On “Tax Day”

How’s your tax return? A lot of hope, no change?

Did you over-pay and get back money – without interest – you could have been using all year long? Did you underpay and now have to scramble to make a payment — or face fines and interest that the IRS sure won’t pay you if the tables were turned?

Or are you one of the lucky few who had to make “quarterly estimated tax payments” in addition to your tax return? Yes, that’s right: if you look like you might owe more taxes than most people, the IRS forces you to pay up front, every 3 months. Still without any promise of interest if you over-pay.

Vote in the Primaries and in November like your life depended on it!

First Amendment on Life Support

“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” John Madison, “Property,” National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

“In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Hippocratic Oath, approximately 400 BC.

“Refusals based on moral disapprobation, however, are not typical of medical ethics” R. Alta Charo, ”Health Care Provider Refusals to Treat, Prescribe, Refer or Inform: Professionalism and Conscience.” February, 2007.

Fully enjoying the protections of the First Amendment themselves, the New England Journal of Medicine has published yet another editorial, “Warning: Contraceptive Drugs May Cause Political Headaches,”  by Robin Alta Charo, J.D., denouncing conscience and those of us who abide by ours. I suppose that she thought it was the right thing to do.

The Journal does not offer background on Ms. Charo’s previous editorials on the subject, including the notorious 2005 “The Celestial Fire of Conscience.” The editors don’t include any  note – any “warning’ – that she was part of the political Obama transition team. Ms. Charo did not mention any of these possible conflicts of interest in her “disclosure form,” available online.

Charo’s entire argument relies on readers’ agreement that the argument is about “public policy and contraception.” It is vital to her argument since, as she quotes Georgetown University theologian Tom Reese, “If the argument is over religious liberty, the bishops win.” Because, if we understand that the issue relates to “an establishment of religion,” Congress cannot legitimately pass, and the Executive Branch may not enforce, any law that infringes on the free exercise of religion.

Charo would instead have us focus on “public institutions, public places, and public duties.” Although hospitals and universities serve the public by providing healthcare and education, they are still owned by private, religious entities. In addition, the Obama Administration’s “accommodation” – the suggestion that the institution’s insurance company provide contraception free of charge to the ensured who want it – becomes much more complicated in light of the fact that most large religious hospitals and universities privately self-insure rather than enter into the market to buy first dollar coverage from a third party insurance company.

Charo’s essay is political appeal to emotion and half-truths, full of the “partisan sound bites and slogans” she denounces. However, not even the lie about mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds compares with her earlier error of logic in warning that the institutions could withhold “ordinary salary.” I don’t know of any religious organization that considers agreed-upon salary for agreed-upon service as inherently sinful. Keeping a promise, like that in the First Amendment or a contract with an employee is sacred to those of us with a conscience.

The Constitution demands that Congress “shall make no law” limiting religious freedom. The attempt by the Obama Administration to write regulations that require religious institutions to engage in acts that are contrary to long-standing, organized tenets of that religion goes directly against the First Amendment and cannot be justified.

The Big Lie, Buffett Version

No matter how often it’s repeated, it’s a lie that the
Buffett rule will cut deficit or increase the money available for
Washington, DC to spend. The highest I’ve seen is $47 Billion dollars
over 10 years in revenue from the Buffett tax increase. That’s less
than one day of current *deficit* Federal spending.

The entire premise is a lie. The capital gains taxes are taxed at the
corporate rate prior to bring dispersed to investors. And they’ve
already been taxed as income from the investors.

Taxes are punishment for achievement and investment. The Buffett rule
– while sparing Buffett’s own tax shelters, the foundations run by his
kids – is a disincentive for investors and punishment for the risk
required to achieve.

For more information – proof of the Big Lie –  on the rates and the amounts that “the rich” pay in taxes, take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office says about taxes and income levels:

• “The overall federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the bottom quintile (fifth) of the income distribution paid 4 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the middle quintile paid 14 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile, with the top 1 percent facing an average rate of close to 30 percent.
• “Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.  In 2007, the highest quintile earned 56 percent of pretax income and paid 69 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 19 percent of income and paid 28 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4 percent of income and paid less than 1 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13 percent of income and paid 9 percent of taxes.”

Feral Hogs and “Real Budget Solutions” for Texas

While reviewing budget issues with Dr. Donna Campbell, we discovered “Real Texas Budget Solutions” (a pdf) from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Besides recommending that Texas’ State agencies begin cutting budgets, now, rather than later, the paper suggests eliminating funding for the following:

Commission on the Arts; Texas Historical Commission; Texas Public Utility Commission: System Benefit Fund, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Program; Fiscal Programs— Comptroller of Public Accounts: Major Events Trust Fund; Trusteed Programs within the Office of the Governor: Texas Music Office, Texas Film Commission, Economic Development and Tourism Division, Texas Enterprise Fund, Emerging Technology Fund, Economic Development Bank, and Texas Tourism program; Texas Workforce Commission: Skills Development Program; Texas Windstorm Insurance Association; Texas Education Agency: Regional Education Service Centers, Student Success Initiative, Steroid Testing, Campus Turnaround Team Support, Best Buddies; Higher Education Coordinating Board: Doctoral Incentive Program, Top Ten Percent Scholarship Program, and Research University Development Fund; Library and Archives Commission: Resource Sharing and Local Aid; Office of Public Insurance Counsel; Office of Public Utility Counsel; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Texas Emission Reduction Program; Pollution Prevention Advisory Council; Take Care of Texas Program; Texas Clean School Bus Program; and Recycling Market Development Implementation Program; Texas Department of Agriculture: Seed Quality, Seed Certification, Feral Hog Abatement, Egg Inspection Program, and Agricultural Commodity; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Promotion and Outreach Programs; Texas Railroad Commission: Energy Resource Development and Alternative Energy Promotion; Board of Plumbing Examiners; Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists; Funeral Service Commission.

I saw a couple in there that I wonder about (and had to wonder about my own Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency) but where *do* we start? Everyone of these agencies and boards is taking money from Texas taxpayers’ own budgets.  Which can be better done privately?

(That photo is one that I took at a macadamia nut farm on  Hawaii, September, 2011).

Vanity: I’m Published in Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas Advanced Directive Act)

I submitted an editorial to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram which they have titled, “Nuckols: Navigating healthcare’s difficult decisions.” It was published March 28, 2013, but I can’t tell whether it’s in the dead-tree version.  (In case you ever wondered, no one notifies the author when a piece like this or a letter to the editor is published. I think it increases their readership, all of us checking back to see whether we made it to print.)

The paper had published a very biased and poorly written op-ed calling the Texas Advanced Directive Act, “the Texas Futile Care act.” Although the Star-Telegram corrected this one error, the piece has unfortunately been picked up by several other websites.

The editors edited: giving the piece its name and changing all my references to “TADA” and “the Act” to “the act.” They also did some research and posted a little biography that I was surprised to see. (I wouldn’t have been foolish or brave enough to give these credentials without checking in with the people they might have affected.)

I do wish that the paper had researched the original article more thoroughly. It’s so bad that I decided not to link to it.

I was privileged, back in 2006 and 2007, to sit in on a couple of year’s worth of the meetings that I mention in the article. We all worked diligently to come up with some compromise other than going to court on every disputed case. Because our compromise fell apart at the very last minute, families are still faced with only 48 hours between the notice that an ethics committee has been called and ten days’ notice if transfer is pending. I hope we can come to an agreement in 2013 to make these decisions a little easier, while keeping them out of court and in the realm of physicians’ medical judgment.

ObamaCare Morbity and Mortality Conference

Reading the transcripts of the three days of Supreme Court hearings (Day 3 is here) on Obamacare is enough to make me scream in frustration and pain at the convoluted arguments.  Sometimes it seems to me as though the Court is playing games with our lives and laughing about it as though it’s an inside joke.

Why don’t they just stick to the plain reading of the Constitution and the law? Who cares about Lochner or Brock or Printz, Raich, Wickard?  Why are Ginsburg and Sotomayor leading the Solicitor General?

Part of the problem is that this really is an elite group, immersed in the minutia of Court rulings that most of us have never heard of, much less read. What probably should have been a clear and easy reference by Justice Scalia, made me look up the Eighth Amendment and “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In an attempt to give the Justices and lawyers the benefit of the doubt, I’m trying to think of the hearings as a sort of “Morbidity and Mortality” (“M and M”) conference. (The other analogy had to do with zombies. Decided not to go there.)

I imagine that a layman would feel equally lost and frustrated at a M and M, watching doctors review outcomes from tough cases where something went wrong or someone died. No detail is too small or unimportant for debate and (excuse the pun) dissection, unless the attending or Chief (Justice) declares it so.  Where there are rivalries or competition, the docs try to “one up” each other by the use of jargon and eponyms, correct pronunciation, obscure research and cute little “you had to be there but you weren’t so I’m brilliant/safe/top dog and you’re not” digs.

(Even here, I indulge in jargon: “eponyms” are names given to something based on the person who is given credit for the technique or discovery or some aspect of the disease or technique discussed, a sort of nickname that saves time and breath for the speaker. My theory about jargon – at least since I’ve finished residency and can’t be made to repeat a couple of months of training – is that whoever says the word loudest, is right about the pronunciation. As a Family Physician among sub- and super-sub-specialists, I want the anatomical or pathological name, not some esoteric reference to a paper in a journal or a dead guy’s name. I advise my patients to demand the same.)

Going back to the M and M: families and patients watching the conference, with our obscure references, jargon and eponyms probably would feel that the doctors and doctors-in-training don’t care as much about the patient as we do about shaming our rivals and proving and improving our own superiority and power in the group. While that may be true in some cases, the purpose – and more often than not, the result – of the process of review and debate is to make each of us more knowledgeable and to try to make sure we never make the same mistakes twice.

So when we call patients (or the hearings) “trainwrecks” we don’t really mean disrespect. The analogy is good: just as the cars on the train hit the one in front of them, go off the track, pile up each other, turn upside down and cause damage on top of damage, treatment.of very sick patients involve correcting one problem without creating another, organ failure on top of organ failure and digging through the most urgent crises before we can get to the point where we can fix what went wrong in the first place. It just looks like we don’t know what we’re doing.

Hopefully, we’re watching the Supremes review the autopsy of Obamacare rather than a debate over how much and how long to give life support. The “patient” in this case was a “trainwreck” from the beginning, but maybe Congress will learn something.

HatTip to Sonja Harris’ Conservatives in Action for the “trainwreck” link.

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

The only thing sure in life is death and taxes. The difference is that “We the People” can avoid taxes by making sure our Republic is sound and avoid the errors that the founding fathers  and de Tocqueville (and I) warned us about.

Unfortunately, our Nation has decided – whether by default or not – that a group of nine appointed Justices are not only the “highest court in the land,” they are the highest LAW in the land. And so, we find ourselves at the mercy of the whims – and sometimes the least consistent – of these justices

I’ve been scanning the transcript from the Tuesday, March 27, 2012 debate before the Supreme Court, which is available at the SCOTUS website.

A question by Justice Alito :

“All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, “You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else.”

“Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?”

RedState.com’s Erick Erickson wrote about “Sinners in the hands of Anthony Kennedy,” and noted “the quote heard round the world,” from Justice Kennedy:

“But the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

Erickson points out that the media are changing the meme of the debate from whether the law is Constitutional to a rant that the Conservatives on the Court are bullying the rest. The Houston Chronicle joins the chorus and proves Erick’s point.

To think that I almost posted this without adding the Category “Media Abuse.”

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

Public policy in education and ethics discourse are approaching a climate in which there are no standards of morality and no expectation of – much less recognition of – any ultimate Truth and no acknowledgement of right or wrong other than arbitrary enforcement of faddish laws.

“The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”

Earlier this month, I reported on the Journal of Medical Ethics’ “After Birth Abortion; Why should the baby live?” The quote above is from one of the editors of the Journal, Julian Savulescu, who apparently does not understand that his support of “rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression” is a substantive moral view, dogma or moral outlook. Savulescu is a perfect example that my opening statement is true.

Among the many unintended consequences of this lack of standards is that there is now seems to be no place for teaching and learning. How do our teachers, much less our students, develop judgment about ethics in a world with only subjective standards? How do our teachers correct a horrible overstepping of what were once considered boundaries if there are no boundaries?

Where and when do we find the teaching moment, an opportunity to review basic ethics and learn once again why these ethics fit the event or question?

Find a Women’s Health Program doctor in Texas

Planned Parenthood (“PP”) for years has used the media and fraud to bring in clients when those women could have gone to a family doctor or OB/Gyn. Below are three ways to find a local doctor who participates with the Women’s Health Program in Texas.

As a woman doctor, mother and grandmother from Texas, I support Governor Perry in his support of the law, passed once again by the Texas Legislature last summer, that prohibits any of our tax funds going to any “affiliate” of abortionists. Senate Bill 7, the huge law covering Texas medical financing, was passed in the Special Session of the 82nd Legislature and renewed a State prohibition on any Texas Medicaid funds going to “perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” (See page 91.)

