Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

Here are the Oversight and Reform Hearing uTubes and documents. I hope they are complete, you never know with uTube:

Planned Parenthood’s Taxpayer Funding

All together, the uTubes are a few hours of listening and watching. The first part of Part 3 with Congressman Clay discusses how PP standards have been within the law and that the MO. investigation found no wrongdoing.

Yes, Planned Parenthood could probably survive without Federal Funds, but we all know this is about whether or not women, men and families would receive Medicaid service on the reduced funds.

Rep. Jackson Lee from Texas, spoke very well to the issue of mixing apples and potatoes, when it came to the loss of medical access versus abortion, and the overturning of the unconstitutional Texas Law. 25% of Texan women lost access, especially in rural areas, after July 2013.

David Daleiden, who was responsible for the edited PP videos, has been ordered to turn over the complete and raw videos for his PP sting.   According to Rep. Lee,  Daleiden may plead the 5th over his unwarranted (illegal) investigation, which was determined to provide no evidentiary basis against PP.

The House has been very busy making up new bills (See H.R.3495.)regarding women’s health care. centered around the idea that one way to reduce the impact of aPlanned Parenthood is to allow the states more latitude in determining whether they should allow federal funds to be spent on abortion providers. To be clear, federal funds already are not spent on abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the live of the mother. (Keep in mind  one point of attack has been to require proof meaning a trial or confession-something that could culminate after the birth. )

GovTrack.Us indicates that 49 abortion referenced bills have been introduced, referred to committee, and/or passed by the House THIS year. See: Abortion. That list doesn’t include H.R.3495 or H. Res. 444.

These current bills are specifically an attempt to eliminate the use of Medicaid funds by those folks who have no other way to pay for the range of health services, that PP provides. if you take Medicaid from Planned Parenthood, you prevent people on Medicaid from utilizing their range of services at 700 locations around the country. This is the worst kind of classist, sexist, racist evil.

HRC put out a “Briefing” today that includes a list of Republican candiates’ statements on Planned Parenthood:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/statements/2015/09/29/gop-ppfa/

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/victory-judge-rules-utah-republicans-can’t-block-funding-for-planned-parenthood/

Read Full Post »

TP reports:

[Police arrested 17 women and 14 men at a march outside of the Virginia Capitol while officers in riot gear held the hundreds of demonstrators back with shields. The crowd was protesting the Virginia General Assembly’s approval of a controversial bill on Thursday to require women to receive ultrasounds before abortions. The 31 people arrested […]/p

via Virginia Police Arrest 31 At Women’s Rights Demonstration. ]

Read Full Post »

Update:

120301 – Politico is reporting that the Senate has defeated the Blunt bill SS.1467 by a vote of 51 to 48. Yay! 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73497.html

In can what can only be seen as a slap in the face to women’s rights, attached to Barbara Boxer’s (Of all women!) huge transportation bill entitled “MAP-21 or, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century”, is the Blunt Bomb. Senator Roy Blunt’s bill entitled “S.1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011” is being debated today in the Senate. It is one of many likely to be attempted over the next few years to undermine the line items achieved for women in the Affordable Healthcare Act. (Obamacare.) Remember, since women do not have the benefit of equal rights under the eye of the law, each line item can be targeted.

The Bomb is a stupid amendment to the Act, (See bottom of the page.) even for the perennially uterus obsessed. Though it calls out the “distinct” elements of the Act for women it does not specifically address them. In fact, the thing is so vague it appears under this proposed bill insurance companies could have a crisis of conscience over just about anything and decide their employees be able to say no to covering, I don’t know, maybe child abuse injuries. Some of the “solons” who are on the lists below ought to know better.

If you see one of yours on the lists below, call them up and yell at them:

Below find a list of the Senate co-sponsors:

Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 2/9/2012 
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 2/9/2012 Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Paul, Rand [KY] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Hoeven, John [ND] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 2/9/2012 
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 2/13/2012 
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 2/15/2012 
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 2/16/2012 
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 2/17/2012

The Senate bill is short and similar to the House Bill “H.R 1179” of the same name, introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry. The House currently has a total of 242 Republicans. I’ll leave it up to you to determine whether any of the with 214 cosponsors on the list below are not in the red zone:

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 10/24/2011 
Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 12/6/2011 
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 11/1/2011 
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Berg, Rick [ND] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Buerkle, Ann Marie [NY-25] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quico” [TX-23] – 5/24/2011 
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Cravaack, Chip [MN-8] – 11/1/2011 
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Critz, Mark S. [PA-12] – 1/25/2012 
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-21] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 11/15/2011 
Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 4/7/2011 
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 6/14/2011 
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-18] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 8/16/2011 
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-1] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] – 10/24/2011 
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Graves, Tom [GA-9] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 11/18/2011 
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] – 5/4/2011 
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Guinta, Frank C. [NH-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/27/2011 
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/27/2011 
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 9/7/2011 
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 8/16/2011 
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] – 10/25/2011 
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 10/13/2011 
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] – 10/12/2011 
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 9/22/2011 
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] – 10/4/2011 
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 4/14/2011 
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 10/13/2011 
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] – 8/1/2011 
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 3/17/2011 
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 10/12/2011 
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 2/2/2012 
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 2/17/2012 
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 6/23/2011 
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2011 
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 5/4/2011 
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 2/6/2012 
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 10/13/2011 
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] – 11/1/2011 
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 10/6/2011 
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 8/23/2011 
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/7/2011 
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Nugent, Richard [FL-5] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 9/13/2011 
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 5/24/2011 
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 8/5/2011 
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Renacci, James B. [OH-16] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] – 1/31/2012 
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] – 11/3/2011 
Rep Rivera, David [FL-25] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Roby, Martha [AL-2] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/1/2011 
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Runyan, Jon [NJ-3] – 2/28/2012 
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Schilling, Robert T. [IL-17] – 8/9/2011 
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 7/28/2011 
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 9/12/2011 
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-5] – 2/3/2012 
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Scott, Tim [SC-1] – 9/20/2011 
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 7/22/2011 
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 2/17/2012 
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 7/28/2011 
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 6/14/2011 
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] – 2/8/2012 
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 2/1/2012 
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 7/22/2011 
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 10/6/2011 
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 1/23/2012 
Rep Turner, Robert L. [NY-9] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 2/14/2012 
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 3/17/2011 
Rep Walsh, Joe [IL-8] – 9/23/2011 
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] – 2/16/2012 
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 2/6/2012 
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 2/9/2012 
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 2/15/2012 
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 2/2/2012 
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 2/13/2012 
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 2/7/2012 
Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] – 2/7/2012

