Tag Archives: Dean Heller

SJR 34 and Your Internet Privacy

The purpose of SJR 34 (and HJR 86) was simple: To allow Internet Service Providers to collect and sell your Internet browsing history.  Not only did Senator Dean Heller support this, he signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill on March 7, 2017, one of 23 sponsors to do so.  Who’s impacted by this? Anyone who links through Comcast (17 million customers), AT&T (another 17 million customers), Time Warner Cable (add another 14 million customers), Century Link (additional 6.4 million customers), Charter (another 5 million customers), and a host of smaller providers. [Ecom] (See also PEcom)

Nevada customers of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Cox and others, are also among those whose private browsing history can be tracked, collected, and sold off. [into link]

It seems bad enough to have the ISPs sell off information about browsing history to advertisers, who after browsing one day for sneakers, would want to be bombarded by advertising for the next year with sneaker ads?  Browsed for ‘best garden supplies?’ Expect ads for plant food, fertilizers, spades, and wheelbarrows for eternity? Then the scenarios become more pernicious.

Browse for information on asthma? Not only is the human browser now in line for a multitude of ads for medications, but there’s a hint here that some personal medical history may have been collected and sold.  The same issue might be raised about those looking up symptoms and treatments for everything from pediatric illnesses to Alzheimer’s Disease.  Thus far we’re only talking about the initial sales, and the use of the collections by commercial advertisers. However, there’s a question about what constitutes a buyer for the information?

The buyer might not have to be, for example, the Interpublic Group of New York City, one of the nation’s largest advertising firms. Could the buyer be the WPP Group of London, UK? Or, the Dentsu Group, of Tokyo. Could the buyer be RMAA, the largest advertising firm in Russia? Is there any protection in the bill to prevent the secondary sale of browser histories from an advertising agency to a data management and analysis company? What we have herein is a bill to allow the transfer of massive amounts of valuable data collected from individuals in the United States to the highest bidder, with little or no consideration of the after effects.

Gee, let’s hypothesize that I’m a foreign power with some experience dabbling in US state and national elections.  Let’s also assume that the foreign power is familiar with inserting ‘bots’ to drive traffic to particular websites, or insert fake news, confirmation bias ‘news,’ and other practices into the research patterns of American Internet users. What do I want? I want data on where those people ‘go’ on the Internet; the better I know my ‘target’ the better I can hone my message. Do those who go to Senator Bilgewater’s site also tend to go to sites concerning wildlife preservation?  If I can put these two bits of information together I can more effectively insert advertising either for or against the Senator. I can more effectively insert phony information into my messaging for the supporters or opponents of Bilgewater.  In short, I can ‘dabble’ more efficiently. Even more bluntly, have we handed our adversaries more ammunition for their advertising and propaganda guns?

The Senate twin in the House (HJR 86)/SJR 34 passed on March 28, 2017, only Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) voted in favor of the bill; Representatives Kihuen, Titus, and Rosen voted against it. [RC 202]

At the risk of facetiousness  on a serious topic, when Jill, of downtown East Antelope Ear, NV, goes online to search for a bargain on bed sheets, does she find herself viewing a plethora of ads for sex toys, a result of Jack’s periodic perusal of pornography sites? Would a simple search for high thread count sheets yield the splitting of those sheets in the Jack and Jill household? At least Jack and Jill will know whom to call about the issue — Senator Dean Heller and Representative Mark Amodei, who thought selling browser histories to be a grand idea at the time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Amodei, Heller, Internet, media, Nevada politics, Politics, privacy, Republicans, Titus

Gorsuch’s Record Invites Some Phone Calls

The 45 Administration would very much like to have Judge Gorsuch confirmed as a member of the US Supreme Court. The judge for his part has been loathe to offer any more than Name, Rank, and Serial Number during his confirmation hearings. Not that this tactic is anything new in the process.  Famous for his Hobby Lobby decision, his dissent in TransAm Trucking v. ARB-DOl, (PDF) is attracting attention.  This is the now infamous Frozen Trucker Case in which Judge Gorsuch opined that taking such things as common sense, and legislative intent, were extraneous and if to operate a truck means to drive a truck (and its trailer with the frozen brakes) then that’s all there is to say on the subject. It’s interesting to note that Judge Gorsuch was dismissive of reinterpreting the wording of a statute, while interpreting the wording of a statute in such a way as to defend the indefensible actions of the trucking company.  In less complimentary terms, the Gorsuch rule appears to be an interpretation is acceptable if and only if that reading agrees with his interpretation.

There is still time to reach Nevada’s Senators, Heller (702-338-6605) (775-686-5729) and Cortez Masto (702-388-5020) (775-686-5750) (202-224-3542) on this subject.  Little wonder that Democratic Senators interviewed on the topic have said things like “his answers are unacceptable,” and “his answers are evasive,” and “his answers have been less than forthcoming…”

Judge Gorsuch needs to supply more than the Alito/Roberts song and dance routine to the Judiciary Committee, and the Senators need to attend to the fundamental problems with his nomination to the highest court in the land. His responses so far have been noncommittal and apolitical, but his decisions have been those of an activist ultra conservative. Actions do, indeed, speak louder than words.

Leave a comment

Filed under conservatism, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court

Heller Takes The Easy Road: Cadillac Health Plan Target

Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) took aim at one of the more vulnerable (and questionable) parts of the Affordable Care Act as his contribution to the Republican Repeal – and eventually replace with something we don’t know what – plan.   [LVSun]

First, a “cadillac plan” is an exceptionally generous health care plan offered by some employers.  There’s good and bad news herein.  On the bright side, the plans offer very full coverage.  On the darker side, maybe there’s a bit too much coverage, and that has implications for restraining health care costs.

At this point it’s necessary to focus on what’s is important for the employees. Is it the continuation of the generous health care coverage OR is it health care cost containment. 

The Herring & Lentz report (2011) describes the cost and tax issues involved in summary form:

“One controversial aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the provision to impose a 40% excise tax on insurance benefits above a certain threshold, commonly referred to as the “Cadillac tax.” We use the Employer Health Benefits Survey, sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, to examine the number and characteristics of plans that likely will be affected. We estimate that about 16% of plans will incur the tax upon implementation in 2018, while about 75% of plans will incur the tax a decade later due to the indexing of the tax thresholds with the Consumer Price Index. If the Cadillac tax is ultimately implemented as written, we find that it will likely reduce private health care benefits by .7% in 2018 and 3.1% in 2029, and will likely raise about $931 billion in revenue over the ensuing 10-year budget window from 2020 to 2029.”

Senator Heller calls this “onerous,” however the Senator has often called any form of regulation on the insurance and banking sectors “onerous.”  Thus, it’s helpful to remember why this element was inserted in the bill in the first place.

Consider the following examples:

1) A patient with an extravagant health plan, often dubbed a Cadillac plan, goes to the doctor’s office. She’s told by her doctor that she should take a bunch of tests, even though the tests seem unnecessary. The patient knows most the tests are unnecessary, but she figures that since her health insurance covers everything, it’s better to be safe than sorry — it’s not like it’s costing her anything except a little time, anyway.

2) Another patient with a less generous health plan goes to the doctor’s office. She’s also told by her doctor that she should take a bunch of tests, even though the tests seem unnecessary. But this time the patient also knows her health insurance will charge her a bunch of extra fees for each test. Wanting to avoid a lot of costs, she decides to talk to her doctor about what tests are actually necessary, and she declines to take any of the tests that she and her doctor decide are unnecessary.

The Cadillac tax attempts to move more health plans from example No. 1 to example No. 2. [Vox]

The Cadillac Plans are popular – why not? Most medical costs are covered.  And, therein, as the examples suggest, lies the problem.  The employer can boast to prospective employees that “everything’s covered” in our health care plan; the employee can spend as much on medical care as is practical and then some; and, unions representing employees can boast about their prowess in gaining exemplary health care insurance coverage.  However, none of these positions suggests any form of health care cost containment.

There is no incentive built into the Cadillac  health insurance plans to contain rising health care costs. 

