December 2009 Archives

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) reported that he would not support the health care bill.  And now Democratic leaders are looking for others to pass the bill.

Oh dear. 

Actually, not that's not the big piece of news.  This bill shouldn't go through-- it doesn't do anything.  No public option= no better health care for the person who is now unemployed, without health insurance and without money to pay for decent health insurance.  (And no, this person is not Average Joe, it is Average Jane, as the majority of unemployed and uninsured are young women of color). 

To me the biggest piece of news is that in an effort to try to get enough votes to pass the health care bill, Democratic leaders offered a compromise on abortion rights, hoping to get votes from Sen. Nelson (the same guy who wrote and sponsored that Nelson-Hatch Amendment) and Sen. Casey (one of the supporters of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment). 

I'm already dismayed at Democratic leadership, but come on folks, this is an all-time low.  First you allow the Stupak Amendment to pass the house (thanks Nancy Pelosi!).  Then you barely scrape up enough votes to table the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Now this. 

I would insert some sort of dark humored abortion joke here about exercising my choice to abort the Democratic Party from my voter registration card, but that's too obvious-- just like the Democrats' willingness to throw us all under the bus.  

While the Copenhagen Climate Talks are happening, I thought it would be a good time to post  this video to quickly explain what everyone is talking about with regard to Cap and Trade.

I have to disclose that I'm not a scientist (I'm not even all that well-versed in science) and I rely upon other people to explain the facts behind environmental destruction and the benefits and downfalls of different sources of energy (nuclear, wind, coal, etc.). That said, if you feel something was inaccurately stated in the video or that something should be brought to light, please feel free to comment.  But please, no crazy comments about the fact that there is no such thing as global warming-- for those of you who may think that global warming is just a myth, I've got some other news for you: the moon landing actually happened, dinosaurs existed and evolution is a scientific fact. 

What I do know, though, is that I'm getting tired of the fact that government-funded public service announcements inform the public about the need for everyone to do their part to reduce their energy consumption, while failing to take any measures against corporations that contributed to (and continue to contribute to) our environmental destruction.  

That, for me, is where Cap and Trade fits in.  It's an ineffective policy that will allow corporations to continue avoiding any sort of meaningful penalty for their actions or incentive to adopt greener policies.  We need strong action against corporations in order to better the environment: changing our lightbulbs will only do so much.

It should also be noted that since the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Talks, it was 65 degrees in NYC while snowing in Texas, and a giant iceberg is drifting toward Australia.  Somewhere, a polar bear is dying.    

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

For those of you who don't know, there has been some major movement around healthcare reform to further limit abortion rights. 

Before I start, a quick history lesson:
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, in which the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'"  This case remains one of the most controversial cases to date.  Since Roe v. Wade the Court's reasoning has been severely warped and limited with further cases such as Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, an Act that was not grounded in scientific reasoning and opposed by the vast majority of medical and scientific organizations). 

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for a woman's abortion.  This Amendment unfairly punished those women who were recipients of welfare. Women's rights activists and poverty/welfare activists were furious. 

Despite the Hyde Amendment, a few states expanded their state Medicare coverage to cover the cost of an abortion.  Out of these states, some will fund any elective abortion, while others will only pay for an abortion if pregnancy resulted from rape or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.   

In addition, many private health insurance companies provide coverage for abortions and abortion-related healthcare, including post-operation medications and examinations.  Kaiser-Permanente is one of the largest health insurance companies to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for women-- they are also one of the largest powerhouses to lobby federal government to prevent setbacks for women's rights.  Yes, it might be driven by profit for them, but I'm excited to see that the pro-choice movement has at least one huge insurance company to fund these campaigns.

 

Now onto current events:
The heatlhcare reform debate in the House and Senate is being undermined by stupid Democrats.  First, there was the Stupak Amendment that passed the House.  The Stupak Amendment barred any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  Essentially, this would prohibit any woman from getting her abortion covered by insurance.  This takes the Hyde Amendment to a whole new level! 

Not only is Representative Stupak a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, caved in and voted in support of the amendment to save the healthcare reform bill.  That rings a 10 on my what-the-fuck scale. 

But that's not the end.  Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) has now proposed a Senate Amendment that is identical to the Stupak Amendment.  And guess who he partnered with to create such a gem of a legislation-- our old friend, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the same Republican Senator who used the Senate Finance Committee in early November to pass a bill that would effectively restore $50 million for abstinence-only education.

That's it-- I've had it with the Democrats in office.  I know I say this often, but I really don't see any difference now between the Republicans and Democrats in office.   The only reason I have caved and voted Democrat in presidential elections is to protect a woman's right to choose.  But now I can't even rely on that.  Fuck, even our President spoke about healthcare in such ambiguous terms so as to not make any public statement for or against abortion rights.  I just can't deal with this. 

