Constitution Archives - Page 6 of 12

Help Senator Durbin Fight for the Public Option

Posted on November 21, 2009 by TL

Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

Here’s how you can help fight for the Public Option…

From Senator Dick Durbin:

Moments ago, the Senate voted to begin its full debate on historic health care reform legislation instead of obstructing it with a filibuster.

Tonight’s vote marks the biggest victory to date for our grassroots effort to pass health care reform with a public option. We cannot give enough thanks to the over 100,000 signers of our petition at CitizensForAPublicOption.com for helping to fundamentally shift the momentum towards meaningful reform.

Not long ago, a few loud opponents of reform armed and organized by the insurance industry dominated this debate. Now the American people, the majority of whom support a public option, have spoken out and gained the upper hand.

Not long ago, the public option seemed like little more than a pipe dream. Now it’s part of health care bills in both the Senate and the House.

Not long ago, members of our own Democratic caucus weren’t sure they could even support an up-or-down vote on health care reform legislation. Tonight they voted to end the Republican filibuster.

But despite this good news, the fight for meaningful health care reform is not over. As we debate amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, we will work with our colleagues to ensure it continues to address the "Three C’s" of meaningful reform: competition, choice, and cost reduction. And we will firmly oppose any effort to eliminate the public option.

Tonight we celebrate a milestone no one thought we could reach just months ago. Tomorrow the fight continues. We will not let up until the President signs a bill we can all be proud of.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Chuck Schumer

Texas May Have Banned All Marriages

Posted on November 18, 2009 by TL

I know this is a trial lawyer’s wet dream, but this is just too funny. In government, we are cautioned to watch for the “unintended consequences” of new laws and ordinances.

This is quite the “unintended consequence.” Texas, in an attempt to ban same-sex marriages, may have actually made all marriages illegal.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

From McClatcheyDC.Com:

Texans: Are you really married?

Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.

She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

I’m sorry, but this is too funny. In their zeal to ban gay marriage, it would appear that Texas has banned all marriages with this phrase: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Talk about your constitutional conundrums. Texas may actually have to amend its constitution again to recognize marriage.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

Will the Catholic Church in D.C. Stop Feeding Homeless Over Gay Marriage?

Posted on November 14, 2009 by TL

I hope Allison Kilkenny’s conclusions are off-base regarding the decision of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington to stop "social service programs" in the District of Columbia because of gay marriage.

From the Huffington Post:

A few days ago, I wrote about Goldman Sachs’s transition from a bank holding company into a public relations disaster machine. I argued that Goldman’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, has been behaving like he wants to be attacked by a ferocious mob.

Now, it appears the Catholic church is determined to unseat Blankfein in the "Inexplicably Evil Organization Most Disconnected From Real People" category.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Yup, that’s right. If gay folk can marry, the Catholic church refuses to feed the homeless.

Well, that all seems very reasonable. After all, the state would force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages, and celebrate the beastly unions, right?

Kilkenny offers a postscript to her article, "In the original article, I wrote that Jesus condemned homosexuality. However, that’s not true. The condemning homosexuality bit is written in Leviticus. Sorry, Jesus." Acutally, Jesus said nothing at all about sex or sexuality beyond his comments regarding marriage fidelity and divorce.

The Washington Post appears to support Kilkenny’s conclusions:

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can’t do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem."

This debate over same-sex marriage is so incredibly heated right now. I understand that the Catholic Church does not support same-sex marriage. How can they possibly use this one issue to justify turning their backs on those very people Christ calls us to serve?

According to the Post article, council members in D.C. don’t seem phased:

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

This from council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large):

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and ’60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

Allow me to quote Amos the prophet, "Thus says the LORD: For three crimes of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke my word; Because they sell the just man for silver, and the poor man for a pair of sandals. They trample the heads of the weak into the dust of the earth, and force the lowly out of the way." (Amos 2:6-7)

Over 2,200 Veterans Died in 2008 Due to Lack of Health Insurance

Posted on November 12, 2009 by TL

From ENEWSPF:

A research team at Harvard Medical School estimates 2,266 U.S. military veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they lacked health insurance and thus had reduced access to care. That figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001.

The researchers, who released their analysis today [Tuesday], pointedly say the health reform legislation pending in the House and Senate will not significantly affect this grim picture.

The Harvard group analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, which surveyed Americans about their insurance coverage and veteran status, and found that 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured in 2008. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals or clinics.

