It’s the 40th anniversary of Star Trek. And if you don’t wanna hear about it, remember this is the internet after all, and you’re just visiting. Here’s a link to a proposed Democratic Party Platform using only the words of Captain Kirk. Happy anniversary.

Shay Totten at the Vermont Guardian has the dirt on all the rumored attempts of cross-ballot mischief such as the attempt by some to write in Fred Tuttle on the GOP Senatorial ballot line. The Rainville team would have folks believe that the crossover attempt initiated by a lone wolf Dem into their primary is somehow organized from on high, which is patently ridiculous. (But please folks, Republicans have a right to pick their candidate too…let’s not play the disenfranchisement game. Democracy has been taking it on the chin for too long without lefties adding too it)

Pushback on the abominable work of conservative fan ficton written by Rush Limbaugh’s buddy and screened for and promoted by right wing blogs and radio shows, “The Path to 9-11” is extraordinary, far and away surpassing the right wing reaction to “The Reagans” miniseries. Unlike in that instance, however, PT-9/11 will be going ahead anyway, and supporting materials have already been sent to schools. This despite two requests from Bill Clinton’s lawyers for it to be stopped, signed letters from Senators, US Representatives, a petition with morean 200,000 names, the resignation of FBI advisors on the project and the disgust of the Democratic members of the 9/11 commission (as well as the opinion of many lawyers that the admittedly made-up scenes may be defamatory and actionable). Understand, this thing is so egregious, even right wingers such as Bill Bennett and Fox’s Chris Wallace have called on it to be pulled from the schedule. For updates, see dKos.

Closer to home, there have been two big editorial shake-ups. The Caledonian (Broken) Record has fired Managing Editor Lyn Bixby suddenly, and apparently over staff conflicts so severe, there were threatened resignations. The C(B)R was ultra-right-wing loopyland before Bixby’s arrival, but it will be interesting to see if there are any noticable changes on the editorial pages.

Also, Maria Archangelo is leaving as Managing Editor of the Times Argus. Archangelo is well liked by many, but under her tenure the TA fallen even farther under the shadow of its sister paper, the Rutland Herald.

The GOP primary is almost upon us, and in the US Senate race, it seems to be a coronation for Rich Tarrant. His opponent, if you hadn’t noticed (and few have) is Greg Parke. Greg Parke, as you can see from his website, has some opinions.

And Tarrant? Well, we know he thinks Bernie Sanders is all about child molesters and drug dealers. I suppose that sort of counts as an opinion. But he’s gotten some flak in the past for not sharing his views on anything besides his personal impression of Bernie. Now given that we’re down to a matter of weeks before the election, one would assume that he’s thought about the issues of the day – besides his personal animosity towards Bernie – and perhaps might feel obliged to, y’know, tell the voters what he thinks about stuff.

Hoo-boy. Guess again. Here are his answers from his interview for Vermont Woman Magazine. And by all means, if you think I’m somehow taking these out of context, please click on the link and check for yourself (emphasis below added)…

He answered almost a dozen questions by asking for more specifics or saying he didn’t have enough information yet. Those questions included, in part:

Q: Can you comment on the FDA’s ongoing rulemaking process regarding access to Plan B over-the-counter by women over the age of 16?

I’m not opposed to contraception […] I’m not up to  date on it […] I’d have to know the pros and cons and understand the argument from both sides and I’m not read up on what the FDA is doing.

Q: Do you support continuing or increasing federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education?

It depends on what the program is. Can you be more specific? Are you talking a program that teaches contraception? I need more specifics.

More specific than “abstinence-only“???

Q: Do you support President Bush’s reinstatement of the global gag rule?
I need to see that language.

Q: Do you have any additional comments on President Bush’s use of presidential signing statements? Do you support Sen. Arlen Specter’s recently introduced legislation prohibiting them?

I’d have to look at each one individually, I couldn’t possibly, I mean, they are there for a reason […] I wouldn’t want to pick one side or the other, I think the concept is good.

Q: Do you support the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare? Should this doctrine be judged on our experience in Iraq?

I’d have to dig into it, but if North Korea launched a missile and they said it was a test, but we didn’t know, I’d say we pick that out of the air as soon as possible. […] I think preemptive has to be defined.

Preemptive: adjective 1. of or pertaining to preemption. 
2. taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival. 

Oh, but there’s more…

Q: Would you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?