The Obama administration and countless media and op-ed articles would have us all believe that the law is new, but it’s not. The original Women’s Health Program (“WHP”) was created in 2005 and received a 5 year waiver from the Bush Administration in 2006, as finalized in these documents from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All of these facts are outlined in the Complaint filed by Attorney General Greg Abbott in his lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius and Obama’s Health and Human Services:

11.From the outset of the Women’s Health Program, the Texas Legislature has explicitly prohibited taxpayer funds from going to entities that perform or promote elective abortions. The Legislature also prohibited taxpayer dollars from funding affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions. See id. § 32.0248(h) (“The department shall ensure that the money spent under the demonstration project, regardless of the funding source, is not used to perform or promote elective abortions. The department, for the purpose of the demonstration project, may not contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”).

Read the next few paragraphs of the Complaint for comments on dates and on approval of the waiver without restrictions on Texas’ prohibition on abortion providers.  Please note that the waiver was requested in December, 2005, and approved in December, 2006, for a period of 5 years, to end December 31, 2011. It is not true, as reported by a spokesperson for Secretary Sebelius, that the waiver was denied.

Texas law prohibited State funds from going to any provider who performed or referred to elective abortions beginning in 2003. Under a provision known as “Rider 8,” the State began requiring recipients of Medicaid and Family Planning money to sign an affidavit that they did not perform or refer for elective abortions. Texas won when PP challenged Rider 8 in Federal Court. The various PP sub-corporations in the State then set up separate corporations for the “medical affiliates” that were not licensed to perform abortions and the “surgical affiliates” that did perform elective abortions. These were shams, as all of the corporations came under the direction of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and some even shared buildings and staff. It turned out that 4 of the facilities run by the PP Trust of San Antonio and South Texas didn’t even bother with the sham. They were found to be illegally performing medical abortions, and were fined and shut down in 2009 as unlicensed abortion clinics and for fraudulently billing Medicaid.

Here are a few numbers from Governor Perry’s office that show that Planned Parenthood is not the most efficient way for Texas to spend our Medicaid dollars:

• There are more than 2,500 qualified providers in the WHP.
  Planned Parenthood represents less than two percent of providers in the WHP.
• Planned Parenthood’s cost per client is 43 percent higher than most other providers, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
• In FY 2010, nearly 80 percent of women served received WHP services from non Planned Parenthood providers.

What did happen is that last year, Attorney General defined “affiliates.” Logically, subsidiaries of a given corporation, such as all the “medical affiliates” of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, are “affiliates” of that corporation.

PP and their supporters would have us believe that hundreds of thousands of women will go without care because of the Texas law. On the contrary, those affiliates were easily replaced. Thousands of qualified doctors and clinics already participate with the Women’s Health Program in Texas.

And there are several ways to find one of the qualified providers for the Women’s Health Program in your town:

In Texas, we have “2-1-1,” a State services telephone information line. You can call 2-1-1 from any phone to find all sorts of assistance in your area, including doctors who participate with the WHP.  I’ve heard that this may not be the most up to date or complete list, however.

Texas Tribune published an interactive map that highlights the color coded stark reality of the differences in numbers and in the distribution of PP versus the many doctors who currently participate with the Women’s Health Program. Notice that Planned Parenthood only shows up where there are lots of other providers. Where there aren’t many doctors, there are definitely no PP facilities.

For the most accurate and largest number of WHP qualified doctors and clinics in your area, Texas’ Department of Health and Human Services has a search engine available here. Use the “Advanced Search,” then choose Plan type:”Traditional Medicaid,” Provider type: “Specialist” (although this will actually bring up family physicians and other primary care docs), and Waiver type: “Women’s Health Program.” You can search by County or by Zip Code.

Hopefully this information will help you answer the critics of Texas, our Legislature, Commissioner of Texas’ Health and Human Service Suehs, and our Governor Perry.

ObamaCare facts from American Doctors for Truth!!!

Watch this video!!!! American Doctors 4 Truth looks very interesting, and they certainly know how to tell the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PJ-p29xEM0s

The doctors on this video tell the truth about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, ObamaCare and what we need to do!

David Dewhurst for Senate, Ted Cruz should retract his negative ads

I’m endorsing Texas‘ Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in his race for US Senator and calling on Ted Cruz to retract his false, negative ads.

As a stalwart champion for the right to life, marriage and small government, David Dewhurst has demonstrated the strength of his Conservative philosophy and credentials while serving as President of the Texas Senate.  He supported the passage of our Tort Reform, Prenatal Protection Act, Woman’s Right to Know Act,and this year’s Sonogram Law, “Loser Pays,” and Voter ID Law. He has opposed ObamaCare, called for the resignation of Eric Holder for his part in running guns to Mexico and backed Governor Perry in his fight against Federal attempts to encroach on Texas’ state sovereignty.  He stood his ground in spite of stunts pulled by Senate Democrats, including their month-long trip to New Mexico in 2003. His answers to the committee that interviewed him, as well as his history, won him the endorsement of Texas Alliance for Life. (I’m on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

I am impressed with his ability to work out agreements among Conservatives separated by degrees on fine points. One day in 2007 stands out in my memory as an example of Dewhurst’s leadership: Lt. Governor Dewhurst brought a group of us together in his office to hammer out an agreement on significant reform for the Texas Advanced Directive Act. He was a calming, firm influence on the large group. I didn’t detect any pressure from him, although the Session was winding down and this would be the last day the legislation could be passed in the Senate.

Last Fall, I wanted the Lieutenant Governor to remain in his current office so we’d have the security of his experience and leadership  when (as I had hoped) Governor Perry became President. Because I hoped to have a Governor Dewhurst sworn in in December, I originally decided to support Ted Cruz and even gave him a donation, even though I wondered about his switch from an aspiring Attorney General to the Senate race.

Unfortunately, Ted Cruz and his Senate campaign staff haven’t built their campaign on why Mr. Cruz is qualified and should be Senator. Instead, they’ve spent time and money on abrasive, negative attacks on the Lieutenant Governor, a fine man who has served Texas honorably. Several of the ads have been blatantly false, including a very early one concerning the Transportation Security Agency anti-groping bill (passed in the Special Session) and another claiming that Dewhurst had backed an income tax in 2005 (debunked by the Austin-American “Politi-facts” as “Pants on Fire“).

