Abortion of the Teaching Moment

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

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

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

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

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

Find a Women’s Health Program doctor in Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doomesbury defends abortion

Yeah, I know it’s “Doonesbury.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Women Speak for Themselves” up to 4 pages

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

Here We Are!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Journal of Medical Ethics: “after-birth abortion”

“1. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
“2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her
from developing the potentiality to become a person in the
morally relevant sense.”

The British Journal of Medical Ethics  continues to publish thought exercises that go against common sense and traditional medical ethics, “emphasising” (British spelling) the utilitarian world-view  of today’s “medical ethics,” without the slightest acknowledgment that there might be harm in the act of arguing that not all human beings are “morally relevant persons.”

This month, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, redefine “abortion,” “euthanasia,” and “infanticide” in “After-Birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?”

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

The arguments don’t work other than as an example of the logical results of the utilitarian world view that has come to dominate medical ethics and to illustrate what Leon Kass called “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” or the “yuck factor.”

One of the editors, Julian Salvulescu, who believes that values and conscience lead to “a Pandora’s box of idiosyncratic, bigoted, discriminatory medicine,” defends the piece on the grounds that that the ideas are not new.  Indeed, the authors discuss the history of killing babies before and after birth because of medical diagnoses such as Down’s syndrome and after birth due to suffering of the child or the lack of worth placed on the child by his or her mother. The Netherland’s “Groningen Protocol” for active euthanasia of children is mentioned as precedent for government support for their position.

We should let these “expressions” be a warning to us all in these days of increasing government involvement in healthcare. As the authors argue,

“Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Freedom of expression and the discussion of even such unpopular ideas do have a place in our world. However, I wonder at an “ethics” journal whose editors claim that their

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

Obviously, they do support “sound rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression”  over “moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks.”

At what point would the editors determine that “ethicists” should be censured, corrected or even retrained? Would the Journal publish a “sound rational argument” that advocates the end of “freedom of ethical expression?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artificial womb and the right to life

It often seems that we fight increasing de-volition of traditional human and medical ethics with new technological advances. Here’s evidence that sometimes ethics and the understanding of human dignity can or could advance.

hat would an artificial womb mean? Well,according to this futurist,

In immediate terms, the foundations on which a woman’s rights to choose are predicated in Roe v. Wade, namely the issue of fetal viability and the right to privacy (the right not to be pregnant), will be rendered virtually meaningless.  First, once a fetus can be safely and entirely gestated outside of a biological womb, it can be removed from its mother.  Second, ectogenesis means that viability starts with conception.

(by Soraya Chemaly, original at RH Reality Check)

I’m  reminded of a science fiction story about the need to duplicate the normal intrauterine environment  that I read in the 80’s, which ended with the advice, “Use original container.”

However, would we say that or the equivalent to a recipient of a heart or kidney transplant? Or even a diabetes patient?

The interesting argument, here, is that the extra uterine *individual* is recognized as a human being, a being with his or her own humanity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org.

Here are the women, President Obama and Secretary Sebelius!

We are not mute. We will not be silenced or ignored. We will make a difference.

My Choose Life license Plate arrived!

Picked up my new Choose Life license plates, today. Will mount with my “Everybody deserves a Family Doctor” frame.

Working within the 5 letters for the personalized plates was tough. “DR 4 LF,” “MD 4 LF,” etc. were not available.

Then: Standing at the counter at the Comal County tax office, today, it occurred to me that I could have used my initials.

The frame and the plate are worth a lot of bumper stickers, aren’t they?  Just think, the regular plates cost $30 a year, with $22 of that going to support adoption services in Texas. This is an easy way to donate and much less messy than bumper stickers!

Order yours at the Choose Life link at Texas Alliance for Life.

“October Baby” tickets in New Braunfels

October Baby trailerTake a few minutes to watch the Trailer

“Every Life is Beautiful” and about the story behind the new movie, “October Baby.”

Shari’s Story

Local believers are trying to make sure that “October Baby” comes to the New Braunfels theaters. Would you buy a ticket to the movie that is to be released at the end of March?

