Bush II; Day 549: That slope is not slippery...there is no slope

Let's be clear.

All of the various legislation in various states that are chipping away at a woman's right to make her own medical decisions and control her own body are not, by any stretch, about somehow preventing the egregious abuse of abortion by teenagers too immature to know what's good for them or wanton women to slutty to care.

When the right wing gets any of these limiting laws that go beyond Roe v. Wade to go through they are one step closer to their goal: banning abortion...and then to their next goal....controlling your reproductive systems altogether.

Oh, am I just a crazy conspiracy-theorist? Um, not if simply listening to this right-wing radicals makes one crazy.

Key quote from a recent NY Times story, called Contra-Contraception:

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

"The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age - and one of the most ominous." - R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The article is long and scary.

I did a little Technorati search on this article's title and was surprised not to find the major left-leaning blogs all over it. Lots of individual women on MySpace and other blogs talking about it. But I searched sites like Atrios, Kos, the HuffPo and Talking Points Memo in vain.

Are all you people either men or women past child-bearing age?

Sheesh.

Bush II; Day 534: But I want social services checking up on every make-out session under the bleachers!

My, oh my. There is no limit to the really dumb and short-sighted policies fanatical pro-lifers will try to enact to chip away at women's human rights.

Kansas attorney general Phill Kline (and that's not a typo, he really does have an unnecessary extra 'L' in his name) has tried to issue an advisory opinion that would change how a particular state law is interpreted. The law is designed to combat child abuse and mandate reporting from medical personnel.

Instead Mr. Kline would like to require all personnel to report any sexual activity of any teen under 16...whether consensual or not, whether with another teen their age or not, whether kissing or petting or sex.

Well, I'm glad I didn't grow up in a police state...feel sorry for Kansas teenagers.

Yes, I know I sound like a flaming liberal lately...all pro-pot, pro-teen sex (have fun with that spam filters) but I'm really just pro-common sense!!!

Bush II; Day 533: Media mojo on medical marijuana

So I already shared an anecdotal and personal view on the medical marijuana issue.

If you prefer the esteemed opinion of the mainstream media, here is a NY Times editorial on the issue.

Ideology wins over science every time with this Adminsration, so it's no surprise to hear the disingenuousness behind the Administration assertion than research hasn't done enough to verify marijuana's benefits, and then find out that the same Administration is actively discouraging such research. They wouldn't want a silly thing like scientific research to belie their ideologically-based policies, now would they?

Bush II; Day 529: The latest on medical marijuana

Contradicting a much-cited survey, the FDA has inserted itself in the medical marijuana debate by stating that "no sound scientific studies" supported the medical use of marijuana.

The statement resulted from "a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies." That's nice and specific huh?

Well, if you're interested in an alternate (and anecdotal) view, read danah boyd's personal account of using medical marijuana to manage pain.

Bush II; Day 527: New Medicaid rule has theoertically unintended consequences

There's a new Medicaid bill that goes into law soon. Here's the brief description:

More than 50 million Medicaid recipients will soon have to produce birth certificates, passports or other documents to prove that they are United States citizens, and everyone who applies for coverage after June 30 will have to show similar documents under a new federal law.

The requirement is meant to stop the "theft of Medicaid benefits by illegal aliens," in the words of Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia, a principal author of the provision, which was signed into law by President Bush on Feb. 8.

A whole bunch of issues that I never thought of until I read this article, namely that the following folks might have trouble coming up with the right documents:

-older African-Americans who never received birth certificates (In the last century, all over the South, because of segregation and racial discrimination, many hospitals would not take minorities.)
-homeless people who do not have ready access to family records
-older Americans who do not have birth certificates because they were born at home
-Native Americans who do not have the defined documents
-older Medicaid recipients with Alzheimer's disease or other mental impairments may not understand the requirement and may be unable to retrieve the documents they need

Mostly the list includes older Americans of all kinds:

In New Jersey, Ann Clemency Kohler, the Medicaid director, said: "There are lots of reasons why people born here may not have copies of their birth certificates. And many people in their 80's and 90's just don't have a driver's license or a passport because they're not driving or traveling overseas."

It's not that we can object to trying to prevent people getting illegal benefits, but why do such measure always seem to hit the weakest among us the hardest?

Bush II; Day 523: A country without abortion

The NY TImes has a lengthy article about El Salvador, where abortion has been not only outlawed but criminalized for both doctors and patients.

This is what a country without legalized abortion looks like, so read it.

A major take-away is that even such a draconian measure does not stop desperate women from trying to get abortions. Sometimes from others, sometimes through self-treatment.

Just like everyone says about what would happen here in the U.S., class determines destiny in El Salvador:

"Abortion as it exists in El Salvador today tends to operate on three levels. The well-off retain the "right to choose" that comes of simply having money. They can fly to Miami for an abortion, or visit the private office of a discreet and well-compensated doctor. Among the very poor, you can still find the back-alley world described by D.C. and the others who turn up in hospitals with damaged or lacerated wombs. Then there are the women in the middle; they often rely on home-brewed cures that are shared on the Internet or on a new underground railroad that has formed to aid them."

"According to a study on attempted suicide and teen pregnancy published last year by academics at the University of El Salvador, some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as "attempted suicide," which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion."

Bush II; Day 515: Something to Hide on Medicare?

There are so many shenanigans that this Administration pulls that it's hard to keep track. I recently wrote about the FDA/morning after pill shenanigans, and now there are more of 'em with the 2006 annual reports on Social Security and Medicare.

Seems they're delaying delivering their annual report.

They have what the NY Times calls a "lame" excuse: they're down a coupla members of the team that puts the reports together. No excuse in the opinion of the Times.

So why might they really be late? Here's one theory:

"It's unlikely that the report on Social Security is much changed from last year. It's very likely that the Medicare report will show deterioration in the program's financial condition, and it would be shocking if it did not detail the crippling costs and disastrous rollout of the prescription drug benefit. That's clearly not information the administration wants everyone to review in painful detail. But it's information Congress and the public deserve to have. Holding up the reports seems like an attempt to hide the truth."

Bush II; Day 512: Religious people for choice

Fascinating profile of those who are in the clergy and support a woman's right to choose.

When you have the radical right laying claim to all manner of things outside their purview, when you have the radical right eschewing choice, but bloodthirsty for the death penalty and for the War in Iraq, it's hard to step back and remember:

The radical right does not equate to religion or even Christianity. They are just one segment, and for every rabid radical right-winger who happens to be a religious zealot, there are other deeply religious folks who believe in human rights, and the need to protect the environment, and that we should avoid a war of choice and all other manner of noble liberal causes.

Check out CrossLeft.org if you don't believe me.

Bush II; Day 509: let's talk about a good law

I know, I know, you're just not going to know how to handle good news, but I read about this new law in the state of Maine and couldn't pass up the chance to promote it.

Basically the state of Maine now allows animals to be included in orders of protection issued in domestic violence cases.

There are known correlations between abusing animals and abusing people, but I had no idea how common it was for abusive spouses to keep control over their spouse by threatening and harming their pets.

On second thought, even though this law is very good news, reading the article is disturbing. So perhaps you should take my word that it's progress for victims of domestic violence and spare yourself the gory details.

Bush II; Day 508: You go, Hillary and Patty!

I'm so sick of women's health issues being a political ping pong ball. More power to Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray for indefinitely holding up Bush's proposed FDA chief nominee, Andrew von Eschenbach.

This editorial in the Oregon register-Guard explains why.

Oh, and Dubya? When you lie and weasel you lose any ability to express moral outrage, m'kay?

Bush II; Day 504: When our government's word means nothing

Couldn't agree more with the the folks who say that no vote should happen to confirm Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration until the agency makes a final decision on the morning-after pill.

The ongoing political football they are making of this issue is disgusting, outrageous, appalling. You name it. And they are falt-out lying about it.

Remember this:

When they threatened last year to hold up the confirmation of a previous commissioner until a decision on the pill was made, they ultimately relented because of a written assurance from Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, who said the F.D.A. would act on the issue by Sept. 1. Sadly, Mr. Leavitt was misinformed by the agency, overruled by the White House or deliberately deceptive with the senators. The only action the agency took in September was to defer a decision indefinitely.

Evidence has emerged that high officials at the agency overruled their professional staff and ignored expert advisory committees when they rejected the application. Moreover, the agency's claim that it needed more time to consider "novel" issues raised by a proposal to require prescriptions for young teenagers was belied by internal documents revealing that the issues had been discussed for some time but not analyzed aggressively. The logical inference is that the result was dictated by politics - by a desire to placate religious and social conservatives who consider the pill an invitation to promiscuity and an abortifacient.

Rather than being energized by the ever more constant attacks on our civil rights, I am afraid that women are getting battle-fatigued...because it's a battle we just can't believe we have to fight all over again. It's what they're counting on.

Bush II; Day 475: Bye-bye human rights for born women in America

Listen, there is a blogstorm out there on the South Dakota legislation that would crimilaize all abortions except those performed when the woman would otherwise die.

I continue to maintain this isn't about something as frivolous as a choice. Nor even about privacy. It's about basic human rights. Do women have the same level of human rights as men? Do born women have more rights than unborn fetuses?

I say "yes" to both questions and can't believe we're arguing the point.

The editors over at the BlogHer site have been covering the issue, and covering the coverage in depth. It's the place to go to find the round-ups:

Melinda Casino rounds up commentary on the Supreme Court's decision to review late-term D&C procedures. And more commentary on it.

Morra Aarons tells you what action to take if you're really pissed off about the SD bill.

Melinda Casino rounds up commentary on South Dakota, among other issues.

The BlogHer editors are doing a great job of keeping on top of the issues swirling around women and their human rights.

Bush II; Day 467: Anne LaMott on the rights of the born

Lately I've been going out on a limb more with my views on choice, because I'm truly disturbed by the opinions of some progressives that we whiny pro-choice women are just a niche who should shut up about it already.

So, I've been saying it's not about choice, as though we casually pick out an abortion like we pick out what clothes to wear in the morning. This is about human rights, and who's got them. And when you decide that women can't make certain decisions about their medical care or their bodies, then you're saying that women don't have the same human rights as men.

And it's also about saying that the born have more rights than the unborn. Plain and simple.

But I should just leave it to the professionals. Anne LaMott a much-admired novelist, essayist...and Christian...has written a brilliant opinion piece that expands and expounds on my views. Read it.

Bush II; Day 455: Reactions to the SOTU on health care

Quite a few voices chiming in on Bush's focus on health care, most notably Health Savings Accounts last week in his SOTU address.

The NY Times thinks it will, like most of Dubya's policies, favor those who are already most favored.

Joe Paduda avers that none of Dubya's proposals actually address the core drivers of health care inflation.

Then again Insureblog assures us that focusing on HSAs will not, in fact, cause the sky to fall.

I agree the sky won't fall.

But I also agree that this won't help the people who need the most help. And as I've already stated, I still don't really want to be around when some public health disaster ensues because large portions of our population have no, or crappy, health coverage.

Someone remind me what is SO disturbing about universal health care?

Bush II; Day 452: Unashamedly pro-born-woman

Two appeals courts have upheld the ruling that the "Partial Birth Abortion" act was unconstitutional because it had no provision to preserve the life of the mother.

I place "Partial Birth Abortion" in quotes because there is no such thing. That's just right wing buzz word bingo.

And I, for one, am glad that we still value the rights of an actual live woman over those of the unborn fetus.

To me, again, it's about rights, not "choice." Because what a sucky choice for anyone to make. And yet sometimes it has to be made.

Carnival of the Vanities is up at Bargaineering.com

And to make up for being a day late to the Blog For Choice party, I submitted my Blog For Choice post.

Check out the whole Carnival here.

Bush II; Day 443: Blog For Choice Day

Was actually yesterday, but today is the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, and I am going to Blog for Choice today!

As Roe v. Wade teeters on the precipice (and I downheartedly do believe it will be over-turned by whatever court Dubya is responsible for before he leaves office) i think that we who fervently believe in a woman's right to choose should focus more on the word "right" than on the word "choose" in that sentence.

You can argue all you like, but to call abortion a "choice" makes it seem like a casual thing, an indulgent thing, a frivolous thing...like choosing a cereal in the morning, or what color dress to wear.

If we had a choice, most of us would choose never to be in the position of contemplating an abortion. I say "most", because I'm sure the right wing can and will trot out examples of women who seem to treat it frivolously. I've even talked to pro-choice women who have known women that they disparagingly accuse of using abortion for birth control.

Nevertheless, the question is who has the right to make decisions about a woman's body, health and life once she is in the position of being pregnant?

Wingnuts like to use the "slippery slope" argument a lot. The most common one being that gay marriage will lead to bestiality and polygamy and "dogs and cats living together" a la Steve Martin. Well, two can play that game, and if we can dictate a woman to keep a pregnancy, then how far a leap is it to dictate who has to get rid of a pregnancy, or who has to put their kid up for adoption, or any number of other intrusions into what should be a personal and private decision.