In general, I don’t believe in discrimination based on any sexual orientation, but I would have to look at it.

In response to a follow-up email several weeks later that included more information for his reference, Tarrant declined to comment further on any of the above questions.

When asked if he supported more restrictive legislation, like the recently passed [abortion] ban in South Dakota that will likely reach the Supreme Court, he said, “I would support whatever the Supreme Court comes up with. As a U.S. Senator, I would not have any say in it. Whichever way the Supreme Court goes would be the law of the land.”

As for LGBT servicemen and women and the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Tarrant was undecided. “I’ve been thinking about that, but I don’t have an answer at the moment.

Tarrant ended our interview by saying, “The reason I think I would be a better senator, is I’d be thoughtful. I want to know both sides of every issue. […] I’m not going down there to preach to the Senate or bang on tables when I don’t get my way. […] That is the primary difference between myself and my opponent.” And while his inclination for evidence is admirable, and likely essential for successful business deals, Tarrant’s discomfort with holding an opinion on a topic without hard data is disconcerting in a senatorial candidate who could conceivably be asked to weigh in on abstract and theoretical issues with very real consequences, like the definition of torture and war crimes, the balance between a free press and national security, and the limits of a Roe v. Wade-defined right to privacy.

And if you want to wince even more, compare his answers to those offered by every other candidate interviewed of either party for each of the major offices in play. He’s got a few opinions scattered about in there, but more than a few issues tend to fall in the laps of Senators.

Hey GOP… don’t get me wrong, we’re happy to have this guy thrown at us, but…yeesh. Are you sure you wanna go there? I mean, there’s still a few days to think about it…

[PS – David at Bernie’s campaign blog is clever-er than I am on this thing… go check it out]

(UPDATE, 1/18/2009: This is a diary on its 4th appearance- first at dKos, then crossed over here after a time, and then re-posted again last year. It’s not that I think its so great, but its a message I’m determined to get out into the world, and every now and then something brings it up.

But the whole thing reminded me again of how Christian “traditionalists” have no understanding of their own tradition, and of how the church hierarchy has dishonestly overwritten it an almost Orwellian, the-enemy-has-always-been-Eurasia, manner.   – promoted by odum)

From a diary of mine at Daily Kos from the pre-GMD days (hopefully the links are still good):

Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

It’s a day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and we may be about to see an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court.

The media has had very little to say on this 33rd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, but what more do they need to say? We know the narrative. Slowly but surely, the “liberal” states – as part of a process of public secularization, expanded access to abortion. Finally, in an archetypal liberal decision – Roe v Wade – this secularization and the process moving away from tradition into a more “enlightened” public sphere was federalized uniformly nationwide, whether or not the more traditional states wanted it. What we’ve seen unfold is a steady backlash that has been returning this issue (and others) into a more traditionally Christian context — basically, “Christian traditionalists vs. liberals” – advantage them…. right?

What do you think? This is the media’s narrative, and has been for some time. So naturally, this is wrong, wrong, wrong, and the longer we’ve let them get away with it, the more tenuous our position has become.

As with any history, its complicated – but suffice to say there has rarely – if ever – been consensus on the issue. Still, this history informs the debate, and the false history that’s now been fully riveted into the brains of the American public is one of the anti-choice movement’s most powerful weapons, even if they’re ignorant of it themselves (which – in most cases – I’m willing to bet they are).

Here’s a nutshell version with some links to follow for more details.

Few influenced the perspective of the early church more than Aristotle, and the Aristotelean view of the soul in the unborn was the “delayed ensoulment” – that is, the fetus isn’t animated with a human soul until 40 days after conception for males, 90 days for females – both having a vegetable soul before then. In fact, there are early Greek texts and advice on how to perform abortion, so this is the history that Aristotle’s views emerged from and which informed early Christian thinking.

When the Church became more organized, opinions started changing. As a theological narrative took shape in th mid 2nd Century into the 4th, more Christian thinkers began to equate abortion with infanticide. St. John Chrysostom called it “murder before the birth” (Homily 24 on Romans).  Worth noting here is that thinkers like St. Jerome (infamous for, among other things, blaming women for the fall from grace) and St John Chrysostom (women are “a necessary evil”) are also responsible for hardwiring some of the most disturbingly anti-woman theology into early Christianity – presenting women as something other than human, and sexuality as evil, or at least the pathway to evil. It’s no coincidence that, even at this early date, anti-choice extremism goes hand-in-hand with misogyny.  Still even Jerome – while saying some of the most awful garbage about women in recorded history, was not as hardcore about abortion as today’s Religious Right, writing “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs (“Epistle” (121, 4))”

Neither were early church organizational meetings unanimous. The Synods of Elvira and Ancyra (306 ACE, 314 ACE) explicitly called abortion a sin, while the Apostolic Constitutions (380 ACE) disallowed it only after the fetus took on a “human shape.”

Although eastern Christianity vectored toward an absolutist stand, the western church did not. St. Augustine refocused the church on the Aristotelan delayed ensoulment model (“On Exodus”, (21, 80)), and by this time the church was a much more defined hierarchy, leaving less room for disagreement.

In the early 7th Century, the Church began codifying what it considered sexual sins and abortion made the list, but was well behind the “sins” of birth control, oral sex, and anal sex. In fact, the punishment for oral sex was at least 7 years of penance, while the punishment for abortion was a mere 120 days.

In the centuries that followed, Popes came on the scene with widely varying viewpoints – changing and re-changing the rules as the mitre passed on. Significantly, Pope Innocent III in the early 1200s ruled that the fetus had no soul until it was “animated” (the “quickening” – when the mother can feel the fetus’ movements, usually around the 24th week). In his ruling – and this is significant — a monk was found not guilty of homicide for aborting his lover’s unborn child under this argument. Pope Sixtus V in 1588 made all abortions illegal, but was reversed again by Pope Gregory XIV, codifying abortions at up to 16 ½ weeks as not equivalent to the killing of a human being, as no soul was present.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas himself – arguably the most influential theologian in Roman Catholic Christianity, did not consider a fetus human until the quickening.

This was the way it was for the most part until – and are you sitting down for this? – 1869. That’s when Pope Pius IX declared all abortion to be homicide. That’s right, for nearly the entire history of Christianity, the Catholic Church was officially tolerant of first trimester abortion. The change was well after the Enlightenment, after the Civil War, and into the modern scientific era. In fact, it was only as recently as 1983 that all vestiges of the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus” were quietly purged from Canon Law. (Yes, that was 1983… only 23 years ago)

So much for the traditional Christians versus those pesky godless, postmodern liberals, eh?

And its not just the Catholics, but Protestants as well. English Common Law did not recognize abortion as a crime before quickening, and was only a misdemeanor afterwards. This began changing in 1803 with a series of changes to the written Law, but it is largely this fact that has lead many legal scholars  to suggest that Roe v Wade should have been argued based on English Common Law rather than a debatable, “inferred” right of privacy.

Of course these scholars make the argument based on legality, but I’d argue such a common-law based decision would have, perhaps more importantly, gone a long way to framing the debate. After all, it would be far more difficult to perpetuate the notion that a right to an abortion is based on the whims of “liberal activist judges” if it was based on arguments that rise from the very foundations of our American legal system.

So anyway, the point is that WE are the “traditionalists” here, and the supposedly monolithic, unchanging, “old-fashioned” party line from the Catholic Church and other protestant institutions are anything but traditional and unchanging.

The next time you hear a politically conservative Catholic saying that anyone suggesting that abortion may be permissible publicly should be denied Communion, ask them if that would include Saints Jerome, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

FYI: There are a lot of links on the web for more detailed back ground information. I drew a lot of my information from the nice tidy roundup at this site, But this one, this one, and this one are fantastic, as well as this site on the Common Law issue.

On the day of Barbara Bush’s visit to Vermont, we get to see a hint of why this morning’s Times Argus reported that the DCCC may be scaling down their plans for a media buy in Vermont on behalf of Congressional candidate Peter Welch (scary that Washington may be relaxing a bit on this one!), and why beltway elections guru Stuart Rothenberg has reclassified the VT-AL race from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic.” Here’s part of the graphic layout of Constituent Dynamics’ latest poll on the race (go check out their site, it’s pretty nifty):

Now clearly this poll is welcome news, but it should be approached cautiously. For one thing, the poll based on approximately 1000 voters has a good geographic spread, and the subjects were all registered voters, but they were not identified as likely voters. Also – the poll did not specifically name Martha Rainville, but rather the Republican candidate, given that there’s a primary. This makes the whole poll sketchier.