There are a couple of ways to address health care cost containment – none of which are evident in the Cadillac plans — (1) there could be limits on coverage, the bug-bear of the junk insurance policies sold before the ACA which put a lifetime limit on health care insurance coverage; met quickly if the person had a serious illness or accident; (2) there could be limits on the type of coverage sold to policy holders – unpopular with those who want (and can afford) the addition of vision, dental, etc. etc. (3) put an excise tax on the Cadillac plans to encourage employers and other policy holders to move from over-generous plans to more cost sharing models.  The third option was the intent of the ACA.

Repealing the excise tax on the Cadillac plans would completely remove any incentive for cost controls in this part of the ACA.

One of the trickier issues the Republicans will have to address in their Repeal and Replace operations is how to contain rising health care costs.  Repealing the “onerous” excise tax will eliminate one element of health care cost containment in the ACA. So, what do Senator Heller and other Republicans want as a way of replacement?  Junk insurance? Surely not. Limits on policy provisions for individual policy holders? Doesn’t sound very “freedom” or “customer oriented” to me at least.

Thus, the question Senator Heller, and others in his party, must face is how to “repeal” the ACA without opening the floodgates to rising health care costs?  Has anyone ask him about the implications of his suggestion?

Comments Off on Heller Takes The Easy Road: Cadillac Health Plan Target

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Nevada politics

Obstruction By Blue Slip: GOP assault on Federal Courts

Heller Blue Slip

Senator Dean Heller’s (R-NV) slip is showing, or rather it isn’t showing up. President Obama nominated Ann Rachel Traum to the Federal District Court (Nevada) on April 28, 2016.  So, where’s the blue form from the Senator’s office indicating the Judiciary Committee should move forward with this nomination?

One theory has it that not only are Senate Republicans blocking a Supreme Court nomination but they’re doing it down the line, right down to the overworked, understaffed federal district courts level.

“There are lots of GOP senators doing this. Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his judicial nominee, Myra Selby. Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) haven’t turned in their blue slips for their nominee, Abdul Kallon. Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) haven’t turned in blue slips for their nominees, either. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t turned in his blue slip for his nominee, Lisabeth Hughes.”  [HuffPo]

It isn’t like the current nominee isn’t qualified. The resume is remarkable:

“Anne Rachel Traum is a Professor of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law.  She is currently on leave from the law school and serving as Special Counsel in the Office for Access to Justice at the United States Department of Justice.  Professor Traum joined the University of Nevada-Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law faculty in 2008, and she has served as the Director of the Appellate Clinic since 2009.  She also served as the Associate Dean for Experiential Legal Education from 2013 to 2015.  From 2002 to 2008, Professor Traum served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.  She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada from 2000 to 2002, while on detail from the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice, where she worked from 1998 to 2000.  She began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Professor Traum received her J.D. Order of the Coif and cum laude from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1996 and her A.B. with honors from Brown University in 1991.” [WH

This obstructionism is egregious on so many levels.  Politically, it’s the equivalent of a toddler’s temper tantrum – if we can’t have exactly the courts we want then we don’t want any.  This, in turn leads to the next layer of political idiocy.

It doesn’t do to complain about the time and expense required to litigate cases and at the same time keep courts short handed such that they cannot schedule hearings on a timely basis. This affects both plaintiffs and defendants in both civil and criminal cases.  Nor, are we merely speaking of the vacancies at the top of the judicial roster.

“While Senate battles over nominees to the Supreme Court and appeals courts draw more headlines, the less-noticed openings are increasing workloads and delaying trials in federal courts that take in hundreds of thousands of cases a year — compared with the 80 or so cases heard by the nation’s highest court.

Of 673 U.S. district court judgeships, 67 — or 10 percent — are vacant under President Obama, nearly twice as many as at this point of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency and 50 percent higher than at this time under Bill Clinton (D) or George H.W. Bush (R), according to data kept by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The number of federally designated district court “judicial emergencies” — where seats carry particularly heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period — is also roughly double what it was in May 2008 and May 2000, according to the administrative office.

Heavy caseloads in some places slow resolution of everything from commercial disputes to workplace discrimination claims to federal regulatory challenges, in which district court rulings are often the last word because most are not appealed.” [JDnom] (emphasis added)

Consider this last paragraph carefully.  “Commercial disputes” is one category worthy of attention – someone, somewhere, who is engaged in interstate commerce may not be getting paid in a timely fashion because there is no judge with docket time available to hear the case?  Someone, somewhere would like to challenge a federal regulation, but hasn’t the “float” required to engage in protracted litigation because of the docket backlog?

We do have a constitutional guarantee of a “speedy and public trial,” under the provisions of the 6th Amendment, but this applies only to criminal prosecutions – not to those commercial disputes, discrimination claims (and defenses), regulatory challenges, and other civil litigation.  We have a backlog, and it’s getting deeper:

“Combined filings for civil cases and criminal defendants in the U.S. district courts decreased by 28,836 (down 7 percent) to 361,689. Terminations once again held steady, declining by 2,634 (down less than 1 percent) to 347,828. Because filings exceeded terminations, the total for pending cases and defendants rose by 12,268 (up 3 percent) to 438,808.” [UScourts.gov] (emphasis added)

Pending civil cases are reported up by 5%, to 340,925 nationwide.  And, still the Senate Republicans will not act.

Senator Heller, Where is your blue slip?

Comments Off on Obstruction By Blue Slip: GOP assault on Federal Courts

Filed under Heller, Judicial, Nevada politics, Politics

Feinstein Amendment Fails, and Heller Helped

Feinstein Amendment

Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment (S.Amdt 4720 to S. Amdt 4685) to H.R. 2578 failed on a 47 to 53 vote June 20, 2016.   In contrast with many pieces of legislation, the Feinstein Amendment was short and relatively simple:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
      Sec. ___.  Hereafter, the Attorney General may deny the
    transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines,
    based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
    transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a
    reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has
    been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in
    aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material
    support or resources therefor.
For purposes of sections
    922(t)(1), (2), (5), and (6) and 925A of title 18, United
    States Code, and section 103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18
    U.S.C. 922 note), a denial by the Attorney General pursuant
    to this provision shall be treated as equivalent to a
    determination that receipt of a firearm would violate section
    (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or
    State law. A denial described in this section shall be
    subject to the remedial procedures
set forth in section
    103(g) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) and the
    intended transferee may pursue a remedy for an erroneous
    denial of a firearm under section 925A of title 18, United
    States Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such
    remedial procedures and judicial review shall be subject to
    procedures that may be developed by the Attorney General to
    prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information that
    reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national
    security or ongoing law enforcement operations, including but
    not limited to procedures for submission of information to
    the court ex parte as appropriate, consistent with due
    process. The Attorney General shall establish, within the
    amounts appropriated, procedures to ensure that, if an
    individual who is, or within the previous 5 years has been,
    under investigation for conduct related to a Federal crime of
    terrorism, as defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of title 18,
    United States Code, attempts to purchase a firearm, the
    Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall
    be promptly notified of the attempted purchase.
[text] (emphasis added)

It’s simple – Been under investigation for suspicious activity related to terrorism? Been investigated or under investigation for aiding abetting terrorists – the purchase of a gun can be delayed.  If a person thinks they have been unfairly denied such a purchase – there’s an appeal process.

And Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) couldn’t bring himself to vote for it.  There will be some excuse offered – was the wording not perfect? Was the appeal process not made clear? Was it not going to exactly prevent the last couple of terrorist related mass shootings? Will it not prevent all gun violence? Or, the silliest reason yet offered, WE have to fight them over there so they don’t come here.  (Hint: some are homegrown here) No matter – The Senate Has Spoken – the terrorists cannot take a full bottle of shampoo on a commercial airliner but they can walk into any gun store at any time and buy any gun to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Sad.  Just who is looking out for our national security?

Comments Off on Feinstein Amendment Fails, and Heller Helped

Filed under Gun Issues, Heller, terrorism

Senator Heller’s Choke Point

Heller Amendment Operation Choke Point

One thing in life is almost more certain than death and taxes – if there is legislation that the banking industry wants then Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) will be quite happy to sponsor it, carry water for it, vote for it, and then remind anyone who is still listening how he’s a Man for the Consumers because he once voted against the “bail-out.”   To see Senator Heller’s latest foray into playing the Banker’s Boy one needs to dig a bit, unearthing S.Amdt 4715 to S.Amdt 4685 amending HR 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016.