I spoke to Mr. Cruz’ staff about my disapproval of their attempts to sully the Lieutenant Governor’s reputation last November at the Texas Federation of Republican Women Convention and again at the Comal County Candidate forum on the first of February. The staffers argued with me both times and nothing changed.

The negativity continued. On February 23, Ben Shapiro of Big Government helped spread a false rumor about a “fundraiser” supposedly held by Obama supporters at the home of one of the Podestas. There were no funds raised, and the “home” is actually a townhouse that is often used by a PR firm for meetings. Neither the sponsors nor the invited guests were Democrats or “Liberals.” Shapiro wrote a luke-warm retraction on February 24th, but noted that Cruz’ staffer, James Bernson, defended using the earlier version. Many of us received emails with the false claims on February 28th.

Cruz’ facebook page still contained these false claims as late as last week.

Mr. Cruz is very young and has never held an elective office or proven himself able to build coalitions that we all know are necessary for legislation to pass in either the State or Federal House and Senate. Texas Legislators learn that it is better to persuade their opponents than to tear them down, even when one side has a majority, because of the pressures of our short Sessions. Cruz only knows the adversarial techniques that he must have used to argue cases in court where it’s evidently not enough to be right: the opponent must be depicted as wrong – and guilty.

The race for the open Texas Senate is not a matter of Conservative vs. RINO. It’s not incumbent vs. fresh ideas and energy. It is experience and a proven legislative ability vs. what appears to be a win-at-all-costs, aggressive and arrogant display of disregard for the history and the truth of a good man’s record.

David Dewhurst is conservative and a leader. He has a record over the years that proves that he is not timid or a RINO, at all. Neither is he abrasive and negative as Mr. Cruz has proven himself. I hope you will join with me in supporting David Dewhurst for the Senate.

Planned Parenthood “affiliates” and the Texas Women’s Health Program

Today, the Austin Chronicle, the local “alternative” news source, has yet another article “Perry continues assault on women’s healthcare,” claiming that Governor Perry and the Commissioner of Health and Human Services Suehs have acted – seemingly on their own – to shut down the Texas Women’s Health Program (more info here) in order to spite the poor underdog, Planned Parenthood.

Today’s statement is that “The new regulation signed by Suehs – redefining “affiliate” to mean that Planned Parenthood clinics not providing abortions are deemed affiliated with those clinics that do – conflicts with federal law, as confirmed last week by U.S. Health and Human Ser­vices Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”

Actually, the Attorney General ruled on the definition of “Affiliate.” The Secretary must follow the law passed last Spring by the 82nd Texas Legislature.

It’s not surprising – in fact it’s common sense – that subsidiary corporations are considered “affiliates” by the State, since they are members of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  The annual report of PPFA calls these facilities their “medical affiliates.” The President of PPFA, Cecile Richards, shown above with Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth at a Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Texas event, visits these subsidiaries in her official duties.

(Photo from the 2009 Annual Report of Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Texas)

Paralysis, Gridlock?

Are the Republicans causing “gridlock,” “paralysis,” etc. in Congress? Is it the Republican-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate that can’t pass bills, can’t even pass a budget? Why is the theme of the day that nothing is happening in DC because of (wink, Republican) extreme partisanship? (See “Senate Gridlock explained in one chart,” “‘Deliberative’ Senate gripped by paralysis,” “Chipping away at Senate gridlock,” and the many articles about how “moderate” Olympia Snowe is.) (Whatever you do, do not mention “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords, much less Arlen Specter.)

My husband and I visited Washington, DC last week with the National Pawnbrokers Association. Members of the NBA heard lobbyists and Legislators in their meetings and visited Capitol Hill to meet with Congressmen and Senators from our States. Time after time, we heard that staffers and the occasional Rep told the pawnbrokers that the two sides are too far apart, too polarized to get any legislation done — or even to have a conversation.

First of all, the partisanship is not new. Take a look at the history of “cloture votes” in the Senate. Does anyone else remember all the talk about – the never invoked –  “nuclear option” or the “constitutional option” when Trent Lott or Bill Frist were Majority Leaders in the Senate? The problem then was that the Senate Dems were using the filibuster to block ALL judicial appointees. That the Dems didn’t want President Bush to appoint judges doesn’t seem equivalent to the fact that Republicans do wish the right to debate and amend legislation that changes or creates law.

Of course, we’re supposed to forget that the Dems had a majority in both the House and the Senate from January, 2007 until the Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and were sworn in in January, 2011. Don’t look at the number of Dems in the Senate, today, or read the news reports that Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on the budget.

Good Dems don’t remember that the Nancy Pelosi House had such a huge majority that they didn’t need a single Republican vote to pass legislation — and yet they still shut down the tradition of “open rule” on Republican amendments. One day, Pelosi even shut off the lights and CSPAN cameras in an attempt to silence Republicans!

And really good Dems deny that Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to force ObamaCare through the Senate — while changing the rules for the Senate for all future Congresses. (Reid used “reconciliation” to pass Obamacare. Furthermore, the Act mandates that any recommendation from the Independent Payment Advisory Board on Medicare cuts must go straight to the Senate Finance Committee and all future Congresses may only debate Obamacare with a 2/3 majority vote, and then only for a time set in the original “Accountable Care Act.“)

Why are we called “Conservatives” in the first place? Isn’t it because we prefer transparent government, lower taxes, a strong defense, less spending and defend the right to life and traditional marriage? These are matters of principle that have been in the Republican platform since the ’60’s, at least.  And yet, we’re portrayed by the media as “do nothing,” the “party of no,” and as though it is WE who are trying to make radical changes in the law.

Holder blocks Texas ID Voter law

The Constitution does not mandate that all the big decisions will be made by the Courts and bureaucrats and only the inconsequential will be made by the Legislature.

Wonder how many photo ID’s Holder required in the “Operation Gunwalker” he enabled?

Breaking news this morning (Texas Tribune here, Washington Post story, here)  is that the Obama Administration has refused to allow — under the 1965 Voter’s Rights Act – the implementation of the Texas voter ID law passed by our elected  Legislature last May!

This is overreaching and poor (pointed, result-driven) use of statistics.

How many “Hispanics” don’t have “Spanish surnames?” How many with Spanish surnames don’t consider themselves disadvantaged?

Why is there no mention of the traditional racial minority, African Americans, in so many of the news article quotes from Holder?

I needed a photo ID to pick up a FedEx shipment. I can’t use my credit card without a photo ID. College and High School students get photo ID’s at school.

Good grief, I need a photo ID and to allow a stranger to grope me if I want to go on an airplane.

And last week, at the Nation’s Capitol, I had to submit to scanning to enter any of the Federal buildings!

And I needed that photo ID to check into my hotel.

The Voting Rights Act is 40 years old and was in reaction to the abuses of Democrats. Most of the subsequent 40 years, Democrats held the power in Texas and in the US House and Senate. Why is this considered a Democrat cause? (In my opinion: because they are *not* in power at the moment, at least to the extent they want it.)

Larry and I heard snippets of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Lincoln Memorial Speech, yesterday. The crowd sang, “We shall overcome.”

I wonder whether we will ever get to that point where anyone feels that we have overcome?

Doomesbury defends abortion

Yeah, I know it’s “Doonesbury.”

Garry Trudeau has always been a leftist, pro-abort (he “satirized” the movie “Silent Scream” in 1985.) who has no problem flaunting the power of his cartoon, Doonesbury. This week, he’s taking on the Texas sonogram law. And he claims that “the GOP” has declared “war” and that for him to ignore it would be “comedy malpractice:”

“I chose the topic of compulsory sonograms because it was in the news and because of its relevance to the broader battle over women’s health currently being waged in several states. For some reason, the GOP has chosen 2012 to re-litigate reproductive freedom, an issue that was resolved decades ago. Why [Rick] Santorum, [Rush] Limbaugh et al. thought this would be a good time to declare war on half the electorate, I cannot say. But to ignore it would have been comedy malpractice.”

Two years ago, he mocked Sarah Palin. One week in July, 2010 he was laughing at the fact that her family was being stalked. The next week, he gave us a dream sequence depicting a Sarah Palin doll “refudiating the lame stream media” and trying to convince Mr. Potato Head and assorted toys to fight “to water the tree of liberty by spilling the tyrant blood” of the little girl who owns them. Then, we hear the girl’s mom tell her that everything Sarah says is “programmed in. Her brain is empty. Sarah’s a dummy. A shiny plaything. A cypher. A blank. A total nothing. Not a thought in her head. Just a piece of plastic crap.” and on and on . . .

Last year, Trudeau “partnered” with bogus biographer, Joe McGinnis to push the latter’s book in the cartoon.

Even though the comic strip is published in San Antonio and Austin papers, I didn’t know about these past incidents until I started doing research for this post.  Was there any outrage or demands for an apology from Trudeau or that advertisers or papers withdraw their support?

This week, some papers won’t run the abortion series, others will move the strip to the editorial section. A few plan to run an alternate series.

I subscribed to the SA Express News until 2010, when it became obvious that it was too politically biased in favor of Dems and the Obama “Health care reform.” It may be time to contact their advertisers to let them know what trash they support.

What will your paper do? And, how do you feel about it?

Oppose theObama Standoff!

Bravo, to all the Letters to the Editors and comments in favor of religious free expression, conscience and State’s rights that I’m seeing. (My hometown paper has one from a man I don’t know – but only subscribers can read it.)

It’s been said before: if the Federal government can make you buy anything, it can make you buy *anything.* Will the mandated insurance packages in Washington include Physician Assisted Suicide?

This administration has already imposed regulations that infringe on the right of conscience of physicians and other health care providers. (“Anti-abortion” docs should never serve under-served areas and should have cooperative referral agreements with abortionists according to previous opinions by Sebelius.)

Who wants a doctor or church leader without a conscience giving you medical or spiritual care?  Or even picking out what you hope is a reliable insurance company who will be there when you really need them?

In a particularly unconscionable moment, one Obama Administration representative told representatives of religious organizations that they had a year to reconcile – with Obama, not with God.

“Obama Standoff,” or To Coin a Phrase – Revised

We used to call it a “Mexican standoff,” but that could be considered bigoted these days. Or at least non-PC.

“Obama Standoff”  is a better description for a specific condition – one that’s becoming more common and hitting us more frequently. In the “Obama Standoff,” the Obama administration demands that Texas, some other State, or any individual or organization of individuals with a conscience,  violate their own laws, Constitution, or conscience – threatening to withhold Federal tax money, fine, or break that law himself if others don’t comply.

Unbelievably, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius visited Houston today and announced – on the Friday before the funding for Texas’ Women’s Health Program expires on Wednesday, March 14 – that she is going to deny renewal of the Medicaid waiver. She did this *before* notifying the State or the Commissioner! See the Governor’s announcement in response, here. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/17025/ )

The Obama Administration doesn’t even care that there will be no meeting of the Texas Legislature until January 2013. Of course, this is the Constitutional scholar in the White House who ignored the meaning of “recess appointment” in January. Why should he honor concepts like the Legislature makes laws and the Executive Branch must follow them?

It doesn’t matter that Texas has had the same law for 10 years  any more than it matters that the Catholic Church has opposed contraception for thousands of years. It doesn’t matter that physicians have defended the right to follow their consciences for 2500 years, since Hippocrates’ oath was adopted by the Profession.

Why should they? They don’t care that the First Amendment guarantees the free expression of religion — to “establishments of religion,” by the way!

In a particularly unconscionable moment, one Obama Administration official told representatives of religious organizations that they had a year to reconcile – with Obama, not with God.

And they certainly don’t understand, much less care, what a “conscience” is other than some roadblock in their goal to control and force every doctor to be complicit with ending human life – or at least make sure to move next door to someone who will.

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: We laugh at honor and are surprised to find treachery among us.

“Women Speak for Themselves” up to 4 pages

The list of women who have asked to co-sign the open letter to President Obama and Secretary Sebelius is still growing. Have you signed up?
There’s a button on the top of the page, just fill in your name and State, more information is optional. You, too, can say,

Here We Are!

Texas Governor Perry Pushes Back (Family Planning, Women’s Health and PP)

Governor Rick Perry is pushing back against the Obama Administration’s threat to kill our Texas Women’s Health Program due to law passed by the Legislature last June. The Governor’s office has produced 4 new videos (one of which includes me) explaining that the State is prepared to ensure that women are able to access continuing comprehensive care under these programs.

If you only have time for one, watch Carol Everett’s video in which she relates that the Commissioner of Health and Human Services has identified 2500 doctors willing to participate with the Well Woman Program and Texas’ Family Planning, even in rural areas where there has never been a Planned Parenthood clinic. There are also videos from former Waco PP Executive Director Abby Johnson, Texas Alliance for Life’s Executive Director Joe Pojman, Ph.D., and me.

