Virginia Lawmakers Agree: Banning Insurers From Covering Abortion Hurts Low-Income Women

This week, Virginia became the 21st state to restrict coverage for abortion services in the health insurance marketplaces set up under Obamacare. Over the past several years, that’s become an increasingly common tactic to restrict abortion access, as anti-choice lawmakers rush to prevent insurers from being able to cover the cost of the legal medical procedure.

Even though the measure banning abortion coverage — which was an amendment that Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) tacked onto a broader General Assembly bill — ultimately passed the legislature, it still sparked a debate that cut across party lines. Republican and Democratic lawmakers both suggested that preventing women from using their insurance coverage to pay for abortion services is ultimately a class issue, a point confirmed by women’s health advocates:

But members of both parties agree that the measure’s biggest impact will likely fall along class lines, landing hardest on some of the people the federal health-care overhaul was designed to help: working women who barely get by on their incomes.

“Those people that can afford insurance outside of the exchanges will be able to buy whatever they want. People that can’t afford to buy outside of the exchange will have to buy policies that don’t cover these procedures,” said Sen. John C. Watkins (R-Powhatan), who sponsored the bill but opposed the amendment by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R). “It just sets up a class situation, in my mind.” [...]

Cianti Stewart-Reid, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said that the only real effect of the amendment would be to limit access for women who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to purchase their insurance on the private market.

“What it means is that women — by and large low-income but working women in Virginia — won’t have access to abortion,” Stewart-Reid said.

Abortion access is, of course, an incredibly important class issue. Of all the women who have abortions in the United States, 42 percent fall below the federal poverty line — partly because low-income women often still struggle to access affordable and reliable contraception. And when women are denied the opportunity to have a legal abortion, that greatly increases their risk of falling into poverty.

And the restrictions that state lawmakers pile on top of women seeking to have an abortion often hit low-income women the hardest. For example, 24-hour waiting periods — which force women to make multiple trips to a clinic — ultimately mean women are paying the costs for the additional transportation, the additional childcare, and the additional lost income during the time off of work. On top of the hundreds of dollars that an abortion procedure can cost out-of-pocket, that quickly adds up to be too much for poor women who are already struggling to pay the bills.

Virginia lawmakers were correct to identify the class dynamics exacerbated by unnecessary restrictions on abortion coverage. Unfortunately for the women in the state, however, their anti-abortion governor is expected to sign the legislation into law.

View the original article here

Colorado Considers Banning Guns On College Campuses, Overruling State Supreme Court

A bill to ban guns on college campuses cleared Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and heads to the Education Committee Wednesday morning. The bill would add college campuses to the short list of exceptions to concealed carry permits. Permits currently let gun owners carry their weapons everywhere in the state besides K-12 schools and federal properties.

House Bill 1226 was crafted in response to a 2011 state Supreme Court ruling that forced the University of Colorado to allow guns on campus. Permit holders could still carry their guns on campus, but not in campus buildings, school sporting arenas, or at school-sponsored events.

After the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the University of Colorado compromised by creating separate off-campus housing for students who wanted to carry their guns on campus. However, zero students opted to live in the college’s gun dorm. While the University of Colorado has had no complaints since their gun ban was overturned, there have been 20 shootings on college campuses in the US since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The state legislature is also considering a bill that would require gun owners to pay $10 for their own background check, which one Republican lawmaker argued is “a poll tax.” Another measure approved by the Judiciary Committee would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds, like the kind used by James Holmes in the Aurora theater shooting.

View the original article here

Arizona Considers Banning Non-English Government Mailings

The Arizona House is planning to take up an “English only” bill that would ban state agencies from mailing out information in any language other than English. HB 2283, cleared on Tuesday by the House Government Committee, purports to save money by only allowing non-English translations to be posted online.

Though voting materials are exempted, banning non-English mailings would essentially cut off Arizona’s substantial Spanish-speaking population from government services — particularly any Spanish speakers who receive any kind of service from the government, including Medicaid and Social Security. As of 2010, Arizona has the 8th largest population of limited English speakers, who comprise 9.9 percent of all Arizona residents. Rather than promote English language education, Arizona excluded these residents by making English the official state language in 2006.

This new bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve Smith (R-AZ), has pushed several other radical anti-immigrant measures, most recently a bill requiring hospitals to check and report the immigration status of their patients. While he claims HB 2283 saves money by only printing documents in English, others anticipate costly lawsuits like the ones sparked by the state’s last attempt at English only legislation. In 1988, Arizona passed a constitutional amendment to require all official government business be conducted in English. The Supreme Court struck it down for violating state employees’ First Amendment rights. The 2006 measure passed muster because it only applies to official government business.

But Smith’s bill, by focusing on agencies’ abilities to disseminate information, could block non-English speakers’ access to government services and violate federal law:

“The bill as currently drafted is much broader than Rep. Smith suggests,” said attorney Ellen Katz with the William E. Morris Institute for Justice. “It violates Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act. Even in states that have an English-as-their-official-language policy, you still have to follow federal law.”

