RI Called ‘Hostile’ on Pro-Choice Issues


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
A Guttmacher Institute map shows in dark red the states that it lists as "hostile" on pro-choice issues, including Rhode Island.

If it’s true, as Nancy Pelosi said recently when  she was here in Rhode Island, that the recent dust-up over reproductive freedom for women is an election year tactic, it might just prove to be a successful one in Rhode Island.

While we may like to fancy ourselves a left-leaning state, such is not the case when it comes to abortion rights.

The Guttmacher Institute, a public policy group that specializes in reproductive health, has listed Rhode Island as being the only northeastern state listed as being “hostile to abortion.” And it’s been listed that way since at least 2000. Check out these three maps to see how the country has become more hostile to abortion rights since 2000.

It’s not surprising that Rhode Island would be listed as hostile as only a third of overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives are on record as being pro-choice, according to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. The Senate is even more hostile to reproductive rights, with only seven of 38 members identifying themselves as being pro-choice or 18 percent – and one of the them is Republican Dawson Hodgson of North Kingstown.

Given this, it’s no wonder Rep. Karen MacBeth’s bill that would require Rhode Island abortion doctors to perform an ultrasound and to ask the woman if she would like to see the picture might gain traction – even though it carries very high fines for doctors who don’t comply: $100,000 fine for a first offense and up to $250,00o for a second offense.

A Republican legislator who is pro-choice but doesn’t go on record for political purposes recently told me that abortion issues are losers for social liberals. Abortion politics, they said, energize only the anti-choice side of the debate.

To that end, it is no surprise that FOX News told MacBeth, she said, they are ready to report on Rhode Island if and when her bill comes up for a vote. Seeing how well economic issues are going for conservatives, they may as well try to move the debate over to social issues.

Community Forum on Trayvon Martin Murder

Due to the egregious inaction by local, state and even federal authorities in Florida regarding the non-arrest of GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, the killer of TRAYVON MARTIN, and given the complex racial dynamics and their implications for Black males nationally, the Providence Africana Reading Collective (PARC) will host a community action forum.

We will discuss/plan how we might involve ourselves in action which will help pressure the powers-that-be to expedite a just resolution to this matter.

I’ve spoken with the Florida State NAACP President, Adora Obi Nweze, and the national communications director, Derrick Turner. They’ve detailed specific actions the NAACP is either organizing or coordinating with other Civil Rights and Black organizations on, both in Florida and nationally. I will report back this info to the community here in Providence this Sunday evening at the Providence Africana Reading Collective’s gathering.

I am also in conversation with other activist and community leaders here in Providence about the prospect of holding a Million Hoodie Protest March here in the city in solidarity and justice for Trayvon Martin and his family. This idea will be explored further at the PARC community forum.

Please come and bring your thoughts and voice!

Where: Tea in Sahara, 69 Governor St.

When:  This Sunday (March 25)

Time: 6pm

Other: To augment the gathering we will read Thomas C. Holt’s essay: “Racial Identity and the Project of Modernity.” Those interested in reading the text may email me at marco.mcwilliams@gmail.com

Bishop Tobin on Gay Marriage: Not Christ Like


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

In a not-very-Christ-like op-ed piece titled “Five Problems With Homosexual Marriage,” the leader of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island reaffirmed his objections to same sex relationship equality.

“It’s a sure sign of spring, as predictable as the Red Sox at spring training, the swallows returning to Capistrano, and the flowing of green beer on St. Patrick’s Day,” wrote Bishop Thomas Tobin. “I’m referring of course to the public re-appearance of the determined proponents of homosexual marriage.”

Yeah, nothing says warmer weather to come like people fighting for equal protection under the law. Most unfortunately, when it comes to the Catholic Church, it seems that hate springs eternal.

Not to fear though, Rev. Gene Dyszlewkski, chair of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition in Support of Marriage Equality quickly shot back.

“No Christian I know believes in discrimination,” he said in a statement rebuking the Bishop. “No Christian I know thinks it’s OK to deny basic human rights to a minority class of citizens. I think Bishop Tobin would do well to remember that. These continued attacks on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters only further perpetuate the notion that some religious leaders are out of touch with members of their faith.”

Error Makes Projo Explain Doonesbury Decision


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

Thanks to a “production error,” the Providence Journal ended up giving us an explanation for why it didn’t run Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury cartoon that deals with the Texas abortion law.

This item was in today’s Corrections:

“The distributor of Doonesbury this week offered to newspapers nationwide a choice of two comic story lines. The creator, Garry Trudeau, had drawn a weeklong series of comics focusing on the abortion debate in Texas. Upon review, The Journal elected to use the alternative strip because we believed it was more suitable for our comics page audience. The alternative appeared Monday through Wednesday. Because of a production error, Thursday’s comics page carries the strip that focuses on the Texas debate. The alternative strip will resume in Friday’s Journal.”

Not sure why they couldn’t have told me that when I asked on Monday, but here’s my original story on the controversial comic, and the way I was treated by two editors there when I called for comment.

Projo Pulls Controversial Doonesbury Cartoon


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

The Providence Journal not only won’t publish a controversial Doonesbury cartoon that is running this week, its editors won’t even talk about it. When I called for a comment on why Garry Trudeau’s latest cartoons, which deal with Texas’ new abortion law, wasn’t in the paper yesterday two different editors hung up on me.

