This 30 second spot was up on a few stations last week.

Evidently, the editors at the Anderson Independent don’t appreciate our message on family values. While copying the State Newspaper

in an editorial about women in government, they inferred that women in SC district 3 aren’t well represented. Incidentally, my wife and daughter (and an unknown amount of unborn baby girls) disagree with the sentiment.

It says:
…”That there is such a disparity in representation when compared to the state’s population should be cause for concern. Particularly when there are lawmakers who have exhibited such a lack of respect for health and reproductive rights for women, including our own Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, who was behind the Senate measure to force anyone seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound prior to the procedure.

It was the “requirement,” the presumption that any woman seeking an abortion hasn’t given it more thought than any man can ever imagine, that gave us pause.”

To read the full editorial

At least they could have mentioned that the outgoing ladies of the Senate, Sen. Catherine Ceips (she was in the House last year) & Sen. Linda Short voted for the bill.

Barack Obama: “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”

Senator, I have a question for you. If, as you say, fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?

Now that we’ve got all this legislative stuff is over, I’m finally relieved to get home for four and a 1/2 months of hittin’ the pavement and spreading our positive message of reform. We’ve got a backyard scrap coming as we’ll have to deal with whatever the liberal democrats have in store. We’ll see what the voters decide to do in November, but we’ve never backed down from a brawl with big government whine and cheesers.

You know the good-ole-boy system is a monster, and we’ve been rattling its cage. Those benefiting from the “system” have us in their cross-hairs but we’ve gained ground on them.

We’ve seen some progress in Columbia over the last four years, but we’ve also seen a lot of resistance to change. You know as well as I do that there is still much unfinished business in the General Assembly. I am blessed to have your continued support and am asking for your help again now that re-election is around the corner. With your help, we can continue to challenge the status quo.

Our family values are finally getting the recognition they deserve and that you demand. I have been proud to contribute to victory on a number of issues such as defining marriage in our constitution, getting tough with child predators, combating wasteful spending and returning more money to you—the folks who earned it in the first place.

We must continue to stand firm for the principles we believe in and do what we know God expects of us. We must continue the fight, because our foes surely will not surrender.

We face great challenges in November. Our opposition has declared that taxes are not high enough and has promised to raise taxes. They believe government should grow even faster than the rate we are fighting now. They question our traditional family values and morals and wish to discard them. These liberal views are opposite of what you and I believe in.

I’d like to clarify some mis-information regarding H. 3912, legislation amending the medical practice act. Many constituents have contacted me asking me not to take away their healthcare rights. This legislation preserves their rights, and helps keep our ever rising healthcare costs in check. Unfortunately, we have fraud and abuse in our system, and we must allow some forms of checks while maintaining quality of care. There is a delicate balance between the two, and hopefully, this legislation is balanced.

I chose to over ride Governor Sanford’s veto on Wednesday 06.25 for several reasons.

In 2006, the legislature passed a revision to the medical practice act that inadvertently created an ambiguity on the issue of whether medical directors who perform utilization review and managed care services for insurers are “practicing medicine.”

The practice act was over fifty pages long and intended to deal with medical licensure and disciplinary issues.  However, what caused the confusion was one line in the definition section that mentioned “medical necessity.”  There was never any discussion of insurance issues either in committee or on the floor of either chamber.

Also, the Department of Insurance issued a bulletin after the practice act was passed in 2006, asking for clarification of the issue and notifying insurers that the Department’s position was that the practice act was not intended to apply to managed care activities by insurers that are subject to the Department’s regulations.

We worked on this legislation with representatives from the The South Carolina Medical Association and the South Carolina Alliance of Health Plans this session and developed a compromise on this issue.  The compromise contained in the bill makes it clear that applying health plan contract exclusions set by employers is not the practice of medicine.  It also states that approving health care claims is not the practice of medicine, and requires that claim denials for services that are allowed under the plan of benefits must be issued by a licensed physician who must adhere to national protocols and medical standards in making those decisions.

It is also very important to point out that this compromise added an additional level of patient – consumer protection:  the bill allows for the Administrative Law Court to review any disputes regarding whether the national standards and protocols for care called for in the bill have been met.

This compromise adds that additional layer of protection for consumers, without dismantling managed care - a serious undertaking that, I believe, will have a dramatic impact on rising healthcare costs.  It carefully addresses the balance needed between protecting consumers on the one hand, while avoiding creating a chilling effect on medical directors and insurers in SC.

I would argue that this is compromiselanguage, neither perfect for the insurance industry nor for the medical association.  Most importantly, I feel strongly that this is a step in the right direction for the patient-consumer and towards managing healthcare costs – something, even now, we can ALL agree we must do.

As a pharmacist and often times am caught in the middle of the prior authorization process. Even though it is burdensome at times, I do believe the process is necessary as it adds some checks and balances in our ever increasing healthcare costs. Hopefully this legislation provides a balance in the system that will allow for high quality of care standards, yet decelerate the escalating costs of health care and health care insurance premiums.

As you may know by now, the Governor’s veto of this bill was overridden in the SC House by a vote of 96 to 13 and in the State Senate by a vote of 34 to 5.  I hope this answers any questions you might have about why, after much deliberation with my colleagues in the legislature and thought, I decided to vote to override Governor Sanford’s veto on this bill.  

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE SENATE

For Immediate Release

June 25, 2008

Senator Bryant Comments on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Related to Penalties for Child Sexual Abuse

Columbia, SC - Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) today expressed shock and outrage that five liberals on the United States Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law allowing prosecutors to seek the death penalty for those convicted of raping young children.

Senator Bryant commented:

“Just when I think liberals cannot stoop any lower, something like this comes along. The decision to shield from justice those who rape young children outrages me and, I’m sure, anyone who loves their children.”

Senator Bryant, who authored and lead the passage of the South Carolina law that provides for the death penalty for those who rape young children, noted that liberal activist Justice Anthony Kennedy perfectly expressed the liberal point of view in his comment that, “The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.”

Senator Bryant went on to say:

 “Justice Kennedy speaks for the liberal elite in America when he admits that they believe there are worse crimes than raping children. As for me, I know of nothing worse. This opinion, and the attitude it reflects, perfectly exposes the difference between the right and the left in this country.”

###

Supreme Court Rejects Child Rape Death Penalty

WASHINGTON (CBS) ― The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years.

CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen says the ruling “makes it virtually impossible now for any non-capital crime to have as its punishment the death penalty. I don’t think the Justices could have been much clearer.”

Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. He is one of two people in the United States, both in Louisiana, who have been condemned to death for a rape that was not also accompanied by a killing.

The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman. Read on

Activist judges have stopped children from saying the pledge of allegiance in their classrooms, stripped the Ten Commandments from displays in the public domain and kept religious symbolism out of the public eye. Christmas has become “winter holiday” and the Boy Scouts of America have faced numerous lawsuits for refusing to hire gay scout leaders. 

At the Eagle Forum session, lawyers discussed the need for a stronger focus on activist judges and the role the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) plays in breaking down traditional American society through lawsuits.

Schlafly, who has been an ardent anti-pornography activist, began the session in celebration of the Supreme Court’s first anti-porn decision since the 1960s, which said individuals can receive criminal penalties for promoting child pornography. 

“The disappointing thing is that the government thinks that whatever some judge says is the law of the land,” said Schlafly. “It’s unfortunate that people think that judges are the royalty of our era.”

Steve Aden of the Alliance Defense Fund kicked off the morning with criticism of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which he classified as creating a “whole new class of thought crimes.”

Four Schools in my district have been awarded the highly prized red-carpet award. Calhoun Academy, Concord Elementary, Hanna-Westside Extension, & New Prospect Elementary.

