Kansas Bill Would Protect Doctors Who Mislead Women About Their Pregnancies

The Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a bill yesterday that would effectively allow doctors to lie or withhold information about debilitating genetic conditions or birth defects in order to influence women’s decisions about their pregnancies.

Kansas SB 142 provides blanket protection from “wrongful birth” lawsuits to doctors, with section 1(a) reading:

“No civil action may be commenced in any court for a claim of wrongful life or wrongful birth, and no damages may be recovered in any civil action for any physical condition of a minor that existed at the time of such minor’s birth if the damages sought arise out of a claim that a person’s action or omission contributed to such minor’s mother not obtaining an abortion.”

The Arizona State Senate passed a similar law in 2012, but that proposal contained a provision absent from the Kansas bill allowing wrongful birth suits in the event of “an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission.”

The proposal was included as a provision in an omnibus anti-abortion bill last year, but was so controversial that it ending up being submitted as a standalone bill in this cycle, according to Kansas NOW lobbyist Elise Higgins. Despite Kansas’s dismal reproductive rights record, Kansas legislators have already introduced over 90 pages of anti-choice legislation in 2013.

View the original article here

Weather Extremes Provoked By Trapping Of Giant Waves In The Atmosphere, Likely Boosted By Global Warming

In October, a NOAA-led study found that “Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather.” A new study offers another mechanism for warming to drive extreme weather — JR

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research news release

The world has suffered from severe regional weather extremes in recent years, such as the heat wave in the United States in 2011 or the one in Russia 2010 coinciding with the unprecedented Pakistan flood. Behind these devastating individual events there is a common physical cause, propose scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The study will be published this week in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and suggests that man-made climate change repeatedly disturbs the patterns of atmospheric flow around the globe’s Northern hemisphere through a subtle resonance mechanism.

“An important part of the global air motion in the mid-latitudes of the Earth normally takes the form of waves wandering around the planet, oscillating between the tropical and the Arctic regions. So when they swing up, these waves suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the US, and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic,” explains lead author Vladimir Petoukhov.

“What we found is that during several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks. So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays. In fact, we observe a strong amplification of the usually weak, slowly moving component of these waves,” says Petoukhov. Time is critical here: two or three days of 30 degrees Celsius are no problem, but twenty or more days lead to extreme heat stress. Since many ecosystems and cities are not adapted to this, prolonged hot periods can result in a high death toll, forest fires, and dramatic harvest losses.

Anomalous surface temperatures are disturbing the air flows

Climate change caused by greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning does not mean uniform global warming – in the Arctic, the relative increase of temperatures, amplified by the loss of snow and ice, is higher than on average. This in turn reduces the temperature difference between the Arctic and, for example, Europe, yet temperature differences are a main driver of air flow. Additionally, continents generally warm and cool more readily than the oceans. “These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected,” says Petoukhov. “They result in an unnatural pattern of the mid-latitude air flow, so that for extended periods the slow synoptic waves get trapped.”

The authors of the study developed equations that describe the wave motions in the extra-tropical atmosphere and show under what conditions those waves can grind to a halt and get amplified. They tested their assumptions using standard daily weather data from the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). During recent periods in which several major weather extremes occurred, the trapping and strong amplification of particular waves – like “wave seven” (which has seven troughs and crests spanning the globe) – was indeed observed. The data show an increase in the occurrence of these specific atmospheric patterns, which is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.

The probability of extremes increases – but other factors come in as well

“Our dynamical analysis helps to explain the increasing number of novel weather extremes. It complements previous research that already linked such phenomena to climate change, but did not yet identify a mechanism behind it,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of PIK and co-author of the study. “This is quite a breakthrough, even though things are not at all simple – the suggested physical process increases the probability of weather extremes, but additional factors certainly play a role as well, including natural variability.” Also, the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.

Nevertheless, the study significantly advances the understanding of the relation between weather extremes and man-made climate change. Scientists were surprised by how far outside past experience some of the recent extremes have been. The new data show that the emergence of extraordinary weather is not just a linear response to the mean warming trend, and the proposed mechanism could explain that.

– Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research news release

View the original article here

Sequestration's impact on national defense

By Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam) - 02/27/13 04:45 PM ET

Since the enactment of the Budget Control Act, there has been almost unanimous opposition to sequestration and its meat-ax approach to deficit reduction. These automatic cuts come on top of $1.5 trillion in cuts already enacted through the BCA, with a large percentage absorbed by the Department of Defense alone. It’s clear that further cuts through sequestration would harm our defense industrial base and local economies; however, partisan gridlock and an unwillingness to compromise has made it difficult for Congress to reach a long-term and balanced solution.

