Austin ----( AP ) Genomic Science has cleared the run way for a breast cancer cure. Barron’s Medical Journal is in Austin, Texas to report on the re- installation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). Breast 
cancer scientist is using genomic science to find a cure more and more. This is great news for Texas scientist. Texas is one of the States in The United States to supply research grants to find cures for cancer. 89 % of cancer researchers interviewed say having more breast cancer patients going to the Doctor more often and being diagnosed early-- Donald Pliner New Green Bottom Shoes Is The New Shoe Buzz 
is a great help. With the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) in place scientist can use genomic science to come up with a cure. Even the Microsoft Corporation has joined the race for a cure by using their Cloud Computing service to help scientist and Doctors to analyze breast cancer genome information.
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) -- Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in 2007 establishing the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) and authorizing the state to issue $3 billion in bonds to fund groundbreaking cancer research and prevention programs and services in Texas. CPRIT’s goal is to expedite innovation in cancer research and product development, and to enhance access to evidence-based prevention programs throughout 
the state. Under the guidance of its governing body, the Oversight Committee, CPRIT accepts applications and awards grants for a wide variety of cancer-related research and for the delivery of cancer prevention programs and services by public and private entities located in Texas. All CPRIT-funded research will be conducted in state by Texas-based scientists and reflect CPRIT’s mission to attract and expand the state’s research capabilities and create high quality new jobs in Texas.
CPRIT will maintain the highest integrity and dedication to the mission of finding a cure for cancer. CPRIT’s objective is to position Texas as a world-class leader in research and prevention through collaboration with a variety of entities, including public and private institutions of higher education, academic health institutions, universities, governmental organizations,
nongovernmental organizations, public and private companies and others involved in the fight against cancer. CPRIT supports innovation in the selection of research projects emphasizing immediate or long-term medical breakthroughs; product development opportunities for research, and prevention services and health education for citizens with culturally appropriate information about ways in which their risks of developing and dying from cancer can be reduced.
Who is Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. He served in the administrations of Reagan
and George H.W. Bush. After the retirement of African-American Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall led George H.W. Bush to nominate Thomas as his replacement and he was narrowly confirmed in 1991. Thomas is a conservative.
Barron’s Medical Journal has learned with Justice Thomas vote the Supreme court may overturn President Obama care. How can this happen? The matter before the court is King v. Burwell. If the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell are successful, an Obama Administration rule granting certain premium tax credits to those who obtain insurance through federal health care “exchanges” will be struck down. Absent action by the federal government or states, a ruling for the plaintiffs and against the Obama Administration would mean that individuals for whom insurance coverage became a greater out-of-pocket expense (exceeding 8 percent of their income in any given month) without the premium support tax credit would become exempt from the individual mandate.
Furthermore, employers in states that refused to set up Obamacare exchanges would be exempt from the employer mandate because no federal outlays would be made to trigger the penalty. King is a consequential initial step on the road toward dismantling and replacing the ill-considered Obamacare statutory scheme.
On March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in King v. Burwell. This case is a challenge by individuals (petitioners) who do not wish to comply with the so-called minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare).
Millions of individuals in the 34 states served by the FFMs will lose their tax credits. Without the credits, they will no longer be able to afford health insurance. The cost of insurance to those remaining in the nongroup market will rise precipitously, causing even more Americans to lose coverage. As the number of uninsured increases, providers will bear an increased burden of uncompensated care. A decision for the plaintiffs, that is, will be disaster for the American health care system.
The challengers argue that this is a result Congress intended. They contend that the subsection of the Affordable Care Act dealing with the calculation of premium tax credits limits the credits to individuals enrolled in an “Exchange established by the State.”-- True & Real By Theresa Roemer 
The government argues that this is a term of art — that Congress intended this phrase to include the federally facilitated exchanges that the ACA requires the Department of Health and Human Services to create as a fallback where the states elect not to operate their own exchange. Dozens of other provisions of the ACA support the government’s position.
The federal district court in Virginia that originally heard the case ruled for the government, holding that the statute unambiguously supported the IRS rule. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed unanimously. The Fourth Circuit held that, although the government had the better argument, the statute was ambiguous; thus the IRS regulation should be upheld under the Chevron Rule, which requires courts to defer to administrative agency interpretations of statutory ambiguities. Judge Davis, concurring, concluded the statute clearly supported the IRS. In a highly unusual move, the Supreme Court took review of the case in the absence of a split between the circuits.
The argument was supposed to last an hour, but in fact went on for almost an hour and a half. It is a masterpiece—two highly competent counsel thoroughly in control of their arguments being grilled by Justices who had obviously read the briefs, thought about the issues, and prepared themselves to ask probing and difficult questions.
Although the question of standing came up again when Solicitor General Verrilli took the podium and one more time when Carvin returned for rebuttal, no one seemed eager to have the case decided on this basis at this point and everyone seemed ready to move on.
The meaning of exchange in the ACA. Justice Breyer did move on to press Carvin, repeating the key argument of the government that “exchange” is a defined term under the ACA. It is defined as a 1311 exchange, which in turn is defined as an exchange “established by a state.” Section 1321 requires HHS to set up “such exchange,” that is a “required” 1311 state exchange when a state elects not to do so. Having recited this argument, Breyer asked: “So what’s the problem?” Carvin responded, as he has all along, that the statute does not say an “exchange established under 1311,” but rather, an “Exchange established by the State under 1311.”
In response Justice Kagan posed a hypothetical. If she asked one of her clerks to write a memo, another to edit it, and a third to write it if the first was too busy, and the third in fact wrote it, should the second still edit it? Mr. Carvin, seeing where this was going 
(and aided by Justice Alito) protested the analogy because Congress in fact was not indifferent as to which clerk wrote the memo, that is, who set up the exchange. But, Justice Kagan responded, the only way we know whether Congress was indifferent is from the context of the four or five words on which the plaintiffs build their case, just as the context would determine the meaning of the instructions to the clerks.
Justice Breyer pressed on. Literally, under the statute the federal government establishes an exchange for the state, which the statute defines as an exchange established by the state. But even if you don’t read the statute literally, federal exchanges make no sense without tax credits.
Carvin pointed out that the ACA more literally defines territorial exchanges as equivalent to state exchanges, but the justices were not persuaded of the distinction. Interpreting the ACA to avoid unconstitutional coercion. And here they reached what may well prove to be the turning point of the argument. Justice Sotomayor pointed out that if the plaintiffs’ argument is right, states that elect not to operate their own exchanges face tremendous penalties. Not only do their residents lose the tax credits, but their nongroup insurance markets will collapse and they will be blocked from reducing Medicaid eligibility (and states that already have may lose Medicaid funding altogether). This is clearly, Sotomayor argued, unconstitutionally coercive under recent Supreme Court cases.
To predict the result of a case from oral argument, it seems the government came out of the argument on top. The government’s position is clearly supported by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. It seems to me that the government has a more than even shot at Justice Kennedy. It is clear that Justices Scalia and Alito are prepared to side with the challengers. The Chief Justice, however, did not clearly stake out a position one way or the other. Justice Thomas, as is his custom, was silent, although the government should probably draw no comfort from that. At this point it would change the legacy of Justice Thomas if he see this matter constitutional vitality and a breast cancer cure.