First some background.

Garry Trudeau, the creator of Doonesbury, decided to take on the Texas abortion law that requires women wanting an abortion to undergo, in Trudeau’s words to the Washington Post, “a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand.” As happened in 1985, the last time Trudeau took on the subject of abortion, many newspapers across the country decided not to run the cartoon.

Evidently, the Providence Journal is one of those papers. Instead of running the new, controversial stuff from Trudeau, the Projo ran repeats.

The strip (which runs all week and  you can see here) was not in the Projo this morning, so I decided to call for a comment. I explained to the features editor who I was and why I was calling and he began telling me why they weren’t running the controversial cartoon this week. Then it occurred to him that he was talking to a reporter and he literally hung up on me. I called back but it went straight to his voice mail.

So I called Deputy Executive Editor Karen Bordeleau. I had sent her an email earlier, and since we have known each other for years, she knew right away why I was calling.

“I forwarded your email to the correct person,” she said. “If they want to respond, they will get back to you.”

I began to explain to her what happened when I called someone else for a comment. She said the first person I spoke with didn’t understand he was talking to a reporter. Okay, fair enough, so I asked her another question.

“I think I am going to hang up now,” she said.

And then she did.

So now we don’t know why the Providence Journal didn’t run the cartoon. Did the publisher in Dallas instruct them not to? Did they make an independent decision here in Providence that their Rhode Island readers shouldn’t know what Trudeau thinks about Texas’ new law? Did they just think the old stuff was funnier?

Who knows. Maybe they will tell us on the editorial page later this week…

Rep Medina Says He Was Profiled by Police


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

At a hearing on a bill that would protect people from being profiled by police based on their race, Rep. Leo Medina, D- Providence, no stranger to law enforcement, told the story of the time he was pulled over late at night and essentially harassed by an East Providence police officer.

Then Chairman of the Rhode Island Human Rights Commission Michael Evora testified about why some of law enforcement’s objections to the bill contradict best practices used by police in Rhode Island. “I respectfully submit,” he said, “that in some instances the term officer safety is used as a subterfuge.”

Racial Profiling, Vehicle Checkpoints Bills Heard Today


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

Last week here on RI Future, I shared a short podcast about Racial Profiling in RI from the perspective of youth and community organizers working with Providence Youth Student Movement.  Here is an extended series of excerpts from my conversation on Sonic Watermelons with Sangress Xiong and Yonara Alvarado, and Franny Choi.

Xiong, Alvarado, and Choi are among community members, law enforcement officials and members of the legislature who will gather today at the State House for a meeting of the House Committee on Judiciary; the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act of 2012  (H-7256) is one of the bills to be discussed.

All of tonight’s agenda items deal with “Motor and Other Vehicles,” and most are about motorists driving under the influence.  A couple other bills that might be of interest to RI Future readers include H-7222, which “would authorize a bail commissioner to order that a person’s license be suspended immediately upon the report of a law enforcement officer that the person has refused a chemical test for driving while under the influence of alcohol” and H-7203 which, if passed, would “bar checkpoints as a means to detect motorists under the influence.”

For more information about today’s hearing, click here.  To read more about my interview with Xiong, Alvarado, and Choi, click here.

***

Hear Sonic Watermelons live every Wednesday
6-8 PM (EST) on www.bsrlive.com.

Rest in Peace Milt Stanzler, Founder of RI ACLU


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
Milt Stanzler. (Photo courtesy of the RI ACLU)

Rhode Island mourns the death of Milton Stanzler, a lawyer who founded the local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union in 1959. He was 92 years old. Current RI ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown said of Stanzler’s passing:

“With courage, wisdom and foresight, Milton Stanzler founded the Rhode Island ACLU in 1959. It was a period when censorship of plays, books and movies in the state was rampant, and an epic battle was being fought over legislative efforts to ban housing discrimination on the basis of race.

Thanks to his leadership, the Affiliate became an important force in the community on these and hundreds of other issues during his decades of involvement with the organization. His work as a volunteer attorney in dozens of important cases and his authorship of a history of the Rhode Island ACLU also leave a lasting legacy. We mourn his loss, but he will be fondly remembered for both his generosity of spirit and his lifelong commitment to the indivisibility of freedom.”

Stanzler is said to have appeared before the state Supreme Court some 50 times and “the United States Supreme Court decided several of his cases,” according to the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame. “He wrote most of the legislation that crowned the state’s first fair housing law.”

“Milton Stanzler stepped forward to confront the thorny issues of his day,” wrote the hall of fame of him when he was inducted. “We applaud his unstinting courage, integrity, and resolution to keep the land of Roger Williams free. He is part of an unbroken heritage of independent thinking and action that began with the colony’s establishment in 1636.”

He also helped to found the Trinity Repertory Company in 1962. According to Broadway World:

“In the spring of 1962, Milton Stanzler first proposed his vision of establishing a professional theater in Providence to friends Norman Tilles, Robert Kaplan and actress Barbara Orson. While the challenges facing the group were many, over the next year they pursued their common goal of making Milton’s dream a reality. They soon assembled of a core company of actors, hired then New York-based theater director Adrian Hall as their first artistic director, and in 1964, they opened the doors to the Trinity Square Playhouse’s first production, Brendan Behan’s The Hostage.”