The videos can be viewed at the Governor’s YouTube page and via the Office of the Governor website. They are the beginning of a series of announcements and news releases in hopes of convincing the Obama Administration and Secretary Sebelius to preserve these programs. Time is short as the current Medicaid waiver is due to expire at the end of March.

Stop and think about it: What the media is reporting as a single crisis is really the effect of two separate events. One is the cut in funding to Family Planning that went into effect in October,  along with many other cuts that were made in order to balance the State budget according to the Texas Constitution while paying for Medicaid for children and education.  The second is what is happening in a few clinics that are partners with other clinics that do abortions and are panicking because they are about to lose State funds.

Where are the reports about the thousands of providers who have agreed to see patients under both these programs?

The media is also acting as though the law prohibiting anyone who performs or refers to abortions, or who is a business partner with an abortion provider is brand new or that the Governor got up one morning and changed the law. No, the House and Senate of the 82nd Texas Legislature deliberated for months on Medicaid funding, including the best way to provide care under the Family Planning Title X funds and the Medicaid funded Women’s Health Program. They continued the old prohibition on funding affiliates.

The only change is that the Attorney General has clarified that “affiliates” include organizations that are part of the same national corporation.

The media and President Obama also ignore that the legislature won’t meet until January, 2013, so there is no way to change the law that appropriates State Tax funds.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you: I was nervous as I could be and I spent too much time giving a list of my credentials. But if you’re brave, here’s my video.

Wall Street Poll on Marriage

The Wall Street Journal’s “Question of the Day” for February 8th was  “Should gay marriage be legal in the United States?” For some reason, it appeared in the side bar today, so I voted and commented. As of 10 AM, March 6th, the vote is 53.9% to 46.1%, with 2975 votes for “Yes” and 2540 “No” votes.

The comments are typical of these debates: opposition to homosexual marriage is presented as something instigated by people who oppose it due to their hatred of homosexuals, their bigotry, and their narrow religious beliefs.

First, the people who started this “battle” are the ones who want to change the law and continue to push by filing appeal after appeal against laws in existence in order to change the law and the definition of marriage. Proposition 8 in 2008 in California and the Texas Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment (DOMA) in 2005 were in response to Court cases such as the one in Massachusetts declaring that it was unconstitutional in that State to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Second, opposition to changing the law and definition of marriage  does not require that we hate anyone the same way that we hate child abuse.

There is a wide range of sexual attraction among humans, but the norm is opposite-sex-attraction (OSA) between physical adults.

And then, there are the basic facts of anatomy and physiology.

While biology is not destiny, it has consequences: form follows function. In fact, the male and female sexual organs are complimentary in purpose and function. That function involves one set  – the complementary organs of one man and one woman.

There is no parallel between the form of a water fountain or seats on a bus and the race of the user as there is between the male and female form  and sexual function. There certainly is no physiological reason to discriminate between same-race and interracial marriage.

If you want to stick with the cerebral, there are also problems in declaring that same-sex-attraction (SSA) is equivalent to OSA. The history of legalized or non-criminalized homosexual marriage is less than 20 years old. There is much more history to support interracial and polygamous marriage.  There’s no logical reasoning that if the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual marriages, that these won’t be legalized, too.

Update on Texas, Contraception, and Women Who Vote (and blog)

Over the weekend, there were more op-eds published in online magazines and newspapers all over the Internet championing women’s “right” to contraceptives and nearly everyone of them tied that “right” to the “right” to obtain an abortion. Search the news on “Texas contraception politics” and you’ll find a few dozens of articles published repeatedly in newspapers across the Nation. They often begin discussing cuts in State funding for contraception and move straight to the theme that mean old Republicans in Texas just don’t want to pay for abortions.

Yes, we don’t want to pay for abortions or support corporations that do them. That is our “choice.”

However, the reality is that Texas Legislators had no choice other than to cut spending. Where is the money going to come from?

Texas also cut money to train resident doctors – the future family doctors, OB/Gyns and pediatricians because there was not enough money. But I don’t see any articles on “The war against physician workforce.”

The only way to raise money would be to raise taxes. In order to raise taxes, we would have to have a vote to change our Constitution. I, for one, would vote “no.”

Everyone – including the Obama Administration – ignores the fact that Texas’ part-time Legislature will not meet again until January 2013, so there won’t be a chance to change the funding until after the November election.

Please notice the hateful tone of many of the blogs, op-eds and especially the readers’ comments and letters to the editors. And note that they always focus in on abortion – and that even the National articles narrow in on Texas. The truly mean comments claim that Republicans hate women. Some articles are even titled, “. . . War on Women,” and “When States Abuse Women.” One of the “War on Women” articles was published in the UK’s Guardian.

Women vote in Texas. We believe that life begins at fertilization and that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the right to life.

And we sure don’t have extra money to pay higher taxes. How hard is that concept to understand?

Here are the women – thousands of us

Earlier, I linked to an “Open Letter to President Obama, Secretary Sebelius and Members of Congress.” There are now about 2000 names of women from all over the country who volunteered to add their “signature” to the letter. I believe that more will be added, since I received a response from the organizers on March 3, but can’t find my name on the list.

Here is the “Open Letter” in full:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON’T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

 

(Found my name! Add yours!)

Pro-Planned Parenthood against @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry wrote an Editorial about the refusal of the Medicaid waiver for our Women’s Health Program by the Obama Administration. While it appears that very few news organizations actually print the op-ed, many have published their own, and a few reference the Governor’s essay. (A search at Google News on “Women’s Health Program” yields about 100 media posts, more blogs.)

Once again, the comments from the media and readers are derogatory, don’t contain the facts, and very critical of all of us “anti-abortion idiots” (per one commenter at Texas Tribune).

Texas has had law limiting the distribution of Medicaid and the Woman’s Health Program funds to those who perform, refer to, or affiliate with abortion providers for years, and received waivers in the past – even from this Administration – under this law.

The real difference is that this year, the Legislature prioritized funds to providers who provide comprehensive, continuing care at Federal, State, local, and County health clinics.

Yes, there was a renewal of the ban on abortion providers, although PP itself was never mentioned. And, yes, the Attorney General has clarified the meaning of “affiliate.”

However, while a nice side benefit, PP wasn’t excluded because they are PP. They were excluded because the State had to prioritize our funds and PP doesn’t offer comprehensive continuing care. They don’t treat high blood pressure, but Federally Qualified Health Centers do. They don’t treat diabetes, but the health clinic run by the county does. They don’t even write orders for mammograms, they just have a list of clinics that do.

