It’s no secret there are passionate people on both sides of the abortion issue. Pro-life activists believe it is their mission to preserve life in the womb. Pro-abortion people believe it is a women’s “right to choose” abortion rather than life. But recently it seems that there is a nationwide campaign by some state governments to take away a women’s right to choose if they choose life.

Sierra Dawn McClain, writing in The Wall Street Journal, tells us, “Politicians and attorneys general in states run by Democrats have been on a crusade to make life miserable for pregnancy resource centers, and the campaign has picked up since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022. This has included harassing them with legal action and trying to discredit their work.”

Pregnancy resource centers provide women facing unplanned pregnancies with free and low-cost support such as counseling on alternatives to abortion, parenting education, medical referrals and material goods. These centers in 2022 provided clients across the U.S. with services valued at more than $367 million, including more than 500,000 free ultrasounds, 3.5 million packs of diapers and 43,000 car seats according to McClain.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a faith-based New Jersey nonprofit. First Choice has supported more than 36,000 women facing unplanned pregnancies since 1985 and doesn’t charge for its services. Yet rather than praise the nonprofit, New Jersey officials are harassing it because of its pro-life stance. Democratic Attorney General Matt Platkin last November issued a subpoena demanding that it turn over a broad range of documents. He did so under the pretense of conducting a civil investigation into possible violations of state laws and regulations, but attorneys representing First Choice wrote in a court filing challenging the subpoena that Mr. Platkin “has never cited any complaint or other substantive evidence of wrongdoing to justify his demands.”

The attorney general’s order requires First Choice to dig up and hand over documents going back 10 years, including personal information about employees, volunteers, affiliates and donations. “Collecting that information would be completely overwhelming,” Aimee Huber, First Choice’s executive director, said in an interview. “It would take multiple hours per day and take us away from our mission of serving women.” Ms. Huber is also concerned that the information could be used to badger and intimidate the nonprofit’s pro-life supporters.

A core plank of Mr. Platkin’s investigation is the assertion that First Choice may be misleading the public and thus violating consumer-fraud law. This isn’t the first time he has made such a claim about pregnancy resource centers. Mr. Platkin and the attorneys general of 14 other mostly blue states and the District of Columbia laid out this theory in an open letter in October 2023. They claim that pregnancy centers set up shop near health clinics, use deceptive tactics to lure in women seeking abortions, then give them misleading information about the procedure to trick them into carrying their babies to term.

McClain says, “It’s no secret that pregnancy resource centers are pro-life and that they inform their clients about the potential negative physical and mental health effects of abortion. It’s also well known that these nonprofits consider it a win—for the mother and her child—when she chooses not to have an abortion. First Choice states on its website and in conversations with clients that it doesn’t provide or refer for abortions. Yet Mr. Platkin’s consumer-fraud argument is one piece of a broad smear campaign. In December 2022 his office issued a consumer alert warning the public to be wary of the centers, which “seek to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care.”

This is not an isolated effort by the attorney general. Emails obtained through a public-records request show that the attorney general’s office asked Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, to preview and edit the draft consumer alert before it was issued—a clear conflict of interest. In addition to slamming pregnancy centers, the consumer alert urged women seeking abortions to check out Planned Parenthood’s website. The attorney general’s office and Planned Parenthood declined to comment on their collaboration.

It is clear from this situation that those who claim they are “pro-choice” only want women to have a choice if they choose abortion.

Medicaid keeps on growing like kudzu vine in a forest. Kudzu grows like a wildfire out of control and the Biden government has no interest in stopping it. They actually want it to take over everything.

This process began with the Affordable Care Act of 2010, better known as ObamaCare, which the Obama Administration pushed through Congress without a single Republican vote. Medicaid eligibility was originally defined by the federal government as 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for pregnant women and children six years and under, 100% of FPL for children seven to eighteen, 75% of FPL for the elderly and disabled and 25% of FPL for working parents. Childless adults were ineligible. Individual states could increase these levels but could not decrease them.

ObamaCare changed all that by establishing one federal definition of eligibility at 133% of FPL. It also enticed states to increase their Medicaid rolls by offering to increase the federal subsidy from a then current average of 57% of the costs to 100% of the costs for “newly eligible” people in 2014 for three years. Thereafter the subsidies would gradually decline to 90% in 2020, but none beyond that. Many states were sucked in by this incentive only to have buyer’s remorse when the rolls of their Medicaid population ballooned past expectations and they were left with huge debts in their state’s budgets. But the federal government was only too delighted to have more people on the rolls of Medicaid.

Then the Covid pandemic hit in 2020. This gave the new Biden Administration just the excuse they needed in 2021 to expand the rolls of Medicaid further. They extended the temporary expanded eligibility guidelines of the Trump Administration well beyond the pandemic crisis to allow millions of Americans to enroll in Medicaid who did not meet the economic eligibility guidelines.

