Health Care – Page 11

March 27, 2013March 27, 2013

Hodges Addresses Gender Inequality In Insurance

It’s hard to imagine that in the year 2013 women still have to deal with inequality in the workplace.

Their wages are typically lower for the same level of education and expertise than their male counterparts, but this inequality does not stop at the pay check. Women also pay much higher premiums for their health insurance coverage, so, in addition to making less money, they’re forced to pay out more in insurance premiums.

This is a practice known in the insurance business as gender rating.

While the Affordable Health Care Act will eventually make gender rating illegal, some 14 states across the country including California, New Jersey and New York, have taken steps to ban or cap gender rating in the individual insurance market. Some local lawmakers would like to add The Biggest Little to that list.

A bill (S201) sponsored by Senators Sosnowski, Miller , Nesselbush, Cool-Rumsey, and Gallo would prohibit insurance providers in Rhode Island from charging women of child-bearing age higher premiums than men. This is the third time that similar legislation has been introduced by Sosnowski.

Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island is one of the womens’ advocacy groups that has led the charge locally for evening out this disparity. We caught up with Paula Hodges, Rhode Island Public Policy and Advocacy Director for Planned Parenthood, and asked for her take on the the built in sexism of gender rating by insurance companies.

The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services heard testimony from the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Susan Sosnowski, who said, “It’s outrageous that in 2013, we have to deal with this discrimination.”

“I bristle at the term discrimination,” said Shawn Donahue, lobbyist for Blue Cross/Blue Shield RI, “it is an actuarial fact that young women visit doctors more frequently. Insurance companies charge discriminatory rates for smokers. Men are discriminated against when it comes to life insurance.”

Committee Chairman Sen. Josh Miller grilled Donahue during his testimony, asking, “Just from a public policy point of view, do you have any data on the cost to the state for women that have dropped out of the insurance pool due to cost.”

Donahue had no answer.

During her testimony, Ms. Hodges, visibly annoyed, said, “I resent that gender is being equated to something situational like riding a motorcycle or smoking.”

February 26, 2013February 26, 2013

Lizz Winstead, Fake News Inventor, In RI Thursday

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

Remember way back in the mid-1990’s when some people could actually say Fox News was fair and balanced with a straight face? Then progressive comedian Lizz Winstead invented fake news for Comedy Central and all of a sudden the joke was on the conservatives.

The Daily Show co-creator will be in town on Thursday night if you’d like to thank her.

Winstead will be here helping to raise awareness for women’s health issues for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England Ocean State Choice Affair. According to its website:

Thursday promises to be a night filled with laughter, razor-sharp wit and biting satire, and even a live Twitter feed, inviting guests who can’t be with us in person to share their vision for the future of reproductive justice through social media – most likely along with a few great one liners from Winstead, herself. Most importantly, it will be a night of sharing our stories, connecting with other reproductive justice advocates and activists, and working to ensure that women, men and teens in Rhode Island receive the care and compassion they deserve.

The event is already sold out. But you can get on a waiting list here, or follow Winstead on Twitter here.

She must be starting to feel right at home in Rhode Island. She was here this summer for Netroots Nation. And Dan McGowan interviewed her for RI Future way back in 2010.

January 22, 2013January 22, 2013

Protecting Roe: What Every Rhode Islander Can Do

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

It’s been 40 years since the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the constitutionally protected right to privacy includes every woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions, without the interference of politicians – including the right to end a pregnancy. Leading up to today there has been a lot of talk about the next generation of abortion rights activists and whether or not millennials appreciate the hard fought right to a safe and legal abortion.

Speaking as a “millennial” myself, I can say that young women value the impact of Roe but recognize that the present day conversation rests within issues of sexual identity, health insurance coverage for birth control with no co-pays and the need to push past labels like “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” It’s clear to me that the next generation of activists is ready and willing to build off the hard work of those who’ve come before us – and expand the conversation to those who have felt left out of the “choice” conversation for too long.

Forty years may have passed but Planned Parenthood’s mission remains the same: to protect the fundamental right of all individuals to manage their own fertility and sexual health and to ensure access to the services, education and information to realize that right. In Rhode Island, we recognize the need to not only protect the right to abortion but also to ensure access to a wide range of reproductive health care – including well woman exams, STI testing and treatment and access to all methods of contraception from the pill to intrauterine devices.

So, although Planned Parenthood advocates for access to a wide range of preventative family planning programs, Rhode Island lags behind our New England neighbors when it comes to unintended pregnancy rates. Even though we know that for every dollar invested in family planning services, the state saves $3.75, we’re forced to waste time fighting unnecessary, shaming legislation like mandatory-waiting periods and ultrasounds.

Rhode Island is one of 22 states – and the only state in New England – that the Guttmacher Institute designates as “hostile” to women’s reproductive health. NARAL Pro-Choice America gives Rhode Island a D+ rating on their national score card. How could this be you might ask? Rhode Island has dozens of archaic laws on the book some of which include:

An unconstitutional and unenforceable criminal ban on abortion;
“Informed consent” laws that subject women seeking abortion to biased-counseling requirements;
Restrictive insurance coverage of abortion for some (state employees) and unenforceable laws that restrict private insurance coverage for abortion for all;
Laws that allow certain individuals, health care providers and entities to refuse to provide specific reproductive health services, referrals or information including information and prescriptions for birth control.

It’s time that the Rhode Island legislature understand that investing in prevention and comprehensive sex education is the only proven way to address unintended pregnancy. We encourage you to take action and share your stories with friends, family members and elected officials. To get you started, here are three actions you can take today:

. Tell them to support access to preventative family planning programs and NOT to support shaming legislation like mandatory ultrasounds or any politically motivated abortion ban.
Tell Planned Parenthood your story. One in five women have visited a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime. With anti-choice politicians determined to take away women’s access to healthcare, it’s never been more important to share your story and show that Planned Parenthood is a vital organization in your community.
Join the Planned Parenthood Action Network. Stay informed about current events and legislation on the national and state level.

Paula Hodges is the Public Policy & Advocacy Director for Planned Parenthood Southern New England and Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island.

December 8, 2012December 8, 2012

Parents: Proper Marijuana Reform Protects Families

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

“You’ll think differently once you have a child of your own.” This was the comment I most often heard whenever I used to have conversations with other parents about drug policy reform.

Last year, my wife and I were blessed with a beautiful baby boy. In the first year of his life, he has grown at a rate beyond what I could have imagined. Now, at only fourteen months, I am already thinking about when I will need to have that first conversation with him about the dangers of drug and alcohol use. As I think about that conversation—which has the potential to shape my son’s views about drugs and alcohol for the duration of his childhood and adolescence—I feel even more committed, not less, to reforming our archaic, unjust and dangerous drug laws, particularly with respect to marijuana.

