A Simple Way You Can Help Abolish Abortion

Are you one of those who identify as prolife about abortion? You want to help abolish abortion?

You have an opportunity to do just that. It takes just a matter of minutes. Your signature. Your share.

In the U.S.? You can call on the President and Congress to make abortion illegal again.

Abortion Rights?

Abortion was never institutionalized as a right until Roe vs. Wade. In 1973 it became legal, acceptable, and a privacy and reproductive right. It was seen as a bodily autonomy right and as health care. Abortion was never viewed as a legal right until these past four decades. I know that there was a movement of feminists who pushed the idea that it should become legal through the NARAL and other efforts. It used to be that the needs and rights of both mom and child were seen as one and the same. This maes perfect sense. The unborn baby's physical and emotional welfare depends on the well-being of her mom who is carrying her. The mom's emotional and physical well-being depends on the health and life of her unborn child. Even if the pregnancy is a difficult one or she cannot parent her child, an adoption plan would benefit her baby and her. It benefits her baby by giving him a good two-parent home. It benefits her by letting her go on with her life and getting a chance at a future. But a new breed of prochoice feminists saw mom's and baby's needs and rights as pitted against each other. This was especially true in unwanted, unwelcome, or crisis pregnancies. Feminists with a prochoice worldview saw abortion rights as the crown of women's equality. For four decades, their worldview has become insitutionalized with the acceptance of Roe vs. Wade.

Arguments About Lost Civil Rights & Back Alley Abortions

Early feminists were prolife. I'm talking about feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Alice Paul. I own a large book of essays by these prolife feminists which is called PROLIFE FEMINISM. There are woen today who identify as prolife feminists. They are as pro-woman as any feminist. Their argument against abortion is that it is a mark of women's exploitation, not women's equality. They argue that abortion is a sign that society has failed women. It is the ultimate form of violation of the female body because it makes her life-giving body a place of death. So how can we reverse the tide of the embracing of abortion as a so-called right? I'm familiar with the idea that reversing Roe vs. Wade will take away a woman's "right to choose." We need to convince people that abortion is not the only choice a woman has in a crisis pregnancy. We need to show that women have better choices. We need to convey that we are as pro-woman as we are pro-baby, that we are prolife about all lives. Now the other side is usually not convinced of this. Also, people need to be convinced that even in an unwanted pregnancy, an unborn child has the basic right to live. This right trumps rights to privacy, choice, or convenience. I'm even more familiar with the back-alley argument, that illegal abortions are dangerous to women. What the argument neglects is that legal abortions are risky for woman. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor, wrote THE HAND OF GOD. It's about he became prolife. In this book, he documents how women were exploited by abortions and how some suffered major comlications from legal abortions! Below, I provide an article about this "back-alley" argument.

Arguments for Expanding Women's & Families Social & Medical Care & Improving Adoption Laws

Something needs to be done. Almost 4000 babies die daily, in the U.S. alone, by abortion. Some 4000 women, daily, are exploited for the financial gain of others. It turns out that not even the abortion workers are happy or fulfilled in aborting babies. What is fulfilling, inspiring, or empowering about killing babies? Abortion is murder and murder should be illegal. So abortion should be illegal. But any legislation to make it illegal has to go farther than just making abortion illegal. So many women seek abortions because they don't think they have other options. Funds need to be released to provide subsidies for low-income women and families. Adoption laws need to be improved. Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded and the funds moved to community clinics that serve women and children. This is working to create a society that makes abortion not only illegal but unthinkable. All this may mean paying more taxes so fund these efforts. It will mean reaching out to pregnant women and children when given opportunity. It may mean giving time, money or supplies to pregnancy resource centers. There is something all of us can do to create a culture where all life, born and unborn, is treasured and protected.

What You Can Do Now

There is one simple thing you can do right now. You can sign a 100% prolife petition. It calls for all abortion to be made illegal. It calls for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. It suggests increased Medicaid reimbursements for obstetricion-gynecologists and pediatricians. If calls for funds to be released to the thousands of community clinics that do not perform abortions. It calls for increased subsidies for qualified adoptive parents. It takes minutes to add your name to this petition. It takes seconds to share this petition with your social networks. But it can save lives!

