• As I watched the demonstrations, I wondered if Bishop Tobin was aware that the videos presented to the public by the anti-choice group Center for Medical Progress, the videos that inspired these protests, are hoaxes made to fool gullible people? These videos are amateurishly edited lies, as any Google search will show. (See: Snopes, Wonkette, MediaMatters and LittleGreenFootballs) Could the Bishop have checked the Internet before continuing to spread false witness?

• I wondered if Rhode Island Catholics are aware that under the leadership of Bishop Tobin, the Providence Diocese has made a habit of teaming up with extremist anti-LGBTQ hate groups? The national sponsors of the “Day of Protest” against Planned Parenthood included:

–American Family Association is listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). For just a flavor of the sickening things this group has said, I’ll supply one quote from Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for government and public policy: “Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.”

–Family Research Council is also listed as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the SPLC, whose senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, said, against all evidence to the contrary, that, “We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”

-Besides the SPLC identified hate groups, the Planned Parenthood protest event was also backed by Operation Rescue, which has been linked to violent anti-choice extremists.

-Saturday was not the first time Tobin has sided himself with extremist hate groups. In 2013, Tobin gave his blessing to FAPSMEG, an anti-marriage equality coalition that counted MassResistance, another certified SPLC hate group, among its members. MassResistance executive director Brian Camenker even came to RI to testify against marriage equality as part of the coalition.

Do Rhode Island Catholics really want to be allies with hate groups?

• Is the general public aware that the Catholic Church doesn’t simply oppose abortion, they also oppose most common forms of birth control such as condoms, birth control pills and IUDs? At least one group sponsoring the Planned Parenthood protests, the American Life League, (ALA) is opposed to “abortion under any circumstance” and “all forms of contraception, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia.” The ALA is “the largest Catholic grassroots pro-life organization in the United States.”

Now, this might be a fine way for believing Catholics to live, but the Church would see its beliefs imposed on everyone, through law. America, and specifically Rhode Island, was founded on very different principles. Here, we separate church and state.

• The Catholic Church in Rhode Island pays no taxes, yet exerts an out-sized influence on Rhode Island’s politics. At least three state legislators were outside Planned Parenthood with the protesters. I saw Representatives Raymond Hull, Robert Lancia and Justin Price. We should ask ourselves: How are laws shaped by Catholic theology fundamentally different from sharia law?

• Women’s rights to privacy, medical care and freedom of conscience are under attack across the country. The ugly manifestations of this are starting to be felt in Rhode island. Governor Gina Raimondo, who sought the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, has shown herself to be no champion of reproductive rights. Rhode Island has a proud tradition of standing against intolerance, fear and ignorance. When will we demand leadership that will stand against these pernicious attacks on our fundamental freedoms?

With this in mind, I hope you will join me in making a donation to Planned Parenthood.

Marriage equality

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.

The Rhode Island House Finance Committee met to discuss Representative Patricia Morgan’s bill to eliminate HealthSourceRI, and turn the operations of our health care exchange over to the federal government. All the sponsors of House Bill 5329 are Republicans, including Morgan, Dan Reilly, Antonio Giarusso, Justin Price, and Michael Chippendale.

Normally a bill like this wouldn’t attract much attention. It would be dismissed as a cynical statement against a successful social welfare program by right-wing ideologues. But Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, a nominal Democrat, has several times suggested that HealthSourceRI is too expensive and that turning the exchange over to the federal government, something that no state has ever done, might be an option.

As Rep. Morgan explained her bill and her reasoning for it, she alluded to the Speaker’s interest, suggesting that the elimination of HealthSource RI might free up money for Mattiello’s pet project of eliminating the state’s social security income tax. Morgan also mentioned that her bill might find the money required to pay for all day kindergarten, a pet project of Senate President Paiva-Weed, perhaps foreshadowing the compromise that will will see both pet projects come to fruition.

As I mentioned, no state with a functioning, successful state-run health care exchange has shut theirs down. So Rhode Island, in choosing such a path, would be charting unknown and uncertain waters. When Rep Deborah Ruggiero asked Morgan, “What is the cost to the state to return [the health exchange] back to the government?” Rep Morgan seemed uncertain, then replied, “Nothing.”

Ruggiero countered that in her discussion with HealthSourceRI director Anya Rader Wallack, the cost to the state to turn over the exchange is actually “somewhere around $10 million.” In addition, said Ruggiero, “we lose control, obviously, because we no longer have the healthcare exchange in our own state,” a point to which Morgan later replied, “Control is overrated.”

Morgan was also unsure of just how many Rhode Islanders benefit from the exchange, claiming that, “on the website it says that 25,000 are actually paying for their insurance through HealthSourceRI,” but when I looked, the number is actually over 30,000.

Right now, the United States Supreme Court is in the middle of deciding King v. Burwell. If the court decides for King, federal subsidies to those states that don’t have their own health insurance exchanges will vanish. According to US News and World Reports, “The likely scenario is a partial or total market “death spiral” like those, respectively, in New York and Kentucky in the 1990s.” Jumping to the federal exchange now seems pretty stupid in light of the uncertainty regarding the Supreme Court decision, but Morgan isn’t concerned.

“In addressing that, I can tell you that the Obama administration is very confident that they will prevail,” said Morgan, “They have four justices already, they only need one more, to win.” That’s pretty weak sauce, since the other side could say exactly the same thing.

Morgan then went the full Scalia when she said, “On the other hand, if King prevails, and the subsidies are only available to the states, I know from reading, and hearing, that the Republicans in Congress are already working on a fix so that people can continue to get health insurance.”