Contrary to popular belief and understanding, forty years of research overwhelmingly indicates that parents and school-age children are the first casualty of our failed marijuana policies. That’s because our drug laws are not working, neither in Rhode Island nor nationally.

As an epidemiologist and a scientist, I can cite statistic after statistic about the billions of dollars we have wasted on the ‘war on drugs,’ the devastating toll this ‘war’ has taken on children and families, the collateral consequences associated with incarceration, and ever increasing numbers of kids using substances. And based on our current policies, I can predict where those statistics will be in ten years. But to me, this issue is more than a bundle of statistics. When my child enters middle school, he will face the same situation that kids now face: increasing numbers of students saying they know a drug dealer on school grounds, and an average marijuana “initiation” of age 12 and still declining.

In response to those parents who told me I would think differently, I say to them: The only thing that is different is that now I see firsthand why reforming our drug laws is one of the most important things I can do as a parent to protect my son from the dangers of drugs.

To me, marijuana reform means reducing the influence of the black market through adoption of a robust regulatory approach with a strong emphasis on restricting drug access to youth. It means better education and prevention for our children. It means providing resources for treatment, not incarceration for non-violent offenders who struggle with addiction. It means working together to develop and to implement an evidence-based, not fear-based, strategy to protect our children and families from the dangers of drugs.

I am often asked: How can we be certain that alternatives would be more effective? Could marijuana become even more available and more widely used than it is now? Questions like these, especially for parents who remain skeptical about reform, aren’t negligible side-issues. When discussing what a post-prohibition regulatory model for marijuana might look like, fears about availability, a profit-driven industry similar to Big Tobacco, and sending a dangerous message to our youth that drug use is acceptable are important to consider.

As a new parent, I appreciate the fears expressed by many parents which give pause to supporting alternatives to current marijuana prohibition. And I would never support an alternative that didn’t strictly control the market, ban advertising and allocate a proportion of any revenue generated toward youth prevention efforts, including education and counter-advertising—the same tools states have used to lower youth tobacco use to record-setting lows.

We have a clear choice: continue to blindly follow a failed policy which will undoubtedly result in more of the same—increasing rates of drug use and associated harms—or resolve to openly discuss our fears so that they no longer prevent us from implementing more sensible drug policies, policies that will better protect our children, families and communities. And like every pressing public question, this one deserves deliberation, now more than ever.

Today, Rhode Islanders will have the chance to deliberate the way forward. Brown University is hosting The New Directions Conference, a public, statewide discussion whose goal is to bring all parties to the table to discuss our marijuana policies. Policy experts, concerned citizens, law enforcement and state legislators will sit side-by-side this morning to address every aspect of the issue, with one purpose: to explore possible alternatives for marijuana reform that would protect families first. (The Conference is at capacity, but will accommodate standing-room for same day registration).

The Conference is not a fact-finding commission—it begins the conversation acknowledging what we already know, that our current system has not produced results. But the truth is, if pro-family alternatives exist, the only way to find out is by discussing them. I believe responsible parents, and all concerned citizens in this state, would agree.

Nick Zaller, PhD

Father and Associate Professor of Medicine,

Brown University

Providence, RI

October 24, 2012October 24, 2012

Romney Lauds RI, But Would Cut State Medicaid

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

You probably listened with great interest in the debate Monday night when Mitt Romney complimented Rhode Island for running its innovative Medicaid program better than does the federal government. This may be true, and Rhode Island certainly deserves credit for its well-run, innovative Medicaid system.

But as it turns out the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicaid would be detrimental to Rhode Island’s well-run, innovative Medicaid system.

According to an article in the Huffington Post today:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney cited Arizona and Rhode Island as models for a redesigned Medicaid system that states control during his debate with President Barack Obama Monday. What Romney didn’t say is that his own plan would slash funding for the program in those states along with the rest of the country.

…Romney supports a plan that would reduce federal Medicaid funding for states by 38 percent. Arizona and Rhode Island, like other states that have reformed Medicaid with federal approval, did so by tapping funding above what Romney’s proposal would allow.

And an article in Politco today puts it this way:

The Romney Medicaid plan would cap the growth of the program’s spending to the consumer price index plus 1 percent and essentially give states a lump sum to spend as they see fit. The Rhode Island and Arizona Medicaid programs, while enjoying more flexibility, are still backstopped by the federal government.

“We’re really talking about two different things,” said Judy Solomon of the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “We’re talking about a proposal for huge cuts for federal funding, versus states that have used [federal Medicaid] waivers to do things a little bit differently.”

Rhode Island’s 2009 Medicaid waiver has become a political football in health policy circles. Conservatives who’d like to see states completely take over the program are eager to point to Rhode Island as an example of a block grant that’s working. Liberals argue the Rhode Island program doesn’t count as a real block grant because it doesn’t have the same fiscal constraints. They contend the GOP plan would slash Medicaid spending and cast millions off the program’s rolls.

In the case of Rhode Island, the Global Waiver it obtained in 2009 wasn’t intended to control costs, as a Lewin Group report commissioned by the state explained last December. “The Global Waiver is not a block grant meant to control costs but a demonstration aimed to improve health care quality built on the core foundation of shared state and federal costs,” the report said. The feds still have oversight and approval powers for program spending.

Think Progress quotes the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the plan:

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

It’s great that Mitt Romney thinks more states should run their Medicaid system like we do, but it’s not so great that if he were elected presidents he’d make it so our Medicaid system wouldn’t run as well as it does.

September 13, 2012September 14, 2012

Bishop Tobin Confuses Anti-Choice for Pro-Life

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

Providence Diocese Bishop Thomas Tobin has a tendency to very publicly take Catholic politicians to task for their stand on reproductive rights. Tobin’s very public fight with Congressman Patrick Kennedy was seen by many to be a bold assertion of clerical power to control the votes of Catholic legislators on issues of importance to Catholic theology. Most recently the Bishop went after James Langevin in his June 28th Without a Doubt blog, saying:

Although he continues to identify himself as a “Catholic, pro-life member of Congress,” consider his record. He voted in favor of Obamacare that allows the funding of abortion; he has championed the use of embryonic stem cells, a practice that results in the destruction of human life; he has proudly announced his support of homosexual marriage, a concept that is, ultimately, an offense to human life; he supports the HHS Mandate that requires Catholic ministries and others to provide insurance coverage for immoral practices; and recently he voted against the bill that would have banned the horrific practice of sex-selection abortion. It’s clear that Langevin has abandoned the pro-life cause. What a disappointment!

