01/28/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Those Republicans who are, like Mark McKinnon, dismayed that President Obama did not abandon his liberalism after the election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts are misreading the Tea Bags…er tea leaves. As the Tea Party turns on their fellow members by going after Sarah Palin for endorsing John McCain in the Arizona Senate primary- a race he could lose, there are lessons to be learned from the election of Scott Brown, but also the debacle that was New York 23.

The typical sentiment out of the Republicans after the win of Scott Brown has been that their message- the message of obstruction- has resonated with the American people. This is not quite true. Yes, most people oppose Obama’s health care reform package, but not for the reasons that the Republicans want to think. It is sort of like a scene out of Futurama. “I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far,” one Presidential candidate said. “And I say that your three cent titanium tax does not go too far enough,” said the other. Those who oppose Obama’s health care package are split between two groups. One sees it as going too far, and one sees it as not going far enough. The majority of those opposing Obama’s health care package feel that it does not go far enough. The people who voted for Scott Brown in Massachussets were against Obama’s health care reform package because it did not go far enough. The people who voted for Martha Coakley voted for her because they were against Obama’s health care reform package because it did not go far enough. Wait- WHAT?! That is right, most Massachussans are opposed to Obama’s health care reform package because it does not go far enough and is worse than what they have in their own state. Even Scott Brown, in a FOX News interview made it clear that he was in favor of universalized health care and health care reform. Is this man a Republican or a Democrat?

In some ways, Scott Brown is a Moderate to Center Left Republican. If he was a Democrat, he would be called a Blue Dog.

The other lesson is from the New York 23 debacle for the Republican Party. While many Republicans- and even Democrats- are more interested in ignoring this race, it is important. What happened there was that the Conservative candidate was the darling of the Right, and even pushed out a moderate Republican who could have won the race with ease. In Massachusetts, Brown was unopposed from the Right, and with the lack luster run by Coakley, Brown was able to win over many Democrats and Independents who were willing to vote for him.

Right now, the sentiment in this nation is one of anger, but it is not exactly the anger that many Republicans are trying to steer in their direction. People are suffering from an excess of the Conservative ideals which are embodied by Ronald Reagan- namely unfettered capitalism coupled with deregulation and hobbled government agencies. Small government is wonderful in principle, it is often very bad in practice, and what is worse is the fact that the small government that was proposed by the Republicans is mostly for a limited group of people. Often times, people find themselves watching as big business interests are able to do whatever they want while small businesses are hobbled by regulations, paperwork and taxes. Small businesses often pay far more than big corporations in taxes, and yet big corporations provide fewer jobs in total than small businesses, but provide a far bigger strain on the economy than small businesses. In many ways, too big to fail means too big to succeed as big businesses become bloated behemoths. There hits a point where big corporations slash their work forces in order to make up for their overblown fixed costs such as rent, electricity, and so on.

Right now, the people of the United States are angry, but there really is no one who is taking up the cause in either party to fix the real problems. On the Republican side, the politicians would have to give up their ideas that the corporations are what is good for America, and on the Democratic side, the leadership is busy saying “don’t hit us anymore.”

What needs to happen in this country is a return to balance. It is time to ignore the ideas of big government vs. small government and have efficient, balanced government coupled with businesses which support the country rather than stuff their foreign bank accounts with tax-free money. It is time to end the farce that small government means better government and realize that small government is nothing but a code word for allowing the big corporations to run rampant.

President Obama did not move to the Right last night so much as embrace the true Center in politics. This is something that many Republicans are unwilling to do, and something that many Republicans are unwilling to understand. Perhaps Scott Brown will embrace the center as well and be willing to stand up to the rampant corporate interests.

01/15/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
President Barack Obama is now facing a very real problem in Massachusetts. He rushed there to try and shore up the flagging likelihood that Martha Coakley would, in fact, succeed Senator Ted Kennedy in the seat that he one held. What had once been a sure thing, now looks like it could be a loss. The why is simple. The base is upset and dispirited. They elected President Barack Obama to usher in a new era of liberalism in this nation. Instead, they got a man who was more willing to cut deals than to push what he campaigned upon through the Senate. Sure, he has managed to get almost everything he wanted, but rather than pushing through with health care reform, and pushing it hard, President Obama ceded that fight to the faux grassroots astroturfers who are less about fixing what is wrong, and more about ensuring what is wrong remains broken.

For the LGBT Community, Obama’s lack of spine has been a big problem. Instead of pushing through his promises of getting LGBT issues addressed in Congress, such as revoking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama has been signaling that he is more than willing to wait for his second term in office before being willing to address those issues. For the millions of gays, lesbians and transpeople, the President’s lack of movement on key issues beyond the Matthew Shepard Act- an act that had to be attached to another piece of legislation in order to pass- has been frustrating in the extreme.

It is there that Massachusetts becomes a problem. Massachusetts is a state with some of the largest numbers of LGBT Americans in the country, and a large number of LGBT allies. The lack of movement on Obama’s part on these issues is discouraging, and many may be unwilling to vote for Coakley because Obama has been so timid when it comes to these battles. In many ways, it will not be the fact that the Democrats went too far with health care reform and financial reform and even the repeal of anti-LGBT laws that lost them this seat, and threatens to make 2010-2013 a legislative deadlock unlike anything this nation has seen in a long time, but rather the fact that the Democrats did not go far enough in pursuing an agenda of popular Progressivism.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi forgot to fight for the people who put them into power, and now they are at risk of being unable to do anything for years to come.

12/26/09-by Paula Brooks
Bucking the ever increasingly hard lined United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, several major Catholic health groups have backed the Senate’s health-care compromise on abortion.

In a statement released last week, Sr. Carol Keehan, president and chief executive office of the Catholic Health Association of the United States said, “The Catholic Health Association is pleased to learn of the work being done to improve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. As we understand it, the Senate intends to keep the President’s commitment that no federal funds will pay for abortions and in addition, provide significant new support for pregnant women.

Sr. Keehan also said that the most important thing that Congress could do was pass a bill that would cover the nation’s uninsured. Because Catholic hospitals, like any hospital, would like to minimize the number of uninsured patients who receive uncompensated care in their facilities and achieve the “extremely important good” of expanding health care coverage to everyone.

“We urge Congress to continue its work toward the goal of health reform that protects life at all stages while expanding coverage to the greatest possible number of people in our country, Keehan said.”

After the Senate vote Thursday, another Catholic hospital group, Catholic Healthcare West, also issued a statement saying… “We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the women and men of the United States Senate for their courageous and historic vote approving national health care legislation.

As a hospital system that cares for a population spanning 20 million people, we know firsthand how important it is to reform our nation’s health care system. We continue to recognize that this job is not yet completed and we urge the Congress and President Obama to continue their work until this task is complete.”

The Senate bill, approved Thursday morning, allows any state to bar the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion and requires insurers in other states to divide subsidy money into separate accounts so that only dollars from private premiums would be used to pay for abortions.

Women’s Reproductive Health Rights supporters said the statement from the Catholic Health Association helped some Democratic abortion opponents accept the Senate compromise.

“We have known for quite some time that the Catholic hospitals and also the nuns are really breaking from these hard-line bishops and saying, ‘This really is our goal: to get more people into health care coverage,’ ” also said Colorado Democratic Representative Diana DeGette.

However, the Asshats… er… I mean… the Bishops have been lobbying to bar anyone who receives insurance subsidies under the proposed health care overhaul from using those subsidies to buy coverage that included abortion. They have declared the Senate compromise “morally unacceptable,” and would rather see uninsured Americans die or in bankruptcy in order to use health reform as a platform for the Vatican’s abortion politics.

The current health care reform bill is “deficient” and should not move forward without “essential changes,” said the Bishops.

At the behest of the bishops, a group of House Democrats lead by Michigan Rep Bart Stupak forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders to adopt such a provision and threatened to block any final legislation that fell short of it. Women’s Reproductive Health Rights supporters have, however, vowed they will block any final bill that includes such a measure.

In a statement to NYTimes.com, Catholic activist Deal Hudson the CHA’s endorsement “utterly offensive”and said… “The Catholic Health Association does not represent the teaching of the Catholic Church….”

12/23/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
“We are all floating in the same boat. We may certainly try to push one another over the side, but only a maniac…would make a hole in the bottom.”- Terry Pratchet, The Fifth Elephant

When Senator Tom Coburn seemed to wish for the death or major illness of a fellow Senator, the feeling is that he crossed the line. In many ways he did, but it was symptomatic of a failure of many things in the United States. The feeling within the Republican Party that is fueling this push to obstruct even the least little piece of reform comes from an absolute belief that Barack Obama will manage to remove them from power permanently. A recent caller to CSPAN asked GOP Senator John Barrasso “How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?” While the Senator and the host of the show tried to go beyond the issue, the situation is still disturbing. It is hard to think that people are hitting the point where they are more than willing to ask that a frail, 92 year old man should have to come into the Capital in order to cast a vote in the Health Care Debate. Here is the video:

12/21/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
When the Republicans made it their mission to rile up as much of the anti-government, anti-Democrat, anti-reform, racist, sexist, bigoted, anti-Semitic groups as possible in this country in order to return to power, they made one thing clear with regards to the health care reform- if President Obama did not pass anything, they would declare his Presidency deader than President Clinton’s supposedly was after his health care debacle. They obstructed, threw fits, claimed that Obama was more partisan than Clinton (even though he repeatedly reached out to them), and did everything including apparently calling for either the death or illness of Senator Robert Byrd in order to make absolutely sure that health care reform would pass beyond the century mark for debate. In large part, because of that, the debate did not go Progressive’s way. Obama was intent upon passing something- anything, and it did not matter whether or not that bill matched his campaign promises or if it was even somewhere near protecting people from the health insurance companies. It was, as one Huffington Post headline read, a gift wrapped up for the lobbyists.

Vermont has already started negotiations on setting up a single payer system in the coming years. Doing so would likely reduce the amount of money that Vermont has to pay for health insurance for its residents. It may even attract businesses who would be happier to pay taxes to the state rather than hand over more and more money to the health insurance companies. It may entice people to move to the state in order to get health insurance. The debate has yet to begin and the public records on the pros and cons of the single payer system are scarce and hard to say with any accuracy. More Vermonters support single payer than do any other system.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced an amendment which would have created a single payer Medicare For All system in the United States. Rather than let it come up for a vote, Senator Tom Coburn forced a read of the whole amendment in an attempt to slow the debate down to a crawl. Senator Sanders was, ultimately, forced to withdraw the amendment. Of course, Senator Coburn was not there when Senator Sanders went on to deliver a sternly worded and heated denouncement of the Republican’s decision to throw a fit over the way in which democracy works. The Republicans have done everything they can to undermine democracy by stalling legislation, demanding full readings, and refusing to negotiate no matter what.

