Health Reform Bill “Bitter Compromise” for Women

The health care “reform” legislation passed by the House on Saturday evening contains provisions that are under fire for limiting women’s access to abortion.

The 1990-page Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) – aimed at extending health coverage to 36 million low and middle-income Americans - narrowly passed the House with a vote of 220 to 215. The bill makes provisions for a government–run public option as well as a federally subsidized exchange for private insurers.

And although insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history, the bill’s anti-abortion language supports gender-based discrimination in medical coverage. The final bill contained the Stupak amendment, which in one fell swoop radically altered a woman’s right to choose.

Introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), the amendment’s inclusion is being rejected by women’s rights and pro-choice advocates.

“This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country,” said Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, the co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.

If enacted in the final healthcare legislation, the Stupak amendment will deny women who have private insurance - a right that they currently have: access to health insurance coverage for terminating a pregnancy.

Under the recently passed House bill, federal money cannot be used to fund abortions for those enrolled in the public option unless the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. Private insurers that participate in the federally established exchange will be held to the same coverage restrictions for abortion procedures.

Through the exchange, federal subsidies will be made available to private insurers to make premiums more affordable to low-income individuals and families who are ineligible for Medicaid.

Medicaid already restricts federal funds for abortions unless in the case of rape, incest or endangerment of the mother’s life. Following the federal government’s lead, these restrictions inspired 32 states and DC to limit their own funding of abortions through Medicaid to only cases of rape, incest or life endangerment.

“This amendment says that a woman CANNOT purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars; middle class women, using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public OR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN in the new health care exchange,” Schakowsky said. “This amendment is a radical departure from current law and will result in millions of women losing coverage they already have.”

According to Slate.com’s Timothy Noah, “Pelosi…accepted what was for her a bitter compromise on the issue of abortion in order to secure the votes needed to pass the measure.”

Pro-life Republicans and Democrats alike worked to satisfy the demands of the Catholic Church. Apparently the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops served an influential role during the health care debate on abortion. The Conference issued a memo criticizing compromise language in the bill, because it left “loopholes that could allow federal funds to go toward abortions,” reports CNN.

This begs the question – how could Congress so blatantly disregard the spirit of the First Amendment, which acknowledges the “separation of church and state”?

Initially Stupak's amendment failed in committee, but the Congressman kept fighting to incorporate it into the final House bill. The amendment made it into the bill on a Friday vote, passing 240 to 194.

“Here's the mistake people make. They think the public option is like public funding, but in truth the public option is funded with private money. So if you say a public option can't offer a legal medical procedure, what you are doing is greatly restricting a woman's right to choose,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, (D-Colorado).

One-fifth of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the U.S. will end in abortion, of which 48% are sought by women who are 25 years of age and older. The yearly cost of abortions in the U.S. is approximately $550 million, based upon the average cost for the procedure of $430. Abortions are higher among low-income women. These are just the sort of individuals who would most likely be covered by a public option or qualify for the subsidized premiums made available in the exchange.

Curiously pious Catholics are supportive of insurance re-imbursement for impotency drugs such as Viagra, but not for birth control, which would prevent most unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

In 2008, the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center wrote: “one might say that Viagra fixes a broken system, while birth control breaks a perfectly working system.”

Even though the average age for ED prescriptions is around 60, men deserve this entitlement because a man is “capable” of fathering children at this age, says the Catholic Church.

Medicare eliminated its benefit for erectile dysfunction drugs in 2006 in the interest of saving money. Because getting it up ain’t cheap.

The spending per year on ED drugs is equal to roughly $2.4 billion. Yes, that‘s billion with a “B”.

Annually doctors prescribe impotence drugs to about 5 million men. Private insurers generally cover the drugs, which include Viagra, Cialis and Levitra among others. A 100-count bottle of Pfizer’s Viagra costs $1,457.

The price to prevent unwanted pregnancy is about $30 a month. But many insurers already require women to pay out-of-pocket for birth control pills.

