Quick Hits

** The Las Vegas Sun has a quick list of bills that made it past the “Tuesday Deadline” for consideration in the Nevada Legislature.  Looking for bills that failed to meet the deadline? It’s here.  For information on other bills start with this link.

** Heads up: The Reno Gazette Journal will run an article on Sunday concerning the closing of the ATF office in Reno, NV, and how this has impacted the efforts to stop gun trafficking.  The Leahy-Collins amendment to curtail gun trafficking in the U.S. failed in the Senate on a 58-42 vote during which Republicans sustained their filibuster of the amendment. [TheHill] Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain the GOP filibuster. [Vote 99]

** Did we know? “Sixty-six Americans were killed in mass shootings by non-Muslims in 2012 alone, twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11.” [Politicususa] And, did we know that the NRA and Conservatives in Congress have made it more difficult to track or monitor non-Muslim extremists in this country since 2001?  Crooks and Liars posts a list of recent “eliminationist” attacks.

** It’s been a bad week for the Austerians.  First, comedian Stephen Colbert launched a devastating critique on the economic theorists.  Additionally, many others have piled on.  There’s Austerity as Flim-Flam.   There’s Who is Defending Austerity Now?  There’s rethinking austerity.   There’s the EU calling for diminishing austerian policies.  And, for good measure, there’s the choking effects of austerity policies in the UK.  Thus the House GOP budget plan is based on a seriously flawed study.

** What economic recovery? For 7% of this country it’s been a nice rebound, for the remaining 93% not so much.

“During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.” [PewResearch]

Graph it out and it looks like this:

** Watch H.R. 1549 carefully. It would “Give sick people without insurance temporary access to crappy private plans at exorbitant rates as part of a strategy aimed at pulling the rug out from under them entirely at the end of the year, all the while mewling about one’s concern for sick people.” [WashMon]  When astro-turf organizations like Freedom Works and AMAC line up for something it’s time to head the other direction.  The best description for this legislation is “ruse and trap.”

** Republicans Behaving Badly.  Let’s start with the Tennessee legislator who thinks pressure cooker bombs are humorous.  Followed, of course, by his non-apology-apology.  His rationale is that advocates of sensible gun safety legislation should have stayed quiet after Newtown…  Then there’s the Conservative group that photo-shopped ethnic minority people from its mailer about voting restrictions.  And who could have missed GOP behemoth, Rush Limbaugh, comparing the Boston bombers to Trayvon Martin?  That Arkansas legislator who called for using “2nd Amendment” solutions to Medicaid expansion, “Most likely won’t kill lawmakers who support Medicaid expansion.”  Most likely? How nice.

** Lady’s Days:  Ann Coulter, scourge of all operative grey cells residing in every cerebral cortex, calls for women to to prosecuted for wearing the hijab.  So, do we tell nuns to refrain from wearing their habits?  A Washington state pastor tells women to submit to their husbands and not nag “like Chinese water torture.”  The adherents of the Church of Perpetual Intolerance (aka the Family Research Council) are trying to convince us that “many” experts believe Plan B contraceptives should not be available over the counter — there are a few critics, and those critiques tend to be based on religiosity not science.  Rebuffed last year, Ohio Republicans are taking another swipe at funding for Planned Parenthood women’s health care services in that state.

Amodei, tired of drama, introduces his own theatricality

Nevada’s entrant in the Karl Rove Look Alike Contest, Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) has some Rovian rhetoric for readers of the Elko Daily Free Press:

“The Republican Party is making some changes, both internally and externally, following the re-election of President Barack  Obama, according to Nevada GOP leaders at the Elko County Lincoln Day Dinner Friday night.

“I am tired of the drama,” U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei told an audience in the Red Lion Inn & Casino. “I’m full up on drama. Drama doesn’t get anything done.”

The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.

“This was a good start of demonstrating to the president, to the people in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi that the Republicans are capable of putting together 218-plus votes to play some serious ball on getting things started to turn the budget around.”

Where to begin?  Why not start with the Republican Party is making changes statement? Really?  So, what bills were introduced by Republicans in the U.S. Congress as the 113th session begins which might lead us to believe anything has changed, or is changing?

The Return of the Culture Warriors

Representative Paul Ryan (R-Palinistan) introduced a Fetus-Personhood bill.  The bill would give full citizenship rights to one celled human embryos, before they are even planted securely in the uterus. Nothing says change like introducing 8 anti-abortion bills co-sponsored by Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) in the 112th Congress, and then stepping right back into the ranks for the next round of the War on Women.  Nor is Representative Ryan alone.

Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 23, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, in which life begins at “fertilization,” and Representatives Diane Black (R-TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have H.R. 217 and H.R. 61 respectively forbidding women’s health grants to any organization which provides abortions — take that Planned Parenthood, 3% of whose funds assist in pregnancy termination.l [GovTrack]  The Party which was interested in 44 bills on abortion in the 112th Congress hasn’t stopped participating in the Culture Wars even though the topic of is great interest to only 18% of the American public.  [Pew]

The Repealer’s Redux

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) was pleased to introduce the first bill for the 113th — yet another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  There were 33 votes in the House of Representatives to repeal the ACA after the Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality; and, here they go again.  A chart from last summer  illustrates how the 112th spent its time –

The Debt Debaclers

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that: “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.”   True enough, the deficit didn’t matter to the electorate in 2004 — in large part because it wasn’t presented as an all consuming terrifying hideously large totally unacceptable DEBT to the voters.   It’s interesting that the deficit/debt wasn’t a huge ongoing issue because the trends in deficit spending (related to two wars + one nasty recession) by 2008/2013 look like this when graphed out:

Thus we have the ironic situation in which the party which controlled the White House while the deficit spending was trending upward is vilifying the party controlling the White House while the deficit spending trend is headed downward.   Representative Amodei has evidently joined the Debt Debaclers.

If Representative Amodei is really serious about “turning the budget around,” then is he asking for a return to the Bush Administration’s policies which saw an increase in deficit spending trends? Surely not.

Smoke, Mirrors, Tricks, and Gimmicks

“The recent adoption of the “No Budget, No Pay” Act by the U.S. House of Representatives is an example of progressing Republican action, he said.”  The 285-144 vote on H.R. 325 to which Rep. Amodei is referring, doesn’t indicate much of anything — especially a consistent GOP intention to “progressing Republican action” — because a quick look at the roll call vote informs us that such disparate Representatives as Wasserman-Schultz and Joe Heck (NV) both voted against it.  While Rep. Amodei voted in favor of the bill along side Rep. Langevin (D-RI).  Meanwhile, back at the Constitution, there’s this little problem noted by the folks at the Christian Science Monitor about the 27th Amendment:

“Congressional pay is the 27th’s subject. Among other things, it says, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of the Representatives shall have intervened.”

Oops! We understand that the amendment was intended to prevent fat self provided pay increases, but the language of the amendment applies to pay cuts as well.  “Varying the compensation” means changing the compensation, and that includes Down as well as Up.   If Representative Amodei tires of “drama” then this piece of theatricality should draw boos rather than his applause.

The MRA

However, Representative Amodei is not above a bit of theater himself, like “returning” $155,000 in unspent office funds to the Treasury to help reduce the debt.  [EDFP]  This is a nice gesture, but that’s all it is.  If all 435 members of Congress returned $155,000 the Treasury would garner some $67,425,000.  This assumes that all members of Congress have 10% of their office budgets unspent.  These numbers, presumably apply to what is known in Washington-Speak as the MRA, or Member’s Representational Allowance.

Representative Amodei’s gesture would look better had not the MRA been declining already.

The MRA is funded in the House “Salaries and Expenses” account in the annual legislative branch appropriations bills. This account has decreased in recent years, from $660.0 million in FY2010, to $573.9 million in FY2012.  The total amount of each Member’s 2012 Representational Allowance is 88.92% of the amount  authorized in 2010. This is in accordance with a 5% reduction to the 2010 authorization  mandated in House Resolution 22, agreed to on January 6, 2011, and a 6.4% reduction to the 2011 authorization as reflected in H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. The 2012 allowances range from $1,270,129 to $1,564,613, with an average of $1,353,205.  [CBO pdf]

A person might also be less skeptical if it were know why Rep. Amodei’s office expenses were 10% lower than the estimated MRA?

“The MRA may be used for official expenses including, for example, staff, travel, mail, office equipment, district office rental, stationery, and other office supplies.”  [CBO pdf]

Representative Amodei could have been a “job creator” with that unspent 10%.  A constituent services assistant earns about $32,000 per year, a constituent services representative about $40,000.   A Congressional staff assistant generally earns about $30,000 annually.  However, if Representative Amodei isn’t convinced that beefing up constituency services is necessary, then it’s probably a good thing to return the money.

In the mean time, if Representative Amodei is tired of the Drama in D.C. then it might be a good thing if such staff has he has hired would look seriously at the spending trends in the federal government over the past four years.  Further, he could be taking a more analytical look at the components of the current level of indebtedness and seek to reduce Defense Department spending (some 40% of all discretionary spending)  for non-essential items and to calculate the additional revenue which might accrue from passage of the American Jobs Act?

That wouldn’t be as histrionic, but it might indeed be more helpful.

No one could be that stupid? Could they? Updated

There are two notions, both dangerous, lurking in the 2012 election.  They are as alive and well in Nevada as they are in Florida, or any other “swing” state. They are both wrong.

