Tag Archives: WHO

Could the Zika Virus Open the Door to FORCED Abortions?

thOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

In one-child-is-the-limit communist China, population quotas on family size make forced abortion an accepted norm. In some provinces, if local family planning officials find out a woman is pregnant with a second child, even if the woman is late term, oftentimes, the baby is forcibly aborted.

In secular states like China, aborting millions of human beings, on behalf of the communal good, supersedes the right to life. In simpler terms, the Communist Party of China is authorized to make the decision that in the Chinese Republic, except in rare cases, a family larger than three is illegal.

Speaking of communist countries, in 1998, Brazil’s constitution stipulated that health care was a “fundamental right.” Since elected in 2011, lifelong socialist, President Dilma Rousseff has expanded state control over everything including the “fundamental right” to universal health care.

Now, the mosquito-borne Zika virus is epidemic in Brazil. Thus far, 4,000 infants with microcephaly have born to infected mothers. Furthermore, there is concern that the virus will spread to the rest of Latin America — then onto the Americas.

According to Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and renowned supporter of thwarting poverty via eugenic abortion, there’s no time to waste because Zika “is [already] spreading explosively” throughout the Americas.

Besides being deeply concerned about population sustainability, Dr. Chan is also very alarmed that the mosquito-borne virus corresponds to Brazil’s “steep increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads and in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome.”

Add to that, the CDC saying that the virus can be transmitted during sex, or from a “pregnant mother to her baby during pregnancy or around the time of birth.” Now we have hysteria surrounding sexually transmitted viruses, dangerous pregnancies, disastrous childbirths, and the large-scale potential for deformed fetuses to be born in impoverished nations.

That’s why, right now, in pro-life Brazil, mosquito-hunting health officials have been given dispensation to invade private property, and women of childbearing age are being strongly advised to delay pregnancy.

Delay pregnancy? What about all the exposed women who are currently pregnant in a largely Christian country where abortion is illegal?

In Brazil, the plight of multiple pregnancies, rape borne of patriarchal oppression, and the need for women to prostitute themselves for food are the reasons some of those hoping to improve the human species by way of surgical feticide feel that birth control and abortion should be more readily available to the poor.

Abortion activists in nations where abortion is either banned or discouraged and where only 52% of the women have access to birth control, maintain that denying access to contraceptives and safe abortion is immoral.

Lest we forget, in certain circles, life loses value if a child is merely born into poverty. Imagine how devalued the life of a lowly person with microcephaly would be by those who look for any excuse to abort children? Yet thus far, Zika virus or no Zika virus, those types of arguments haven’t succeeded in convincing some Latin American countries to legalize abortion.

Meanwhile, as Zika continues to spread, pressure from the world community could find a way to circumvent those barriers.

For starters, although Brazil’s President Rousseff claims to be pro-life, her party, the Worker’s Party, supports legalizing abortion. Add to that, Christian doctrine and its romantic attachment to life’s being blamed for the Zika plague being unstoppable, and you have a potential progressive recipe for success.

Demonize Christianity and lionize abortion.

Then, if Brazilian women exposed to Zika refuse to terminate, for the well-being of other nations the global community could step in and argue that Christian ideology is putting citizens of the planet at risk.

If that happens, although purely guesswork, there’s a good chance Margaret Chan could see the day where, in response to a genetically engineered virus, population control will be furthered by intergovernmental organization’s like the U.N. mandating involuntary abortions.

In other words, under the auspices of international security, the current Zika crisis could very well be the vehicle that necessitates babies be killed in the womb in countries where the virus is present and abortion illegal.

Chinese communists forcibly abort babies. Brazil is not as far along the trajectory just yet. For now, in the hunt for mosquitoes, the Rousseff administration is only up maintaining the common good by kicking in doors.

The problem is that, if the truth were to be told, both the hunting and aborting are done under the guise of régimes attempting to rescue the unwashed masses the international higher ups view as a strain on both the environment and the worldwide system.

With that in mind, what more perfect opportunity for communist Brazil to please Rousseff’s abortion-promoting Worker’s Party then taking a page out of China’s book, on behalf of women and children, and allowing the government to foil the ravages of Zika via abortion?

Thanks to mosquitoes, there is now a window of opportunity to rationalize what 2,000 years of church doctrine have prevented in backward Catholic countries like Brazil. First, blame Christians for brain-damaged babies and then use the Zika predicament as a channel to introduce abortion and sterilization into a culture that largely rejects them both as an option.

Put simply, the world is at a juncture, where, in response to a crisis, population regulators may actually be one step closer to implementing the Chinese habit of having government officials decide who gets to live and who must die.

Huh?! Obama’s Healthcare Now for the Privileged

Originally posted at Clash Daily

access1In the mixed-up world of liberal logic, it’s hard to ignore that policy initiatives passed by this incompetent bureaucracy intended to advance fairness often end up contradicting the argument used to justify instituting them in the first place.

Take for instance the liberals’ insistence that healthcare is a right or a moral entitlement. The argument is that health care should not be a marketable commodity available to a chosen few, but instead a free perk every human being, regardless of social or financial status, should have access to and be able to afford.

