Obamacare would allow sterilizations on minors without consent - damn, the rw will believe anything

Obamacare Puts Freedom in the Balance
by Robert Morrison
November 5, 2012

On July 4, 2010, the National Archives announced that they had just discovered an original draft of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. In it, the young member of the Continental Congress struck out the word subjects and penned the word citizens. Archivists were very excited by this discovery: It was the first time Americans had referred to themselves as citizens, they said.

Citizens make their own decisions on vital matters of life and faith. Subjects have to obey an endless series of government mandates.

Obamacare has already revealed its iron fist. The HHS mandate, a key part of Obamacare, would force every American to become complicit in providing or paying for the destruction of innocent human lives. It would also force us to subsidize sterilization procedures. Many of these sterilizations would be done on minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Religious communities in America have been alarmed by this HHS Mandate. Rev. Billy Graham is nearing his 94th birthday this week. He might easily have avoided controversy by remaining quiet. But this great evangelist has taken out ads in major newspapers all over the country appealing to Christians to vote for biblical values. These include the Sanctity of Human Life, which theHHS Mandate for Obamacare so seriously jeopardizes.

http://www.frcblog.com/2012/11/obamacare-puts-freedom-in-the-balance/#more-8834


Now here we have a big organization who you would think would do some research on this.

But then, that would not help with an agenda and they all know their flock are not going to even attempt to find out if something is true or not (look at all the people who listen to rush/beck/hannity and watch fox, you think they ever spend any time checking out to see if something is true? Well...other then going to see if it is on drudge and linking to that as proof....)

So, I am stealing this information from someone (with a link) - here is their fb post(s) on it:

Top Commenter
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/OR/OR.html

The point of the law is to prevent indiscriminate, forced, or coerced sterilization and to protect those who are vulnerable and incapable of giving informed consent. IT DOES NOT, as the article suggests, give free reign for minors to obtain sterilization procedures as a means of birth control.

The key phrase in the statute: 436.215 Legislative finding. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that sterilization procedures are highly intrusive, generally irreversible and represent potentially permanent and highly significant consequences for individuals incapable of giving informed consent. The Legislative Assembly recognizes that certain legal safeguards are required to prevent indiscriminate and unnecessary sterilization of such individuals, and to assure equal access to desired medical procedures for these Oregon citizens. [1983 c.460 §4].

It then goes on to describe the multitude of legal hurdles one must clear in order to proceed with a sterilization procedure, particular to those who are permanently mentally and/or physically incapable of caring for a child even with assistance. IF the person is over 15 years of age and IF the person can understand the procedure and its consequences, then the person can consent to the sterilization for those reasons. IF the person is incapable of making informed consent, then the law sets out specific requirements that must be 'clear and convincing evidence' that the procedure is justified, otherwise it cannot be done. This law was enacted to repeal Oregon law providing for compulsory and coerced sterilization.

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States.

Oregon

Number of Victims.

2,341 sterilizations are recorded to have occurred in the state of Oregon from 1921 until 1983 (Lombardo, p. 293). However, in governor John Kitzhaber's 2002 “Human Rights Day” apology on behalf of the state, it is noted that 2,648 people were sterilized (Josefson, p. 1). Of the 2,648 people accounted for, 1,713 (65%) were women and 935 (35%) were men. Victims, drawn mainly from state institutions like mental hospitals, facilities housing developmentally disabled persons, and prisons, were deemed mentally ill (about one third) or deficient, or in earlier time periods, “feeble-minded” (almost 60%).

Period During Which Sterilizations Occurred.

The first Oregon Eugenics law was signed into law in 1917 and was utilized within the year (Eccleston, p. 2). No sterilizations were reported in 1922 because the 1917 law was nullified by the Marion County Circuit Court and the 1923 law had not yet been passed (Largent, p. 200). The rate of sterilizations was greatest during the 1920s and 1930s, yet substantial number of sterilizations did occur after the end of World War II (Paul, p. 460). The Oregon eugenics program continued to sterilize patients until the 1960s and the law continued to be used sparing after the 1960s until its repeal in 1983. Two hundred and seventeen patients were sterilized after 1967 (Largent, p. 206).

Groups Targeted and Victimized.

Oregon’s laws targeted three main groups:

The first group, the mental and physcially disabled, were generally clumped under the title of "insane" (Largent, p. 203). They were individuals that were considered to the lack intelligence or means to rear children in a modern society. Such people were deemed simple or feebleminded and drawn mainly from state hospitals and small towns. Many of these individuals were housed in the Oregon State Hospital in Salem or the Eastern Oregon State Hospital in Pendleton (Largent, p. 203).

The second group, "habitual criminals", were people convicted of three or more felonies, drawn mainly from state prisons (Largent, p. 203). Sometimes habitual sexual offenders used sterilization as an avenue to again gain parole (Largent, p. 205). They were seen as too risky for society in that they would undoubtedly raise families of ill and criminal regard. Prisoners were subjected to castration because of their sexual behavior inside prison; in order to solve the problem of sodomy within prisons men were recommended for surgery (Largent, p. 205).

The third and final group, were “sexual perverts and moral degenerates,” and came from both state prisons and hospitals (Largent, p. 195). The real distinguishing feature of Oregon's sterilization compared to other states was its especially virulent targeting of "sexual deviants." Although this included women at the margins of society, rapists and child molesters (Boag, p. 208), homosexual men were prosecuted and persecuted at higher rates (Owens-Adair, pp. 110, 183). Homosexual political and cultural scandals in Portland incited widespread outrage to homosexuality (Largent, p. 195), and as seen as a mental illness in the United States until the 1960s, was included under the charge of eugenics proponents. This led to a greater use of castration in Oregon as opposed to vasectomy, which is a much less invasive surgery, rather than just wanting to prevent the spread of unfavorable traits "authorities wanted to unsex them" (Largent, p. 205).

Other Restrictions Placed on Disabled People.
In Oregon, like other states with eugenics laws, sterilization was often a precondition of being released from prison or from a state mental institution (Paul, p. 458). It was often individuals at the margins of society who were targeted as feeble-minded or perverseand they often had little choice but to consented to sterilization in order to regain their freedom. Even after release there was certainly a stigma associated with having been targeted by the Oregon Eugenics Board, based on the public characterizations made by eugenics proponents like Bethenia Owens-Adair. This stigma was often intense because the individuals targeted, such as homosexuals or the mentally ill, would have naturally already been at the far periphery of societal approval.
Reply · 6 · Like · Follow Post · August 13 at 9:43pm

Des Haml · Top Commenter
The most recent amendments to the statute were enacted in 2005.
Reply · Like · September 1 at 2:56pm

Des Haml · Top Commenter
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/
"The 2011 Edition does not include changes to the law enacted during the 2012 regular session of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Assembly ... Each ORS chapter below that is affected by an Act of the 2012 regular session contains a notice (directly below the ORS chapter number) describing how the ORS chapter is affected."

AS AN EXAMPLE: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/443.html See the notation at the top of the page?

Now look at the statute referenced in the article: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/436.html Notice what's missing?

Additionally: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/2012update.html and http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/2012update_vol11.pdf Can you guess chapter is missing from that list?

So again I ask:
Please cite the section of the statute where the source code indicates that the section was amended to fall in line with "Obamacare". Additionally, please cite the section that was AMENDED to fall in line with "Obamacare" (meaning, again, after the original was enacted in 1983) that allows children to "get one without parental consent for free".
Reply · Like · September 1 at 5:46pm

Des Haml · Top Commenter
Yeah, you're a ringer. Go to the link. Notice there are words. Read the words. Comprehend the words.

"Each ORS chapter below that is affected by an Act of the 2012 regular session contains a notice (directly below the ORS chapter number) describing how the ORS chapter is affected. To see how an entire ORS volume is affected by the 2012 regular session, see the 2012 Update to 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes."

Let that all sink in for a moment. Then click on the link to chapter 436. Notice what is missing at the top of the page, directly below the ORS chapter number?

Now click this link: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/2012update_vol11.pdf "ORS sections in volume 11 amended, repealed or added to during the 2012 regular session" Notice that chapter 436 is NOT included in that list?
Reply · Like · September 1 at 6:07pm