The first is that the Republicans really truly wouldn’t think of doing something so idiotic as to actually transform the Medicare program from a defined benefit framework to a “coupon care” program in which seniors would have to beat through marketing bushes to find health insurance corporations willing to sell them policies.

The Medicare Malaise

Haven’t we been listening?  Republican have been trying to stop or privatize the Medicare program since 1964. [Politifact]  They called it “socialized medicine” then and they are still calling it “socialized medicine” now.  Fast forward to 2012 — the Ryan Budget Plan first called for transforming the Medicare program to a voucher (premium support) plan and later changed the plan to allow people to opt for the traditional program.

Tweaking the plans allows the GOP to rebuff charges that they are “eliminating” the Medicare program — however, what’s left after a significant number might opt for private insurance plans would be the least healthy and wealthy among us, making the traditional program all but unsustainable.

Secondly, the “option” idea so beloved by the Republicans is already available under the Medicare Advantage banner.  An elderly person can, and many do, purchase highly profitable  Medicare Advantage policies from private health insurance corporations.  By adopting the Romney/Ryan scheme the “choice” essentially moves from being able to chose between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans to being a “choice” between private health insurance corporation policy offerings in the long run.  The Romney/Ryan plan offers current seniors their choice between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage-like policies — but makes the choice much less likely and more expensive for those soon to reach retirement age.

Every election since 1964 has contained some Medicare element incorporated into the dialogue and the conversations have remained almost identical.  Medicare is either “socialized medicine,” or it’s a “government take over;” what hasn’t changed is the GOP intention to transform it into a so-called “free market” program to the benefit of health insurance corporations and their Wall Street allies.   This isn’t a line of attack they dreamed up for the 2012 elections. It IS the expressed intent of a party which appears to have fewer and fewer moderate members each election cycle.   Moderates who might have been counted upon to keep the transformation of Medicare at bay have been losing ground in the GOP.  The extremists who believe the Free Market Fairy will be able to sprinkle enough dust to justify privatization are the ones at the helm.

The extremists lead us to the second topic about which we should be listening more closely.

Are you listening ladies?

No one would be dumb enough to really call for a Personhood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — would they?  They certainly would.  No one in this day and age would be arguing about “legitimate” rapes? Surely not. Oh, yes they are.

A Rape Is A Rape — Or is it?

“Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, said in a debate on Tuesday that “even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” [NBC]

“Trying to distance himself from the “legitimate rape” comment that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R) stirred up further controversy by comparing a pregnancy caused by rape to “having a baby out of wedlock.”  [HuffPo]

“Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.”  [OTB]

Missouri Senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s classic: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” [Atl]

One major candidate making a fool of himself is an outlier, two is unfortunate, three is a trend — and four is an indicator that these candidates, all male and all Republican, have little regard for women’s health, and less regard for women’s choices.  This isn’t a recent bloom of this particularly nasty philosophical fungus.  Let’s return to October 2009.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) sought to insert an amendment into the Defense Appropriation Act to prevent the government from doing business with contractors who would not allow employees to take rape cases to court 30 — yes, THIRTY — U.S. Senators voted No. [Sen 308]

Alexander (R-TN)  Barrasso (R-WY)  Bond (R-MO)  Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)  Burr (R-NC)  Chambliss (R-GA)  Coburn (R-OK)  Cochran (R-MS)  Corker (R-TN)  Cornyn (R-TX)  Crapo (R-ID)  DeMint (R-SC)  Ensign (R-NV)  Enzi (R-WY)  Graham (R-SC)  Gregg (R-NH)  Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)  Johanns (R-NE)  Kyl (R-AZ)  McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)  Risch (R-ID)  Roberts (R-KS)  Sessions (R-AL)  Shelby (R-AL)  Thune (R-SD)  Vitter (R-LA)  Wicker (R-MS)

What does it say about the Republican Party when four of its candidates for major offices in 2012 and thirty of its Senators in 2009 have medieval (or earlier) political stances on rape?  *The Franken Amendment passed and was signed into law — no thanks to the Dirty Thirty who opposed it.

What does it say about a political party when it controls the House of Representatives and passes 55 bills with topics running the gamut from de-funding Planned Parenthood to restricting abortion rights to weakening domestic violence provisions?  [TPM]

What does it say about a political party when its standard bearer’s campaign refused comment on the House Energy & Commerce minority report on “anti-women” bills was released in September?  Or, when its standard bearer can’t be relied upon to answer even a simple question about support or opposition to legislation calling for equal pay for equal work?

