Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law

Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ injunction against Texas’ recently-passed sonogram legislation:

“Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today’s ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life. This important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision. I have full confidence in Attorney General Abbott’s efforts to appeal this decision as he defends the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature.”

via Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law.

Iowa tea party: wants to keep details private on deals with Palin staff

RedState’s Erick Erickson tweeted that something’s going on between Sarah Palin and the Iowa Tea Party., just as the Wall Street Journal reported.

I looked up the reference Mr. Erickson gave, and there’s definitely something going on, but it’s “private, for now.”

Christine O’Donnell is off the guest list – again – and Sarah Palin is a “maybe.”

In the latest episode in the drama over the speaking lineup for Saturday’s Tea Party of America rally in Iowa, organizer Ken Crow said Palin’s staff called this morning to say Palin’s appearance at the rally was “on hold” until three changes were made.

“They said, ‘Ken, can you take care of bing, bing, bing’ and I said, ‘Yessir, I will’ and I did,” Crow, an Indianola Republican told The Des Moines Register.

“Now I’m waiting to hear back.”

Crow said two of the requests were logistical details: Email a copy of the program today, and address concerns about back-stage security and who will be allowed in that area.

Asked about the third request, Crow said: “Can I let that remain private for now?”

via Iowa tea party made three changes at Palin’s staff’s request | Iowa Caucuses.

(follow me, @bnuckols, on Twitter for WingRight updates.

Obama: clueless or arrogant?

President Obama has announced his intention to address a joint session of Congress on night of the first Republican debate, September 7, 2011. Maybe the White House just didn’t know that NBC was set to broadcast the debate?

Believe it or not, the President’s press secretary indicates that the answer to my question is “arrogant:”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said “of course not” when asked whether White House officials chose the time of Mr. Obama’s speech to interfere with the Republican debate. “One debate of many was not reason not to have a speech when we wanted to have it,” he said.

According to Politico, one of the sponsors,

“Carney added that POLITICO and NBC News are “welcome” to reschedule the debate.”

According to the New York Times blog, The Caucus, 

NBC News, Politico and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation; it is to be televised by MSNBC, CNBC and the Spanish-language network Telemundo and streamed on the Internet by Politico. It is to be moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris.

Make that: “Doing the work skilled abortionists won’t”

A better title than the first.

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Opinion on Texas Ultrasound Law (part 2)

See Part 1, here
Media reports say that due to the injunction by Federal Judge Sam Sparks, the Texas Ultrasound law will not go into effect at all until a higher court rules on it. However, the Judge does note that there is a severability clause and that his injunction is narrow. I’m waiting to see opinions from lawyers as to whether abortionists will be held to parts of the law that are not specifically under injunction.

In the meantime, I wonder how many women will meet the abortionist before they are gowned and sedated for the procedure and how many will insist on seeing their sonograms?

In the second half of the Opinion by Judge Sam Sparks, the Judge outlines the specific complaints brought against the new law, HB 15, (text of the law, here ) . Most of those complaints are dismissed, even as the Judge continues to call the new law “unwise” and ultimately imposes an injunction against enforcement.

Sparks disagrees with the Plaintiffs, the Center for Reproductive Rights out of New York, that the definitions of “medical emergency,”  “sonogram,”  “in a quality consistent with current medical practice,” and “in a manner understandable to a layperson” are unconstitutionally vague.  He also disagrees with the Plaintiffs on whether or not “visit” and “abortion-related services” are unclear to most people.

The major complaints upheld by the judge appear to be that the law doesn’t allow for multiple-physician practices or for a switch if the original doctor who informed the woman about her ultrasound cannot, “through some unforeseen circumstances,” perform the abortion, requires a woman to sign an informed consent acknowledgement, and   forces the physician to “advance an ideological agenda.”  Sparks also does not like the word “soley,” for reasons that I don’t understand.

It is true that one purpose of the law was to ensure that women were given informed consent by the physician who was to perform the abortion, “in a private and confidential setting.” Most abortionists had been satisfying the 24 hour waiting period and informed consent the same way that Dr. Alan Braid’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio,  had:  over the phone  or by referring the woman to the information on the Internet.

However, it doesn’t appear that Sparks overturned these requirements, since the injunction overturns the objection to the requirement that women receive private and confidential informed consent and the exception for those who live more than 100 miles from the abortion clinic. The opinion only finds fault with the lack of accommodations for “unplanned substitutions.”

The judge makes a surprising statement about the requirement that a copy of the informed consent be inserted in the medical record of the woman:

Compounding this problem is newly-added section 171.0121, which requires both that a copy of the above certification be placed in the pregnant woman’s medical records (presumably permanently), and that the facility that performs the abortion retain a copy for at least seven years.See H.B. 15, Sec. 3 (adding TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 171.0121). Given the nature of the certification and the Act’s retention requirements, it is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion that the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women.

Sparks says that the medical record is “semi-private,” and is concerned that it might someday be subpoenaed for use in a court case. The only time that these would be seen in Court is if the woman herself sues the doctor.

Sparks also engages in a bit of ideological speech of his own about the requirement for the abortionist to describe  “the presence of cardiac activity,” and “the presence of external members and internal organs.”

“ The Court does not think the disclosures required by the Act are particularly relevant to any compelling government  interest, but whatever relevance they may have is greatly diminished by the disclosures already required under Texas law, which are more directly pertinent to those interests.”

and, from page 50:

The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private. In 7 the absence of a sufficiently weighty government interest, and a sufficiently narrow statute advancing that interest, neither of which have been argued by Defendants, the Constitution does not permit such compulsion.

Edit to add this question: How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing heart or limbs?

In my opinion, the worst part of the ruling is Spark’s legal-speak on “compelling’ and his insistence on bringing back the ever-moving line of “viability:”

Second, while Casey refers to the government’s interest in potential life as “important,” “substantial,” and “legitimate,” it stops short of characterizing it as “compelling.” Indeed, one of the holdings of Roe v. Wade, and one this Court does not interpret Casey as having overruled, was that “[w]ith respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

Tell me, Judge Sparks, just what is “viability?” 24 weeks, 20 or 18 weeks?

link to Part 1 and “sticky” added September 5, 2011 12:19 PM BBN

Doing the work skilled providers won’t

Will someone tell me why it is logical for Federal Judge Sam Sparks to assume that “less-skilled providers”  will be willing to meet the “onerous requirements” that more-skilled providers won’t?

” The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes.”

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Texas Ultrasound Opinion

I’m a doctor, not a lawyer, so I may not understand all of the words and references in the opinion, but I’m shocked that any self-respecting Federal Judge would allow such a frankly biased opinion out of his office. Perhaps Sparks doesn’t mind burning his chances of ever being appointed to another Court, and is quite happy with his life time appointment in the Federal Court at Austin.

I’m halfway through the ruling and thought I’d post some thoughts before these comments got too long.

Sparks decided that it’s not really important for the Plaintiffs to be someone actually harmed by the Law in order to have standing in his Court. He approved the class action suit filed by a New York State corporation, The Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed a class action suit on behalf of all the abortionists in Texas, supported by affidavits from three abortionists:

1. 1. Alan Braid, MD is the only one  of the three who lives and works in Texas. He owns a privately owned abortion clinic in San Antonio, Reproductive Services, S.A. http://www.reproductiveservicessa.com/
2. 2. David A. Grimes, MD, inventor of the partial birth abortion and instructor in “family planning and OBGyn at the University of North Carolina. In 1995, Grimes testified in favor of forcing residency programs and residents to perform and  train doctors in abortion http://www.nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=28  “Making abortion training a routine part of any residency…will put abortion back in the mainstream of medicine.”
3. 3.  Anne D. Lyerly, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, who was once the chair of the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She testified *against* conscience rights before the Bush President’s Bioethics Council in 2006.

If R. v. W. isn’t found to be gross misconduct, this ruling should be. Sparks can’t resist a revealing his prejudice and mocking the legislature.

Citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992), a US Supreme Court ruling on abortion limitations and Equal Protection, Sparks not only has to admit that the Texas law is legitimate under prior law and Court rulings, but that:

“This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

However, he goes on to admit his prior bias:

“The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to

obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with “protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,” one of the Act’s stated purposes. H.B. 15, Sec. 12(1). However, rational basis review requires this Court to accept even tenuous rationales for the advancement of a legitimate government interest.

In short, if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda (2) over the health and safety of women, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent it from doing so under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court must reject Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection arguments. (p. 20/55)

That footnote (2) ?

“2 It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the state’s righteous duty to become intimately involved in a woman’s decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the government’s gross overreaching in the area of health care.”

S

“(It) is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women,” Sparks wrote.

Text of Sparks’ Ultrasound Ruling available

Here’s the ruling in pdf. More after I’ve read it.

The larger order with explanations is here. (update at 7:25 PM, BBN)

Update, 7:07 PM

Okay, it appears that he’s placed an injunction on any enforcement of the law at all.

However, in addition to the histrionic statement the the State would “permanently brand women” for signing informed consent forms that would be placed in their private medical records, the Judge shows further poor judgement by this section:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the penalty provisions of the Act against either a physician  or a pregnant woman if the physician does not place the sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them, or does not make audible the heart auscultation, if the pregnant woman elects not to view the images or hear the heart auscultation;

There is, of course, no penalty in the law for women if the abortionist “does not place the sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them,” etc.

For years in Texas, we have had formalized, scripted informed consent for hysterectomies, sterilizations, radiation therapy and electroshock therapy. And yet, no one notices or cares.

Does anyone claim that a patient is being “branded” if his doctor explains his cardiac ultrasound? Would you go to surgery if he didn’t have a conversation with you after the echocardiogram and before the procedure?

Federal Judge Sparks places injunction on Texas Ultrasound Bill

The news reports so far only contain very brief statements which appear to be from the same press release. More as soon as I can find the actual ruling.

However, all the reports tell us that Judge Sparks said Texas ultrasound bill will ” “permanently brand women who choose to get an abortion.” Aren’t medical records private? How histrionic can this judge be? The woman’s statement will be part of her medical record. No one will see it except the abortionist.

He also said something to the effect that the doctor’s “First amendment rights” are infringed by State mandated informed consent. Please tell that to all of the doctors who have followed a strict Texas law on informed consent for hysterectomies, sterilization, radiation therapy and electric shock therapy.

It doesn’t look as though the judge struck down the part that requires a doctor to perform the informed consent himself, 24 hours before the procedure. Good. By requiring the same standard of informed consent that most of us would expect from our heart doc before a catheterization or by-pass, the law will be enough to make elective abortions prohibitively expensive for the mills to make any profit.

Spin on Spin (What Sarah Palin’s supporters are saying about Rick Perry)

I could be writing funny jokes about President Obama missing the bus under which he intends to throw America.

Instead, I got side tracked by a tweet claiming that Governor Perry is not honest.

“A Time for Choosing” is a pro-Sarah Palin blog that published an August 29, 2011 post titled, “Perry Campaign: Everything in “Fed Up!” Was Meaningless BS,”

Needless to say, no Perry staffer said such a thing. Instead, the author takes a mish mash of articles from the Los Angeles Times, the Hill, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal  and builds himself a strawman.

He claims the Governor lies because he repeatedly told us he had no desire to run for President, ignoring the fact that the Governor told us that conversations with his wife in June of this year led him to have a change of heart.

As for the rest of the piece, A Time for Choosing’s author, who claims to have read the Governor’s book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, echoes the claims that the Perry campaign is denying the book has any relevance, and that the Governor is “walking back” or has “tempered” his stand  on the strong views expressed in it.

Perry told a Wall Street Journal reporter to read the book when the reporter repeatedly insisted that Perry

 “. . . suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government,” he wrote, comparing the program to a “bad disease” that has continued to spread. Instead of “a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, he would prefer a system that “will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement.”

However bad it is for SS to be “at the expense of respect for the Constitution,” nowhere in the book does it say that Social Security violates the Constitution.The reporter suggests that the Governor “suggests.”

The author quotes the Hill referring to the Washington Post’s comments on an email from Perry staffer, Mark Miner:

The 16th Amendment instituting a federal income tax starting at one percent has exploded into onerous, complex and confusing tax rates and rules for American workers over the last century. The need for job creation in the wake of the explosion of federal debt and costly entitlement programs, mean the best course of action in the near future is a simpler, flatter and broader tax system that unleashes production, creates jobs, and creates more taxpayers. We can’t undo more than 70 years of progressive taxation and worsening debt obligations overnight.

Here’s what the book actually proposes:

“Second, we should restrict the unlimited source of revenue that the federal government has used to grow beyond its constitutionally prescribed powers. One option would be to totally scrap the current tax code in favor of a flat tax, and thereby make taxation much simpler, easier to follow, and harder to manipulate. Another option would be to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (providing the power for the income tax) altogether, and then pursue an alternative model of taxation such as a national sales tax or the Fair Tax. The time has come to stop talking about fixing the broken and burdensome tax code and to take bold action to replace it with one that is not a burden for the taxpayer and that provides only the modest revenue needed to perform the basic constitutional functions of the federal government. America needs a fairer, flatter, and simpler system, one which working families can complete without having to hire a bevy of professionals to assist them.”   Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington (pp. 182-183). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle PC Edition. (accessed 8/29/11)

I want to believe that the bloggers’ problem is using interpretations/spins from several reporters, on a book they evidently either didn’t read or didn’t understand to build your premise on. If that is the case, though, why would he a headline that appears to be a quote from a staff member when it’s an obvious, biased interpretation by the blogger?

Obama’s buses: they fly first class, too!

RedState reports that the President did not ride those million dollar buses from venue to venue for his tour last week. No, he flew the buses to area, got off Air Force One, and then rode the stage to his next show. This has got to be a joke, right?

Obama will throw America under the bus. If their plane isn’t late.

And it will be from 40,000 feet.

More here and here.

Politics at Texas Medical Board

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Association believes that the Texas Medical Board’s review and limitations on adult stem cell treatments is politically motivated.

It does appear that the Board is responding to politics.

“Meanwhile, Stevens believes criticism of Governor Perry’s recent adult stem cell procedure is politically motivated. (Listen to audio report)

The Republican presidential candidate had back surgery July 1, where his own stem cells were removed and injected back into his body. But shortly after, the Associated Press published a story in which several doctors criticized the decision as too “experimental” and “risky.” But Stevens believes those doctors are playing more politics than they are science. He points out that Perry consulted with his orthopedist, Dr. Stanley Jones, who is a well-respected physician.”

The Board heard the proposal on Friday, August 26. The Board would impose Federal regulations and a formal ethics board oversight for “off label” or experimental use of medications or treatments.

We doctors use our judgement at times to treat our patients using medications, procedures and equipment in ways that are considered “off label.” (For instance, the “morning after pill” therapies were at first unofficial use of oral contraceptives, long before Plan B was on the market.)

The Board should adjust their criteria to whether or not the patient gave full, proper informed consent obtained and is the treatment inherently ethical in likely outcome and goal?

US law enforcement to expand training in Mexico

Police training has been a significant part of the Merida Initiative, which outlined the U.S. partnership with Mexico and Central America in the drug war and has committed $1.4 billion since 2008. However, the focus now shifts to historically out-gunned and ill-prepared local forces ducking bullets and facing ominous threats on a daily basis.

Mexico received $327 million for police training in fiscal 2009 from the U.S. State Department through Merida, placing it behind only Afghanistan and Iraq in total funds received for police training from the departments of State or Defense, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office in April.

via The Associated Press: US law enforcement to expand training in Mexico.

Answer to Bias Against Governor Rick Perry

“We would be wise to remember a universal truth: No government has ever taxed and spent its way to greater prosperity.” Governor Rick Perry, 2005

This is in response to a post by blogger “MarkAmerica” at FreeRepublic.com. Unfortunately, there are many bloggers out there making the same accusations and false statements. Hopefully, this will clear up some of the questions less biased people might have.

To MarkAmerica:

Incredulously, your statements here imply that you are privy to the thinking and motives not only of Governor Perry, but of Mark Davis! Your comments are skewed bias and nothing more useful than shotgun accusations without evidence to back them up.

You falsely state that the Governor does not represent the same ideals as those of us in the Tea Party. I attended my first Tea Party event on February 27, 2009 in San Antonio and I say that you are flat wrong. Governor Perry met with 3 separate Tea Party groups on Tax Day, April 15th, 2009 – the day he’s accused of suggesting that Texas might secede. We know he never suggested any such thing, but he has always firmly stated his belief in small government, less taxation, and greater accountability to the people.

You also falsely claim that Governor Perry has less in common with regular Texans than with Wall Street “types.” I think his history is at least more familiar to Texans: he grew up far away from the city on a tenant farm, became an Eagle Scout, flew C-130’s as an Air Force pilot, and spent a few more years back on that farm as an adult.
You falsely claim that the Governor is uninterested in individual rights. A review of his speeches and of his books prove that to be a lie. He said in his first State of the State in 2001, that “We must preserve freedom and opportunity by extending it, one Texan at a time.” In his 2003 State of the State address, the Governor made his concern for the individual even more clear by telling the Legislature to remember that “behind every government program, there is a real taxpayer funding it.” He also reminds us that “The right to life is a fundamental right declared by our forefathers” and has consistently championed prolife laws each session.

Your false claim that the Governor only talks tough when he’s running for office is easily dis-proven by looking at 2003, when he had just won re-election for four years. Texas, like the Nation was reeling from the financial fallout of September 11, 2001. The Governor had already led State agencies to cut spending for the fiscal year by 7-13% and called on the Legislature to pass the first budget to cut State spending since World War II by prioritizing education, security and “fiscal responsibility, because neither of these priorities can be met unless our spending is disciplined.”

The Governor has always been adamant about cutting taxes, too. He’s repeatedly called for cuts in property taxes. Look at this, from the 2005 “State of the State”speech:

It is time to cut property taxes for the hardworking people of Texas. In fact, let’s not only give Texans property tax relief…let’s give them appraisal relief too.

Texans don’t like taxation without representation, and they are sick and tired of taxation by valuation.

The time has come to draw a line in the sand for the taxpayer: Let’s cap appraisals at three percent.

If you oppose a three percent cap on the philosophical grounds of local control, I can respect your position. But then I would hope you would be consistent, and advocate for the repeal of the ten percent cap on the same basis. There is no point in being lukewarm on this issue. Either be hot or cold; either provide real appraisal relief, or none at all. But let’s stop this false pretense of taxpayer protection at ten percent.

You falsely claim that the Governor has had a “more recent conversion” on tightening border security, ignoring the fact that Texas spends about a (edit 21:00 8/28/11) 100 dollars of our own tax funds each year to secure the border. Back in the Spring of 2001, he vetoed a driver’s license bill because it didn’t limit illegal aliens. He has consistently demanded that the Federal government do its job on border control by authorizing National Guard deployment. In 2005, he used money from his own office budget to increase funding for local law enforcement and set aside a task force from the Department of Public Safety.

You falsely accuse that the Governor is guilty of “corporate-cronyism.” The Governor promotes privatization rather than growth of government and taxes wherever possible, encourages Texas to compete with other States for jobs and business investments, and most of the business owners appreciate his efforts. Our 2005 tort reform – and the new “loser pays” law – has benefited every business except the trial lawyers. The Toyota plant that opened in San Antonio and a $3 billion dollar Texas Instruments plant are just two strong examples that our Texas policies work to bring jobs to Texas.

Your false claim that the Governor is a “statist” is ridiculous. The entirety of the book Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington is proof against your statement. Here’s just a couple of quotes:

“The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. The hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for the little guy, all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state-, local-, and self-governance.” Location 320

“The truth is, I don’t care what party the statist is in. The fact of the matter is, it is the statist, and those who support or enable him, who is the problem. For too long he has undermined this country by empowering the national government at the expense of liberty. An America defined by the statist in Washington is an America doomed to fail.” ” Location 338

(both quotes from Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition., the Kindle PC edition. And, no I don’t get a dime from Amazon.com, either. I just do my homework.)

Since you dismiss anything since 2010, here’s an earlier example that the Governor has a clear understanding about personal responsibility, opportunity and a better understanding than most about the differences in power of local governments, the States and the Federal government. He testified before the US House of Representatives against federalization of emergency first responders in 2005. (Testimony here.) (Yes, the response of Washington to the crises after Katrina was to propose to federalize EMS.)

I’ve blogged on the Gardasil Executive Order at LifeEthics.org since February, 2007 and have written more in the last month at WingRight.org. It’s foolish to continue to claim that the Governor was bribed by $6000 in donations (he raised $20 million dollars that year). There is no evidence that the Governor had any motive other than to decrease disease, speed up the coverage of the vaccine by private insurance, and to strengthen parents’ rights by making it easier for them to opt out of any or all mandatory vaccines.

Which leaves the TransTexasCorridor. That was a now-defunct attempt to solve a lot of problems including the need to move more traffic and freight faster, safer and outside city congestion by a combination of privatization and tolls. We had concrete examples of the need for more roads leading across the State during the evacuation of South Texas in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Ike. The Governor encouraged the 2005 law to protect private property rights through the control of eminent domain and signed even stronger protections this year.

Conservatives and Republicans shouldn’t forget that our enemy is big federal government and that States are better suited and have the Constitutional authority to try many more solutions to many more problems. As someone who’s been accused of being a “Perry operative” due to my answers to the multiple political rants against Governor Perry, I assure you that some of us have sincerely come to the opinion that Governor Perry should be our next President by the same process that others have decided to advocate for their own particular candidate. We recognize that in his 10 years as Governor, he has boldly practiced what he professes: that States should be “laboratories of democracy.” Not every experiment works, but the Governor has demonstrated that he can learn from mistakes and has the flexibility to change course when the people object.

Perry bills feds $350M for immigrant inmates – Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to reimburse Texas $350 million to cover costs for jailing illegal immigrants.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the top-tier Republican presidential candidate blamed the federal government for not securing the border with Mexico, allowing illegal immigrants to cross over and use taxpayer-funded resources

via Perry bills feds $350M for immigrant inmates – Houston Chronicle.

Widget for Perry for President

If you want to put a link and graphic on your blog for Perry for President that looks like this:

Donate here.

send me an email – I can’t make the code print as text!

Rick Perry for President website

If you would like to learn more about the Rick Perry for President campaign, read more WingRight.

Okay, you could go to the Perry for President website for a more focused study or to donate to the campaign.

(If you want to donate and want to join those of us in Comal County, use tracking #1554 when prompted.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination

PRINCETON, NJ — Shortly after announcing his official candidacy, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as rank-and-file Republicans’ current favorite for their party’s 2012 presidential nomination. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide say they are most likely to support Perry, with Mitt Romney next, at 17%.

via Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination.

Ted Cruz praised in “Fed Up!” by Governor Rick Perry

I’m about halfway through the book, Fed Up! by Governor Rick Perry and found these notes about the service of former Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is running for Senator from the State of Texas.

On the death penalty for child rapists:

Texas supported Louisiana. Our able solicitor general Ted Cruz argued the case on behalf of Texas and eight other states, defending the authority of democratically elected legislatures to determine the appropriate punishment for the very worst rapists. (p. 100). Kindle Edition.

On the World Court mandate that Texas review cases of illegal aliens:

Somewhat shockingly, to me at least, President Bush then issued a memorandum attempting to order Texas and other states to review convictions of those not apprised of their consular rights. The case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Cruz again argued our case. Neither I nor my friend Texas attorney general Greg Abbott believed that the United States should be forced to obey the World Court or that the President had authority to order the state courts to do so. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court agreed, and Medellin was executed on August 5, 2008.

(p 101 location 1649)

Perry, Rick; foreward by Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

Governor Perry signs pro-life pledge

The move to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pledge is completely in line with the Governor’s actions while in office here in Texas. He has advocated for parental consent, for informed consent, and for the prenatal protection law we passed in 2005.

This year, he put the “ultrasound bill” on the fast track by naming it as an emergency bill. We also moved our family planning money to hospitals and docs who provide comprehensive, continuing care rather tna limiting services to “family planning,” and ensured that local hospital and health districts that wish to receive State funds will cease performing elective abortions. (The Travis County Health Department paid for 750 elective abortions last year, but recently voted to immediately comply with the new law, surprising some.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:August 24, 2011
Contact: Ciara Matthews, (202) 630-7067

Perry Becomes Seventh Candidate to Sign SBA List Presidential Pledge

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – The Susan B. Anthony List announced today that Republican Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry has signed its Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, making him the seventh Republican candidate for President to do so.

“Governor Perry has been a long-time friend of, and leader for, the pro-life community,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “His signature on our pledge is more than welcome and we applaud him for his commitment to continue to fight for women and unborn children.”

The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge developed by the SBA List is what has been defined as a “minimum standard” of what is expected of the next pro-life President. The Pledge contains four principles to which its signers are expected to adhere:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

Politico.com is confused by the fact that Governor Perry endorsed Rudy Guiliani in 2008. Mayor Guiliani had promised to only nominate strict constructionist judges.

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/24/11 10:16 AM EDT Updated: 8/24/11 10:39 AM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61982.html#ixzz1VxxeQKTX

Governor Rick Perry on VP Joe Biden and China One Child Policy

Statement by Texas Gov. Rick Perry on VP Joe Biden’s Comment Regarding China’s One Child Policy

Print

Posted on August 23rd, 2011

Perry leads Iowa Republican Poll

New poll from Public Policy Polling released today.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 23, 2011
INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312
IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL information@publicpolicypolling.com,OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESS RELEASE

Perry debuts in lead in Iowa caucus race

Raleigh, N.C. – Despite being a write-in candidate who had just officially declared his candidacy the morning before balloting, Rick Perry got more votes at the Ames Straw Poll a week and a half ago than did four other candidates who were listed, including previous frontrunner Mitt Romney. Now Perry is seriously challenging Romney’s dominant hold on the race, which Michele Bachmann had also begun to do in recent weeks. The current three-candidate top tier is now cemented with PPP’s latest poll of potential Iowa caucus goers, but the media would be remiss to forget about Ron Paul, who placed a close second to Bachmann at Ames.

Polled for the first time here, Perry leads with 22% over Romney’s 19%, Bachmann’s18%, Paul’s 16%, Herman Cain’s 7%, Newt Gingrich’s and Rick Santorum’s 5%, and Jon Huntsman’s 3%. Santorum had not been polled here before either.

If Sarah Palin jumps into the race, she would harm Bachmann and Paul but hardly makes a dent in Romney’s or Perry’s support. Perry would still lead with 21% over Romney’s 18%, Bachmann’s 15%, Paul’s 12%, and Palin’s 10%.
The two Texans, Perry and Paul, are the most personally popular Republicans who are running or could potentially. Perry’s 56-24 favorability rating, up 27 points from 21-16 in May, tops Paul’s 53-29 (up 11 points from 42-29), Santorum’s 44-22 (+11 from 29-18), Chris Christie’s 43-21 (-8 from 42-12), Ryan’s 38-21 (-11 from 42-14), Palin’s 52-36 (-12 from 59-31), Bachmann’s 47-35 (-25 from 53-16 in May), Rudy Giuliani’s 43-34 (-9 from 49-31), Romney’s 45-38 (-10 from 51-34), and Cain’s 42-35 (-7 from 38-24.)

“All the momentum in the Republican race is on Rick Perry’s side now,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Michele Bachmann’s growing support over the last two months has now stopped and Mitt Romney is actually losing voters in Iowa.”

PPP surveyed 317 usual Iowa Republican primary voters from August 19th to 21st. The margin of error for the survey is +/-5.5%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

The questions and results are available in pdf, here.

Perry in Dead heat with Obama in New Gallup Poll | KGNB 1420 AM

The Austin American Statesman reports that a new Gallup national poll of registered voters shows that if the 2012 presidential election were held today, it would be a dead heat between current President Barack Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The poll shows that both Obama and Perry, when squared off against each other, would each garner about 47% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did slightly better than Perry against Obama, but Perry, who just joined the race a week ago, is already beating out most of the other Republican front-runners, like Michele Bachman and Ron Paul. Perry also led the poll among independents, a voting sector that will likely play a key role in the upcoming presidential race.

via Perry in Dead heat with Obama in New Gallup Poll | KGNB 1420 AM.

Testing

123

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

No Deaths Due to Gardasil

I’m still getting emails from people warning about deaths due to Gardasil and there are repetitive false reports in the “lame-stream media” and by bloggers repeating the same lies.

One email and an “alert” on one of the big forums has no link to real data, but does link to a law firm in Florida that is looking for cases to use in a suit against Merck. Unfortunately for them, the trial lawyers link to the CDC web page showing that they have no case.

In contrast, the reports given by the FDA and CDC show no connection to deaths and no connection to any serious reactions. All of the reported events happen at the same rate that they do in the general population, whether or not the people were vaccinated.

From the CDC page linked by that trial lawyer:

As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil® . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

From the FDA page:

Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil.  As of December 31, 2008, 32 deaths had been reported to VAERS.  There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine.  In the majority of cases with available autopsy, death certificate and medical records, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine.

There have been about 40 Million doses given in the US, closer to 60 million in the world, since 2001. There is no connection to deaths due to the vaccine. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reports confirm a death rate less than that of the general population (around 60/100,000).

There are multiple post-marketing studies going on all over the world, since at least 2001 and yet there are no “red flags.”

I’ve covered this much more extensively elsewhere on WingRight, along with some of the examples of the non-confirmed reports and instructions as to how to look up the VAERS reports for yourself.

How Farm Subsidies Harm

Or: one of the things I learned while reading “Fed Up,” by Governor Rick Perry, leading me to find this article by the Heritage Foundation:

A recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeowners on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its “historical rice production.” Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.[30] Over the past 25 years, rice plantings in Texas have plummeted from 600,000 acres to 200,000, in part because people can now collect generous rice subsidies without planting rice. If Washington insists on subsidizing farming, subsidizing actual farmland rather than residential neighborhoods that were once farmland would make more sense.

via How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too.

Rick Perry’s Pro-life Record in Texas

The various pro-life groups all over Texas have affirmed the Governor’s record of pro-life advocacy. Read the article at LifeNews.com for concrete examples and testimonies from Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Right to Life, and many more.

The long record of pro-life accomplishments will serve the Texas governor well should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. He would face off against other candidates who are equally committed to pro-life values, but his pro-life track record will give him a chance to gain positive support from voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina. Should he ultimately become the nominee, Perry, like other Republicans seeking the nomination, would present a clear pro-life versus pro-abortion contrast with Obama that would rally the majority of Americans who are pro-life to his side.

Rick Perry Becomes Latest Pro-Life Republican 2012 Hopeful | LifeNews.com

Pro-life groups around Texas all confirm the strong pro-life record of Governor Perry. Read the article for the examples of his actions in the name of protecting innocent life at all stages and ages.

The long record of pro-life accomplishments will serve the Texas governor well should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. He would face off against other candidates who are equally committed to pro-life values, but his pro-life track record will give him a chance to gain positive support from voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina. Should he ultimately become the nominee, Perry, like other Republicans seeking the nomination, would present a clear pro-life versus pro-abortion contrast with Obama that would rally the majority of Americans who are pro-life to his side.

via Rick Perry Becomes Latest Pro-Life Republican 2012 Hopeful | LifeNews.com.

Do you believe in legalized euthanasia?

How do you feel about legalized euthanasia, the intentional killing of your fellow humans? Here’s a yahoo.com poll that indicates the majority answering the poll (we don’t know who they are) are in favor.

For more on legalized euthanasia in the news over the last few years, look at LifeEthics.org.