Will you help?

Click here to sign this petition.

Click here to share this petition.

Click here to read about the back alley argument.

The photo above is provided courtesy of American Life League via fotor.com under CC By-NC 2.0

How Shall We Deal With National Debt?

     Months ago, when I logged into Facebook and scrolled down my homepage, I was stuck by a photo post that listed the salaries of some of the CEO's of top health insurance companies. One of those is the one that I have been enrolled in for the past few years. These CEO's are not only millionaires but multimillionaires and billionaires. I posted this photo on my page and on all three of my pages and I did not see that I got one "like" or comment on this post. What I don't understand is the lack of outrage. I feel both sad and angry that people, both online in my social networks and offline, especially in my church family, seem to feel that the very real and often devastating issues surrounding so many in our culture are somehow secondary to what they seem to perceive as "getting out of office" a President that they resent and hate and whom they would like to see fail. And so many blame him for all that ails our economy. There is a Facebook photo with the caption, denigrating President Obama: "Obama loves the poor so much, he has created millions more of them!" Some are accusing him of scaring senior citizens and others that they will "lose their benefits" if the debt ceiling is not raised; they are calling him the enemy of the people. The same people, from what I have observed, are the ones who tend to call for cuts in spending rather than increased taxes on those with high incomes, certainly millionaires and billionaires.

Now I am not putting down wealth or the right to get rich, as long as it is done by ethical means and the wealthy use some of their resources to support and assist those in need. And many already do and are to be commended for it. But guess what? These wealthy philanthropers, like Bill Gates, are calling for an end to tax breaks for the wealthy, realizing that our ailing economy needs extra revenues from their taxes far more than they do. And also, our President has also gone on record as saying that he does not need any tax breaks. I know that there are so many people who are worried that tax revenues from increased taxes on the wealthy, would "trickle down" to rest of us as these same "super-wealthy" are the "job creators." Really? If that was the case, then why has unemployment so dramatically risen even as these "job creators" were getting their tax breaks? Where were the jobs that supposedly were supposed to produce that "trickle down" effect? I may be missing something her (but I don't think so), but I have not seen these effects of these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires "trickle down" to the rest of us. And please do not write me off as someone who has "class envy" or begrudges the wealthy their wealth. For I know that if there were not people in the position to provide substantial help to those in need (and this would include many people in positions of wealth or influence), so many charities would not be able to serve those in need and so many of our congregations would not be doing well. And I know that it will be a few such individuals, when I am able to come to their attention, who will be the ones who can help my petition, on behalf of the autism community, really take off!

What really saddens as well as angers me is the resentment, prejudice and even vitriol so many people, in certain social circles in my life and among so many in my social networks, have shown toward those who use "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and certainly need-based programs such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income). I know that so many have expressed concerns and (and in some cases this concern is valid), that people are abusing the system and using these programs to avoid having to work and paty their way through life. I know that many are deeply concerned about this matter. I'm not pooh-pooing the concerns of those who feel this way about the use of government programs. I'm saddended that so many seem to think that using these programs is somehow the "ticket" to the "good life" and that some people "on welfare" are living "better lives," of more material prosperity, than taxpayers. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the use of any of these government programs is not the ticket to lives of material prosperity. It's the live of living on a fixed income, getting just enough for bare necessities, and living with the ongoing stigma of knowing that so many others are stereotyping you as someone who does not want to work and have chosen to "live off society." And I think the resentment and stereotypes of those who use government programs is why so many are supporting the package of spending cuts proposed by the Paul Ryan Plan AND not supporting the call to end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. This is sad.
I fear that I risk offending those in my social networks and in my "real life," who are among those who are wealthy or even upper middle-class. I'm talking about those who in the upper income brackets and who make around, let's say, $250,000 or more a year and certainly anyone who is a millionaire or more.  I don't envy your wealth and I don't want to cause you "undue hardship" or bring an end to your prosperity. And if you are using your resources to help those in need (and not just material, but time also), I commend you heartily. But I hope and pray that you will realize the facts about those who are not as blessed as you are and who are in life circumstances where they DO need to use government programs. And I hope and pray that you will see that increased tax revenues from your incoimes will only pay for itself many times over, especially if your $$$ are used to help balance our national budget. We only want you to pay as much PROPORTIONATLY in taxes as the middle-class do. Isn't this fair?

There is the issue of waste in government spending and I have heard and read horror stories about that. It has come to me that in a Facebook user's home state, a factory employed workers who sat around much of the day, played cards and games and were paid out of tax dollars! And the total cost to finance this travesty amounted to a total than what has been set aside to fund autism! Frankly, I find reports like this hard to believe, but the Facebook user showed me the news article with this information (no just because something is in print does not mean it is so). Days ago, a research project was conducted indicating that "autism can possibly be cured"! We have been having such studies ever since the autism spectrum diagnosis came out over 20 years ago! Why do we need another such study! Talk about government waste! Talk about all the tax dollars that are spent on paperwork in administering government programs that are redundant! Anyone who uses programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or others will tell you about all the forms that have to be filled out and all the notices that are sent even to say that one is receiving a $1 increase in benefits or is receiving only $1 in benefits each month! Many years ago, my late stepdad remarked about what he hear about some government study about the sex habits of "fruitflies"! And I do not mean to denigrate NASA or the decades of having sent people to the moon; I know that space studies and programs have benefited children in school programs who have been fortunate enough to have access to such programs. But the dollars that have gone to send these people to the moon could have, in my opinion, been used to apply the same technology to matters like aiding law enforcement in solving crimes and finding missing people, for example. I can go on and on. On one of my local news channels for years, there has been a series called, "You Paid For It," which tells you have big the issue of government waste in spending tax dollars is.

I don't argue that spending cuts need to be made and that there is much government waste. I'm concerned (as are so many others) that the needed $$$ to balance the budget will be made off the backs off the most vulnerable people in our society and will be taken from services that serve us and keep us safer. We are hearing more and more about lay-offs of public school teachers in some states and about cuts to law enforcement. These are just two examples of services that are vital to all of us! And our government is seeking to cut such services instead of asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes! The argument for millionaires and billionaires paying taxes is that our economy needs it and they can afford to spare $$$ to help meet this need. Now, I understand that no one is going to like the idea of paying extra taxes and that paying more taxes means less money for the taxpayer. But when the taxpayer is a millionaires or a billionaire, isn't it only fair that they pay as much, percentagewise, as so many others who make far less, already do? Middle-class workers typically pay up to 40 percent in taxes, while the wealthy pay only around 15 percent out of much bigger incomes. How can anyone claim that this is fair? This is a call for justice, not welfare. What about cuts to the salaries of politicians, including retired politicians? This has been proposed many times and there is a popular Facebook photo calling for that, and which provides figures. The idea of all local, stated, deferal and all retired politicians taking pay cuts to their salares seems like one this is needed in an ailing economy like this one. Why are they not calling for this, for their own participation in the sacrifices they are calling on all of the rest of us to make?

As for spending cuts on the backs of vulnerable people who use government programs, such as the poor, those with disabilities, senior citizens, and others, why are there so many who seem okay with asking those in these people groups to make further sacrifices beyond what so many already make just to survive? So many younger people who use these programs, would much rather work than undergo the stigma of "living on the public dole," knowing that they are looked down on and stereotyped by so many in society. Many have disabilities or differences which employers can't/won't accommodate. This is one HUGE reason I have begun a petition on behalf of the most unemployed people group (at least in the US), those with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). While people are calling for spending cuts to even entitlement programs, how are people who use these programs supposed to survive? "Go get a job!" seems to be the easy answer to such an issue, but this thinking does not take into consideration that many such people do not have the job skills, social skills or even the transportation, to seek employment. So before you say that people should "Go out and get a job!" please realize that many people with true needs and disabilities are unable to do that, as much as they want to. So many of such individuals use the mental health system, or are homeless or are in jail or prison because of unmet needs. Does it not make sense that helping such people would, ultimately, help our economy than just cutting government programs?

My call is to please realize that, whatever your feelings about government programs and about those who use them, is that ANYONE can find himself/herself in circumstances where you would be forced to use one or more of those programs, even long-term. If you are a taxpayer and you are employed, especially at a career that you love, thank God for His goodness to you and realize that that all citizens are valuable and precious to God, even those who are not in the position to pay taxes.
And please focus on protecting those who need it, not those who do not need it. I know that we are deeply divided about this matter, among others. But it is not necessarily about good vs. evil but is more often about different visions and philosophies and refusing to set aside differences. We all need to find common ground and set aside our differences for the greater good of all, especially the vulnerable who are not in the position to make further sacrfices than they are already making.

Who Are We Concerned About Protecting?

     This morning, I was stuck by a photo post that listed the salaries of some of the CEO's of top health insurance companies. These CEO's are not only millionaires but multimillionaires and billionaires. I posted this photo on my page and on all three of my pages and I do not seed that I got one "like" or comment on this post. What I don't understand is the lack of outrage. I feel both sad and angry that people, both online in my social networks and offline, especially in my church family, seem to feel that the very real and often devastating issues surrounding so many in our culture are somehow secondary to what they seem to perceive as "getting out of office" a President that they resent and hate and whom they would like to see fail.
     Now I am not putting down wealth or the right to get rich, as long as it is done by ethical means and the wealthy use some of their resources to support and assist those in need. And many already do and are to be commended for it. But guess what? These wealthy philanthropers, like Bill Gates, are calling for an end to tax breaks for the wealthy, realizing that our ailing economy needs extra revenues from their taxes far more than they do. And also, our President has also gone on record as saying that he does not need any tax breaks. I know that there are so many people who are worried that tax revenues from increased taxes on the wealthy, would "trickle down" to rest of us as these same "super-wealthy" are the "job creators." Really? If that was the case, then why has unemployment so dramatically risen even as these "job creators" were getting their tax breaks? Where were the jobs that supposedly were supposed to produce that "trickle down" effect? I may be missing something her (but I don't think so), but I have not seen these effects of these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires "trickle down" to the rest of us. And please do not write me off as someone who has "class envy" or begrudges the wealthy their wealth. For I know that if there were not people in the position to provide substantial help to those in need (and this would include many people in positions of wealth or influence), so many charities would not be able to serve those in need and so many of our congregations would not be doing well. And I know that it will be a few such individuals, when I am able to come to their attention, who will be the ones who can help my petition, on behalf of the autism community, really take off!
    What really saddens as well as angers me is the resentment, prejudice and even vitriol so many people, in certain social circles in my life and among so many in my social networks, have shown toward those who use "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and certainly need-based programs such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income). I know that so many have expressed concerns and (and in some cases this concern is valid), that people are abusing the system and using these programs to avoid having to work and paty their way through life. I know that many are deeply concerned about this matter. I'm not pooh-pooing the concerns of those who feel this way about the use of government programs. I'm saddended that so many seem to think that using these programs is somehow the "ticket" to the "good life" and that some people "on welfare" are living "better lives," of more material prosperity, than taxpayers. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the use of any of these government programs is not the ticket to lives of material prosperity. It's the live of living on a fixed income, getting just enough for bare necessities, and living with the ongoing stigma of knowing that so many others are stereotyping you as someone who does not want to work and have chosen to "live off society." And I think the resentment and stereotypes of those who use government programs is why so many are supporting the package of spending cuts proposed by the Paul Ryan Plan AND not supporting the call to end tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. This is sad.
