Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice


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

Kaine-PenceCatholics for Choice has released a new poll that “the story of what Catholic opinions might mean at the voting booth come November 8.” According to the polling data, 46 percent of Catholic voters support Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and 40 percent support Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Key findings include:

  • Latinos, Catholic women and Catholic millennials show the largest support for Clinton over Trump.
  • Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that the views of the Catholic hierarchy are not important to them when they are deciding who to vote for in the presidential election.
  • Six in ten Catholic voters do not feel an obligation to vote the way the bishops recommend.
  • Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice.
  • Seventy-two percent believe that abortion should be available to pregnant women who have contracted the Zika virus.
  • Seventy percent of Catholics do not think that companies should be allowed to use the owner’s religious beliefs as a reason to deny services to a customer or employee.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice said, “The Catholic vote is like a jump ball in basketball—every election it comes into play and both parties try to claim it as their own. As it represents 25 percent of the electorate, considerable effort goes into trying to determine which team will grab it. However, as this new poll shows what we’ve always known: Catholics are concerned with social justice and compassion and do not vote with the bishops, no matter how much the bishops try to project their own beliefs onto this section of the electorate.”

The poll was conducted before the vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence, where the two squared off on religious liberty and abortion, but in a statement released after the debate Catholics for Choice said, “Catholics act according to their own conscience and they do not stand with the Catholic hierarchy on abortion, access to healthcare or the rise of religious refusals backed by the bishops, and similarly do not think they nor Catholic politicians have an obligation to vote according to the Bishops. In fact, Senator Tim Kaine said it was not the role of a public servant to mandate their faith through government, and on fundamental issues of morality, like abortion, we should let women make those decisions.”

Rhode Island is routinely said to be the most Catholic of the United States.

RI Progressive Dems urge Clinton to withdraw Raimondo appointment


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

RIPDA logoThe Executive Board of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats wishes to express extreme displeasure that Hillary Clinton would name Governor Gina Raimondo as a co­-chair of the Democratic convention. While this role is purely ceremonial, it indicates that some of Clinton’s advisors may consider Raimondo an acceptable figure within the national Democratic party, a sentiment that would be deeply chilling. Raimondo’s politics represent a brand of conservatism well to the right of basically anyone of prominence in the national Democratic party. Deeply unpopular in Rhode Island, Raimondo is known for her aggressive push to restrict women’s access to abortion coverage through plans sold on Rhode Island’s exchange. She is also one of the most aggressive proponents of pension cuts, which Democrats just voted to oppose in our party platform. She has been a feisty advocate of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, and she even opposes repealing Rhode Island’s tax cuts for the rich. A former private equity executive, Raimondo epitomizes an extreme type of Wall Street politician. After the withdrawal of banker Antonio Weiss, the national party has had an informal rule against Wall Street appointees for top posts. Raimondo appears to violate that rule.

We ask that the Hillary Clinton campaign withdraw this appointment. We believe it is crucial for the Hillary campaign to send a signal that they will not be considering Raimondo for any posts in a Hillary administration, an event that would place the even more right wing Dan McKee in power. McKee is such a far­ right Democrat that we took the completely unprecedented step of urging voters to support his Republican opponent Catherine Taylor, and the AFL-­CIO went further and openly endorsed Taylor.

Moreover, we urge Hillary to make it clear that she, the national Democratic party, and the DSCC will oppose Raimondo in the primary should she attempt to take a US Senate seat in the future. Raimondo is so unpopular in Rhode Islanders that she could easily lose to a Republican. In fact, she only won by four points against a weak GOP opponent in a state that Obama won by 27 points. A Raimondo nomination is the GOP’s only path to a US Senate seat from Rhode Island, and it is of utmost importance that the national party prevent such a debacle. The national party has often intervened in primaries to stop weak nominees from jeopardizing a Democratic US Senate seat, most recently in Pennsylvania. We urge Hillary Clinton to make clear she will do the same in Rhode Island to prevent a Raimondo nomination and a GOP victory, should Raimondo attempt to take a US Senate seat.

SCOTUS abortion ruling has RI impact


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
hellerstedt_03 (1)
Washington DC

Local reactions to the Supreme Court decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which is being hailed as the most important reproductive rights decision in decades, have started to come in. Arguing that “…it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan in the 5-3 decision that struck down a controversial law that closed 75 percent of abortion clinics in Texas.

Breyer wrote the opinion, saying, “Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

The full statement from Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island:

Today, June 27, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right to abortion. In its 5-3 ruling on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck dangerous restrictions on abortion providers in Texas.

While the Court’s decision ultimately does not affect Rhode Island women and families today, Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island warns that existing Rhode Island laws and an anti-abortion rights majority in the General Assembly threaten reproductive freedom for Rhode Island residents.

“The Supreme Court made it clear that politicians cannot pass laws to block access to safe, legal abortion. Yet today’s victory does not undo the past five years of damage and restrictions already written into law across the country and what is at stake this fall in Rhode Island,” said Craig O’Connor, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Rhode Island with Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island. “We will continue to fight restrictions on safe, legal abortion on behalf of all people in Rhode Island. This year, Rhode Islanders will make it known at the polls that anti-abortion politicians have no place in the Rhode Island State House.”

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling protected access to safe, legal abortion by blocking two unconstitutional Texas restrictions. As the Court recognized, “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

In Rhode Island, several anti-abortion laws exist that have real world effects on abortion access, for example, the prohibition on state employee’s health insurance from covering abortion. In fact, language in Article 1, Section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution explicitly states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” Therefore, if ultimately the Supreme Court reverses its position on Roe v. Wade, there could be very real and very devastating repercussions throughout Rhode Island.

“Physicians and patients must be free to make informed and medically-appropriate decisions without interference from ill-informed legislation,” said Jennifer Villavicencio, MD, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “Abortion is a fundamental aspect of women’s health care and must be protected. Rhodes Islanders need to ask their State Senators and State Representatives where they stand on abortion rights and reproductive freedom.”

Steven Brown, Executive Director with the ACLU of Rhode Island, said that the ACLU of Rhode Island has sued the state more than six times over restrictive abortion laws since Roe v. Wade. Brown said that although each suit has been successful, “much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America – in its annual “Who Decides” scorecard – labeled the RI House and Senate anti-abortion. NARAL also downgraded Rhode Island to an F rating on reproductive rights – from a previous D+ rating. NARAL awarded the same score to Texas.

According to The Guttmacher Institute, politicians have passed 316 restrictions on safe, legal abortion at the state level since 2011.

Rev. David A. Ames, Priest-in-Charge at All Saints’ Memorial Church in Providence and Member of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Clergy Advocacy Board said that all people have “an inherent right to reproductive health care.” Ames explained, “We must continue working to expand reproductive freedom in Rhode Island.”

The RI ACLU’s Steve Brown offered an additional statement, saying, “We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down these cruel and insincere efforts to interfere with a woman’s basic constitutional right. But this is hardly the end of the matter. Since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the ACLU of Rhode Island has been forced to sue the state at least half a dozen times over restrictive abortion laws. Although every one of those suits has been successful, Rhode Island continues to impose significant barriers to a woman’s right to choose, allowable under other U.S. Supreme Court rulings.  As a result, much work remains to be done to make our state a place that respects reproductive freedom.”

Patreon

Knights of Columbus cancel Deware fundraiser over abortion stance


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
Bill Deware
Bill Deware

A planned fund raising event for Bill Deware at the Knights of Columbus hall in North Providence was cancelled this week when the Knights of Columbus was informed that Deware, a candidate for State Rep House District 54, is pro-choice. It is not known who informed the Knights of Columbus of Deware’s pro-choice status. Deware says, “I am indeed pro-choice. I am an ardent supporter of a woman’s right to control her own body. I would argue any human being in any situation has a fundamental right to control their own body.”

Deware is a Progressive Democrat. “I got involved with the Bernie Sanders campaign regionally and it showed me I could be more active politically. Locally I was brought to action by the cuts to Medicaid (which impact me and my family directly due to my daughter having multiple handicaps) and the need for tax and ethics reform in RI. I feel people need to get involved in the political process and help restore faith in government. Then we can start to make government work for us again. What we have right now, is not working for us here in RI. We want and deserve better.”

As for his fundraiser being cancelled because of his pro-choice stance, Deware says that “There are many issues that unite us and I would like to focus on those issues rather than divisive ones. For instance; the Catholic Church believes in social justice, racial justice & economic justice, as do I. Jesus healed the sick, helped the poor and didn’t judge. These are areas I would like to focus on in my career and in my life.”

A new location, Lancellotta’s Banquet Restaurant in North Providence, has already been booked for the fundraiser and will take place on the same night, June 30th, as the original event.

Knights of Columbus did not respond to a request for comment.

Senator Conley suing to prevent Memorial Hospital closure


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
20160518_151543
Chris Callaci, Rep David Coughlin, Sen William Conley

“As we speak the defendants in that lawsuit are being served,” said Senator William Conley, who serves Pawtucket and East Providence. “The cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls have Filed a lawsuit against Care New England, The RI Department of Health and the Attorney General’s Office. Through that lawsuit we’re asking the court to enjoin the dismantling of Memorial Hospital and make sure that those services continue while we go through this process of restructuring South Coast.”

Care New England, which manages Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket,  announced the closing on March 2. Since then there have been public hearings and rallies, but the plan to close the hospital seems to be continuing. Over 200 jobs are threatened. Conley is working pro bono as the lawyer on the case, and his work will compliment rather than complicate the legal work of Attorney Chris Callaci, who is representing the nurses union, UNAP 5082 in their efforts to keep Memorial open.

“When Memorial was licensed,” said Senator Conley, “a determination was made that this hospital was providing vital medical services to a core service area with higher social deprivation demographics than any other place in the state of Rhode island.

“That alone should be enough to tell us that you can’t relocate those services to Kent County.”

Patreon

Forced birth is a form of rape


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

trustwomenA funny thing occurred to me on the way to the State House. Okay, it wasn’t that funny, at all. It was about abortion.

I was preparing to give testimony at the annual RI House abortion / choice exercise (hearing) last week when two facts or arguments occurred to me that happen to support my pro-choice position. The first is that a potential-father’s contribution to the mass of a fetus just before birth is miniscule, so he has no say in what the woman decides to do. The second is that forcing a woman to give birth is a form of rape.

Hear me out.

To my first point, we can see that the man’s contribution to a potential birth is about nil by looking at the science. A sperm cell weighs about 4.9 x 10^-14 lbs (mass = 22 picograms). The weight of a just pre-birth fetus averages about 7.5 lbs. So the father’s ‘part’ of the fetus versus the Mother’s part is about one in 155 trillion. Put another way, about 99.999999999999% of the fetus is from the mother. Therefore it only makes sense that the man should have little to say about anything having to do with the fetus. Note: spousal consent is no longer required nationally, but a Rhode Island state law to that effect is still on the books. Should the national ruling be overturned by the US Supreme Court, the RI law would take affect.

To my second point, that forcing a woman to give birth is a form of rape, what else can we call it? The state would be forcing a woman to create human tissue against her will. And then forcing her to expel it via the vagina. The state would force something through a woman’s vagina? Doesn’t sound too good to me; sounds like rape. Either the creation-of-tissue aspect or the expulsion part is anathema to the nation’s fundamental sense of personal freedom.

Similarly, any attempt to aid in a forced birth makes someone an accessory to rape or guilty of attempted rape. This means that any regulation or law aiding or abetting forced birth makes the state complicit in rape. For example any law requiring “informed consent” before an abortion falls into this category.

No, it really wasn’t all that funny.


Uhtime No. 3

Millennials rally for repro rights and Planned Parenthood at the State House


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

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 005Planned Parenthood of Southern New England held a Reproductive Freedom Lobby Day at the State House yesterday, perhaps coincidentally coinciding with the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in Zubik v Burwell, in which various religious non-profits and colleges, including the Sisters of the Poor, are arguing that the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate should not apply to them on First Amendment, religious freedom grounds.

Zubik is the reason the anti-choice group RI Right to Life took over the main rotunda, holding what was essentially a religious service in the center of the State House.

Above the Mass being conducted on the rotunda, outside the House and Senate chambers, nearly two dozen millennials in bright pink Planned Parenthood tee shirts held signs and met with their representatives to make the case for preserving their reproductive health care choices. After the House and Senate went into session they marched to Governor Gina Raimondo’s office to deliver a letter encouraging her to support a woman’s right to choose.

Let’s be clear: As the Supreme Court case shows, for those opposed to reproductive rights, the issue is not simply about abortion. It’s about controlling women’s bodies, enforcing gender stereotypes and exerting religious control over all aspects of our healthcare. After the Mass in the rotunda and the Rise of the House, Barth Bracy, director of RI Right to Life, argued in the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee against legislation that would allow terminally ill patients to make important end-of-life decisions and against a bill expanding the duties of physician’s assistants.

There is no area of our lives, no decision we can make, that RI Right to Life and the Catholic Church do not want to control for us.

Fortunately a group of fearless millennials and long time supporters of a woman’s right to choose let our representatives know that our rights are not up for discussion or debate.

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 001

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 002

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 003

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 004

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 007

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 008

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 009
Meanwhile…

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 010

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 011

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 013

2016-03-23 Planned Parenthood State House 014

 

Community protests Care New England’s planned closure of Memorial Hospital Birthing Center


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

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 010

Hundreds of people rallied outside Care New England offices in Providence this morning to demand that the Birthing Center at Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket stay open. Organized by the Coalition to Save Memorial Hospital Birthing Center, nurses, community members, mothers and “bucket babies” carried signs and were enthusiastically supported by passing motorists blaring their horns.

I spoke to Rita Brennan, a nurse at the Birthing Center and the president of UNAP Local 5082, representing the nurses there. Brennan says that the loss of the birthing center and the other units at the hospital Care New England plans to shut down will cost the state over 200 jobs.

Implementing the shut down and restructurings has been delayed due to the the intercession of the RI Department of Health (RIDOH), which pointed out that the closing was a breach of contract with the state.

RIDOH Director Nicole Alexander-Scott wrote, “Memorial Hospital is obligated to continue providing all existing services to patients. Memorial Hospital is not permitted, until the process is complete, to make any changes to the primary or emergency services currently offered, including maternal and delivery services.”

Next week there will be three public meetings to allow the public a chance to speak out on Care New England’s plan.

According to the Coalition, the dates, times, and locations of the public meetings organized by the Department of Health are:

March 14th: Goff Junior High School, 974 Newport Avenue, Pawtucket (use the Vine St. entrance); 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM

March 16th: Woodlawn Community Center, 210 West Avenue, Pawtucket; 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM

March 17th: Segue Institute for Learning, 325 Cowden Street, Central Falls (use the Hedley Ave. entrance); 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM

If you are unable to attend one of the public meetings in person, you can email comments to Paula.Pullano@health.ri.gov or mail them to: Rhode Island Department of Health, Center for Health Systems Policy and Regulation, 3 Capital Hill, Providence,RI 02908.

Comments will be accepted through March 25th. Comments can be submitted or shared anonymously. Although all comments from the public will be documented and considered carefully, the Department of Health will not be able to respond directly to any comments that are submitted or voiced.

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 001

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 002

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 003

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 004

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 005

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 006

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 007

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 008

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 009

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 011

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 012

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 013

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 014

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 015

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 016

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 017

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 018

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 019

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 020

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 021

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 022

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 023

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 024

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 025

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 026

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 027

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 028
Rita Brennan

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 029

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 030

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 031

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 032

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 033

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 034

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 035

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 036

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 037

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 038

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 039

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 040

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 041

2016-03-10 Memorial Birthing Center 042

Patreon

Reproductive Freedom Teach-In at RIC


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
ppsne teachinOur Reproductive Freedom Teach-In is on March 2nd from 6:30-8:30. Join us to learn why abortion rights are at risk in Rhode Island and what we can do about it!
We are excited to announce our teach-in panelists who will lead us in a discussion on reproductive freedom. Learn more about the Supreme Court Case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt and the movement for reproductive freedom in Rhode Island.
Featured Teach-in Panelists:
Dr. Pablo Rodriguez,  President and CEO of Women’s Care, Pawtucket RI
Ana Retsinas Romero, Esq, President of the Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island
Gina Rodríguez-Drix, Co-founder, Rhode Island Doula Collective
Vanessa Volz, Esq., Executive Director, Sojourner House
Please register and spread the word now!
March 2, 6:30-8:30pm
 Rhode Island College Student Union Ballroom
600 Mount Pleasant Ave., Providence
Refreshments will be served 
 Event information can be found on Facebook here: http://bit.ly/FBTeachInRI

Health insurance industry lawyer makes the case for single payer


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

Single Payer NowIn speaking out against a bill that would make sure no pregnant person could be denied medical coverage due to their pregnancy, a health insurance lawyer unintentionally made a great case for a national, single payer health program.

Shawn Donahue is an attorney at Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and last Tuesday he spoke at the House Corporations Committee meeting to oppose a bill that would ensure “no pregnant applicant for medical insurance coverage would be denied coverage due to her pregnancy.”

I want to stress at the outset that Donahue seems like a decent man, and I sensed that he was somewhat uncomfortable speaking out against this bill.

“No one believes in the importance of pre-natal care more than Blue Cross,” said Donohue, “We’ve invested in it.”

That’s true. “Getting early and regular prenatal care is one of the most important things you can do for the health of both you and your baby,” says Blue Cross on its website. The site contains a wealth of information and advice on healthy pregnancies. But we don’t have to assume that Blue Cross is promoting neonatal care out of any sense of public service. Healthy pregnancies are cheaper for insurance companies. An insured baby, with proper neonatal care, is less likely to have expensive health problems going forward.

The importance of prenatal care is underscored by the health risks associated with not having such care.

“Women in the United States who do not receive prenatal care have an increased risk of experiencing a neonatal death… Lack of prenatal care is associated with a 40 percent increase in the risk of neonatal death overall…” says the Guttmacher Institute, citing a study, “Black women are more than three times as likely as white women not to receive prenatal care, and regardless of their prenatal care status, their infants are significantly more likely to die within their first 27 days of life than are infants born to white women.”

Other risks from not receiving adequate prenatal care include low birth weight for the infant, and pre-eclampsia, a form of organ damage, that affects the mother. From a human perspective, this is terrible and unnecessary. From the perspective of an insurance company, such health problems are expensive.

Yet, said Donohue, speaking for Blue Cross at the Rhode Island State House, “The only way insurance works is if you purchase it when you don’t need it so it’s there for you when you do. If you allow people a special enrollment period, whether they’re diabetics, cancer patients or pregnant people, they won’t buy it until they need it.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) mandates that Rhode Islanders buy private insurance on the state run health insurance exchange, HealthSourceRI. “If you’ve missed the open enrollment period,” said Donohue, “ you’ve broken the law and now you are penalized for that, and the penalties start to grow.”

Donahue is talking about financial penalties of course, but the real penalties from a societal point of view are dead babies, or babies and mothers with terrible health outcomes. Suddenly the financial penalty for not complying with the ACA mandate seems rather small and meaningless, doesn’t it? But more to the point, it’s exactly these negative health outcomes that Obamacare was supposed to address.

2016-01-02 Bernie Sanders 282“We don’t let people buy insurance on their way to the hospital in an ambulance,” said Donahue. I would say that having to worry about financial issues during a medical emergency is a major system failure, and further, these gaps in care for vulnerable Americans expose the weaknesses in today’s for-profit health insurance industry, of which Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island is a big part.

According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), “Single-payer national health insurance, also known as ‘Medicare for all,’ is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

regunberg
Aaron Regunberg, center

“The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.”

On the national scene Bernie Sanders has championed single payer, calling it Medicare for All. “Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege,” says Sanders, “Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America’s health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.”

State Representative Aaron Regunberg has introduced, for the second time, a bill to bring the benefits of a single payer health insurance program to Rhode Island. His bill would “act would repeal the ‘Rhode Island Health Care Reform Act of 2004 – Health Insurance Oversight’ as well as the ‘Rhode Island Health Benefit Exchange,’ and would establish the Rhode Island comprehensive health insurance program.”

His bill deserves our support.

Patreon

RI Supreme Court allows accommodation for breastfeeding during Bar exam


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

acluThe Rhode Island Supreme Court has adopted a new policy that will allow women Bar applicants who are breastfeeding to easily obtain accommodations when taking the Bar exam. The policy was adopted after a number of groups encouraged the Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners to revise its policies that offered no accommodations to individuals who were breastfeeding, leaving them at a serious disadvantage during the test.

The new policy now explicitly extends eligibility for accommodations to those who are breastfeeding, and allows breastfeeding applicants to request and obtain accommodations without unnecessary or intrusive burdens. The ACLU of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Women’s Bar Association, League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island NOW had sent a number of letters to the Board since last July calling for these reforms.

Jenn Steinfeld, executive director of the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, said today: “Our organization applauds the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s recognition of the importance of accommodating breast feeding applicants. This is yet another step toward professional accessibility for all. Like Rhode Island’s new state law providing workplace protections for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, this policy helps ensure that parents don’t have to choose between the health of their children and their employment or career. We are proud to see Rhode Island promote gender equality and will remain vigilant to ensure it is implemented fairly.”

In their correspondence with the Board, the groups recommended accommodations such as allowing women to bring necessary medical equipment and supplies to the test, providing additional break time to express breast milk, or other accommodations an individual may need to ensure women do not suffer any medical issues. Not allowing for such accommodations, the groups noted, forced candidates needing accommodations related to breastfeeding to choose between taking the test under conditions that could place their health at risk and postponing their test date until they were no longer breastfeeding.

Jane W. Koster, president of the League of Women Voters of RI, said: “The new policy in place for accommodations erases discrimination and prevents arbitrary decision-making, and thus offers the exam without bias or barriers against women who are breastfeeding.  In the future, I am sure we will hear success stories from women who found great convenience, comfort and ease of exam anxiety while profiting from these accommodations. I applaud the R.I. Supreme Court’s decision.”

Rhode Island now joins all other New England states and many others across the country that provide specific accommodations for women who are breastfeeding at the time of their Bar exam. The previous policy addressed only accommodations for people with disabilities.

A copy of the new policy is available here: https://www.courts.ri.gov/AttorneyResources/baradmission/PDF/Nonstandard_Testing.pdf

Talking about end-of-life options 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
Tim Appleton
Tim Appleton

Tim Appleton, campaign manager at Compassion and Choices, was talking to a full room about “medical aid-in-dying.” This would take the form of legislation that would allow a terminally ill, mentally capable person with a medical prognosis of six months or less to obtain and, if their suffering becomes unbearable, self-administer medication that brings about a peaceful death.

This is presently the law in five states: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont and California. One in seven Americans currently have this option available. In Rhode Island, if a person wanted this option, their best bet would be to establish legal residency in Vermont. Obviously, this is not something that everyone can do.

Compassion and ChoicesLast year, the Lila Manfield Sapinsley Compassionate Care Act, introduced in the State Senate by Gayle Goldin and in the House by Edith Ajello, died in committees. Whether or not the legislation will be reintroduced this year is an open question. What the legislation needs is a group of passionate supporters ready for a multiyear effort at the State House to make this happen.

Last year the Catholic Church and some members of the disabled community spoke out against the bill. The opposition from the Catholic Church is to be expected. Across the country the Church has spent millions of dollars defeating similar legislation in other states, mostly by telling stories about people being coerced into taking their lives. For the disabled community these stories of misuse and coercion are serious concerns, but Appleton is clear that in the United States, where this idea has been law for nearly two decades, there has “not been a single case of abuse, misuse or coercion.”

Opponents present a false choice between hospice care and aid in dying, but in reality the two ideas are complimentary. Hospice works to manage pain through the process of dying, while this legislation allows the option of ending one’s life in the event the suffering becomes unbearable. This brings a sense of comfort and control to a terrible situation.

The simple fact is that any one of us may one day be in the position of wanting to end our life in the event of a terminal, painful illness, or we may be the caretaker of a loved one suffering through the process. Each of us confronts the end of our lives differently, and this option is not for everyone.

As Governor Jerry Brown said, when he signed California’s act into law, “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

Patreon

Seizing the Means of Reproduction conference at Brown


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

web-Seizing-the-Means-of-ReproductionA one-day conference, Seizing the Means of Reproduction, that seeks to explore “reproductive labor and social reproduction as contested sites of struggle” will be held at Brown University on February 19, and organizers have arranged an excellent slate of presenters. Organizers Arlen Austin and Beth Capper describe the conference as tracking “the multiple historical sites, geographic locations, and activist genealogies that form and inform our collective imagination of,” reproductive labor and social reproduction. “At the same time, [the conference] aims to recalibrate contemporary diagnoses of post­-Fordism by foregrounding and historicizing Marxist feminist theorizations of racial capitalism, the welfare state, and neoliberalism. ”

Pretty heady stuff, but organizer Arlen Austin stresses that “all the speakers involved have one foot in academia and one foot in grassroots organizing and activist work. (Of course the two realms aren’t mutually exclusive but have been more or less intertwined historically)… I absolutely think that it is meant to be for grassroots activists and young people just developing an interest in socialism, feminism and Marxism as well as people who have had the opportunity to study these traditions in a focused way through an educational institution.”

There will be opportunities for local groups at the conference as well, says Austin. “We are planning a table for local organizations to present their outreach materials and hope to have representatives make brief statements about their work between presentations if we can successfully coordinate this.” Groups interested should get in touch with Arlen Austin and Beth Capper.

The conference will also “revisit the legacy of the 1970’s Wages for Housework and Welfare Rights movements in relation to pressing issues of contemporary social inquiry and social struggle: the international division of domestic, sexual, and caring labor; the assault on welfare in an age of neoliberal austerity; the rise of the prison industrial complex; and the question of the ‘commons.’”

In conjunction with Seizing the Means of Reproduction, organizers are “launching a digital humanities archive on the international Wages for Housework movement. Drawing on materials housed in the collections of the Lesbian Herstory Archive (Brooklyn, N.Y.) and the personal archives of women involved in the movement, this digital platform will make publicly available, for the first time, photographs, manifestos and other media, many of which are unpublished or not previously available to researchers.”


Seizing the Means of Reproduction is Friday, February 19 at 9:45 AM – 6:15 PM

Location: Pembroke Hall, Brown University, 172 Meeting St, Providence, Rhode Island 02906

You can RSVP on Facebook


Bios for Conference Speakers

Mimi Abramovitz ​is Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor of Social Policy and the Chair of Social Welfare Policy at the Hunter College School of Social Work. She has published widely on issues related to women, poverty, human rights, and the U.S welfare state. Her books include the award­ winning Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States (Monthly Review Press, 2000) and Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present (South End Press, 1996). She is currently writing a book on the history of low-­income women’s activism in the U.S.

Aren Aizura ​is Assistant Professor in Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies at the University of Minnesota. He is the co­-editor of the Transgender Studies Reader 2 (Routledge, 2013) and his writing has appeared in the journals Inter­Asia Cultural Studies and Asian Studies Review, and books such as Queer Necropolitics, Transgender Migrations, and Transfeminist Perspectives in and beyond Transgender and Gender Studies. He is completing a monograph titled Mobile Subjects: Transnational Imaginaries of Gender Reassignment. His new project considers transnational circuits of reproductive labor, the political economy of immigration, and queer and trans theory.

Silvia Federici ​is Emerita Professor in Political Philosophy and International Studies at Hofstra University and a long time feminist activist and writer. She has written widely on feminist theory, women and globalization, and feminist struggles, and is the author of Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Autonomedia, 2004) and Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle (PM Press, 2012). She is co­founder of the Committee for Academic Freedom in Africa and a member of the Midnight Notes Collective.

Selma James ​is the founder of the International Wages for Housework Campaign and helped launch the Global Women’s Strike. She is the author of numerous publications, including The Power of Women and the Subversion of Community (Falling Wall Press, 1972), Strangers and Sisters: Women, Race, and Immigration (Falling Wall Press, 1986), and Sex, Race, and Class – The Perspective of Winning (PM Press, 2012).

Sara Clarke Kaplan is an associate professor of Ethnic Studies and Critical Gender Studies and the founder and co-convener of the Black Studies Project at the University of California, San Diego.  She is a scholar of Black feminist and queer theory and African Diaspora literary and cultural production. Her book, The Black Reproductive: Feminism and the Politics of Freedom (forthcoming this fall from University of Minnesota Press) explores how the expropriation, administration, and imagination of Black procreation, reproductive labor, and sexuality have been both necessary to and an endangerment of the creation and maintenance of racial capitalism in the United States. Her published and forthcoming work appears in a number of journals, including American Quarterly, American Literary History, Callaloo, Rhizomes, and the Journal of Black Women, Gender, and Families.

Priya Kandaswamy ​is associate professor and chair of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Mills College in Oakland, California. Her research focuses on the role constructions of family play in grounding forms of state power that simultaneously produce and regulate race, gender, sexuality, and class. Her work has appeared in journals such as Sexualities, American Quarterly, and Radical Teacher as well as numerous edited anthologies. Her current project develops a comparative analysis of marriage promotion and forced labor programs targeting women of color in the Reconstruction era and the late twentieth century.

Premilla Nadasen ​is a Visiting Associate Professor of History at Barnard College and has previously taught at Queen’s College (CUNY). Nadasen is a long­time scholar-­activist and works closely with community organizations. She is the author of Household Workers Unite: The Untold Story of African American Women who Built a Movement (Beacon Press, 2015) and Welfare Warriors: The Welfare Rights Movement in the United States (Routledge, 2004). She is currently co­editing, with Eileen Boris, a special issue of the International Working­ Class History Association journal on organizing domestic labor. She has written for Ms, the Progressive Media Project, as well as other media outlets.

Neferti X. M. Tadiar​ is the author of the books, Fantasy­ Production: Sexual Economies and Other Philippine Consequences for the New World Order (Hong Kong University Press, 2004) and Things Fall Away: Philippine Historical Experience and the Makings of Globalization (Duke University Press, 2009). Her current book project is entitled Remaindered Life, a meditation on the disposability and surplus of life­making under contemporary conditions of global empire. She is currently Director of the Program in American Studies and Professor of Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies at Barnard College, Columbia University and Co­-Editor of the New York­ based Collective and journal of interdisciplinary cultural studies, Social Text.

Frances Fox Piven​ is Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. She is the co-­author, with Richard Cloward, of Regulating the Poor: TheFunctions of Public Welfare (Vintage, 1971) and Poor People’s Movements (Vintage, 1978). She is author of numerous books, including The War at Home: The Domestic Costs of Bush’s Militarism (New Press, 2004), Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America (Polemics, 2006), and, most recently, Who’s Afraid of Frances Fox Piven?: The Essential Writings of the Professor Glenn Beck Loves to Hate (New Press, 2011). She has received career and lifetime achievement awards from the American Sociological Association and the American Political Science Association.

Kathi Weeks ​is Associate Professor of Women’s Studies at Duke University. Her primary interests are in the fields of political theory, feminist theory, Marxist thought, the critical study of work, and utopian studies. She is the author of The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics and Postwork Imaginaries (Duke University Press, 2011) and Constituting Feminist Subjects (Cornell University Press, 1998), and a co-­editor of The Jameson Reader (Blackwell, 2000).

Soyoung Yoon ​is Program Director and Assistant Professor of Art History & Visual Studies at the Department of the Arts, Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts, The New School. She is also a Faculty at the Whitney Museum Independent Study Program [ISP]. In 2015-­6, she is Carol G. Lederer Postdoctoral Fellow at the Pembroke Center at Brown University as a part of its research seminar on “Fatigue,” the first installation in a five­ year series on “War.” Yoon received her Ph.D. from Stanford University, and holds a B.A. from Seoul National University. Yoon has published in Grey Room, Millennium Film Journal, Film Quarterly, Shifters, among other journals and books. Yoon is at work on two book projects around the re­definition of the status of the “document” in the post­war period: Walkie Talkie, regarding the rise of cinéma vérité and critiques of the hermeneutics of the self, amidst anti-­colonial struggles and development of new techniques of policing; and Miss Vietnam: The Work of Art in the Age of Techno­war, a project on feminist mediation, which re-frames technological reproducibility via the framework of reproductive labor.

Patreon

Wingmen tackle reproductive rights


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 Wingmen tackle abortion, and it doesn’t go well for John Brien.

Brien was all over the place, and having a tough time coming to terms with his “small government except for abortion” views. Guess what John Brien? You sound pro-choice.

RI Future’s Bob Plain just had to let Brien talk to win the day.

Bob and Bill Rappleye spend most of the episode getting Brien back onto the subject.

NARAL demotes Raimondo to ‘mixed choice’ on repro rights


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
Raimondo
Governor Raimondo

NARAL Pro-Choice America (NARAL) rated Governor Gina Raimondo as “mixed-choice” in their recent report, a step down from her previous rating as “pro-choice.” Raimondo had run as a pro-choice candidate, earning the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Votes RI PAC and Emily’s List.

In Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States, NARAL rates each of the states with an over all grade. Rhode Island received a failing grade of F. Massachusetts and New Hampshire received a C+, Vermont and Maine a B+ and Connecticut an A-. Rhode Island’s failing grade makes it, to borrow a favorite word of Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s, an “outlier.”

The report notes that “Rhode Island enacted a measure that restricts insurance coverage of abortion in the state insurance exchange” in 2015, a reference to Raimondo’s behind the scenes budget shenanigans that ultimately resulted in an estimated 9000 people losing their abortion coverage under Obamacare. This story was covered here on RI Future first, and received scant attention elsewhere.

NARAL, a non-profit that engages in political action and advocacy efforts to oppose restrictions and expand access to abortion, has three ratings for governors and legislative bodies: pro-choice, mixed choice and anti-choice. Both the Rhode Island House of Representatives and the Rhode Island Senate were rated anti-choice.

All three Democratic candidates for president are running on strong pro-choice platforms. Hillary Clinton recently won the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and Bernie Sanders called for an expansion of Planned Parenthood funding, Raimondo’s mixed-choice rating puts her badly out of step with the national Democratic Party.

As of this writing a request for comment from the governor’s office has gone unanswered.

2016 RI NARAL Rating

Patreon

Reproductive freedom still elusive 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
Sen. Gayle Goldin
Sen. Gayle Goldin

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v Wade ensured that women have the right to reproductive freedom. This opinion was reaffirmed in 1992 when the Court ruled that “throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion in such intimate family matters as procreation, childrearing, marriage, and contraceptive choice…and this Court correctly applied these principles to a woman’s right to choose abortion.”

Our views of women’s equality, participation in the labor force, and control over one’s own body have shifted dramatically in the past five decades. In 1965, only married women had contraceptive rights guaranteed by Griswold v. Connecticut. It took until 1972, a year before Roe, for the Supreme Court to rule that unmarried women had the right to birth control pills.

Prior to Roe, thousands of women died in the United States because they were forced to seek abortion in unsafe conditions. Women of color and those of limited economic means were particularly at risk of losing their life from an illegal abortion. Affluent women, however, were able to travel overseas or to states where abortions were legal.

Rep Edie Ajello
Rep Edie Ajello

Unfortunately, the gains made to protect women’s reproductive care – from access to abortion to affordable, accessible birth control – continue to be threatened by those who aim to take away a woman’s right to determine what is best for her own health and her own life.

In state legislatures across the country, opponents of reproductive freedom continue to gain ground. In the past five years, state legislatures have passed over 280 laws restricting a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion. Many of these laws intervene in the physician-patient relationship, requiring a woman’s doctor to provide her with inaccurate medical information. Other laws add unnecessary red tape to physicians’ practices and create hurdles to providing women with health care. The effect has been to increase costs and close clinics. In parts of the United States, women are once again traveling hours to access health care.

Some of the most egregious laws have been enacted in Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in early March and this case is likely to be the most important decision about abortion rights since Roe itself. Attorneys General from twelve states, including our neighbors in Connecticut and Massachusetts, filed an amicus brief asking the Court to invalidate the Texas laws.

While we have not seen similar roll backs enacted in Rhode Island, women’s autonomy is still at risk. In 2013, the Rhode Island General Assembly attempted to create Choose Life license plates that would support “pregnancy crisis centers” and religious institutions that lobby against reproductive rights. The bill was vetoed by Governor Chafee. Just last week, a “fetal heartbeat” bill was introduced into the Rhode Island House that, if passed, could potentially criminalize abortion.

Even without new laws, however, the ones we currently have significantly curtail a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.  Women under 18 must receive parental consent to have an abortion. Though it’s been found to be unconstitutional, Rhode Island law still says a woman must tell her husband of plans for an abortion, even if doing so would put her life at risk. Thousands of Rhode Islanders do not have health insurance that covers abortion because state law prohibits health insurance plans available to state and municipal employees from covering it. Our state also prohibits Medicaid from covering abortions in most circumstances.

Rhode Island’s constitution provides equal protection under the laws, stating that “no otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state, its agents or any person or entity doing business with the state.” There’s just one caveat: such protections do not apply to a woman’s access to abortion. In New England, Rhode Island sticks out like a sore thumb: our state receives a grade of D+ from NARAL Pro-Choice America, because our laws do not adequately protect reproductive freedom. By contrast, even conservative states like Alaska and West Virginia get Bs, because their constitutions provide stronger protections.

Just as they did 50 years ago, these current and proposed restrictions on reproductive rights disproportionately affect middle and low income Rhode Islanders. While some women can travel to neighboring states and privately pay for health care, many cannot. As we look back and see how far we’ve come on our march for reproductive freedom, let’s not forget that we still have far to go.

TCI: The most popular social program you’ve never heard of


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
2015-12-10 TCI 01
Barb Silver, Emilija Djurdjevic and Helen Mederer

Rhode Island is the third state to offer a Temporary Caregiver Insurance Program (TCI) and according to research, the program is very popular. Yet about half of those surveyed during a review of the first year of the program’s implementation were unaware of this benefit.

According to the DLT website:

The Temporary Caregiver Insurance Program was signed into law and will become effective as of January 5, 2014. Individuals may apply for benefits as of January 5, 2014.

• An individual may receive up to a max. of 4 weeks of TCI benefits (which will reduce the max. weeks of TDI) during a Benefit Year Period
• To care for a for a seriously ill child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, parent-in-law, or grandparent………or
• To Bond with a newborn child, adopted child or foster-care child (available during the first 12 months of parenting only)
• Monetary eligibility is determined the same as for TDI benefits
• Caregiver claims: the claimant is responsible to obtain the medical documentation necessary
• Bonding claims: the claimant is responsible to provide proof of child/parenting relationship.

TCI will payout roughly 2/3rds of your wages during your time off.

2015-12-10 TCI 02
Ray Pepin and Fernanda Casimiro, DLT

The RI Department of Labor and Training, (DLT) contracted the Schmidt Labor Research Center at the University of Rhode Island to analyze data and make recommendations as to the public’s awareness of the program, ability to access the program, impacts of the program on families and work, and to identify barriers that prevent families from accessing the program. At an event hosted by the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island, researchers Barb Silver, Helen Mederer and Emilija Djurdjevic presented their findings.

About half of those surveyed were aware of TCI. Those more aware “were more likely to have higher incomes and education.” There was less awareness among lower income, older, less educated and non-white populations. Also, employees working for smaller employers and for employers who offer less benefits were less likely to be aware of TCI.

Even those aware of the program were not fully informed as to all its benefits. Just over half understood that TCI provides job security: If you access TCI, your job will be waiting for you when you return to work. Half also are unaware that the program offers 60 percent wage replacement. Only a quarter realized that the program is funded by employee contributions.

Because of this the URI researchers suggest targeted marketing to those populations who are not taking advantage of the program and a focus on job security and employee contributions in that marketing.

The majority of users used TCI to bond with a new child. Only 22 percent took TCI to care for an ill family member.

Compared to other forms of time off to deal with family adjustment or caring for an ill family member, those who used TCI reported easier transitions back to work, lower absenteeism, better overall physical health, lower stress, more baby wellness visits, greater likelihood of following medical advice and greater likelihood of breastfeeding. The “ability to initiate nursing is a key public health issue,” said one of the presenters.

Those accessing TCI were better able to maintain their financial security as well.

The greatest barriers to accessing TCI are lack of awareness, inability to afford the loss of income, lack of employer benefits and worry about negative work outcomes.

Ultimately the research found that TCI is “needed, appreciated, and has current and long-lasting positive effects on employees.”

“We know people love it,” said Jenn Steinfeld, executive director of the Women’s Fund RI, “We need word of mouth to get the word out to more people.”

The Economic Progress Institute has a guide to accessing TCI here.

Patreon

Why I write Hendricken ’05 on my pro-choice petitions


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

hawks_logoFollowing the terrorist actions of an anti-choice militant in Colorado on November 27, 2015, I feel compelled to offer a few reflections on this notion of ‘the sanctity of life’ and why I invoke my Bishop Hendricken High School alumnus status when I contact my congressional representatives in Washington regarding choice issues. It is worth noting here that these opinions are my own and they do not represent the opinions of the school or any association of students past or present, though I hope they one day might. I also would be remiss if I did not add that I understand and respect the feelings this might engender within those aforementioned communities, but I do not intend this as an insult to anyone in those groups.

When I was at Hendricken, there was something called the Irish Club, a group of students and faculty that engaged in an after-school celebratory discourse about Celtic Catholic spirituality and culture. We would from time to time touch on the tremendously fraught issue that is the Irish Republican Army. The overwhelming opinion was that, even though the IRA was right in its aims, they were wrong to launch attacks in a fashion that resulted in civilian casualties. Leaving aside my own further intellectual development since I discovered the works of Frantz Fanon, the reality is that one can and should apply this logic to the murder of people at a women’s clinic.

Anything less than a full-throated rejection of an act of religiously-influenced domestic terrorism on par with the violence of 9/11, including modifying phrases that condemns the activities of the victims, is the stuff of cowardice. If a school should be involved in such acts of cowardice, their ability to be serviced by taxpayer-funded free school bussing should be revoked, as should the supply of taxpayer-funded text books in math, science, and other subjects. If we are going to have some individuals harping and howling over whether President Obama was taught in a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia, we are going to hold Catholic education to the same standards while remembering that Osama bin Laden was also opposed to abortion rights.

One of the lessons that I took from 9/11 that I think very few others likewise took was understanding why that event happened. Some would call this a Left position, others an anti-American position, but I call a logical and educated position. Those attacks were not random acts, they were a violent climax of events over decades involving American military force in the post-colonial world. From the bloody vistas of Vietnam to Jimmy Carter’s idiotic policies in Afghanistan and beyond, America planted hateful seeds abroad that blew back onto our shores and killed civilians.

We should be wise and apply this logic herein. This violence was not random, it was a violent and bloody culmination of years of a coordinated series of anti-choice actions that the media has refused to cover or failed to properly dissect in the name of their farcical ‘objectivity’. Clinics nationwide have been closed over the past several years with a series of Kafkaesque building codes. For months, there have been arson attacks on women’s healthcare clinics that have not been front page news on the Providence Journal (do not even get me started with their misogynist coverage of this violence). The farcical and utterly transparent videos produced by anti-choice scoundrels this summer are now confirmed to have fueled this madman’s violence and that vanguard of objectivity, Edward Achorn, printed letters and columns in his editorial pages that furthered those lies. I would not hesitate to show him as much contempt as some of his colleagues have shown for Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning (though the fact is that they were telling the truth whereas Achorn was promoting lies). The trail of tears leads to many doorways, including his. No longer can he talk of concerns about promoting terrorism in the Arab world without having this held over his head.

Let us consider for a moment the odious Bishop Thomas Tobin, whose war against women included his Know-Nothing rally at the doors of Planned Parenthood last summer. I would respect Bishop Tobin if he was actually serious about protecting children, but considering how he continues to give soft glove treatment to Bishop Emeritus Gelineau while the man has reams of testimony against him regarding sexual abuse of minors (here, here, and here), I would trust Charles Manson to protect a youth before I trusted Bishop Tobin. What is more, he is a publicly-registered Republican and actively opposed the Affordable Care Act, a law that provides the very contraceptive care that can prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore abortion. If the Church opposes contraception, fine, that is the realm of moral instruction of membership. But when you get into actively lobbying against public policy, that is a wholly different realm. The Providence Diocese for a long time now has ceased to be a purely religious body and become the politically lobbying Grand Old Diocese, or GOD. This is such a transparent farce that the Three Stooges would blanch in embarrassment.

But there is plenty blame left. What about our allegedly pro-choice Gov. Gina Raimondo, who threw women under the bus this year at the whims of the aforementioned Republican Diocese? Can we call this rolling over for both the opposition party and the Church that took her picture off the walls of LaSalle Academy anything but a terminal lack of backbone? Why is our democracy allowed to be controlled by a body that fails to pay taxes, shelters child abusers, and supports terrorism? Are all the women of Rhode Island worth a quickie compromise with these fools? The precedents she has created are deadly and fed into this madness.

Yet the ultimate amount of guilt lies with ourselves. We failed women. We were unable, unwilling, or uncaring enough to take these warning signs serious enough. We should have been more full-throated about this than a bickering fest about a baseball stadium. In the days before 9/11, the record shows that a select few government employees were running around Washington like their hair was on fire, begging the Bush administration for attention. Were there such figures in the Ocean State landscape I missed? Steve Ahlquist has been one, his coverage of the Raimondo legal moves have been admirable and is going to be used as primary sources by future historians. But was there a Richard Clarke on hand telling we alleged feminists to watch out? Why were we not like he was? To quote the Bard “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but ourselves.

After this, every reproductive healthcare center should be under the same level of protection that T.F. Green Airport is. After this, we should quit worrying about Syrian Muslim terrorism and start worrying about American Christian anti-choice terrorism. After this, we should be more vocal and saying that abortion accounts for only 3% of Planned Parenthood medical care and the rest is focused on low-cost healthcare for men and women, including contraceptive, cancer, and STI testing/treatment care, medical care that would otherwise be unavailable for many of their patients. We should vocalize that, prior to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, the largest killer of women of child-bearing age was septic abortion, more than car accidents or cancer.

If moral absolutists are going to argue that they do not want their tax dollars funding abortion, they should be as vocal about funding our murderous, child-killing military-industrial complex and be pro-life regarding Palestinian children. Yet the only religious group I know of that does that is the generally pro-choice Quakers. Are Catholic Bishops willing to use the same condemnatory tones used towards those who help procure abortions with Catholic soldiers and threaten automatic excommunication for drone killings, especially since the revelations by The Intercept and other publications reveal the targeted assassinations program has killed so many innocent children?

NARAL Pro Choice petitions I recently received in the mail.
NARAL Pro Choice petitions I recently received in the mail.

I write Hendricken ’05 on my pro-choice petitions to our Congressional delegates because Jack Reed is a Catholic and James Langevin went to Hendricken. I write Hendricken ’05 on my pro-choice petitions because, once you void the privacy of the doctor’s office, you create a slippery slope that could void the privacy of the Catholic priest’s confessional due to the fact clergy and medical personnel are protected by the same statutory logic. I sign Hendricken ’05 because I oppose terrorism. I sign Hendricken’05 because I believe women know better than anyone else what medical care they need and that the patient is always the best advocate for their care, not priests. I sign Hendricken ’05 because I respect the female teachers at Hendricken. When I was a student, there were instances where male instructors would sometimes talk about the ‘morality’ of regarding why some of these teachers did not have a large number of children, behavior showing of a lack of respect for these women that screams Human Resources complaint. But I also sign Hendricken ’05 because I believe in sanity, secularism, feminism, and maturity and do not believe in governance by religious fundamentalism. It was John Adams who said “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Finally, I sign Hendricken ’05 because all Hawks are quality one, even if they are pro-choice. By pro-choice, I do not mean I push my sexist nose into the doctor’s office to observe all the activities therein. Rather, it means I respect when that door closes and do not dare open it ever lest I have the same be done to my mother, aunt, grandmother, sister, or female friends. This is the kind of respect I also express for the Seal of the Confessional.

Those who tell you that being pro-choice automatically means being in favor of abortion are lying. It is the complete opposite. Being pro-choice means not being in favor of anything a woman chooses to do in her doctor’s office because it is none of your business, period. Being pro-choice also means opposing state-mandated abortion, such as the Chinese one-child policy, because a law like that strips a woman of her agency and intrudes on the relationship she has with her doctor. Men are not subjected to the level of regulation and scrutiny when they choose medical care that I might not agree with, ergo a woman is due that same level of respect. Refusal to grant that is defined by an SAT vocabulary word, misogyny.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

Raimondo causes thousands of families to lose abortion coverage


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
2015-08-31 ECOS 02 Gina Raimondo
Gina Raimondo

Thousands of HealthSource RI subscribers lost medical coverage for abortion this year, and most had no idea this was happening.

Under new policies mandated by Governor Gina Raimondo, insurers must now offer one plan that does not cover abortion at every level in which they offer a plan that does. As a result of the Governor’s actions and a minor change in the law that allows insurers to re-enroll subscribers into new health plans if their previous plan no longer exists, 9,000 out of 32,000 families have lost this crucial coverage.

Raimondo made two decisions earlier this year that lead to this crisis. First, she settled the Doe v. Burwell lawsuit when she didn’t have to. Doe, who chose to remain anonymous because of his HIV+ status, claimed that he was unable, due to his religious beliefs, to contribute money to any health plan that covered abortion, and that his needs as an HIV+ man meant that waiting until 2017 for the one plan that does not cover abortion mandated under federal law was not practical.

Doe was represented in his lawsuit by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and supported by both RI Right to Life and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. It was far from certain that Doe and the ADF would win the suit since HealthSource RI was operating fully in accordance with Federal law and accommodations had been offered to Doe.

But Raimondo caved, and caved hard. After settling a case she did not have to, she went further than existing federal law and submitted legislation mandating that insurers offer multiple plans that omit abortion coverage. Every insurer was forced to offer a plan at every tier of coverage. Federal law mandates that at least one plan on a state exchange offer no coverage for abortion. Raimondo insisted on what amounts to nine plans.

All insurers on the HealthSource RI exchange had to roll out new plans. Two insurers decided to modify existing plans as well, which meant that many health plan subscribers had to be moved to whichever new plans were deemed most similar to their old plan. Whether or not the new plan covered abortion was not a consideration.

According to the Providence Journal, “Out of HealthSource’s three insurers, two mapped subscribers into plans with limited abortion coverage — Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island. United Healthcare did not.”

Now, 9,000 families are without abortion coverage, unless they change their enrollment by December 23. Many more people, when looking at the new plans on offer, may switch into plans that do not cover abortion – not because they are anti-choice, but because some of the anti-choice plans might appear to be cheaper.

Figuring out which plans are cheaper is a difficult, if not impossible task. There is the monthly fee to consider, but there are also differences among plans in terms of deductibles, medication costs and co-pays. Ultimate cost may depend more on usage than monthly contributions. Figuring out how much a family saves by choosing an abortion free plan may be an exercise in futility, even though the law requires such plans to be cheaper, if only by a few cents.

Nobody plans on having an abortion, so abortion coverage is often not a big consideration when choosing a healthcare plan. Those who may find themselves most at risk of discovering they are suddenly out of pocket for abortion expenses are young adults covered under their parent’s healthcare plan until age 26. Others at risk include couples who might want to have a baby, but encounter a crisis at a late stage. Costs associated with additional testing and termination of a nonviable late term pregnancy can be in the tens of thousands of dollars and require a hospital stay.

As a result, some families will face the kind of financial ruin that Obamacare was instituted to prevent.

This is the kind of information that may have been revealed had Raimondo introduced her legislation openly, as a bill submitted to the General Assembly to be debated and commented on by the public. Instead, the governor slipped these changes into the budget as an eleventh hour amendment and with as little fanfare as possible. It worked: the measure passed with little outcry.

Just before Governor Raimondo signed the budget into law, mandating the changes that have resulted in thousands losing abortion coverage, Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life, said, “Due to the complexity of Obamacare, and its implementation in Rhode Island, neither the media nor our opponents at Planned Parenthood and in the pro-abortion caucus of the General Assembly, yet appear to understand the extent of our victory.”

I guess now we do.

If Governor Raimondo is truly a pro-choice candidate, she has a strange way of showing it. No recent RI governor has been nearly as successful in stripping families of their reproductive rights.

Patreon

Students protest suspension of popular teacher over birth control comment


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

2015-09-29 Ashton 001Students held signs and talked to the media after school today in support of a teacher suspended for his comments about birth control in a tenth grade class.

According to student Layla Vafiadis, English teacher William Ashton was teaching a class on early American literature at the Jacqueline Walsh Arts School for the Performing and Visual Arts (JMW). In a discussion about the Virginians, the Mayflower and William Bradford, Vafiadis asked about the availability of birth control back then. She didn’t think the question was a big deal.

“All that was mentioned was that back then they had a chemical that was used to kill off sperm and that was it. And he said that back then some people might view it as abortion.”

Vafiadis is not mad at whoever made the complaint, but she is angry that one of her favorite teachers may potentially lose his job for answering a question she asked. She wonders why she isn’t allowed to ask certain questions in class.

The students were taken out of class on Monday and into a meeting with Pawtucket Superintendent Patti DiCenso. Students say DiCenso told them they were being inappropriate and shouldn’t be protesting. They were also told they shouldn’t be bullying the student who made the complaint, though that never happened, and the students are only protesting the suspension of William Ashton, not the student who brought the complaint.

Isabelle Long was in the class during the discussion. The comments happened on either a Monday or a Friday, she said. She can’t remember exactly because the comments didn’t make that much of an impact on her. Long says that the class was talking about the Puritans and their conservative beliefs and “how that plays nowadays.”

According to Long, at the meeting the students had with Superintendent DiCenso on Monday, they were told they shouldn’t be protesting and that they were only “harming Mr. Ashton” in doing so. Two students, Maggie Roberts and Hope Norton, were separated from they others and told that they were bullying the other students into protesting.

DiCenso told the students that Ashton had “strayed from the curriculum” but Long asked, “Does the curriculum say what questions we are allowed to ask?”

Hope Norton was one of the two students (the other was Maggie Roberts) who organized the original Bring Back Ashton back in March when he was suspended for his comments about PARCC testing. Hope assumes she and Maggie Roberts were separated from the group because DiCenso is angry about their role in organizing the previous rally. DiCenso has blocked Roberts from accessing her Twitter page. (I have also been blocked.) Given that DiCenso’s Twitter account is @PawtucketSup, an account she uses for outreach to the public in her official capacity as superintendent and not a personal account, the blocking of one of her students is problematic. (Blocking me, on the other hand, is no big deal.)

DiCenso told Norton and Roberts that they were being bullies because they were demanding the return of their teacher and threatening to peacefully protest if he wasn’t reinstated, they said. This is not bullying, this is organizing. One would hope that a superintendent of schools would understand what bullying is and isn’t.

Ashton is, by all reports, an amazingly popular teacher. Norton remembers Ashton telling her that teen pregnancy hurts a young woman’s chances of having a college career. She was not very happy that she was going through this again.

Patti DiCenso’s office will only confirm that a teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave, and will not give the name of the teacher or discuss the nature of the offense.

2015-09-29 Ashton 002

2015-09-29 Ashton 003

2015-09-29 Ashton 004

2015-09-29 Ashton 005

2015-09-29 Ashton 006

2015-09-29 Ashton 007

2015-09-29 Ashton 008

2015-09-29 Ashton 009

Patreon


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