LifeEthics

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.

Supreme Court: Higher First Amendment Hurdles for Public Health Regulation

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Vermont’s statute had a fatal self-inflicted wound. By prominently announcing that the state intended to tip the balance in the “marketplace for ideas” against drug companies, the law dug itself into a constitutional hole: state interference with that marketplace was likely to provoke the ire of a majority of the Supreme Court. Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “[t]he more benign and, many would say, beneficial speech of pharmaceutical marketing is also entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.”

Instead of dealing with this statute under existing precedent, Kennedy seized the opportunity to expand the First Amendment’s reach and power to strike down government regulation of health care information. The Court’s opinion raises serious questions for some public health rules and the regulation of drug marketing. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in dissent, charged that the Court added an unprecedented constitutional standard that would hinder consumer-protection regulations, including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restrictions against off-label marketing.

Although the First Amendment’s core is the protection of religious freedom and political speech, in recent decades, federal courts have expanded its application to business-related or “commercial” speech. In the 1970s, the Court used the commercial speech doctrine to reach state laws prohibiting advertising by professionals such as lawyers, accountants, pharmacists, and physicians. These professions had been self-regulating, following ethical rules that limited market competition. The Supreme Court struck down the prohibitions, using a standard of review that reserved some deference to the state legislature. By 1980, this “intermediate-scrutiny” standard was encapsulated in the Central Hudson decision, and until now, the Central Hudson test — whereby it’s considered constitutional to regulate commercial speech only if doing so “directly advances” a “substantial” government interest in a way that “is not more extensive than is necessary” — has been the operative standard.

Kennedy applied a more stringent “heightened-scrutiny” standard to the Vermont law, seeing the additional burden as justified because the law regulated specific conduct (drug marketing) and specific persons (data miners and drug companies). Under this standard, the Court didn’t carefully weigh the health care cost savings described by Vermont and gave short shrift to physicians’ confidentiality in patient-related decision making, claiming that prescriber-identifiable information was widely available in the marketplace. The majority dismissed Vermont’s concerns about data mining as “nothing more than a difference of opinion,” without considering seriously the peer-reviewed evidence on marketing’s effect on prescribing choices. Indeed, experts’ testimony to the Vermont legislature was offered as evidence of the state’s bias.

via Higher First Amendment Hurdles for Public Health Regulation | Health Policy and Reform.

Partisan disagreement over Health Care Law

Which way will those Independents vote in 2012?

Data Watch | Health Policy and Reform.

The Brief: Top Texas News for Aug. 4, 2011 — Texas News | The Texas Tribune

Governor Rick Perry is quoted as saying, “You know I don’t mind being the first. I like it.”

The Brief: Top Texas News for Aug. 4, 2011 — Texas News | The Texas Tribune.

Susan Combs: The TT Interview — 2014 Statewide Elections | The Texas Tribune

A change of heart? I certainly hope so,and she says that she and her husband have donated to the Austin Crisis Pregnancy Center. I thank her for this conversation and testimony, but I’d like to hear more. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs on “personal responsibility,” but not on the wrong of abortion itself:

Twenty years ago, I was pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I was pro-choice because I had concerns about the role of government. Here we are, you go to 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8, and I am actually stunned to find, in the 21st century, past the year 2000, that we are seeing abortion — which I really thought was rare — being used as a contraceptive. It’s just birth control. I spent some years that I am very proud of, being a prosecutor, handling child abuse and incest cases. And I saved kids. I really did save kids. I really think that I got them a better life.

I don’t know what you can call it but a lack of personal responsibility. If people are having abortions because they’re not taking personal responsibility, I find that just morally repugnant. It has reached such incredible numbers. I have been looking at studies and data and reading books and it is stunning to me. I say this with all seriousness. It is stunning to me that we are at the point in this country where in 2011, you have incredibly high numbers of women choosing to abort rather than have a baby or to have avoided the problem in the first place.

So I am unequivocal about it. I was wrong and it’s 20 years later, and I feel very strongly about it.

via Susan Combs: The TT Interview — 2014 Statewide Elections | The Texas Tribune.

Perry’s Surgery Included Experimental Stem Cell Therapy — Rick Perry | The Texas Tribune

I’ll admit it: this is just cool!  Notice the political and ethical comments from the Texas Tribune:

The governor’s procedure did not involve embryonic stem cells, which he and many other conservatives ardently oppose using for medical research on both religious and moral grounds. His treatment involved removing his own adult stem cells from healthy tissue and injecting them back into his body at the time of surgery, with the belief that the cells would assist tissue regeneration and speed recovery.

via Perry’s Surgery Included Experimental Stem Cell Therapy — Rick Perry | The Texas Tribune.

The FDA, which is in litigation over its authority to regulate new stem cell clinics, has not approved the use of adult stem cells for anything other than bone marrow transplants, which have been used for decades to treat cancer and sickle cell anemia patients. This has largely kept doctors from openly advertising these stem cell injections, but not from capitalizing on them by offering the therapy to their patients.

It also hasn’t stopped Perry from pushing for adult stem cell research and industry in Texas. During the governor’s 2009 State of the State address, he called on state leaders to invest in adult stem cell companies. Later that year, his Emerging Technology Fund awarded a $5 million grant to the Texas A&M Health Science Center Institute of Regenerative Medicine and $2.5 million to Helotes-based America Stem Cell to develop new adult stem cell technology.

Last month, three weeks after his adult stem cell treatment, Perry wrote a letter to the Texas Medical Board, which is considering new rules regarding adult stem cells, saying that he hoped Texas would “become the world’s leader in the research and use of adult stem cells.” He asked board members to “recognize the revolutionary potential that adult stem cell research and therapies have on our nation’s health, quality of life and economy.”

In the weeks since the procedure, the governor has traded his cowboy boots for orthopedic shoes and donned a back brace, raising questions that his recovery may be slow-going. Still, he has traveled extensively; in an interview with The Associated Press last week, Perry said he felt 80 percent recovered and was swimming and using the treadmill.

As for the high cost of such stem cell injections, Miner said that whatever health insurance didn’t pay for, “Perry did.”

In Perry’s procedure, his doctor, Houston orthopedic spine surgeon Stanley Jones, said he pulled stem cells from fatty tissue in the governor’s hip, left the cells to expand in culture for several weeks at a Sugar Land lab, then injected the cells back into the governor during his back surgery, into the spine and into Perry’s blood stream.

LifeEthics on WSJ: Who gets drunk and why

LifeEthics.org linked to “Who Gets Drunk and Why,” a Wall Street Journalarticle originally titled, “Testing the Limits of Tipsy: Many factors Alter the Effects of Alcohol; A Party Experiment,” on variations in response to alcohol intake.

Dividing Conservatives: Who Started This, Anyway?

(The ACLU is probably hiring lawyers as we speak. See! Government can create jobs outside of Government bureaucracies.)

Remember when we were told not to pay attention to what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Now, they’re forcing us to watch. We didn’t start this round, but get ready: Conservatives who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman will be treated as divisive and accused of splitting the Conservative vote.

President Obama has declared his support for legislation ending the Defense of Marriage act. The bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will be heard today in the Senate Judicial Committee.

The full title is, “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families.” In the House, it’s H.R. 1116. According to the Examiner.com,

The bill which was introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) would repeal all three sections of DOMA which places a strong federal hold against states rights in the matters of legalized same sex marriage recognition.

The new bill is set out to repeal specifically the sections in which DOMA defines marriage as the union between a man and a women, instructs states not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.

Which is probably exactly where it should be heard. After all, now there can be more lawsuits,like this one in Vermont against private business owners who does not want to celebrate same sex marriage in their Inn.

There’s a conversation on Facebook about whether the phrase “gay conservative” is an oxymoron. I maintain that it is.  Will organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans still want to vote with Conservatives who are happy to form coalitions on fiscal  matters, small government, and the sanctity of life, but who won’t support the change they want to make in the family or the definition of marriage? Will they join in the debate in favor of “Respect for Marriage,” and how will they do it?

The basic unit of society is the family. Social experiments with the family are not conservative because they risk weakening that basic unit, the source of support and protection in times of crisis and where we learn the skills that allow us to function in the greater society.

There is no historical support for same sex couples forming a stable family.  There’s more empiric evidence for stable families resulting from polygamy. For that matter, the Egyptian Pharaohs, who practiced incest in order to keep their power in the family, managed to hold their reign together longer than the entire history of open same-sex lifestyle, much less the legalization of their “marriages.”

Those who disagree with me tell me to go along to get along and to quit bringing “the church” into politics, “because parties are about politics & policy issues not religious ideology.”

While I do have strong religious convictions, I don’t like to use religious arguments in politics. I don’t need to claim that the only reason to support traditional monogamous marriage is because marriage is a covenant with our Creator. I consider the fact that I can debate tough philosophical (even “ideology”) by using empirical arguments is proof that my position is close to the truth.

My fellow conservatives and I did not start this. The ones bringing in “controversy” are the ones who demand to make us aware of what should be a very private matter and that we agree with their redefinition of marriage and the family.  It is they who insist on dividing conservatives by identifying first as homosexual, then as fiscal conservatives, etc. This identification declares that their purpose is not to cut spending or support small government: their primary purpose in forming a political group is to gain sympathy for their true cause.
(edited, 11AM, 7-20-11, to remove a repeated sentence. 8-9-11, for grammar and to add link to NYT story on Vermont Inn.)