H.R. 3962 will cost $1.1 Trillion over the next 10 years and funding for abortions would amount to a small percentage of that overall cost.

It is unclear whether there will be restrictions on male impotency drugs in the public option, but there is no reason to believe that private insurers would now deny men a benefit that they already possess. Why should women be any different?

Next the Senate must draft its own version of health legislation. Then the House and Senate bills must be reconciled, after which they must be approved once more by each chamber.

And while pro-lifers are up in arms about federal money being used to fund abortions, this process begs the question why it is acceptable for federal tax dollars to pay for faulty executions, botched police shootings or the collateral damage of war, but not terminate the life of the unborn.
Obama should refrain from signing any health bill that would federally subsidize discrimination against women, perpetuating the politicization of a medical procedure that is a private and painful decision for women, their partners and their families.

Ruling For The People

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The Center for A New American Socialist Democracy commends the United States Supreme court for affirming the right “of the People” over the individual States' desire to strip inner-city populations of the same set of rights as those in rural areas.

In the history of socialism, many movements have used armed struggle to bring the varied conditions of affected populations to the public discourse. Though many times, as when dealing with arms, many innocents suffer and injury is deadly when movements resort to armed conflict. But a popular media slogan is stated, “when it bleeds it leads”; yet most of the violence involved in our struggles have to do with state oppression rather then violent socialist political action.

Groups in the past have picked up arms against their oppressors only after repeated paramilitary actions by Federal, State and Local law enforcement that have resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of American Citizens of every persuasion. It has become clear in the most recent of times that social democracy movements around the world are progressing beyond a rush to arms in the pursuit of social justice and political reform. The gun should always be in the closet or the locker, as it basically guarantees that our peaceful & legal forms of protest are readily embraced, for the alternatives are the ideas of the past that has caused so many such pain…

An informed electorate, a sign of cardboard & peaceful civil disobedience make the best weapons in these days, and the internet may now make the Pen that much more mightier then the Sword. Modern struggle is defined by shooting out broadcast emails and putting up manifestos on websites. Fundraising, grassroots outreach and even the flash mob phenomenon make the idea & implementation of revolution all the easier. Guns are not now needed for a modern revolution, just an educated population with arms to hold those signs and make those phone calls.

But we are of the people that most gun laws were actually enacted against. With the intention to remove the right to bear arms to African, Latino and Native Americans, gun ownership was to be a right of the few rich and powerful. Political ideology aside, those populations most severely restricted or barred from owning a hand gun are communities of color. This is not a mistake or has it been legislated without forethought. Those localities wishing to remove guns from the hands of citizens have the highest crime rates when looking at crimes committed by law enforcement officers. In addition, when looking at permits issued in those municipalities, the racial and economic disparity is glaring. Keeping weapons out of the hands of the under-represented and the under-served is seemingly key in the push to again gentrify metropolitan areas in the United States by its Mayors and city managers.

We believe that the Framers of the constitution intended “the People” to be able to arm themselves in a way that such does assure protection from abuses of a state who has a disregard for the rights of its citizenry. As much as abortion & the death penalty, gun control we concur is a complex issue for many, but all of these issues are issues of individual rights over the rights of the state. With so many across the country witnessing the criminality of so many political leaders, it would be wholly unwise and against the idea of self-preservation to forgo protection that the Second Amendment afforded to “we the people” in pursuit of a more perfect union.

Committing a crime with any weapon is exactly that, and could now be treated as such. Should a gun kill or a company’s product liability, each should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Socialists are among the most vociferous & activated against inner-city gun violence. Strict gun ownership laws have done nothing to curb said issue and the topic is a false argument in the act of removing “the people” from rights within the Constitution.

It is now with great hope that so called “liberals” will now advance to seeking ways to improve the lives of “inner-city” populations without the issue of Gun Control to divert attention from a lack of social investment of affected municipalities by the very politicians who champion more laws to control & imprison their poorer and minority populations.

Nader on Immigration & Latin America

In his own words, see 4 yourself!

The Business of Modern Slavery

LODI, Calif. -- On May 16th, a pregnant teenager pruning grape vines died in 100-degree heat. Yet, in the state of California, horses are not allowed to work but migrant workers are forced to without water.

On Wednesday, 500 farmworkers and their advocates capped a poignant, four-day march to the statehouse demanding safer conditions on thousands of vineyards and orchards.

Authorities in California -- the only state with a heat-illness standard -- suspect Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, a 17-year-old undocumented Mexican migrant, collapsed last month because her farm labor overseer had denied employees proper access to shade & water.

Some Democrats say no to war, sometimes...

U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday tabled legislation that would have ensured funded the war in Iraq for another year, in a surprise move that the Senate could overturn.

By a vote of 149-141, the Democrat-controlled House rejected a measure that would have given the Pentagon the budget to keep the wars against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan going strong through next summer, @ President George Bush's request.

A group of anti-war House Democrats voted against the funds. That, coupled with 132 Republicans just simply voting "present," meaning neither "aye" nor "nay," and tabled the war funding question for now.

Yet the vastly more hawkish Senate will pass its desire for a war-funding bill next week and will insure the money for further the criminal occupation of both countries in the coming year.

what to say? 50 Shots means innocent cops.......

Police officers who kill unarmed Black men are untouchable

Once again, the so-called justice system has proven that the life of a Black man has no value. First it was Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Black man, killed in a hail of 41 bullets.

Now, the three police officers who fired more than 50 shots and killed Sean Bell, 23, on the morning he was to be married in November 2006 have been acquitted of all charges.

Bell, on the day he was to be married to Nicole Paultre, was unarmed and was inside his car, attempting to get away from three armed men who approached him, wearing civilian attire, without badges displayed and without identifying themselves as police officers, by most accounts. They must have appeared as menacing thugs to Bell.

Anyone in his right mind would try to drive and get away from men approaching in such a manner early in the morning, at 4 AM, after a night of partying at Club Kalua to celebrate an impending wedding.

How can the judge who ruled on the case justify the firing of more than 50 shots into a vehicle? One of the officers admitted that he did not even realize he had emptied his magazine and loaded another clip and continued to fire into the vehicle. This means the officers did not even know what they were firing at--which also means they could not have known whether they were in danger or not. Bell’s friends Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield were both wounded in the shooting, with Guzman taking in 16 bullets.

The three officers most likely were drunk, and additionally possibly high on drugs, having spent all night at the club drinking while staking out the club. They supposedly went looking to prevent trouble; instead they committed the ultimate transgression--they murdered an innocent and unarmed man, likely because they were drunk, frightened and unprofessional.

Ironically, the Black Star News columnist Donald Winkfield predicted that this would be the outcome of this “trial” in his article two days ago.

Like the assassins of Amadou Diallo, these three killer cops, “detective” Michael Oliver, who reloaded his weapon and fired a total of 31 times, and “detective” Gescard Isnora walk away from charges of manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment; “detective” Marc Cooper also laughs all the way home, having been acquitted of reckless endangerment. “Detective” Isnora fired 11 times, and “detective” Cooper, four times.

Justice Arthur Cooperman claims he found problems with the Queen’s County DA’s case, and that some prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves; he also reportedly cited prior convictions and incarcerations of witnesses.

Question to “Justice” Cooperman: What’s the relevance to the critical facts of the case? The officers fired with reckless abandon into Sean Bell’s car without even knowing whom they were firing at considering there were three people, all unarmed, inside the vehicle. Once the first officer started firing, the others, all presumably drunk, also opened up.

So this is standard police operation now.

We doubt that “Justice” Cooperman will have the last say on this matter.

Bell is survived by fiancée, Nicole Paultre, and daughters, ages five and one.