Sometimes the obvious is the honest.  Voting for the Republican candidates in 2012 is hazardous to women’s health — if they are elderly, or approaching retirement age and expect Medicare to be there for them.   It is just as hazardous if the woman in question is young and facing the prospect of diminished health care services like the loss of affordable treatment at Planned Parenthood clinics, or  if Republicans can repeal Obamacare and its provisions for cancer screenings.   It is truly hazardous to the health of women of child bearing age who having been raped must assume the cost of taking the pregnancy to term, and then bear the responsibility for raising the child — or the trauma of both the rape and the act of releasing the child for adoption.

Did it occur to the Republican candidates, who so easily dismiss the controversy about ill-informed or downright brutal remarks on rape and its potential consequences by saying they were “misunderstood,” that they’ve yet to offer any legislation dealing with the economic burden placed on the women under consideration?  Much less the social, and psychological burdens which must be carried for a lifetime?

If the comments made during this campaign season by major Republican candidates, and the actions of Republicans in the Senate, and the actions of the House of Representatives during the 112th Congress, aren’t enough to convince any sentient person that the GOP means what it says — there isn’t much more to speak of — until they actually do it.  And, they’re getting closer each election.

We’d all be much better off if this stops before we say — “I didn’t  think they’d really DO it.”

UPDATE: Think Progress helpfully adds more names to the roster of Republican candidates who share these antiquated and uninformed views:  Rep. Steve King, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, CT Senatorial Candidate Linda McMahon, PA Senatorial Candidate Tom Smith, WI State Rep. Roger Rivard, and OH State Rep. Jim Buchy.

See also: Sally Kohn, Salon, August 24, 2012.

Who Raised These Boys? Update

Just when I’d recovered from reading about the Georgia Republican state representative who compared women to cows and pigs [TP] and advocated a bill forbidding the termination of a pregnancy in which the fetus was no longer viable (stillborn), then I find there is Tennessee House Bill 3808, which would publicize the names of women who have pregnancies terminated.   This after, the Republican controlled Arizona Legislature considered a bill to strip all funding from Planned Parenthood because 3% of the organization’s services involve abortion. [TP] Never mind that Texas has forfeited Medicaid funding for women’s health care because Planned Parenthood does offer pregnancy termination. [TP]  No matter that 97% of what the organization does for 130,000 low income women in the Lone Star State doesn’t involve abortion. A Pennsylvania governor told women to “close their eyes” if they didn’t like an invasive ultrasound procedure for which they had not given consent.   Virginia made transvaginal ultrasound a nationally recognized term. But wait please, it does get worse.

There’s Idaho State Senator Chuck Winder (R-Boise) with this commentary:

In his closing debate in favor of SB 1387, Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, said, “This bill does not require a trans-vaginal exam. … It leaves that up to the patient and the physician to make that determination.” He said, “Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”

Really?  Was it “Truly caused by a rape?”  As if a woman doesn’t know when sexual intercourse isn’t consensual?  As in, maybe “she asked for it?”  As if she needs to reveal intimate information about “her marriage” to a physician?  Would it matter if “hubby liked it rough?”  Would it matter if she was wearing something “provocative?”  How much information should the doctor require in order to determine if a rape has occurred? The Idaho ultrasound bill may indeed pass: “The state Senate voted 23 to 12 to pass the controversial ultrasound bill on Monday, with all seven Democrats and five Republicans against it. The Republican-controlled House is also expected to pass the measure.” [HuffPo]

UPDATE: And now we have an Alaska male legislator rattling on about how if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy she must get the written permission from the father. [TP]

To call all these instances a “War on Women” may be too trite or convenient, this may not be a “war” other than in terms of a consistent assault by an organized force on an identified enemy — what this does appear to be is an elevation of some of the rather more base and degrading attitudes toward women into statute.  Who espouses views of women so debased as to believe that a woman’s word that she has been raped can be discounted in a doctor’s office?  Who believes that a woman’s health might not be impaired if she is required to carry a dead fetus to term?  Who believes that it is acceptable to deprive a man of his daughter, a husband of his wife, a brother of his sister, or a child of its mother just to preserve the potential life of a fetus?

I do, and will, accept the “pro-life” contention that every life is precious. However, until the movement demands more support for social services to assist families in need, more support for the institutions which tend to the care and nurturing of children, more support for a living wage for every American worker so children can be properly cared for, more support for public schools and the children enrolled in them, and more support for family planning and sex education; and, when those demands are as vocal, strident, and loud, as the anti-abortion/contraception voices among us now — maybe then I’ll believe they are sincere.  Until then, I reserve the right to ask, “Who raises boys like that?”

You Have My Condolences, but she was only your daughter?

