Wednesday, November 5, 2008

President-elect Obama: Change for Healthcare Freedom of Choice?

It is truly an historic moment, with the election of a candidate for president of the United States who identifies himself as a member of a minority ethnic group. One therefore hopes that president-elect Obama will be open to hearing dissenting and alternative opinions about issues such as healthcare freedom of choice. Surely, an administration built on the idea of "change" should be willing to listen to advocates of change.

We are, however, concerned that candidate Obama offered very little about issues that are of concern to health freedom advocates. The campaign chose not to respond to the Health Freedom Presidential Candidate Questionnaire -- although several of the Principled Third Party candidates did so; you can see their generally pro-health freedom responses at:

We could not find any major media mention of vaccine mandates directly by the winning candidate, but in September, when Sen. Obama and the New Jersey governor passed a demonstration of pro-health freedom parents, some of whom were attending a fund raiser in an upscale community with the politicians, there was a report from the fundraiser,

"I'm afraid Barack Obama was asked by someone at the fundraiser if he supported the parent's right to choose to vaccinate, and he said he did not!"

The governor, however acknowledged,

"We get more e-mails and letters on this than any other issue other than tolls."

On another touchstone issue for health freedom advocates, Genetically Modified products foisted on the public without truthful labeling, the new President may not take an entirely pro-industry position. In a pre-election report we learn,

"[Obama b]elieves GM plants are beneficial with tests for environmental and health effects and regulatory oversight."

The requirement for testing, while falling short of truthful labeling, would be a change from current policy which "deems" GM products safe without third party testing.

On issues such as international harmonization, the "new world order" advisers surrounding the president-elect suggest that it may be difficult to focus any attention by the new administration on this important issue. We can expect the US Codex delegation to continue to have a free hand in supporting the international agenda of the "bigs" - Big Finance, Big Agra, Big Pharma, et al. Codex Alimentarius (the world food code) must continue to be a focus of the movement.

And finally, last year, when we were in Washington several times to help educate Congress about health freedom, we were not able to discuss with Sen. Obama's staff the important issue of divesting the FDA of its food authority, so that food (including dietary supplement) regulation would not remain the neglected step-child of the FDA's focus on supporting Big Pharma. However, discussions with other left/liberal legislative aids at that time, including people who will be allies of the president-elect in Congress, suggests a basis for pursuing the divestment issue.

Divesting the FDA may therefore be one health freedom issue that will have some "play" in the new Congress. What will be necessary, of course, will be for several Democratic members of Congress to be willing to co-sponsor a divestment bill. And for hundreds of thousands of Health Freedom Mouse Warriors to demand an end to FDA abuse of power.

The prospects for healthcare freedom of choice are mixed in the coming period.

Advocates of health freedom will need to redouble their efforts, especially to protect our children from vaccine mandates and to prevent ever more HARMonization of our health freedoms with international restrictions.

Divesting the FDA of its misused food authority appears to be a policy for which we may have some hope for real change...

No comments: