Please consider getting your Whooping Cough vaccine.
By the time you start coughing, we can’t change your course – you will probably cough for the next month or more. The new pertussis vaccine in the “D-TaP” or “T-DaP” is “acellular,” not the old one that so many worried about in the past. http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4212.pdf
From the Texas Medical Association’s “Me and My Doctor:”
Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey, MD, issued an advisory yesterday urging Texans to protect themselves and their loved ones from pertussis (whooping cough) by getting vaccinated. An increase in cases this year claimed the lives of six children — two of whom were infants — and sickened more than 1,000. That’s the highest number of pertussis victims since 2005. Texas doctors urge families to avoid tragedy by vaccinating their children and themselves from this deadly disease. Read More:
“By Doctors . . . For Patients.” It’s about the patient, who is the only boss the doctor should have, other than his or her own conscience and integrity.
I’m attending my first annual meeting of Docs4PatientCare this weekend, in Crystal City, Virginia, just over the river from Washington, DC. I stumbled upon D4PC following links from American Doctors for Truth last March.
Doctors 4 Patient Care stands in stark contrast to – and as a viable alternative to – the American Medical Association. The AMA has become a partner with the US government through the publication and sale of mandatory “code books,” and increasingly with its advocacy for government funded healthcare coverage, especially by its endorsement of “ObamaCare,” even before the law (much less the ever-evolving regulations) was written.
So far this morning, we’ve heard from the founder of D4PC Dr. Hal Scherz, an advocate for reaching medical students through the Benjamin Rush Society, Beth Haynes, an expert on Media Strategy and Training, Ernest DelBuono, Sr., and two speakers on reforming medical liability (tort reform), Dr. Jeff Segal of “Medical Justice,” and Rick Jackson of “Patients for Fair Compensation.”
I’ll post more through the weekend. In the meantime, read a some of the D4PC literature, “Like” Docs4PatientCare on Facebook and/or follow @D4PC on Twitter. Watch a few of the D4PC videos on YouTube. Consider supporting the efforts of the group and/or to donating money. There’s even an alliance membership for non-physicians.
It’s difficult to write about a respected medical journal which promotes “Aid in Dying” without resorting to emotional words such as “horrifying,” “shocking,” or “murder,” but I’ll try. However, I will not call the practice “physician aided death” or “aid in dying.” It is, at best “physician assisted suicide,” and at worst, “euthanasia,” or the use of medical technology and procedures to actively end the life – to intentionally kill – a patient. This is not “medicine” as I understand it.
Chest is the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians. These are the Internal Medicine subspecialists who focus on lung disease, cardiac care, and sleep medicine. They are likely to be the doctors who care for the most vulnerable patients, especially in the Intensive Care Unit at your hospital.
Under the heading “Medical Ethics,” in the July, 2012 issue is an article titled, “Aid in Dying: Guidance for an Emerging End-of-Life Practice,” authored by Kathryn L. Tucker, J.D. The article is available online as a web page, here, and as in pdf., here.
Beginning with a principle that virtually all of us can agree with,the right to refuse intentional medical intervention, the article quickly moves to the very controversial opinion that the first principle ensures the “right” to request “treatment” that is intended to end the life of the patient – to kill:
•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any medical treatment or intervention, regardless of whether he or she is terminally ill and regardless of whether the treatment prolongs life and its withdrawal results in death.
•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to request and receive as much pain medication as necessary for relief, even if it advances the time of death.
•Principles of autonomy that underlie respecting patient rights to refuse or direct withdrawal of life-prolonging interventions or to request pain medication even if it advances time of death support the choice for aid in dying. Aid in dying is increasingly accepted in law and medicine in the United States.
•Provision of aid in dying does not constitute assisting a suicide or euthanasia. Aid in dying is a practice with growing support in the public and medical and health policy communities and is likely to become more widely requested in the future.
•A clinician cannot be compelled to provide treatment that conflicts with his or her personal values. In these circumstances, the clinician cannot abandon the patient but should refer the patient to a colleague who is willing to provide the service.
Four prima facie principles have been used to characterize most ethical concerns in medicine: respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Respect for patient autonomy refers to the duty to respect patients and their rights of self-determination; beneficence refers to the duty to promote patient interests; nonmaleficence refers to the duty to prevent harm to patients; and justice refers, in part, to the duty to treat patients and distribute health-care resources fairly.11 When applied to the care of an individual patient, however, these principles may conflict with one another. For example, a patient’s values, preferences, and goals may be at odds with a clinician’s perception of how best to help and not harm the patient. Clinical ethics identify, analyze, and provide guidance on how to resolve these conflicts.
While I believe that there may come a time when it is ethical to stop trying to keep a patient alive – when treatment is only making the dying process longer – I will never assist in an act that can only end in the death of my patient. The way I explain this is that I will assist in removing a ventilator under certain circumstances, but I won’t then put a pillow over the patient’s face to make sure she can’t breathe on her own afterwards. The intent of medicine is to diagnose and treat disease, not to end the life of patients suffering from disease.
Here’s links to the videos we saw Wednesday night, during the #RNC2012 Convention. #GOP2012 @GOPconvention.
GOP Convention Releases Wednesday Night Videos
Tampa, Fla. – The Republican National Convention today released five videos that were featured during the Wednesday evening proceedings.
The videos are listed in the order of the proceedings:
‘Ron Paul’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4703_6
‘Best of America’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4708_6
‘The Bushes: 41 & 43’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4705_6
‘Israel: Cherished Memories’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4709_6
‘Believe’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4712_6
The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.
Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):
“We are currently reviewing and getting feedback from our delegates. While we are not sure how this will ultimately be received, [it] is very positive that the Romney campaign is listening to feedback from the grassroots and looking to find common ground,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign manager.
Under the agreement, a bound delegate must vote for the presidential candidate that they are required to vote for under state law or state party rules, leaving the actual selection of delegates up to the states.
Previously, a proposal would have given presidential candidates the power to veto delegates sent by the states — a change that had Paul supporters crying foul, seeing it as an establishment attempt to stifle the upstart contingent.
The deal strikes a middle ground between establishment Republican leaders and conservative delegates, but is likely to infuriate some Paul backers who had spent much of the last year gaming the system to their benefit and who virulently opposed compromise on the issue.
“We were able to achieve an agreement that accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish,” Bopp told The Hill. “The Romney campaign wanted to make sure the delegates pledged to support him will actually vote for him … and at the same time the concern we had was addressed so that state parties have complete control of the delegates.”
Bopp had blasted the Romney campaign’s original rule when it was approved, calling it “the biggest power grab in the history of the Republican Party.” He said Monday he did not know if the Paul camp would be satisfied by the changes — and didn’t care much, accusing them of “causing chaos for chaos’s sake in order to achieve their agenda.
|
|
And guarantee a third party (or 4th and 5th) push.
Propose a GOP rules change that appears designed to squelch any National delegates that might not be loyal to the favored Candidate and add a new rule that would allow the Powers That Be – the Republican National Committee – to make even more rules changes between the National Conventions!
Here are the controversial new additions to the Rules of the Republican Party:
“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
New rule inserted as number 15(a):
15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.
15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.
15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/liberty-fairness-implode-as-rnc-rules-committee-wields-iron-fist/#ixzz24oIFLoFN
Texas’ delegation will push to get rid of these changes. From their reaction in a meeting this morning, Governor Sununu might not be able to make the transition from Temporary Chair to Permanent Chair of the Rules Committee and the Convention will most likely scrap the whole 2012 Rules and revert to the 2008 Rules.
Michelle Malkin has a great review, along with copies of several letters from delegates and links to even more, including a possible “deal”, here.
KVUE.com, Austin’s ABC television affiliate, sent a crew to Tampa to cover the Texas Delegation to the Republican National Convention. The reporter, Tyler Sieswerda, interviewed Larry and me after this morning’s meeting of the Delegation.
http://www.kvue.com/news/editors-pick/Texans-represent-Lone-Star-State-at-RNC-167618275.html
I also told Mr. Sieswerda about my Texas Alliance for Life and Christian Medical Association pins, but they didn’t make the cut — although a view of the back of my T-shirt did! (I’m not as fat as the rear view makes me look!)
Or how I’ve spent the first 3 days of the Republican National Convention:
My husband, Larry, is one of the Delegates to the RNC for Comal County’s Congressional District 21 from Texas and I get to be a guest. We flew down on Friday, hoping to get some rest before starting the Convention. Isaac came along after. 
I added a bookmark for the Tampa, Florida weather to my taskbar and have been “praying unceasingly” that the Lord will moderate the laws of physics enough to keep Isaac from harming anyone. It’s my belief that the unbelievers and Dems who alternately pointed to Isaac as proof that their either is no God to answer our prayers or that He isn’t on our (the Republican Right, Believers’) side have had their mocking proven misplaced as Isaac has remained a Tropical Storm much longer than anyone thought possible and even veered far west of the Tampa Bay area in its journey. If I’m wrong, then we at least have proof of what one woman noted: the RNC and the Lord’s people are able, with His grace, to manage uncertainty and natural disasters!
We heard all about the snubbing of Texas’ delegation by the RNC which chose to put us 25 miles out of town at a resort in Wesley Chapel, Florida. And then learned what a great place this is to stay — and how safe the inland location turned out to be when Tropical Storm Isaac reared his ugly head and threatened to raise the head waters of Tampa Bay! Take that, RNC PTB! (Powers That Be)
There was an opportunity to let the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas know I’m not happy with him. (Larry wanted a picture with the man and I said I’d take the picture but didn’t want in it. Then as I focused, I said, “Say ‘There wasn’t a quorum!” Both men acted as though they couldn’t hear me.)
I’ve received my white hat and red,white and blue RPT scarf and Larry has his hat, 
a red, white and blue tie and Delegate’s “swag bag” that contained a medal for the delegate and a stuffed giraffe from Busch Gardens. Although we had sunshine at the pool on Saturday, I doubt we’ll get much chance in the next week to use the sunblock, beach towel or sunglasses that were also included, thanks to Mr. Isaac.
Larry and I were invited by fellow CD 21 delegate, Lisa Roper, to several events held by the new Conservative Women’s group, Palladian View.
We attended a reception on Saturday night and Sunday, I went to two events with Lisa and a couple of other Texas Palladian View supporters, Toni Anne Dashiell and Kim Chambers. Take a look at this great new group that hosted a panel of Conservative women speaking about dealing with liberal media bias, “Lashing Back at the BackLash” and then had a full house at the “BlogBash,” a party for the stars of the New Media.The former was live-streamed on Fox News and will soon be available online at the website.
I’ve been posting pictures of the great Conservative leaders I’ve met on my Facebook and Twitter (@bnuckols) timelines: Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn,Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch (Pronounced “clayfish” – her in-laws couldn’t spell either), along with Texas’ own Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Louis Gohmert, and Republican Nominee for Senate, Ted Cruz.
We’re north of Tampa, with the Texas delegation to the #RNC. My husband is the delegate, and I’m a guest. The locals tell us we have no worries out here from Isaac, even if it becomes a hurricane.
Because I’ll be leaving the laptop in the room, most of my posts will be to Facebook, but will try to check in with news on this page every so often.
Follow Beverly Nuckols on Facebook (it’s open, you don’t have to sign up or “Friend”) and @bnuckols on Twitter.
Guess what? States are allowed to decide what they want to spend tax money on!
From the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court on Texas’ Law prohibiting our Family Planning tax funds from going to any “affiliate” of an abortion provider or anyone who “promotes” abortion: ”
Although this restriction functions as a speech-based funding condition, it also functions as a direct regulation of the content of a state program, and is therefore constitutional . . . “[W]hen the government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own it is entitled to say what it wishes.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at 194).
Needless to say, the press, including the Texas Tribune and theAustin Chronicle disagree with this ruling, the latter more obviously than the former.
Once again, please look at the Texas Tribune’s own interactive map or the State’s data base of doctors and clinics who have contracted with Texas’ WHP. Those Planned Parenthood clinics aren’t located in health care shortage areas. There are no shortages of willing providers for the services in question in the areas surrounding the abortion affiliates.
By e-mail from Women Speak for Themselves, this morning:
Women Defy “We Are Women” Rally Claims; Say Let Women Speak For Themselves
Washington DC, August 18—As some women gather at the Nation’s Capitol today for the “We Are Women” rally, members of the advocacy group, Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT; womenspeakforthemselves.com) are making their own voices heard. WSFT began with an open letter to the White House, Congress and Secretary Sebelius in February 2012, demanding respect both for religious freedom and for an understanding of woman’s freedom and equality that goes beyond “free contraception.” It now has over 31 thousand signatories from every state.
“It defies reason that a few groups could speak for all women on issues of life, family, sex and religion,” said WSFT founder, Helen Alvaré.
“The 31,000 plus women who have signed onto our open letter will no longer sit silently by while a few political figures and their allies insist that religious freedom has to bow to the theory, the ideology really, that the centerpiece of women’s freedom is sexual expression without commitment,” continued Alvaré.
Catherine, a woman in her twenties living in New York City and a signatory, wrote to WSFT: “Out of respect for themselves and others, many women choose to live a life of sexual integrity…Many of my girlfriends and I have found this approach to our sexuality to be freeing, empowering, and constitutive of a deep sense of happiness.”
“I’m a pro-choice woman who respects the rights of other women to hold different views,” wrote another WSFT member Carol, from Vermont. “More specifically I expect the government, in compliance with the Constitution, to protect every person from being coerced into acting in a manner contrary to his or her conscience. The HHS mandates are a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and religion.”
Hundreds more women wrote to WSFT to express their strong opposition to the message of the Saturday rally.
“Our women come from diverse political, ideological and religious backgrounds,” Alvaré explained. “But they are united in their opposition to a ‘one size fits all’ version of what women really want, particularly a version contradicted by decades of data and women’s experience in the new sex, dating and marriage markets formed by the idea that contraception, with abortion as the backup, is the sum and substance of women’s equality.“
Jennifer from Indiana, for example, a signatory to the WSFT letter says:
”Women and reproduction are not things that need to be fixed, medicated, sterilized. To equate women’s rights and health to these things is to do an incredible disservice to the rights and health issues that women do face today.”
“An honest ‘We Are Women’ rally would acknowledge the diverse views held by women. It would acknowledge the science about the decline in women’s well-being associated with the world view this rally represents.” Alvaré says. “No one speaks for all women on these issues. Let women speak for themselves.”
“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.
I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.
I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!
Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.
It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!
Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.
The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”
For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.
In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.
Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.
It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.
Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.
Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.
And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”
How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?
While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?
In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*
Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.
And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.
Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.
I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:
This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.
“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”
Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.
Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.
Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.
If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.
Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!
My best to you,
Helen
http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012
P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.
I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!
And anyone who supports his views is at risk, too.
In June, WingRight.org reported on the publication of Mark Regnerus‘ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research. The adults reported more problems when compared to adult children of “intact biological families.” The early complaints from critics were that the data didn’t distinguish between types of homosexual relationships in the same way that it did among heterosexual families. The adult subjects were designated as having Lesbian Mothers (LM) or gay fathers (GF), without breaking out smaller groups by how long or stable the relationships of the parents were. This was a weakness in the study that was recognized by the author.
Legitimate criticism was rare. One article, here, by Walter Olson under “Gay Voices” at least looks at the data itself, although dismissing much of it and declaring the author’s own bias. Critics repeatedly point to a very few small studies of carefully chosen – often self-selected -upper-middle class LM families that are written by very biased authors, who openly advocate for same-sex marriage and parenting. Somehow, they believe that bias in favor is not significant, but any data or mention that there might be negative consequences from alternative families – or documentation of positive outcomes from intact biological families – is immediately dismissed as bigoted and discriminatory.
However, instead of focusing on the problems described and noting that adult children of divorced and step families also fared poorly compared to IBFs, the conversation in the media and on line quickly became attacks on Dr. Regnerus, the source of the funding, the Witherspoon Institute, and the connections between the leaders of the Institute and the National Organization for Marriage.
An article in “The New Civil Rights Movement,” an online site devoted to “gay rights and issues and marriage equality,” very literally attacks not only Dr. Regnerus, Witherspoon and NOM, but also tears apart the motives and history of a man who came forward to tell his story after the Regnerus piece was published. The author, gay rights activist Scott Rosensweig who writes under the name Scott Rose, is most certainly biased. His piece is loaded with emotional rants, using words such as the repeated use of “gay-bashing”personal attacks on the author of the Witherspoon essay.
And now, the heat is on the University of Texas to somehow censor or censure Dr. Regnerus. Due to a “formal” complaint by Rosensweig, author of the article above, UT is conducting an inquiry to determine whether to fully investigate Dr. Regnerus and his methods. Rosensweig’s letter evidently charged that “Your employee, Professor Mark Regnerus, is shaming and disgracing your institution by violating your university’s academic honor code,” he wrote. “If you take no stand against Regnerus’ coordinated political anti-gay hate campaign then you are leaving your institution’s reputation in a garbage-bin of iniquity.”
I’m forwarding my own essay to the University and suggest that those of you with an interest in the issue, or who pay taxes in Texas, send them your own polite informative notes. President Bill Power’s e-mail address is president@po.utexas.edu.
You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however. Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”
In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:
If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.
and,
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.
The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.
In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.
Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!
For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org
My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.
Here’s the notes on “Abortion” and other life issues on that link above:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
It seems our #TxLege complicated matters – everyone who wants to be a Volunteer Deputy Registrar (VDR) will now have to undergo training approved by their County Tax Assessor/Collector. My local County says that people should expect to spend 45 minutes at their office for the training offered two days a week.
Those of us who work regular business hours – not to mention mothers and volunteers who already have their time crunch – will find it difficult to dedicate a week-day morning on this training.
After the Federal judges wiped out most of the Voter ID and VDR requirements – including the requirement that VDR’s be Texas citizens – this may not be as bad as I first thought. At least the Carpetbaggers (“Acorn-like” groups from out of state) will have to spend some time training through some County office. But not all Counties are headed by Conservatives. (although we’re working on it).
The Texas Secretary of State’s office has published training on-line, here. I wonder why this couldn’t be used as actual “online” training for past VDR’s or at least for those of us who are residents of the County?
Here’s the 94 page ruling on VDR requirements.
I believe our Legislators need to reconsider the training requirements and some pressure needs to be placed on our SOS and County TAC’s to allow on line training, at least for County residents.
My idea for “Constitutional Solutions” for health care is up on the site. Take a look and second it, here.
Another place to read is under the Family Values and Faith-based Issues subheadings of Marriage and Family Values and Sanctity of Life. It seems the site is being bombarded by “Republicans” who want to get rid of these planks in our Platform. Please comment on the “ideas” that want to approve same sex marriage and get “pro-life” completely out of our Platform.
I wrote one of my (long) posts in response to “Remove Pro-life from the Party Platform,” here:
This idea can’t be considered by the Republican Party. The major difference between our Party and all others is the basic belief in and defense of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution means nothing without the right to life. The freedom from tyranny that the Constitution preserves is nothing without the security “that all men are created equal and endowed by God with *unalienable* rights, …Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The definition of human being is scientific, it’s not arbitrary or dependent on stage of life or geography. Once we stop assuming that all human individuals are endowed with these rights and allow the government to decide which humans are human enough to have these inalienable rights protected by the force of law, we all become slaves to the majority, whether that majority is in numbers or the power of the biggest guns. We are the only species having this conversation.
Federal judge overturns State law, again:
Costa granted a preliminary injunction on five sections of the law until a trial on whether the entire law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
Key points
Under the ruling, the state may no longer require that deputy voter registrars live in Texas, a law Voting for America said prevented it from organizing voter registration drives.It also may not prevent deputy registrars from registering voters who live outside their county; prevent organizations from firing or promoting employees based on the number of voters registered; prevent organizations from making photocopies of completed voter registration forms for their records; or prevent deputy registrars from mailing completed applications.
via Judge guts vote registration law – Houston Chronicle.
County Clerks are responsible for registering voters and maintaining the voter rolls,and they swear in the Deputy Voter registrars, but the judge says that County lines and even State residency don’t matter anymore. Anyone who wants to come in from out of State may grab a handful of voter registration cards and fill them out , copy the information, and even mail in completed forms.
Texas Alliance for Life has sent out a notice of a hearing Monday, August 8th, on the TWHP. (Sorry for the formatting, I’m traveling, so limited access to the Internet.)
* * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 8/3/12 * * *
Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!
Deadline on MONDAY
Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.
DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.
The Obama Administration is killing the Medicaid Women’s Health Program in Texas because Governor Perry and the Legislature refuse to fund Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 7, passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Perry last year with Texas Alliance for Life’s strong endorsement, explicitly excludes organizations that provide or promote elective abortion, like Planned Parenthood. Without Senate Bill 7, there would be no statutory basis for excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women’s Health Program and from the Texas Women’s Health Program.
SAMPLE MESSAGE: Please call, email, or mail a message in your own words by Monday, August 6.Phone — 800.322.1305 (during business hours):
Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us.
“Dear Ms. Garcia,
“This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012.
“Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address
Mail: Imelda M. Garcia, Department of State Health Services, Division of Family and Community Health Services, Community Health Services Section, Mail Code 1923, P.O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347,
Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2012.
Please let us know you’ve made your contact. Simply send comments to info@texasallianceforlife.org.
BACKGROUND
For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.
Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician
Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.
www.TexasAllianceforLife.org 512.477.1244
twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife
Update, January 25, 2016 Read about the endorsement from Governor Perry
“I wanted to talk about him, who he was, see if I could get a handle on Ted Cruz the man, not Cruz the caricature I’d seen through the political lens. What I found was a very different person than what I had been led to believe.”
******
Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, (Theodore Roosevelt) disdained Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority.
George Will. Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Will-Forgotten-heroes-of-1912-3758656.php#ixzz22Z0xb3FN (link to bio by me, BBN)
In other words, Conservatives are Constitutionalists not because we desire to limit the rights of others who disagree with us, but because the Constitution rightfully constrains the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.
Reading the Op-Eds and comments in the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, and in the Austin American Statesman about Ted Cruz’ victory here in Texas shows that we Conservatives have a lot of educating to do. People still don’t get what we mean when we speak of Constitutionalism.
My concern all along with Mr. Cruz has been his tactic of running against the entire Republican Party in Texas. I believe that his denial that Texas is led by Conservatives, and his focus on a couple of Bills that failed, rather than identifying with and emphasizing the victories of the Texas GOP, has created a distraction from the “Taxed Enough Already” Party agenda, rather than strengthening it.
The left (and even some of the Tea Party members) believe we Conservatives want to end government and taxes, rather than control both in the interest of protecting our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We forget that the Left and the media only see groups, not individuals. They thrive on class warfare and are trying to make Cruz’ victory “White” vs “non-white,” “old” vs. “young,” with a strong dose of “throw the bums out!”
Rapprochement by Mr. Cruz toward our Texas Conservatives in office here in Texas – making a point that they/we exist and that he is one of us — will not only help him win an easier victory in November, it will strengthen our Texas Republican Party and advance Conservatism.
From Rush’s transcript, August 2, 2012,
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat. But even if he was, so what? The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that. Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat. Joe Biden is a plagiarist. Anybody care about that? Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon. His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Romney is none of this. Not even close to it. We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner. Democrats don’t care about it.
That’s me in the lower left corner, adjusting my glasses.
Well, have YOU had your picture in the New York Times?
Just asking…
We docs often hear that advance practice nurses could do 80% of what Family docs, pediatricians and internist do. But, it’s knowing the difference between that 80% and 20% that will kill you!
I’m printing the whole of this letter from Dr. Valenti published by the Texas Medical Association, because it says so much that we doctors are saying these days. Here’s more about the crisis among Texas Doctors who still see the poorest elderly in Texas.
Money is vital to keep practices open, but what’s scary is that there’s a move to allow “mid-levels” to do more. Specifically, Dr. Valenti objects to an opinion piece in the DMN that includes this statement: “Hardly anyone doubts that most veteran registered nurses, with a little more training, could do a fine job setting broken bones, stitching wounds and even dispensing drugs for common ailments.”
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Setting the Record Straight on Doctor Pay
The following is a response by Joseph Valenti, MD, to commentary published Friday in the Dallas Morning News by Eli Lehrer, president of R Street. In the article, Mr. Lehrer claims U.S. physicians and health care workers make too much money and are responsible for the high cost of medical care in America.
Dear Sir:
I am a physician in Denton, Texas. This morning, I sat and read your article in The Dallas Morning News titled “Your Doctor’s Big Fat Paycheck.” Frankly, I am in awe of the breadth of your ignorance.
Fact: Of the health care dollars spent in this country, physician salaries make up about 8.5 percent. That is one of the lowest percentages in the industrialized world. Germany, by contrast, is at 15 percent.
Fact: The graduate level course of study for nurse practitioners (NPs) and nurses is not even close to that of physicians — we have a little something called residency. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. When I did mine in OB-Gyn from 1994 to1998, it was 90-100 hours a week for four years with a take home pay of $20,000. I was raising a family on that, as my wife had to stay home to take care of premature twins. NPs and nurses do none of that.