And how far a leap is it, if unborn babies and women have equal rights, to criminalize all sorts of behaviors in a pregnant woman if those behaviors are potentially harmful to her fetus? (And that would apply whether she knew she was pregnant or not, given that ignorance is no justification to break the law)

Are we down with criminalizing eating brie, eating too much fish, having a cocktail etc. as "child endangerment"?

To be blunt: what is the logical (not emotional) difference between an America forcing women to carry and have babies against their will and a China forcing women to abort babies against their will? In both cases it's a government over-stepping its bounds and infringing on the rights of its citizens who, last time I checked, are the actual pregnant women.

Let the flames begin.

Blog For Choice Day is tomorrow!

Hat Tip to Sour Duck:

Did you know tomorrow is Blog For Choice Day?

Courtesy of the Bush v. Choice site, which is an excellent resource for info on the status of a woman's right to choose state by state.

I think I will blog about how I actually don't think this is a "choice" issue, it's a "rights" issue.

Bush II; Day 428: What really happens when you criminalize abortion

Perhaps the radical right wing doesn't care, but a recent NY Times editorial indicates the real world results of criminalized abortion. Throughout Latin America, where abortions are mostly illegal the abortion rate is actually higher than in the US. However, so is the mortality rate. The editorial highlights the exact same thing that would happen here: rich women get abortions via their private doctors, poor women get them from quacks...and are killed and injured.

Like I said, I'm not sure those in the radical right give a crap about women and their health, but I bet most rational Americans do.

Bush II; Day 422: One voter's #1 criteria

Ronni Bennett, a premiere ElderBlogger has written a long and detailed account of why universal health care is her number one criteria for voting in 2006 and beyond. Believe me, she has words of equal scorn for all elected officials on this topic.

Here is her summary of why she has made this decision:

"All of these are important. But after a couple of months of research, reading until my eyes water, weighing many ideas and points of view, and thinking hard while shuffling hundreds of notes on 3 x 5 cards, my number one priority in considering my vote for anyone running for federal office has come down to this: universal health coverage – enacted in the next congress, after the mid-term election and before the presidential election in 2008.

I hope it will become your priority too because by relieving every American of the fear of financial ruin caused by catastrophic health problems, by getting health coverage off the backs of employers (who are in the process of divesting themselves of that obligation anyway), and by giving each and every American access to healthcare, we can also make a good-sized dent in other public financial problems."

Damn fine reasoning.

Bush II; Day 389: Excellent point on "private" vs. "public" welfare

I often make a larger point to some people that we can pay now, or we can pay later. That the need for funds doesn't just disappear because we don't want to pay taxes to support something.

Two recent examples to ponder:

The NY Times reports that the tax cuts for the rich actually do them more harm than good when looking at the big picture. It's a fascinating read.

MedBlogger Matthew Holt examines the "private" vs. "public" concept too, adding:

"What I’ve been saying for years is that whether you call them “premiums” or “taxes”, society (i.e. people) still needs to pay for the underlying expenses, and when your underlying expenses are up to two times greater than those of other countries, you will have to pay more for them. So, there is a cost for having health care at 15% of GDP, and we are going to have to pay it somehow."

Two different perspectives on the same basic problem: we have become disconnected from what our money really pays for, whetehr it's our tax money or our health care premiums.

Bush II; Day 345: Chip. Chip. Chip.

Don't believe Prop. 73 is really about chipping away at our rights to make our own decisions about our health and our bodies?

Here's an example of how it works. Remember that old issue: whether the "morning-after" pill should be acciessble OTC? Remember how all of the medical professionals and scientists thought it should. But somehow it's not. Because they're concerned about how to keep it out of the hands of teenagers? Because clearly that's why you need a prescription ot get cigarettes and alcohol...oh...wait.

Anyway, a report has been released calling the decision making process "unusual." Ya think?

But don't read what I think. Read blog buddy arse poetica here. She makes me laugh even in my dread and despair.

Bush II; Day 341 REDUX: The chisel stilled for a day

Last week I mentioned the proposed law in Indiana that was going to require a marriage certificate and an application that outlined one's religious proclivities for a woman to get fertiility treatments.

They've had second thoughts and withdrawn the bill.

Good.

Bush II; Day 301: Speaking truth to power

While our civil rights remain in jeopardy, as the radical right tries to push its regressive beliefs on women (and therefore on all the men who care about those women, who sleep with those women, on the medical professionals who treat those women etc.) we have to remember what a slippery slope they are trying to push us back down.

Luckily there are some folks who are still willing to tell it like it is. Like the official at the FDA who has stepped down in protest over the continuing triumph of ideology over science in the Bush Administration.

LIke the NY Times who continue to poke holes in Dubya's rosy economic pronouncements.

And like our own Attorney General, who joined with two other state attorney generals to sue the White House over their anti-environmental regulatory changes.

Keep it up.

Bush II; Day 285: Not often you get good news about...

...AIDS, is it?

But recent studies show that the rate of infection is San Francisco is way down from what they originally thought.

There are lots of reasons put forth in the article, but I wonder if it isn't simply the fact that today's youth (teens and young adults) have basically never known a time before AIDS.

They didn't have to change habits. They either adopted the recommended behaviors or didn't. And one would think that, like all risky behaviors, it is usually a minority that still engages in them.

I'm just theorizing here. Point is that it's heading in a good direction, and hopefully it keeps declining just that way.

Bush II; Day 269: Can it be? No way!

Well, I'm not going to get all giddy and giggly over Bill Frist's decision to support expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

I believe this was a pragmatic decision from a man who wants to run for President, and can read the polls and the outcomes from the Schiavo debacle as well as the next guy.

Still and all, it's the right decision, however crafty and cynical.

Bush II; Day 170: How does David Brooks annoy me?

Let me count the ways.

Mostly with his latest column that attributes everything but the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to Roe v. Wade.

How much is Brooks spouting the Republican radical right's talking points? Let's see:

1. Roe v. Wade is threatening to destroy the Senate as we know it...yes it's Roe v. Wade's fault that the Republicans are trying to change the way we've done business in the Senate for 200 years. And even though we've had Republican-led Senates since Roe v. Wade's passage, it has nothing to do with this particular flavor of arrogant, power-mad neocons who've made a deal with the evangelical devil to solidify their base. Let's face it, these guys didn't give a fig about the abortion issue until they realized they needed that voter segment to win.

2. Hmmm, apparently "elitist" judges are replacing "acitvist" judges as the new right-wing boogey-man.

3. Liberals have "lost touch" with "working class Americans", as though a large proportion of liberals aren't, in fact, working class themselves. Or do union members who support Democrats no longer count as working class?

4. What could be more of a Republican talking point than this: " Over the past four years Democrats have resorted to the filibuster again and again to prevent votes on judicial nominees they oppose. Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away."

In case you're wondering, the Senate has approved over 95% of Bush's nominees, barring only 10. Meanwhile ~60 of Clinton's nominees were blocked. Why didn't the filibuster have to come into play? Because the Republican-led committee didn't even let the vote on the judges in question get to the floor.

Notice how he only talks about what the minority does to block a nominee.

I'm sorry to break it to Mr. Brook, but some issues have always been left to the courts to decide as a matter of constitutionality. That's what the courts are for. Otherwise, just as an example, some states would likely still have bans on interracial marriage. Is that OK, Mr. Brook?

God, I am cranky today! reading this crap first thing this morning did it to me.

Bush II; Day 166: More on women's rights and the unexpected consequences

I'm a big Malcolm Gladwell fan, but it appears he may have gotten something wrong!

In his book The Tipping Poin he discusses the reduction of crime in New York City and ascribes it to a variety of reasons.

According to a report in the NY Times on a recent debate, Gladwell may have missed the real reason for dropping crime rates in the 90s:

Legalized abortion.

Now, people don't like the theory because they say it seems to encourage abortions, but that is totally bogus in my opinion.

It's a similar case to how abortions declined during the Clinton era because birth control became more accessible. Under the Bush administration abortions are actually increasing.

Does this mean accessible birth control encourages sex? I don't know, but it certainly results in fewer abortions happening, and isn't that a worthier end result?

Read the article for the full explanation.

Bush II; Day 157: More Democrats with spine

Good for Senators Murray and Clinton. They're showing some spine and blocking Dubya's nominee to lead the Food & Drug Administration. Why? Because against the recommendations of a panel of experts that the government themselves ordered to study the issue, the guy is refusing to let the "morning after" pill be sold over the counter. And refusing to set a timeline for making the decision. It's been over a year now.

So two can play the stalemate game, and I for one am all for it.

Bush II; Day 154: Senate seeing reason?

Oh, don't get too excited, but apparently the Senate has voted to ease the restrictions on providing funding to overseas family planning clinics that dare to include abortions as one of the options for pregnant women.

It probably won't pass the house, and the President probably won't sign it, but it shows that some Republican Senators still haven't completely drunk the radical right Kool-aid.

I love how we want to tell these foreign clinics what they can do...even with their own non-U.S. funds.

And the Republicans are really such wimps. Last week it was all "culture of life" this and "defend the defenseless" that, but what excuse did one of the dissenting Republican Senators use on this one?

"Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas said [snip] "This is about taxpayer funding of abortion overseas," he said."

Um, no sir. See, "Republican administrations have barred U.S. money from international groups that support abortion, even with their own money, through services, counseling or lobbying" Emphasis added.

Feh.

Bush II; Day 151: Pharmacists who only want to do the parts of their job that they like

This recent spate of pharmacists who refuse to issue birth control or morning after pill prescriptions, some of them just referring the women to other pharmacies, but some of them hanging on to the prescription and giving moral lectures, leaves me a bit speechless.

I'm glad Illinois' Governor has taken a strong step to counter this irresponsible behavior.

Shouldn't a pharmacist who tells their patient that a taking birth control pills is like having an abortion have his or her license revoked? I mean, isn't a mis-statement like that either a sign of gross incompetence or dishonesty?

I'm just asking.

So, just remember: anyone who goes all moral about the unborn, don't believe that is what they really care about unless they:

-Support family planning access to prevent unwanted pregnancies...here and abroad.
-Support programs to provide pre-natal care to needy women.
-Support programs to help children after they're born...or provide private assistance if they so prefer.

If you run into someone mouthing off about a culture of life who only cares about the life before it's born, and then only in the abstract, then you've got yourself someone whose real agenda is either controlling women, or keeping the gulf between rich and poor plenty wide, or some other underlying oppressive motivation.

So say I.

Bush II; Day 126: W. Does NOT Stand for Women or for Wisdom or for Worldliness

I can't imagine why the New York Times is surprised that the Bush Adminsitration would piss of the whole world at the recent U.N. Women's Conference.

a. the dude clearly doesn't care about world opinion. how many ways do we need to be shown?

b. the dude clearly wants to keep his right wing zealots happy, especially if he can do it by going for impossible scenarios he knows he'll never win on...but shucks, at least he tried, right?

The Times calls the Bush Administration's attempt to strong-arm the Conference into including anti-abortion language a "misstep." Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must...I'm betting all went as planned.

Bush II; Day 113: The Slippery Slope on Reproductive Rights

Forgive me if I find this NY Times story a little chilling.

A Kansas prosecutor wants the medical files of all women who have had late-term abortions. All.

Now, medical files seem like the ultimate private information. Sure your health care companies and professionals pass them around, but really, don't you imagine they stay within that group of people. Isn't that why there's doctor-patient confidentiality?

And this guy doesn't want to subpoena the files of women where there is some reason to suspect criminal activity. I mean he says he's looking for evidence of statuatory rape, but then why would he need a 35-year-old's files?

Forgive me for being suspicious, but this just sounds like one huge invasion of privacy without proper cause or justification to me.

Bush II; Day Seventy-Seven: Since we're on the Democrats

Yes, I know, this is usually a daily record of the horrors that emanate daily from the Bush White House. But sometimes I gotta talk about Democratic Party stuff.

Today is one of those days I guess. And the issue is the new DNC Chair.

I'm not sure on Howard Dean. I wasn't one of his people, but I have to say I've never met more dedicated, stick-with-it types as these Dean folks. He did the party a great, great service...he inspired folks at all levels, and he told them to make the Democratic Party better by being part of it.

I am pretty sure, though, that Roemer is not the right answer. I do not believe we need to slavishly head right-ward, and choosing Roemer would ensure that.

Let's show some cojones; let's show some conviction; let's not try to be Republican-lite.

Here's more from Pandagon and Oliver Willis.

UPDATED: Bush II; Day Sixty-Seven: Have a Miscarriage, Risk Arrest?

UPDATES BELOW
----------------------------
There are so many things wrong with this proposed Virginia bill, I don't know where to begin.

Here's the gist:

"When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor"

Questions:

1. To what end? What public interest do they think they're serving? Deterring people from self-abortions?

2. Don't many, many miscarriages happen so early that the woman may not even know she was pregnant? Don't many of them potentially get mistaken for a heavy period, if it's early enough? And yet, if one does go to the doctor sometime soon after they can often tell you were pregnant/had a miscarriage. Does this put the doctor in the position of having to report a patient?

3. This is what our law enforcement officials should be spending their time doing? Really? And what are they supposed to do with the info? Investigate to make sure it was really a miscarriage?

