Sibby Online

SD Planned Parenthood under the gun

WorldNetDaily has a report on a alleged legal infraction by the South Dakota Planned Parenthood:

Planned Parenthood abortionists in South Dakota have been accused of "defying" a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found constitutional a state requirement for informed consent.

In a letter to the state, a copy of which was obtained by WND, a number of interveners in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against South Dakota over the law express alarm that even a full year after the appellate court issued its ruling, the organization apparently remains in deliberate violation.

"Planned Parenthood lost, our side won and yet Planned Parenthood defies the decision of the en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals," said the letter, obtained by WND from a source with links to the case.

The Cassidy Law Firm that represented the interveners said it could not comment or provide information on the situation. The office of the state attorney general did not provide a response to WND inquiries about the group's compliance.

Doneen Hollingsworth, the secretary of health for the state, told WND in a statement the agency "is required to inspect abortion facilities and enforce applicable laws and regulations. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the department met with Planned Parenthood representatives July 30 regarding findings from its most recent inspection.

"The department can not discuss specifics of those compliance issues at this stage in the regulatory process. The Department of Health does and will continue to enforce this and other laws," the statement said.

WND contacted Planned Parenthood, where Media Relations Director Kathy Di Nicola said, "I can tell we are in compliance with the law in South Dakota."

WND reported in July 2008 when the appellate judges ruled constitutional the state's law that requires abortionists to inform women – before an abortion – that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

The letter, dated just days ago, said, "The statute expressly states that the physician's disclosure statement must include the disclosure 'that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.' The term 'human being' is defined by S.D.C.L. 34-23A-1(4) in the biological sense."

Also, the letter said, "The Disclosure Form created by the South Dakota Department of Health, as it relates to the Human Being Disclosure, accurately reflects the command of the Statute, and is the only wording of the disclosure which would properly comply. Your language is correct as written: '1-b) The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; the term 'Human Being' means, for the purpose of this and following disclosures, 'an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens during its embryonic and fetal ages.'"

It continued, "The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that this disclosure as written was constitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). If Planned Parenthood does not use the language drafted by the Department of Health, it is not in compliance with the statute," the letter said.

"The language used by Planned Parenthood does not comply: 'South Dakota requires that you be informed that, as a matter of biology, the abortion will terminate a developing, living organism (an 'embryo' or 'fetus') of the human species ('Homo sapiens') that, in the absence of abnormality, has a complete, separate genetic makeup that is unique to that embryo or fetus,'" the letter said.

"The statute requires a straight forward statement that is easily understood by a lay person, that the abortion terminates the life of a human being. The precise language was carefully selected by the legislature. The language used by Planned Parenthood not only fails to use the clear and proper language, but Planned Parenthood’s language is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and very confusing," the letter said.

The South Dakota law is far more strict that other regulatory provisions. It allows a woman who alleges she was not provided with the proper informed consent to sue for damages. It allows a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against a physician who fails to provide the proper informed consent, and it allows the state to investigate and act against the license of any facility where the requirements for such informed consent are not met.

The racism of the Progressive left

Rush Limbaugh confronts the racism that is used by the Progressive left to attack America. He ends with reference to the black liberation theology that was the basis to Obama’s Marxist based religious experience in Chicago:

RUSH: Okay, let's go back to Joan Walsh on Hardball last night talking about all of this unfair racism that we "project" on Obama.

WALSH: I see it with both Glenn Beck and with Rush Limbaugh. There's a clear case of projection here, w-where these guys -- with really suspect racial feelings and perceptions -- are projecting their own hate and their own divisiveness onto a president who, as you said, had a white mother was raised by white grandparents; and there's absolutely no evidence at all that he anything but loves white people. Obama got to where he was, in my opinion, largely because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way.

RUSH: Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus as "a typical white person." Remember? It was in the race speech, where he also threw Reverend Wright overboard. So Obama "got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard." What, not be racist? And "we really like it when black people make us feel that way." We really like it when black people tell us we know you're not racist, is that what she's saying? Yes, my friends, she's saying that -- and that's as race-oriented as you can be. We conservatives are colorblind. We don't even see people that way. He started it. Let's go to the book. Now, we don't have this particular bite, but I remember Obama in one of his books -- and I've heard the audio portion of it, said, "The way you have to deal with white people..." I'm paraphrasing. The way you have to deal with white people show 'em you're not a threat and you mean them no harm and then everything is fine. He really loves white people. Here's the first one. This is a portion of Obama reading from his book: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

OBAMA: That's just how white folks'll do you. (sic) It wasn't merely the cruelty involved. I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know they were being cruel in the first place, or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.

RUSH: Oh, this sounds like a lot of love for white people. And here's Obama bring up the book Heart of Darkness and what it taught him about white people and why white people hate.

OBAMA: So I read the book to help me understand what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons, the way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.

RUSH: "So I read the book to help me understand what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons, the way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate." That doesn't sound like a guy who loves white people, Ms. Walsh. These are his own words! He supposedly wrote these words and he now concludes by reading more from the book.

