As the 2012 presidential campaign gets into full swing, we often hear the candidates questioned about their views on abortion or embryonic stem cell research, as if one or two issues determine whether they are "pro-life."
Although these are important issues, I want to encourage voters to look at the bigger picture. If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.
In these days of economic turmoil, it's easy to look at programs for the elderly, disabled and others with special needs as line items in a budget. But the effects of cutting them can be far-reaching and sometimes just shift the expense from one column on a spreadsheet to another.
Virtually every state is cutting services for special-needs families and with regulations currently being written for the new health care law, the federal government is headed in the same direction. The Super Committee Senators and Congressmen also are looking at cutting funds for Medicaid as a way of reducing the federal debt.
Unless society holds accountable those who are defining "waste-reduction measures," the disabled and elderly will lose services and in-home support that are critical to their basic needs.
I applaud the stricter measures being taken to ensure that fraudulent claims aren't being paid -- this is saving hundreds of millions of dollars. However, I am concerned that some of those who are working on the language for the health care law will decide that waste-reduction measures include doing away with life-sustaining programs for individuals with profound disabilities. No one but God can determine whether or not keeping someone alive is "worth it."
This will definitely come into play over the next decade, as advances in medical technology will enable more people to survive injuries and illnesses and the senior population will continue to grow in number and age. Because more and more people will need Medicaid, we should be investing in cost-saving services like home and community-based supports and not just engage in slash-and-burn cuts that will cost more in the long run.
Most states have already made significant cuts to Medicaid, reducing or eliminating vital home-care services and forcing seniors and people with disabilities into nursing facilities. Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that these facilities become a much larger drain on Medicaid with average daily care costs much higher than in-home care.
The 2010 MetLife Market Survey of Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Adult Day Services and Home Care Costs showed that Nursing Home and Assisted Living rates continue to rise and cost many times more than Home Care or Adult Day Services, where costs have remained steady.
Doesn't it make more sense to continue funding the more economical option, rather than slash that budget and require those with special needs to turn to the more expensive facilities? Especially when Medicaid has to pick up the tab?
Like all good citizens, the elderly and people with disabilities want to eradicate waste and fraud from government, but helping people with special needs meet their basic needs doesn't fit this description. The hallmark of a healthy society has always been measured by how it cares for the disadvantaged.
As people investigate the candidates on all issues, they should remember that being pro-life also means protecting the elderly and medically fragile people - it's not a litmus test issue. If candidates believe that savings can be secured through undercutting basic services for the elderly and disabled, it can't help but tarnish their stand as pro-life candidates.
Shane Claiborne: Duane Buck And Celebrating The Interruption Of Death
Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life Election Center
Pro-life election results watch list - Jill Stanek
Pro-Life Democrats Ousted as Election Centers on the Economy ...
The mega-church ministers have taught the flock that God loves money and he especially loves people with money. Why do I have little faith that this writers message will be headed? Because the moneychangers control the temple.
I agree that money has too much power in the church -- but more people are hearing the message Joni is making here. There is hope.
The real kind of pro-life. The kind that opposes war. Opposes the death penalty. Wouldn't even think of welching on our obligations to the elderly. And is baffled by the "Pro Life" candidates who think they've fulfilled their educational obligations when students are to hungry or tired to pay attention in class.
You can disagree with me on the value of a mindless fetus, but don't you dare say I'm not pro-life.
And if you'll turn your backs on all those other things then don't you dare pretend that an eagerness to spill an unwilling women's blood in the name of a fetus makes you pro-life.
Not even close.
Whenever I see pretend pro-lifers picketing a clinic I make them an offer. Stay, and I donate money to the clinic to be used only to help low income women abort. Leave, and I'll give it to the children's hospital instead.
Only one woman has ever chosen to leave. The others all argue with me. They won't change their plans for **a single afternoon** to save what they claim to believe is a human life. They are *having fun* waving signs around and getting attention. This is way more glamorous and lots easier than working in a soup kitchen or volunteering as a big brother/sister. And if a fetus has to die and the children's hospital has to lose a couple hundred bucks for their enjoyment then so be it.
I'm sorry about this - one becomes jaded after many years in the battle and "seeing everything." This is indeed unfortunate.
Yes, atmosphere 1823, after many years in the battle and "seeing everything" one becomes jaded ... or socialized. True believers. The stuff of martyrs.
Yes it does. I am in the process of helping an elderly friend find an assisted living facility after a fall that has left her unable to live alone. She has no children and has been a frugal and saving person all her life. We have figured that she have enough to live on (at an assisted living facility) for about a year and a half without aid. She is just hoping to die before that money runs out because then she would have to be moved to one of the nursing homes in the area that accept public aid, and they are not pleasant places. (I used to volunteer at one near my home.) Funding keeps getting cut, so they have to get by on fewer employees than they need and pay them less than the private pay homes pay their nurses and assistants. Care is not good when employees are stretched so thin, and the best nurses leave to work at better-paying homes. If Medicare is cut any further, what happens to these people then?
Our elderly deserve better than this.
this does not mean they deserve this treatment for their past unawareness but that principle or law called kama plays no special favors.
in other words it does not enable. if it did we would never learn greater spiritual awareness.
it is only going to get much worst as this is a bankrupt nation and is a nation of bankrupt individuals and pensions are becoming a thing of the past.
I write more here: http://charlesredfern.com/2011/10/01/a-pro-life-%E2%80%9Cchristian%E2%80%9D-organization-gone-rogue/
I was placed for adoption by an unmarried young woman who doesn't want the slightest thing to do with her child (me). I feel positive she would have aborted me, had she been able to back then.
It is highly personal with me because each one of those babies IS "me."
Nothing to do with "sexiness," my friend.
Ron Paul did not verbally agree, but none of them agreed. In the tradition of the law, however, silence is construed as consent.
Jeb and George Bush had no trouble with the government helping Terry Schiavo. In their view, government was MANDATED to help preserve her life. The Democrats were demonized as opposing this. So, in the case of Terry Schiavo, government would not have attempted to save her under the current Republican ideology.
Oh, c'mon...don't beat around the bush, end the sentence the way you originally wanted to - "If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society...and think that a massive benevolent government is the only way to help them."
1- That's a fetus. Try to avoid the emotionally charged weasel words.
2- This article is about not-well-thought-out expense slashing that harms the elderly and the already born, actual members of society, and that inadvertently cause greater societal and fiscal costs.
You know, it's really not that long of an article.
Try to read the article past the heading again, and cover your shoes, if you find the shoe-laces to much of a distraction.
The many signatories of this letter were trying to appeal to his Catholic roots of trying to help the most in need.
What is even more astounding, the fact that so many who are 'pro-life' are also supporters of the death penalty. In my view, nothing is more intellectually dishonest than having different sets of rules about interceding in one of the Commandments.