It used to be really dangerous to be a woman.  It used to be even more dangerous to be a low-income woman.  The decrease in maternal mortality rates is a fairly modern thing, as the following graph of maternal mortality rates  illustrates:

The data on maternal mortality is complicated by the way statistics are collected and recorded, is the mortality the result of a complicated pregnancy (one in which the woman dies within 42 days of delivery)? Or, is it the result of a direct obstetric problem (omissions, or incorrect treatment)? Or, should the death be classified as an indirect obstetric death, one in which existing conditions or diseases were aggravated by the pregnancy? However the mortalities were classified, the results were the same.

Significant improvements in women’s health care since the 1930s have reduced the maternal mortality rates such that the topic doesn’t often appear in common discourse in developed nations.

One study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition posited reasons for the decline in mortality rates:

“The sudden and dramatic decline in maternal mortality rates, which occurred after 1937, took place in all developed countries and eliminated the previously wide country-level differences in national mortality rates. The main factors that led to this decline seem to have been successive improvements in maternal care rather than higher standards of living. As a result of this decline in maternal mortality in developed countries, there is now no mortality for which there is a greater disparity between the developed and the developing world than the disparity in maternal mortality rates.” [Am.Jrnl Clinical Nutrition] (emphasis added)

Thus, it’s not just that we are “eating better,” the reduction in maternal mortality rates is connected to “successive improvements in maternal care.”  Cavalierly dismissing the inability to access general and maternal health care for women by saying, “There are other clinics…,” (yes, IF they are located in places where women need them, and IF they are affordable) or “Title X will cover the expenses…” (yes, if Title X funds are still available after all the Republican presidential candidates have promised to cut them), is an invitation to reverse the trends in those successive improvements which reduced maternal mortality rates in the first place.

Black Bordered Invitations

The Republicans at the state and federal level are doing their best to insure that the maternal mortality trend reduction is reversed.  Some samples:

“The Arizona Senate has approved a bill that would shield doctors and others from so-called “wrongful birth” lawsuits. Those are lawsuits that can arise if physicians don’t inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion. The Senate’s 20-9 vote Tuesday sends the bill to the state House.” [AZCapTimes]

What’s wrong with this picture?  Are Arizona Republicans saying that if there is a condition or disease present during a pregnancy which could result in an “indirect obstetric death” it is allowable for a physician to withhold the information in order to avoid a possible decision to terminate the pregnancy?  And, the grieving husband will have no recourse to the courts if an obstetrician fails to tell the family a pregnancy could be fatal?

Is a physician supposed to ignore the potential complications related to hypertension and heart disease, or pituitary or adrenal gland problems which could be fatal, all in the interest of encouraging the family to carry the pregnancy to term?  What happened to “first, do no harm?”

Then there was New Hampshire 2011:

“In June, the state of New Hampshire exercised its right to decline renewal of a $1.8 million contract with Planned Parenthood of New England, which operates clinics – including those where abortions are performed – in the state,” the leader of the pro-life political group said. “It is well within the purview of the New Hampshire state government to decide not to continue to subsidize America’s abortion giant with taxpayer dollars.” [LifeNews]

The fact that only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s total services involve abortion procedures seems to have escaped them. [PP]  This would be the state in which approximately 64,500 women of child bearing age and who have maximum incomes of 250% poverty line level need help obtaining contraceptive medication.  This would also be the state in which the abortion rate was well below the national average.  And, this would also be the state in which unintended pregnancies cost the state and federal government about $27 million. [Guttmacher]

Deep in the heartlessness of Texas. Governor Rick “I can’t remember the third thing” Perry suddenly remembered that if he refused federal funding for women’s health services there was going to be a major hole in money for those “successive improvements in maternal care.”

“The health program provides care to about 130,000 low-income women statewide. It had been expected to close next week, when Texas begins enforcing a law passed last summer that bars state funding from clinics affiliated with abortion providers. The Obama administration has said it will stop funding the program because federal law requires women to be able to choose any qualified clinic. Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier countered that Texas has the right under federal law to determine qualified providers in the program.” [WaPo]

That’s a Texas Tall Order to fill a $40 million program without the usual 90% coming from the federal government.  It’s going to be a taller order since low income women tend to use Planned Parenthood Clinics as a source of health services (cancer screenings, contraception, etc.)  The “They Can Just Go Somewhere Else” argument falls apart quickly when we look at where women in Texas go to find affordable contraceptive prescriptions.

So, according to the Guttmacher Institute 78,490 women in Texas needed help from Planned Parenthood for contraceptive services, and now the Governor believes the state can “fund the gap?”  Did the Governor miss the part wherein if the services graphed above were NOT available Texas’s teen pregnancy rate would be 13% higher than it is now? [Guttmacher] It may well take more than a ten gallon hat to fill this void in women’s health care services in the Lone Star State, or “Ladies don’t let your daughters grow up and marry Cowboys…”  It will be hazardous to their health.

Just Peachy!  Female members of the Georgia Legislature walked out in protest.