Jane Hamshir at Fire Dog Lake has posted a compilation of why it is time to kill the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
4. Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

12/18/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Yesterday, I went a little ballistic over the Health Care Reform and joined the ranks of those who have called for the end of this bill. I did not explain the totality of why. The why of healthcare reform is something that no one seems to want to explain. Before I left Georgia, SCHIP went bankrupt. It ran out of money. The why of it running out of money is simple. Too many people had no choice but to put their children on that program because their employers would not give them health coverage. The largest reason was the Walmarticization of the American workforce where people are given part time work, no benefits and not enough money to pay for healthcare. In the end, this set up made it necessary for people to put their children on the only healthcare program that they could- SCHIP. When the attempt to scuttle the program went through under President Bush, Georgia’s SCHIP program ran out of money.

Americans are not earning enough to get insurance because corporations insist upon squeezing every last cent of profits that they can, often at the expense of employees. I do not mean small businesses, but the mega-corporations which often refuse to give their employees adequate pay, and adequate benefits. “If you take care of your employees, and you take care of your customers, your profits will take care of themselves,” as one person in my life use to say.

The growth that this country has so long enjoyed is an illusion. It exists, but only at the top. Yes, since Ronald Reagan took office, the economy has grown and grown. That is, until you walk through the rotting streets of downtown Brunswick, Georgia. The rich folk on Saint Simon’s Island desperately wanted to build a new bridge at the top end of the island so that people coming to their beaches would not have to see anything of the city, or drive passed the turpentine plant and its toxic cloud of fumes. They certainly did not want people to go down Norwich Street and see the boarded up buildings, vacant eyed residents, and crumbling facades. I lived in that city for eighteen years save for a few where I lived in Savannah and a six month sojourn in England. I saw people scrambling for crumbs who were not idiots and not stupid. Instead, I saw people who had been beaten down for so long by the businesses which told them that they would move the plant out of the country if anyone complained, and churches which promised salvation, eternal rewards, and a belief that contradicting the corporations was somehow wrong.

It would have been better if that turpentine plant had left. The chemicals it spewed into the air rotted roofs on the houses right near by and caused ash to fall like snow on bad days. If anyone complained about the smell, people would say “that’s our bread adn butter.” They fought the environmental regulations which required them to put in a reclamation boiler. They spent more fighting that boiler than it cost to install it! All the time, they did not care if their workers were being slowly poisoned by those self same fumes. They should move away, after all. Move somewhere safer. As if any of them could afford to do that. The plant eventually had to be sold because the company that owned it couldn’t make enough money off of it after the legal battles.

There was an Arco plant there. The land around the plant is so heavily polluted that one person recommended napalming the land in order to clean it. Those chemicals forced the closure of the drive in cinema next to it a long time ago. It did not, however, force the people near that plant to be moved. The soil was so toxic that working around that plant was dangerous. I found the location of a very rare Native American site marked on an old map. That site could never be excavated. The land it was on had been used as a toxic dump site for over a hundred and fifty years. That dump site sat right on the river too. The fish there could not and should not be eaten under any circumstances.

And into this, what I saw was simple. I saw people without hope, without health, and without a future. I saw a society which valued money over people, and did not care about the blood that money was made from. My great-grandfather was, by all accounts, a Marxist. He was a Marxist for largely the same reason I can be counted as such. He tried to help the people around him. He was a pharmacist. He owned drugstores across the Caribbean, and he employed people who could dispense medicine with enough training to also diagnose most basic ailments. He provided the poor with the medical services that they could not pay for at a clinic. According to what we know, he died of a heart attack in a Dominicanan prison soon after Raphael Trujillo took power in the Dominican Republic. He felt that the society should take care of its people irregardless of their age, their race, or their class. Poverty breeds crime. There was a time roughly two hundred years ago where it was believed that the poor were naturally inclined to being both poor and criminal. By “natural” I mean the belief was that the poor lacked jobs because they were naturally stupid, naturally lazy, and naturally criminal. If you wanted to solve a crime, just have the thief taker grab some poor person off the street, beat them until they confessed, and sentence them. Voila, justice was done. Of course, it was not done. In part, this is why the Constitution states that “cruel and unusual punishment” is prohibited. It is to stop mock justice from being done. Our Founding Fathers, and in this case I mean more specifically those Anti-Federalists who supported the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, knew then that torture only muddied up justice. I also muddied up the gathering of military intelligence.

Lloyd Bensen once, famously, told Dan Quayle “I knew Jack Kennedy and you are no Jack Kennedy.” My view of Kennedy is far from being rosy. I have always liked Lyndon Johnson. He may not have been perfect. He was far from the best President that the country could have had, and the era he lived in was almost ungovernable. Still, Johnson at least had courage. He had passion. He spent a stint working as a teacher in rural Texas. He saw first hand what poverty and prejudice do to people, especially young children. President Johnson said before a joint session of Congress on 15 March 1965:

My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school…Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child….I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country.

But now I do have that chance- and I’ll let you in on a secret: I mean to use it.”

I live in Vermont now. Outside my window is a view of the city I was born in. It is officially a city. It has seventeen thousand residents. I often hear talk about “Small Town America”. My friends live in small town America. I go to college in a small town north of here. Vermont is full of small towns. I listen to politicians who talk about small town America every day. It comes with the job. Somewhen, not too long ago, people created this myth about Small Town America. They started by taking all their beliefs and ascribing it to the people in small towns across the country. They then sold that vision to people. And then they took on a phony “folksy” accent to make it sound like they were one of “us”.

When I was in fifth grade my family and I lived in the Interbay. It’s kind of sandwiched in between McDill Air Force Base and Tampa in Florida. We lived in a house where the floor was rotting, the spiders were huge, and one good tropical storm, and we were in the ocean. We lived off of the charity of others. My father had lost his job recently. The area was crime ridden, filthy, and scary. Maybe it is because I am empathetic, maybe it is because I care about others, but I have always wondered what happened to those children I spent a year getting to know.

I attended Senator Sander’s town hall meeting in August. The majority of the folks wanted- even demanded a single payer plan because it would put an end to all of the problems that they face. Five years ago, I went into the primary election in Brunswick and cast a single, solitary, symbolic vote for one man, Governor Howard Dean. I did not live in Vermont while he was Governor, and I know that he is not loved by everyone. I do not agree with all of his policies or his political stances. He is, however, someone with guts. He is someone who turned the Democrats around in four years only to have Barack Obama and his crew snatch it away and give it to some schmuck of a Chairman who could not and did not support the base on important issues like marriage equality, but, instead, supported a candidate who barely had a chance of winning election anyway. Governor Dean has stated now on Morning Joe that he will not vigorously support Obama’s reelection. Perhaps, instead, Governor Dean will consider the unusual, and even the unthinkable. Perhaps he will run against a sitting President. Governor Dean knows that he is going to be attacked for his stance. Because of Governor Dean, I have health insurance. I have that dreaded “Socialized Medicine” everyone talks about, and it has not caused Vermont citizens any loss in freedom when it comes to health care.

Jacob Heilbrunn recently wrote about giving President Obama some slack. I have given him plenty of slack. Until the last twenty-four hours, I have given him his fair due. I have argued that he needs to be given time. Time, unfortunately, has shown that Obama is not willing to fight. Time has show that Obama is not willing to take the battle to the enemy. Instead, he has consistently caved in on issues where he needed to be strong. One can argue that had he pulled out of Afghanistan the Right would have gone after him- THEY ARE GOING AFTER HIM ANYWAY. One can argue that he should not have gone after single payer Medicare For All because the right would have called him a Socialist or a Communist- THEY ARE ALREADY SAYING THAT ABOUT HIM. One can argue that he needs to reach out and befriend the opposition or they will oppose him- THEY WILL OPPOSE HIM ANYWAY. President Obama has decided to reach out for his enemy and hope without thinking that they will, somehow, support him. They will not. They will continue to fight him because he is not one of them. They will continue to obstruct him no matter what he hands them.

It is always tempting to reach out to the enemy and offer them your hand in friendship. The problem comes when they will not reach out as well. When we live in a society that does not know the difference between “Socialist”, “Communist”, “Marxist”, “Fascist”, “Nazi” and “Dictator”, we cannot have a discussion based upon facts. Instead, we have an argument based upon propaganda. Hell Fire and Brimstone, we are not even having an argument. “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition,” as Monty Python once said. What we have here is Contradiction, the automatic gainsay of what ever the other side says. Until the GOP is willing to actually have an argument, then there is no point in reaching out to them. As for those in his own party who are willing to scuttle the bill for personal gain, make it clear that there are consequences to their decision to throw this under the bus. There was an uproar on the Right over pulling Nebraska’s military base. Do it. Tell Nelson that the base will be pulled if he does not follow the will of the party. Politics is nasty, dirty, and painful. It is time President Obama figures out that he cannot get people to follow behind him if he refuses to lead.

In 2012, I will have trouble supporting President Obama. If the GOP wises up and supports someone like Joe Scarborough or if Mitt Romney wakes up and goes back to his old social positions, I will gladly vote for them. I will go further. I will support them. The Left is rumbling. The political storm is approaching.

(I do wish to apologize for the length of this. I usually try to go no more than five hundred words. Unfortunately, this is something I am passionate about. As much as LGR is a blog, I do not do a great deal of editorializing. Analysis, yes, reporting yes, but not much off the cuff opinion work.)

12/17/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
This is what happens when you cave in to one person who is having a snit. Another one comes along and demands that you cave in to him. In this case it is Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska who has decided to kill the bill. The time has come to ‘kill’ him and Lieberman. It is time to strip them of any and all power that they have within the Senate. The time has come to remove them from their committee assignments, and if needs be, the caucus as a whole. It is time to kill this bill. No ‘ifs’, no ‘ands’, no ‘buts’, no negotiation. And, if President Obama cannot learn to lead and Senator Reid cannot grow a spine, then it is time for them to leave or be removed. Senator Nelson has demanded that his amendment condemning women to die for lack of coverage for a legal procedure must be in the bill or he will filibuster. If that is his decision, then fine, remove him from everything. If he leaves to join the Republicans, great, replace him next election. Or replace him anyway.

One year and six months ago, or there abouts, I cast my ballot in the first primary in recent memory where Vermont was important. I cast my vote for Hilary Clinton. While I have held out hope that President Barack Obama would be better than he has turned out to be, I hate to say that he has lived up to my expectations. I voted for him in the general election because I saw in his opponent someone who was even less ready for the Presidency than Obama, and who chose a running mate who, in all honesty, seemed more of a caricature than a real person, especially in light of her transformation from the time she ran for governor to when she ran for Vice President. The why of my vote had mostly to do with History. Senators rarely make good Presidents, and one term Senators often make very weak Presidents. I knew in Obama we did indeed have a John Kennedy. The problem was that no one really goes beyond Kennedy’s assassination to look at the President. Kennedy has never impressed me as anything more than an decent orator. Johnson, at least, had guts. He had scars too and would show them off to anyone who wasn’t squeamish. Ok, that’s wrong, he would show them off to the squeamish as well.

I knew that Obama would not fight the way everyone thought he would. I knew that he would have trouble herding Democrats into doing anything. Obama was good at speeches, but not much else. It is because of that I have not been disappointed in his lack of movement. It is because I knew that Obama was not this great, grand Liberal leader that I have not been disappointed at the immobility of many LGBT issues, and many others. I knew that Obama was more interested in compromise than anything else. It has been painful to watch as Liberals come to the same place I was a long time ago.

