What would you do if you were a nurse and pro-life advocate but was ordered into surgery to assist in an

.

abortion?  If you were told the patient’s life hung in the balance and your refusal to do your job would further jeopardize the patient, would that make a difference?  And what if the pregnancy was already twenty-two weeks along; would that complicate matters even more?

This is exactly what happened to a nurse in Brooklyn, NY.  Shortly after arriving at Cedars-Sinai hospital for her scheduled shift, she was ordered to provide assistance in an abortion.  In a federal lawsuit, Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo claims not only was she forced to go against her morals and religious beliefs, but that the abortion wasn’t necessary, at least at the time it was completed.  The lawsuit goes on to say that she pleaded with the physicians to find another nurse who wasn’t so opposed to the procedure but was told if she didn’t accompany the surgeon into the operating room, she could very well lose her job due to patient neglect.  Against her beliefs, she did as she was told.  Now she’s fighting back.

Her lawsuit  says that she put in writing her vehement opposition to abortion and declared she would in no way participate in any abortion procedures.  If that’s the case, the question begging an answer is why wouldn’t the hospital select another nurse to assist?  And if what this nurse claims in her lawsuit that the procedure wasn’t a matter of life and death, what about the patient?  Was she told it was her life or the baby’s?  If the nurse’s lawyers can prove it wasn’t absolutely necessary, odds are, Cedars-Sinai is looking at another lawsuit, this time, from the patient.  Assuming the patient wanted the baby she was carrying - after all, she was already twenty-two weeks along - this woman must now live the fact an abortion she didn’t want was forced upon her by a doctor who chose to decide for her.

Cenzon-DeCarlo has federal “conscience rules” on her side.  Before leaving office, President Bush changed the laws for hospitals that received federal funding.  In short, unless and until a medical facility agreed to respect its workers’ religious and moral beliefs for controversial procedures, it would receive no federal funds.  As of now, these rules are in place; however, many expect President Obama to modify these restrictions, especially since Health and Human Services is accepting ideas regarding proposed changes.

In the meantime, this nurse continues her employment at the hospital.  The lawsuit is asking, among other things, she be allowed to once again work the overtime hours that were suddenly given to co-workers.

Can one comment made by President Obama cause the tourism trade in Vegas to flatline?  The governor of Nevada seems to think so.  In a speech President Obama made earlier this year, the comment was made that companies who receive taxpayer monies in the form of massive bailouts aren’t allowed the luxury of corporate jets, trips to Vegas or the Superbowl.  It was a stern comment and the message must have hit its

.

mark because Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons says the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor’s Authority has had over 400 business meetings cancelled as a result of those comments.

If these cancellations were a result of companies heeding President Obama’s warning, then why would Governor Gibbons even want these groups who are so greedily consuming his constituents’ hard earned tax dollars on gambling and booze?  He says the 400 conventions have cost Las Vegas over $100 million in lost revenue.  Many believe it’s $100 million of our money that’s not being recklessly spent.

Governor Gibbons’ request for a meeting with President Obama was declined earlier this week.  This has only added to the frustration the governor is feeling.  He insists because the president refuses to rescind his earlier comments, he’s only adding to the struggle Las Vegas families are enduring as a result of a poor economy.  Perhaps he’s not aware, but these struggles Vegas families are feeling are no different than the ones families in Casper, WY or Pensacola, FL are feeling.  Any comments made by anyone, even the president of the U.S., won’t change that, despite the governor’s insistence that it’s nothing but the power of politics that’s driving these cancellations.  He goes so far as to say President Obama has done nothing but bring negative economic change to Nevada.

With yet another month of record job losses, company announcements of new rounds of job cuts and the historic number of foreclosures, one can’t help but wonder where information such as this might factor into the sleeping Vegas economy since Governor Gibbons is content with leaving it squarely at the president’s feet.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman wrote his own letter to President Obama with a request to not mention cities by name in the future since it can only damage his city’s tourism and business trades, which can only lead to job losses and foreclosures.  Seriously - that’s exactly what the letter says.  See it here.

Links to employment lawyers, lawyers, and tax lawyers.

The latest products being targeted for tax increases are soft drinks, energy drinks and those little packets of fruit powders that you can mix into your bottled water.  This is being considered as a way to pay for President Obama’s $1.2 trillion dollar health insurance cure-all.  With less than half of the funds readily

.

available, industry leaders, politicians and countless committees are expected to present different ways to raise the remaining money.

My first thought was, “Say it ain’t so!”  Diet Coke’s are my vice in this life.  I’m sure I could learn to live without them, but I just don’t want to.  Turns out, diet drinks aren’t included in this proposed tax increase.  Only those with sugar that can lead to dental problems, obesity, diabetes and a multitude of other illnesses are at risk.  The fact is, if this new medical insurance overhaul is indeed the answer, I doubt anyone will complain about an extra three cents added to the cost of each 12 ounce drink.

This three cent increase will provide $6 billion dollars annually, with all of it going toward funding the new insurance programs.   There are currently a dozen states that already have taxes on soft drinks and this new federal tax will add to that.  If this is the only suggestion being made to finance this new insurance overhaul, lawmakers will be forced to dig deeper and find other solutions to work in tandem with this tax since this will only cover a portion of what’s going to be needed each year.

If they’ve run out of ideas, they can always contact the endless number of watchdog groups who decide what’s best for the American public.  They’re the ones who make across-the-board statements regarding our lifestyle and products we consume.  If they’re suggesting tax increases or tighter guidelines (such as gun control), it’s always followed by, “it’s in the best interest of the citizens”.   In fact, some of these groups insist the tax increase will put a dent in the soft drink industry and are adamant in their declarations of this being what’s best for the public.  Maybe their representatives would like to witness many of us in the mornings before we’ve had our caffeine.  Perhaps they’d reconsider their definitions of what’s best for the public.

In the meantime, this new tax proposal is being fast tracked since President Obama intends to bring the new program to life by the end of this year.

find tax lawyers, insurance lawyers and lawyers here.

Although not yet confirmed, it’s likely one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most liberal justice’s will be publicly announcing his retirement in the very near future.  Justice David Souter’s imminent resignation allows President Obama to make his first appointment and will certainly select another liberal to step up to the plate and replace Souter.

Ironically, President H. W. Bush selected Souter in 1990 with the expectation of his taking a more

.

conservative view.  That didn’t happen and soon, Souter was siding with other liberals on everything from stem cell research, abortion rights and campaign finance reform.  He’s also chosen to vote whenever possible on restricting the death penalty.

With the usual split within the Supreme Court, President Obama’s selection will most likely keep those gulfs in place.  Depending on his selection, it’s probable, as is usually the case; his selection will remain on the bench for many years after his presidency has ended.

Perhaps Justice Souter’s most pivotal decision was in 2000 when he voted to allow the presidential recount to continue, thus allowing President George W. Bush to claim the presidency.  It’s been said this decision nearly resulted in his resignation in 2000 and that he was disappointed of his colleagues’ actions and called them “transparent” and “crudely partisan”.

Although Justice Souter hasn’t confirmed or denied his intent, both NBC and NPR are reporting their respective sources have confirmed June 30^th as his retirement date, which gives President Obama precious little time to select his replacement.  Souter filled the seat that was vacated by William Brennan.

On a personal note, Jeffrey Toobin wrote of Justice Souter, in his book The Nine, that he’s “low-tech”, refuses to use email, answering machines, televisions and cell phones.  He’s never married and once found himself on The Washington Post’s 10 Most Eligible Bachelors.

You gotta love a southern gal who refuses to bite her tongue.  Angie Harmon found herself defending her displeasure once again with the way the country’s being run by President Obama.  The fact anyone would have to defend his or her stand on the state of this country flies in the face of what this same country is built on.  She’s been accused of being racist because she voiced her displeasure with some of the decisions made by the Obama administration.  Harmon’s always been outspoken in all things political, and even when I find myself biting my tongue to keep from stirring the hornet’s nest, I quietly sit back and think, “You go, girl”.  When asked for a comment by Fox News, she clearly had a bellyful and unleased what she’s obviously  been holding back, “Here’s my problem with this, I’m just going to come out and say it.  If I have anything to say against Obama, it’s not because I’m a racist, it’s because I don’t like what he’s doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him, you’re called a racist.  But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is.  I’m just not

.

crazy about what he’s doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change…so okay….I’m still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we’ve got unemployment at an all time high and that was his number one thing and that’s the thing I really don’t appreciate.  If I’m going to disagree with my President, that doesn’t make me racist.  If I was to disagree with W, that doesn’t make me racist.  It has nothing to do with it, it’s is ridiculous.”

Anyone who’s ever seen her in an interview knows she probably didn’t stop to catch her breath - in true Harmon form, if it’s on her mind, it’s on her tongue. 

With such across the board statements we heard after the election that the new President’s arrival in the Oval Office would eradicate racism simply hasn’t panned out (And why would anyone think it would?).  Maybe it’s because racism goes far deeper than one man who happens to hold the highest office in the country.  Is racism alive and kicking?  Unfortunately, it is.  But to disagree - keep in mind, there’s a big difference in ‘disagree’ and ‘disrespect’ - with any decisions or policies any president makes should simply indicate the fact we live in a country that makes it absolutely acceptable.  It’s not indicative of racism.  Period. 

There are many who would disagree with President Obama regardless of what he was doing in office - but it has nothing to do with race and has everything to do with loyalty, albeit displaced at times, to the political party.  Just as President Bush had those who vehemently disagreed with all of his policies, there were some who admittedly did so simply because he is Republican.  How many times have we said, “Aw, c’mon…you know if the Republicans had control, that never would’ve come to pass” or “A Democrat would never have allowed that.” 

I’m wondering why Harmon’s vocal approval and insistence that Sarah Palin would have made an excellent vice president doesn’t have folks pointing and yelling, “Feminist!  Feminist!”

For information on lawyer, legal information and legal advice visit www.lawyerahead.ca and www.lawyerahead.com