some bureaucrat may determine the usage of drugs and devices on a person according to the bureaucrat’s determination. Understand that this also passed the Republicans in the house if it was signed by Zero as stated. Let that sink in a moment, then watch. What are the real odds these individuals will remove the government healthcare mandates when they provided Zero with this?
I’m reminded of a Republican governor here in Texas who wanted to mandate all females be vaccinated with Guardacil, even when death was noted with the product. Somehow I believe that death of a recipient is greater than minimal risk. We were basically told our opinions regarding the history of this medication were not permitted. Eventually that proposed mandate was removed and the medication is still available with females in my office providing it to their daughters. There is no way I would do so. Two things: the vaccination risk is too great. The need for the vaccine is predicated on the presumption of behavior. Providing this vaccine is acknowledging that the recipient (my child) is going to participate in sex with partners exposing her to the virus. How much risk is there in a monogamous relationship? If I have had sex only with my marriage partner and my spouse the same, there is no risk. Period. The usage of this is related to behavior and I have heard the argument about there will always be some who do it. Personally, I see this argument as a whitewash for the propaganda of promoting sexuality – free sex. The message presented is, “we know you’re going to do it,” not, “this is something reserved for a marriage and problems will result if you don’t adhere to that limitation.” Hearing the “we know you’re going to do it,” simply plants the concept in the mind that they are expected to adopt those behaviors. The result is that the teenagers (and younger ones now) are doing just what they are trained to do resulting in the expansion of a society not controlled by the foundation of family, but rather by the application of bureaucracy.
Control in the 1800’s was exhibited in farming communities by the land owner over those who were purchased and forced to provide their labor for the production of crops. We all know the name for that societal formulation. It becomes a bit more subtle when applied by present day bureaucrats with the ostensible deniability that the person “applied” for benefits. After all, it was their choice to apply. Planned Parenthood allows themselves the white-wash of good works when they supply birth control pills. Actually, they are setting up a scenario whereby the recipients are provided a level of comfort to participate in an activity reserved for marriage and when the natural result happens, then provides a recipient of Planned Parenthood’s actual practice from which they obtain profit. Former welfare allotments kept the allure of help when actually, they were vehicles of government control. This law takes control out of the theoretical and places it squarely in a bureaucrat’s hands meaning we no longer have the option to apply for whatever carrots they are providing. We are subject to the bureaucrat’s whim. How is that anything but the word describing an 1800’s plantation operation?