<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: bill of rights</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'bill of rights'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22bill+of+rights%22&t=%22bill+of+rights%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:18:02 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Ron Paul on the General Welfare Clause</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4828849&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqX-jd6IVntY%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonNow that Rep. Ron Paul is again a presidential candidate, his constitutional views will come under increasing scrutiny, as happened yesterday when he was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Not surprisingly, critics immediately leapt on Paul’s “crankish view” that Social Security, Medicare, and other such programs are unconstitutional. Even Wallace seemed taken aback, citing the document’s General Welfare Clause:
The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United  States.
“Doesn’t Social Security come under promoting the general welfare of the United States?” Wallace asked, incredulously.
One does not have to agree with everything Paul has said or stood...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4828849</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 20:06:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4828849</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Julian Sanchez Talks Online Privacy on Monday, March 28 at 1pm ET on Facebook</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4626788&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKmqqbWkICMo%2F</link>
            <description>By George ScovillePlease join us this coming Monday, March 28 at 1pm Eastern on our Facebook page for a live video presentation, powered by Livestream, from Cato research fellow Julian Sanchez on the current state of online privacy policy.
Here is a brief list of topics he'll cover:

An update on current challenges to overturn FISA, and what it means for you and me if those challenges succeed or fail
How this relates to current and recent efforts to reauthorize the Patriot Act, including a recap of testimony Sanchez recently delivered to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
What's on the FBI's surveillance wish list
Reflections on the idea of an &quot;online privacy bill of rights&quot;

We hope you can join us next Monday at 1pm Eastern for this event. Be sure to ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4626788</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:47:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4626788</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My Favorite Constitutional Right</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4507260&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlCuAYwIjR0c%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazBoth the Washington Post and NPR refer to the Tenth Amendment as a &quot;tea party favorite.&quot; I would have thought that tea partiers -- and most of the rest of us -- liked all 10 of the Bill of Rights, and indeed the rest of the Constitution as well. Now, sure, I guess if the ACLU could publish (in the 1970s or 1980s) the poster below, an &quot;illustrated guide to the Bill of Rights&quot; featuring only the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth amendments (and only parts of those), along with the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth amendments, which are not part of the Bill of Rights -- well, then, I guess the Tea Party is entitled to have its own favorite parts of the Bill of Rights. But then, it was NPR and the Washington Post, not tea partiers, who suggested that the Tenth Amendment was ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4507260</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:33:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4507260</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Two Cheers for the Bill of Rights!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4265690&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FE5YfIgimkjo%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroAs Tim Lynch has already blogged &amp;#8212; and as Cato is currently featuring on its front page, today is Bill of Rights Day.  But of course, this is less of a big deal than Constitution Day (September 17, when we release the Cato Supreme Court Review at an annual conference) &amp;#8212; because the Bill of Rights is essentially redundant of the Constitution&amp;#8217;s original structural protections:  Whenever the government exceeds its constitutionally granted powers, it violates rights of some sort.
Tim Sandefur explains over at the Pacific Legal Foundation&amp;#8217;s blog:
Madison, along with his colleagues like James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and others, expected the Constitution to give Congress only a limited set of powers—powers that were listed in the text of the docu...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4265690</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:45:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4265690</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ACOA Bill of Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4159518&amp;cid=t_106463_151_f&amp;fid=35818&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FRecoveryIsSexycom%2F%7E3%2F7fKiJ3Jw9uY%2F</link>
            <description>A Bill of Rights For Adult Children of Alcoholics / Addicts and, in fact, all people. 
Bill of rights 