While spending more on defense doesn’t necessarily make us safer, tighter purse strings means we need to target spending in more strategic ways; however, sequestration does not allow for strategic cuts. Sequestration, as many have testified, would cripple DoD’s operations and maintenance accounts and weaken our country’s military readiness. Moreover, the second- and third-order effects on our sustainment industrial base will further impact the readiness of our military. In the long run, sequestration will cost our government more than what we find in immediate savings. Ultimately, the readiness of our military is critical to protecting our nation’s sea, air, land, and cyberspace security, including our ability to support our allies across the globe. And while it is possible to have a leaner, more flexible military, it is critical to prioritize funds that ensure our forces are postured effectively and well-resourced to carry out their missions.

Defense spending has been greatly reduced in recent years. This reduction in DoD’s overall budget reflects our struggling economy and the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, our national defense strategy has shifted with a renewed engagement in the Asia-Pacific theater. The realignments of U.S. Marines on Guam and throughout the Pacific is just one example of how our military is shifting to respond to emerging threats in an increasingly vital region. As such, it is incumbent on policymakers in Washington to look further down the line and do more than just a patch-and-repair job. It is important to protect funding for current operations and it is necessary to make critical investments to ensure our country’s long-term security. Asia-Pacific requirements, in particular, must be prioritized, and it will require difficult decisions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

These deep, indiscriminate cuts would affect more than immediate threats to our national security and defense. As the largest federal agency in United States and the world’s largest single employer, the Department of Defense plays a major role in sustaining our nation’s workforce and promoting economic growth. Moreover, further cuts to defense would affect businesses that depend on federal contracts and slow progress on military construction projects currently underway, potentially derailing others indefinitely. The impacts of sequestration may not be felt immediately, but it behooves leadership in Congress to prevent the sequester from crippling our country’s ability to address threats to our national security and defense. Congress did not create the last economic recession and it would be irresponsible to allow sequestration to move forward. These drastic, unnecessary cuts would inevitably lead to a recession, just like nations in Europe who have adopted draconian austerity measures.

Bordallo is the Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. She is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.

View Comments

View the original article here

Canadian Supreme Court Upholds Hate Speech Laws Against Anti-Gay Activist

William Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the nation’s laws against hate speech do, in fact, restrict anti-gay rhetoric, regardless of whether it reflects religious beliefs or not. The case dealt with William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, who regularly protests in public spaces with signs that say things like “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools.” According to the Court’s unanimous decision, Whatcott’s religious beliefs do not entitle him to spread messages that are harmful and marginalizing to a whole group of people:

Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.  Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech.  Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind.  Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views.  Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse.  Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.  Section 14 of the Code provides an appropriate means by which to protect almost the entirety of political discourse as a vital part of freedom of expression.  It extricates only an extreme and marginal type of expression which contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and whose restriction is therefore easier to justify.

A prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression targeting sexual behaviour.  Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself.  If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour.  It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.

Canada’s laws differ from the U.S.’s in terms of what limitations can be placed on free speech, so a similar law would not likely be upheld back in the States. But the Court’s ruling is notable for the sensible way it addresses sexual orientation, ensuring that attacking the behavior unique to a group of people is the same as attacking the people themselves.

Conservatives regularly try to discount the very existence of gay people by reducing their identities to merely their sexual behavior. This distinction is artificial and specifically designed to negate the full life experiences of LGBT people and their families.

View the original article here

Remarks by the President on the Impact of the Sequester - Newport News, VA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Newport News Shipbuilding
Newport News, Virginia

1:23 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Newport News!  (Applause.)  Well, it is good to see all of you here today. 

I want to thank your CEO, Mike Petters, for showing me around.  I usually don’t get a chance to hang out with nuclear submarines, especially submarines that my wife has sponsored.  (Applause.)  So right there, that was worth the trip. 

But most importantly, it’s a great chance to see the incredible men and women who, every single day, are helping to keep America safe and are just the bedrock of this country’s manufacturing base.  Thank you to all of you.  (Applause.)

I want to thank our outstanding Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who’s here.  (Applause.)  There he is right there -- the good-looking guy over at the end.  (Laughter.)  I want to thank your Mayor, McKinley Price, who served this nation bravely in the U.S. Army.  (Applause.)  I want to thank two outstanding Congressmen who care about this facility, care about Virginia and care about the country -- Congressman Bobby Scott is here -- (applause) -- and Congressman Scott Rigell is here as well.  (Applause.)