     I fear that I risk offending those in my social networks and in my "real life," who are among those who are wealthy. I don't envy your wealth and I don't want to cause you "undue hardship" or bring an end to your prosperity. And if you are using your resources to help those in need (and not just material, but time also), I commend you heartily. But I hope and pray that you will realize the facts about those who are not as blessed as you are and who are in life circumstances where they DO need to use government programs. And I hope and pray that you will see that increased tax revenues from your incoimes will only pay for itself many times over, especially if your $$$ are used to help balance our national budget. We only want you to pay as much PROPORTIONATLY in taxes as the middle-class do. Isn't this fair?
     I don't argue that spending cuts need to be made and that there is much government waste. I'm concerned (as are so many others) that the needed $$$ to balance the budget will be made off the backs off the most vulnerable people in our society and will be taken from services that serve us and keep us safer. We are hearing more and more about lay-offs of public school teachers in some states and about cuts to law enforcement. These are just two examples of services that are vital to all of us! And our government is seeking to cut such services instead of asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes! The argument for millionaires and billionaires paying taxes is that our economy needs it and they can afford to spare $$$ to help meet this need. Now, I understand that no one is going to like the idea of paying extra taxes and that paying more taxes means less money for the taxpayer. But when the taxpayer is a millionaires or a billionaire, isn't it only fair that they pay as much, percentagewise, as so many others who make far less, already do? Middle-class workers typically pay up to 40 percent in taxes, while the wealthy pay only around 15 percent out of much bigger incomes. How can anyone claim that this is fair? This is a call for justice, not welfare.
     As for spending cuts on the backs of vulnerable people who use government programs, such as the poor, those with disabilities, senior citizens, and others, why are there so many who seem okay with asking those in these people groups to make further sacrifices beyond what so many already make just to survive? So many younger people who use these programs, would much rather work than undergo the stigma of "living on the public dole," knowing that they are looked down on and stereotyped by so many in society. Many have disabilities or differences which employers can't/won't accommodate. This is one HUGE reason I have begun a petition on behalf of the most unemployed people group (at least in the US), those with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). While people are calling for spending cuts to even entitlement programs, how are people who use these programs supposed to survive? "Go get a job!" seems to be the easy answer to such an issue, but this thinking does not take into consideration that many such people do not have the job skills, social skills or even the transportation, to seek employment. So before you say that people should "Go out and get a job!" please realize that many people with true needs and disabilities are unable to do that, as much as they want to. So many of such individuals use the mental health system, or are homeless or are in jail or prison because of unmet needs. Does it not make sense that helping such people would, ultimately, help our economy than just cutting government programs?
     My call is to please realize that, whatever your feelings about government programs and about those who use them, is that ANYONE can find himself/herself in circumstances where you would be forced to use one or more of those programs, even long-term. If you are a taxpayer and you are employed, especially at a career that you love, thank God for His goodness to you and realize that that all citizens are valuable and precious to God, even those who are not in the position to pay taxes.
     And please focus on protecting those who need it, not those who do not need it.
    
    

About Government Programs

          The other day I was scrolling through my homepage when a post caught my eye. The poster declared, "So I'm supposed to be outraged at what Mitt Romney does with HIS money? What about what President Obama does with MY tax dollars?" And underneath this poster, four people had hit the "like" button to signal their approval of this poster's sentiment.
          Many months ago, I logged into Facebook one morning and an obviously angry, bitter post jumped out at me. The Facebook user posted with all capital letters, lashing out viciously at "welfare bums" who "live the good life on my tax dollars." This user let her subjects have it with her vitriolic rant. The user finished savagely: "AND YOU CAN GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I HAVE MY NOODLES!"
          One Facebook user who has been in my social network for a long time, makes no secret of her political leanings and has made clear her resentment for people who use government assistance. One day, I was logged into Facebook and was scrolling through my homepage. One of this user's posts jumped out at me. This user's status went something like: " People who depend on Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid, or other welfare programs are sponging off MY taxes. Mr. President, I'm sick and tired of the way you spend MY tax $$$ to spread the wealth! One day the free ride will end and these welfare bums will have to get out and work!"
          Years ago, when our Missouri Governor Matt Blunt rose to power, he made a package of deep and painful cuts to the Missouri Medicaid program. When he left office, I got involved in circulating a petition to restore Medicaid to its original state, ending those cuts. A good number of people signed the petition but I was struck by the responses of those who would not sign. I circulated the petition at our local church where we were attending at the time. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, declaring: "Sorry but I will not sign this. I hate to punish the children for the sins of the parents but I have seen adults pull out the EBT cards and use them to get alcohol." I approached another person twice and the second time, I was told, "Sorry, I am not signing. I just don't don't believe I'm informed enough about this." One more person I approached said, "No I'm not signing. I agree with some of those cuts." One fellow parishioner simply said, "I'm not interested."
          Over and over, in looking at my Facebook homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like: "Whatever you think of my views, I hope you will have the courage to agree with this: We are in favor of those who apply for public assistance having to submit to drug-testing. Why should our tax dollars have to go to drug addicts who won't work? Those of us who work and earn our money have to submit to drug testing; what about those who want government benefits for nothing?" Every time someone reposts this status, other Facebook users hit the "like" button underneath this post to signal their approval of this status.
          Not long ago, a certain politician, meaning his words as no compliment to President Obama, declared with a measure of contempt, "Our current President is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
          A few months ago, in Washingtom and in Congress, politicians were battling over the national budget and over the whether or not to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And a politician, clearly fed up with this debate, stated: "I think we need to give the poor something. No argument with that. We need to give them the opportunity to pay their way and to know the dignity of personal responsibilty through requring them to get out and work."
          Years ago, I liked a certain ultraconservative talk show host and listened to his radio talk show for a time. I agreed with his sentiments on a number of issues though I thought he bullied those he didn't agree with. One day, though, my opinions on his bullying were confirmed when he ranted about "those welfare bums." This talk show host ranted, "It's high time for these poor, welfare bums to start paying their fair share! It's called paying taxes, people! I say we need to end the free ride once and for all!" Angrily, I turned the radio off.
           One day, I got on Facebook to circulate an online petition calling for President Obama to fight all efforts to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I posted the petition on a certain Facebook fan page. This proved to be an apparent mistake. Checking my Facebook notifications, I could see that I got prompt comments on the petition. To sum up the comments, Facebook users on that page declared that users of "the big three" were often among the "undeserving poor" who live lives of fiscal irresponsibility, who seek a free ride in life and are social parasites who use the system to their own ends.
           More recently, I scrolled through my homepage one day and saw several Facebook users post an article about one wealthy couple, who collected Food Stamps yet who nevertheless enjoyed hugely extravagant, lavish lifestyles of travel and leisure.
          Years ago, I read an article that fully echoed my sentiments about the hypocritical mind-set that applauds the virtues of stay-at-home mothers, while at the same time despising and trashing as "welfare bums" those moms who use the Temorary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF and was once called Aid to Dependent Children), to stay at home with their children. That article was called, "We Value At-Home Moms Unless They are Poor." About that time, one person said to me and others, "If these moms can't afford to drive they can take their kids with them on the bus and go to work."
          Many years ago, I was viewing a talk show. When it was one troubled guest's time to present her needs, the guest psychologist who was advising her on her situation said something that has stuck in my mind to this day. This woman snapped at the person, "And MY tax dollars will NOT be going to subsidize you staying at home and doing nothing!"
