President Obama made the decision to appoint four people, and Sorian was one of them. Sorian is also openly gay. Within the press release issued by the White House, President Obama stated “At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent. Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people.”

The White House background on Sorian states:

Richard Sorian is currently a Senior Adviser to the Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. Previously, he was Vice President for Public Policy and External Relations for the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), where he directed the organization’s media relations, policy development and advocacy, and relations with employers, consumers, and other key stakeholders.

Before working for NCQA, Sorian was Director of Public Affairs for the Center for Studying Health System Change and a Project Director at the Georgetown University Institute for Health Care Research and Policy. From 1993 to 1998, Sorian was a Senior Advisor for Health Policy Communications in the Office of Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala. In that capacity, Sorian focused on health care reform, HIV/AIDS policy, and health care quality improvement. From 1997 to 1998, he served as Deputy Director of the President’s Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry, where he directed work on the Patient’s Bill of Rights.

From 1980 to 1993, Sorian was an award-winning journalist covering U.S. health care policy development. He was editor of Medicine & Health and the Journal of American Health Policy. He is also the author of three books: The Bitter Pill: Tough Choice in America’s Health Policy (1989); A New Deal for American Health Care (1993); and The Health Care 500 (1988). He is a graduate of George Washington University and, in 1989, was awarded a Fellowship for Advanced Studies in Public Health at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The recess appointments are, undoubtably, going to upset several people in the Republican Party. Unfortunately, they have been holding up appointments for people not normally considered the least bit controversial.

Source

Olbermann: You brought up civil unions, and that brings me to another quote from some of the WABC material. Let me read this again. You said, “There’s no point starting off trying to do something that’s good if it’s going to meet with an enormous resistaance from a lot of folks.” Does that not describe your effort to get civil unions and the 50-state strategy or the Obama presidential campaign or health care reform? We can go on forever and say doesn’t that describe the American Revolution?

Dean: Yeah, I don’t think you intentionally truncated that quote. What I meant to say was if you get further…. Look, these folks have a right to build this and where they’re about to build it. I think to focus solely on that and exclude further dialogue is a mistake. Look, will the United States survive whether we build this or not where it’s supposed to be built? I think so. But this might be the time where we’ve got to start setting this stuff aside and listening to each other instead of talking past each other. Look at the Middle East peace process. There are people at the far ends of the spectrum who want to undo the progress. I think this may be a teachable moment. I really do.

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

According to AZCentral.com, Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said, “We are appealing the preliminary injunction because we disagree with the federal court’s initial injunction ruling and we believe the legislature has the ultimate authority to make state employee benefit decisions,” said Senseman.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, according to Senseman, will file the appeal shortly.

Last month, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction that would require Arizona to continue to make family health insurance available to gay and lesbian state employees who have established relationships and who meet standards set under state administration rules.

Last September Arizona lawmakers, citing budgetary concerns and legitimate government interest in favoring marriage, included a provision eliminating domestic partner health benefits for gay state employees as part of a last-minute budget deal signed by Governor Jan Brewer, where Brewer was allowed to raise taxes, if she agreed to strip LGBT state employees of their domestic partners health care benefits.

That “deal” cost roughly 800 people their health insurance, while it retained spousal health benefits for heterosexual workers. It had cost Arizona $3 million to cover domestic partners while the state is paying $625 million for other state employees and their dependents.

In his ruling Sedwick said, “It is not equitable to lay the burden of the state’s budgetary shortfall on homosexual employees, any more than on any other distinct class, such as employees with green eyes or red hair.”

A full trial in the matter is still scheduled for later this fall, but Sedwick said that, without the injunction, the gay and lesbian workers who would lose domestic partner benefits at the end of the year would suffer “irreparable harm’’ that could not be remedied by giving them a financial settlement later should they win the case.

Arizona to appeal ruling on same-sex health benefits.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jan Brewer’s Vendetta Against LGBT Couples (gayrights.change.org)
• Federal Judge Says Arizona Can’t Cancel Benefits Of Gay State Employees (lezgetreal.com)
• Federal Judge Blocks Cancellation of AZ State Employees’ Domestic Partner Benefits (hrcbackstory.org)

Yesterday, Representative Anthony Weiner of New York got before the House and gave the republicans a good tongue lashing. He called them cowardly. He attacked them saying “stand up and say, ‘Oh, if only we had a different process we’d vote yes.’ You vote yes if you believe yes! You vote in favor of something if you believe it’s the right thing! If you believe it’s the wrong thing, you vote no!”

He also exclaimed “It is a shame! A shame.”

Anthony Weiner, a long time friend and former roommate of the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, though they have had their differences, recently married Huma Abedin, a long time aid of Hilary Clinton’s. Ms Abedin was born in Michigan, but grew up in Saudi Arabia. She is Muslim, and Weiner is Jewish.

The Republicans have long tried to use the 9/11 tragedy for political reasons, including pushing for the war in Iraq. It is shameful that they have abandoned those who put their lives and their health at risk in those first few days trying to save those who might have survived the collapse of those two buildings. It is as shameful as Pope John Paul II refusing to take the helmet of Father Michael Judge who died performing last rights for the fallen on that day. The Republicans should be ashamed, and if Peter King and the rest of these people believed in the sacrificed of the women and men who died that day, or the sacrifices of those who went to Afghanistan in order to try and bring some modicum of justice to the families of the fallen, they would have voted yes without regard to who wrote or introduced this bill.

The Republicans have chosen to obstruct what ever they can in order to gain political power. It is time that they remembered that this is not about power, but service. Peter King should lose his seat this year. He won’t, but he should. As should every single Republican out there who has not had the moral courage to actually debate or discuss laws, but instead, have thrown temper tantrums because a Black man won the presidency rather than their crotchety old Arizonan who chose to nominate as his Vice-President a woman who elicited from me the line “can’t you see this is the last act of a desperate man?”

Representative Weiner, thank you for doing the right thing, and thank you for your impassioned speech last night.

This morning on FOX News, Weiner and fellow New York Representative Peter King got into a shouting match with regards to this issue. Here is Weiner’s rant from last night.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House Releases National HIV/AIDS Strategy (hrcbackstory.org)
• Obama to roll out new AIDS strategy (alternet.org)
• Obama Unveiling Strategy Against HIV/AIDS (foxnews.com)

So far, the Republicans have done a poor job of showing how they are not the party of ‘no’. After all, they are the part of ‘no regulation’, ‘no taxation’, ‘no unemployment benefits’, ‘no jobs’, etc.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor stated “House Republicans have engaged with the American people to develop innovative solutions that meet the serious challenges facing our country.” Yes, indeed, they have on the “GOP Solutions” website by getting rid of everything that they do not agree with.

However, New York Representative King was a little too honest with regards to the lack of an agenda on the part of the Republicans.

From the Bill Bennett radio show:

BENNETT: Is it enough for Republicans to say we are opposed to what [Obama's] doing — stimulus, health care, we don’t like what he’s doing with the government, and look at the job situation — or do we need to have meat on the bones? And say, this is what we are for? Do we have to have positive proposals? [...]

KING: So, It’s a combination of being against what Obama is for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for. Having said that, I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.

And later in the interview:

KING: That’s where we have to make a much more intelligent argument and defend the Bush tax cuts. Because after all the years of the Bush tax cuts, after two wars, after September 11th, as of 2007, the deficit was down to $165 billion, which is almost chump change by today’s standard. No, the tax cuts is what saved our economy. People forget, they have this talk about how there was a $6.5 trillion surplus projected when President Bush come in. The fact is, he inherited a severe economic downturn — the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, the economy was tanking. Then we had September 11th, then we did have two wars — both of which I’ve supported — and with all of that, the economy continued to add jobs, and by 2006, 2007 the deficit was being dramatically reduced.

Of course, we already know the Republican agenda. Oppose everything that President Barack Obama stands for, and jettison everything from healthcare reform to Wall Street reform. Get rid of everything that protects the American people from the businesses that would, if given the chance, poison and kill them.

The new rules are the final result of a process that began on 15 April 2010 when President Barack Obama issued a moratorium on the hospitals regarding the rules and informed them that they had to respect the rights of patients with regards to non-related or non-spouse visitors. Hospitals will be required to have written policies regarding the designation of visitors based upon clinical needs. There are some diseases where not even relatives are allowed to visit directly.

The key provision in the rules states that the designated visitors must have all the same access as a family member. The rules update the Conditions of Participation, which is the minimum standards for these participating hospitals. The new rules cover all hospital and critical access patients, it does mean that hospitals much allow access to an inpatient “regardless of whether the visitor is a family member, a spouse, or a domestic partner (including a same-sex domestic partner), as well as the right to withdraw such consent at any time.”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated via the press release “Every patient deserves the basic right to designate whom they wish to see while in the hospital. Today’s proposed rules would ensure that all patients have equal access to the visitors of their choosing-whether or not those visitors are, or are perceived to be, members of a patient’s family.”

Marilyn Tavenner, CMS acting administrator stated “This proposed rule is an important step forward in the rights of all Americans to expect equal rights and privileges from the health care system, regardless of their personal and familial situations. In the environment of inclusion that this rule promotes, patients and providers can expect improved patient experiences of care.”

Sister Margaret McBride was a nun and administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center. After helping to provide the abortion, she was automatically excommunicated from Catholicism. She sat on the ethics board that included doctors who agreed that the woman, who was eleven weeks pregnant, should have an abortion. They agreed that without it the woman would die.

Susan Pfister, the hospital’s vice president, stated via an email to a local newspaper “In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy.” Of course, the Catholic Church does not see it this way. The hospital adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as part of Catholic Healthcare West, but Ms Pfister maintains that it does not answer all of the questions raised regarding abortion.

Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted sees it very differently. Apparently, he believes that an abortion can only be caused by a secondary effect of treatment for something else like cancer. “I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese. I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition. An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.” Olmsted informed the Arizona Republic. Of course, what happens if the only way to save a single life is to sacrifice the life of another since both lives cannot be saved?

Sister McBride was rebuked and demoted by the Church, though Olmsted was not directly involved in that. The woman was sick with pulmonary hypertension, a condition which hampers the lungs and heart. It is also dangerous and even fatal to have while pregnant. The hospital consulted with the patient, the woman’s family, the ethics board, and the woman’s physicians. According to the hospital: “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it. We are convinced there was not.”

Sister McBride has decline to comment. The patient has not been named due to privacy concerns. The pregnancy was terminated last year.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sister Margaret McBride Excommunicated For Support Of Life-Saving Abortion (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

Claudia Wright is the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, and a former Mormon. She is lesbian, and lives openly with her partner. She is a retired school teacher and a solid Democrat. This compares well in the eyes of the Democrats to Matheson, who has been called little more than a ‘tarted up Republican’, according to one commentator. Wright is also, apparently, a very intelligent woman.

When Matheson began to lose support among the delegates, he put out a frantic call to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to try and get some support back. Hoyer tried everything to get Matheson returned to Congress unopposed. Matheson admits that he understands that people are upset about certain votes that he cast, including against Healthcare Reform. Hoyer stated “I expect members of Congress to come and represent their districts. Jim Matheson is uniquely qualified and uniquely in touch with that district.”

John Weis, a voter from Salt Lake City, challenged Hoyer on this matter. “Claudia Wright can win this district. Claudia Wright would’ve voted for cap-and-trade [carbon emission controls]. Claudia Wright would have voted for health care. You are saying we don’t need someone with a backbone.” Of course, Hoyer dismissed the criticism by pointing to the 1994 election which many politicians are expecting to repeat in this election despite the fact that recent indications are that many Tea Party activists which have the Republicans tacking to the far Right and Democrats quaking about losing is not as powerful as it appears since, so far, Bob Bennet is the only Republican incumbent to lose his seat.

Some inside the Utah Democratic Party believe that the location of the convention inside Salt Lake City hurt Matheson since not all of his delegates from the rural areas came to vote. It will be an intense battle for either of them to win the nomination and the election.

Despite depictions of doom and gloom, a lot of how the general election in November turns out depends upon the candidates. A lot of incumbents are not going to make it far enough to be voted on in November, and that may result in a far different outcome than is expected by both parties.

Matheson forced into runoff election
Can Brigham Young’s Great Great Gay Progressive Granddaughter Oust A Blue Dog & Win A House Seat In Utah?

4-20-210 -Melanie Nathan

The response to the horrific story of Clay Greene and Harold Scull has been very gratifying and inspiring. Clearly, their story struck a chord in all of us. To some degree we can’t help imagining ourselves in exactly this situation. Forty-eight hours ago, few people knew their names, and now a Facebook page in their honor has more than 7,000 fans. Quite simply, this case demonstrates how our relationships as LGBT people are so fragile, especially when we reach our later years. Just one small incident, in this case a fall down some steps, sends the world crashing down.

This was posted by Kate Kendell on Bilerco Project.

Harold and Clay were in a committed relationship for twenty-five years, and they lived together for twenty years. Both Harold and Clay had worked in Hollywood and were passionate collectors of film memorabilia. Harold had worked for MGM studios in the 1950s and was a favorite of Louis B. Mayer in the studio’s heyday. At the same time, Clay worked in television with many popular stars of that period. In addition to his film industry career, Harold was an accomplished artist and avid collector, especially of Mexican and Central American Santos religious art and artifacts. Art, heirlooms, and memorabilia graced the walls of their leased home, in which they planned to live together until their deaths.

Several folks have commented about the legal status of Clay and Harold’s relationship. These tragic events began in April 2008, one month before the California Supreme Court’s historic marriage ruling. By the time the California Supreme Court ruled and marriages began for that brief six months, Harold was already hospitalized and Clay imprisoned in a nursing home.

