We had twenty good Republicans turn out to watch the Presidential Debate at the Comal County Republican Party Election Headquarters tonight.
I tweeted (@bnuckols) throughout the debate, (Twitter search, “#debates”) and read the new Dem talking points over and over and re-tweeted:
It turns out that calling “Latinos” “Hispanics,” is equivalent in the eyes of some to calling Black people, “Colored.”
According to a couple of Dems, it’s “racist” to use the word “illegals.” One even said that it’s racist for all races!
Several libs tweeted that the request for continued security in Libya was for Tripoli, not Bengazi Actually, wasn’t the security for the Ambassador and the staff?
Here’s some information you might find interesting:
From @EWErickson: “Here’s the Rose Garden transcript. President blamed a video, not terrorists. 
http://is.gd/PqIMAe || Attn @CANDYCROWLEY”
From me, Beverly Nuckols, MD @bnuckols
“natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, . . began around fall 2002.” http://ow.ly/1OZYSi #debates
Leon Panetta implied that World War is on the horizon, and that our Pearl Harbor may come in the form of cyber attacks on computers. In the briefing, he pointed to the increasing threat of such attacks from Iran. (Who needs nuclear power, these days?)
National security experts have long complained that the administration needs to be much more open about what the military could and would do if the U.S. were to be the victim of cyberattacks. They argue that such deterrence worked in the Cold War with Russia and would help convince would-be attackers that an assault on America would have dire results. Panetta took the first steps toward answering those critics in a speech analysts said was a thinly veiled warning to Iran, and the opening salvo in the campaign to convince Tehran that any cyberattack against America would trigger a swift and deadly response. “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests,” Panetta said in a speech in New York City to the Business Executives for National Security. And while he did not directly connect Iran to the Gulf cyberattacks, he warned that Iran’s abilities were growing. Security analysts agree. The presumed Iranian cyberattacks hit the Saudi Arabian state oil company Aramco and Qatari natural gas producer RasGas using a virus, known as Shamoon, which can spread through networked computers and ultimately wipes out files by overwriting them.
Panetta called for regulation on the federal level, one way or the other,
“Congress must act and it must act now,” he said. “This bill is victim to legislative and political gridlock like so much else in Washington. That frankly is unacceptable and it should be unacceptable not just to me, but to you and to anyone concerned with safeguarding our national security.” Specifically, Panetta called for legislation that would make it easier for companies to share “specific threat information without the prospect of lawsuits” but while still respecting civil liberties. He also said that there must be “baseline standards” co-developed by the public and private sector to ensure the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure IT systems. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 contained provisions that would arguably fit the bill on both of those accounts. While Panetta said that “there is no substitute” for legislation, he noted that the Obama administration has been working on an executive order on cybersecurity as an end-around on Congress. “We need to move as far as we can” even in the face of Congressional inaction, he said. “We have no choice because the threat that we face is already here.”
More on that Executive Order, here, at “The Hill.”
Keep alert, and your Constitution and anti-virus handy!
WingRight reported on the harassment of Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas at Austin Professor of Sociology, for his study on the differences in the adult children of homosexual parents. Dr. Regnerus was subjected to an investigation by the University, which confiscated his computer and emails.
The University has exonerated the Professor, and released this statement on September 12, 2012:
“The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school said in a statement. “As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large.”The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion,” the statement concluded.
via U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger | Fox News.
Did you hear about the 90 people, doctors and nurses, and “healthcare professionals” who were arrested for $430M in Medicare fraud? About a fourth of that money went to the Houston hospital where Mrs. Jackson-Lee’s husband is on the Board of Directors.
Since her days on the Houston City Council, Jackson Lee has pushed to use city funds to keep Riverside’s doors open. At that time, the councilwoman suggested that the facility was a good investment for the city.
Jackson Lee’s interest in Riverside goes back to the ’80s when her husband Elwyn C. Lee, now University of Houston vice-chancellor (see video), served on Riverside’s board from 1981-1988. In his last year at Riverside, Mr. Lee was made chairman of that board, and over the years, husband and wife have been influential in keeping the financially strapped hospital open. Jackson Lee was voted into Congress in 1994, representing the 18th district, where Riverside is located.
The president of Riverside, his son, and five others were arrested on October 4 as part of a nationwide Medicare fraud sweep. Earnest Gibson III, chief executive officer of Riverside General Hospital for 30 years, has been charged with bilking $158 million out of Medicare over the last seven years.