Last night, Kieth Olbermann took what looked like and felt like a very difficult step. He called for the death of the health care reform bill and the creation of a new one. Until Senator Nelson made his demands, i was on the fence about this. Now, I am not. The bill must die and, as Governor Howard Dean said, be rewritten. It is time for the Democrats to fight back. It is time for it to be bluntly clear to people like Nelson and Lieberman that there are consequences for going against the majority of their party and the majority of the people. It is time for someone to make Joe Lieberman understand quite bluntly that his desire for revenge is not only unconscionable, but against everything that the Senate has ever stood for. This kind of petty politics is suppose to be confined to the House of Representatives not the Senate. Yet, it is in the Senate that we find more and more people who want to do nothing but hold their collective breaths until they turn blue in the face and then- and then Senator Reid will cave in and give them their treat. If the Republicans want to slow the bill to a crawl, then let them do so. Let there be no other business until this is done. If the government shuts down from their tantrum, then BLAME them. Make it clear that Senators Lieberman and Nelson are responsible for shutting down the government and starving our troops of the funds they need. If they shut down the government, make it clear that the Republicans with the help of Lieberman and Nelson are responsible for doing so. Blame them instead of capitulating. Perhaps then they will come to their senses and realize that compromise can be achieved on issues that they want.

But that is the problem, is it not. This is not about the Republicans WANTING anything policy wise. This is about them wanting power, pure and simple. They want to win the ideological battle that has been going on in this country since it was founded. They want power, and in order to get it they will do anything from lying, cheating and even shutting down the government. I have listened appalled at how the Conservatives spin History into something so out of shape and out of place that they it is unrecognizable. They talk about Our Founding Fathers as if they were some singular block that agreed upon a particular issue, and somehow, some way were of one mind and that mind was for small government without regulations to hold businesses accountable, and without the power to tax people. What they do not say is that we tried that form of government before the Constitution was written, and at that time, the states almost went to war with each other and the central government was so weak that it could not govern even enough to make this nation safe. What our Founding Fathers wanted was a balanced government, and they did not get there by decree or one side winning over the other. Instead, they created a government that was balanced by consensus and compromise. What we do not have here is any of that. The people who claim to speak for the Founding Fathers, or at least in their model of thought, do not any more than any Liberal in this country.

I am not a Liberal, and yet, no matter what I say or do in this blog, I will be branded as such. I am an academe, and that alone gets me attacked by people who have never understood that colleges are as diverse in their political thinking as any place out there. In fact, more so. Of all the colleges I have been to, only one was liberal, and that is not necessarily Liberal, but open minded in its approach to education. I have met professors who would not look me in the eye because I am a transwoman on some college campuses. Distrust Education, Distrust Government, and eventually what you have is anarchy. I often write on this blog in a Liberal manner because, no matter how much I may not be that label, it will be applied to me. That is what Olbermann said last night as well. No matter what he said or did, he would be labeled a liberal for daring to not follow lock step behind the Conservative mantra. When did Conservative become the same word as dictatorship?

You will forgive me if, by now, I am angry with how this has turned out. I had hoped that I was wrong about Obama, and I hate to admit that I was not. For me to be angry takes some doing, but I stand beside my Senator in condemning this mess. I stand beside Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont. In four years, should he choose to stay in the Senate, I will vote for him. It was an honor to hear him speak. Like him, I am angry now too.

I am including the video from Olbermann’s special comment last night. Please, enjoy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Clouds On The Horizon (follow up editorial)

12/16/09-by Paula Brooks
Yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, Mecklenburg County North Carolina Commissioners approved a measure to will provide domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

According to a report on North Carolinas Q-Notes…

The approved plan will define “domestic partners” as two same-sex people in a “spousal like” and “exclusive, mutually committed” relationship in which both “share the necessities of life and are financially interdependent.” The county will require domestic partners meet certain criteria and provide signed legal affidavits along with joint financial documents such as a joint mortgage or lease. Employees will be able to enroll in a domestic partner plan sometime next fall, when the county government enters into a new health insurance enrollment period. Mecklenburg County’s plan will not include opposite-sex, unmarried couples. via Q-Notes

The county’s Human Resources department expects the expanded coverage will cost the county less than $400,000 a year.

Debate before the vote, marked by nearly two hours of rancorous exchange between commissioners and about a dozen county residents.

“I’m from the old school and I know what is right and I know what is wrong,” Jason Colley said. “I know what is good and I know what is bad. I do not wish my taxes to go to something of this nature. It seems like to me the minorities always get their way in whatever minority class it may be. I thought we were governed by majority rule. It doesn’t seem that way.”

“What we’re doing is lawful. It is fair. It values our employees,” said Commission Chairman Jennifer Roberts. “It helps them in a tough economy if one loses a job. It helps them retain benefits and we know in the end that people are healthier and that health care is less expensive when people are covered.”

In the end, the final vote split along party line, but not before tempers flared between two county commissioners after Democratic commissioner Vilma Leake, spoke about her son dying of AIDS…

“I did not know that in 2010 that I would be sitting here to defend … his lifestyle.”

According to WBTV, Republican commissioner Bill James leaned over and responded: “Your son was a homo, really?” His remarks were not made into the microphone on his desk, but it could be heard in the audio coverage of the meeting.

Leake then was heard to respond, “Don’t make me hurt you. Don’t do that to me. Don’t talk to me about my son.”via CharlotteObserver.com.

Mecklenburg County will become one of seven municipalities in North Carolina to offer health care benefits to domestic partners of employees. The others include the cities of Durham, Greensboro and the town of Chapel Hill.

“Everyone deserves equal compensation for equal work,” Ian Palmquist, Executive Director of Equality NC said after the vote. “Mecklenburg County is doing the right thing by following the lead of major employers like Wachovia and Bank of America and ensuring that all their workers get the same benefits, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nominee for EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Passes Senate HELP Committee (hrcbackstory.org)
• Queer the Census! (queersunited.blogspot.com)
• Help Ensure Health Care Reform Includes LGBT Families! (queersunited.blogspot.com)
• House Passes Health Reform Bill with Key LGBT Provisions (hrcbackstory.org)
• NY Times Profiles DP Benefit Tax Provision in House Health Reform Bill (hrcbackstory.org)
• Equality Can Help LGBT Health (lezgetreal.com)

12/16/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
There is a reason why every article that I write about Dr. Rachel Maddow gives her full title. Well, there are two reasons, to be honest. I spent the better part of my life in academia, and put a great deal of store in titles. The more important reason is that Dr. Maddow does, in fact, have her doctorate. In this case, she has a Doctorate of Philosophy In Political Science, or PhD. Poli Sci. Dr. Maddow got her doctorate as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. It should not be surprising that former Representative Richard Armey, PhD Economics, is dismissive of Dr. Maddow’s qualifications to comment upon the political situation in this country. Dr. Armey, who has his PhD from North Texas University, recently decided to be derisive in his condemnation of Dr. Rachel Maddow over her exchange with Senator Thomas Colburn, MD over the rather virulent and hateful signage at several Republican attended rallies. For the record, Senator Colburn has his doctorate of medicine from the University of Oklahoma Medical School and is an obstetrician. Dr. Maddow and Senator Colburn had an exchange on Meet the Press regarding the rather hateful and nasty tone that the Republican Party and their supporters had taken in the Health Care debate. Dr. Maddow has every qualification regarding discussion of this particular issue.

Dr. Armey stumbled through his condemnation of Dr. Maddow, who it is believed has one of the few doctorates among television presenters. Throughout the segment, Dr. Armey mispronounced her name, calling her Rachel Maddox, and using a very horrendous Texas accent to attack her as a Television Personality rather than ever actually knowing what her qualifications are. This is a typical attack point by the Conservatives. Attack the educated or “intelligentsia” with derisive sneering attacks meant to make them sound better than the “common folk” without ever actually pointing out that they, themselves, have very strong educations. Many of the leaders within the GOP have their doctorate of law, and are as far removed from the common folk as imaginable.

What follows is Dr. Maddow’s clip of Dr. Armey speaking as well as her own reactions.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

12/07/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
It appears that the Roman Catholic Church has found their patsy…er ally in Senator Ben Nelson. His decision to help them craft and introduce a Senate version of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment could result in the derailment of the health care reform bill and his career should that actually happen. Senator Nelson would rather be known as the man who killed health care reform and risk the loss of his committee assignments than to forget about putting this already failed amendment forward. It lacks even the votes to override a filibuster, and appears to lack enough votes to even pass without the threat of one. Basically, less than fifty Senators are willing to vote for this amendment, even with Republican support for it.

Senator Nelson was joined by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch in crafting this bill and one Democrat- Senator Robert Casey of PA, and seven Republicans in sponsoring the bill.

Opposing the bill appears to be a strong coalition of Senators including Kirsten Gilibrand of New York, who has vowed to kill this amendment, and it appears that she has the support to do that.

The Nelson-Hatch Amendment would result in the restriction of all federal funds to either obtain an abortion, or use of those funds via a subsidy in order to obtain a policy which provides abortion coverage. While there is the obligatory language in there in order to protect a woman’s life in the case of medical emergency, rape or incest, the amendment does not go into what constitutes those areas that would be covered, and unfortunately, many Federal employee health insurance providers simply ignore those provisions and ultimately refuse to pay for the abortion unless forced to do so. The current structure of the restriction on abortion funding would not risk the probability of health insurance providers pulling out of these procedures even if there was medical risk involved.

Senators Nelson and Lieberman are both risking being stripped of their committee assignments by the Progressive caucus if they follow through with their threats not to vote for cloture and allow a floor vote to go through. Nelson has stated his opposition to the final bill if it does not include this amendment within it, but not voting for cloture to allow the final vote would result in severe political blow back especially in light of recent polling showing that the majority of those opposed to health care reform are not opposed because it goes too far, but rather that it does not go far enough.

What follows is the actual language of the amendment via Politico:

Beginning on page 116, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 15 on page 123, and insert the following:

(a) Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services.—

(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services.

(2) Community health insurance option.—The Secretary may not provide coverage of abortion services in the community health insurance option established under section 1323, except in the case where use of funds authorized or appropriated by this Act is permitted for such services under subsection (b)(1).

(3) No discrimination on the basis of provision of abortion.—No Exchange participating health benefits plan may discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) Limitation on Abortion Funding.—

(1) In general.—No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(2) Option to purchase separate supplemental coverage or plan.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—

(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using—

(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(3) Option to offer supplemental coverage or plan.—Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—

(A) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and

(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.

12/5/09-by Paula Brooks
Out going Virginia Governor and current DNC Chairman Tim Kaine has announced that he is moving forward with a plan to add same-sex partners under Virginia’s employee health plan.

According to The Washington Post, Kaine ordered his staff to put together a proposal this week that would expand access to state healthcare benefits to qualified adults who live in the same house as an insured state employee. Those adults could include heterosexual and gay partners, roommates, children and other family members, according to the report.

The Virginia Department of Human Resource Management told the WAPO that it expects no additional expense to the state, as state employees would bear the cost of the additions.

The change would take about 18 months to implement,and would come well after Kaine term as Virginia’s Governor ends and his successor, Republican Robert F. McDonnell, takes office.

Thursday, at a press conference in Richmond, McDonnell said his first worry would be about the cost of Kaine’s proposal to the state, but he also expressed other concerns.

“My first question is, what [is] the cost to the state by expanding those policies?” McDonnell said at a news conference at the state Capitol. “I am all for using business — public and private — to expand health-care coverage. . . . But what I don’t know is, what is the cost that has to be borne by the state government versus the individual new subscriber?”

via Kaine plan would extend health benefits to same-sex partners – washingtonpost.com.

Eighteen other states provide benefits to adults other than spouses, and 10 provide benefits to domestic partners with no distinction between couples of the same or opposite sex.

However in Virginia, Kaine’s plan is expected to be controversial. Current Virginia law holds that it has no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnership contracts between same-sex couples.

McDonnell has in the past espoused radically conservative opinions on gay rights and in 2006 after Kaine issued an Executive Order changing the Virginia’s nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation as a protected class, McDonnell as Virginia Attorney General challenged Kaine’s order on constitutional grounds.

McDonnell, who is a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School, also has a longstanding personal and political relationship the conservative televangelist. Robertson was a major financier for McDonnell in races for the Virginia legislature, state attorney general and governor.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pat Robertson: Gays want to destroy marriage (bilerico.com)

12/4/09-by Paula Brooks
After months of focusing on health care, Afghanistan and just about everything else, (except maybe his promises on gay rights issues), President Obama finally turned that focused like a laser attention of his on the fact this country has some rather high levels of unemployment. However he also made it clear that after health care, Afghanistan and just about everything else (except maybe his promises on gay rights issues)… the government is broke and won’t be able to help out much in this department.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama held a White House “Jobs Forum” where he sought new ideas from business executives, labor leaders, economists and others. After that meeting, Mr. Obama said he would entertain “every demonstrably good idea” for creating jobs, but also warned the nation, “our resources are limited,” and said, “I want to be clear: While I believe the government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.”

However, Fred Lampropoulos, founder and chief of Merit Medical Systems Inc., a medical device manufacturer in Utah, said after the forum, that businesses were uncertain about making any investments in the present because “there’s such an aggressive legislative agenda that businesspeople don’t really know what they ought to do.” That uncertainty, he added, “is really what’s holding back the jobs.”

But Obama has said that, “if we keep on putting off tough decisions about health care, about energy, about education, we’ll never get to the point where there’s a lot of appetite for that.”

Yesterday on the Huffington Post, Elizabeth Warren, the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the banking bailouts, noted that, “one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can’t make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.”

Many Conservative and moderate Democrats are troubled that the push on health care, which Republicans are now using to paint them as fiscally irresponsible boobs to their constitutes back in their home districts, has hurt them back in those districts.

The fact we’re still invading Afghanistan and the $40 billion price tag the will go along with that invasion, is also freaking out many Congressional Democrats at a time when some of those Dems are seeing unemployment rates pushing well into the double digits in their districts, and they are starting realize they are probably not going to get re-elected if one in every 5 people in their district are out of work and living under bridges, as those bridges crumble over them from lack of maintenance funds.

In the House, lawmakers I speak with are particularly sensitive to the employment and Afghanistan issue since they all face re-election next year, and it is starting to become crystal clear to many of them that they are going to be pretty much going to be rolled under the bus by the White House in its efforts to advance its legislative agenda in the mid term elections and the push for any kind of healthcare bill as is now is simply because it will enable Obama to tout a victory, leaving some Dems seriously questioning whether the effort on health care and Afghanistan should have taken a backseat to the economy and jobs issue.

As a widowed gay working mother of two, and a businesswoman struggling just to get by, I am at the edge the precipice of financial disaster and worried this new healthcare bill in its current form has every potential to jack up the costs of the little healthcare I already have. I am worried that it will end up putting my family, and my business over the edge…. Because once we are locked into this chopped up piece of crap that is the current healthcare bill, we will never see the light of a new reform till next century.

I am the sister of one Marine who lost his leg in Iraq, and another Marine who is waiting to be deployed to Afghanistan.

I am also the niece of a man who has his name on a sorrowful black wall dedicated to a far off struggle, in a forbidding landscape, in which we depended on an ineffectual government to ’step up’, all the while facing a foe that has proven effective at waiting out an enemy…. I see someone is not paying attention to history… and I do not want my brother ending up as another a name on another wall dedicated to another far off struggle, in a forbidding landscape, in which we depend on an ineffectual government to ’step up’, all the while facing a foe that has proven effective at waiting out an enemy like my uncle did.

I would say to those Congressional Democrats worried about their jobs as someone who could easily be considered part of “their base” … Those worries are not wholly unfounded.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Elizabeth Warren: Serious Questions Remain About Obama’s Loan Relief Plan (huffingtonpost.com)
• A Different Kind Of Tears For Obama (bravenewfilms.org)
• Quick-Fixing Jobs Is a Snare and a Delusion (dailykos.com)
• Afghanistan: Can Obama Sell America on This War? (time.com)

Senator Leahy and Melanie Nathan 6/3/09

By Melanie Nathan:- When I met Senator Leahy, I was touched by his compassion, his sensitivity and his veracity. Most of all he is a champion for equality and as a supporter of UAFA, and has done much for our LGBT binational immigration.   I would like to support Senator Leahy in his endeavors, first and foremost because he has my trust and faith.

On Tuesday Senator Leahy took to the Senate floor and formally filed an amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies and it has already 18 co-sponsors signed on.

In the senator’s words, “I look forward to debating this critical measure during our deliberations on the broader health care reform bill. After all, to bring insurance costs down, we’ve got to introduce more competition in the marketplace — and my amendment will do just that.”

More Senators ought to join to get this critical amendment passed. 

Click here to forward an email to your Senators now — and urge them to support our amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies!

I have not read the amendment but the Senator assures that amendment will introduce antitrust oversight to the health insurance industry, ruling out of bounds egregious anti-competitive conduct like the currently activated and detrimental price fixing loophole which  raises our health costs.  

There will be no real Health Care reform until, inter alia, the health insurance industry is forced to compete on a level playing field just like every other business in America, large and small. In all fairness, consumers must know that the price they’re being quoted is a concomitant of a free and fair marketplace.

The senator in a letter to his on-line community implored our support “That’s why this amendment repealing the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption is so important — but I need your help, right now, to get it passed.” Call your representatives and Senators to ensure they support the Bill and this critical principle.

11/19/09-by Paula Brooks
The Obama administration distanced itself Wednesday from new recommendations on breast cancer screening called for earlier this week by a federally appointed task force after concerns among women caused lawmakers of both sides of the isle to attack the study.

The new guidelines released this week by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force suggested that only women over 50 need to get routine mammograms as part of breast cancer screening and said the early screenings are causing excess biopsies, unnecessary anxiety and the discovery and treatment of tumors that would not cause problems if let alone. Many doctors and experts however object to these recommendations, and say the task force is sending conflicting messages to women about how they can prevent breast cancer.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (D-FLA), a survivor of breast cancer, said she was “very concerned” that the recommendations conflict with those of other authorities, like the American Cancer Society.

“At a time when we are working to reform our health care system to provide greater access to preventative care,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement, “these guidelines and the fact that they conflict with many of the recommendations from leading cancer organizations only adds to the confusion that so many women have when it comes to breast health.”

“I am concerned that women are being given differing messages about how to prevent breast cancer,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said. “In addition to getting my own mammogram each year, I have been involved in public awareness campaigns to encourage other women my age to do so. I understand that there were many independent scientists involved in making this decision, but that there are also many respected medical experts that are disagreeing with the recommendations. I plan to seek some answers here so that women are getting a uniform message about how to protect themselves.”

Republicans meanwhile pointed out that the recommendations illustrated the dangers of a government role in medical decision-making and they raised the boogey man of health care rationing for woman.

“This is the little toe in the edge of the water,” said Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “This is where you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician.”

Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill acknowledged yesterday that the recommendations in the midst of negotiations over a health care overhaul were “not helpful,” and one staffer from Representative Tammy Baldwin’s (D- WIS) office told LGR that people over at the executive branch, “sometimes just don’t seem to be on the same page, with what is going on in congress or with their bosses.”

Secretary Of Health And Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, acknowledged in a statement that the recommendations, by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, had “caused a great deal of confusion and worry,” and emphasized that the task force “is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations” that neither “set federal policy” nor “determine what services are covered by the federal government.”

“The task force has presented some new evidence for consideration,” Sebelius added, “but our policies remain unchanged. Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”

However Sebelius did not say in her statement the government would not eventually embrace the recommendations from the task force, which is appointed by her department, and said only that “there has been debate in this country for years” about the proper age and interval for breast cancer screening.

Women in the United States have the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the world. Breast cancer is the second-most common cancer (after skin cancer) and the second-most common cause of cancer death (after lung cancer).

Related articles by Zemanta

• HHS Secretary Sebelius: Don’t Worry About Mammogram Recommendations (news.firedoglake.com)
• Are Mammograms the New Political Football? (swampland.blogs.time.com)
• Mammography Debate Rages After USPSTF Recommendation Changes (news.firedoglake.com)
• Sebelius: U.S. mammogram policy unchanged (msnbc.msn.com)

Ten days ago, the House passed the Stupak Amendment, which would be one of the biggest setbacks to women’s health and rights in recent decades; unless we stand together and stop it, this will provide license for our rights to be rolled back to where the right wing would have us. Do not think the backlash would stop at women’s issues. It will go every which way!

The Stupak Amendment is discriminatory, extreme, and just plain wrong. At Lez Get Real we have been reporting and commenting on the Stupak Amendment, and we are not letting up – why? Because it will take away health insurance coverage that women already have. This would be a huge step back for women’s health. Now this together with the suggestion by Government Task Force regarding Breast Cancer screening at age 50 as the new recommendation is simply unacceptable and worthy of a revolution for our health!!! The mere fact that they can think this up is disturbing to me….

We support Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) launch of a petition because women must not be denied access to safe and legal medical procedures. If you want to join : click here -Senator Boxer wrote her supporters and saying: “For decades, a very difficult and delicate compromise has held firm: Women can use their own private funds for legal reproductive health care procedures, but federal funds cannot be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. But in a stunning turn of events, anti-choice House members passed the Stupak Amendment as part of the health care reform bill and shattered that compromise. The House amendment would tell women who participate in the new health insurance exchange that they can’t even use their own funds to buy a policy that includes abortion coverage. We need to be sure that all our voices are heard clearly on this issue.”
Boxer asks: “How can we tell women that they will lose coverage that they already have? How can we tell women that they can’t buy insurance coverage for a legal health care procedure, even if it’s paid for with their own money?”

 SIGN THE PETITION and then visit our site in the next few days for my personal story on how Breast Cancer Screening in my forties saved my life…   

Blogged by: Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com : Picture – Credit to Artist Benny Ovid, Tel Aviv, Israel – Thanks to  Dorit Israel, from her Personal Art Collection.

11/17/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Monday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York attended a rally to call for the defeat of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was put into the Healthcare reform bill by the House. The amendment, largely pushed by the Catholic Bishops, has caused a great deal of reaction across the board, and energized a largely silent group of organizations which have, in the past, been vocal of their support for abortion rights. The list of who attended was made up of many of the leading lights in the women’s movement over the last several decades including figures like Gloria Steinem. NY City Council Speaker Christine Quinn was also among those attending. Many of those who were there, at least among the politicians, are also supporters of LGBT Rights. Certainly Senator Gillibrand and Council Speaker Quinn are.

There has been a great deal of blow back over this particular amendment. Many writers have gone back and forth on the necessity of this, but make it clear that it could end up hurting people all around and on both sides.

A recent article in the Daily Beast by Dr. Willie J. Parker explained his decision to begin to provide abortions. Initially, he refused to due to his religious convictions, but he watched as the lack of availability or the cost of an abortion compounded the pain and suffering already hurting many women, he changed his mind. “In my 15 years as an OB-GYN, I have seen what happens when women can’t afford the abortions they need…But my patients, their families, and their pain don’t matter to the architects of the Stupak amendment,” he stated in that article. He went further, however. “I have spent years learning how to take care of women’s health. But because of my religious beliefs, I didn’t provide abortions right away. It took me a while to realize that by refusing to end a woman’s pregnancy when she decides abortion is the best course for her, I was compounding her suffering, the very opposite of my goal as a physician,” he states towards the end of his article. He explains about two of his patients, women who needed abortions for different reasons, and the likely aftermath of the inability for them to get an abortion.

This video is of the press conference that was held yesterday. For our audience, what will follow the video is text of Senator Gilibrand’s speech.

This week the US Senate is set to begin debate on historic health care legislation to provide affordable, quality care to all Americans. As we begin this historic debate, we must commit ourselves to real health care reform that delivers equal health care for every single American.

Over a week ago, the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill that delivers affordable, quality care, including a public plan that will bring competition to the market and drive down costs. However, there is one aspect of the House bill that is greatly concerning and moves us farther away from real health care reform: The Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

I am proud to stand here today with this broad coalition of important women leaders – doctors, businesswomen, teachers, public health experts, city, state, and federal elected officials and pro-choice leaders from Gloria Steinem, to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Council Speaker Quinn to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and so many others to speak out against this discriminatory and dangerous anti-choice provision and ensure that we defeat any similar measures in the Senate this week.

By banning reproductive coverage in all subsidized plans, the Stupak measure would likely prevent women from purchasing insurance with reproductive care even with their own money. This would put the health of millions of women and young girls at grave risk.

While proponents of the measure say this is a continuation of current federal law, this amendment will, in fact, bring about significant change and dramatically limit reproductive health care in this country. This is government invading the personal lives of many Americans, establishing for the first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance.

We all agree that it’s important to reduce abortions in this country, and I will continue to work on many ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and to promote adoption. However, the Stupak amendment effectively bans reproductive coverage in all health insurance plans in the new system, whether they be public or private.

Proposing that women purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned and sometimes emergency situations.

There are currently five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, and in these five states it’s nearly impossible to find such a private insurance policy. In one state, North Dakota, one insurance company holds 91 percent of the state’s health insurance market and refuse toss even offer such a rider.

This anti-choice measure poses greater restriction on low-income women and those who are more likely to receive some kind of subsidy and less likely to be able to afford a supplemental insurance policy. Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous.

Without proper coverage, women will be forced to postpone care, while attempting to find the money they need to pay for it. A delay that can lead to increased costs and graver health risks, particularly for younger girls. Or these women will be forced to return to dangerous, back alley providers.

In fact, this amendment represents the only place in the entire health care bill where the opponents are actually correct. It limits access to medical care by giving the government, not the patient or the doctor, the power to make medical decisions. The Senate bill already ensures that no federal tax dollars may be used to pay for reproductive services in any public or private insurance plan beyond cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. The House language goes far further and should be removed from the final bill.

Women and girls deserve better.

I will work with my colleagues in Congress and everyone here today to oppose any similar amendment in the Senate and fight to end disparities among race and gender in our health care system. Thank you.

11/12/09-by Paula Brooks
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced today that she would be holding a press conference with other elected women in Manhattan next Monday. They are expected to speak out against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Introduced by Michigan Rep Bart Stupak as part of a last minute deal to get passage of the larger Health Care Bill, the amendments language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies and will require that women want to continue to receive such services purchase a separate policy rider that covers reproductive services.

Abortion-rights advocates are calling the Stupak amendment a “de facto” abortion ban and have mounted an intense lobbying campaign against it.

Earlier this week, Gillibrand joined the fight against Stupak’s anti-abortion health care amendment and went on the Senate floor, throwing down the gauntlet on saying, “Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous.”

A Gillibrand spokesman says the Senator will be also be standing up in opposition to the Stupak amendment with other women elected officials, pro-choice leaders and women’s health experts during the press conference.

The event is scheduled for 11:15am Monday, November16th 2009 at 780 3rd Avenue in New York City.

For more information you can call 212 688-9595.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Next Steps on Health Reform, LGBT Provisions & Anti-Choice Amendment (hrcbackstory.org)
• The End of Abortion? Amendment in Health Care Bill Sets Off Firestorm (abcnews.go.com)
• Planned Parenthood To Fight Stupak-Pitts Provision (huffingtonpost.com)
• Human Rights Campaign Condemns Inclusion of the Stupak Amendment (lezgetreal.com)
• Senate Pitfalls on HCR: Do all Roads Lead to Reconciliation? (dailykos.com)

11/11/09-by Paula Brooks
I am not the daughter of the privileged… I am the daughter of a career military man, who is the son of a career military man, who was the son of a career military man… and I have an uncle who is a name on a black wall here in DC and a brother who is missing a leg because of his service in Iraq. I come from a family that has paid it dues to this country.

I am also a deaf lesbian widow and the working mother to twin three year olds… I don’t make a lot of money and what I do make goes to feeding, housing and clothing my little family. But I am fortunate to have a job that has healthcare coverage.

I have not been with out tragedy or struggle in my life … I lost my wife and soul mate Debbie due too breast cancer far to early and am now being denied her benefits for our children…. children we created together… Because of DOMA

My beautiful Debbie was a Navy pilot when we met… and she love to fly, but she was forced to choose… between her love for me and her first love of being a pilot.

I had to watch her get tears in her eyes every time a Navy jet flew over and her heart broke for 8 years… Because of DADT

But we went on to build a successful, tax paying, business together and created a wonderful family.

As she was dying, Debs spoke so much of her days in the Navy as one of the best things she ever did, but at her funeral… that had full military honors because of her honorable service to our country… a country Debs loved so very much and would have been willing to die for… I had to pitch a bitch just to get the officer in charge of her funeral detail to give me the flag off my wife’s coffin… Because of the current policies of my country…

I voted for President Obama… I sent him money and knocked on doors for him… because he promised to end all these policies. Policies that keep Debbie’s children from benefit entitled to them and disrespected her funeral.

But in the time since they have been in office, President Obama and the Democratic leadership have a pretty solid track record of saying one thing about LGBT rights then doing something entirely different.

Last month at an HRC fund raising dinner, on the eve of a march by 100,000 LGBT rights activists, President Obama promised to end that Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy and called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act. Yet not two week later, on the weekend before a major referendum on same-sex marriage in Maine, President Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief in a Federal Court defending that same Defense Of Marriage Act he vowed to repeal.

To make matters worse, when Stonewall Democrats in Maine asked the Democratic National Committee for financial help and logistic support in that referendum, they were refused, only to have that same Democratic National Committee turn around to send e-mails to Gay Democrats in Maine asking for their assistance in the re-election effort of Gov. Jon Corzine… in NEW JERSEY.

LGBTs in Maine lost the right to marry in that referendum and you can be sure that lost is going to be mentioned prominently in any future effort to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act.

On Saturday, we entered the final stretch of a 100-year march toward extending health care coverage to the millions of Americans who currently live without.

The goal of overhauling the heath care system was supposed to be equality – to give every American access to comprehensive coverage and make it affordable.

But the Democratic leadership in the House did not have the votes to advance their version of the bill Saturday and were willing to trade away a woman right to chose what is best for her and her body by cutting a Faustian Bargain with anti-choice Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to get those votes by allowing passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment will prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange, public or private and prevents private insurance companies from receiving government subsidies if they cover abortions and will require that women who want such coverage purchase a separate abortion rider.

What this amendment does is tell woman that if their current insurance company is covering reproductive services in a policy that they are currently paying for that company will not be allowed to offer those paid for services if they are participating in any way in the new Health Care legislation.

The Stupak amendment will disrupt the very equality that healthcare reform was supposed to accomplish and does exactly the opposite of what this whole exercise in health care reform was supposed to do. It says only women who can afford a special insurance rider deserve access to reproductive health care and marks an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own insurance.

It directly and unfairly attacks the rights of lower and middle class women. It directly and unfairly attacks my rights.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership have been busy saying they will get the Stupak language stripped out of any final bill, so we can have healthcare reform without having to sell our souls to some old men in Rome to get it.

As a working widowed mom who is not getting Social Security Survivor Benefits for her kids, I fervently hope they do, because I, like most working single moms, really need some help with the cost of my healthcare. I’m all for moving forward on health care reform, but I hope that the president and congress understand that progress on healthcare will not come at the expense of the rights of the more than 150 million women in America.

However, as an fairly well abused by the system lesbian, who has watched President Obama and the Democrats say one thing, then do another and play politics in the area of LGBT rights, my trust level of these folks is pretty low, so I can’t say I’m that confident President Obama and the Democratic Leadership will try not sell out the rights of American Women to get their win on healthcare….

That is if we let them do that…. And we as American Women cannot let them do that.

11/10/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
“Today, the American Medical Association took a principled stance against a law that clearly has a negative impact on military healthcare, military medical providers, and our troops.” With those words, Alexander Nicholson, founder and executive director of Servicemembers United, summed up the decision of the AMA to call for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In a nearly unanimous decision, the AMA called for the repeal of DADT. There was little opposition from the governing medical organization. At the heart of the issue for the AMA is the effect of DADT on patient-provider care. Apparently, DADT makes is much harder for soldiers to be open with their doctors, and they are often forced to keep information secret in order to avoid falling victim to the law which would mean dismissal of them should they be discovered to be gay or lesbian.

Servicemembers United has documented cases of soldiers being unwilling to seek treatment for potentially life threatening conditions due to a perception that there is no patient-provider confidentiality in the military. Many have sought treatment for complex conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder outside the military.

“The provider-patient relationship is sacrosanct in the practice of medicine and in the provision of healthcare. Virtually all physicians can agree that nothing should impede open and honest communication between a patient and his or her doctor. In this way, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” threatens the lives and safety of our troops, and it often puts military health professionals in a moral and ethical dilemma,” stated ,” said Dr. Alan M. Steinman, a retired Coast Guard Rear Admiral and a member of the Servicemembers United Policy Council.

The AMA resolution means that it is now the official policy of the AMA to push for the repeal of DADT.

