Texas, Redistricting, Minorities: Democrats abuse, the rest of us pay

Lest we forget, the Voting Rights Act was in response to abuses by the Democrats, who were in power at the time. However, 40 years later, we’re still trying to figure out “Latino” districts and “Black” districts, rather than “neighborhoods” or even “Parties.”

And, lest we forget, all “Latinos” are not the same. All Black voters are not the same. And all white, Indian, Vietnamese or any other “ethnic,”racial or even familial groups are not a single entity, voting as one.

Under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, states with a history of engaging in voter suppression and segregation, including Texas, are required to submit changes to their election laws and their redistricting maps to either the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal D.C. District Court to ensure they comply with the Voting Rights Act as part of a process known as ‘preclearance.’

via Redistricting trial ends with state’s arguments – San Antonio Express-News.

One more time: Perry, Gardasil and the facts

Governor Sarah Palin and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann went on Greta Van Sustern’s “On the Record” show on Fox News to accuse Governor Rick Perry of “crony capitalism” because of his Executive Order RP65, which would have mandated Gardasil and which did make it much easier for parents to opt out of all mandatory vaccines.

None of the players explain one very pertinent point: Merck was the only company making the only approved vaccine against the viruses that cause the changes that cause abnormal Pap smears and which lead to cervical cancer. (The only reason to get a pap smear is to check for changes from HPV. Gardasil provides immunity to the specific strains that cause nearly 3/4 of all cervical cancer.)

The Gardasil vaccine (more, here ) was recommended the FDA’s vaccine approval committee, more than 6 months before Governor Perry’s Executive Order. All girls who qualified for the Federal Vaccines for Children program were eligible to receive the vaccine free of charge: Medicaid, CHIPs, and uninsured or those with insurance that won’t pay for vaccines. The Texas Legislature had previously delegated unconditional authority to mandate new vaccines to the Department of State Health Services, which is under Governor Perry and the Executive Branch.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann showed her profound ignorance about the germ theory and modern medicine in general, and the Human Papilloma vaccine, Gardasil, in particular. She seems ignorant of the fact that newborns (little, innocent newborns) receive a shot against the STD, Hepatitis B, on the first or second day of their lives, before they go home from the hospital. They get 2 more of the shots by the time they are 6 months old. And (little, innocent) 12 year old boys and girls get a (measles/mumps/rubella) MMR and a tetanus and diphtheria booster (Td)  about the same time. Tetanus, or “lock jaw” is not a communicable disease.

in her zeal to attack Governor Rick Perry, Bachmann did even worse in her post-debate interview with Greta Van Sustern on Fox News. Her emotional, anti-vaccine remarks should be an embarrassment to her.

She told Greta about a conversation with a crying mom who came up to her after the debate, saying that the woman’s daughter suffered from “mental retardation” after receiving the vaccine. “Mental retardation” would not be diagnosed at 9-12 years old. In fact, in over 10 years more than 50 million doses of Gardasil have been given in the United States. There has been more than the usual scrutiny and surveillance for adverse effects. The Center for Disease Control, the FDA and the Institute of Medicine have all reached the conclusion that even with this heightened awareness and concern, there have been no adverse effects from this vaccine other than fainting and allergic reactions that can happen with any medical procedure or treatment.

At the time, Gardasil had over 5 years of history of study in boys and girls, with an official “Four Year Follow Up” article published in the British Medical Journal. To learn more, please see “A Dose of Reason.”

Marriage just for benefits?

(The title was “Marriage < (is less than) Benefits; States < Feds; Legislatures < Courts; Law = Nothing” It seemed good at the time.)

The 9th Federal Court of Appeals (that Court that is overturned more often than any of the other Federal Appeals Courts) claims that opposite sex couples will marry solely in order to qualify for health insurance. If marriage is something of so little worth,  why not set up a matchmaking service, allowing lesbians and gays to marry willing opposite sex people to “marry” for the benefits?

The Federal Courts are acting as though the Constitution gives them the power to make all the important decisions and the Legislatures only get to decide inconsequential issues.  Why have States and Legislatures – or that Bill of Rights – at all?

The 9th affirmed a lower Federal court’s injunction against a 2009 law of the State of Arizona which defined “dependent” as spouses, minor children and children in college as far as qualification for State Employee health insurance benefits. The State claims they were trying to save money and pointed out that the law did not discriminate against same-sex couples and their children, since it affected all (non-married) “domestic partners,”  including cohabiting opposite sex couples and their children.

Former Governor Janet Napolitano had arbitrarily changed the regulations by an Executive Order to cover all “domestic partnerships” on her way out of Arizona to work in the Obama administration. The State Legislature passed a bill signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer to define “dependent.”

The first point made in the Court’s ruling was that homosexuals are an “unpopular group,” so any law regarding them can be reviewed under a lower standard:  “We do not need to decide whether heightened scrutiny might be required.” So, this Court has declared that homosexuals are more equal than the rest of us, because the court has deemed them “unpopular.” They get what they want when they want it, simply by crying discrimination, which opposite sex couples can never, ever do:

The court said, however, that the cutoff had a discriminatory impact because only opposite-sex couples could restore their benefits by getting married. The ruling provides health coverage only to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian couples – the sole plaintiffs in the suit – an impact that Benson said promotes inequality.  (Read more: at SFGate.com)

The Court deems marriage of so little value that people who have made the decision to live together without marriage would suddenly change their minds for health insurance benefits.

Well. In my opinion, where you live is much less important than the covenant of marriage. There are States where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry: let the same-sex couples move to New York or Massachusetts. That way, they would underscore how important they find marriage, for its own sake, and the Courts could avoid trampling the sovereign rights of the States.

Appeals court shoots down Va. challenge to healthcare law – The Hill’s Healthwatch

Federal judges see no need for Federalism or State sovereignty. Forget that inconvenient Bill of Rights!

But the 4th Circuit panel said Virginia does not have standing to sue over the mandate because it lacks a “personal stake” in the issue.

The judges seemed concerned during oral arguments that allowing his suit to proceed would essentially allow the states to exempt themselves from whatever federal laws they might choose.

via Appeals court shoots down Va. challenge to healthcare law – The Hill’s Healthwatch.

Abortionists ordered to follow disputed ‘informed consent’ law

The court found constitutional the state’s decision to demand abortionists tell patients three things:

That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;

That [the patient] has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;

That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.

via Abortionists ordered to follow disputed ‘informed consent’ law.

Breaking: Obama asks EPA to withdraw proposed ozone rule | JunkScience.com

Wow, this would be great if it goes through!

From the “Junk Science” blog:

 

President Barack Obama has asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the agency’s proposed toughened ozone standards, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” The President’s statement is below.

These are rules that would provide no health benefits but cost $1 trillion per year in compliance and kill 7.4 million jobs by 2020.

If EPA administrator Lisa Jackson complies with Obama’s request (no guarantee), this will be a hugely important victory for American workers and the economy, as well as those of us who have been fighting the EPA’s proposed ozone standards.

via Breaking: Obama asks EPA to withdraw proposed ozone rule | JunkScience.com.

State Representative Wayne Christian Endorses Governor Perry for President

Representative Wayne Christian has endorsed Governor Rick Perry for President. Representative Christian is a true conservative. He “was there,” and can tell the true story about Rick Perry:

“Fact is, as recently as a couple of decades ago, we had no Republican primary in my part of rural Texas.

“Thus, Governor Perry, who entered state politics farther back than me, was courageous enough to take a stand early on and join other statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm in acknowledging that the Democratic Party had left their conservative beliefs behind.

“Much has been criticized of Governor Perry’s initial support for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). As President of the Conservative Coalition of the Texas Legislature, I was deeply involved in that entire process. My rural district was directly in the path of the TTC and the project was largely viewed by my constituents as an abuse of the governmental power of eminent domain.

“Truth is, the TTC started as a expansion on the I-35 corridor. The plan was added to legislation by the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) as a new “branch” of highway that ran from south Texas to the north right through my district. TXDOT presented facts that upon the completion of the Panama Canal expansion many of the trading freighters, which currently only serve the West Coast, would be able to bring their cargo to Texas ports.

“It was anticipated that this would place a tremendous burden on the current highway system as it heads north. However, the flawed TXDOT presentation of the plan and threats to private land ownership were not handled well. Citizens throughout Texas were insulted by the methods of potential property seizure, foreign control of Texas properties and other abuses.

“It was wrong, and when presented with the will of Texas citizens, Governor Perry put a stop to it.”

**********************

I applauded Governor Perry as he stood with the Texas House and Senate (and eventually the Texas Supreme Court) against some very vocal opposition to sign into law Rep. Hamilton’s bill preventing a potential land grab by the state. In this past session, Governor Perry declared eminent domain reform legislation an emergency item and saw it all the way through the legislative process until he signed it into law, strengthening the rights and protections of private property owners across Texas.

Thanks so much to Texas Insider for the story!

Rick Perry revives hope for tort reform

While maintaining our strong protections from the 2005 Texas tort reform, the Governor advanced a new law this year that will further protect everyone in Texas. With the new “loser pays” law, we should see fewer frivolous lawsuits and the monetary judgements from genuine litigation against wrong-doers will not be eaten up by legitimate legal expenses.

