Friday, August 28, 2009

Death (and Sterilization) By Government

This is finally starting to catch on, not exactly reaching mainstream news status, which might frighten and confuse the sheep who think government is relatively benign, but at least on websites that aren't generally considered to be "conspiracy theorist".

    Karen DeCoster (LRC) -

    Obama’s administration, even more so than Bush before him, has spent much time smearing people as “right-wing extremist terrorists” and politically-organized, “astroturf” right wingers whose only intention is to disrupt the administration’s attempt at policymaking. Yet so little is brought up about the unelected, unaccountable people that Obama (and his ultimate Masters within the entrenched establishment) has chosen to surround him.

    John P. Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, has, surprisingly, received little mainstream press on his crazed worldviews. Thus, every so often I like to post a reminder for people that may spur them to do some additional research on their own. Here’s a short editorial from the Washington Times to remind us of Holdren’s book, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, that he co-wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich (the Times article commits a spelling error on the last name). From the Times editorial:

    In case compulsory abortion wasn’t enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men,” they wrote. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.”

    It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” After noting that, well, yes, there were “very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems,” Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. “To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements,” they wrote. “It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock.”

    On the same day, the Times also ran this editorial on presidential health care advisor Ezekiel J. Emanuel, and they quote him saying:

    “When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago … I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care.” And: “I think that over the last five to seven years … I’ve come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care. If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases.”

    The editorial goes on to say:

    The reason people were wary of Dr. Emanuel in the first place is because of his writings from the 1990s in which (to quote one of them), he advocated giving younger people first dibs on medical care: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” In late 1996, he wrote that “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

    The American Spectator points to an executive summary of a paper published by Dr. Emanuel in January 2009 on the “principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” that reads, “We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”