I do not have to feel guilty just because someone else does not like what I do, say, think, or feel. 
It is OK for me to feel angry and to express it in responsible ways. 
I do not have to assume full responsibility for making decisions, particularly where others share responsibility for making the decision. 
I have the right to say, &amp;quot;I don&amp;#8217;t understand&amp;quot; without feeling stupid or guilty. 
I have the right to say &amp;quot;I don&amp;#8217;t know&amp;quot; 
I have the right to say &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; without feeling guilty. 
I do not have to apologize or give reasons when I say no. 
I have the right to ask others to do things for me. 
I have the right to refuse requests which others make of...</description>
            <author>Recovery Is Sexy.com</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4159518</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:19:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4159518</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constitution Day</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3980812&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F2fQuOVJ_9zE%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonOn September 17, 1787, the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, having completed their work over that long hot summer, sent the document out to the states with the hope that conventions in the states, pursuant to Article VII, would see fit to ratify it. Nine months later, on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to do so, making the Constitution effective between those states. Shortly thereafter, three more states ratified the document; and Rhode Island, the last, did so on May 29, 1790.
The Constitution was not perfect – what human creation is? – not least in its oblique recognition of slavery, believed necessary to ensure union. But it provided for amendment, as with the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the Civil War Amend...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3980812</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:26:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3980812</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Liberty Requires Risk</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3784240&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FWCYyVn6vhJg%2F</link>
            <description>By David RittgersThat’s the message of my recent op-ed in the Daily Caller. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s initial reaction to the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision was to say that McDonald would have no impact on government’s ability to keep guns “out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.” This was a reference to legislation that Bloomberg supports that would allow the federal government to bar anyone the Attorney General thinks is a terrorist from purchasing a firearm. Not convicted of a crime in support of terrorism &amp;#8212; that would make them a felon and already unable to purchase or own a firearm. No, being suspected of activity in support of or preparation for terrorism means you get the same treatment as if you were a convicted felon or had been involunta...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3784240</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:24:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3784240</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democrats, Kagan, and the Second Amendment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706655&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxTkaNa-2CgY%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday Politico Arena asks:
What are the political implications for Democrats and for the Kagan hearings of today&amp;#8217;s Supreme Court gun decision?
My response:
The Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s decision today that the Second Amendment applies against the states cannot be helpful to Democrats in the upcoming elections or to Elena Kagan in her confirmation hearings. Most Court-watchers expected the decision to come out as it did, yet the dissent by the Court&amp;#8217;s four liberals speaks volumes. How could other rights in the Bill of Rights be good against the states, but not this right? Given the quality of their argument, the conclusion that the Court&amp;#8217;s liberals are picking and choosing their rights on political grounds is inescapable.
And that issue will arise in the Kagan he...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706655</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:37:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706655</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Social Media Bill Of Rights?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3687101&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fsocial-media-bill-of-rights%2F2010.06.22</link>
            <description>Should we have a Bill of Rights for social media sites? It’s something we need to consider as such software becomes an integral part of our daily communications.
Some might say such a document isn’t needed, that we aught to take a buyer-beware approach. But I would argue that the core issue of the privacy threats of new media isn’t really privacy, but rather dignity. Having to go through fifty steps to set your privacy settings is undignified, even if your privacy is ensured.
So if we value human dignity, we aught to consider standards of dignity. A Bill of Rights, even if unenforceable, may at least remind us of the disturbing force of social technologies. What&amp;#8217;s your take?

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Phil Baumann* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3687101</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:00:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3687101</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Citizen Shahzad</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3533813&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAubQ3OjGKqQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Julian SanchezTwo smart guys on opposite sides of the political spectrum have sound points about the treatment of suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.  First, Orin Kerr points out that investigators have some flexibility in determining when and whether to read Miranda rights.  In this case, they refrained initially and questioned Shahzad for a while under the public safety exception. And despite the apparent belief of the perpetually terrorized that Miranda warnings are some kind of magical incantation that causes the cone of silence to descend upon blabbermouths, they determined that he would probably continue cooperating even after being Mirandized. But as Kerr points out, they could have proceeded sans Miranda had that seemed necessary—provided they were willing to waive...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3533813</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 14:56:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3533813</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democracy against Free Speech?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3283520&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyKk76th22OY%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesA new poll from Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that most respondents oppose the recent Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Just over 70 percent of those polled want to reinstate the unconstitutional restrictions. The questions asked may be found here.
Sean Parnell asks whether the wording of the questions in this poll drove the results. William McGinley shares Parnell’s concerns and suggests some alternative questions for future polling.
I was not surprised by the result. Polls have long found that substantial majorities support something called “campaign finance reform.” Over two years ago, a poll found that 71 percent of Americans wanted to limit corporate and union spending on campaigns. 62 percent also supported limiting the amount of money a p...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3283520</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:15:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3283520</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bill of Rights Day</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3089257&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FiO0tRcl7_bA%2F</link>
            <description>By Tim LynchSince today is Bill of Rights Day, it seems like an appropriate time to pause and consider the condition of the safeguards set forth in our fundamental legal charter.
Let&amp;#8217;s consider each amendment in turn.
The First Amendment says that Congress &amp;#8220;shall make no law &amp;#8230; abridging the freedom of speech.&amp;#8221; Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to mention the name of a political candidate in an ad in the weeks preceding an election. They also insist upon gag orders in thousands of federal investigations.
The Second Amendment says the people have the right &amp;#8220;to keep and bear arms.&amp;#8221; Government officials, however, insist that they can make it a crime to keep and bear arms.
The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartere...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3089257</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:54:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3089257</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ACOA Bill of Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3040026&amp;cid=t_106463_151_f&amp;fid=35818&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FRecoveryIsSexycom%2F%7E3%2Fzzzi7y9SE58%2F</link>
            <description>ACOA hands
For Adult Children of Alcoholics / Addicts and, in fact, all people.
Bill of rights

I do not have to feel guilty just because someone else does not like what I d0, say, think, or feel.
It is OK for me to feel angry and to express it in responsible ways.
I do not have to assume full responsibility for making decisions, particularly where others share responsibility for making the decision.
I have the right to say, &amp;#8220;I don&amp;#8217;t understand&amp;#8221; without feeling stupid or guilty.
I have the right to say &amp;#8220;I don&amp;#8217;t know&amp;#8221;
I have the right to say &amp;#8220;no&amp;#8221; without feeling guilty.
I do not have to apologize or give reasons when I say no.
I have the right to ask others to do things for me.
I have the right to refuse requests which others make of me.
I hav...</description>
            <author>Recovery Is Sexy.com</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3040026</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:51:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3040026</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Provider EMR Bill of Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2927420&amp;cid=t_106463_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emrandhipaa.com%2Femr-and-hipaa%2F2009%2F10%2F22%2Fprovider-emr-bill-of-rights%2F</link>
            <description>Lately the comments have been hopping with interesting conversations. Oh wait, I said that just a few posts ago. Well, it&amp;#8217;s the truth! Turns out, a really interesting idea came out of a discussion about EMR vendor&amp;#8217;s ability to export the data out of their system.
The basic concept is to create what I&amp;#8217;m calling a &amp;#8220;Provider EMR Bill of Rights&amp;#8221;
The idea is to together create a list of criteria that would ensure that the EMR vendor isn&amp;#8217;t just trying to make a sale, but has the best interest of the provider at heart as well. Here&amp;#8217;s just a few examples of things that a Provider EMR Bill of Rights could include:

Providers Always Own the Data in the EMR
An EMR will provide a way to easily export all of the EMR data into a usable format

