Tag Archives: ACA

Paul Ryan vs. the People

The GOP’s new House speaker says he “trusts the American people,” but his budget takes direct aim at them.

Written by Richard Kirsch. Published by Common Dreams on 10-4-2015.

‘The real conflict isn’t Washington vs. the people. It’s the super-rich vs. the rest of us. And Republicans are rallying behind a House speaker who’s built his career representing the rich and powerful.’ His name Rep. Paul Ryan. (Image: DonkeyHotey / Flickr)

Paul Ryan paints himself as a champion of “the people” over “Washington.”

But the “people” the new House speaker defends are corporations. And the “Washington” he attacks is the one that does deliver for real people.

For the past five years, Ryan has authored the budget passed by the House of Representatives. His imprint is so great that each document is commonly known as the “Ryan budget.”

Every year, those budgets reliably propose sharp cuts to social services alongside steep tax discounts for the rich. His caucus demands these cuts, Ryan claims, because “we trust the American people.” After all, he adds, “Who knows better? The people or Washington?”

But when you look beyond these sound-bite politics at the actual choices Ryan makes in his budget, it’s easy to see whom he really trusts — and whom he really works for.

How, for example, does cutting $89 billion in Pell grants for college — as his budget last year did — put more trust in working families who are struggling to give their children a college education?

Then there’s his $125 billion in proposed cuts to food stamps for the upcoming fiscal year. Isn’t Ryan breaking the trust we have as people — through our government in Washington — with a mother who relies on food assistance to feed her children because her employer pays her a poverty wage?

Ryan pretends that the heroes in his story are “the people,” but his budget takes direct aim at them. And when he makes “Washington” the villain, he’s covering up for the super-rich campaign contributors bankrolling the assault.

Ryan’s latest budget would slash $759 billion from infrastructure, medical research, and virtually every other service and investment ordinary people rely on to help provide security and opportunity. Are there any real people who don’t need good roads, bridges, and health care?

On health care, Ryan’s proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act would end regulations that stop insurance companies from denying care because of pre-existing conditions. Are “the people” that Ryan puts his trust in health insurance executives?

On taxes, Ryan would eliminate tax credits for 13 million working families, including 25 million children, by an average of $1,073 a year. At the same time, instead of ending tax breaks for corporations that ship profits overseas, he’d make them permanent.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There actually are representatives in Congress who do work for working families, not CEOs. This past May, 96 House lawmakers voted for the People’s Budget — and against Ryan’s proposal.

Developed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the People’s Budget invests in infrastructure, renewable energy, and schools to create 8 million jobs in the next three years.

Instead of cutting back on vital services for families, it helps families secure debt-free college, child nutrition, and affordable housing. Instead of more money for Pentagon contractors and less for veterans, it reduces spending for outdated weapons and increases support for vets. It ends tax giveaways for corporations that ship jobs and profits overseas, and it taxes Wall Street speculation.

The People’s Budget also includes a small-donor campaign finance system, so members of Congress could run for office without taking any large contributions from the super-rich or corporations. That might help put real people back in charge of “the people’s house.”

The real conflict isn’t Washington vs. the people. It’s the super-rich vs. the rest of us. And Republicans are rallying behind a House speaker who’s built his career representing the rich and powerful.

Americans need to rally behind a different kind of politician — the folks who will really stand up for people.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

About the Author:
Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the author of Fighting for Our Health: The Epic Battle to Make Health Care a Right in the United States, published in February 2012 by the Rockefeller Institute Press. He is also Senior Adviser to USAction and an Institute Fellow at the Rockefeller institute.

Rejecting Right-Wing Attack, US Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies

Leave a reply

Experts had warned that a finding in favor of the plaintiffs would eviscerate the healthcare law

By Deirdre Fulton, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published June 25, 2015

Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were in the majority that upheld Obamacare. (Photo: Mark Fischer/flickr/cc)

Handing a victory for President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act—as well as millions of people who gained more affordable healthcare under the law—the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government will continue to be eligible for tax subsidies.

The “ALEC-fueled” case, King v. Burwell, dealt with whether the Affordable Care Act provides subsidies to everyone in the country who qualifies for them on the basis of income level, regardless of whether they get their insurance through a state-run exchange or an exchange run by the federal government. Basing their argument on just four words buried in the massive legislation, the plaintiffs claimed that subsidies were supposed to be only for those purchasing health care through state-run health exchanges—not the federal one.

Experts warned that a finding in favor of the plaintiffs would eviscerate the healthcare law.

Affirming the decision of the Fourth Circuit, the justices voted 6-3 to uphold the subsidies. Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were in the majority. Continue reading →

Be careful what you ask for: Reversing the Effects of ObamaCare

Leave a reply

If politicians get their way, we would be horrified at what their words would mean.

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House. Photo by Pete Souza [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Since the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “ObamaCare”) was signed into law in 2010, there has not been a more hated and controversial law as seen by the Republican party in American history. After echoing the words of political fear mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, it did not take long for the Republican held- House to pass attempt after attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act to have it go nowhere in the Senate.

Now, as we watch the race for the 2016 Presidential election heat up, the latest battle cry, as stated by Senator Ted Cruz when announcing his bid in early April; “Imagine a president who will repeal every word of ObamaCare… and reverse every effect of this law…” He later stated in an interview that it was time to “elect a new president who will reverse the course the nation is on under Obama.”

So let’s dare to imagine, just for a moment, what it might look like to repeal every word and reverse every effect of the Affordable Care Act. Continue reading →

Unchecked and Unbalanced

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court finished its session on June 30. Historically, the last week of the session seems to be the week that the more awaited and/or controversial decisions are announced, and this session was no exception. And, while there’s a few decisions that we agree with such as Riley v California, where the court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search your cell phone except for under “exigent circumstances,” there’s four decisions that we find alarming.

The first was the NLRB v Noel Canning decision on June 26. This ruling overturned three recess appointments made by President Obama to the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that the Senate wasn’t really in recess, as they were holding “pro forma” sessions every three days. This may not look so egregious at first glance, but; In Evans v Stephens from 2004, the 11th District Court of Appeals upheld George W. Bush’s recess appointment of Judge William Pryor to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The court said in that decision:

“The challengers have used both history and textual analysis to support their contentions that the ten- or eleven-day break in the Senate’s Session that underlies Judge Pryor’s appointment was not a “Recess” within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. We have considered all of the arguments. But the arguments are not so strong as to persuade us that [President Bush’s] interpretation is incorrect. […] The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today.”

However, the Supreme Court’s decision said that the President can only make recess appointments if the Senate was in recess for ten days or longer. This looks to us as if the Supreme Court itself is writing law, and not judging the legality of said law; precisely what the court should not be doing.

The second, also from June 26, was McCullen v Coakley. This ruling concluded that the 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics designed to protect the clients entering and exiting the clinic from unwanted interactions with anti-abortion protesters was a violation of the protesters’ First Amendment rights. What makes this decision so horrifying to us is the history of assaults, both verbal and physical, on women and staff entering the clinics; the women to use constitutionally protected services, and the staff for providing the services. What makes this so ironic is that the Supreme Court itself has no problem with the 100 foot buffer zone around the building they meet in, but we digress…

The other two cases were from the last day of the session. Harris v Quinn deals with public unions; in this case, home care workers in Illinois. A majority, but not all of the workers voted to join a union (SEIU). However, the union is required by Illinois law to negotiate for all employees, and not just those who are union members.The SEIU then negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that went well for the workers, with wages almost doubling, yet the non-union workers objected to a provision in the agreement calling for “agency fees” or “fair-share payments” to reimburse the union for negotiating on their (the non-union workers) behalf.

In 1974, the Supreme Court had ruled in Abood v Detroit Board of Education that workers can be required to pay fees to public-sector unions to cover bargaining costs. However, here the court ruled that the workers who filed suit are not “full-fledged public employees” because they are hired and fired by individual patients and work in private homes, even though they’re paid in part by the state via Medicaid. In the court’s opinion, because they aren’t really state employees, they don’t have to pay union dues. In writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito called the Abood precedent “questionable” and “anomalous”, thereby almost guaranteeing further challenges in the future. The implications for unions are frightening, as this sets precedence for non-union members to receive all the benefits without contributing, thereby reducing the union’s power to negotiate as they won’t have the financial resources.

Finally, we have Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. This one’s fairly known; how Hobby Lobby claims that paying for four certain forms of birth control for their women employees as required by the Affordable Care Act violates the owners’ religious beliefs, as they believe them to be abortifacients. Now, to be fair to Hobby Lobby, they do provide sixteen other forms of birth control at no charge. However, their religious beliefs are questionable in this case.

Hobby Lobby claimed that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella (two of the four contraceptives named in the suit- the other two are IUD devices) substantially limits its religious freedom. However, up until the point where they decided to file suit back in 2012, those two contraceptives were covered under their health insurance plan. Furthermore, as of 2012, Hobby Lobby’s 401(k) employee retirement plan had more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions, including those companies who make Plan B, Ella and the IUDs that Hobby Lobby says they morally object to.

So, faced with Hobby Lobby’s rank hypocrisy, the testimony by the government and 10 medical groups headed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that the drugs in question were not abortifacients, and their claim that corporations have religious beliefs, how did the Supreme Court rule? They ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, of course. In a 5-4 decision along purely ideological lines, the court ruled that closely held for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration’s regulations.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote a blistering 35 page dissenting opinion, saying among other things that the court “ventured into a minefield.” She also stated; “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

We can’t help but wonder what church a corporation attends. What’s its denomination? We’d really like to attend a corporation’s baptism – preferably on the ocean or a deep lake, and we get to do the baptizing. But, again we digress.

Occupy World Writes is saddened and outraged by what’s happened to the Supreme Court over the last decade or so. These four decisions show what a travesty and sham the Supreme Court’s become. It’s gone from supposedly being politically neutral and ruling only on legality to being a corporate pawn that makes laws as much as interprets them, and their rulings against protecting a woman’s right to choose what she can do with her own body are reprehensible. Is it any wonder that the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court’s fallen to an all time low?

Happiness IS Everything

Leave a reply

Most of us can point to a time in our lives that we were truly happy, just as we can point to a time that we were truly unhappy. What makes the difference in the lives of people who feel they are trapped in unhappiness? Why do some people seem happy no matter what happens, while others remain unhappy when everything says they should be in a much better place?

To understand the question and the answer, we will look at the elements of happiness. We are all familiar with the old cliches – happiness is a soft purring kitten, happiness is the extra cherry on your sundae, happiness is a loaded gun. What this tells us is that we place more stock in the outcomes and evidence of being happy than we do in understanding the root of what provides us that feeling.

Happiness can not be bought. I’ve been to the Mall of America – there is no “Happiness Here” store. It can not be dug up, learned or given to you. An awesome gift might make you happy, but it does not give you happiness. That comes from somewhere else. As innate as our instinct for survival, happiness comes from within.

But how can happiness be realized by someone trapped in poverty through income inequality? How can someone with unknown medical issues be happy without the ability to seek treatment? How would you expect an unemployed worker to feel happiness when unemployment insurance is denied? How can a hungry child in school feel happy when other kids get meals and theirs is taken from them in the lunch line? How can a college graduate feel happy, knowing they carry more in student loan debt than many average homeowners? How can an American vote with confidence and happiness in a gerry-mandered district with risk of voter ID laws eliminating the voices of fellow constituents?

We hear reports all the time about how mental illness – specifically depression – has reached all but epidemic proportions in this country. Yet we seem unwilling to recognize that many of these people that struggle with this insidious disease might fare better in a world that gives them hope for happiness – health, income, education, career; what ever values we seek to attain that feeling is everyone’s right. Not rights of those born to rich families, those with the correct color skin, those with “normal” sexual orientation, those with the right credentials and connections.

When you feel unhappy, know you are not alone.

When you feel happy, look for someone to infect. This is the one thing I hope ObamaCare can’t cure!

“Emotional” Damage

Leave a reply

Barack and Michelle Obama greet guests following the Women’s History Month reception in the East Room of the White House on March 18, 2013.
By Pete Souza [Public domain], via Wikimedia Common

Patriarchal society has dominated human culture for centuries. With rare exception, men are seen as the providers of safety, economic income, the head of the family and the leaders of the community.

International communities recognize the absence of women in the most important discussions taking place today. The UN has questioned why more women are not involved in the peace processes. More women are now involved in parliaments and governments the world over. But it is still not representative of the populations being represented. In October, 2013, the United Nations Security Council and senior UN officials “issued a strong call on the international community to strengthen its commitment to ensuring that women play a more prominent role in conflict prevention, resolution and in post-war peacebuilding,” according to a UN News Centre article.

But I am becoming increasingly concerned when I see a country attempt to go back from over 50 years in progress toward women’s rights – and for the purpose of polarized politics in a reprehensible soup of despicable vitriol. And at the end of the day, the damage done is not to the women themselves, but to those who lose their credibility by sacrificing their morality in a verbal jihad resulting in sentiments that will linger long after the battles are seemingly over.

Women Grow Business bootcamp 2010 for #dcweek #wgbiz.
By ShashiBellamkonda [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

I never thought I would find myself defending Bridget Kelly until Chris Christie’s attorneys released their “document” that accused Kelly of being “emotional” and therefore causing the traffic problems in Ft. Lee, or their description of Dawn Zimmer as being “emotional” about her allegation of Christie’s office holding Sandy Aid money in exchange for support of a development project. It was done again when former CIA Director Michael Hayden called Dianne Feinstein “emotional” in her CIA investigation remarks. Lois Lerner was said to be “emotional” when she took the fifth during the IRS investigation. I could only think of the rape victims who were not allowed to testify at the trial of their rapist because their testimony would be too “emotional” and might sway the jury. In all these instances, “emotional” is meant to convey weakness, poor judgement, lack of knowledge and unprofessionalism.

It started a few years back, but we’ve watched the momentum increase. Since 2009, legislatures across the country have introduced new bills that repress women’s rights. While they may seem insignificant when viewed individually, collectively they represent a regression that appears to be orchestrated by men that feel threatened by women’s empowerment.

You look confused – let me explain. You already are familiar with the claw back of abortion access in America. We have also seen laws that attempt to redefine rape so fewer women can receive abortion when impregnated by their rapist. The IRS was almost forced to audit rape victims before this was struck from a pending bill due to public outrage. And let’s not forget the Michigan “rape Insurance” bill, requiring a pre-purchased policy that covers the “just in case” scenario, and then the state made the policy itself unavailable to women in the state.

Connie Reece and others offer “social media therapy” sessions during the Austin Women in Technology (AWT) Business Conference.
By TheSeafarer [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Washington committees review policies on women’s health, yet will not allow women to testify to these committees. They state myths as facts and claim facts are myths, and refuse to allow anyone to correct their misinformed ignorance. Medical science and facts be damned, these men know what’s best for womens health.

Some cities have passed rules that take domestic violence off the “calls we respond to” list for local police departments, citing budget cuts. Those cities report domestic violence being so high that the police spend “excessive” time dealing with the issue.

Voter ID laws make it especially difficult for women who have changed their name, either through marriage or divorce, to attain proper voting documentation. The restricted hours for voting target single working women.

Budget cuts in Washington have resulted in SNAP funds being slashed – hitting single mothers hardest. The response of “women need to get married as a means of improving their lives” mantra we are beginning to hear is not a policy or solution.

Pell grants, currently being threatened in Washington, benefit women overwhelmingly, offering a means to rise above their economic restrictions.

Federal minimum wage increases would benefit women, who work more entry level and service sector jobs than men.

This week, we are hearing people argue that women don’t need or want equal pay for equal work. Yet women make on average, .77 for every $1.00 earned by a man doing the same work with the same qualifications.

Targets now include birth control in general, single mothers, making divorce more difficult, health insurance coverage, banking and lending policies, the list continues to grow.

All this takes place in the backdrop of men who were elected for their “family values” who then pass laws that they exempt themselves from regarding sexual harassment, get caught on camera in extra-marital affairs and worry about how men will be impacted if the Violence Against Women Act allows white rapists on Indian reservations to be prosecuted in court instead of falling through the legal loopholes. And now they are using the “negative impact” on men as an excuse to not pass the Equal Pay Act.

What is it called when you say one thing and do another? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

Senior Class Failures

Leave a reply

The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved. Photo By Burim (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved. Photo By Burim (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Seniors Alvin and Eva Johnson spend most their time these days figuring out tough choices instead of the traveling they dreamed of when they retired a few years ago. They decide between going to doctor’s appointments, filling prescriptions or purchasing food. Their mortgage has been paid off, as well as their 27 year old car, leaving them only their daily living expenses to contend with.

But Alvin and Eva, like many seniors these days, have seen their fixed incomes not go far enough. They are able to live independently in their modest 938 square foot home, but the monthly checks leave little for the unexpected. “Our furnace broke two years ago,” Eva says. They were able to get the needed repairs before winter, but still have not finished paying for them. “It’s a good thing George (the repairman) knows us,” Alvin explains. “He sees us at church so knows we are doing the best we can.”

There is little chance that things for the Johnsons and other seniors will change for the better any time soon. Washington seems to have little interest in including these people in the discussion about poverty, entitlements and income inequality – and especially in the conversation about increasing the federal minimum wage.

In the discussion of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, we often hear all the advantages this will bring.Here are what the experts are saying, after conducting their research and studies on the issue:

27.8 million workers would see their wages go up as a direct or indirect result of the boost
The growth in the U.S. economy would result in about 85,000 new jobs
4.6 million people would rise above the poverty line
The increase would reduce the ranks of the nation’s poor by 6.8 million

These forecasters and economists, together with their commentators and pundits, have left completely out of the discussion a very important segment of America’s population if this plan is adopted in its present form. In all the discussion there has been no inclusion mentioning how this segment will be brought up income levels that do not threaten their survival even more.

By Woodennature (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

By Woodennature (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Have you stopped to think about the effects this will have on those who live on social security or disability benefits? The monthly benefits for these groups are figured using a COLA formula on an annual basis. As COLA remains relatively consistent compared to fluctuations in wages, this formula will not automatically adjust benefit amounts to recipients of the programs, resulting in an even wider gap between the bottom wage earners and those living on social security or disability fixed incomes.

This move will widen even more the gap these two vulnerable groups face in their struggle to manage day-to-day life on limited incomes. Here are a few more facts for you to consider:

One in seven seniors live in poverty, according to the Census Bureau
4.8 million Americans over 60 are food insecure, doubling since 2001
Approximately 3.5 million seniors live in poverty, according to Census figures, but that number rises to about 6.2 million when health care costs are factored in
Homeless rates among the elderly will climb by 33 percent within a decade’s time

Until the national discussion takes into account our seniors and vulnerable, any talk of raising the minimum wage will result in even more impoverished conditions for these people. The great tragedy of the failed “trickle down economics” theory is still making grandma live without basic needs, while we talk about “family values” and our “Christian” nation. The war on the poor needs no ammunition or uniform – just a public with blinders will suffice.