Still, it’s good news for sure – and some of the above concerns are at least partly offset by the “voter motivation index” (based on a “how likely are you to vote” on a scale of 1-9 poll question) which shows Democrats and Independents both more motivated than Republicans to vote in November (and looking at that 25 point approval rating for Bush, is it any wonder?)

Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, the GOP always seems to “close the deal” better than Dems on Election Day – and anyone who remembers the Freeps poll three days out giving Doug Racine a 10 point lead over Jim Douglas in 2002 understands that no poll should ever give us cause to think we can take anything for granted.

Still, good news is always welcome…

A quick note on VPR’s Switchboard tonight (audio link – takes some time to load): Bob Kinzel hosted a debate between GOP Congressional Candidates Martha Rainville and Mark Shepard. Rainville (obviously the overwhelming favorite) had her campaign’s centerpiece – the “clean campaign pledge” – made out to be the nonsense that it truly is thanks to persistent questioning from Kinzel.

Kinzel pushed Rainville as to whether she would characterize Rich Tarrant’s now legendary TV ads – you know, the ones casting Bernie Sanders as in favor of drug dealers and child molesters and against national security – as ads that would not be acceptable under her pledge. Instead of responding directly, she replied that it was up to “the judgement of the voters” as to whether or not they crossed the line laid out in her pledge. To his credit, Kinzel was somewhat insistent, pointing out that by calling for a campaign pledge, she was making her judgement of what is or isn’t “too negative” very much the point. Still, after three attempts from Kinzel, she refused to answer.

So let’s be clear: Rainville refused to indicate whether the most brazenly nasty campaign ads this state has ever seen would constitute a violation of her “clean campaign pledge.” Under these circumstances, the integrity and credibility of her pledge now equal precisely zero.

[On an unrelated note – Baruth’s evisceration of a Republican front group‘s (Vermont Business Coalition) poorly disguised attack on targeted Democrats is fantastic… the must read of the week so far…]

I admit to having been a bit trepidacious about walking the eight miles from Shelburne Farm to Battery Park for today’s finale of the five day march on global climate change put together by author Bill McKibben. As anyone who’s seen me recently can attest, I’ve really (ahem), shall we say let myself go over the past few years.

But what a great scene it was. This final day of the event started with around 450 walkers. By the time we reached Battery Park in Burlington, we were around 800 strong, and with the additional folks joining us in the park, the afternoon boasted at least 1000 people of all ages. It was very encouraging and a roaring success.

The heart of this final day were the addresses by the candidates for office. As each one approached the microphone, they were handed a sharpie and asked to sign onto a Global Warming Pledge committing them to the goals outlined in the legislation put forward in Washington by retiring Senator Jim Jeffords. To their credit, everyone who attended signed the pledge. It’s a testament to the depth of the feelings and evidence on the matter that not only did Rich Tarrant sign the thing, but Martha Rainville reversed herself – having suggested only weeks ago that global warming may not even be real – and added her own signature to the pledge (Note: the glaring no-show was incumbent Republican Governor Jim Douglas, whose absence Democratic opponent Scudder Parker drew pointed attention to).

At this point, I couldn’t care less about anyone’s motivations for showing up, speaking, and signing the pledge. The very fact that they did only adds to the force and the volume of the movement to address this most critical of problems before we pass that tipping point that scientists like NASA maverick James Hansen have warned us may be less than a decade away. Thanks to everyone who was there in body or spirit. There is a lot starting to happen on this issue, so keep watching (and voting).

Click below for a summary of the Jeffords bill.

From Senator Jeffords’ website:

Summary of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 is based on the increasing scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat to the national security and economy of the United States, to public health and welfare, and to the global environment, and that actions can and must be taken soon tobegin the process of reducing emissions substantially over the next fifty years. The bill sets out a roadmap of targets, requirements and incentives that EPA will use to reduce U.S emissions and help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Global concentrations of greenhouse gases are higher than ever and during the past years global temperatures have risen by almost 1 degree Fahrenheit. Nine out of the past 10 years are among thewarmest 10 years on record.

In order to avoid some of the most dangerous consequences of global warming, the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must take action soon to reduce its emissions substantially.

There exists an array of technological options for use in reducing greenhouse gas emissions andsignificant reductions can be attained using a portfolio of technologies that will not adversely affect the economy.

The bill sets a goal of achieving a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to stabilizing global concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million.

