“Abortion battle in health reform bill is more about philosophy than funding (St. Petersburg Times)” plus 3 more |
- Abortion battle in health reform bill is more about philosophy than funding (St. Petersburg Times)
- Federal court approves 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance (The Christian Science Monitor)
- Paper Fashion Show Has a New Philosophy (PRWeb via Yahoo! News)
- Philosophical Physicians (Bangkok Post - Thailand's English news)
| Abortion battle in health reform bill is more about philosophy than funding (St. Petersburg Times) Posted: 11 Mar 2010 05:17 PM PST | By Kris Hundley, Times staff writer Inside Congress, battles over federal funding for abortion have posed the latest threat to health care reform legislation. The Senate bill to be considered by the House this month includes some restrictions on the use of federal subsidies to pay for private insurance plans covering abortions. House Democratic leaders on Thursday gave up on trying to find a compromise within their own ranks on the abortion language, gambling that even if some antiabortion Democrats defect, they can still find the votes they need to pass the sweeping health care overhaul. But relative to the rest of the bill, there's little money at stake in covering abortion. It's a debate that hinges on philosophical differences more than finances. And it has little to do with the reality of how abortions are funded today: Most women pay out of pocket for the procedure, which costs about $400 to $1,800. There were about 1.2 million abortions in the United States in 2005, the last year for which data is available. Of those, 74 percent were paid directly by the woman, with her own money or funds from a partner or family. Guttmacher Institute, the source of these figures, stressed that the statistic included all women receiving abortions, whether insured or uninsured. And it doesn't account for women who may later have sought reimbursement from their insurers. About 87 percent of all employer-provided health care plans now include at least some abortion coverage. But the Guttmacher study found that only 13 percent of women having abortions had their insurers billed directly by clinics. Women may prefer paying in cash, surveyors said, to preserve confidentiality. Federal funding of abortions has been limited for decades. Since 1977, the Hyde amendment, which is renewed annually, has banned the use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother's life. The Guttmacher study found that 13 percent of abortions were reimbursed by Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. Most of those were in 17 states that permit funding in broader circumstances than allowed under the Hyde amendment. The Senate version of the health care bill includes a provision allowing people who don't have access to affordable insurance to buy private plans through a state-based exchange. Most buyers would be eligible for federal subsidies of their premiums. And that's where the focus of the current debate lies. Antiabortion groups insist that no federal subsidies should be allowed for insurance plans that cover abortions beyond those allowed under the Hyde amendment. So the Senate bill would force everyone who buys an exchange plan with broader abortion coverage to make a separate payment to the insurer every month. States would also have the option of prohibiting plans in the exchange from covering abortions. The National Right to Life committee criticized the Senate fix as a "convoluted bookkeeping scheme inconsistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment." Earlier this month, the group issued a release, saying any member of Congress who votes for the Senate bill will be casting "a career-defining pro-abortion vote." But Thursday there were signs of splintering among the antiabortion forces. Even before the House Democratic leaders made their announcement, a group of 25 Catholic theologians and evangelical leaders sent a letter to Congress supporting the legislation. The group, Faith in Public Life, said it believed restrictions on federal funding for abortion are maintained in the bill, which they support because it would expand affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, including "vulnerable pregnant women." Abortion rights groups, meanwhile, worry that the Senate's restrictions on exchange plans would have a spill-over effect on the entire insurance industry. In addition to the headache of collecting what could be as little as $1 a month from every policyholder, insurers would be forced to publicize the fact that they're offering abortion coverage. Nancy Kennan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a news release, "Women should not lose ground in the new health care system." Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, predicts that under the Senate's requirements, most insurers would simply drop coverage for all customers, rather than deal with blowback from abortion opponents. "Quite frankly, I think it's the end of the sale of insurance that covers abortion," she said. Today most major insurers automatically include coverage for abortions and give employers the choice to opt out. But few companies or their employees may even realize they have the coverage. Late last year, the Republican National Committee discovered that its policy through Cigna had covered abortions since 1991. The antiabortion group immediately said it intended to eliminate the coverage. Times researcher Will Gorham contributed to this report. Kris Hundley can be reached at khundley@sptimes.com or (727)892-2996. [Last modified: Mar 11, 2010 10:45 PM] Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Federal court approves 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance (The Christian Science Monitor) Posted: 11 Mar 2010 05:18 PM PST San Francisco An atheist activist from Sacramento failed to convince a federal court in California that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on US currency are unconstitutional endorsements of religion. Skip to next paragraphRelated StoriesIn two separate cases, Michael Newdow, who previously challenged the Pledge in a case that reached the US Supreme Court in 2004, attempted to further his long-running campaign to strip references to God from the public domain. In Mr. Newdow's latest case against "under God" in the Pledge, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled, in a 2-to-1 decision, that the schoolroom routine for millions of children is not a violation of the Constitution, but a historical reflection of the Founding Fathers' beliefs that "serves to unite our vast nation." "Not every mention of God or religion by our government or at the government's direction is a violation of the Establishment Clause," wrote Judge Carlos Bea for the majority in the opinion that was issued Thursday. "Without knowing the history behind these words, one might well think the phrase 'one Nation under God' could not be anything but religious," wrote Judge Bea. "History, however, shows these words have an even broader meaning, one grounded in philosophy and politics and reflecting many events of historical significance." In Newdow's previous case against the Pledge, the US Supreme Court ruled that the California atheist, who founded the First Amendment Church of True Science, didn't have the legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his school-age daughter since he didn't have legal custody of her. The court did not decide the constitutional question. Newdow then re-filed the lawsuit in California along with other atheists who objected to their children reciting the Pledge. In 2005, a federal district court judge agreed that "under God" overstepped the Constitutional limits on state sanctioned religion. At the time, the district court said it was bound by a 2002 ruling from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Pledge unconstitutional. Thursday's ruling reverses those decisions. In his dissent, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote that while the court's affirmation regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge "will undoubtedly be celebrated by a large number of Americans as a repudiation of activist, liberal, Godless judging," the result amounts to a failure of the court's constitutional duty. In the case involving "In God We Trust" on US currency, the federal appeals court panel was unanimous. It ruled that Newdow does not have legal standing to challenge the motto. Judge Bea, writing again for the majority, wrote: "although Newdow alleges the national motto turns Atheists into political outsiders and inflicts a stigmatic injury upon them, an 'abstract stigmatic injury' resulting from such outsider status is insufficient to confer standing." Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. | |
| Paper Fashion Show Has a New Philosophy (PRWeb via Yahoo! News) Posted: 09 Mar 2010 11:01 PM PST The Art Director's Club of Denver Partners with Philosophy Communication for Promotion of 6th Annual Paper Fashion Show Denver (PRWEB) March 10, 2010 -- The Art Director's Club of Denver has selected Philosophy Communication to run the public relations campaign for the 6th Annual Paper Fashion Show. The Art Directors Club of Denver chose Philosophy Communication because of its ability to promote brands with sincerity and power. Philosophy Communication's strategy grows from the idea of creating a conversation between the client and their target audiences, and the Art Director's Club of Denver understands that it needs to cultivate a strong relationship with the ever-growing creative culture in Colorado. "Philosophy Communication's partnership with The Art Director Club of Denver will take the already-successful Paper Fashion Show and send it to new heights," said Jay Roth, Art Director's Club of Denver president. "The creative community is already buzzing with excitement about the show, and the competitive spirit is soaring." The venue for the show will be Mile High Station, starting at 6 p.m. on March 18. The Paper Fashion Show is an annual contest for any firm--whether it's design, advertising, communication or marketing--the only requirement is a flair for offbeat design. "Colorado's creative industry relies on a strong culture of innovation and unexpected executions, and the Paper Fashion Show channels this spirit in a friendly contest," said Jen Lester, co-founder of Philosophy Communication. "Philosophy is excited to be a part of this always fascinating event." To learn more about Philosophy Communication, visit www.philosophycommunication or to purchase tickets for the Paper Fashion Show, visit www.paperfashionshow.com. About Philosophy Communication, Inc. ### Philosophy Communication Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. | |