Next election, I refuse to vote Democrat.  As someone who has always campaigned for presidential candidates (and yes, I phone banked for Kerry and then for Hillary and then for Obama), I refuse, REFUSE, to help elect another Democrat to office.  The only issue I will fight for is no longer on their radar.

I urge you to take action to stop the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Let's not undermine women's healthcare more than we already have!  Click here to sign a petition and contact your Senators! The vote is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, so act quickly!

P.S. I would have put a link to a NY Times article about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but for some reason they haven't published a story on it yet.  Add tag for media bias.    
 

This past Wednesday, Time Magazine published this article  that portrayed Obama as scaling back Bush's AIDS initiative.  Now before I start on my rant about how incorrect this article is, I have to admit that PEPfAR was a pretty neat thing; a commitment to spend more than $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS over five years is great.  But I refuse to ooze thanks to former President Bush like most world leaders did at the time-- I do not feel the need to congratulate our former President in the same way I would give a high-five to a two year old for eating without getting peas in his hair.  PEPfAR was a long time coming, and it was the least he could do after screwing our nation in his eight years of presidency.     

In our world today, over 33.4 million are HIV positive, but only 4 million have access to HIV or AIDS treatment. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 1 million people are HIV positive, but that only a third of those individuals actually know their diagnosis.  In fact, between 2001-2005, HIV transmission rate increased 17% in people ages 50 and older.  Although black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all women in the United States, these two groups account for 82% (almost 9 million) of the estimated total AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005.

Knowing these facts, let's take a look at what former President Bush did for our nation.  Oh that's right, one of his first acts in office was to institute the Global Gag Rule, a policy that prohibited federal funding for abortion services.  Although it was limited to abortions, the Global Gag Rule effectively shut down many family planning operations worldwide, as many family planning clinics were in some way associated with providing for abortion care.  Result? Most women in developing nations who relied on U.S. funded family planning programs had nowhere to go-- no maternal health, no reproductive health screening or treatment, and yes, no access to STD or HIV/AIDS treatment or testing. 

Then there was also the infamous birth of Title V, an Act that would ensure that federal dollars only be used for abstinence-only education.  I can easily create a whole new blog on abstinence-only education, so I'll make this short: abstinence-only education is ineffective through and through.  Telling youth to save themselves for marriage is not a a life-long message.  First, this mantra seems to forget that even when you are married, you can get STDs/HIV-- as far as I know, marriage does not equal fidelity. (*cough* Sen. Mark Sanford (R-SC) *cough*) Second, it only preaches to those, who at the time, identify as heterosexual.  Sadly, same-sex marriage has not been accepted in many states.  And, finally, abstinence-only education has been criticized for giving incorrect information to our youth; for instance, informing school children that condoms are more ineffective than they are effective. 

During his presidency, Bush also blocked federal funding from needle-exchange programs.  It wasn't until 2008 when Democrats reached a super majority that federally funding was restored to needle-exchange programs. 

Yay President Bush-- you destroyed so many worthwhile programs, but made up for it by creating PEPfAR!  It's like you're curious George: you always come through in the end.  Oh, and P.S., good job for also getting through that sentence without stumbling!

Now let's look at our current President.  One of Obama's first acts in office was repealing the Global Gag Rule.  Then he abolished Title V in an effort to put federal funding back into comprehensive sexual health education (although Sen. Hatch (R-UT) was able to pass an amendment through the Senate finance committee that would restore $50 million to abstinence-only education).  Next, he lifted the travel ban for HIV positive individuals, so that the U.S. could be an integral player in the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And finally, this past month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicare coverage extend to cover HIV screening and treatment.  The coverage was extended in early November, which will provide HIV screening and coverage for youth, pregnant women and individuals over age age of 65.  

So, Time, I just have to ask-- what were you thinking when you published that article?

A commitment to end HIV/AIDS is a political movement.  It means acknowledging that people are sexual beings and openly discussing sexuality in a way that would encourage healthy sexual activity and create treatments for those who have been infected with STDs.  It means not blaming someone for engaging in "risky" sexual activity, or blaming someone for addiction to intervenous drugs.  It means that we are looking for equality in the most basic human function: the right to livelihood. 

In addition, when you commit to combating AIDS, it means that are asking for universal healthcare for anyone regardless of age, race, gender or sexuality.  It means that you are asking that individuals receive the treatment necessary to survive, or that they receive the education they need so that they can make well-informed decisions.  You are asking for an overhaul of our private healthcare system and our educational initiatives.  This is not a feel good movement-- this should be something that makes you upset that in 2009, almost a good 20 years after our government began to recognize the AIDS epidemic, that only bare minimum has been done to combat this infectious disease.

I fully believe that if Bush had not been our president, we could have shaved 8 years off of that 20 year mark.  Instead, Obama now has to make up for Bush's horrible policies and then some.  Let's credit Obama for what he's doing to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic...and then demand that he do even more.