To achieve this goal, the United States must reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and its equivalentsto 1990 levels by 2020 and make additional reductions between 2020 and 2050. The bill includes a combination of economy wide reduction targets, mandatory measures, and incentives for the development and diffusion of cleaner technologies to achieve these goals.

Targets: The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 requires that the U.S. reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases between 2010 and 2020 to 1990 levels. By 2030, the U.S. must reduce its emissions byan amount equal to 1/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels, by 2040 by 2/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.In the event that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide exceed 450 parts per million or that average global temperatures increase above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average temperature, EPA can require additional reductions. The National Academy of Sciences will report to EPA and the Congress regarding whether such events have occurred.

Specific Provisions: Section 701 contains findings related to climate change and announces the goal of reducing U.S.emissions to facilitate stabilization of global atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million.

Section 702 announces the purposes of the bill, which are to achieve a reduction in U.S. emissionconsistent with stabilization of atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million and to preventglobal temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, by reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050. In doing so, the United States will be positionedas the world leader in reducing the risk of potentially devastating and wide ranging impacts associatedwith climate change and in developing and implementing low carbon energy technologies and strategies.

Section 704 contains mandatory emission reduction milestones leading to an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The bill does not require a cap and trade program, but in the event that EPA uses a cap and tradesystem, it is directed to consider a declining cap with a technology based stop price. Such a mechanism isdesigned to provide a smooth glide path for reductions that is keyed to the price of available technologies.

Section 705 sets conditions for accelerated reductions, including if greenhouse gas concentrations exceed 450 parts per million or there is an increase in global average temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The NAS will report to EPA and the Congress regarding the occurrence of suchevents.

Section 706 provides for allocation of allowances in any cap and trade program to be allocated fortransition assistance for industries and to consumers disproportionately affected by the transition to a lowcarbon economy, as well as to other low carbon or carbon sequestration technologies.

Section 707 contains vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light-duty vehicles as well as medium and heavy-duty vehicles and directs EPA to consider reductions available from non-roadvehicles.Section 708 contains mandatory greenhouse gas emissions standards for all power plants built after 2012 with a compliance date of 2016. By 2030, final standards will apply to all power plants regardless ofwhen they came online.Section 709 contains an increasing low carbon generation requirement for electricity generation fromcoal, petroleum coke, lignite, biomass or any combination. By 2015, 0.5 percent of electricity generationbased on the above resources would need to be low carbon, with an increasing percentage of 1 percenteach year until reaching 5 percent by 2020.

Section 710 contains standards for geological disposal of greenhouse gases.

Section 711 provides for a research and development program on global climate change.

Section 712 contains an energy efficiency standard requiring reductions in end use electricity consumption.

Section 713 contains a renewable portfolio standard requiring a minimum annual percentage of 20 percent renewable electricity by 2020.

Section 714 contains standards for biological sequestration of carbon including in forests and soils.

Section 715 provides for a waiver of the requirements of this bill in the event of a national security emergency as determined by the President.

Section 716 contains a standard for renewable fuels mandating 5,000,000,000 gallons annually beginning in 2015, through an amendment of the Clean Air Act; includes the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should reengage in international climate change discourse; requires annual trade reports to Congress from federal agencies; requires the consideration of climate change under NEPA; and directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate regulations requiring corporatedisclosure of climate change risks.

Click here for the full text of the bill.

The Sunday combined Times Argus/Rutland Herald, while typically skimpy, makes up for it in content this week. If you’re in a part of the state that doesn’t get this (these?) papers, check out the following online:

• A firm, resolute endorsement of a single-payer health care system. I kid you not. It makes you want to stand up and cheer, and could well mark a real turning point in the public debate. Here’s the link.
• A terrific piece on free speech from Darren Allen, focusing on the Zack Guiles case and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s recent widely-trashed comments to the American Legion in Salt Lake City (and on Rumsfeld, if you haven’t yet heard Keith Olbermann channeling Edward R. Murrow in his now-legendary smackdown of that speech, stop what you’re doing right now and check it out here).
• And the use of Internet “social networking” sites in electioneering is examined on the front page by Louis Porter. Focusing on former state Representative and current Washington County Democratic Senate candidate Donny Osman, the piece spends most of its focus on sites such as MySpace, but also discusses the impact of blogs (yeah, I’m in there but I don’t say much).

Kudos to the RH-TA. Great stuff.