| Philosophical Physicians (Bangkok Post - Thailand's English news) Posted: 11 Mar 2010 10:07 PM PST the natural path In order to understand the philosophy of alternative medicine, let's learn from some of history's key medical figures. Hippocrates (460-377 BC.)Many health oriented people may have heard the phrase "we are what we eat". It's believed Hippocrates uttered this unforgettable quote. Hippocrates believed in the natural healing processes of rest, a good diet, fresh air and cleanliness. He systemised medical practice and founded the first ever hospital. He said: "We have a doctor in our own selves, this doctor will heal ourselves whenever we get sick." He thought certain ailments were methods of self healing: Nasal discharge, or sputum, trapped toxic agents and excreted them out. Vomiting and diarrhoea were the ways to get rid of toxins as a result of food poisoning. He also claimed that, "Give me a fever, and I can cure any illness". To him a fever was a mechanism of activating the internal defence system. Hippocrates also encouraged fasting to cure sicknesses. He said, "Let's fast and rest, on such occasions we can gain back our health". This was something he learned from sick cats and dogs. They don't eat anything, they just rest in order to cure themselves. Vincent Priessnitz (1799-1851)Vincent Priessnitz lived in Gragenberg, Jesenik in what is now the Czech Republic. He was a farmer who used water treatment to cure what was described by a doctor as a life-threatening rib injury after an accident with a cart. He said he got the idea after watching a wounded roebuck heal itself in a stream. After that he became renowned for his hydrotherapy treatments. Many people sought him out for his "cold water pouring treatment". In 1822 he transformed his father's farm-house into a sanatorium, while his fame spread across the country. In 1826 he was invited to Vienna to treat the Emperor's brother Anton Victor. The main principle behind Priessnitz's treatments was a holistic approach: cold water, hard work, walking barefoot on grass, diet and a good night's sleep. However, his "sponge washing" was not accepted by some doctors who said Priessnitz was a fake and tried to have him prosecuted. But the Imperial committee accepted hydrotherapy as an alternative medical method and later gave him permission to build a spa in 1838. He successfully treated over 1,500 patients: one monarch, a duke, a duchess, 22 princes and 149 counts and countesses. He became a medical teacher and 120 doctors studied under him. Priessnitz has been accepted as the father of modern hydrotherapy, a treatment without drugs. Sebastian Kneipp (1821-1897)Sebastian Kneipp was a Bavarian priest who established the "Kneipp Cure". Kneipp was a thin and unhealthy youngster. He was determined to build himself up to be a strong person. So he went swimming in a nearby stream every spring, summer, autumn and winter. Despite the water being very cold, he carried on swimming every morning. Instead of getting sick, he became stronger and stronger, until at last he grew into a very strong young man. After Kneipp became a priest, he turned part of his church into a hydrotherapy clinic where he offered various kinds of water treatment. He also developed many kinds of instruments for treatments applying various methods, temperatures and pressures. They were called "Kneipp instruments" for hydrotherapy and they have been sold to spas all over the world even to this day. Kneipp's system of healing had five main tenets as follows: - hydrotherapy - exercise - nutrition - a good diet consisting of bread, fruit, vegetables, and a limited amount of meat - herbalism - spirituality - a healthy mind makes a healthy person Dr Maximilian Bircher-Benner (1867-1939)Maximilian Bircher-Benner was a Swiss physician who pioneered nutritional research and established a sanatorium in Zurich. He believed a balance diet of raw fruit and vegetables could heal patients, which ran against accepted lines thought at the end of the 19th century. Bircher-Benner also believed in people harmonising with nature and much of his thinking came from observing the lifestyle of shepherds in the Swiss Alps. At his sanitorium Bircher-Benner put his patients through a monastic daily schedule: early to bed, Spartan physical training and gardening which harmonised people to nature. !A contemporary of Bircher-Benner was also a proponent of a healthy diet. This was John Harvey Kellogg, the US founder of the Kellogg breakfast cereal empire. All of the above were pioneers in the field of natural medicine. They all believed in the healing power of nature and in the philosophy of "treatments without drugs". Five Filters featured article: Chilcot Inquiry. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
Click here to post a comment| You are subscribed to email updates from Yahoo! News Search Results for Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment