According to a new poll released this week by Investors Business Daily, 45% of doctors would consider quitting the practice of medicine if Congress passed the health care overhaul currently in its sights. Furthermore, more than 70% of responding physicians do not believe that the White House hype that “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
 

"Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

"The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

"It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

"The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series."

Click here to see more major findings and read the entire piece.

I’ll certainly be watching this series to see what doctors really think about health care reform.

In April of this year, I introduced H.Res.373, a resolution expressing support for the designation of the month of September as "National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month."

Hydrocephalus is a very serious but all too often overlooked medical condition that affects approximately 1 in every 500 births, yet very few people are even aware of it.  Hydrocephalus is the excessive collection of fluid in the ventricles or cavities of the brain, and at any time, a ventricle could collapse and in a matter of hours, enough fluid could build up and put harmful pressure on the tissues of the brain resulting in irreversible damage, even death.

Sadly, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with hydrocephalus is difficult to predict and often fatal.  The most common form of treatment for hydrocephalus involves the insertion of a shunt in order to maintain the flow of fluid from the brain, but this practice is sorely outdated and often results in complications that can jeopardize the life of often very young patients. It’s my hope that through increased awareness and education, we can take the steps needed to modernize the treatment of hydrocephalus and move toward a cure.

Below is a letter from Michelle Janson, whose 9 year old daughter, Ally, developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age. She sent this letter to my office in hopes that sharing it will create greater awareness of the disease among the general public. With greater research, she’s confident that it can be diagnosed more accurately, and treated more efficiently. I encourage you to take a minute and give it a read:

My name is Michelle Janson.  We have a 9 year old daughter, Ally, who developed hydrocephalus at 1 year of age.  The cause of her congenital hydrocephalus allowed her to be eligible for a fairly new procedure called a Third Ventriculostomy.  Although there was a lot of information at the time about shunts, very little was known about the Third Ventriculostomy.  After we researched our options and interviewed several neurosurgeons, Ally underwent a Third Ventriculostomy on July 9th, 2001.

This year Ally has reached 8 years as one of the lucky few who have not encountered infections, revisions or malfunctions as frequently seen with shunts.  Although she does have other rare medical conditions to complicate things, she is leading a fairly normal childhood.  She was the only one in her 3rd grade class to be chosen to participate in the Young Authors Club and maintained straight A’s throughout the school year.

Several years ago we searched for a support group, close to home, that would provide our family with support and education about the condition.  We became involved with a group which is currently based out of JFK; know as the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation.  The visions of those involved have encouraged us to actively participate in educating, providing support and to raise funds for local communities and families in need.   The founders Michael and Kim Illions have also been active with government officials such as you, to initiate a resolution known as HR 373 to declare September National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.

I am writing to thank you for your incredible dedication and support to make this resolution known.  Since you have sponsored our Foundations request, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty.  Your perseverance has obtained the signatures that were needed to move the resolution to the next level.  Compared with similar public health issues (i.e. autism) hydrocephalus receives minimal government funding and assistance.  Should the HRES bill pass, we hope that the future will provide opportunities for public awareness and education, as well as funding for research and treatment advancements.

Thank you again for your active role in providing the public with a Heads Up on Hydrocephalus.  This is a big step for our children’s future, and may God bless you for your stoic endeavor.

Please take a moment to learn more about hydrocephalus by visiting www.HydrocephalusKids.org, the website for the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation.

Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration said it will acquiesce to a New York federal court's order to allow 17-year-old girls access to the “morning after pill.”  The FDA’s decision reverses a restriction put in place by the FDA under President Bush that prohibited girls under the age of 18 from accessing so-called Plan B birth-control pills.

What this means is that 17-year-old girls will now be able to obtain “morning after pills” over the counter with just an ID displaying their date of birth -- and nothing else.

What's even more troubling is that the judge also told the FDA to reconsider making the drug available to girls of all ages without a prescription.

Regardless of your views on the issue of abortion, the FDA decision and the judge's ruling raise some giant red flags.

One, the FDA has never approved that a high-dose of a drug be available non-prescription when a low dose of the same drug requires a prescription. The low-dose I refer to here is regular birth control pills. Birth control requires a prescription, yet this judge is urging the FDA to allow use of a more heavily concentrated dose with no prescription at all. Does that make any sense?

The reason why birth control requires a prescription is because women need medical oversight when taking it. The same holds true for the “morning after pill” – to say nothing of the parental oversight needed for girls accessing the pills.