          Currently, I have been a frequent visitor to this one website for a nonprofit organization that awards grants to individuals who have short-term, one-time financial needs which can't be met anywhere else. In taking note of the anonymous applicationsthat are posted, I have noticed a trend. At this website, donors get to recommend the applications that they would like to see get funded first. It seems that the applications that are prioritized by the nonprofit, that get most recommended by donors for faster funding and therefore tend to get funded fastest, are the ones placed by employed applicants. The applicants who are listed as using government assistance seem to get fewer donor recommendations for funding and seem to take more time getting funded.
          All these examples and many, many more, only underscore how those who use government programs as their source of income are perceived by society. Yes, I know that this one blog isn't going to make any dent in changing how many people see government programs and those who use them. The resentment is too deep-seated and widespread for that. It's just that I'm seeing so much of this resentment that amounts almost to behaving like people actually get rich using the programs and use the programs as a ticket to "the good life."
          Now I'm fully aware, as much as anyone, that there are people who abuse the system and government assistance, just as there are people who will abuse any good or service. This is why the use of these government programs, especially means-tested, need-based programs, come with a set of strict rules for screening, benefits and carry strict penalties if these terms are found to be violated. Persons who "use the system" for their own ends and are caught only increase the stigma of using these programs for all other users. Lazy people who are unwilling to work have always been with us. That's why the Bible says, "If a man will not work, let him not have the right to eat."
          Here's what everyone needs to know about Social Security and Medicare. These two programs are "entitlement" programs for all those age 65 and over where they draw off their own work records or off the work record of a spouse. These programs are a "safety net" for senior citizens when they retire. These "entitlement programs" are unlike the more stigmatizing programs where users must must follow many more rules to become eligible for these programs and to remain eligible and where they must be periodically "reviewed." Survivor's Benefits and the Veteran's Administration (VA) are also "entitlement programs with little stigma.
           Social Security Disability (SSD) is also an "entitlement program" for people whose disabilities are documented as ones that render them unable to get and keep a job. People who use SSD are also covered under Medicare. Use of this program comes with period reviews that are meant to prove that the user is still disabled." This program carries more stigma than Social Security for seniors as it's for younger people under 65. SSD is incredibly difficult to be approved for and calls for much paperwork and standard procedures to be followed. Attempts to get and keep employment can endanger SSD benefits and signal that the user "can work and therefore is not disabled."
          Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is needs-based and for people who are documented as living below the poverty level and/or have a documented disability. These things hold true for the federal Food Stamp program and Medicaid, which is administered by each of the 50 states. WIC (Women, Infants and Children) covers children age 5 and under and who are born to moms using the TANF program.These government programs carry the most stigma of all, came attached with many rules to follow for eligibility and can change at any time. Users must be "reviewed" on a regular basis. These are programs no one wants to need but they serve as lifesavers if needed to survive.
          I know that many people are fortunate enough to be in life circumstances where they have never had to use any government programs and have the $$$ to not need them, whatever their circumstances. I would not wish them to need these programs. However, we never know what life will hold for us and if we will need any of these programs at any given time. People who trash "welfare bums" and the users of needs-based programs do not realize that any of us at any time can find ourselves in situations where we may be compelled to use these needs-based programs or even so-called entitlements like SSD or Survivor's Benefits. And if we US citizens are blessed enough to live to turn age 65, we will use Social Security and Medicare.
          Despite the stories of wealthy people who collect government programs and others who apply for benefits under false pretenses, these are exceptions, not the rule. We ought not to make our judgments on anything based on exceptions. The overwhelming majority of people who use entitlements like SSD or means-tested programs like SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid and others, do not get wealthy on these programs. Not by any means! People who use these programs do so just to survive and benefits cover bare needs and not frills or extras. There is little to no incentive to save $$$ as there is often not enough money for the entire month. And married people who use these programs get penalized which reflects the value, or lack of it, that the US government places on marriage. Most users would much rather, if they had the choice, be gainfully employed instead of using these programs. Also, we must never forget that these programs keep many people from life in the streets who would other wise be homeless. Medicare and even Medicaid reduce the number of uninsured people who add to ever-rising healthcare costs.
          And now our US government wants to make cuts to these programs, not only to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also to all the needs-based programs. All in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the deficit! Even Catholic Bishops are taking note of the current debate and are decrying these proposed cuts as immoral and inhumane.
          If you are among those who tend to feel contempt for those who use government assistance and especially the needs-based variety, remember that you or a loved one may one day find yourselves in circumstances where you need such assistance.