Public Policy

Blame it on Grover (the memo must have gone out)

If you believe that the multiple headlines focusing on Grover Norquist are a coincidence, I’ve got ocean front property in  Arizona to sell you.

Rick Perry via USAToday editorial: ‘Another federal power grab’

Governor Rick Perry explains why Texas won’t create a State Obamacare health insurance exchange:

 

Setting aside the obvious fact that health insurance is readily available under current conditions — the problem has been price, not availability — these exchanges represent nothing more than another federal power grab in the guise of a supposedly free market.

States were given the option to set up and execute their own exchanges — at their own expense. The fine print, however, specified that the exchanges would have to follow all rules and guidelines imposed by the federal government, with little to no flexibility. The kicker: Many of these rules and regulations are unknown.

Again, this is par for the course as we continue down the road to fiscal disaster at the hands of ObamaCare.

In Texas, Medicaid spending already accounts for nearly 25% of our general revenue spending, and its costs are only expected to continue skyrocketing.

While the president has promised to subsidize states for Medicaid costs in the near term, in the long term, states are going to be on their own.

ObamaCare has already begun to affect many companies, too, with some publicly announcing plans for layoffs in order to make up for increased insurance-related costs.

via Rick Perry: ‘Another federal power grab’.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry: Texas Will Not Implement State Insurance Exchange Under Obamacare

Governor Rick Perry wrote a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius:

Gov. Perry’s letter said. “It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.”

via Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry: Texas Will Not Implement State Insurance Exchange Under Obamacare.

Medical Regulation, Texas Style

The Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency Draft Report is posted for public comment.

You only have a day and a half to comment, since the next meeting of our Board of Directors is Thursday, November 15th. All comments should be sent by 1 PM on Wednesday, November 14th.

Report to the Texas Legislature on Activities to Improve Health Care Quality and Efficiency
Report Number: 2012-001

The following downloads are available:
Report 2012-001: 2012-001-Draft-Report.pdf
Appendix E: AppendixE.pdf
Appendix F: AppendixF.pdf

Instructions on submitting your comments are here.

Now, for a few comments on my observations as a Board member:

Believe it or not, the time frame from the passage of the legislation in SB 7 last June, 2011, to today and in anticipation of preparing for legislation beginning in January, 2013, is too tight. The Institute’s staff and coordinators did a good job of herding cats in the Board. In addition, the Board members worked hard to make all the meetings, to participate, and to contribute. We have met at least once a month, sometimes more than twice, since our appointment. The Board isn’t paid or even reimbursed for expenses by the State, and many gave up work in order to attend meetings far from their homes.

I haven’t commented on the draft until now, because the Board received our first full copy for review and comment on November 2, and comments were due by 5 PM, Election Day, November 6th. We’re all appointed by the Governor — it stands to reason that a few of us would be actively involved in the election and campaigns. I didn’t even open the email until Nov. 7.

I’m not happy with the length of the report, but I guess the nuances of our discussions over the last few months needed to be documented somewhere. Go to the page 34 in the pdf, numbered “26” in the Draft, for the actual recommendations made by vote in the Board meetings.

Finally, my main concern has been with the bureaucracy and regulation that the members of the Board have sometimes appeared to support. In the end, I believe that we have limited recommendations for regulation and “hassle factors” more than some would like. My hope is that the Legislature will decide to focus initially on implementing any new measures in our own State health plans and not interfere directly in private health care practice and systems, except where and when the State foots the bill.

Since President Obama won reelection, I believe that the ability of the 83rd Texas Legislature to adapt and react to Federal Regulations  – Obamacare – will be improved by the work of the Institute.

Benghazi, bimbos, and the Petraeus spin

All women are potential bimbos, all media reports are reliable, and email is a secure way to threaten your romantic rivals, right? In the case of Paula Broadwell, the story doesn’t make sense. Next, we’ll hear comments from James Carville (or David Axelrod) about trailer parks and $100 bill.

Or, are we all being treated to the latest version of “bimbo eruptions,” the false trashing of women by the Clinton Administration of the 1990’s? If you remember that far back, every single woman who claimed that Bill Clinton had abused her was painted by the Clinton Administration and subsequently by the media as liars who were women scorned, jealous and mentally unstable.

We’ve been told that former Army General David Petraeus resigned as Director of the CIA because he had been having an affair. His alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, a married mother of two, was an honor graduate from West Point, retired from the Army after attaining the rank of Major and recognition as a military expert. and a former intelligence officer. She was a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserves and a member of the FBI anti-terrorism force. We are to believe that at 40 years old, this highly accomplished woman went around the bend, and became jealous of another woman, a friend of the Petraeus family, and the FBI discovered that she had been sending “anonymous” emails to the other woman.

(At 19 minutes into the speech, Broadwell mentions that General Petraeus was undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer when they met. This makes me even more doubtful about the affair story.)

It turns out that Ms. Broadwell may have come under heightened scrutiny after she spoke to the alumni association at the University of Denver (where she had studied  in October. During the question and answer period, she made the very controversial claim that the annex at Benghazi, where our Ambassador was killed on September 11, 2012, was being used to hold captured Libyan militia prisoners, and that’s why the US forces were attacked.

The video was posted online, although it’s been removed by the University  from many others, including Front Page News, At least as of 5 PM on Monday, November 12th, the video is available on YouTube, here,

and at Human Events,  that I found after a Google search on the title of the video, “Alumni Symposium 2012, Paula Broadwell.”  If the videos all disappear, here’s a quote about Benghazi , at least:

“The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will,” she said. “The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.

“Now, I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.

via Petraeus’ Mistress Claims Benghazi Annex had Libyan Islamist Prisoners.

A cold, dark winter

Perhaps we could convince the Powers That Be that recovery from Hurricane Sandy calls for emergency measures and a kinder EPA?

Take a look at this New York Times article on energy regulations from yesterday.  I fear that due to the Obama re-election, the limits on US Energy source production, the restrictions on new refineries and plants, the mandates that choke current mining, drilling, manufacturing and processing will get worse through regulations from the Executive Branch, especially the Environmental Protection Agency.

Believe it or not, there are supposedly educated people convinced that “fracking” contaminates our water sources, ignoring the fact that the gas is 8000 to 10,000 feet under ground and water aquifers are much more shallow, at an average of around 500 feet below the surface. Even that Scientific American article admits that it’s highly unlikely that fracking is the cause of any contamination, given the relative depths. Note that the testing was near “natural gas wells,” and the authors blamed leaky pipes for the presence of gas in water, not the fracking. However, they apparently did not test near other well types or near gas pockets that weren’t tapped by humans.

And finally, perhaps it’s time for We The People to convince our Governors, State Attorneys General, and both State and Federal Legislators to invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Fiscal Cliff: It’s the Spending, Stupid!

Here’s the data:

The solution is to cut the growth in spending and to grow the economy.

Republicans need to understand that we Republicans who voted re-elected the Legislators that we re-elected and elected the new ones that were elected because we expect them to stand strong:  No increase in the debt limit. Continue all the current tax rates. Get out of the way of business and industry!

Texas Attorney General: “Come and Take It”

Texas’ Attorney General, Greg Abbott, in a letter to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, on the plans by the UN “partner” organization to “watch” our voting in Texas:

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about Voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the Supreme Court has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional.

“If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons—including persons connected with OSCE—are required to comply with these laws.

via Texas Attorney General.

The Right to Life, Sonograms, and Your Vote

WingRight.org was referenced by another blogger who listed “a woman’s right to chose” as her first reason to vote for President Obama.

We all know that what that woman is choosing is to end the life of her own child. Usually, nearly 97% of the time, both mom and baby are healthy. And far too often, she doesn’t feel like she really has a choice.

I contend that the protection of the right not to be killed  should be the first reason to vote against Obama and all Democrats, from the President on down to the local County and State offices.

The right to life – the right not to be killed – of a human being is the primary inalienable right. If that right is not protected, then all other rights are subject to the power of others; they are also infringed. What is liberty, if one human or the State can determine that some humans aren’t human enough to have their God-given right not to be killed defended by the rest of us?

The fact is that all women undergoing an elective abortion already have a sonogram.  The standard of care for abortion or any procedure requiring instrumentation of the uterus now includes a an ultrasound examination.  The law in Texas not only ensures that the standard of care is followed, but that the timing allows the woman to be fully informed before the abortion, and before she is sedated and prepped for the abortion.

The same law that ensures that the woman will be offered a chance to see her sonogram and hear the heartbeat also makes sure that she’s referred to agencies that will help her actually have a “choice.” The Woman’s Right to Know Act included the mandate that women and girls be given access to a ) list of all the resources (State, Federal, private and charities) that are available to help the mother while she’s pregnant and after the baby is born. The State Department of Health Services compiles the list, using funds raised by licensing those abortion facilities.

The purpose of Government, according to the Declaration of Independence is to “secure” our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States goes further, stating that the government not only protects those of us who are citizens, but must also  “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Vote to protect our “Posterity,” the children of tomorrow.

Benghazi emails not front page news on Google? (Updated 2 PM)

This is the front page of Google News — There’s no mention of the news about real-time emails and White House knowledge of the ongoing attack! I had to search “Benghazi emails” specifically to find coverage of the story.

Reuter’s and Yahoo each have a story about Secretary of State Clinton’s comments on the “Facebook” claim by a militant group – but no front page coverage of the real-time emails from the State Department in Libya about the attack in Benghazi.

Update, 2 PM CDT: Google News now has the story, 3rd or 4th on the page. However, the coverage still focuses on when the White House knew about the claim of responsibility. I’m glad that interest has forced the upgrade in coverage. However, I don’t believe that what they knew about the source of the attack should be the focus. Forbes has it right, with their article about the inadequate response to the attack.

Comal County Early Voting

The first day of early voting in Comal County yielded double the voter turn out on the same day in 2008, with more than 3100 voters compared to 1700.

I voted on the second day, and was pleased to find that the Comal County Voting Center on Landa Street in New Braunfels was up to the task. The County has designed an efficient and organized Center, with fast moving lines and 3 stations set up to check in voters.

I cast my first “straight Party” ticket since 1992, today. The first “page of the electronic ballot offers the option to vote for one Party or the other, and a vote for Republicans took me through each page of all the candidates and offices, allowing me to review and view the names of each candidate I voted for and to see who I wasn’t voting for. I hope that those of you who are tempted to just vote the top of the ticket or for a few candidates will consider taking my endorsement of the Republican candidates all up and down the ballot, with the ease of the straight Party vote! You’ll get the well known candidates, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, Donna Campbell for SD 25, Susan Narvaiz for Congressional District 35 and Kevin Webb for Comal County Commissioner, Pct 3, and you also support judges like Scott Fields, Jeff Rose and Bob Pemberton!

No matter where you live in Comal County, or where your regular voting place is, you can cast your ballot at any of the early voting places or times. Here’s the early voting opportunities in Comal County:

• New Braunfels: 345 Landa, Suite 101. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

• Canyon Lake: CRRC Community Center, 125 Mabel Jones Dr. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

• Bulverde: Bulverde / Spring Branch Library, 131 Bulverde Crossing. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.

• Garden Ridge: City Hall, 9400 Municipal Parkway. Oct. 23-26, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Oct. 27, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Oct. 28, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Oct. 29 — Nov. 1, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.; and Nov. 2, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Innovation, Not Debt, Key To Better Schools (Texas Local Debt #2 in US)

It’s not just Presidents and SenatorsL some of us will be asked to vote on school bonds and other bond issues when we go to the polls this year. How do you feel about Texas voters who have saddled ourselves with the Nation’s second highest level of local – county, city and school – debt?

The State of Texas lowered the level of local property tax, taking on more of the financial responsibility formerly covered by school and county property taxes. The next thing we knew, the local governments took the opportunity to raise those rates, again and to beg for bond issues, effectively wiping out the intended savings. The thing of it is that voters did this to ourselves and our neighbors!

But for the purposes of this discussion, let’s not worry too much about the debt. (Though it should be noted Texas is only barely trailing New York and California in terms of total state and local debt.)

We should instead confront the common claim made by proponents of school bond proposals: that it will make schools better. It will certainly make the buildings better, or at least more expensive. But will schools, the education provided, be improved?

Despite the hoopla, a new coat of paint, or even new walls, won’t ensure a better education. Only parents and teachers can deliver that.

When looking at the total spending reported to the Texas Education Agency, school districts only spend about 50 percent of your money on instruction. Building more buildings won’t improve that statistic, or produce better academic outcomes.

One thing that can immediately improve education is putting more resources – a greater percentage of school money – directly toward instructional expenses, and less on administration and non-teaching positions.

Let’s try spending more money in the classroom, rather than simply on a classroom.

via Innovation, Not Debt, Key To Better Schools | Empower Texans.

Florida’s Wasserman Schultz has “no idea” about “kill list.”

Reason Magazine points to the video of a revealing interview with the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Florida’s Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz by “WeAreChange.org” after last week’s Presidential debate. Watch this video!

Note: I corrected my original title.

Texas Medical Association @TexMed “Friendly Incumbent” rule

A fellow Texas Medical Association member asked me today how I felt about TexPAC – was it even worth giving them money and “what about their endorsements for judges?” He had been surprised to notice the TMA’s endorsement of some Democrat candidates after the Judicial endorsements caught his eye. (He even asked whether the list was just a pet of some of the more wealthy docs in the TMA.)

I explained that, while the TMA generally opposes ObamaCare, the Association unfortunately has what they call the “friendly incumbent” rule.  I also agreed that the policy doesn’t explain all of the choices on the TexPAC list. But for the most part, It’s virtually a given that the PAC endorses the incumbent in a race, even if the candidate doesn’t agree with the TMA on such vital issues as ObamaCare and the (Un-) Sustainable Growth Rate (“SGR”) or even the “RAC audits.” (“Recovery Audit Contractors” – *private* contractors who audit Medicare “providers” – doctors and hospitals, and earn more for finding more “fraudandabuse.”)

The policy – along with the heavy-handedness of some of the leaders of the PAC –  leads to such debacles as their mistaken endorsement of Jeff Wentworth, who opposed tort reform, over  Dr. Donna Campbell, the eventual winner (by a 2 to 1 vote!) of the Texas Senate District 25 Republican Primary,

I suggested that he include a note about his disagreements with the PAC in any check he writes in the future. As for this election, I advised my friend – who is very opposed to ObamaCare – to ignore any recommendation that didn’t have an “R” for “Republican” in front of the candidate’s name – especially when it comes to the candidates for our Third Court of Appeals: Scott Fields is a much better choice for conservative voters than the incumbent. (I could say the same about Congressional District 35, where I hope my neighbors will vote for Susan Narvaiz, rather than Layoff Lloyd Doggett.)

Report on 2nd Presidential Debate, October 16, 2010

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

“Pearl Harbor,” Iran, Panetta and Cyber Attacks

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!

U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger

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.

Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: “We needed more, not less” security staff – CBS News

(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.

Sally C. Pipes, Founder of the Benjamin Rush Society, at Docs4PatientCare @D4PC

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.

Another reason to vote Romney

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.”

Docs 4 Patient Care @D4PC Annual Meeting

“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.

“Aid in Dying” promoted in the Journal “Chest”

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.

Possible deal struck on Rule 15 (delegate) changes, no word on Rule 12 @GOPconvention #TxGOP #RNC

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):

Storm Watching in Tampa, #RNC

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.

5th Circuit Upholds Texas Law on Funding for Women’s Health Program

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: ”

Women Speak for Themselves Press Release @WomenSpeak2012 #prolife #tcot

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.”

Texas Medical Association wants you to pay for elective abortions @texmed @texasallianceforlife #pro-life #tcot

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.

Action: Women Speak 4 OURSELVES @WomenSpeak2012 #tcot #pro-life

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!

Author of study on homosexual parents and children under fire, investigated by University of Texas (Regnerus) #tcot

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.

#GOP2012 Platform Ideas #TxGOP #

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.