His son, Earnest Gibson IV, was charged with thirteen counts, including money-laundering and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The older Gibson became president around the same time Jackson Lee’s husband was appointed to the board in the early ’80s.
Friday’s arrests at Riverside came nine months after the arrest of Mohammad Khan, the hospital’s acting administrator, who pled guilty to his role in the Medicare fraud scheme and is now serving time.
via Articles: Systemic Medicare Fraud Under Houston’s Sheila Jackson Lee.
The Directors haven’t been charged with any crime, but don’t you think they should have been aware of questionable billing practices?
@joepags “Joe Pags” on WOAI radio hung up on me – again – last night. It’s so frustrating to have the phone sudenly go silent – and, since I’ve turned off the radio while on the phone, I can’t hear Joe’s next comments.
This time, the topic was yesterday’s news about a push for legalized casino gambling in Texas and why Mr. Pagliarulo should be able to gamble legally in Texas, rather than take his money to Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Las Vegas. I’ll give discuss the evidence and give references to studies showing the adverse effects of gambling later on, but first, let’s examine Joe’s poor arguments in favor of gambling.
Joe complained about our State property taxes, as one of the highest in the Nation. Yes, we are ranked in the top 10, for property taxes. However, Texas’ State sales tax is moderate and we have no income tax, making our overall tax burden number 45 in the Country.
He accused the first caller of “judging” him, because the man said that he believes that gambling is immoral. No, the man was judging the morality of gambling, never brought up the morality of people who disagree with him.
Besides, aren’t all laws based on morality?
Joe argues that “liberty” demands that those of us who object to gambling should allow gambling by those who don’t. He even told one caller that if he doesn’t like gambling, just don’t go to the casino. (Sounds like one of the shaky arguments in favor of abortion or same sex marriage, doesn’t it?) However, Joe is advocating a change in Texas’ State law. Those of us who vote are responsible for the consequences of our votes and for the laws our Legislators make, therefore we are complicit with what we consider immoral, whether we partake or not. Joe is still at liberty to go to a State where gambling is legal. To force us to be complicit with his gambling is “license,” not liberty.
Joe claims that everyone who objects to casino gambling should be carrying signs and protesting the Lottery and racetrack gambling in Austin. Joe may not realize that many of us objected to both of the above before they were legalized – and we were right in that they certainly haven’t solved the State’s revenue problems. Nevertheless, the fact that the rest of us have other priorities (like my own work for traditional medical ethics and pro-life laws), doesn’t mean that we are willing to sit still while the law is changed, yet again.
And then, Joe argues that the fact that Louisiana and other States continue to allow legalized gambling must prove that the benefits of gambling outweigh the costs to those States. That argument hasn’t proven to be true. At best, gambling is a (mostly) voluntary way of redistributing wealth. In fact, this report claims that States only benefit when people from outside come in, leave their money and then go home, and reports that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission goes so far as to report that the evidence that gambling benefits outweigh the costs is “poorly developed and quite incomplete.”
The economic benefits of gambling are often at the expense of other sections of the economy and are short term. In fact, analyses indicate that lotteries and horse racing may actually increase State revenues, casinos and grey hound racing do not. At least one statistical study finds no “relationship between real casino revenues and real per capita income at the state level.”
The societal or socio-economic costs of legalized gambling have been compared to those of drug abuse and include the social ills that accompany addictive behavior:
- “increased criminal justice system impacts
- “health-care related to the treatment of problem gambling
- “costs borne by individual problem gamblers and their families
- “displacement effects in retail, entertainment and food service sectors”
According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the economics of legalized gambling aren’t a good bet for Texas:
Costs associated with gambling include: (1) a reduction of approximately 10 percent in state lottery revenues; (2) an investment of approximately 10 percent of revenues in regulatory costs for gambling; (3) criminal justice costs underwriting an 8 to 13 percent increase in crime; (4) lost state and local revenue resulting from diversion of spending from goods and services to gambling; and (5) lost jobs resulting from decreased spending on non-gambling goods and services.
****
The financial costs of gambling are evident in experiences of communities and states:
• 24 out of 57 counties in the U.S. with casinos experienced job losses
• Atlantic City went from 50th in the nation for per-capita crime to first and violent crimes
rose by 78 percent, during the first three years of casino gambling
• Sales declined 10 to 20 percent in Natchez, Mississippi after gambling was legalized
• Counties with casinos have a bankruptcy filing rate that is 13.6 percent higher than in counties without casinos throughout the nation
• Delaware reports spending between $1 to $1.5 million annually on gambling-related costs and Wisconsin reports spending $63 million annually
The proponents of gambling ignore the costs and emphasize the benefits of tax revenues from gambling.
Bibliography
“Economic Development and Casinos. Do Casinos Cause Economic Growth?” Douglas M. Walker, John D. Jackson. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July, 2007). http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/AJES-growth.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Gambling Economics: Summary Facts” Earl L. Grinols. April 2011 http://www.freedomfoundationofminnesota.com/Websites/freedomfoundation/Images/Gambling%20Economics-%20Summary%20Facts%20by%20Professor%20Earl%20Grinols,%204.29.11.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Is Gambling a Good Economic Development Bet?” Local Government Matters, Volume 4, Issue 13 Excerpt from Economic Development: Strategies for State and Local Practice, 2nd Edition. Steven G. Koven and Thomas S. Lyons. ICMA Press, August, 2010. http://icma.org/en/icma/newsroom/highlights/Article/100498/Is_Gambling_a_Good_Economic_Development_Bet (accessed 10/10/12)
“Overview of the Economic and Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States” Douglas M. Walker. College of Charleston, November 2011 http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/2012/OxfordCh_dist.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social and Economic Costs and Benefits of Gambling” Rhys Stevens. Alberta Gaming Research Institute http://www.abgamblinginstitute.ualberta.ca/en/LibraryResources/Bibliographies/SocialandEconomicCostsandBenef.aspx (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social and Economic Costs of Gambling” John R. Hill, Ph.D. Alabama Policy Institute http://www.alabamapolicy.org/issues/gti/issue.php?issueID=189&guideMainID=9 (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social costs of gambling nearly half that of drug abuse, new book concludes” Mark Reutter. Inside Illinois Archives, News Bureau, Public Affairs, University of Illinois. March, 2004. http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0308grinols.html (accessed 10/10/12)
“The Costs and Consequences of Gambling In the State of Delaware” State of Delaware, Health and Social Services, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf
“Triumph, Tragedy or Trade-Off? Considering the Impact of Gambling” Jason J. Azmier, Robin Kelley, Peter Todosichuk. August 2001. Canada West Foundation, Canada. https://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/48165/1/200108.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“VLTs — What Are The Odds Of Texas Winning?” Chris Patterson Texas Public Policy Foundation http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2005-03-vlt.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
Prepared by Health Services Policy Research Group, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.
Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”
via Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: “We needed more, not less” security staff – CBS News.
Health care policy expert, Sally C. Pipes, spoke to our @D4PC meeting this morning about the Benjamin Rush Society. The Society is an organization that she founded in order to inform and enable medical students and residents to defend the traditional medical ethic that the doctor should work for the patient, not a third party, and “certainly not one that wields the coercive force of law.”
While the topic of the talk was the Benjamin Rush Society, Ms. Pipes also discussed her own experience as a former citizen of Canada and about her mother’s death from colon cancer after being refused a colonoscopy under the Canadian health care system. The reason given was that “Seniors” weren’t given colonoscopies and that those under 65 years old had a several months long waiting period, even if bleeding. When Ms. Pipes’ mother began bleeding from the colon, she spent 3 days in the Emergency Department and passed away 2 weeks later with metastatic colon cancer.
There were also comments from members in the audience about the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, which has even longer wait times for services, including heart surgery.
Ms. Pipes is married to Charles Kesler, whose book, I AM the Change, Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism, will be released on September 11. Mr. Kesler spoke to out group yesterday.
Robin Alta Charo, the lawyer/ethicist-for-hire, one time Clinton advisor turned Obama transition advisor then FDA consultant, has been appointed to 2 new positions at the National Institutes of Health.
In her new role, Charo will advise on ethical and regulatory issues raised by translational research, such as privacy and civil rights concerns raised by research using human tissues residing in large biobanks or public health implications of deploying genetics and personalized medicine to target drug development toward narrower segments of the population. She will also participate in overseeing the peer review process for research proposals submitted to NCATS.
Ms. Charo, the inventor of the “Endarkenment,” supports sex-selection abortion, believes cloning will finally prove there’s no God, and frequently writes op-eds for the New England Journal of Medicine, specializing in her opposition to conscience rights. She likens Medicine to a “public utility, obligated to provide service to all who seek it. Claiming an unfettered right to personal autonomy while holding monopolistic control over a public good constitutes an abuse of the public trust — all the worse if it is not in fact a personal act of conscience but, rather, an attempt at cultural conquest.”
Please consider getting your Whooping Cough vaccine.