4. Lastly, is this not just one more way of chipping away at choice...attributing a level of personhood to a fetus no matter how early...that requires the involvement of agencies concerned with criminal investigations?

This sounds just crazy to me. And yet, it's real.

-----------------
UPDATES:
Link to blogger explaining why the bill sponsor's "Oh we didn't mean to criminalize miscarriage" response isn't quite good enough.

Link to It Affects You explaining why the protection of women's choice and reproductive rights is still a winning issue for Democrats.

Bush II: Messsage to Dubya on Day Twenty-Eight: Hands off Roe v. Wade

Dubya would kill for a mandate like this one (although he certainly acts like he doesn't need one.)

Nearly 60% of Americans want a Supreme Court nominee who will keeps his/her hands off of Roe v. Wade.

This isn't just saying they want abortion to be legal under certain cases (that number's even bigger.) This is saying Roe v. Wade.

Source: Associated Press

I only wish he'd pay attention. But I fear he will not.

So, I hope the Democrats stick to their guns and filibuster away!

Bush II; Day Seventeen: Chipping Away At Women's Health Rights

Senate Republicans are willing to risk a partial government shut-down to get anti-abortion language into a "must-pass" spending bill.

What's wrong with this picture? Oh, so many things.

1. Shoving law-making into what is basically an appropriations bill.

2. Doing so a day before the massive bill was to go to a vote, and a day before the interim bill that was helping the government keep running is due to expire.

3. Doing so without the added language ever going through any committee or floor voting.

4. Those supposedly states'-rights-loving conservative running roughshod over states' rights to federalize anti-choice policies.

5. And last but not least: de-prioritizing women's health (and particularly poor women's health) simply to prove right-wing dominance as early as possible.

This is the time for Democrats to take a stand. If we don't take that stand now, you will slowly but surely see choice destroyed.

Sources:
11/20 NY Times [Reg. Reqd.]

The Daily Kos urges you to contact your representatives.

Cnn.com...Notice how this "liberal" media outlet barely mentions the controversy.

Bush II; Day Eleven: Chipping away at choice

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tells Arlen Specter: guarantee you'll support any Bush court nominee, or you can't be Judiciary Committee Chairman.

Dissent and disagreement: not allowed in the reign of Bush II.

Source: Reuters

Some Perspective

No matter how badly you or I felt yesterday; and even no matter how badly John Kerry felt yesterday; the Edwards family had a worse day than the rest of us yesterday.

We can only fervently hope that this was caught early and is eradicated swiftly.

And it sounds like perhaps Elizabeth was doing what I so often forget to: self-examination. A good lesson for us all.

Abortion Rates Up Under Bush

A recent study indicates that abortion rates have risen under Bush. They have, in fact, reversed a long-term trending downwards.

My instinct would be to believe it has to do with reduced funding for family planning etc. My instinct would be wrong, I guess.

It's the economy, stupid.

More women choose to have abortions when they believe they can't afford to raise a child, and when they don't have a reliable co-bread winner to help them.
Pro-life zealots are hypocritical if they turn their backs on the economic realities.

Let's make sure the born feel they have a choice. That will improve the chances for the unborn.

Proposition 72 information

The SCC DP is officially supporting Proposition 72, and I received some information from someone working on the campaign to pass it, so I said I would post his info here:

EXPOSED “SCARE TACTICS” REVEALS DECEPTION BY OPPONENTS OF PROP 72’S HEALTH CARE PROTECTIONS

Californians might have seen an ad against Proposition 72, the measure to ensure that workers in large and medium size companies get private health care coverage on the job. The ad features a woman talking about the impact of Proposition 72 on “her” restaurant.

There’s one problem: it’s wrong.

She’s an actress, not a restaurant owner. Check out the article in the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday, October 4, 2004:

She’s in a small restaurant that employs 12 people, and thus would be exempt from Prop 72 since it is under 50 employees. The restaurant would have to more than quadruple its size in order even to be subject to Prop 72. Over 93% of restaurants have less than 50 employees and would be exempt.

She’s just wrong. She says she provides “good benefits” but would still have to pay money. If an employer provides good benefits (as most large and medium size businesses do), they would not have to pay any more under Prop 72.

She’s dead wrong. She says she would be “forced” into a “government-run” system. If an employer provides good benefits, nothing in Proposition 72 would require her to change the coverage they provide workers in any way. She has the option of joining a statewide purchasing pool, but even that would provide a choice of private plans.

McDonalds and other fast food and chain restaurants are providing 70% of the funding for the opposition to Prop 72. They are trying everything to defeat this Proposition because they let a significant percentage of their workers go uninsured, and fall onto taxpayer-funded programs and into emergency rooms.

Supporters of Prop 72 are actively at work counteracting with rebuttals to the opposition’s claims. As the statewide health care consumer group, we encourage you to inform your friends and family to not succumb to the opposition’s manipulative messages. There’s a full analysis of this deceptive ads at the Prop 72 website, at http://www.yesonprop72.com.

Visit the website, and get more information to vote Yes on Prop 72.

Dred Scott...and why Bush brought it up

So I and many another fine blogger were somewhat flummoxed by Bush's reference to the Dred Scott case.

Were we still, we thought, at the point where we had to affirm our opposition to slavery?

Turns out that mentioning Dred Scott was basically code to give a shout-out to his fundamentalist Christian base. In the world of the religious right, Dred Scott's treatment of slaves is likened to Roe v. Wade's treatment of embryos.

Thanks to my sis for pointing me to this thorough run-down of the topic.

So-Called Liberal Media Lets Them Lie about Choice

I am so infuriated.

I don't normally listen to talk radio of any sort, but I was driving in my car, my iPod was out of juice, and the radio was boring me. So I turned to NPR.

Supposedly liberal NPR and supposedly liberal Fresh Air.

They were interviewing Rick Santorum, extreme right wing congressional dude, and they were talking about abortion. And man, Santorum is smooth. you cannot deny how well these guys talk on point and coin a phrase. Activist judges blah blah blah, deciding from on high how Americans should lead their lives blah blah blah. mean, I'm sorry, isn't it the Republican trying to dictate from on high what I can do with my own body?

But anyway, he then goes on about how more Americans support the Republican platform than the Democratic platform when it comes to abortion, because the Democrats support "abortion-on-demand at any point in a pregnancy."

So right when I got home I went and actually read the Democratic Party Platform. (You can download it at this link.)

And here's all it has to say about abortion:

"We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning
and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

And Roe v. Wade does NOT guarantee abortion on demand at any point in a pregnancy, or we wouldn't have these states voting in various restrictions on abortion.

And liberal NPR, liberal Terry Gross? DOES NOT CALL HIM ON IT AT ALL.

