Two competing bills were heard in the House Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday evening in a hearing that lasted well over 6 hours and had over 4 dozen people testifying. House bill 7610, submitted by Representative Anastasia Williams, would grant driving privilege license to undocumented immigrants. House Bill 7859, introduced by Representative Arthur Corvese, would make issuing such licenses illegal. Over 200 advocates for licenses filled the main rotunda with reverberating chants during the hearing, which was often emotional and contentious.
This became evident immediately as Reps Williams and Corvese verbally sparred even before presenting their bills, which were heard simultaneously. Committee Chair Cale Keable worked hard to keep the peace, and surprisingly did not put a cap on speaking times, allowing people to speak until they were done.
Both bills have been held for further study, and the ultimate fate of the bills is in doubt. Governor Gina Raimondo has indicated that she wants a bill allowing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants to be passed and that she is ready to sign such a bill. She made a campaign promise to issue an executive order granting such licenses within her first year in office, a promise she has broken in favor of a legislative solution.
Below is all the testimony presented during the hearing last night, each speaker given a separate video. For the purposes of time it is impossible for me to do justice to all the wonderful testimony given in support of allowing undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses, just as it is impossible for me to get into some of the racism and xenophobia presented by the other side. Hopefully, the occasional notes I’ve provided below can point people towards some of the testimony I found the most interesting.
Rep Doreen Costa, vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told Corvese that he had presented a “great bill.”
Rep Joseph Almeida took Corvese to task for using the term “sanctuary city” in reference to Providence. Corvese responded that, “I do not countenance political correctness,” said Corvese, “and I never have.”
Mayors Jorge Elorza of Providence and James Diossa of Central Falls both spoke in favor of licenses for undocumented immigrants.
Rep Robert Nardolillo, who quoted FAIR, (Federation for American Immigration Reform) in his Providence Journal op-ed, did not exactly do himself any favors by testifying. FAIR has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Foundation as a hate group. At one point Nardolillo seemed to imply that immigrants were more likely to drive without insurance that non-immigrants. Here’s a quote from the founder of FAIR for Nardolillo and others to ponder:
“As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”
— John Tanton, founder of FAIR
Terry Gorman, of RIILE, lists FAIR on its links page. They also list the Minuteman Project and American Border Patrol, also listed as “extremist nativist groups” by the SPLC. I don’t know how RIILE avoids being on the SPLC hate group list.
Marriage equality has been the law in Rhode Island for two years now, and its gone nationwide due to the recent SCOTUS decision, but in the General Assembly, some legislators are continuing to vote against same-sex couples seeking to get married.
When the General Assembly abruptly ended its legislative season this year, it did so having passed 117 “Solemnization of Marriage” bills. These bills are perfunctory legislative favors done by Representatives and Senators for their constituents. Essentially, if a couple wishes to be married, but the officiant of their dreams is not permitted to marry the couple by law, a “Solemnization of Marriage” bill allows a one time exception.
With this bill passed, a beloved relative or family friend will now be able to conduct the wedding ceremony. Because these bills are so common, they are usually bundled together as part of a “consent calendar” which is passed with little discussion and no fanfare.
Many who voted against same-sex marriage two years ago continue that battle today and some new legislators have joined the fight by voting against solemnization of marriage bills for same-sex couples. This means that anyone seeking these perfunctory legislative favors are now putting themselves in a position to have their marriage judged by religious conservatives. These votes served to remind 25 couples that their marriage is not worthy of the same level of respect as others.
Out of the 117 solemnization bills passed last year, six were for couples with names that are traditionally associated with the same sex. Misty and Dawn, Elizabeth and Nancy, Alicia and Laura, William and Michael, Kristin and Rebecca, and Emilie and Michelle all sought and received solemnization of marriage bills. Two other couples, Sarah and Chris and Rebeccah and Alex may or not be same-sex couples, judging from the names. Of course, perusing the names like this is by no means a perfect system, so I apologize if I have missed or mischaracterized anyone based solely on a heteronormative reading of their name.
Consistently voting against same-sex marriages are Representatives Samuel Azzinaro, Arthur Corvese and Robert Phillips. Reps Justin Price, Joseph Trillo, Robert Lancia and Sherry Roberts frequently vote against same-sex solemnization bills.
Because solemnization bills are frequently bundled and passed together on a consent calendar, oftentimes these legislators find themselves voting against opposite sex marriages that happen to be part of a bundle that contains just one same-sex marriage. On May 19 Azzinaro, Corvese, Lancia, Phillips, Price, Roberts and Trillo voted against 5 marriages in total because William wanted to marry Michael. And On May 12 Azzinaro, Corvese, Phillips, Price and Trillo voted against 6 marriages because Alicia wanted to marry Rose.
I spoke by phone with Rep. Azzinaro, a Democrat serving District 37 in Westerly, about his no votes, which he says are based on his religious beliefs. Azzinaro introduced 7 solemnization bills last season, all of which passed without a single no vote.
“It’s not in my belief,” said Azzinaro about same sex marriage, “I didn’t vote for it when it was brought to the House for a vote and I don’t feel I can vote for any of these same-sex marriages.”
I asked how legislators determine which bills are for same-sex marriages and which are for opposite sex marriages. “We usually try to find out also from the sponsor of the bill if it’s a male and a female or a same-sex couple marriage, if we’re not sure,” Azzinaro said.
He went on to say that if a same sex couple in his district came to him and asked him to submit a solemnization of marriage bill before the House, he would tell them no. I asked him how he thinks his constituents would feel about that, given that he discriminates against his same-sex constituents in what kind of services he offers, based on their sexual orientation.
“They have to know who I am, how I feel,” he said.
The first video is of a passage of a Solemnization of Marriage bill, with Azzinaro, Corvese, Lancia, Phillips, Price and Roberts voting against. The second video is of the passage of a consent calendar containing one same-sex marriage and four opposite sex marriages. Azzinaro, Corvese and Phillips voted against.
On July 4, 1776, The United States of America declared their Independence from Great Britain, and the long road to Democracy was begun, a road we are still on. Back then, Royalists opposed democracy. Today those Royalists operate under a different banner.
Those opposed to democracy today pretend that they are fighting Voter Fraud when actually they are fighting Voters. As Rep Joseph Trillo says, “I don’t want everybody to vote unless they are informed on the issues.”
Tom Door is spinning in his grave…
Featuring Joseph Trillo, Cale Keable, Arthur Corvese, Antonio Giarusso, Michael Marcello, Arthur Handy, Brian Newberry, Teresa Tanzi, Michael Chippendale and Nicholas Mattiello.
When Governor Gina Raimondo signed the budget on Tuesday, she officially signed into law language that stands as the most extreme anti-abortion language passed in Rhode Island in two decades. And because it was slipped into the budget as part of the language that codifies HealthSource RI, the state’s highly successful Obamacare insurance exchange, and not submitted as a bill, this new law was passed with no legislative debate and no chance for any input from the public.
Shockingly, this end run around democracy and against reproductive rights came from Rhode Island’s first woman governor, Gina Raimondo, who sailed to victory with the endorsement of Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood, and with the help of a putatively Democratic majority legislature.
How did this happen?
In Rhode Island, support for the right to abortion polls at 71 percent, surprisingly high for a state that hosts by percentage the greatest number of Catholics in the country. Former Governor Lincoln Chafee, a stalwart defender of reproductive rights, vetoed a “Choose Life” license plate bill, a bill that would have split the money for the vanity plate between the state and right wing Christian “abortion counseling” centers that offer false hope to women dealing with crisis pregnancies. Rhode Island stands as one of the few states to have defeated these license plates.
Simply put, in Rhode Island, reproductive rights are only controversial among a small group of right wing activists, fronted by the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, who use the issue to advance their narrow political objectives.
It was this small group of activists that helped concoct two lawsuits, with the help of the right wing religious advocacy group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Doe v Burwell and Howe v Burwell were brought against HealthSource RI because there no plans offered on the state’s health exchange that did not cover abortion.
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. In addition to his health concerns, Doe claimed he was liable for fines fines levied against him for not selecting one of the plans currently available on the exchange.
The government’s reaction to the Doe lawsuit was swift: They completely caved. The state agreed to dismiss Doe’s fines, enroll him into a special plan that satisfied his moral objections to abortion, and require that the Rhode Island Office of Health Insurance Commissioner issue a mandate that there be a plan offered on the state’s health exchange that did not cover abortion at every tier of coverage.
In return, the ADF withdrew their lawsuit. Ten days later, on May 29, Governor Raimondo added the agreed upon language to her proposed budget as an amendment.
Under federal law, at least one plan that did not cover abortion had to be made available on all state exchanges by 2017. The settlement the state agreed to went far beyond that mandate.
In Rhode Island, adding new language through the budget process means that there will be no opportunity for public comment or meaningful public debate. The budget is submitted by the governor and re-crafted by the RI House of Representatives in a process that is conducted mostly behind the scenes. John Marion, executive director of Common Cause RI, a government accountability group, has called it “transactional politics.” When the budget comes to the House floor for a vote, specific parts can be debated by legislators, and amendments can be added, but the public gets no chance to directly comment.
