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)

8/5/10-by Paula Brooks
Employees in Frederick County Maryland Public Schools will now receive health insurance for their same-sex domestic partners.

The Frederick County Teachers Association’s has announced its new contract will include health insurance benefits for the domestic partners of Frederick County Public Schools employees. The domestic partner benefits apply to same-sex couples only since Maryland does not permit them to marry.

“Opposite-sex couples have the option of marrying, so they are not included in this provision,” said Teachers Association’s President Gary Brennan. “Should Maryland pass a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, then we would revisit our plan.”

Frederick County is located in the western part of the of Maryland, bordering the southern border of Pennsylvania and the northeastern border of Virginia. It is a part of the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area.

New contract for teachers gives domestic partners benefits – The Frederick News-Post Online.

7/23/10-by Paula Brooks
Saying “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 federal judge has prevented the State of Arizona from implementing a state law that eliminated domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian state employees.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick today issued a preliminary injunction that will 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.

Representing ten Arizona state employees, including a lesbian Arizona Highway Patrol Officer, attorneys from Lambda Legal filed suit, arguing the change was not about saving money and it denied equal protection to gay and lesbian employees.

Sedwick agreed with the plaintiffs and wrote “If the state’s interest were simply saving money, the companion goal of promoting marriage would seem to do the opposite,. If the law succeeds in promoting marriage, the state will have to provide health benefits to more people, thus increasing the state’s expenditures.’’ Sedwick also noted nothing in the law actually can promote marriage, at least not among gays and lesbians, given Arizona’s prohibition against same-sex marriage.

A full trial in the matter is still scheduled 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 remedies by giving them a financial settlement later should they win the case.

“Like the loss of one’s job, the loss of one’s benefits does not carry merely monetary consequences,’’ Sedwick wrote. “It carries emotional damages and stress, which cannot be compensated by mere payment of back wages.’’

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge blocks AZ law on domestic partner benefits (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Seven Gay Couples Sue State of Montana For Equal Protections (towleroad.com)
• Arizona Domestic Partnership Case Goes To Court (lezgetreal.com)

Last September Arizona lawmakers 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.

At the time Brewer signed the order she said, “God has placed me in this powerful position as Arizona’s governor’ to help the state weather its troubles.”

Arizona Highway Patrol Officer Tracy Collins, the lead plaintiff in the case, told the court she relies on her work-provided health benefits to protect her partner of 11 years, Diana Forrest, and their family.

“For me it’s about equal pay for equal work,” Collins said. “I do a dangerous job, protecting the people of Arizona. I’m only asking for the same benefits my heterosexual colleagues receive.”

Collins, who previously served the country as a U.S. Air Force Reservist, and Forrest have raise two daughters and their nephew together. However, Forrest is not eligible for health benefits through her current job, and after she suffered a debilitating illness in 1999, the couple was forced to declare bankruptcy and is now forced to pay for needed treatment for Forrest out of pocket.

“Our clients got a fair hearing today,” said Tara Borelli, the Lambda Legal staff attorney who argued the case before Judge John W. Sedwick. “Judge Sedwick zeroed in on the heart of the case when he asked the attorney for the state how it promotes the state’s interest in marriage to deny insurance to gay employees who are not allowed to marry. The state’s attorney had no good answer.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• ACLU Issues Travel Warnings To Arizona (alan.com)
• U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Arizona Empolyer Sanction Case for Review (lezgetreal.com)
• The University of Arizona’s Middle Finger to Gov. Jan Brewer (gayrights.change.org)

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)

3/11/10-by Paula Brooks
In a 4-1 vote, Kissimmee, Florida City Commissioners have approved health and dental benefits for both same sex and opposite sex domestic partners of city employees.

The Kissimmee City Commission vote will also allow employees to take advantage of sick leave if the children of their domestic partners become ill.

Kissimmee City Commissioner Cheryl Grieb, said, “Benefits for domestic partners makes the city more competitive, when the economy bounces back and we’re looking to hire, this will be another feather in our caps so we can attract the best talent.” It was Grieb who lead the effort for the benefit extension.

With Tuesdays vote, Kissimmee became one of approximately two-dozen Florida governmental entities to extend health insurance benefits to all of its employees and their families

Florida Equality Field Director Joe Saunders said after the vote:

“I am so proud of Kissimmee City Commissioner Cheryl Grieb, who led this effort. Mallory Wells, our Public Policy Director and I have worked side-by-side with Commissioner Grieb for months and she has never backed down from pursuing what is right. Even when anti-gay forces threatened to protest, Commissioner Grieb wouldn’t be bullied. With her guidance and leadership we began the slow and tedious task of drumming up support on the commission and in the community.”
via Equality Florida Blog: Victory in Kissimmee!.

The policy will go into effect within the next 30 days and employees can then add their partners immediately, without waiting for the regular renewal period.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Victory In Cow Town (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Despite reputation, Kissimmee adds Domestic Partnership Protections (bilerico.com)
• Kissimmee, Florida Votes to Offer Benefits to Domestic Partners (towleroad.com)

“The Catholic Church teaches to pay a just wage. The compensation package you use to pay that just wage isn’t defined by the church,” Wuerl said during an interview with Washington Post writers and editors. “Employers have the right to frame compensation packages. . . . At the end of the day, Catholic Charities is here serving the needy, after the law has passed, in complete conformity with the law.” via washingtonpost.com.

Wuerl also said in yesterday’s WaPo interview that he was troubled by perceptions that the church is threatening to walk away from providing services to the poor, and is claiming it is the District of Columbia Council that is to blame for the Church cutting of health benefits to its new employees by not creating legal an exemption for faith-based social service groups. Wuerl also blamed The Washington Post and other media outlets for creating the bad press the Church has received over the issue and said they have unfairly portrayed.

“No one in the past said, ‘Because you’re motivated by love of the Gospel, you can’t perform social services.’ The question always was: ‘Did you serve everyone?’ And the answer was yes,” said Wuerl.

However, during the debate on the law in October, DC Archdiocese threatened to stop all social services,  including the closure of homeless shelters run by the Church, within the city should the marriage law go through without an exemption written into it that would give the Church the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment and adoption.

The bill, as passed, exempts churches from performing marriage ceremonies and renting out space to gays and lesbians should it conflict with their religious beliefs; however, it would still require all institutions abide by laws regarding benefits.

Roman Catholic Church doctrine says that LGBT’s are “disordered,” and the Vatican has said sexual expressions of affection between individuals of the same gender is “intrinsically evil.”

Last month, the archdiocese also ended its 80-year-old foster care and adoption program in the District rather then complying with the D.C. law, which forbids discrimination, based on sexual orientation and transferred its entire foster-care program — 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members — to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Catholic Charities had received $22 million per year in taxpayer money for those services.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Catholic Charities Drops Same-Sex Spouses From Benefits (huffingtonpost.com)
• D.C.’s Catholic Charities Dumps Family Insurance So They Don’t Have To Cover Same-Sex Partners (crooksandliars.com)
• ‘The Catholic Church teaches to pay a just wage. The compensation package you use to pay that just wage isn’t defined by the church’ (queerty.com)
• DC’s Catholic Charities Ends All Spousal Benefits So Gays Can’t Get Any (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Catholic Charities In Washington, D.C., Limits Spouses’ Health Insurance (medicalnewstoday.com)

“We looked at all the options and implications,” Edward J. Orzechowski, who presides over the D.C., operations of Catholic Charities, said to the Washington Post. “This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city’s new requirements and remain faithful to the church’s teaching.”

Because of this Catholic Charities says that it will no longer accept new enrollees of any sexual orientation in its family benefits package, rather than be compelled to offer coverage to gay or lesbian spouses in the wake of a new marriage equality ordinance.

Staff members at the charity were not given advance notice of the new policy and will not be able to add a spouse now because the most recent open enrollment period ended in November.

Said Orzechowski, “We do not anticipate any further changes whatsoever. Taking the action we have on foster care and spousal we feel has addressed everything the new law requires of us.”

Roman Catholic Church doctrine says that LGBT’s are “disordered,” and the Vatican has said sexual expressions of affection between individuals of the same gender is “intrinsically evil.”

However, The District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act of 1977 forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and the city’s same-sex marriage law, scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, requires all entities that serve the general public to provide services to LGBT couples, with exemptions allowed to religious groups for performing marriages or for those entities which do not provide services the public.

Last month the archdiocese also ended its 80-year-old foster care and adoption program in the District rather then complying with the D.C. law, which forbids discrimination, based on sexual orientation and transferred its entire foster-care program — 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members — to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Catholic Charities had received $22 million per year in taxpayer money for those services.

Related articles by Zemanta

• D.c. Archdiocese Halts Spousal Benefits (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• Catholic Charities Drops Same-Sex Spouses From Benefits (huffingtonpost.com)
• DC Archdiocese Ends Foster-Care Program Over Same-Sex Marriage Bill (lezgetreal.com)

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.

