Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Mexico's Roe v. Wade FAILS!

Mexican Supreme Court overwhelmingly rejects proposal to legalize abortion nationwide

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

abortion, mexico

July 4, 2016 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Mexican Supreme Court has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed verdict that would have imposed abortion-on-demand during the earliest stages of pregnancy throughout the country.

The justices of the Supreme Court’s First Chamber voted 3-1 against the draft decision, which cites Roe v. Wade to justify requiring all of Mexico’s 31 states to adopt the legal regime currently in use in Mexico City. The Mexican capital allows abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy while applying restrictions in later stages of gestation of the unborn child.

The draft decision, which was authored by Supreme Court Justice Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, would also have required the states to provide “accessible and affordable” abortion services by establishing clinics to carry out the killing of the unborn. 

Zaldívar claimed that abortion-on-demand must be legalized by the states to protect women’s right of “free development of personality.”

The case in question regards a woman who attempted to obtain an abortion in a federal government clinic in Mexico City in 2013, after discovering that her unborn child had Klinefelter Syndrome, a non-life-threatening genetic condition that can cause underdeveloped genitalia.

Federal clinic workers refused to kill the woman’s unborn child, citing articles 332 and 334 of the Federal Penal Code, which prohibits abortion except in cases of danger to the life of the mother or the unborn child.

Although the woman later obtained an abortion at a private clinic in Mexico City, she sued the federal government for violating her “human rights,” although abortion has never been recognized as a human right in any international treaty.

Another Supreme Court justice will now be assigned to write a draft decision that will satisfy the views of the majority of justices.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Healthcare CEO Told Nurses to Fatally Overdose Patients to Increase Profit

Healthcare CEO Told Nurses to Fatally Overdose Patients to Increase Profit

| |

By Josh Mur

After an ongoing FBI investigation revealed incriminating information, Brad Harris, CEO of Novus Health Care Services, is being accused of ordering nurses to hasten the deaths of patients.

Novus Health Care Service is a company based in Frisco, Texas that provides in-house care for terminally ill and elderly patients. The company’s website indicates clearly that Novus prides itself on the quality of care and “improved patient outcomes” as a result of the services its employees provide. However, an affidavit released by the FBI suggests Brad Harris has failed to comply with the principles of his own company.

The investigation began in 2014, when Novus was facing allegations of offering services to patients who did not apply for them. Novus was also accused of collecting funds for “unnecessary” services and procedures. During the investigation, Harris’ underlying scheme was discovered. Text messages the CEO sent to employees revealed he regularly instructed nurses to overdose patients with medication, often morphine, to hasten people’s deaths.
“You need to make this patient go bye-bye,” read one text from the executive. “Find patients who would die within 24 hours,” Harris reportedly told other healthcare executives, according to the FBI’s affidavit.

The FBI alleges Harris “instructed a nurse to administer overdoses to three patients and directed another employee to increase a patient’s medication to four-times the maximum allowed.” Both the nurse and the other employee refused to carry out the orders.
Harris’ text messages and conversations with other executives do not reflect the language or attitude an average medical patient might want or expect from the company providing their care. But what could inspire such a cynical and negligent approach to his vision of “improving patient outcomes?”

Simply put: profit. Like other care providers, Novus is subject to an “aggregator cap,” which prevents companies from earning higher revenues from hospice stays. In other words, prolonged treatment and care do not necessarily mean a larger check for hospice providers. In fact, with payments through Medicare and Medicaid, providers can actually be forced to pay back a portion of their fee if a patient lives too long.
Currently, no charges have been filed against Harris or his company. The FBI declined to comment on the investigation.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Friday, March 18, 2016

Annihilation of Nations?

Countries with sub-replacement fertility levels cannot be called nations. In that sense, at least half the nations have already been annihilated. Natio- = birth.
"In 2010 about 48 percent of the world population had an average total fertility of less than 2.1 children per woman." (source)
Nations have thus been "substantially annihilated" (i.e., what Aristotelians and Thomists call "corruption," a type of change in which the substance of something is lost; cf. St. Thomas's De Principii Naturæ).

All countries aren't equally contracepting themselves to death.  Here is the avg. # children per couple per country:

See the documentaries: Demographic Winter & Demographic Bomb, or this new one:

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Immorality of the Planned Parenthood sting operations as they've been performed.

My wife sent me an article about how the people who performed a Planned Parenthood sting operation were being charged for felonies (obstructing justice and soliciting bodily organs). Although the journalist was very pro-abortion, she did have a point. It's never good to perform an evil such as lying (even if it is a lesser evil than baby killing) in order to achieve a good end such as ending abortion (cf. Rom. 3:8; 6:1). Even if it were a state of war, lying is still a sin. Concealing one's motives isn't, though, but these sting people made it very clear what their (false) motives were.

These are what St. Thomas Aquinas calls "ambushes" (insidiis, the same word used in the St. Michael prayer that's translated as "snares") in Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 ("On War") a. 3 ("Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?"):

The object of laying ambushes is in order to deceive the enemy. Now a man may be deceived by another's word or deed in two ways:
  1. through being told something false, or through the breaking of a promise, and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive the enemy in this way, for there are certain "rights of war and covenants, which ought to be observed even among enemies," as Ambrose states (De Officiis i).
  2. a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Mt. 7:6: "Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [*Stratagematum i, 1] by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.
Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him
Randal Terry's strategy is that of #2, and it seems his is the best one that stays within the realm of moral action.