Section 7 of the Act, the statute in question, states:

No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a
voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon
whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician
determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a
medical emergency.

Additionally, information that must be included for the consent to be considered informed is listed:

(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate,
unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with
that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys
protection under the United States Constitution and under the
laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her
existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will
be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and
statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman
would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;

(2) A statement by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to
perform the abortion, or by the referring physician, or by an agent of
both, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, providing the
following information:
(a) That medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal
care, childbirth, and neonatal care;
(b) That the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to
provide financial support for her child following birth, and that
this legal obligation of the father exists in all instances, even in
instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion;-4-
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of a pregnancy help
center in reasonable proximity of the abortion facility where the
abortion will be performed.

I have no background in law and therefore have no idea if Planned Parenthood actually possesses any legal grounds for their lawsuit. However, as a healthcare professional I can attest to the medical soundness of the required statements in § 7(1)(b)-(e) regardless of the political controversy that those statements might possess. Thus, it would seem to me that to dispute the informing of patients with scientifically-supported, medically pertinent information concerning any procedure as in violation of the free speech rights of both the physician and the patient is ludicrous. Of course, that’s a medical perspective. Perhaps politically this is indeed a perfectly sound move for Planned Parenthood – but then I can only speculate as to why they would assert that informed consent violates free speech; I’m not them.

The NDAA, you know, the bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. Need I say more?

Thanks for your input, Kristof, but the First Amendment is no mere accommodation, or “convenient arrangement” as the term is defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary. While your turn of phrase is advantageous to your ideology concerning the HHS mandate and religion in general, there is an elementary problem with your portrayal of governing authority over the governed. If freedom of religion is merely an arrangement made in convenience then, as soon as that so-called right becomes inconvenient (as our constitutional rights are so wont to do), then it no longer falls under the definition of accommodation and instead becomes a burden to the state. At which point the state will then shed its burden and, along with it, undermine the rights of the American people – just as we have witnessed with the HHS mandate. Our rights, however, are always a burden to the state – and rightly so – for they limit governing powers and that is why we have a constitution in defense of our liberties. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right endowed to us by our creator and our government does not “accommodate” it for us, like some service rendered. In fact, it is quite the opposite: we accommodate the government for the benefit of the common good and in protection of our God-given rights.

Our national debt is 15.4 trillion dollars, or 136,021 dollars per taxpayer. Our total unfunded liabilities are over 117.7 trillion dollars at over one million dollars per taxpayer. Our federal government overspends beyond its revenue at a rate of over 1.2 trillion dollars per year. Ron Paul’s spending plan cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels. Ron Paul proposes the most extreme budget cuts of any presidential candidate by leaps and bounds. Yet, by cutting 1 trillion we still fall 200 million short annually of a balanced budget. That means that by cutting spending by an amount equal to half our revenue we will still be accruing debt and won’t even begin paying off our massive debt! Under the implementation of Ron Paul’s spending plan we would have a balanced budget by 2015 and then, finally, we can begin the arduous but essential process of reducing our debt burden. This is the most radical plan of action out there, proposed by a man considered so extreme the MSM undergoes frequent media blackouts in an attempt to curb his influence, and yet all it proposes is doing the bare minimum to get America’s economy back on track.

Ron Paul is labeled extreme because he wants to use the American people’s money prudently – instead of allowing our federal government to have free reign with the billions entrusted to them by us. His plan to eliminate government waste makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker. Meanwhile, the “practical” fiscal conservative Santorum who voted multiple times for congressional pay raises thinks that this is just too radical – and Romney, Gingrich and Obama agree.

The issue upon which conservatives seem to find Ron Paul’s stance most abhorrent though is on foreign policy. First, lets set the stage: what is the current state of American national defense and foreign policy? Today, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families. Ron Paul believes that acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis. Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs. Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions. Constitutionally, we cannot declare war without congressional approval. Do you remember a declaration of war from congress against Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Me neither. Thats because the executive branch has usurped the power to go to war – the same executive branch that, under NDAA, can now detain any American citizen indefinitely and without trial. Ron Paul, instead of spending billions in military ventures abroad and paying off tin-pot dictators around the world, would rather see strong borders at home and our money invested in the the American people – not in North Korea, Egypt, Pakistan and others. Is this extreme? Compared to American politics as usual, absolutely.

Rick Santorum, the object of adoration by many Catholic conservatives (and my own second choice), has denounced Ron Paul on the issue of abortion. Yet, Ron Paul seeks to immediately save lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.” Additionally, Ron Paul will define life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” Furthermore, because Congressman Paul agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program. Compare this to Santorum who voted for a budget bill that contained millions in funds for Planned Parenthood, who proudly defends federal funding for contraception including the Pill which has been shown to be abortifacient (skip to 9:05) even though he personally opposes contraception, and who endorsed a militantly pro-abortion candidate against a pro-life candidate to his own political gain.

Ron Paul’s views are extreme . . . to a conventional political system that has no place to fit a man who doesn’t behave the way a politician is “supposed to act”.  Ron Paul doesn’t strategically endorse candidates for political gain like other politicians do, he only accepts campaign donations from individuals and not corporations like other politicians do, and he gives unused funds from his allotted office budget back to taxpayers every year to the sum of $100,000 last year which other politicians don’t do (except for his son, Rand Paul). Politicians like Santorum or Romney are too entrenched in the trees to see the forest – they’re a part of the same establishment that has failed us in every facet of government involvement so how can they possibly reverse the trend?

Ron Paul doesn’t limit himself to our current system because he recognizes that the system is broken. Its the system, politics as usual, thats the problem. We can vote for men like Santorum or Romney or Gingrich or Obama who will continue the “tried-and-true” trends of increased government spending, increased federal powers, suppression of rights, serial foreign warfare and continued government takeover of the private business sector while throwing us a bone once in a while or we can vote for a man whose been ideologically consistent for 30 years, who is uncompromising in his ideals, who stands by the constitution and who has had the audacity to offer real solutions with real change. Ultimately, the decision is ours and, if we find ourselves stuck with four more years of ad nauseam corporate fascism at the hands of an Obama or a Romney then we have no one to blame but ourselves. In politics, we tend to get what we deserve so, this time around, lets try to deserve something a little better.

Just like Conversion Diary's 7 Quick Takes, except it's half as long and twice as good.

1

I’ve been benched from running track ever since I developed hamstring tendonitis a few weeks ago. I started, unknowingly, with a weak arch in my left foot which led to the tendonitis as well as pelvic rotation problems. Then, compensating for tendonitis got me into problems with my left knee. With physical therapy my hamstring has loosened up and my pelvic rotation is corrected but I’m still dealing with an unstable arch and a bum knee. In the meantime I’ve taken up training for . . . rock climbing.

I have very little experience with rock climbing or the types of exercise that the training requires but I’m excited to try something new. When I started training my max-out for pull-ups was only 5 and, while that’s more than many people can do, I also have a very light build (long-distance runner) so its not like I’m lifting very much.

My first excursion is in two weeks. Its gonna be legen – and I hope no one reading this is lactose intolerant because the second half of this word is – dairy! Legendary!

2

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey made news this week by calling an Israeli-led attack on Iran in the near future “destabilizing” and “not prudent.” Which is great because its in our best interest and, probably the world’s at large, that we do not go to war with Iran – especially when Russia and China have both threatened to come to aid Iran against us. However, Israel denounced General Dempsey, calling him a servant of Iran. Unfortunately, this is too common a reaction, not just abroad but here at home, whenever anyone opposes Israel. Israel is a secular state and not the sacred God’s people that so many Americans make them out to be. We are all God’s people. Instead, Israel should be treated like any other sovereign ally. We should respect them and collaborate – but ultimately we need to do what is in our best interest and right now that means not instigating a war with Iran.

Israel disagrees, however, as their Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon explicitly called the Obama administration“hesitant” in their unwillingness to attack, which was followed by a warning only a day later by the nation’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which he urged the US to “move from words to deeds.” Sorry, Israel, but America has enough war on its hands and, as a sovereign nation, you step over the line of authority when you demand that we fight your battles for you. I hope our leadership doesn’t cave to Israel’s demands, or their lobbyist arm, AIPAC, because we cannot afford another decade of war entrenched in the Middle East.

3

Ron Paul has a new ad slamming Santorum. It states, “Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, double the size of the Department of Education, then supported the biggest entitlement expansion since the ‘60s.” That, I was aware of. However, also in the ad, Santorum is alleged to have voted in favor of outfitting former North Korea leader Kim Jong Il with financial aid, as well as offering support to the government of Egypt. Elsewhere, the Senator is linked to okaying millions in funding for Planned Parenthood, despite openly opposing abortion. I’ve heard the Planned Parenthood allegations before but I haven’t seen proof (I also haven’t looked yet); if anyone knows more about this I’d be interested in hearing more.

3 1/2 

I’m too tired and busy to come up with a 3 1/2 so Calvin will see you out.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul slammed America’s system of governance at a rally in Kansas City, saying businesses and government are pushing the country into twenty-first century fascism.

But before you start picturing fair-skinned, blue-eyed CEOs and bureaucrats running amok and with their right arms held high, calm down. What the outspoken Texas Republican meant was fascist corporatism – an economic model most prominently seen in Mussolini’s Italy of the 1920s to the 1940s. Fascist economic corporatism involved government and private management of full sectors of the economy – which Paul says is par for the course in today’s America.

“We’ve slipped away from a true republic,” Paul told thousands of his supporters at the rally. “Now we’re slipping into a fascist system where it’s a combination of government, big business and authoritarian rule, and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.”

His words, which a few years ago might have been dismissed by most, rang loud and clear in Kansas. Paul’s rally coincided with long-established Missouri and Kansas GOP events – from which many attendees actually slipped away to hear Paul deliver his speech. Drawn out and bled dry by ongoing and expensive overseas military campaigns, Americans are more and more receptive to a foreign policy of peace, which is what Paul promises to deliver.

The presidential hopeful echoed words already once delivered to the American people – by their president. Dwight Eisenhower said, in his farewell address to the nation, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The disastrous rise, it seems, has happened. In 2009 alone, the United States was responsible for almost half of the world’s total military spending – 46 per cent, or 712 billion US dollars. Since then, the figures have only grown, to the point that American military spending now exceeds that of China, Russia, Japan, India, and the rest of NATO combined. The US has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.

But, one might ask, can’t the American government – which oversees the world’s highest gross domestic product – afford some extra military spending?

The simple answer is: no.

The wealthiest nation also happens to have the biggest national debt in world history. With the dollar acting as a global reserve currency, the Federal Reserve leaving the printing press running around the clock, and manufacturing and production being outsourced to cheap foreign labor markets, the US economy looks more like a Ponzi scheme. And as former president George W. Bush told his Argentine counterpart Nestor Kirchner, “The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the US has grown stronger with war.”

But Americans are tired of war – and are tired of waiting for the magical day when war will magically revive the economy. Which is why Ron Paul may have found the perfect note to strike with voters as he continues to fight in the Republican primaries.

Lets examine Ron Paul’s claims point-by-point:

Big government

According to the U.S. National Debt Clock our nation’s total liability per taxpayer is $1,039,057. That’s right, over one million dollars per taxpaying individual. Our national debt accrues an annual interest of $11,971 per citizen. Our national debt is nearly 15.4 trillion dollars and our unfunded liabilities are 117.7 trillion. RT is not exaggerating when they state that we have the “biggest national debt in world history.”

Big business

Thanks to our out-of-control inflating government instead of a true free market we have government-enabled corporatism. The result is this:

Note how in nearly twenty years the bottom 50% of families have experienced no growth, the next 50-75% has experienced minimal growth and. all the way at the top, the top 10% has experienced tremendous growth. Not convinced?

The bottom 80% (aka, the vast majority of Americans) owns only 7% of America’s financial wealth while the top 1% owns nearly half of all financial wealth in America. This is a trend that has continued for decades as the few elite on the top continue to consolidate more and more of the wealth. Liberals may be tempted to take a socialist approach by increasing taxes on the rich for redistribution of wealth but this only serves to fatten government even more – which means that ultimately that money will be funneled right back to serving the rich’s interests. Instead we must minimize government in order to starve corporatism.

Authoritarian rule

The recent HHS mandate provides a clear example, in which the executive branch has forced companies to provide a product (contraception) free of charge to anyone. The mandate doesn’t even meet any need even remotely requiring federal intervention since, according to Obama’s own administration 99% of women in the United States have used birth control. No issue of accessibility here; this is nothing more than abusing government powers in order to enable cost shirking. Not to mention the violations to religious freedom posed by the mandate.

Suppression of individual rights

One must look no further than the NDAA which authorizes the executive branch to label as a terrorist and then detain anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely and without a trial. President Obama has promised never to use this power against Americans (a promise with no legal value) but with the Enemy Expatriation Act in the works that promise may be irrelevant is the EEA allows for the stripping away of citizenry of anyone deemed a threat to the state. Then, of course, there are the repeated attempts at censorship of the internet from Kill Switch, to SOPA and PIPA, to a new bill yet to be disclosed brought forward by the same people who failed to limit your rights of free speech with the aforementioned bills.

Indeed, even from the few examples listed it would seem that, more and more, our precious home has been commandeered by keynesian economics, consolidation of wealth and property, and tyrannical usurpation of power by the government. It is up to the individual citizens to stand up and be counted and demand a return to the principles of our Constitution and Jeffersonian democracy while we still live in a “Land of the Free” or this trend will never be reversed

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, released a statement asking, “How can Congress hold a hearing about birth control and not let any women speak?” She accused Congressman Darrell Issa of “holding a congressional hearing to oppose insurance coverage for contraception, yet not allowing a single woman to testify in support of the benefit.”

Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, George Zornick of The Nation, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, and Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi all made similar statements. However, Cecile Richards and the rest owe both their following and those they accused an apology because, “not allowing a single woman to testify” actually means: two women testified but they were opposed to the mandate so they don’t count. Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, the senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University, and Dr. Laura Champion, the medical director at Calvin College Health Services, were two of ten witnesses to testify, claiming that the HHS mandate violates their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

Furthermore, under rules established before Republicans regained control of the House, the minority party gets to choose one witness per hearing. The committee’s Democratic members originally chose Barry Lynn, a man. After Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-NY, said he would feel more comfortable with women on the panel, Congressman Issa responded, “I might want to note Rev. Barry Lynn is not a woman. That’s who you requested.”

The minority then changed its mind and asked for Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student who was expected to testify about a fellow student who was reportedly unable to afford birth control pills. Since the hearing was about religious freedom and not birth control, however, she was deemed an inappropriate witness. Barry Lynn was called but declined to attend because he deemed the call not very “serious.”

So there you have it: more deceit and duplicity from Planned Parenthood all in the name of “women’s health” and “justice.” If Planned Parenthood were really interested in justice why do they feel so compelled to lie and hide the truth? While their supporters might not care or even notice their deception Planned Parenthood only loses credibility to anyone paying attention. I too want social justice and everyone to have access to the healthcare that they need. However, I also respect my fellow Americans too much to blatantly lie to their faces in order to further my own agenda – no matter how good or just I may believe my motives to be.

Everything you need to know about the Obama Administration’s decision making process on the HHS mandate:

1. U.S. Bishops consulted – No
2. Insurance companies consulted – No
3. Constitution consulted – No
4. Planned Parenthood consulted – YES

Mike Flynn makes the obvious yet ingenious observation concerning the erroneous statistic reiterated by the Obama administration as “fact”:

If it is true that 98% use contraceptives — and it isn’t, really — then they cannot really be hard to acquire.  One wonders how women got them for all these years since Griswold.

If 98% really do use contraception then there is obviously no issue of ease of access – and certainly not on a national scale – the HHS mandate suddenly looks so frivolously silly in addition to being tyrannical.

Ironic Catholic presents a satirical piece entitled NPR marks ‘Kick a Catholic Week’ with new t-shirt pledge drive gift which had me in stitches. Here’s an excerpt:

“We’re always looking for new incentives for our pledge drives,” said NPR promotions director Frank Byast. “People like things that are a fun twist on the news, so we think the ‘Kick a Catholic!’ thank you gifts will be a big hit. No pun intended.”

The shirt was inspired by NPR’s “Kick a Catholic Week,” the brainchild of NPR reporters forced to cover the controversy generated by the Obama administration’s mandate that Catholic institutions pay for contraceptives and abortifacients.

“We thought, ‘Okay, we can’t ignore this anymore, so how can we have fun with it?’” said Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep. “That’s the nice thing about a story like this. When one side is so clearly wrong, you’re a little less concerned about being fair and balanced. It’s like covering the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. You’re not going to ‘balance out’ your coverage by interviewing Nicolae Ceaușescu, right? It’s the same with the Catholic bishops.”

Byast says that the organization doesn’t mean the promotional items to be taken literally. “We don’t want public radio members walking into a Catholic Mass and kicking people in the shins during communion,” he laughs. “It’s meant more figuratively.”

Staff in the NPR newsroom have posted a list of ways to celebrate “Kick a Catholic Week.” First on the list? “Read Catholic teaching documents on human sexuality.”

“Yeah, that one’s pretty tongue-in-cheek,” laughs religion reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty. “Who has time for that kind of deep background research? I mean, I printed a few documents, but after a couple hundred pages, the printer ran out of paper. And it’s all in Latin! So we recycled it in the NPR bathrooms. Which, come to think of it, would be a great membership premium—Catholic-themed TP.”

One of the most popular suggestions from the list has been #18: “Misrepresent embarrassing survey results. Repeatedly.”

The court cited the 1973 Alabama Supreme Court decision Wolfe v. Isbell, which ruled “that from the moment of conception, the fetus or embryo is not a part of the mother, but rather has a separate existence within the body of the mother,” continuing, “medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development,” he wrote. As such, the belief that women should not be able to sue if their unborn child is below an ever-changing medical standard “should be universally abandoned” and “rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court.”

In 2011 a record number of state laws meant to restrict abortion were enacted. The Guttmacher Institute reports that 83 pro-life laws were passed in 2011, double the previous record of 34, enacted in 2005, and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010. In the wake of 2011′s unprecedented record, 2012 is already shaping up to be a strong year for state-sanctioned protection of the unborn under the law. Way to be, States.