Just read a very disturbing article "Obamas Brave New World", which is in reality far from brave,in the NY Post about Obama care and infants in utero with poor pre natal diagnosis. Besides the fact that many times the diagnosis is wrong and many of these babies are born fine, it angers me to think these people will decide who lives and who dies by promoting the abortion of what they deem less than perfect babies.

Not only is the obvious wrong in that you are killing an unborn child, but the difference between couples who brought these pregnancies to term and those who aborted is immense. Thought grieving, the ones who gave birth are peaceful while the ones who aborted because of pressures not only grieve but feel guilt and are not at peace.

Having worked with many couples, I pray we instead, as a country ,would offer the help and support these people need at this difficult time to bring their babies to term and love them for as long as God allows them to be int he world, not the government. That would be true bravery…

ObamaCare's brave new world

Disabled just won't make it to birth

By MEGHAN CLYNE

Last Updated:
5:16 PM, September 7, 2009

Posted:
12:54 AM, September 7, 2009

Sarah
Palin ignited a political firestorm when she worried that "death
panels" would deny end-of-life treatment to her son with Down syndrome.
In fact, ObamaCare would more likely see to it that people like Trig
never even make it out of the womb.<p> </p><br>
The outlook for children found to have disabilities in utero is
bleak<p> </p><br>now– because the medical-ethics
establishment has spent decades pushing for their abortion.<p>
</p><br>
Thanks to advances in prenatal testing, it's now far easier to detect
conditions like cystic fibrosis and spina bifida — and our "best and
brightest" overwhelmingly counsel parents to destroy the unborn child.
It's estimated that about 90 percent of American babies with Down
Syndrome are now aborted.<p> </p><br>
We're clearly on our way to the systematic elimination of "imperfect"
people. And President Obama's "health-care reform" would get us there
faster, by vastly expanding the government's influence over private
health-care decisions.<p> </p><br>
Even without accounting for "the public option," the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the Dems' health-care scheme would cause
the number of non-elderly Americans relying on government for health
care to spike from 40 million to 73 million. To offset this massive
growth in government outlays, President Obama has pledged that
bureaucrats will "bend the cost curve" by setting coverage rules and
determining physician fees — for everyone, even those not getting
treated on the government's dime.<p> </p><br>
With finite resources, government has every incentive to keep heavy
consumers of health care off the public insurance rolls. And it isn't
hard to see where an unborn baby with a disability will land on the
government's priority list.<p> </p><br>
Under Obama health-care adviser Zeke Emanuel's system for allocating
"scarce medical interventions," newborn babies rank the lowest, behind
the elderly. Already, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been
caught telling disabled veterans that their lives aren't worth living
if they're "a severe financial burden on" their families.<p>
</p><br>
The National Institutes of Health has even put a price tag on how much
Uncle Sam saves when disabled babies are aborted: A 1997 NIH report on
cystic fibrosis noted, "Studies showed that the cost per identified CF
fetus averted ranged from $250,000 to $1,250,000 for a Caucasian family
of Northern European ancestry," while the "direct and ancillary costs
associated with a CF birth" come in at around $800,000.<p>
</p><br>
So when Obama's bureaucrats set health-care policies with cost-cutting
in mind, don't be surprised if they "recommend" that OB-GYNs receiving
federal funds (which will be<p> </p><br>allof them)
screen for genetic defects as part of routine prenatal care, and
"advise" expectant mothers of the "burdens" of raising children with
disabling conditions.<p> </p><br>
The medical establishment will be happy to comply. Brian Skotko, a
clinical fellow in genetics at Children's Hospital Boston, recently
surveyed 1,100-plus mothers across the country who'd received a
prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. He was told by "the majority of
mothers that physicians were often providing inaccurate, incomplete and
in the worst cases offensive information about Down Syndrome." Whether
explicit or implied, the "prescription" was often that the children
should be aborted.<p> </p><br>
The social stigma will rise, too. When everyone is on the hook for
everyone else's health-care costs, the result is nannying so hard-core
it would make Mary Poppins blush — just look at the scorn already
heaped on smokers and the obese.<p> </p><br>Why
should we pay just because some silly woman wouldn't abort her
defective em bryo?<p> </p><br>
Plenty of people already condemn such choices — and more will surely
do so when the private decision about whether to give birth to a
disabled child becomes a matter of public expense. When it's up to
Uncle Sam to make the dollars-and-cents judgments about treatment,
expect unborn children facing a lifetime of costly care to get shut
out.<p> </p><br>
Massachusetts mom Beth Allard understands the stakes. When she learned
in 1998 that the baby she was carrying had Down Syndrome, she says, the
pressure to abort grew relentless, because (she was told) he would be
"hanging on her and drooling" for his entire life.<p>
</p><br>
Yet Ben is now about to enter fourth grade; he has won medals in the
Special Olympics and an MVP award at basketball camp — and has friends
and family who adore him. Beth says it's "unfortunate" that many
Americans look at children like her son only in terms of public costs
and benefits, adding: "I hope it doesn't get where health care turns
into that."<p> </p><br>
Unfortunately, under Obama's "reform," people like Beth can pretty much
count on it.<p>
</p><br>clyne.meghan@gmail.com<p> </p><br>

Sarah Palin ignited a political firestorm when she worried
that "death panels" would deny end-of-life treatment to her son with
Down syndrome. In fact, ObamaCare would more likely see to it that
people like Trig never even make it out of the womb.

The outlook for children found to have disabilities in utero is bleak now — because the medical-ethics establishment has spent decades pushing for their abortion.

he rest is here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obamacare_brave_new_world_swIMgQCL81vrAz4OnbewTM