Macro economics, anyone?

Easy For Him To Say…

Leave a reply

Photo By Keith Allison from Baltimore, USA (John Boehner) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Photo By Keith Allison from Baltimore, USA (John Boehner) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

On April 1, Speaker of the House John Boehner made the statement that the ACA would cause people to lose full-time employment. This is a talking point that has kept resonating within the House of Representatives as we have watched them vote over 50 times to attempt repeal of the signature law of the Obama administration.

But he actually is not lying – and he might just get his way. John Boehner hopes you don’t learn that a bill in the House would redefine “full-time employment” as a minimum of 40 hours per week, meaning employees that are now classified as full-time at 30 hours or more would lose insurance coverage from employers when scheduled for any less than 40 hours average.

HR 2575, ironically named the “Save American Workers Act of 2014,” seeks to strip benefits from employees that work more than 30 hours but less than 40 per week. This is a blatant attempt to punch a hole in the mandate for employer coverage, furthering the efforts to dissect, dismember, eviscerate, and further impale the health care law.

If the same people were to put the equivalent amount of energy into creating a jobs bill, perhaps we would not need to be worried about extending unemployment benefits – we would have more jobs than workers. Maybe you don’t see a need for a jobs bill as much as a need for immigration reform. Maybe you’d like to see your representatives working on laws that bring accountability to Wall Street funding.

Personally, I’d like to see laws that would impose term limits upon Congress, to force them to live by the laws they enact for all the rest of the country. I’d like to see laws that would stop the “revolving door” between serving in Congress or a Federal agency and the various corporate lobbies that exists today.

The failure of our Congress to be able to pass any meaningful legislation is appalling. Today, the House passed “The Weather Forecasting Improvement Act of 2014,” HR 2413, that forces the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA to “prioritize weather-related activities” by putting funding and equipment toward forecasting tornadoes, hurricanes and storms – only. The provision asking NOAA to be able to predict tornadoes in order to warn communities at least an hour in advance seems all but science-fiction in aspiration. They state in public that climate change is a “left-wing term” while denying the science of 16,000 researchers in favor of the two they found that disagreed with the science. All this while passing legislation preventing government agencies from even studying the issue is the equivalent to those who still argue the earth is flat. We hope the Senate understands this issue to be a real threat to our nation and refuse to even vote on the bill.

Two views of Briksdalsbreen (The Briksdal glacier) photographed from nearly the same place. Photo By Ximonic, Simo Räsänen (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

Two views of Briksdalsbreen (The Briksdal glacier) photographed from nearly the same place. Photo By Ximonic, Simo Räsänen (Own work) [GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-2.5], via Wikimedia Commons

“In 2011, a House-passed bill cut funding for NOAA satellite programs, which play a key role in weather forecasting, and in 2012, Republican lawmakers proposed further cuts to the satellite program. NOAA was also hit by last summer’s across-the-board sequester cuts, which forced NOAA to furlough employees so it could keep its weather forecasting and satellite operations intact,” a report in Think Progress reads. “Already, NOAA spends more on weather forecasting than it does on climate research. In 2013, NOAA spent about $742 million on local weather warnings and forecasts, compared to the $108 million it spent on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and $176 million it spent on climate research. And though the link between climate change and severe weather has grown clearer, NOAA has called for more research into the potential link between climate change and tornadoes, which is not as well understood.”

Our international friends and allies are well beyond figuring out national health care systems. They are discussing climate change and the effects of drought, flooding, famine, disease and property loss it will bring and the tensions that will result as food supplies become scarce and more threatened.

It would be nice if our Congress could keep up.

The Religious Right

Leave a reply

Photo By Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Roberts Court (2010-) – The Oyez Project) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

It will be the end of June before women in America know if their personal religious freedom and right to health care is subject to the religious beliefs of their employer. That is when the Supreme Court will deliver a decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases heard this last week, to allow employers to be exempt for coverage of certain contraceptives in ACA if they disagree on religious grounds.