The language Raimondo added is problematic for businesses. James Rhodes, director of public policy & government relations at Planned Parenthood Southern New England, asked, “How does a small employer, whether a religious organization or not, claim a religious exemption from covering abortion? Do they have a form to fill out to submit to the Office of Health Insurance Commissioner to declare their objection in order to get a new plan variation from an insurer? Is there any requirement to notify insured employees that their insurance does not cover this service, which is standard coverage in the small group market?”
The new language provided no process by which employers declared their objections and no process by which employees were to be notified of their employers decisions. This is important because a woman might think her health plan covers abortion, only to find out that her employer has decided, on personal religious grounds, not to cover the procedure without informing the employees.
“It is worth emphasizing that the federal health care law already imposes significant restrictions on abortion access through health care exchanges,” Steve Brown, executive director of the RI ACLU. “The additional burdens that passage of this budget article could impose, particularly on unwitting employees, is deeply troubling.”
As I tweeted at the time, “Gina Raimondo’s budget addition may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom across Rhode Island.”
Immediately after Raimondo’s amendment was submitted, rumors began to swirl that the language was inserted as some sort of backroom deal to save HealthSource RI at the expense of women’s reproductive rights. Indeed, Speaker of the House and right wing Democrat Nicholas Mattiello had been vocal about his desire to turn the state health exchange over to the federal government.
Language that limited women’s access to abortion was rumored to be the price paid for keeping control of the health exchange in Rhode Island. However, it has been impossible to source this rumor. Rather than being concerned with limiting women’s abortion access, Mattiello’s public statements were all about the high cost of administering the health exchange on the state level.
For instance, Mattiello said that, “he would not have signed on [to including HealthSource RI in the budget] unless HealthSource administrators had significantly reduced their cost projections to the point where the surcharge could be “at or below” the level it would be if the state handed the exchange over to the federal government…”
On the House floor, during the strangely curtailed debate on the budget, an amendment was approved that somewhat mitigated the damage done by Raimondo’s abortion language. This new language, crafted with the help of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, required any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, to allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs.
This makes Rhode Island the first state to build language into its state exchange that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage. A minor victory, considering that this imposes additional health care costs on women. If an employer elects not to cover abortion in their health plans, women pay additional fees out of pocket.
Additionally, women may find themselves in a difficult spot when it comes to dealing with employers who choose not to cover abortion. Opting out of the employer’s health plan may serve as a signal to employers that the employee is pro-choice. This may have an effect on a woman’s ability to secure raises, promotions or other workplace benefits if an employer chooses to act on this assumption in a biased or bigoted manner.
The Planned Parenthood amendment was supported by an unlikely coalition of legislators, including long time pro-choice Representative Edie Ajello and long time abortion and LGBTQ rights foe Representative Arthur Corvese. But behind the scenes, no one was happy with the compromise. A source confided to me that Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life, Providence Catholic Diocese lobbyist Bernard Healey and conservative Democratic Representative John DeSimone, were railing against the compromise language during last minute backroom negotiations.
The amended amendment passed and the entire budget passed unanimously and in record time.
After the budget passed the House, both sides declared victory.
Bracy explained in a newsletter that the “victory” was “the fruit of six years of intense legislative, political, and legal battle.” (Bracy did not explain how the seeds of this victory were planted a year before Obamacare became law.) Bracy further explained, or rather, did not explain, that, “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.”
Bracy promises to explain the completeness of his victory after the Governor signs the budget.
Meanwhile, James Rhodes of Planned Parenthood claimed partial victory, dinging Raimondo for choosing “to widely expand the number of plans that do not cover abortion beyond federal minimum standards” while doing “nothing to protect abortion access for employees of small businesses in Rhode Island.”
Rhodes went on to say, “In the wake of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision, we were surprised the Governor did not seek protections for employee access to comprehensive reproductive health care. It is clear that leaders in the House and Senate recognized this budget loophole. The passed budget includes an invaluable amendment that will allow employees of small businesses that claim an objection to covering abortion, to enroll in the HealthSource RI Full Employee Choice program.”
In the end, the right of some women to access reproductive health care has been eroded in favor of the fake right of employers to not provide such healthcare on religious grounds. For her part, the Governor’s office has refused repeated requests for clarification.
Given the transactional and punitive nature of RI politics, no one in the legislature seems willing to go on record about this debacle.
This new assault on women’s rights is the spawn of the odious SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, based on the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (RFRA), writ small a thousand times. I’ve argued before that it’s past time to repeal or at least seriously amend Rhode Island’s RFRA, and just recently the ACLU seems to have reached the same conclusion.
Meanwhile, those who supported Gina Raimondo’s bid for Governor of Rhode Island might want to seriously reconsider their support. She has revealed herself as no champion of reproductive rights.
Here’s all the best (or worst) parts in under five minutes.
Featuring reps Arthur Handy, Joseph Trillo, Michael Marcello, James McLaughlin, John DeSimone, Thomas Pelangio, Dennis Canario and Arthur Corvese.
]]>
Language added to the Rhode Island 2016 budget by Representative Raymond Gallison before passage somewhat balanced the last minute addition of extreme anti-abortion language submitted by Governor Gina Raimondo.
The new language added to article 18 reads:
(e) Health plans that offer a plan variation that excludes coverage for abortion services as 31 defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(i) for a religious exemption variation in the small group market 32 shall treat such a plan as a separate plan offering with a corresponding rate.
Except for religious Employers (as defined in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code), employers selecting a plan under this religious exemption subsection may not designate it as the single plan for employees, but shall offer their employees full-choice of small employer plans on the exchange, using the employer-selected plan as the base plan for coverage. The employer is not responsible for payment that exceeds that designated for the employer-selected plan.
An employer who elects a religious exemption variation shall provide written notice to prospective enrollees prior to enrollment that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as defined in 45 CFR 156.280(d)(1). The carrier must include notice that the plan excludes coverage for abortion services as part of the Summary of benefits and Coverage required by 42 U.S.C. 300g-15.
Signs of a behind the scenes compromise were apparent based on the odd assortment of representatives who rose to second the amendment, including Rep Edie Ajello, well known for her advocacy of reproductive rights, and Rep Arthur Corvese, well known for publicly and repeatedly referring to legalized abortion as a “culture of death.”
What does the new language mean? At bottom, any non-religious employer, as defined by the IRS, that elects to not include abortion coverage in their employee health plan, must allow employees to opt out of the company plan, and select any other plan, paying any additional costs out of pocket.
Rhode Island is now the first state to build language into the law that protects those who want a health care plan that provides abortion coverage.
Under Federal law, employees must be notified when their plan covers abortion. It does not require, as Rhode Island will under this new language, that employees be notified when they do not have abortion coverage. The language passed last night mandates that employees be told that the chosen plan does not cover abortion before they enroll, and that the lack of abortion coverage is confirmed after enrollment.
Ultimately, the notification requirement is similar to language concerning religious employers who choose not to cover contraception coverage as part of their health plans otherwise mandated by state or federal law.
There is a problem for employees inherent in this language. If my employer doesn’t want to cover abortion due to religious objections, and I decide to opt out of the plan chosen by my company, my employer will know of my objection, and may act in a discriminatory way against me because of my beliefs. I shouldn’t have to worry about job security or job advancement because of my decisions regarding reproductive health care for my family and me. Medical coverage, including reproductive services, are a private matter. How can that privacy be maintained under this provision?
Before the passage of the budget, Barth Bracy, executive director of RI Right to Life told me that he and Bernard Healey, State House lobbyist for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, were present to track the progress of the anti-abortion language the Governor inserted. Bracy told me that the language was the result of an agreement made in the wake of Doe v. Burwell, in which an anonymous man sued the state because there were no plans on the exchange that did not cover abortion.
ProJo reporter Richard Salit confirmed this when he wrote that “The lawsuit brought against Rhode Island was withdrawn in May when a Christian legal group said it had been assured that Rhode Island would begin offering multiple plans for abortion foes in 2016. According to HealthSource RI, the state Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner has required that in 2016 insurers offer a choice for abortion foes in every “metal” level (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) that they offer traditional health plans.”
This does not answer the question as to why Rhode Island did not simply require the addition of one plan to not cover abortion, as is required by federal law by 2017. It also does not answer why the amendment came from Governor Raimondo’s office, instead of being introduced as a bill that could be debated and publicly commented on. Had this democratic and open process been followed, the end result may have been more satisfying to all parties.
Despite this large concession to abortion foes, they were still unhappy with the newly added language. A source confided to me that Bracy, Healey and Representative John DeSimone were railing against the compromise language during last minute negotiations.
This makes me wonder if the RI Right to Life and the Providence Roman Catholic Diocese will begin looking for a non-religious employer to bring a Hobby Lobby like lawsuit against HealthSource RI under the state level RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) There is little difference between Rhode Island’s RFRA and the federal version the Supreme Court based their Hobby Lobby decision on.
As I pointed out before, this new language may allow a thousand Hobby Lobbies to bloom in Rhode Island.
When Mother Teresa appeared on Firing Line in conversation with conservative pundit William F. Buckley Jr., she told the following story in response to Buckley’s question, “Why did God permit pain?”
“Once I met a lady who was in terrible, terrible pain of cancer and I told her, ‘This is but the kiss of Jesus, a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.’ And the lady, though she was in great pain, she joined her hands together and said, ‘Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.’”
Mother Teresa, the audience and Buckley all laughed at this story, reveling in the suffering that their God had inflicted on this woman. For Mother Teresa and her adoring followers, suffering is seen as a purifying gift. To them, the suffering of others has become fetishized, the pain filled deaths of our loved ones a spectacle through which God reveals himself.
Those who do not believe in a God that doles out the gift of soul cleansing suffering reject the terrible “mercies” of Mother Teresa, yet our rejection of her wisdom does little to deter her followers from imposing their views on our lives, dictating how we are expected to live our lives and die our deaths.
During last week’s House hearing on the Lila Manfield Sapinsley Compassionate Care Act, a bill that would allow those facing a terminal illness filled with suffering and loss of dignity to end their lives, opposition was almost entirely organized by the Catholic Church and Barth E. Bracy of RI Right to Life.
- Why I support the Compassionate Care Act – Peter Nightingale
- Our right to die is our right to live – Steve Ahlquist
Bracy admitted to organizing the opposition to this bill when he said to the committee, “We’ve submitted written testimony from many of the people who have testified, we submitted 23 copies around four o’clock…” Some testifying against the bill also regularly testify with Bracy on reproductive rights issues.
Representative Arthur Corvese, a conservative Catholic social warrior famous for the Corvese amendment, an eleventh hour addendum to the now defunct “civil unions” bill that essentially allowed anyone to discriminate against couples who joined in civil unions based on their religious beliefs, was quick to tell Bracy, “I think it’s obvious, Barth, you and I go back a long way, that this bill and others like it across the country are basically nothing more than the philosophical outgrowth of the continuing culture of death that began in 1972. Where abortion kills the young these bills provide a rationale to kill off the old.”
Too often it seems as if Corvese sees his job, legislating in the General Assembly, as little more than a way to impose his Catholic theology upon the entire state. This is a Catholic theology that sees suffering as something to be embraced, not avoided.
Mother Teresa saw suffering as a way to bring the terminally ill closer to God. “It depends, sometimes, what is in their own hearts. If they pray, I think [suffering] is very easy to accept because the proof of prayer is always a clean heart. And a clean heart can see God…”
Father Christopher Mahar, Rector of the Seminary of Our Lady of Providence, seems to agree with Mother Teresa, saying that, “…at the end of life, there are many beautiful choices to make. Choices to reconcile with loved ones, choices to reconcile with God and prepare for eternal life, if one believes in that.”
Representative Robert Lancia was inspired by Mahar’s comments to ask about Pope John Paul II, who, at the end of his life, says Lancia, “could have chosen to end his life.” This is an odd claim, given that assisted suicide is legally forbidden in Italy and that the Catholic Church is against death with dignity legislation worldwide. Of course, Lancia was really seeking to give Mahar a chance to expound on Catholic theology in regards to assisted suicide.
Mahar brought up Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio. According to Mahar, John Paul II was “always a proponent of caring for people not just based on religious principles, but also upon reason.” This is a bit disingenuous, since what John Paul said is that reason, by itself, is incomplete without faith. In other words, reason by itself is not sufficient, religious faith is a requirement.
This is a religious idea, not shared by everyone. Even many of those who embrace the idea of the necessity of faith do not believe that it follows that suffering must be endured and death must always come naturally. This is not even the belief of all Catholics. 52 percent of Catholics polled in Colorado support death with dignity laws like the one under consideration in Rhode Island.
“I was just so impressed by Pope John Paul and how he ended his life,” said Representative Lancia, embracing the story of his Pope’s heroic ordeal, “It was such a positive. When he could have ended his life but didn’t, he went through the suffering and ended in a positive, dignified way.”
“If you come to our house here in Washington,” said Mother Teresa to William Buckley in 1989, “You would be surprised to see on the suffering faces the beautiful smiles. Through the terrible suffering they are content.”
Maybe for the believers, Mother Teresa’s words ring true.
But what of the rest of us?