We can’t change what happened to Harold and Clay, but we can do what we try to do every day: to create a world where what happened to Harold and Clay never happens again.

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold’s lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O’Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

I live in the neighboring County  and share a Congresswoman with the Couple, Re. Lynn Woolsey.

Melanie Nathan: In my capacity as an appointed Commissioner on the Marin Human Rights Commission,  (2009-2013) -I will be looking at the case from a variety of  perspectives – I am not going to assume that it is a moot matter for future couples simply because of the new directive issued by President Obama.  Often changing the culture is more difficult that changing the law.
Read more about NCLR’s Elder Law Project.

Reference NCLR.

http://spectrumlgbtcenter.blogspot.com/

Picture Features – Shanon Minter NCLR.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Elderly Gay Couple Forcibly Separated, Abused, Robbed By County Officials in California (slog.thestranger.com)
• Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells their home (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells their home (bilerico.com)
• Elderly Gay Couples’ Lives Destroyed by Discrimination (towleroad.com)
• Could Obama’s Hospital Visitation Rules Have Prevented Clay + Harold’s Horror Story? (queerty.com)

In 2007, just as Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond were about to depart from Miami on a family cruise with their three children, Pond suddenly collapsed. From the moment Langbehn and the children arrived at Jackson Memorial Hospital, they encountered prejudice and apathy. Even though Langbehn held Pond’s durable health care power of attorney, the hospital refused to accept information from Langbehn regarding Pond’s medical history.

The hospital worker also informed Langbehn that she was in an antigay city and state and that she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. A doctor finally spoke with Langbehn, telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Despite the doctor’s acknowledgment that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Langbehn nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.

The hospitals decision got them hauled over the coals by gay rights advocates and in both the LGBT and mainstream press. It also got them sued by Langbehn.

Last September, a Florida judge ruled that no law required the hospital to allow Langbehn and their three children to see the dying Pond, and rejected that suit.

Even so, most people saw the hospitals actions as nothing but mean spirited asshattery, and the hospitals PR (and most likely it fundraising efforts) continued to take a serious dunk into the toilet. So since then, Jackson Memorial has issue a half hearted, second handed “oops we screwed up” to the Langbehn-Pond family through the press and began reviewing its policies concerning LGBT patients.

Yesterday, Lambda Legal, the outfit that sued the Hospital on behalf of Langbehn, and officials from Jackson Health System (JHS) released a statement announcing the hospital’s improved policies that are now a little more responsive to the needs of the LGBT community.

“Lambda Legal applauds Jackson Memorial’s work with the coalition to review and expand policies and training materials to help address the needs of same-sex couples and their families, but we urge the hospital to finish the job,” said Beth Littrell, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta, who was lead counsel on Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial.

Lambda Legal as well, urged Jackson Memorial Hospital to enact a full grievance procedure and also to issue an official apology to the Langbehn-Pond family.

“The hospital should issue an official apology to the Langbehn-Pond family and JHS should have a grievance procedure in the case of visitation denial that can be acted on quickly in an emergency situation,” she said.

“Jackson Memorial Hospital should have been able to provide immediate resources to Janice Langbehn when she wasn’t allowed to be with her partner Lisa hour after hour as she lay dying in the hospital. We don’t want the Langbehn-Pond nightmare to happen to another family.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• SAVE Dade: Jackson Health aligns policies with principles to be LGBT inclusive (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Florida Hospital Changes LGBT Policies After Denying Lesbian the Right to Visit Her Dying Partner (bilerico.com)
• Gays and lesbians now assured hospital visitation rights by Jackson Health System (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Jackson Memorial Health In Miami Facing Financial Collapse (lezgetreal.com)

“Like a virus, no one is immune from ignorance – no matter what their profession or even educational background might be.“

4-13-2010m; Posted by Melanie Nathan

Rambam Medical Center in Haifa on Tuesday will launch the first invitro fertilization unit in Israel for HIV carriers with fertility difficulties who are rejected from treatment by other hospitals.

Although Israel boasts one of the highest availabilities of fertility treatment in the world, it never before had the facilities to carry out IVF treatment for HIV carriers.

Today, an HIV carrier who receives treatment has almost the same life expectancy as the rest of the population, and certain medical treatment enables carrier to conceive and give birth to healthy children.

Following the Supreme Court appeal by the task force and six women, in 2006 the Health Ministry set up a committee to look into fertility treatments among carriers of HIV and Hepatitis B and C.

The committee recommended setting up a separate infrastructure for fertility treatment for such patients, despite the fact that in many Western countries carriers receive the treatment in ordinary clinics.  The multiple postponements of the opening led to the Health Ministry being sharply rebuked by the Knesset Labor, Welfare and Health Committee.

The unit,  located in a remote, discreet area of the hospital, to afford for maximum privacy for the patients, will also serve carriers of other viruses, and it already has a waiting list with several women waiting for treatment.

The Rambam unit opens just two days after the launch of a sperm washing institute at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, allowing men who carry the HIV virus to conceive healthy children together with non-carrier spouses.

The opening of the new unit at Rambam, which includes a number of labs and sub-clinics, has been postponed at least four times.

Yonatan Karni, director of the Israel AIDS Task Force, said Monday “I’m thrilled to cut the ribbon for the unit, but what will truly convince me this is really happening will be to cut the umbilical chord for the first child born as a result of the process.   To get to this day we had to go through the Supreme Court and four years of public battles. To my surprise the greatest obstacle was the obstinacy of the healthcare system. I found that just like with the virus, no one is immune to ignorance – no matter what their profession or even educational background might be.”

Original Source:- 4-13-2010 Ha’aretz

New hospital unit allows HIV carriers to conceive through IVF

By Fadi Eyadat

Melanie Nathan – nathan@privatecourts.com

“By Tom Brandt / Opinions Editor Republicans are not sparing the rod when it comes to beating up on President Obama’s economic stimulus package, but it’s clear they are unable to raise their membership to withstand the newly found vigor of his congressional muscle.”

http://funmeme.com/post/2010/03/24/Republicans-Turned-off-by-Size-of-Obamae28099s-Package-e28093-Funny-Caption-Pic.aspx

Need we say more – nothing like a little visit to the past ….2009!

By Mel Nathan

Related articles by Zemanta

• More On “ObamaCare” (ethelthefrog.com)
• Even If Health Care Reform Passes, the Fights Won’t Stop (dailyfinance.com)
• Health Care Reform Turnaround: More Americans Now Favor It (alan.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Melanie Nathan -March 25, 2010 ;   Human Rights Campaign reports that “Among the many federal rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples by the combination of marriage inequality and the federal Defense of Marriage Act is access to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).  COBRA ensures that an employee and his or her spouse and dependent children can keep their employer-provided health insurance for a limited period after a qualifying event – usually the employee leaving or, particularly these days, losing his or her job.  The employee and his family usually pay for those benefits out of pocket, including additional administrative costs to the former employer, but that health insurance is still often cheaper than a plan in the individual market.  During the economic downturn, Congress has created subsidies to help families defray those costs.” Brian Moulton in Human Rights Campaign Post.

Unfortunately, same-sex couples and their families have neither the guarantee of continued coverage nor access to those subsidies.  Even if an employer offers domestic partner health benefits, as more and more companies do every day, they do not have to provide continued coverage of those benefits under COBRA.  And even if a fair-minded employer does so, a former employee’s domestic partner cannot be eligible for the COBRA subsidy.  So, yet again, despite being equally affected by economic hardships, same-sex couples are not equally protected by safety net programs like COBRA.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)  to the rescue – introducing a bill, the’ Equal Access to COBRA Act of 2010,’  that would help address this inequality and ensure that domestic partners currently covered by employer health plans have access to COBRA benefits.   This is one example of why any one incumbent who is up for reelection and who is LGBT legislation proactive MUST receive the support  the  entire LGBT community Across the Country.   This is another example of why DOMA must be repealed as soon as possible.

DO you think Carli Fiorina Would introduce this kind of Legislation or even support it in Congress.   I am going to call her  to ask the question and will get back here with the BIG update – Warning: Please Do Not Hold Your Breath

We at LGR applaud Senator Boxer for keeping her eye on the ball for us.  It would seem that HRC has been at the helm of this introduction.  While we are grateful for that,  this is yet another example of more time on more piecemeal legislation.   I would rather see an OMNIBUS Bill for all equality legislation or more simply put, THE HOT pursuit of  Rep. Jerold Nadler’s Respect for Marriage Act which will repeal DOMA.

By the way- the New health Care Bill does not help Domestic Partners who are discriminated under the Tax Code;  that means same-sex DP’s must pay tax on the health care benefit received through a partner’s work, as if it is income.    Again DOMA must Go!!!

STILL In solidarity:

by Melanie Nathan, EMAIL

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gays May Still Pay More for Health Coverage (bucks.blogs.nytimes.com)

Georgia was one of 34 states around the nation that was considering legislation asserting states rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the amendment was an attempt to pre-empt the federal insurance mandate.

The Tenth Amendment asserts that powers not specifically granted to the federal government or prohibited from the states are reserved to the states.

“A yes vote means you are standing up for your constituents and protecting them from an unfunded mandate from the federal government,” The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Calvin Hill said moments before the vote. “They are going to force your constituents to pay for health-insurance premiums or food!”

But after nearly two hours of debate, the constitutional amendment which required 120 yes votes, received 111.

Had it passed Georgia House Resolution 1086 would have put the following question on the ballot:

Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that no law or rule or regulation shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system and to authorize persons and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Idaho passes law promising legal challenge to individual mandate in ObamaCare (hotair.com)
• States launch lawsuits against health care plans (financialpost.com)
• NYT: States’ rights is cry of resistance (msnbc.msn.com)

Juan and Eva Peron

I spent all weekend at the Capitol covering the health care vote and I came away from the experience knowing that life, indeed, has a strange propensity to imitate art at times.

Over the weekend, tea bagger demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, protesting proposed changes to America’s healthcare system and worked into frenzy by their leaders in the weeks leading to last nights vote, yelled racist and homophobic epithets at passing congress members.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who was beaten by a white mob during a civil rights march in the south in the early 60s, was called “nigger” by protesters who opposed healthcare for all Americans.

“They were shouting, sort of harassing,” Lewis said afterwards. “But, it’s okay, I’ve faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean.”

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank caught the wrath of the baggers as well. He was called “faggot” and “homo” when he had the bad luck to come into contact with some of the demonstrators.

But last night after the health care bill was finally passed and with Tea Party activists, some of them dressed in camouflage, literally crying on the south lawn of the Capitol Building, Iowa Rep. Steve King and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann left the building to go outside, console them and give them just one more dose of crazy.

And for some reason… as King and Bachmann spoke, The whole weekend and particularly the scene of King and Bachmann standing there waving from the balcony, sort of reminded me of a scene from the movie Evita, complete with Juan and Eva  and I thought the song don’t cry for me Argentina playing in the background would be a quite appropriate for the occasion….

Cue Music and Action

It won’t be easy, you’ll think it strange… When I try to explain how I feel… That I still need your love after all that I’ve done

“I just came down here,” said Juan… er I mean King, “so I could say to you, God bless you.”

“You are the awesome American people,” said King. “If I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks who were standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that! Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!”

After Juan… er King had finished talking, Evita… er I mean…. Rep. Michele Bachmann then addressed the teabags and despite what Juan… er I mean Steve said, she implored them to commit “no violence” as they fought for health care repeal and focus instead on the elections in November.

After that, one by one, the people gathered outside the Capitol, the same ones who’d spent the weekend talking about secession, shouting racial and homophobic epithets, and harassing the Democratic Reps in all manner of ways, whenever they’d come to the Capitol Building to make their votes, finally arrived at the realization that they’d been beaten, and then just all faded into the darkness of the DC night.

Don’t cry for me Argentina

End scene and cut.

Lets all hope they don’t make a sequel.

HT for the video to Joe. My. God.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Health Care Haters Hurl “N”-Word At Congessman John Lewis (alan.com)
• Tea Party sign threatens gun violence if health care passes. (thinkprogress.org)
• The GOP’s Last Chance To Spread Fear and Distort Truth on Health Care Reform (themoderatevoice.com)
• Michele Bachmann Likens Obama To Chavez; Cites Tyranny; Calls Him “Post-American” (alan.com)

By a vote of 219 to 212, the House passed the bill after a day of tumultuous debate that echoed the epic struggle of the last year.

The vote is being touted as the single most significant piece of domestic legislation to be passed by Congress since Medicare in 1965.

“We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“This is the civil rights act of the 21st century,” added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.

Sunday’s vote also ended well over a year of negotiations and setbacks, with a day of intense negotiations among Democrats and repeated procedural attempts to kill the bill by Republicans.

Even so, Democrats were still able to piece together enough votes to pass the bill by striking deals with two groups of Democrats who were on the fence: anti-abortion Democrats and Democrats concerned that the funding machinery for the bill was inequitable to certain states.

The final obstacle to the bill’s passage was cleared at mid-afternoon when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers lead by Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak after The White House announced it would issue an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Stupak.

In the end, not a single Republican voted for the bill and Republicans continued their attack on the bill even after its passage, still warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system. “We have failed to listen to America,” said Republican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.

“The American people know you can’t reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors,” said Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, adding “And, the American people know that you can’t create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit.”

In remarks after the completion of the House’s votes, Obama praised fellow Democrats for passing the legislation.

“We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things,” the president said in televised remarks. “We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people.”

Mr. Obama will now sign a bill that many of the people who voted for it say is flawed. Regardless of what happens next, that bill will become law when Obama signs it, perhaps on Tuesday.

The $940 billion bill will cover 32 million uninsured Americans, ban the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid.

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, will now also come under new federal regulations and will be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents will also be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans and a new high-risk pool will offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems

Related articles by Zemanta

• FROM THE HOUSE CLERK: How they voted. UPDATE: Reader George Gooding writes: “I can’t help but … (pajamasmedia.com)
• Congressman Jim Clyburn: “This Is The Civil Rights Act Of The 21st Century” (alan.com)
• Health care: A partisan vote was the only path to progress (seattlepi.com)

“A Great Unfinished Business, Until Today”; Now let us move on to CIR, Repeal of DOMA and DADT:

Melanie Nathan, 3-21-10 , 10.50 EST. Today an historic vote in the US House of Representatives will lead to Passage of  landmark Health Care reform.  When the votes hit 216, the House erupted and Speaker Pelosi walked elegantly into the history books, not only is she the first woman speaker, but THE speaker who got Health Care reform through vote and victory.

Today while  it seems as if the Immigration Reform March failed through little or no, albeit much deserved  TV coverage; there is a deep irony in such failure and that is what caused it to fail may hail its success – YES the day was usurped by visuals of the Congress hedging its bets on historic passage of Health Care Reform, and the fact that such was passed in the House and likely to pass in the Senate, yields a victory so enormous for President Obama, that he WILL now win Immigration Reform.  When The President’s message resounded through screens on the Mall, the people knew that they would be next. Today’s victory places capital and power sturdily in the hands of this US President.

The Republicans in the House called it ‘the arrogance of Washington’ and suggested  the Democrats  used trickery, speaking only about money and cost; the Democrats say this reform is imperative and spoke to the impact from an humanity standpoint.

My Congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, California, spoke tonight, in the House,  with her  perfunctory  message, “ Being a woman IS a preexisting condition!” ( reiterated by Speaker Pelosi) That is going to change with this health care reform.  She reminded us that pregnancy could be a preexisting condition, that even injuries from domestic violence could be considered preexisting conditions.

What the Republicans seem to resent is the fact that the will of the people was to elect the democrats on the ticket that included health care reform. How could anyone in their right mind suggest voting no on the basis of “not good enough,” especially those that prompted the water down.

Those of you who voted NO will be held responsible when you are reminded in years henceforth of the positive impact of the changes, when lives are saved, and the preexisting amongst us survive and live longer to tell this tale.

Now enough – let us move on to more business – and let us realize that we MUST be partisan.  We must fight a partisan fight from day one on Immigration reform, on repeal of DOMA, DADT, and  enactment of ENDA. Bi-partisanship must now come from the Republican side. We should not chase them to get them on board. This is the only way they will hopefully come up with suggestions to forward legislation, rather than attacks to thwart it.

Recipe for success of future legislation:

Ingredients:

2 cup of –  Learn from mistakes

3 cups of  - forget the ideal of bipartisanship

1 cup of  - clarity through public outreach and education

3 cups of  - early explanation to American people

2 cups of – early talking points and Public Service Announcements

Instructions:

Obama, and Democrats mix all of the above from day one of the endeavor;

Push at the start and until the end; remain strong and resolute

Change the fairness doctrine in media broadcasting and revoke licenses of cable channels which term ‘news’ for talking point commentary, speculation and non sourced lies.

The Lesson: From the lesson of Health Care Reform, we have learnt that Bi-partisanship, in a climate of hate and greed is an oxymoron.
Republicans have the audacity to complain that this is not bipartisan legislation.   Lest we forget that there would be no legislation at ALL if it were to be bi-partisan.

Thanks to Partisanship no one is no longer un-insurable!
Thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her extraordinary leadership
and To President Obama

Acknowledging Great Leadership of late Senator Ted Kennedy
“A Great Unfinished Business, Until Today”
Victoria Kennedy plans to issue a Statement tonight

Written to supporters – I am sure I am not the only one who received this letter at 2.00 am Eastern today.

Melanie — 3-22-10

For the first time in our nation’s history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.

Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:

Because of you, every American will finally be guaranteed high quality, affordable health care coverage.

Every American will be covered under the toughest patient protections in history. Arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, and discrimination against pre-existing conditions will now be gone forever.

And we’ll finally start reducing the cost of care — creating millions of jobs, preventing families and businesses from plunging into bankruptcy, and removing over a trillion dollars of debt from the backs of our children.

But the victory that matters most tonight goes beyond the laws and far past the numbers.

It is the peace of mind enjoyed by every American, no longer one injury or illness away from catastrophe.

It is the workers and entrepreneurs who are now freed to pursue their slice of the American dream without fear of losing coverage or facing a crippling bill.

And it is the immeasurable joy of families in every part of this great nation, living happier, healthier lives together because they can finally receive the vital care they need.

This is what change looks like.

My gratitude tonight is profound. I am thankful for those in past generations whose heroic efforts brought this great goal within reach for our times. I am thankful for the members of Congress whose months of effort and brave votes made it possible to take this final step. But most of all, I am thankful for you.

This day is not the end of this journey. Much hard work remains, and we have a solemn responsibility to do it right. But we can face that work together with the confidence of those who have moved mountains.

Our journey began three years ago, driven by a shared belief that fundamental change is indeed still possible. We have worked hard together every day since to deliver on that belief.

We have shared moments of tremendous hope, and we’ve faced setbacks and doubt. We have all been forced to ask if our politics had simply become too polarized and too short-sighted to meet the pressing challenges of our time. This struggle became a test of whether the American people could still rally together when the cause was right — and actually create the change we believe in.

Tonight, thanks to your mighty efforts, the answer is indisputable: Yes we can.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

by Melanie Nathan
Private Courts™
nathan@privatecourts.com
http://visualcv.com/melnathan

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gerald Sindell: The Long Republican Nightmare Begins: Democare (huffingtonpost.com)
• Warning to Democrats Wavering on HCR: Primaries Are Coming (mydd.com)
• Key Provisions Of The Health Care Reform Bill (alan.com)
• Live Streaming Video of House Health Care Reform Votes (themoderatevoice.com)
• Democrats predict win in historic U.S. health vote (ctv.ca)
• Paul Begala: Hallelujah! (huffingtonpost.com)
• Health care reform passes on a 219-212 vote, but the opposition is self-perpetuating (trueslant.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Melanie Nathan, 11.00 am, PST.  with stakes high for us and  STUPAK  changing vote to yes,  Vote count – amazingly close.   As Democratic Caucus ended, sporadically they locked arms, walked across independence avenue to the House to vote, amidst the screaming crazies.  Speaker Pelosi carrying a gavel, symbolically indicating it was going to happen.  She looked at protesters and unintimidated walked into the House.