In the last few months, the State has already made contracts and arrangements with other providers for a more efficient use of the limited funds we have. If access is cut, it won’t be for a lack of doctors and clinics – it will be because the Obama Administration doesn’t like the way our Legislature decided to prioritize the funds.

There is no federal law that says that Texas has to make contracts with anyone and everyone. As pointed out by the Governor and in this fantastic letter from the Executive Commissioner of the State Department of Human Services, Tom Suehs, the Social Security Act specifically gives the right to the State Legislatures set preconditions for contracting with the State to provide Medicaid.

Since PP only provides a narrow range of care, they don’t qualify – even though they aren’t mentioned in the law. They don’t treat high blood pressure or diabetes, or even do mammograms.

However, the Obama admin – and all those hateful commenters and editorializers – choose to focus on only one “provider.” The same organization that had 4 illegal abortion clinics shut down in San Antonio. The one that gives directions to facilities that do mammograms, but doesn’t even write prescriptions or give orders for the mammogram lab. The one that Texas is finding surprisingly easy to replace.

Now, our limited State tax dollars will go to Women’s Health Program doctors and clinics where they can receive treatment after being screened.

The AMA supports repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)

The American Medical Association has published a letter in support of the Congressmen who are attempting to overturn the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). I’m no longer a member of the AMA, but salute them for this move.

On behalf of the physician and medical student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I am writing to express our strong support for H.R. 452, which was introduced by Representative Phil Roe, and would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Accordingly, we strongly support the advancement of this important legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The AMA has consistently expressed its opposition to the IPAB on several grounds. The IPAB puts important health care payment and policy decisions in the hands of an independent body that has far too little accountability. Major changes in the Medicare program should be decided by elected officials. We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) physician target and the steep Medicare cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the significantly increasing price tag of a long-term SGR solution. Adding additional formulaic cuts through IPAB is just not rational and would be detrimental to patient care, especially as millions of baby boomers enter Medicare.
The experience with the SGR also raises concerns about policy decisions based on projections that require subsequent adjustments to reflect more accurate data. In 2003, Congress had to take action to allow the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to correct $54 billion in projection errors under the SGR target. The IPAB also imposes a rigid budget target that is prone to “projection errors” that would force Congress to produce billions of dollars in offsets due to inaccurate calculations.
We appreciate the need to reduce the federal budget deficit and control the growth of spending in Medicare. However, we believe that this can best be achieved by Congress working in a bipartisan manner to reform the delivery system and improve quality, access, and efficiency. At a time in which Congress is struggling to eliminate the SGR, it does not make sense to allow another rigid formula to be implemented that risks a bigger set of problems for a broader cross-section of Medicare services.
We thank you for your leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with you to repeal the IPAB and preserve access for seniors to their physicians.

Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com

An op-ed by Joe Pojman, PhD, the Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life, which discusses who is really to “blame” if the Texas Women’s Health Program is cut because we lose our Federal funds. (I’m privileged to be on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

Last June the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 7, which allows for the renewal of the WHP, on a Senate vote of 21-9 and a House vote of 96-48. The bill prohibits the state from contracting with entities that “perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”

Federal law allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid.

There are ample alternate WHP providers in Texas who are not involved in abortion. These physicians and clinics typically offer comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning. These providers could become the medical home for low-income women. The Obama Administration is about to deny WHP funds to these quality providers, and to the women they serve, just because Texas wants to fund these without funding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is a poor investment of public funds. Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary and preventative care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have one mammogram machine anywhere in Texas. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.

Planned Parenthood should not be trusted with our tax dollars. For example, Planned Parenthood of San Antonio operated four abortion facilities illegally without a license for as long as four years until they were discovered by the State in 2009 and fined more than $100,000. They were required to return thousands of dollars billed to the WHP.

The Obama Administration, not the Legislature or the Governor, will be to blame for killing the Women’s Health Program, if the Obama Administration does not renew the program just because Planned Parenthood is excluded.

via Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com.

Texas Redistricting: You can’t make this stuff up (Burnt Orange can)

I don’t even have to emphasize or extrapolate from round about comments. The Left lays it out for me.

From the Burnt Orange (far, far left) blog, examples that only the right kind of minorities are acceptable – the Democrat minorities:

CD-17 got 18 points more Democratic, probably by the inclusion of north Austin and southern Williamson County. However, this incarnation still would have gone 58-41 for McCain in 2008. This is Bill Flores’ district, who ousted Chet Edwards in 2010.

CD-23 went from a 51-84 Obama to 50-49 Obama. So this district, which elected Quico “I Hate Cops and Firefighters” Canseco in the 2010 wave, managed to get even MORE Republican. That’s tough news for Rep. Pete Gallego, who is challenging Canseco. Good job MALDEF, making it harder for Hispanics in CD-23 to elect the DEMOCRAT they want over the QUICO CANSECO they don’t.

CD-25, the Austin-based district that sends Lloyd Doggett to Congress and represents most of Central Austin, went from 59-40 Obama to 43-56 McCain. The district is a travesty of minority disenfranchisement — it draws the East Austin minority neighborhoods into a district that scoops up the minority / servicemember precincts in Bell County and wraps up in Tarrant. It’s designed to elect African-American Republican Michael Williams instead of a Democrat who cares about minorities’ needs. Good work, MALDEF!

Texas Primary AFTER the State Convention?

There are several Democrats that must be primaried if we can at all help it and they must be beat in November.

Layoff Lloyd Doggett, Wendy the-long-winded Davis (her filibuster was responsible for the special session) are two. Then, there’s the Castro twin – whichever one it really is – and Ciro Rodriquez if he runs. These are the people who influence the people who made sure that we won’t have a primary until after the County/Senate District Convention and — maybe even the State Republican Convention!!!!!

February 24, 2012

The fate of the redistricting maps now rests solely with the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As of the time of this update, a global agreement between all parties has not been reached relative to the Texas House and Texas Congressional districts. Therefore, the final decisions as to where the lines will be are in the hands of the three-judge panel. The panel set deadlines for parties to submit final briefs on various issues and that deadline has now passed. This now means that all the arguments are over and all we are waiting for now is for the Court to rule.

If the Court issues maps on or before March 3rd, then the May 29th primary date can be accomplished – assuming a re-opened filing period can be accomplished within a few days. If the Court issues new maps after March 3rd, then the next and final available primary date would be June 26th. To accomplish a June 26th primary, maps would still need to be issued by March 30th to meet the June 26th date.