Fast forward to today and now we see the Biden, or should I say Harris, Administration going further in their quest to expand Medicaid. Here is how the Wall Street Journal editorial board described it: “Kamala Harris this week praised North Carolina’s new plan to wipe out medical debt. What the Vice President didn’t say is that the Biden Administration is making taxpayers in the rest of America pay for it. Behold how the Administration is turning Medicaid into an entitlement for progressive policies far beyond healthcare for the poor.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week approved North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s plan to increase federal Medicaid reimbursements for hospitals that agree to forgive medical debt and discount future bills for low- and middle-income patients. Urging other states to follow, Ms. Harris promised to continue “to relieve the burden of medical debt.”

This could be an expensive proposition. Americans owe more than $220 billion in medical debt, though perhaps Ms. Harris considers it a pittance relative to the more than $800 billion in student debt the Administration has written down. Enter Mr. Cooper, who is dangling more Medicaid money for hospitals that waive debt accrued over the last decade by patients earning less than 350% of the poverty line—$109,200 for a family of four—or whose unpaid bills exceed 5% of their annual income. Hospitals will also have to provide large discounts for patients earning less than 300% of the poverty line.

Larger federal Medicaid payments would exceed the amount of potential debt relief. But this may still be a Faustian bargain for hospitals since debt relief could cause patients to skip out on future bills. Reducing patient payments for emergency visits could also spur more to go without insurance, resulting in more uncompensated care.

Why is this government so eager to enroll more Americans in Medicaid?

This is all about expanding the welfare state to make more Americans dependent on the government. It is one more step toward socialized medicine, the complete government control of your healthcare. Don’t be fooled! When they are in complete control of your healthcare, they are in complete control of who gets treatment and who does not.

The fate of our medical system in the future lies in the hands of medical students being trained today. Unfortunately, there is cause for alarm when examining the training and medical ethics of our current batch of medical students.

The evidence for this concern comes from many sources I have written about in the past.     (See Woke Medical Education, Woke Medical Education Update, Woke Medical Education Update 2024.) These posts mostly concerned training and speculated on the impact of such training. But now we have a real-life example of how this trend is influencing our world today.

Dr. Travis J. Morrell is an Ob-Gyn physician practicing in Grand Junction, Colorado. In an Op-ed entitled Ideology in Medical School Threatens Everyone’s Health, he tells us what happened in his state when he tried to protect children from radical transgender ideology. Here is his story: “Beware the rising generation of physicians. In June, an army of medical students defeated my attempt to protect children from radical transgender ideology. My fellow physicians in the Colorado Medical Society overwhelmingly stood with me in defense of basic medical ethics and evidence, yet students from Colorado’s premier medical school overruled us. Americans should worry that when today’s trainees become tomorrow’s doctors, they’ll put political activism ahead of patient health.”

Dr. Morrell filed a resolution with the Colorado Medical Society in March which was intended to protect children from transgender medical interventions that can ruin healthy sexual function and damage reproductive ability, potentially leading to a lifetime of physical and mental ailments. He built his resolution around the Colorado Medical Society’s existing policy on female genital mutilation. Passed in 1998 and reaffirmed in 2014, that policy opposes the practice, which is also a federal crime. Yet transgender surgeries often involve mutilation, which activists deem medically necessary. Earlier treatments, such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, are typically prescribed in preparation for mutilating surgeries on teenagers.

Dr, Morrel tells us what happened: “Under Colorado Medical Society rules, my resolution came before the general membership in mid-May. My fellow physicians were given four weeks to vote, and within days passage looked likely. After more than three weeks, more than 60% of participating physicians supported the resolution. But by June 12—the day before voting ended—the tide had dramatically turned, thanks to a sudden influx of votes by medical students.

At first, I didn’t understand why so many medical students chimed in, but a website called the Publica has since reported that Frank Merritt, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, emailed the student body shortly before the vote ended. “I don’t usually use this position for things like this,” Dr. Merritt’s email began. He then asked the medical students to vote against my resolution. He told the students that all of them are “automatically members of the Colorado Medical Society, though I imagine most of you have not registered accounts.” He provided instructions for registering and implored them to act fast as voting was closing soon.

The army of medical students swung into action. More than 150 voted against my resolution, with the final vote being about 75% opposed. Six medical students voted in favor—an act of bravery considering their names were made visible to other society members, including fellow students, during the voting process. Following the vote, on June 14, the Colorado Medical Society’s board formally rejected my resolution. It’s possible the board would have made the same move had the resolution passed, but it would have been much harder to justify.”

This real-world example of the impact of woke medical education has frightening ramifications for our country’s medical future. Combine this with the increasing call for socialized medicine like Medicare for All and our medical future is indeed alarming.