Murder and medical ethics – Viewpoint

What do we risk when we give serious consideration to the argument that some humans may not be human enough to be protected by society?

From a Ph.D. student:

Perhaps neither of these situations is particularly plausible. But more plausible, I think, is a third: imagine again that abortion is murder and that my first student avoids pregnancy in medical school. She becomes an obstetrician and spends a career delivering healthy babies to happy parents. Only intermittently do those parents ask her, instead, to abort their children. When they ask this of her, she first remembers the principles that she learned as a child — but she then remembers the many arguments that I taught her. She remembers that she is a doctor, a woman of the world, and that whatever seems to be black and white is always, in the end, many shades of gray. Surely, she thinks, abortion cannot be as bad as they say: it is distasteful, certainly, but hardly evil. It is a thing to be done and forgotten.

And so she kills. Not often, and not gladly. But she kills nonetheless. And the blood that spills is, at least partly, on my hands.

This, then, is my fear. When I voiced it to a fellow graduate student, he reassured me that our students do not listen to us anyway. Which may well be true. But it is better not to take the chance if the stakes are as high as we take them to be — if, for example, abortion really is murder. Consider a parallel case: we teach our children, before we send them off to college, that murder is wrong. We would never allow them to take, much less demand that they take, a course that would seriously question this — that would, so to speak, look at both sides of the murder debate. What would be the point? Even if said course did not manipulate them into the pro-death camp, presenting that camp as though it were a legitimate option — as though intelligent and responsible students sometimes concluded that murder is permissible, or even a human right — could only serve to weaken their resolve: if the best philosophers cannot agree that murder is wrong, they might think in a moment of rage, who can blame them for murdering?

via Murder and medical ethics – Viewpoint – The Observer – University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary’s College.

Governor Perry signs pro-life pledge

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

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

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

Perry Becomes Seventh Candidate to Sign SBA List Presidential Pledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print

Posted on August 23rd, 2011

Perry leads Iowa Republican Poll

New poll from Public Policy Polling released today.

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

Perry debuts in lead in Iowa caucus race

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

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

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

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

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

The questions and results are available in pdf, here.

How Farm Subsidies Harm

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

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

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

Rick Perry’s Pro-life Record in Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you believe in legalized euthanasia?

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

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

Doctors wary of Perry’s stem cell treatment – The Boston Globe

Yeah, Daley destroys human embryos to harvest stem cells, even made a few designer embryos with the intention of destroying them. The International Stem Cell Research group fawned all over the faux Korean cloner.

These people to be have no business talking about ethics or “wise decisions.”

[S]ome scientists are questioning the safety and wisdom of Perry’s treatment, especially because it was not part of a clinical trial in which unproven therapies are tested in a way that helps protect patients and advances medical knowledge.

Perry “exercised poor judgment’’ to try it, said Dr. George Q. Daley of Children’s Hospital Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. “As a highly influential person of power, Perry’s actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks’’ who are selling unproven treatments “for everything from Alzheimer’s to autism.’’

Daley is past president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, a group of 3,000 scientists and others in the field. He favors stem cell research. But of Perry’s treatment he said: “I would never in a million years accept for one of my family members to undergo this.’’

via Doctors wary of Perry’s stem cell treatment – The Boston Globe.

Warren Buffett: Private better than government (for his money, not yours)

Warren Buffett’s plea for higher taxes means he wants the government to take more money from other people – but not him. In real life, Buffett says and does underscores his previously stated opinion that private interests “will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

The Wall Street Journal reviews Mr. Buffett’s disingenuous claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, ignoring the fact that his regular income is taxed at the highest rate while the bulk of his income is taxed as capital gains or dividends.

The real hypocrisy is that Mr. Buffett takes full advantage of tax shelters, such as his foundations and charities.Most of the middle class, even the “wealthy” that President Obama and Mr. Buffett want to tax at a higher rate – those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 a year, can’t afford to put millions in tax shelter charities and foundations.

And maybe, just maybe, we, too believe that we can “do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government” with our own money.

via Review & Outlook: Warren Buffett’s Tax Dodge – WSJ.com.

Texas jobs and wages – very impressive!

Thanks to a tweet from “Students for Perry” I found this blog post from the Political Math Blog showing that my wonderful home State, the Great State of Texas, has a very impressive record for job creation and for wages.

The post is full of information and graphs. Please read it!

I can’t resist these quotes:

“In a “normal” employment data set, we can easily look at it and say “Yep, that’s where the recession happened. Sucks to be us.” But not with Texas. With Texas, we say “Damn. Looks like they’ve recovered already.””

and

“Texas median hourly wage is $15.14…  almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they’ve seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.”

and

“Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.”

and just one more:

“I mentioned on Twitter that the Texas jobs situation was nothing short of miraculous. This is why I said that and why I’m standing by that statement.”

The Facts on Gardasil and Perry: Right Wing vs. WingRight

Do you really want to frustrate me? Publish an opinion piece online, but restrict comments so that I can’t tell you where you’re wrong. Sure, it’s your site, and you make the rules. Well! Since I have my own blog  . . .

The mainstream media has rediscovered Executive Order RP65 that Governor Perry issued in February, 2007. I wrote a “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil” to answer some of the gobbledygook in the media.

Unfortunately, some of the pundits we normally consider conservative are just as mixed up and fail just as miserably in their research and conclusions.

Michelle Malkin (michellemalkin.com ) won’t take new subscribers or comments from the public at all. She has written a disorganized rant calling Governor Perry “Obama-like.”  She claimed that the Governor went over the heads of the Legislature, calls the opt-out clause “bogus,” without researching what it was before the Governor’s EO, and is evidently completely unaware of the funding of vaccines in the US.  I was able to comment at the column’s syndication site, Creators.com,   copying and pasting my coverage of these concerns in “A Dose of Reason, Perry and Gardasil.”

RedState’s  Bill Streiff and Erick Ericson have posted their own articles That site won’t take comments from new subscribers. Ericson reposted his 2007 missive that compared the Executive Order to eugenics and focused on the possibility of corruption due to Merck’s lobbying.

Streiff’s two pieces, here , and  here,  cover the de-bunked corruption charges and provide a succinct list of ethical objections that are less subjective and a bit more organized. Here’s my reply:

1. The recommendation did not include males, though males can carry and transmit HPV. This oversight made the creation of “herd immunity” impossible. This, definitionally, means the vaccine could have only a limited effect in combatting HPV.

The vaccine had not been recommended for boys at the time. The reasoning is that the vaccine prevented cancer. Society was not ready to talk about anal sex and males having sex with males, so there was a delay in adding boys. Since that time, the recommendations have changed to include boys.

2. Not all strains of HPV linked to cancer were affected by the vaccine. While doing something is better than doing nothing… generally… no one knows what the impact will be of creating a better evolutionary environment for the others strains by eliminating competing versions of the virus.

We knew at the time that the vaccines covered the viruses that caused 70% of cervical cancers (16 and 18) and 90% of the strains that cause genital warts (6 and 11). The preventive effect for these strains was 96% to 100%. according to the British Journal of Cancer article on the 5 year follow-up, published in December, 2006. (It was on-line November, 2006 and I accessed it for review today, August 18, 2011.)

We already had evidence, since confirmed, that there might be some cross-immunity for other strains.

3.Requiring people to receive a vaccine against diseases which they may very well never encounter is a very queasy ethical area. Unlike diseases like measles, whooping cough, etc., HPV is not spread through casual contact.

True. But 50% of people will be infected at sometime in their lives. The true cost is all of those abnormal pap smears – the cellular changes are all – 99.7% due to HPV.  It’s also true that we vaccinate for tetanus – what we used to call “lock jaw” – even though it’s not contagious, and for Hepatitis B, which is only spread through blood and body fluids.

4. Clinical trials were conducted on women aged 16-26 leaving everyone to presume that Gardasil was safe and efficacious in 10 year-olds even though there was zero data pertaining to that age group.

Completely false. Both the 2007 Gardasil insert (no longer available online, but I saved a copy on my computer) and the current insert contain information about early testing on boys and girls 9-15. 1122 girls ages 9-15 received the vaccine during trials to test the immunogenicity, demonstrating the production of antibodies.
There. I feel better, don’t you?

Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth

Please read the whole column at CounterContempt. Note that the whole fuss began at lefty Salon.com as a (successful) attempt to bring out criticism of Governor Perry and to get inflamed people to make inflammatory remarks about Islam.

Much of the curriculum centers on very dry materials, presented with no editorializing – historical timelines, glossaries, the basic tenets of Islam (presented without either endorsement and praise, or denunciation and criticism), etc. Of interest to us, however, is the lesson plan that deals with Islam and the West, past and present. This is the lesson plan that mentions Sharia, al-Qaeda, Israel, Hamas, etc.

The lesson plan was written by Ronald Wiltse. Mr. Wiltse is a retired history teacher in San Antonio. He graduated from Pepperdine University in 1966, and received his MA from Middlebury College in 1982. For several decades, he taught world history at Edison High School, in San Antonio.

He is a Christian, and an ardent and vocal supporter of Israel.

via CounterContempt Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Sharia” School Curriculum Myth.

Wonderful news on Conscience from Arizona

Without a conscience, what is a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist except a technician willing to follow the whims of law?

(Again, this is not sound-bite material!)  I received an e-mail from the American Defense Fund concerning the lawsuit against the State of Arizona by Planned Parenthood over a law to protect those of us in medicine who have consciences.

The ruling overturned a two year old injunction that prevented quite a few limitations placed on abortion in the State, including informed consent, parental consent, and the requirement that doctors, not nurses, perform abortions as well as the conscience issue.

Over the last decade, there have been several deliberate attacks against the right of medical professionals to obey our consciences and to refuse to provide services that we do not believe are “medical care.” I’ve tried to cover them at LifeEthics.org., even though I had a hard time keeping my promise to avoid politics and religion on that blog.

The articles at LifeEthics.org include this one from the American Journal of Bioethics, this one by a lawyer writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, and this one from this year about the Obama Administration’s refusal to protect the conscience.

Here’s the update, dated August 11, 2011:

A litigation update:

The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion today on conscience rights.

In a case litigated partially by the State, partially by the Speaker of the Arizona House, and partially by ADF, BDF, and CAP on behalf of a variety of pro-life medical groups (Ave Maria Pharmacy, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Catholic Medical Association) . . . . . . the Court upheld Arizona’s state conscience protection statute Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2154, against a challenge by Planned Parenthood of Arizona. The Court also upheld the right of the aforementioned pro-life groups to intervene in the case to defend the conscience law.

Here is the opinion,http://azcourts.gov/Portals/89/opinionfiles/CV/CV090748.pdf and below I provide some highlights.

The conscience statute protects hospitals, physicians, and staff from being involved in abortion, and all of the above plus pharmacists and pharmacy employees from being involved in any abortive or anti-implantive drug or device. The Court of Appeals’ decision reverses an injunction that Planned Parenthood had obtained below in the Arizona trial court, which had enjoined not only conscience protections but a bunch of pro-life provisions of Arizona law (including laws about parental involvement in abortion, prohibiting non-doctors from performing them, and other pro-life measures).

PP threw the kitchen sink of anti-conscience arguments against this conscience statute, and the Court specifically addresses PP’s arguments on pages 32-37, saying some very helpful things against some of the popular “access” arguments we all hear against conscience rights. (The Court does unfortunately characterize the conscience statute as “refusal provisions.”)

Among the arguments the court smacked down are the following:

• The Court rejected PP’s argument that conscience protections violate a woman’s right to access abortion. The Court gave several reasons. First, in a previous case the Court had upheld an Arizona law prohibiting abortions at state university hospitals, saying “Even as plaintiff does not have an absolute right to an abortion on demand, she also does not have the right to select any public facility she chooses for an abortion.” By extension, therefore, the Court held that since “Even a state actor can refuse to facilitate an abortion,” it is even more true that private actors can refuse.
• In addition, the Court declared that the conscience law protecting private individuals and institutions can’t possibly violate a woman’s constitutional rights because “any reproductive rights that might exist under [the Arizona Constitution] can only be asserted against governmental acts, not the decisions of private individuals. . . . Therefore a woman’s right to an abortion or to contraception does not compel a private person or entity to facilitate either.”
• The Court further noted: “In its arguments below, PPAZ also contended the statutes would ‘thwart women’s ability to chart their own medical course.’ As explained above, whatever right a woman may have to ‘chart her own medical course,’ it cannot compel a health-care provider to provide her chosen care.”
• The Court rejected PP’s argument that the conscience law “allows medical professionals to abandon their patients, even in an emergency.” The Court pointed out that because the Arizona Constitution protects common law medical malpractice actions from being abrogated by statute, the conscience statute therefore does prevent a woman from suing any physician for denying her the standard of care, whatever that might be. A woman’s ability to impose malpractice liability therefore defeats the argument that the conscience statute allows abandonment in an emergency.
• The Court rejected PP’s argument that the conscience statute “justif[es] practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.”
• First, “no authority suggests that permitting individuals to choose whether to facilitate abortions places the peace and safety of the state at risk.”
• Second, the Arizona Constitution says that constitutional protections for conscience do not protect violations of peace and safety, but it does not prohibit the legislature from protecting conscience even more than the constitution happens to do.
• Third, the “peace and safety” limitation is merely a limit on how far judges are supposed to interpret the constitutional protections; it does not allow private citizens to sue to contend that too much conscience is being protected.
• Notably, the Court observed that the conscience statute may well protect employees of Planned Parenthood who object to involvement in abortion, but it went on to reject PP’s above arguments anyway.

Presumably PP will appeal this case to the Arizona Supreme Court, but the Court has discretionary review so it could simply deny the petition. In any event, the case will go back down to the trial court for final proceedings (to the same judge who issued the injunction), because this was just a “preliminary” decision.

Of Ponzis and Predators, Perry outlines policies from Political Intelligence

From the Boston Globe:

But in a bold-yet-folksy way, the Texan also put his own spin on an array of questions from a crowd of more than 150.

Asked about how the country copes with the growing cost of Social Security and other entitlement programs, Perry said political leaders had to show “courage” especially in dealing with Social Security, which he labeled a “Ponzi scheme.”

He said: “I can promise you, my 27-year-old son, Social Security, under the program that we have today, will not be there.”

Perry, himself 61, pledged to back a base level of support for needy retirees, but he said calling the current retirement system a Ponzi scheme – in which contributions from one group is to pay immediate benefits to another group – is the first step in deciding how to alter it.

“I’m not afraid of having that conversation,” the governor said. “Do I have a plan yet to lay out and say here it is in black and white? I don’t. But I can promise you … these challenges are not overcomable, at all. We are Americans and we will find the way to do it.”

Perry tread more carefully around another issue that riled the party base for another Texas governor who ran for president, George W. Bush.

Perry said that before deciding how to deal with immigrants already illegally in the country, United States needed to secure its border with Mexico both to block new illegals and also to tamp down on drug-related violence.

Texas already spends $152 million on its own on that effort, he said, and the state’s governor called for both up to 1,000 National Guard troops and the non-lethal use of unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol and monitor the 1,200-mile-long Texas-Mexico border.

“You can secure it, and the way you do it is you put boots on the ground – substantial number of boots on the ground,” he said.

As for using aircraft such as Predator drones, Perry noted many unarmed aircraft are already flown in the area each day as practice for the Air Force pilots who will guide them overseas.

“Why not be flying those missions and using that real-time information to help our law enforcement?” Perry said. “Because if we will commit to that, I will suggest to you that we will be able to drive the drug cartels away from that border.”

Elsewhere on national security, Perry outlined a hawkish doctrine: “If you try to hurt the United States, we will come defeat you,” he said.

On budget issues, Perry said he supported a balanced-budget amendment “to clearly say, if it’s not coming in, we’re not going to spend it.”

More immediately, he pledged a series of executive orders to reduce government spending and regulation, as well as to halt implementation of the federal universal health care law enacted by President Obama.

via Of Ponzis and Predators, Perry outlines policies from Political Intelligence.

Ultrasound law due September 1

The Texas Tribune, as part of its “31 Days, 31 Ways”  series of articles has a video interview with Dr. David Spear, an Austin abortionist and director of Planned Parenthood, concerning the soon to be enforced law requiring the doctor to meet with women before an abortion, and give her the information available from her pre-abortion ultrasound.

“The law is currently being challenged in federal court. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks has said he plans to rule on the case by September. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed the suit in June, before requesting an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect on Sept. 1. In the suit, Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey, the group argues that the law violates the equal protection clause by “subjecting [women] to paternalistic ‘protections’ not imposed on men” and the First Amendment rights of doctors by “forcing physicians to deliver politically-motivated communications” to their patients.”

Dr. Spear confirms that the ultrasound is standard of care as we heard that over and over in testimony at the Lege. The woman pays for the Ultrasound, already. It is her medical information.

No responsible doctor would introduce an instrument into the uterus without an ultrasound these days. It’s common practice to do this a couple of days before the abortion, although Dr. Spears implies that it is done the same day as the procedure. If it is true that it’s done the same day, is that before or after sedation and/or is the woman given the chance to evaluate her medical information while clothed, eye to eye with the doctor, or is she in a gown, feet up in the stirrups?

No one complains about other informed consent laws. There’s already law describing the informed consent for electric shock therapy, radiation therapy, sterilization and hysterectomy. Hysterectomy was the first such law. These (and the mandatory waiting period before Medicaid will pay for sterilization) came about because of a patronizing “doctor knows best” attitude of the past.

There’s nothing either political or religions about informing women about the ultrasound. There’s certainly noting political or religious about expecting the doctor to give informed consent – can you imagine if this conversation were about the heart catheterization and the heart ultrasound (echo-cardiogram)?

Part of the law includes the requirement to give information about the father;s responsibilities and about aide that is available locally for pregnancy and after the birth. These lists have been printed by the State and paid for by licensing fees for abortion clinics since 2005.

WILLisms.com: Texas’ Interest Payments On Government Debt: Third Lowest In America.

See more of this post at WILLisms.com: Texas’ Interest Payments On Government Debt: Third Lowest In America..

Texas also has the second lowest state debt as a percentage of personal income.

While it is true that voters in Texas have approved far more bond debt, mostly for roads, in the past decade (voters, even conservative Texas voters, tend to vote “yes” to almost any shiny objects on the ballot), those bonds are at least paid for with fees and assessments, and they are targeted and temporary, for specific purposes like infrastructure.

Texas has seen its non-self-supporting debt (the kind that gets you in trouble because the money is spent on who-knows-what and there’s no mechanism for paying back the borrowing) fall significantly in recent years, to the tune of roughly 16%.

Forbes ranks Texas number four (meaning, one of the best) on its debt weight scorecard, and gives Texas four stars out of four for avoiding a state debt disaster. All this, and Texas remains a donor state, contributing more in taxes to Washington than it receives back in federal benefits.

Moreover, while America got downgraded under President Obama, Texas got a credit upgrade under Rick Perry.

via WILLisms.com: Texas’ Interest Payments On Government Debt: Third Lowest In America..

Government Motors Spends Your Money | RedState

Ben Howe at RedState questions General Motors’ spending, including $15 Million on advertising at one football game.

So the government appointed CEO has taken the company’s stock to historic lows; pushed out money losing, government subsidized cars that the American people don’t want, all at the behest of his bosses in Washington; and is sitting on enough cash to pay back the loan but is instead choosing to wait for the treasury to lose money when it sells our shares. So what’re they doing with all that money?

Well, they’re handing out bonuses that will be over $400 million and could exceed 50% of workers salaries. In fact, nearly all 28,000 engineers and managers will get 4-16 percent of their base pay.

They’re paying homage to the green gods by investing in solar panels and wind farms. Not exactly sure how that contributes to making cars, but what do I know? In fact they’re spending just under $1 million for weatherization projects in Maine which they claim will be the first of similar investments in all 50 states.

GM is investing over $40 million dollars to “offest its carbon footprint,” and invested enough money into the World Golf Championship in Doral, Fl to get them to add the word “Cadillac” to it.

The average cost of a superbowl ad is $3 million for 30 seconds. GM aired 5 of them.

They’re working on getting the green light for a reality tv show about their Chevy Volt. I’m guessing it’ll include a cast of 20 people that will coincidentally be the only people in America that actually own one.

In fact, they are spending on entertainment at a faster rate than any other category.

And I know what you’re thinking, “Hey, companies have to advertise man! It’s getting them name recognition!” To that I would ask you if you really believe that GM’s name is so unknown that they need to spend a minimum $15 million worth of advertising during one game, or if, perhaps, they might be well known enough to advertise somewhere other than the most expensive commercial spot on planet Earth.

via Government Motors Spends Your Money | RedState.

Marriage – it really is a beautiful thing

from Fox’s Steven Crowder:

What’s not a matter of opinion, however, is that when it comes to marriage, we’ve all been lied to. Far from the miserable, broke, sexless life that it’s made out to be, the life of today’s married man is more fulfilling than any lonely, self-pleasing, single guy could hope for. So to all of you cads and good-time gals out there, read on and take note.

Statistics and Marriage (and a calendar)

Watch out for statistics, they are not always accurate. Especially if your statistician doesn’t notice the calendar.

From the New York Times‘ “Divorced from Reality,” published in September, 2007,

The Census Bureau reported that slightly more than half of all marriages occurring between 1975 and 1979 had not made it to their 25th anniversary. This breakup rate is not only alarmingly high, but also represents a rise of about 8 percent when compared with those marriages occurring in the preceding five-year period.

But here’s the rub: The census data come from a survey conducted in mid-2004, and at that time, it had not yet been 25 years since the wedding day of around 1 in 10 of those whose marriages they surveyed. And if your wedding was in late 1979, it was simply impossible to have celebrated a 25th anniversary when asked about your marriage in mid-2004.

If the census survey had been conducted six months later, it would have found that a majority of those married in the second half of 1979 were happily moving into their 26th year of marriage. Once these marriages are added to the mix, it turns out that a majority of couples who tied the knot from 1975 to 1979 — about 53 percent — reached their silver anniversary.

Perry says S&P downgrade of U.S. validates his approach | Texas Politics | a Chron.com blog

The National Conference of State Legislatures is a very good way to stay and/or get up to date on issues.

Perry says S&P downgrade of U.S. validates his approach

Sounding increasingly like a candidate for national office, Gov. Rick Perry told the National Conference of State Legislatures meeting in San Antonio this morning that Standard & Poor’s recent downgrade of United States investments validated his administration’s frugal approach to government.

The rating agency’s action came because of “a reckless culture” of out of control spending in Washington D.C. “piled on our next generation’s credit card,” Perry said. Referring often to the “economic turbulence” buffeting the country, he declared that the U.S. was experiencing “one of our darkest hours.”

“You can’t tax and spend your way to prosperity,” he said, hitting hard on the theme of his 2010 book, “Fed Up!”

In his most descriptive and passionate moment in the 20-minute talk, Perry noted that Texas has created 40 percent of the nation’s net new jobs, though it is home to only eight percent of the U.S. population. Job loss, he said, creates many social ills including “an entire generation losing faith in the American dream.”

Perry, who committed to speak to the group of about 1,300 legislators and their staff long before he began considering a presidential campaign, earned a standing ovation and moderate enthusiasm from the bipartisan crowd.

via Perry says S&P downgrade of U.S. validates his approach | Texas Politics | a Chron.com blog.

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry: Fiscal Responsibility is Essential for Prosperity and Job Creation

Gov. Rick Perry touted Texas’ strong economy and job creation, and discussed the importance of fiscal responsibility at all levels of government. The governor delivered the keynote speech at the National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit (NCSL).

“Jobs are the fundamental building blocks of any community, and over the last two years, 40 percent of the net new jobs created in the United States were created in Texas,” Gov. Perry said. “That’s why we continue to make the tough choices that all states and the federal government should be making. We passed a balanced budget while maintaining essential services, kept taxes low and preserved more than $6 billion in our Rainy Day Fund.”

Gov. Perry noted that government doesn’t create jobs, it creates the environment for jobs to grow. He credited Texas’ economic strength to our state’s low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulatory climate, fair legal system and skilled workforce.

“Employers fleeing the over-taxing, over-regulating and over-litigating atmosphere that has taken hold in so many other states come to Texas because we’ve cultivated a culture that rewards innovation without all the red tape,” Gov. Perry said.

via Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Gov. Perry: Fiscal Responsibility is Essential for Prosperity and Job Creation.

UPDATE 1-Republican tax hardliners on US debt super panel | Reuters

Pray for Texas’ Representative Jeb Hensarling. He will co-chair with Patty Murray.

In a move that could deadlock the 12-member panel over taxes, but perhaps set the stage for changes later, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell named Tea Party ally Patrick Toomey to the panel with Jon Kyl and Rob Portman.

The panel is known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction and was established to find $1.5 trillion in additional budget savings over 10 years, but markets have been looking for signs that it may be able to do more.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, appointed Dave Camp, who chairs the tax-writing House Ways & Means Committee, along with conservative “young gun” Jeb Hensarling and Fred Upton.

via UPDATE 1-Republican tax hardliners on US debt super panel | Reuters.

Common State Abortion Restrictions Spark Mixed Reviews

Why would anyone want doctors to be forced to perform elective, interventional procedures that they find morally wrong?

Gallup typically finds few differences between men’s and women’s attitudes about the legality of abortion in general. Consistent with that, the new poll shows relatively minor gender differences in views about the seven specific restrictions tested.

Partisan differences are much greater, although majorities of Democrats as well as most Republicans favor informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, and a ban on “partial birth abortion.”

By contrast, Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides when it comes to opt-out provisions and withholding federal funds from abortion providers.

via Common State Abortion Restrictions Spark Mixed Reviews.

Doggett layoff author opposes Perry

Big surprise: Lloyd Doggett doesn’t like Perry. I guess he’s given up on winning his primary against one of the Castro twins (I can’t tell them apart), so he’s going to spend time campaigning against the Governor who wouldn’t lie for money.

ABC.news has a blog entry explaining the details, here.

Doggett’s the creator of the Doggett layoff, causing school districts all over the Nation to layoff teachers. Doggett was the author of the amendment to part of a stimulus bill, refusing money to Texas education by setting specific, individual requirements for Texas that no other State must meet and that go against Texas’ Constitution. Doggett repeatedly claimed at the time that claiming the Governor could lie and violate the State Constitution if he wanted the money badly enough.Doggett kept repeating that the requirements weren’t “unConstitutional.”

Last year, I met with this man with a group of doctors about graduate medical education, identifying as a doctor interested in primary care, not as a Republican. He assumed he could talk freely to us and literally shook with fury when he criticized Conservatives and the Tea Party. Claims Republicans don’t think for ourselves and only listen to Fox news and Limbaugh.

And yet, here I am reading ABC.news and there he is spouting his hate for conservatives. Well, he won’t be unopposed this election – and he’ll have a great panel of Conservatives vying to run against him on the Republican ticket, too.

Insult from White House?

Mama told us that if we weren’t guilty we shouldn’t be insulted or take offense when a teacher or preacher condemns a group or action. “They’re not talking to you.”

Well, the hour-late President Obama certainly wasn’t talking to me: “those who can afford it pay more.” Indeed!

Why I support the Texas DREAM Act

I was the first in my family to graduate from college, much less to go to Medical school. I believe I was blessed by attending Texas elementary and high school, Tyler junior college, UT at Tyler, and then Med school and residency in San Antonio, Texas. I’m grateful, knowing that a “non-traditional student” (an older woman with a family) couldn’t have done that in any place but the USA and Texas. No one took my place or squeezed my kids out of a good education, even though we live in a small city where more than 50% of the surnames are of Spanish origin and we know that we have kids of illegal aliens in our schools.

Our law in Texas, (unofficially called The Texas DREAM Act after the failed Federal Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors), allows a young adult — who was brought here as a minor through no fault of his own – to be counted as a resident only for calculating tuition rates in our State-supported colleges. The Federal residency or citizenship requirements do not change for someone going to college under this provision. Young people who finish at least 3 years of high school, get their diploma from a Texas high school, have lived in Texas the 12 months before applying, and who get admitted to a Texas college, pay in-state tuition. In contrast to what we often hear, the law doesn’t discriminate against legal aliens from other states: rather than 3 years of residency, they only have to live in Texas for one year to establish residency and it doesn’t matter where they went to high school.

In order to continue to qualify for in-State tuition rates, he must pass his classes, take a full or near-full load and promise to formally apply for legal residency status as soon as Federal law allows.

The “Texas DREAM Act” is the law in our state and was passed with veto-proof numbers by the Texas Legislature over 10 years ago, in 2001. HB 1403 passed in the Senate with 29 “yeas,”no “Nays.” It received 130 votes in favor in the House.   The text of the Bill is, here.  The Texas Legislature has never repealed the DREAM Act, although it was revised and made stricter in 2005 with SB 1528. That Bill also appeared veto-proof, with 31 votes in the Senate, and a non-recorded vote in the House.  This year, the sole attempt by Senator Birdwell to increase tuition for undocumented students failed to make it out of the 82^nd Legislature’s Senate, even when he tried to tie an amendment onto the larger Education Bill.

On most immigration subjects, I’m probably to the right of many people. I would insist that adults who cross the border illegally must go back to their country of origin before beginning any path to citizenship or residency. They should start the process on the other side of the border — *especially* if they have an anchor baby as proof that they have already broken our laws.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

In fact, I’m all for identifying adults who came here illegally, breaking our laws and for deporting the whole family until they can get in line and come here legally. Otherwise, we are encouraging people to break the law over and over. They go “underground” and are vulnerable. As a consequence, young people often graduate from our high schools truly “undocumented” in either country.

However, Federal law interferes with any attempt by the State to stop the problem where it begins. The Feds won’t deport people. They won’t allow us to identify those illegal adults with kids in our schools and deport them. Federal Courts have ruled that we must bend over backwards to prevent any appearance of scrutiny that might “chill” the educational prospects of any child, from preschool to high school graduation.  In spite of all these limits on what the States can do, there’s no Federal attempt at a legal provision for identifying their country of origin.

So, until we can get the federal law changed to better control and deport known adult illegal aliens, do we Texans encourage their identification as (grateful) United States Americans and Texans or do we make them men and women without a country?

Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research, but he wants Texas to be center of stem cell advances | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

The Governor has always opposed unethical destructive stem cell research, but Representative Hardcastle changed his mind on embryonic stem cells and cloning this year.

Hardcastle said the governor’s office didn’t ask him to carry it — as the only member of the Legislature with MS, he said, it’s been on his mind for “a long time” — but one of the governor’s staffers did advise him on it. Somewhat involved, Hardcastle said, was Jones, who has already removed some of Hardcastle’s stem cells to prepare them for re-injection.

A spokeswoman with the Health and Human Services Commission said the agency is in the very early stages of considering whether to create the stem cell bank. A few weeks ago, the agency received a letter from Houston Reps. Beverly Woolley, a Republican, and Senfronia Thompson, a Democrat, expressing their “serious concern” with the measure, for fear it might hinder the work of public and private scientists.

Meanwhile, Texas Medical Board spokeswoman Leigh Hopper said the regulatory agency held a stem cell stakeholder meeting last week — “at the governor’s behest, via Dr. Jones” — to start dialogue about adult stem cell treatments in Texas. The question? If Americans are — like Jones — increasingly flying all over the world to get promising stem cell treatments, shouldn’t Texas be a scientific and economic center for it?

via Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research, but he wants Texas to be center of stem cell advances | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog.

Texanomics: Texas Wage Growth Faster than Other Big States and US

Pretty graph!

Texanomics: Texas Wage Growth Faster than Other Big States and US.

Dose of Reason: Perry and Gardasil

Bear with me, this isn’t a “sound bite” subject.

(Edit 8/23/11: The opt out is for 2 years, not 1. BBN )

The Human Papilloma Virus is an infection, and should not be a moral issue. In contrast, the vaccine against four strains of the virus, Gardasil, has become a political issue, even though the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now recommends it for all boys and girls.

Governor Rick Perry has been criticized for his February, 2007 Executive Order that made the vaccine mandatory for girls before entering the 6^th grade. Very little is said about the part of the EO that affirmed the right of and facilitated parents who wish to “opt out” of not only Gardasil, but other vaccines as well.

We expect the Governor to direct the people that he appoints, right?  The Governor is responsible for management of the Executive Branch, including the Department of State Health Services. He appoints the head of the DSHS, who supervises the people who decide which vaccines will be mandatory. Texas’ Legislature modified Chapter 38.001 of the Texas Education Code over the years to mandate certain vaccines and allow the DSHS to add other mandated vaccines without Legislative oversight.  Just before the Gardasil controversy, the Department had mandated Chicken Pox and Hepatitis A, which are both manufactured using cultures of human fetal tissue obtained at an abortion.

The Governor’s Executive Order (RP 65) that caused all the controversy also ordered the director of DSHS to make it easier for parents to opt out of vaccines. The Legislature had changed the law from “opt in” to a requirement to “opt out” once for all the school years. Next, they changed to a two year limit on the opt out, and then in 2005, the Legislature restricted the period to one year and required a new State form bearing a “seal.” Parents had to go to Austin or start early in the summer. There were bureaucrats who maintained that the only way to get the form with the seal was to go to Austin, find the right office and make the request in person.  Perry used his EO to tell the Director of DSHS to make the request (and the seal) available on-line, making it easier to “opt out.”

In fact, the reason for the Executive Order was to speed up private insurance coverage and to make it easier for parents to exercise their right to opt out.

The Federal government doesn’t have the authority to mandate vaccines in the States.  Not yet, not exactly. However, thirty days after the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the vaccine, Texas was required by Federal law to buy and distribute the vaccine in the “Vaccines for Children” program.  The program provides vaccines without cost to uninsured children up to age 21, those who are insured by Medicaid, and those whose private insurance does not pay for vaccines at all. In effect, the only families who have to pay for Gardasil – for whom the State of Texas will not pay, anyway, under Federal law – are those whose private insurance will only pay for mandated vaccines.

Gardasil is manufactured the same way that insulin for diabetics is made these days: using recombinant DNA. In this case, common bakers’ yeast makes the proteins that cause the immune response. Gardasil had been thoroughly studied even in 2007, and is not only included in the Vaccines for Children program, it is the most-requested vaccine for girls. We are even seeing cross-protection from other strains.  It has recently been recommended for boys. The recommended time to give the HPV vaccine is at 11 or 12 years old, when children are scheduled to receive other shots (tetanus and MMR boosters) and before they were likely to be infected.

The only reason that we do “Pap smears” (the papanicolaou test) is to look for changes in the cell nuclear DNA of the cervix, the opening to the uterus or womb. Over the last 15 years, we have found that 99.7% of these changes are due to HPV infections. In the US, 70% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18. (50% by HPV 16.) These are the two types of HPV that result in the most damage and cost, due to repeat paps and the subsequent biopsies, freezing, “LEEP,” or other treatments in which the surface of the cervix (the opening to the uterus or womb) is burned off to remove cancerous and pre-cancerous cells. These treatments lead to infertility and premature births.

Because 15% of girls begin sex before age 15 and half of girls who have sex before 20 say their first time was involuntary, the first trial of Gardasil involved 1200 girls between the ages of 9 and 15. The girls 15 and under had a better response to the vaccine than the older girls and women 16 and above. The researchers compared blood levels of antibodies. The research ethics committee ensured that no paps or pelvics were done on the young girls. (Every one of the young women under the age of 21 when I sent them for colposcopy for cancerous changes had been raped before they were 15 years old.)

The reports of deaths and injuries from Gardasil are poorly documented. The great majority of the adverse effects in the reports include pain, redness, and tingling at the injection site and fainting and headaches. People often faint and complain of headaches after seeing a needle, even without being stuck. It looks awful sometimes, like a seizure. The FDA has ruled that none of the deaths that have been confirmed were caused by the vaccine. In addition, this article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal contains a table showing the numbers of serious events and the numbers of deaths in several studies on the use of the HPV vaccine.

Remember your statistics classes. With 33 million doses, there are bound to be deaths that coincide with the timing of the vaccine use. The teen death rate from all causes is 62 per 100,000 across the US. Most of those are boys, but still: In 10 million girls, 30 deaths are not outside the rate for the age group. They are tragic, but consistent with life on this Earth.

More likely the girls who had severe reactions or death had other risk factors, due to the population presenting to clinics giving the vaccine: those who present with worries about STD’s, the newly sexually active and those entering college. The records show that many were given new scripts at the same visit for birth control pills and other vaccines and medicines, according to the analyses in the medical literature. (Also, remember the silicon, SSRI, and the general vaccine scares that have been blown out of proportion through the years and later proven to be untrue.)

The reports on the possible vaccine-related deaths are available for viewing at” the “Vaccine Adverse Event Report Site” (VAERS),(drop down to the table at the middle of the Page, option #3) using “HPV4” (This is the Merck vaccine), at Option#4, check “YES” at “life threatening” (or you could check “death”) and (top of page)”Sort by submission date.”

Here’s a few examples:

    Administered by: Unknown  Purchased by: Unknown Symptoms: Adverse reaction Write-up: It was reported from an article, published on 29-JUN-2009 that there were “hundreds” of life-threatening reactions said to be associated with GARDASIL. This is one of several reports received from the same source. Attempts are being made to obtain additional identifying information to distinguish the individual patients mentioned in this report. Additional information will be provided if available.

Another:

FINAL DX: Hodgkins lymphoma, nodular sclerosing, stage IIA. Records reveal patient was pale & had firm left clavicular lymph node. Excisional biopsy done 7/23/09 revealed diagnosis. Tx w/chemotherapy & possibly radiation tx when chemo completed.

And another:

    Write-up: Vaccine was administered, patient became dizzy 30 seconds after shot. Patient was pale, diaphoretic & nauseous. Symptoms lasted about 45 minutes. BP dropped to 90/50 & pulse to 50/min. 8/20/09 PCP note received DOS 8/4/09. After shots pt became naseated, pale, diaphoretic, dizzy and had difficulty breathing. BP dropped to 90/50 and pulse into the 50’s. Sx lasted ~45 minutes with return to baseline. Vax record states pt “passed out.”