Here is the bill:

S.1467 — Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate – IS)

S 1467 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1467

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 2, 2011

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.

1.           Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) As Thomas Jefferson declared to New London Methodists in 1809, `[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority’.

(2) Jefferson’s statement expresses a conviction on respect for conscience that is deeply embedded in the history and traditions of our Nation and codified in numerous State and Federal laws, including laws on health care.

(3) Until enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, in this section referred to as `PPACA’), the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers.

(4) PPACA creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover `essential health benefits’ and `preventive services’ (including a distinct set of `preventive services for women’), delegating to the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide a list of detailed services under each category, and imposes other new requirements with respect to the provision of health care services.

(5) While PPACA provides an exemption for some religious groups that object to participation in Government health programs generally, it does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

(6) By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA; and

(2) to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA.

SEC. 3. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) In General- Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES-

`(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS- A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because–

`(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

`(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

`(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS- Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

`(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE- No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

`(D) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to permit a health plan or provider to discriminate in a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B) and (D) of paragraph (4).

`(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION- The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

`(F) REMEDIES-

`(i) FEDERAL JURISDICTION- The Federal courts shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this paragraph by granting all forms of legal or equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees.

`(ii) INITIATING PARTY- An action under this paragraph may be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States, or by any person or entity having standing to complain of a threatened or actual violation of this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider.

`(iii) INTERIM RELIEF- Pending final determination of any action under this paragraph, the court may at any time enter such restraining order or prohibitions, or take such other actions, as it deems necessary.

`(G) ADMINISTRATION- The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this paragraph and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

`(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE- Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary from issuing regulations or other guidance to ensure that health plans excluding specific items or services under this paragraph shall have an aggregate actuarial value at least equivalent to that of plans at the same level of coverage that do not exclude such items or services.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 111-148.

Read Full Post »

Things are hopping in Iran:

Funeral for Iranian Cleric Turns Into a Vast Protest

By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI

Published: December 21, 2009

[BEIRUT, Lebanon — The funeral of a prominent dissident cleric in the holy Iranian city of Qum turned into a huge and furious antigovernment rally on Monday, raising the possibility that the cleric’s death could serve as a catalyst for an opposition movement that has been locked in a stalemate with the authorities…]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/world/middleeast/22cleric.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

In California we are playing these games as we work to unscramble the mess of Prop 8. Human rights are possible to achieve, as this article indicates! In addition to Mexico City, this article says Uruguay has managed to legalize same sex marriage for the whole country.

Mexico City Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 21, 2009

Filed at 5:50 p.m. ET

[MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children….]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/21/world/AP-LT-Mexico-GayMarriag.html?ref=global-home

Ahh, the new pragmatism, even the birthers are screaming:

King: Nelson sold out anti-abortion movement

By JASON HANCOCK 12/21/09 8:35 AM

[Two days after praising U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to Des Moines Register columnist Kathie Obradovich, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, released a statement attacking the lawmaker for an abortion compromise in health care reform.

In order to garner Nelson’s support, Senate Democratic leaders included a provision in their version of health care reform that would allow states to ban abortion coverage for women receiving federal subsidies on proposed government-organized private insurance marketplaces, dubbed exchanges….]

http://iowaindependent.com/24126/king-nelson-sold-out-anti-abortion-movement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IowaIndependent+%28Iowa+Independent%29

This is article is an example of one of the darker and more serious sides of the education of young people. Don’t let this happen to your school board.

Revisionist History Dept

McCarthy 101.

DAVE MANN | DECEMBER 11, 2009 | POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE

[It takes serious revisionist thinking to believe that history has “vindicated” Joseph McCarthy, but that’s what some members of the State Board of Education contend. If they get their way, that’s how Texas schools will portray the late red-baiting U.S. Senator in social studies classes….]

http://www.texasobserver.org/pi/revisionist-history-dept

Read Full Post »

H.R. 3590 is on the Senate schedule for debate tomorrow. Open Congress is reporting that an Abortion amendment similar to the Stupak amendment is likely to be introduced by Senator Nelson. However, it’s thought that the Democrats will filibuster, thus forcing a 2/3 vote. They think they have it and can prevent the amendment’s inclusion. Check the link below:

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1381-Senate-Will-Vote-on-Controvesial-Abortion-Language

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: