Thursday morning (04.12.07) the Medical Affairs sub committee unanimously reported out an amended version of S. 84. The amendment contains aggressive language to inform patients of their right to have and view and ultrasound, but falls short of forcing patients to view the child in the womb. I’m confident this change will satisfy the concerns of the attorney general, and those calling for exceptions, yet the spirit of the legislation remains.

Strengthening the bill is a requirement for clinics to give patients a list of facilities that offer free ultrasounds. Serving with me on the sub-committee are: Sen. Linda Short (D-Chester), Sen. Mike Fair (R-Greenville), Sen. Brad Hutto (D- Orangeburg), & Sen. Danny Verdin (R- Laurens).

Sen. Chip Camsen (R-Charleston) weighed in on S. 84 in an editorial by the Post & Courier: “ultrasound technology has probably done more to persuade people on the issue of abortion than any number of metaphysical dissertations. I don’t want to take our most powerful tool and make it the opponents’ most powerful tool,” he said.

For those of us that don’t use big words like my superior good friend from Mt. Pleasant click here: metaphysical & dissertations

The full Medical Affairs Committee will consider S. 84 next week. I’ll be in touch!

Thursday morning (04.12.07) the Medical Affairs sub committee unanimously reported out an amended version of S. 84. The amendment contains aggressive language to inform patients of their right to have and view and ultrasound, but falls short of forcing patients to view the child in the womb. I’m confident this change will satisfy the concerns of the attorney general, and those calling for exceptions, yet the spirit of the legislation remains.

Strengthening the bill is a requirement for clinics to give patients a list of facilities that offer free ultrasounds. Serving with me on the sub-committee are: Sen. Linda Short (D-Chester), Sen. Mike Fair (R-Greenville), Sen. Brad Hutto (D- Orangeburg), & Sen. Danny Verdin (R- Laurens).

Sen. Chip Camsen (R-Charleston) weighed in on S. 84 in an editorial by the Post & Courier: “ultrasound technology has probably done more to persuade people on the issue of abortion than any number of metaphysical dissertations. I don’t want to take our most powerful tool and make it the opponents’ most powerful tool,” he said.

For those of us that don’t use big words like my superior good friend from Mt. Pleasant click here: metaphysical & dissertations

The full Medical Affairs Committee will consider S. 84 next week. I’ll be in touch!

The Anderson Independent ran a good article on the budget debate around the corner.

S.C. Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, believes the income tax reduction should be in the range of $200 million to $300 million, calling the House proposal a “poke in the eye” to taxpayers.

“We’re at least getting in $1.2 billion in new revenue,” said Sen. Bryant, adding he would support both the tax cut and the elimination of the grocery tax. “There’s plenty of room for funding what’s necessary and returning some to the taxpayer. We need to get off this gravy train of pork barrel spending.”

Read the article

The Anderson Independent ran a good article on the budget debate around the corner.

S.C. Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, believes the income tax reduction should be in the range of $200 million to $300 million, calling the House proposal a “poke in the eye” to taxpayers.

“We’re at least getting in $1.2 billion in new revenue,” said Sen. Bryant, adding he would support both the tax cut and the elimination of the grocery tax. “There’s plenty of room for funding what’s necessary and returning some to the taxpayer. We need to get off this gravy train of pork barrel spending.”

Read the article

I have to ask this question. Haven’t we been down this path before? The Senate passes a bill that is supposed to be “reform”. On face value the legislation has good intentions with changes that will make a difference. But when you delve into the details, you find loopholes and side steps that offer minimum reform. The worker’s comp bill was one of those squishy bills that have some good things in it, but does not rise to the ideals of what I call reform. Again, I had to vote my conscience and voted “no”.

As a small businessman as well as a healthcare provider, I have experience with these issues. A delicate balance exists between rights and health of employees and restraints on businesses. If the balance is not just right, we’ll see huge economic development implications.

SC’s worker’s comp rates are among the highest in the nation, yet our benefits are below average. We must find reforms that help reduce our escalating rates, encourage insurance carrier competition, & keep adequate coverage for our employees. I doubt if this bill will meet these goals.

I’ve got many colleagues that voted in favor of this bill for the reason of getting a vehicle out that may be improved in the House. Also, the bill does eliminate the 2nd injury fund & defines circumstances of fraud which are good things.

SC Chamber of Commerce Report