It is customary for posts on our NEWS blogs to be relatively short. This article is so important it MUST be posted in it’s complete form.
Restriction on the free exercise of religion can hide in laws which on their face seem good and/or necessary. The noble desire to bring care and dignity to those in our nation who find themselves in need has unfortunately led to the imposition of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). But the authoritarian mandates contained within PPACA are not the only threat to religious freedom.
South Dakota, like Massachusetts, has codified the objectionable elements of ObamaCare in permanent state law. Last year the 2011 South Dakota Legislature passed two bills, SB38 and SB43, that were signed by Governor Daugaard and became law. To quote the resolute words of Timothy Cardinal Dolan , like the Federal ObamaCare law, South Dakota’s laws are “morally toxic”. Notable in these laws are the following aspects:
No conscience protections for medical practitioners regarding treatments and procedures they find morally objectionable. This is an immediate consequence of the new laws made evident in recent conscience policy changes at South Dakota’s major medical facilities. This is of great concern to faithful doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and medical professionals.
Abortion is protected by re-defining pregnancy as a medical “emergency”, and considering “emergency contraception” to be a medical treatment. Different types of the RU486 drug effectively cause abortions as late as 7 weeks into a pregnancy.
Doctors will no longer be the arbiters of medical necessity, efficacy, or efficiency. Beginning in 2013, those determinations will be made by the Director of Insurance in consultation with the Secretary of Health (neither of which is required to have any medical training.) Any physician who provides a treatment or procedure according to their own determination of medical efficacy outside the government-approved course of treatment can be fined and/or jailed, and their license to practice medicine can be revoked.
SB38 establishes a system of “Gatekeepers” (actual language in the bill) designed to limit access to specialized care and treatment. The medical community will be divided against itself under this new arrangement because General Practitioners will be incentivized to keep their patients from seeking specialized care, advanced diagnostics, or expensive treatments.
“One-size-fits-all” approach of managed care makes the PRACTICE of medicine subordinate to the BUSINESS of medicine.
The Clinical Review Board in SB38 bears a strong functional resemblance to the Independent Payment Authority Board (IPAB) in ObamaCare. The CRB has the power to deny procedures and treatments prospectively or retrospectively. If an “adverse determination” is rendered in either case, a patient has no right of representation at the first level review.
The Health Insurance Exchange is the mechanism of government-run health care. It is not a free-market place where individuals can shop for designer insurance coverage. The Exchange will collect and examine all of your personal information from many data bases in order to dictate your coverage, cost, and planenrollment. The authority to do so is derived from the individual mandate to purchase insurance. There will be no exceptions to the mandate unless granted by the Health Insurance Exchange.
A thorough reading reveals that the Federal health care law contains no funding provision that would allow it to establish a Health Care Exchange within individual States. If the State does not voluntarily establish an Exchange, the Federal threat to impose one is simply bluster.
This list of negatives, disturbing as it is, is by no means complete. Probably the greatest danger posed by these laws is manifest in the authority given to the Director of Insurance to “promulgate rules”, so much of the law has yet to be written.
The Director will become a powerful state-level “Czar” who has the authority to make treatment and care decisions that he considers “reasonable” according to cost and “appropriateness”. The information collected and stored in the data banks of the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE, or HIX) will help him make those decisions based on employment status, medical history, weight, family history, mental state or capacity, economic status, genetics, and age. Whether it be State or Federal, government managed care is about managing; it’s not about care.
South Dakotans have been assured that our state will resist ObamaCare, and that our Governor and legislators are not in favor of its requirements. Why, then, were these bills passed? In the 2011 Legislative Session, SB38 and SB43 were misrepresented to the legislative body by the State Division of Insurance lobbyists who are employed by the Executive Branch of our state government. These tax-funded bureaucrats, known as “blue badgers” for the blue lobbyist badges they wear, promote government growth and more bureaucracy. Legislators regard the blue badgers as “expert witnesses” in the committee hearings, so they exploited their position of trust to convince legislators that SB38 and SB43 were benign efforts to “clean up the language” and “simplify” our state’s chapters on health care law. Those claims were simply not true. Lawmakers were not provided the usual printed copies of the bills (SB38 prints out to more than 72 pages), and they had less than 24 hours to review them online prior to voting. Just like ObamaCare, few legislators actually read or understood this legislation before they voted. The bills passed in spite of the fact the 26 lawmakers who, acting on instinct more than information, opposed them. That’s how South Dakota’s version of ObamaCare arrived on the Governor’s desk; he did not hesitate to sign them, nor did he respond to calls for a veto.