“The Senate voted, 33 to 18, to prohibit state employees from using their state health benefits to pay for abortions.

And the Senate decided, by a vote of 38 to 15, that employees of private religious institutions have no right to demand that their insurance policies pay for contraceptives, as the Obama Administration wants to require.” [WXIA, C&L]

A statute enacted in 1999 requiring coverage for contraception hadn’t been controversial in the Peach State until now.   So, imagine a female employee of the state of Georgia faced with a pregnancy that could cost her very life, and note that according to this legislation  she cannot use state health benefits to terminate the pregnancy?  Additionally, even if the federal government requires that the insurance corporation which underwrites the health benefits cover contraception, a female state employee in Georgia can’t even ask for it? This carries “Let ‘em die” to an entirely new depth.

At some point the Kipling Men who are promoting these, and other, egregious plans to reverse the improvements in women’s health made since the Depression Era, are going to electorally discover the truth in Kipling’s poem:

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the others tale -
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

War Games: Real and Imagined

The NV Rural Democratic Caucus picked up the sounds of Neo-Cons on the March. The Stove-Pipers seem desperate to have another WAR, with someone, anyone, please…”We’ll only look strong if we’re bombing someone.” Perpetual Warmonger John Bolton thinks it’s in our best interest to get directly involved in a conflict between Iran and Israel (assuming, of course, that Israel and Iran want to get into an armed conflict). [MMFA] Yesterday Faux News got its knickers in a twist over U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Rice because of insufficient bellicosity. [Crooks & Liars]

The interesting thing is, that in my experience, the same people who vociferously call for military intervention also tend to be the ones with the least actual military experience. The veterans in my circle of acquaintance are concerned that the U.S intervene directly only after all diplomatic efforts have failed, only after the aims of the operation are clear and precise, and only after due diligence has been performed in which the costs and the casualties are stringently contrasted to the rewards and objectives. They truly understand that war is not a board game like Risk, or an exciting version of a  video game — real people with real families are placed in real peril.

We use the term “war” too often. Perhaps part of the problem evidenced by the free and easy way the word is tossed around is that we use it too often in inappropriate ways.  For example, the “war on drugs” merely describes a system of law enforcement operations designed to reduce domestic consumption and to arrest, try, and convict those apprehended selling and using controlled substances.  For all the governmental agency coordination involved, this isn’t and never has been a real war.

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war on poverty, but that too was simply a description of coordinated domestic government programs designed to ameliorate the most severe effects of poverty, such as illness, homelessness, and hunger. People die in wars, the concept of Medicare was that life would be prolonged.  However, the war motif makes issues sound every so much more grand.  Thus now we have all manner of little “wars.”

Right wing pundits created a “War On Christmas.” They creatively imagined that retailers wishing their customers “happy holidays” was part of an overarching  effort to secularize the Christmas season.  Not that this “war” stopped the American public from spending some $976 million on real trees, and another $530 million on artificial trees in 2010. [NCTA]  Nor does this “war” tend to depress church attendance during the holiday season (Advent to Christmas).  In fact, for most churches the question is how to get the holiday Christians to show up for more than just the Christmas and Easter services. [TCP]  The real battle appears to be how to get the knaves in the naves when it isn’t Christmas. The artificial fight is about something else entirely.  Sometimes it almost appears as a form of “badge earning” in order to create a specific cultural identity. Consider the following:

“The reason the War on Christmas is being fought isn’t to suppress the private practice of Christianity (at least not yet!). Rather, the intent is to destroy the link between America’s majority religion and its culture. [...] Americans have a right to the American holiday of Christmas. It is part of who we are… even though some of us are not Christian. It’s time for us to stand up and reclaim it from the small majority who are trying to take it away from us!” [TWOC]

If this proposition seems not to make any sense, it’s probably because it doesn’t. However, it does hint at the mind-set that informs other culture wars. The author assumes (1) the validity of the “Christian America” perspective, and further assumes (2) that to admit diversity is to sanction tolerance. Indeed, those who do practice intolerance may be justified in believing themselves to be under attack.

How alarming it must be for the intolerant to be told they must allow a mosque or synagogue in their community?  We’ve seen a truly and remarkably preposterous “battle” over a mosque at Ground Zero, which wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t at Ground Zero. [USnews] That newspapers and magazines reported that it wasn’t a mosque and it wasn’t at Ground Zero was perceived in some quarters as a “typical liberal media” attack. These would be the quarters in which any information which does not support and confirm one’s personal perspectives is unwelcome. But, there are other “battles” to be fought.

