MOMocrats™

So Much Shouting, So Little Laughter: A Maryland Health Care Town Hall

"Well, I won't be going inside." -- Jane Aitken, New Hampshire Teabagger in response to MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan's opportunity to pose a question on health reform to President Obama

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums it up nicely. Anti-health care reform folks are very interested in appearing on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox but totally, completely, and utterly disinterested in the facts.

Such was the case last evening at Senator Ben Cardin's (D-MD) health care town hall. Despite the 97-degree heat, code red air quality, and oppressive humidity, hundreds of people turned out in an attempt to claim one of the 500 seats at Towson University.

"'I know some of you don't want me to mention the facts, but listen to the facts,' the senator said early on, drawing an angry response from opponents in the room and applause from supporters - who were both outshouted and outnumbered." -- Baltimore Sun

Go Read It: Pearlstein on Health Reform

Steve Pearlstein, speaking truth to power: "Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?"

"If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs."

Abortion and Health Reform: What the Bills Actually Say

I've been reading – from the Washington Post to Time to really awesome blogs – that abortion is going to derail health reform.

I’d like to call a time-out and explain what is actually included in the legislation, both House and Senate versions. The amount of hysteria over health reform generally, and women’s reproductive health in particular, is alarming. What we need are some facts. And, of course, we need for women’s reproductive health not to be the sacrificial lamb. Again.

So, onto some facts...

House version: The House version does not contain the word abortion.

The House version had to be approved by three committees: Education and Labor, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. During debate on the bill before Ways and Means, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) tried to amend the bill to prohibit coverage for abortion services except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. His amendment failed, 19-22.

When Energy and Commerce took up the bill, an amendment by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), would have prohibited abortion coverage except in cases of life endangerment, or forcible rape or incest. Forcible rape or incest? Are there other kinds? And what is forcible anyway? Do bruises count or would you need broken bones? Anyway, his ridiculously offensive amendment failed, 29-30. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered a similar amendment – sans "forcible" – that also failed, 27-31.

What's a Good Source for Understanding the Health Care Bill?

Now THAT's the $64,000 question, isn't it? But that's what my friend Susan (aka WhyMommy) from Toddler Planet asked me and I didn't have a good answer at the ready.

Sure, you can read the original 615 page bill if you're battling insomnia. Oh, and don't forget to search for the boxes upon boxes of amendments that have gotten tacked on, too. Aside from the actual language of the bill, there are some things important to understand in this battle -- and yes, it is a battle.

Insurance companies, and the legislators who take money from them, want you to think they're protecting competition by opposing the current legislation. They are not. Competition should be a great thing, right? It's supposed to keep prices down and keep companies honest. That works unless you have an industry that's become a monopoly. Like cable TV and satellite radio companies, insurance doesn't have a lot of competition and at this stage of the game they're not trying to protect competition, they're afraid of losing money. If they really want competition, why would they be afraid of another option -- public or otherwise?

Breaking News and A Chance For You to Help Planned Parenthood

Today the House will vote on the FY2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This is the largest of the 13 annual measures that fund the government.

Labor-H funds a whole host of programs and agencies -- everything from the Maternal Child Health Block Grant to the State Children's Health Insurance Program to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Tossed in there is funding for Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning programs -- usually referred to as Title X, its place in the Public Health Service Act. Title X provides -- with preference for low-income individuals -- family planning and related preventive health services. Every year it receives about $280 million; though the proposed funding in 2010 is about $317 million. (And if that seems like a lot of money, it isn't. If Title X had kept pace with inflation since 1980, it'd be receiving about $725 million.)

Today on the House floor Reps. Pence (R-IN), Cao (R-LA), Lamborn (R-CO), Terry (R-NE), Pitts (R-PA), Smith (R-NJ), and Latta (R-OH) will be offering an amendment that would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving any Title X funds.  About 15% of ALL the family planning clinics in the US are run by Planned Parenthood; some 4 million women a year access services at these clinics. And here I feel compelled to point out that Title X does not cover abortion services (see Section 1008 for the prohibition).

If you think women, especially poor women, should have access to Title X services, including at Planned Parenthood, please call your representative and tell them to vote against the Pence amendment to H.R. 3293.

Photo credit: Sarah Consolacion on Flickr. Creative Commons License.

Kay Hagan Embarrasses Me

This week the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee wrapped up their multi-week debate on the Affordable Health Choices Act -- passed 13-10!.

Yesterday, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC). The amendment that would exclude “temporary or seasonal agricultural workers . . . for the purposes of determining the size of an employer.”

What does that mean? It means that large agricultural employers wouldn’t have to count the tens of thousands of farm workers (sometimes called Immokalee, after the town in Florida) as employees. If they manage to exclude enough folks, then they – voila! – become a small business, exempt from the employer mandate to provide health insurance benefits.

Hagan was already on my radar after voting against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Now she’s earned a place on the sh*list for, essentially, denying health insurance coverage to some of the most vulnerable workers in the United States.

Farmworkers have the worst health indicators of any US subpopulation. Since we’re about helping other mothers, I’ll start there: 97% of farmworker mothers are accompanied by their minor children; only 42% had any sort of prenatal care (compared with 76% nationally); infant mortality rates among farm workers are at least 25% higher than the national average (around 10 per 100,000 births); irony alert! 82% of farm workers households experienced food insecurity and 49% went hungry; 88% of children were exposed to toxic pesticides; women farmworkers are more likely to be depressed and attempt or commit suicide.

Think this is a travesty? Call Hagan’s office at 202-224-6342 (if you’re a constituent, you might also want to call either her Greensboro office at 336-333-5311 or the Raleigh office 919-856-4630). You can email her here.

Maybe we should start a campaign. Mail Sen. Hagan a pack of seeds and ask if she thinks the people who plant them, water them, and pick the resulting fruit and vegetables that feed her and the nation deserve health care.

Photo credit: Korean Resource Center on Flickr. Creative Commons License.

SCOTUS Does Something Right!

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Section V of the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder. For more information on this case you can check out our earlier post on the importance of Section V, which protects racial minorities from voting discrimination in states that once had statutory or regulatory limits (read: Jim Crow laws).

Our favorite justice, Clarence Thomas </sarcasm> was the lone dissenter in the 8-1 opinion.

Legislation Watch: Gender Equity in Health Premiums Act

Just a couple of days ago, Reps. Linda T. Sánchez (D-CA) – a brand-new Mom – and Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) – mom to three, grandma to five – introduced a bill (HR 2635) to prohibit health insurance companies from engaging in “gender rating,” a practice which charges women more for health insurance premiums than men. 

In a press release, they listed the “Top 5 Reasons Health Insurance Isn’t Fair to Women.”

5. Twenty-one million women and girls went without health insurance in 2007.  In addition to requiring reproductive health care – yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care – women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches, and more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain.  Women are also four times as likely to develop osteoporosis. 

SCOTUS Weighing Voting Rights Act

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District #1 v. Holder. The case centers on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

To borrow from SCOTUS blog's wiki:

Congress made part of the 1965 Act permanent and nationwide in its binding effect – the part that outlaws any state or local “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” or any procedure that denies or abridges the right to vote based on “race or color.” But another part of the law – Section 5 -- was aimed mainly at the states in the South where there had been a sustained history of racial bias in voting. That part – Section 5 – was not made permanent. Initially, it was to be in effect for five years. But Congress has since extended it – in 1970 for five years, in 1975 for seven, in 1982, for 25, and, most recently, in 2006, for 25 more years, running through 2032.

I urge everyone to read about the case and consider the implication of overturning or gutting Section 5. Yes, in this case the Utility seems to be wanting to make voting easier but think big-picture... Yes, the U.S. has "made undeniable progress in ensuring the voting rights of citizens of all races," as Utility alleges. But to think that minority voters are fine now, and we can just do away with Section 5 is ludicrous at best and malicious at worst. Just look at the list of amici (friends of one side or other) for the appellee -- from the Asia Pacific American Bar Association to the North American South Asian Bar Association to the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses to the Navajo Nation.

CPSAN is audiocasting the oral arguments and will archive them on CSPAN 3.

Health Care Reform Roundtable: Go Watch It

With folks on the left growing increasingly uncomfortable over what might land on the cutting room floor, and newspapers and radio highlighting heartbreaking cases of bankruptcy based on un- and underinsurance, it is more important than ever to focus on comprehensive national health reform.

Today, the Senate Finance Committee is holding a roundtable, "Reforming America's Healthcare Delivery System." The roundtable includes 13 of the foremost thinkers in health care reform -- from Mark McClellan, former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, now at Brookings, to Debra Ness, head of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Why Senate Finance? Well, the chair of the committee, Max Baucus, is hugely invested in health care reform; I recommend reading his Call to Action white paper. Ultimately, it is Senate Finance, along with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (somewhat reduced in stature as Ted Kennedy has been away from the Hill battling cancer), House Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and (to a lesser extent) Education and Labor Committees that will draft the legislation that is health care reform -- from a public plan to comparative effectiveness to electronic medical records to provider reimbursement to medical homing to reducing the burden of chronic disease.

You can watch the roundtable live on CSPAN 3 or via the Senate Finance Committee's website. If you miss it, both CSPAN and the committee will have an archived webcast available shortly. 

Photo Credit: ProgressOhio on Flickr. Creative Commons License.