I cannot imagine such a bold and profound action unless the VOTES , like the gavel are in hand!

I am shocked at the hold out Democrats who consider their re-election more important than the success of the entire administration – and yes that is looking at it from a political prospective.  Least of all  to mention “for the benefit” of American people.

History is being made.

Viral hate loses again- screaming the ‘N’ word or yelling ‘faggot‘ at Barney Frank will not stop what is right.  Although the Health Care Bill may not be all that we need, its a start and there will be more to come. This can now turn into a great Congress and Administration -

Now on to Comprehensive Immigration reform/ UAFA, the real of DOMA and DADT.  This can happen. Imagine the vote of 5 people left will in essence determine what is going to happen to the rest of legislation – much needed – that will impact the LGBT community so profoundly.

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Niggers” and “faggots” prepare to pass health care reform (horsesass.org)
• The Tea Baggers haven’t changed, we have (bilerico.com)
• Tea Party Protests: ‘Ni**er,’ ‘Faggot’ Shouted At Members Of Congress (huffingtonpost.com)
• Democrats predict win in historic U.S. health vote (ctv.ca)

Melanie Nathan

By Melanie Nathan   nathan@privatecourts.com

As the bill comes towards a vote, groups of Tea Party protesters are yelling out that this bill is “for the n—-,” according to an LGR reporter on the scene. This is an impression reinforced by comments from people saying that this is not about healthcare, but about stopping a black president. In fact, as the countdown to the bill’s final vote reaches zero, the real face of the Tea Party movement has begun to show itself. While many people started in on the Tea Party movement in order to vent frustration and are not, in fact, racists, the movement itself rapidly became a breeding ground for open bigots. White supremacist groups began active recruiting within many of the Tea Party affiliates, and even began taking them over. As of today, no one is pretending that this is about Healthcare any more, but about racism, homophobia, and even misogyny outright in an attempt to intimidate members of Congress into voting against a President that they hate because of his race.

Representative John Lewis is a veteran of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s. Both he and fellow Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson were verbally assaulted walking out of the Cannon House Office Building. Representative Frank was verbally assaulted later that day coming out of the same building. He told Talking Points Memo:

“I’m disappointed at a unwillingness to be just civil…the objection to the health care bill has become a proxy for other sentiments…Obviously there are perfectly reasonable people that are against this, but the people out there today on the whole–many of them were hateful and abusive…I do think the leaders of the movement, and this was true of some of the Republicans last year, that they think they are benefiting from this rancor. I mean there are a couple who–you know, Michele Bachmann’s rhetoric is inflamatory as well as wholly baseless. And I think there are people there, a few that encourage it…If this was my cause, and I saw this angry group yelling and shouting and being so abusive to people, I would ask them to please stop it…I think they do more harm than good.”

The Capital Police threatened to remove the protesters if they did not calm down, but they were quickly overwhelmed by the number of protesters that were there.

John Lewis was a member of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee during the 1960’s. In 1961, as a Freedom Rider, he was beaten badly by a mob of white Alabamans who were violently and vehemently opposed to desegregation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tea Party Racists (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Tea Party Protests: ‘Ni**er,’ ‘Faggot’ Shouted At Members Of Congress (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tea Party protesters reportedly spit on one lawmaker, call others ‘faggot’ and the n-word. (thinkprogress.org)
• Tea Party Activists Show Their Classy Side (themoderatevoice.com)
• Calling out the loathsome (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Michael Tomasky: Cat slithers out of bag (guardian.co.uk)

“We are deeply disappointed that, after months of lobbying for their inclusion, important measures specifically addressing the needs of LGBT people and people with HIV – ending the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, permitting states to offer early HIV treatment under Medicaid, collecting critical health data on LGBT people and addressing discrimination in health care – are not a part of this bill.”

Up until yesterday, Representative Tammy Baldwin was certain that these provisions would remain within the final bill.

The bill did put back in provisions funding abstinence only education despite the fact that such programs are a complete failure and only delay teens having sexual relations by about a year over other sex ed programs. Unfortunately, because so many of them are unaware of contraception, the rates of pregnancy among teens in abstinence only education programs is higher than those in more comprehensive programs.

The bill is expected to be voted on this weekend.

Related articles by Zemanta

• House Posts Health Care Bill, Leaves Out LGBT-Specific Provisions (hrcbackstory.org)

Openly Gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin said today she doesn’t believe LGBT-specific provisions will make it as part of health care reform.

In an interview with the DC Agenda, Baldwin said senate rules will probably prevent most of the LGBT provisions included in the House version of the health care reform bill from being in the reconciliation package that will come before the U.S. Senate this week.

“Most of the provisions are not with budgetary impact and so — because of the Byrd rule and the rules of the Senate parliamentarian — are not eligible,” she said. (via DC Agenda.)

That would mean two major LGBT provisions in the House version of the health care bill; the elimination of the tax on health benefits received under employer plans for LGBT’s and allowing states to cover low-income people with HIV before they develop AIDS, will in all probability not be in the final version of the bill at makes it to President Obama’s desk.

However, on her Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligation Act, Baldwin was more optimistic.

“It’s cleared committee on both sides of the Capitol, and so I’m very hopeful that once we are done with the health care legislation and back to other matters that we’ll be able to move it quickly,” Baldwin said.

That not withstanding, Joe Lieberman, the sponsor of the Senates version of the bill, said he won’t allow the bill to come to a floor vote until the U.S. Office of Personnel Management provides information on how to offset the legislation’s cost within the agency’s existing budget.

Baldwin said she’s expecting the information from OPM “any day” now and added “They’ve assured us that they can fully offset it within their global budget, but we want to see the specifics.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• If Obama Leaves the Gays out of Health Care, Did He Make Up Ground in the Federal Budget? (queerty.com)
• LGBT health care provisions hanging even more tenuously now (bilerico.com)

Back in September, a lawsuit against Jackson Memorial from a widow was dismissed. In that case, the widow was not allowed to see her wife before she passed away. Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had been together seventeen years when vacationing in Miami, Ms Pond suffered an aneurism and died. According to Jackson Memorial, the hospitals do not have a legal obligation to allow anyone to see their dying loved one.

The not-for-profit hospital network is asking the city for an advance of some $67 million to get them through April. They are suppose to receive some $90 million before 1 May. They will run out of operating cash by 5 April.

Jackson Memorial’s board is looking at possibly closing two branch hospitals. This would leave the hospital complex with just the main hospital, the children’s hospital, a rehabilitation hospital and a mental health facility. Jackson South, one of the two branches being looked at for closure, is part way through a new addition, and its closure would mean losing around $40 million in costs already incurred. Even just stopping the addition would save the hospital complex $60 million.