There has long been doubt that gay and lesbian servicemembers being open about their sexuality would harm unit cohesion, the most common excuse given; however, it appears that DADT does have a negative impact upon the soldiers, and that could have an effect on unit survival.

11/10/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Representative Lynn Woolsey has called upon the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in the creation and passage of the Stupak Amendment in a brief article at Politico. “The amendment makes it basically impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This will effectively block women from using their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage,” according to the Human Rights Campaign statement on this amendment.

According to Rep. Woolsey:

I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill. I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Who elected them to Congress? The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy. They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.

Rep. Woolsey stated that churches in her district are careful to keep their activities non-political. Many LGBT-Americans would wish that were completely true. The recent battle in Maine showed just how willing the Catholic Church is to get involved in political matters if it regards the social agenda that they are pursuing.

Rep. Woolsey pointed out that the US Council of Catholic Bishops is a tax exempt entity. As such, the USCCB acted in a political manner without actually paying taxes.

In calling for an investigation of the RCC, Rep Woolsey has added her voice to that of LGBT-Americans who have been calling for an investigation into the campaign involvement of the Roman Catholic Church for some time now. Perhaps, as a politician, Rep. Woolsey can get further than the LGBT Community has in getting that investigation.

11/10/09-by Paula Brooks
This afternoon, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York went on the Senate floor and threw down the gauntlet on Rep. Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion health care amendment.

“Proposing that women … purchase a separate abortion rider is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous,” said Gillibrand, who also noted that in five states that do require such riders, it’s nearly impossible to find coverage for abortions.

“This anti-choice measure poses greater restriction on low-income women,” she added.

“Denying low-income women reproductive coverage in this way is discriminatory and dangerous.”

Standing as an advocate for poor women and girls who will not be able to afford such riders, Gillibrand argues that it would be those poor women and girls who would be especially hard hit as they would forced to delay getting help for unplanned pregnancies.

“Or these women would be forced to return to dangerous back-alley providers,” said Gillibrand.

You go girl….

Related articles by Zemanta

• What Democrats Signed On To Re: Abortion (alan.com)
• Obama: Hyde Is the Limit (dailykos.com)
• Why insurers aren’t complaining about the House bill’s anti-abortion amendment. (slate.com)

11/10/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Men carry in their seed a tiny homunculus which he plows into a woman’s fertile fields. What does that mean? Well, it means that abortion is murder, and so is masturbation, fellatio, contraception, and anything that destroys the sperm. After all, every sperm is sacred, as per the Monty Python song. Vasectomies are right off the list. Nocturnal emissions are the work of succubi, after all, who sneak into a boys bedroom to steal his sperm and vitality when he is sleeping. This is all at the very center of what the anti-choice advocates are about. A return to the thinking of when a man owned a woman like he owned the fields he plowed, because, after all, a woman was a field to be plowed.

The Stupak Amendment is simple. Women should not be allowed to get an abortion, after all, it would mean murdering the tiny little homunculus inside her, and that tiny little person of which the woman has contributed nothing will be denied the right to grow into a full human being inside the fertile land of her womb. And a man must own that land, for after all, a man must own what he plows.

It sounds crazy, does it not? This is the center of the logic behind those who want to deny women any right to choose. It is at the center of the beliefs that these groups espouse.

The important question is why have the Democrats decided to put the rights of men ahead of the rights of women? Why is it that men will be granted superior health care, but women are expected to pay for their own abortion if they run into a complication? Abortions are not just about “on demand, after the fact birth control” as many men would like to portray it as. Many women who get abortions do so because of necessity. They have to terminate a pregnancy because of the risk to themselves, or because it is unhealthy to carry around a feotus which is, in all likelihood, going to be stillborn or be so twisted that it will not survive for long. It apparently never occurred to men like James Clyburn that women have elective abortions for reasons other than just decided that the baby is not worth it.

The Stupak Amendment is not about preventing federal funds from being used for abortions, but it is about preventing women from getting one at all. It is about ensuring that the maternal and infant mortality rate in this country goes even further upwards. After all, what is next, making sure that insurance companies won’t pay for contraception, but they will pay for Viagra. After all, is that not what the Catholic Bishops who demanded the Stupak Amendment want? Is it not their belief that contraception should be outlawed like it is in many third world nations?

The Stupak Amendment needs to be removed if this is to pass, and it must be removed. This is not about abortion rights, but rather about the rights of women to be equals. The debate is often framed as being about the life of the feotus, but, in truth, it is about ensuring that women have no say in their lives at all.

It is time for Congress to remember that one does not get a bill to pass by selling out the rights of one minority. After all, it feels like a pattern. First sell out LGBT-Americans so as to not upset the Social Conservatives by getting rid of DOMA, DADT, and passing ENDA. Then sell out women in order to get the healthcare bill passed. Which group will be next?

11/9/09-by Paula Brooks
President Barak Obama expressed confidence Sunday that the Senate will “take the baton” and approve sweeping health care reform legislation, after the House narrowly passed its version Saturday night.

In brief remarks from the Rose Garden yesterday, the president said the 220-215 House vote brings the country closer than it’s ever been to a health care overhaul and stated the “historic” passage of the House version of the Health Care Bill marked a “courageous vote” for many representatives, given the toxicity of the debate surrounding the bill, and predicted that lawmakers will view the eventual signing of the legislation as their “finest moment” in public service.

“Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people. And I’m absolutely confident that they will,” said Obama.

Conveniently however, Obama made no reference to the Stupak-Pitts amendment in his remarks.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment will prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion services in any health exchange, public or private and prevents private insurance companies from receiving government subsidies if they cover abortions.

Many Health Care bill advocates, in an effort to bamboozle woman in to supporting this bill, are currently trying to sell a line of BULL CRAP saying that federal funding of abortion is already covered in current law and this amendment changes nothing.

But this is NOT the truth, as currently most private insurers cover reproductive health related services and that practice would cease if Stupak’s amendment remains in a finalized version of any legislation.

Those advocates are also saying that women could purchase a separate, single service rider to cover abortion related expenses. But no woman plans for an UNPLANNED pregnancy or one that has serious complications that would ultimately call for an abortion.

Under the mandates of the House version of the Health Care Bill all American citizens will be FORCED to participate, but women who are currently covered with reproductive health services under their current policies will now be FORCED to pay more for those services. This despite President Obama repeatedly saying, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.”

Right-wingers are hailing the passage of the Stupak measure “as a victory for the pro-life Americans across this country who have flooded Congress this week with the message that abortion does not belong in health care.”

The Human Rights Campaign is taking no notice of at all of the passage of Stupak on it web site and is saying the House Bill “a tremendous advance for the health needs of LGBT people,” conveniently ignoring the fact the “L” in LGBT are women who are being stripped of rights by this “tremendous advance.”

There are rumors on Capitol Hill that President Obama promised Henry Waxman Saturday that he will “personally” work to remove the Stupak language in conference…

From experience… I am sure Obama will “personally” work on Stupak the same way he has so far “personally” worked on the repeal of DOMA and DADT.

Over the weekend I have talked to many in the LBGT community trying to enlist their support in defeating Stupak… Unfortunately most have told me that while they don’t like Stupak and think it is wrong, they are willing to accept Stupak if it gets them a health care bill and a win for Obama ….

Many have told me I need to look at the bigger picture on this issue

Easy enough to say since many of those folks saying this will never have a need of or even the possibility to need any of the services being taken away from women by Stupak. And they need me to pay for THEIR health care.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Strict Abortion Ban Included In House Health Care Bill (huffingtonpost.com)

Dear Melanie:

It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California. With a young family and responsibilities at city hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done. This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.

When I embarked on this campaign in April, my goal was to engage thousands and thousands of Californians dedicated to reforming our broken system and bringing change to Sacramento.

I would like to thank those supporters, volunteers, and donors who have worked so hard on my behalf. I have been humbled by their support and am indebted to their efforts. They represent the spirit of change and determination essential to putting California back on the right track.

I will continue to fight for change and the causes and issues for which I care deeply — universal health care, a cleaner environment and a green economy for our families, better education for our children, and, of course, equal rights under the law for all citizens.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom”

I think he would have been a great Governor. Does this pave the way for SenatorFeinstein or is it the other way around? Maybe we will not need her sponsorship on UAFA- I would love her as a Governor but really miss her as a Senator.

Have a great San Francisco Style Halloween…. Luv Mel

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mayor Newsom ends run for Calif. governorship (msnbc.msn.com)
• Newsom Quits Governor’s Race (politicalwire.com)
• Gavin Newsom Drops Out of California Gubernatorial Race (towleroad.com)

10/01/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Representative Tammy Baldwin is hoping to increase funding to a segment of the population hit by the HIV/AIDS virus by increasing the amount of money that government spends on getting these individuals treatment. Currently, the Ryan White comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency Act or the CARE Act provides medical care for people living with the virus who are without sufficient medical coverage to receive treatment.

HIV/AIDS appears to have arrived in the United States sometime between 1920 and 1950; however, the disease was not isolated and identified until the early 1980’s. More than 56,000 Americans are infected with HIV every year. The virus is not curable, but it is treatable, and the expense for the treatments can be a significant burden adding to the already physical and emotional trauma of the disease.

What Rep. Baldwin hopes to do is increase the funding for CARE and increase the reimbursement rate. Often those organizations which help the underinsured, uninsured, and indigent lack proper funding to help many of the people who are in need. They often receive grant money through the mechanism of the Ryan White CARE Act. Unfortunately, even with Medicare being relatively well run, the program cannot fund all of the needs of many of these organizations, and the economic downturn has severely undermined charity of almost all kinds while increasing the amount of people who are in need of those benefits.

The Ryan White Grantee Payment Equity Act (HR 3665) would increase the amount of money going to these organizations through the fund. This would help to fund these groups at a time when the need for their services is increasing both through increases in the numbers of people who have HIV/AIDS, and through the loss of jobs for those who have the disease but are able to work and get health insurance.

“As HIV/AIDS continues to disproportionately afflict low-income Americans, lack of financial resources should not prevent these individuals from receiving health care. I am proud to introduce legislation that will improve health care access for some of the most vulnerable in our society,” Rep. Baldwin stated in her press release regarding the submission of this bill.

“It is unjust – and at times unbelievable – that Americans tolerate a health care system in which the patients who desperately require care are the most hard-pressed to get it. When you have a disease like HIV/AIDS, but don’t have the insurance coverage or money to get the care you need, it’s a serious problem. HIV/AIDS is not a disease that can go without treatment, especially if those who have contracted it are to have any chance of living. We need the health care providers that receive funding through the CARE Act to fill the gaps in health insurance coverage and resources that leave HIV/AIDS patients vulnerable. I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation, which will expand funding to these providers, allowing them to care for the growing number of HIV/AIDS patients who are in need,” ,Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI) stated in support of this measure.

“The Ryan White Grantee Payment Equity Act makes a critical investment in our health care workforce that provides care to HIV/AIDS patients, and reiterates this Congress’ commitment to the health and wellness of all Americans,” added Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA). “Many HIV/AIDS patients struggle everyday to get access to the quality care they need and deserve. I applaud Congresswoman Baldwin for her leadership on this issue, and am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this important piece of legislation.”

