02
Feb 13

Pastors challenge IRS rule with partisan talk – BakersfieldCalifornian.com

Pastors challenge IRS rule with partisan talk – BakersfieldCalifornian.com.

What makes most non profit 501 (C)(3) tax exempt groups so quiet about their causes? Why are they afraid to name names, and speak loudly against the politicians who oppose them? On this past Pulpit Freedom Sunday, more than 1500 Pastors openly defied the 1954 IRS regulation which sought to squash political speech by non profit groups, by scaring them with the IRS boogieman.
In all these 58 years, the IRS has done next to nothing against politically activist churches and non-profits. The IRS has only succeeded in stripping one church of its tax exempt status, in 1992. That particular church in Binghamton, NY ran newspaper ads against Bill Clinton and his positions on abortion and homosexuality.
Since then the IRS has sent only warning letters to a relatively few churches, and since then has had a policy of not enforcing this law.
The Pulpit Freedom Sunday supporters believe that the IRS fears losing ground on this First Amendment issue.

So…….. Why are so many churches and pro-life 501(c)(3) groups so quiet and polite about the political issues which impinge on their cause?
Why don’t they take a chance with their own careers, and income, as so many pro-life health care professionals have been doing? If they led by example, more people would be standing up and taking personal risks to stand up for life.

Don’t forget, the supposedly non-profit, tax funded, and tax exempt planned unparenthood has been openly funding and endorsing candidates for years.


25
May 11

Pharmacist Conscience Clauses- A Free Review of the Review

Hospital Pharmacy – Volume 46 – Number 5 / May 2011 – RxLegal – Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Continuing Debate – Journal Article.

When the “experts” are called upon to provide commentary in professional Journals, it would help if they research their work sufficiently to write something accurate and useful.

Michael Gabay, Pharm D, JD, BCPS,  has attempted to present the topic of Pharmacists conscience clauses, which have led to legislation excusing pharmacists from dispensing drugs which may operate to kill  a human organism.

Listed below are a few of the troubles with Gabay’s article:

1) The implication that RU-486 contributed to pharmacists’  conscientious objection conflicts.  Mifepristone/misoprostil  regimen was highly regulated, and dispensed by the abortion practitioners themselves, rather than pharmacists.  The article gives no mention of ulipristal acetate, the new analog of mifepristone which is now approved as a morning after pill, doses of which may be accumulated to accomplish a later abortion.  (Way to keep current, Dr. Gabay.)

2) Glaring omissions of significant, current,  judicial decisions.  Dr. Gabay is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Dept. of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois, Chicago. Yes, he is in Illinois, a member of the Chicago Bar Association, and inactive member of the Illinois Bar. His article failed to mention the group of lawsuits recently decided  in his own state, involving conscientiously objecting pharmacists and pharmacy owners, Walgreens and former Gov. Blagojevich. It is possible that Dr. Gabay, JD, was not aware of these significant court decisions, or perhaps he did not approve of them.

3) Garbled facts of the K Mart controversy, which actually involved a refusal to dispense progestin-only birth control drugs, not all “oral contraceptives” as the article incorrectly states.

4) Attributing the statement that oral contraceptives can prevent “implantation of a fertilized ovum”, to a person who knew better than that.  Embryology lesson begins  here:  Fertilization of the secondary oocyte, produces an evanescent form called the zygote, that immediately begins cellular division, and proceeds to the next stage.  By the time the human organism reaches the uterus to begin implantation, its embryonic form has differentiated into a blastocyst. (Dr. Gabay forgot the basic  anatomy/physiology stuff which should have been prerequisite to his Pharm D.)

5) Dr. Gabay still appears not to know what Ms. Brauer  knew about the mechanisms of birth control drugs,  and the progestin, norethindrone, in particular. The actual disagreement in the K Mart case is  still readily visible on the net:  Page 1 and Page 2.

6) The crux of ethical objection to dispensing drugs which act, to a significant extent, to stop the life of a human organism is just that.  It is not tied up in the various newer concepts  of “abortion” and “pregnancy” which exclude the early human embryo.  Abusing these terms to obfuscate the issue  violates the patients’ right to give informed consent. The law has established no cogent or consistent basis for determining which human organisms may be willfully  killed and which may not.

The complimentary review and editorializing  will end here, to prevent  reader fatigue.

The take home lesson for users of the literature in science and medicine is to read critically.   Much of it is incomplete and factually “challenged” whether it is primary literature, or review and commentary,  as in the case of Dr. Gabay’s article.

The value of extensive,  formal education (as currently supplied)  is also called into question, as it increasingly appears not to be helping with the quality of intellectual output.

*Note: This commentary has not been subjected to editorial review.


29
Apr 11

Blagojevich Rule Challenged | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Blagojevich Rule Challenged | Daily News | NCRegister.com.

In Sangamon County, Circuit Court Judge John Belz ruled that Illinois pharmacists can’t be forced to dispense the morning after pills against their own ethical standards and religious beliefs.

Opponents promise to immediately challenge this ruling, but Atty. Francis J. Manion,  ACLJ senior counsel, who represented the conscientiously objecting pharmacists notes that the court ruling addresses specific arguments for which the Illinois state attorneys were not able to provide evidence.   For example,  they were not able to argue that a single woman had been prevented from obtaining her morning after pills by a pharmacist who would not personally provide them.  For that reason, an appeal on their part will likely be a waste of Illinois’  negative financial resources.

The Illinois edict, which was overturned in the circuit court, had basically been designed  by Planned Parenthood, and this is the case for many other unconstitutional state laws opposing the human rights of health care professionals.

The article linked addresses  the battle over   conscience rights in numerous other states, including Wisconsin, Washington, where the  pharmacists  are in trouble, and in several more states which have recently supported pharmacists of conscience.

Scroll down in this blog to see the prescriber information for  Plan B, which clearly contradicts  the false premise of the Wisconsin regulations,  forcing pharmacists to dispense Plan B (as well as all other hormonal birth control).    Expect a new  legal battle to erupt in that state as the pharmacy owners are forced to apply the legislation and fire conscientiously objecting pharmacists.  Wisconsin’s legislation targeting the pharmacists was hidden in budget bills by the democrat legislature, and passed without much notice.  The newer state government might find cost containment benefits in rescinding the legislation.

The legal battle  is  ongoing in the state of Washington,  which the pro-abortion Governor Gregoire and her Board of Pharmacy  might drive all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.   It might be the crowning achievement of their careers.