In large part, the problem with Jackson Memorial Health is that their emergency rooms are the only place many uninsured can go for health care of any kind in the area. Often times, those who go there cannot afford to see a doctor, and the hospitals cannot turn them away. With the economic downturn hitting Florida heavily, the health care system within the state is under heavy stress. Jackson Memorial Health is not the only health care facility under financial strain. Rutland Regional Medical Center in Rutland, Vermont is looking at cut backs and cost containment measures; however, their financial problems are dwarfed by those of Jackson Memorial.

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Jackson Memorial

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jackson Health: Miami Hospital System In ‘Death Spiral’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Nurses Sorry for Barring Woman From Dying Partner (advocate.com)
• Miami Board Looks to Close Two Hospitals (nytimes.com)
• Big Miami-Dade hospital system nears insolvency (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

“One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that. And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tossled the guy’s hair and left, went to my room, because I knew the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there. Now was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.”

To top it off, Massa is stating that the Obama Administration has orchestrated his ouster over the issue of Healthcare Reform. Massa’s resignation from Congress would drop the number of people who would be required in order to make the Healthcare Reform bill pass. “Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots,” Massa said.

A spokesperson for Representative Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, rejected this assertion outright. To be clear about something, Representative Massa is hardly facing career ending ethics charges the way that Representative Charles Rangel is, and Rangel has remained in his seat. The charges leveled against Massa are alleged to have gone on for up to eight months prior to the actual complaint, and even Massa admits that his behavior, especially in this particular incident, was inappropriate; however, the House of Representatives is certainly rife with politicians who have done far worse and still remained in their seats.

Eric Massa: Democrats ousted me over health care

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rep. Eric Massa: The Democrats Sank Me Because I Opposed Health Care Reform (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Massa Says Democrats Pushed Ethics Charges (politicalwire.com)
• Eric Massa: Ethics Probe Explained, Claims Administration Plotted Against Him For Health Care Vote (huffingtonpost.com)
• Eric Massa’s ‘15 gin and tonics’ explanation | Richard Adams (guardian.co.uk)
• Eric Massa Goes Out Swinging (blogs.wsj.com)
• Weirder Still (talkingpointsmemo.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Melanie Nathan, 3-4-10 Posts: – The need for immigration reform is at a critical level  in the USA; fueled by complicated, outdated, hardhearted laws; not to mention the heavy hand  of enforcement.   I speak English in an almost English accent with a South African twist;  I am white and immigrated to the US, legally; it was one of the worst experiences of my life. The treatment was bad-rude-ill fitting for a nation that purports to value people and family.

I have also been witness to the insidious way Hispanic people and other immigrants are treated by Immigration bureaucrats and it is not pretty. Now albeit cliche′d, this system is indeed broken.  Families are separated, children without mothers and fathers, people get sent back to places they have never lived in and cannot survive,  and of course the list goes on.

This is all known and I am not saying anything new; in fact I have over simplified a problem of tsunami proportion.  My purpose to place the following letter into minimalist context.

In March  3, 2010 a Republican politician wrote this  Letter to the editor in the Washington Post. After reading the letter which I have copied here – close your eyes and guess who wrote it.  Then we can chuckle together. Please tell me its me who is the moron.  I know there is a left brain and right brain, my question is : IS there a third brain that I know nothing about?

The Feb. 21 news story “Republican Party looks to rebuild support among Hispanics” portrayed the courtship of the Hispanic vote as an uphill battle.

But despite the rhetoric of groups that favor amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Hispanic vote cannot be successfully wooed by a “one-hit wonder” version of immigration reform. The Hispanic vote can be won by returning to the values that have drawn more than 38 million immigrants to our shores. Job security, affordable health care and national security are issues that affect every American, regardless of race or ethnicity.

President Bush received 40 percent of the Hispanic vote by focusing not on immigration but on the need to support small businesses, create jobs and preserve familial values. Republicans can secure the Hispanic vote by emphasizing those issues that unite us as a country, issues that extend far beyond immigration.

BY Lamar Smith, Washington, The writer, a Republican, represents Texas’s 21st District in the House of Representatives.
Washington D.C. Office
2409 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
ph: 202-225-4236 fax: 202-225-8628

Now it is my turn Lamar DeVille…..   You say “wooed by a “one-hit wonder” version of immigration reform.” Are you kidding me? Have you ever experienced what it feels like to be separated from a spouse, from your child?  Have you ever had to choose between children?  Those who have will give anything for a one-hit wonder” version of immigration reform.  Republicans  and all who think like this clearly devoid of any and all humanness.

These are your evil people – they will grind their mothers into chopped meatballs for a friggin vote. In this case the irony s that this bloke has successfully argued himself out of any Hispanic votes, lest he forget their loyalty, the fact that many  voted for Bush because he spoke Spanish and now they realize they were fooled – not only did Bush do nothing for the Hispanic community but  he ordered raids that forced people from their homes and out of the arms of their children, into detention centers and onto Buses back to wherever the first cross border stop was.

Lamar you songololo schmendrik – I give the Hispanic community credit for intelligence – never to be swayed by your crotchety old rhetoric and your BS attempt at persuasion.

Then he says - “The Hispanic vote can be won by returning to the values that have drawn more than 38 million immigrants to our shores.” Yes and like me Mr Moron they had to fight like hell to remain in this country.  What the heck are you talking about. You want the existing 12 million out of here and then you want to create jobs so you can draw others back?

Giving Amnesty will entrench family values – Giving amnesty will encourage entrepreneurship amongst the minority immigrant communities, where money will be spent and economy can grow.  I know there are studies to prove this- however it does not take a genius to figure it out.

“President Bush received 40 percent of the Hispanic vote by focusing not on immigration but on the need to support small businesses, create jobs and preserve familial values.”

Yes he did – seemed like a nice guy – he spoke Spanish and he smiled nicely. Little did they know that racist and war criminal Cheney would run the show instead.  Do you think they would be foolish to come to the polls for more of that?

Let me ask one more question – of Lamar – why is focusing on immigration and the need to support small business etc mutually exclusive; one does not preclude the other?

In light of the recent Power point presentation uncovering the dubious tactics of Republican strategists – I can truly see the underlying working papers that serve to create such ploys, but in your surreptitious charade you truly fail to see who the Hispanic people are.  They are family values, the do work hard, they have hearts that pump blood, they are mothers, dads and kids, teachers, they boost the economy,  they buy homes, they are our workforce, the pray in church, they get scholarships to good schools, they are judges and doctors.   They deserve better laws than we have – they deserve America’s appreciation for who they are and for what they do.  Yes they do…. we should do all we can to keep good people here.

If the laws were effective, we would not have undocumented people in this country. The law is counter productive to the need.  Supply and demand Lamar. The demand is indeed there for Hispanic immigrants and for all immigrants, so stop using your sleazy tactics – BS – ALL you are saying is – “DO NOT VOTE FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM” fellow Republicans… we can do other things instead?   Lets do what Bush did- keep them all illegal but nurture small business instead – then the actual Hispanic citizens will vote for us, especially while they watch you arrest and deport their neighbors, whom you could have kept here.