Title 6 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal funds. Katz said mailing out documents in English but not in other languages would violate that.

Even a fellow Republican, Rep. Doug Coleman, took issue with Smith’s proposal, noting that if the bill’s true purpose is to save money, all English publications should be restricted to websites as well.

English only laws exist in 16 states. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) unsuccessfully pushed a federal version of the English only law, the English Language Unity Act.

View the original article here

U.S. Senate to mull bill banning 'pay for delay' pharmaceutical deals

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Key Democratic and Republican senators reintroduced legislation on Tuesday that would make it illegal for brand-name pharmaceutical companies to pay generic drug makers to keep their cheaper medicines off the market.

Such deals, in which brand-name drug companies resolve patent litigation with potentially infringing generic firms by reaching a settlement that delays a generic version of a drug in exchange for a payment, have angered U.S. and European antitrust enforcers for years.

The bill is sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota and the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, and by Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa.

"I have long supported efforts to crack down on this behavior and the recent rise in pay-for-delay agreements underscores the need for legislation to help make sure people have access to the drugs they need at a price they can afford," Klobuchar said in a statement.

Similar bills, including one in 2010, have failed in part because of opposition from the drug industry, both branded and generic. It was not immediately known if a companion bill would be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Federal Trade Commission said in January that brand name drug firms reached agreements with generic manufacturers 40 times in the latest fiscal year, delaying the arrival of cheaper drugs to pharmacists' shelves. That was up from 28 the previous year and the highest since the FTC started tracking them.

The FTC has thus far had mixed success in fighting the pay-for-delay deals in court, but the issue could be coming to a head.

Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal by the FTC, which had challenged annual payments of $31 million to $42 million by then-owner Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc to stop generic versions of AndroGel, a treatment for the underproduction of testosterone, until 2015. AndroGel is now a product of AbbVie.

In Brussels in late January, EU antitrust regulators stepped up their fight against drug companies suspected of blocking cheap generic medicines, charging Johnson & Johnson and Novartis over the painkiller fentanyl.

The European antitrust watchdog said it believed the two had agreed on a "pay-for-delay" deal on generic versions of the drug, hurting Dutch consumers and healthcare providers.

View the original article here

GOP Rep Compares Gun Regulation To ‘Banning Spoons’

In an exchange on ABC’s This Week this morning with Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) was outraged that lawmakers reacted to the mass murder of school children by an armed gunman by trying to prevent similarly disturbed individuals from obtaining guns. The Congressman claimed that limiting firearms will have as much impact on reducing gun violence as banning spoons will on preventing obesity:

BARLETTA: This is a perfect example why people believe Washington is broke. This horrific incident in Newtown, and here what is our debate? It’s focusing on guns when there is not one person at this table who really believes that that’s the root of what happened there and — when we have people that get into the mind-set that they want to harm people, as a former mayor, I know people will get guns no matter what laws we pass, just like the illegal drug –

KRUGMAN: I caught you on a false statement there because at least I do believe that guns are the root. There are crazy people everywhere, but mass murderers are a lot more common here than –

BARLETTA: You believe guns are more important than dealing with mental health and our culture. Is our culture lending itself that we’re raising children that are desensitized to murder, to killing people.

KRUGMAN: I look at the international differences — countries that have effective gun control have a lot fewer –

BARLETTA: Would banning spoons stop obesity?

Watch it:

Krugman is correct that America gun violence dwarfs that in most other developed nations. Indeed, among the 34 nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Mexico — which is currently caught in a drug war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives — has a higher rate of gun homicides. Indeed, no other OECD nation even approaches the level of gun violence present in Mexico with its vicious drug gangs or in the United States with its permissive gun laws:

The simple truth is that spoons don’t kill people. Guns do.

View the original article here

Former NRA President: Banning Assault Weapons Is Like Banning People of Color

The National Rifle Association has repeatedly thumbed its nose at calls for stronger gun safety measures after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Current NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre shocked many by attacking these efforts and calling instead for armed guards in every school. Still, on Wednesday, past NRA President Marion Hammer took the lobbying organization’s pro-gun radicalism to new heights.

On NRA’s news show, Hammer warned that gun owners are “in for a massive fight like we’ve probably never seen before,” in which the government will take guns away “in order to control the masses.”

When asked about proposals to ban certain kinds of assault weapons, Hammer also charged that guns are suffering discrimination similar to racism against people of color:

HOST: And they even admit it’s about banning the ugliest guns. They admit it.

HAMMER: Banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago, but here they are again. The color of a gun, the way it looks. It’s just bad politics.

Watch it:

Despite a string of mass shootings and casualties in recent years, the NRA’s clout has effectively stifled conversation about America’s gun violence problem. But with the public’s renewed horror at the deaths of 28 people in Newtown, most of them children, the gun lobby’s grip may be slipping. Democrats introduced a slew of gun safety bills on the first day of the new Congress that would ban high capacity magazines, certain kinds of assault weapons, and close the gun show loophole that allows people to buy guns without a background check.

View the original article here