Regulate RI delivers 500 postcards to Speaker Mattiello’s office


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Screen Shot 2015-06-17 at 12.32.12 PM
Jared Moffat

Jared Moffat, director of Regulate RI, a group advocating legislation to tax and regulate marihuana like alcohol, delivered nearly 500 postcards from constituents within Speaker Nicholas Mattiello‘s district in favor of the legislation to the Speaker’s office on Wednesday.

“We hope the House Speaker and Senate President will agree with the majority of voters that it’s time to start regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol in Rhode Island,” said Moffat. “At the very least, they should allow a vote on the bill before the session ends.”

According to Regulate RI’s press release, “S 510/H 5777, the ‘Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act,’ would allow adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow one mature marijuana plant in an enclosed, locked space. It would create a tightly regulated system of licensed marijuana retail stores, cultivation facilities, and testing facilities and direct the Department of Business Regulation to create rules regulating security, labeling, and health and safety requirements. It would also establish wholesale excise taxes at the point of transfer from the cultivation facility to a retail store, as well as a special sales tax on retail sales to consumers.”

“Regulating and taxing marijuana in Rhode Island would give our state’s economy a much-needed boost,” Moffat said, “It would generate revenue, foster new businesses, and create jobs. S 510/H 5777 should be included as part of the General Assembly’s initiatives to rebuild Rhode Island’s economy.It’s hard to imagine why the legislature would end the session without voting on a widely supported proposal that is intended to bolster the economy and improve public safety.”

Patreon

No winners in state budget abortion compromise


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
DSC_2195
Nicholas Mattiello

Language added to the Rhode Island 2016 budget by Representative Raymond Gallison before passage somewhat balanced the last minute addition of extreme anti-abortion language submitted by Governor Gina Raimondo.

The new language added to article 18 reads:

(e) Health plans that offer a plan variation that excludes coverage for abortion services as 31 defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(i) for a religious exemption variation in the small group market 32 shall treat such a plan as a separate plan offering with a corresponding rate.

Except for religious Employers (as defined in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code), employers selecting a plan under this religious exemption subsection may not designate it as the single plan for employees, but shall offer their employees full-choice of small employer plans on the exchange, using the employer-selected plan as the base plan for coverage. The employer is not responsible for payment that exceeds that designated for the employer-selected plan.

An employer who elects a religious exemption variation shall provide written notice to prospective enrollees prior to enrollment that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(1). The carrier must include notice that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as part of the Summary of benefits and Coverage required by 42 U.S.C. 300g-15.

DSC_2172
Arthur Corvese

Signs of a behind the scenes compromise were apparent based on the odd assortment of representatives who rose to second the amendment, including Rep Edie Ajello, well known for her advocacy of reproductive rights, and Rep Arthur Corvese, well known for publicly and repeatedly referring to legalized abortion as a “culture of death.”

What does the new language mean? At bottom, any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, must allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs out of pocket.

Rhode Island is now the first state to build language into the law that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage.

Under Federal law, employees must be notified when their plan covers abortion. It does not require, as Rhode Island will under this new language, that employees be notified when they do not have abortion coverage. The language passed last night mandates that employees be told that the chosen plan does not cover abortion before they enroll, and that the lack of abortion coverage is confirmed after enrollment.

Ultimately, the notification requirement is similar to language concerning religious employers who choose not to cover contraception coverage as part of their health plans otherwise mandated by state or federal law.

There is a problem for employees inherent in this language. If my employer doesn’t want to cover abortion due to religious objections, and I decide to opt out of the plan chosen by my company, my employer will know of my objection, and may act in a discriminatory way against me because of my beliefs. I shouldn’t have to worry about job security or job advancement because of my decisions regarding reproductive health care for my family and me. Medical coverage, including reproductive services, are a private matter. How can that privacy be maintained under this provision?

DSC_2145
Lobbyist Healey

Before the passage of the budget, Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life told me that he and Bernard Healey, State House lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, were present to track the progress of the anti-abortion language the Governor inserted. Bracy told me that the language was the result of an agreement made in the wake of Doe v. Burwell, in which an anonymous man sued the state because there were no plans on the exchange that did not cover abortion.

ProJo reporter Richard Salit confirmed this when he wrote that “The lawsuit brought against Rhode Island was withdrawn in May when a Christian legal group said it had been assured that Rhode Island would begin offering multiple plans for abortion foes in 2016. According to HealthSource RI, the state Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner has required that in 2016 insurers offer a choice for abortion foes in every “metal” level (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) that they offer traditional health plans.”

This does not answer the question as to why Rhode Island did not simply require the addition of one plan to not cover abortion, as is required by federal law by 2017. It also does not answer why the amendment came from Governor Raimondo’s office, instead of being introduced as a bill that could be debated and publicly commented on. Had this democratic and open process been followed, the end result may have been more satisfying to all parties.

Despite this large concession to abortion foes, they were still unhappy with the newly added language. A source confided to me that Bracy, Healey and Representative John DeSimone were railing against the compromise language during last minute negotiations.

This makes me wonder if the RI Right to Life and the Providence Roman Catholic Diocese will begin looking for a non-religious employer to bring a Hobby Lobby like lawsuit against HealthSource RI under the state level RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) There is little difference between Rhode Island’s RFRA and the federal version the Supreme Court based their Hobby Lobby decision on.

As I pointed out before, this new language may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom in Rhode Island.

Tweet

Patreon

Budget bill passes House floor with almost no debate


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Photo of the final House vote on the FY16 budget
Photo of the final House vote on the FY16 budget

In what everyone thought would be a firestorm of debate, the RI House of Representatives unanimously passed the $8.7 billion FY 2016 budget with little to no discussion about many of the articles, including the much contested Medicaid cuts and pension settlement, as well as Governor Raimondo’s so called “job tools.” According to a House spokesperson, this is the fastest that the budget has gone through in nearly three decades.

The only budget articles that were seriously debated on the floor were numbers 11, which concerned taxes and revenues; and 18, which provided the funding to HealthSource RI, Rhode Island’s Affordable Care Act state exchange. There were two article introductions during the debate, one concerning the funding for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), and one simply to renumber the articles in the bill after its introduction. Representative Patricia Morgan (R-District 26), was going to introduce an article to fund bridge repairs, but recognized that she did not have the support to pass it.

Although discussion was sparse on the floor, Rep. Morgan was one of the few members who continually sparked debate, particularly over article 11, which had the longest discussion out of all of the sections voted upon. Amendments had already been proposed to the article, but had been struck down. Morgan proposed two amendments herself, the first of which would promote lean government standards for the state, and according to her, dramatically decrease costs for running state government.

“Many states at this point, have already started lean government initiatives, and it has given them a lot of fruit,” she said. “There are incredible efficiencies that have resulted from lean government.

Morgan planned to pay for the new service by taking $500,000 from the Newport Grand Casino and putting it towards creating a lean government initiative, which Governor Raimondo has already stated she supports. Her reasoning? That the casino was not in dire need of the funds.

“Last year, the new owner proposed $40 million for remodeling,” Morgan said. “If he has $40 million for that, I guess he can give up $500,000.”

The amendment saw staunch opposition, especially because, according to several representatives, 60 percent of the casino’s money goes directly back into the state.

“Just because Newport Grand may be part of corporate America, we are here to help businesses thrive in our economy,” Representative Dennis Canario (D-District 71) said.

“To take $500,000 out of Newport Grand would jeopardize the integrity of that business,” House Majority Leader John DeSimone (D-District 5), argued.

Although Morgan’s first amendment failed 71-4, she brought up another amendment immediately after that tried to use the same funds from Newport Grand to pay for a 38 Studios investigation.

“The people of this state deserve to know how it happened, why it happened, who did it, and try to keep it from ever happening again,” Morgan said.

Her second amendment did not even get the chance to go up for debate, as it was ruled not germane to the discussion. The ruling was met with cheers from other representatives.

Article 18 funded HealthSource RI, which has been hotly contested over the past few days due to restrictive abortion coverage language. However, Finance Committee Chairman Representative Raymond Gallison (D- District 69) introduced an amendment that would curb such restrictions, and allow access for those who require abortions even if their insurance plan has cited religious exemptions from covering them.

Surprisingly, the amendment passed with no discussion, but the article itself saw debate due to King V. Burwell, the current Supreme Court case determining whether or not states should receive tax subsidies from having their own healthcare exchanges. While some representatives thought that keeping the exchange would make Rhode Island less business friendly, it was upheld in the vote.

What is more striking than what was debated, though, is what was not. Cornerstone legislation in the bill went by without so much as a peep from representatives. Medicaid cuts, the pension settlement, Raimondo’s jobs initiative, professional licensing, all day kindergarten, school construction, and even appropriations of funds from FY 15 are just some of the examples of what saw next to no discussion. Even Gallison’s surprise article that raised RIPTA fares for the elderly and low income to $1, up from no cost at all, saw little debate.

After only three short hours, the budget was unanimously passed, with daylight still shining down on the State House.

“The House of Representatives is very committed to working together on behalf of the citizens of the state of Rhode Island,” Speaker Mattiello said of the speedy voting process. “That the House has worked very collaboratively with the Governor and the Senate President, and that there’s a focus on jobs and the economy. When we put out a pro-jobs budget, pro-economy budget, the members rallied around it and responded appropriately.”

Mattiello also did not rule out the option of a special fall session to handle Governor Raimondo’s proposed toll tax. It is actually very likely, he said.

As for Rep. Morgan, she believes that she was one of the only members of the House who actively stood up for what they believe in on the floor tonight.

“I’ll fight for the people of Rhode Island all day long. I’ll fight for better government in our state,” she said after the meeting. “But, I can’t do it alone. The people need to send me more support.”

“I don’t know why they didn’t speak up,” Morgan added. “There were things that should have been said. There was debate that should have gone on. There are things that are objectionable. I have no idea why people didn’t stand up and fight for the things that they believe in.”

But, even without the support for her amendments, Morgan still voted in favor of the budget because it was, for the most part, in line with her beliefs.

“I voted for the budget because there were a lot of really good Republican proposals in it, that I think will help Rhode Island, and I didn’t want to see them not get support.”

The bill will go to the Senate floor for hearing on Wednesday, where if approved, will become the official FY 16 budget for Rhode Island.