A funeral will be held for him at will be held at Temple Beth-El on Friday, March 9, 2012, at 11:00am.

Advocating to End Racial Profiling in RI


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

PROVIDENCE, RI – On Wednesday, March 7 at 4:30 PM, community members and advocates are expected to show up en masse to share their views on racial profiling in RI at a hearing at the State House before the House Committee on Judiciary.  But folks have been speaking out on the topic for years, including youth and adult advocates from Providence Youth Student Movement (PrYSM), an organization founded to support Southeast Asian Youth in Providence.

Hear more about their work here in this podcast of excerpts from my February 15 interview with PrYSM youth leaders, ?Sangress Xiong and Yonara Alvarado, and PrYSM staffer Franny Choi.  It aired lived on my weekly program, Sonic Watermelons on Brown Student and Community Radio.

During the interview, Xiong, Alvarado and Choi talk about recent campaign actions, like the February press conference introducing House Bill 7256, the making of the local documentary called Fitting the Description, and other recent activities that they have participated in with PrYSM and the Coalition Against Racial Profiling.  Alvarado (who is Latina) says she became passionate about the topic after being in the car and witnessing racial profiling when her uncle was stopped by an officer, and subsequently feeling less faith in whether officers are best serving the community; Xiong, who is Hmong (Southeast Asian), helps explain how a practice once known as “Driving while Black” has expanded to include not only the Latino/Hispanic community, but the Southeast Asian community in Providence as well – including friends and neighbors of his.

I also spoke with the three guests about the benefits and limitations of using digital media tools to collect stories from people who’ve been subjected to racial profiling, and for doing outreach about legislative efforts like the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act that will be reviewed and discussed at next Wednesday’s House Judiciary hearing.  The ten-page bill deals primarily with conduct during motor vehicle stops and searches, and among the provisions are:

  • Requirements for officers to document (in writing) the “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” grounds for conducting a search of any motor vehicle,
  • A determination that identification requested during traffic stops be limited to driver’s license, motor vehicle registration, and/or proof of insurance, and (unless there is probable cause of criminal activity) only asked of drivers
  • A mandate to create standard policies and protocols for police vehicles using recording equipment, such as documenting every stop that is made and prohibiting the tampering or disengagement of equipment.

In addition to collecting the probable cause information, the bill would require officers to collect data on race during stops – and departments to maintain and report this data at intervals over a 4 year period.  Choi says collecting data is key to ending racially divisive practices, and – along with the ACLU in their work on the topic – points to a local, southern RI city for proof of its inclusion in the bill as being “effective legislation.”

In Narragansett, says Choi in the excerpts, the department began collecting information without the legislation, and found a drop in “racial disparities in stops” after instituting the policy.  The ACLU also found recent actions and improvements in Johnston.  At the end of the day, says Choi, “when you’re pulling someone over, have a reason to pull them over.”

***

To connect with PrYSM about their work on Racial Profiling, visit www.prysm.us or email franny@prysm.us.  For more information about the Coalition Against Racial Profiling or next Wednesday’s hearing, contact Nick Figueroa of the Univocal Legislative Minority Advisory Coalition (ULMAC) by email at policy@ulmac.org.  Anyone can attend the hearing and sign up to testify, but Figueroa highly encourages anyone who would be testifying for the first time to contact him in advance for information and tips on the process of giving testimonies and what to expect in the hearing.  For example, four other bills are scheduled to be discussed on the same night and in the same hearing (meeting), so 4:30 may be the start-time for the hearing, but not necessarily when the Racial Profiling Bill is addressed.

Additional clips from the interview will be made available on VenusSings.com and IsisStorm.com, where you can also follow show updates about Sonic Watermelons, which airs live every Wednesday, from 6-8 PM (EST) at www.bsrlive.com.

 

OP protests Pfizer, ALEC joining 7 N.E. Occupies


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
Members of Occupy Providence protest Pfizer in Groton, Conn. on Wednesday.

Despite the cold rainy weather, about a half a dozen Occupy Providence members took part in the #F29 Shut Down the Corporations at Pfizer in Groton, CT. The national action was called by Occupy Portland to protest members of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a front group that writes model pro-corporate legislation.

The coordinated inter-occupy direct action against ALEC and Pfizer in Groton resulted in a civil disobedience where 8 people were arrested after Pfizer refused to send a representative out to discuss their ALEC initiatives. It was a success by any standard. The coalition, which consisted of occupiers from Occupy New London, Occupy Shoreline (CT), Occupy Hartford, Occupy Worcester, Occupy New Haven, Occupy Boston, Occupy Providence and more, gathered in Groton to march to the Pfizer facility, and then participated in a dynamic teach-in to work on ways to build non-violent protest in the Occupy movement.

Occupy Providence’s Susan Walker said, “We couldn’t believe how many police cars and officers were there. It was a little intimidating at first. But we walked right up to the crowd and joined about 100 other protesters in mike checks about Pfizer and ALEC. The energy was great. The costumes and signs were creative- an activist costumed as Big Bird with a sign ‘Hey Pfizer, Test This Bird’ was my favorite.”