OBAMA: The emotions between the races could never be pure. Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our commons or our salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.

RUSH: Joan Walsh: "Obama got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way." What a dense, shallow person. (interruption) It is. It's almost like the "Magic Negro" thing. When you get down to it, Joan Walsh is almost saying, "Hey, you know, this is a guy that doesn't scare us." Only she's saying it in reverse: "We are the ones that don't scare him." It's like Joan... (interruption) No, it's not magic. It's Joan Walsh is the magic white. Joan Walsh is describing the magic white. Now, I just want to make sure I have this straight.

It turns out I am the racist. Now, you people have been listening to this program for 20 years. I have been hosting it for 20 years. I have never said, and you've never heard me call my grandmother "a typical white woman." You've never heard me call any black person "a typical black person." The truth is, Ms. Walsh, President Obama is so race-obsessed he writes a book about the father he never really knew subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance." He marries a woman who's lucky enough to get into Princeton but writes a book about how she's always an outsider in white culture. Then the two of them sit in Reverend Wright's hate temple of black liberation theology for 20 years -- and I am the one with the race problem, Ms. Walsh? The problem is people like you being in the media, Ms. Walsh.

Gate's race card

 

I found that here:

In a related note, investigators at The People’s Cube have managed to obtain a copy of Professor Gates’ official “race card” employed during his recent arrest. Note that it never expires, and entitles the bearer to some rather handy privileges not enjoyed by most American citizens.

Obama Czar: only socialists are human?

Bob Ellis has some insight into the radicals that Obama has in his administration:

A couple of weeks ago I warned that President Barack Obama’s science czar John Holdren was an anti-American death-culture extremist.

Now CNS News reports that not only is Holdren a population control and abortion activist, he seems to support infanticide as well.

It is clear that he doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with killing a human being before it leaves the mother’s body (just a little technicality, but an important one in his mind). According to comments made by Holdren in a book he co-authored, he doesn’t see a young child as a human being, either.

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."

At least he’s consistent in a sadly mistaken, anti-human sort of way. After all, there is essentially no difference at all genetically between a fetus in the womb, and an infant, and an adolescent: all are genetically complete and all are not yet fully developed as is the adult human. The same justification for killing an unborn child in the womb should consistently hold true for an infant, a toddler or even an older child.

Or any body who is not "socialized".

Medicaid, the real health care crisis

Here is an example of the cost shift from the government system to the private sector:

Drudge links to a story today of a Buffalo, NY case in which a local resident uses the ambulance service as a taxi to go to the hospital when he doesn’t feel well.

Scott Graham is reported to have been taken to the hospital by ambulance several times per week and even twice per day for a total of over 600 trips in the past three years and at an estimated cost of nearly 120,000 dollars to local taxpayers!

That’s just for the ride to the hospital mind you, and the actual amount charged was $360,000, of which Medicaid paid about one-third. The balance is paid for by patients and insurance companies that have to pay full fare.

Mr. Graham is reported to have sickle cell disease and is unemployed and uninsured so all his costs are necessarily (by law) either picked up by Medicaid or passed on to patients with insurance or at least responsible enough to pay their bills. (Ever wonder why a Tylenol at the hospital costs $37? Some of the exorbitant charges of hospital care can be attributed to the necessity of hospitals to recoup some of the losses in cases such as this.)

Mr. Graham also admits that he could call a taxi but that he is attended to faster in the ER if he arrives by ambulance. He also knows that when EMS is called through the 911 system that he can’t be refused and can’t be made to pay.

John Thune opens up a healthcare blog

Bob Ellis has the latest work from John Thune:

Thanks to the good Tim Fountain at Northern Plains Anglicans I’ve learned that Senator John Thune (R-SD) has launched the Healthcare Freedom blog to discuss the planned government takeover of healthcare.

As Senator Thune said in his press release announcing the blog:

"Republicans and Democrats alike know we need to reform our nation’s healthcare system. I support common sense reform that will lower costs for families, small businesses and senior citizens. A government-run healthcare system, like the one Democrats are aiming for, would cause patients to lose their coverage and diminish the availability and choices of healthcare plans. We must achieve real reform that finds savings rather than one that balloons the federal budget deficit," said Senator Thune.

"Today I’ve launched a blog that outlines some of the principles I could support in a reform measure. The blog will serve as a forum for South Dakotans and citizens around the country to post their views and will be continually updated with the latest news and developments in the Congressional debate over how to reform healthcare," Thune continued.

It’s great to see one of the leading Republican senators take the bull by the horns and engage this unconstitutional assault on the free market and the American taxpayer.

Break up the Federal Reserve

This falls short of abolishing the Federal Reserve:

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the Federal Reserve System, did so to forestall financial panics rather than pursue macroeconomic policies. The gold standard defined monetary policy. The Fed was merely meant to "provide an elastic currency" by serving as lender of last resort in times of crisis. The Act also assigned the Fed routine responsibilities for maintaining and improving the financial system—examining banks, issuing currency notes, and helping clear checks.

The adoption of Keynesian and monetarist ideas by central bankers and elected officials subsequently cast the Fed in a proactive macroeconomic role. William McChesney Martin, who served as chairman from 1951 to 1970, said that the job of the Fed was "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going." This might have been wise in theory, but it wasn’t mandated by the law. In 1977, an amendment to the 1913 Act explicitly charged the Fed with promoting "maximum" employment and "stable" prices. The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act that followed in 1978 mandated the Fed to promote "full" employment and while maintaining "reasonable" price stability.

Legislation also has increased the Fed’s responsibilities for overseeing the mechanics of the financial system. The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 gave the Fed responsibility over holding companies designed to circumvent restrictions placed on individual banks. It was tasked with regulating the formation and acquisition of such companies.

Congress further tasked the Fed with enforcing consumer-protection and fair-lending rules. The Fed was made the primary regulator of the 1968 Truth in Lending Act that required proper disclosure of interest rates and terms. Similarly, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced the Fed to address discrimination against borrowers from poor neighborhoods.

The expansion of bank holding companies into activities such as investment banking and off-balance-sheet exposures to complex instruments such as credit-default swaps also required the Fed to increase the scope of its supervisory capabilities.

In principle, an exceptionally talented theorist might capably run a Fed focused just on monetary policy. Setting the discount rate and regulating the money supply are centralized, top-down activities that do not require much administrative capacity. But without deep managerial experience and considerable industry knowledge, effective chairmanship of a Fed that relies on far-flung staff to regulate financial institutions and practices is almost unimaginable. The vast territory the Fed covers would challenge the most exceptional and experienced executives.

As it happens, the Fed has been led for more than 20 years by chairmen who had no senior management experience. Prior to running the Fed, Alan Greenspan started a small consulting firm and Ben Bernanke was head of Princeton’s economics department. Given their understandable preoccupation with monetary and macroeconomic matters, how much attention could they be expected to devote to mastering and managing the plumbing side of the Fed? While the record of the Fed’s monetary policy has been mixed, its supervision of financial institutions has been a predictable and comprehensive failure.

The Fed’s excessively broad mandate also has thwarted accountability. The CEOs of Citibank, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman and Countrywide are all gone—albeit with too much delay and with no clawback of unmerited compensation. At the Fed, no high-level heads have rolled. Mr. Geithner was promoted to treasury secretary. Mr. Bernanke is treated with great deference as he solemnly testifies that if it weren’t for the Fed, the crisis would have been much worse. But then, how can anyone be held responsible for failing at a job no human could do?

At the very least we should split the monetary policy and regulatory functions of the Fed, as was done through the Maastricht Treaty that established the European Central Bank. What we need now is a debate about how to break up the Fed—and some of the sprawling financial institutions it supervises—in order to make both the regulator and the regulated more manageable and accountable.

Stupid Cops stimulates the economy?

No wonder Obama’s stimulus package is not working, and to think that Obama believes Cops are stupid, or is that just the white ones:

South Dakota will get Federal stimulus money to hire or rehire 30 law enforcement officers. The $5.1 million in grant money is part of one billion dollars nationwide. The Sioux Falls Police Department with get $1.9 million which is the largest portion in the state.

Carbon credits have their own financial disasters

Want Cap and Trade? Think about this:

Farmers enrolled in a program that rewards them for storing greenhouse gasses have not gotten payments this year due to a depressed carbon credits market.

The National Farmers Union says carbon dioxide credits are fetching about 60 cents a metric ton, down from a high of about $7 a year ago.

And so we should also consider this Progressive propaganda:

In June, the House narrowly passed its sweeping climate-change legislation. The bill must be approved by the Senate.

It would create a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ease global warming. Companies, especially coal-burning power plants, would have to get government-issued pollution permits. As permissible emissions drop over time, companies would have to reduce releases or buy offsets.

Utilities that adopt carbon-capture technology or invest in wind or solar power could sell their offsets, or pass the savings to consumers.

But Johnson said farmers and ranchers could benefit as well - by using no-till practices, adding methane digesters and setting aside marginal lands from crop production to conservation programs. They then could sell their credits to companies on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

"This is really a free-market way of regulating," Johnson said. "This is a way of sorting out the winners and losers in the marketplace."

Cap and Trade is the opposite of free markets. It is the same kind of derivative that caused the housing bubble and its financial disaster. The impact will be raising energy costs and lining the pockets of those in the financial sector.

More federal bribery

Again, the federal government is looking at using federal funding to bribe states into doing things their way:

Sending text messages behind the wheel could soon be a thing of the past. National legislation is being considered that would ban it. Some Democratic Senators want the government to cut off federal highway money to states that don't prohibit people from texting while driving. Lawmakers say one study found texting and driving is more dangerous than driving while drunk. Minnesota has texting laws in place but South Dakota and Iowa do not.