It is one of the most hated parts of the Obamacare law — the infamous Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The law gives this board of unelected officials broad authority to impose Medicare cuts which most believe will lead to rationing care for older Americans. IPAB is directed to issue recommendations to limit what individuals can pay for medical treatment using their own funds. IPAB is empowered to use “quality” and “efficiency” measures to prevent medical inflation with heavy penalties inflicted on doctors who prescribe more lifesaving medical treatment than permitted by IPAB.
IPAB is so unpopular that a bill before Congress to repeal it has 144 co-sponsors from both parties. Over 270 medical organizations asked Congress to repeal IPAB in a letter sent last week. Even if the House passes the repeal, the Senate is unlikely to follow suit and, if it did, the measure faces a presidential veto.
Some fear the President may be able to get the Board up and running by making enough recess appointments to allow IPAB to begin conducting business. There is funding for IPAB to begin operations in October of this year.
What is so disturbing is that the President and his allies routinely criticize the Ryan plan to deal with Medicare, claiming that seniors will be hurt, while working almost fanatically to create a board which would be far worse.
Summing up the recall elections is very simple. If we lose our strong right-to-life majority in the State Senate, the Wisconsin Right to Life legislative agenda is dead, dead, dead. Tired of elections? So are we. Tired of the rhetoric, television ads, radio ads? So are we. Want to just enjoy your summer in peace? So do we.
But events not under our control urge us to become involved in protecting the majority so that we can continue to protect babies and mothers. And, we need everyone’s help. WRTL is engaged in several projects which urgently need volunteers. Even if you don’t live in a recall district, a few hours of your time would be extremely valuable. Please fill out volunteer our form here. Someone will be in touch to get you involved. See you on the campaign trail!
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down an Arizona law which requires Arizona’s gubernatorial candidates to receive additional matching funds if they are outspent by their opponent and independent groups is a welcome affirmation of free speech. This decision has a direct and positive bearing on a case filed by Wisconsin Right to Life and other groups, WRTL v. Brennan, asking the federal courts to strike down a similar provision in Wisconsin law in relation to State Supreme Court races.
On March 31, Wisconsin federal Judge William Conley dismissed a request by the Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee for a temporary restraining order on those provisions of the State Supreme Court public financing law which: (1) instruct the state to award significant “rescue” funds to an opposing candidate if third party spending for a candidate exceeds a certain amount, (2) require significant reporting, and (3) limit campaign contribution. An immediate appeal was filed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to seek emergency relief prior to the April 5 State Supreme Court election. An emergency order was not issued and the case remains before the Seventh Circuit for resolution. Similar cases are pending in Maine and New Mexico as well as Wisconsin.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling has correctly struck down as unconstitutional a provision which essentially requires groups to, in effect, fund the campaigns of candidates whose views they oppose simply because the group exercised its First Amendment right to free speech. Once again, Wisconsin Right to Life and its attorneys are in the forefront of protecting free speech rights in America. Today’s decision is another victory for our cherished right of speech.
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC is represented by Atty. James Bopp in this case as well as prior cases won by Wisconsin Right to Life in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is critical to keep the strong right-to-life majority in the Wisconsin State Senate. This summer’s recall elections will either preserve the opportunity to pass more laws protecting the right-to-life, or doom the entire Wisconsin Right to Life legislative agenda.
In danger are six Republican Senators who have strongly backed right-to-life legislation for many years. The right-to-life majority which currently exists in the State Senate could be strengthened if any of the three pro-abortion Democratic Senators are successfully recalled.
At risk are the following legislative proposals:
Further defunding of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.
Passage of the Woman’s Protection Act which would address coercive abortions, prohibit RU 486 chemical web cam abortions, require an ultrasound prior to an abortion and regulate and license abortions clinics.
Opt-ing out of abortion coverage in the health insurance exchanges set up by Obamacare.
Repealing the law which prohibits abstinence-only sex education in public schools.
The general election for recall of the six right-to-life Republican Senators is Tuesday, August 9. Battling to stay in the Senate to complete their terms are Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse), Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls), Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac), and Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay).
The general election for the three pro-abortion Democratic Senators is Tuesday, August 16. Those Senators are Robert Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie), Jim Holperin (D-Conover), and Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay).
Wisconsin Right to Life is actively involved in providing voters in the nine Senate districts with information on candidate positions and the importance of maintaining the strong right-to-life majority in the State Senate. Please watch for volunteer opportunities to help Wisconsin Right to Life at this critical time. Thank you.
The recently enacted Wisconsin state budget (AB 40) contains a provision which puts the University of Wisconsin Health Care Authority (UWHCA) under the provisions of our state law which prohibits the use of state tax dollars for the performance of abortions. UWHCA tried to persuade legislators that it would lose accreditation if the provision was enacted. This argument is phony — federal and state law protect UWHCA from discrimination if it does not participate in abortion activities. With the help of Atty. Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund, Wisconsin Right to Life successfully exposed this false attempt to “scare” legislators and the UW provision was included in AB 40.
Now UWHCA has changed tactics and come up with new phony arguments to try to convince Governor Walker to use a line item veto to strike out the UW provision. New UWHCA claims and their rebuttal by Atty. Bowman are as follows:
Phony Claim #1: UWHCA is a public authority “that does not receive state funds and that calling its funds state funds is ‘incorrect’ and potentially harmful to the hospital.”
Rebuttal: All AB 40 does is to include the UWHCA as an “agency of the state” and make it, as an agency, subject to the provisions of law which prohibit the use of state taxpayer dollars for the performance of abortions. In no instance does AB 40 state that UWHCA uses “funds of the state.”
Phony Claim #2: UWHCA claims it is not actually paying for the performance of abortions so the provision is unnecessary.
Rebuttal: Atty. Bowman received a letter from UWHCA dated March 5, 2010 in response to an open records request. In the letter, UWHCA admits that it pays residents who are trained to perform abortions at Planned Parenthood. Stipends and benefits which UWHCA spent on training at Planned Parenthood was $21,149 in 2007, $19,301 in 2008 and $18,428 in 2009.
Phony Claim #3: UWHCA fears that its OB/GYN program will be harmed by the budget provision and the number of OB/GYNs in the state will be reduced, threatening access to health care for women.
Rebuttal: This claim is almost laughable. As Bowman so aptly points out, by insisting on strong abortion components to its programs (like the ill-fated late-term abortion plan at the Madison Surgery Center), it is UWHCA that is discouraging pro-life individuals from entering the OB/GYN program. It is highly possible that the provision included in AB 40 will attract students and residents who currently shy away from becoming OB/GYNs because of the pressure to perform or be involved in abortion.
Will Governor Walker bite? With the skewering UWHCA has undergone due to its phony claims — not a chance.
To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):
I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I’ve heard your prayers that this baby will be happy and healthy, and I’ve answered them because I only want the best for you!
I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best in the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up. Though another girl would be so nice, you didn’t think you could ask for what you REALLY wanted, but I knew, so I gave you a boy because I only want the best for you!
Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be “Trig”, because it’s so fitting, with two Norse meanings: “True” and “Brave Victory”. You also have a Bristol Bay relative with that name, so I knew it would be best for you!
Then, I let Trig’s mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news—that way Piper wouldn’t have so long to wait and count down so many days—just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palins look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four days … you all really like cake.) I know you, I knew you’d be better off with just a short time to wait!
Then, finally, I let Trig’s mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for. At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing. But I gave Trig’s mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed lots of time to understand that everything will be OK, in fact, everything will be great, because I only want the best for you!
I’ve given Trig’s mom and dad peace and joy as they wait to meet their new son. I gave them a happy anticipation because they asked me for that. I’ll give all of you the same happy anticipation and strength to deal with Trig’s challenges, but I won’t impose on you … I just need to know you want to receive my offer to be with all of you and help you everyday to make Trig’s life a great one.
This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together and get everyone focused on what really matters. The baby will expand your world and let you see and feel things you haven’t experienced yet. He’ll show you what “true, brave victory” really means as those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells you is “normal” or “perfect”. You will grow and be blessed with greater understanding that will be born along with Trig.
Trig will be his dad’s little buddy and he’ll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage. He’ll love to be read to, he’ll want to play goalie, and he’ll steal his mom’s heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper did. And Trig will be the cuddly, innocent, mischievous, dependent little brother that his siblings have been waiting for … in fact Trig will—in some diagnostic ways—always be a mischievous, dependent little brother, because I created him a bit different than a lot of babies born into this world today.
Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential. Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed up world you live in down there on earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome. Doctors call it “Down’s Syndrome”, and Downs kids have challenges, but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine! Just wait and see, let me prove this, because I only want the best for you!
Some of the rest of the world may not want him, but take comfort in that because the world will not compete for him. Take care of him and he will always be yours!
Trig’s mom and dad don’t want people to focus on the baby’s extra chromosome. They’re human, so they haven’t known how to explain this to people who are so caring and are interested in this new little Alaskan. Sarah and Todd want people to share in the joy of this gift I’m giving to the Palin family, and the greater Alaska family. Many people won’t understand … and I understand that. Some will think Trig should not be allowed to be born because they fear a Downs child won’t be considered “perfect” in your world. (But tell me, what do you earthlings consider “perfect” or even “normal” anyway? Have you peeked down any grocery store isle, or school hallway, or into your office lunchroom lately? Or considered the odd celebrities you celebrate as “perfect” on t.v.? Have you noticed I make ‘em all shapes and sizes? Believe me, there is no “perfect”!)
Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.
I know it will take time to grasp this and come to accept that I only want the best for you, and I only give my best. Remember though: “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts … for as the heavens are higher than the earth, my ways are higher than yours!”
I wrote that all down for you in the Good Book! Look it up! You claim that you believe me—now it’s time to live out that belief!
Please look to me as this new challenge and chapter of life unfolds in front of you. I promise to equip you. I won’t give you anything you can’t handle. I am answering your prayers. Trig can’t wait to meet you. I’m giving you ONLY THE BEST!
Illinois reports a shockingly-high number of abortions each year — 46,077 reported in 2009. But an investigation by the ChicagoTribune uncovered how misleading those numbers are as the deaths of six women from botched abortions and 4,000 injuries to women were somehow missed in Health Department reports.
The Tribune found:
State regulators have documented between 7,000 and 17,000 fewer abortions a year than a national research group found in Illinois.
This reporting is the only tool Illinois authorities have to monitor some abortion providers, yet regulators may be allowing doctors and clinics to operate off the books. Regulators collect reports from 26 providers, but the abortion rights research group has identified 37 providers doing business in the state.
Also unknown to officials are the types of abortion-related problems experienced by women. Nearly 4,000 reports of abortion complications involving Illinois residents in 2009 were missing the required description.
Health care providers who intentionally fail to submit accurate and complete reports are committing a criminal act, and a failure to report abortion complications is grounds for revoking their licenses, but the Department of Public Health has never sought disciplinary action against a provider.
This story conjures up the lurid details of the late-term abortionist in Philadelphia who was allowed to perform abortions in filthy, unsafe conditions with no investigations by the Pennsylvania Department of Health for decades. Sounds like the Illinois Department of Health also operates under a “see no evil, hear no evil” philosophy. So much for protection of women and “safe, legal” abortions. It is a travesty.
The UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority is attacking a budget item passed by the Joint Finance Committee that prohibits UW from paying physicians or surgeons or UW facilities for the performance of an abortion. This week the state legislature will debate the budget, as approved by the Joint Finance Committee, which includes the UW budget item. Wisconsin Right to Life worked closely with key legislators to have this important provision included in the proposed budget.
The following information was sent by Wisconsin Right to Life to state legislators. After reading this, please scroll down to the end to find out what you can do to make sure UW doesn’t circumvent this important issue. Federal Law Protects Facilities, Students From Abortion Participation
James C. Dechene, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics is arguing that if the budget motion should become law, UWHCA would not be able to maintain an accredited Ob Residency Training Program. Here is his statement in its entirety
“The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) includes in its requirements for an Obstetrics Residency program to be accredited that the program make available to any resident who elects to receive such training the option to participate in a rotation in family planning, and if requested by the resident, abortion training. These requirements have been in place since at least the mid-1990s, and apply to all Ob residency programs, including a number that are operated by Catholic Teaching Hospitals or Catholic Universities. The way that UWHCA addresses this requirement, analogous to the way that Catholic institutions with Ob residency programs address this requirement, is to provide an option, not provided by the UWHCA, to do a rotation through an outside provider of those training services. No resident is at all required to receive such training, and in fact only a portion of residents elect to have that training. UWHCA respects the conscience of any residents who may elect not to participate in any family planning rotation, or if the resident elects to participate in a family planning rotation, to opt out of any portion of the rotation that may relate to abortion procedures. If UWHCA were prohibited in any fashion from making the option of training in abortion procedures available, it (like any other Ob program, including those operated by Catholic facilities) would not be able to maintain an accredited Ob Residency Training program. In making available the option for residents electing to receive training in abortion procedures, such training does not occur at UWHCA or at Madison Surgery Center. The approach of UWHCA in addressing the ACGME requirements is analogous to what Catholic Ob Resident training programs do to (1) maintain an Ob training program, while (2) not providing themselves the training in abortion procedures.” UWHCA’s claims are false based on federal law
The federal government and state and local governments that receive federal funds are prohibited from discrimination against health care entities, including residency programs, and individual health care providers that do not provide training in or refer for abortions. These conscience protections were enacted into federal law in1996 with what is known as the Coats-Snowe Amendment, the wording of which follows:
42 U.S.C. §238n. Abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities regarding training and licensing of physicians. The Federal Government, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance, may not subject any health care entity to discrimination on the basis that - (1) the entity refuses to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, to require or provide such training, to perform such abortions, or to provide referrals for such training or such abortions; (2) the entity refuses to make arrangements for any of the activities specified in paragraph (1); or (3) the entity attends (or attended) a post-graduate physician training program, or any other program of training in the health professions, that does not (or did not) perform induced abortions or require, provide or refer for training in the performance of induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision of such training.