As of March 2011 at least a dozen state legislatures saw the introduction of legislation to “ban” Sharia law.  One piece of legislation was remarkably fact-free: “A Tennessee bill, S.B. 1028, explicitly defined Sharia law as a “legal-political-military doctrine and system.” It cited the “threat of terrorism” and concern about “the replacement of America’s constitutional republic” by Islamic law.” [EthicsDaily] [ThinkProgress]  Members of the Jewish faith are rightly concerned by this xenophobic atmosphere, and noticed its implications for Judaism:

“If the state legislative initiatives targeting sharia are successful, they would gut a central tenet of American Jewish religious communal life: The ability under U.S. law to resolve differences according to halachah, or Jewish religious law.” More specifically: “A number of recent beit  din arbitrations that were taken by litigants to civil courts — on whether a batch of etrogim met kosher standards; on whether a teacher at a yeshiva was rightfully dismissed; and on the ownership of Torah scrolls — would have no standing under the proposed laws.” [JTA]

Halachah, it would seem, would be just another casualty of the Culture Wars. (In case you were wondering, “etrogim” is a citrus fruit native to Israel.) It is not that the Culture Warriors don’t have some real opposition.

Anti-choice advocates convinced AT&T to cut its charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood back in 1990. Had the Susan G. Komen Foundation leadership paid attention to what happened next they may not have been so quick to announce their decision to cut their funding for the women’s health organization.  [TPM]  All that the SGK Foundation will say for now is that it may consider funding women’s health programs related to Planned Parenthood, but this is no guarantee the organization will actually reverse its recent stand in the Culture Warrior battles. The “war” moves on to contraception.

The Obama Administration announced that health insurance companies would have to cover expenses for contraceptive prescriptions in employer paid health plans.  Catholic bishops moved to earn their badges, but may have missed the target.

This particular battle in the Culture War seems not to have all that many willing participants. Those who are willing to serve in this artificial conflict appear to be among the 26.3% of the population who constitute the white evangelical category.  While their numbers nationwide may be low, their grip on the Republican Party is solid, and this is problematic:

“What’s an even bigger shame is that Republican leaders see the aforementioned poll numbers and continue to court white evangelicals, which means the most bigoted among that pious population have no incentive to change their discriminatory ways, and our nation’s ideals, including inclusion, diversity and religious freedom, will continue to be eroded for years to come.” [D&T]

There’s another iceberg in the water as well.  By assuming the defensive positions sought by those white evangelicals who are motivated by intolerance, fearful of change, and cling to a notion of “white nationalism.” the Party is in peril of shrinking its adherents to a core which is antithetical to the very mainstream it purports to represent.

Meanwhile, American continues to be part of the continent to which Estevanico of Azamor came in 1527, becoming one of the first Muslims to visit Florida, and the first mosque was probably built by Albanian immigrant followers of Islam in Maine in 1915. The first synagogue was dedicated before the Declaration of Independence was written. [Touro] And, the self same country in which Confederate General William Dorsey Pender, advised in 1862 that his wife was unexpectedly pregnant, told her the fetus was ‘God’s will, but sent along a packet of pills the company surgeon was certain would “relieve her.” [London]

There are wars and there are games. The two should not be confused.

Morning Roundup

Well now, THAT was underwhelming.  The Gleaner crunches numbers for the ballyhooed Caucus. The Nevada Progressive takes a closer look.  The Sin City Siren adds 2 shiny cents.  The Nevada GOP is looking at the possibility we might want a primary instead of the caucus format. [LV Sun] Here are some unsolicited handy hints: (1) There will be larger turnouts for non-incumbent races; (2) If larger turnouts are expected — phone it in — literally.  The Democrats have this down, call it in, then mail the ballots.  There may be issues, but the process doesn’t leave the press hanging, and jokes don’t make the rounds about “the score of the Super Bowl will be available before the caucus results are counted.”  Just sayin’.

Nevada won’t be joining the proposed settlement of foreclosure issues with major banks and bank holding companies.  Nevada Secretary of State Catherine Cortez Masto has 38 questions about the deal, “My office is continuing to review the intricate draft settlement terms and advocating for improvements to address Nevada’s needs,” Masto said. “Receipt of important state specific information is necessary to make our determination and my office is still in discussions regarding that information.” [RenoGJ] The deal would preclude the continuation of civil actions, but would NOT halt criminal prosecutions for fraudulent or deceptive practices.

Were I handing out more political advice to the GOP, I don’t think I’d advise that the House Republicans take another swipe at privatizing Medicare.  However, that certainly looks like what they are doing. [TPMDC]

Wondering what all the Saul Alinsky flap is all about? Salon explains.  A left leaning community action advocate, who had precious little patience with elected officials of any stripe, has morphed into the Bogey Man for the radical right.  The truth is a bit more dull. However, that won’t stop the radical right from attempting to make the case that President Obama is a “native born foreign Muslim Christian radical socialist communist fascist-rightist leftist community organizer with ties to Alinsky, Reverend Wright, and anyone else who sounds scary.”  Meanwhile, The Birthers Are Back.

