The RPT Platform Committee

For most of the last two days, the Temporary Platform Committee (the Permanent Platform Committee won’t be elected formally until the individual Senate Districts meet on Thursday) of the Republican Party of Texas has worked as separate Sub-Committees dealing with the broad outlines of the 2010 Platform.As the representative from SD 25 appointed by the SREC to the Temporary Committee, I was on the “Strengthening Families, Preserving Life and Promoting Health” Sub-Committee which worked from 1 PM until after 10 PM on Monday and from 9:30 until 6:30 PM on Tuesday.
The first decision of the Committee was to proceed using the 2010 Platform as a place to start. Our Committee spent the first long day going over the wording of the Section of the 2010 platform. On the second day, we re-evaluated the language we decided on the first day and reviewed the pertinent resolutions that came from this year’s County Conventions.
The Platform Committee agreed on the goal to consolidate and streamline the Platform of the RPT to a more concise document stating our core values rather than a long document consisting of wish lists and editorials from every special interest group in the Party. In fact, we received proposed resolutions from County and SD’s. (Since some Counties have more than one Senate District, so there were 164 files to review, some with poorly handwritten resolutions.)
Today, we met as the whole Committee, beginning at 9 AM. We will review the previous two day’s work by the Subcommittees and the 2010 Platform Preamble and Principles. In order to print the proposed 2012 Platform for Thursday’s Convention meeting, we must cover all of the reports by 11 PM tonight.
This morning, we began with a hearing to decide whether or not to allow video and audio recording of our meetings. The Committee agreed to allowing both live streaming and archive recording.
We then heard two hours of testimony from Delegates and Alternate Delegates who had concerns about the Platform. As of 5:30 PM, we had spent 3+ hours discussing the first 1/3 of the proposed platform, indicating that the Committee has little or no chance of reviewing everything.

The full Committee voted to re-criminalize sodomy, apparently unaware that the legal definition (look it up) does not only address homosexual acts between men.  And then — Under pressure from people (who should probably be elected to a permanent Permanent Committee for a life term) substituted the entire 2010 form of the “Protecting Innocent Human Life” (p. 14) section for the two day’s of work of the 2012 Temporary Sub-Committee (my Committee), although that 2010 section  is poorly worded, rambling and required removal of two or three planks where the objective (Sonogram Law and the “Choose Life” license plate) had been achieved.

From there, the process deteriorated. As of now, at 8:15 PM, the various special interests are inserting proposals promoting the expansion of government, rather than limited government.

I’m beginning to understand Ron Paul’s “No” votes.
More tomorrow! (Unless I decide to become a Libertarian in the meantime.)

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst: A Record of Results

Why do I support David Dewhurst for Texas Senator?

From the Preamble to the 2010 Platform of the Republcan Party of Texas: The embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas.”

The result of conservative government in Texas is clear. Our State’s direction with the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Governor Rick Perry is a Conservative example for the Nation. Their policies and achievements demonstrate the results of action based on the belief that true liberty is Pro-life, Pro-Family, Pro-business, holds the line on taxes, spending, torts, and Washington, DC interference and regulation.

Texas leads the Nation in the creation of jobs. Our unemployment rate went down to 6.9% in May, in spite of legal US immigrants that average close to a thousand a day. Lt. Governor Dewhurst has balanced our budget in Texas, even when it meant cutting $10 million in 2003 and $15 million in 2011. In fact, the 82nd Legislature  cut Texas’ dollar amount spending below the previous biennial amount for the first time since WWII. Adjusted for inflation and population, Texas spends less than when Dewhurst took office.

And there is no contest when it comes to legislative victories on social issues. Texas’ Defense Of Marriage Act was passed not once but twice under Lt. Governor Dewhurst; the second time amended our State Constitution. Thanks to his leadership, Texas passed our own Prenatal Protection Act and the “Woman’s Right to Know” informed consent law in 2003. This year, we not only added sonograms to the informed consent law, we also managed to move all of our State health care funding away from abortion providers and any of their corporate affiliates. Yes, that’s right, Texas de-funded Planned Parenthood.

The 2011 Texas 82nd Legislature was also incredibly effective on protecting our State’s borders and Sovereignty;  banning drivers’ licenses for illegals, getting Voter ID, allocating $400Million for border security, and changing the law to allow Texas authorities to turn illegal aliens over for timely deportation after they’ve served their jail time. And yet, Lt. Governor Dewhurst’s opponents ignore these victories, claiming that the Lieutenant Governor “killed” two Bills in 2011: the Transportation Security Agency Anti-Groping Bill and the Sanctuary Cities Bill. However, both the TSA and Sanctuary Cities Bills were passed by the Senate at different times. The problem was coordination with the House, where the Speaker refused to allow timely consideration of the Bill and opposition by some strong conservatives, including Steve Hotze and Norm Adams.  In the Special Session, the TSA bill was passed by the Senate, along with the biennial budget and a landmark omnibus medical finance bill.

In fact, even the “failed” passage of the TSA Bill in the Senate during the 82nd Legislature’s Regular Session was an example of the power of Dewhurst. He is said to have “twisted arms,” along with Governor Perry, to get the vote to the floor, even going so far as to try to “suspend the rules” to bring it up out of order. The Democrat Senators block-voted to prevent the 2/3 vote necessary while every single Republican voted for it. It is likely that had the Lt. Governor not pushed for the suspension of the rules on the TSA Bill, the budget would have passed in the Regular Session if it hadn’t come down to the midnight filibuster by the Dems.

Finally, I support Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst because he’s proven that he believes that  “The government has no money, it’s the people’s money.”

Texas Tribune Poll and Informed Texas Voters

Texas Tribune is hyping their poll as proof that there will likely be a run off in both the Republican and Democrat primary races for US Senator. But the big news should be how well informed and politically involved Texas voters appear to be.

It’s not just the disapproval of Obama (58% total and 46% “Disapprove strongly”) or the probable vote for Mitt Romney in the graphic above. Take a look at some of the information gathering questions.

Out of 800 registered Texas voters, 48% are “extremely interested in politics and public affairs. 32% vote in every election and another 35% vote in almost every election.

73% were able to identify the majority party in the US House of Representatives. (I wish they’d cross-checked that with the same question about the Senate.) 69% correctly stated that it takes a 2/3 vote to over turn a presidential veto. And 66% correctly identified Greg Abbott as our Texas Attorney General.

Yes, we’re probably in for a couple of run off elections, and yes,it will get even uglier. But the voters are better informed than I was afraid.

Devore: How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News

Chuck DeVore, former California Assemblyman has moved to Texas and sings our praises, while pointing out the pitfalls of statist California:

Texas’ bureaucracy, excluding teachers, is 22 percent smaller as a portion of the population than is California’s, with every Texan paying about $467 a year for government retiree benefits, compared to California’s $1,105 in pension costs. Sky-high benefits for bureaucrats may soon cause the bankruptcy of Stockton, California’s 13th-largest city.

California has more government paper-pushers but Texas has 17 percent more teachers per capita, with educational outcomes favoring the Lone Star State. In fact, Texas K-12 schools perform consistently above the national average across age, racial, and subject matter areas, while California schools perform well below the national average.

To support its bloated government, California asks more of its taxpayers who pay 10.6 percent of their income to state and local government, above the U.S. average of 9.8 percent. Texans pay only 7.9 percent.

via How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News.

Donna Campbell: pro-life. Jeff Wentworth: not

Not until the 3rd trimester, at 7 months or 24 weeks or so, anyway. And that’s exactly why I was one of the many who asked Dr. Donna Campbell to run for Senator for Senate District 25.

This is the man who fought the Choose Life license Plate for 6 years, who voted against the Sonogram Bill. Contrast this man with Dr. Donna Campbell the Conservative candidate for Senator from Senate District 25! Contrast

In fact, Wentworth brought up the subject of abortion up to the 3rd trimester at the Rotary Club meeting last Thursday, when I was either too busy giving Dr. Donna’s credentials  — and definitely too wimpy, compared to this woman. He made the same statement about abortion being illegal in the 3rd trimester.

If my video doesn’t work, you can watch it at the Wentworth on Abortion

Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program

What happened: Texas passed a law last summer, SB 7, that specifically said that if the State is forced to give money to “entities that affiliate with abortion-promoting entities,” the State would shut down the Women;s Health Program. The Obama Administration tried to force the State to violate this law. Then, a Federal Judge  ruled that the law couldn’t go into effect,

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to require the state to keep Planned Parenthood in the program until he makes a decision on the merits of the case.

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of the injunction, which was granted by Judge Jerry E. Smith.

via Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program – San Antonio Express-News.

If the injunction had stood, there would be no Women’s Health Program in Texas. Planned Parenthood seems to think that if their corporation can’t have money, no one should. Luckily, Judge Smith understood the emergency.

Planned Parenthood wasn’t hard to replace. WingRight reported on the thousands of other doctors and clinics that participate in the WHP and how to find one in your area, here.

Update, 8 AM May 2:

The attacks are on against Judge Smith.

More at the usual suspects like the Texas Tribune.

Funny, the TT doesn’t take this opportunity to link to its own interactive map showing other providers or to link to Obama’s $61 million dollar grant  to Texas public health clinics.

Health Care spending continues to fall

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

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

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

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

Obama Administration Overturns Congress, $192M to Palestinian Authority

The US House and Senate specifically denied these funds. I’m assuming that Obama signed the Bill into law. But, what’s law got to do with it?

HotAir.com reported on an article detailing instructions from the White House to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on how to report to Congress about the funds.

. . . In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 contained a provision that said none of the funds “may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.”

In November, the US Congress released $40 million but the State Department had expressed concern about being able to provide the necessary funding to address the dire economic and humanitarian hardship facing Palestinians.

More explanation from the UPI:

 Obama cited his authority under section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 section 7040(a) of the Act, to provide appropriated funds to the Palestinian Authority.

. . . House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., had questioned the Obama administration’s request for $147 million for the Palestinian Authority at a time when P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded preconditions for returning to the negotiations while also pushing a unilateral statehouse plan at the United Nations. She also expressed concern that $26.4 million had been requested for projects in Hamas-run Gaza.

“The administration also says we need to help ‘rebuild the Palestinian economy’ — this at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

Jordan Fishman, US Businessman, on Ted Cruz, Appellant Lawyer

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

David Dewhurst, running for Texas Senator, has been running an ad about the choice by his opponent Ted Cruz to become the lawyer for a Chinese company that stole intellectual property from a US company owned by septuagenarian Jordan Fishman.

In a new youtube audio post, hear Mr. Fishman tell Matt Patrick, a Houston talk radio host, that witnesses stated under oath that the thieves believed that they would win because the American would either die or go broke before winning the case. (If you’re short on time, go about 6 minutes in for the meat of the story.)

Mr. Fishman is the owner of the company, Alpha Tire Systems, that successfully sued the Chinese-owned Shandong Linglong Tyre Company for copying blueprints and breaking the laws of the US. A Federal jury found in favor of Mr. Fishman and awarded him $26 million. Alpha had lost business, forcing them to cut staff from 25 to 5, and costing an estimated $19 million in lost sales after Linglong copied his blueprints and used the stolen information to manufacture and sell tires identical to the Alpha products.

Listen as Mr. Fishman tells us that he intends to survive, both in life and business, until he makes the thieves pay. He details the facts: that Ted Cruz chose to take on the case as “Attorney at Record” after the jury found the Chinese and Dubai companies liable. The Linglong appeals brief is here. The appeal claims that US patent law doesn’t count, since the theft took part outside of the US borders.

Mr. Cruz claims that he’s not so bad, since he is the “appellant,” not the “trial lawyer”. He also states that “this is what lawyers do,” and asserts that Shandong Linglong is a “private company” in China.Yes, it’s “private,” since no stock is “publicly” held.

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

More from a 2010 Sarasota Times news story about the case, here. Politifact calls the story “Mostly true,” the only dispute is between using “guilty” vs. “liable.” And “Tire Business” reports on Mr. Fishman’s happiness two years ago, when he thought his troubles were over.

On “Tax Day”

How’s your tax return? A lot of hope, no change?

Did you over-pay and get back money – without interest – you could have been using all year long? Did you underpay and now have to scramble to make a payment — or face fines and interest that the IRS sure won’t pay you if the tables were turned?

Or are you one of the lucky few who had to make “quarterly estimated tax payments” in addition to your tax return? Yes, that’s right: if you look like you might owe more taxes than most people, the IRS forces you to pay up front, every 3 months. Still without any promise of interest if you over-pay.

Vote in the Primaries and in November like your life depended on it!

First Amendment on Life Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Big Lie, Buffett Version

No matter how often it’s repeated, it’s a lie that the
Buffett rule will cut deficit or increase the money available for
Washington, DC to spend. The highest I’ve seen is $47 Billion dollars
over 10 years in revenue from the Buffett tax increase. That’s less
than one day of current *deficit* Federal spending.

The entire premise is a lie. The capital gains taxes are taxed at the
corporate rate prior to bring dispersed to investors. And they’ve
already been taxed as income from the investors.

Taxes are punishment for achievement and investment. The Buffett rule
– while sparing Buffett’s own tax shelters, the foundations run by his
kids – is a disincentive for investors and punishment for the risk
required to achieve.

For more information – proof of the Big Lie –  on the rates and the amounts that “the rich” pay in taxes, take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office says about taxes and income levels:

• “The overall federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the bottom quintile (fifth) of the income distribution paid 4 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the middle quintile paid 14 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile, with the top 1 percent facing an average rate of close to 30 percent.
• “Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.  In 2007, the highest quintile earned 56 percent of pretax income and paid 69 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 19 percent of income and paid 28 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4 percent of income and paid less than 1 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13 percent of income and paid 9 percent of taxes.”

Feral Hogs and “Real Budget Solutions” for Texas

While reviewing budget issues with Dr. Donna Campbell, we discovered “Real Texas Budget Solutions” (a pdf) from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Besides recommending that Texas’ State agencies begin cutting budgets, now, rather than later, the paper suggests eliminating funding for the following:

Commission on the Arts; Texas Historical Commission; Texas Public Utility Commission: System Benefit Fund, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Program; Fiscal Programs— Comptroller of Public Accounts: Major Events Trust Fund; Trusteed Programs within the Office of the Governor: Texas Music Office, Texas Film Commission, Economic Development and Tourism Division, Texas Enterprise Fund, Emerging Technology Fund, Economic Development Bank, and Texas Tourism program; Texas Workforce Commission: Skills Development Program; Texas Windstorm Insurance Association; Texas Education Agency: Regional Education Service Centers, Student Success Initiative, Steroid Testing, Campus Turnaround Team Support, Best Buddies; Higher Education Coordinating Board: Doctoral Incentive Program, Top Ten Percent Scholarship Program, and Research University Development Fund; Library and Archives Commission: Resource Sharing and Local Aid; Office of Public Insurance Counsel; Office of Public Utility Counsel; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Texas Emission Reduction Program; Pollution Prevention Advisory Council; Take Care of Texas Program; Texas Clean School Bus Program; and Recycling Market Development Implementation Program; Texas Department of Agriculture: Seed Quality, Seed Certification, Feral Hog Abatement, Egg Inspection Program, and Agricultural Commodity; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Promotion and Outreach Programs; Texas Railroad Commission: Energy Resource Development and Alternative Energy Promotion; Board of Plumbing Examiners; Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists; Funeral Service Commission.

I saw a couple in there that I wonder about (and had to wonder about my own Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency) but where *do* we start? Everyone of these agencies and boards is taking money from Texas taxpayers’ own budgets.  Which can be better done privately?

(That photo is one that I took at a macadamia nut farm on  Hawaii, September, 2011).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post bias rallies abortion supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ObamaCare Morbity and Mortality Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

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

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

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

A question by Justice Alito :

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

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

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

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

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

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

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

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

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

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

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

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

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

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

Find a Women’s Health Program doctor in Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ObamaCare facts from American Doctors for Truth!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross posted at LifeEthics.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paralysis, Gridlock?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holder blocks Texas ID Voter law

The Constitution does not mandate that all the big decisions will be made by the Courts and bureaucrats and only the inconsequential will be made by the Legislature.

Wonder how many photo ID’s Holder required in the “Operation Gunwalker” he enabled?

Breaking news this morning (Texas Tribune here, Washington Post story, here)  is that the Obama Administration has refused to allow — under the 1965 Voter’s Rights Act – the implementation of the Texas voter ID law passed by our elected  Legislature last May!

This is overreaching and poor (pointed, result-driven) use of statistics.

How many “Hispanics” don’t have “Spanish surnames?” How many with Spanish surnames don’t consider themselves disadvantaged?

Why is there no mention of the traditional racial minority, African Americans, in so many of the news article quotes from Holder?

I needed a photo ID to pick up a FedEx shipment. I can’t use my credit card without a photo ID. College and High School students get photo ID’s at school.

Good grief, I need a photo ID and to allow a stranger to grope me if I want to go on an airplane.

And last week, at the Nation’s Capitol, I had to submit to scanning to enter any of the Federal buildings!

And I needed that photo ID to check into my hotel.

The Voting Rights Act is 40 years old and was in reaction to the abuses of Democrats. Most of the subsequent 40 years, Democrats held the power in Texas and in the US House and Senate. Why is this considered a Democrat cause? (In my opinion: because they are *not* in power at the moment, at least to the extent they want it.)

Larry and I heard snippets of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Lincoln Memorial Speech, yesterday. The crowd sang, “We shall overcome.”

I wonder whether we will ever get to that point where anyone feels that we have overcome?

Oppose theObama Standoff!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Women Speak for Themselves” up to 4 pages

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

Here We Are!

@GovernorPerry appointed me to Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency

I can’t say the whole name of the Institute in one breath, so I alternate between calling it “the Institute,” or “tick” for “TIHCQE.”

TIHCQE will make recommendations to the Texas Legislature on how to measure quality and efficiency and help bring innovation to cut costs while still taking care of our Medicaid patients, those who have State health plans, and future “health care collaboratives” or HCC’s. The latter could be the Accountable Care Organizations that are laid out in the Accountable Care Act (“Obamacare”), or something brand new in Texas.

Anyway, I sent out this notice this morning:

For immediate release:
Reference: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/appointment/17014/

Governor Rick Perry Appoints Beverly B. Nuckols, MD, FAAFP, to Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency

Austin, Texas – Texas Governor Rick Perry has appointed New Braunfels Family Physician, Beverly B. Nuckols, MD, FAAFP, to the Board of Directors of the Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency, for a term to expire January 31, 2013.

The 82nd Legislature created the Texas Institute for Health Care Quality and Efficiency as part of Senate Bill 7.  The Institute is charged with improving health care quality, accountability, education and cost to the state by encouraging health care provider collaboration, effective health care delivery models and coordination of health care services.

Nuckols, a board certified family physician in private practice, has lived in New Braunfels with her husband, Larry, since 1993. She is a member of the Texas Medical Association, American and Texas Academies of Family Physicians, and the Comal County Medical Association. Nuckols serves on the Board of Directors for Texas Alliance for Life, New Braunfels Options for Women and is the Chair of the Family Medicine Section of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. She has served as a member of the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, and a board member of the Comal County Women’s Shelter and New Braunfels Hospice.

Nuckols received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas at Tyler, and completed medical school and family practice residency at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.  She received a Masters in Bioethics in 2007 from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

—End—