Randall Edgar, in the September 13th Providence Journal article Bishop says Langevin no longer pro-life followed up this story, with comments from Langevin, who still considers himself “pro-life.” Langevin said

…he has differences with Bishop Tobin, for whom he has “deep respect.” Among them: He believes that being pro-life requires that he work to “reduce unwanted pregnancies,” which is why he supports “making contraceptives available.” He also said he sees stem cell research as offering “hope for curing some of life’s most challenging chronic conditions and diseases.”

What is clear from the disagreement between the legislator and the bishop is that the “pro-life” position is not in any way the opposite of the “pro-choice” position. In fact, the reality is that everyone, on either side of the reproductive rights issue, is pro-life. The only real disagreement is how we express our point of view through our political actions.

Tobin and others who wear the pro-life label with pride love to tarnish those who believe in reproductive health care as being pro-death, as seen in this editorial from the April 19th Rhode Island Catholic entitled “Planned Parenthood’s War on Women” in which The American Civil Liberties Union, Humanists of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Medical Society, Brown Medical Students for Choice and Catholics for Choice were labeled “culture of death allies” to Planned Parenthood.

Tobin has every right to publicly cajole or privately persuade legislators to vote as Tobin interprets God’s will. Legislators, Catholic or otherwise, are free to heed Tobin’s words or not. The voting public, however, many of whom are not Catholic, and many of whom follow faith traditions that understand the necessity of reproductive health care choices for women, might understandably become worried about casting votes for candidates with otherwise fine credentials that happen to be Catholic, their worry being that they are not voting for someone who will act in the best interests of our country and our citizens, but only for what is in the theological interests of the Catholic Church.

It should be remembered that we are not just talking about abortion here. We are talking about condoms, birth control pills, marriage equality, doctor patient privilege, sex education and a myriad of health care and lifestyle issues important to the lives of real people living in the real world. The harder the Providence Diocese pushes Catholic legislators to forgo a multicultural and secular perspective in favor of Catholic theology, the more likely it is that voters will find themselves unable to be sure that Catholics can be trusted to hold public office.

Catholic Senator John F Kennedy faced this head on in 1960, speaking to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act… I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source…

At the time, though prejudice against Catholics was waning, there was still enough serious suspicion that a Catholic president would be little more than a puppet of the Pope that Kennedy felt it necessary to make this speech disavowing such influence. Kennedy was faced with essentially the same problem posed to Jesus, who famously told his interlocutors to render unto Caesar (the government) what was Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s. In other words, separate church and state.

Tobin wants Langevin and all other Catholic officials to stop making any distinction between church and state, rendering everything unto God, Caesar be damned. What Tobin risks with his very public pressure tactics against Catholics in high office is the very ability of Catholics to attain high office. Under the conditions Tobin wants to impose on Catholic office holders, how could anyone who disagrees with Catholic theology concerning marriage equality or birth control reasonably vote for any Catholic?

Tobin has resorted to what amounts to religious extortion in the past to get his way politically, when he denied the sacrament of communion to Representative Patrick Kennedy in 2009. His strong words against Langevin might mark the beginning of a second round of religious bullying. Langevin maintains that he has “deep respect” for Tobin, and though little in Langevin’s voting record should overly worry those in favor of reproductive health care rights, can we be sure that Langevin’s deep respect won’t eventually cause him to compromise his duty as an elected official?

I ask the question rhetorically. I think there are many fine Catholic politicians holding elected office in our state, and I have little cause to doubt them. But the louder Tobin publicly demands allegiance to Catholic doctrine over duty to our country, the more a reasonable person has cause to worry about the loyalty of those in Tobin’s cross-hairs.

September 7, 2012September 7, 2012

Planned Parenthood Endorses Candidates

Planned Parenthood Votes! RI PAC is pleased to announce its 2012 state legislative PAC endorsements. PPV!RI PAC supports its candidates by educating voters through phone calls and social media to ensure Rhode Islanders know what is at stake for women and women’s health ahead of the September 11^th primary and the November 6^th general election.

Also, PPV!RI PAC will participate in the “Women are Watching…and Voting” National Day of Action on Saturday, September 8, 2012. This special event comes on the heels of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s two-week “Women Are Watching…and Voting” battleground bus tour, which made stops in 11 states and traveled more than 5,000 miles. For more information on the Women are Watching Campaign, visit www.womenarewatching.org.

This year, women will decide the outcome of elections across the country, and are watching very closely to ensure that they elect candidates — up and down the ballot — who will protect women’s health care.

If you are interested in volunteering this weekend or anytime with Planned Parenthood Votes! RI PAC, please contact us at ppvotesri@ppsne.org or call (401) 421-7820 x3145.

PPV!RI PAC is a State of Rhode Island Political Action Committee (PAC) formed to elect public officials who will protect the fundamental right of all individuals to manage their own fertility and sexual health. It is associated with PP! Votes Rhode Island, the political and advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.

RI State House
Marvin Abney – HD 73
Edie Ajello – HD 1
Joseph Almeida – HD 12
David Bennett – HD 20
Chris Blazejewski – HD 2
Michael Connolly – HD 48
Robert Craven – HD 32
Grace Diaz – HD 11
Frank Ferri – HD 22
Linda Finn – HD 72
Gordon Fox – HD
Scott Guthrie – HD 28
John Hanley – HD 68
Joy Hearn – HD 66
Art Handy – HD 18
Libby Kimzey – HD 8
Donald Lally – HD 33
Deb Ruggiero – HD 74
Teresa Tanzi – HD 34
Charlie Tsonos – HD 63
Augustus “Gus” Uht – HD 52
Larry Valencia – HD 39
Donna Walsh – HD 36

RI State Senate
Cathy Cool-Rumsey – SD 34
Gene Dyszlewski – SD 26
David Gorman – SD 33
Maura Kelly – SD 5
Josh Miller – SD 28
Donna Nesselbush – SD 15
Laura Pisaturo – SD 29
Lewis Pryeor – SD 24
Adam Satchell – SD 9

July 16, 2012

On Choice, Rhode Island Not Far from Mississippi

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

If abortion is legal in a state, but there’s nowhere to have an abortion performed, is it really an option? This hypothetical is quickly becoming a reality for those living in Mississippi. While the situation in Rhode Island isn’t quite that dire, some female leaders here say they are saddened and frightened for the lives of women who may not be granted the same privileges and access as others in New England.

The Mississippi Case

A federal judge on July 11 ruled to temporarily block a state law that would force the sole abortion provider in the state of Mississippi to close its doors. The TRAP law requires physicians performing abortions in the state to be OB/GYN certified and to have hospital admitting privileges.

Critics say that the TRAP law was specifically crafted with the intention to close the doors of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, where 2 of its 3 OB/GYNs are not currently qualified to access hospital privileges. Essentially this would mean the closure of the state’s only abortion provider.

Rhode Island Out of Line with Other New England States

In 2012, a nationwide report by NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Rhode Island a D+ on its “choice-related laws.” The report highlighted the Rhode Island House as “mixed-choice,” the Rhode Island Senate as “anti-choice,” and 7 anti-choice state laws.

One of those anti-choice laws is in fact a TRAP law, which specifies where abortion services may be provided.

Susan Yolen, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said NARAL Pro-Choice America’s grade for RI was “quite out of line with other New England states” that earned marks of A (Maine and Connecticut), A- (Vermont), and B- (New Hampshire and Massachusetts). Mississippi, on the other hand, earned an F.

Current Abortion Legislation Efforts in Rhode Island

According to Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, every year for over 15 years there’s been a multifaceted bill proposed in the Rhode Island that seeks stricter mandates for abortion providers — additional counseling for patients, printed information instead of a website, and harsher penalties for physicians who do not adhere to the laws.

In January, Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) introduced legislation that would require a woman to review her ultrasound before the procedure is performed. Opposed to such legislation is Rep. Edith Ajello (D-Providence) who said in an interview the physician would be required to describe the ultrasound image, including the “gestational development of the fetus, the size, and the parts,” to the woman seeking an abortion. Rep. Ajello explained, “There was nothing in the legislation that allows her to say, ‘I don’t want to hear it.’”

In Rhode Island, there are already laws enforcing informed consent, which ensures women are knowledgeable about the abortion procedure and alternatives. “When legislators talk about informed consent, they are making it even more detailed,” said Rep. Ajello. “And this is unusual, in that it would be legislators putting in law how doctors practice their profession,” Rep. Ajello commented.

Low-Income Women Most Affected by Abortion Providers Shutting Down

What affect would it have on women if abortion providers were to shut down within a state?

Rep. Ajello imagines, “abortion will become more expensive, just because of the increased travel time. Difficulty because of the time away from home, time away from care of other children, or time away from work — making it a lot more expensive.”

Yolen added, “Think about that person without resources, the young person, the college student, the single mom, the woman who is in a battering relationship and can’t escape from home long enough from her husband’s control to really take that kind of a trip… it always hits low-income women the hardest.”

Currently, Rhode Island law does not allow insurance plans to cover abortion care for women on Medicaid or state employees. Yolen argues, although these laws are not given the title, they are certainly “traps” for women seeking an abortion.

Comparing Rhode Island and Mississippi

Rhode Island and Mississippi share significant similarities in the abortion debate as there is an increased amount of anti-abortion legislation being proposed, there are a limited number of abortion providers currently available, and both state senates are pro-life.

The big difference between the two states is that Rhode Island’s House is mixed, whereas Mississippi’s House is overwhelmingly pro-life. Rhode Island is not facing as extreme impacts against abortion because of the split between pro-choice and pro-life house members.

The multifaceted bills that pro-life activists and legislators have proposed every year for over 15 years are not gaining enough support to be passed.

In order to be certain that Rhode Island does not turn into the next Mississippi, progressive representatives are working together to create a strong presence on the legislative floor with pressure and support from community members.

Yolen said she believed legislators in Mississippi are setting themselves up to be a state where a constitutional right doesn’t apply, “you certainly do hope that it is doesn’t materialize in other states.”

June 29, 2012July 2, 2012

State Celebrates Court’s Health Care 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 2448

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

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

Lt. Gov Elizabeth Roberts, who has taken the lead in implementing health care reform in Rhode Island, Christine Ferguson, who runs the new health care exchange in Rhode Island and Steve Constantino, the secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Services explain how the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act will affect Rhode Island.

Here are some photos from the event … click on them to see a larger version:

June 28, 2012June 28, 2012

RI Health Care Project Applauds the ACA Decision

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

The Rhode Island Health Coverage Project celebrates today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Today’s decision means that millions of Americans across the country and tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders will have access to affordable, high quality health coverage.

“We are fortunate to live in a state that is committed to improving the health of its residents,” said Linda Katz, Policy Director at The Economic Progress Institute speaking on behalf of the Health Coverage Project, a joint initiative with Rhode Island KIDS COUNT. “Today’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act ensures that our state will have the tools and resources to expand health insurance coverage to more people, promote primary care and develop a workforce to meet changing health care needs.”

Thousands of Rhode Islanders are already benefitting from the ACA. Over 7,500 young adults under age 26 are able to stay on their parents’ insurance plans. Approximately 15,000 seniors and people with disabilities who are insured through Medicare are receiving significant help paying for their prescriptions when they fall into the “donut hole.”

Preventive care is being promoted by the elimination of cost-sharing for certain services including wellness exams, mammograms and colonoscopies, benefitting all 130,000 Rhode Island Medicare beneficiaries and another 200,000 Rhode Islanders covered by private insurance.

Less than two years from now, 64,000 Rhode Islanders who are uninsured will have access to affordable health insurance and all of us will benefit from the consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act that will enable us to be better health care consumers.

Rhode Island has a strong track record of leadership on health coverage, through the nationally recognized RIte Care program and the state’s early actions to implement the ACA. We know our state will continue to be out in front in connecting Rhode Islanders to high quality, affordable health care.

June 28, 2012June 28, 2012

The John Roberts Moment

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

Surprisingly nearly everyone – especially CNN – the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial aspect of President Obama’s historic health care reforms: the individual mandate. It’s incredibly good news for Obama, Democrats, progressives, Rhode Island (which is already well into the process of implementing it) all the uninsured and under-insured Americans (like me!), the country and its economy.

The hero today, though, is a conservative.

Even more surprising than the outcome is that Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee to the bench, broke ranks from his fellow conservatives and wrote the majority opinion that upheld the individual mandate. It’s being called the John Roberts Moment.

According to the New York Times, Roberts’ judgment was in part a recognition that the court has “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders.”

And ironic comment, given that the Roberts Court is best known for invalidating the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders!

But Roberts, more than the rest of the SCOTUS, was taken to task for exercising judicial activism and overturning precedent with the Citizens United decision. In fact, NPR quotes Rhode Island’s own Senator Sheldon Whitehouse admonishing the court for its lack of logic on Citizens United in an article largely critical of Roberts:

But critics of the court say it took a narrow question — whether a TV-on-demand documentary about Democrat Hillary Clinton could be shown in the weeks leading up to the 2008 presidential primaries — and answered it by vastly easing restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

“The court got way, way, way ahead of its skis here,” says Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat. He has filed a friend of the court brief demanding that the high court reverse its Citizens United decision.

“It was a decision they were so eager to make, but now I think they’re embarrassed by the wild discrepancy between the world as they presumed it in their written decision and the world as we see it around us, post-Citizens United,” he says.

Maybe John Roberts realized that the winds were turning on his court’s quest to remake the country in the mold of the strict Constitutionalists?

It wouldn’t be the first time that Roberts allowed perception to dictate how the High Court determined a decision. Here’s a excerpt from Jeffrey Toobin’s New Yorker article about the Citizens United decision.

“Roberts didn’t mind spirited disagreement on the merits of any case, but Souter’s attack—an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court—could damage the Court’s credibility. So the Chief came up with a strategically ingenious maneuver. He would agree to withdraw Kennedy’s draft majority opinion and put Citizens United down for reargument, in the fall. For the second argument, the Court would write new Questions Presented, which frame a case before argument, and there would be no doubt about the stakes of the case. The proposal put the liberals in a box. They could no longer complain about being sandbagged, because the new Questions Presented would be unmistakably clear. But, as Roberts knew, the conservatives would go into the second argument already having five votes for the result they wanted. With no other choice (and no real hope of ever winning the case), the liberals agreed to the reargument.”

That’s not to say that Roberts allowed his court’s legacy to trump his reading of the law in this case, but just to point out that even Supreme Court justices play a little politics.

June 21, 2012June 22, 2012

Fortnight Against Freedom

In the United States, Roman Catholic bishops have called for an alliterative “Fortnight for Freedom” to run from June 21, the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas Moore, to July 4. The bishops are calling on the faithful to use these two weeks for prayer, study and action, specifically regarding the HHS mandate, requiring employers to provide reproductive services as part of their health care. The Catholic Church, as well as many other religious, anti-reproductive rights groups, have decided this is an abridgment of their religious freedom and are waging a political and public relations war against the mandate.

Here in Providence, Bishop Thomas Tobin held a special mass and prayer breakfast at the Cathedral of Saints Peter & Paul bright and early on Tuesday morning to kick off two weeks of anti-Obamacare political partisanship. Of course, that’s not how Tobin characterized this effort to the 400 plus believers in attendance:

We need to emphasize first of all what this commitment to the defense of religious freedom is not all about. This exercise is not primarily about the Church’s teaching on contraception, although that teaching of the Church is very clear and valid. This is not a statement about women’s health or national health coverage, although that too is a very legitimate issue. Nor is this an exercise of the church participating in partisan election politics during this election year, although Catholics certainly should be and must be involved in that process as well. The defense of religious freedom that we proclaim today is just that: the defense of religious freedom.

Later, Tobin reiterated the the Fortnight for Freedom:

…is not primarily political, it is above all a matter of faith.

Tobin then goes on to explain where he got his marching orders from: Pope Benedict. The pontiff recently warned visiting U.S. bishops about the proponents of “radical secularism” who seek to stifle the church’s proclamation of “unchanging moral truths” that can be found through the church teachings on natural law. (CatholicNews.com)

The Fortnight for Freedom is truly aimed not at the average American but at the Catholic laity, “engaged, articulate and well-informed,” who have an obligation, mandated by God, to confront politicians on issues of concern to the Catholic hierarchy, especially reproductive health care issues. As Tobin explains:

This is your task. This is your mission. This is your fight. It is my task… to inspire you, to motivate you and to encourage you. It is your task to go into the world and fight the battle, challenge politicians, and change unjust laws.

It is telling that at a forum ostensibly defending freedom of religion and conscience the phrase “separation of church and state” was never once uttered, even though Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and JFK, just to name three of countless examples, considered such an idea to be the bedrock of true religious liberty. Indeed, Tobin expresses nearly the exact opposite of this essential concept when he says:

It is your vocation, dear brothers and sisters, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God.

and later:

We believe that we are endowed with dignity and freedom, and first among those freedoms is the freedom to serve the one who created us…

So much for the values we Americans hold dear. The Kingdom of God does not sound like a place where democracy, or freedom of conscience, could possibly be welcomed. The Kingdom of God sounds exactly like what it is: theocratic rule by a religious elite. An unbiased look at the current and past make-up of the Catholic Church gives one a full picture of what this theocratic Kingdom of God will look like.

The interpretation of the First Amendment advanced by Bishop Tobin and the Fortnight of Freedom is Orwellian in nature. Democracy becomes theocracy. Freedom becomes servitude.

Let’s face it: Real freedom of religion and conscience can only come when, as JFK so eloquently put it 52 years ago, “separation of church and state is absolute.”

June 1, 2012June 2, 2012

Mandatory Ultrasound Bill Disses Women, Doctors

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 published an identical Right to Life opinion piece that supporting Rep. Karen MacBeth’s mandatory ultrasound bill. And so the Providence Journal gave RTL a freebie to further their radical right wing agenda.

Politicians like Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) who sponsored the mandatory ultrasound bill should not interfere in women’s personal medical decisions. Women do not turn to politicians for advice about medical decisions, including, birth control, mammograms or other cancer screenings, or pregnancy. Enough is enough.

When MacBeth’s bill was heard, Planned Parenthood Southern New England was joined by the RI Medical Society, and the RI American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposing the bill and all others that interfere in a provider’s personalized medical care. This bill is one of many that exist to take away the relationship and trust between a woman and her health care provider and replace it with biased counseling. This bill would require physicians to deliver scripted information about an ultrasound even if the patient has made it clear she is not receptive to it. Politicians who attempt to mandate the use of ultrasounds shift the intent of services from medical care to political agendas.

A woman should have accurate information about all of her options. Information should support a woman to make a decision for herself based on knowledge of a medical expert, and enable her to take care of her health and well-being. This bill and many others like it pushed by Right to Life do not support Rhode Island women’s health. It is one of thousands being pushed across the country in a political movement in advance of the next round of elections.

At Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island, we respect and trust women to make the right decisions for their families. Over ninety percent of what our health centers provide are preventative services including cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment and annual exams. We urge the RI legislature to also focus on preventative health and family planning programs and not be distracted by such overt political maneuvers like Macbeth’s ultrasound mandate.

Women represent a majority of the voting age population and we do have the power to choose which candidates stand on our side and which candidates are simply using our healthcare as political bargaining chips. Women are watching, educating their friends, sharing, taking action, and we will be voting.

Paula Hodges is the RI Public Policy & Advocacy Director for Planned Parenthood Votes! RI, the Electoral and Advocacy Arm of Planned Parenthood Southern New England. She may be reached at ppvotesri@ppsne.org.

May 25, 2012May 25, 2012

Anti-Choice Zealots Hold Medical Bill Hostage

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

Right now there is no statute regarding the licensing of genetic counselors in Rhode Island, opening the door for those without appropriate training and codes of ethics to exploit and potentially harm patients. Fifteen states have licensure laws, and seventeen more have bills in consideration or preparing to be introduced.

On Wednesday, a Senate subcommittee discussed a bill that could make Rhode Island the 16th state to permit counselors to give advice about their potential medical future based on what can be gleaned from their genes.

Rhode Island’s bill was crafted by Senators Perry, Nesselbush, Sosnowski, Miller and Pichardo. It is a fine bill and has the complete approval of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Genetic Counselors from Rhode Island are keen to see the bill passed, as it speaks to their professionalism and commitment to proper patient care. Passage of such a bill should be an easy slam dunk, as it will prevent patients from being victimized by the unscrupulous and the improperly educated.

So of course this bill can’t be passed by our General Assembly. Why? Because anti-abortion rights activists have stymied the bill for years. Let that sink in. For years versions of this bill have been advanced, only to be continually sidelined by activists like Barth E. Bracy, Executive Director of Rhode Island Right to Life, who said, in 2010:

Genetic counseling can be used for good or for evil, in the same way that fire can be used to cook food or burn down a house. Insofar as genetic counseling can be used in order to enhance and sustain human life and well being, it is a good thing. And we agree that the State of Rhode Island has an interest in regulating the practice of genetic counseling… Our primary concern regarding the Genetic Counseling Licensure Act is to include at least some conscience protection for genetic counselors who do not accept abortion as a valid treatment option in cases where some disability or undesired trait is possible, probable, or even present in an unborn child.

The position statement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors is quite clear on the issue of reproductive freedom:

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: NSGC supports the right of all individuals and couples to make reproductive choices. These include using information from genetic counseling and/or testing to decide whether to pursue a pregnancy, to utilize assisted reproductive technologies, to prepare for the birth and future needs of their offspring, to make an adoption plan, or to end a pregnancy. NSGC firmly believes that reproductive decisions should be made in the context of unbiased and comprehensive information, free from discrimination or coercion.

As a result of this conflict between the medical professionals of the NSGC and the anti-abortion zealots represented by Bracy, a so-called conscience amendment was added to the bill:

5-86-8. Counseling concerning abortion.- Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require any genetic counselor to participate in counseling with respect to abortion, nor shall licensing of any genetic counselor be contingent upon participation in such counseling with respect to abortion, and the refusal of the genetic counselor to participate in such counseling with respect to abortion shall not form the basis for any claim of damages on account of the refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against the genetic counselor, provided that the genetic counselor clearly informs the patient, in a manner consistent with ethical standards… that he or she will not participate in counseling with respect to abortion and offers to give the patient a list of licensed councilors in the state. The genetic counselor’s disclosure of non-participation and offer of a list of other licensed genetic counselors shall be made at the start of the counseling relationship and at other appropriate times, if any, based on the genetic counselor’s professional judgement.

Steve Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU, noted, in a letter to Senator Perry that this amendment:

…Would allow genetic counselors to refuse to counsel “with respect to abortion,” a counselor could potentially use this as an opening to, for example, withhold information about potential fetal abnormalities from women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant. A counselor could, by omission, mislead a patient about her options when serious fetal abnormalities are detected late in the pregnancy. A counselor could even suggest that no other options are available, but so long as the counseling was otherwise “consistent with ethical standards,” the amendment could appear to immunize the counselor from any state regulation or sanction.

In other words, it seems that the bill to license genetic counselors, with this amendment intact, would do nothing to assure the public that genetic counselors are professionals bound by a code of professional ethics to serve the best interests of their patients, because the bill will contain a loophole that will allow potential licensed genetic counselors to place their own consciences above that of their patients rights and needs. As a result, the ACLU proposed small modifications to the language, but these modifications could not win the support of Bracy’s RIRTL.

Speaking at the subcommittee meeting Wednesday evening, Benjamin Brown, a 4th year medical student speaking on behalf of Medical Students for Choice, put it quite well:

What concerns me here is that you have heard from the genetic councilors in the room that it is not within their code of ethics not to discuss abortion. And you have heard from other people speaking today that that is a professional requirement. So why would it be necessary to include this language about not talking about abortion if people are going to be acting within their code of ethics of their profession which states that they must discuss abortion? So to me this language makes no sense, it has nothing to do with professional regulation, and it has nothing to do with the professional standard practice of the profession of genetic counseling. It has to do with the fact that there are people who want to restrict access to abortion. This language has no purpose except to give an anti-choice genetic councilor room to hide behind a legal excuse for not providing information about abortion when the code of professional ethics says that you should have given that information, they can say, “Well, but I practice in Rhode Island.” [emphasis mine]

We should be clear at this point: The genetic counselors in Rhode Island would greatly prefer a clean version of this bill bill, one without the amendment, but so desperate are they to get some sort of licensing structure approved that they are willing to make a deal with the devil. They are willing to take the bill with the amendment. But what they might not realize is the precedent they are setting here. Paula Hodges, of Planned Parenthood, said it well:

There is a broader concern … that with the approval of such an amendment this committee will have all but formalized the practice of allowing legislation regarding liscensure in the medical field to be held hostage until the wishes of those opposed to abortion are considered and incorporated into the bill’s language.
…
We know that the Rhode Island ACLU has offered specially crafted improvements to this language which has not been adopted. Regardless, should this committee approve this amendment, with or without improvements, we head down a path where we all meet in these hearings, year after year, as each type of profession seeks to routinely improve or expand its scope of practice. The irrelevant demands of abortion opponents will need to be placated year after year.

The genetic counselors of Rhode Island are just following their code of ethics in capitulating to the unreasonable and irrelevant demands of anti-choice zealots like Barth Bracy and RIRTL. They are seeking to protect the interests of their patients at any cost, counting on their national group’s code of ethics to carry them through the ethical morass created by the amendment. Right now all fourteen people covered under this bill are pro-choice, but what of the future? What is to prevent someone who is anti-choice from becoming licensed and withholding information that would serve the best interests of their patients? In the amended bill, nothing prevents this.

Senator Nesselbush early on pointed out that the language in the bill is specifically crafted for those who are not pro-choice. Is it really necessary in our society to start crafting two sets of laws, those that cater to the whims of the religious, and those that serve the rest of us? With all the trumped up fear mongering being spread about such nonsense as Sharia law in America, why are we unable to make the small cognitive leap to the emergence of a two-tiered justice system respecting conservative Christian values?