CT residents were angry because Pfizer negotiated $161 million in tax incentives to build the facility, bulldozed a residential neighborhood, and then laid off 1500 local workers once the tax incentives abated. Not only that, but they resented that Pfizer is a heavy hitter with ALEC in legislating for corporate greed.

The march ended back at the main gate where access was denied. Several Occupiers approached the gatehouse and asked for a representative to come out and speak to us as was requested in an advance letter that was sent. They were denied.  The group decided to march around the facility and approach all the gates and ask to speak to a Pfizer representative.

The police had painted a blue line demarcating a boundary protesters weren’t supposed to cross. One protester later mused “blue line from the blue pill (Viagra) company- did Pfizer plan it that way?”

In unified action of civil disobedience, the whole group crossed the line, and got within 20 feet of the heavily guarded gate. Eight protesters then walked straight up to the gate house, linked arms, refused to leave, and were arrested one by one.

Civil Disobedience arrestees were singing Solidarity Forever as the paddy wagon hauled them away. Occupiers chanted and mike checked for a little longer.

Walker noted, “I found the vibe of the police presence really interesting. It was intimidating at first.  I think it was almost a 1:1 ratio of officers to occupiers. Early on occupiers had chanted, “The Police Need a Raise! The Police Need a Raise!” which was a pressing local issue.  The officers were respectful and seemed to have our safety in mind.”

As the march around the facility continued, police made sure we stayed on the sidewalk, that traffic could flow, and even blocked traffic so we could cross streets.

Walker continued, “I’m willing to bet some of the officers know families who were hurt by Pfizer’s layoffs, or who were displaced when they built the facility in the first place.  But these are guesses, not facts.  It’s a fact that those arrested were treated well and released promptly. I really got the feeling some of the officers felt like they were marching with us.”

After a break, the group reconvened at the New London All Souls Unitarian Church for a teach-in by a War Resisters League member from Voluntown, CT.  In the workshop,  an energized 30-40 people from over 7 different occupations worked together to develop a stronger, more effective movement.  It included 3 first time occupiers whose excitement was palpable, one commented, “This is the most empowering day of my life.”

After protesters introduced themselves, CT Brian led the group reading off  #F29 highlights from around the country from Twitter, starting with a report from Tucson, where they forced a G4S prison deportation bus to cut a hole in their own fence to get the deportees on the road.

This an interesting snapshot video of a twitter reading at 3:15 ET.

#F29-#CT #OP-Snapshot-3:15 National Actions http://youtu.be/1cC4BhIpFxQ

The facilitator broke down the elements of successful activism into 8 components- constructive work/alternatives, common understanding, non-violence discipline, demonstrations, allies, negotiation, research/Info gathering, and legislative/electoral reform and let the participants break into groups to work on the aspect most resonant to them.

Then each study group was given a list of questions, like for the demonstrations sub-group focused on “how we can best demonstrate our concern”.

Each small group reported back to the whole group their observations. The demonstration group reported that they felt the ALEC protester was a good model as it was focused on a key issue that connected with the central messages of Occupy.  A person from one of the last standing of the New England encampment, Occupy New Haven camp resident Danielle DiGirolamo, reported on Alternatives- that much of this has started with natural medicine and alternative energy becoming more mainstream and Susan Walker added that “basically we feel there are a lot of alternatives to what the corporations are spoon feeding us.”

Then the group was asked to order the different parts of a campaign with respect to the sequence they should occur in. They selected- Common understanding, Research, Allies, combined Training/Education, create Constructive alternatives, Negotiation, Non Violent Discipline, Legislative Action, to which the facilitator commented, not the usual order but  “I’d say that’s perfect.” At the end materials on non-violent training were distributed.

Protesters nationally were successful in raising awareness about ALEC a legislative shadow organization as Occupies around the world united for systemic change.

Check out the embedded video from the Occupy Portand Video Collective.

The large  Anti-Corporate greed protest in LA included masked Anarchists and possible young actress marching behind a banner of People  Over Profits in the middle of a large crowd. One tweet reported that- when the March arrived at Walmart, many workers from WalMart stepped outside. The police responded by telling them to go back to work or risk arrest.  An interesting accidental exposure of the Police bias to protect corporate property before people.

Perhaps the management had called.  A t that time the LAPD was not threatening the protesters with arrest, only the Walmart workers, seeming to be more of an  attempt to suppress worker solidarity with any movement that dares to unite people behind pro-worker programs- living wage, right to organize, right to strike to name a few. Had Walmart succeeded in forming the Grass Roots Union they sought, management wouldn’t have been so quick to suppress what could have been interpreted as a walkout.

Walker summed up her experience this way. ” It’s inspirational that Occupy Providence got to participate in a national coordinated day of action against ALEC. The bottom line: retailers, for-profit prisons and pharmaceuticals are writing legislation, and paying legislators to get it passed. The prisons are writing the laws? Really?  It’s not OK. “

By Robert Malin & Susan Walker

Cannabis compassion centers could get green light


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

Medical marijuana compassion centers may be able to open soon thanks to a compromise deal between legislators and Governor Chafee that would limit the amount of marijuana a compassion center could on its premises.

“Basically the compromise sets out stricter guidelines for the compassion centers,” said Rep. Scott Slater, D- Providence, the sponsor of the bill in the House. “One of the major hangups that the governor had and the feds is the profits the compassion centers listed in their applications.”

By limiting the amount of medical cannabis that a compassion center could have on site, lawmakers hope that federal authorities would not have reason to intervene. It would also allow caregivers, or medical marijuana growers, to provide the compassion centers with marijuana they grow. He said it was unclear whether they will be able to sell their product to the compassion centers.

The original medical marijuana compassion center law was approved in 2009, but after a long process to select the three state-approved centers, Governor Chafee then declined to give final approval for the centers after federal authorities threatened to intervene if the compassion centers opened. Medical marijuana is still not recognized by federal law.

Chafee, according to a press release, now seems to be more comfortable with the way the centers would operate. “I look forward to passage of a bill that will avoid federal intervention and bring needed medicinal relief to those who stand to benefit,” he said.

Slater, whose father sponsored the existing law, said the bill will be heard in committee sometime in the next few weeks and then will have to be voted on by both the House and Senate before the compromise bill becomes law.

My Pre-Existing Condition: The Price of Being Female

Will I get pregnant one day?  I don’t know for sure, but you know who thinks they do . . . health insurance companies?   I didn’t think it possible for an insurer to know whether I was going to get pregnant before I did, but remarkably, insurance companies seem to believe they know best.  And because of this future and hypothetical baby that I might have, insurance companies are allowed to charge me a higher premium than my male counterparts.

Rhode Island law currently permits insurance companies to charge higher premiums to women over males – a common industry accepted practice known as gender rating.  Insurance companies would argue that women are more expensive to cover due to their unique medical needs like mammograms, pap smears, and maternity costs.  Yet, women can’t choose to have breasts or ovaries, but driving recklessly, abusing alcohol, and eating unhealthily are all choices that can negatively affect health among both men and women.  Even so, women still pay higher premiums in the individual health insurance market (never mind the fact it’s been illegal in the group market for decades).

Still doesn’t make sense, right?  Soon, under President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, this discriminatory practice will be banned federally when most major components of the law go into effect.  (Phew!)  Yet… what about the next two years during which women of Rhode Island will continue to be charged higher rates?  I think Rhode Island can do better – and I’m not the only one.

I suppose if we want to talk about the cost-benefit analysis of covering women who may become pregnant, it would make sense to take steps to prevent unplanned pregnancy and reduce those so-called ancillary costs to insurance providers.  Following this logic, the HHS ruling late last month that requires all employers and health insurance plans provide birth control with no co-pays as a basic, preventative health measure really was one giant leap for woman kind to break the cycle of gender rating in insurance coverage.

Just last week, Brown University released a new public poll that found 56.8 percent of Rhode Islanders support birth control coverage with no co-pays.  Meanwhile, Rhode Islanders are almost evenly split on Mr. Obama’s recently issued requirement that church-related organizations such as colleges and hospitals to cover birth control in their employee insurance coverage.  The survey found 47.5 percent in favor of the policy and 47 opposed.  Might this public approval around contraception and empowering women to plan their parenthood, be a strong sway towards equality between genders on issues of health care?  One might hope.  Eliminating gender rating in health care coverage and providing birth control as preventative, basic health care seems like progress.

The tides are shifting – women’s health care under a bright, if not glaring, national spotlight, and as Rhode Islanders, we have a unique opportunity to show our support.  The reality, in terms of insurance premiums, is that each sex has their own unique set of health complications and risk factors – merely being female is not one of them.  Just like over 40 years ago when the insurance industry voluntarily abandoned the practice of using race as a rating factor, so too should it abandon gender as a means of determining insurance premiums.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island is behind the curve on this issue.  Nearly all of New England, with the exception of CT, has gender rating bans and regulations.  We have an opportunity to use the public spotlight that has been placed on women’s health to show that Rhode Island stands for equal rights among women and men.  It’s a no brainer.  Women in seven surrounding states are already protected from this practice; it’s time for the Ocean State to do the same.

If you want to get involved, and advocate for Rhode Island to erase gender rating right out of RI health insurance, I encourage you to come to the RI State House this Wednesday & Thursday “at the rise” to participate in the following hearings:

Tuesday February 28 at the Rise (around 4:30 pm) Hearing Room 203  – House Committee on Corporations hearing on House Bill 71751, to eliminate gender rating in health insurance, sponsored by Rep. Donna Walsh.

Wednesday February 29 at the Rise (around 4:30pm) Hearing Room 212 – Senate Committee on Health & Human Services hearing on Senate Bill 2208, to eliminate gender rating in health insurance, sponsored by Senator Sue Sosnowski.

 

Lecture on new era of ‘Jim Crow’ at Brown tonight


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

Author and civil rights attorney Michelle Alexander will be giving a lecture at Brown University tonight at 6 p.m. in the Martinos Auditorium on her new book.

The book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness,” is about the disproportionately high number of young black people who turn to crime and how society has failed to address this issue. According to the book’s website

Author Michelle Alexander will give a lecture on her book "The New Jim Crown" tonight at Brown University. (photo courtesy of Brown)

:

“The New Jim Crow is a stunning account of the rebirth of a caste-like system in the United States, one that has resulted in millions of African Americans locked behind bars and then relegated to a permanent second-class status—denied the very rights supposedly won in the Civil Rights Movement.

“As the United States celebrates its ‘triumph over race’ with the election of Barack Obama, the majority of black men in major urban areas are under correctional control or saddled with criminal records for life. Jim Crow laws were wiped off the books decades ago, but today an extraordinary percentage of the African American community is warehoused in prisons or trapped in a parallel social universe, denied basic civil and human rights…”

According to Brown, “Alexander is widely know for her work advocating for civil rights. In recent years, she has taught at a number of universities, including Stanford Law School, where she was an associate professor of law and directed the Civil Rights Clinics. In 2005, she was awarded a Soros Justice Fellowship, and that same year she accepted a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University.”

She’ll be signing her book after her lecture.

MERI testifies at Board of Elections Hearings about Voter ID


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

Rhode Island’s controversial new voter identification law goes into effect with this year’s election, and MERI has been actively working to make the process less challenging to our community, particularly transgendered individuals who could face unnecessary hinderances and potential disenfranchisement.

This afternoon, MERI  appeared in front of the Rhode Island Board of Elections and presented  testimony voicing concern that the new voter ID law has the potential to put at risk the voting rights for the 2,000 to 10,000 transgender Rhode Islanders. We raised similar concerns at a hearing with the Secretary of State’s office last December.

Our testimony today focused on the proposed rules and regulations in the voter ID law as they stand and discussed their potential to place these individuals in an unwelcoming or hostile environment—an environment that is incongruous with the ideals of fairness and democracy that are supposed to define the voting process.

For example, while an individual’s identification could list one gender, that individual may be in the process of transitioning or may not wholly identify with their documented gender. Furthermore, the individual’s identification could list a name not traditionally associated with their gender at the time of voting. Such identification discrepancy could prompt a poll worker to initiate an awkward or embarrassing conversation that could bring the individual unnecessary and uncomfortable attention. Transgender individuals may be discouraged from even going to the polls for fear of being outed publicly.

But the dangers of the voter ID law on transgender people reach even beyond the possibility of discomfort or disenfranchisement to include the threat or act of physical violence. As many of us know, transgender people face extraordinarily levels of both verbal and physical violence in their everyday lives. The chance of public outing at polling places makes these sites especially susceptible to anti-transgender violence, and the mere possibility of such violence could demotivate transgender citizens from voting at all.

Although everyone should be able to vote at their local polling place free from fear and intimidation, the General Counsel for the Board of Elections wanted to make sure we knew we could vote by mail.  Members of the Board of Election appreciated our testimony and want to work with us moving forward to ensure the poll workers are properly trained. We’ll keep you updated on our progress.

Also, thanks to one of our Spring Fellowship students, Simon, for all of his hard work on this issue!

Surprising Occupy Surprises Even Cynical Me

From the very beginning, the Occupy movement has been one surprise after another. The scale of the turnout in lower Manhattan is said to have stunned the AdBusters crew. The scale of peripheral support that came to the major protests surprised the activist core. The scale of the police response surprised the major media that wanted to ignore the story. And the speed with which the movement swept across the country surprised everyone.

But more than anything, the biggest surprise has been the movement’s staying power. Despite virtually all the US encampments being raided or voluntarily abandoned, the movement continues to offer up – you guessed it – surprises.

Occupy the SEC

Last weeks’ 325-page letter to the SEC et al from an Occupy Wall Street working group that supports the Volcker Rule portion of Dodd-Frank, came as a shock to the financial community. This was no rambling left wing polemic (such as you might be reading now), but a carefully considered expression of the broad ranging benefits of controls on the largest institutions. It was the kind of thing that could only be constructed by people who come from inside those large financial institutions.

To decode, this was Wall Street occupying Wall Street. Well and truly the 5th Column.

Surely, it is dawning on even the most strident radical capitalist that it is in their own self-interest to come to grips with the basics of this movement. It’s one thing when left wing radicals are talking about income inequality. It’s something else altogether different when it’s a major topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos!

This doesn’t need to make sense; only fiction needs to make sense. It is what it is, and I am very pleasantly surprised.

Reestablishing Solidarity

As the winter weather kept many people indoors and away from Occupy actions, I’ve become a bit concerned that the potentially fractious nature of hardcore activist collaborations would create an atmosphere that might discourage or alienate the large mass of peripheral supporters like me. While it’s true that I haven’t seen much evidence of this, I also haven’t seen much evidence of the opposite.

For this reason, I’ve suggested to every Occupier I know that it would be helpful to us on the periphery if Occupy created a series of regular, low-risk protests scheduled at such a time and constructed in such a way that so-called “regular people” could feel safe in coming out and showing solidarity with the core of the movement. The model that I keep pointing to is the regular Monday night protests held in 1989 in Berlin on both sides of the Berlin Wall.

Don’t Screw This Up

I’ve heard from many in and around the core of the movement their concern about some issues and ideas taking precedent over others. If that line of thinking becomes  prevalent, this movement will fail.

To be sure, it is crucial that the movement remain open to and aware of ALL the various viewpoints, issues, communities, etc. that make up this remarkable collection. But it is equally crucial that ALL these communities recognize that is the solidarity among themselves that attracts the large mass of peripheral supporters. And it is that large mass on the periphery that will force the change – NOT the hardcore at the center. The relationship is symbiotic; the periphery needs the center and vice versa.

To succeed – that means radically altering the dialog, awakening the apathetic and driving for real change – this movement can’t let itself get ripped apart. Everything needs to be focused on maintaining solidarity and attracting supporters.

Solidarity is the Goal

I’ve spent the last 30 years wondering what the hell was wrong with people in the US. Didn’t they see where this country was heading? Didn’t they understand that we couldn’t just keep growing on leverage without it eventually biting us in the ass? Didn’t they see that we were becoming an empire with our military spread far and wide? Didn’t they see that this nation was rapidly driving itself deep into the “bad guys of history” category?

Surprisingly, Occupy has shown that many more people than I had thought do seem to understand.

So don’t let us down, Occupy. We don’t want to go down on the wrong side of history. You are our last, best chance to pull the US back from the brink of catastrophe.

If we blow it now, we won’t get another opportunity like this in our lifetime.

Racial profiling in Rhode Island


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

According to a study by Northeastern University, African American and Latino motorists were more than twice as likely to be searched after being pulled over for a traffic stop in Rhode Island.

Think there’s racial profiling in Rhode Island? The study certainly seems to suggest as much, and a number of state legislators and the RI-based Coalition to Stop Racial Profiling have teamed up to do something about it.

The legislators, led by Grace Diaz, D-Prov, introduced a bill into the House called the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act. The bill, according to a fact sheet put together by the ACLU, would:

  • Requires police officers to document in writing their “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” grounds for conducting a search. Also provides that the documentation will be public record, with few exceptions.
  • Bars police from asking drivers for further documentation of identification beyond a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and/or proof of insurance during a routine traffic stop in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
  • Bars police officers from asking motor vehicle passengers for identification in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
  • Requires police officers to document in writing the investigatory basis for a stop if a violation of traffic laws is used to stop a motor vehicle for non-related investigatory reasons

The Coalition, on the other hand, put together with the help of the Providence Youth Student Movement and Youth in Action this short documentary called “Fitting the Description.” Check it out:

Ahlquist wins; Cranston School Committee declines appeal

The Cranston School Committee voted 5 to 2 last night not to appeal a judge’s ruling that a prayer banner doesn’t belong in a public school.

While it’s pretty obviously a violation of the Establishment Clause (separation of church and state) of the Constitution to hang a prayer banner in a public high school, two of the school committee members said they voted against the appeal because of what it would cost, according to the Associated Press.

An appeal, the school committee’s lawyer told them last night, could cost a half a million dollars. Already, the ACLU is asking the school district to cover its legal bills to the tune of $173,000.

The issue has been giant news in Rhode Island for about a year now, since the school committee decided to fight a lawsuit that Jessica Ahlquist, a high school junior, brought saying the prayer banner violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After she won the suit, students threatened her causing her to need a police escort in school and local florists refused to deliver flowers to her. The low point came when Rep. Peter Palumbo called her an “evil little thing” on WPRO.

The matter made national news and resulted in a lot of embarrassing press for the Ocean State.

Let school prayer banner issue go away, Cranston


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

The Cranston School Committee will decide tonight whether or not it wants to continue embarrassing the state in voting if it wants to appeal the school prayer banner case.

Here’s hoping they decide to do the right thing and not fight the ruling, won by high school junior Jessica Ahlquist, that the prayer banner must come down before Rhode Island gets any more of a public relations black eye because of the matter.

“The anger and hatred directed at Ms. Ahlquist — she was called “an evil little thing” on talk radio by a Cranston state representative — helps explain why the judge, responding to her brave lawsuit, did his duty under the Constitution and ordered immediate removal of the prayer,” according to an editorial in the New York Times.

And in response to a number of local florists who refused to deliver flowers to Ahlquist, Annie Laurie Gaylor, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation told the Associated Press, “What kind of people are they in Rhode Island?”

The school district has already incurred hefty legal bills in defending the prayer banner. And the ACLU, who defended Ahlquist, is asking the city to cover its lawyer fees to the tune of $173,000.

Especially in light of the fact that the same school committee said it was too cash-strapped to have a charter school open in the district, it should not be spending money on what is pretty obviously a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (or separation of church and state).

Residents and school committee members have said the prayer banner should stay because it is part of the school’s history. But historical significance is no reason to flout the First Amendment of the Constitution.

If the school district wants to preserve the prayer banner’s legacy, it should create a display at the school that could memorialize its history, Ahlquist’s legal battle to have it removed and the torment she endured from her peers and the community for doing so.

Short of that, let’s hope this issue goes away before Rhode Island has to endure any more national media flagellation because of it.

Marriage equality back on State House agenda


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

Same sex couples in Rhode Islanders will have another opportunity at equal protection under the law as Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, will again introduce a bill in the General Assembly that would afford the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts enjoy.

“Every year we move forward,” Handy said, who has introduced a similar bill in the previous nine legislative sessions. Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Prov., will introduce the bill in the Senate.

Last year, Rhode Island passed a law that allowed gay couples to enter into civil unions. But civil unions, especially Rhode Island’s version, is not tantamount to marriage.