SCOTUS is hearing this case in part because of the recent war on women. We’ve covered that issue, and will continue to do so. They are also hearing this case because of the conflicts created by the Citizens United decision, determining that corporations are individuals. There are few Americans born with umbilical cords attached that agree with this “opinion.”

By Dave Bullock from Derby, UK (Bible Original) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

By Dave Bullock from Derby, UK (Bible Original) [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The Hobby Lobby case exists because business owners believe their religious freedom is more important than any of their female employees. They apparently also believe that women are not intelligent enough to know the difference between emergency contraception, planned birth control and additional medical benefits from certain birth controls for other medical conditions. They seem to believe that women of faith are not strong enough in that faith to know their expected behavior and therefore need legislation to protect them from this weakness.

In an in-depth article published February 20, 2014, from Salon titled How the religious right is interfering in medicine and putting patients in danger, writer Valerie Tarico, Alternet, states “…in order to maintain their privilege in the healthcare system, Churches and Religious corporations fight legal battles that undermine human rights in society at large. They have argued that the conscience rights of institutions and corporations should be able to trump individual conscience. They have challenged anti-discrimination laws, and won, effectively establishing legal precedent that freedom from discrimination is not a constitutional right. They have argued that they should be exempt from labor organizing because giving workers the right to organize impinges on their sovereignty. Driven by dogma, lawyers find circuitous arguments and judges uphold “rights” that under any other light would look patently immoral.”

Photo By J. Troha (Photographer) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Setting apart all arguments in the Hobby Lobby and war on women perspectives, I can’t help but ask more questions about the discussion of religious freedom in general. I’m quite confidant there would be an uproar if a religion believed that public beheading was the correct form of punishment for any and all crime. The point here is simple: Whose religion has priority if the views are not the same?

The Constitution’s First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In this case, application of the First Amendment is almost too simple, which is also why it has reached this level in appeals. “Respecting an establishment of religion” means that to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby is to declare that respect to the religion of the business is established OVER the rights of the employees of that business. There are 300 recognized religious organizations in America. If all religious viewpoints were the same, would we need this many? Whose religious views are allowed to over rule others? “Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” means that the business owner’s rights are not prohibited unless they personally are forced to do something in direct violation of their religious beliefs. They personally are not required to pay for the things they are objecting to nor are they required to use any form of birth control method they object to; they simply want to deny that coverage to the 15,000 plus employees they have in 600 stores across 41 states because they want those employees to be forced to live under their religious standards.

Pope Francis, March, 2013. Photo from presidencia.gov.ar [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Pope Francis, March, 2013. Photo from presidencia.gov.ar [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

It is amazing to me that there is no discussion about the religious freedoms of women who have been paying into insurance plans for years that have no restrictions on covering MEN’S reproductive health. Example: We were never asked how we felt about paying for impotence drugs, which in some religious views could be God’s way of saying the impotent person should stop procreating. If the argument is that it is for purposes other than procreation, is not that the argument used against women having the same coverage for reproductive health? Is this a double standard applied by the men who would not allow women to testify to the committees deciding these policies? Are these the same men that have a demonstrated lack of basic understanding of the facts and medical truths related to women’s health?

Another aspect that the bulk of commentators ignore is of the rights of individuals who choose freedom from religion, such as atheists. Contrary to the image that is extolled from clergy and religious groups, most atheists I have met are people that believe their destiny and life are theirs, not controlled or created through divine powers. They are committed to living in societies that treat people with dignity and respect, and strive to make the world a better place for all. These types of rulings discount their rights as Americans by having the Supreme Court decide that religious freedoms are established over that of non-religious human rights.

What happens when religious sects are allowed to influence governmental policy? Egypt comes to mind as a prime example. A leader of a religious sect was elected as President. It was not until the extreme policies of the Muslim Brotherhood were enacted on the people that the group was identified as terrorist and taken from power. Do we need that to happen in the United States before the foresight of our founding fathers is fully understood?

