Refusal Of Newborn Screening For Religious Reasons: Fill & Download for Free

Ok. This is a controversial subject but this is something i also ask myself. I guess your question is about how many French citziens are of native white ancestry or with ancestry from other European countries. Well, this is very difficult to know, since the recollection of religious, ethnic or racial information is forbidden by law in France. So we don´t really know even how many muslims or christians are in the country. I personally find this law to be very stupid. They think an ethnic or religious census would divide the nation and cause racism but a census is going to have little to no effect in the social cohesion between people of different backgrounds or religions, since the causes of social or ethnocultural friction are much more complex than that.Now. This answer is going to be very long. All the text i´m going to share down below is extracted from this blog Le Grand Remplacement - Taki's Magazine The title of “The Great Replacement” may seen quite reactionary, like some right-wing conspiracy theory, but the arguments presented in the vlog are very reasonable. Now, on to the article:“Nobody seems to know exactly how fast France, the cultural heartland of the West over the past millennium, is being demographically transformed. But I have found a way to estimate the percentage of babies being born in France who are of non-European ancestry.And the results are astonishing.Some young Americans who went to Paris last year told me they were stunned by how non-European the famous city has become. Like an increasing number of tourists, they found the inundation of Africans and Middle Easterners to be depressing.“€Sickle-cell disease has been increasing rapidly in France due to immigration. It’s now the most common genetic disease in France.”€A rare 2016 survey of French teens found 25.5 percent identifying as Muslim. And there are also non-Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa, as well as better-behaved nonwhite groups like the Vietnamese.The American government bans collecting Census data by religion or citizenship, but is relentless in tabulating residents by race and (Hispanic) ethnicity. In contrast, the French government believes it would be a violation of Republican principles to categorize citizens by ancestry, so it bans official data collection by race.It’s often suggested by idealistic Americans that if the U.S. government didn”€™t collect so many statistics on race, then we wouldn”€™t have so many problems with race. But the French government collects no racial statistics, yet still seems to have a broad set of racial problems, such as the endemic car-be-ques: For instance, 945 cars were torched on New Year’s Eve in France.Back in the fall of 2005, when 8,973 cars were burned, the American news media were hazy over who exactly the rioters comprised. Were the “€œyouths”€ more North African Muslims waging jihad or were they more black Africans raising hell for the hell of it? No Americans knew for sure, and the French authorities seemed to feel it would be inappropriate to find out.On the other hand, the French national health authority is rightfully worried about sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease that can afflict people whose ancestry on both sides traces from warm parts of the world. And this obscure data provides us with a rare entrance into quantifying the rapidly changing demographics of France.The sickle-cell gene mutation is a quick and dirty Darwinian response to the horrific threat of falciparum malaria that spread when agriculture emerged in sub-Saharan Africa several thousand years ago. The disease’s vector, the anopheles mosquito, breeds in sunny puddles”€”for example, in the deforested farmlands of West Africa.Falciparum malaria is really, really bad for you. Therefore Africans soon evolved a dangerous defense. If you inherit one copy of the gene, you are more likely to survive malaria. If you inherit two copies, however, your genes may kill you.This is clearly not an elegant evolutionary solution to the menace of falciparum malaria. But it does show how bad the malaria threat is in sub-Saharan Africa and in some other warm regions that it works out just as well on a survival-of-the-fittest calculus than never inheriting these potentially lethal alleles.The genetics of sickle-cell anemia were an early influence on the field of human biodiversity studies. In some places in West Africa, as many as one-fourth of the population carry one copy of the sickle-cell gene, providing them with relief from malaria. But that means that one-sixteenth would inherit two copies and thus suffer sickle-cell disease.In contrast, if only one out of 20 have one copy, then the chance of inheriting two copies is merely one out of 400. Thus, the frequency of the mutant version evolves to respond to the severity of the disease in the region.Among African-Americans in the U.S., where falciparum malaria is not common, it appears that the sickle-cell gene has been slowly dying out over the past few hundred years.Sickle-cell disease has been increasing rapidly in France due to immigration. It’s now the most common genetic disease in France.The French government has started a neonatal screening process for babies at risk of inheriting the disease. The percentage of newborns screened due to their ancestry tells us much about the onrushing demographics of France.But it’s important to look carefully at the rules for who is screened, so I”€™m going to walk through a number of methodological issues before presenting the data.Only children who are likely descended through both parents from certain regions are at risk of getting the disease. This particular genetic variant is most common on the Atlantic coast of sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also found in India and places in between where falciparum malaria is a hazard. This includes some parts of Mediterranean Europe, although probably no places on the French mainland.The French government says, “€œThis disease mainly affects children from the Caribbean, Black Africa and North Africa.”On the other hand, its more detailed warnings point out that there is a small chance of the disease deriving from the warmest parts of Europe. The French health authority specifies that the regions at risk are:French departments overseas: West Indies, French Guiana, Reunion, MayotteAll sub-Saharan Africa and Cape VerdeSouth America (Brazil), Blacks in North AmericaIndia, Indian Ocean, Madagascar, Mauritius ComorosNorth Africa: Algeria, Tunisia, MoroccoSouthern Italy, Sicily, Greece, TurkeyMiddle East: Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, OmanSome nonwhites, such as Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tahitians, are not tested because sickle cell is not native to their homeland.(East Asians appear to make up 1 to 2 percent of the population of France today, but they cause fewer problems than Muslims and blacks, so their profile is lower.)Some percentage of white babies are tested for sickle-cell disease, but it’s not clear how many.A fair number of white people in France have ancestors from southern Italy or Greece. Also, a fair number of Jewish French are at least in part from Algeria.But the test is offered only to those who are descended on both sides from a region at risk. The government’s rules are:Currently, for the newborn to be screened:Both parents must come from a region at risk.Only one of the two if the second is not known.If there is a history of major sickle cell syndrome in the family.If there is doubt about criteria 1, 2, 3.So a baby who is French on one side and Sicilian on the other would not be tested.It’s worth noting that this test is not offered to those who might have inherited one copy of the gene, just those who might have the disease because they inherited two. (The French government apparently doesn”€™t want to be accused of promoting eugenic knowledge, the way Orthodox Jews test for genetic Tay-Sachs risk, so it doesn”€™t offer people awareness of whether their children might be at risk before they are conceived.)For example, if Barack Obama were born in France today, he would not be tested because he couldn”€™t have inherited a copy of the gene through his northern European mother. (And yet, on the 2010 Census, the president refused to acknowledge his white ancestry, marking himself down as only black.)On the other hand, Barack and Michelle’s daughters might have been tested because they could have inherited the mutation through both parents. Or perhaps not. The French state specifies, “€œBoth parents must come from a region of risk,”€ so the test might not apply to the Obama daughters, whose risk is half as great as if their parents were both fully black.To take a Continental example, half-African tennis player Yannick Noah, who won the French Open in 1983, would not be tested because his mother was white. Nor would his son, NBA center Joakim Noah, because his mother was Miss Sweden.So babies who have one native French parent are not tested even if the other parent is black. It’s not clear what the government wants done for people like the Obama daughters, who are three-quarters black.Let’s put all the potential adjustments in one place before I reveal the unadjusted 2015 percentage of newborns tested:Some numbers of wholly European babies are tested because both parents come from the southernmost parts of Europe.Some babies who are as black as Barack Obama are not tested because one parent is northern European.All nonwhite Indochinese, East Asians, and Polynesians are not tested.Overall, I”€™d guesstimate that these three adjustments about wash out. Maybe they would bump the real percentage of nonwhite babies up or down somewhat. It’s hard to say. But considering them all together, they don”€™t seem likely to bias the number all that much.After all those preliminaries, here are the unadjusted percentages of newborns targeted for testing in France because both parents come from the Global South:2005: 25.6 percent2010: 31.5 percent2015: 38.9 percentAnd Paris in 2015 was 73.4 percent, up from 54.2 percent just a decade earlier.Wow”So, yes, white French are on the way of becoming a minority in France. In the next 30 to 50 years, the country is probably going to be a lot like Brazil. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, you decide.

It’s been explained for 2 years why they are kneeling, to protest the mistreatment of the black minority by white cops. There wasn’t a general drop in attendance except for the Chargers who moved out of a city they were loved and moved to where they weren’t wanted in the first place.If you want to say that all must stand for the national anthem or make it obligatory, there is a 1943 supreme court ruling that states that FORCED PATRIOTISM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we have the freedom to respect or disrespect the anthem, there are religious groups who refuse to do the pledge of allegiance because in their denomination, giving the pledge is Idolatry or equating the flag with the cross. If you’re going to say there’s a decline in attendance, where, there are people on waiting lists 10s of thousands of people long waiting for decades to get season tickets to watch their team play at home. I know that Philly fans put their newborns on the waitlist for eagles season tickets, same with Packer fans, Redskin fans put their seat license in their will to a fortunate family member. If you want to say there was a decline, it was in TV viewership, and i think the reason is why watch the game at home, when you can have a stadium environment at a sport bar like Buffalo Wild Wings, TGIF, or Chili’s. Beers, Wings, appetizers, and all the games you can watch on 10 big screen televisions in one place, i’d rather go there than watch from home.

There a numerous reasons.One might theorize, cynically, that lawmakers love abortion restrictions in part because they are red voter red meat. While restricting abortion is unsuccessful at reducing the number of abortions, it’s successful at something else: getting pro-life constituents to donate and vote. And with taxpayers footing the bill if things go sideways, why wouldn’t lawmakers keep trying it? Why Do States Keep Wasting Money on Doomed Abortion Bills?Republicans know that if they appeal to the most religious conservatives among them, and to the right wing zealots, they know that these groups will drown out any sort of reason, any sense of right and wrong, any notions of fairness or decency, that others within the pro-life movement might be thinking, or wishing, and instead, use those groups to push their true agenda, disguised as helping unborn children. Their true agenda, their archaic, antiquated, misogynistic agenda, is to strip women of their reproductive rights once and for all, regardless of the costs, and while they’re at it, they will also defund birth control, contraception, sex education, leaving women with what they’re hoping, is to stop them from having sex outside of marriage, and punish any who do.They’ve become so proficient at confusing, and misleading those in the pro-life movement, that these followers can no longer distinguish facts from pseudoscience, or reality from nonsense. They’re so entrenched in their thinking, and beliefs, that they blindly follow, oblivious to the harm that is actually happening in their States, simply because they believe abortion is the #1 issue facing Americans.Long before the dust settles, and the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue, pro-lifers will come to terms with the harsh reality of what supporting conservative, Christian, and right wing zealotry, has wrought upon their day to day lives, and to everyone else in their State. Unfortunately by then, it might be too late.While legislators wasted so much time, energy, and taxpayer money fighting to strip women of their reproductive rights, they’ll have:Doctor shortages, worse than the ones they are currently experiencing.Seriously, what doctor in their right mind, would want to work in any State that forces them to lie to their patients, to mislead them, to perform unnecessary medical procedures, (which in any other circumstance would be considered insurance fraud), and to perform medically unnecessary medical exams, which are seen as “assaulting” a patient by the medical community, and in any other case, would result in them being criminally charged.Who wants to work in a State where an otherwise legal procedure, could land them in prison?The 10 States With the Worst Physician ShortagesA State-by-State List of the Lies Abortion Doctors Are Forced to Tell WomenAlabama's Abortion Ban Isn't Only About Abortion. Opponents Are Afraid It May Drive Doctors Out of the StateWhy work in any State that continues to defund healthcare, and in the case of these red States, any additional funding for pre-natal and post-natal care, or funding that would help save the lives of newborns and mothers.More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries, report showshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-infants-mortality/u-s-infant-mortality-high-even-for-full-term-babies-idUSKBN1GX2SThttps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/american-babies-are-76-more-likely-to-die-before-their-first-birthday-than-those-born-in-other-wealthy-countries/https://www.businessinsider.com/us-pregnancy-deaths-up-and-report-says-most-are-preventable-2019-5Why work in any State that believes its okay to threaten doctors with abuse, death, or prison sentences, protest outside their clinics, or that patient care should be legislated by those who wouldn’t know the difference between a vulva and a Volvo.Christian or not, Republican or not, zealot or not, where will the average person turn, when they require medical care, and where will pregnant women turn, who desperately need pre-natal or post-natal care, or those seeking an abortion, birth control, contraception, cancer screening? Oh yeah, I forgot, Republicans are funding Crisis Pregnancy Centers, staffed by non-medical Christian conservatives, in white lab coats, disguised as medical professionals.Georgia Is Funneling Millions of Dollars to Fake Abortion ClinicsThey strive to give the impression that they are clinical centers, offering legitimate medical services and advice, yet they are exempt from regulatory, licensure, and credentialing oversight that apply to health care facilities.Legislators worked overtime to ensure they had these protections.Because the religious ideology of these centers’ owners and employees takes priority over the health and well-being of the women seeking care at these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options. Although crisis pregnancy centers enjoy First Amendment rights protections, their propagation of misinformation should be regarded as an ethical violation that undermines women’s health. Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical This article is from the AMA Journal of Medical Ethics.It’s okay though, because they will pray for you to get well, and then use federal tax money to fund these clinics, but don’t count on them following by the same rules as Planned Parenthood or other Women’s clinics, guaranteeing they will be staffed with medically trained and licensed professionals, or that they’ll offer or refer a patient elsewhere, especially if it conflicts with their beliefs, or provide services that conflict with their beliefs or ideology.“Crisis pregnancy centers are not health centers. Health centers provide accurate information. Crisis pregnancy centers, on the other hand, lie to women about medical facts,” says Leana Wen, a physician and the new president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “Imagine if this were any other aspect of healthcare. Would we allow for so-called health centers to exist that provide misleading, scientifically inaccurate information about cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes? We would not.”“We’ve seen a lot of misinformation and false advertising, with centers claiming that you might not even need an abortion, claiming they can predict from an ultrasound whether you’re going to have a miscarriage.” Anti-Choice Clinics Are Changing the Way They Operate to Qualify for Government FundingWhat’s next, legislating that crystal balls can be used to determine if a person has breast cancer, or an STI?Millions of taxpayers dollars being funnelled to these clinics, rather than to Health Services/Clinics that actually help people. Gotta love America.By muddling medicine and religious orthodoxy, moreover, the Gag Rule also threaten to erode the ethical integrity of the health care workforce, imposing the impossible choice on clinicians to either obey the law that funds their programs, or to uphold ethical responsibilities to their patients.The resurrected Gag Rule threatens to punish women for doing exactly what the law is designed to facilitate: help women live full, healthy lives, regardless of how poor they are. As much as Title X was inadequate to meet the full needs of poor women, it offered an essential bridge to medical providers committed to serving them equitably, without subjecting them to the indignity of ideological interference or judgment about their sexual history.Meanwhile, the socioeconomic barriers that low-income women face are the same obstacles that tether them to Title X programs for essential care. About two-thirds of patients live in poverty; the vast majority lack private insurance. And the social divides in reproductive access shadow the color-line: About half of Title X patients are black and Latinx, so the Gag Rule adds another layer of injustice to the hierarchy of racial power, cutting off poor women of color from the most basic control over their own bodies.Title X is not just about health care, though; it is about women’s ability to live free, empowered lives.The silence imposed by Trump’s Gag Rule, of course, would not constrain affluent women the same way it would the poor; the privileged could always afford private abortion services without having to navigate byzantine federal restrictions.Trump’s revision of Title X hands an ideological blank check to a political faction that is categorically hostile to women’s rights and public health. The ideological agenda is displayed most baldly in the rule’s “conscience clause,” which allows healthcare providers to refuse to provide information on abortion services, even if it means withholding the best medical advice.The Gag Rule does more than stifle a doctor’s medical advice; it silences them and their patients by erasing their freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom to live without discrimination. That silence around abortion is inherited from an era when women had no voice in determining their reproductive future and, under Trump, the silence seems poised to endure for yet another generation. Opinion | Trump's planned a new abortion rule to silence women and their doctorsThe thing is, the whole abortion debate for republican lawmakers, isn’t just about legislating away women’s reproductive rights, it’s a continued war on those they deem less worthy, the poor, single mothers, low wage earners, and a continued racist war against coloured women, and women of minorities. Heck, it’s a war on all coloured people, and people of minorities, what was I thinking.If they were to come right out and admit such a thing, the vast majority of Americans would be up in arms, and baying for blood, but while its being done with various small pieces of legislation at the State level, and claiming fiscal responsibility at the Federal level, no one really notices, until it’s too late.Republicans will do nothing at the Senate level, pass no bill, that will in any way help Americans, unless it’s to help the 1%, or a pet peeve project of theirs.Democrats in the House have been passing bills at a rapid clip; as of November 15, the House has passed nearly 400 bills, not including resolutions. But the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee estimates 80 percent of those bill have hit a snag in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is prioritizing confirming judges over passing bills.Congress has passed just 70 bills into law this year. Granted, it still has one more year in its term, but the number pales in comparison to recent past sessions of Congress, which typically see 300-500 bills passed in two years (and that is even a diminished number from the 700-800 bills passed in the 1970s and 1980s).Ten of those 70 bills this year have been renaming federal post offices or Veterans Affairs facilities, and many others are related to appropriations or extending programs like the National Flood Insurance Program or the 9/11 victim compensation fund.This has led to House Democrats decrying McConnell’s so-called “legislative graveyard,” a moniker the Senate majority leader has proudly adopted. McConnell calls himself the “grim reaper” of Democratic legislation he derides as socialist, but many of the bills that never see the Senate floor are bipartisan issues, like a universal background check bill, net neutrality, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.“From raising the minimum wage to ensuring equal pay, we have passed legislation to raise wages. And we have passed legislation to protect and expand health coverage and bring down prescription drug prices,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement to Vox. “We continue to urge Senator McConnell to take up our bills, many of which are bipartisan.”House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.While Republicans occupy their constituents with anti-abortion rhetoric, the country slowly starts to fall apart, unnoticed by those hell bent on pursuing legislation against women’s reproductive rights. Fox News and other conservative media outlets, never report on any of this, instead, they focus on the supposed unfair treatment of tRump, and the supposed witch hunt to impeach his sorry a**.In the end, Republicans will find that they can no longer afford healthcare, or even have access to free healthcare if they’re below the poverty line, they’ll still be struggling with stagnant wages, far worse crumbling infrastructure, cuts to social programs, higher costs for products thanks to the trade wars, more shootings, and so on, and so on, but I’m sure many will still pat themselves on the back, claiming a victory over some embryos or fetuses saved, even if that meant newborn babies, and women died in the process, and will continue to die, unnecessarily.Ideology might have won this round, but everyone else suffered, or died. Yup, Jesus is smacking his head into his palm, wondering what the f**k they were thinking, and in his name too.