Democrats fund raise off of the tragedy of a gay man having HIV! How low can Dems go?

We’re Filled with PRIDE (Equality Democrats)  in a September 27th, 2019  email titled “we’re sending Jonathan Van Ness a card (will you sign??)” state:

Rich, our hearts are FILLED with pride — Queer Eye’s Jonathan Van Ness came out as HIV positive:

2O,OOO Equality Democrats Needed: Sign the Card to Thank Jonathan Van Ness for his bravery >>

SIGN THE CARD TO THANK JONATHAN VAN NESS →


We know about 1.1 MILLION people in the U.S. are living with HIV.

We know research shows more than 38,000 were diagnosed in 2017.

And we know Trump wants to SILENCE them all!

But LGBT+ icon Jonathan Van Ness is bravely sharing his story with the WORLD. We could not be more proud!!

He has opened up about his experiences with sexual assault, sex work, and addiction in hopes to shed light on these traumas, which are far too common in the LGBT+ community.

Through the ups and downs of his own life, he is working to destigmatize HIV and the realities of being an LGBT+ American.

Jonathan Van Ness is nothing short of I-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E!!!

So we’re sending him a card to say THANK YOU for everything he is doing for LGBT+ rights and true Equality.
Don’t miss your chance to express your gratitude. Sign the card to Jonathan Van Ness below >>

SIGN THE CARD TO THANK JONATHAN VAN NESS →

https://go.fightforequality.org/Thank-JVN

-Equality Democrats

When you click on the SIGN THE CARD TO THANK JOHATHAN VAN NESS it takes you to an Equality Democrats page where there is a form (below). The Equality Democrats ask for personal information and at the end ask for a donation:

LGBT+ icon Jonathan Van Ness is bravely sharing his HIV story with the WORLD. We could not be more proud!!

Sign the card to tell him THANK YOU right now:

VIDEO EXPOSE: The Secret History of Kinsey’s Pedophiles

EDITORS NOTE: There is a global movement to mainstream pedophilia. This effort has the goal of re-branding pedophiles as “minor attracted persons.” Pedophiles are attempting to join the LGBTQ movement.


The following videos are a Yorkshire Television production for Channel 4, produced and directed by Tim Tate, aired August 10, 1998. The show features interviews with Kinsey team members Paul Gebhard and Clarence Tripp, Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft and several of Kinsey’s biographers.

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3:

PART 4:

PART 5:

PART 6:

ABOUT YORKSHIRE TELEVISION

ITV Yorkshire, previously known as Yorkshire Television or YTV is the British television service provided by ITV Broadcasting Limited for the Yorkshire franchise area on the ITV network.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Ball-Waxing Controversy Is an Omen for America

Democrats and Hollywood Mainstreaming Pedophilia

A Primary Goal of Leftists is to Lower the Age of Consent for Sex — Pedophilia in Mexico, the Middle East & the European Union

Latest on Scientist who Mainstreamed Pedophilia by Bob Unrah

Pedophiles Believe They Should Be A Part Of The LGBT Community

RELATED VIDEO: They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!

Should We Panic over the Measles Outbreaks?

In general, it is not a good idea to panic about anything. The panic itself often causes more harm than the original threat.

Crisis situations, real or contrived, lead to new intrusive laws that the public would never accept otherwise. We supposedly cherish freedom, but if we believe that the world will end if we don’t act NOW, then we may clamor for the government to save us. Cynical politicians bent on increasing their power never let a crisis go to waste.

Something like the Green New Deal—the end of our comfortable, prosperous lifestyle—takes a truly apocalyptic threat. But to eliminate our freedom to decline a medical treatment, the threat that “millions will die” of measles is evidently enough. Or if not millions (most older people had measles and recovered fully), a few especially vulnerable children, who can’t be vaccinated themselves, might catch measles and die.

There are several hundred cases of measles nationwide, more than in 2014, and bills are being pushed through state legislatures to eliminate all but very narrow exemptions to the 60 shots now mandated for school attendance.

In New York City, people are receiving summonses based on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s emergency order. Everybody, adult or child, who lives in four ZIP code areas must get an MMR shot or prove immunity, or face the prospect of a $1,000 fine ($2,000 if you don’t appear as ordered). Your religious exemption is overridden. The threat of 6 months in prison and the prospect of forcible vaccination were removed before a hearing on a lawsuit brought by five mothers. The judge dismissed the case.

Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot said that the purpose of the fines is not to punish but to encourage more people to proclaim the message that vaccines are safe and effective. Get it? If you say something to avoid a fine, that makes it true.

It’s about the need for herd immunity, they say. We need a 95 percent vaccination rate for herd immunity to measles. With only 91 percent or so we are having outbreaks! If we could just vaccinate another 4 or 5 percent!

Mayor De Blasio has a point about vaccinating everyone. Adults are getting measles because their shots have worn off. It is likely that we have survived for decades with a large part of the adult population vaccinated—but not immune. So where do the mandates stop?

Outbreaks have occurred in populations with a near-100 percent vaccination rate. Was it vaccine failure? Or was the vaccine not refrigerated properly? Or was a claimed outbreak real? One in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was called off when a special test, a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) showed a vaccine-strain measles virus rather than a wild-strain measles virus. Some 5 percent of vaccinees may get an illness that looks like measles, but it is just a “vaccine reaction.” Can they shed live virus? Yes. Should you keep your immunocompromised child away from recently vaccinated people? Just asking.

Like all medical treatments, vaccines are neither 100 percent effective, nor 100 percent safe. Read the FDA-required, FDA-approved package inserts. Arizona defeated a law that would have required making these available to parents in obtaining informed consent. (You can get them on the internet.) Vaccine Court has paid out about $4 billion in damages—recently for two children with severe brain damage from encephalopathy (that’s brain inflammation) after a fight lasting about 15 years. Just incidentally, they had an autism diagnosis also. Parents bring their severely injured children to hearings. You won’t see these children on tv, only pictures of babies with measles. No “fear-mongering” allowed about “rare,” possibly coincidental problems from vaccines.