The Ryan White Grantee Payment Equity Act has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee upon which Rep. Baldwin currently sits.

09/26/09-by Melanie Nathan
It was just several months ago that White House officials were promising that President Obama would address immigration reform before the end of the year. It seems as if the LGBT immigration equality leadership has continued to hang its top hat on the passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, as being the only way the LGBT community can earn recognition in the immigration system, through the incorporation of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) in the larger reform legislation.

When UAFA was introduced again this year in January by New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler,  it was hailed by the organizations and money was raised from our community in the name of this proposed stand-alone legislation.  We were all excited and on board for the big push.

However a mere six months later, (4^th June 2009 ) even with a majority charged democratic congress we find the very leadership that had touted UAFA as the home run now touting Immigration Reform as the sooner mechanism for UAFA to become law.  The idea was that the LGBT community would lend its supporters of UAFA to the BIG immigration reform and then we would benefit from the reciprocity engendered by the larger BILL. 

My earlier posts, stemming back to June of this year, will reflect my critique of Immigration Equality’s strategy and fear that we were being sold off and now my fear is further endorsed by one serious and dangerous miscalculation that not even I anticipated at the time.

Unfortunately what they never banked on was the strategy chosen by the White House.  Why Health Care reform ahead of immigration reform.  Since the commencement of Health Care reform negotiations, town hall meetings, confusion it has become an unanticipated debacle that will no doubt impact any and all attempts at immigration reform which will in turn put our Binational in yet another long haul wait.

To come out and say that UAFA has no traction in Congress and so we must rely on CIR is nothing short of defeatist on the part of those who took our money to fight for UAFA.  According to an article written for CNN this week by Ruben Navarrette Jr.  Immigration Reform is clearly not top on President Obama’s reform agenda.  http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/navarrette.obama.immigration/index.htm

“One thing that has thrown a wrench into the prospects for health care reform is the Joe Wilsonian concern that illegal immigrants might get free health care as a result of the reform process. Had that issue been addressed beforehand by giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, that controversy might have been defused. Now Obama might walk away with nothing.  The political math for both kinds of reform only gets more difficult if Democrats lose seats in the House and Senate in next year’s midterm elections, as is expected to happen.”

Somewhat scathing in his commentaryNavarrette continues “ And the same President who seems to understand that the longer he waits to accomplish health care reform, the more difficult it will be to get, doesn’t seem to understand the same is true with immigration reform.”

The President decided to attempt health care reform before immigration reform. An obvious mistake which our LGBT leadership failed to apprehend when boarding the CIR train- a train not only without cars but also without access to any tracks!  They’re well-aware of the resistance out there to giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization, which some refer to as amnesty – so now if health care fails or succeeds immigration reform will be hampered undoubtedly by the questions pertaining to immigrants and healthcare.

So unhappily I must report that we, the bi-national community are in dire straits.  We have so much going on in D.C. that is positive and encouraging yet at the same time, one track strategy sets us flailing in the wind. The worst thing one can offer a Binational is no hope of being in their homeland safely with their beloved.  How many are living as I write with fear of deportation, desperation to return from exile or success in renewing or obtaining a visa, as the case may be!  

 After spending a week on Capital Hill, I have come to the conclusion that all the strategy in the world will not help those in desperate need now.   What has added to the quandary is the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act which seeks to repeal DOMA.   Reading prior posts on this site, you will not its difficult in the eyes of Rep. Barney Frank.  However I for one disagree with the Congressman. When speaking with a staffer this week, I was informed that Congressman Frank does not want to entertain a repeal of Doma until ENDA and HATE CRIMES pass.  Of course the latter is imperative. But strategy schmategy what could be more important than recognition of our relationships; how can we be expected to have our sexuality recognized when the relationships that  provide credence to our sexuality is denied by the law?

So now lets add to this fast developing scenario – one where maybe Binationals can see a glimmer of hope to their ever-fading sun… Since the introduction a mere two weeks ago of the Repeal Act, an architect of DOMA, has spoken against it and fully retracted his support of DOMA expressing his regret and how he felt duped. (See Huffingtom Post Blog ) 

“Proudly changing my position on DOMA (Rep. Earl Blumenauer  By Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) – 09/16/09 10:22 AM ET - referenced from  The Huffington Post and The Hill Blogs.   “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: it was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values. I’ve been a strong champion of civil rights and protections based on sexual orientation since I chaired the first legislative hearing on anti-discrimination legislation in 1973. Even worse, this vote was cast after careful consideration.” (  http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/ask-your-congress-members-to-redeem-themselves/ )

Last night President Bill Clinton, who horrified us all, by signing the Bill, has now fully retracted his penmanship to DOMA by saying that he fully supports the rights for gay people to marry.

I predict more will come forward and if one looks at the tally, and I can report more later, it is apparent that some who have already in this short spate of time signed on RMA were not signed on to Uniting American Families Act, the immigration legislation.  this is the uplift we need.   Imagine if our in fact marriages were in fact recognized by the law - hence our relationships – at this level.  DADT -ENDA-HATE CRIMES-UAFA-  all will be psychologically rolled into this one BIG ENDORSEMENT!    I believe mere introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act provides that respite, to some extent;  it also gives us a sturdy leg to stand on!  The irony of which we cannot but bemuse; in this vein we can say thank you to President Clinton, not for reversing his stand on DOMA but for signing it in the first place.  Crazy as this may seem, but without the overt ACT of denying our relationships, we could never have had the opportunity to have and ACT that (in effect) will serve to VALIDATE our relationships and hence our standing in Society. 

I have a lot more to say on the subject so consider this Part one of an extensive series yet to come… please keep your eye open for PART TWO…. thanks for reading, mel. 

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.   CONTACT:- nathan@privatecourts.com

09/19/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
On 21 September, this upcoming Monday, the next National HIV/AIDS Community Discussion will be held in Washington, DC. The event is designed to discuss with the community a variety of ways in which to issues surrounding HIV/AIDS and to provide a venue for input from the public. This is being billed as a way to allow the public to provide some input as the White House shapes its HIV/AIDS policy. The discussion is hosted by the White House Office of National AIDS Policy or ONAP.

The event is RSVP only. This is usually done in order to make sure that a venue is not overrun badly by a press of people and is not intended to weed out dissenting viewpoints. The town hall meeting that Senator Bernie Sanders held in August was also RSVP.

“With more than 56,000 new HIV infections occurring in the United States each year, the President believes that we must re-focus national attention on the domestic epidemic,” according to the press release concerning the event. Policy directions that President Obama is exploring include reducing the number of infections and the spread of the disease as well as improving access to medical treatment and reducing the disparities experienced by people with HIV/AIDS with regards to medical care. Part of the Healthcare reform package is intended to provide help with regards to the latter two since it would provide greater access to medical care itself.

The discussion will be moderated by Wallace Corbett of the DC Ryan White Planning Council and will feature Jeffrey S. Crowley, the director of White House Office of National AIDS Policy and Dr. Shannon Hader, the director of DC Department of Health’s HIV/AIDS Administration

The event will be held at The University of The District of Columbia in their auditorium. For directions please visit their website.

To RSVP that you would like to attend the event, please visit this website.

09/18/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin sat down to discuss the issue of the impact of the healthcare debate upon the LGBT community. Rep. Tammy Baldwin is the first openly lesbian member of Congress. Using YouTube, Rep. Baldwin sat down in her office to explain the impact of the reforms upon the LGBT community including the fact that many gays and lesbians would be covered by some form of healthcare insurance.

Representative Baldwin sits upon the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is helping to craft a bill regarding healthcare reform. She introduced wording into the bill which directly impacts the LGBT community. These provisions are:
• Helping people with AIDS gain access to drugs under Medicare Part D;
• Ensuring data collection on the health of LGBT populations; and
• Strong non-discrimination provisions to guarantee access to health care for all communities.

What follows is the video that Rep. Baldwin created:

8/19/09-by Paula Brooks
If you decide speak to your mind and verbally take on Rep. Barney Frank you had better be on your game. Barney is a lot of things good and bad, but anyone who has ever watched him in action knows he can more than hold his own in a debate and rhetorically beat the crap out of any debate opponent who is not 100 percent on that game… and he does NOT suffer fools lightly.

Evidently a woman who attended Frank’s town hall meeting yesterday has not been paying attention to the Massachusetts Congressman’s career… Because she would have known carrying a picture of President Barack Obama defaced with a Hitler moustache and yelling at Barney that President Obama healthcare plans are “Nazi policy,” would probably not get the desired results…

Because most people who have followed Barney… Know by doing stuff like this… you can be sure Barney is going to verbally cut you, turn the tables… and possibly make you this weeks “things stupid people did” viral video, if you are not on your A-Game.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dem lawmaker blasts protester at town hall (msnbc.msn.com)
• Frank: “On What Planet Do You Spend Most of Your Time?” (mydd.com)
• Barney Frank goes toe to toe at town hall (cnn.com)
• Barney Frank Townhall Confrontation (Videos) (outsidethebeltway.com)

When Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa stated that the rancor in the healthcare debate had largely to do with people’s distrust of the government he is, largely, correct. However, it is incorrect as to the origin of this distrust since the last 30 years worth Conservative propaganda concerning the inability of the American government to adequately cover its own people had left a certain segment of the population devoid of any understanding of how either the government runs or how dangerous unfettered unregulated Capitalism can be. The reality is that unfettered unregulated business will look after only themselves and their profit margins. The debate about healthcare comes down largely to the reality that healthcare insurance providers are not in true competition with each other or with any government run program which would force them into competition with someone else. Nor have they been regulated, allowing them to pretty much engage in any kind of business practice without any kind of accountability. It is impossible for a business to shop around for health insurance and actually get any kind of competitive deal.

It’s time for President Obama to finally and aggressively target the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans who stand in the way of the majority of Americans on especially to issues that the public option for healthcare reform and the policy known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The overwhelming majority of Americans support a public option for health care insurance which is run by the government and an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Support for both the public option and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act or MREA cuts across many of the political divides in this country. It is time that President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid stop kowtowing to the minority within the political establishment who are more willing to protect the profit margins of the insurance industry and religious views of a handful of evangelical chaplains within the military. It is time for the leadership of the Democratic Party to metaphorically grow a pair. Inform the Blue Dog Democrats that if they do not get aboard on getting the public option and the MREA then they will spend the rest of their careers which will likely be short on the Post Office subcommittee in charge of listening to complaints. If the preliminary polling more than six months out from the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is any indication many of the more moderate Democrats are in trouble from within their own party. It appears that Senator Arlen Spector is beginning to lose ground against Representative Joe Sestak.

Too many Americans are focused in upon a handful of entertainers masquerading as journalists without any standards or any ethics concerning what they say, or to failed politicians who are more invested in preventing President Barack Obama from advancing the agenda that he was elected by the American people to advance they are in the good of the nation, or the will of the People. The rancorous and disruptive nature of many of these town hall meetings is drowning out the voices of the average American who supports a public healthcare option, or an end to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It is also time for the American people who voted for President Obama to remind him that he was not elected to play nice and allow the minority within the Congress to dictate policy. He was the lead to lead this nation not to allow special interests to have full reign on the political process. It is time for us Americans to write to our Congresspeople, and to the White House to make it clear to them that this is what the fold my majority of Americans believe is right, and that while it is all right to take into account the concerns of the minority opinion within the political spectrum allowing the minority party to run roughshod over the majority of American, including many of the minority party supporters, is unacceptable.

