Remember the good old days when the biggest worries you had when you became ill centered on such questions as: “Will I get better?” and “When will I get better?” The Internationalists have determined that it is not enough merely to worry about getting sick — you should also be left wondering whether the outbreak of an illness may be exploited to reduce your nation’s resistance to suspension of its constitutional liberties, and even the rule of law.

A report at TheFluCase.com (“WHO publishes plans to take over the whole of society in pandemic emergency”) might sound bizarre, but an actual examination of the guidelines reveals some quite frightening recommendations in the World Health Organization’s document. (The May 2009 draft of the “Whole-of-Society Pandemic Readiness” document may be downloaded here; the July 2009 version is available here.)

At the outset of the guidelines, it is made clear that the fundamental concern in play throughout these guidelines is not the mitigation of disease, but the preparation of the whole of society for continuing to function during a pandemic:

President Obama’s plans to dramatically reform healthcare in America passed the House of Representatives in an extremely close vote, despite the fact that it is increasingly unpopular with the American people. Now it is the Senate’s turn. The going should be much tougher in this body, for several reasons.

The procedural rules of the House and of the Senate are dramatically different. The Speaker of the House is, perhaps, the second most powerful position under our constitutional system. The procedural control which that officer has, in conjunction with the power that any majority party has in the House of Representatives, makes it hard for the opposition political party to slow down the majority party. 

The rules of the Senate are much different. For most of our nation’s history, debate in the Senate was virtually unlimited. One single Senator, provided that he held the floor, could continue debate on any measure before the Senate virtually indefinitely. If several Senators operated in collaboration, legislation could virtually be stopped forever. Later the Senate adopted rules of cloture, requiring initially three-quarters of the Senate to invoke cloture, a supermajority that has been reduced over time to the current three-fifths majority.

As the health care reform bill heads for the Senate amid gleeful cheers by Madame Speaker Pelosi, many observers see the Stupak Amendment — it upholds current abortion funding laws, but does not allow expansion of them in the new health care reform bill — as something that could break any easy passage of the bill.

The Stupak Amendment passed in the House 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats voting in favor — the House hasn’t seen this amount of bipartisan cooperation throughout the entire health care bill debate. The Amendment prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option and prevents private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies. There are exceptions, “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

The Amendment does not make abortion illegal; it does not block the federal government from subsidizing abortions. It preserves the status quo. Those who want abortion coverage would have to purchase such coverage with their own money, not taxpayers'.