Here’s the Catch-22 faced by uninsured veterans:

“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people – too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School who testified before Congress about uninsured veterans in 2007 and carried out the analysis released today [Tuesday]. “As a result, veterans go without the care they need every day in the U.S., and thousands die each year. It’s a disgrace.”

Tell Congress to support our troops and pass comprehensive health insurance reform.

HRC Launches National Action Alert on Workplace Discrimination

Posted on November 12, 2009 by TL

The Human Rights Campaign is turning up the heat on Congress to pass the federal Employement Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) launching a new Web site: www.PassENDANow.org.

With Congressional Action looming, HRC’s No Excuses Campaign Engaged

Washington, D.C.–(ENEWSPF)– The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, announced today that as Congressional action looms on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), it is extending the grassroots "No Excuses" campaign to increase constituent contact with Congress and awareness of the comprehensive website: www.PassENDANow.org.

ENDA, which has been introduced in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, would address discrimination in the workplace by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. HRC also launched a national action alert this week to grassroots members and supporters urging them to contact Congress and express their support for a fully-inclusive ENDA.

“We need to step up the important work of telling Congress our personal stories and explaining the additional hardship we face in protecting our families, our loved ones and our jobs,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Congress is moving forward to protect Americans from arbitrary discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Like our neighbors and coworkers, LGBT people simply want a fair chance to succeed and support our families.”

HRC plans to release details next week on its participation of a national call-in day organized by a coalition of groups urging members and supporters to call the Congressional switchboard in support of ENDA. Meanwhile, HRC members and supporters have been overwhelmingly responsive this week to the organization’s national call to action on ENDA by sending off more than 62,000 emails or letters to members of Congress and newspapers urging for swift passage.

Earlier this summer, HRC launched a national, grassroots campaign called “No Excuses” to demand action from Congress on key issues of equality, including a fully inclusive ENDA. Designed to take advantage of the congressional summer recess, when members are in their local offices and meeting with constituents, “No Excuses” helped mobilize HRC’s members and their allies to meet directly with lawmakers and push for federal legislative change.

On November 5, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held the Senate’s first-ever hearing on a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity. The lead sponsors of the measure include Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate on August 5 of this year; a House version was introduced on June 24 and the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on the measure on September 23.

An estimated 87% of Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their equal employment policies, and more than one-third also include gender identity. More than 80 companies have joined the Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness, a group of leading U.S. employers that support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. To view a list of the companies, visit:www.hrc.org/bcwf.

ENDA is supported by a broad range of civil rights, religious, civic and professional organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, AFSCME, National Education Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, Anti-Defamation League, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, American Civil Liberties Union, and many others.

Currently, federal law provides legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. In 29 states across America, it is still legal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and in 38 states, it is still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

Say It Ain’t So, Michael Steele! RNC Insurance Plan Covers Abortion

Posted on November 12, 2009 by TL

Say it ain’t so, Michael Steele! How could it possibly be true that the RNC’s health insurance plan has covered elective abortion since 1991?

From POLITICO:

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.

The RNC moved quickly Wednesday to assuage any concerns its members might have.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay writes to the 168 committeemen and committeewomen across the country that Steele "takes this issue very seriously."

He writes that the RNC has been evaluating its health insurance policy and will continue to do so.

Since 1991? Are you kidding me? Are we seriously talking almost two decades of the Republican National Committee making sure their employees have access to elective abortion?

And here’s the real question: in the midst of all the GOP wrangling over abortion in the current health care debate, for how long would the RNC have continued to offer abortion benefits to their employees if POLITICO had not uncovered this?

There’s more here.

Pardon Me, Mr. President?

Posted on November 8, 2009 by TL

President Obama may be accused by the weird right of being liberal, but they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to presidential pardons.

From the Chicago Tribune:

A lot of things have moved pretty quickly in the Obama administration. Presidential pardons are not among them.

In two and a quarter centuries, only four presidents have been slower than President Barack Obama in exercising their authority of executive clemency — granting either pardons or commutations of sentences to the convicted — with thousands of applications pending at the Justice Department.

By the count of pardon expert P.S. Ruckman Jr., associate professor of political science at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Obama early this month passed Richard Nixon, moving into fifth place, and could overtake John Adams for fourth about 250 days from now.

George Washington was by far the stingiest with the power — it took him more than 1,800 days to grant his first pardon.

Interesting.

President Obama on Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Posted on November 8, 2009 by TL

President Obama issued the following statement on passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Source: whitehouse.gov

I go back and forth on Obama. Honestly, I’m incredibly proud of the job he’s doing, although I know he’s governing from the center-to-slightly-left. My consertative friends would never admit to that, but it’s true. The man is not a liberal. But he is our President, and I’m proud of that.

And tonight, there is reason for joy.

Now if someone would wake up Harry Reid and point him in the direction of the U.S. Capitol building. It’s time for Harry to grow a pair, motivate the United States Senate (Yes, Harry, it’s okay if you do that.), and pass health care reform for the President to sign.

Wake Up the Senate: Health Care Passes the House

Posted on November 8, 2009 by TL

The Affordable Health Care for America Act passed the house tonight with two votes to spare. One Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, crossed the aisle for America tonight and voted in favor of the measure. One lone Republican who gets it. Be sure to thank him: 202-225-6636.

Here are some news links. Even thought WTAE is identical to the Chicago Tribune story, I’m giving them the nod because their email is always the first to arrive in my inbox.

From the Chicago Tribune:

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

More here from the Tribune.

From the New York Times:

After President Obama urged lawmakers to “answer the call of history” and approve a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system, House Democrats edged closer to a vote on Saturday night as the House adopted an amendment that would tighten restrictions on coverage for abortions under any insurance plan that receives federal dollars.

The concession eased a threat by some anti-abortion Democrats to oppose the bill but it infuriated supporters of abortion rights, who said they would support the larger bill and continue to fight for changes in the final legislation.

After months of internal party wrangling, angry town-hall-style meetings and extended committee deliberations, the House was debating into the night on the legislation to transform the nation’s health insurance system.

Democrats were increasingly confident they had locked up the necessary support for the measure, an optimism bolstered when the bill easily survived a preliminary vote, despite Republican opposition.

But the difficult issue of how much to restrict new federal spending on abortion continued to complicate the outcome by creating a split between Democratic supporters and opponents of abortion rights and loomed as one last obstacle.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided late Friday night to allow anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the so-called “Stupak amendment,” named for Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan. The measure, long expected to pass, would tighten restrictions on abortions by prohibiting federal money from being used to pay for the procedure, either through a new federal health insurance plan or under private plans that enroll people relying on federal subsidies.

“From Day 1, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions,” said Representative Brad Ellsworth, Democrat of Indiana and one of the authors of the abortion provision.

Ms. Pelosi’s concession eased a threat by some Democrats to abandon the bill but also left abortion-rights Democrats facing a choice between backing a provision they bitterly opposed or scuttling the bill.

More here from the NYTimes.

From the Washington Post:

Removing a key final hurdle for House passage of historic legislation to expand the nation’s health-care system, lawmakers late Saturday approved a measure to ban almost all abortion coverage under health-care plans run or subsidized by the government.

The controversial amendment prohibits a government-run insurance plan the bill would create from offering to cover abortion services. It also would block people who receive federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offer coverage for abortions.

Should a health-care package pass the Senate, it’s unclear whether the anti-abortion amendment would survive negotiations between the two chambers over the shape of final legislation.

Anti-abortion Democrats had said they could not support the health-care package without assurances that tax dollars would not end up paying for abortions. Pro-life and religious groups had also sought the amendment.

Both parties continued to closely guard their private whip counts in advance of the late-night vote on the entire package, but the public pronouncements by lawmakers during the day suggested an extremely tight vote. Democrats remained publicly optimistic they would come out just above the minimum 218 votes they need for victory. Freshman Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), joined by second-term Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.), announced their support for the bill, giving a boost among the critical bloc of votes coming from the roughly 75 Democrats who were elected within the last three years. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a veteran who is considered a health-care expert among conservative southerners, is also expected to vote for the legislation.

“We know the status quo is unacceptable and bankrupting individuals, businesses and all levels of government. While this bill is not perfect, it is necessary that we pass it so we can begin to fundamentally reform health care,” Maffei said in a statement as debate inched along.

Politico Says Dems Have 218 Votes for Affordable Health Care for America Act

Posted on November 7, 2009 by TL

From our friends at Politico:

Hours before an expected vote on a sweeping health care bill, House Democrats believe they’ve secured the 218 votes they need to approve the bill, several party insiders said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to the House floor about 6:30 p.m. to say, “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act.. . .We will make history. We will also make progress for America’s working families."

In response to a question about whether the bill would pass when she brought it up, Pelosi told reporters Saturday night, "That is our expectation."

Thirty-two Democrats have publicly declared their opposition to the bill, giving party leaders the narrowest possible margin to push the bill across the finish line. But numerous sources said Democrats believe they do have the votes after a day of intense lobbying of wavering Democrats.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act reportedly includes a Public Option.

A vote is expected tonight.

Click here to Tweet your Representative now!