It might be wise t...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2927420</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:18:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2927420</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hurting the Sick Is Not Good Politics</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2871565&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQVk6Rjg9WV4%2F</link>
            <description>I was glad to see James Pinkerton engage my criticism of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) endorsement of federal price controls for health insurance.  I was even more pleased to see that Pinkerton has his own blog devoted to developing a Serious Medicine Strategy.
If I understand Pinkerton, his argument is essentially: it’s all well and good for some unelectable wonk in the “citadel of libertarian thinking” to “uphold ivory-tower free-market purity” by opposing price controls.  But Republicans need “art-of-the-possible solutions” to win elections, and 90 percent of the public support those price controls.  “Everyone has a right to his or her principled position,” Pinkerton writes, “but the majority has rights, too.”
Two problems.
First, Pinkerton suggests that l...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2871565</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:33:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2871565</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Supremes Take Gun Rights Issue Nationwide</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2851749&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxSzRo3XvKyE%2F</link>
            <description>With its decision today to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court should settle the question of whether states must recognize the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In June of 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found, for the first time, that the federal government must recognize the Second Amendment right of individuals, quite apart from their belonging to a militia, to have an operational firearm in their home. But the decision left open the question whether states were similarly bound.
Thus, the so-called incorporation doctrine will be at issue in this case – the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states. The Bill of Rights applied originally only against the feder...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2851749</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:49:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2851749</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Barnett on the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2598190&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_Bwiq7SVLCY%2F</link>
            <description>Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett has a piece in the Wall Street Journal on the Senate&amp;#8217;s confirmation hearing for Obama&amp;#8217;s nominee to the Supreme Court.  Excerpt:
Supreme Court confirmation hearings do not have to be about either results or nothing. They could be about clauses, not cases. Instead of asking nominees how they would decide particular cases, ask them to explain what they think the various clauses of the Constitution mean. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to arms? What was the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment? (Hint: It included an individual right to arms.) Does the 14th Amendment &amp;#8220;incorporate&amp;#8221; the Bill of Rights and, if so, how and why? Does the Ninth Amendment protect judicially enforcea...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2598190</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:01:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2598190</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Reform: Patient Rights, Patient Reponsibilities</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2576524&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FCUMEh6hQNJg%2F</link>
            <description>Should managed care sue patients?
We arrive at the dawn of yet-another health reform effort with laws and regulations already in place to protect patients. These arose in past decades when the healer-patient relationship was eroding, presumably at the hands of uncaring clinicians and for-profit medical enterprises.   
The list of those rights was extensive and today’s debates are adding to the mix – guaranteed coverage despite pre-existing conditions comes to mind. The discussion of patient rights has always been politically attractive and I won’t denigrate any one of them. I’m not just writing from a policy perspective, but a personal one as well. I’m a patient, too.
The discussions of patients’ rights, however, has neglected the flip side of rights—responsibilities on the...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2576524</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:43:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2576524</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In Ensuring Credit Card Holders’ ‘Rights,’ Congress May Actually Take Away Their Credit</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2380719&amp;cid=t_106463_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FX0b_ROzNVzw%2F</link>
            <description>With a vote expected today on the so-called Credit Card Holders&amp;#8217; Bill of Rights, the U.S. House is poised to follow up on President Obama&amp;#8217;s finger-wagging rhetoric about fees and other perceived sins of the credit industry.
But Congress should keep in mind that credit cards have been a significant source of consumer liquidity during this downturn. Now is the worst time to push measures that would curtail the availability of consumer credit, and that is exactly what the Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights will do.
While few of us want to have to cover our basic living expenses on our credit card, that option is certainly better than going without those basic needs. The wide availability of credit cards has helped to significantly maintain some level of consumer purchasing dur...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2380719</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:06:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2380719</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>West Virginia Legislature plagiarizes The Angriest Pharmacist</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2205327&amp;cid=t_106463_97_f&amp;fid=35606&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theangriestpharmacist.com%2F2009%2F02%2F21%2Fwest-virginia-legislature-plagiarizes-the-angriest-pharmacist%2F</link>
            <description>Almost everyone that reads pharmacy-related blogs has at least GLANCED at my recent, &amp;#8220;Letter to Obama.&amp;#8221; It was published on February 8, 2009. It has been viewed nearly 5,000 times since then.
One of those 5,000 readers must have been Representative Craig Blair (R) from West Virginia. He proposed legislation that I have been pushed for as long as I can remember.
http://www.bdtonline.com/local/local_story_049211701.html
I call bullshit on this unconstitutional crap. The United States Constitution was not written by our fore fathers with the intention that one day the government would hand out to the fat, lazy, and stupid (or even the handicapped &amp;#8212; WAAAHHHH!!!). The United States Government was originally intended to do very few things: Protect the citizens (from the inside ...</description>
            <author>The Angriest Pharmacist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2205327</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:27:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2205327</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Coming Second Bill of Rights Under President Obama</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1917889&amp;cid=t_106463_125_f&amp;fid=34819&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fflapsblog.com%2F2008%2F10%2F28%2Fthe-coming-second-bill-of-rights-under-president-obama%2F</link>
            <description>The Second Bill of Rights
Mark Steyn has put his finger on the pulse again.
Re Sunstein, Obama and Euro-style rights, they may be here sooner than you think:
Senator Obama&amp;#8217;s call for a middle-class rescue plan comes a day after The Blade published a Page 1 open letter to the candidate welcoming him to Toledo and inviting him to endorse a &amp;#8216;Second Bill of Rights&amp;#8217; that includes Americans&amp;#8217; right to a job where they live.
Mr. Obama responded to The Blade&amp;#8217;s question by agreeing that every American willing to work should be able to find a job at a living wage. But he stopped short of accepting that as a right.
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guar...</description>
            <author>FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1917889</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:22:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1917889</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