Whereas, (School Name) in Anderson School District 5 was one of only sixty-six South Carolina Schools to receive the highly prized Red Carpet Award, recognizing their success at creating family-friendly school environments and providing excellent customer service; and

Whereas, the Red Carpet Schools initiative was one of only two programs in the nation to receive a Distinguished Single Project Award from the National School Public Relations Association; and

Whereas, schools were judged on a variety of factors, including the exterior and interior of the campus, the way people were treated in person and over the telephone, and the information on programs available for families and visitors. Winning schools receive red carpets with the state seal to display in their lobbies, and they maintain their recognition status for a three year period; and

Whereas, (School Name)’s mission is to empower children to achieve their fullest potential through challenging, yet diverse educational programs in a safe, innovative, caring environment that prepares them to be lifelong learners and active, productive members of the community. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate:

That the members of the South Carolina Senate, by this resolution, congratulate (School Name) for receiving the highly prized Red Carpet Award.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to (School N

I’m getting confused on the recent editorial in the Anderson Independent Mail’s editorial. The author insists that the issue raised by Councilman Bob Waldrep about a recent democrat vote by his opponent is not important.If you have been following the run-off campaigns of Bob Waldrep and challenger Raymond MacKay, you probably know about a post card that was mailed by Bob. The post card exposes the fact that Raymond voted in this year’s Democrat Presidential Primary and criticizes Raymond for filing for office in a Republican Primary a few weeks later.

I see this as a legitimate public record certainly allowable in a political race. I don’t live in this district, yet I know several voters in County Council District 1. Some are voting for Mr. Mackay, citing this recent vote makes no difference, and some are voting for Mr. Waldrep. Whether this issue is important is in the eyes of the voter. A voter can look at the issues brought up by candidates and judge for themselves. I don’t appreciate anyone telling voters to look at these issues, but for goodness sakes you are forbidden to look at those.

The interesting observation I see in the editorial is that the Anderson Independent sees this as a non issue and voters should disregard this as “meaningless”. If this issue is so meaningless, why has it been a news story in the Anderson Independent all week? Why has this one postcard dominated the news for the whole run-off ? I’m sure Bob’s campaign wished to bring up a single issue, then move on to others issues important to this county like transparency, wasteful spending, accountability to name a few. But many would rather beat this very dead horse (especially MacKay backers on the cocklebur blog here, here, & here) which by the way is their constitutional right of course. I’m certainly not criticizing Mr. MacKay’s supporters not letting go, just don’t quite understand it. They’re basically saying “This issue doesn’t matter, but we’re going to keep talking about it.”

A predicted court challenge has been issued on the “I Believe” license tag recently passed by the Legislature. As you know, Governor Sanford did not sign this bill, yet allowed it to pass into law without his signature citing the court challenge would occur. Senator Yancy McGill (D-Williamsburg) introduced this bill and I signed on as a cosponsor. The problem I have with this lawsuit is that the state is not forcing this plate on anyone, simply offering it as a choice. I can’t imagine how this license plate can be interpreted as the establishment of Religion and unconstitutional. Besides, the constitutional amendment referring to the establishment of religion is directed towards congress, not the states. Unfortunately, liberal activist judges have stretched the first constitutional amendment requirement to apply to all government entities.Interestingly, I’ve been approached by 2 news outlets from Yew York concerning this issue on 3 occasions. The NY Times called twice (once on 06.19.08 and quoted me)

I guess I’d have to admit I could support a plate for the Jewish community, yet would be very uncomfortable with a plate for scientology. This is inconsistent, I’ll admit. Anyhoo, this issue is out of our hands, so let’s wait and see what the courts and Attorney General Henry McMaster decide.

I couldn’t find a picture of the South Carolina plate, but here’s a sample of what we may see on Florida plates:

by schotline on June 18th, 2008

Cindy Knocks Another One Out (by guest blogger Lee Cole)

You can say what you want to about Anderson County Councilwoman, M. Cindy Wilson, but she knows how to win an election. For the sixth consecutive time since she first took office in 2000, Ms. Wilson whooped up on yet another opponent in last Tuesday’s primary like the woman in the above video. She has no opposition in November as of yet, but there are rumors of a possible petition candidate who undoubtedly will face the same fate of her previous challengers.