There are trade-offs with vaccines: risks and benefits. But in the panic about measles, the right to give or withhold informed consent—fundamental in medical ethics as well as U.S. and international law—is being sacrificed. And so is free speech. The AMA wants to censor “anti-vaccine” information on social media. I happened on a factual article by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, but was not able to retweet it because it had been removed.

The threat of infectious diseases is real and increasing. We need more robust public health measures, better vaccines, and improved public knowledge and awareness. Deploying vaccine police and shutting down debate will erode trust in health authorities and physicians, although more people may get their shots. But such heavy-handed measures will not defeat the enemy—measles and worse diseases.

Things You Should Know about Dental and Orthodontic Insurance

Dental and orthodontic care doesn’t automatically come in health insurance plans. Typically, you’ll only be covered with this type of care if you add or purchase it separately from your health insurance. Thus, if you want to get a first-rate dental and orthodontic insurance, you should know the things on how to get the best buy.

Of course, looking for the most suitable insurance provider that offers dental and orthodontic care is an excellent start for you to save money. But it’s also essential to consider that such insurance may have different coverages for different age brackets. Here’s an article that will help you if you’re looking for an excellent dental and orthodontic insurance.

Dental Insurance with Orthodontic Coverage

A dental health plan that comes with orthodontic care provides you with several benefits. A lot of adults need orthodontic care to correct dental problems that may only occur at their age. Sometimes it happens that the teeth of an adult shift over time, thus requiring a new orthodontic treatment.

It may be that the person needs a new set of braces or a retainer. Nowadays, adults often get Hawley retainers to correct minor orthodontic problems or to maintain the new position of teeth after the removal of the braces.

What Are the [Pros and Cons] of Hawley Retainer? Well, this type of dental retainer allows you to remove it when you have to clean your teeth. It’s also durable and, when it breaks, it’s easy to repair.

Orthodontic Insurance is Not Only for Kids

Some people think that an orthodontic insurance plan only covers services for kids. But, nowadays, there’s orthodontic insurance that includes services for both young and adult. So if you have problems with your teeth, you can now shop around for the most suitable supplemental orthodontic plan for yourself.

Take a Look at Your Present Health Plan Coverage

The best way to start your quest for the best orthodontic insurance is to take a look at your present health plan. You can review your individual or employer-sponsored dental insurance to determine if it covers orthodontic care and services.

If you’re not currently employed or don’t have any health-related insurance, it’s high time that you look for dental and orthodontic insurance options that will fit your budget and needs.

Dental Discount Plan

There are options provided for you when you get a dental health plan. For instance, you can choose to have a dental insurance plan or just a discount plan first. Having a discount plan will enable you to get discounts in every dental checkup or orthodontic service.

However, discount plans typically restrict you to certain dentists or orthodontists who would accept such plans.

There are four other areas of a dental insurance plan. Depending on your preference, you can choose premiums, deductibles, co-pays, or exclusions for your insurance. It’s crucial to understand, however, that low premiums don’t always mean the best plan for you. It’s because every insurance providers have different insurance policies.

Places That Can Help You Find Dental Insurance

In looking for dental insurance, you can visit dental and orthodontic clinics and ask if they can recommend insurance providers. You can also ask for help from insurance agents and brokers or do your search at The National Association of Dental Plans to look for the best dental insurance options for yourself.

Takeaway

It’s essential that you get dental and orthodontic insurance. This type of insurance will help you cover the expenses for your dental checkups, treatment, and operations. However, before you apply for dental and orthodontic plans, it’s essential that you know how to get the best insurance for you. The information contained in this article is a big help for that purpose.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: New Film “Unplanned” Tells The True Story of Abortion

In March 2018 I wrote a column titled “The Goal is to ‘Make Abortion Unthinkable’.” I wrote:

I attended the Sarasota Medical Pregnancy Center gala dinner on March 22nd, 2018. The featured speaker was Abby Johnson. Abby is the mother of seven children, one of which was adopted. She is a born again Christian. Abby is the author of two books. Her books are The Walls Are Talking and unPlanned.

Well Abby’s book unPlanned is now a feature film titled UNPLANNED. The film’s website states:

Unplanned is the inspiring true story of one woman’s journey of transformation.

All Abby Johnson ever wanted to do was help women. As one of the youngest Planned Parenthood clinic directors in the nation, she was involved in upwards of 22,000 abortions and counseled countless women about their reproductive choices. Her passion surrounding a woman’s right to choose even led her to become a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, fighting to enact legislation for the cause she so deeply believed in.

Until the day she saw something that changed everything, leading Abby Johnson to join her former enemies at 40 Days For Life, and become one of the most ardent pro-life speakers in America.

Here is a behind the scenes video of the making of UNPLANNED:

The below video interview with Ashley Bratcher, the lead actress in UNPLANNED, is compelling.

On September 26, 2009 Abby was asked to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. She stood by and watched in horror as a 13 week baby boy fought, and ultimately lost, his life at the hand of an abortionist. It was at that moment, as she stood there in silence and did nothing to save that baby boy, that she changed her life by becoming pro-life.

During her very personal testimony Abby struck me with the following statement about the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement:

The goal is not to make abortion illegal. That is a short term goal. The true goal is the make abortion unthinkable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Director Who Flipped Pro-Life After Seeing An Abortion Gets Her Own Film

I thought I was just starring in a movie, then my mom shocked me by telling me this secret

For One Actress, It Is a Wonderful Life

Cecile Richards Celebrates the “Sheer Joy” of Ireland Killing Babies in Free Abortions

Abortion Activist George Soros Named Person of the Year for “Defending Democracy”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of UNPLANNED – The Movie.

DEA REPORTS RECORD DEATHS FROM DRUG OVERDOSES: How a broken southern border allows narcotics to flood America.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) just published the 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment that provides an extensive analysis of the drug crisis in the United States.