By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

So how will SCOTUS rule? In 1990, Chief Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940): Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.” (Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute.)

That was then. This is now. If we are to believe the Supreme Court rules based on law rather than personal opinion, there would be no question on how they will decide. The fact that this case is even being heard by the Supreme Court is proof of something I did not want to see.

Courtesy of: 4th Estate Project

How America Celebrates Women

Leave a reply

New York City, May 6, 1912. Public Domain via Wiki Media Commons.

Today is INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY. Here is a glimpse of what caught our attention while looking for motivational stories or events to mark the importance of women throughout the United States:

MASSACHUSETTS: Court ruled there is nothing illegal about “upskirting”, the practice of using a phone or other device to photograph under women’s skirts while in public. Responding to public pressure and outrage, the legislators in that state quickly passed a law that would protect the expected privacy rights of women who are brave enough to venture out into public while dressing like – GASP! – a woman! Check your local listings for laws in your state.

TEXAS: By September of this year, all but six abortion clinics will be closed as state laws are passed limiting the ability of most to remain open. There are 26 million women in the state of Texas. Meanwhile, women are going back to pre-Roe days to find a means to terminate pregnancy, even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered. As a result, more women are suffering serious health issues and death from self-induced procedures gone wrong.

On March 6, a bill to reform how the military handles cases of rape and sexual harassment in the military was once again defeated. Meanwhile, 40% of assault victims report the perpetrator was their ranking officer. 79% of women serving in the military during the past 40 years report persistent experiences of sexual harassment. The Army is investigating its top sex-crimes prosecutor, Lt. Col. Joseph Morse, on allegations that he groped a female lawyer at a sexual-assault conference in 2011, Army officials disclosed Thursday. Sexual assaults in the military during 2013 rose by 60% over the reported numbers from the year before.

The recently passed Farm Bill, with its reductions in SNAP spending, in addition to the recent budget and sequester that took cuts to the same program, targets low-income, predominantly single parent homes by reducing their benefit by 50%. Most of these recipients are single moms.

We repeatedly see rapists and domestic abusers released by the courts, while the victims continue to suffer public trial and internal terror as their nightmare never ends. Their justice is not served when restraining orders are not enforced, probation violators are not locked up and communities rally behind the perpetrators if they happen to be athletes or prominent figures.

Refusal to pass a minimum wage increase impacts more women than men, and in addition, women make less than men in the same positions. Economic hardship is a means of control for many women who desire to achieve higher goals in life.

CPAC: Paul Ryan tells a story of a boy who asks for a brown bag lunch instead of free lunch at school. Ryan declares “a full stomach and an empty soul” to describe the outcome of allowing children a free lunch at school. “A brown bag lunch means someone cares about me,” Ryan says the little boy claimed. What Ryan is really saying, in addition to his continued assault on low income families, is that if your mom doesn’t pack you a lunch instead of having you participate in the school lunch program, your mom doesn’t care as much about you. Shaming a parent for poverty by using their child is reprehensible.

Affordable Health Care Act: Bills introduced in Washington would allow corporations to decide contraceptive coverage under health insurance policies for female employees, based on the religious convictions of their superiors, most time men. The measure would allow invasive questions including how often they intend to have sexual relations.

Voter ID laws target women who have changed their name through marriage or divorce. If the photo ID is not an exact match to the name in the voting record, the voter must provide documentation. By abiding by most state requirements to replace driver’s licenses or other identification within 30 days of a name change, women risk not being able to vote in their next election.

If I were to list everything that has taken place recently, this posting would go on forever. My point is that until we treat women the way our laws and media say we do, these things will continue to happen. Never have we seen such a concerted effort to retreat to an era we fought to emerge from so many decades ago.

Celebrate this day by making the decision to inspire change where you can.