Further, since when has the General Assembly had any luck crafting these last minute conscience clauses to their bills? Those who remember the much less than satisfactory civil unions bill of last year may recall that any rights such a bill ostensibly granted were seriously undercut by the Corvese amendment, which in some cases may have taken away rights enjoyed by committed same-sex couples who had gone to the trouble of establishing durable powers of attorney for each other. This genetic counseling licensure bill with the amendment included may have a similar effect of establishing a short term gain but a long term loss in the quality of the counselors licensed as anti-choice advocates move into the field, perhaps to work at one of the many fake pregnancy counseling centers that exist only to trick women into not realizing all their health care options.

When a group of bright, committed medical professionals, with the full support of the medical establishment, presents itself to the legislature and asks for legislation that will serve to protect the integrity of their profession and the health of their patients, the legislature needs to listen to them, and not to anti-choice cranks who care nothing for the health and safety of anyone save for the the unborn.

This bill should be passed, immediately and without any amendments.

But don’t hold your breath.

April 15, 2012April 15, 2012

April is National STD Awareness Month

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

With spring comes warmth and rain and also it’s national STD awareness month. It’s a little known observance by the CDC that pushes people to really talk in the open about sexually transmitted diseases and gives a chance for people to get tested in Rhode Island and across the country.

According to the Center for Disease Control an estimated 19 million people will become infected with an STD this year adding to the millions of years past. In fact out of those 19 million people half of them will be under the age of 25 which shows that more needs to be done to educate young people in the state.

Rhode Island is doing well though according to nation wide statistics. With RI being ranked 37th for chlamydia rates and 42nd for gonorrhea but more needs to be done. As of 2008 chlamydia infections were (313.6 per 100,000 persons) and gonorrhea infections were (29 per 100,000 persons) with women having a 2.5 higher percentage of infection than men. Other statistics like herpes and HPV often go undocumented so the numbers for those are skewed. HIV statistics below.

Image credit: Your STD Help

More can and needs to be done here in RI and across the country to start a decline in these numbers and the two greatest weapons we have are testing and proper education. While RI sex ed classes are satisfactory they could be much more effective. Here’s an excerpt from the NCSSE:

Rhode Island schools are required to provide “accurate information and instruction” on sexuality, HIV, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Schools must also teach “the responsibilities of family membership and adulthood, including issues related to reproduction, abstinence, dating, marriage, and parenthood, as well as information about sexually transmitted diseases, sexuality and lifestyles.” These classes must stress abstinence.

Notice the pushing for abstinence. That should be an important issue to discuss but so should proper condom usage which isn’t mentioned. By going after the root of the problem we can change these statistics for the better in a short period of time we just need to do it.

Without more proper education and routine yearly testing things could easily become worse and we can do better than this.

So this April, and the rest of the year for that matter, lets get this out into the open and make Rhode Island the 50th state in the country for STD statistics.

April 11, 2012April 11, 2012

Soda Tax Talking Point Ignores Gas Prices, Logic

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

The idea that people will cross state lines to avoid paying taxes is one of the most abused axioms in Rhode Island politics, but this notion is stretched far beyond the ridiculous when those opposed to a soda tax invoke it.

The proposed soda tax, heard yesterday by the House Finance Committee, would add a levy of one penny for each ounce of sugary beverage a distributor sells. So a two-liter bottle of Coke, which costs about $1.50, would cost an additional 60 cents. A 20 ounce bottle one gets from a soda machine or convenience store cooler would run an extra two dimes.

Despite the incremental increase, the soda industry tried in the hearing yesterday to sell to the Committee members on the idea that Rhode Islanders would flock to Massachusetts or Connecticut to get their Coke or Pepsi rather than fork over an extra couple of quarters.

“This legislation would heavily impact sales, particularly in the border stores, which in turn reduces revenue to the state and ultimately impacts the number of jobs associated with the beverage industry,” according to a letter to the Committee from the Rhode Island Beverage Company.

Most people won’t cross the street to save 60 cents, never mind shell out $4 a gallon to do so. But don’t let common sense stand in the way of industry lobbyists claiming that the state’s soda sales would be “heavily” impacted and even lead to people losing their jobs!

Clements Marketplace in Portsmouth – a grocery store on an island, mind you – made this outrageous claim, too. People would have to drive across a bridge to find the nearest Massachusetts convenience store or super market.

“My store and all other border stores will lose sales, the state will lose tax revenue and Rhode Islanders will lose jobs,” wrote store manager Tracy Clements Anthony.

From Clements to the Fall River line is an eight mile drive. That means it would cost a commuter about a dollar in gas to drive to Massachusetts to save 60 cents on a two liter bottle of soda. Portsmouth consumers: that’s a net loss of 40 cents on every two liter you waste your time driving to Fall River for. And that’s if you are driving a Toyota or a Honda; if you’re driving an SUV or a minivan it’ll cost more like $2 in gas to save that 60 cents.

Also notice how similar the language is in the two letters. That’s because these are talking points, not ever to be confused with facts, meant to be repeated often enough until they become part of our collective cultural understanding. In this case, that people will spend more money than they save simply to avoid paying a tax.

Other letters from other soda sellers mirror these talking points, including one from Brigido’s Fresh Market, which points out that their Slatersville store is “less than one mile from the Massachusetts border,” which is true – but there isn’t a convenient convenience or grocery store anywhere nearby across the border.

Meanwhile, the one cent per ounce tax – on a product that is known to contribute to a variety of health problem like diabetes, obesity and heart disease – would raise some $45 million that would be earmarked for public health initiatives.

“We just want them to pay a little extra if want to do something unhealthy,” said Steve DeToy, of the Rhode Island Medical Society. “It’s the same thing we did with tobacco. It worked with tobacco we think it will work with obesity too.”

April 11, 2012April 11, 2012

Ultrasound Bill Gets State House Vetting Today

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

Rep. Karen MacBeth’s ultrasound bill has already made a lot of noise in the media – including a condemnation by Nick Kristof of the New York Times – and today the House Judiciary Committee takes up the proposal. And if Committee Chairwoman Edith Ajello is any indication, legislators won’t be any kinder than has the media.

“I think it’s intrusive and unnecessary,” said Rep. Ajello, D- Providence. “We have already in law what has to happen in the procedure of an abortion including a doctor or medical staff talking with the patient … about making sure that there are alternatives to having an abortion. It really has nothing to do with medicine.”

Susan Lloyd Yolen, of Planned Parenthood, plans to testify that MacBeth’s interest in the bill are moral rather than medical.

