Kan. abortion clinic opens in slain doc's building

WICHITA, Kan. -- A new clinic offering abortions and other women's medical services saw its first patient Thursday in the Wichita building where a slain Kansas abortion provider had practiced.

The South Wind Women's Clinic opened nearly four years after Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few doctors performing late-term abortions, was gunned down in his church by an abortion opponent in May 2009.

The shuttered facility was bought by an abortion-rights group, Trust Women Foundation, which reopened it as a family and women's health center offering abortions and other health care services.

"We have been working a long time, really hard to get this open to provide services to women in Wichita," said Kerry Townsend Jacob, the group's spokeswoman.

Townsend Jacob cited privacy rights in declining to say whether the first patient, a Wichita woman, had an abortion or some other medical service. She also refused to say how many appointments have been scheduled so far.

Tiller was one of the few remaining physicians in the nation who did late-term abortions, but South Wind Women's Clinic does not plan to do abortions beyond the 14th week of pregnancy.

The Trust Women Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 2010 by Julie Burkhart, who worked with Tiller for seven years. The foundation bought the property from Tiller's wife in August.

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, called the Wichita clinic's opening "symbolic" for abortion rights advocates.

"For me, we are winning across the board," Newman said, a reference to scores of laws seeking to restrict access to abortion passed by Republican-controlled legislatures during the last few years.

In Kansas, legislators on Thursday were preparing for final votes on a sweeping anti-abortion measure that would block tax breaks for abortion providers and outlaw abortions performed solely because of the baby's gender.

View the original article here

Rubio to brief GOP on immigration talks

By Daniel Strauss and Molly K. Hooper - 04/05/13 03:15 PM ET

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) plans on briefing Republicans on progress in crafting an immigration reform bill during the next Republican policy luncheon.

Rubio, who has been involved in bipartisan negotiations on crafting an immigration reform bill, said he had been given the green light to update his Republican colleagues next week.

"Earlier this week, I requested and received permission to brief the entire Republican conference during our policy lunch next week. I look forward to briefing you at that meeting," Rubio wrote in a letter to four Senate Republicans on Friday.

Rubio's letter was in response to the four GOP senators, Mike Lee (Utah), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), and Ted Cruz (Texas), who urged Rubio and other senators involved in the immigration negotiations to offer more transparency on the bill's progress.

The four senators sent a letter to the Republican senators in the so-called bipartisan Gang of Eight, urging them to release more details on their negotiations in crafting the immigration proposal. Members of the bipartisan group have recently said they plan to unveil their immigration reform bill soon.

"It is time for you to discuss the status of your negotiations, disclose what concessions have been made, and provide details to members of the Judiciary Committee as well as the entire Republican Caucus," the senators wrote in the letter, released Friday. "As members of the Judiciary Committee, we believe it is critical that the public and the entire Senate body be given adequate time to read and analyze the contents of any immigration bill put forth by the Majority. Our Committee has had only three hearings in recent months, barely touching on issues involving enforcement, border security or the creation of a temporary worker program."

They said that they were "deeply concerned" with recent statements made by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that a basic agreement has been reached by the group on legalizing undocumented workers in the U.S. Schumer is one of eight senators involved in the talks.

"We should not further test the faith of the American people by implementing a major overhaul of the immigration system that prioritizes legalizing law breakers over the long-term needs of the country," their letter stated. 

"In that regard, we are deeply concerned by Senator Schumer’s recent statement that your group has “come to a basic agreement, which is that first, people will be legalized. In other words, not citizens, but they'll be allowed to work, come out of the shadows, travel. Then, we will make sure the border is secure," the GOP senators wrote.

  The senators wanted staffers to brief members of the Republican Committee staff by the end of Monday on the specifics of the immigration reform negotiations.

"Therefore, we ask that your staff be made available to brief Republican Committee staff no later than close of business on Monday, April 8," the senators wrote. "We also request that you personally discuss your group’s proposal with the entire caucus early next week so that all members can raise concerns and questions before the deal is finalized."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) recently told Rubio that he wanted to move quickly on moving the immigration bill to through his committee once it was unveiled.

"Because the President has failed to lead on this matter, your group has secretly met for months and not consulted with members of the Committee about major changes to our nation’s immigration laws," the senators wrote in the letter. "The time for transparency has come. Given the majority’s rushed timetable, we believe it is time for you to discuss the status of your negotiations, disclose what concessions have been made, and provide details to members of the Judiciary Committee as well as the entire Republican Caucus."  

--This report was updated at 5:10 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Conservapedia:Community Portal

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Conservapedia:Community Portal" (Diff: 0, 1055201).

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

View the original article here

New Hampshire Rejects All Private Prison Bids

New Hampshire officials rejected all four bids to privatize its prisons, citing prison operators’ insufficient understanding of court-mandated standards of inmate care, and proposed wages that are half what prison security staff now earn. The decision comes following a recent vote by the state House of Representatives to prohibit private prisons in the state. For-profit prison operators’ interest in profiting off inmates leads to perverse incentives, and many private facilities have been cited for human rights abuses and violations of state law. The Concord Monitor reports:

“The proposals exhibited a lack of understanding of the overarching legal requirements placed upon the (corrections department) relating to the court orders, consent decrees and settlements which, in large part, dictate the administration and operation of their correctional facilities and attendant services to the inmate populations,” read the report. It concluded that meeting those requirements for inmates’ medical and mental health care “appeared to be too great a burden for the vendors.”

The state’s decision to cancel the bid puts prison privatization off the table for now unless Gov. Maggie Hassan or the Legislature directs the state to reissue the bid, said Michael Connor of the state Department of Administrative Services. That seems unlikely. […]

State corrections and administrative service officials began investigating prison privatization in 2011 at the direction of former governor John Lynch and the last Legislature. Four companies submitted 17 proposals that were so voluminous and complex that state officials hired a private consultant, at a cost of $171,000, to help them evaluate the bids.

New Hampshire’s now-governor has been vocal in opposition to private prisons, and her spokesman said this week that “the track record of such arrangements in other states has not demonstrated success in terms of protecting taxpayer dollars while maintaining the highest level of public safety.” The state could, however, solicit new proposals in future years if the House bill to prohibit the facilities is not also approved by the Senate.

Earlier coverage of the bids reports that the three national private prison companies each have at least two lobbyists in the state, reflecting the nationwide efforts of prison firms to lobby for privatization of prison facilities, prison health care, and laws that incarcerate more people in a country that already has the world’s highest incarceration rate. Legislators who support private prisons, many enriched by campaign contributions from these very companies, have claimed that they are a way to save money. But New Hampshire’s report confirms the experiences of other states – that these prisons cost more. New Hampshire spent $171,000 for a consultant to pore through proposals that, in spite of being too unwieldy to be reviewed in-house, failed to address basic state criteria. What’s more, New Hampshire’s report is the latest evidence that private firms’ attempts to cut costs come at the expense of adequate inmate treatment and good wages.

View the original article here

Vanguard Health rebounds on Medicaid contract

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Shares of hospital operator Vanguard Health Systems took back some ground Wednesday after the company said it had secured a three-year contract to manage Medicaid patients in Arizona. It had said last month that Arizona wasn't renewing a bigger Medicaid contract.

THE SPARK: Vanguard, which owns hospitals and also manages health care benefits through subsidies including Phoenix Health Plan, announced late Tuesday that the contract covers patients in Maricopa county, which includes Phoenix. Medicaid is the state-run health plan for low-income Americans.

THE BIG PICTURE: The company had said late last month that its Phoenix Health Plan had lost its contract with the Arizona Medicaid system. Tuesday's announcement will help the company retain approximately 98,300 members, or about half of the 186,000 Medicaid beneficiaries covered under its previous contract.

In announcing the new agreement, Vanguard said it would not file a protest with Arizona over losing the previous Medicaid contract.

THE ANALYSIS: Susquehanna Financial Group analyst Chris Rigg said in a note the company is "making the best out of a bad situation." He still lowered his fiscal year 2014 earnings estimate to $1.12 from $1.25.

Analysts polled by FactSet expect profit of 90 cents per share for the year ending in June 2014.

Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Joseph France noted that Vanguard's hospital business accounts for about 90 percent of its earnings, and that managed care has not been a strong growth area for the company.

"Vanguard's Arizona HMO has actually been a disappointing performer over the past year as the state reduced benefits and raised eligibility requirements," France said in a note to investors.

SHARE ACTION: Shares of Vanguard Health Systems Inc. rose $1.25, or 8.6 percent, to $15.81 in afternoon trading Tuesday. The Nashville, Tenn.-based company's stock had fallen 12 percent after announcing the loss of the previous contract and before Tuesday's announcement. The stock reached a 52-week high of $17.74 the week before the March announcement of the lost contract.

View the original article here

Postmodern science

(Difference between revisions)'''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."''{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all, postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty.  '''Postmodern science''' is the one governed by the principle: "''anything goes''" {{#tag:ref|cf.''"When an [[explanation in science|explanation]] is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it [[experimental science|experimentally]], much less use it as a catalyst for [[scientific discovery]]."''{{cite web |title=Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology|author=Philip Skell|publisher=The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture)|volume=19(16):10|date=29 August 2005|accessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2816}}|group=note}} (native also to [[moral relativism]]) as aftereffect of the [[Postmodernism|postmodern]] concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true [[knowledge]] about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all, postmodern scientists speak in terms of [[chaos theory]], the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty.  Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the University of California (Berkeley) explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Moreover, the scientific establishment is regarded as very much [[Politically correct|politicized]]. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter data through their preconceived ideas.Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the University of California (Berkeley) explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Moreover, the scientific establishment is regarded as very much [[Politically correct|politicized]]. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter data through their preconceived ideas.In Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular Humanist [[Paul Kurtz]] insists that rejecting [[objectivity]] is a mistake and that [[Postmodernism]] is counterproductive, even [[nihilism|nihilistic]].{{cite web |title=Postmodern Science|author=|publisher=AllAboutWorldview.org#sthash.XYgaloi0.dpuf|access date=03.03.2013|url=http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-science.htm|quote=For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with the Postmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.}}  In Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular Humanist [[Paul Kurtz]] insists that rejecting [[objectivity]] is a mistake and that [[Postmodernism]] is counterproductive, even [[nihilism|nihilistic]].{{cite web |title=Postmodern Science|author=|publisher=AllAboutWorldview.org#sthash.XYgaloi0.dpuf|access date=03.03.2013|url=http://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-science.htm|quote=For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with the Postmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.}}  

Postmodern science is the one governed by the principle: "anything goes" [note 1] (native also to moral relativism) as aftereffect of the postmodern concept that it is not possible to learn the objective true knowledge about reality and world. In consequence of landing at conclusion that science is not really knowledge at all, postmodern scientists speak in terms of chaos theory, the unpredictability of science, indeterminacy, or uncertainty. Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the University of California (Berkeley) explains how in the history of science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted as the truth, and then eventually discarded. Feyerabend further maintains that scientific data promoted by scientist in support of a theory are anything but neutral because every scientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open as scientific theories are regularly tweaked. Moreover, the scientific establishment is regarded as very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work with unproven assumptions and filter data through their preconceived ideas. In Humanist Manifesto 2000, secular Humanist Paul Kurtz insists that rejecting objectivity is a mistake and that Postmodernism is counterproductive, even nihilistic.[2]

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Postmodern doubts about the objectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from Michael Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge and Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Kuhn points out that science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline that studies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist. Kuhn further asserts that scientific theories are often not discarded due to being proven wrong, but rather older theories tend to die out along with their proponents.[note 2] Then the new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientists who, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. From this perspective, a current scientific theory is just a momentary current theory that will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For that reason, postmodernists held that science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular period in history of humankind.[2] In 1996 the physicist Alan Sokal published a paper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in the journal Social Text. This essay was a hoax designed to ridicule post-modern thought and consequently a call was made to make a radical change in what scientific community accepts as a legitimate foundation for a physical theory. The department of physics at Hardvard is now often referred to as the department of post-modern physics by its critics.[5]