We will get the votes – after all its all about the votes – it is merely about the votes… lets do this and we will get their votes…  !

USA Today features dueling views on immigration solutions - June 29, 2009 – Posted by Katherine Vargas  – The current economic recession not as a roadblock to reform but as an opportunity to fix our current immigration system:

” …the recession has been teaching some useful lessons about how to ease the [immigration] crisis. Even before rising unemployment began to affect Americans, Mexicans were reacting to the changing jobs climate. Data just out from the Mexican government show 226,000 fewer people emigrated from Mexico in the year ended August 2008 than during the prior year. That’s a 25% drop.

…the recession is delivering another message: Enforcement alone won’t resolve the problem. If fewer illegal immigrants are coming, there’s no evidence yet that those already here are leaving. In 2008, there were still about 12 million illegal residents in the USA, only slightly down from 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington think tank.

Presumably, they sense that tough times here mean tougher times where they came from, and Pew notes that many have families here, including children who are citizens. Which means the nation should provide a way for the most qualified to become legal, productive, taxpaying citizens.

—Recession freezes immigration debate but points to answers, June 29, 2009

This piece mirrors what we have often said: On immigration, it’s the economy, stupid. Undocumented immigration responds more to economic pull factors —like the ability to find a job to feed your family — than the politics of immigration enforcement tactics. If we want to move forward on immigration, we need less politicking and more problem-solving.

Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo. Although quietly acknowledging that mass deportation of 12 million undocumented immigrants is derisible —not to mention a logistical and resource nightmare— there are some who argue that “attrition through enforcement” could be a viable alternative to broad reform of our immigration system.

Enter Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). In his opinion piece, he makes numerous false claims on reform, including how legalization would bankrupt the Social Security system, despite economic reports that document the increasingly important role that immigrants can play in overcoming the demographic crisis and shoring up not only Social Security and Medicare, but the U.S. tax base and the U.S. workforce as well. He also writes:

Granting amnesty would increase illegal immigration…   To achieve immigration reform, the choices are not just amnesty or mass deportation. A strategy of “attrition through enforcement” would dramatically reduce the number of illegal immigrants over time. If the federal government enforced our immigration laws, especially those that target the employment of illegal workers, many illegal immigrants would simply return home because they can’t get jobs. Others would never come to the USA in the first place because they would not be hired

—Opposing view: Amnesty makes no sense, June 29, 2009

Wrong. The enforcement only approach toward solving our nation’s immigration problems is unrealistic and ineffective. Despite of the last administration’s beefed up enforcement tactics, there was only a small decrease in the undocumented population. Unless restriction-ists think that “attrition through economic recession” is the next big proposal, we need to come up with real practical solutions.

Immigration reform would help curtail illegal immigration. It would transform a disorderly immigration system that fosters illegality into a controlled and functioning legal immigration system that accurately responds to the economic and labor needs of our country. It would secure our borders by targeting enforcement resources to fighting crime, drugs and violence; it would restore fairness to our labor markets and it will uphold workers rights and values and traditions that unite all Americans.”

Melanie Nathan

By Melanie Nathan.
nathan@privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.com
www.privatecourts.com

Congressman Lamar Smith’s Biography (nice guy?)

A senior Member of the Texas Congressional Delegation, Congressman Lamar Smith has left his imprint on public policy through a variety of leadership positions and by advancing dozens of pieces of legislation.
Congressman Smith has been named one of the 100 most influential people in Washington by the National Journal and one of the nation’s top “influencers *and innovators” by Fast Company Magazine, which serves the technology industry.
In the last Congress, Congressman Smith was selected by his House colleagues as the Ranking Republican Member of the Judiciary Committee. As the top Republican, he helps shape committee policy on crime, immigration, intellectual property, and constitutional issues. Congressman Smith also serves on both the Homeland Security Committee, which considers legislation involving the war on terror, and the Science and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over renewable energy policies, environmental research, and America’s space program.  Representative Smith is a member of the House Republican Steering Committee, which appoints members and chairmen of committees.  He is a former Chairman of the Ethics Committee and a former member of the Budget Committee.
A fifth-generation Texan, Congressman Smith graduated from Yale University and Southern Methodist University School of Law. He and his wife, Beth, have an adult daughter and son.  The 21st Congressional District includes portions of Bexar and Travis Counties and all of Comal, Real, Kerr, Bandera, Kendall and Blanco Counties. More than 650,000 people live in the District.   Congressman Smith received the third highest number of votes in any contested congressional race in the last election. * not a real word.   Quoting from Lamar’s website.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Immigration reformers set sights on March 21 (trueslant.com)
• Coalition pushes for immigration reform (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• AZ may criminalize presence of illegal immigrants (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Image via Wikipedia

02/25/2010- by Natasia Langfelder

The New York State Senate passed the Family Health Care Decisions Act. The act has already passed the Assembly. The act that enables a loved one to make health care decisions when the patient is not able to do so. The bill places a same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partner, just like a spouse, ahead of a surviving child or parent in making these decisions. Governor Paterson, a staunch opponent for LGBT rights, has said he will sign the bill into law when it is sent to him.

This law is a boon for all New Yorkers, not simply the LGBT community. Until now, New York has been one of just two states where without a health care proxy, no one could make health care decisions when the patient lacked the ability to do so. This is a huge restriction for family members who need to make decisions about their sick loved ones who may be too disoriented or in too much pain to make decisions for themselves.

The Empire State Pride Agenda has released a statement concerning their role in the new bill:

Now, loved ones including same-sex spouses who were married out-of-state or fit the domestic partnership definition will have the ability to make these decisions. The domestic partnership definition is expansive, and includes those who may not be able to formally record their relationship because there is no domestic partner registry where they live. The Pride Agenda was instrumental in the redrafting of this domestic partner language to make sure it was uniform with all other domestic partner definitions in state law, such as that found in the hospital visitation bill that became law in 2004 and the control of bodily remains bill that became law in 2006.

Since same-sex couples still do not have the legal right to get married in New York State, the Pride Agenda has worked hard over the past few years to make sure LGBT families have protections in state law covering important end-of-life situations.  When the Governor signs this measure into the law, the three most common situations where blood relatives sometimes seek to exclude a LGBT partner—hospital visitation, medical decision-making and the ability to make decisions about the disposition of partner remains—can no longer occur in New York State.

“We thank the Assembly and Assemblymember Gottfried for leading this effort for so many years and are glad the Senate has finally passed this measure and the Governor will be signing it into law,” said Executive Director Alan van Capelle.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Big Day for Health Care in New York (timesunion.com)
• Empire State Pride Agenda Starts Anti-Monserrate Campaign (lezgetreal.com)
• The Pride Agenda On Hope For 2010 (joemygod.blogspot.com)

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.

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.

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….”

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:

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.

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.)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

“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)

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?

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)