Texas Sonogram Law: More media lies

What woman doesn’t want to meet “her” doctor in person and receive her own medical information while awake, alert and before her legs are up in the stirrups? Should abortion be different from a heart bypass or setting a broken bone?

The Austin American-Statesman is once again proving itself an unreliable source of information, with its poor coverage of the Texas pre-abortion informed consent and sonogram law.

Today’s article repeats earlier claims that the doctor who performs the abortion must perform the ultrasound, when the law – and even the original injunction by the Federal judge – note that an agent of the doctor or a certified sonographer may do so.

While admitting, like others before, that the big problem is scheduling between the doctors and the mother, the article also reveals that the abortionists have been working around the intent of the 2003 “Woman’s Right to Know Act” (WRTK) by using telephone calls with the “provider” to satisfy the 24 hour waiting period and informed consent requirement.

Texas already had in place a requirement that a woman take part in a phone call with the provider 24 hours before the abortion so the doctor can tell her certain information mandated by the state. Included in those requirements are that the doctor tells her benefits may be available to help with medical care and that the father is required to help support the child.

Clinic administrators say the new rule, which requires the same doctor who does the sonogram to also perform the abortion, has complicated doctors’ and patients’ schedules.

The intent of the original WRTK and the update has always been to allow the woman to meet her doctor, have a chance to ask questions, and to inform her about alternatives and services available if she decides not to abort the baby.

CPAC: My first and probably my last

I have a new expletive or two for really, really, really bad “screw ups”: one is CPAC and the other is the name of one particular rude CPAC staffer I encountered.

I’ve had a miserable time at CPAC, the only shining moments were Governor Rick Perry’s speech, Andrew Brietbart’s rant about Obama and the “silver pony-tail gang”, and the Presidential Banquet with Paul Ryan’s talk and the privilege of meeting some wonderful Conservatives. I was especially struck by one panelist’s comment that the proof that faith and family are priorities and that the proof is that the TEA Party hasn’t literally formed a third party.

I’ll complain about the Convention itself later, but, first, the Politics!

Here at CPAC, virtually everyone who finds out I’m from Texas told me they were rooting for Perry and/or that he was their first choice. The exceptions were one who switched over from Sarah Palin, two that were interested in Cain, and one Ron Pauler; all but the Pauler had supported Perry while he was in the race.

Governor Perry’s speech was extraordinary and had more passion and truth than all the current candidates’ speeches. He gave the boldest speech so far.

For the Powers That Be, all the candidates should have acted like they were at CPAC. Early in the speeches, we needed to hear their conservative ideas, social issues, and self-criticism of their past mistakes, preferably with a passionate conversion story, preferably one that made us all know how strong and permanent the change has been. At CPAC convince us that you could smell the brimstone and feel the singe of the heat.

Instead: We got Santorum’s very sad-faced family and 20 minutes of foot-stomping and whining without any substantial plan, Romney’s wide-eyed gaze at us, and his assumption that he’s already won and we’d better study his 50 page plan. Newt not only had his friend introduce Saint Calista, but Newt himself gave us big government plans to *replace* the EPA with a new Federal bureaucracy and *reform* the FDA, both of which should be abolished and their regulations returned to the States.

And now, to my own rant about the Conference: I have a new expletive or two for really, really bad times: one is CPAC and the other is the name of the incredibly rude staffer I encountered on Thursday

My husband and I have attended several very large conventions (The Texas Straw poll in ’07, the Value Voters Summit in DC in ’08, American Academy of Family Physicians with up to 10,000 in attendance, the National Pawnbroker’s Convention, and the Texas Republican State Convention, etc.) The system and facilities for CPAC2012 are the worst I’ve ever experienced.

The Marriott’s too small, the ballroom was set up wrong, and no one could have designed a more dangerous traffic pattern, even without the Mormon missionaries standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking traffic in the halls and lobbies.

I could never recommend that anyone pay for “Platinum Package.” Several people have said that they should have saved the money and gone “Diamond.” And it turns out that there’s another level of Very, Very Important People, but none of the rest of us get to even glimpse them.

I’m told that all previous CPACs offered less security rules and presence and more access to the Candidates and celebrities. That access was exactly why I asked my husband to buy me the “Platinum Package” tickets for my birthday this year. I also signed up for Blogger credentials (free), as well.

Well, there was no access.

The bloggers were divided weeks ago into the in-crowd and the rest of us.

And money can’t buy happiness, either. I’ve been in more lines this week than I thought possible, and there has been very little of the promised “special lines.” Even the “VIP entrance” is a joke: I’ve been stopped more than half the time and then still fight the fire-hazard crowds in the single in/out aisle. On the first day, I couldn’t find and empty chair in the “Platinum/Diamond” area until after noon. The Platinum Balconies offer little or no view and the food is available for very limited times.

The opportunity to hear the 3 main candidates in one day and to meet some great Conservatives is the only benefit I’ve seen this week at CPAC. (You can follow my tweets @bnuckols )

Pa. Vending Machine Dispenses ‘morning-after’ Pill | Fox News

I’ll admit that I don’t like Over The Counter hormone preparations. But isn’t this going too far in the name of convenience?

Students at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania can get the “morning-after” pill by sliding $25 into a vending machine, an idea that has drawn the attention of federal regulators and raised questions about how accessible emergency contraception should be.

via Pa. Vending Machine Dispenses ‘morning-after’ Pill | Fox News.

The pill only works during 5 or 6 days of a girl’s cycle. But what if she throws her cycle off several times a month?

And studies show that even when women have the pills in the medicine cabinet, they don’t use it correctly.

BTW, I’m convinced that Plan B is not an abortifacient – does not cause abortions by interfering with implantation or development if there is fertilization. It can block ovulation for 5 days before ovulation and it makes the mucus thick at the cervix and uterus so sperm and egg have a hard time getting together. It doesn’t change the way that implantation goes and it may even encourage the protection of the new embryo by moma’s body

See my “Review: Plan B, How It Works and Doesn’t Work” at this link:

If, as I believe, the pills only work in preventing fertilization, they are only medically justified/necessary 5 days before or one or 2 days just after ovulation, the window of fertility. The other 20 days or so of the menstrual cycle, the pills are useless and un-necessary.

The best evidence is that Plan B works to prevent ovulation or to prevent the oocyte (the “egg”) from being released from the ovary and passing to the fallopian tube. This is why the pill is best (and only?) functional before ovulation. In nature, the egg only lives about 24 hours and sperm can live from 2 to 5 days. If the egg is not released, is over 24 hours old, if the sperm cannot get to the egg or if they are dead or incapacitated, there can be no fertilization.

The only post-ovulation effect that has been proven that could prevent pregnancy also prevents fertilization. Levonorgestrel causes the mucus in the cervix to be thick (so sperm have a hard time getting to the uterus and then the fallopian tube where the egg is) and by making the sperm unable to penetrate the zona pellucida, the covering and nurturing cells around the oocyte or egg.

Remember Natural Family Planning? This is the method of following body temp and cervical mucus changes to help figure out when a woman is fertile and when she’s not. The post-ovulatory changes that indicate the non-fertile time immediately following ovulation are due to a progesterone similar to the one that is in Plan B.

Also, the progesterone increases the likelihood of implantation and supports that early pregnancy by delaying the period and encouraging the lining of the uterus to develop.

Of course, the single, small dose in Plan B doesn’t have as great an effect as the hormones from the corpus luteum after ovulation.

Federal judge says he can’t block Texas sonogram law, says higher court forced ruling

Sonogram (while awake and aware) and informed consent to be enforced in Texas.

District Judge Sam Sparks had previously struck down parts of the law, but his latest ruling said he’s bound to follow the direction of the New Orleans-based appeals court

via Federal judge says he can’t block Texas sonogram law, says higher court forced ruling – The Washington Post.

Human Embryology 101

In another forum tonight, I read a juvenile argument that human embryos are no more significant than the cells of the cheek removed by scraping it with our fingernail. This is a common statement by someone who has read a little in some chat room, but who hasn’t had a serious discussion about humanity, much less engaged in a study of embryology or human ethics. This time, the young man went a little farther for shock value and noted the millions of cells lost by each of us when we have a bowel movement.

Let me refute this silliness with simple biology.

The cells of the cheeks and of the gut wall are specialized body cells at the end of their life cycle. They *are* no more and no less than epithelial cells. The same can be said for the oocyte and sperm if there is no fertilization. As they are, without intensive – and still highly speculative – technical manipulation, nothing can make them anything other than cells at the end of their life cycle.

The zygote and subsequent cells of the embryo *are* an entire, intact, developing human being who is functioning as he or she should at that stage of life. (Occasionally, in nature, the zygote may divide in such a way to result in identical twins, triplets or quadruplets, all of whom are entire, intact, functioning, and developing humans at that stage of life.) There is no “potential,” only an organism that *is* a human being.

Individual organisms rarely display all the qualities of the species at any one time in the life cycle. It’s true that a human embryo can’t breathe air or walk but neither can grown men or even post-menopausal women ovulate. However, “organisms” do function in an *organized* manner to develop and function as they should at any given stage of life for that species.

Humans are the only species which engages in the discussion about “rights” and which organisms within our species are human enough for their right to not be killed to be protected. This conversation is the essence of “human dignity.” I suppose that I shouldn’t be surprised that some humans don’t function at the highest level of human dignity and the conversation devolves so often into human *indignities* such as slavery, the deeming of women and children as chattel, and petty little comments that we were each equivalent to bowel movements at some time in our life cycle.

Quico Conseco, TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’

Hooray for Quico Conseco!

San Antonio – Speaking at a town hall meeting this week in Texas, a freshman Republican congressman, elected in 2010 with Tea Party support, took aim at Planned Parenthood by calling the group a “front for mass murder.”

In the somewhat tony Fair Oaks Ranch subdivision, just northwest of San Antonio, Francisco “Quico” Canseco (TX-23) told his audience PP was a “front for mass murder” which “needs to be abolished,” according to BuzzFeed. He added federal funding for support of National Public Radio is “like funding Democratic Public Radio.”

via Op-Ed: TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’.

Would you force Jews and Muslims to sell pork?

Starting next year, religious groups will have to push aside their core doctrines and pay for pills that either prevent pregnancies or end them.

“[I]t would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews don’t follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis,” writes Michael Doughtery of Business Insider. “The law wouldn’t technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.”

via FRC Homepage.

Please let your Representative and Senators know that the new Obama Administration conscience rules and the requirements for insurance are not freedom.

Texas media lies about Texas “Sonogram Law”

An article, based on lies, by the Texas Tribune’s Emily Ramshaw was picked up by the New York Times Sunday (January 29th) edition.

The lies are neatly tied up in these two sentences:

” This past fall, doctors were required to start performing a transvaginal sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, a shift they say has had frustrating consequences for clinics and patients.”

and

“Now the physician performing the abortion — not an ultrasound technician, for example, or a secondary doctor — must conduct the sonogram on a separate day.”

(I have a “Google News search” for articles on the Texas Sonogram law, so I get emails as soon as they’re published. These same lies are duplicated in other articles and op-eds, like this one in “The Jurist,” from a law professor at the Saint Louis School of Law.)

Editor-in-Chief, Evan Smith, and Ramshaw at the Texas Tribune must know they’re publishing emotional falsehoods. Even Judge Sam Sparks knew better.

Anyone who has read the text of HB 15 or Judge Sam Spark’s ruling would know that we’ve had a formal informed consent process and a 24 hour waiting period since 2003, that there is no mandate to use a “transvaginal sonogram,” and that “an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers” may perform the sonogram. The doctor is required to show the sonogram “images,” to make the heartbeat audible and to describe the development of the embryo or fetus. That the language did not require that the actual, real-time sonogram be conducted by ” the physician performing the abortion” was clear to Judge Sparks. As he said,

     “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.”

Still, Ramshaw revealed some truth:

    “. . . a scheduling struggle when doctors providing elective abortions are in short supply and rotate between clinics.

“They’ve had to set aside a whole other day doing ultrasounds, visits that in most parts of medicine would be dedicated to people with less training than a physician,” Hagstrom Miller said. “The effect on their travel schedule, on their reimbursement, on patients’ access to them has been tremendous.”

In the typical elective abortion, there’s rarely any on-going doctor-patient relationship and the real problem is bureaucratic and financial.  The clinic owners are mostly worried about the money and their ability to get doctors to show up for the informed consent and to return the next day to perform the abortion.

And it’s not all about money.  The doctors who “rotate between clinics” usually fly in, sometimes from another state, for “procedure day.” The “Sonogram law” doesn’t force the woman having the abortion to look at her sonogram. But it does force the doctor to spend time counseling the women – possibly more time than the abortion itself will require. They will now have to look the women in the eye and describe the development of the child. How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing the heart or limbs?

The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton

Friday’s announcement that the Obama Administration would force employers – including nonprofit religious employers – to pay for their employees’ contraception and abortifacients is just the latest example of how the abortion industry and its friends in the Obama Administration are attacking these well established rights of conscience in ways even the authors of Roe and Doe did not envision.

via The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton |.

@GovernorPerry should not drop out!

If Governor Perry drops out, most of the Nation will never get a chance to vote for our candidate, or to influence the Republican primary at all. I’m afraid that the voices that claim that the “Powers That Be” really determine our candidates will be proven right.

Now, I’ll admit to being an early supporter of Governor Rick Perry.  I’m still convinced that the Governor is the right man for the job. And he’s the only one of the remaining candidates who still has a job – and the only one who hasn’t been running for President for over a year.

Part of the reason that Romney is always in front is the script that he IS the front-runner. And part of the reason that Governor Perry is trailing is the repetitive script that he can’t win because he got in so late and made mistakes in his first couple of debates. I’d think more people would have noticed how fast Rick Perry learned debating, and how much he has improved in such a short space of time. But no: the consensus is he goofed up in September, so it’s all over.

The reality is that it’s still January. Even after South Carolina and Florida – the first “winner take all” primaries – just 5% of the Delegates to the Republican Convention will be determined. No one can possibly be declared the winner of the Republican Primary until late March. With less than 50 delegates out of the 1144 needed to win, half of the 2288 total, the race is – and should be – still on.

While both Santorum and Gingrich are Conservatives, their histories are no less tainted than any other candidate, and some of those votes and actions will need to be defended. Neither can speak authoritatively about working in the private sector, creating jobs, serving in the military, or upholding the Second Amendment. Worse, both have a long record of “crossing the aisle” and forgetting to come back.

Gingrich has been married three times and has a very public history of adultery. He muddled his response just last month as to when life begins and the balanced budgets he brags about depended on the Sustainable Growth Rate.

Santorum has a lack of executive experience, as well as the specter of his support for Senator Specter (who turned Democrat) and his loss in Pennsylvania. He also voted against the Right to Work Act because, as he said last week, Pennsylvania is not a Right to Work State.

And then, there are the wives. Apparently, there was a “war” over the wives at that meeting of Christian leaders last week. As the Republican platform supports the Defense of Marriage Act, the wives will become an issue when their husbands go up against Obama.

Governor Perry has had well over 11 years of experience running Texas, both as Lieutenant Governor and Governor. He understands what it means to be required to balance a budget, work with a contentious Legislature and fight for laws not only in the House and Senate, but in the Courts and in public opinion. He understands the ramifications of regulations and appointments to regulatory bodies.

He’s the only one of the five remaining candidates other than Paul who has served in the military, having volunteered to serve in the US Air Force near the end of the Viet Nam War, becoming a pilot for over four years and retiring as a Captain.

On the social issues, there’s no one with a better record than Governor Perry: he has been married to one wife, and has always been pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-state’s rights.

Governor Perry doesn’t just say these things because he believes it’s what Republicans and Conservatives want to hear. Governor Rick Perry, in his books, Fed Up! and On My Honor, and in his years of service to the State of Texas, has proven that he understands and believes in Conservative ideals.

Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture

Knowledge is power. Especially when it comes to Courts and lawyers. Knowing that the baby who might be aborted is not just a lifeless “tissue” or “product of pregnancy” is bound to change hearts and minds. Someday, abortion will be thought of in the same way that we think of slavery.

Legal scholar Hadley Arkes believes that the groundwork for a powerful challenge to legal abortion has been laid, in a judicial decision affirming the “informed consent” law in Texas.

Judge Edith Jones wrote a carefully reasoned decision in Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, Arkes writes. Her decision, emphasizing that the new Texas law does not place any barriers in front of a woman seeking an abortion, is very likely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, Arkes believes.

Beyond the judicial sphere, the Texas precedent should encourage legislators to consider bills that protect the unborn without directly challenging the Roe v. Wade precedent, Arkes suggests.

That move is bound to set off crippling tensions within the party of abortion in Congress. They are the tensions that could make that party come apart, and bring us to the beginning of the End.

via Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture.

Texas has already determined that it’s wise to regulate doctors, medicines and surgical procedures. In the case of the abortion laws and sonogram requirements, the rules for action are placed on the doctor doing the procedures. The doctor is the only one being “made” to do anything.

We have a 2005 State law mandating 24 hour waiting period and a set of steps to ensure that the patient, the woman who is going to have an abortion, receives thorough informed consent.  Texas also protects other patients with regulations requiring specific informed consent for sterilizations, hysterectomies, radiation therapy and electric shock therapy. These procedures are often performed on patients who may be vulnerable to outside influence (by the doctor or family members pr social expectations) and all carry risks of permanent harm and consequences that the patient should know about.

The Sonogram Bill ensures that the woman seeking an abortion will meet the doctor who will perform the abortion and that the physician will tell her the status of her pregnancy and the development of baby, all before she’s sedated and in a gown, before she’s up in the stirrups.

Who would go for any treatment without first meeting the doctor? Would you consider it “punishment” or “shaming,” much less based on some “religious value” to enforce Texas’ similar informed consent laws for patients about to undergo radiation therapy, electric shock therapy, or a hysterectomy? Where’s the outrage about shaming or frightening the smoker when the doc sits down to explain why you need bypass surgery?

Would any one argue that the man who goes in for radiation therapy does not know that he might have cancer cells remaining in his body? Or that a woman doesn’t know that she won’t ever be able to have children again if she has a hysterectomy? (We’ll skip the problems with consent for electric shock therapy.)

The Bill is reminds me of our earlier fights to allow patients to own their own medical information, to make our own choices with full, informed consent. It’s patronizing to tell women seeking abortion that they don’t need to see their own sonogram or to consider sharing her medical information with her as interference by the State.

5th US Court of Appeals: Texas may enforce abortion law

Wonderful news! The sonogram bill will be enforced as it winds its way through to the Supreme Court. For my critique of the very poor reasoning of the Federal judge who delayed enforcement, see this.

Will post the link to the ruling when it’s available.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ temporary order against enforcing the law, saying Sparks was incorrect to rule that doctors had a substantial chance of winning their case.

Sparks ruled in Austin in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by making them to show and describe the images and describe the fetal heartbeat — all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.

The appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same ‘compelled speech’ challenges made” in the current Texas case.

Earlier rulings have found that laws requiring doctors to give “truthful, nonmisleading and relevant” information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment,” the appeals court said.

“‘Relevant’ informed consent may entail not only the physical and psychological risks to the expectant mother facing this ‘difficult moral decision,’ but also the state’s legitimate interests in ‘protecting the potential life within her,'” Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the appeals’ decision.

via The Associated Press: Appeals court: Texas may enforce abortion law.

Unified Theory of Conservatism: Constitutional Ethics for a Small Government

There’s no conflict between the three legs of Reagan Conservatism, in spite of the confusion surrounding contraception and homosexual “rights” we witnessed during the New Hampshire debates. Social issues such as the right to life and traditional marriage are equally compatible with small government and States’ rights as National security and fiscal responsibility,  just as the Declaration of Independence is compatible with the10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Conservatives agree that the best government governs least, but we don’t forget that there is a proper role for even the Federal government.

After all, the Constitution is based on the existence of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States’ desire to ensure Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, using the least force and intervention possible to prevent or punish the infringement of our inalienable rights.

Liberals and Libertarians accuse Conservatives who advocate for social issues and national security of abandoning both the Constitution and the ideal of a small Federal government that is as “inconsequential in our lives as possible.” There are even some in the Tea Party willing to sacrifice these issues in order to form a coalition with the Libertarians to cut spending and lower taxes.

Unfortunately, the Left, Right and middle all manage to stir up not only the divide between Libertarians and Conservatives. They would also exaggerate conflict between socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who agree on the definition of marriage and that life begins at conception, but disagree on whether or not true contraception is ethical.

Abortion, medicine and research which result in the destruction of embryos or fetuses infringe on the right to life by causing the death of a human being. (See “Why Ethics.”) In contrast, true contraception prevents conception without endangering any human life. Therefore, unlike abortion, it does not infringe the right to life.

Marriage as a public institution is not merely a means to insurance and legal benefits. The definition of marriage predates the Constitution and goes far beyond culture, religion or National boundaries. Marriage affects the stability of the family and the well-being of both children and the husband and wife. (There’s strong research supporting the latter.) We define and defend traditional marriage in order to secure liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These same inalienable rights are the justification for establishing National borders, protecting National security, and punishing those who break the law, while opposing high taxes and big Government bureaucracy and regulation that serves to not only redistribute wealth, but creates a dependency on more and bigger Government intervention.

Conservatives like Governor Rick Perry have been just as vocal in opposing the attacks on religious freedom and conscience by the Obama Administration as we have been in opposing increased taxes and regulations and the EPA’s over-reaching. We can stand secure in our understanding that the Conservative, Constitutional and proper use of government is to prevent and punish infringement of inalienable rights.

(Edit 11 AM 1/10/12 “Reagan” added to the first sentence.  04/09/14 – fixed a broken link. BBN)

Why “None of the Above” is not acceptable (Vote positive, vote @GovernorPerry )

I admit to voting for a “None of the Above” candidate in the Texas Republican Primary in 2008. However, by that time, my vote was no more than a protest against John McCain, who appeared to have been chosen by the Powers That Be (“PTB”) in the Republican Party, rather than the voters that I knew.

That’s not the case for voters in the Iowa Caucus, and the Primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

Today’s news includes the NBC News/Marist poll, which indicates that more than half of registered voters in Iowa don’t intend to show up on January 3 for the caucuses. That means that 47% of you will effectively cast 2 votes; votes that have the potential to determine who will become the Republican candidate for President and which will at least decide who stays in the race and who withdraws. You are in a position to tell the PTB who you want on the ballot in November, 2012. Please vote for the candidate that shares your values, not the most electable or not-Whomever.

If I may, I’d like suggest positive reasons to vote in the contests mentioned above and to vote for Governor Rick Perry:

• 11 years of experience governing Texas, with the second largest population of all the States, an economy that would be in the top 20 in the world if it were an independent Nation, and one of the most diverse populations in the United States.
• A proven Conservative record, including advocacy for pro-life laws and for traditional marriage.
• On the record in his books, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington and On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For. You can read excerpts at Amazon.com and on this blog here and here.
• A strong record of action to protect the sovereignty of the United States, the individual States, and the border between Texas and Mexico, and
• a personal history of volunteering to serve in the United States Air Force, achieving the rank of Captain as a pilot, marriage to Anita for nearly 30 years, and an outspoken man of faith.