MoveOn.org has released its “Cost of Iraq Report,” based on data from the National Priorities Project. It collects in one location much of what we’ve been hearing about cost over-runs, Halliburton no-bid contracts, and the general fraud, abuse and profiteering generated by the wartime cottage economy. A copy of the report can be viewed at the Raw Story website.

The document also includes a graph breaking out each US Congressional districts “share” thusfar of the cost of this atrocity, along with a comparitive list of what other goals could have been met with the money. Here are the numbers for Vermont:

And of course, that’s hardly the end of it. Those numbers are already obsolete, as the ticker below demonstrates:

Four months until we can bring the impeachment resolution before the Vermont legislature again seems way too long…

Two big events today:

First, the Net Neutrality action at Senator Jeffords’ office. I didn’t write it up previously the way I’ve written up action alerts on congressional action on the matter simply because Jeffords was already on the record being very much in favor of it. Still, it was unquestionably a great thing and we will make sure and forward action alerts from national organizers when the time comes for calls and letters. Cathy has a piece with links as well as several comments from blogger Morgan Brown who was in attendence. Great job, folks!

Second is the press conference held by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. In a bit of a case of cart-before-horse, candidates are being asked to sign on to support the “Vermont Freedom of Choice Act” (Democratic Lt. Gov candidates John Tracy and Matt Dunne, as well as Progressive candidate Marvin Malek did). Sounds great, except that there is no Vermont Freedom of Choice Act at this point. When it does materialize, it will (according to PPNNE) closely resemble the Federal Freedom of Choice Act (S. 2593 and H.R.5151), introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) respectively (and introduced in one form or another into every sitting congress for more than a decade).

Getting pro-active on the matter will not only serve to protect Vermont women from federal action and give pro-choice activists a boost, it will also help draw some bright lines within the Democratic caucus between those who respect women’s basic freedoms and those who are in favor of forced childbirth. That’s a line I, for one, look forward to see being drawn.

For a preview, click on the link to see the text of the Boxer bill:

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2593

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 6, 2006
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

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 `Freedom of Choice Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State’s interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman’s decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.’.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women’s health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(10) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(11) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(12) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(13) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(14) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because–

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government’ includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State’ means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability’ means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
END

From the AP:

Vermont could offer health coverage to all its residents and spend $51 million less a year on health care under a single-payer system, according to a legislative consultant’s report released Tuesday…

…[Chittenden County Senator Jim] Leddy called the report “one more step in our ongoing process that will continue.”

So around we go on this…again. There are two things missing to move on single payer: one, the political will. Two: a real roadmap. Now before people go all nuts on the first one, the fact is that without a practicable road map, there won’t be enough political will in the universe to make something this radical happen.

The problem with the activist left on such issues is our frequent inability or lack of interest in thinking about the road map. There’s a “just do it,” leap-of-faith mentality – as most of us are more interested (and practiced) in organizing than policy making. But we need to come to the realization that if there is a road map to progressive change on the table for all to see and consider, there isn’t necessarily a “leap of faith” required, and the problem of political will among our elected leaders diminishes rapidly.

I know I covered all this in a previous post from some time back, but with the above news, it seems more timely now. In the previous post, I just threw out my own, naive roadmap on the table (based on my extremely brief, but instructive experience with medical billing in an IT capacity) in an attempt to jumpstart discussion. With this latest news hopefully rekindling debate, I’m going to reprint it below and invite boos, catcalls, eyerolls, cheers, shrugs, or alternatives…

It’s likely there are many ways to get to single payer. Piloting a system with state employees and incentivizing others into it gradually, for example. However, there are a few cold political realities that must be faced to make something like this work. First, there can be little or no perception of tax increases, or any up-front increase on the burden of working and middle class citizens. Second (and most daunting), the bulk of the changeover must be complete within the two-year election cycle, so incumbents can feel confident they will have results to run on and not face a backlash in the midst of a painful transitional period (and yes, this is the opposite view expressed by many current legislators, I know).
The devil’s in the details, of course but in the interest of keeping all options alive, the following are five broad steps that, as part of a comprehensive reform bill, could facilitate the transition under these preconditions.