BLACK STAR PRESS

America's New Proxy War In The Balkans

The United States has supervised independence of Kosovo from Serbia against the wishes of the latter is expected to create a precedent for currently unrecognized states. Such a precedent would prioritise the self-determination of prospective states at the expense of the territorial integrity of the host state, thus stimulating separatism. The consequences of Kosovo independence are expected to involve territorial disputes in several unrecognized states in Eastern Europe.

Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci announced a date for independence "will be made public very soon" claiming it would be "a good surprise, made fast in the coming days" though he did not specify when the announcement would be made. Kosovo's parliament is expected to adopt a statement of intent to proclaim independence on February 17. Serbia has responded to plans for independence by passing a resolution threatening to cut ties with any nations that recognize Kosovo and possibly halt membership talks with the European Union and rule out membership in NATO. Serbia's president Boris Tadic also threatened to send the Serbian army to protect Kosovo Serbs if they came under attack. Chief of General Staff of the Serbian Army said independence and a declaration of a state of emergency would not mean enhancing military engagement on the part of the Serbian Army or an operation. He also said he received no orders to mobilize the army in the event of independence. Serbia plans to bring any nation recognizing independence into the International Court.

In the event of a declaration of independence Deputy Prime Minister Božidar Đelić said on November 23rd Serbia "should be prepared for the worst case scenario," however Defense Ministry plans for reacting to an independence declaration were not revealed. Dušan Proroković, Serbia's state secretary with the Kosovo Ministry, has said an action plan for Kosovo has been made that involves establishing Serbian institutions to administrate Kosovo. An office set up in northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica will serve as part of a Serbian parallel government after Kosovo's independence.

The Albanian National Army is reportedly mobilizing its troops to send into the Serb majority regions in Northern Mitrovica and Northern Kosovo to protect Albanians once Kosovo declares its independence, though he would not reveal the size of the force. Reports say Northern Kosovo is already effectively part of Serbia with Serbian police sizing up everyone who cross the bridge over Ibar river into the Serb area of Mitrovica and posters of Serbian generals and politicians on several buildings. Some policemen are reported by Reuters to actually be undercover Serbian security forces and one told a reporter: "If they [Albanians] want to take the north by force, we'll defend ourselves. Serbs are ready."

Serbia's Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic warned "A Pandora's Box could open up there and cause partition of Kosovo, something Serbia does not want" referring to threats by some Kosovo Serbs to secede from Kosovo after a declaration of independence. In response to partition the Albanian National Army said they would "do everything to unify and protect our territories." To prevent a secession from Kosovo Germany has 500 troops and the U.S. has 200 troops stationed along the border.

As Kosovo will be partitioned, Prime Minister Agim Ceku has suggested Kosovo & Albanians in four other countries may want to unite with Albania.Nait Hasani, a member of the Kosovo government has also said Kosovo may try to unite with Albania. Hasani was quoted as saying to a Polish paper, "First there should be supervised independence as proposed by Ahtisaari. But it is known that Kosovo and Albania citizens are one nation who want to live in one state."

Kosovo's independence is another act in the Balkanization of former empires. But it creates principles which can only exacerbate problems in other countries. In place of acceptance of minority autonomy within a single state structure there will be fights to the bitter end between centralism and separatism.

President Bush received a hero's welcome in June of 2007 when he arrived in the Albanian capital of Tirana, a marked contrast from the protests that greeted the president on his summer'07 European tour. Mr. Bush was the first U.S. president to visit the country, where the "decider" was extremely popular for reasons made painfully apparent in the Last 72 hours.

Russia may have well been privy to such intelligence since, therein explaining the resumption of cold war like tensions with the West. This international engineering by a "Lame Duck" US President will assuredly contribute to the myriad of dilemmas facing the next Administration on the Foreign Policy front.

One man’s desire for such legacy is eerily reminiscent of the worst follies of the 20th century’s worst world leaders…Bush May be the first of the 21st…