Help Texas fight illegal immigration instead of Rick Perry

New Obamacare Regulations mandate contraception, re-define pregnancy as disease

Tomorrow is the last day to comment on the Contraceptives mandate that is included in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.” I believe that it’s okay to use real contraceptives – the kind that don’t kill anyone. I’m also cautiously convinced that Plan B doesn’t prevent implantation. (See “Plan B, How It Works and Doesn’t Work,” and “Plan B compared to withdrawal method.”)

However, I have real concerns that “EllaOne” might interfere due to its effect of lowering progesterone, even in post-ovulatory women, and I know that the IntraUterine Device (IUD), when placed early in the pregnancy works to prevent implantation.

The current Administration defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, not at fertilization, in spite of the known fact that any in vitro fertilization lab tech can tell the difference between an embryo and an unfertilized egg.

Please write a brief e-mail to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathryn Sebelius, at this address E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA@dol.gov

Here’s where to get more information:

MESSAGE TO HHS: “Pregnancy is not a disease, and drugs and surgeries to prevent it are not basic health care that the government should require all Americans to purchase. Please remove sterilization and prescription contraceptives from the list of “preventive services” the federal government is mandating in private health plans. It is especially important to exclude any drug that may cause an early abortion, and to fully respect religious freedom as other federal laws do. The narrow religious exemption in HHS’s new rule protects almost no one. I urge you to allow all organizations and individuals to offer, sponsor and obtain health coverage that does not violate their moral and religious convictions.”

WHEN: Please send in your comments to HHS by the September 30 deadline. Thanks! 9/1/11

“Judicial Hubris” exposed

TownHall.com had a column yesterday that covered some interesting news about the videos of the Proposition 8 trials in Federal Court. It seems that a couple of the Federal judges made videos of the trial proceedings public when they shouldn’t have.

Those of us who believe that marriage is a moral covenant, with moral obligations beyond legal and financial benefits, oppose renaming and redefining marriage to include same sex unions.
The fear is not that judges will face retaliation – it’s that witnesses will face harassment, loss of jobs, as reported in the article.
As to the frequent question, “what are you afraid of?” How about the decision that marriage is worth no more than a set of financial and legal benefits? That’s what the 9th Circuit decided in ruling on Arizona’s law limiting insurance benefits for State employees to spouses and children. Janet Napolitano issued an Executive Order on the way out of the State on her way to the Obama Administration, bestowing benefits on all domestic partners, married and unmarried, homo- or heterosexual. The 9th actually ruled that opposite sex couples could get married if they wanted insurance, but that Arizona law forbade same sex couples from marrying, so the law passed by the Legislature to cut costs – which affected cohabiting same sex couples – is “discrimination” against an “unpopular group.”

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.

Yellow dogs, splitting hairs and being human

Memories in the hearts and minds of others are what we leave behind. Even more than our DNA, that’s what makes us human. We are the only species having this conversation, after all!

More than I’ve noticed in the past, this nascent Presidential election is bringing out emotions, old rivalries, and pitting Conservative against Conservative as we perfect our skill of hair-splitting. We’re covering life, liberty and pursuit of happiness like the founders and many since, and reviewing changes in local politics as well as basic philosophies and world visions. (Not New World Order, how you see the world.)

And, Lord knows, we Conservatives can split hairs finer than Baptists.

Nevertheless, I think all this fussin’ is a good thing as long as we stop short of “eating our own. ” We’re proving, once again, that we are not merely reactionaries or like those old “yellow dog” Democrats or Republicans (meaning we’d vote for an old yellow dog before we’d vote for the other Party). We have arrived – and are arriving – at our opinions through thought and research. (Don’t you love the Internet?)  No one can watch us nit-pick (and cherry-pick quotes) and accuse us of blindly following some leader. Oh, no. Not us!

However new and raucous our debates have become, some of us have been reminiscing about the people who influenced our views on politics, even as we continue to engage in political arguments.   I’ve gotten to “know” some pretty impressive grandma’s and parents and been able to share my own memories of my family.*

We’re reminding one another of why Texas went from a Democrat State to a Republican State. And we still learn lessons from the people who lived that conversion before us.

What a great debate and a blessing to live in these times!

===============

*My mother passed away in August, 2006. I still miss her. Here’s an introduction in the form of the note I wrote on what would have been her 70th birthday:

Easter Sunday, April 8, 2007 would have been my mother’s 70th birthday. Helen Margaret Jernigan Burnett, “Mama,” died from complications of thymic carcinoma last August.

Mama is probably the source of my addiction to arguing and politics. Some people might think it comes from being the oldest daughter of a Baptist preacher, but I believe it comes from being the daughter of a certain Baptist preacher’s wife.

Mama was a teetotaler, prolife, conservative who believed in equal opportunity for anyone who would do the work, but also worked to help others. She and Daddy stopped to “early vote” on the way to see the chest surgeon – just in case her surgery was scheduled before the election a few weeks away. She was semi-famous in her hometown as the food demonstration lady at the local Wal-Mart, the one who handed out samples and root beer floats. She won awards at work for leading fund raising and selling at the store, and ran the early morning Senior Citizens Bingo. Most of all, she was the best “Grandmama” in the world.

As Daddy pushed her wheelchair into the hospital for what turned out to be her last admission, she suddenly looked up at the people around her and said, “I have the best insurance in the world: Jesus Christ!”

It turned out that she was suffering a series of strokes that would steal her ability to do even basic self-care and make her delirious most of the time. Daddy, my sister or I took turns to be with her most of the time; feeding her, helping with her baths and trying to help her control her pain. I wasn’t always patient and I’m afraid that I preached a few of the lessons I learned from her, back at her. But I was better at doing what I could for her than I would have ever thought.

In spite of what I knew of her condition and prognosis, Mama’s death was totally unexpected. Evidently, she had her final stroke while in the MRI, as I sat at the head of the machine, singing to her and trying to keep her (both of us) calm.

I’ve often heard people say that they wouldn’t want to be a burden to their children. Needing someone else to feed us and wipe our chin when we can’t hold the spoon, much less assist us in performing much more intimate acts of hygiene, seems to be the worst thing we can imagine.

I’ve never had a good answer for patients or family members when they express this fear to me. Now, I know that the worst thing that I can imagine is living the rest of my life without having fed Mama, washed her, and rubbed her back on that last day.

The faith that she and Daddy surrounded me with as a child makes me sure that Mama is in heaven. But it’s the memories of caring for her those last few days that let me live here on earth knowing that I loved her as best I could when I could. Mama’s last lesson was that we owe it to our loved ones to allow them to care for us, for their sakes.

Robert P. George: Serious GOP Debate

Set your video recorder to CNN at 3 PM EST on Monday, September 5 in order to watch Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Steve King, and philosopher and bioethicist Robert P. George question the  Republican candidates for President.  The forum will not be a debate, but a series of individual interviews at the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina.

Professor George has been called the smartest man in the US and I’ve blogged about him and quoted him many times (best, here) at LifeEthics.org.  As an admitted groupie of men like Professor George and Dr. Leon Kass (sorry guys), the Palmetto forum would be my dream forum!

“I think people are aware that things are not right,” George says. “They are not technical problems to be solved by choosing the best technocrat. . . . People have a sense that the problems run deeper than that, that they have to do, in a very significant measure, with a loss of fidelity over the years, a falling away from our own principles. . . . They are looking for a conversation that goes deeper.”

via A Serious GOP Debate – Robert Costa – National Review Online.

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.

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.

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.

55% Say Abortion Morally Wrong Most of the Time – Rasmussen Reports™

Slightly more voters continue to classify themselves as pro-choice rather than pro-life when it comes to abortion, but a majority still believes it is morally wrong.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say, generally speaking, on the issue of abortion, they consider themselves pro-choice. Forty-three percent (43%) describe themselves as pro-life. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Pro-choice voters have slightly outnumbered pro-lifers in surveys for several years.

Still, 55% believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time, a finding that shows little change since April 2007. Thirty percent (30%) think abortion is morally acceptable in the majority of cases, while 15% are undecided.

via 55% Say Abortion Morally Wrong Most of the Time – Rasmussen Reports™.

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

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.

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.”

Ultrasound law due September 1

The Texas Tribune, as part of its “31 Days, 31 Ways”  series of articles has a video interview with Dr. David Spear, an Austin abortionist and director of Planned Parenthood, concerning the soon to be enforced law requiring the doctor to meet with women before an abortion, and give her the information available from her pre-abortion ultrasound.

“The law is currently being challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks has said he plans to rule on the case by September. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed the suit in June, before requesting an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect on Sept. 1. In the suit, Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey, the group argues that the law violates the equal protection clause by “subjecting [women] to paternalistic ‘protections’ not imposed on men” and the First Amendment rights of doctors by “forcing physicians to deliver politically-motivated communications” to their patients.”

Dr. Spear confirms that the ultrasound is standard of care as we heard that over and over in testimony at the Lege. The woman pays for the Ultrasound, already. It is her medical information.

No responsible doctor would introduce an instrument into the uterus without an ultrasound these days. It’s common practice to do this a couple of days before the abortion, although Dr. Spears implies that it is done the same day as the procedure. If it is true that it’s done the same day, is that before or after sedation and/or is the woman given the chance to evaluate her medical information while clothed, eye to eye with the doctor, or is she in a gown, feet up in the stirrups?

No one complains about other informed consent laws. There’s already law describing the informed consent for electric shock therapy, radiation therapy, sterilization and hysterectomy. Hysterectomy was the first such law. These (and the mandatory waiting period before Medicaid will pay for sterilization) came about because of a patronizing “doctor knows best” attitude of the past.

There’s nothing either political or religions about informing women about the ultrasound. There’s certainly noting political or religious about expecting the doctor to give informed consent – can you imagine if this conversation were about the heart catheterization and the heart ultrasound (echo-cardiogram)?

Part of the law includes the requirement to give information about the father;s responsibilities and about aide that is available locally for pregnancy and after the birth. These lists have been printed by the State and paid for by licensing fees for abortion clinics since 2005.

Marriage – it really is a beautiful thing

from Fox’s Steven Crowder:

What’s not a matter of opinion, however, is that when it comes to marriage, we’ve all been lied to. Far from the miserable, broke, sexless life that it’s made out to be, the life of today’s married man is more fulfilling than any lonely, self-pleasing, single guy could hope for. So to all of you cads and good-time gals out there, read on and take note.

Statistics and Marriage (and a calendar)

Watch out for statistics, they are not always accurate. Especially if your statistician doesn’t notice the calendar.

From the New York Times‘ “Divorced from Reality,” published in September, 2007,

The Census Bureau reported that slightly more than half of all marriages occurring between 1975 and 1979 had not made it to their 25th anniversary. This breakup rate is not only alarmingly high, but also represents a rise of about 8 percent when compared with those marriages occurring in the preceding five-year period.

But here’s the rub: The census data come from a survey conducted in mid-2004, and at that time, it had not yet been 25 years since the wedding day of around 1 in 10 of those whose marriages they surveyed. And if your wedding was in late 1979, it was simply impossible to have celebrated a 25th anniversary when asked about your marriage in mid-2004.

If the census survey had been conducted six months later, it would have found that a majority of those married in the second half of 1979 were happily moving into their 26th year of marriage. Once these marriages are added to the mix, it turns out that a majority of couples who tied the knot from 1975 to 1979 — about 53 percent — reached their silver anniversary.

Common State Abortion Restrictions Spark Mixed Reviews

Why would anyone want doctors to be forced to perform elective, interventional procedures that they find morally wrong?

Gallup typically finds few differences between men’s and women’s attitudes about the legality of abortion in general. Consistent with that, the new poll shows relatively minor gender differences in views about the seven specific restrictions tested.

Partisan differences are much greater, although majorities of Democrats as well as most Republicans favor informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, and a ban on “partial birth abortion.”

By contrast, Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides when it comes to opt-out provisions and withholding federal funds from abortion providers.

via Common State Abortion Restrictions Spark Mixed Reviews.

Why I support the Texas DREAM Act

I was the first in my family to graduate from college, much less to go to Medical school. I believe I was blessed by attending Texas elementary and high school, Tyler junior college, UT at Tyler, and then Med school and residency in San Antonio, Texas. I’m grateful, knowing that a “non-traditional student” (an older woman with a family) couldn’t have done that in any place but the USA and Texas. No one took my place or squeezed my kids out of a good education, even though we live in a small city where more than 50% of the surnames are of Spanish origin and we know that we have kids of illegal aliens in our schools.

Our law in Texas, (unofficially called The Texas DREAM Act after the failed Federal Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), allows a young adult — who was brought here as a minor through no fault of his own – to be counted as a resident only for calculating tuition rates in our State-supported colleges. The Federal residency or citizenship requirements do not change for someone going to college under this provision. Young people who finish at least 3 years of high school, get their diploma from a Texas high school, have lived in Texas the 12 months before applying, and who get admitted to a Texas college, pay in-state tuition. In contrast to what we often hear, the law doesn’t discriminate against legal aliens from other states: rather than 3 years of residency, they only have to live in Texas for one year to establish residency and it doesn’t matter where they went to high school.

In order to continue to qualify for in-State tuition rates, he must pass his classes, take a full or near-full load and promise to formally apply for legal residency status as soon as Federal law allows.

The “Texas DREAM Act” is the law in our state and was passed with veto-proof numbers by the Texas Legislature over 10 years ago, in 2001. HB 1403 passed in the Senate with 29 “yeas,”no “Nays.” It received 130 votes in favor in the House.   The text of the Bill is, here.  The Texas Legislature has never repealed the DREAM Act, although it was revised and made stricter in 2005 with SB 1528. That Bill also appeared veto-proof, with 31 votes in the Senate, and a non-recorded vote in the House.  This year, the sole attempt by Senator Birdwell to increase tuition for undocumented students failed to make it out of the 82^nd Legislature’s Senate, even when he tried to tie an amendment onto the larger Education Bill.

On most immigration subjects, I’m probably to the right of many people. I would insist that adults who cross the border illegally must go back to their country of origin before beginning any path to citizenship or residency. They should start the process on the other side of the border — *especially* if they have an anchor baby as proof that they have already broken our laws.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

In fact, I’m all for identifying adults who came here illegally, breaking our laws and for deporting the whole family until they can get in line and come here legally. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to break the law over and over. They go “underground” and are vulnerable. As a consequence, young people often graduate from our high schools truly “undocumented” in either country.

However, Federal law interferes with any attempt by the State to stop the problem where it begins. The Feds won’t deport people. They won’t allow us to identify those illegal adults with kids in our schools and deport them. Federal Courts have ruled that we must bend over backwards to prevent any appearance of scrutiny that might “chill” the educational prospects of any child, from preschool to high school graduation.  In spite of all these limits on what the States can do, there’s no Federal attempt at a legal provision for identifying their country of origin.

So, until we can get the federal law changed to better control and deport known adult illegal aliens, do we Texans encourage their identification as (grateful) United States Americans and Texans or do we make them men and women without a country?

Dose of Reason: Perry and Gardasil

Bear with me, this isn’t a “sound bite” subject.

(Edit 8/23/11: The opt out is for 2 years, not 1. BBN )

The Human Papilloma Virus is an infection, and should not be a moral issue. In contrast, the vaccine against four strains of the virus, Gardasil, has become a political issue, even though the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now recommends it for all boys and girls.

Governor Rick Perry has been criticized for his February, 2007 Executive Order that made the vaccine mandatory for girls before entering the 6^th grade. Very little is said about the part of the EO that affirmed the right of and facilitated parents who wish to “opt out” of not only Gardasil, but other vaccines as well.

We expect the Governor to direct the people that he appoints, right?  The Governor is responsible for management of the Executive Branch, including the Department of State Health Services. He appoints the head of the DSHS, who supervises the people who decide which vaccines will be mandatory. Texas’ Legislature modified Chapter 38.001 of the Texas Education Code over the years to mandate certain vaccines and allow the DSHS to add other mandated vaccines without Legislative oversight.  Just before the Gardasil controversy, the Department had mandated Chicken Pox and Hepatitis A, which are both manufactured using cultures of human fetal tissue obtained at an abortion.

The Governor’s Executive Order (RP 65) that caused all the controversy also ordered the director of DSHS to make it easier for parents to opt out of vaccines. The Legislature had changed the law from “opt in” to a requirement to “opt out” once for all the school years. Next, they changed to a two year limit on the opt out, and then in 2005, the Legislature restricted the period to one year and required a new State form bearing a “seal.” Parents had to go to Austin or start early in the summer. There were bureaucrats who maintained that the only way to get the form with the seal was to go to Austin, find the right office and make the request in person.  Perry used his EO to tell the Director of DSHS to make the request (and the seal) available on-line, making it easier to “opt out.”

In fact, the reason for the Executive Order was to speed up private insurance coverage and to make it easier for parents to exercise their right to opt out.

The Federal government doesn’t have the authority to mandate vaccines in the States.  Not yet, not exactly. However, thirty days after the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the vaccine, Texas was required by Federal law to buy and distribute the vaccine in the “Vaccines for Children” program.  The program provides vaccines without cost to uninsured children up to age 21, those who are insured by Medicaid, and those whose private insurance does not pay for vaccines at all. In effect, the only families who have to pay for Gardasil – for whom the State of Texas will not pay, anyway, under Federal law – are those whose private insurance will only pay for mandated vaccines.

Gardasil is manufactured the same way that insulin for diabetics is made these days: using recombinant DNA. In this case, common bakers’ yeast makes the proteins that cause the immune response. Gardasil had been thoroughly studied even in 2007, and is not only included in the Vaccines for Children program, it is the most-requested vaccine for girls. We are even seeing cross-protection from other strains.  It has recently been recommended for boys. The recommended time to give the HPV vaccine is at 11 or 12 years old, when children are scheduled to receive other shots (tetanus and MMR boosters) and before they were likely to be infected.

The only reason that we do “Pap smears” (the papanicolaou test) is to look for changes in the cell nuclear DNA of the cervix, the opening to the uterus or womb. Over the last 15 years, we have found that 99.7% of these changes are due to HPV infections. In the US, 70% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18. (50% by HPV 16.) These are the two types of HPV that result in the most damage and cost, due to repeat paps and the subsequent biopsies, freezing, “LEEP,” or other treatments in which the surface of the cervix (the opening to the uterus or womb) is burned off to remove cancerous and pre-cancerous cells. These treatments lead to infertility and premature births.

Because 15% of girls begin sex before age 15 and half of girls who have sex before 20 say their first time was involuntary, the first trial of Gardasil involved 1200 girls between the ages of 9 and 15. The girls 15 and under had a better response to the vaccine than the older girls and women 16 and above. The researchers compared blood levels of antibodies. The research ethics committee ensured that no paps or pelvics were done on the young girls. (Every one of the young women under the age of 21 when I sent them for colposcopy for cancerous changes had been raped before they were 15 years old.)

The reports of deaths and injuries from Gardasil are poorly documented. The great majority of the adverse effects in the reports include pain, redness, and tingling at the injection site and fainting and headaches. People often faint and complain of headaches after seeing a needle, even without being stuck. It looks awful sometimes, like a seizure. The FDA has ruled that none of the deaths that have been confirmed were caused by the vaccine. In addition, this article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal contains a table showing the numbers of serious events and the numbers of deaths in several studies on the use of the HPV vaccine.

Remember your statistics classes. With 33 million doses, there are bound to be deaths that coincide with the timing of the vaccine use. The teen death rate from all causes is 62 per 100,000 across the US. Most of those are boys, but still: In 10 million girls, 30 deaths are not outside the rate for the age group. They are tragic, but consistent with life on this Earth.

More likely the girls who had severe reactions or death had other risk factors, due to the population presenting to clinics giving the vaccine: those who present with worries about STD’s, the newly sexually active and those entering college. The records show that many were given new scripts at the same visit for birth control pills and other vaccines and medicines, according to the analyses in the medical literature. (Also, remember the silicon, SSRI, and the general vaccine scares that have been blown out of proportion through the years and later proven to be untrue.)

The reports on the possible vaccine-related deaths are available for viewing at” the “Vaccine Adverse Event Report Site” (VAERS),(drop down to the table at the middle of the Page, option #3) using “HPV4” (This is the Merck vaccine), at Option#4, check “YES” at “life threatening” (or you could check “death”) and (top of page)”Sort by submission date.”

Here’s a few examples:

    Administered by: Unknown  Purchased by: Unknown Symptoms: Adverse reaction Write-up: It was reported from an article, published on 29-JUN-2009 that there were “hundreds” of life-threatening reactions said to be associated with GARDASIL. This is one of several reports received from the same source. Attempts are being made to obtain additional identifying information to distinguish the individual patients mentioned in this report. Additional information will be provided if available.

Another:

FINAL DX: Hodgkins lymphoma, nodular sclerosing, stage IIA. Records reveal patient was pale & had firm left clavicular lymph node. Excisional biopsy done 7/23/09 revealed diagnosis. Tx w/chemotherapy & possibly radiation tx when chemo completed.

And another:

    Write-up: Vaccine was administered, patient became dizzy 30 seconds after shot. Patient was pale, diaphoretic & nauseous. Symptoms lasted about 45 minutes. BP dropped to 90/50 & pulse to 50/min. 8/20/09 PCP note received DOS 8/4/09. After shots pt became naseated, pale, diaphoretic, dizzy and had difficulty breathing. BP dropped to 90/50 and pulse into the 50’s. Sx lasted ~45 minutes with return to baseline. Vax record states pt “passed out.”

Governor Rick Perry at The Response (video)

Governor Rick Perry spoke at The Response, a prayer meeting held at the Houston Reliant Stadium, without introduction. I watched the Internet live video stream.

News stories said that the big screen only noted, “Rick Perry, Austin, TX.” This was the same sort of identification given the rest of the speakers. There’s a news story and video montage here, at the Austin American Statesman.

There was nothing political in his talk, just prayer, testimony and reading from the Scriptures in Joel, Isaiah, and Ephesians. And he gave a good testimony.

News coverage also said that he had asked the American Family Association, Reverend James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family), John Hagee (of San Antonio’s Cornerstone Church) and other groups to organize this meeting long before the media began playing up his name as a possible Presidential contender in 2012.

As I watched the video, I followed the chatter on Twitter (mostly #theresponse, some of the #theresponseusa messages). Maybe 2/3 or more of the messages were from nonbelievers who spent nearly the whole 7 hours mocking the proceedings. The messages were filled with hate and profanity – while claiming that it is Christians who hate. Some of the worst hate messages came during the prayers for Israel.

What a shame – but at least they watched all day, so I won’t call it a waste of their time!

I’m afraid that many of the Internet audience does not understand our motive for praying. Yes, we do ask for help, protection and forgiveness. But the main reason we pray is our gratitude and wish to be one with our Creator and Saviour God.  I wasn’t raised to dance, clap or make showy prayers with my hands in the air, but I appreciate that the people I saw online appeared to be genuine and consistent in their acts of worship.

The protesters online, in Austin, and in Houston claim that the evangelicals represented “hate groups” and a religion that excludes most Americans. Well, they’re wrong. Christianity has some basic rules of conduct, but no one is excluded. It’s not as though we check your pedigree or believe that Christ requires years of study and onerous tasks before you can become a Christian. John 3:16 pretty much tells you what to do, Romans 5:8 tells you why He died for us, and Ephesians 3:14 -21 explains what we were doing today.

John 3:16  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Rom 5:8  but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Ephesians 3:14 – 21  For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,   that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being,   so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith–that you, being rooted and grounded in love,   may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,  and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.   Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us,
Eph 3:21  to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Jeffs delivers proclamation during sentencing phase » Standard-Times

Bravo to the jury for finding this man guilty. Thank you all for your service. Now, put him in jail and throw the key away!

On Thursday, Jeffs, the head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was found guilty of one count of sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The penalty phase of the trial proceeded almost immediately late Thursday afternoon.

via Jeffs delivers proclamation during sentencing phase » Standard-Times.

New Right to Government Funding?

“Americans will be thrilled to know that the courts have invented a new “right” to government money.”

These are points that need to be clarified: How much control do the people of the State have when money passes from the taxpayers to the Feds, and then back through the State’s Treasury under the State Legislature and does any entity have a “right” to tax funds? In other words (borrowed from something I read somewhere from Justice Rehnquist) are the courts to decide the big issues and only allow the Legislatures to decide small, inconsequential issues?

Today’s Washington Update, an e-mail newsletter from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, reviews a recent legal ruling in a Kansas Court.

The Judge indulged in political speech, himself (“The purpose of the statute was to single out, punish, and exclude Planned Parenthood.”) but he may have a point that Kansas Legislators might not have legal standing to limit the use of Federal Title X (“Title Ten”) family planning funds that come out of Medicaid appropriations. This is a point that needs to be clarified: How much control do the people of the State have when money passes from the taxpayers to the Feds, and then back through the State’s Treasury under the State Legislature?

Here in Texas, there haven’t been any challenges against our new laws that will eventually limit tax payer funds that will go to PP. We worked on Texas’ family planning funds rather than Federal money. We prioritized funds going to hospitals, county health and federally qualified health clinics that provide comprehensive and continuing care for more than one body system. We also tightened up law prohibiting State tax funds from going to any organization or clinic that performs abortions.