The basic premise is this: legislatively lock all current health plans and malpractice insurance plans into place during the transition period, gradually move all insurance reporting to a centralized state-based reporting/tracking/reimbursement system rather than having patient accounts systems and departments at every medical facility, then slide all current commercial planholders into comparable state-administered plans with the same premiums being paid directly to the state rather than the commercial payers. Then use the profit (and there IS profit under the current payment rates – plenty of it) from the premiums (along with taxes levied on larger employers that weren’t adequately covering employees already, as the Catamount plan does) to assume basic coverage for uncovered Vermonters. This gives you a dramatically larger revenue base from which to build a coverage pool for the uninsured, and sufficient resources to have the state implement it directly, rather than farm it out to a commercial payer. By the time the transition is over, we zero out remaining profits (the state shouldn’t be in the for-profit business) by passing on savings to the ratepayers, businesses, and physicians by actually bringing DOWN premiums.

That’s the abstract. Somebody gimme some money to fund a study and I’ll hash out the details. In the meantime, to flesh that out a little bit, I see it playing out in the following order of steps:

1. First, freeze all current private insurance plans with the understanding they will be discontinued within one year. Within that time, require all providers (doctors and hospitals) to convert to electronic medical records. The state should then enter into a partnership with an established commercial “practice management” software provider (no, it doesn’t have to be IDX!) to refit their system to centrally receive, convert and process insurance claims under all the current plans and communicate with the current payers. Collect all existing coverage information into a central database.

2. Once coverage and patient data is centralized, cancel all private insurance and assume the responsibility for all existing, catalogued plans at the state level. All providers will be submitting patient claims to this centralized system, but the insured and their employers will be paying the same rates and receiving the same plan. From the current health care consumer’s standpoint (both individuals and employers), transitioning them into the system should be seamless. There is, of course, profit taking in the system currently, so just transferring the system of premiums and provider recoupment to the state will also transfer those profits, helping to fund the system. The state should put some initial money into a pool to keep the system solvent long enough for the revenue to start flowing.

3. After a comprehensive analysis, settle on a system of a limited amount of coverage plans (much like a for-profit insurance company) that mirror Medicare and Medicaid plans for uniformity, since those forms are dictated to some extent by the federal government. Simplifying and streamlining plans to mirror the federal programs’ systems will also make it simpler for the newly created (and only modestly-sized) State Patient Accounts Division to be the go-between between Medicare and Medicaid eligible patients and the federal government for payment. Fold current users into the new plan that most resembles the commercial plan they are leaving behind and offer uninsured residents their choice of plans with a sliding-scale premium based on their ability to pay.

4. Conduct a parallel process with physician malpractice coverage, with an eye towards a rapid phase in of premiums that truly reflect an overall revenue-neutral, cost/benefit survey on the real costs of supporting malpractice insurance based on historical projections of payouts (I guarantee you such an analysis focusing on Vermont and without a profit incentive or excessive overhead would generate a FAR lower premium for physicians – bringing down what is often cited as the number one spiraling cost on physicians end of the equation). Malpractice costs are an often overstated, but nevertheless very real source of spiraling costs. In fact it seems to be every bit the racket that much of the health insurance industry is. Taking over malpractice insurance at the state level and implementing it with a zero-profit, realistic cost-benefit analysis is therefore critical to the overall goal of controlling helath costs in the state so that any Vermont single payer plan can be predictable and sustainable. In the interest of bringing down costs, drug re-importation also becomes a priority, which is yet another way that implementing such a plan could put the state on a collision course with the feds. Sometimes it’s worth playing chicken though.

Once the data is centralized, a market “going rate” analysis can also be made of what current employers can reasonably be expected to pay into a system, based on a snapshot study of what businesses were paying into commercial plans at the time the transition started. A fair rate for a business premium can be based on this analysis, and should also be based on business’s ability to pay.

Finally, a generic “bare bones” coverage plan can exist for all those that aren’t reached to choose their own plan option (emergency cases), and charges to such patients can be submitted under a “dummy account” to the state, pending proof of residence (as defined by the legislature under the plan).

5. Savings from lower emergency room services, lower paperwork and administrative overhead (providers’ patient accounts personnel resources can likely be reduced by 50-100%) can be used to boost the coverage pool for catastrophic conditions and the sliding premium scale.

Under this approach, there are no new expense increases for the consumer – simply a redirection — and the draconian increases in coverage hitting individuals, employers, and local property taxpayers annually will all but vanish.

There would be bumps in the road of course, not the least of which being confidentiality and privacy concerns. But if nothing else, weary legislators and policy advocates could take heart from this example and not give into cynicism. Obviously working out the details and passing such a plan would be a Herculean task.

But not an impossible one.

Your turn.