Fact: Private insurers are already too strong. “Weak bargaining position”? If you don’t like the contract they offer, they tell you to take a hike. Doctors are the ones with no bargaining position. I haven’t had an increase from United Healthcare for 54 months. Meanwhile, it paid its shareholders an 11-percent dividend last year. And regarding your comment about how individual plans rarely cover one-half an area — do your homework! States like Alabama have Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering 90 percent of insured lives! In any other industry, this would constitute a monopoly.
Fact: Medicare increases have been had by every segment of the health care industry except doctors. (See the charts.)
Fact: Pilots may make less than doctors. They also belong to unions and walk out when they don’t get what they want. Doctors never walk out, and the pro bono and free care we hand out can’t even be deducted from our federal taxes as charity. Then try breaking it down per hour. Pilots fly about 60 hours/month. Doctors work in the office and hospital about 60 hours/week. And that doesn’t take into account nights and weekends on call. Don’t get me wrong — pilots are vital and do a great job. But on a per-hour basis, they are clearly ahead. By the way, I don’t know a single primary care doctor who makes $200,000 a year. Most of the ones I know are barely getting by, and many are closing their practices or selling them to hospitals.
A huge doctor shortage is looming. We cannot and will not attract our best and brightest students to medicine unless their pay is commensurate with the level and intensity of work and commitment needed to fund a modern medical education. The student loan burden alone, which is now often exceeding $200,000, keeps many away.
The huge amount we spend in this country for health care has far less to do with medical professionals’ salaries than it does with the cost of almost everything else. Case in point: The same Mirena IUD, from the same single factory that Bayer uses in Finland, costs $700 in the United States but costs $250 in Canada. Really? That same case can be made for tens of thousands of drugs and medical products here.
Medicine is one of the only businesses I know of where the increasing cost of doing business can’t be passed on to the customer. Every year, the cost of running my office and paying my employees goes up, while insurance payments stay the same or go down. I am left to eat the difference. My salary the last three years is less than I made 14 years ago when I started in private practice. Hardly a source of bankrupting the health care system.
Shakespeare said that the eye sees what the mind knows. With that in mind, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable entrusting your care or that of your family to someone with less training, less knowledge, and less expertise. Would you? I think not. Now ask yourself how happy one of us would be treating someone like you, who wrote an article that is so misleading about us and who we really are and what we really have done to become really good at taking care of patients. Surprise. We would love to take of you. Why? Because that is what we took a vow to do, a vow that doesn’t allow us the luxury of being judgmental. So the next time you are lying in bed needing emergency surgery, remember this — we will be there. Pay or no pay. Assign a value to that ideal, and then consider whether or not we are “overpaid.”
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Valenti, MD, FACOG
Texas Senate District 25 is Conservative, Pro-life & Pro-family!
Donna Campbell wins 2:1 victory!!
Have we in the Republican Party really come so low that we only look at charisma and ethnicity?
Slate.com is a long time online and very left leaning news site. Today, the article by David Wiegle, “The Inescapable Logic of Nominating Ted Cruz for Senate” proves that they don’t think very highly of Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans.
…Only toward the end of the editorial do we get some sound logic for Cruz.
“[A]s the Houston-raised son of a Cuban immigrant, he is proof positive that the American dream is very much alive and well — if in desperate need of defenders within the political system. Mr. Cruz can provide that defense in a way that Mr. Dewhurst simply is not equipped to do.”
Ah, there we go. Cruz is 42 and Hispanic. Dewhurst is 66 and white.
So there you have it: This man believes that a “white man” in his 60’s can’t represent the American Dream, no matter his humble beginnings and his own evidence that the American Dream of success is possible.
I don’t believe the bulk of Conservatives have reached that point, yet. The trouble is that a lot of our Party members are young and/or just got out of their recliners to join in our electoral process. They are vulnerable to the loudest and most brash of our “leaders” who deceive them about the process and possibilities of legislative elective office.
The fact is that inertia is built into the system of Government, both at the State (especially) at the Federal level. Most of the time that’s a good thing!
David Dewhurst knows the ins and outs of government, he can balance budgets, convince men and women to form coalitions and get things done. Most of all, he knows how to move that inertia we call Government to success as in ‘The Texas Miracle.” (The year-round Senate in DC will probably seem too much, too long to him.)
Please consider voting for David Dewhurst for US Senator from the great State of Texas!
jroger777: So
if the #TeaParty fails to show up and the retirees get real excited about voting for Dewhurst then @tedcruz won’t be our next #TXSen (Twitter comment on a poll showing that people over 65 are more likely to vote for David Dewhurst)
By now, we’ve all heard that there’s a runoff race on for Texas’ U.S. Senator Republican candidate. Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has received the endorsement of Governor Rick Perry, 18 of 19 Republican State Senators, and the bulk of State-Wide office holders. Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is backed by many leaders of the “Tea Party,” especially those most interested in controlling illegal immigration. South Carolina’s Senator Jim DeMint recruited former Texas Solicitor Ted Cruz to run last year and has been campaigning with him this past weekend. We’ve seen the fanfare with Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Rick Santorum. A few know that Norman Adams, who masterminded the “Texas Solution” guest worker Plank in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 Platform, endorsed Cruz in the Primary.
But who are the grassroots supporters and what do they say in support of and against the candidates? One way to get an idea is to follow the race, the candidates and their “fans” on the social networking sites. The most popular are Facebook and Twitter. A cadre of supporters of both candidates post on Twitter, gathering together under the “hashtag” (see my “Primer” below) #TxSen, That’s why I’ve been putting the # in the title of most of my posts for the last month or so.
I posted about the news coverage and fallout from one conversation on Twitter back in early June, when Katrina Pierson, founder of Garland, Texas Tea Party and Grassroots Texans Network, and volunteer for Cruz, called former Marine Captain Dan Moran “a deformed disabled vet.”
That was about the time I got wrapped up in Facebook and Twitter – especially Twitter – – okay, addicted to Twitter – political social networking. I also started saving a few of the more notable Tweets sent by the Cruz crowd. (Sometimes derogatorily called “Cruzbots.” I wouldn’t do that. I call them the #CruzClan.)
Unfortunately, the conversation above is not that unusual, except that it got some press. The @DavidHDewhurst fans (voters) tend to be polite and rule followers. In contrast, the @tedcruz supporters follow a different drummer. I’ve argued politics on the Internet for nearly 20 years and have never seen the spite and name calling that comes from the #CruzClan, even when talking to atheists, pro-aborts and RonPaulers. That last statement reads like an incredible exaggeration, even to me, but just watch #TxSen or my “feed” after this blog is published.
The biggest surprise came in the form of questions indicating that some of the #CruzClan might not agree with their candidate, who says he’s pro-life and believes in laws protecting marriage as “one man and one woman,” on “social issues,” such as abortion and marriage. Here are a few examples:
KatrinaPierson: @bnuckols Social issues are not constitutional issues. What are his fiscal conservative achievements. #txsen
KatrinaPierson: @bnuckols What page of the constitution is homosexuality on. I must have missed that one. #txsen #tcot
smurfdawginnc: @KatrinaPierson @bnuckols Why would the Constitution discuss a persons private sexual preference?
I had a several-day discussion about the Constitution and abortion with this Cruz supporter:
@Clint_Stutts: @bnuckols You’re still reading into the texts of the DOI and Const what isn’t there. Still have not shown they had unborn in mind #txsen
Even with a limit of 140 characters, the discussion followed the same old pattern that all such conversations do.
Wonder how popular Cruz will be with his fans in a couple of years, if he’s elected, but proves more or less Conservative – and effective in the designed-to-be-immovable-Senate than they expect him to be?
Short primer on Twitter and Tweeting
If you are reading this on your computer or phone, you have all the skills necessary to be a social networker on Twitter. Join in!
If you want to see – or “follow” – the real time conversation, you have to sign up for Twitter at Twitter.com. (Hint: Pick the shortest name you can, so you don’t eat up the 140 character limit!) If you are interested in a topic or person, enter the word or name in the search box at the top. You can save the search to return to it over and over. You may have to pick the most appropriate result, or find your specific interest as a “hashtag” – subjects that appear frequently enough to form a subheading or group of Tweets – in the list of Tweets given. “Top Conservatives on Twitter” is a good place to start, #tcot. Or #TxSen/#txsen, “Texas Senate” will allow you to follow that subject through the election.
You’ll also see a list of people who tweet about your subject. People are contacted and referred to by @TheirName. I’m @bnuckols.
WingRight 