Pennsylvania and Texas are finally investigating abortion clinics that allegedly have violations and that’s a healthy sign, but what is Louisiana waiting for? I’ve been told that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is a good man and there’s even been some talk that he should be persuaded to run for president, which is why he just released his birth certificate. On the other hand there has been some criticism that he delegates a lot of issues that deserve his personal attention. I don’t know if that’s true or not but when I learned about what’s happening in Louisiana’s abortion clinics and a possible cover up by the Delta Health department, I wondered why Gov. Jindal hasn’t ordered them shut down.

In February, Sen. David Vitter sent a letter to Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Bruce Greenstein urging an investigation and immediate action against the abortion facility with connections with Kermit Gosnell.

Gosnell was arrested in Philadelphia and charged with one count of murder in the death of a woman in a botched abortion and seven counts of infanticide-seven infants born alive had their spinal cords snipped with scissors. His facility had a history of numerous health and safety violations which were ignored by authorities.

The Delta Clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has a close connection with Gosnell. Its owner Leroy T. Brinkley hired Gosnell to work one day a week at his clinic. Brinkley also sent patients to Gosnell after starting the abortion procedure in Delaware then driving them to Philadelphia to complete the procedure. Brinkley also had one of his clinic workers, Eileen White O’Neil, work for Gosnell in Philadelphia. She has also been charged with Gosnell for criminal violations that include deception for pretending to be a licensed physician, and for racketeering.

(more…)

The House of Representatives moved quickly to pass legislation to repeal the President’s Health Care Reform measures but for breast cancer patients, repeal might not come soon enough.

Breast cancer patients are among the initial victims of the ObamaCare mindset where cost of treatment trumps the effectiveness of treatment. Thanks to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the life-extending drug Avastin may no longer be an option for breast cancer patients – despite evidence of its effectiveness and testimony of women—and their doctors– who believe they survive solely because of the drug.

The FDA seems intent on “de-lableing” the drug – a move that would allow insurance companies and Medicare to deny coverage for the drug. Even though the FDA is not charged with considering the cost of a drug when determining its availability, it is apparent they did. Jean Grem of the University of Nebraska explained her anti-Avastin vote by observing, “We aren’t supposed to talk about cost, but that’s another issue.”

(more…)

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announced yesterday that it would ration the late-stage cancer drug Avastin for breast cancer patients. (Ironically, the same day, the EU announced it would not ration access to Avastin.)  The reaction to the FDA’s decision has been fierce:

Rep. Kay Granger:  “For the 17,500 women across the country who rely on Avastin to survive, I am extremely disappointed the FDA has chosen to take away one of the very few options for the treatment of late-stage breast cancer. To make matters worse, this announcement comes on the same day that European drug regulators approved the continued use of Avastin for women with late-stage breast cancer.  It is troubling that women in Germany and France will soon have access to a life-saving drug, while women in the U.S. will not. I will continue to work in the 112th Congress to ensure doctors and patients continue to have access to every available treatment option.”

Rep. Rodney Alexander:  “As expected, the Obama administration has begun its process of rationing health care with its announcement to remove Avastin from the market for women suffering from metastatic breast cancer. Today’s decision to limit women’s access to a lifesaving treatment is amiss, and indicative of the frightful direction our health care system is headed.

 For the government to deny access to such a viable treatment is a severe intrusion into personal health care decisions that should be left between the patient and the doctor. Given that this drug helps over 17,000 patients manage their disease, it appears this move is merely based on cost cutting and rationing rather than on any real medical grounds.  Avastin has extended the lives of thousands of individuals suffering from this devastating disease. Going forward, they will no longer be afforded that opportunity. This decision represents the first major example of things to come if components of the recent health care overhaul are allowed to continue. I will work with others in the incoming majority to restore the fundamentals of the U.S. health care system.”

Susan B. Komen Foundation for a Cure:  Komen for the Cure’s president, Elizabeth Thompson said that the organization is concerned about the potential impact on women who are benefitting from Avastin if the FDA ultimately removes its approval for the drug for breast cancer treatment. “We want to be sure that women who are using Avastin, and for whom it is working, can continue to have access to it, that their insurers will continue to pay for it and that the drug’s manufacturer, Genentech/Roche, continues making the drug available to women through its patient support programs and considers an expanded access program.”

(more…)

Last week, we discussed the rigged game of three-card monte that the FDA is trying to run over unsuspecting patients.  The game is rigged.  If government is allowed to arbitrarily shift from objective data driven safety focused approval to subjective cost based standards for drug approvals — as the appears to be doing in the case of Avastin — patients will always lose.

As in any game of three-card monte — the shills come into play.  In the card game on the streets, the shills pose as actual participants who make the game look simple goading unsuspecting observers to bet money who always lose.  The shills work with the dealers.

In the case of the FDA — the shills were the Associated Press and TalkingPointsMemo.com.  The FDA changed the rules so that price would be a determining factor in the approval process of drugs and the shills stepped in to belittle and goad anyone who didn’t play the game the way the dealers wanted.

Sen. Vitter decided to blow the whistle on the game and yet other shill stepped in.  This time it is another liberal website ThinkProgress.com.