Here are a few quick “takeaways” published in the report that paint a disconcerting picture:

  • In 1999 drug poisoning in the U.S. accounted for 16,849 deaths, while deaths from suicide, homicide, firearms and motor vehicles accounted for more deaths than did drug poisoning.
  • In 2009 deaths attributed to drug poisoning moved into first place with 37,004 such fatalities.
  • Since 2009 drug poisoning has accounted for more deaths than did the other causes of death, with a sharp upward trend in the number of such fatalities.  In 2013, 43,982 deaths were attributed to drug poisoning, in 2014 that number increased to 47,055, in 2015 the number jumped to 52,404 and in 2016 that number had skyrocketed to 63, 632 deaths.

Here are excerpts from the report that are of extreme importance:

Heroin: Heroin use and availability continue to increase in the United States. The occurrence of heroin mixed with fentanyl is also increasing. Mexico remains the primary source of heroin available in the United States according to all available sources of intelligence, including law enforcement investigations and scientific data. Further, significant increases in opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico allow Mexican TCOs to supply high-purity, low-cost heroin, even as U.S. demand has continued to increase.

Fentanyl and Other Synthetic Opioids: Illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids — primarily sourced from China and Mexico—are now the most lethal category of opioids used in the United States. Traffickers— wittingly or unwittingly— are increasingly selling fentanyl to users without mixing it with any other controlled substances and are also increasingly selling fentanyl in the form of counterfeit prescription pills. Fentanyl suppliers will continue to experiment with new fentanyl-related substances and adjust supplies in attempts to circumvent new regulations imposed by the United States, China, and Mexico.

Cocaine: Cocaine availability and use in the United States have rebounded, in large part due to the significant increases in coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia. As a result, past-year cocaine initiates and cocaine-involved overdose deaths are exceeding 2007 benchmark levels. Simultaneously, the increasing presence of fentanyl in the cocaine supply, likely related to the ongoing opioid crisis, is exacerbating the re-merging cocaine threat.

Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine remains prevalent and widely available, with most of the methamphetamine available in the United States being produced in Mexico and smuggled across the Southwest Border (SWB). Domestic production occurs at much lower levels than in Mexico, and seizures of domestic methamphetamine laboratories have declined steadily for many years.

Gangs: National and neighborhood-based street gangs and prison gangs continue to dominate the market for the street-sales and distribution of illicit drugs in their respective territories throughout the country. Struggle for control of these lucrative drug trafficking territories continues to be the largest factor fueling the street-gang violence facing local communities. Meanwhile, some street gangs are working in conjunction with rival gangs in order to increase their drug revenues, while individual members of assorted street gangs have profited by forming relationships with friends and family associated with Mexican cartels.

Clearly our porous borders, particularly the U.S./Mexican border, enable narcotics to flood into America with disastrous results including violent crimes, loss of life, lives ruined by drug addiction, and the impact on families and especially children, and money that finances criminal organizations and terror organizations. As I noted in my recent article Trump Connects the Dots on Dangers of Illegal Immigration, terror organizations such as Iran-sponsored Hezbollah increasingly have been working in close coordination with Latin American drug trafficking organizations to move drugs and aliens, including terrorist sleeper agents, into the United States.

Although I was an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) officer for my entire federal career, I spent roughly half of my career assigned to work with other law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations into narcotics-related crimes. Consequently my 30-year career with the former INS, the forerunner to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), provided me with an intimate view of the multifaceted immigration system. It also provided me with an insider’s understanding of the drug crisis in the United States.

Back in 1988 I became the first INS agent to be assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division (UID) of the DEA in New York City. For nearly four years I worked in close cooperation with the DEA and numerous other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. I also worked closely with foreign law enforcement agencies of countries such as Israel, Canada, Great Britain and Japan.

While I was assigned to UID I conducted a study of arrest statistics and was startled to find that back then, approximately 60% of the individuals arrested by the DEA Task Force in NYC were identified as “foreign born.”

In 1991, I was promoted to the position of INS Senior Special Agent and was assigned, for the final ten years of my career, to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I continue to work with diverse law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations into large-scale drug trafficking organizations from around the world.

The issue of border security has been one of the key issues frequently discussed by the media and by a succession of administrations. For decades efforts to determine border security have been linked to the number of arrests made by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Of course those statistics are not as effective a metric to determine border security as many believe. Arrest statistics generally act as sort of Rorschach test where you could say that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

If the Border Patrol arrests more illegal aliens, does it mean that more illegal aliens are attempting to run our borders or that the Border Patrol is becoming more effective at finding and arresting illegal aliens, perhaps because new technology has been brought to bear?

If the Border Patrol arrests fewer illegal aliens, does it mean that fewer aliens have been running our borders or that the smugglers have gotten better at evading the Border Patrol?

Several years ago when I was interviewed by Neil Cavuto on his program at Fox News he attempted to draw conclusions about the level of illegal immigration based on Border Patrol arrests. I told Neil that attempting to use arrest statistics to accurately gauge the number of illegal aliens present in the United States is a bit like taking attendance by asking those not present to raise their hands!

I told Neil that the best and most reliable metric to determine border security is the price and availability of cocaine and heroin since those narcotics are illegal and are not produced in the United States. In point of fact, every gram of those and other such substances are smuggled into the United States and provide graphic and incontrovertible evidence of a failure of border security.

The fact that heroin is as available and as inexpensive as it is provides clear evidence that our borders are as porous as a sieve.

Furthermore, because those substances are smuggled into the United States from foreign countries, the leaders of most of the drug trafficking organizations are foreign nationals who send their workers to the United States to set up shop.

These aliens are often long-time associates they have come to trust and, because their family members remain in their home countries, if they commit transgressions, their relatives will pay a heavy price indeed.

Finally, as drug use has skyrocketed and as the Drug Trafficking Organizations have become more sophisticated and violents and have gained ever more control over the smuggling routes, human trafficking is now often linked to the drug smugglers who often use the aliens they smuggle as “mules”– beasts of burden who carry drugs on their person when they cross our borders.

Those involved in the drug trade not only violate drug, finance and weapons laws; they violate immigration laws.

Meanwhile politicians from both parties have refused to fund the vital border wall to help protect America and Americans from the influx of illegal aliens and narcotics.

The Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and have unbelievably called for the disbanding of ICE altogether. However, neither political party has ever sought to actually hire enough ICE agents to deter illegal immigration or contribute the sort of resources to such multi-agency task forces as OCDETF or the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), where the unique authorities and tools that our immigration laws can uniquely provide to help investigate and dismantle transnational gangs and international terror organizations.

I addressed the nexus between sanctuary policies and the drug trade in my article, New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade.

This willful failure of our political elite to bring our immigration laws to bear to protect America and Americans, and to combat transnational gangs and international terrorist organizations, was the focus of my recent article, Sanctuary Country – Immigration failures by design.

It is time for Americans to find true sanctuary in their towns and cities.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bolivia: The Next Explosion After Venezuela and Nicaragua

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

JUST RELEASED: Colion Noir Exposes Seattle’s Heroin Epidemic [Video]

“Seattle was supposed to be this shining beacon of what the possibilities were for your life, raising your kids, your family… there’s a lot going on here that’s being actively ignored. By the politicians, even the people, almost kind of a desire to just ignore a very blatant but then yet allusive reality that is a heroin epidemic disguising itself as a homeless epidemic.”

Colion Noir shines a light on the heroin epidemic disguising itself as a homelessness problem, that is plaguing Seattle, while the politicians refuse to even acknowledge the issue and instead scapegoat gun owners and diminish the rights of the law-abiding. This is the true story of Seattle and its Utopian lie.

A Primary Goal of Leftists is to Lower the Age of Consent for Sex — Pedophilia in Mexico, the Middle East & the European Union

Your News Wire reports:

Mexico has lowered the legal age of sexual consent to just 12-years-old, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international liberal network of activists determined to normalize pedophilia and legalize sex with children across the world.

Federal law in Mexico now establishes the age of 12-years as the age of legal consent, while the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18-years (sex with someone as young as 12-years is legal, but can be open to prosecution if deceit, force, or an abuse of authority was used.)

According to Age of Consent:

The Age of Consent is the legal age at which an individual is considered mature enough to consent to sex. Sexual relations with someone under the Age of Consent are considered statutory rape, even (in some jurisdictions), if both partners are themselves younger than the Age of Consent. To learn more, choose a country from the list below or learn about the highest and lowest ages of consent worldwide.

Below is a list of the age of consent by country.

Find Age of Consent laws in the United States 

Note: Those Muslim majority countries who list the age of consent as “must be married” allow underage children to marry to older men in accordance with Islamic (shariah) law.

Country Region Age Of Consent
Afghanistan Asia Must be married
Albania Europe 14
Algeria Africa 16
American Samoa Oceania 16
Andorra Europe 16
Angola Africa 12
Antigua and Barbuda North America 16
Argentina South America 18
Armenia Europe 16
Aruba North America 15
Australia Oceania 16
Austria Europe 14
Azerbaijan Europe 16
Bahamas North America 16
Bahrain Asia 21
Bangladesh Asia 14
Barbados North America 16
Belarus Europe 16
Belgium Europe 16
Belize North America 16
Benin Africa 18
Bhutan Asia 18
Bolivia South America 14
Bosnia and Heregovina Europe 14
Botswana Africa 16
Brazil South America 14
Brunei Asia 16
Bulgaria Europe 14
Burkina Faso Africa 13
Burundi Africa 18
Cambodia Asia 15
Cameroon Africa 16
Canada North America 16
Cape Verde Africa 14
Caribbean Netherlands North America 16
Central African Verde Africa 18
Chad Africa 14
Chile South America 18
China Asia 14
Colombia South America 14
Comoros Africa 13
Cook Islands Oceania 16
Costa Rica North America 15
Croatia Europe 15
Cuba North America 16
Cyprus Europe 17
Czech Republic Europe 15
Democratic Republic of the Congo Africa 14
Denmark Europe 15
Djibouti Africa 18
Dominica North America 16
Dominican Republic North America 18
East Timor Asia 14
Ecuador South America 14
Egypt Africa 18
El Salvador North America 18
Equatorial Guinea Africa 18
Eritrea Africa 18
Estonia Europe 14
Ethiopia Africa 18
Federated States of Micronesia Oceania 14
Fiji Oceania 16
Finland Europe 16
France Europe 15
Gabon Africa 18
Gambia Africa 18
Georgia Europe 16
Germany Europe 14
Ghana Africa 16
Greece Europe 15
Grenada North America 16
Guam Oceania 16
Guatemala North America 18
Guinea Africa 15
Guinea Bissau Africa 16
Haiti North America 18
Honduras North America 15
Hungary Europe 14
Iceland Europe 15
India Asia 18
Indonesia Asia 16
Iran Asia Must be married
Iraq Asia 18
Ireland Europe 17
Israel Asia 16
Italy Europe 14
Ivory Coast Africa 18
Jamaica North America 16
Japan Asia 13
Jordan Asia 16
Kazakhstan Europe 16
Kenya Africa 18
Kiribati Oceania 15
Kuwait Asia Must be married
Kyrgyzstan Asia 16
Laos Asia 15
Latvia Europe 16
Lebanon Asia 18
Lesotho Africa 16
Liberia Africa 18
Libya Africa Must be married
Liechtenstein Europe 14
Lithuania Europe 16
Luxembourg Europe 16
Macedonia Europe 14
Madagascar Africa 14
Malawi Africa 14
Malaysia Asia 16
Maldives Asia Must be married
Mali Africa 18
Malta Europe 18
Marshall Islands Oceania 16
Mauritania Africa 16
Mauritius Africa 14
Mexico North America 17
Moldova Europe 16
Monaco Europe 15
Mongolia Asia 16
Montenegro Europe 14
Myanmar Asia 14
Namibia Africa 16
Nauru Oceania 17
Nepal Asia 16
Netherlands Europe 16
New Zealand Oceania 16
Nicaragua North America 18
Niger Africa 13
Nigeria Africa 11
Niue Oceania 19
North Korea Asia 15
Northern Cyprus Europe 16
Northern Mariana Islands Oceania 18
Norway Europe 16
Oman Asia Must be married
Pakistan Asia Must be married
Palau Oceania 16
Palestine Gaza Strip Asia Must be married
Panama North America 18
Papua New Guinea Oceania 16
Paraguay South America 14
Peru South America 14
Philippines Asia 12
Poland Europe 15
Portugal Europe 14
Qatar Asia Must be married
Republic of the Congo Africa 18
Romania Europe 15
Russia Europe 16
Rwanda Africa 18
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Africa 13
Saint Kitts and Nevis North America 16
Saint Lucia North America 16
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines North America 15
Samoa Oceania 16
San Marino Europe 14
Sao Tome and Principe Africa 14
Saudi Arabia Asia Must be married
Senegal Africa 16
Serbia Europe 14
Seychelles Africa 18
Sierra Leone Africa 18
Singapore Asia 16
Slovak Republic Europe 15
Slovenia Europe 15
Solomon Islands Oceania 15
Somalia Africa 18
South Africa Africa 16
South Korea Asia 20
South Sudan Africa 18
Spain Europe 16
Sri Lanka Asia 16
Sudan Africa Must be married
Suriname South America 16
Swaziland Africa 16
Sweden Europe 15
Switzerland Europe 16
Syria Asia 15
Taiwan Asia 16
Tajikistan Asia 16
Tanzania Africa 18
Thailand Asia 15
Togo Africa 16
Tonga Oceania 16
Trinidad and Tobago North America 16
Tunisia Africa 18
Turkey Europe 18
Turkmenistan Asia 16
Uganda Africa 18
Ukraine Europe 16
United Arab Emirates Asia Must be married
United Kingdom Europe 16
United States North America 16
Uruguay South America 15
Uzbekistan Asia 16
Vanuatu Oceania 16
Vatican City Europe 18
Venezuela South America 16
Vietnam Asia 18
Yemen Asia Must be married
Zambia Africa 16
Zimbabwe Africa 16