State-run health care, along with its mandates, has been an agenda quietly pursued by current Governor Daugaard as well as his predecessor, M. Michael Rounds. Although both governors posture as defiant objectors, ObamaCare has provided perfect cover to accomplish that goal.
Proof of that claim lies in legislation introduced in the 2007 South Dakota Legislature. That year HB1166 and SB132 were bills crafted to create the South Dakota Health Insurance Exchange, and HB1169 and SB131 were bills crafted to mandate that all state residents purchase health insurance. The idea of Government-managed health care was introduced into our state two years prior to ObamaCare.
While the 2007 bills did not pass, they gave rise to the Zaniya Project, a large scale task force assembled by Governor Rounds and charged with designing a state-run health care system. The Zaniya task force was chaired by Lieutenant Governor Daugaard and guided by two consultants from Massachusetts, Cindy Gillespie and Peggy Handrich. These women were chosen because they were key planners for the Massachusetts health care system often called “RomneyCare”.
The advent of ObamaCare proved timely and politically useful to the Daugaard Administration and the compliant leadership in the Legislature. It provided a credible scapegoat to allow them to accomplish the goal of establishing a state-run health care system. They claimed that by adopting these laws in South Dakota, our State was asserting state’s rights and keeping ObamaCare at bay.
In contradictory moves, South Dakota joined the high-profile Florida lawsuit against ObamaCare before the Supreme Court while the Governor’s Office simultaneously requested and received millions of dollars in Grants to implement the requirements of ObamaCare. That money helped to balance our state budget and required that we change our laws to be in compliance with ObamaCare (SB38 and SB43). Governor Daugaard’s first official act was to restructure State Agencies to be more compatible with ObamaCare (Executive Order 2011-01), and in March of 2012, South Dakota established the mechanism of government managed health care, the South Dakota Health Insurance Exchange (Theresa Bray, a former staffer of the Secretary of State’s office, currently holds the position of South Dakota Health Care Exchange Project Manager). This paradox becomes more understandable in light of the fact that only about $10,000 was expended on the lawsuit; a stark contrast to the millions South Dakota received for the early implementation of ObamaCare.
South Dakota’s plaintiff status was an effective public relations bargain for the Daugaard Administration. It gave false assurance to the public that their freedom was being protected.
This irrational action did not go unnoticed by the Federal judges who found the ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional. Federal Judge Roger Vinson noted in his January 31, 2011 ruling that plaintiff states’ argument against ObamaCare is “…undercut by the fact that some of them continue to implement its requirements while suing against it”. The duplicitous actions of our state may have had a negative influence on the Supreme Court decision rendered in June.
Two bills that were offered this year to repeal SB38 and SB43 were killed in committee through the efforts of blue badge lobbyists and a few surrogate legislators who read ‘talking points’ from the Daugaard Administration. That unholy alliance also kept real protections, such as a Health Care Compact agreement with other states, from passing to the House floor for debate. The HCC remains a viable option to free states from the mandates of Federal Law. Several states have already adopted or introduced Health Care Compact laws.
South Dakota’s small population enjoys a great sense of community. The people elected to office are regarded with affection; extensions of ourselves as one would expect in a Republic. Many of us are on a first-name basis with our Congressional delegation as well as state and local officials. That is why so many are reluctant to acknowledge the truth about these laws and those who devised them. Nevertheless, the truth is the truth.
The medical community is shrouded in silence and fear, but many Christian doctors and medical professionals will soon face obvious conflicts: whether to obey God’s law or these new laws from Washington and Pierre. Most of them chose their profession as a calling, and many will now abandon their vocation – so as not to be faced with the eternal consequences of compliance with these civil laws. We are in danger of losing the compassionate Christian presence in the field of medicine where those who know and serve God are so needed.
I write to give voice to all who will suffer under South Dakota law: for those who give care and are afraid to speak out, and for those who will be denied the care they’ve been promised. We should be silent no more.
***Tonchi Weaver*** is a conservative activist and Life and Liberty News contributor