Senator Heller has teamed up with Senators Vitter, Crapo, Paul, Lee, and Cruz to insert the following: 

Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may
    be used to carry out the program known as “Operation Choke
    Point”. [Cong.gov]

What is Operation Choke Point and what was it intended to do?  The Department of Justice was disturbed by reports that fraudulent merchants had found a way around federal banking regulations and once they inserted themselves into the banking system they could team with payment processors to initiate debit transactions against consumer’s accounts and have the amounts transmitted to their own accounts.

Even more disturbing, the Department’s investigations revealed that some third party processors knew that the merchants with whom they were working were frauds but they continued to process their transactions in direct violation of federal law.  [Harris pdf]

So, for example, Quickie Check Instant Lending could get a customer to sign a loan agreement for some outrageous amount of interest, and then hand the item over to a payment processor.  With some cooperation from the bank (usually garnered by providing a handsome fee thereto) the payment processor would have the bank make automatic debits to the person’s account.  Or, say, the Fast Weight Loss Pill Factory got an order from John Q. Public, and the payment processor + bank would insure that John’s bank account was regularly debited for the fraudulent product, or for products not delivered, or whatever scam was being run.

The idea behind Choke Point was to gather information from banks which appeared to be engaged in fraud, or might have evidence of fraudulent conduct by others. Subpoenas were issued, and indeed there were some banks doing some rather obnoxious business.  [See Fair Oaks Bank]  The Fair Oaks Bank had received hundreds of notices from consumers’ banks that the people whose bank accounts were being charged had NOT authorized the payments; had evidence that more than a dozen merchants served by the payment processor had “return rates” over 30% and one had a “return rate” over 70%; and, Fair Oaks had evidence of efforts by merchants to conceal their real identities.

One of the obvious targets are payday lenders who were operating in violation of state regulations regarding the amount of interest that could be charged to a customer.  As the New York Times explained back in January 2014:

“The new, more rigorous oversight could have a chilling effect on Internet payday lenders, which have migrated from storefronts to websites where they offer short-term loans at interest rates that often exceed 500 percent annually. As a growing number of states enact interest rate caps that effectively ban the loans, the lenders increasingly depend on the banks for their survival. With the banks’ help, the lenders that typically work with a third-party payment processor that has an account at the banks are able, authorities say, to automatically deduct payments from customers’ checking accounts even in states where the loans are illegal.”

The object of Choke Point was to cut the insidious relationship between the banks, the processors, and the fraudsters – or choke it off.  If one wanted to promote the interests of the payday lenders, third party processors, and banks willing to turn a blind eye toward the nature of these transactions – there are fewer ways much better than to hamstring the Department of Justice’s investigations into these kinds of transactions.  However, that is precisely what Senator Heller is proposing.

The DoJ’s investigations were also reviled because some of the ammosexuals among us got the idea that if pawn shops couldn’t use the untraditional routes for payment, therefore the whole operation was one giant gun grab. Senators Cruz and Lee bought this horse and have been riding it for some time now.  One quick visit to Politifact will demolish the SunTrust Bank/Brooksville Pawn shop story that made the rounds in 2015.

“SunTrust announced in a Aug. 8, 2014, press release that the bank had “decided to discontinue banking relationships with three types of businesses – specifically payday lenders, pawn shops and dedicated check-cashers – due to compliance requirements.” The bank still works with firearms dealers, according to the release.” [Politifact]

Hence, the policy decision made by SunTrust was no more “anti-gun” than it was anti-jewelry, anti-guitar, anti-CD, anti-work out equipment, or anything else  in a pawn shop.

There are some salient features of this story – once again Senator Heller who delights in his description as a “moderate,” has teamed up with some of the most radical members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate (witness his previous alliances with Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).  Once again Senator Heller has sided with the payday lenders against any action taken to regulate their relationships with their customers. And, once more Senator Heller has demonstrated his willingness to carry any water in any bucket the American Bankers’ Association wants him to transport to the Senate floor.