Now, the reason I came here today, in addition to seeing just some incredible stuff -- it’s true, every time I come to these places, I don't know how you all do it.  It is just amazing work.  But the main reason I'm here is to call attention to the important work that you’re doing on behalf of the nation’s defense, and to let the American people know that this work, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs, are currently in jeopardy because of politics in Washington. 

In a few days, Congress might allow a series of immediate, painful, arbitrary budget cuts to take place -- known in Washington as the sequester.  Now, that's a pretty bad name -- sequester.  But the effects are even worse than the name.  Instead of cutting out the government spending we don’t need -- wasteful programs that don't work, special interest tax loopholes and tax breaks -- what the sequester does is it uses a meat cleaver approach to gut critical investments in things like education and national security and lifesaving medical research. 

And the impact of this policy won’t be felt overnight, but it will be real.  The sequester will weaken America’s economic recovery.  It will weaken our military readiness.  And it will weaken the basic services that the American people depend on every single day. 

Already, the uncertainty around these cuts is having an effect.  Companies are starting to prepare for layoff notices.  Families are preparing to cut back on expenses.  And the longer these cuts are in place, the greater the damage.

So here at Newport News Shipbuilding, you guys have made an enormous investment, because we've said in order to maintain the finest Navy that the world has ever known we've got to make sure that there is an orderly process whereby we are continually upgrading our ships, building new ships, maintaining our ships properly.  And these are some big ships.  So it’s expensive, and it’s complicated.  And you’ve got 5,000 suppliers all across the country, and you've got to have some certainty and some knowledge about how things are going to proceed over the long term for Mike and others to plan properly.
So you're rightly concerned.  Mike is properly concerned about the impact that these cuts will have on not just this company, but companies and small businesses from all 50 states that supply you with parts and equipment. 

Mike was telling me that you guys have already made a billion dollars’ worth of capital investment.  You've got half a billion dollars in training costs as you recruit and hire new people.  Well, those aren't commitments that you make lightly.  You've got to have the capacity to plan and have some certainty in terms of what it is that we're going to be doing.  And you know that if Congress can’t get together and plan our nation’s finances for the long term, that over time some of your jobs and businesses could be at risk. 

Over at the Norfolk Naval Station, the threat of these cuts has already forced the Navy to cancel the deployment, or delay the repair of certain aircraft carriers.  One that’s currently being built might not get finished.  Another carrier might not get started at all.  And that hurts your bottom line.  That hurts this community.
Because of these automatic cuts, about 90,000 Virginians who work for the Department of Defense would be forced to take unpaid leave from their jobs.  So that’s money out of their pockets, money out of their paychecks.  And then that means there’s going to be a ripple effect on thousands of other jobs and businesses and services throughout the Commonwealth, because if they don’t have money in their pockets or less money in their pockets, that means they're less able to afford to buy goods and services from other businesses.  So it's not just restricted to the defense industry.  

All told, the sequester could cost tens of thousands of jobs right here in Virginia.  But it doesn’t just stop there.  If the sequester goes into effect, more than 2,000 college students would lose their financial aid.  Early education like Head Start and Early Start would be eliminated for nearly 1,000 children, and around 18,000 fewer Virginians would get the skills and training they need to find a job.   

Across the country, these cuts will force federal prosecutors to close cases and potentially let criminals go.  Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, and that could cause delays at airports across the country.  Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings, including more than 3,500 children right here in Virginia. 

So these cuts are wrong.  They’re not smart.  They’re not fair.  They’re a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen.

Now, the reason that we're even thinking about the sequester is because people are rightly concerned about the deficit and the debt.  But there is a sensible way of doing things and there is a dumb way of doing things.  I mean, think about your own family.  Let's say that suddenly you've got a little less money coming in. Are you going to say, well, we'll cut out college tuition for the kid, we'll stop feeding the little guy over here, we won't pay our car note even though that means we can't get to work -- that’s not what you do, right? 

You step back and you say, what is it that's important -- our child's education, making sure they're healthy, making sure we can get to the job, keeping our house repaired?  And then you say, here are the things that aren't so important and you cut those out.  You prioritize, and you make smart decisions.  Well, we should be doing the same thing.   

Now, I’ve laid out a plan that details how we can pay down our deficit in a way that’s balanced and responsible.  We have the plan right on a website, the White House website.  Everybody can go see it.  It details exactly how we can cut programs that don't work, how we can raise money by closing loopholes that are only serving a few, as opposed to the average American. 

We detailed $930 billion in sensible spending cuts that we’re willing to make and $580 billion in wasteful tax loopholes and deductions that we’re willing to eliminate through tax reform. 

And what I've said is if the Republicans in Congress don’t like every detail of my proposal, which I don't expect them to, I’ve told them my door is open.  I am more than willing to negotiate.  I want to compromise.  There's no reason why we can't come together and find a sensible way to reduce the deficit over the long term without affecting vital services, without hurting families, without impacting outstanding facilities like this one and our national defense.  There's a way of doing this. 

And the fact is there are leaders in both parties throughout this country who want to do the same.  I've got to give Scott Rigell credit.  He is one of your Republican congressmen who’s with us here today -- and that's not always healthy for a Republican, being with me.  But the reason he’s doing it is because he knows it's important to you.  And he’s asked his colleagues in the House to consider closing tax loopholes instead of letting these automatic cuts go through.  He’s concerned about the deficit, and he’s more than prepared to make some really tough cuts, but he wants to do it in a smart way. 

Bobby Scott -- same thing.  Some of the cuts we've proposed, Bobby might not think are perfect, but he knows that we've got to make some tough decisions.  He just wants to make sure that you aren't the ones who are adversely impacted and that we're sharing the sacrifice in bringing down our deficit; we're not just dumping it on a few people and we're not doing it in a dumb way.

Senators like John McCain have made similar statements to what Scott said.  Your Republican Governor along with other governors around the country have said they want Congress to stop the sequester, to stop these cuts.  

But I just have to be honest with you.  There are too many Republicans in Congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks.  And that's what's holding things up right now. 

Keep in mind, nobody is asking them to raise income tax rates.  All we’re asking is to consider closing tax loopholes and deductions that the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, said he was willing to do just a few months ago.  He said there were a bunch of loopholes and deductions you could close.  He said you could raise $800 billion, a trillion dollars by closing loopholes. 

Well, we're not even asking for that much.  All we're asking is that they close loopholes for the well-off and the well-connected -- for hedge fund managers, or oil companies, or corporate jet owners who are all doing very well and don’t need these tax loopholes -- so we can avoid laying off workers, or kicking kids off Head Start, or reducing financial aid for college students. 

I don’t think that’s too much to ask.  I do not think that is partisan.  (Applause.)  The majority of the American people agree with me.  The majority of Newport News agrees with me.  We need to get this done.  (Applause.)

But the choice is up to Congress.  Only Congress has the power to pass a law that stops these damaging cuts and replaces them with smart savings and tax reform.  And the second I get that bill on my desk, I will sign it into law.  But I've got to get Congress to pass it. 

None of us will get 100 percent of what we want.  Democrats, they've got to make some tough choices too. Democrats like me, we've said we're prepared to make some tough cuts and reforms, including to programs like Medicare.  But if we're willing to compromise, then Republicans in the House have to compromise as well.  That’s what democracy is about.  That’s what this country needs right now.  (Applause.)  

So let me just make one last point, by the way, for those of you who are following this.  Now, lately, some people have been saying, well, maybe we'll just give the President some flexibility.  He could make the cuts the way he wants and that way it won't be as damaging.  The problem is when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months, which represents over a 10-percent cut in the defense budget in seven months, there's no smart way to do that.  There's no smart way to do that.  You don't want to have to choose between, let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid?  Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other one?  When you're doing things in a way that's not smart, you can't gloss over the pain and the impact it's going to have on the economy.  

And the broader point is, Virginia, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.  We can’t just cut our way to prosperity.  We can't ask seniors and working families like yours to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful.  We're not going to grow the middle class just by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or forcing communities to lay off more teachers or cops or firefighters or shipbuilders, and then folks who are doing really well don’t have to do anything more.  That’s not fair, and it's not good for the economy. 

And the other thing we've got to do is to stop having these crises manufactured every month.  It seems like -- I know you guys must get tired of it.  (Applause.)  Didn’t we just solve this thing?  Now we've got another thing coming up?  (Applause.) I mean, think about if Mike Petters ran his business this way -- once every month or two there would be some crisis, and you wouldn’t be sure whether or not you were working or not.  Even if it got solved eventually or ultimately, it would be pretty discouraging on people.  You would be less productive.  Ships wouldn’t get built as fast.  You would waste money because you don’t know exactly what to expect.  Folks aren't sure, am I showing up to work today, or not? 