I have to say, when Morgan made this comment, I looked around the room, wondering if anyone else thought her statement was as darkly comic as I thought it was. No one seemed to.

Compare Morgan’s statement with this exchange in the Supreme Court when oral arguments were heard in :

Justice Scalia: What about – – what about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while – – while all of these disastrous consequences ensue. I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the – – you know, the bankruptcy court decision? Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that – – that takes care of the problem. It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?

General Verrilli: Well, this Congress, Your Honor, I – – I – –

(Laughter.)

At least people had the decency to laugh out loud at Scalia’s naiveté. Morgan was actually taken seriously.

Meanwhile, House Finance Chair, Raymond Gallison, promises that there will be full hearings along with full fact finding inquiries conducted before any decision is made on the future of HealthSourceRI.

A new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) by Richard Rothstein titled The Making of Ferguson: Public Policies at the Root of its Troubles puts some of the recent brouhaha over RhodeMap RI into keen perspective. We all know the story of the police murder of Mike Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO, the high profile demonstrations from the black community in response, and the heavy handed, militarized police reaction. The US Department of Justice released a shocking report of systemic racism and economic exploitation of the black citizens of Ferguson, but the report from the EPI provides insight into how a racially segregated, predominantly low income African-American community like Ferguson can develop in the first place.

Rothstein begins by blaming racial prejudice and racist public policy. “No doubt, private prejudice and suburbanites’ desire for homogenous affluent environments contributed to segregation in St. Louis and other metropolitan areas. But these explanations are too partial, and too conveniently excuse public policy from responsibility. A more powerful cause of metropolitan segregation in St. Louis and nationwide has been the explicit intents of federal, state, and local governments to create racially segregated metropolises.”

It’s important to understand that the policies Rothstein exposes in his report are not located only in the immediate area of St. Louis, these policies existed across the nation, and even where such policies no longer officially exist, their effects can still be felt today. These policies, according to Rothstein, include:

• Government subsidies for white suburban developments that excluded blacks, depriving African Americans of the 20th century home-equity driven wealth gains reaped by whites;
• Denial of adequate municipal services in ghettos, leading to slum conditions in black neighborhoods that reinforced whites’ conviction that “blacks” and “slums” were synonymous;
• Boundary, annexation, spot zoning, and municipal incorporation policies designed to remove African Americans from residence near white neighborhoods, or to prevent them from establishing residence near white neighborhoods;
• Urban renewal and redevelopment programs to shift ghetto locations, in the guise of cleaning up those slums.

RhodeMap RI was developed with an understanding of many of the problems Rothstein cites. The public review draft of RhodeMap has a section at the end concentrating on social equity that explicitly called on the plan to “implement a new economic model based on equity, fairness, and opportunity.” It is this part of the plan, the part that seeks to undo the kind of problems that plague communities of color like Ferguson, that seems to most bother RhodeMap opponents.

Rothstein takes a shot at offering possible solutions towards the end of his report, writing, “Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide.” For instance, governments might “require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a ‘fair share’ of its region’s low-income and minority populations…”

• Racial injustice vs. property rights: Ferguson and RhodeMap
• Gary Morse stokes suburban fears with racially charged half truths
• Setting the record straight on RhodeMapRI
• RhodeMapRI opponents fear future plans, affordable housing

Rhode Island has something of a fair share law (as part of the Rhode Island Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004 and Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act (Rhode Island General Laws 45-53)) which sets a 10% goal for each of the state’s cities and town to meet—the goal being that 10% of the units in a town are “affordable.”

Most of the pushback against RhodeMap comes from communities that have very little affordable rental housing and are predominantly White. Legislation to undermine existing laws requiring cities and towns to plan for affordable housing is part of that pushback , such as House Bill 5643, which would “eliminate the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans” or House Bill 5644 which “would remove the mandate requiring cities and towns to include an affordable housing program in their comprehensive plans and would provide an opt-out provision regarding any provision in the state guide plan regarding affordable housing and any related land use provisions” are naked attempts to keep affordable housing, and those who need it, out of their communities.

The legislators who are introducing and supporting the bills are all Republicans, or in one case an “Independent” representing primarily suburban and rural communities like Richmond (Note: part of Rep. Justin Price’s district), West Greenwich (part of Rep. Sherry Robert’s district) Coventry, Hopkinton, Charlestown, Portsmouth, Exeter and East Greenwich. Note that Richmond and West Greenwich have made “no progress” and East Greenwich has made “no significant progress” in meeting the 10% goal.

Undoing the damage of decades of racist housing policy and preventing future Fergusons requires a plan. RhodeMap RI isn’t quite that plan, it’s more a collection of guidelines to help communities develop a plan, but it’s a good step in the right direction. Those opposed to RhodeMap like to put on their “free market” hats and declare that any government intervention into housing is some sort of fascist violation of property rights. However, racially segregated housing is the product of just the kind of government sponsored social engineering that RhodeMap opponents complain of, and many of those opponents have also waged fights to prevent construction of affordable rental units in places such as Barrington and East Greenwich.

To be consistent these defenders of the free market should be calling for a repeal of all zoning restrictions in their communities, but of course they will not. Instead, they will zealously guard the status quo by defending zoning laws that the prevent construction of low income housing too close to their safe suburban enclaves. Opponents of RhodeMap object to being called racists, but when their claims of defending property rights are not equally applied to property owners who want to build affordable housing on their land, what else are we to think?