Jumping on the bias claim that Vitter had likened the FDA to a death panel, the group makes the false claim that “Avastin is more likely to harm cancer patients than to help them.”  Patently false.  If ThinkProgress didn’t have a Pavlovian response every time a Republican issued a press release, they would have seen that the article they linked to made no mention of any harm to cancer patients from taking the drug.

Quite the opposite is true.  Patients who take the drug extend their lives.  The only negative side effects motivating bureaucrats in this decision are the ones in their pockets. They are trying to make a subjective determination that the price of the drug outweighs its benefits.  In other words, the FDA is trying to factor in cost of the drugs in whether it should be “de-labeled.”

(more…)

The Louisiana oil crisis continues unabated. Oil continues to pollute the Gulf and the Obama Administration continues to fiddle while Louisiana suffers.

In addition to being angry with BP and the Obama Administration’s weak response, activists have taken to the street to protest Louisiana’s Senators’ support for a BP bailout. Apparently both Louisiana Senators decided to cater to the special interests and voted for the Durbin Amendment to the Financial Reform bill that would increase the profits of companies like BP by shifting the cost of credit transactions away from them and forcing consumers to pay for them instead.

Both parties are responsible for the passage of the Durbin Amendment to bailout BP and other big retailers.
(more…)

Yesterday, Scott Brown caved, and the Senate passed its “financial reform.” That story is at the top of every news web site.

But what the establishment media didn’t tell you – unless you waded through the details in a select few news articles or saw this fairly balanced short article in the Washington Post – is that Wednesday evening,  hours after the first cloture vote failed and hours after  I informed BigGovernment.com readers about an effort by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), to narrow the scope of what I have been calling the Obama-Dodd-Frank-Everything’s A Bank Bill, Democrats blinked and Vitter’s amendment passed without objection by voice vote.

Vitter’s amendment to the so-called “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” gives a precise meaning to the term “financial company” – changing the definition from Dodd’s original language of “substantially engaged in activities in the United States that are financial in nature” to that of the much stricter “predominantly engaged.” And his amendment precisely defines “predominantly engaged” as a business that makes no less than 85 percent of its revenue from financial activities.

As a result of Vitter’s measure that passed during the brief 24-hour period of most of the GOP standing together in opposition (along with Democrats Maria Cantwell and Russ Feingold for their own reasons), a very important change was made.

(more…)

By now, readers of BigGovernment.com know that that the Democrats “Wall Street Bank” bill, which may get a final vote as early as this week, will reach far beyond Wall Street and ensnare businesses not typically thought of as “banks.” Stories here by this author and others have laid bare provisions of the Obama-Dodd-Frank-Everything’s-A-Bank bill that broadly define a “financial company” as any business “substantially engaged” or “significantly engaged”  in financial activities. And if your business happens to fall in such a category, it could be subject to a bailout “assessment” tax to bail out a high rolling financial firm, intrusive regulation by a banking agency or the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or even outright nationalization if the troika of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation decide your firm is a threat to “financial stability.”

Trouble is, though its audience is growing by leaps and bounds every day, this site is still at the point in which not every American relies on it for essential political info. And because Republicans have done a mediocre job of explaining how far this bill would reach, and the establishment media largely has no interest in explaining these facts, supporters of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” have been able to get away with saying, “If you’re against this bill, you’re against reform of Wall Street.”

Or at least, that was the case until a couple days ago. That’s when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment with a straightforward message: A bill that claims to be about fostering transparency on Wall Street should itself be transparent in its objective and not sneak regulation on Main Street manufacturers and retailers.  Call it (and I just did) the Not-Everything’s-A-Bank Amendment.

Vitter has distinguished himself with his dedicated efforts in fighting for real financial reform.  He co-sponsored with self-proclaimed (but not necessarily sole) Senate socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)a bipartisan amendment similar to the measure in the House bill to have the Government Accountability Office audit the Federal Reserve. When Sanders and others went for the Obama administration”compromise” of a one-time audit of a limited part of the Fed’s operation, Vitter carried the flag of Fed transparency.

(more…)

Sources on the Hill tell Big Government that the nomination of Ben Bernanke to remain Chairman of the Federal Reserve is in deep trouble.  A Senior Capitol Hill Staffer said to Big Government, “if [Senate Majority Leader] Reid does not file for cloture tonight, I don’t think they have the votes to confirm him.”  The Wall Street Journal thinks the vote will be “tight,” yet the White House is spinning that they have the votes.  Hill sources say that this nomination is trending in the wrong direction for the Obama Administration and many on the Hill are stunned by the news that, according to CNBC, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced her opposition to the nomination.  There is growing opposition to this nominee remaining in charge of the Federal Reserve for a second term.

Senators have made public statements indicating that there may be non-public information that is hurting this nominee.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said that “the Fed continues to stonewall Congress and the public.”  Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) referenced “ongoing examinations by Congress and the GAO of the Fed’s AIG bailout” and that there are “unpleasant facts for the Fed and Chairman Bernanke” that will come out after “full public disclosure of all information about the AIG bailout” that has only been shared with “select Congressional Committees and the GAO.”  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said, “it is vitally important that Congress has the ability and time to adequately review the Federal Reserve’s bailout of AIG.  Although some of our offices have had time to review some of the documents, not all are available at this time and Congress should wait until GAO’s review before proceeding with his nomination vote.” (more…)