“It is not lost on us that the sponsors of this bill are well known as opponents of abortion,” according to a draft of her prepared remarks. “The intent of this legislation is to dissuade women from choosing abortion by requiring them to listen to a description of the image of the developing fetus, even if she has chosen not to view it.”

MacBeth’s bill would require that doctors do an ultrasound on a woman before performing an abortion, and then describe the fetus to her. Doctors would be fined $100,000 for not doing so, and $250,000 for a second offense.

In this video, she talks about why she thinks it’s important to fine doctors.

April 9, 2012April 9, 2012

Rebuilding RI’s Economy Via a Single-Payer System

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

It’s time to liberate capital. Of course, the General Assembly won’t do that, because we’re committed to one simple principle right now: austerity. Cut budgets, cut taxes on the rich, and watch the middle class flee the state while the impoverished remain behind.

See, we were facing a pension crisis and we had to tackle that. But the jobs crisis in Rhode Island? Well, we couldn’t possibly be bothered to pass a single bill aimed at alleviating that.

Luckily, Forbes magazine has the answer: single-payer healthcare. It will surprise our readership to discover that even some Republicans oppose the Affordable Health Care for America Act because they are holding out for single-payer.

Why? Because it makes fiscal sense. It’s simply cheaper to let the government cover healthcare than to force every business to pay a percentage of everyone’s ever-greater premium. And this is because, contrary to libertarian thinking, government actually is good for things. Infrastructure, education, utilities, etc.; these are all more affordable and more cost-effective when the government takes care of them than when the private sector does.

This actually isn’t something new. This is really old. We’ve mythologized the New Deal into this story of the Democratic Party under FDR taking drastic steps to establish things like the Works Progress Administration and Social Security. But the reality is that Roosevelt was opposed to large parts of the New Deal, which were enacted by Congress without his direction. Furthermore, Social Security wasn’t created just because some concerned legislators felt bad about poor old people, it was also advocated by rich businessmen who realized that they would have to end up paying pensions to their workers. Social Security acted as a relief, freeing capital up for use elsewhere in the company.

Rhode Island needs to think seriously about establishing a single-payer system of healthcare. Think about all of the costs associated with the current system: ER visits, premiums, the exorbitant cost of any procedure. These are things citizens and small businesses end up paying. Or not, as the situation may be (I’ve met plenty of homeless or formerly homeless folks who ran up so much debt on their healthcare they lost everything). Rhode Islanders will be willing to shoulder the costs of increased progressive income taxes if it means they can visit the hospital without worrying about the cost. The association between the tax increase and the service will be near impossible to break.

What does this mean? More spending. More hiring. More profits. Alternatively, we could decide to let ever greater healthcare costs decimate our small businesses and our people. It’s time to liberate capital. You can call it socialism, but I’ll just call it common sense.

April 5, 2012April 7, 2012

Whitehouse On SCOTUS: ‘Corporate Activism’

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

sheldon whitehouse healthcare — Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at RIC for a meeting of the RI Healthcare Exchange Commission.

Following President Obama’s lead, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse chided the Supreme Court saying some of its members have become more interested in activism than jurisprudence.

“If you can’t tell the difference between health care and broccoli there’s a real problem,” he said this morning at RIC, referencing Justice Antonin Scalia’s line of questioning as the court debated Obamacare last week.

Whitehouse even offered a reply to Scalia’s broccoli comparison.

“If you house burns down, we don’t rebuild your house,” he said, while talking to a group at RIC for the Health Care Exchange Commission meeting he attended. “But if you go to the hospital, we fix your broken leg.”

Later in the day, on a conference call with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, he said, “There comes a point when have to be able to tell the truth about the Supreme Court, and that is it’s activist and is becoming even more activist. One might even say corporate activism.”

Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was once considered by President Obama for an open slot on the high court.

He noted the irony in Republicans and conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices taking issue with individual mandates, saying the idea was often trumpted by Richard Nixon, the Heritage Foundation and longtime moderate Republican from Rhode Island John Chafee, Gov. Linc Chafee’s dad.

“It was the insurance companies that wanted mandates in the bill,” he said, noting that only because of federalism, the idea that some decisions are best left to the states, is the issue before the Supreme Court.

“Every state can require mandates tomorrow and there isn’t a lawyer in the country who would say that is unconstitutional.”

Whitehouse said many Republicans in Congress agree that universal health insurance would be good for society, but said many are afraid of raising the ire of party extremists.

“I know people who say, ‘you’re absolutely right but I can’t talk about that because I’d get a Tea Party primary opponent if I do.'”

He added that both Republican and Democratic leaders agree that once you drill down into the deficit the big drivers are often related to health care, saying, “If we don’t do it this way, the way we are going to do it is when China says you guys are out of control and we’re not going to loan you any more money.”

April 4, 2012April 4, 2012

Lt. Gov, Whitehouse to Talk Obamacare To Commission

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

Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts will update the Rhode Island Health Care Exchange Commission on what a Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s universal health care plan could mean for the Ocean State. And her special guest at the meeting with be Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

“We’ll definitely have a brief discussion about it,” she said. “I’m sure people will ask the Senator about it.”

Roberts, who has led the effort in Rhode Island to implement Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said this state’s model Health Benefits Exchange will likely survive regardless of what the Supreme Court decides Obamacare.

“If a mandate is ruled unconstitutional we still very much have a path here in Rhode Island,” she said, adding that even if insurance reforms are struck down by the court, “those are mostly existing consumer protections under state law.”

Because Rhode Island has a guaranteed issue law on the books means no one can be denied access to the Exchange.

If the Medicaid expansion is ruled unconstitutional, on the other hand, “that means we are where we were a few years ago and we wouldn’t be able to move as quickly towards universal coverage.”

Roberts doesn’t think that will happen though.

“I’m not a constitutional lawyer,” she said. “But I’m very optimistic those will remain in place.”

So long as the Medicare subsidies remain in place, Roberts said, “we won’t have to compel people into the marketplace.” States that don’t have guaranteed health insurance, such as the case across the South and Southwest would have a harder time because insurance companies can legally deny people coverage there.

Rhode Island is leading the nation in implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It’s the first and only state to receive a second grant from the federal government, according to Governing Magazine, worth $58.5 million.

In total, Rhode Island has procured about $65 million from ACA funds, and Roberts said she believes that money is safe.

“We should be able to help people regardless of how the Supreme Court rules,” she said.

Much of it will be used to create the database and web portal for the Health Exchange, she said.

Whitehouse, will be there to discuss a report he released last week entitled, “Health Care Delivery System Reform and The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act,” highlighting progress in this area and the potential for improving patient care and lowering costs.

The Health Insurance Exchange meets Thursday morning at 8:30 at Alger Hall, Room 110, at Rhode Island College.

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