And here's the email to email the show and complain about it. Which I'm going to do right now.

The text of my email complaint is in the extended entry:

Here's the email I just sent:

I have to say I'm very disappointed in an interview with Rick Santorum I caught on today's Fresh Air.

You allowed Santorum to characterize the Democratic position on abortion as "on demand at any point in a pregnancy" without saying a word.

Since when did journalistic objectivity mean letting people spout untruths and simply calling it the other side of the issue?

Here is the exact verbiage from the Party Platform (downloaded from http://www.democrats.org)

"We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Not quite the same.

In fact quite different. So when he's misleading your listeners into thinking that more Americans support the Republican position on abortion than the actual, true Democratic position on the issue, I think it's your journalistic duty to set the record straight.

Women & Bush: Cannot See the Connection

I don't get how most women could stand to support Bush. Well, I suppose most women don't.

But the problem is many, many women did not vote last time around. Something like 15 million single women didn't vote, to take just one sub-demographic. Think that might have swayed the election a teeny bit?

The Kerry site has used the dismal Census figures as a catalyst to launch a new national Women for Kerry/Edwards effort.

You can sign up here.

Please tell your female friends and family to stand up for themselves by standing with John Kerry.

And if you need just a little more ammo, here's a good post from the Kicking Ass blog over at the DNC site.

Getting Back to Issues

Like health care.

Coinciding with the report that more American lack health coverage tan ever before, Paul Krugman writes one of his typically reasonable and convincing columns about health care.

And the interesting case he makes is that the health care coverage issues in this country contribute to our joblessness problem. Not just vice versa.

And of course I like it, because he makes the case that Kerry simply has a better approach to the problem than Dubya.

While it may not be a cure-all, it's a step in the right direction.

Here's the link.

The full text is in the extended entry:

America's Failing Health
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 27, 2004
New York Times

Working Americans have two great concerns: the growing difficulty of getting health insurance, and the continuing difficulty they have in finding jobs. These concerns may have a common cause: soaring insurance premiums.

In most advanced countries, the government provides everyone with health insurance. In America, however, the government offers insurance only if you're elderly (Medicare) or poor (Medicaid). Otherwise, you're expected to get private health insurance, usually through your job. But insurance premiums are exploding, and the system of employment-linked insurance is falling apart.

Some employers have dropped their health plans. Others have maintained benefits for current workers, but are finding ways to avoid paying benefits to new hires - for example, by using temporary workers. And some businesses, while continuing to provide health benefits, are refusing to hire more workers.

In other words, rising health care costs aren't just causing a rapid rise in the ranks of the uninsured (confirmed by yesterday's Census Bureau report); they're also, because of their link to employment, a major reason why this economic recovery has generated fewer jobs than any previous economic expansion.

Clearly, health care reform is an urgent social and economic issue. But who has the right answer?

The 2004 Economic Report of the President told us what George Bush's economists think, though we're unlikely to hear anything as blunt at next week's convention. According to the report, health costs are too high because people have too much insurance and purchase too much medical care. What we need, then, are policies, like tax-advantaged health savings accounts tied to plans with high deductibles, that induce people to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket. (Cynics would say that this is just a rationale for yet another tax shelter for the wealthy, but the economists who wrote the report are probably sincere.)

John Kerry's economic advisers have a very different analysis: they believe that health costs are too high because private insurance companies have excessive overhead, mainly because they are trying to avoid covering high-risk patients. What we need, according to this view, is for the government to assume more of the risk, for example by picking up catastrophic health costs, thereby reducing the incentive for socially wasteful spending, and making employment-based insurance easier to get.

A smart economist can come up with theoretical justifications for either argument. The evidence suggests, however, that the Kerry position is much closer to the truth.

The fact is that the mainly private U.S. health care system spends far more than the mainly public health care systems of other advanced countries, but gets worse results. In 2001, we spent $4,887 on health care per capita, compared with $2,792 in Canada and $2,561 in France. Yet the U.S. does worse than either country by any measure of health care success you care to name - life expectancy, infant mortality, whatever. (At its best, U.S. health care is the best in the world. But the ranks of Americans who can't afford the best, and may have no insurance at all, are large and growing.)

And the U.S. system does have very high overhead: private insurers and H.M.O.'s spend much more on administrative expenses, as opposed to actual medical treatment, than public agencies at home or abroad.

Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes. Put it this way: in Canada, respectable business executives are ardent defenders of "socialized medicine." Two years ago the Conference Board of Canada - a who's who of the nation's corporate elite - issued a report urging fellow Canadians to bear in mind not just the "symbolic value" of universal health care, but its "economic contribution to the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."

My health-economist friends say that it's unrealistic to call for a single-payer system here: the interest groups are too powerful, and the antigovernment propaganda of the right has become too well established in public opinion. All that we can hope for right now is a modest step in the right direction, like the one Mr. Kerry is proposing. I bow to their political wisdom. But let's not ignore the growing evidence that our dysfunctional medical system is bad not just for our health, but for our economy.

Chipping Away At Our Rights

A very long and thoughtful post here from a fellow blogger about reproductive rights.

She makes the absolutely critical point that the current right-wing strategy is to chip away at our rights, not go right for overturning Roe v. Wade.

They are not just using powerful language to "frame" parts of the debate (Partial Birth Abortion being the prime example.)

They are also trying to set precedents of reducing our rights in the rarest cases, setting the groundwork to work their way in to the most basic rights.

It's hard for people to get behind late abortions. It's hard for people to argue against "Laci's Law" criminalizing the killing of a fetus as a separate crime.

But the groundwork they are laying is all the same:

That the earliest fetus or even embryo is a separate person.

That a woman's privacy, rights and health is not more important, and in fact may be less important, than that fetus.

Seeing that argument taken so far as to justify refusing contraception or restricting stem cell research really blows my mind.

Meanwhile, let us not forget: 800,000 more living, breathing children fell into poverty in 2003, making the grand total 17.6% of children living in poverty in this country.

And I shudder to imagine living in this Valley at the demarcation point that qualifies as poverty.

Just to put it in perspective, you know?

Disdain For Our Constitution Comes in Many Flavors

The Bush Administration has this nasty habit of wanting to stomp on our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
And sometimes those pesky "activist judges" are all that stand between us and
Bush's extreme right-wing version of the world.

Today another blow was struck for reason and right.

Another judge struck down the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban.

Bush's Health Care Plan Full of Gaps

This morning's Washington Post article really lays it all out pretty well.

I don't have much to add, except to say one should compare what they're saying about Bush's plan and compare it to Kerry's plan.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The One Things MORE Important to Bush Than His Buddies

When it comes to being tied to special interests, Bush has proved to be the master. From oil companies, to pharmaceutical companies to the insurance industry to the accounting industry and so on and so forth. Bush pulls in the donations and then scratches right back.