 

For Senate: Life Begins at 50… Votes

Republicans certainly have a flair for the dramatic. With less than four working days to kill Obamacare, Senate hallways are already empty. With their repeal bill still hanging in the balance, members left town late Tuesday to mark the Jewish holidays — adding even more suspense to next week’s September 30th deadline. Even now, Republican leaders aren’t sure where their party will land on the plan from Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). Although the push seems to be gaining steam, the results are anything but certain — as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminded everyone the last time around.

One thing’s for sure: it will be an anxious few days for Planned Parenthood. Apart from Barack Obama, Cecile Richards’s group has the most to lose — almost $400 million a year, to be exact. Like the string of reconciliation bills before it, the Graham-Cassidy measure guts 86 percent of the organization’s Medicaid funding, putting a huge dent in the forced partnership between taxpayers and America’s biggest abortion business. That should be a major motivating factor for dozens of pro-life senators, who understand that this is conservatives’ best shot at ending the government’s direct deposit to a scandal-ridden organization.

Even Planned Parenthood admits it performs more abortions (328,348 in 2015 alone) than basic breast exams. That’s not difficult to believe since overall health screenings have dropped by half since 2011. Even contraception counseling, the group’s bread-and-butter, fell by 136,244. So what, exactly, are taxpayers funding? Certainly not the “comprehensive care” Richards advertises. Or even the volume of care, since Planned Parenthood saw 100,000 fewer patients in 2015 than the year before.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to change Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) mind. The Kentucky pro-lifer insists he won’t vote for the Graham-Cassidy bill, despite the thousands of unborn lives it could save. That’s frustrating position for plenty of conservatives to accept. Like a lot of pro-lifers, they think the GOP’s concern for these children should outweigh the repeal’s imperfections. Susan B. Anthony List blasted Paul for his “outright opposition to the bill, and his dismissiveness of the pro-life priorities within it is alarming and damaging.” It is, they argue, an “unacceptable position for a pro-life senator to have.”

On Twitter, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made the case for us, snapping a photo of all of the pro-life language in the bill. “These flags mark all the abortion restrictions in the Republican repeal of Obamacare,” he tweeted. That can only help the GOP’s cause, based on the support from both sides for more limits on Planned Parenthood’s biggest moneymaker.

In a New York Magazine piece this week, liberals try to set the record straight on the real driving force behind the Graham-Cassidy bill. The motivation, Ed Kilgore points out, is:

“…generally assumed to be the potential fury of the GOP’s conservative base if Republicans break their promise to repeal Obamacare. But there’s another thing pushing them toward the abyss: One of the most powerful factions in the GOP and the conservative movement, the anti-abortion lobby, is backing Graham-Cassidy to the hilt. That’s because, like every other GOP repeal-and-replace bill, it temporarily defunds Planned Parenthood” and aims to prevent use of federal insurance-purchasing tax subsidies for polices that include abortion coverage.”

It’s funny. One minute the media says the social conservative movement is dead — the next, it’s complaining we’re too powerful. According to Democrats, it’s the latter. Republicans are “scared to death of a promise they may not keep to the Republican primary base,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said.

Let’s hope so. This is a make or break moment for the GOP, as pollster John McLaughlin’s report makes quite clear. Voters elected Republicans to keep their word on Obamacare — seven years’ worth of words, actually. This week, I am in Arizona speaking to supporters in Tucson and Phoenix, encouraging them to get their senators in line on the partial repeal of Obamacare.

Join them by reaching out to yours — before it’s too late!

For more on the debate, check out Ken Blackwell’s interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Wednesday.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 21 Washington Update:
Lib Teacher Tries to Mx up Kids on Gender

On Adoption, Left Attacks Mich. Again


Previous Washington Update Articles »

This is How You Make Health Care Affordable by Jay Bowen

As the debate continues to rage in Washington, D.C., and around the country regarding the fate of Obamacare, one elegantly simple concept that would have a dramatic impact on healthcare costs is being drowned out by inflammatory rhetoric.

The One Area of Health Care That’s Defying Massive Inflation

Out-of-pocket payment (OPP) by consumers for routine medical care would transform the system from one dominated by third party payers toward a model that would put consumers in charge of their healthcare dollars, and for the first time unleash market disciplines into the equation.

After all, we can all only imagine what our grocery carts would look like, not to mention our restaurant tabs, if a third party was paying for our food. Unfortunately, out-of-pocket payments have steadily trended down over the last 60 years and now account for only 10.5% of healthcare expenditures.

It is both stunning and disconcerting that the myriad of benefits that flow from a competitive, market driven system have never, in any substantial way, penetrated the healthcare and medical services arena. However, one striking exception to this competitive wet blanket is the $15 billion cosmetic surgery industry, the poster child for out of pocket payments, where innovation and price disinflation have been hallmarks for decades. Examples abound.

As Mark Perry has pointed out on his brilliant economic blog, Carpe Diem, over the past 19 years, the 20 most popular cosmetic procedures have increased at a rate 32% below the consumer price index (CPI) and 68% below the rate of medical services inflation.

Thus, the backbone of a productive reform plan must include a move away from third parties and employers controlling health care dollars toward individuals holding sway over their medical purse strings.

Removing Constraints

This would mean that the “employer contribution” that currently is used to fund corporate group policies would transition to an increase in an employee’s compensation, which would be funneled tax-free into a robust health savings account (HSA) that the employee would control for routine medical expenses.

As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, “The employer contribution for health care is part of a worker’s earnings and averages $13,000 per family. Yet the tax code gives control over that money to employers rather than the workers who earned it.”

Importantly, this HSA would be paired with a high-deductible catastrophic policy and also be valid in the individual marketplace. Additionally, this would go a long way in helping to solve the portability issue that some employees face when changing jobs or careers.Essential to making these individual plans more attractive and affordable would be the abolition of both the “community rating” and “essential health benefits” mandates currently embedded in Obamacare policies. These concepts make a mockery of a legitimate, actuarially sound insurance market by shifting costs from older and sicker people to younger and healthier people, thus promoting adverse selection.

Without these constraints, families could focus on basic and affordable policies that would better match their needs and also begin building a “rainy day health fund” via their HSA accounts.

Regarding both Medicaid and pre-existing conditions, a strong dose of old fashioned, Tenth Amendment-oriented federalism is long overdue in dealing with these issues.

In fact, both from a philosophical and practical standpoint, they should never have come under the purview of the federal government and are best left to the individual states where diverse, vibrant, and innovative solutions could be implemented. This could include the establishment of reinsurance programs and high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions, and the phasing out of the open-ended federal entitlement status of Medicaid through a multi-year block grant program.

A Patient-Centered System

The current third party payment/community rating model for delivering healthcare is unsustainable and rapidly headed for the dreaded “death spiral,” which occurs when an escalation of sick people flock to the exchanges for insurance, while an increasing number of healthy people choose to leave the market. In fact, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini has recently acknowledged as much.

Make no mistake, Obamacare was designed to invariably lead to a government-run, single-payer model, with its global budgeting, rationing of care, and long wait times for vital procedures in tow.

Without swift and decisive intervention with a system based on patient-centered choice and market mechanisms, the end result will be a Veterans Affairs (VA)-like model that would combine the worst aspects of government inefficiencies and substandard care.

A quick glance at the dismal state of Great Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), Canada’s single payer scheme, or our own insolvent Medicare and Medicaid plans provides Americans with an acutely unpleasant hint of what is in store if a single-payer model does indeed transpire.

Jay Bowen

Jay Bowen

Mr. Bowen joined Bowen, Hanes & Company, Inc. in 1986. As the firm’s Chief Investment Officer and economic strategist, Mr. Bowen is responsible for the formulation and implementation of the firm’s economic and investment strategies.

Drug and Alcohol Addiction in the LGBTQ Community

30%

As much as 30% of the LGBTQ demographic abuse substances, compared to 9% in the heterosexual population.

In most cases, drugs and alcohol are a way for a person to deal with problems in their lives. The fact is – many people within the LGBTQ have to deal with way more problems than the average person. They for one can experience higher levels of stress, social stigmas, and discrimination. Therefore, this leads to much higher substance abuse rates compared to heterosexual people.

The Alarming Statistics Of LGBTQ Substance Abuse

As previously mentioned – substance abuse is a huge problem within the LGBTQ community and is much more common than in any other demographic. In fact, it is thought that around 20-30 percent of the LGBTQ demographic abuse substances, in comparison to about 9 percent that of the regular demographic.

Here are some more addiction statistics regarding the LGBTQ:

Tobacco

  • 200%
  • People within the LGBTQ are 200% more likely to use tobacco than heterosexual and non-transgender people.

Alcohol

  • 25 percent of people identified as LGBTQ abuse alcohol, in comparison to about 5-10 percent of the regular demographic.

Drugs

  • Men that have intercourse with men are over 3.5 times more likely to use marijuana
  • These same men are also 12.2 times more likely to use amphetamines than men who do not have intercourse with men.
  • They are also 9.5 times more likely to use heroin.

From the statistics shown, we can come to grasp that there is an obvious problem within the LGBTQ. From alcohol to drugs the issue is there, but what are we doing about it? If a person needs help for addiction, they usually go to rehab. However, for people within the LGBT, it can be a bit more difficult. Sometimes they’re denied treatment, and sometimes they might feel like an outcast and relapse. Fortunately, there are specific rehabs designed for LGBTQ people.

Why Are LGBTQ People More Likely To Become Addicted To Drugs And Alcohol?

Stress triggers that lead to addiction in LGBTQ people may include any or more of the following:

  • Fear of persecution which leads to living a stressful double life in order to conform
  • Isolation that arises from public ridicule and rejection
  • Emotional trauma caused by abuse by other people especially family members
  • Internalized homophobia, a deep self-loathing, feelings of shame and of being damaged
  • Religious intolerance and inability to join a particular faith
  • Social discrimination that prevents them equal access to healthcare and job opportunities
  • Frustration from an inability to pursue a love interest
  • Feelings of loneliness and lack of intimacy or someone to confide in

A fear of persecution leads to isolation, hiding who you are from all around you is a huge reason for someone to have a substance abuse problem.

Rejection from regular society is a big issue – not everyone is on their side, and discrimination can lead to a lack of chances with job opportunities. Taking the jump if the person on the other side of the table is for or against you can put much pressure on someone, leading again to substance abuse.