There is a possibility that the San Antonio three-judge panel (which handles Section 2 challenges of the Voting Rights Act) will wait to see what the Washington D.C. three-judge panel (who handles Section 5 challenges of the Voting Rights Act) rules, and that subsequently, the San Antonio panel incorporates the D.C. panel’s findings into new maps. The D.C. panel indicated that it would not rule prior to March. Consequently, if the San Antonio panel is waiting on the D.C. panel, a May 29th primary could only be accomplished if the D.C. panel rules at the very start of March and the rulings can be incorporated into alterations of the maps within a few days. Otherwise, only the June 26th primary date is an option.

If the San Antonio three-judge panel does not view it as a necessity to wait on the Washington D.C. panel, then we would expect to get new maps any day now.

As instructed by the San Antonio three-judge panel last week, the RPT’s attorneys have been in contact with the Texas Democratic Party’s attorneys to negotiate over proposed deadlines relative to a May 29th Primary Election and we are proceeding to plan as if we will have a May 29th Primary. RPT will provide you notice of any rulings as soon as practical.

via Redistricting Update XI: It Is All Up To The Courts :: TexasGOP – Republican Party of Texas.

Enabling vs. Providing “Infrastructure” for Family Planning (and a Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas)

It’s not just right wing, Christian “anti-choicers” (we really prefer to be called “pro-life”) who understand that paying abortion providers and those who refer to them under Medicaid and Title X funds enables them to do abortions. From the Guttmacher Institute:

Title X is a grant program under which funds are distributed to grantees who design and operate their own programs—funding can be targeted to local needs and challenges. Unlike Medicaid, for example, Title X can subsidize the intensive outreach necessary to encourage some individuals to seek services. Furthermore, by paying for everything from staff salaries to utility bills to medical supplies, Title X funds provide the essential infrastructure support that enables clinics to go on and claim Medicaid reimbursement for the clients they serve.

So, whoever receives title X funding is “enabled” to stay in business. In these days of low tax revenues and high demand, shouldn’t Texas only “enable” comprehensive, continuing care?

Unfortunately, Texas representatives of Texas taxpayers found themselves limited in funds this year and we had to prioritize where we allocated Family Planning money. Funding for the Family Planning programs and the Texas Women’s Health Program, which receives Medicaid money, was directed toward programs and doctors that offer continuing, comprehensive care, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), State, County and local clinics and hospitals, and fee for service doctors that participate with Medicaid.

However, in article after article, the law which sets aside money to pay for contraceptives and never mentions Planned Parenthood, is said to have been a weapon in the war on contraceptives and abortion, and in particular, against Planned Parenthood.

Medicaid is supposed to be a health program for the very poor, but Congress has allowed States some flexibility when it comes to the disabled and to pregnant women, through a system of waivers. Texas began our Women’s Health Program in 2007, asking for a waiver to spend funds to screen women for disease, including high blood pressure, diabetes, and even tuberculosis, not just for STD’s, breast cancer and cervical cancer. The program also pays for the prescription and dispensing of contraception – including Natural Family Planning! – to women who are not pregnant or disabled, and who would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid.

The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has refused this year’s request for a waiver to apportion the funds because of the stipulation that the State’s money will not go to affiliates of those who either perform or refer to elective abortions.

Just to be clear, “elective abortions” mean those that are done because the healthy mother carrying a healthy child seeks an abortion, not those done to prevent damage to her health or save her life. “Elective abortions” don’t even include those done in healthy mothers with healthy babies who were conceived through rape or incest. Procedures to treat tubal or ectopic pregnancies are never considered abortions, either “elective” or medical.

The law, HB 7, passed in the Special Session of the 82nd Legislature does not mention Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider. The text stresses that our State must prioritize how we are to spend our limited tax dollars:

Sec.531.0025. RESTRICTIONS ON AWARDS TO FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE PROVIDERS. (a)Notwithstanding any other law, money
appropriated to the Department of State Health Services for the purpose of providing family planning services must be awarded:
(1) to eligible entities in the following order of descending priority:
(A) public entities that provide family planning services, including state, county, and local community health clinics and federally qualified health centers;
(B) nonpublic entities that provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services in addition to family planning services; and
(C) nonpublic entities that provide family planning services but do not provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services; or
(2) as otherwise directed by the legislature in the General Appropriations Act.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the Department of State Health Services shall, in compliance with federal law, ensure distribution of funds for family planning services in a manner that does not severely limit or eliminate access to those services in any region of the state.

(b) Section 32.024, Human Resources Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows:
(c-1) The department shall ensure that money spent for purposes of the demonstration project for women ’s health care services under former Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, or a similar successor program is not used to perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.

The Texas Tribune has published a map of family planning clinics in Texas, claiming to point out which clinics will stop receiving taxpayer money in March of this year.

The  In Texas, the Legislature has drastically reduced funding for family planning agencies that serve low-income women statewide. There are 41 agencies that receive funding today, down from 71 last year. Those organizations often operate multiple clinics that provide Texans with contraceptives and disease screenings.

Using the most up-to-date information available through the Texas Department of State Health Services, we have mapped out the locations of government-subsidized family planning clinics in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Not only are there fewer contractors each year, but those that receive grants are getting less money. During the 2011 session, lawmakers redirected virtually all state funds that have traditionally gone to family planning services to other programs. Today, nearly all public funding for these clinics comes from the federal government’s four-decade-old Title X program, which is dedicated to family planning.

via Updated: Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas.

Everyone who would like to support those clinics, should send a donation — because the Texas Legislature won’t meet again until January of 2013 and the law can’t be changed until then.

Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com

A victory – 5 years in the making – for conscience. freedom of religion, and the “free exercise thereof.”

A lower court issued an injunction against the new rules, on the basis that the suit was likely to succeed. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling that had temporarily put on hold a requirement for pharmacists to dispense all legal drugs.

Now back at the lower court level ruling on the merits of the case itself, the court issued the pharmacists a legal victory.

“The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable,” the Court explained. “They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception,” the court explained. “Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

via Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com.

State Agency Advertising on ‘Net?

Why is a State agency spending our money to advertise on the internet?

I was reading an article in the Texas Tribune, on the latest iteration of the “Golden Rule” (“He who has the gold, makes the rule.”), the imposition of forced tobacco free campuses by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas.

While considering the excessive force and high-handedness of the move by CPRIT to use State tax funds to coerce beneficiaries of State tax funds to police the use of a legal substance – tobacco – vs. the fact that this may be the one action by the Institute that prevents the most cancer, I noticed a couple of ads on the page, bearing the seal of the State of Texas.

Sure enough, when I clicked on one, it led me to the Office of Public Insurance Counsel.

Does the State need to be spending our money this way?