It is important to note that ACGME’s discriminatory standard, which Mr. Dechene relies solely on to make his case, is the reason that the Coats-Snowe Amendment was created in the first place! On February 14, 1995, the ACGME voted to require every obstetrics and gynecology residency program to provide abortion training for their residents. Prior to this decision, abortion training was optional. However, because some institutions choose not to offer the training and many students choose not to undergo it, pro-abortion advocates sought to make this kind of training mandatory. As David Grimes, MD, stated in a January 19, 1995 speech, “Making abortion training a routine part of any residency…will put abortion back in the mainstream of medicine.” The change in policy was motivated by ideology and not by medical need. Congress reacted by amending the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238n) with the Coats-Snowe amendment designated “Establishment of Prohibition Against Abortion-Related Discrimination in Training and Licensing of Physicians,” which was signed into law April 26, 1996 (PL 104-134). What would happen if ACGME refused accreditation?
If ACGME tried to refuse accreditation, what effect would it have? ACGME has no power to tell the State of Wisconsin who it can issue licensing and status to and who it can train and how it can practice the field of medicine. Wisconsin is a sovereign state with the power to decide how medicine is regulated and whether ACGME has any legitimacy in the state, not vice versa. Federal law backs Wisconsin on this, not ACGME. If ACGME did try to refuse UWHC accreditation on this basis, the refusal could not be used by the State of Wisconsin or by many private employers to discriminate against the UW residency program or its graduates, because of federal and state law.
ACGME’s policy explicitly refrains from requiring the residency program from paying for abortion training, which is all 20.927 says: they can’t USE FUNDS for it. ACGME’s policy as quoted only says the program must
a. give participants experience in “abortion complications” (which in no way requires abortions themselves—this is available in UW’s ER, textbooks, and other things totally separate from being involved in the abortion);
b. must not impede residents from going somewhere else to do abortion training (which 20.927 doesn’t prohibit, as long as UWHC isn’t PAYING a physician or facility for the performance of an abortion.
Impact of Church Amendment and state law
Beyond the Coats-Snowe Amendment, the Church Amendment (42 USC 300a-7) provides even more protections , http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000300—a007-.html ), not even a private accrediting agency, and no public or private employer, if it receives Public Health Service Act funds or any biomedical or behavioral research funds would be allowed to discriminate against someone who graduated from a non-abortion residency program such as UW’s on the grounds that they didn’t provide training for abortion. Wisconsin Statute 253.09, Wisconsin’s current conscience provision, would similarly prevent any graduate of the UW residency program from being discriminated against because some organization decided the program is not “accredited”.
It is Wisconsin’s responsibility to follow the law, as established in Coats-Snowe, not the standards established by ACGME. The baseless arguments of UWHCA should be soundly rejected. Action Needed:
The legislature hopes to finish voting on the various budget items this Friday. Please contact your State Senator and your Assembly Representative TODAY. Ask them to support the Grothman/LeMahieu budget provision that prohibits UW from paying UW doctors and facilities to perform abortions. Ask them to reject UW’s baseless arguments that the budget provision would jeopardize the accreditation of their Residency Training Program. To find out who your State Senator and Assembly Representative are and how to contact them, click here.
For whatever combination of reasons, thankfully there finally seems to be growing concern about the startling sex-ratio imbalance which is largely the result of sex-selective abortions made possible by the use of ultrasounds. Female babies are being aborted in astonishing numbers because they are female.
But….to pro-abortion feminists, trying to stop abortions on the basis of gender is a threat to their core belief: no abortion can ever be prohibited no matter what the reason or how late in pregnancy. I was about to write a piece based on such gibberish (“To protect girls, women must have rights,” by Sara Ditum) when a friend sent me a really scary piece from TIME magazine, based on an interview with Beijing-based journalist Mara Hvistendahl author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.”
I should at least mention that Ditum’s bottom line is “The way to prevent sex-selective abortion isn’t to legislate against it or attack the women who seek it – it’s to create cultural changes that transform the place of women.” Of course equality between the sexes—treating women not as “burdens” but as assets– is key. In the meanwhile, until that utopia is reached, millions and millions of women are being aborted—and the situation is rapidly growing worse.
Hvistendah “spoke with TIME about why women are becoming scarce, what that means for the world and why, so far, so few people have bothered to act.” Let me highlight three points that jump out at the reader.
#1. In countries with these skewed sex-ratios, “the ratio for first births is still close to its natural level: somewhere around 105 males for every 100 females.” It’s what follows that explains the discrepancy: “An article published online in May in the medical journal The Lancet shows that Indians who first give birth to a girl are more likely to use sex-selective abortion during a second or subsequent pregnancy — presumably to ensure that their family eventually includes at least one son. Sex-selective abortion is illegal in India, but the procedure appears increasingly common.”
#2. Perhaps the point that should most shock us, “A preference for sons may be rooted in centuries-old tradition, but the rising sex ratio is no more than a few decades old. Hvistendahl explains that sex-selective abortion was in fact promoted by American scholars and non-governmental organizations in the 20th century as a way to stanch population growth. If families kept having children to ensure at least one son, the thinking went, then many ‘excess’ births could be averted by terminating the less-wanted female ones.” [But it hasn’t been confined to sex-selective abortions. In an earlier book, Hvistendah and historian Matthew Connelly documented that “many Americans and Europeans in Asia encouraged routine sterilization and even forced abortion among couples who already had children.”]
#3. Returning to the crucial significance of abortion, “In some ways, perhaps, the most likely advocates for the world’s missing girls are also the most hamstrung. Sex selection reveals deep gender discrimination. Yet the very women’s rights advocates who might fight that discrimination are often the same people who’ve campaigned hard in the U.S. and elsewhere to secure a woman’s right to choose her reproductive future.”
Here we hear an echo of Ditum’s argument: you start banning ANY abortion, no matter how abhorrent, and……
Wisconsin Right to Life worked closely with Rep. Robin Vos (R-Racine), Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Rep. Dan LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Rep. Andre Jacque (R-Green Bay) and other key legislators on two important measures adopted by the state’s Joint Finance Committee which do the following:
Cut off tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
By a 12-4 vote, the Joint Finance Committee approved a motion to direct family planning dollars under the Title V program to public health Departments. The counties “may not provide either state or federal Title V funds to providers that provide abortion services of abortion referrals, or any providers that have affiliates that provide abortion services or abortion referrals.”
Voting for the measure were Republican Senators Alberta Darling, Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, Joe Leibham, Glenn Grothman, and Sheila Harsdorf and Republican Representatives Robin Vos, Dan Meyer, John Nygren, Pat Strachota, Joel Kleefisch, and Dan LeMahieu. Voting against were Democratic Senators Bob Jauch and Lena Taylor and Democratic Representatives Tamara Grigsby and Jennifer Schilling.
Prohibit UW Hospitals and Clinics from using public funds for abortion. Under this prohibition UW can no longer pay medical students to learn to perform abortions, and it eliminates any further consideration of the ill-fated late-term abortion plan attempted by UW in the past few years.
Also by a 12-4 vote, the Joint Finance Committee approved a motion to make the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority subject to “provisions of current law that prohibit the use of public funds to pay a physician or surgeon or a hospital, clinic or mother medical facility for the performance of an abortion except in certain cases specified in current law.”
Voting for the measure were Republican Senators Alberta Darling, Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, Joe Leibham, Glenn Grothman, and Sheila Harsdorf and Republican Representatives Robin Vos, Dan Meyer, John Nygren, Pat Strachota, Joel Kleefisch, and Dan LeMahieu. Voting against were Democratic Senators Bob Jauch and Lena Taylor and Democratic Representatives Tamara Grigsby and Jennifer Schilling.
These two important motions are not yet law. They are part of the massive biennial state budget which must be approved by both houses of the legislature and signed into law by Governor Walker.
Wisconsin Right to Life praises those legislators who worked on the development of these motions and voted for them. To help Wisconsin Right to Life ensure that these measures become law, please join our online E-Voice network here.
![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