There are many sources on his financial ties to various special interests. You can start with Arianna Huffington and work your way to all sorts of other sources.

But the one thing that may matter more to Bush than his buddies is...drum roll please...re-election, of course.

Bush is reportedly considering allowing drug imports from across our borders. This is a huge sticking point with many people, particularly seniors. The only reason he is doing this is political pressure. He pretty much says as much.

Am I being too cynical? It just seems so transparent.

Krugman on Kerry's Health Care Plan

This post was hacked and taken over by an evil spammer. I have no idea what brilliant insights I originally had in this body of the post, but I do have Paul Krugman's entire article on the stark choice between George Bush and his tax cuts or John Kerry and a chance to improve our health care situation in this country in the extended entry. Please read it:

And down with evil spammers!

Health Versus Wealth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 9, 2004

Will actual policy issues play any role in this election? Not if the White House can help it. But if some policy substance does manage to be heard over the clanging of conveniently timed terror alerts, voters will realize that they face some stark choices. Here's one of them: tax cuts for the very well-off versus health insurance.

John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured. To pay for that plan, Mr. Kerry wants to rescind recent tax cuts for the roughly 3 percent of the population with incomes above $200,000.

George Bush regards those tax cuts as sacrosanct. I'll talk about his health care policies, such as they are, in another column.

Considering its scope, Mr. Kerry's health plan has received remarkably little attention. So let me talk about two of its key elements.

First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children.

Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs.

By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more.

This is a truly good idea. Our society tries to protect its members from the consequences of random misfortune; that's why we aid the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic health expenses, which can easily drive a family into bankruptcy, fall into the same category. Yet private insurers try hard, and often successfully, to avoid covering such expenses. (That's not a moral condemnation; they are, after all, in business.)

All this does is pass the buck: in the end, the Americans who can't afford to pay huge medical bills usually get treatment anyway, through a mixture of private and public charity. But this happens only after treatments are delayed, families are driven into bankruptcy and insurers spend billions trying not to provide care.

By directly assuming much of the risk of catastrophic illness, the government can avoid all of this waste, and it can eliminate a lot of suffering while actually reducing the amount that the nation spends on health care.

Still, the Kerry plan will require increased federal spending. Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, an independent health care expert who has analyzed both the Kerry and Bush plans, puts the net cost of the plan to the federal government at $653 billion over the next decade. Is that a lot of money?

Not compared with the Bush tax cuts: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if these cuts are made permanent, as the administration wants, they will cost $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

The Kerry campaign contends that it can pay for its health care plan by rolling back only the cuts for taxpayers with incomes above $200,000. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has become the best source for tax analysis now that the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy has become a propaganda agency, more or less agrees: it estimates the revenue gain from the Kerry tax plan at $631 billion over the next decade.

What are the objections to the Kerry plan? One is that it falls far short of the comprehensive overhaul our health care system really needs. Another is that by devoting the proceeds of a tax-cut rollback to health care, Mr. Kerry fails to offer a plan to reduce the budget deficit. But on both counts Mr. Bush is equally, if not more, vulnerable. And Mr. Kerry's plan would help far more people than it would hurt.

If we ever get a clear national debate about health care and taxes, I don't see how President Bush will win it.  

Speaking of Women, Choice and the Separation of Church & State

This post was hacked and hijacked by an evil spammer.

I don't remember what my brilliant commentary was after all this time, but you can still go read an article about Bush undermining the work of the UN Population Fund in the extended entry:

FULL TEXT:
Expendable Women

Published: July 5, 2004

One of the uglier aspects of the Bush administration's assault on women's reproductive rights is its concerted undermining of the United Nations Population Fund based on the false accusation that it supports coerced abortions in China.

The fund supports programs in some 141 countries to advance poor women's reproductive health, reduce infant mortality, end the sexual trafficking of women and prevent the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS. Yet under pressure from conservative religious groups, the administration is expected to withhold the $34 million that Congress appropriated this year for these vital efforts, much as President Bush blocked the $34 million Congress approved in 2002 and last year's $25 million allocation.

The damage does not end there. The administration has lately stepped up its effort to isolate the Population Fund by quietly threatening the financing of other leading groups, including Unicef and the World Health Organization, if they continue to work with the fund. Take the chilling example of Marie Stopes International. Last year the State Department discontinued support for a small but well-regarded private AIDS program for African and Asian refugees run by Marie Stopes and other groups, citing Marie Stopes's cooperating in China with the Population Fund.

Just last month, three federal agencies — the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — pulled their support from a major international conference on health issues, apparently owing to the inclusion of speakers from the Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

To justify these destructive machinations, the Bush administration has perpetuated a bogus accusation that the Population Fund has either stood by or helped with coerced abortions in China. This disregards America's own relationship with China, never mind that none of the money approved by Congress would go to China, or that the State Department's investigating team found no evidence that the Population Fund has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. It also disregards the Population Fund's crucial role in helping to drive down China's abortion rate below the level of the United States and in encouraging China to devote new attention to combating H.I.V. and AIDS.

In truth, the administration's targeting of the Population Fund is not really about abortion. It is an attack on comprehensive family planning and women's sexual and reproductive autonomy, driven largely by right-wing ideologues unswervingly opposed to all forms of family planning and contraceptive use. As a result, the United States is helping to deny vulnerable women living in isolated rural areas essential information and services needed to avoid pregnancy and disease.

OK, You Politicians, Play Nice!

I must be having a cranky day. I am finding myself more annoyed than usual with the current tenor of political discourse and prevalence of partisan rancor. (I think I channelled Jon Stewart with that comment.)

Latest example? Read all about it in the extended entry:

So, Kerry decides to cancel some campaign stops, fly in to DC and vote on a veterans health care bill that he has long supported.

The Republicans promptly shelve the vote for the day. (Since they control everything over there, you know.)

Kerry cries foul. Republicans, who were salivating for the moment when he dared to complain, unleash their hell hounds of righteous indignation at how many other votes he has missed this year...sort of acting like a jilted Congress.

Kerry answers pointing out the hypocrisy, given Bush's lack of presence in Texas while he was running in 2000. Not to mention how almost every Senator or Representative who has EVER run for President ends up missing a lot of votes during the election year.

And so on and so forth.

Another great day for politicians. No wonder a friend recently wrote in an email to me: "I have a deep-seated suspicion of anyone who chooses politics as a career."

Right now, it may be we Democrats who are trying to energize and motivate those who have disengaged from the political process; those who feel disenfranchised.