The problem is that a ham-fisted government attempting to establish healthcare as a right has accomplished precisely what it was trying to prevent. Instead of healthcare becoming more accessible and affordable, it’s becoming less accessible and even more unaffordable.

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, agrees with the liberal left that health care is a right:

The right to health means that governments must generate conditions in which everyone can be as healthy as possible. Such conditions range from ensuring availability of health services, healthy and safe working conditions, adequate housing and nutritious food. The right to health does not mean the right to be healthy.

Although not up-to-speed on the “adequate housing” part just yet, in hopes of “ensuring availability of health services” to every American, Barack Obama has worked feverishly to catch up to socialist countries like Great Britain and Canada, both of whom have healthcare systems that, despite the glowing advertisements, fail miserably.

Oddly, here in America, those determined to ensure that 300 million people are recipients of what the WHO calls the “right to health” are making it harder instead of easier to attain the “right to be healthy,” which Dr. Chan did point out is not a right.

During the 2008 debates, when asked if healthcare was a right or a privilege, former professor and full-time revisionist of America’s “fatally flawed” Constitution, candidate Barack Obama (who makes things up as he goes along), said that he believed healthcare should be a right!

Barack Obama followed that proclamation by proceeding to tell a heart-wrenching personal tale – eventually proven false – about his dying mother spending her last days fighting with her insurance company from her hospital bed! In typical Barack Obama style, the president was fudging the truth a bit. Ann Dunham’s health insurance adequately covered her cancer treatment; what the anthropologist with ovarian cancer was arguing over was her disability insurance policy.

It should be noted that Obama said that Stanley Ann did the arguing from a hospital room, which was a privilege denied to 150 and counting deceased U.S. veterans trapped in a government single-payer system who wasted away on a VA waiting list.

Now, six years after Barack Obama shared his made-up family deathbed insurance struggles, there are millions of Obamacare horror stories emerging daily and a VA rationing scandal with a growing body count. Notwithstanding the sadness associated with his mother’s medical condition, Stanley Ann Dunham was ultimately better off than millions of Americans who will surely be denied access to healthcare thanks to her highfalutin’ son’s attempt to reengineer the U.S. healthcare system.

What Barack Obama and his liberal cohorts sold to America as a safeguard against healthcare denial stemming from lack of privilege has now become the tool that is depriving 270 million Americans of many of the benefits they enjoyed before the promise was made. In other words, contrary to the original stated intent, what was supposed to be a safeguard is accomplishing the exact opposite.

The initial effort was to turn a marketable commodity into a fundamental right, which it is not, and as a result – regrettably for the progressive left – the liberal cause has taken a hit. Thanks to the government’s pervasive lack of ability, instead of accomplishing another lofty liberal goal, the special advantages that healthcare reform was instituted to eliminate have made things worse.

Hillary’s Campaign for Clean Cooking Stoves

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

According to the Center for Bioethical Reform, yearly, around the world, approximately 42 million preborn children die at the hands of abortionists whose gruesome work is financed with money lifted from the pockets of the American taxpayer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton champions the worldwide right to kill unborn children and ardently defends the Obama administration’s murderous global family planning policy.

Hillary’s defense for the right to prevent the world’s children from ever being born makes her clean cooking stove concerns a tad puzzling.  According to global citizen Hillary Clinton, the U.S. will contribute “$50 million toward providing clean cooking stoves in developing countries to reduce deaths from smoke inhalation and fight climate change.”

While there is no more premature a death than aborting a developing fetus, now America’s “right to choose” global ambassador is “sharing the wealth” with third world developing countries to provide clean cooking stoves because the left-wing death diva unexpectedly became overly concerned about the premature demise of 1.9 million people made up mostly of “women and young children?”

All of a sudden Hillary, who approves of scalding unborn children to death, now advocates for spending tax monies to prevent the premature deaths of women and young children due to “smoke inhalation from rudimentary stoves.”

“The World Heath Organization estimates there are over 1.6 million premature deaths each year from cook stove pollution,” which is not only a conservative figure, but more importantly, a small percentage of the total number of fetal deaths that result from the brutal abortion procedures Hillary Clinton strongly supports.

Child advocate and humanitarian Hillary, who would finance the building of third world abortion clinics with American tax money in a heartbeat, expects America to accept the premise that suddenly Madame Secretary is concerned that “smoke from such cooking methods can lead to childhood pneumonia, lung cancer, bronchitis and cardiovascular disease?”

The clean cook stove charitable contribution, for which America will supply $10 million a year for five consecutive years, not only prevents pulmonary problems, but – here’s the bonus – it “also helps limit climate change by curtailing emissions of carbon dioxide and methane – two major greenhouse gases – and black carbon.”

If it seems out of character for Hillary Clinton to suddenly look for ways to protect life, maybe the words of Reid Detchon, vice president for energy and climate at the United Nations Foundation, can offer insight into Hillary’s sudden concern for the well being of the vulnerable.  Detchon said, “This is something that touches on climate, on health, on women’s empowerment, on deforestation and on poverty.” Voilà!

So $50 million later, it’s highly unlikely that Hillary’s support for the Alliance for Clean Cookstoves has anything to do with concern for saving the lives of the children who, despite Hillary, miraculously manage to make it out of the womb, and everything to do with a liberal agenda to further global green policy.

%d bloggers like this: