Conservatives on Campus

News from my alma mater:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Brown University is offering a new course on conservatism this spring that its supporters say will help bring ideological balance to the school's offerings.

The course, "Modern Conservatism in America: Conservative Thought in the 20th Century," was developed as part of a project called Conservatism 101.

The project aims to introduce courses on conservatism at universities to bring balance to what its founders see as a heavy bias against conservative thinking in academia.

In a statement, Brown student and project co-developer Terrence George says students at elite schools are often unable to study views "outside of academia's leftist mainstream."

A Brown spokeswoman says the Ivy League university encourages broad intellectual exploration and gives students freedom to design their education.

While I imagine it's tough to be a conservative at Brown, that's not the reason to embark on such a project.  It's the work of academia.  I have no doubt this will be done with intellectual vigor.  Good.

(Even More On) The GOP Abortion Bill

Well, not exactly on the GOP Abortion Bill, but close. This, from Idaho.

NAMPA — The Idaho Board of Pharmacy will not take action against a Nampa pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription ordered by a Planned Parenthood nurse.

In a letter issued Thursday, Executive Director Mark Johnston wrote that the board had concluded its investigation into the incident and found no violations of state laws the board is tasked with enforcing.

In a complaint to the board, Planned Parenthood officials said the Nampa Walgreens pharmacist improperly used the state’s conscience law to refuse to fill a prescription for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus following childbirth or an abortion.

But according to the Board of Pharmacy’s response, the Idaho Pharmacy Act does not require a pharmacist to fill a prescription. Even if the conscience law was used incorrectly, the pharmacist did not violate the Idaho Pharmacy Act by refusing to fill the prescription, the board found.In response to Planned Parenthood’s assertion that denying the prescription could have placed the patient in grave danger, the board said no such danger was realized because the medicine was obtained elsewhere.

In this particular case, the pharmacist in question did not even know why the prescription was requested -- the Planned Parenthood nurse cited confidentiality when asked by the pharmacist, and refused to give the particulars regarding the patient's condition.

So, I guess in Idaho a health care provider can refuse treatment to a patient based on the assumption that the intervention is an offense to personal belief, without actually having all the information necessary to make a decision (unfortunately) protected under law.  This is sure to happen again and again, given confidentiality requirements. 

One day a woman will indeed not secure the medication or treatment needed from an alternate source, and will die.  And one day this will happen based on false assumption -- because someone will choose to withhold a treatment assuming that the reason a treatment necessary, is an offense to personal belief.

Business Responsibility

In today’s weekly address, President Obama spoke of ways government and business can partner together to get our country back to work.  You can read the transcript and watch the video here.

Some of the speech was about the responsibility government has to support innovation in the areas of education and infrastructure-building. But he also addressed the responsibilities businesses have. The emphasis is mine:

Supporting businesses with this kind of 21st century infrastructure and cutting-edge innovation is our responsibility. But businesses have a responsibility, too. If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That’s their obligation. And that’s the message I’ll be bringing to American business leaders at the Chamber of Commerce on Monday – that government and businesses have mutual responsibilities; and that if we fulfill these obligations together, it benefits us all. Our workers will succeed. Our nation will prosper. And America will win the future in this century just like we did in the last.

The responsibility to set up shop on our shores. The responsibility to hire our workers. The responsibility to pay decent wages. The obligation to invest in our future.

Is anybody listening?

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

I am not much for second-guessing what dead politicians would be saying and doing about present-day issues, if they were around today. I don’t care to hear that Ike would be considered a socialist, that Barry Goldwater would be on the forefront of progressive immigrant reform in Arizona, or that President Kennedy’s call for service to country is evidence that he would be an independent today.

But, on the eve of President Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday, this is good. From Cynthia Tucker, columnist at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

I would admit, however, that Reagan’s legacy seems less outrageous in retrospect. That’s because the current crop of Republicans is so much more partisan and so much less practical. While every Republican presidential hopeful since 1988 has tried to wrap him/herself in Reagan’s legacy, it’s not clear that the actual Ronald Reagan — the president who actually led the nation for eight years — would survive the brutal litmus tests of the current GOP and its tea party faction.

"By today’s standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only],” wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May. That’s because he compromised with Democrats and raised taxes — more than once.

I suppose I like that rather than assuming where President Reagan would stand on the tax issue today, Tucker simply puts his actions into (present-day) historical perspective. A much more intellectually valid enterprise.

(More On) The GOP Abortion Bill

Wow. They just can’t stop, can they.

This, from a press release put out by NARAL, Pro-Choice America.

Even as they attempted to modify this rape-related provision found in two pieces of legislation, H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, these lawmakers inserted a new provision on page six of H.R.358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care when necessary to save a woman’s life.

“Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it,” Keenan said. “When it comes to attacking women’s freedom and privacy, these politicians know no bounds. This debate is just getting started. Any member of Congress who has signed his or her name to this agenda must be held accountable for such extreme attacks against women’s reproductive-health services.”

Essentially, all hospitals in American that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding must provide emergency care to all who come through their doors. So indeed, if a patient needing an emergency abortion comes to the door of an anti-abortion hospital, the hospital must perform the procedure under the definition of “emergency care.” But, now this.  The emphasis is mine.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," is an amendment to the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new section of the bill inserted into the language just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

I have no doubt, that as in the case of redefining “rape,” the outrage will be fast and furious.

The GOP Abortion Bill

Well, that didn’t take long, did it.

House Republicans announced Thursday that they are taking a step back from a particularly controversial passage of a piece of anti-abortion legislation that many had criticized as a dangerous redefinition of the acts that constituted

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

Republicans trying to nitpick definitions of “rape” in order to limit access to the procedure. Needless to say, the outrage was fast and furious.

Another example of backtracking because of how clueless the Republicans are, or a cynical attempt to (again) show they are willing to “compromise?" Here's an instance when we should assume both, and call them to task from both directions.

The Week That Was: Health Care Reform

Bounce. Bounce. Bounce. Bounce.

For those of you following the bouncing ball of court decisions resulting from challenges to the 2010 Health Care Reform Act, here goes.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Mississippi dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, stating the Lieutenant Governor and others who filed the challenge did not have legal standing to sue. While he did not rule on the legal questions, still good news for the Obama Administration. Especially coming from a judge nominated by President George W. Bush.

This comes on the heels of a decision earlier in the week by federal court Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, who struck down a key provision of the health care law – the requirement for Americans to buy insurance. In declaring that particular mandate unconstitutional, he ruled the rest of the law cannot stand without it. Hence, he said, the entire law should be struck down.

Five decisions thus far, and counting. Theoretically, we can see this 50 times. Sigh.

Health Care For All.