Texas Womens Health Program update

Texas Alliance for Life has sent out a notice of a hearing Monday, August 8th, on the TWHP. (Sorry for the formatting, I’m traveling, so limited access to the Internet.)

* * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 8/3/12 * * *

Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!

Deadline on MONDAY

Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.

DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.

The Obama Administration is killing the Medicaid Women’s Health Program in Texas because Governor Perry and the Legislature refuse to fund Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 7, passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Perry last year with Texas Alliance for Life’s strong endorsement, explicitly excludes organizations that provide or promote elective abortion, like Planned Parenthood. Without Senate Bill 7, there would be no statutory basis for excluding Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women’s Health Program and from the Texas Women’s Health Program.

SAMPLE MESSAGE: Please call, email, or mail a message in your own words by Monday, August 6.Phone — 800.322.1305 (during business hours):

Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us.
“Dear Ms. Garcia,
“This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012.
“Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address

Mail: Imelda M. Garcia, Department of State Health Services, Division of Family and Community Health Services, Community Health Services Section, Mail Code 1923, P.O. Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347,

Deadline: Monday, August 6, 2012.
Please let us know you’ve made your contact. Simply send comments to info@texasallianceforlife.org.

BACKGROUND

For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.

Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician 

Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.

www.TexasAllianceforLife.org    512.477.1244

twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life     facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife

Family Doctor or Family Nurse? Pay now or Pay Later?

We docs often hear that advance practice nurses could do 80% of what Family docs, pediatricians and internist do. But, it’s knowing the difference between that 80% and 20% that will kill you!

I’m printing the whole of this letter from Dr. Valenti published by the Texas Medical Association, because it says so much that we doctors are saying these days. Here’s more about the crisis among Texas Doctors who still see the poorest elderly in Texas.

Money is vital to keep practices open, but what’s scary is that there’s a move to allow “mid-levels” to do more. Specifically, Dr. Valenti objects to an opinion piece in the DMN that includes this statement: “Hardly anyone doubts that most veteran registered nurses, with a little more training, could do a fine job setting broken bones, stitching wounds and even dispensing drugs for common ailments.”

Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Setting the Record Straight on Doctor Pay
The following is a response by Joseph Valenti, MD, to commentary published Friday in the Dallas Morning News by Eli Lehrer, president of R Street. In the article, Mr. Lehrer claims U.S. physicians and health care workers make too much money and are responsible for the high cost of medical care in America.

Dear Sir:

I am a physician in Denton, Texas. This morning, I sat and read your article in The Dallas Morning News titled “Your Doctor’s Big Fat Paycheck.” Frankly, I am in awe of the breadth of your ignorance.

Fact: Of the health care dollars spent in this country, physician salaries make up about 8.5 percent. That is one of the lowest percentages in the industrialized world. Germany, by contrast, is at 15 percent.

Fact: The graduate level course of study for nurse practitioners (NPs) and nurses is not even close to that of physicians — we have a little something called residency. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. When I did mine in OB-Gyn from 1994 to1998, it was 90-100 hours a week for four years with a take home pay of $20,000. I was raising a family on that, as my wife had to stay home to take care of premature twins. NPs and nurses do none of that.

Fact: Private insurers are already too strong. “Weak bargaining position”? If you don’t like the contract they offer, they tell you to take a hike. Doctors are the ones with no bargaining position. I haven’t had an increase from United Healthcare for 54 months. Meanwhile, it paid its shareholders an 11-percent dividend last year. And regarding your comment about how individual plans rarely cover one-half an area — do your homework! States like Alabama have Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering 90 percent of insured lives! In any other industry, this would constitute a monopoly.

Fact: Medicare increases have been had by every segment of the health care industry except doctors. (See the charts.)

Fact: Pilots may make less than doctors. They also belong to unions and walk out when they don’t get what they want. Doctors never walk out, and the pro bono and free care we hand out can’t even be deducted from our federal taxes as charity. Then try breaking it down per hour. Pilots fly about 60 hours/month. Doctors work in the office and hospital about 60 hours/week. And that doesn’t take into account nights and weekends on call. Don’t get me wrong — pilots are vital and do a great job. But on a per-hour basis, they are clearly ahead. By the way, I don’t know a single primary care doctor who makes $200,000 a year. Most of the ones I know are barely getting by, and many are closing their practices or selling them to hospitals.

A huge doctor shortage is looming. We cannot and will not attract our best and brightest students to medicine unless their pay is commensurate with the level and intensity of work and commitment needed to fund a modern medical education. The student loan burden alone, which is now often exceeding $200,000, keeps many away.

The huge amount we spend in this country for health care has far less to do with medical professionals’ salaries than it does with the cost of almost everything else. Case in point: The same Mirena IUD, from the same single factory that Bayer uses in Finland, costs $700 in the United States but costs $250 in Canada. Really? That same case can be made for tens of thousands of drugs and medical products here.

Medicine is one of the only businesses I know of where the increasing cost of doing business can’t be passed on to the customer. Every year, the cost of running my office and paying my employees goes up, while insurance payments stay the same or go down. I am left to eat the difference. My salary the last three years is less than I made 14 years ago when I started in private practice. Hardly a source of bankrupting the health care system.

Shakespeare said that the eye sees what the mind knows. With that in mind, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable entrusting your care or that of your family to someone with less training, less knowledge, and less expertise. Would you? I think not. Now ask yourself how happy one of us would be treating someone like you, who wrote an article that is so misleading about us and who we really are and what we really have done to become really good at taking care of patients. Surprise. We would love to take of you. Why? Because that is what we took a vow to do, a vow that doesn’t allow us the luxury of being judgmental. So the next time you are lying in bed needing emergency surgery, remember this — we will be there. Pay or no pay. Assign a value to that ideal, and then consider whether or not we are “overpaid.”

Sincerely,
Joseph S. Valenti, MD, FACOG

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry Announces Janek and Traylor to Lead New Leadership Team at HHSC

This should be interesting! Have we ever had a former Representative and Senator for Commissioner of Health and Human Services?

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry Announces Janek and Traylor to Lead New Leadership Team at HHSC.

Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Dr. Kyle Janek of Austin as executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) effective Sept. 1, 2012, and announced that Chris Traylor of Austin will serve as chief deputy commissioner. This team will oversee the operations of the five health and human services agencies, including more than 55,000 employees, combined annual budgets of more than $30 billion, and the state’s Medicaid program.

“Texas, like the rest of the country, is headed into a period of the most significant changes in health care in our history,” Gov. Perry said. “This new leadership team, with Kyle and Chris at the helm, combines unparalleled experience and expertise to ensure Texans continue to have access to the health care they need while implementing fiscal policies that are mindful that it’s taxpayer money they are spending.”

Janek is a board-certified anesthesiologist and director of anesthesia services at Lakeway Regional Medical Center. He is a past member of the Texas Legislature, serving in the House of Representatives and Senate from 1995 to 2008. He is also a board member of the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute and the Beyond Batten Disease Foundation, and a member of the Travis County Medical Society, Texas Medical Association, Texas and American societies of Anesthesiologists, the International Anesthesia Research Society, and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Janek received a bachelor’s degree from Texas A&M University and received a medical degree and completed his residency at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He replaces Tom Suehs, who is retiring.

Traylor has served as commissioner of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services since 2010. He helped oversee the consolidation of the 15 health and human services agencies into the current five in 2004, and is past associate commissioner for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He has also previously held additional positions at HHSC including chief of staff and deputy commissioner of government relations. Traylor received a bachelor’s degree from Texas Tech University.

Medicaid Expansion Would Cost Everyone

Bravo to Governor Rick Perry for refusing to move ahead on the Medicaid expansion requirements in the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” AKA “ObamaCare.”

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, of the 6.5 million uninsured in Texas, fewer than 10% of Texas’ uninsured would benefit from expanding Medicaid to everyone at 133% of the Federal poverty guidelines. ObamaCare has no requirements other than annual income.  The law won’t allow asset verification or take into account beneficiaries’ willingness and ability to work.

Texas uninsured numbers include Nearly 1/3 that are illegal aliens, about 40% who earn more than $50,000 a year, and about 1/4 who are already eligible under Medicaid and CHIP. None of these people  would be eligible under the expansion. Many are young and healthy, not convinced they need to spend their money on insurance, anyway.

The cost of expanded Medicaid, much less the rest of Obamacare, would require increased taxes, overt and hidden, on everyone. Sure, for two years, the Federal government is supposed to “pay” for the 10% of Texas’ uninsured added to the expanded Medicaid. But it won’t pay for that 25% of uninsured that are already eligible and it won’t cover illegal aliens or “the working poor.” And after 2 years, the Federal money goes away, leaving Texas with the bill.

Even though Washington can print paper money, the government doesn’t have any money that it doesn’t take in taxes. The cost is not just what is collected by the IRS, it comes in the loss of value of the money and assets we earn or already have.  Obamacare, and the Stimulus before it,  are sold by the Left as a classic take-from-the-rich “redistribution of the wealth.”  However, hey also cost non-taxpayers and the working poor and middle class by the harm they do to our economy and the increase in cost of necessities. As well as inevitably rewarding those who are unwilling to fend for themselves, they punish everyone who lives pay check to paycheck as well as the “wealthy.”

Governor Rick Perry tells Obama Admin, “No!” #TxSen @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry has made it official: Texas won’t expand our Medicaid to cover all adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty level. The ACA Medicaid expansion does not allow any requirements other than income. No need to work, no asset limits, no medical need or other hardship.

Here’s the Press Release from the Governor:

July 9, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, today confirmed that Texas has no intention of implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. Any state exchange must be approved by the Obama Administration and operate under specific federally mandated rules, many of which have yet to be established. Expanding Medicaid would mandate the admission of millions of additional Texans into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.

In 2010, Gov. Perry declined “Race to the Top” dollars, which would have provided some up-front federal education funding if Texas disposed of state standards and adopted national standards and testing.

To view the governor’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, please visithttp://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-SebeliusKathleen201207090024.pdf.

A Fourth of July Comment on ObamaCare (revised)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The discussion about reversing the trend from collecting taxes that are spent on individuals, rather than on common use, is considered by some as revolutionary as the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence. Along with everyone else, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this in light of last week’s  Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. As with any law or tax, the conversation about “ObamaCare” must begin with the basics of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

A decade after the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the US to “secure” the inalienable rights of the people from infringement by the government and to prevent the growth of interference by government except where necessary to prevent or punish the infringement of inalienable rights. The Constitution included a way to make changes that the People find necessary through the Amendment process. We can’t allow anyone, whether the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or “progressives” to fundamentally alter our Constitution by law, legal ruling, or bureaucratic regulations without going through the proper, Constitutional, amendment process.

The inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness carry through to all aspects of life, whether it’s working for day to day expenses, saving for the future, or making choices of foods to eat and entertainment. Rights create a non-delegable duty of personal responsibility, which means that each of us must pursue happiness for ourselves without infringing on anyone else’s rights. We cannot kill, enslave or limit others’ pursuit of happiness by forcing them to do our will or give us their property. This is true even when we face consequences that aren’t the result of our choices: accidents, natural catastrophes, bad luck or bad genes. If it makes you happy, you can freely give what you want to charity or service for the benefit of others, but even this is limited by the fact that your rights are inalienable: i.e., you can’t give away or sell your right to life or liberty.

One way that people exercise personal responsibility is to purchase insurance. Traditionally, insurance covered unexpected or catastrophic costs. There is no Constitutional justification – and certainly no economic justification – for the Federal government to turn health insurance into tax funded pre-paid “health care coverage” to pay for everything from first dollar.

When the People agree that a given purpose will secure what the Constitution calls our “Safety and Happiness,” we have allowed our governments to tax us for “public goods,” like roads, education, and defense. Social Security and Medicare are different, in that individuals were taxed and told that the money would be used for their own and their family’s future needs, rather than for common use.

After the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 precipitated a near-Constitutional crisis, these funds were spent over the years by subsequent Congresses. They were also used to justify more taxes and spending for other people and purposes; what we now call “redistribution of wealth”. Bit by bit, good-hearted Americans have allowed the scope of both State and Federal entitlements to grow until more than half of our population receives tax funds paid by other people for food, housing, healthcare and even free cellular phones. And then came the Affordable Care Act or “ObamaCare,” which will “tax” or penalize every American if they don’t purchase government approved health insurance.

Obviously, our Nation shouldn’t break the contract with all of the people whose payroll taxes were collected over the years for Social Security and Medicare. However, the Accountable Care Act is the latest step toward the unconstitutional federalization of an industry in a way that wasn’t envisioned by the Founders of our Nation for ANY industry. What better time to evaluate Constitutional taxes and spending than  Independence Day ?

Medicine vs. “Health”

Medicine is the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, while the World Health Organization defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Doctors practice medicine, but is “health” even possible?

The hassle factor in “health care” costs

Most docs know the history of medical finance and the creep of health care payments with tax dollars. We know that the costs of chronic, much less catastrophic, health care are high. Nevertheless, most doctors look at history and know that changes in government health policies will likely mean that we will be burdened with regulations and that any talk about “savings,” means a cut in pay for what we do, on top of increased regulations.

At least as often as I hear complaints about payment for our services, docs express urgent concern that aren’t able to care for our patients due to limitations on services, requirements for prior authorizations with limited, sometime under qualified, personnel approving necessary treatments, limitations on numbers of prescriptions per month, and the inability to find sub-specialists when patients need them. And that it is only going to get harder. In my opinion, the “hassle factors” introduced by bean-counters and government bureaucrats are responsible at least as much for the increase in costs as increased definitions of health and improved technology.

A well-known cliché’ about of the cost of regulations is the ridiculous bill for an aspirin in the hospital. My own experience with regulations is another example. In 2003, when HIPAA came into force, requiring compliance, the vendor for my billing software wouldn’t support my old Linux software. They demanded that I buy the new Windows program, requiring all new computers, with the resulting cost of installation, training and the inevitable lag (and error) in billing. At least for some of us, there comes a point when the hassles aren’t worth borrowing the money to keep the office open.

Extrapolate these cascades of costs across the entire system and add in the regulations we know about, much less the ones we don’t know about – yet. Who can calculate the true cost of the Federalization of medical care?

New England Journal of Medicine: “The Health Care Jobs Fallacy”

Attempts to justify increasing intrusion of the Federal government into health insurance and health cost distract from the purpose of the practice of medicine, which is to treat patients.

Remember when doctors talked about “medical care” of individuals, not “health care” for populations?Remember when medicine was an “art,” not an “industry?” People aren’t machines with interchangeable parts and neither medicine nor “health care” are amenable to assembly line production, except in very rare instances.

The bottom line is that employment in the health care sector should be neither a policy goal nor a metric of success. The key policy goals should be to achieve better health outcomes and increase overall economic productivity, so that we can all live healthier and wealthier lives. Our ability to ensure access to expensive but beneficial treatment is hampered whenever health care policy is evaluated on the basis of jobs. Treating the health care system like a (wildly inefficient) jobs program conflicts directly with the goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to care at an affordable price.

via The Health Care Jobs Fallacy — NEJM.

Penumbra of a tax

It’s not tax enough to invoke the Anti-injunction Act of 1987, but it will be collected by the IRS so it’s a legal, Constitutional, tax?

Maybe it’s just a shadow of a tax?

The Roberts decision on the mandate to purchase health insurance, is more confusing to me than most legal decisions. I keep looking for a way to untangle what appears to be circular contradiction, rather than logic. Here’s the best summary I’ve found that seems to say that the money the IRS collects is a tax, not a penalty for breaking the law:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

Many of us have complained that laws and regulations have become too complicated, that no one can keep up or even avoid inadvertently breaking laws here and there. But this law is even worse because it forces action and taxes or penalizes the failure to act according to the Government’s determination of what is for our own good, rather than punishing an action or inaction that infringes on the rights of another.

To repeat hundreds of others, including the Justices who wrote the dissenting report, what are the limits of the Government once it can charge me for not doing some act?

All I can say is, vote to overturn the ObamaTax.

NYT Article on @DonnaCampbell (Texas Senate District 25)

“We have a great grassroots movement, and that’s what did it.” Texas Tribune, June 22, 2012

That article by the TT was also published in the New York Times. Take a look!

The author points out that Dr. Campbell was out-spent by both of her opponents, but she garnered enough votes to win her place in the July 31, 2012 runoff against incumbent Jeff Wentworth.

Senator Wentworth is quoted in this article as saying he wants to consolidate support from those who don’t want SD 25 leadership to leave Bexar County, while at the same time he hopes to win over voters from outside of Bexar County.

The dichotomy is not that hard for Wentworth, who calls himself “pro-life” because he doesn’t approve of abortion in the 3rd trimester.  24 weeks or 6 months? During second trimester, abortion is just fine with Jeff.

2010 RPT (original) Platform “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health”

Here is the original 2010 platform – I’ve only copied the section that was disputed. The 2010 Platform was used by the 2012 Temporary Platform Committee as a beginning for our new 2012 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas. (At least for now, the entire 2010 document is online at the Tarrant County Republican Party website. The 2012 Platform is here at the RPT website.) (Thank you Tarrant County Republican Party!)

I’ve noted amended portions in red and deleted wording in blue. You can see the final version of this section here and the version proposed by my sub-committee is here.

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life– We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.

Partial Birth Abortion– We oppose partial birth abortion. We recommend that Congress eliminate from all federal court jurisdictions all cases involving challenges to banning Partial Birth Abortion.

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and
7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Sonograms – We urge the Texas legislature in its next biennial session to enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and offered as part of the consent process to each mother seeking an elective abortion.

Harassing Pregnancy Centers– We urge legislation to protect pregnancy centers from harassing ordinances to require pregnancy centers to post signs in violation of their Constitutional rights. We further oppose any regulation of pregnancy centers in Texas which interfere with their private, charitable business.

Choose Life – We ask the Legislature to provide Texans opportunity to purchase “Choose Life” license plates.

Parental Consent– We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for any form of medical care to minors. We urge electoral defeat of judges who through judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions. We support the addition of a legislative requirement for the reporting of judicial bypasses to parental consent on an annual basis to the Department of State Health Services and such reports shall be made available to the public. Further, we encourage the Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning service programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Services Act and Medicaid.

Protection of Women’s Health– Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. We urge the state government and the Department of State Health Services to ensure that all abortion providers are in compliance with this informed consent law and to ensure that all pregnancy centers and other entities assisting women in crisis pregnancies have equal access to the informational brochures created by the Department of State Health Services.

Alternatives to Abortion– We urge the Department of State Health Services to provide adequate quantities of The Woman’s Right to Know Resource Directory to anyone that works with pregnant women.

RU 486 – We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
Morning After Pill– We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

Gestational Contracts– We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature. We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Unborn Child Pain Protection – We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. (Language added here to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.)

Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation– We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence.

Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.

Abortion Requirements for Hospitals– We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion.

Conscience Clause– We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices. We further encourage legislation that requires hospitals and clinics to inform all health care personnel of their right to refuse to become involved in abortion or euthanasia, and their protection from prosecution and retaliation under Texas law.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. Until such time that fetal tissue harvesting is illegal, any product containing fetal tissue shall be so labeled.

Stem Cell Research– We oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation and/or killing of human embryos for medical research. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means which does not kill human embryos. We oppose any state funding of research that destroys/kills human embryos. We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. We call for legislation to withhold state and/or federal funding from institutions that engage in scientific research involving the killing of human embryos or human cloning.

Human Cloning– Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection. We confirm that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which a human being is cloned, and that SCNT creates a unique human being with the same properties of a human embryo created through the union of sperm and egg. We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is created, grown in the laboratory, and then destroyed when its stem cells are extracted for research purposes). Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.

Patient Protection– We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to establish due process of law and ensure that a physician’s decision to deny life saving treatment against the patient’s will or advance directive is not due to economic or racial discrimination or discrimination based on disability. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring hospitals intending or threatening to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against the patient’s wishes or their advance directive to continue all treatment and care for such patients pending transfer to another facility.

Gene Manufacturing – We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.

RPT Platform SubCommittee Proposed Language for “Protecting Innocent Life.”

The final language from the 2012 Platform is posted here. The portions in red are the amendments I came prepared to present to the Committee. The amended and substituted 2010 language can be found here for comparison.

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed.

Roe v. Wade – We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Human Life Amendment – We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

Natural Life – We support the sanctity of human life and therefore, oppose genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

Abortion – We support the elimination of public funding or the use of public facilities to advocate, perform or support elective abortions.

Abortion Legislation – Until our final goal of total constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we support laws that restrict and regulate abortion including, but not limited to :

1. parental and informed consent;
*Add #2 . Prohibition of elective abortion in the second trimester in light of the ability of the unborn child to feel pain and current viability at 21 weeks.
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth late term abortions
7. the prohibition of the manufacturing and sale of abortifacients;
8. new causes of action for so called “wrongful birth” or “wrongful life”; and
9. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Candidate Support – The Republican Party of Texas should provide financial support only to those candidates who support the right to life planks.

Alternatives to Abortion – We urge the Republican Party of Texas to assist in educating the public regarding alternatives to abortion.

Human Embryos– We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Conscience Clause – All persons and all entities have the right of conscience and should be protected under Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting and Stem Cell Research – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation or commercial use of human fetal tissue,which requires or is dependent upon the destruction of human life. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means that does not kill human embryos.

Human Cloning – We seek a ban on human (cloning).

Patient Protection – We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to allow more time for families to prepare an participate. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring continuing current treatment for patients pending transfer to another facility.

New “Dr. Donna Campbell for Texas Senate District 25” Ad

Saw this on the New Braunfels/San Antonio Time Warner cable, on Fox Sunday

Health Care spending continues to fall

National Review’s James C. Capretta comments on the attempts by some in the Obama Administration would like to take the credit for the decrease in health care spending in 2009-2010.

The decrease in spending follows the previous curve,according to the data.

In addition, we docs haven’t had a real increase in Medicare pay in years. We waited for Medicare to – and find out how much they would – pay us 3 or 4 times in 2010, thanks to the planned, threatened and repeatedly deferred “Sustainable Growth Rate” doc pay cuts.. Then, there was the planned moratorium at the end of the Federal Fiscal year.

As the Dems ramped up their plans for “reform,” the cuts and deferred payment were reinforced by threats of more if organized medicine didn’t play ball. I reported on the threats at LifeEthics.org in October, 2009.

First Amendment on Life Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives, Republicans: Fire, Aim, Ready!

Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own.

When Conservatives decide not to vote for Republican candidates, Republicans lose. Conservatives lose. The Democrats, socialists, and atheists win. Obama wins.

Where Republicans voted in 2008, we won new offices. Where they voted in 2010, we won majorities. Conservatives made the difference in the winning races and in the lost races. Not only did we have fewer Republican victories in those races where Conservatives didn’t vote, the races were decided by the least knowledgeable among us or by the Dems.

More than before, in conservative blogs and forums, I’m reading good men and women declare that they will never vote for Romney if he’s nominated. They remind me that they were the ones who refused to vote for John McCain in 2008, or who (like me) voted for Sarah Palin and McCain just benefited as a side effect.

I certainly wish that Conservatives had found themselves working hard to force McCain to keep his promises for that last three years instead of watching Obama keep his.

And here come the third party rallies!

The problem is certainly the “GOP elite,” and their support for Romney — that’s why Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum couldn’t get a foothold, right? And why Newt Gingrich is still so far behind?

How many votes do you suppose the “elite” have, anyway?

Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh warned Conservatives what may happen if the Republican nominee doesn’t win. Yes, he  titled the post of the segment “A Warning to the Republican Establishment,” ending with a prediction that the Republican Party might never recover if “they screw this up.”

The warning to the rest of us is ignored:

If this doesn’t pan out to big-time electoral victory the way the establishment has it figured, then what will their excuse be? And I think I know. I think that if this campaign goes on and if it results in Obama winning, I think what the establishment is going to do is blame us. They’re gonna blame us conservatives for once again being too rigid and too demanding and too narrow and unrealistic and all this, and telling us that we’re the reason that Obama won.

Why not? That’s exactly what happened in ’06 and ’08. (And don’t forget Rush’s own Chaos.) The media and the Left ate it up! The lesson learned was that no one can count on Conservatives. That’s why we repeatedly watch people who should be our champions “pander” (Rush’s word) to the “middle,” the “undecideds,” the independents.

Why not learn instead from successes, like the 2000 election, a victory that the Dems never saw coming? A good friend recommended that I re-read David Horowitz’ “How to Beat the Democrats.” One of the lessons is,

Lesson 3: There Is No Natural Conservative Majority (But You Can Create One through Political Action). The critical role Republican unity played in the election leads to a third lesson: There is no “natural” conservative majority.

. . . Such facts are no cause for conservatives to despair. What they are is a reality-check. If the conservative mission is to restore basic American values, the way conservatives fight the political battle will determine its outcome. There may be no current conservative majority in America, but there is a potential majority, if Republicans have the will and intelligence to create one.

David Horowitz (2002-10-06). How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas (Kindle Locations 842-843, 861-863). Spence. Kindle Edition.

Do we have the will? The intelligence? Can we forget the animosity we have had for each other the last year? Are we willing to say, “Let him who never had a change of heart cast the first stone?”

An estimated 56% – give or take – of the Republican National delegates have been decided, but 44% have not. The numbers aren’t set in stone, yet, depending on what happens to the delegates who went to candidates that dropped out or in States like Iowa, where the actual choice will be made at caucus in June. “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

I’m sure that I won’t see Conservative blogs pulling their anti-Romney posts, but I hope to see a few willing to be positive and work together to ensure Primary victories for the remaining Conservative in the Republican Primary, in order to deny Romney an easy nomination. Is their motto, “Anybody but Romney,” or is it, “Anybody but Obama?”

Secret: CPAC TX Dr Donna Campbell (Senate District 25)

The speech is good, but the story told in the introduction was a huge surprise to me. Not because I don’t believe that Dr. Donna is capable of the good deeds described — but because neither she nor anyone else had told me about them!

It turns out that Dr. Donna “doctored” Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani (of Raging Elephants)  “way back in 2010,” when he collapsed in a men’s room at a party function.

According to Apostle Claver, Dr. Donna followed him when he stumbled to the bathroom at a restaurant. Even while he “regurgitated,” she nursed him and prayed for him.  She then had some of the men at the event put him in her car and she took him home, where she and her husband cared for him overnight.

I certainly admire Donna’s “guts” and Apostle Claver’s humility for telling the story to us all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post bias rallies abortion supporters

How unfortunate that the WaPo chose to color this article, “A clinic’s landlord turns the tables on anti-abortion protesters” with “anti-choice” stereotypes depicting all pro-life activists as violent. Obviously, there hasn’t been violence at the Stave office building or, I’m sure, it would have been prominently reported in this article. Instead, the focus goes to Roy Carhartt, who does abortions at the clinic. Carhart isn’t an OB/Gyn, but performs late term abortions for a living and also claims to be a “Family Physician.”

The article is supposed to be about Todd Stave, who founded “Voices for Choice,” which solicits volunteers to contact pro-live activists, supplying names, phone numbers,  addresses and sometimes even the names of children. From the Voices for Choice website,

Todd Stave is an entrepreneur in the Washington, DC area who believes in a woman’s right to choose. He also believes in every American’s fundamental right to his or her own opinions but loathes bullies, harassers and antagonists who cross the lines of civility and decency.

In reality, Stave owns a building that once was his abortionist father’s clinic and is now an abortion business run by his sister.

After Roy Carhart started doing late term abortions there in late 2010, local pro-life activists began to petition Mr. Stave to change his business practices. They called him and personally contacted him, even going so far as to protest at his home.  Last August, two people stood outside of the school where one of the Stave children attended middle school, quietly – and legally – praying and demonstrating with signs.

I don’t support protesting outside the school of such young survivors of abortion and agree that it’s a horrible thing to have to explain to an 11 year old that Daddy makes his living from renting a building to people who perform late term abortions.

I believe in small government and personal responsibility. Communicating our moral beliefs and community standards by personal interaction are much better than sweeping laws in the pursuit of influencing our neighbors.

Speaking of responsibility: I hope and pray that those “pro-life” activists who receive the phone calls from the pro-abortion volunteers are engaging their callers in a real conversation about elective abortion.
I also hope that the pro-life men and women make note of the caller ID information. After all, most violence around those who advocate in favor of elective abortions is committed by the so-called “pro-choice.”  I hope Mr. Stave’s (& now Wapo’s) volunteers at VOChoice.org never commit violence.

May the Lord bless all of our Nation with understanding about what abortion really is. Odd that if you break the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list, it doesn’t matter that it was an embryo or fetus, you’ve still broken Federal law. But the only species having this conversations doesn’t protect our own children of tomorrow from elective, intentional abortion.

ObamaCare Morbity and Mortality Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

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

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

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

A question by Justice Alito :

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

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

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

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

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

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

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

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

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

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

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

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

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

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

Find a Women’s Health Program doctor in Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ObamaCare facts from American Doctors for Truth!!!

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

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

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

Generation of blood vessel with patient’s own stem cells.

In the article, “To Fix a Heart, Doctors Train Girl’s Body to Grow New Part,” the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday on an adult stem cell treatment which may revolutionize care of as many as 3,000 children a year. The story focuses on Angela, now 4 years old, who was born with “hypoplastic left heart syndrome,” a condition in which a child never develops a normal 4 chamber heart.

Think of the heart as two tubes, each with an atrium or upper chamber and a lower chamber, the ventricle. The lungs are between the two, and the system is set up so that  low oxygen blood does not mix with the blood that is saturated with oxygen. 

If there is only one ventricle, the system can’t adapt to increased need for oxygen. Not only is the ability to pump the blood not enough to increase when exercising, excited, or scared – or even growing – but the oxygen-rich blood always mixes with the depleted blood, even on the way to the lungs.

Without surgery, 70% of children die before they turn one year old. Up until now, the corrective surgery has involved using grafts of artificial tubes, that don’t grow, and need to be replaced every so often.

The new technique uses a “bio-absorbable” scaffold on which the patient’s own stem cells are seeded and grown. This new blood vessel is surgically implanted so that the anatomy, and the blood flow, is more like the normal heart. It’s hoped that the new graft will grow with the child and prevent the need for repeat surgeries as the child grows.

In the end, the choice to become the first patient in Dr. Breuer’s study turned on three things, Ms. Irizarry says: the family’s faith in God, their trust in the doctor, and the potential for a natural blood vessel that could possibly help avoid more surgeries. “Before, they were using plastic, now they’re using this special graft that will grow with her,” Ms. Irizarry says.

Angela is the first, so we don’t really know whether the new vessel will grow with her. But there’s evidence from other, similar procedures to build new bladders and other organs.

Unfortunately, the process of getting the new procedures from early trials to use for those 3,000 babies a year is complicated and slow, even with an FDA “exemption:”

Development of the procedure has been painstaking. Dr. Breuer undertook four years of laboratory research after he joined Yale in 2003 before seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2007 to test the approach on patients. It took four more years and 3,000 pages of data before he got a greenlight. The study builds on the cases of 25 children and young adults successfully treated in Japan a decade ago with a similar approach.

Dr. Breuer, who holds several patents through Yale related to the technology, expects to implant a tissue-engineered blood vessel in a second patient soon as part of a six-patient study to test the safety of the procedure and determine whether the blood vessels actually grow in the body as a child gets bigger. The hope is that if these patients are treated without a hitch, the procedure may be available under a special FDA humanitarian device exemption, which would allow Yale to charge for it while conducting a larger study.

It’s a shame that it took so long to get the procedure to the first patient, and that many more will have to wait even longer. There must be a way to place judgement before bureaucracy in these cases.

Cross posted at LifeEthics.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paralysis, Gridlock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose theObama Standoff!

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

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

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

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

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