Public Policy

Texas Governor Perry Pushes Back (Family Planning, Women’s Health and PP)

Governor Rick Perry is pushing back against the Obama Administration’s threat to kill our Texas Women’s Health Program due to law passed by the Legislature last June. The Governor’s office has produced 4 new videos (one of which includes me) explaining that the State is prepared to ensure that women are able to access continuing comprehensive care under these programs.

If you only have time for one, watch Carol Everett’s video in which she relates that the Commissioner of Health and Human Services has identified 2500 doctors willing to participate with the Well Woman Program and Texas’ Family Planning, even in rural areas where there has never been a Planned Parenthood clinic. There are also videos from former Waco PP Executive Director Abby Johnson, Texas Alliance for Life’s Executive Director Joe Pojman, Ph.D., and me.

The videos can be viewed at the Governor’s YouTube page and via the Office of the Governor website. They are the beginning of a series of announcements and news releases in hopes of convincing the Obama Administration and Secretary Sebelius to preserve these programs. Time is short as the current Medicaid waiver is due to expire at the end of March.

Stop and think about it: What the media is reporting as a single crisis is really the effect of two separate events. One is the cut in funding to Family Planning that went into effect in October,  along with many other cuts that were made in order to balance the State budget according to the Texas Constitution while paying for Medicaid for children and education.  The second is what is happening in a few clinics that are partners with other clinics that do abortions and are panicking because they are about to lose State funds.

Where are the reports about the thousands of providers who have agreed to see patients under both these programs?

The media is also acting as though the law prohibiting anyone who performs or refers to abortions, or who is a business partner with an abortion provider is brand new or that the Governor got up one morning and changed the law. No, the House and Senate of the 82nd Texas Legislature deliberated for months on Medicaid funding, including the best way to provide care under the Family Planning Title X funds and the Medicaid funded Women’s Health Program. They continued the old prohibition on funding affiliates.

The only change is that the Attorney General has clarified that “affiliates” include organizations that are part of the same national corporation.

The media and President Obama also ignore that the legislature won’t meet until January, 2013, so there is no way to change the law that appropriates State Tax funds.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you: I was nervous as I could be and I spent too much time giving a list of my credentials. But if you’re brave, here’s my video.

Wall Street Poll on Marriage

The Wall Street Journal’s “Question of the Day” for February 8th was  “Should gay marriage be legal in the United States?” For some reason, it appeared in the side bar today, so I voted and commented. As of 10 AM, March 6th, the vote is 53.9% to 46.1%, with 2975 votes for “Yes” and 2540 “No” votes.

The comments are typical of these debates: opposition to homosexual marriage is presented as something instigated by people who oppose it due to their hatred of homosexuals, their bigotry, and their narrow religious beliefs.

First, the people who started this “battle” are the ones who want to change the law and continue to push by filing appeal after appeal against laws in existence in order to change the law and the definition of marriage. Proposition 8 in 2008 in California and the Texas Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment (DOMA) in 2005 were in response to Court cases such as the one in Massachusetts declaring that it was unconstitutional in that State to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Second, opposition to changing the law and definition of marriage  does not require that we hate anyone the same way that we hate child abuse.

There is a wide range of sexual attraction among humans, but the norm is opposite-sex-attraction (OSA) between physical adults.

And then, there are the basic facts of anatomy and physiology.

While biology is not destiny, it has consequences: form follows function. In fact, the male and female sexual organs are complimentary in purpose and function. That function involves one set  – the complementary organs of one man and one woman.

There is no parallel between the form of a water fountain or seats on a bus and the race of the user as there is between the male and female form  and sexual function. There certainly is no physiological reason to discriminate between same-race and interracial marriage.

If you want to stick with the cerebral, there are also problems in declaring that same-sex-attraction (SSA) is equivalent to OSA. The history of legalized or non-criminalized homosexual marriage is less than 20 years old. There is much more history to support interracial and polygamous marriage.  There’s no logical reasoning that if the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual marriages, that these won’t be legalized, too.

Update on Texas, Contraception, and Women Who Vote (and blog)

Over the weekend, there were more op-eds published in online magazines and newspapers all over the Internet championing women’s “right” to contraceptives and nearly everyone of them tied that “right” to the “right” to obtain an abortion. Search the news on “Texas contraception politics” and you’ll find a few dozens of articles published repeatedly in newspapers across the Nation. They often begin discussing cuts in State funding for contraception and move straight to the theme that mean old Republicans in Texas just don’t want to pay for abortions.

Yes, we don’t want to pay for abortions or support corporations that do them. That is our “choice.”

However, the reality is that Texas Legislators had no choice other than to cut spending. Where is the money going to come from?

Texas also cut money to train resident doctors – the future family doctors, OB/Gyns and pediatricians because there was not enough money. But I don’t see any articles on “The war against physician workforce.”

The only way to raise money would be to raise taxes. In order to raise taxes, we would have to have a vote to change our Constitution. I, for one, would vote “no.”

Everyone – including the Obama Administration – ignores the fact that Texas’ part-time Legislature will not meet again until January 2013, so there won’t be a chance to change the funding until after the November election.

Please notice the hateful tone of many of the blogs, op-eds and especially the readers’ comments and letters to the editors. And note that they always focus in on abortion – and that even the National articles narrow in on Texas. The truly mean comments claim that Republicans hate women. Some articles are even titled, “. . . War on Women,” and “When States Abuse Women.” One of the “War on Women” articles was published in the UK’s Guardian.

Women vote in Texas. We believe that life begins at fertilization and that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the right to life.

And we sure don’t have extra money to pay higher taxes. How hard is that concept to understand?

Here are the women – thousands of us

Earlier, I linked to an “Open Letter to President Obama, Secretary Sebelius and Members of Congress.” There are now about 2000 names of women from all over the country who volunteered to add their “signature” to the letter. I believe that more will be added, since I received a response from the organizers on March 3, but can’t find my name on the list.

Here is the “Open Letter” in full:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON’T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

 

(Found my name! Add yours!)

Pro-Planned Parenthood against @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry wrote an Editorial about the refusal of the Medicaid waiver for our Women’s Health Program by the Obama Administration. While it appears that very few news organizations actually print the op-ed, many have published their own, and a few reference the Governor’s essay. (A search at Google News on “Women’s Health Program” yields about 100 media posts, more blogs.)

Once again, the comments from the media and readers are derogatory, don’t contain the facts, and very critical of all of us “anti-abortion idiots” (per one commenter at Texas Tribune).

Texas has had law limiting the distribution of Medicaid and the Woman’s Health Program funds to those who perform, refer to, or affiliate with abortion providers for years, and received waivers in the past – even from this Administration – under this law.

The real difference is that this year, the Legislature prioritized funds to providers who provide comprehensive, continuing care at Federal, State, local, and County health clinics.

Yes, there was a renewal of the ban on abortion providers, although PP itself was never mentioned. And, yes, the Attorney General has clarified the meaning of “affiliate.”

However, while a nice side benefit, PP wasn’t excluded because they are PP. They were excluded because the State had to prioritize our funds and PP doesn’t offer comprehensive continuing care. They don’t treat high blood pressure, but Federally Qualified Health Centers do. They don’t treat diabetes, but the health clinic run by the county does. They don’t even write orders for mammograms, they just have a list of clinics that do.

In the last few months, the State has already made contracts and arrangements with other providers for a more efficient use of the limited funds we have. If access is cut, it won’t be for a lack of doctors and clinics – it will be because the Obama Administration doesn’t like the way our Legislature decided to prioritize the funds.

There is no federal law that says that Texas has to make contracts with anyone and everyone. As pointed out by the Governor and in this fantastic letter from the Executive Commissioner of the State Department of Human Services, Tom Suehs, the Social Security Act specifically gives the right to the State Legislatures set preconditions for contracting with the State to provide Medicaid.

Since PP only provides a narrow range of care, they don’t qualify – even though they aren’t mentioned in the law. They don’t treat high blood pressure or diabetes, or even do mammograms.

However, the Obama admin – and all those hateful commenters and editorializers – choose to focus on only one “provider.” The same organization that had 4 illegal abortion clinics shut down in San Antonio. The one that gives directions to facilities that do mammograms, but doesn’t even write prescriptions or give orders for the mammogram lab. The one that Texas is finding surprisingly easy to replace.

Now, our limited State tax dollars will go to Women’s Health Program doctors and clinics where they can receive treatment after being screened.

Exec. Office of President visits WingRight.org

There are several programs that give me information about visits to the website. Sometimes I know the location and even their actual site of the visitor.

Today, around 9:30 AM, someone at the Executive Office of the President (USA) spent 36 seconds viewing WingRight. The entry page was yesterday’s post about the AMA’s endorsement of the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

They also visited my posts that mentioned Layoff Lloyd Doggett. This means that they had to do an actual search. There have been other White House and DC visits to individual WingRight.org posts that mention Layoff in the past.

I understand why the WH may have been searching for news on the IPAB. It’s an integral part of the pretense of balancing the budget – or at least decreasing the deficit – through Obamacare. Why is the White House – the Executive Office of the President, no less – so interested in the man responsible for so many teachers being laid off in Texas?

The AMA supports repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)

The American Medical Association has published a letter in support of the Congressmen who are attempting to overturn the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). I’m no longer a member of the AMA, but salute them for this move.

On behalf of the physician and medical student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I am writing to express our strong support for H.R. 452, which was introduced by Representative Phil Roe, and would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Accordingly, we strongly support the advancement of this important legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The AMA has consistently expressed its opposition to the IPAB on several grounds. The IPAB puts important health care payment and policy decisions in the hands of an independent body that has far too little accountability. Major changes in the Medicare program should be decided by elected officials. We have already seen first-hand the ill effects of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) physician target and the steep Medicare cuts that Congress has had to scramble each year to avoid, along with the significantly increasing price tag of a long-term SGR solution. Adding additional formulaic cuts through IPAB is just not rational and would be detrimental to patient care, especially as millions of baby boomers enter Medicare.
The experience with the SGR also raises concerns about policy decisions based on projections that require subsequent adjustments to reflect more accurate data. In 2003, Congress had to take action to allow the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to correct $54 billion in projection errors under the SGR target. The IPAB also imposes a rigid budget target that is prone to “projection errors” that would force Congress to produce billions of dollars in offsets due to inaccurate calculations.
We appreciate the need to reduce the federal budget deficit and control the growth of spending in Medicare. However, we believe that this can best be achieved by Congress working in a bipartisan manner to reform the delivery system and improve quality, access, and efficiency. At a time in which Congress is struggling to eliminate the SGR, it does not make sense to allow another rigid formula to be implemented that risks a bigger set of problems for a broader cross-section of Medicare services.
We thank you for your leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with you to repeal the IPAB and preserve access for seniors to their physicians.

British Journal of Medical Ethics: “after-birth abortion”

“1. The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.
“2. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her
from developing the potentiality to become a person in the
morally relevant sense.”

The British Journal of Medical Ethics  continues to publish thought exercises that go against common sense and traditional medical ethics, “emphasising” (British spelling) the utilitarian world-view  of today’s “medical ethics,” without the slightest acknowledgment that there might be harm in the act of arguing that not all human beings are “morally relevant persons.”

This month, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, redefine “abortion,” “euthanasia,” and “infanticide” in “After-Birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?”

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

The arguments don’t work other than as an example of the logical results of the utilitarian world view that has come to dominate medical ethics and to illustrate what Leon Kass called “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” or the “yuck factor.”

One of the editors, Julian Salvulescu, who believes that values and conscience lead to “a Pandora’s box of idiosyncratic, bigoted, discriminatory medicine,” defends the piece on the grounds that that the ideas are not new.  Indeed, the authors discuss the history of killing babies before and after birth because of medical diagnoses such as Down’s syndrome and after birth due to suffering of the child or the lack of worth placed on the child by his or her mother. The Netherland’s “Groningen Protocol” for active euthanasia of children is mentioned as precedent for government support for their position.

We should let these “expressions” be a warning to us all in these days of increasing government involvement in healthcare. As the authors argue,

“Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Freedom of expression and the discussion of even such unpopular ideas do have a place in our world. However, I wonder at an “ethics” journal whose editors claim that their

“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.”

Obviously, they do support “sound rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression”  over “moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks.”

At what point would the editors determine that “ethicists” should be censured, corrected or even retrained? Would the Journal publish a “sound rational argument” that advocates the end of “freedom of ethical expression?”

Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com

An op-ed by Joe Pojman, PhD, the Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life, which discusses who is really to “blame” if the Texas Women’s Health Program is cut because we lose our Federal funds. (I’m privileged to be on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

Last June the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 7, which allows for the renewal of the WHP, on a Senate vote of 21-9 and a House vote of 96-48. The bill prohibits the state from contracting with entities that “perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”

Federal law allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid.

There are ample alternate WHP providers in Texas who are not involved in abortion. These physicians and clinics typically offer comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning. These providers could become the medical home for low-income women. The Obama Administration is about to deny WHP funds to these quality providers, and to the women they serve, just because Texas wants to fund these without funding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is a poor investment of public funds. Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary and preventative care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have one mammogram machine anywhere in Texas. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.

Planned Parenthood should not be trusted with our tax dollars. For example, Planned Parenthood of San Antonio operated four abortion facilities illegally without a license for as long as four years until they were discovered by the State in 2009 and fined more than $100,000. They were required to return thousands of dollars billed to the WHP.

The Obama Administration, not the Legislature or the Governor, will be to blame for killing the Women’s Health Program, if the Obama Administration does not renew the program just because Planned Parenthood is excluded.

via Obama cares more about Planned Parenthood than women’s health | LifeSiteNews.com.

Texas Redistricting: You can’t make this stuff up (Burnt Orange can)

I don’t even have to emphasize or extrapolate from round about comments. The Left lays it out for me.

From the Burnt Orange (far, far left) blog, examples that only the right kind of minorities are acceptable – the Democrat minorities:

CD-17 got 18 points more Democratic, probably by the inclusion of north Austin and southern Williamson County. However, this incarnation still would have gone 58-41 for McCain in 2008. This is Bill Flores’ district, who ousted Chet Edwards in 2010.

CD-23 went from a 51-84 Obama to 50-49 Obama. So this district, which elected Quico “I Hate Cops and Firefighters” Canseco in the 2010 wave, managed to get even MORE Republican. That’s tough news for Rep. Pete Gallego, who is challenging Canseco. Good job MALDEF, making it harder for Hispanics in CD-23 to elect the DEMOCRAT they want over the QUICO CANSECO they don’t.

CD-25, the Austin-based district that sends Lloyd Doggett to Congress and represents most of Central Austin, went from 59-40 Obama to 43-56 McCain. The district is a travesty of minority disenfranchisement — it draws the East Austin minority neighborhoods into a district that scoops up the minority / servicemember precincts in Bell County and wraps up in Tarrant. It’s designed to elect African-American Republican Michael Williams instead of a Democrat who cares about minorities’ needs. Good work, MALDEF!

Artificial womb and the right to life

It often seems that we fight increasing de-volition of traditional human and medical ethics with new technological advances. Here’s evidence that sometimes ethics and the understanding of human dignity can or could advance.

hat would an artificial womb mean? Well,according to this futurist,

In immediate terms, the foundations on which a woman’s rights to choose are predicated in Roe v. Wade, namely the issue of fetal viability and the right to privacy (the right not to be pregnant), will be rendered virtually meaningless.  First, once a fetus can be safely and entirely gestated outside of a biological womb, it can be removed from its mother.  Second, ectogenesis means that viability starts with conception.

(by Soraya Chemaly, original at RH Reality Check)

I’m  reminded of a science fiction story about the need to duplicate the normal intrauterine environment  that I read in the 80’s, which ended with the advice, “Use original container.”

However, would we say that or the equivalent to a recipient of a heart or kidney transplant? Or even a diabetes patient?

The interesting argument, here, is that the extra uterine *individual* is recognized as a human being, a being with his or her own humanity.

Enabling vs. Providing “Infrastructure” for Family Planning (and a Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas)

It’s not just right wing, Christian “anti-choicers” (we really prefer to be called “pro-life”) who understand that paying abortion providers and those who refer to them under Medicaid and Title X funds enables them to do abortions. From the Guttmacher Institute:

Title X is a grant program under which funds are distributed to grantees who design and operate their own programs—funding can be targeted to local needs and challenges. Unlike Medicaid, for example, Title X can subsidize the intensive outreach necessary to encourage some individuals to seek services. Furthermore, by paying for everything from staff salaries to utility bills to medical supplies, Title X funds provide the essential infrastructure support that enables clinics to go on and claim Medicaid reimbursement for the clients they serve.

So, whoever receives title X funding is “enabled” to stay in business. In these days of low tax revenues and high demand, shouldn’t Texas only “enable” comprehensive, continuing care?

Unfortunately, Texas representatives of Texas taxpayers found themselves limited in funds this year and we had to prioritize where we allocated Family Planning money. Funding for the Family Planning programs and the Texas Women’s Health Program, which receives Medicaid money, was directed toward programs and doctors that offer continuing, comprehensive care, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), State, County and local clinics and hospitals, and fee for service doctors that participate with Medicaid.

However, in article after article, the law which sets aside money to pay for contraceptives and never mentions Planned Parenthood, is said to have been a weapon in the war on contraceptives and abortion, and in particular, against Planned Parenthood.

Medicaid is supposed to be a health program for the very poor, but Congress has allowed States some flexibility when it comes to the disabled and to pregnant women, through a system of waivers. Texas began our Women’s Health Program in 2007, asking for a waiver to spend funds to screen women for disease, including high blood pressure, diabetes, and even tuberculosis, not just for STD’s, breast cancer and cervical cancer. The program also pays for the prescription and dispensing of contraception – including Natural Family Planning! – to women who are not pregnant or disabled, and who would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid.

The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has refused this year’s request for a waiver to apportion the funds because of the stipulation that the State’s money will not go to affiliates of those who either perform or refer to elective abortions.

Just to be clear, “elective abortions” mean those that are done because the healthy mother carrying a healthy child seeks an abortion, not those done to prevent damage to her health or save her life. “Elective abortions” don’t even include those done in healthy mothers with healthy babies who were conceived through rape or incest. Procedures to treat tubal or ectopic pregnancies are never considered abortions, either “elective” or medical.

The law, HB 7, passed in the Special Session of the 82nd Legislature does not mention Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider. The text stresses that our State must prioritize how we are to spend our limited tax dollars:

Sec.531.0025. RESTRICTIONS ON AWARDS TO FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE PROVIDERS. (a)Notwithstanding any other law, money
appropriated to the Department of State Health Services for the purpose of providing family planning services must be awarded:
(1) to eligible entities in the following order of descending priority:
(A) public entities that provide family planning services, including state, county, and local community health clinics and federally qualified health centers;
(B) nonpublic entities that provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services in addition to family planning services; and
(C) nonpublic entities that provide family planning services but do not provide comprehensive primary and preventive care services; or
(2) as otherwise directed by the legislature in the General Appropriations Act.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the Department of State Health Services shall, in compliance with federal law, ensure distribution of funds for family planning services in a manner that does not severely limit or eliminate access to those services in any region of the state.

(b) Section 32.024, Human Resources Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows:
(c-1) The department shall ensure that money spent for purposes of the demonstration project for women ’s health care services under former Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, or a similar successor program is not used 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.

The Texas Tribune has published a map of family planning clinics in Texas, claiming to point out which clinics will stop receiving taxpayer money in March of this year.

The  In Texas, the Legislature has drastically reduced funding for family planning agencies that serve low-income women statewide. There are 41 agencies that receive funding today, down from 71 last year. Those organizations often operate multiple clinics that provide Texans with contraceptives and disease screenings.

Using the most up-to-date information available through the Texas Department of State Health Services, we have mapped out the locations of government-subsidized family planning clinics in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Not only are there fewer contractors each year, but those that receive grants are getting less money. During the 2011 session, lawmakers redirected virtually all state funds that have traditionally gone to family planning services to other programs. Today, nearly all public funding for these clinics comes from the federal government’s four-decade-old Title X program, which is dedicated to family planning.

via Updated: Map of Government-Funded Family Planning Providers in Texas.

Everyone who would like to support those clinics, should send a donation — because the Texas Legislature won’t meet again until January of 2013 and the law can’t be changed until then.

Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com

A victory – 5 years in the making – for conscience. freedom of religion, and the “free exercise thereof.”

A lower court issued an injunction against the new rules, on the basis that the suit was likely to succeed. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court ruling that had temporarily put on hold a requirement for pharmacists to dispense all legal drugs.

Now back at the lower court level ruling on the merits of the case itself, the court issued the pharmacists a legal victory.

“The Board of Pharmacy’s 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable,” the Court explained. “They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.”

“The Board’s regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception,” the court explained. “Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons].”

via Judge: Washington Can’t Mandate Pharmacists Dispense Plan B | LifeNews.com.

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org

WomenSpeakForThemselves.org.

Here are the women, President Obama and Secretary Sebelius!

We are not mute. We will not be silenced or ignored. We will make a difference.

State Agency Advertising on ‘Net?

Why is a State agency spending our money to advertise on the internet?

I was reading an article in the Texas Tribune, on the latest iteration of the “Golden Rule” (“He who has the gold, makes the rule.”), the imposition of forced tobacco free campuses by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas.

While considering the excessive force and high-handedness of the move by CPRIT to use State tax funds to coerce beneficiaries of State tax funds to police the use of a legal substance – tobacco – vs. the fact that this may be the one action by the Institute that prevents the most cancer, I noticed a couple of ads on the page, bearing the seal of the State of Texas.

Sure enough, when I clicked on one, it led me to the Office of Public Insurance Counsel.

Does the State need to be spending our money this way?

Texas Sonogram Law: More media lies

What woman doesn’t want to meet “her” doctor in person and receive her own medical information while awake, alert and before her legs are up in the stirrups? Should abortion be different from a heart bypass or setting a broken bone?

The Austin American-Statesman is once again proving itself an unreliable source of information, with its poor coverage of the Texas pre-abortion informed consent and sonogram law.

Today’s article repeats earlier claims that the doctor who performs the abortion must perform the ultrasound, when the law – and even the original injunction by the Federal judge – note that an agent of the doctor or a certified sonographer may do so.

While admitting, like others before, that the big problem is scheduling between the doctors and the mother, the article also reveals that the abortionists have been working around the intent of the 2003 “Woman’s Right to Know Act” (WRTK) by using telephone calls with the “provider” to satisfy the 24 hour waiting period and informed consent requirement.

Texas already had in place a requirement that a woman take part in a phone call with the provider 24 hours before the abortion so the doctor can tell her certain information mandated by the state. Included in those requirements are that the doctor tells her benefits may be available to help with medical care and that the father is required to help support the child.

Clinic administrators say the new rule, which requires the same doctor who does the sonogram to also perform the abortion, has complicated doctors’ and patients’ schedules.

The intent of the original WRTK and the update has always been to allow the woman to meet her doctor, have a chance to ask questions, and to inform her about alternatives and services available if she decides not to abort the baby.

Heritage Action Endorses Deal on Payroll, Unemployment and “Doc Fix”

Don’t be too quick to call our Republicans “RINO’s!”

Heritage Action for America is part of the family of Heritage Foundation institutions. They have noted the purely political nature of the arguments about the “tax cut extension” and support those Republicans who voted for the recent bill that extends the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits and prevented a huge cut in pay to doctors who see Medicare patients.

The deal comes after House Republicans prepared to move a standalone extension of the tax cuts. That changed the dynamic in two ways. First, President Obama and his allies became nervous about the fate of unemployment insurance benefits if they were not tied to the tax portion. Second, the insistence on “paying for” the extension of a tax cut (i.e., stopping a tax increase) waned. Why? Because allowing Americans to keep more of their own money shouldn’t be offset, because that wasn’t the government’s money to begin with.

Much of the gridlock surrounding the payroll tax cut extension came because Democrat negotiators insisted on preventing a tax hike by implementing a different tax hike.

via Deal Reached on Payroll, Unemployment and “Doc Fix” – Heritage Action for America.

Yes, Virginia (and the other 56 States), not everything in Congress is black and white – or absolutely Conservative vs. not-Conservative.

The final solution to big government is obviously to not only cut growth of government, but to get rid of past growth. We must also face the reality that spending must be cut.

However (you knew there would be a “however,” didn’t you?), the very conservative Heritage Action for America stressed to members of Congress and the rest of us that the best solution at this time was to move in such a way to prevent the other side from claiming victory – and doing so every two months throughout the election year.

The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational | RedState

Elegant rebuttal – by Red State diaryist Dan McLaughlin – to the 9th Circuit Court’s decision that Courts make the big decisions and the people and legislatures may not.

In fact, you cannot believe in moral progress of any kind if you do not believe in tradition, only a sort of moral Brownian motion in which nothing learned today has any guarantee against being unlearned tomorrow.

via The Proposition 8 Decision: Not Rational | RedState.

(Edited to add Mr. McLaughlin’s name and link.)

Texas Redistricting: two (Dem) white lawmakers hold up primary

The real hold up seems to be white Dem Lloyd Doggett and white Dem Wendy Davis. These are the “coalition” “choices” being fought over.

With the incumbent in the middle of the gallery, the lawyers argued over Congressional District 25, a district that is either safe for or hostile to U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin. It depends on the map.

In the proposal offered by the state and accepted by some of the plaintiffs — notably, the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force — Doggett would find himself in a Republican district that stretches from Hays County, south of Austin, north to Tarrant County. He would probably run in a newly created Congressional District 35, which includes eastern Travis County and runs south to San Antonio. It’s Democratic, but designed to give Latino voters a bigger say in who goes to Congress.

Attorneys for Doggett and for several of the minority plaintiffs argued that his district gives minority voters a choice and as a result is protected by the federal Voting Rights Act. Attorneys for the state, and for the Latino Task Force, argued that it’s not a protected district and that the changes make it easier to draw a new minority seat.

In Congressional District 27, the plaintiffs argue that the state stranded more than 200,000 Latino voters, again in violation of the voting laws. But the state said that the adjacent congressional district is a new minority seat and that there aren’t enough people in that area to draw two such seats.

In Congressional District 33, an inkblot of a district that straddles the Tarrant-Dallas county line, the plaintiffs said the state packed black voters into another district and denied them more say in the new seat. The state said that district was drawn to accommodate growing populations and not to create a new minority district, and said the plaintiffs were trying — there and in Congressional District 23 in south and west Texas — to draw new seats for Democrats and not for minorities.

via Redistricting lawyers reach deal on Texas senate maps | San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos, Texas.

Satisfied with higher cost, mortality?

Everyone who questioned the endless emphasis on patient satisfaction surveys in modern healthcare might be vindicated by a new study.  The Cost of Satisfaction: A National Study of Patient Satisfaction, Health Care Utilization, Expenditures, and Mortality concluded,

Conclusion: In a nationally representative sample, higher
patient satisfaction was associated with less emergency
department use but with greater inpatient use, higher overall
health care and prescription drug expenditures, and
increased mortality.

The results may be skewed by a phenomenon noted in the article: among seniors, there is no correlation at all between satisfaction and the “technical quality of care.”

I also question research that indicates that less and/or cheaper care is better, or that doctors over-treat their patients. I sometimes suspect the motive is to advocate for knee-jerk protocols and eventual rationing along with the removal of individual physician judgement in the treatment of individual patients.   (Dont’ think “death panels.” Okay, go ahead.)

However, this particular research looks at whether doctors order tests and treatments their patients ask for, whether or not the evidence supports that route. The researchers correlated these “discretionary” treatments and tests with satisfaction and with mortality, and came up with a 25% higher risk of mortality or death with in the time studied. (In the world of medical statistics, this is not a very high risk, but it is significant to those who die, right?)

The caveat is to watch and wait as the medical community evaluates the study and how the data was “cooked” by the statisticians. One area where the conclusion may be weak is that the health status of the patient was self reported (although mortality was not). I’d like to see correlation with lab values such as measurements of kidney function.

One of my fears has always been that I might become like some of the older docs I saw when I was training:  a very nice doctor who is well-liked but incompetent because I’ve failed to keep up my skills and knowledge. I should have worried about being the doctor who goes along to get along – or to make more money because my pay is directly related to how happy – not how healthy – I keep my patients.

Has Sarah Palin Forfeited the Role of Uniting Conservatives?

I believe that Governor Sarah Palin had the potential and many opportunities over the last 3 years to unite us in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he built his coalition between 1976 and 1980. The fact that she did not isn’t because Governor Palin herself is divisive, but because we Conservatives are a cantankerous and factious bunch who tend to eat our own and fight over degrees of commitment to the principles we hold dear.

“We’ll keep our God, we’ll keep our guns, we’ll keep our Constitution.”

Palin gave what should be a unifying,  landmark speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). She warned against turning on our candidates,

  “We know that the far left and their media allies can’t beat us on the issues, so instead, they distort our records,” she said. “They’ll even attack our families. Let’s not do the job for them. OK, Republicans? OK, independents?”

The news contains report after report about Palin’s passionate speech to an overflow crowd who cheered her with even more passion.  Human Event’s Tony Lee is not the only one who asked, “. . . how many who were listening to the speech were coming to the realization that Palin should be the GOP nominee for president?”

The problem is that Palin refused to be the candidate. Worse, she still has not supported any of the candidates, and her words at CPAC are being used to “do the job.”

Palin delayed her announcement about whether she would run for too long, adding to – or at least enabling – the very division and conflict within the Conservative movement that she told us to avoid in her CPAC speech.

While Mitt Romney,Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were visiting Iowa and New Hampshire long before announcing their candidacies, Palin coyly deferred any commitment to running. The very loyal and enthusiastic Palin supporters went on the attack against anyone who looked like a possible candidate in their hope that she would run. The rhetoric continued even after the announcement that she would not run, with those same supporters interpreting Palin’s comments to justify building up or tearing down through many re-shufflings of the front-runners.

And now, rather than calling for unity among Conservative voters, Palin seems to be supporting a brokered convention. Well, just as I called for her to make a decision about running for President, I’m asking her to use her power and skills to bring us together behind one of the Conservatives, whether an announced candidate or not.

I have a little crush on Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart. In “The Undefeated” documentary on Sarah Palin that was released last year by Steve Bannon, Mr. Breitbart chastised the rest of the Republican men for their failure to defend and protect Governor Palin. And Mr. Breitbart delivered my favorite line of the entire week in his speech on the “silver pony tail gang,” that morphed from the anti-war movement to the Occupiers : “Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!”(full video here)

Governor Palin, please join Mr. Breitbart and me in our march against the Occupiers and Barack Obama.

Surreal Occupy Sarah #CPAC2012 video on YouTube

Bless their little hearts.

Here’s the url of the video of the bunch of very well dressed, well fed chanters who attempted to disrupt Sarah Palin’s speech at CPAC in Washington, DC on Saturday, February 11, 2012.

I’m always struck by the Occupiers’ Kafka-esque use of shout and repeat in their public declarations.  It is surreal to watch and hear a group of Americans subvert their individuality into a collective repetition of short segments which are first dictated by their leader. I wonder how many realize that this form of speaking is reminiscent of catechisms and hymns, a tool to teach illiterate congregants official doctrine?

“Equality” and “solidarity” do not require the participants to chant the same words. Individuality and individual strengths and talents build strong movements, nurturing communities, and societies of opportunity.

Romney narrow Maine caucus win (But Paul claims “control” of caucus delegates)

Please, pay attention, people!

Sensing a possible victory, Paul hosted a party in Portland on Saturday evening. After the results were announced, he told supporters that Romney’s margin of victory was so small, “it’s almost like we could call it a tie.”

Paul also forecast that when Maine’s delegates were finally assigned, “we will control the Maine caucus when we go to Tampa” for the Republican convention in August.

via Romney, in comeback, has narrow Maine caucus win | Reuters.

Follow @bnuckols Tweets @CPACNews #CPAC2012

Take a look at the far right sidebar for my tweets, or search Twitter #CPAC2010 Governor Palin will be up in about an hour, watch on CSPAN, CPAC.org

CPAC: My first and probably my last

I have a new expletive or two for really, really, really bad “screw ups”: one is CPAC and the other is the name of one particular rude CPAC staffer I encountered.

I’ve had a miserable time at CPAC, the only shining moments were Governor Rick Perry’s speech, Andrew Brietbart’s rant about Obama and the “silver pony-tail gang”, and the Presidential Banquet with Paul Ryan’s talk and the privilege of meeting some wonderful Conservatives. I was especially struck by one panelist’s comment that the proof that faith and family are priorities and that the proof is that the TEA Party hasn’t literally formed a third party.

I’ll complain about the Convention itself later, but, first, the Politics!

Here at CPAC, virtually everyone who finds out I’m from Texas told me they were rooting for Perry and/or that he was their first choice. The exceptions were one who switched over from Sarah Palin, two that were interested in Cain, and one Ron Pauler; all but the Pauler had supported Perry while he was in the race.

Governor Perry’s speech was extraordinary and had more passion and truth than all the current candidates’ speeches. He gave the boldest speech so far.

For the Powers That Be, all the candidates should have acted like they were at CPAC. Early in the speeches, we needed to hear their conservative ideas, social issues, and self-criticism of their past mistakes, preferably with a passionate conversion story, preferably one that made us all know how strong and permanent the change has been. At CPAC convince us that you could smell the brimstone and feel the singe of the heat.

Instead: We got Santorum’s very sad-faced family and 20 minutes of foot-stomping and whining without any substantial plan, Romney’s wide-eyed gaze at us, and his assumption that he’s already won and we’d better study his 50 page plan. Newt not only had his friend introduce Saint Calista, but Newt himself gave us big government plans to *replace* the EPA with a new Federal bureaucracy and *reform* the FDA, both of which should be abolished and their regulations returned to the States.

And now, to my own rant about the Conference: I have a new expletive or two for really, really bad times: one is CPAC and the other is the name of the incredibly rude staffer I encountered on Thursday

My husband and I have attended several very large conventions (The Texas Straw poll in ’07, the Value Voters Summit in DC in ’08, American Academy of Family Physicians with up to 10,000 in attendance, the National Pawnbroker’s Convention, and the Texas Republican State Convention, etc.) The system and facilities for CPAC2012 are the worst I’ve ever experienced.

The Marriott’s too small, the ballroom was set up wrong, and no one could have designed a more dangerous traffic pattern, even without the Mormon missionaries standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking traffic in the halls and lobbies.

I could never recommend that anyone pay for “Platinum Package.” Several people have said that they should have saved the money and gone “Diamond.” And it turns out that there’s another level of Very, Very Important People, but none of the rest of us get to even glimpse them.

I’m told that all previous CPACs offered less security rules and presence and more access to the Candidates and celebrities. That access was exactly why I asked my husband to buy me the “Platinum Package” tickets for my birthday this year. I also signed up for Blogger credentials (free), as well.

Well, there was no access.

The bloggers were divided weeks ago into the in-crowd and the rest of us.

And money can’t buy happiness, either. I’ve been in more lines this week than I thought possible, and there has been very little of the promised “special lines.” Even the “VIP entrance” is a joke: I’ve been stopped more than half the time and then still fight the fire-hazard crowds in the single in/out aisle. On the first day, I couldn’t find and empty chair in the “Platinum/Diamond” area until after noon. The Platinum Balconies offer little or no view and the food is available for very limited times.

The opportunity to hear the 3 main candidates in one day and to meet some great Conservatives is the only benefit I’ve seen this week at CPAC. (You can follow my tweets @bnuckols )

Christian Medical Association on Contraception Mandate:Senate Dems block debate

The CMA sent out a couple of press releases by email, today on the attempts by members of Congress and the Senate, including some Democrats, to overturn the ObamaCare mandate that everyone who offers health insurance to their employees must offer plans that pay for contraception. The mandate would require Catholic health systems and schools to provide coverage that is against long held Church teachings.  (Disclosure, I’m Baptist, think true contraception is ok, and I’m the Chair of the Family Medicine Section of the CMA which is the same as the much longer, Christian Medical and Dental Association, the CMDA.)

Christian Medical Association: Contraception mandate fits pattern of assaults on conscience and religious liberty

Washington, DC–February 9, 2012: The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association today issued a statement asserting that the government’s mandate of contraception coverage nationwide fits a growing pattern of assaulting and restricting First Amendment freedoms of conscience and faith.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, “The government contraception mandate violates the First Amendment rights and sensibilities of any individual or organization morally committed to life-honoring faith principles. The coercion likewise tramples the conscience rights of health care professionals ethically committed to the historic Hippocratic oath. And it fits a deplorable pattern of disregard for First Amendment freedoms.

“In the past three years, people of faith and conscience have witnessed the gutting of the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care; the denial of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; the administration’s lobbying of the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s ideology on the faith-based and pro-life communities.

“The contraception mandate’s affront to religious freedom actually extends well beyond the Catholic Church, since many physicians and patients outside the Catholic tradition hold that it is morally or ethically wrong to risk ending the life of a developing human being by using pills such as ella and the morning-after pill. These pills are falsely promoted as ordinary contraceptives despite clear FDA label warnings that ‘ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus’ and that the morning-after pill (Plan B) “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.'”

“To force every American to subsidize an ideological agenda that many find morally or ethically abhorrent is the antithesis of American First Amendment freedoms of religion and conscience.

“The First Amendment issue of religious and conscience liberty impacts Americans of all political stripes. Conscience freedoms protect Americans left, right and center, on issues ranging from abortion to the death penalty, from participation in war to the right to protest political actions such as we are witnessing now.

“Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be protesting these assaults on our freedoms and contacting legislators to enact conscience-protecting legislation such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced in the House by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb. 1st) and in the Senate by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

“As Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'”

To remedy the assault on religious liberty and conscience freedoms, the Christian Medical Association supports the following legislation:

S. 1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

S. 2043 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012

S. 906 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

S. 877 – Protect Life Act

S. 165 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 1179 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

H.R. 361 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 358 – Protect Life Act

H.R. 3 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Senate Democrats Block Debate on Religious Freedom Amendment

‘Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.  And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it.’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the Democrats’ refusal to allow consideration of an amendment on the Obama administration’s mandate in the health care law that violates the First Amendment rights of religious institutions:

“Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights — in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself. The state protects these rights, but it doesn’t grant them.

“And what the state doesn’t grant, the state can’t take away. That’s what this week’s debate on a particularly odious outcome from the President’s health care law has been about: Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.

“And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it. They won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom. I never thought I’d see the day. I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment. But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”

Jonathan Imbody

Vice President for Government Relations

Christian Medical Association – est. 1931, now 16,000 members

CMA Washington office: P.O. Box 16351 • Washington, DC 20041

703.723.8688 • http://www.cmawashington.org

Director, Freedom2Care – 50 groups and 29,000 individuals advancing conscience rights

http://www.Freedom2Care.org  Twitter: @Freedom2Care

#CPAC2012 day 1 @CPACnews

In the spirit of “if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all,” nothing follows.

#OccupyCPAC Plans Assaults in DC – Can anybody explain this??

Where does the urge to be a spoiler, to hurt others by assault come from? What would possess a grown person to plan to make false fire alarms and try to shut down a Conference?

What should CPAC attendees do when the fire alarm goes off or someone shouts “fire” in a crowded ballroom or hall?

The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming “fire” during conference activities, “glitter-bombing” participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

“Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,” the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, “said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’”

via ‘Speakers Will Be Physically Assaulted!’ Occupy DC Plans Mayhem at CPAC – Occupy Wall Street – Fox Nation.

There wasn’t a sign of any trouble on Wednesday night during early registration and check in for those who’d pre-registered.

I wonder whether CPAC-ers will be the first group to occupy an Occupy event? We’ve done this sort of thing, before. I’ll have two video cameras ready to go, and so will my friend.

Federal judge says he can’t block Texas sonogram law, says higher court forced ruling

Sonogram (while awake and aware) and informed consent to be enforced in Texas.

District Judge Sam Sparks had previously struck down parts of the law, but his latest ruling said he’s bound to follow the direction of the New Orleans-based appeals court

via Federal judge says he can’t block Texas sonogram law, says higher court forced ruling – The Washington Post.

Would you force Jews and Muslims to sell pork?

Starting next year, religious groups will have to push aside their core doctrines and pay for pills that either prevent pregnancies or end them.

“[I]t would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews don’t follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis,” writes Michael Doughtery of Business Insider. “The law wouldn’t technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.”

via FRC Homepage.

Please let your Representative and Senators know that the new Obama Administration conscience rules and the requirements for insurance are not freedom.