According to Wendy Wright with the CWA:

"It can cause blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Women who are sexually active should be regularly tested for conditions that may not produce symptoms. And under-age, sexually-active girls deserve counseling and help in case they are in a coerced or abusive relationship.

"Making the morning-after pill over-the-counter for teenagers denies medical counseling and testing to girls who need mature guidance. A thirteen-year-old who may be pregnant is also a girl who may be sexually abused and at risk of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease."

Two, the FDA may be trampling the will of states and localities and what they feel is best to monitor birth control distribution and regulation. In the United States, each state has different laws and policies about whether or not minors — anyone under the age of 18 — may get contraceptive prescriptions and counseling from a health care professional.

But in those states in which minors can not receive even a prescription for birth control without parental consent, minors will now be allowed to receive the "morning after pill" without not only parental consent, but also without a prescription.

This ruling blatently steps on parents' ability to protect the health and well-being of their minor daughters. 

As Wright further notes:

"Minors need permission to go on a field trip, get a piercing, or use a tanning booth. But now, by one judge’s order, girls will be encouraged to rely on an ineffective drug without medical oversight or parental involvement."

Another great example of putting politics before common sense.

If what we've heard about cap-and-trade isn't bad enough already, wait until you hear this. Contained within the 600-plus pages of the Waxman-Markey global warming/cap-and-trade bill that was recently introduced in the House is language making it legal to sue the federal government and private companies if you "suffer" from “Global Warming.”

According to the Washington Times, "the measure sets grounds for anyone 'who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part,' to government inaction to file a 'citizen suit.' The term 'harm' is broadly defined as 'any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.'

"Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional 'carbon emission allowances' through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress."

You may think that lawsuits like this would be few and far between, but let's consider some past cases that sound a little bit peculiar,  but are unfortunately commonplace:

- A women hit by a New York City subway train while lying on the tracks attempting to commit suicide was awarded $9.9 million dollars.

- A woman who sued McDonalds for gross negligence after spilling hot coffee on herself was initially awarded $3 million in damages before a settlement produced a smaller amount.

-A judge sued a Washington, D.C. dry cleaner for losing his pants to the tune of $67 million.

This cap- and-trade bill "would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million."

Whether the plaintiff wins his case or not, this provision as-is is a trial lawyer’s nirvana. Even if they don't win, they'll tie up the courts and force these companies to disrupt there business, even without merit, and force them to put their time and resources into legal costs.

Just another troubling cog to this cap-and-trade machine that is barreling through Washington.

This is something I've heard very little reported about in the mainstream media. Minnesota is becoming the first state to make new mortgages available to individuals based strictly on their faith. While there are a few private banks and lenders who offer this type of mortgage in the U.S., Minnesota’s state-agency-provided “Islamic mortgages” are a first - and they raise some interesting questions.

For instance:  Is faith a precondition for these mortgages?  Would any prospective homebuyer – Jewish, Christian, atheistic -- be able to take this deal if she wanted to?  And, do these homebuyers qualify for the home mortgage interest deduction – that is, until President Obama takes it away as recommended in his budget?

According to reporting by the Minnesota Public Radio, essentially, the way the program works is that the state buys a home and resells it to the buyer at a higher up-front price.  The borrower supposedly pays the same amount as everyone else in the end but without “paying interest,” which is against Islamic law. According to MPR,  Islamic law makes exceptions to the ban on interest "if one's family is at stake," but many faithful worshipers of Islam would rather stay clear.

Give the story a read for yourself. I applaud private lenders for filling this niche in the market – such innovation is what makes a capitalist economy strong, but when government takes the reins and taxpayers assume the costs, we should answer all the questions first.

Today, my colleagues and I are writing the United States Supreme Court to express our extreme disappointment over their recent decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana that prevents convicted child rapists from receiving the death penalty for their heinous crimes.

The Court's decision is based on seriously flawed logic and certain absolute facts disprove the basis for their ruling.  The case should be reconsidered in the interests of justice.

What the Court failed to consider is that in 2005, Congress enacted the death penalty for child rapists under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, in 2007, President Bush issued an executive order codifying this provision into the 2008 Manual for Courts-Martial.

Furthermore, the passing of this provision of the Code by a wide majority in Congress demonstrates a national consensus for the death penalty for child rapists of which the Justices were apparently previously unaware.  
 
Despite the Court's reasoning, the federal government does indeed have the death penalty for the rape of a child already on the books.

Our letter respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its decision by taking into account the complete set of facts.