Comments Off on Senator Heller’s Choke Point

Filed under banking, Economy, financial regulation, fraud, Heller, Nevada politics

Dean Heller’s Immoderate Vote

Heller Goo1

Once again, Nevada junior Senator Dean Heller gets stretched out into Immoderate territory in Senate votes this week.  On September 22, 2015 Senator Heller voted in favor of the unscientific and pretty thoroughly politicized “Pain Capable…” forced birth bill (H.R. 36) [roll call 268]

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) explained the opposition to the bill by noting it is  (1) unconstitutional because it bans abortion procedures before a fetus is medically considered viable and it does not include exceptions for a situation in which a woman’s health in endangered – both elements contradict Roe v. Wade and other precedents.  [RealityCK]

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) added: “Do we really want to make a criminal out of a physician who is trying to prevent a woman with preeclampsia from suffering damage to her kidneys or liver, or having a stroke or seizures?” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). “Do we want the threat of prison for a doctor who knows that his pregnant patient needs chemotherapy or radiation treatments?” [RealityCK]

For those unfamiliar with lady parts and how they function (which unfortunately seems to include a majority of Republican men in Congress) let’s note that preeclampsia generally occurs after 20 weeks, and one of the first signs is an increase in the woman’s blood pressure.  There is one and only one cure for preeclampsia – the delivery of the fetus. [MayoClinic]  The decisions made by the woman and her physician are going to be really tough at this point. 

The delivery has to happen before damage to the kidneys or liver becomes permanent – or fatal.  What happens to the fetus is problematic.  The usual assumption of viability in the U.S. is 24 weeks of gestational age.  Less than that gestational age and the fetus will likely not be physically mature enough to survive into the neo-natal period and achieve the capacity to be an independent human being. [NCBI]  However, there is another factor which isn’t biological.  The technology must be available to sustain the fetus delivered this early.  For example, even in developed western European countries such as Portugal the age of assumed viability is higher than in the U.S. [NIH]

What makes Senator Heller’s position so radical is his vote to criminalize the efforts of a physician who is confronted with preeclampsia in a pregnant woman after 20 weeks into the pregnancy – when the condition most often appears – and his assumption that all pregnant women and their physicians have access to the kind of neo-natal technology associated with a neo-natal intensive care unit.  And, not just any neo-natal care unit, in cases of extremely pre-mature infants we’re talking about Level III care capacity.

Now scroll through the Nursing Institute of Nevada list of hospitals and their technical and staff capabilities.  Two list Level II nursery care, six list Level III facilities – and they are all located in either the Las Vegas or Reno area.  Treating preeclampsia outside one of Nevada’s two metropolitan areas requires all the emergency training and equipment for the most extreme emergencies.

As if the situation weren’t complicated enough, preeclampsia’s early symptoms – headaches, nausea, plus aches and pains are all things that happen in a normal pregnancy.  However, when the headaches are severe, there’s blurred vision. severe abdominal pain,  and  shortness of breath – it’s time for the emergency room. [MayoClinic]   The condition occurs in about 5%-8% of all pregnancies, and can appear at any time during pregnancy, delivery, and up to six weeks post-partum, although it most frequently happens in the final trimester. [PreecOrg]

It would be very useful if more Republican men knew that a pregnancy involves more than having a wife who reacts to certain smells, and  has trouble with shoe laces, in addition to the general knowledge that it’s a good idea to keep the gas tank filled in the family wagon.

The radical forced-birth crowd in the U.S. Senate seems not to understand that their anti-abortion grandstanding has implications in the real world in which not all pregnancies are trouble free, not all women and infants have immediate access to the very latest technology and medical expertise, and not all complications in pregnancies take place conveniently before some artificially established gestational age.  It’s too bad Senator Heller has joined this herd.

Recommended reading for Republican men: “Frequently Asked Questions,” Preeclampsia Foundation. “Familial Occurrence of Preeclampsia,” National Institutes of Health, NCBI. “Late Pregnancy Complications,” Patient.Info. “Preeclampsia,” Mayo Clinic. “Medline Plus: Preeclampsia,” NLM, NIH. “Preeclampsia,” WebMD.

Comments Off on Dean Heller’s Immoderate Vote

Filed under Health Care, Heller, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans, Women's Issues