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)

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.

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.

DPBO moves to the House floor for consideration, and it’s up to us to make sure that it passes and protects the thousands of devoted, hard-working LGBT government employees.  Equal work demands equal compensation. We must speak up and remind Congress about this basic principle of fairness, to ensure that the domestic partners of government employees are able to receive their partners’ benefits, including health insurance and access to pensions.

President Obama is ready to sign DPBO into law but we need to make sure that it passes in Congress. Call your representative today and ask them to vote for equality and fairness. Ask them to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act.

Please take a minute and call your representative at (202) 224-3121. We must make sure that a House vote on DPBO will happen soon and that our representatives support DPBO. We need to stand together as a community and urge our representatives to fight for the rights of the domestic partners of federal employees.”

Notes from Melanie: -Thank you NCLR for keeping us informed and active.  

It is time now for LGBT groups and organizations to get married….(imagine!)  To work on the BIG ONE – Repeal of DOMA – it will solve many problems.  DOMA is a gift – because now it provides the opportunity for overt recognition- through its repeal, that might not otherwise have been there.  The recognition of our relationships, the cornerstone of who we are, may never otherwise have had this opportunity.

I know easier said than done, but imagine if we can pool our brains and set aside mutual resources as we pursue a “PINK-PRINT” ( as in blue print…) A comprehensive plan- to unify our movement. This can happen with a BIG conference of leaders and  defined and shared purpose… Full equality  is our civil right goal and must happen more urgently than fragmented piecemeal legislation will allow. Congressman Nadler has provided the tool, now lets all work it.    

Melanie Nathan.
www.visualcv.com/melnathan  nathan@privatecourts.com   www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com   www.privatecurts.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.

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)

In response to a lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha M. Coakley, the Justice Department argued yesterday in court papers that states allowing gay marriage can’t force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples.

The state of Massachusetts has challenged DOMA, saying it denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples that are nonetheless legally married under Massachusetts law. Around 16,000 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples, according to Coakley’s suit. Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments

Massachusetts officials also say the federal law requires them to disregard the legally valid same-sex marriages in their state in relation to carrying out federal Medicaid and Veterans’ benefits programs. Such a requirement, they say, violates state sovereignty and is unconstitutional.

“This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal,” says yesterdays Justice Department brief.

Nevertheless, Obama’s DOJ says, it has “long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute, as it does here.”

DOMA doesn’t regulate marriage, according to the administration, because they reason the states remain free to decide for themselves whether a same-sex couple can marry and how to spend state money on programs for married couples. But the DOJ brief also says Congress had a logical reason for restricting federal benefits to marriages between men and women.

“Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, and this Administration believes that Congress should do so. But its decision not to do so at this point is not irrational or unconstitutional,” the DOJ brief argues.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama administration again defends DOMA in court, says gays have no “fundamental right” to marriage benefits (americablog.com)
• Massachusetts To Challenge Constitutionality of DOMA (crooksandliars.com)
• Obama Lawyers: Massachusetts Can’t Force Us To Give a Damn About Gay Marriages (queerty.com)

 “A lot of folks use Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family. For Sarah Palin, it’s a great way to spread lies about health insurance reform.  A few months back, Palin took to Facebook to declare that health reform would create “death panels,” and drive private insurers out of business — and nonpartisan fact-check sites and the independent Congressional Budget Office debunked those lies.

But that hasn’t stopped Sarah Palin. She’s back with a new Facebook note claiming that reform will raise costs on families and drive up deficits. Unfortunately for her, even the conservative “Tax Foundation” says those claims are false. “

So we’re calling out Sarah Palin, and taking to Facebook to debunk her lies on the very same pages she’s using to spread them.  Call Sarah Palin at 202-747-1812″

No more lies – it is not going to work anymore….

Refs: http://www.democrats.org/page/content/callemoutpalin

 Melanie Nathan -Quoting from Democratic Party Webpage and e-mail. Spread the word good lezgetrealpeeps- especially on your facebook sites!

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

What follows is the video that Rep. Baldwin created:

To begin with, President Obama called for the reform of the insurance companies so that they would not be able to drop people from coverage or reduce benefits should someone get sick or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions. By closing the loopholes, President Obama hopes to avoid the major problems faced by people who are often dropped from coverage when they need it the most. The President largely pinned the blame for the problems with the insurance industry upon the Wall Street driven need for high profits at any costs. This mentality, though President Obama only alluded to it, ends up squeezing the wages of workers simply because their employers are also trying to maximize profits and often either cancel health coverage or pass along rate hikes to their employees.

President Obama also acknowledged that the ideas on the far ends of both sides- the single payer system and the total free market system devoid of employer interaction. He did state that both ideas had merit, but that they would mean completely tearing down what was already there and that would be far more destabilizing.

President Obama made clear that those who have their own health insurance would get to keep it. This is, of course, true, though it might result in employers cutting off their health insurance coverage in order to cut their own costs. The second big part of his plan is that he would have the government set up in four years a health insurance exchange which would allow for companies to directly compete for people’s health insurance dollars directly. Included in this would be the famed Public Option as one of the competitors. This exchange would include tax credits for those who need coverage but cannot afford it. Until this system goes into effect, there would be a short term catastrophic healthcare net for those who do not have insurance.

The President pledged that this would be a deficit neutral program through a combination of Medicare restructuring and savings as well as getting rid of subsidies to the insurance companies. Another factor in terms of paying for the public option was the payment of dues to the system. Basically, members who are part of the system would be helping to pay for the cost of the reforms.

The Congressional Budget Office is unsure if that is true citing numbers that says that it may, in fact, still raise the deficit. However, the rate at which the medical costs are adding to the deficit would slow down a lot under Obama’s plan rather than keep rocketing up as people are forced off onto public assistance.

Contempt for the President was shown by the Republicans in several ways. Television coverage of the speech showed the Republicans often drifting off, checking their blackberries and not paying attention. They also came out afterwards whining about how the President did not include their idea of scrapping reform all together and letting them dictate how it should happen, which is not at all. The GOP has been unwilling to engage in any kind of debate or exchange in public even though in private their ideas are being weighed and some used. The idea of a catastrophic healthcare net to help people without coverage is an idea that was floated by Senator John McCain, who President Obama singled out specifically.

The highlight of the night came when Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled out in the middle of the speech that President Obama was lying when he stated that this system would not cover illegal immigrants. While there are some criticisms from the Republicans that there are not enough ways to ensure that someone who is illegal will not get on the public option, the bill specifically excludes people who are not American citizens from getting health insurance. The Vermont Health Access Program does a lot of checking including a certified copy of a person’s birth certificate in order to make sure that someone who is applying to VHAP is a citizen of the country.

Representative Wilson showed his contempt for the President by disrupting his speech. What is worse, Rep. Wilson looked angry and even furious over this issue despite the fact that it was he and not the President who was distorting the truth on this particular point. Wilson comes from the party which bemoaned the perception that President Bill Clinton had disrespected the office of the President by having an affair, but this is beyond the pale. While Rep. Barney Frank did point out on the Rachel Maddow Show that the British Parliament does have a tradition of heckling, no one would dream of doing that during an official speech by the Queen or by the Prime Minister, and to flat out call someone a liar would be grounds for censure since that is considered crass and vulgar.

President Obama calmly and unflappably waited for Wilson’s outburst to subside and presented the calm demeanor of a person waiting for a child to stop having a tantrum.

For the LGBT Community, healthcare reform is one of those essentials. Most gay and lesbian families cannot afford coverage of any kind because their relationships are not considered to be valid in much of the country and insurance companies often automatically exclude them from coverage over that fact. For transpeople, the lack of insurance coverage regarding their condition is often a problem given the expense of the transition process and the perception among many insurance companies that it is entirely cosmetic.

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

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

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

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

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

The vote on the full bill was 69-62. The domestic partners provision was buried deep in a sprawling bill that spells out every two years how Minnesota’s state government, including the Legislature will operate.

The domestic partner benefits would begin in 2012.

Republicans including Representative Joyce Peppin of Rogers opposed
the bill and say the definition of domestic partner is loose enough so
that even friends of state employees could get the benefits.

As defined in the Minnesota bill a “Domestic partner” means a person
who has entered into a committed interdependent relationship with one
other adult, where the partners:

1.Are responsible for each other’s basic common welfare.
2.Share a common residence and intend to do so indefinitely.
3.Are not related by blood or adoption to an extent that would
prohibit marriage.

Democratic Representative Karen Clark of Minneapolis says it’s
belittling to compare gay relationships to casual friendships, and the
benefits are a hard-fought civil right.

Under Gov. Jesse Ventura, domestic partners of state employees had
benefits — for about 6 months. In 2003, the then Republican-led House
refused to ratify a labor contract that contained the benefits, and 85
families lost their health and life insurance benefits.

The American Civil Liberties Union-Nevada chapter told LGR Friday it is looking into its options and while not presently considering any lawsuits against the board, The ACLU also said things could change depending on any action taken at this weeks board of trustees meeting.

Said Lee Rowland, northern coordinator for the ACLU’s Nevada chapter to the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza … “To actively decide to turn back the clocks and take away these benefits… well it’s tragic… We wish the board will reconsider this and do the right thing.”

Chris Edelson, the national state legislative coordinator for the HRC here in Washington said to LGR in a during phone conversation on Thursday he also was disappointed with the board’s actions.

“It’s not a big cost issue, but it does matter to the employees losing the benifits,” he said. “Taking away these benefits in a time of economic crisis doesn’t make much sense.”

According to Incline Village General Improvement District financial research, the move to take back domestic partnership benefits will only save the district about $1,500 in expenses, the estimated amount the district would pay through the end of the fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2009. The district is looking to cut 5 percent from its $47 million budget for the next fiscal year.

In August 2008, not long after the district’s insurance provider allowed for domestic partner coverage, the board voted 3-2 to allow domestic partner coverage to its employees, however on the 25^th of February another vote by the board rescinded that decision.

The Incline Village General Improvement District, commonly referred to as IVGID, is a quasi-public agency established under Nevada Revised Statute, Chapter 318 and chartered to provide water, sewer, trash and recreation services for the communities of Incline Village and Crystal Bay, Nevada. It is governed by an elected Board of Trustees which, acting on behalf of the electorate, sets policy and determines strategies for the accomplishing its charter. Both Incline Village and Crystal Bay, Nevada are located within Washoe County, the entity that had the authority to create IVGID, and they are both unincorporated areas within Washoe County.

In a statement to LGR from Bill Horn, the district’s general manager, Horn declined comment and would only say that IVGID legal counsel Scott Brooke is looking at the issue and will assist the board in the review process at the March 11 meeting, Horn also said that the board isn’t required to take action on anything.

“Mr Brooke is going to review the action taken in August, the action taken last week and offer guidance or comment on the review process for a past agenda item…This doesn’t call for an action, Mr. Brooke will help the board through the review process.”

The board is scheduled to review the issue at a meeting Wednesday night at the request of board member Bea Epstein, who was on the losing side of the 3-2 vote.

In the vote last month, Incline Village Board Chairman Ted Fuller said he voted to rescind the benefits because of the need to cut costs and the potential for abuse, however a spokesperson for the districts insurance company said to LGR that they have never had an instance of someone trying to abuse the domestic partner portion of their policy.

IVGID Board member John Bohn says he voted against the benefits because he doesn’t think the north Lake Tahoe community supports them, but a source in Incline Village tells LGR that the board has received nearly 500 e-mails saying otherwise.

In a statement to the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, Trustee Gene Brockman had earlier explained his reasoning to eliminate benefits for domestic partners like this…

“I’m firmly convinced that’s the way to go, if there’s a legal marriage involved, then the spouse is due the benefits… I was opposed to this and I still am opposed to this.”

An editorial in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza last week condemned the decision by the three Incline Village General Improvement District trustees who voted to rescind the health insurance for domestic partners of district employees as a “step back for civil rights that set up an unbalanced playing field for employees of the taxpayer-funded organization.”

“While board members John Bohn, Gene Brockman and Ted Fuller have not said publicly they want to discriminate against domestic partners, they could clear the muddied air by doing the right thing: concede that domestic partners deserve equal treatment to their married counterparts, and find other budget items to cut,”

said the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza editorial.

Also in a letter to the editor of the Bonanza, Dr. Raymond Buscemi of San Francisco said last week…

In response to the Incline Village repeal of domestic partnership health benefits for partners of domestic employees, I am choosing not to visit Lake Tahoe on my four-day weekend vacation later this spring.

I am furious public officials in Tahoe think that equal rights for domestic partners are expendable and rationalize their bigotry by citing budget problems. If the Incline Village budget is so bad that they can no longer afford health benefits for domestic partners of district employees, why do you continue to extend these same benefits to married partners?

This is a choice that Incline Village has made to actively discriminate against domestic partners in committed relationships. I am encouraging everyone I know — as well as statewide and national GLBT rights groups — to boycott Lake Tahoe until these benefits are restored

http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20090304/NEWS/903039978/1021&title=Boycotting%20Incline%20Village

http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20090305/NEWS/903059995/1001/RSS

http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20090303/NEWS/903039992/1020&title=Bonanza%20editorial%20%20IVGID%20domestic%20partner%20vote%20is%20wrong

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Health-Care Crisis Hits Home (time.com)