A Rose

The Dred Scott decision in 1857 declared that blacks were not "sovereign people" and "are not included and were never intended to be included in the word 'citizen' in the Constitution." In 1936 the Reichsgericht (the German equivalent of the Supreme Court) said that Jews were "not persons in the legal sense". In March of 1938 Jewish congregations were officially deprived of legal protection by law. By 1942 Jews were referred to as "transport material" or "pieces" of "material". In 1973, Roe v. Wade declared that the word "person" does not include unborn humans, and huge numbers of unborn children lost any hope of legal protection of their lives. In 1974 patients at the Sunny Hill Convalescent Center were referred to as "work units". These changes in language and legal definitions played a large role in dehumanizing their subjects, and made it possible to mistreat and even kill them in large numbers.

These facts and more come from a disturbing scary book, "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable". Scary because of the dark side of human history exposed. Scary because it exposes how the meanings of words, and the words we use can kill. Disturbng because it relates to what's going on in U.S. Heath Care legislation.

The dictionary defines "contraception" as "the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means." In fact the word's originated in 1886 from Latin contra (meaning against) + ending from conception. However, over the past few years modern medical dictionaries have altered the definition to "(birth control) prevents pregnancy by interfering with the normal process of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation."

Why has this been altered? Note that with the new definition, and abortifacient can be called a "contraceptive". What does that have to do with the new health care legislation? Because the administration that claims that no tax payer dollars are funding abortions is going to require taxpayer dollars be used to pay for contraceptives (which cause abortions). What's perhaps as bad, women who use these "contraceptives" will not even realize that they are undergoing abortions.

As reported in this news story:

"All women do use contraception at some point in their lives, and we think it should be available to them as a preventive health service," said Judy Waxman, vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center.

I beg to differ. Not all women use contraception, and even if they did, why does this justify funding it 100%? Note that all people (men and women) require vitamins as a preventative health service, but the health care bill does not fund vitamins 100% (or at all). All people require exercise, but the health care bill does not fund gym memberships 100% (or at all).

So what then is the real justification? Profits for big pharma. Profits from the death of humans whose lives have been whittled away by words.

Posted in: abortion,America,contraception,health care,Politics