 

Imagine this: Emily, whose right kidney has failed, goes to the hospital for a transplant. Instead of replacing her right kidney, the surgeons mistakenly replace her left kidney. Left with her failed kidney and an uncertain transplant, Emily sues for medical malpractice. After months of costly litigation, Emily’s original damage claims are swallowed up by the cost of her legal fees.

Should she, the injured party, bear the costs of litigation?

This example demonstrates the problem of the “American Rule,” which is nearly universal in the American legal system with regard to torts. The American Rule requires each party to pay its own litigation costs, regardless of outcome. Most other Western democracies use the “English Rule,” or “loser pays,” which quite literally means that the loser pays the costs of litigation for all involved parties.

via Rick Perry revives hope for tort reform | Washington Times Communities.

Herald-Zeitung (Gesundheit!) and the AP: Dumb and Dumber

I was shocked to see that this morning’s  printed version of my own hometown paper, the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, featured a front-page article, “Texas to appeal judge’s ruling,” stating that Texas’ ultrasound law would force women to “undergo an invasive vaginal ultrasound.” This is a lie. Perhaps the problem is that the author only quoted  a lawyer for the New York firm that sued the State of Texas.

(The piece isn’t on the website, but it’s a reprint of the article by April Castro, available at the Houston Chronicle .)

As Federal Judge Sam Sparks wrote when denying the plaintiff’s claim that the law did not provide equal protection under the law because it only applied to women, “This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

The State of Texas regulates physicians, not patients and HB 15 is a set of conditions that a physician must meet before performing abortions. The Supreme Court has acknowledged (along with other thinking human beings) that States (We the People, the rest of us) have a legitimate interest in promoting the life and health of both the woman and her unborn child and in protecting them from fraud and coercion. Nothing in the wording of the law would force anyone to undergo an “invasive vaginal ultrasound.”

Regardless of the oft-repeated claim that an ultrasound is not medically necessary, it is standard of care prior to all abortions. The website of one of the plaintiffs, Alan Braid, MD’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio, informs potential patients that an ultrasound is included in the abortion fee  and “to determine the length of your pregnancy.” It is also standard of care to use the Ultrasound to guide instruments being introduced into the vagina and uterus.

Sparks objected to the mandate that physicians must describe any cardiac activity or development of limbs and internal organs. This is medical information that belongs to the woman, not ideology.

Sparks also claimed that the State intends to “brand” women by having them sign an informed consent paper and the inclusion of that paper in what he called “semi-private, at best” medical records. He is afraid that the record might be used in the future in lawsuits against the doctor, ignoring the fact that this would only happen if the woman who owns the medical information is the one suing the doctor.

(Edited for better sentences, 10:15 AM. BBN)

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law

Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ injunction against Texas’ recently-passed sonogram legislation:

“Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today’s ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life. This important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision. I have full confidence in Attorney General Abbott’s efforts to appeal this decision as he defends the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature.”

via Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law.

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Opinion on Texas Ultrasound Law (part 2)

See Part 1, here
Media reports say that due to the injunction by Federal Judge Sam Sparks, the Texas Ultrasound law will not go into effect at all until a higher court rules on it. However, the Judge does note that there is a severability clause and that his injunction is narrow. I’m waiting to see opinions from lawyers as to whether abortionists will be held to parts of the law that are not specifically under injunction.

In the meantime, I wonder how many women will meet the abortionist before they are gowned and sedated for the procedure and how many will insist on seeing their sonograms?

In the second half of the Opinion by Judge Sam Sparks, the Judge outlines the specific complaints brought against the new law, HB 15, (text of the law, here ) . Most of those complaints are dismissed, even as the Judge continues to call the new law “unwise” and ultimately imposes an injunction against enforcement.

Sparks disagrees with the Plaintiffs, the Center for Reproductive Rights out of New York, that the definitions of “medical emergency,”  “sonogram,”  “in a quality consistent with current medical practice,” and “in a manner understandable to a layperson” are unconstitutionally vague.  He also disagrees with the Plaintiffs on whether or not “visit” and “abortion-related services” are unclear to most people.

The major complaints upheld by the judge appear to be that the law doesn’t allow for multiple-physician practices or for a switch if the original doctor who informed the woman about her ultrasound cannot, “through some unforeseen circumstances,” perform the abortion, requires a woman to sign an informed consent acknowledgement, and   forces the physician to “advance an ideological agenda.”  Sparks also does not like the word “soley,” for reasons that I don’t understand.

It is true that one purpose of the law was to ensure that women were given informed consent by the physician who was to perform the abortion, “in a private and confidential setting.” Most abortionists had been satisfying the 24 hour waiting period and informed consent the same way that Dr. Alan Braid’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio,  had:  over the phone  or by referring the woman to the information on the Internet.

However, it doesn’t appear that Sparks overturned these requirements, since the injunction overturns the objection to the requirement that women receive private and confidential informed consent and the exception for those who live more than 100 miles from the abortion clinic. The opinion only finds fault with the lack of accommodations for “unplanned substitutions.”

The judge makes a surprising statement about the requirement that a copy of the informed consent be inserted in the medical record of the woman:

Compounding this problem is newly-added section 171.0121, which requires both that a copy of the above certification be placed in the pregnant woman’s medical records (presumably permanently), and that the facility that performs the abortion retain a copy for at least seven years.See H.B. 15, Sec. 3 (adding TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 171.0121). Given the nature of the certification and the Act’s retention requirements, it is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion that the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women.

Sparks says that the medical record is “semi-private,” and is concerned that it might someday be subpoenaed for use in a court case. The only time that these would be seen in Court is if the woman herself sues the doctor.

Sparks also engages in a bit of ideological speech of his own about the requirement for the abortionist to describe  “the presence of cardiac activity,” and “the presence of external members and internal organs.”

“ The Court does not think the disclosures required by the Act are particularly relevant to any compelling government  interest, but whatever relevance they may have is greatly diminished by the disclosures already required under Texas law, which are more directly pertinent to those interests.”

and, from page 50:

The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private. In 7 the absence of a sufficiently weighty government interest, and a sufficiently narrow statute advancing that interest, neither of which have been argued by Defendants, the Constitution does not permit such compulsion.

Edit to add this question: How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing heart or limbs?

In my opinion, the worst part of the ruling is Spark’s legal-speak on “compelling’ and his insistence on bringing back the ever-moving line of “viability:”

Second, while Casey refers to the government’s interest in potential life as “important,” “substantial,” and “legitimate,” it stops short of characterizing it as “compelling.” Indeed, one of the holdings of Roe v. Wade, and one this Court does not interpret Casey as having overruled, was that “[w]ith respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

Tell me, Judge Sparks, just what is “viability?” 24 weeks, 20 or 18 weeks?

link to Part 1 and “sticky” added September 5, 2011 12:19 PM BBN

Doing the work skilled providers won’t

Will someone tell me why it is logical for Federal Judge Sam Sparks to assume that “less-skilled providers”  will be willing to meet the “onerous requirements” that more-skilled providers won’t?

” The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes.”

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Texas Ultrasound Opinion

I’m a doctor, not a lawyer, so I may not understand all of the words and references in the opinion, but I’m shocked that any self-respecting Federal Judge would allow such a frankly biased opinion out of his office. Perhaps Sparks doesn’t mind burning his chances of ever being appointed to another Court, and is quite happy with his life time appointment in the Federal Court at Austin.

I’m halfway through the ruling and thought I’d post some thoughts before these comments got too long.

Sparks decided that it’s not really important for the Plaintiffs to be someone actually harmed by the Law in order to have standing in his Court. He approved the class action suit filed by a New York State corporation, The Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed a class action suit on behalf of all the abortionists in Texas, supported by affidavits from three abortionists:

1. 1. Alan Braid, MD is the only one  of the three who lives and works in Texas. He owns a privately owned abortion clinic in San Antonio, Reproductive Services, S.A. http://www.reproductiveservicessa.com/
2. 2. David A. Grimes, MD, inventor of the partial birth abortion and instructor in “family planning and OBGyn at the University of North Carolina. In 1995, Grimes testified in favor of forcing residency programs and residents to perform and  train doctors in abortion http://www.nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=28  “Making abortion training a routine part of any residency…will put abortion back in the mainstream of medicine.”
3. 3.  Anne D. Lyerly, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, who was once the chair of the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She testified *against* conscience rights before the Bush President’s Bioethics Council in 2006.

If R. v. W. isn’t found to be gross misconduct, this ruling should be. Sparks can’t resist a revealing his prejudice and mocking the legislature.

Citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992), a US Supreme Court ruling on abortion limitations and Equal Protection, Sparks not only has to admit that the Texas law is legitimate under prior law and Court rulings, but that:

“This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

However, he goes on to admit his prior bias:

“The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to

obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with “protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,” one of the Act’s stated purposes. H.B. 15, Sec. 12(1). However, rational basis review requires this Court to accept even tenuous rationales for the advancement of a legitimate government interest.

In short, if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda (2) over the health and safety of women, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent it from doing so under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court must reject Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection arguments. (p. 20/55)

That footnote (2) ?

“2 It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the state’s righteous duty to become intimately involved in a woman’s decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the government’s gross overreaching in the area of health care.”

S

“(It) is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women,” Sparks wrote.

Text of Sparks’ Ultrasound Ruling available

Here’s the ruling in pdf. More after I’ve read it.

The larger order with explanations is here. (update at 7:25 PM, BBN)

Update, 7:07 PM

Okay, it appears that he’s placed an injunction on any enforcement of the law at all.

However, in addition to the histrionic statement the the State would “permanently brand women” for signing informed consent forms that would be placed in their private medical records, the Judge shows further poor judgement by this section:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the penalty provisions of the Act against either a physician  or a pregnant woman if the physician does not place the sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them, or does not make audible the heart auscultation, if the pregnant woman elects not to view the images or hear the heart auscultation;

There is, of course, no penalty in the law for women if the abortionist “does not place the sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them,” etc.

For years in Texas, we have had formalized, scripted informed consent for hysterectomies, sterilizations, radiation therapy and electroshock therapy. And yet, no one notices or cares.

Does anyone claim that a patient is being “branded” if his doctor explains his cardiac ultrasound? Would you go to surgery if he didn’t have a conversation with you after the echocardiogram and before the procedure?

Federal Judge Sparks places injunction on Texas Ultrasound Bill

The news reports so far only contain very brief statements which appear to be from the same press release. More as soon as I can find the actual ruling.

However, all the reports tell us that Judge Sparks said Texas ultrasound bill will ” “permanently brand women who choose to get an abortion.” Aren’t medical records private? How histrionic can this judge be? The woman’s statement will be part of her medical record. No one will see it except the abortionist.

He also said something to the effect that the doctor’s “First amendment rights” are infringed by State mandated informed consent. Please tell that to all of the doctors who have followed a strict Texas law on informed consent for hysterectomies, sterilization, radiation therapy and electric shock therapy.

It doesn’t look as though the judge struck down the part that requires a doctor to perform the informed consent himself, 24 hours before the procedure. Good. By requiring the same standard of informed consent that most of us would expect from our heart doc before a catheterization or by-pass, the law will be enough to make elective abortions prohibitively expensive for the mills to make any profit.

Politics at Texas Medical Board

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Association believes that the Texas Medical Board’s review and limitations on adult stem cell treatments is politically motivated.

It does appear that the Board is responding to politics.

“Meanwhile, Stevens believes criticism of Governor Perry’s recent adult stem cell procedure is politically motivated. (Listen to audio report)

The Republican presidential candidate had back surgery July 1, where his own stem cells were removed and injected back into his body. But shortly after, the Associated Press published a story in which several doctors criticized the decision as too “experimental” and “risky.” But Stevens believes those doctors are playing more politics than they are science. He points out that Perry consulted with his orthopedist, Dr. Stanley Jones, who is a well-respected physician.”

The Board heard the proposal on Friday, August 26. The Board would impose Federal regulations and a formal ethics board oversight for “off label” or experimental use of medications or treatments.

We doctors use our judgement at times to treat our patients using medications, procedures and equipment in ways that are considered “off label.” (For instance, the “morning after pill” therapies were at first unofficial use of oral contraceptives, long before Plan B was on the market.)

The Board should adjust their criteria to whether or not the patient gave full, proper informed consent obtained and is the treatment inherently ethical in likely outcome and goal?

US law enforcement to expand training in Mexico

Police training has been a significant part of the Merida Initiative, which outlined the U.S. partnership with Mexico and Central America in the drug war and has committed $1.4 billion since 2008. However, the focus now shifts to historically out-gunned and ill-prepared local forces ducking bullets and facing ominous threats on a daily basis.

Mexico received $327 million for police training in fiscal 2009 from the U.S. State Department through Merida, placing it behind only Afghanistan and Iraq in total funds received for police training from the departments of State or Defense, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office in April.

via The Associated Press: US law enforcement to expand training in Mexico.

Perry bills feds $350M for immigrant inmates – Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to reimburse Texas $350 million to cover costs for jailing illegal immigrants.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the top-tier Republican presidential candidate blamed the federal government for not securing the border with Mexico, allowing illegal immigrants to cross over and use taxpayer-funded resources

via Perry bills feds $350M for immigrant inmates – Houston Chronicle.

Ted Cruz praised in “Fed Up!” by Governor Rick Perry

I’m about halfway through the book, Fed Up! by Governor Rick Perry and found these notes about the service of former Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is running for Senator from the State of Texas.

On the death penalty for child rapists:

Texas supported Louisiana. Our able solicitor general Ted Cruz argued the case on behalf of Texas and eight other states, defending the authority of democratically elected legislatures to determine the appropriate punishment for the very worst rapists. (p. 100). Kindle Edition.

On the World Court mandate that Texas review cases of illegal aliens:

Somewhat shockingly, to me at least, President Bush then issued a memorandum attempting to order Texas and other states to review convictions of those not apprised of their consular rights. The case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Cruz again argued our case. Neither I nor my friend Texas attorney general Greg Abbott believed that the United States should be forced to obey the World Court or that the President had authority to order the state courts to do so. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court agreed, and Medellin was executed on August 5, 2008.

(p 101 location 1649)

Perry, Rick; foreward by Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

Governor Perry signs pro-life pledge

The move to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge is completely in line with the Governor’s actions while in office here in Texas. He has advocated for parental consent, for informed consent, and for the prenatal protection law we passed in 2005.

This year, he put the “ultrasound bill” on the fast track by naming it as an emergency bill. We also moved our family planning money to hospitals and docs who provide comprehensive, continuing care rather tna limiting services to “family planning,” and ensured that local hospital and health districts that wish to receive State funds will cease performing elective abortions. (The Travis County Health Department paid for 750 elective abortions last year, but recently voted to immediately comply with the new law, surprising some.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:August 24, 2011
Contact: Ciara Matthews, (202) 630-7067

Perry Becomes Seventh Candidate to Sign SBA List Presidential Pledge

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – The Susan B. Anthony List announced today that Republican Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry has signed its Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, making him the seventh Republican candidate for President to do so.

“Governor Perry has been a long-time friend of, and leader for, the pro-life community,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “His signature on our pledge is more than welcome and we applaud him for his commitment to continue to fight for women and unborn children.”

The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge developed by the SBA List is what has been defined as a “minimum standard” of what is expected of the next pro-life President. The Pledge contains four principles to which its signers are expected to adhere:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

Politico.com is confused by the fact that Governor Perry endorsed Rudy Guiliani in 2008. Mayor Guiliani had promised to only nominate strict constructionist judges.

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/24/11 10:16 AM EDT Updated: 8/24/11 10:39 AM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61982.html#ixzz1VxxeQKTX

Governor Rick Perry on VP Joe Biden and China One Child Policy

Statement by Texas Gov. Rick Perry on VP Joe Biden’s Comment Regarding China’s One Child Policy

Print

Posted on August 23rd, 2011

How Farm Subsidies Harm

Or: one of the things I learned while reading “Fed Up,” by Governor Rick Perry, leading me to find this article by the Heritage Foundation:

A recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeowners on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its “historical rice production.” Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.[30] Over the past 25 years, rice plantings in Texas have plummeted from 600,000 acres to 200,000, in part because people can now collect generous rice subsidies without planting rice. If Washington insists on subsidizing farming, subsidizing actual farmland rather than residential neighborhoods that were once farmland would make more sense.

via How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too.

Rick Perry’s Pro-life Record in Texas

The various pro-life groups all over Texas have affirmed the Governor’s record of pro-life advocacy. Read the article at LifeNews.com for concrete examples and testimonies from Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Right to Life, and many more.

The long record of pro-life accomplishments will serve the Texas governor well should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. He would face off against other candidates who are equally committed to pro-life values, but his pro-life track record will give him a chance to gain positive support from voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina. Should he ultimately become the nominee, Perry, like other Republicans seeking the nomination, would present a clear pro-life versus pro-abortion contrast with Obama that would rally the majority of Americans who are pro-life to his side.

Rick Perry Becomes Latest Pro-Life Republican 2012 Hopeful | LifeNews.com

Pro-life groups around Texas all confirm the strong pro-life record of Governor Perry. Read the article for the examples of his actions in the name of protecting innocent life at all stages and ages.

The long record of pro-life accomplishments will serve the Texas governor well should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. He would face off against other candidates who are equally committed to pro-life values, but his pro-life track record will give him a chance to gain positive support from voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina. Should he ultimately become the nominee, Perry, like other Republicans seeking the nomination, would present a clear pro-life versus pro-abortion contrast with Obama that would rally the majority of Americans who are pro-life to his side.

via Rick Perry Becomes Latest Pro-Life Republican 2012 Hopeful | LifeNews.com.

Do you believe in legalized euthanasia?

How do you feel about legalized euthanasia, the intentional killing of your fellow humans? Here’s a yahoo.com poll that indicates the majority answering the poll (we don’t know who they are) are in favor.

For more on legalized euthanasia in the news over the last few years, look at LifeEthics.org.

The Facts on Gardasil and Perry: Right Wing vs. WingRight

Do you really want to frustrate me? Publish an opinion piece online, but restrict comments so that I can’t tell you where you’re wrong. Sure, it’s your site, and you make the rules. Well! Since I have my own blog  . . .

The mainstream media has rediscovered Executive Order RP65 that Governor Perry issued in February, 2007. I wrote a “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil” to answer some of the gobbledygook in the media.

Unfortunately, some of the pundits we normally consider conservative are just as mixed up and fail just as miserably in their research and conclusions.

Michelle Malkin (michellemalkin.com ) won’t take new subscribers or comments from the public at all. She has written a disorganized rant calling Governor Perry “Obama-like.”  She claimed that the Governor went over the heads of the Legislature, calls the opt-out clause “bogus,” without researching what it was before the Governor’s EO, and is evidently completely unaware of the funding of vaccines in the US.  I was able to comment at the column’s syndication site, Creators.com,   copying and pasting my coverage of these concerns in “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil.”

RedState’s  Bill Streiff and Erick Ericson have posted their own articles That site won’t take comments from new subscribers. Ericson reposted his 2007 missive that compared the Executive Order to eugenics and focused on the possibility of corruption due to Merck’s lobbying.

Streiff’s two pieces, here , and  here,  cover the de-bunked corruption charges and provide a succinct list of ethical objections that are less subjective and a bit more organized. Here’s my reply:

1. The recommendation did not include males, though males can carry and transmit HPV. This oversight made the creation of “herd immunity” impossible. This, definitionally, means the vaccine could have only a limited effect in combatting HPV.

The vaccine had not been recommended for boys at the time. The reasoning is that the vaccine prevented cancer. Society was not ready to talk about anal sex and males having sex with males, so there was a delay in adding boys. Since that time, the recommendations have changed to include boys.

2. Not all strains of HPV linked to cancer were affected by the vaccine. While doing something is better than doing nothing… generally… no one knows what the impact will be of creating a better evolutionary environment for the others strains by eliminating competing versions of the virus.

We knew at the time that the vaccines covered the viruses that caused 70% of cervical cancers (16 and 18) and 90% of the strains that cause genital warts (6 and 11). The preventive effect for these strains was 96% to 100%. according to the British Journal of Cancer article on the 5 year follow-up, published in December, 2006. (It was on-line November, 2006 and I accessed it for review today, August 18, 2011.)

We already had evidence, since confirmed, that there might be some cross-immunity for other strains.

3.Requiring people to receive a vaccine against diseases which they may very well never encounter is a very queasy ethical area. Unlike diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc., HPV is not spread through casual contact.

True. But 50% of people will be infected at sometime in their lives. The true cost is all of those abnormal pap smears – the cellular changes are all – 99.7% due to HPV.  It’s also true that we vaccinate for tetanus – what we used to call “lock jaw” – even though it’s not contagious, and for Hepatitis B, which is only spread through blood and body fluids.

4. Clinical trials were conducted on women aged 16-26 leaving everyone to presume that Gardasil was safe and efficacious in 10 year-olds even though there was zero data pertaining to that age group.

Completely false. Both the 2007 Gardasil insert (no longer available online, but I saved a copy on my computer) and the current insert contain information about early testing on boys and girls 9-15. 1122 girls ages 9-15 received the vaccine during trials to test the immunogenicity, demonstrating the production of antibodies.
There. I feel better, don’t you?

Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth

Please read the whole column at CounterContempt. Note that the whole fuss began at lefty Salon.com as a (successful) attempt to bring out criticism of Governor Perry and to get inflamed people to make inflammatory remarks about Islam.

Much of the curriculum centers on very dry materials, presented with no editorializing – historical timelines, glossaries, the basic tenets of Islam (presented without either endorsement and praise, or denunciation and criticism), etc. Of interest to us, however, is the lesson plan that deals with Islam and the West, past and present. This is the lesson plan that mentions Sharia, al-Qaeda, Israel, Hamas, etc.

The lesson plan was written by Ronald Wiltse. Mr. Wiltse is a retired history teacher in San Antonio. He graduated from Pepperdine University in 1966, and received his MA from Middlebury College in 1982. For several decades, he taught world history at Edison High School, in San Antonio.

He is a Christian, and an ardent and vocal supporter of Israel.

via CounterContempt Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth.

No “Sharia Law” in Texas

Now, we’re reading rumors on the Internet that Sharia law is valid in Texas. Not so. Instead, Texas Law was upheld by the Second Court of Appeals, back in 2003, confirming that people who sign an Arbitration Agreement are bound by that Agreement.

As usual, the claim is based on half-truths and embellished with lies. A single divorce case was heard, involving an “Islamic marriage certificate.”  It appears to me, a non-lawyer, that everyone in the case signed an arbitration agreement to use a certain set of arbitrators. Later, there were disputes over what “all the disputes” meant. The Appeals Court ruled that “all” means “all.”

Bogus “14 Reasons” – Here’s the truth

There’s been an email going around with out and out lies about the Texas economy and half truths or lies about our Governor Perry.I worked on this last weekend, sitting up most of Sunday night and rechecking my facts and numbers this morning.

I’ve covered this subject in an earlier review at this blog.

(Edited 8/17/11 for formatting and a couple of typos. Hopefully, it’s easier to read. My answers should be in red.)