Then there are the moans and wails of the Wall Street Bankers: “Self-pitying bankers lament a bygone era of fat bonuses and easy money” as described in Salon.com.

We might also wonder why the Romney campaign has pocketed SuperPac money from Melaleuca (Idaho) which has a history of run ins with regulators?  [MotherJones] And, has hired Larry McCarthy (Willie Horton Ad) as an adviser? [New Yorker]  And, this line from Rolling Stone: “How the GOP race became a showdown between a walking OCD diagnosis and a flatulent serial adulterer.”

The commentary on the actions of the Susan G. Komen Foundation don’t seem to be over quite yet. Slate asks, “What does the SGK actually do?”  Julian Brookes looks over the U-Turn.  Note: The U-Turn wasn’t quite complete as the organization says “there remains some doubt about the restoration of Planned Parenthood funding…”   There’s another, more precise explanation herein:

“Komen says only that it will fund “existing grants”—that means, it will fund grants it has already formally agreed to make. Well, it is legally required to do that, isn’t it? It can’t rescind a grant on the basis of a rule made after the grant was offered. The original banning always referred to the future, and as to that, Komen says only that PP can apply for funding, not that Komen will continue to make grants to it as it has for many years. Nothing prevents Komen from altering its criteria in ways designed to exclude PP—for example, as Brinker suggested to Mitchell, deciding against funding breast care outside of mammogram centers.”

 

Coffee, Papers, and Blogs

** The northern Nevada chapter of the Komen Foundation says it’s looking for a new site for the 14th Race for the Cure — but they may be doing more running from their decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood because of ideological differences over abortion.  The Los Angeles Times reports:

“Over the last five years, Planned Parenthood has provided about 4 million breast exams and referrals for 70,000 mammograms nationwide. Funding from Komen covers about 170,000 of the breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals, Richards said. Although mammograms and biopsies are referred out, Planned Parenthood doctors manage their patients’ cases.”

The Komen Foundation said its decision was based on the fact that Planned Parenthood is subject to a Congressional investigation led by Florida Republican Cliff Stearns.  Democrats have charged the Stearns inquiry is specious, and part of a coordinated attack on Planned Parenthood by radical anti-choice advocates.  The Sin City Siren describes Komen’s decision as essentially internal, and its association with Pink Washing.  It will be interesting to see if the move by the Komen Foundation results in people walking away from its Runs.

**  It appears that the abortion issue is “no longer personal” for GOP candidate Romney, who has made yet another gymnastic reversal of position from being an advocate for choice in 1994 to a staunch anti-abortion proponent.

** The Las Vegas Sun has a trip down memory lane concerning the history of Nevada money in national politics, from “Howard Hughes to Sheldon Adelson.”  One CBS writer suggests that Newt Gingrich may be looking for a new game plan since the Adelson Money Pot didn’t seem to be the answer in the Florida primary.

** Newt Gingrich isn’t the only candidate to have dipped into Money Pots.  Willard Mitt Romney’s campaign enjoys the use of some $18 million from just 200 donors in the last half of 2011. Money came in from Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Renaissance Tech (Hedge Fund), Elliott Management, and Tiger Management. Other donors included Harlan Crow and the Koch Brothers. [NYT]  Mr. Crow’s past contributions included a $25,000 donation to the infamous Swift Boat Veterans who sponsored a smear campaign against Senator John Kerry in 2004. [MMFA] And, then there’s Crow’s financial connection to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. [ThinkProgress]

** The Romney camp is still silent on a key offshore tax avoidance account. [TPM] Question: If a person isn’t trying to avoid taxation then why put money in offshore accounts in the first place?

** Somehow in the tangled rhetoric of the times there are those who believe that calling out racism is racism.  This is captured in video of Gingrich Super Pac spokesman Rick Tyler.  One of the more interesting bits of the exchange between Tyler and Rev. Al Sharpton comes when Sharpton asks Tyler for specific policies which should appeal to African American voters. All Tyler provides are the three highly generalized pillars of Financialism: Less government (deregulation), less taxation, and more freedom.

** Gee, we never could have guessed. When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker announced his five appointees to the Small Business Regulatory Review Board it was quickly noticed that four of the five were donors to his campaign. Opponents of Walker may have secured over 1 million signatures for his recall, but Walker is prepared to spend major money (mostly from out of state donors) to maintain his office. [CSMonitor]

** It’s February, it’s Black History Month, and David A. Love has an excellent piece debunking the 10 Biggest Myths about Black History.

** Jared Bernstein provides The Chart of the Day:

 

Want to ask again if the Stimulus Bill (ARRA) failed?