“Separating straight and gay couples into different institutions just isn’t legal,” said Ray Sullivan, of Marriage Equality Rhode Island. “Until same sex couples can marry, Rhode Island has not achieved justice under the law.”

Aside from the fact that “separate but equal” has already been deemed unconstitutional, Rhode Island’s civil union law has a provision that allows religious institutions, such as Catholic hospitals, to be exempt from some of the law’s provisions, meaning a Catholic hospital could deny a family member access to their spouse during an emergency situation or a religious school could deny health care benefits to an employee’s same sex spouse.

There is another bill that will be introduced that would repeal this part of the state’s civil union law, known as the Corvese amendment because Rep. Doc Corvese, D-Prov. and an ardent opponent of gay rights, managed to sneak the provision into the bill at the eleventh hour last session.

Because of the Corvese Amendment, Sullivan said. “Rhode Island has far and away the most discriminatory language of any marriage or civil union bill in the country.”

Last session, the same sex marriage bill did not get a straight up or down vote, even with the speaker of the House, Gordon Fox, being openly gay. He told me after last session that not supporting gay marriage was one of the most difficult decisions of his political career.

Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed does not support equal marriage rights for same sex couples. She told me last year that she thinks Rhode Islanders are more comfortable with civil unions than gay marriage. A poll last year indicated that Rhode Island actually supports gay marriage 50 percent  to 41 percent.

Some legislators have said they worry about electoral repercussions from Catholics, but in Massachusetts “every legislator who supported marriage equality and ran for reelection was reelected,” according to Sullivan.

The marriage equality proposal was first reported by Dan McGowan of GoLocalProv.

RI Voters’ Poll: Seeking Major Changes In Marijuana Policy

A new poll of 714 Rhode Island Voters indicates overwhelming support for medical marijuana, compassion centers, and decriminalization of less than one ounce of the plant.  The medical marijuana law, gone unused by Rep. Bob Watson (if he were to qualify) garnered support of 72%, including a whopping 82% of Dems, 61% GOP, and 57% of those beloved Seniors that every politician craves.  Only 30% of people over 65 were opposed.  With that support, it should be no surprise that support for the Compassion Centers (approved by the legislature three years ago) was equally high- and the poll suggests that Chaffee stands to gain some support if he were to stop Pot-Blocking the Compassion Centers.  Half the voters said they would view the Governor more favorably, while only 19% would view him less favorably.

A meager 24% are opposed to making small amounts of marijuana punishable by only a fine, and apparently would rather pay to imprison someone over a bag of the most common illegal intoxicant, being used by millions of Americans every day.  In contrast, 65% of RI voters would like to see the highly anticipated change in the law, and 58% would be more likely to vote for a politician who supported such a reform (24% said “less likely,” with 18% not sure).  Political gurus: you know the score. Few have ever seen a bill with this much sponsorship and public support that has not become law.  It appears the onus is upon Speaker Gordon Fox to assure all the votes are held, as few individuals other than he could keep this bill from reaching the Governor’s desk.  It remains to be seen how many courageous people take to the hearing, saying things heard last year such as: ‘I’m a wife, a mother, I have a job, pay a mortgage, and I smoke pot.’  H 7092, sponsored by Rep. Edwards, has a list of co-sponsors that makes you search for the opposition.  Minority Leader Newberry?  Sponsor.  Favorite Villain Rep. Palumbo?  Sponsor.  The aroma smells the same in the Senate, with S 2253.  Stay tuned.

The more interesting proposition is one which gained the support of millions of voters in California on the first try: Full Regulation of Marijuana.  Such a bill has gone to a hearing for the past two years; admittedly, the legislation may need to be more detailed, or empower the proper regulatory agency to oversee a several hundred million dollar economic development project that America has never seen.  I could not find such a bill filed yet in the Assembly, but I may have overlooked it.  The poll of voters, by the way, shakes out 52-41% in support.  If this were projected numbers in an election, the front page would call it a “landslide.”  Interestingly, the women are much less enthusiastic about Regulation despite being more supportive than men on the Compassion Centers.  There was no difference in support among party lines, with the Independent/Other having lower support than the two dominant factions.  On this question, the Over 65 crowd was the most out of step with everyone else, as they oppose Regulation 55-36%.  I’m not sure if these numbers would be identical in 10 years, and age reflects our changing opinions, or if the idea of marijuana criminalization will go Bye Bye like Ms. American Pie.

One question that was not asked, that would be of interest, is support for the Good Samaritan Act.  This bill (successful elsewhere) is basically designed to encourage one drug user to save the life of another.  Studies and experience in the medical field has shown that drug overdose, a serious killer in America even when the newspaper is not so explicit, can often be prevented by the most unlikely hero, another user.  However, faced with the fear of prison (and possibly being linked in with their death) the other user will flee rather than call 911 or administer naxalone.  Under this bill, nobody is going to be charged with drug possession if the evidence arises when its a medical response.  Surely a certain percentage of RI voters would rather see people dead or in jail, but I suspect that a vast majority would encourage people in tough times to choose life.

Life, Compassion, and Decriminalization- that is what the people are leaning towards.  Don’t let the fear-mongering media fool you.

 


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