OpEd Pledge Project: No Go

 Posted by on 1 January 2011 at 12:00 pm  Activism, FIRM, Pledge Project
Jan 012011
 

As many of you may recall, Diana created a pledge project in June for me to publish an op-ed in a top-tier newspaper before the end of 2010.

Unfortunately, I was not successful. Hence, the pledges are now void: no one owes any money. I thank everyone who pledged for their support, and I hope you continue to support Diana’s other pledge projects.

Addendum from Diana:

As you might know, Paul has published many op-eds since the pledge was initiated in June, just not in top-tier newspapers. In case you missed any or all of them, they were:

Beware Counterfeit ‘Responsibility’
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, December 17, 2010

GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, November 3, 2010

The “Right To Health Care Choice” is right for Colorado
By Paul Hsieh
Denver Post, October 23, 2010

2010: Dawn of the Terran Empire?
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, October 1, 2010

Get Ready for Your Health Care ‘Re-Education’
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, September 14, 2010

Avastin and Your Life
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, August 25, 2010

Transparency For Me, But Not For Thee
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, August 17, 2010

Donald Berwick, the Pro-Gun Control Lobby, and Paternalism
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, July 23, 2010

Should You Be Allowed to Know What’s In Your DNA?
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, July 15, 2010

I wish to offer my personal thanks to everyone who pledged. Even though the pledge project didn’t accomplish its goal, we were heartened to see such an outpouring of support for Paul’s activist work for free market medicine with FIRM.

 

Ari Armstrong and I published an op-ed on Colorado’s Amendment 62 (personhood for zygotes) and Amendment 63 (health care choice) in Friday’s Denver Daily News: A62, A63 reveal ideological rifts.

Our article observes that many groups either oppose or endorse both Amendments 62 and 63. Yet these measures are based on opposite political premises. Amendment 62 (personhood) violates rights, while Amendment 63 (health care choice) protects them. The article then explains how both the entitlement left and religious right advocate a false view of rights. And it sketches a secular view of rights whereby each person is left free to act by his own judgment and for his own life and happiness.

Go read the whole thing!

For more information on Amendment 62, see Ari Armstrong’s and my policy paper: The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.

For more information on Amendment 63, visit the Independence Institute and Patient Power Now.

Also, Paul has been busy advocating free market medicine via FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. Here’s his two most recent endeavors:

Enjoy!

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha