Public Policy

Texas media lies about Texas “Sonogram Law”

An article, based on lies, by the Texas Tribune’s Emily Ramshaw was picked up by the New York Times Sunday (January 29th) edition.

The lies are neatly tied up in these two sentences:

” This past fall, doctors were required to start performing a transvaginal sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, a shift they say has had frustrating consequences for clinics and patients.”

and

“Now the physician performing the abortion — not an ultrasound technician, for example, or a secondary doctor — must conduct the sonogram on a separate day.”

(I have a “Google News search” for articles on the Texas Sonogram law, so I get emails as soon as they’re published. These same lies are duplicated in other articles and op-eds, like this one in “The Jurist,” from a law professor at the Saint Louis School of Law.)

Editor-in-Chief, Evan Smith, and Ramshaw at the Texas Tribune must know they’re publishing emotional falsehoods. Even Judge Sam Sparks knew better.

Anyone who has read the text of HB 15 or Judge Sam Spark’s ruling would know that we’ve had a formal informed consent process and a 24 hour waiting period since 2003, that there is no mandate to use a “transvaginal sonogram,” and that “an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers” may perform the sonogram. The doctor is required to show the sonogram “images,” to make the heartbeat audible and to describe the development of the embryo or fetus. That the language did not require that the actual, real-time sonogram be conducted by ” the physician performing the abortion” was clear to Judge Sparks. As he said,

     “The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private.”

Still, Ramshaw revealed some truth:

    “. . . a scheduling struggle when doctors providing elective abortions are in short supply and rotate between clinics.

“They’ve had to set aside a whole other day doing ultrasounds, visits that in most parts of medicine would be dedicated to people with less training than a physician,” Hagstrom Miller said. “The effect on their travel schedule, on their reimbursement, on patients’ access to them has been tremendous.”

In the typical elective abortion, there’s rarely any on-going doctor-patient relationship and the real problem is bureaucratic and financial.  The clinic owners are mostly worried about the money and their ability to get doctors to show up for the informed consent and to return the next day to perform the abortion.

And it’s not all about money.  The doctors who “rotate between clinics” usually fly in, sometimes from another state, for “procedure day.” The “Sonogram law” doesn’t force the woman having the abortion to look at her sonogram. But it does force the doctor to spend time counseling the women – possibly more time than the abortion itself will require. They will now have to look the women in the eye and describe the development of the child. How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing the heart or limbs?

The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton

Friday’s announcement that the Obama Administration would force employers – including nonprofit religious employers – to pay for their employees’ contraception and abortifacients is just the latest example of how the abortion industry and its friends in the Obama Administration are attacking these well established rights of conscience in ways even the authors of Roe and Doe did not envision.

via The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton |.

Great Day at the Texas Rally For Life in Austin, Texas

It was a beautiful day to go to the Capitol in Austin, Texas! I took my 11-year-old granddaughter to the Texas Rally for Life and we handed out information on the new “Choose Life” license plates that are available in Texas.

Texas’ Attorney General Greg Abbott was our key-note speaker. The video at this link has a portion of his speech and comments from people who attended – by their own free “choice.” The crowd displayed warm, loving support for those lives, mom and baby, threatened by abortion.

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (who is running for US Senate) and our Senator John Cornyn also spoke, along with Joe Pojman, PhD, of Texas Alliance for Life, and Carol Everett, a long-time supporter of pregnancy assistance services.

From the Austin, Texas TV station, KVUE.com:

AUSTIN — Crowds carried hundreds of signs in protest of abortion as they marched up Congress Avenue. For decades the Texas Rally for Life has brought people from all across the state to the steps of the capitol.

The Texas Rally for Life brought close to 3,000 people marching through downtown Austin Saturday afternoon.

Crowds listened as anti-abortion leaders urged them to spread their message to everyone.

Keynote speaker Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott explained how he learned the beauty of life when he lost the ability to walk.

Those who took part said the polarizing issue of abortion should not be approached with hate, but with love.

“Being Pro-Life is just such a blessing and seeing how much love we have for everyone — even after they have an abortion,” Elise Bockover said. “We’re still here for them, and I want people to know that — we’re here for them always.”

The date of this year’s rally added significance to everyone. Late January marked the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion in 1973.

This is very positive coverage of our Texas Rally for Life!

To all who call us “anti-abortion and “anti-choice” and to you who say that we who are pro-life should “adopt all the unwanted children” (see comments at this page): The people who attend this rally are the most likely to give their time and money to charities to directly help mothers, babies, and their families. We are truly “pro-life” and we do support the mothers and babies we defend. Take a look around, I’ll bet there’s a pregnancy crisis center close to you, run by volunteers and donations.

If you would like to support adoption, you can easily donate $22 when you renew your license plate by choosing the “Choose Life” license plate option.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’m on the board of Texas Alliance for Life and my local “Options for Women” pregnancy assistance center.)

Remember the “Contract From America?”

‘Way back in history – In the Spring of 2010 – a wide variety of Conservative, independent, grass roots organizations (mostly from the Tea Party and 912 groups) held meetings in cities across the US. I attended one with Comal County (Texas) Republican Women and Tea Party members, in Austin, Texas, sponsored by the Austin Tea Party on April 15, 2010. Within a couple of weeks, my friend chartered and filled a big ol’ bus full of men and women willing to pay for their seat on the bus, meet very early in the morning, and give up a day to hear Newt Gingrich speak.

The former Speaker (and current candidate for Republican nomination for President) told us about  the initiative for a “grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.”

In the heat of our very long Primary build up, I’m afraid that we might have forgotten the Contract and how it came to be, from the idea that began in Houston, Texas, to the document, below.  I encourage everyone to visit the website, take a look at the names of the sponsors and to remember the Contract and why we were excited by it ‘way back then. (The numbers in parentheses represent the strength of support from the participants.)

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution   Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

 2. Reject Cap & Trade– Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget – Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform – Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington – Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

 6. End Runaway Government Spending – Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care – Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy – Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork – Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes – Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

Supreme Court Rejects Judgermandering

It looks like somebody remembered that the Constitutions (of Texas and the US) don’t say that judges get the important decisions and the Legislatures get the unimportant ones. I do wish the SCOTUS had said “hands off,” but this is better than nothing.

A second map was then drawn by a panel of federal judges in San Antonio, and seemed to favor Democrats through its deference to the state’s booming Hispanic population.



via Supreme Court sends judge-drawn maps back in Texas redistricting case – The Hill's Ballot Box.

The only “minority” the map San Antonio Federal District judges favored was the minority Party, the Dems. They actually created a brand new District! Don’t forget that the Democrats were the Party that discriminated in the first place.

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

The ruling is a blow to Texas Democrats who had cheered late last year when a San Antonio federal court released new legislative and congressional maps that were widely seen as less favorable to Republicans.

The Justices said that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a key provision often pointed to by minority groups in redistricting cases, could not be used as a way to ignore the plans approved by state lawmakers just because federal approval had not yet been achieved.

“Section 5 prevents a state plan from being implemented if it has not been precleared,” the Justices ruled. “But that does not mean that the plan is of no account or that the policy judgments it reflects can be disregarded by a district court drawing an interim plan. On the contrary, the state plan serves as a starting point for the district court.”

Our Republican Legislators include “minorities.” The judges ignored that all minorities turned more toward the Republicans in 2010.

@GovernorPerry should not drop out!

If Governor Perry drops out, most of the Nation will never get a chance to vote for our candidate, or to influence the Republican primary at all. I’m afraid that the voices that claim that the “Powers That Be” really determine our candidates will be proven right.

Now, I’ll admit to being an early supporter of Governor Rick Perry.  I’m still convinced that the Governor is the right man for the job. And he’s the only one of the remaining candidates who still has a job – and the only one who hasn’t been running for President for over a year.

Part of the reason that Romney is always in front is the script that he IS the front-runner. And part of the reason that Governor Perry is trailing is the repetitive script that he can’t win because he got in so late and made mistakes in his first couple of debates. I’d think more people would have noticed how fast Rick Perry learned debating, and how much he has improved in such a short space of time. But no: the consensus is he goofed up in September, so it’s all over.

The reality is that it’s still January. Even after South Carolina and Florida – the first “winner take all” primaries – just 5% of the Delegates to the Republican Convention will be determined. No one can possibly be declared the winner of the Republican Primary until late March. With less than 50 delegates out of the 1144 needed to win, half of the 2288 total, the race is – and should be – still on.

While both Santorum and Gingrich are Conservatives, their histories are no less tainted than any other candidate, and some of those votes and actions will need to be defended. Neither can speak authoritatively about working in the private sector, creating jobs, serving in the military, or upholding the Second Amendment. Worse, both have a long record of “crossing the aisle” and forgetting to come back.

Gingrich has been married three times and has a very public history of adultery. He muddled his response just last month as to when life begins and the balanced budgets he brags about depended on the Sustainable Growth Rate.

Santorum has a lack of executive experience, as well as the specter of his support for Senator Specter (who turned Democrat) and his loss in Pennsylvania. He also voted against the Right to Work Act because, as he said last week, Pennsylvania is not a Right to Work State.

And then, there are the wives. Apparently, there was a “war” over the wives at that meeting of Christian leaders last week. As the Republican platform supports the Defense of Marriage Act, the wives will become an issue when their husbands go up against Obama.

Governor Perry has had well over 11 years of experience running Texas, both as Lieutenant Governor and Governor. He understands what it means to be required to balance a budget, work with a contentious Legislature and fight for laws not only in the House and Senate, but in the Courts and in public opinion. He understands the ramifications of regulations and appointments to regulatory bodies.

He’s the only one of the five remaining candidates other than Paul who has served in the military, having volunteered to serve in the US Air Force near the end of the Viet Nam War, becoming a pilot for over four years and retiring as a Captain.

On the social issues, there’s no one with a better record than Governor Perry: he has been married to one wife, and has always been pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-state’s rights.

Governor Perry doesn’t just say these things because he believes it’s what Republicans and Conservatives want to hear. Governor Rick Perry, in his books, Fed Up! and On My Honor, and in his years of service to the State of Texas, has proven that he understands and believes in Conservative ideals.

Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture

Knowledge is power. Especially when it comes to Courts and lawyers. Knowing that the baby who might be aborted is not just a lifeless “tissue” or “product of pregnancy” is bound to change hearts and minds. Someday, abortion will be thought of in the same way that we think of slavery.

Legal scholar Hadley Arkes believes that the groundwork for a powerful challenge to legal abortion has been laid, in a judicial decision affirming the “informed consent” law in Texas.

Judge Edith Jones wrote a carefully reasoned decision in Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, Arkes writes. Her decision, emphasizing that the new Texas law does not place any barriers in front of a woman seeking an abortion, is very likely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, Arkes believes.

Beyond the judicial sphere, the Texas precedent should encourage legislators to consider bills that protect the unborn without directly challenging the Roe v. Wade precedent, Arkes suggests.

That move is bound to set off crippling tensions within the party of abortion in Congress. They are the tensions that could make that party come apart, and bring us to the beginning of the End.

via Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture.

Texas has already determined that it’s wise to regulate doctors, medicines and surgical procedures. In the case of the abortion laws and sonogram requirements, the rules for action are placed on the doctor doing the procedures. The doctor is the only one being “made” to do anything.

We have a 2005 State law mandating 24 hour waiting period and a set of steps to ensure that the patient, the woman who is going to have an abortion, receives thorough informed consent.  Texas also protects other patients with regulations requiring specific informed consent for sterilizations, hysterectomies, radiation therapy and electric shock therapy. These procedures are often performed on patients who may be vulnerable to outside influence (by the doctor or family members pr social expectations) and all carry risks of permanent harm and consequences that the patient should know about.

The Sonogram Bill ensures that the woman seeking an abortion will meet the doctor who will perform the abortion and that the physician will tell her the status of her pregnancy and the development of baby, all before she’s sedated and in a gown, before she’s up in the stirrups.

Who would go for any treatment without first meeting the doctor? Would you consider it “punishment” or “shaming,” much less based on some “religious value” to enforce Texas’ similar informed consent laws for patients about to undergo radiation therapy, electric shock therapy, or a hysterectomy? Where’s the outrage about shaming or frightening the smoker when the doc sits down to explain why you need bypass surgery?

Would any one argue that the man who goes in for radiation therapy does not know that he might have cancer cells remaining in his body? Or that a woman doesn’t know that she won’t ever be able to have children again if she has a hysterectomy? (We’ll skip the problems with consent for electric shock therapy.)

The Bill is reminds me of our earlier fights to allow patients to own their own medical information, to make our own choices with full, informed consent. It’s patronizing to tell women seeking abortion that they don’t need to see their own sonogram or to consider sharing her medical information with her as interference by the State.

‘You Know What’s Despicable? Beheading Daniel Pearl’ @GovernorPerry

Go watch the video, it’s impressive. “I saw a reduction of force  . . .and the results of it in the sands of Iran in 1979. Never again.”

Rick Perry sounded off on what he called the Obama administration’s “disdain” for America’s servicemen and women. He then addressed the video that surfaced of Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban fighters, saying that these “young men made a mistake.” He then asserted, “The fact of the matter is this, when the Secretary of Defense calls that a despicable act … Let me tell you what’s utterly despicable. Cutting Danny Pearl’s head off and showing the video of it. Hanging our contractors from bridges. That’s utterly despicable.”

via Perry on Marines Peeing on Taliban: ‘You Know What’s Despicable? Beheading Daniel Pearl’ – Rick Perry – Fox Nation.

Setting the record straight on immigration rule change – The Hill’s Congress Blog

More on the immigration regulations in the previous post.

It’s interesting – besides the obvious – because of the line in the second paragraph about “what administrations do.” This was not the line we heard when the Bush Administration was regulation on conscience laws and health care.

These are precisely the immigrants who have been waiting in line and now face a bureaucratic challenge to obtaining the physical green cards.

The proposed rule change falls precisely within the scope of what administrations do. The regulatory change is important because, under current procedures, some persons who have already met the eligibility requirements for green cards must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent residence status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for three or ten years because of a period of unlawful presence in the United States. There is a family unity waiver available, but the way the law is currently implemented, the waiver can only be adjudicated abroad. That adjudication can often take many months, leaving the applicants in limbo, waiting to find out if the waiver has been approved and if they will be able to go back to the U.S to join their US citizen or legal resident family member. As a result, many otherwise eligible applicants do not leave the country to get their green cards, remaining unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk separation from their families. Under the proposed rule change, spouses and children of U.S. citizens who are eligible for a green card would be allowed to apply for the waiver without leaving the U.S. They would still be required to depart from the U.S. before receiving final approval and their green card.

via Setting the record straight on immigration rule change – The Hill’s Congress Blog.

Immigration Proposal Not Seen as Major Step —The Texas Tribune

Paging Libertarian Ron Paul: What do you think. Is this a major step? The Obama Admin plans to let people apply for mini-amnesty from this side of the border.

This waiver won’t fit all 11 million (typo in the article says 11.2 total), but 24,000 made this sort of application from their home country last year. Any bets on how quickly fraud will rear up on this scheme?

Current law mandates that illegal immigrants applying for legal status must return to their home country to do so. Once there, they are barred from re-entering the United States for either three or 10 years, depending on the length of their unauthorized stay.

But immigrants can apply for a waiver that allows them re-entry during the process if they can prove that their separation is causing extreme hardship for spouses or parents who are U.S. citizens. The new proposal would allow the applicant to apply for the waiver before leaving the country; if granted, the applicant could return to the U.S. during the visa application process.

via Immigration Proposal Not Seen as Major Step — Immigration | The Texas Tribune.

BTW, read the odd comments about “nuts with machine guts.”

Unified Theory of Conservatism: Constitutional Ethics for a Small Government

There’s no conflict between the three legs of Reagan Conservatism, in spite of the confusion surrounding contraception and homosexual “rights” we witnessed during the New Hampshire debates. Social issues such as the right to life and traditional marriage are equally compatible with small government and States’ rights as National security and fiscal responsibility,  just as the Declaration of Independence is compatible with the10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Conservatives agree that the best government governs least, but we don’t forget that there is a proper role for even the Federal government.

After all, the Constitution is based on the existence of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States’ desire to ensure Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, using the least force and intervention possible to prevent or punish the infringement of our inalienable rights.

Liberals and Libertarians accuse Conservatives who advocate for social issues and national security of abandoning both the Constitution and the ideal of a small Federal government that is as “inconsequential in our lives as possible.” There are even some in the Tea Party willing to sacrifice these issues in order to form a coalition with the Libertarians to cut spending and lower taxes.

Unfortunately, the Left, Right and middle all manage to stir up not only the divide between Libertarians and Conservatives. They would also exaggerate conflict between socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who agree on the definition of marriage and that life begins at conception, but disagree on whether or not true contraception is ethical.

Abortion, medicine and research which result in the destruction of embryos or fetuses infringe on the right to life by causing the death of a human being. (See “Why Ethics.”) In contrast, true contraception prevents conception without endangering any human life. Therefore, unlike abortion, it does not infringe the right to life.

Marriage as a public institution is not merely a means to insurance and legal benefits. The definition of marriage predates the Constitution and goes far beyond culture, religion or National boundaries. Marriage affects the stability of the family and the well-being of both children and the husband and wife. (There’s strong research supporting the latter.) We define and defend traditional marriage in order to secure liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These same inalienable rights are the justification for establishing National borders, protecting National security, and punishing those who break the law, while opposing high taxes and big Government bureaucracy and regulation that serves to not only redistribute wealth, but creates a dependency on more and bigger Government intervention.

Conservatives like Governor Rick Perry have been just as vocal in opposing the attacks on religious freedom and conscience by the Obama Administration as we have been in opposing increased taxes and regulations and the EPA’s over-reaching. We can stand secure in our understanding that the Conservative, Constitutional and proper use of government is to prevent and punish infringement of inalienable rights.

(Edit 11 AM 1/10/12 “Reagan” added to the first sentence.  04/09/14 – fixed a broken link. BBN)

Supreme Court Busy Today: Texas Redistricting, EPA, Election Law, Speech

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled (by refusing to take the case) on at least one important election law dispute and will hear arguments on Texas redistricting, whether the EPA can use the Clean Water Act to control all water and even shut down construction of homes on private property and (as explained by the Wall Street Journal), “broadcasters be able to air whatever the &#%@ they want?”

There are complaints that the first case, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, which will in effect uphold a ban on political contributions by non-citizens of the United States is inconsistent in light of Citizens United ruling of a couple of years ago that allowed corporations, including non-profits like the pro-life Citizens United to accept donations and make political statements. I’m concerned about the problems related to reporting contributions to the corporations or non-profits, but agree with the basic premise that there should not be any limits to political speech by US citizens, other than those in the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, on which it’s based). I believe that it’s logical to discriminate between US-based corporations and foreign citizens or corporations.

As to the Texas Redistricting case, I hope someone reminds SCOTUS that some of our Republican Legislators are Hispanic!

Caucus Night: Iowa for Rick Perry

I spoke as a surrogate speaker for Governor Rick Perry at a small precinct caucus in West Des Moines, Iowa, tonight. The 72 voters who came to the little elementary school gym weren’t representative of the “undecided” that I’d been hearing about all week. The neighborhood caucus goers had come ready to vote. Unfortunately, the tally came down to Romney/Santorum/Paul/Gingrich and then one little old vote for Governor Rick Perry. To give me credit, the lady who said she voted for Perry wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been there.

As of 9 o’clock, it looks like Iowa has decided not to decide,  with the top 3 slots getting just under 25% each and Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry vying for 4th slot. I’m disappointed in the outcome, but only surprised that the Ron Paul crowd is so strong and the Iowa voters seem so fickle.

(I was treated to classic Ron Paul voter behavior: half the signs I’d put up were knocked down and the surrogate speaker was told to behave when he snorted at me when my candidate got few votes.)

Why “None of the Above” is not acceptable (Vote positive, vote @GovernorPerry )

I admit to voting for a “None of the Above” candidate in the Texas Republican Primary in 2008. However, by that time, my vote was no more than a protest against John McCain, who appeared to have been chosen by the Powers That Be (“PTB”) in the Republican Party, rather than the voters that I knew.

That’s not the case for voters in the Iowa Caucus, and the Primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

Today’s news includes the NBC News/Marist poll, which indicates that more than half of registered voters in Iowa don’t intend to show up on January 3 for the caucuses. That means that 47% of you will effectively cast 2 votes; votes that have the potential to determine who will become the Republican candidate for President and which will at least decide who stays in the race and who withdraws. You are in a position to tell the PTB who you want on the ballot in November, 2012. Please vote for the candidate that shares your values, not the most electable or not-Whomever.

If I may, I’d like suggest positive reasons to vote in the contests mentioned above and to vote for Governor Rick Perry:

• 11 years of experience governing Texas, with the second largest population of all the States, an economy that would be in the top 20 in the world if it were an independent Nation, and one of the most diverse populations in the United States.
• A proven Conservative record, including advocacy for pro-life laws and for traditional marriage.
• On the record in his books, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington and On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For. You can read excerpts at Amazon.com and on this blog here and here.
• A strong record of action to protect the sovereignty of the United States, the individual States, and the border between Texas and Mexico, and
• a personal history of volunteering to serve in the United States Air Force, achieving the rank of Captain as a pilot, marriage to Anita for nearly 30 years, and an outspoken man of faith.

@GovernorPerry MSM Loves Abortion and Hates a Texas White House

Every time I convince myself that the MSM hates Governor Rick Perry because they don’t want to spend time a hundred miles from nowhere (or 200 miles from Dallas), they remind me that the real problem is the Governor’s core values.

The fuss this time is due to Governor Perry’s statement recognizing that the children of rape and incest are human enough to deserve society’s protection from intentional, elective killing. Last night I wrote about Rachel Maddow’s mad rantings concerning abortion and the children of rape or incest. Today,  (while breaking with the rest of the media in choosing to use the term, “pro-life,” rather than the usual “anti-choice”) WFAA-TV in Dallas made sure that we understand that the Governor “enjoys deep support among pro-life groups, and signed their favored sonogram bill into law earlier this year.” Not only that, but,

“Pro-choice groups and many Democrats say they will keep fighting the sonogram law.

“”This will probably lead to a law saying that if a 14-year-old victim of incest wants to get an abortion, she would then have to submit to a sonogram, which is one of the most invasive procedures this legislature has come up with,” said Andy Brown, chairman of the Travis County Democratic Party.”

via Perry’s tougher abortion stance: What does it mean for Texas? | wfaa.com Dallas – Fort Worth.

I would like to commend WFAA for using the term, “pro-life.” Thank you, WFAA!

Disclaimer: I’m on the Board of Directors of the Texas Alliance for Life, mentioned in the article. And yes, we’d like to see all children, including those of victims of rape and incest, protected at least as much as the eggs of birds on the Endangered Species List.

U.S. District Court in Virginia Expedites Rick Perry’s Ballot Access Lawsuit

Sounds like there may be a chance for more than 2 Republican candidates on the Primary ballot in Virginia. (That Rick Hasen mentioned below owns the “Election Law Blog.”)

U.S. District Court in Virginia Expedites Rick Perry’s Ballot Access Lawsuit, December 29th, 2011

U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney of Virginia has set a hearing in Rick Perry’s presidential primary ballot access lawsuit. He will consider Perry’s request for injunctive relief on January 13. In the meantime, he has established a briefing schedule, and also has instructed attorneys for Perry to communicate with all other Republican presidential primary candidates who had filed a declaration of candidacy, to explain to them how they may intervene in the lawsuit. This shows foresight and thoughtfulness on the part of the judge. The case is Perry v Judd, 3:11-cv-856. Judge Gibney is an Obama appointee. The issue is the state’s ban on out-of-state circulators. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

via Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » U.S. District Court in Virginia Expedites Rick Perry’s Ballot Access Lawsuit.

I’m a big believer in following the rules, but the rules shouldn’t be arbitrary and they must be published well in advance and offer equal opportunity. The Virginia GOP rules were evidently changed just last month, either to make it easier by encouraging padding the numbers to exceed 15,000 signatures submitted, or to make it harder for candidates to get in by introducing an unprecedented scrutiny for those who turned in less than 15,000 signatures. (There are even accusations that the number was pulled out of the air after Mitt Romney reached 15K.)

Matt Barber: “Ron Paul is dangerous”

I decided in ‘08 that Paul was more dangerous than Clinton. Paul refuses to acknowledge that jet planes and missiles make the world a different place than the one that George Washington knew. I agree with Mr. Barber’s latest essay on TownHall.com and laughed at his description of “Uncle Ronny:”

“He’s that affable – if not a little “zany” – uncle who has the whole family on edge at Thanksgiving. “Oh boy; what’s Uncle Ronny gonna say next?”

“Still, you wouldn’t give Uncle Ronny the carving knife for the turkey, much less less the keys to the Oval Office.”

Ron Paul is not a Conservative. He has run as – and is, still – a (Capital L)ibertarian, with skewed ideas about the world based on tunnel vision. By claiming that he is only following the intent of the Constitution, he  seems unaware that the Founders did not have to contend with international travel or laws permitting abortion due to Supreme Court rulings that have the effect of a Constitutional Amendment.

Although he has a great personal testimony about the sanctity of life and did finally vote to ban partial birth abortion, for years he refused to vote against Federal limits on abortion as performed in military hospitals or when minors are transported across State lines without their parents consent.  And it seems that he doesn’t understand that defense is so much better when you can take it to the aggressor’s back yard and keep him as far away from our home as possible.

I’m hoping that, beginning with the Iowa Caucus, voters will remember that Governor Rick Perry has always been consistent about securing our Borders, defending our Nation from external attack, and protecting the most defenseless among us.

Spare Parts for Humans: Tissue Engineers Aim for Lab-Grown Limbs, Lungs and More | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 15, 2011 | PBS

“Just because we don’t regenerate doesn’t mean that we can’t regenerate. It just means that we don’t.”

via Spare Parts for Humans: Tissue Engineers Aim for Lab-Grown Limbs, Lungs and More | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 15, 2011 | PBS.

Public Broadcasting System’s PBS NewsHour had a segment on regenerative medicine, reviewing the very impressive progress we’ve made in the last few years. The mere fact that PBS and scientists will state these facts in public is almost as huge, in terms of world view change, as the fact that the matrices plus stem cells work.

I was at a American Bioethics and Humanities annual convention when Yamanaka’s induced pluripotent cells first made the news. The Powers That Be for that group were angry and refused to allow any hopeful conversation that the iPSC’s would replace the need for research on destructive, embryonic stem cells. Damage control included scolding world authority figures *on* the panels for daring to bring up the subject in any serious way.

I’m convinced that the whole embryonic stem cell mess was more about the need to prove that abortion is wonderful and that there is no Creator. In fact, that’s exactly what one of the Clinton/Obama “bioethicists,” Robin Alta Charo, said about cloning in at least one meeting I attended in July, 2006.  (More, here.)

The Left’s *Class* Ceiling

From the public rhetoric and actions, it appears that the Left’s motto is “if I can’t have it, no one can.” In direct contrast to all the talk of protecting and preserving the middle class from the Obama administration, I’m convinced that their true goal is to control and limit the people who make it above lower middle class.

Their vision is so limited, they no longer see the American dream as “anyone can be President, a millionaire, etc. With this man in the White House, you’d think they’d be celebrating. But no! Since they have pinched little minds, and pinched little souls. they are consumed by class envy.

How else to explain the Occupiers? They

•  trash parks and prevent the public from enjoying them (name any city),
• deface public monuments (spray paint on monument in Charlottesville, Virginia),
• obstruct traffic (name any city with impotent police),
• harass children on their way to school, and
•  knock little old ladies down stairs.

The violence and destruction is just one step away from the anarchy the far Left commits repeatedly at IMF/World Bank meetings.  Witness the shut-down of the shipping yards at Oakland Port, this week, or the Black Friday attacks on Walmart and their employees, which even spread to Hawaii, where “shop locally” would definitely limit choices and increase prices. Not to mention kill the economy built on taxes and fees on tourists.

Gives a whole new meaning to “Take back our Country,” doesn’t it?

CMS overturns Texas’ abortion provider exclusion @GovernorPerry

The Houston Chronicle article (not available when I wrote this earlier post) implies that the ruling from CMS is much more far-reaching than I’d thought. Our laws prohibiting State funds going to anyone who provides abortions may be overturned. This looks like it goes farther than simply disapproving of the priorities we placed on allocating our funds. It appears that Obama has decided that we can’t continue to make recipients of Texas funds sign a contract to not perform or refer for abortions.

If this is true, women can get prenatal care and teen girls can get their vaccinations in the same building where their neighbor is having her unborn baby killed! Or Texas can refuse Medicaid funds.

Texas will no longer be allowed to prohibit Medicaid recipients from receiving care at family planning clinics that perform abortions, the federal government informed the state Monday.

Arguing that the Social Security Act prohibits states from excluding such clinics, the federal agency that runs the program informed Texas that next year it will not approve an agreement like the one now in place in Texas.

“The issue is … whether a state can restrict access to a qualified health provider simply because they provide other services Medicaid doesn’t pay for,” Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, said in a phone interview with reporters. “The law does not permit this.”

Mann stressed that Medicaid “does not pay for abortions and will not pay for abortions.” She said the agency will extend Texas’ current agreement through March while negotiating a new one.

In a statement, Gov. Rick Perry responded that President Barack Obama is making women “pay the price for its pro-abortion agenda.”

“I am concerned the Obama Administration is playing politics by holding women’s health care hostage because of Texas’ pro-life policies, sacrificing the health of millions of Texas women,” said Perry.

Since 2006, Texas has provided low-income women 18 to 44 with family planning exams, related health screenings and birth control through the Medicaid Women’s Health Program. Last year, it provided services to more than 180,000 women, with 90 percent of its funds coming from the federal government and the rest from the state.

via Texas abortion provider exclusion blocked – Houston Chronicle.

Obama to Texas: Fund PP or no Well Woman money

The Obama Administration has told Texas that our State is not allowed to decide who will provide medical care under Title X Family Planning and Well Woman funds. The Administration has recently ruled in a similar manner for other States. (

This in spite of the fact that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) did give Texas a waiver allowing Texas to move all Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries to doctors in managed care plans. The managed care plans, along with cooperative coalitions between hospital systems and the doctors they will pay for seeing managed care patients, is consistent with the plans laid out in “Obamacare.” Evidently, so is Planned Parenthood’s survival.

CMS claims in this letter to Texas’ Health and Human Services Commission that we’re limiting the choices of the women because the State prioritized where to spend our money and who to pay for healthcare, beginning with county clinics and hospital districts, followed by doctors and clinics that provide comprehensive, continuing care. Since we only have so much money, our Legislature decided to support the most vital care givers. Even though we don’t specifically write in law that “Planned Parenthood, Inc., need not apply,” CMS doesn’t like our plan.

CMS was asked to give a “waiver” to Texas since the funding is outside normal Medicaid rules, because it funds care for adults who are not at the rock-bottom income levels. Texas also has a waiver in order to use funds for prenatal care, justified by counting the unborn child. (The pro-aborts have protested over and over that the mother, not her child, should be the one we count and that she should be allowed to use the money for any “reproductive services,” including abortion, that she wants.)

Texas Alliance for Life and Texas Right to Life have both issued statements opposing the CMS ruling.

From Joe Pojman, Ph.D., TAL’s Executive Director:

“We believe the State of Texas has every right to deny millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is what the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry has chosen to do,” he said. “Senate Bill 7, passed last summer during a special legislative session, prohibits Medicaid tax dollars under the Women’s Health Program from going to abortion providers and their affiliated organizations.”

“This bill excludes several dozen Planned Parenthood sites from the Women’s Health Program, but it does not exclude any other hundreds of Women’s Health Program providers in Texas. Many of the other providers offer comprehensive primary and preventative care to low- income women in addition to family planning, which Planned Parenthood is unable or unwilling to provide,” he continued. “By threatening to cancel the Women’s Health Program in Texas, the Obama Administration is showing it would sooner deny tens of millions of dollars of medical services to low-income women rather than allow the State of Texas to cut off tax funding to Planned Parenthood.”

Addendum: this article from the Houston Chronicle (I quoted from it here) which implies that the ruling may go so far as to overturn our long-standing law that requires providers to sign a contract affirming that they don’t perform or refer for abortions.

Conservatives on my mind (Revision of earlier post) @governorperry

Conservatives understand that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Personally, I’m reluctant to criticize Republican candidates before even one vote is cast in the Primaries. But Conservatives also know that if we ignore our principles for expediency, we risk losing both. if we learned anything in 2008, that is.

Even Erick Erickson of Red State says he’s ready to go “none of the above.” But “none of the above” won’t cut it this year. We are fighting an incumbent that is almost guaranteed the black, gay and pro-abort vote, not to mention all of the many people who can only survive by the redistribution of tax money!

We have an opportunity to vote our principles in Rick Perry. If you can’t bear Governor Perry or don’t believe his experience in governing Texas is indicative of his ability to govern the United States, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum are good options. In contrast, Gingrich or Romney would just be the latest version of “it’s his turn.” We need the consistency and the radical DC outsider that is Rick Perry.

I know that many Conservatives have either been divorced and remarried or have loved ones who have been divorced. Others have family members who are homosexuals. We might even have family members who have been convicted of crimes – and I’m not saying that either of the first two are crimes. However, we understand that messy personal lives are not the ideal, and we prefer that our leaders be someone that we can not only admire, but who will demonstrate that they hold – and live – our principles as their own.

The Newt is everything that we have been fighting since McCain was nominated. The ability to debate does not equate to the ability to govern.He has been selling himself as the next in line, ever since Obama’s inauguration, according to the report in the Real Clear Politics’ Election 2012: the Battle Begins. The story is that Gingrich hosted a dinner for Republicans on the night of the inauguration.

Worse, if Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee, we won’t have the family values and principles that the base of the Conservative Republicans have rallied ’round. I’m not sure his history of serial adultery can stand up to opposition of same sex marriage. If marriage is plastic enough to support Newt’s history, then why not?

I’d like to believe the Catholic conversion that went along with this latest marriage is a good place to reset Newt’s sexual morality and ethical credentials. However, Gingrich can’t even stay on point on when life begins, telling us one thing on Friday and begging Catholics to tell us he meant something else on Sunday.

If Conservative bloggers are willing to go with pretty talk, will Conservative voters follow? I don’t think so. I believe that the TEA Party has proven that we are outside the influence of Party politics. We work from the Republican Party only as long as the Republican Party will honor our principles and at least appear to support *us.*

I am somewhat afraid that the TEA Party is too busy deciding whether personal lives and a true understanding of first principles – life, liberty, “first do no harm” – are important if their property is secured. I’ve watched in disbelief as uncertainty about the flavor of the month’s views on abortion, when life begins, true marriage and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is justified because of some mistaken idea that giving up ideology will give us the White House.

It’s indeed time to make the decision to support principles or not. But few of us will vote in New Hampshire, Iowa or South Carolina. Our choice of which candidate to support is only urgent if we are blogging, writing, advocating and donating money.

Whether your biggest fear is that Obama wins, or that Romney wins, the next 2 or 3 months are the time to support Conservatives. Don’t choose to advocate for or donate to the “electable” candidate long before your own before your primary, for pity’s sake!

Edited at 15:00, 12/8/11 to add last 3 paragraphs, and on December 25 to correct mispelling.

@GovernorPerry to Blitz: “You guys are a bigger pain than the back surgery.”

Governor Rick Perry was grilled by Wolf Blitzer on CNN‘s Situation Room on Wednesday, December 7, with frequent interruptions and repetitious questions. (Full transcript, here.) “Blitz” once again earned the nickname given to him by Herman Cain.

The Houston Chronicle, which leans far to the left, reported on the interview in a blog entry entitled, “Perry talks about pain meds, gay Scouts and the VP job”