It is not always the public that contributes to substance abuse with someone within the LGBTQ community. Self-worth is also a big factor, always judging yourself, self-loathing and even shame of who you are can once again lead to abusing a substance.

Studies have been conducted in this area and their findings are:

  • LGBT youth is up to 300% more likely to succumb to drug addiction
  • A quarter of LGBT people abuse alcohol whereas the fraction is less than a tenth for the general populace
  • A larger percentage of LGBTQ people have experimented with harmful drugs: 63% have experimented with Ecstasy, 63% have experimented with marijuana, 48% have experimented with amyl nitrate and 45% smoke an average of more than 10 cigarettes daily.

Other Problems Caused By Drugs And Alcohol Addiction In The LGBTQ Community

Addiction is not only a problem in and of itself. It is also a cause or escalator of other psychological or health problems. The mental processes of people suffering from addiction are often clouded which leads them to make bad choices. It is also very probable that an addict will mostly interact with fellow addicts making it even more difficult to overcome the addiction as they are constantly surrounded by enablers. Their decision making is usually poor, especially while under the influence. Trying to cope with life’s issues by drug or alcohol use will likely cause even more life issues, and so the self-perpetuating vicious cycle goes on and on.

People who are addicts are often highly susceptible to:

  • Depression
  • Eating disorders
  • Suicidal tendencies
  • Health risks such as liver cirrhosis or lung cancer
  • HIV contracted by sharing needles
  • Sexual dysfunction

Having a problem with an addiction usually leads to having even more problems. Depression is a big issue in the LGBTQ and can lead to an eating disorder. LGBT men are actually 3 times more likely to have an eating disorder. Not only that, an addiction to certain drugs could even lead to HIV when sharing needles or other drug use equipment.

Helping LGBTQ People Suffering From Addiction

Recognizing issues associated with addiction is quite important, for gay or transgender people getting help is a little different than a regular person suffering from addiction. For one, LGBT individuals can find help in specifically designed rehab centers just for them. There are treatment centers catered to the unique needs of lesbian women, bisexuals and even LGBTQ youth. Overall these individualized treatment options make a big difference in the ability for them to recover from an addiction.

Some issues treated at LGBTQ treatment centers are:

  • Managing discrimination from others
  • Dealing with depression, anxiety, and guilt that stem from sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Handling peer pressure
  • Guidelines for accepting their identity and coming out

The Advantage Of Specialized LGBTQ Rehab Centers

As more and more help centers spring up with more understanding of the specific needs of LGBTQ. Going to such rehabilitation centers will make the patient feel more at home and assist in the recovery process. Being around other people with the same struggles in itself is a great therapy which can tremendously help the patient’s feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. These people need to be cared for in a warm and welcoming environment where they do not feel the alienation that drove them into addiction in the first place. Rehabilitation in these types of places takes into account other disorders, whether they are innate or they have been developed over the years.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

At public library meeting: MassResistance-Texas parents present shocking facts on LGBT & sex-ed agenda in elementary schools. LGBT activists try to disrupt event.

Tech Tycoon Wants to Punish ‘Wicked’ Foes of LGBT Activism

Bauer: Trump ‘did the right thing’

Trump was left with no middle ground on transgender issue

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AddictionResource.com.

VIDEO: Health Care Is a Mess… But Why? by Seamus Coughlin and Sean Malone

You probably know a couple who both work full time to support their children, but even with their dual incomes, they’re finding it more and more difficult to afford health insurance.

Everyday incidents like sports injuries, asthma, and blood pressure, combined with their anxiety over rising premiums, are turning their American dream into sleepless nights.

Why can’t people catch a break? It wasn’t always this way!

Everyone wants health care, but there’s only so much to go around.

According to the Consumer Price Index and Medical-care price index from 1935 to 2009, the health care spending crisis didn’t start until the mid 1960s, around the same time when Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law, and at the same time that we began requiring doctors to go through all sorts of expensive licensing procedures beyond medical school.

Since then, health care spending has doubled, even adjusted for inflation. Why? Well, there are a few reasons.

Everyone wants health care, but there’s only so much to go around. And short supply leads to high prices. Normally what happens in a marketplace is that when prices are high, entrepreneurs try to profit by finding more affordable ways to provide goods and services.

The more people become involved in providing these services, the less scarce they become and the lower the prices drop, so that over time, more and more people can afford them.

This is what happened to televisions, microwaves, computers, cell phones, internet service, delivery services, food, shipping, transportation/air-travel, entertainment, home security, fitness, yoga, massages, and even all the medical technology, like LASIK, that isn’t as heavily regulated or controlled by government.

Can’t government drive down the price of goods and services like the free market?

Let’s look at what happened with Medicare and Medicaid as an example. In 1965, these two single payer health insurance programs were instituted in the US. These programs made the unfortunate less dependant on impartial private charities and more dependant on political institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

On top of that, these programs constantly require tax increases, and because they function more to satisfy the health care industry than the worker, they continually lead to more expensive and wasteful ways of treating patients.

As a result, prices shot up, making it even more difficult for people to afford health insurance. Not only that, but in 1965, government took over the training of new doctors, and in 1997 they limited the number of new doctors they would train at 110,000 per year – and the number hasn’t changed since!

Even worse, our government won’t let migrant doctors from developed western countries practice in the US without undergoing this training. So, not only do experienced doctors from other countries not want to practice medicine here, but the ones who do are taking up 15% of those few 110,000 slots, limiting the supply of doctors even more.

Won’t Obamacare solve these problems?

Unfortunately, Obamacare suffers from similar problems. It eliminated the pricing structure by seriously restricting competition because all providers have to offer the same kinds of plans at the same price. And because that price isn’t really determined by the market, providers can charge the taxpayer way more than they could otherwise. It’s basically just a handout to big insurance companies.

But it doesn’t have to be this way! If we get the government out of health care, more people like those you know will be able to get the care they need.

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin is a comedy writer and animator with a deep interest in politics and morality. A good deal of his work can be found on the FreedomToons YouTube channel.