In the postmodern science, the traditional scientific method demanding from scientists to provide the scientific evidence for their hypothesis and conduct experiments was replaced by logic of possibility. This paradigm shift in science can be demonstrated at a representative example, the description of research by Alan Guth, where a claim is made about tests being performed in a 'hypothetical laboratory' [6]:

"Working with Prof. Edward Farhi and others, Guth has explored the question of whether it is in principle possible to ignite inflation in a hypothetical laboratory, thereby creating a new universe. The answer is a definite maybe. They showed that it cannot be done classically, but with quantum tunneling it might be theoretically possible.[note 3] The new universe, if it can be created, would not endanger our own universe. Instead it would slip through a wormhole and rapidly disconnect completely."

Postmodern science does not lead to resolution of scientific questions but leaves them undecided by applying terms like 'a definite maybe' [note 4]. Consequently, the scientific discoveries are being replaced by the beliefs affected by worldview of scientist which are then effectively promulgated as statements of faith or scientific myth calling for public acceptance. The journal Science published in 2002 an article in which Charles Darwin is criticised for gamely nailing together a just-so story of how creation of complex organs might have happened.[9] Another example demonstrating the traits of Postmodern science can be given from interview with Joseph Silk, Savilian Professor of Astronomy at University of Oxford[10]:

ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that? Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, if there was such a place, would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition. Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.

In Postmodern science theories are considered 'respectable' not due to their merits in terms of observational discoveries or scientific evidence but merely because 'Some people believe [them]'. ? cf."When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."[1]? cf. "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning." Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics[3] "Academic appointments were also manipulated to favor younger scientists with Darwinian sympathies who would ensure that the next generation was educated to take the theory for granted."[4]? cf."Physical scientists like Newton are not content to say that it may be so, and then build up theories based on bare possibilites."[7]? cf."If one wishes to obtain a definite answer from Nature one must attack the question from a more general and less selfish point of view." Max Planck[8]? Philip Skell (29 August 2005). Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology. The Scientist (quoted by the Center for Science and Culture). Retrieved on 03.03.2013.? 2.0 2.1 Postmodern Science. AllAboutWorldview.org#sthash.XYgaloi0.dpuf. “For that reason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believe to be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with the Postmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into his or her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have an objective picture of the world.”? Max Planck (1936). The philosophy of physics. W.W. Norton & Company, inc., 97. ? Janet Browne (Feb 23, 2010). Charles Darwin Volume 2: The Power at Place. Random House, 608. ISBN 9781407053233. ? David Berlinski (2009). "The State of the Matter", The Deniable Darwin. Seattle, USA: Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from Commentary February 1998 by permission), 511. ISBN 978-0-9790141-2-3. ? Faculty Directory: Alan Guth, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics. Retrieved on 03.03.2013.? David L. Hull (1973). Darwin and his critics: the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution by the scientific community. Harvard University Press, 275. ? Alfred Korzybski (1995). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics, 415. ISBN 978-0937298015. ? Virginia Morell (01-Nov-2002). Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies. Science Magazine. Retrieved on 17-Mar-2013. “It's one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together just-so story of how it might have happened...”? Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk. ESA, European Space Agency (02-May-2001).

View the original article here

InVivo Therapeutics gets approval for human trials

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said Friday that the Food and Drug Administration will allow it to start human trials of an experimental product that is intended to treat spinal cord injuries.

InVivo said it plans to start a trial of the device, called a biopolymer scaffold product, in the next few months. The company wants to study the device in five patients and said the initial study will last about 15 months.

The Cambridge, Mass., company said there are no FDA-approved treatments that intervene directly in the spinal cord following an injury.

On Thursday the FDA awarded the scaffolding a humanitarian use device exemption. Given to products intended to treat conditions that affect fewer than 4,000 people a year, the exemption could speed up approval of a product and reduce the amount of testing a company has to do. InVivo is trying to get a second exemption, a humanitarian device exemption, which would allow it to get marketing clearance if the FDA agrees the product's probable benefits outweigh its risks and that it doesn't pose a significant risk of illness or injury. InVivo would not have to prove the scaffolding is effective, although it would still have to run clinical tests.

View the original article here