For those who are going to now complain about the tone of this editorial and attempt to twist these words even attempt to state that it is equally wrong for the LGBT Community to demand equality is running roughshod over the majority, it should be noted that minority population are different from minority political opinion, and that the political machine is set up for the good of all no matter their race, creed, religion, sex, gender, or cultural heritage. Attempts to deny minority populations the same civil rights as all others goes against the political history of the United States, and the theory it was built upon many centuries ago at a time when the dominant culture was British and the dominant religion was Anglicanism.

Pictures from Saturday’s Town Hall Meeting In Rutland, Vermont provided by Lee L.

8/16/09-by Bridgette LaVictoire On 15 August, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held a town hall meeting to discuss healthcare reform. Vermont is one of the few states in the Union to have a public option healthcare system. Vermont’s public health care option is called Catamount, and it is for the uninsured working. For those without a job but do not qualify for Medicare there is the Vermont Healthcare Access Program or VHAP. The number of people who attended a town hall meeting is estimated at around 500. Two hundred of those were allowed into the Unitarian church on West Street in downtown Rutland, Vermont. The number of people who attended forced Sen. Sanders to alter his initial plans. Originally, Sen. Sanders was supposed to only take questions from inside the church; however, he took questions from both inside and outside the church. He took questions both sides of the debate, or more accurately from the three sides of the debate. Vermont has a strong contingent of supporters for a single payer plan.

Sen. Sanders answered questions from the very small group of people who are opposed to any healthcare reform. This does not, however, represent everyone who was upset with President Obama on the issue of healthcare. Many of those who were opposed President Obama’s healthcare reform package were vocally opposed to the lack of a single payer plan, or were heavily concerned about a lack of a public option given the noise from several Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans; especially given the fact that the Republicans are unlikely to vote for any healthcare reform package no matter what it is.

The disruptions common in most town hall meetings did not occur at the one in Rutland. This was largely due to the fact that there was a very paltry showing of those rabble-rousers and the fact that it is incredibly difficult to drown out Sen. Sanders. His clear loud New York accent could likely be heard in West Rutland, several miles away. This was the first of three town hall meetings being held by Vermont’s junior senator, and one of only two Independent Senators in Congress today. Additionally, the occasion was when a small group on the sidewalk behind the crowd attempted to drown out Sen. Sanders the crowd formed something of a human wall around them, and in so doing reminding them that they were the minority of the opinion that a town hall meeting. However, the presence of several security guards most of them in suits likely contributed to the lack of rowdiness. Still, it did not lead to the silencing of their opinion since many of them were allowed to ask questions.

Due to the lack of ability to answer all of the questions they could have been asked Sen. Sanders had his staff pass around carts that people could use to ask questions that he would e-mail or mail the answers to them. The largest point that Sen. Sanders had to make was that there has been no bill either fully written or voted upon. Currently the bill is being worked upon in the five different committees three of those are in the House and two in the Senate.

Pictures Provided By Lee L.

Blogged by MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that ‘tickles my fancy.’ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com.

Some time ago, my mother wrote a piece about what life is like living through the transition of her son to her daughter. This is the final part of the article. I want to thank all the people who have read what my mother wrote. Too often we hear from the gays, lesbians and transpeople in the Community, but we often do not hear the stories of the parents. That is changing too. Thank you.

A Mother’s Tale

Eighteen months ago, Bridget and my husband joined me in Vermont. It was more than coming home. It was like coming to paradise for Bridget. Self-identified gays and lesbians outnumber all other minorities combined in Vermont. There is a beautiful Gothic-Victorian bed-and-breakfast in the hills above Brandon called “The Birdcage” that specializes in civil unions. Contrary to the predictions of the anti-civil union crowd, Vermont has neither suffered economically nor been swallowed up into a giant sinkhole since the passage of civil unions. I had a customer one day at the supermarket where I work who was wearing women’s shorts and a tank top, loads of women’s jewelry and wedgies. He had chest hair, was balding and needed a shave. There are two transgender doctors in town who have not lost patients and are not subjected to hoards of ooglers as they go about their work. I have found it very easy to tell people at work about Bridget. A simple “I had a son and a daughter and now I have two daughters” suffices. Occasionally, I’ve been asked questions about transgenderism, but no one has said anything untoward about my child. My husband’s family has been completely accepting and Bridget’s uniqueness has actually been helpful to one of her cousins, who suffers from severe psychological problems.

This is Vermont. I know there are other places in this country where people are as accepting as they are here, but because Vermont is so small, it is more easily seen here…the mainstreamed mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, the little people, the flamboyantly gay men who all live in the daylight as parts of our society. Vermont has a very progressive social services system that keeps people in their homes and in society where other places would opt to put them into institutions or let them disappear onto the streets. I’m not claiming that there are no prejudiced people in Vermont, but we have a tradition here of not getting into each other’s faces. My oldest friend is opposed to gay marriage, but we were able to discuss it rationally and realize that most of her opposition is in the vocabulary, not the union. She accepts civil unions, but her religious background makes her oppose the use of the word “marriage” in connection with gays and lesbians.

Our local television station ran a three-part piece on transgenders. Wonders never cease.

Vermont’s health insurance program for unemployed and under-employed adults is paying for a new endocrinologist and therapist for Bridget, though we have to buy her hormones out-of-pocket. That alone is a major step forward. The new endocrinologist is willing to treat Bridget’s transgenderism and weight issues simultaneously, which is doing wonders for her.

For Bridget and all transgenders the rest of America’s health care system infuriates me. I hate watching my child live half a life, denied what she wants most, because health insurance doesn’t cover sex-change surgery or even full testing and the idea of saving up tens of thousands of dollars for her surgery is unrealistic even if the economy were flourishing. I want Bridget to have a full life. Living between genders is a massive strain on anyone’s psyche. I want the medical community to acknowledge that transgenderism is a physical and medical condition that deserves insured treatment just as much as any congenital condition. How much sooner could Bridget have been properly treated if other state’s were as supportive or if the entire system were accepting of the realities of transgenderism?

I’m pleased that there are more transgender support groups now. We’ve read too many stories of men and women who transitioned in their fifties and sixties because their condition was so-little understood until the past 15 years or so. Now, transgenders are aware of their condition at younger ages and have a chance to live less of their lives in the shadows. There is still a long way to go. Young people who believe they are transgender need to understand the reason for the therapy protocol. Teenagers don’t necessarily know how to sort out being gay from being transgender. The therapy is necessary. Finding a therapist is still very hard. Bridget has had on-line friends who were trying to live in small towns or cities in the Midwest and South who were having a very hard time finding any kind of support system. We have frequently quoted a question raised by Hugo Weaving’s character in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, “Are the suburbs there to keep us in or to keep [bigoted straights] out?” Big cities are the best place for transitioning transgenders. The gay and lesbian community offers a certain measure of protection and there are more services available. Even here, we are traveling 75 miles in opposite directions for Bridgette’s therapist and endocrinologist.

I cannot and will not say that the last ten years have been easy. They have been a rollercoaster of worry, pain, joy, enlightenment and frustration. I’ve become an even more fervent advocate of nationalized health care than I was before. I’ve let go of my embarrassed hesitancies in dealing with handicapped people of all kinds. I think I’ve become a better person in some respects, but a less tolerant one in dealing with narrow-mindedness and bigotry. I’ve definitely moved further to the political left, though I am still more prone to counseling measured steps to change rather than beating heads and creating entrenchment.

I have a favorite photograph of my children, taken thirty years ago. My beautiful, red-headed son is sitting in a pile of autumn leaves holding his infant sister. I miss the potential of my son. I am acutely aware nearly every day that I will probably never be a biological grandmother and feel the burden of my ancestors. Paul’s passion connected me with the history of my tribe and Bridget will not continue that ancient line. I am happy that I can still hold on to cherished memories of my son. It is not necessary to erase his existence. I have learned to see Paul as part of Bridget’s evolution to adulthood, not as a separate person.

Maybe that’s the answer for all parents of transgenders. Your son or daughter does not die because he or she changes gender. Your child merely moves into another phase. I think Bridget is heartily sick of the number of pieces of butterfly jewelry I have bought her over the years, but the butterfly is the perfect metaphor for a transgender. Paul was a caterpillar. Bridget is a Monarch. In the end, it comes down to how much you love your child as opposed to how much you expect your child to fulfill your own ambitions. If you love your child, you want your child to be happy at almost any cost. I think the hardest thing transgenders face is the idea that if they are rejected by their parents, it is because their parents didn’t love them enough to accept them as they are. This is my child. I loved him when he was a socially inept, overweight geek who lived in his own tightly-wound world. I love her as she explores her new reality and achieves her own goals.

Postscript: Since I wrote this article, Chaz Bono has announced that he will undergo gender-reassignment surgery. If any of our readers are privileged enough to know Chaz’s mother, please pass on our thanks for her honesty in the past and our hopes that their transition will be a smooth and happy one. It is not easy to go from the mother of two opposite-gender children to the mother of two same-gender children, but with love and humor, it can be a fascinating journey.

First Photo is my own.
Second Photo is via Wikipedia

Other Parts:
A Mother’s Tale: Life With An Adult Transsexual Child, pt 1
A Mother’s Tale: Life With An Adult Transsexual Child, pt 2
A Mother’s Tale: Life With An Adult Transsexual Child, pt 3
A Mother’s Tale: Life With An Adult Transsexual Child, pt 4

LGBT elders who fought the earliest battles for equality now face so much fear about discrimination in healthcare/long-term care that they hide their sexuality, are afraid to ask for help, and die earlier. But, a small group of professionals is trying to change that. Get involved. http://GenSilent.com/

Here is a Trailer for the Documentary, “Gen Silent” by filmmaker Stu Maddux

This week several provisions on health reform benefiting the LGBT community have been addressed during committee markup sessions in the House.

In a late night session of the House Ways and Means Committee a version of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (AAHCA) was passed, that included language from the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would end the unfair taxation of domestic partner health benefits.

Under current tax law, employer-provided health benefits for different-sex spouses are not taxed as income, but the same benefits for domestic partners are. As a result, an employee who gets Domestic Partner benefits for their partners end up paying more taxes, and companies that offer those benefits are burdened with having to keep two sets of payroll record, as well as having to pay additional payroll taxes.

After another marathon session Thursday night that stretched well into Friday morning, the House Education and Labor Committee finished their review of AAHCA and accepted an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would strengthen language already in the bill on data collection and health disparities, including about LGBT citizens.

The Polis amendment included additional language ensuring that critical data on LGBT health needs will be part of efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services to better understand and address health disparities for the LGBT Community.

Related articles by Zemanta

• House Panels Approve Health Plans (nytimes.com)
• House Ways and Means Committee Passes America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (medicareupdate.typepad.com)