit like waiting until the hurricane hits before you board up your windows."

Planned Parenthood got tired of waiting. They bought an empty medical building in nearby Ferndale and plan to open an office there tomorrow. That facility will not offer abortions, but will refer women to other locations that do.

"You can see how effective prayerful vigilance has been thus far in keeping Planned Parenthood at bay in Auburn Hills," Seth said. "The fact that they have shifted to Ferndale can be considered a victory."

At the very least, he said, "this campaign was about planting seeds and praying that abortion will end at this Auburn Hills location before it ever has a chance to begin."

Clearly, there’s a lot of work to be done ... and a lot of praying to be done. But I know that with God's help, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of abortion.

7 Quick Takes

I know, I know. You don't want to make a bad first impression, and here I am, being late with my first ever 7 Quick Takes. I've heard it all before: Punctuality ___________ (is a common courtesy, is a sign of respect, shows how interested you are, etc.). Whatever. My retort is this:

Punctuality is the virtue of the bored  - Evelyn Waugh

Get over it, and here goes...

On the heels of last week's religious liberty rallies, oral arguments on Obamacare are set to run  before the Supreme Court Monday thru Wednesday, so there's little doubt what will dominate the news this week. So this round is focused on seven things for the individual to do about Obamacare (of which the HHS mandate is a part).

-1-

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in 2009 (CNS photo/Reuters)

Pray for the justices of the US Supreme Court to have wisdom (and use it). You would hope that with six Catholics on the bench this would be a walkover for overthrowing the law based on the principle of subsidiarity alone, but a 5-4 vote swinger is almost certain.

-2-

Check out resource sites for reference information on Obamacare and the HHS mandate like the USCCB and the Minnesota Catholic Conference.

 
-3-

Read and consider signing the Manhattan Declaration and the Stop HHS Mandate petition.

-4-

Join the Rosary Across America 54-day novena prayer movement.

-5-

Contact your state and federal representatives' offices to let them know your opposition to Obamacare and the HHS mandate.

-6-

Support candidates who will oppose the implementation of Obamacare. At the federal levels, that would be candidates who are committed to its repeal. At the state level, those who advocate nullification. If you're not sure, ask.

Rick Santorum in 2011 (Gage Skidmore photo)

 -7-

On Friday, the bishops of Iowa joined those of Pennsylvania in declaring Friday, March 30th, as a day of fasting, prayer, and abstinence for the cause of religious liberty. Sunday, from the pulpit, we were instructed that St. Paul and Minneapolis will also participate, as will I expect the rest of the Minnesota conference and much of the nation. Regardless your local church's level of involvement, you can join certainly your prayers and fasting to others' across the country.

Are We Sliding from "Right to Life" to "Duty to Die?"

A while back, at least 10 years ago, I think, a friend of mine was telling me about his father being diagnosed with a serious condition, one that would take his life if untreated. As I listened sympathetically, he told me how the treatment would be tough on him, but there was a decent chance he could gain several years, or possibly make a full recovery. And then he hit me with a brick:

"I told him he shouldn't get treated. Why go through that? It'll take at least 3 months to recover. He's 70 for chrissake. He's lived a good life. It's time to let it go."

Caught completely off guard, and never really having come so face-to-face with that kind of thinking, I didn't argue the point directly very hard; mostly noting that his condition was not that uncommon, success was likely, and his father was going to go forward with treatment anyway. Sadly, this display of a "life is not worth fighting for" (or at least worth paying for) attitude in the face of routine (yet serious) treatment is not isolated.

Thomas Sowell points out, in the context of an example from his childhood, that not only is this kind of attitude not rare, but, in certain circles, it is downright fashionable to the point that it is viewed as an obligation for the elderly to sacrifice themselves in this way. Yes, there is the pragmatic truth that suspending the spending for life-saving treatments is a sure-fire method of addressing the cost containment problem of modern medicine in a mixed economy; one of the precious few that the government actually could enforce should it finally enter into the control of medical care. (You don't have to like terms like "rationing," or "death panels," to admit honestly that that is effectively what mechanisms are in place already in our "model" states for "universal healthcare.")

Mr. Sowell puts the cause for such fashionableness at the foot of academe:

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which "a duty to die" is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called "values clarification," though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed "clarification" had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this "clarification."

Go back to the case of my friend. Was this notion planted by some teacher in high school, or college? Perhaps, but I think there is more to it. His response wasn't trying to rationalize by appealing to some greater societal good, nor was it a plea for his father to avoid suffering; some form of suffering was inevitable either way.

*** Sidebar

I wonder how much suffering there was in learning his son's thinking that, despite a reasonable prognosis, he'd lived long enough already.

*** End sidebar

No, it was the bother of it all. The thing is that the pursuit of convenience and affluence is not limited to elites, nor does it require the academy for its propagation. Pop culture, for example, works just fine, thank you.

In my observation, once someone walks away from one of the Ten Commandments, he finds that they like to travel together and ends up with just a few of them still hanging around with him. Here I agree with Mr. Sowell. Take these tradition-derived values and include others such as the three named explicitly in our nation's founding document. The current process of replacing them with fashionable notions hasn't been born of hardship, hasn't been clamored for by the masses, and hasn't made us better people.

[submitted by e-mail]

In the Torchlight for May 2, 2010

Torchlight Post:

The abortion battle continues at the state level, while we wait for the court challenges to Obamacare to work themselves out. While there are no great surprises as to which states have taken action so far (all went for McCain in 2008), dozens more reportedly are now considering abortion limitations. As discouraging as the passing of Obamacare was, for multiple reasons, this is no time to stop keeping up the good fight regarding the unborn. This is the human rights issue of our times, and it will influence directly the ethics that surround neonatal care, stem cell research, cloning, human hybridization, etc. on one end of life’s cycle and long-term care, “extraordinary measures.” euthanasia, assisted living, etc. on the other--particularly if we continue our national flirtation with centralized medicine.

Recent Items from the News Digest:

• The president announced a commission to address the mushrooming national debt. A classic case of closing the barn door after the horses are gone.
• Congressional Democrats and the White House crossed Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham by pushing for immigration reform ahead of the climate change legislation he had been working diligently to bring forward. Democrats need at least one cooperative Republican senator for any legislation from here on out. As the president continues to push an aggressive agenda, it’s not yet clear where the agenda now sits.
• An online pet pampering network site has gone live. George Will among others has taken to calling the recent financial crisis, the Great Recession. Note that this pet site is not targeted at the insulated uber-rich, but at millions of Americans. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this kind of networking, but any further comparisons of this economy to the Great Depression ought to be heaped with epic scorn.
• Hawaii’s Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has until July 6th to decide on a bill establishing same sex civil unions. Hawaii was one of the first states to adopt a protection of marriage act. The civil union bill mimics the benefits granted to marriages, but does the (minimal) courtesy of not having to redefine what marriage means. Nevertheless, a rose by any other name… So far the governor is keeping it close to the vest.

"In the Torchlight" is a weekly post that is part of Sunday Snippets. Sunday Snippets is a Catholic carnival that is hosted each week by RAnn at This, That and the Other Thing. This week's carnival includes, from Dymphna's Well, a post about a new study showing that watching R-rated movies as a child increases the likelihood of underage alcohol use.

[submitted by e-mail]