By the time you start coughing, we can’t change your course – you will probably cough for the next month or more. The new pertussis vaccine in the “D-TaP” or “T-DaP” is “acellular,” not the old one that so many worried about in the past. http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4212.pdf
From the Texas Medical Association’s “Me and My Doctor:”
Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey, MD, issued an advisory yesterday urging Texans to protect themselves and their loved ones from pertussis (whooping cough) by getting vaccinated. An increase in cases this year claimed the lives of six children — two of whom were infants — and sickened more than 1,000. That’s the highest number of pertussis victims since 2005. Texas doctors urge families to avoid tragedy by vaccinating their children and themselves from this deadly disease. Read More:
“By Doctors . . . For Patients.” It’s about the patient, who is the only boss the doctor should have, other than his or her own conscience and integrity.
I’m attending my first annual meeting of Docs4PatientCare this weekend, in Crystal City, Virginia, just over the river from Washington, DC. I stumbled upon D4PC following links from American Doctors for Truth last March.
Doctors 4 Patient Care stands in stark contrast to – and as a viable alternative to – the American Medical Association. The AMA has become a partner with the US government through the publication and sale of mandatory “code books,” and increasingly with its advocacy for government funded healthcare coverage, especially by its endorsement of “ObamaCare,” even before the law (much less the ever-evolving regulations) was written.
So far this morning, we’ve heard from the founder of D4PC Dr. Hal Scherz, an advocate for reaching medical students through the Benjamin Rush Society, Beth Haynes, an expert on Media Strategy and Training, Ernest DelBuono, Sr., and two speakers on reforming medical liability (tort reform), Dr. Jeff Segal of “Medical Justice,” and Rick Jackson of “Patients for Fair Compensation.”
I’ll post more through the weekend. In the meantime, read a some of the D4PC literature, “Like” Docs4PatientCare on Facebook and/or follow @D4PC on Twitter. Watch a few of the D4PC videos on YouTube. Consider supporting the efforts of the group and/or to donating money. There’s even an alliance membership for non-physicians.
It’s difficult to write about a respected medical journal which promotes “Aid in Dying” without resorting to emotional words such as “horrifying,” “shocking,” or “murder,” but I’ll try. However, I will not call the practice “physician aided death” or “aid in dying.” It is, at best “physician assisted suicide,” and at worst, “euthanasia,” or the use of medical technology and procedures to actively end the life – to intentionally kill – a patient. This is not “medicine” as I understand it.
Chest is the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians. These are the Internal Medicine subspecialists who focus on lung disease, cardiac care, and sleep medicine. They are likely to be the doctors who care for the most vulnerable patients, especially in the Intensive Care Unit at your hospital.
Under the heading “Medical Ethics,” in the July, 2012 issue is an article titled, “Aid in Dying: Guidance for an Emerging End-of-Life Practice,” authored by Kathryn L. Tucker, J.D. The article is available online as a web page, here, and as in pdf., here.
Beginning with a principle that virtually all of us can agree with,the right to refuse intentional medical intervention, the article quickly moves to the very controversial opinion that the first principle ensures the “right” to request “treatment” that is intended to end the life of the patient – to kill:
•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any medical treatment or intervention, regardless of whether he or she is terminally ill and regardless of whether the treatment prolongs life and its withdrawal results in death.
•A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to request and receive as much pain medication as necessary for relief, even if it advances the time of death.
•Principles of autonomy that underlie respecting patient rights to refuse or direct withdrawal of life-prolonging interventions or to request pain medication even if it advances time of death support the choice for aid in dying. Aid in dying is increasingly accepted in law and medicine in the United States.
•Provision of aid in dying does not constitute assisting a suicide or euthanasia. Aid in dying is a practice with growing support in the public and medical and health policy communities and is likely to become more widely requested in the future.
•A clinician cannot be compelled to provide treatment that conflicts with his or her personal values. In these circumstances, the clinician cannot abandon the patient but should refer the patient to a colleague who is willing to provide the service.
Four prima facie principles have been used to characterize most ethical concerns in medicine: respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Respect for patient autonomy refers to the duty to respect patients and their rights of self-determination; beneficence refers to the duty to promote patient interests; nonmaleficence refers to the duty to prevent harm to patients; and justice refers, in part, to the duty to treat patients and distribute health-care resources fairly.11 When applied to the care of an individual patient, however, these principles may conflict with one another. For example, a patient’s values, preferences, and goals may be at odds with a clinician’s perception of how best to help and not harm the patient. Clinical ethics identify, analyze, and provide guidance on how to resolve these conflicts.
While I believe that there may come a time when it is ethical to stop trying to keep a patient alive – when treatment is only making the dying process longer – I will never assist in an act that can only end in the death of my patient. The way I explain this is that I will assist in removing a ventilator under certain circumstances, but I won’t then put a pillow over the patient’s face to make sure she can’t breathe on her own afterwards. The intent of medicine is to diagnose and treat disease, not to end the life of patients suffering from disease.
Here’s links to the videos we saw Wednesday night, during the #RNC2012 Convention. #GOP2012 @GOPconvention.
GOP Convention Releases Wednesday Night Videos
Tampa, Fla. – The Republican National Convention today released five videos that were featured during the Wednesday evening proceedings.
The videos are listed in the order of the proceedings:
‘Ron Paul’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4703_6
‘Best of America’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4708_6
‘The Bushes: 41 & 43’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4705_6
‘Israel: Cherished Memories’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4709_6
‘Believe’
http://youtube.com/gopconvention2012?x=us-en_highlights_4712_6
The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.
Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):
“We are currently reviewing and getting feedback from our delegates. While we are not sure how this will ultimately be received, [it] is very positive that the Romney campaign is listening to feedback from the grassroots and looking to find common ground,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign manager.
Under the agreement, a bound delegate must vote for the presidential candidate that they are required to vote for under state law or state party rules, leaving the actual selection of delegates up to the states.
Previously, a proposal would have given presidential candidates the power to veto delegates sent by the states — a change that had Paul supporters crying foul, seeing it as an establishment attempt to stifle the upstart contingent.
The deal strikes a middle ground between establishment Republican leaders and conservative delegates, but is likely to infuriate some Paul backers who had spent much of the last year gaming the system to their benefit and who virulently opposed compromise on the issue.
“We were able to achieve an agreement that accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish,” Bopp told The Hill. “The Romney campaign wanted to make sure the delegates pledged to support him will actually vote for him … and at the same time the concern we had was addressed so that state parties have complete control of the delegates.”
Bopp had blasted the Romney campaign’s original rule when it was approved, calling it “the biggest power grab in the history of the Republican Party.” He said Monday he did not know if the Paul camp would be satisfied by the changes — and didn’t care much, accusing them of “causing chaos for chaos’s sake in order to achieve their agenda.
|
|
And guarantee a third party (or 4th and 5th) push.
Propose a GOP rules change that appears designed to squelch any National delegates that might not be loyal to the favored Candidate and add a new rule that would allow the Powers That Be – the Republican National Committee – to make even more rules changes between the National Conventions!
Here are the controversial new additions to the Rules of the Republican Party:
“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”
New rule inserted as number 15(a):
15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.
15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.
15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/liberty-fairness-implode-as-rnc-rules-committee-wields-iron-fist/#ixzz24oIFLoFN
Texas’ delegation will push to get rid of these changes. From their reaction in a meeting this morning, Governor Sununu might not be able to make the transition from Temporary Chair to Permanent Chair of the Rules Committee and the Convention will most likely scrap the whole 2012 Rules and revert to the 2008 Rules.
Michelle Malkin has a great review, along with copies of several letters from delegates and links to even more, including a possible “deal”, here.
KVUE.com, Austin’s ABC television affiliate, sent a crew to Tampa to cover the Texas Delegation to the Republican National Convention. The reporter, Tyler Sieswerda, interviewed Larry and me after this morning’s meeting of the Delegation.
http://www.kvue.com/news/editors-pick/Texans-represent-Lone-Star-State-at-RNC-167618275.html
I also told Mr. Sieswerda about my Texas Alliance for Life and Christian Medical Association pins, but they didn’t make the cut — although a view of the back of my T-shirt did! (I’m not as fat as the rear view makes me look!)
Or how I’ve spent the first 3 days of the Republican National Convention:
My husband, Larry, is one of the Delegates to the RNC for Comal County’s Congressional District 21 from Texas and I get to be a guest. We flew down on Friday, hoping to get some rest before starting the Convention. Isaac came along after. 
I added a bookmark for the Tampa, Florida weather to my taskbar and have been “praying unceasingly” that the Lord will moderate the laws of physics enough to keep Isaac from harming anyone. It’s my belief that the unbelievers and Dems who alternately pointed to Isaac as proof that their either is no God to answer our prayers or that He isn’t on our (the Republican Right, Believers’) side have had their mocking proven misplaced as Isaac has remained a Tropical Storm much longer than anyone thought possible and even veered far west of the Tampa Bay area in its journey. If I’m wrong, then we at least have proof of what one woman noted: the RNC and the Lord’s people are able, with His grace, to manage uncertainty and natural disasters!
We heard all about the snubbing of Texas’ delegation by the RNC which chose to put us 25 miles out of town at a resort in Wesley Chapel, Florida. And then learned what a great place this is to stay — and how safe the inland location turned out to be when Tropical Storm Isaac reared his ugly head and threatened to raise the head waters of Tampa Bay! Take that, RNC PTB! (Powers That Be)
There was an opportunity to let the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas know I’m not happy with him. (Larry wanted a picture with the man and I said I’d take the picture but didn’t want in it. Then as I focused, I said, “Say ‘There wasn’t a quorum!” Both men acted as though they couldn’t hear me.)
I’ve received my white hat and red,white and blue RPT scarf and Larry has his hat, 
a red, white and blue tie and Delegate’s “swag bag” that contained a medal for the delegate and a stuffed giraffe from Busch Gardens. Although we had sunshine at the pool on Saturday, I doubt we’ll get much chance in the next week to use the sunblock, beach towel or sunglasses that were also included, thanks to Mr. Isaac.
Larry and I were invited by fellow CD 21 delegate, Lisa Roper, to several events held by the new Conservative Women’s group, Palladian View.
We attended a reception on Saturday night and Sunday, I went to two events with Lisa and a couple of other Texas Palladian View supporters, Toni Anne Dashiell and Kim Chambers. Take a look at this great new group that hosted a panel of Conservative women speaking about dealing with liberal media bias, “Lashing Back at the BackLash” and then had a full house at the “BlogBash,” a party for the stars of the New Media.The former was live-streamed on Fox News and will soon be available online at the website.
I’ve been posting pictures of the great Conservative leaders I’ve met on my Facebook and Twitter (@bnuckols) timelines: Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn,Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch (Pronounced “clayfish” – her in-laws couldn’t spell either), along with Texas’ own Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Louis Gohmert, and Republican Nominee for Senate, Ted Cruz.
We’re north of Tampa, with the Texas delegation to the #RNC. My husband is the delegate, and I’m a guest. The locals tell us we have no worries out here from Isaac, even if it becomes a hurricane.
Because I’ll be leaving the laptop in the room, most of my posts will be to Facebook, but will try to check in with news on this page every so often.
Follow Beverly Nuckols on Facebook (it’s open, you don’t have to sign up or “Friend”) and @bnuckols on Twitter.
Guess what? States are allowed to decide what they want to spend tax money on!
From the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court on Texas’ Law prohibiting our Family Planning tax funds from going to any “affiliate” of an abortion provider or anyone who “promotes” abortion: ”
Although this restriction functions as a speech-based funding condition, it also functions as a direct regulation of the content of a state program, and is therefore constitutional . . . “[W]hen the government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own it is entitled to say what it wishes.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at 194).
Needless to say, the press, including the Texas Tribune and theAustin Chronicle disagree with this ruling, the latter more obviously than the former.
Once again, please look at the Texas Tribune’s own interactive map or the State’s data base of doctors and clinics who have contracted with Texas’ WHP. Those Planned Parenthood clinics aren’t located in health care shortage areas. There are no shortages of willing providers for the services in question in the areas surrounding the abortion affiliates.
By e-mail from Women Speak for Themselves, this morning:
Women Defy “We Are Women” Rally Claims; Say Let Women Speak For Themselves
Washington DC, August 18—As some women gather at the Nation’s Capitol today for the “We Are Women” rally, members of the advocacy group, Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT; womenspeakforthemselves.com) are making their own voices heard. WSFT began with an open letter to the White House, Congress and Secretary Sebelius in February 2012, demanding respect both for religious freedom and for an understanding of woman’s freedom and equality that goes beyond “free contraception.” It now has over 31 thousand signatories from every state.
“It defies reason that a few groups could speak for all women on issues of life, family, sex and religion,” said WSFT founder, Helen Alvaré.
“The 31,000 plus women who have signed onto our open letter will no longer sit silently by while a few political figures and their allies insist that religious freedom has to bow to the theory, the ideology really, that the centerpiece of women’s freedom is sexual expression without commitment,” continued Alvaré.
Catherine, a woman in her twenties living in New York City and a signatory, wrote to WSFT: “Out of respect for themselves and others, many women choose to live a life of sexual integrity…Many of my girlfriends and I have found this approach to our sexuality to be freeing, empowering, and constitutive of a deep sense of happiness.”
“I’m a pro-choice woman who respects the rights of other women to hold different views,” wrote another WSFT member Carol, from Vermont. “More specifically I expect the government, in compliance with the Constitution, to protect every person from being coerced into acting in a manner contrary to his or her conscience. The HHS mandates are a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and religion.”
Hundreds more women wrote to WSFT to express their strong opposition to the message of the Saturday rally.
“Our women come from diverse political, ideological and religious backgrounds,” Alvaré explained. “But they are united in their opposition to a ‘one size fits all’ version of what women really want, particularly a version contradicted by decades of data and women’s experience in the new sex, dating and marriage markets formed by the idea that contraception, with abortion as the backup, is the sum and substance of women’s equality.“
Jennifer from Indiana, for example, a signatory to the WSFT letter says:
”Women and reproduction are not things that need to be fixed, medicated, sterilized. To equate women’s rights and health to these things is to do an incredible disservice to the rights and health issues that women do face today.”
“An honest ‘We Are Women’ rally would acknowledge the diverse views held by women. It would acknowledge the science about the decline in women’s well-being associated with the world view this rally represents.” Alvaré says. “No one speaks for all women on these issues. Let women speak for themselves.”
“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.
I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.
I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!
Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.
It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!
Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.
The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”
For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.
In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.
Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.
It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.
Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.
Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.
And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”
How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?
While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?
In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*
Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.
And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.
Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.
I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:
This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.
“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”
Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.
Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.
Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.
If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.
Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!
My best to you,
Helen
http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012
P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.
I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!
And anyone who supports his views is at risk, too.
In June, WingRight.org reported on the publication of Mark Regnerus‘ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research. The adults reported more problems when compared to adult children of “intact biological families.” The early complaints from critics were that the data didn’t distinguish between types of homosexual relationships in the same way that it did among heterosexual families. The adult subjects were designated as having Lesbian Mothers (LM) or gay fathers (GF), without breaking out smaller groups by how long or stable the relationships of the parents were. This was a weakness in the study that was recognized by the author.
Legitimate criticism was rare. One article, here, by Walter Olson under “Gay Voices” at least looks at the data itself, although dismissing much of it and declaring the author’s own bias. Critics repeatedly point to a very few small studies of carefully chosen – often self-selected -upper-middle class LM families that are written by very biased authors, who openly advocate for same-sex marriage and parenting. Somehow, they believe that bias in favor is not significant, but any data or mention that there might be negative consequences from alternative families – or documentation of positive outcomes from intact biological families – is immediately dismissed as bigoted and discriminatory.
However, instead of focusing on the problems described and noting that adult children of divorced and step families also fared poorly compared to IBFs, the conversation in the media and on line quickly became attacks on Dr. Regnerus, the source of the funding, the Witherspoon Institute, and the connections between the leaders of the Institute and the National Organization for Marriage.
An article in “The New Civil Rights Movement,” an online site devoted to “gay rights and issues and marriage equality,” very literally attacks not only Dr. Regnerus, Witherspoon and NOM, but also tears apart the motives and history of a man who came forward to tell his story after the Regnerus piece was published. The author, gay rights activist Scott Rosensweig who writes under the name Scott Rose, is most certainly biased. His piece is loaded with emotional rants, using words such as the repeated use of “gay-bashing”personal attacks on the author of the Witherspoon essay.
And now, the heat is on the University of Texas to somehow censor or censure Dr. Regnerus. Due to a “formal” complaint by Rosensweig, author of the article above, UT is conducting an inquiry to determine whether to fully investigate Dr. Regnerus and his methods. Rosensweig’s letter evidently charged that “Your employee, Professor Mark Regnerus, is shaming and disgracing your institution by violating your university’s academic honor code,” he wrote. “If you take no stand against Regnerus’ coordinated political anti-gay hate campaign then you are leaving your institution’s reputation in a garbage-bin of iniquity.”
I’m forwarding my own essay to the University and suggest that those of you with an interest in the issue, or who pay taxes in Texas, send them your own polite informative notes. President Bill Power’s e-mail address is president@po.utexas.edu.
You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however. Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”
In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:
If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.
and,
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.
The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.
In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.
Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!
For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org
My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.
Here’s the notes on “Abortion” and other life issues on that link above:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
It seems our #TxLege complicated matters – everyone who wants to be a Volunteer Deputy Registrar (VDR) will now have to undergo training approved by their County Tax Assessor/Collector. My local County says that people should expect to spend 45 minutes at their office for the training offered two days a week.
Those of us who work regular business hours – not to mention mothers and volunteers who already have their time crunch – will find it difficult to dedicate a week-day morning on this training.
After the Federal judges wiped out most of the Voter ID and VDR requirements – including the requirement that VDR’s be Texas citizens – this may not be as bad as I first thought. At least the Carpetbaggers (“Acorn-like” groups from out of state) will have to spend some time training through some County office. But not all Counties are headed by Conservatives. (although we’re working on it).
The Texas Secretary of State’s office has published training on-line, here. I wonder why this couldn’t be used as actual “online” training for past VDR’s or at least for those of us who are residents of the County?
Here’s the 94 page ruling on VDR requirements.
I believe our Legislators need to reconsider the training requirements and some pressure needs to be placed on our SOS and County TAC’s to allow on line training, at least for County residents.
My idea for “Constitutional Solutions” for health care is up on the site. Take a look and second it, here.
Another place to read is under the Family Values and Faith-based Issues subheadings of Marriage and Family Values and Sanctity of Life. It seems the site is being bombarded by “Republicans” who want to get rid of these planks in our Platform. Please comment on the “ideas” that want to approve same sex marriage and get “pro-life” completely out of our Platform.
I wrote one of my (long) posts in response to “Remove Pro-life from the Party Platform,” here:
This idea can’t be considered by the Republican Party. The major difference between our Party and all others is the basic belief in and defense of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution means nothing without the right to life. The freedom from tyranny that the Constitution preserves is nothing without the security “that all men are created equal and endowed by God with *unalienable* rights, …Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The definition of human being is scientific, it’s not arbitrary or dependent on stage of life or geography. Once we stop assuming that all human individuals are endowed with these rights and allow the government to decide which humans are human enough to have these inalienable rights protected by the force of law, we all become slaves to the majority, whether that majority is in numbers or the power of the biggest guns. We are the only species having this conversation.
Federal judge overturns State law, again:
Costa granted a preliminary injunction on five sections of the law until a trial on whether the entire law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
Key points
Under the ruling, the state may no longer require that deputy voter registrars live in Texas, a law Voting for America said prevented it from organizing voter registration drives.It also may not prevent deputy registrars from registering voters who live outside their county; prevent organizations from firing or promoting employees based on the number of voters registered; prevent organizations from making photocopies of completed voter registration forms for their records; or prevent deputy registrars from mailing completed applications.
via Judge guts vote registration law – Houston Chronicle.
County Clerks are responsible for registering voters and maintaining the voter rolls,and they swear in the Deputy Voter registrars, but the judge says that County lines and even State residency don’t matter anymore. Anyone who wants to come in from out of State may grab a handful of voter registration cards and fill them out , copy the information, and even mail in completed forms.
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
Update, January 25, 2016 Read about the endorsement from Governor Perry
“I wanted to talk about him, who he was, see if I could get a handle on Ted Cruz the man, not Cruz the caricature I’d seen through the political lens. What I found was a very different person than what I had been led to believe.”
******
Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, (Theodore Roosevelt) disdained Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority.
George Will. Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Will-Forgotten-heroes-of-1912-3758656.php#ixzz22Z0xb3FN (link to bio by me, BBN)
In other words, Conservatives are Constitutionalists not because we desire to limit the rights of others who disagree with us, but because the Constitution rightfully constrains the majority from infringing the rights of the minority.
Reading the Op-Eds and comments in the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Post, and in the Austin American Statesman about Ted Cruz’ victory here in Texas shows that we Conservatives have a lot of educating to do. People still don’t get what we mean when we speak of Constitutionalism.
My concern all along with Mr. Cruz has been his tactic of running against the entire Republican Party in Texas. I believe that his denial that Texas is led by Conservatives, and his focus on a couple of Bills that failed, rather than identifying with and emphasizing the victories of the Texas GOP, has created a distraction from the “Taxed Enough Already” Party agenda, rather than strengthening it.
The left (and even some of the Tea Party members) believe we Conservatives want to end government and taxes, rather than control both in the interest of protecting our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We forget that the Left and the media only see groups, not individuals. They thrive on class warfare and are trying to make Cruz’ victory “White” vs “non-white,” “old” vs. “young,” with a strong dose of “throw the bums out!”
Rapprochement by Mr. Cruz toward our Texas Conservatives in office here in Texas – making a point that they/we exist and that he is one of us — will not only help him win an easier victory in November, it will strengthen our Texas Republican Party and advance Conservatism.
WingRight 