But where would the Republicans be if their constituency gets too turned off by the ugliness of political activity today. I know plenty of traditional Republicans, who are getting discouraged. Interestingly they talk about not voting.

Maybe in 10 years it will be the Republicans talking about how many millions of people within groups that would traditionally vote Republican did NOT vote.

What goes around comes around. That's all I'm saying.

Recent News: BUsh finds yet another small issue to care about

5691 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Recent News: The GAO Finally Catches Up to Our Blog!

About two months ago I wrote a blog entry here about the propaganda pieces the White House was delivering to news stations around the country. These were propaganda pieces posing as news pieces, and a shameful number of stations actually played those pieces during their newscasts.

Well, funny thing about that. Apparently that little idea breaks federal law.

Where's the Independent Prosecutor? Where are the Congressional hearings? How would this have gone down in a Clinton Administration, do you think?

Well, here's what's going to happen here: nothing, apparently. Check out this quote from the NY Times article on the story:

Medicare officials are unlikely to face any penalties. David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who is head of the General Accounting Office, said, "We do not have reason to believe that this violation was knowing and willful, and we are not in the enforcement business."

Oh, you don't think it was "knowing"? Really? Based on what exactly? And since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? It is NOT, as any 3rd grader knows.

I have two suggestions:

Use the SCC DP Letter Writing section write a letter to the editor of your paper, asking for accountability from this Administration.

And use the same section to write a letter to your Congresspeople, asking them to DO something!

SCC DP Letter Writing Tool

Full text of the NY Times article is in the extended entry:

White House's Medicare Videos Are Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: May 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.

The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure.

The consequences of the ruling were not immediately clear. The accounting office does not have law enforcement powers, but its decisions on federal spending are usually considered authoritative and are taken seriously by officials in the executive branch of the government.

The decision fuels a raging political debate over the new Medicare law. President Bush and many Republicans in Congress say the law will provide immense assistance to millions of elderly and disabled people. But Democrats say the law will do little for the elderly and is so seriously flawed that the government had to resort to an illegal public relations campaign to sell it to voters.

The General Accounting Office said that a specific part of the videos, a made-for-television "story package," violated the prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.

People seeing the videos in a newscast would "believe that the information came from a nongovernment source or neutral party," it said.

William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, who helped develop the videos, said: "We disagree. It's not covert. TV stations knew the videos came from us and could have identified the government as the source if they had wanted to."

The accounting office dismissed that argument. The intended audience, it said, was not news directors, but viewers, and "the video news releases did not alert viewers that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was the source."

Moreover, it said, "some news organizations indicated that they misread the label or they mistook the story package as an independent journalist news story."

Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." A third video is narrated, in Spanish, by a man who identifies himself as "Alberto Garcia reporting." The scripts were prepared by the Bush administration at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The accounting office said the videos were "not strictly factual news stories" and were flawed by "notable omissions and weaknesses" in their explanation of the Medicare law. But the main problem, it said, is that they were "misleading as to source."

The government, it said, served up a "purported news story" using "alleged reporters" to read scripts prepared by the government, but "nothing in the story packages permits the viewer to know that Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia were paid with federal funds."

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. The accounting office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government without identifying the source.

The accounting office said the administration's misuse of federal money "also constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act," which prohibits spending in excess of appropriations. Under the law, the secretary of health and human services, Tommy G. Thompson, must report the violation to Congress and the president, with "a statement of actions taken" to prevent a recurrence.

The Antideficiency Act, derived from a law passed in 1870, is one of the major statutes by which Congress exercises its constitutional control of the purse.

Medicare officials are unlikely to face any penalties. David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who is head of the General Accounting Office, said, "We do not have reason to believe that this violation was knowing and willful, and we are not in the enforcement business."

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, said he was drafting legislation that would require the Bush campaign to reimburse the Medicare trust fund for the cost of the videos. The administration put the cost at $42,750, but refused to provide any documentation.

Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said it confirmed his view that the administration had improperly tapped the Medicare trust fund to pay for political advertisements.

Under the Medicare law, the government is encouraging the use of drug discount cards for the next 18 months. In 2006, Medicare will provide insurance coverage for certain outpatient drug costs.

The Bush administration hired Ketchum Inc. to disseminate information about the Medicare law, and Ketchum hired another company, Home Front Communications, to create the videos. The materials were distributed to television stations by satellite, mail and a syndicated news service, CNN Newsource, the ruling said.

Okay, I don't like to gloat but...

It is pretty sweet to see Karen Hughes back on her heels, for a change.

For those of you not following it, Ms. Hughes, Bush's adviser and general flunky, was on the news shows after the March for Women's Lives, basically implying that those who favor choice are akin to terrorists in the way they do not "value every life."

Hughes is a pretty smooth talker, and I'm sure she has managed to link wholly unrelated issues to 9/11 and terrorism before, but usually she manages to do so so smoothly that only we "sensitive left-wingers" raise a stink.

Not so this time, pretty much EVERYONE noticed her associating Sunday's marchers with terrorists.

Now she's backpedaling and feigning outrage that anyone would so "distort" her comments.

Kind of makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside.

Here's a link to the story.

Enjoy, I did.

Soapbox: Politicizing of health issues

Among all the large, hairy issues facing our nation...the war, terrorism, jobs, deficits...there are also areas where our rights are being chipped away at in small, scary, hard-to-notice ways. I've written about this before, but it continues to scare the hell out of me.

And one such area is health care, particularly women's health.

But, more and more, I DO believe that public outcry and some journalists actually worthy of that title are making a difference, are exposing some of the Administration's hijinks, and are forcing them, kicking and screaming, to tell the truth.

Read on to the extended entry to see what's got me worked up today.

I provided a link in a previous post to a column by Leonard Pitts, who was the first person I observed exposing how the Bush Administration was having government reports altered to reflect their particular ideology, rather than the truth.

He brought up this specific example:

"A 2002 report in the New York Times found apparent administration editing of a National Cancer Institute Web site. A statement that originally said science had found no link between abortion and breast cancer had been changed to say that the evidence was inconclusive."

What's the big deal? Well, in some states they require doctors to tell women considering abortion that it raises their risk of breast cancer, an unnecessary, untrue scare tactic.

Turns out that the studies that found a link were flawed, being based on retrospective admissions of abortions (much likelier amongst women with breast cancer, who may be seeking an explanation.) The newest study is the most comprehensive ever, combining multiple studies that tracked women who have first had abortions and find out if later they got breast cancer. it spanned 83000 women in 16 countries. And it concluded there was NO link.

So finally, FINALLY the federal government's National Cancer Institute web site has been changed to reflect that abortions do not raise the risk of breast cancer. It only took years!