As a resident of Ms. Wilson’s district, I am firmly convinced that she is unbeatable. The people of County Council District 7 which includes Williamston, West Pelzer, Pelzer, and Honea Path, are very conservative and supportive of Ms. Wilson’s quest for lower taxes and open government. Also, many of the people in our area of Anderson County feel a strong disconnect between the “Anderson Crowd” and our area out in the country. The people of our area are fiercely independent, mostly of Scots-Irish descent who detest the thought of a government in Anderson or anywhere else pushing unwanted “progressive” programs down their throats. Ms. Wilson understands the differences between the people of District 7 and the areas around the city of Anderson because of her deep family roots here and uses this to her advantage while her opponents marvel at her popularity. I believe their main problem is that they simply do not understand the people of District 7.

Conservative supporters of Ms. Wilson throughout Anderson County won big last Tuesday as well and will have a majority on county council next year. It remains to be seen whether or not they will work together and pass some conservative reforms to make our county a better place, but whatever the future has in store for Anderson County, Cindy Wilson will remain the representative from County Council District 7 for as long as she chooses.

I first met Mr. Lee Cole as a staff of the South Carolina Senate Judiciary, then as a regular contributor to the cocklebur blog. Lee is a young genius with a great conservative mind. As a law student in the University of South Carolina School of Law, I’m sure he’ll be a great student of the rule of law as well as a great conservative American!

Another real life adventure of Ken and Barbie. Hey Barbie, how did you get that new job with Anderson County? I met this real nice man at the bar I worked at. Well, what’s your job? I’m not sure, but we’re going to Myrtle Beach this weekend for economic development. They even gave me a credit card. Really? I think I’m really gonna like this job. I get free travel all over the country. A free car, free gas, free food, and even free booze! Man, do you think I could get one of those jobs? I don’t think so, I was told they needed more ladies to work for the county’s remote economic development. I heard they’re hiring 25 more as soon as the new budget and new tax increases pass. I’m Eddie Moore, and if elected to District 3 County Council, I will vote to stop the party that is going on with your tax dollars. Paid for by Eddie Moore. Find out more, at eddiemooreforcouncil.com

Members of the General Assembly requested the Legislative Audit Council to conduct an audit of state agencies’ use of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. We reviewed whether agencies had policies and procedures to ensure that cell phones and other devices are used in an efficient manner and reviewed the adequacy of agency internal controls over these devices.

We estimate that during the time of our review state agencies had over 15,000 cell phones, 7,000 pagers, and 170 satellite phones. Approximately 25% of state employees carried state-issued cell phones. Of the 100 agencies we surveyed, 96 reported having issued cell phones and/or pagers to their employees. For equipment and services, we estimate that the state spent over $7 million on cell phones, $790,000 on pagers, and $68,000 on satellite phones in FY 05-06.

We found ways that agencies have taken steps to improve the efficiency of their use of these devices, including establishing statewide contracts, adopting cell phone plans that allow employees to share minutes, and using only one provider of cell phone services to obtain additional savings over the state contract.

We also identified areas where agencies could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their management of cell phones and other devices. We believe if all agencies were to adopt the recommendations contained in this audit, the state should be able to reduce its total expenditures on cell phones and pagers by at least 10%, resulting in estimated savings of over $800,000 annually.
To read the full audit

Since the beginning I have stood by the conviction that government must live within its means and prioritize its spending of the people’s money, yet unfortunately, the current trend is to spend frivolously and pass on unfunded obligations to future generations.
                           
Since I came to the South Carolina Senate in 2005, I have seen government spending grow by over 40%. The Assembly took the massive increase in tax receipts from 2004, 2005, 2006 and spent every dime. I have fought consistently with other like-minded senators to eliminate wasteful spending by either returning more money to you, the taxpayer, or setting aside revenue for budget shortage years like this year. We were successful in a few tax cuts, yet most of the funds were recklessly spent.
                              
This year there is a revenue shortfall and while the Assembly was forced to cut spending, this year’s budget still robs $100 million from the Medicaid trust fund and creates a $161 million annualization hole in the State’s budget. We have $20 billion in unfunded liabilities in state employee benefits. Governor Sanford was compelled to take out his line-item-veto pen 64 times to eliminate spending on programs outside the core mission of our government agencies. He has recommended that we restore agencies like Corrections and health care to full funding, and I agree that should be our priority.
                              
With these issues looming, I felt it necessary to stand for fiscal responsibility and support the majority of Governor Sanford’s vetoes.
                          
Although painful, these cuts are necessary to prevent future disasters from occurring. Unfortunately, the General Assembly has over-ridden most of these vetoes and our future problems will come home to roost as expected.
                             
You may read the messages on each veto by following this link:

http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/4DC4D616-100B-48CC-B0E5-52F6B8533331/0/H4800GeneralAppropriationsBill.pdf
                                       
I chose to sustain all line item vetoes except for the following: 11-Bureau of Protective Services; 17-State Guard Operating Expenses; 23-Long Term Facility Reimbursement; 24-Carry Forward DHHS Dental Reimbursement; 27-Public Nursing Facilities; 28-Nursing Services to High Risk/High Tech Children; 30-Teen Pregnancy Prevention
                            
I appreciate the opportunity to serve you in the South Carolina Senate and find it necessary to make these tough choices as long as we are commended to be stewards over the funds that belong to you, the taxpayer.
                       

It’s 102 miles to Anderson
Big Brother’s got a full pocket of money
The taxpayers’ pockets are empty
It’s sine die, and the people are safe until January

I offered 2 amendments relating to publicly owned utilities and the customers they serve outside of the municipal boundaries.
1-The Public Service Commission (PSC) may have jurisdiction over utility rates if the customer is outside the political boundary and if the customer is being charged a different rate than that of customers within the boundary.

2-Publicly owned utilities will not be allowed to force customers to sign an annexation agreement before having services connection.Since it has been impossible to get the bills I’ve introduced moving, I am forced to seek vehicles that I can amend. It is a stretch that H. 4745 was related. The amendments were to be ruled “non-germane” according to rule 24-A, therefore I was forced to withdraw the amendments. Perhaps we can see justice for these constituents being taken advantage of in the future.

I’ve been determined to follow through on this inequality since I learned of these practices several years ago. You may like to see this post (annexation manipulation) and this one (American Concrete gets tread on).

On June 4^th, a veto was over-ridden that really gets under my skin. Veto 22, gives DHHS the ability to expand the prior authorization to include mental health medications.
              
As a pharmacist, I witness wasted taxpayer money on prescription drugs on a daily basis. I would like to apply my 20 years of experience in pharmacy to offer solutions to the ever-climbing healthcare costs in the Palmetto State. Currently, Medicaid has a process called prior authorization or PA. This process is applied to some medications. In these situations, generic alternatives must be used first, and in the instance that the generic drug does not work; the more expensive medication may be dispensed. In no way is quality of care in jeopardy. If a consumer is paying cash for a product, naturally, they will try the least expensive option first. When the taxpayer is required to pay for medications covered by Medicaid, I believe we should take the same approach.
                       
Prior Authorization is applied to many life threatening therapeutic classes with little or no problems, yet with exponential savings of the taxpayers’ money. We apply the PA’s to medications treating diabetes, blood pressure, esophageal reflux, and many, many more. I am confident that there is much room for savings in the mental health area.
                
For example, Zyprexa can cost up to $1200 per month. If Zyprexa was placed on PA, a generic alternative such as haloperidol may be used. Haloperidol costs less than a $100 per month. If the patient does not tolerate haloperidol, then Zyprexa may be dispensed. This process would not be applied to a patient on a maintenance regimen with stable results, only new diagnoses.
                         
This proviso does not place any medication on Prior Authorization; it allows Medicaid more options. The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee makes these determinations. Here’s a link to their website
                         
We don’t have an unlimited amount of funds for our Medicaid recipients and I am confident that this proviso will free up scarce Medicaid dollars for areas of need.