Category Archives: medical news

Grand jury turns tables on Planned Parenthood foes

Law-Concept-300x270

Grand juries cannot always be depended on to do precisely what some folks want them to do.

Take the case of a Harris County panel that had been impaneled to investigate Planned Parenthood’s activities. The district attorney launched the investigation at the urging of state officials — starting with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — into whether Planned Parenthood “sold fetal body parts” in violation of state law.

Today, the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing — and instead indicted two anti-abortion activists on charges of “tampering with government records.”

It was a serious surprise.

Here is part of how the Texas Tribune reported the story today:

“The indictments — part of the county prosecutor’s investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue — include charges against anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. The grand jury handed down a second charge for Daleiden for ‘Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs,’ according to the Harris County District Attorney’s office. That charge is a class A misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to a year in jail.

“The grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston of breaking any laws.”

Planned Parenthood has become a whipping child for foes in Congress — and some Republican presidential candidates — over a heavily edited video that purported showing staffers talking about selling organs from babies.

Planned Parenthood, with a mission that goes far beyond assisting women who want to terminate their pregnancies, sees this no-bill from the grand jury as a significant victory in this public-relations campaign being waged against it by political adversaries.

Will this end calls to defund the organization? Probably not. It’s possible that we’ll hear complaints from those who consider this some kind of “political decision.”

Grand jurors lock themselves behind closed doors, listen to presentations by prosecutors and other witnesses. They are charged with weighing the evidence dispassionately and then deliver a decision based solely on what they hear in that room.

Unless I hear otherwise — and grand jurors are sworn to secrecy about what they say and hear during the presentation of evidence — I’ll presume the grand jury did its job properly.

Palin politicizes PTSD . . . and her family’s latest crisis

Sarah-Palin

There must be no barriers that will keep Sarah Palin from politicizing an event, including those that involve her family.

Palin’s son, Track, has been charged with assault. The incident allegedly involved the young man’s girlfriend and an AR-15 rifle.

Mama Grizzly’s response? She blamed President Obama for her son’s post traumatic stress disorder and his policies regarding care for veterans.

Unbelievable!

The former half-term Alaska governor happened to be at Republican presidential campaign frontrunner Donald Trump’s side Tuesday in Iowa, shrieking about how Trump was going to “kick ISIS’s ass!” while her son was being arrested and booked into jail in Wasilla, Alaska.

So she blamed the president of the United States for her son’s bad behavior.

This isn’t the first time Track Palin’s gotten into trouble because of his behavior. Recall the brawl in which he was involved in Anchorage, the one that also involved his sister, Bristol?

It might be that Track Palin suffers PTSD from his service in Iraq with an Army combat unit in 2008. If so, then he needs — and deserves — the best medical care he can find.

However, for his mother to politicize his ailment and to suggest that it’s another politician’s fault because the young man cannot control his temper goes shamefully beyond the pale.

Meanwhile, a New York veterans group has urged Sarah Palin and others to knock off the political criticism. Focus instead on the problems associated with PTSD.

As for Sarah Palin . . . your son needs help. He doesn’t need to be kicked around as a political football.

Will the VP stay with the fight once he leaves office?

Vice President Joe Biden points at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

President Obama made a stirring choice Tuesday night.

He turned to Vice President Joe Biden and declared that he would be “in charge of mission control” while leading a concerted effort to rid the world of cancer. The vice president will be the point man to find a cure for the dreaded disease.

It was a poignant moment for one major reason: Joe Biden’s son, Beau, died this past year of brain cancer; the younger Biden’s death resonated around the world as we watched the vice president and his family grieve openly — but with dignity and grace.

So it makes sense for the president to put him in charge of such a noble effort.

However …

Barack Obama’s got just about one year left as president; Biden’s time as vice president expires at the same time.

Will this team of researchers find a cure between now and then? Probably not.

So, will the vice president remain as head of the team once the Obama administration leaves office? My hope is that whoever becomes the next president — Democrat or Republican — will ask Biden to remain on the job for as long as he is able.

Joe Biden can become a serious force of nature in the effort to raise money to conduct the research needed to find this cure. Granted, it’s not as if health institutions, think tanks, research hospitals and universities haven’t done a lot already to find a cure.

Having the vice president of the United States take the point on that effort shouldn’t end once he hands his office keys to whoever succeeds him.

House OKs another waste-of-time measure

obamacare-1

Here we go again.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a measure to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The House vote comes after the Senate approved the measure earlier.

Speaker Paul Ryan blustered that the measure is going to President Obama’s desk — where it faces a certain veto.

The president’s signature effort is in no danger of being overturned.

Which begs the question: Why is Congress continuing to waste the public’s time and money on these efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Oh, I think I know.

Republicans who control both congressional chambers want to make political hay. They want to keep hammering at a law they detest because, they say, it expands the federal government.

Well, the ACA also does something else. It provides health insurance to roughly 17 million Americans who beforehand didn’t have it. They couldn’t afford it. They were denied medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay for it. The ACA now provides insurance.

Repeal the law? Sure. And replace it with . . . what, exactly?

House members and senators will get the veto that the president promises. They’ll be unable overturn the veto because Republicans lack the two-thirds majority in both houses to do it.

So, the dance continues.

Will someone tell the band to stop playing? Please?

 

Alzheimer’s gets attention in this campaign

alzheimers

Campaign pledges too often get made — only to become ignored by the candidate who makes them.

I believe I will keep one candidate’s feet very close to the fire should the campaign turn out in this individual’s favor next year.

Hillary Rodham Clinton pledges devote $2 billion annually to fund research into finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease.

Big deal, yes? Well, it is, even if it comes in the form of a campaign promise.

“For me, the bottom line is if we’re the kind of nation that cares for citizens and supports families,” Clinton said, “then we’ve got work to do and we need to do it better when it comes to diseases like Alzheimer’s.”

I happen to have intimate knowledge of this dreaded, miserable and merciless affliction. My mother died from it in 1984. She was 61 years of age. It robbed her of her wit, her intelligence, all of her cognitive skill, eventually her ability to speak and her ability to recognize those who loved her.

Alzheimer’s is the sixth-leading cause of death in this country and it brings great grief and pain to an increasing number of Americans.

Clinton isn’t the first politician to make this pledge. However, I do not remember the last time a politician running for president of the United States of America has made one like this.

Today’s post, though, isn’t about Clinton’s campaign promise. It’s about the disease.

I have made a vow myself to bring attention to Alzheimer’s disease whenever possible using this forum.

Another beloved member of my family also is suffering from its early onset. I pray for him daily. Also pray for his children, grandchildren and his wife, all of whom must care for him.

They aren’t alone. As Clinton found out while attending a campaign event in Iowa when she asked who in her audience had a connection with Alzheimer’s disease, it’s affecting more and more of us daily. Our population is aging and yet a cure for the disease remains elusive.

Therapies have advanced tremendously. Some of them reportedly are slowing the progress of the disease. They don’t stop it.

Clinton’s pledge has drawn the support of at least one leading Republican, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. I would hope other politicians from both parties would endorse her promise by making similar pledges of their own.

“I’m running for president to deal with the big problems but also with these problems that keep families up at night, and this is one that really fits into the category,” Clinton said.

You got that right, Mme. Secretary.

 

May the right university system win

reg_vet-img

My pal Jon Mark Beilue — a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News — as usual, has laid out a fascinating critique of a growing dispute between two highly regarded Texas university systems.

One of them, Texas Tech, just announced plans to build and develop a college of veterinary medicine in Amarillo.

The other one, Texas A&M, has fired a shot across Tech’s bow, implying it will resist the effort to build an animal doctor school in the Texas Panhandle.

Beilue, himself a Tech alumnus, has taken up for his alma mater. But he’s right on the merits of his argument to argue that A&M is better than to exhibit a petulant streak in seeking to block Tech’s entry into the world of veterinary medicine academia. A&M’s credentials as a premier veterinary medicine institution are impeccable.

But let’s boil this possible tempest down to a more personal level.

Two men are leading their schools’ efforts. They both have at least one political thing in common: They both served in the Texas Senate.

Bob Duncan is chancellor of the Tech System. He’s a Republican who left the Senate this past year to take over the Tech job after Kent Hance retired to become something called “chancellor emeritus.”

Duncan’s Senate reputation is sparkling. He was named routinely by Texas Monthly magazine every two years as one of the top legislators in the state. His job now as chancellor is to raise money for the Tech System and he gets to lobby his friends in the Senate for help in that regard.

John Sharp served in the Senate quite a while ago, from 1982 to 1987; prior to that he served in the Texas House of Representatives. He’s a Democrat, who left the Senate to serve on the Texas Railroad Commission and then as Comptroller of Public Accounts. He, too, developed a reputation as a solid legislator, although he has fewer individuals with whom he served in the Legislature than his rival chancellor, Duncan.

This face-off will be fun to watch, particularly if it develops into something more than it appears at the moment.

I hope it doesn’t grow into anything more serious. Texas Tech is entitled to develop school of veterinary medicine anywhere it so chooses. That the system brass decided to bring it to Amarillo is a huge plus for the Texas Panhandle.

My hope would be that if Sharp stiffens his resistance that Duncan could call on his fellow Republican buddies in the Panhandle legislative delegation to use their own considerable muscle to make the veterinary school a reality.

As Beilue pointed out in his essay, the value of a veterinary school to any region of this state should rise far above petty politics.

 

 

 

Tech makes bigger footprint in Amarillo

duncan

Texas Tech University officials appear intent on increasing the school’s presence in Amarillo.

It’s obvious of the school’s plan with the announcement that Texas Tech plans to build and develop a college of veterinary medicine way up yonder … in the Texas Panhandle.

We all ought to welcome the addition.

Texas Tech already runs a pharmacy school here, courtesy of a lengthy and intense local fundraising campaign in the mid-1990s; and that school came after Tech had established a medical school campus here.

When you think about, Amarillo’s higher education footprint is growing on a number of levels.

West Texas A&M University is in the process of turning a one-time downtown Amarillo office building into an urban campus, which no doubt will expand the Canyon-based university’s presence in the Panhandle’s largest city.

Let us not forget that Amarillo College’s presence here for decades has been significant. AC runs three campuses just in Amarillo. It also has branch campuses in Dumas and Hereford, making it a regional junior college.

The buzz today, though, belongs to Texas Tech University.

Tech Chancellor Bob Duncan led a large university delegation of officials today to announce plans for the veterinary school. Duncan said today the school’s aim is to ensure that students learn their profession here — and then stay here to practice it.

So, the footprint is set to expand and the community figures to reap the benefit.

 

Higher ed turf fight in the offing … perhaps

ttucampus

Texas Tech University has announced it is considering the development of a school of veterinary medicine.

No plans have been set. It’s just talk at the moment. The word came from Tech Chancellor Bob Duncan that the university system is scouting around for a proper location while deciding if it actually wants to go ahead with development of the program.

Amarillo is considered one of the potential favorites for the new veterinary medicine campus.

The Texas Tribune that Tech has cited increasing student interest in the veterinary medicine campus and noted that Amarillo — with its huge agricultural base nearby — might be a good fit for such a campus.

OK, but it gets even more interesting.

Texas A&M University — which already has one of the premier veterinary medicine programs in the country, if not the world — is considering expanding that part of its curriculum to other regions of the state. You have just one guess on where the A&M System might locate that new veterinary medicine campus.

If you said West Texas A&M University, you’d win an undetermined prize.

The Tribune reported: “After Tech’s announcement, A&M System Chancellor John Sharp seemed to hint in a statement that A&M was considering expanding its school to other areas in the state.  ‘As a courtesy, last weekend I informed Chancellor Robert Duncan that the Texas A&M School of Veterinary Medicine would soon announce a presence in several Texas A&M System schools,’ Sharp said. ‘In response, Mr. Duncan comes up with this long-rejected claim we should fund a vet school at Texas Tech. The Coordinating Board has specifically rejected the notion. The Legislature has rejected this for 40 years. We will proceed with our announcement as planned.’”

Here’s the full Texas Tribune story.

So, is there a bit of jockeying taking place here? Would the Texas Panhandle be in the running for both university systems’ desire for veterinary schools? I doubt strongly we’d get both of them.

Whatever happens, we’ll just have to stay tuned to see how this plays out.

NFL’s dirty little secret out in the open

concussions-in-football-390-x-310

What once was professional football’s dirty little secret has been exposed yet again by revelations surrounding the death of a sports icon.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy afflicts an alarming number of former football players. The National Football League for years denied that it was a problem among its athletes.

Now the word is out that Frank Gifford, a Hall of Fame wide receiver for the New York Giants, suffered from CTE when he died recently of “natural causes.”

CTE has returned to the head of the line of issues that Americans are discussing. I wrote about it for Panhandle PBS.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/public-view-john-kanelis/cte-returns-to-the-headlines/

It saddens me to no end to hear former great players such as, say quarterback Brett Favre, say that he won’t allow his children to play football. Indeed, Favre had his bell rung more than once during his great career with the Green Bay Packers, New York Jets and Minnesota Vikings. I pray that CTE won’t claim him, but he is concerned about whether his own children would be safe playing a game that brought their father so much fame and financial reward.

PBS’s acclaimed documentary series “Frontline” blew the lid off this issue with its “League of Denial” special broadcast more than two year ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/league-of-denial/

The NFL has to come to grips with this situation. It’s already settled a huge claim made by its players association to compensate players and their families for the damage caused by these head injuries.

However, much more needs to be done to make the game as safe as possible for the athletes who take the field.

Are you listening, NFL executives?

 

Fiery rhetoric produces more tragedy

untitled

I believe it is fair to ask: Has the fiery rhetoric condemning Planned Parenthood resulted in the shooting deaths of three individuals at the hands of someone who has told police “no more baby parts”?

Three people died this week when a man opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs.

Police arrested Robert Lewis Dear after a siege that lasted several hours. The motive was unclear immediately after Dear’s arrest. Then today he reportedly told police about the “baby parts” and how he wanted to prevent future harvesting of those organs from aborted fetuses.

Many of us have seen those videos taken at another Planned Parenthood clinic. It shows staffers discussing the harvesting of body parts. What has become known generally since then is that videos were edited heavily to portray gross indifference among the staffers.

And that — sad to say — triggered some of the rhetorical firestorm emanating from Congress and along the presidential campaign trail.

Many of the accusations leveled against Planned Parenthood were false. Federal law prohibits the selling of body parts “for profit.” Yet that’s what the accusers said Planned Parenthood was doing. There’s been no proof of profiteering, merely accusations.

Yet the rhetoric became stoked by politicians looking for sound bites, producing tremendous anger among many Americans. Sadly, much of that anger was based on false pretenses.

Now we have this. Someone has taken three lives and injured several other individuals.

I am acutely aware that the shooter will have defenders who say he is “righteous” in seeking to justice over the practice of abortion.

I have no intention of entering the abortion debate. I do intend to suggest that politicians seeking to express their own righteous indignation over medical procedures that in fact are legal need to consider the consequences of fomenting anger.