Wonderful news on Conscience from Arizona

Without a conscience, what is a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist except a technician willing to follow the whims of law?

(Again, this is not sound-bite material!)  I received an e-mail from the American Defense Fund concerning the lawsuit against the State of Arizona by Planned Parenthood over a law to protect those of us in medicine who have consciences.

The ruling overturned a two year old injunction that prevented quite a few limitations placed on abortion in the State, including informed consent, parental consent, and the requirement that doctors, not nurses, perform abortions as well as the conscience issue.

Over the last decade, there have been several deliberate attacks against the right of medical professionals to obey our consciences and to refuse to provide services that we do not believe are “medical care.” I’ve tried to cover them at LifeEthics.org., even though I had a hard time keeping my promise to avoid politics and religion on that blog.

The articles at LifeEthics.org include this one from the American Journal of Bioethics, this one by a lawyer writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, and this one from this year about the Obama Administration’s refusal to protect the conscience.

Here’s the update, dated August 11, 2011:

A litigation update:

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion today on conscience rights.

In a case litigated partially by the State, partially by the Speaker of the Arizona House, and partially by ADF, BDF, and CAP on behalf of a variety of pro-life medical groups (Ave Maria Pharmacy, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Catholic Medical Association) . . . . . . the Court upheld Arizona’s state conscience protection statute Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2154, against a challenge by Planned Parenthood of Arizona. The Court also upheld the right of the aforementioned pro-life groups to intervene in the case to defend the conscience law.

Here is the opinion,http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/CV/CV090748.pdf and below I provide some highlights.

The conscience statute protects hospitals, physicians, and staff from being involved in abortion, and all of the above plus pharmacists and pharmacy employees from being involved in any abortive or anti-implantive drug or device. The Court of Appeals’ decision reverses an injunction that Planned Parenthood had obtained below in the Arizona trial court, which had enjoined not only conscience protections but a bunch of pro-life provisions of Arizona law (including laws about parental involvement in abortion, prohibiting non-doctors from performing them, and other pro-life measures).

PP threw the kitchen sink of anti-conscience arguments against this conscience statute, and the Court specifically addresses PP’s arguments on pages 32-37, saying some very helpful things against some of the popular “access” arguments we all hear against conscience rights. (The Court does unfortunately characterize the conscience statute as “refusal provisions.”)

Among the arguments the court smacked down are the following:

• The Court rejected PP’s argument that conscience protections violate a woman’s right to access abortion. The Court gave several reasons. First, in a previous case the Court had upheld an Arizona law prohibiting abortions at state university hospitals, saying “Even as plaintiff does not have an absolute right to an abortion on demand, she also does not have the right to select any public facility she chooses for an abortion.” By extension, therefore, the Court held that since “Even a state actor can refuse to facilitate an abortion,” it is even more true that private actors can refuse.
• In addition, the Court declared that the conscience law protecting private individuals and institutions can’t possibly violate a woman’s constitutional rights because “any reproductive rights that might exist under [the Arizona Constitution] can only be asserted against governmental acts, not the decisions of private individuals. . . . Therefore a woman’s right to an abortion or to contraception does not compel a private person or entity to facilitate either.”
• The Court further noted: “In its arguments below, PPAZ also contended the statutes would ‘thwart women’s ability to chart their own medical course.’ As explained above, whatever right a woman may have to ‘chart her own medical course,’ it cannot compel a health-care provider to provide her chosen care.”
• The Court rejected PP’s argument that the conscience law “allows medical professionals to abandon their patients, even in an emergency.” The Court pointed out that because the Arizona Constitution protects common law medical malpractice actions from being abrogated by statute, the conscience statute therefore does prevent a woman from suing any physician for denying her the standard of care, whatever that might be. A woman’s ability to impose malpractice liability therefore defeats the argument that the conscience statute allows abandonment in an emergency.
• The Court rejected PP’s argument that the conscience statute “justif[es] practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.”
• First, “no authority suggests that permitting individuals to choose whether to facilitate abortions places the peace and safety of the state at risk.”
• Second, the Arizona Constitution says that constitutional protections for conscience do not protect violations of peace and safety, but it does not prohibit the legislature from protecting conscience even more than the constitution happens to do.
• Third, the “peace and safety” limitation is merely a limit on how far judges are supposed to interpret the constitutional protections; it does not allow private citizens to sue to contend that too much conscience is being protected.
• Notably, the Court observed that the conscience statute may well protect employees of Planned Parenthood who object to involvement in abortion, but it went on to reject PP’s above arguments anyway.

Presumably PP will appeal this case to the Arizona Supreme Court, but the Court has discretionary review so it could simply deny the petition. In any event, the case will go back down to the trial court for final proceedings (to the same judge who issued the injunction), because this was just a “preliminary” decision.