Sean Malone

Sean Malone

Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.

A Vision for a Truly American Health Care System

As Obamacare continues to reveal itself as an economic and policy disaster, it strikes me that in undoing this healthcare mess, we are not following the path forged for us by the Framers of the Constitution.

For them, the overarching, driving concern was the protection of the liberties of the nation’s citizens from the intrusions of an excessively powerful government. Translated to health care, this would mean protecting patients and their doctors from government interference in their most private and personal dealings.

The Framers accomplished this by creating a national government of only specific and enumerated powers and prohibited from directly regulating the actions of the American people. This latter authority was retained by the states, and specifically not given to the federal government.

So, under this strategy, what would the nation’s health care system look like?

In a truly American health care system, the responsibility for funding one’s medical care would fall squarely upon the treated individual. In cases where the cost of receiving treatment became excessive, the individual would be aided by his or her family, local churches, and community organizations dedicated to helping those who couldn’t help themselves.

More importantly, healthcare would be delivered in a society where God and worship played a central role in human interaction. And no, not because the government demanded it, but because the people spontaneously shared this unyielding resolve in a state where an environment encouraging public worship existed and the family was viewed as society’s foundational building block. It was a milieu where people were continuously reminded of their direct relationship with God and of His greatest commandment; that each person love God with all his might and that he love his neighbor as he does himself.

If the health care system needed to be more formalized so that hospitals and health care could be regulated or a risk-diverting network could be implemented, then such a structure would be generated and executed by the state, not by the federal government. In fact, if the Constitution were properly interpreted, the courts would hold that the federal government was prohibited from directing the states on creating, implementing, or administering a health care program, nor could it tax the people directly for the purpose of creating a health care insurance company.

Other than Dr. Benjamin Rush who voiced his concern for the potential of healthcare being used as a tool in support of a dictatorial regime, it is likely that the Founders gave little thought to the design of the new nation’s health care system. Not only was it orders beyond their primary concern of building a functional system of government, but they would have clearly maintained that such was not the role of the new federal government.

If asked, the Framers would have undoubtedly agreed that the solution to the nation’s health care challenges lied not in the acts of politicians, but in the moral compass provided to the People by their Creator and in the unyielding pledge that each and every person had instinctively made to his or her neighbor through his or her faith in God. It is within these concepts that the true solutions to our health care woes lie, not in the machinations conceived by politicians or bureaucrats.

Hopefully, we as a nation will recall and apply these self-evident truths before we irreparably tarnish our Great Experiment.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages.

The Catholic Church has given up its ministry to the government

The Catholic Church is in decline. Why? Because it has failed  perform its primary mission to minister to and provide for the sick and needy. It has surrendered to government that role that once was the sole dominion of the church.

Bishop DewaneI recently read a statement by Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Florida, Chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop Dewane states:

“It is deeply disappointing to many Americans that, in modifying the American Health Care Act to again attempt a vote, proponents of the bill left in place its serious flaws, including unacceptable modifications to Medicaid that will endanger coverage and affordability for millions of people, according to reports,” said Bishop Dewane. “Sadly, some of the recently proposed amendments-especially those designed to give states flexibility-lack apparent safeguards to ensure quality of care. These additions could severely impact many people with pre-existing conditions while risking for others the loss of access to various essential coverages.”

His concern should not be about what the government is doing with healthcare. His concern should be that government should not be dictating to the states nor the people, who should or should not be covered. Particularly people of faith.

Bishop Dewane and the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops should not be casting the first stone, for they are not without sin. Government taking over healthcare has harmed the Catholic church, its institutions and is congregations.

Let’s look at the Little Sisters of the Poor. The December 2016 edition of the Atlantic reported:

[T]he Supreme Court decided to tackle the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who believe, along with some priests, a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and several universities, that the government is compelling them to violate their beliefs. Their claim: The so-called birth-control mandate of the Affordable Care Act places a burden on their religious exercise, even with an accommodation from the government.

[ …]

The Affordable Care Act requires all U.S. insurance plans to cover 20 varieties of FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost to patients. This affects employers at both for-profit and non-profit organizations, because they have to provide coverage for contraception in their insurance plans. Immediately following the passage of the law in 2010, a number of organizations objected, saying that some of the approved forms of contraception are the equivalent of abortifacients, or drugs that cause abortion. If they refused to provide the coverage, they would face heavy fines.

Note the words “some priests” and a “Roman Catholic Archdiocese.” This is what happens when the Catholic church fails to stop the government from imposing itself on the lives of the faithful with mandates such as killing the innocent via abortifacients.

Perhaps Bishop Dewane would better serve his Archdiocese and Florida’s Catholics by working to get government totally out of healthcare?

GotQuestions.org notes:

The Roman government taxed the Jews unjustly and many of the tax collectors were thieves. When asked about this dilemma, Jesus took a coin and said, “‘Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Then he said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’” (Matthew 22:20-21).

But remember that the Roman Empire fell not because of external pressure but because of internal rot.

EDITORS NOTE: Following oral argument on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.” Read more.

Projections of mortality and causes of death, 2015 and 2030

This infographic displays data from the World Health Organization’s “Projections of mortality and causes of death, 2015 and 2030”. The report details all deaths in 2015 by cause and makes predictions for 2030, giving an impression of how global health will develop over the next 14 years. Also featured is data from geoba.se showing how life expectancy will change between now and 2030.

All percentages shown have been calculated relative to projected changes in population growth.

MEDIGO – Mortality and Causes of Death. 2015 and 2030: a comparison

How much longer will we live in 2030?

Life expectancy worldwide has increased since the start of the century and will continue to rise, with areas considered to be ‘developing’ seeing the biggest increases. Despite this there will still be a huge disparity in life expectancy around the world.

MEDIGO – Mortality and Causes of Death. 2015 and 2030: a comparison

Top 10 killing diseases in 2015

Although progress is being made in some areas, there are also reasons for concern. Of the top 10 causes of death in 2015, 7 will cause even more deaths in 2030.

MEDIGO – Mortality and Causes of Death. 2015 and 2030: a comparison