If it's not a good way to run a business, it's sure not a good way to run a country.  (Applause.) 

Now, all of you, the American people, you’ve worked too hard for too long rebuilding and digging our way out of the financial crisis back in 2007 and 2008 just to see Congress cause another one.  The greatest nation on Earth can't keep on conducting its business drifting from one crisis to the next. 

We've got to have a plan.  We've got to invest in our common future.  Our true north is a growing economy that creates good middle-class jobs; a country that provides its people with the skills they need to get those jobs and make sure that you're getting paid a decent wage for working hard so you can support your families.  That’s what we should be focused on right now.  Not weakening the economy.  Not laying people off.  (Applause.)

That’s what we should be talking about in Washington.  And if you agree with me, I need you to make sure your voices are heard.  Let your leaders know what you expect of them.  Let them know what you believe.  Let them know that what this country was built on was a sense of obligation to not just each other but to future generations; that we've got to shoulder those obligations as one nation, and as one people. 

I was in a conversation with some of the governors from across the country yesterday and I told them, I said, I've run my last election.  Michelle is very happy about that.  (Laughter.)  I'm not interested in spin; I'm not interested in playing a blame game.  At this point, all I'm interested in is just solving problems.  (Applause.)  All I'm interested in is making sure that when you get up early in the morning, and get to this ship at 5:30 in the morning, that you know if you do a good job and if you work hard and if you're making sure that all the parts to this incredible ship that you're building are where they need to be -- if you're doing what you do, then you can go home feeling satisfied, I did my job, I did my part, I can support my family, I can take pride in what I've done for this country. 

That’s all I want.  I want us to be able to look back five years from now, 10 years from now, and say we took care of our business and we put an end to some of these games that maybe, I guess, are entertaining for some but are hurting too many people. 

But in order for us to make that happen I'm going to need you.  The one thing about being President is, after four years you get pretty humble.  (Laughter.)  You’d think maybe you wouldn't, but actually you become more humble.  You realize what you don't know.  You realize all the mistakes you’ve made.  But you also realize you can't do things by yourself.  That's not how our system works.  You’ve got to have the help and the goodwill of Congress, and what that means is you’ve got to make sure that constituents of members of Congress are putting some pressure on them, making sure they’re doing the right thing, putting an end to some of these political games.

So I need you, Virginia, to keep up the pressure.  I need you to keep up the effort.  I need you to keep up the fight.  (Applause.)  If you do, Congress will listen.  If you stand up and speak out, Congress will listen.  And together, we will unleash our true potential, and we'll remind the world just why it is the United States builds the greatest ships on Earth and is the greatest nation on Earth.  (Applause.)

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END
1:44 P.M. EST

President Obama is on hand for the unveiling of the new Rosa Parks statue in the U.S. Capitol

February 27, 2013 12:00 PM EST

To mark African American History Month, as well as the 150th anniversary of the year the Emancipation Proclamation, we talked with White House Curator Bill Allman about a painting called Watch Meeting--Dec. 31st 1862--Waiting for the Hour that hangs near the Oval Office in the West Wing.

President Obama strongly believes we need to replace the arbitrary cuts known as the sequester with balanced deficit reduction, and today he was at a shipyard in Newport News, VA to talk about what failing to do so will mean for middle class families.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Why We Still Need The Voting Rights Act: Perspectives From Supreme Court Spectators

The US Supreme Court heard a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act today, attracting hoards of voting rights advocates, speakers, and a massive line of people vying for a spot in the courtroom. Today’s argument could lead to the elimination of Section 5, which protects minority voting rights in states with historically discriminatory election laws. Though Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by overwhelming margins of of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House, many Republicans are now calling for the Supreme Court to strike it down, claiming the protections are obsolete in the post-Jim Crow era. In the last election cycle, however, the Justice Department used Section 5 to block new voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, early voting restrictions in Florida, and racially gerrymandered redistricting maps in Texas. The courts agreed that these laws would suppress minority voting power.

ThinkProgress spoke to five individuals waiting in line outside the Supreme Court. While the attorneys made their case inside the court, these supporters gave their own oral arguments for why the Voting Rights Act is still needed:

“There are unfortunately some people who don’t want all Americans to have the right to vote for the person of their choice. And I believe that every American, no matter what you look like or what your background is, if you want to vote you should be allowed to vote for the person of your choice. It doesn’t matter what party you’re in. I think everyone should have that right. And I have grandchildren, and I want them to be able to have that same right wherever they live.” — Priscilla

“I think we need to keep moving forward. I think it’s fair the way it is. I was part of voter registration this year and some of the people I got registered, when I went down to vote, there was no record of them. It was very upsetting. They gave them a form to fill out and said they would get credit for voting, so I don’t know exactly how that turned out. But it was an effort to not let everyone vote. The Voting Rights Act is still very necessary. You can see some of the setbacks, even today.” — Emma

“I was in the Capitol yesterday. We have a record amount of women senators here, but when you look down at the floor, it’s basically an old men’s club with white hair. White men with white hair. To me, that’s just the proof right there that maybe voting rights aren’t as democratic as they should be in this country. I think it’s important. The voting restrictions today maybe aren’t as overtly racial, but there’s still many restrictions to voting.”

“I think the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are timeless. They have to be protected. I’ve read both sides of the argument, but if there’s any, any evidence at all that this would disenfranchise someone, then Section 5 needs to keep being renewed. That’s my personal feeling. As long as we have racism and bigotry in our country, then we need to protect those who can’t speak out for themselves.”

“Sometimes I really feel like there’s been a change [in racism at the ballot box], but at the same time, when you try to manipulate things and not let the public be aware of it… We’re voters, too. We need to have knowledge to what is going on on the boundary lines. Our city council didn’t even have a clue that particular thing had be done, but they did it, and next thing we know they manipulated it to the point of bringing someone else in. And we didn’t have a clue! It’s very important. Even though it started in Shelby County, this is a nationwide kind of event. It could happen anywhere.”

“I consider myself a “super voter” because I vote all the time, every election, even for dog catcher. It’s important to understand that voting is a fundamental, bottom-line, foundational right of any citizen, and it shouldn’t be impugned or even exempted from anyone. Voting and voting rights, as an African-American of course, has a tremendously significant role, being a part of this American citizenry. What we see from those who are trying to strike down voting rights is that there’s a realization of how powerful the vote is. So if you can restrict it, then obviously you can say it has some power to it. So being under attack by those who want to change it and have used things now with this new gerrymandering that’s going on, this locking votes in, is very, very important to understand that it is under attack. So those that believe in it have to defend it. That’s why I’m here today.”

View the original article here

UPDATE 3-Tenet sees benefit in 2014 from health reform

* Expects to treat more patients with insurance under reform

* Says signed first contracts for insurance to be sold on exchanges

* Q4 profit 45 cts/shr vs loss 70 cts/shr year ago

* Reiterates 2013 EBITDA outlook; says budget cuts factored in

* Shares up less that 1 percent

Feb 26 (Reuters) - Tenet Healthcare Corp said on Tuesday it expects the U.S. healthcare reform law to have a positive impact on its earnings in 2014 as uninsured patients start to obtain coverage through the new health insurance exchanges.

Tenet, the No. 3 for-profit U.S. hospital chain, also reported a fourth-quarter profit versus a year-ago loss as outpatient visits to its hospitals increased.

The Dallas-based company said it has traditionally treated more uninsured patients than other publicly traded hospital chains due to the markets it is in, including Texas, where a quarter of the state's population is uninsured.

This burden is expected to diminish as those patients obtain insurance through the exchanges, beginning in 2014.

"Everything about health reform should help alleviate some of the pressures on us," Tenet Chief Executive Trevor Fetter said in a telephone interview.

Tenet anticipates a positive impact on its earnings even if states such as Texas do not participate in a planned expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor.

"We see a lot of upside in our markets," Fetter said on a conference call. The company expects to have more details on how health reform will affect its business in the next few months, he added.

An estimated 26 million people are expected to obtain coverage through the health insurance exchanges being set up under the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But some Republican-led states have rejected both the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion.

Tenet recently signed its first contracts with three Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans for health insurance to be sold to individuals through the exchanges, covering about 30 percent of its hospitals, Fetter said. The plans have a structure similar to its commercial contracts, but with a modest pricing discount of less than 10 percent from current rates, he said.

"Where we have accepted any discount at all, it is for additional market share," Fetter said.

Tenet posted fourth-quarter earnings of $49 million, or 45 cents a share, compared with a loss of $76 million, or 70 cents a share, a year earlier, when the company took a large charge for the early retirement of debt.

Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) increased 16.7 percent to $336 million. Net operating revenue rose 7.3 percent to $2.33 billion.

Tenet reiterated its outlook for 2013 EBITDA of $1.325 billion to $1.425 billion.

The outlook includes an expected reduction to Tenet's revenue and earnings of $45 million this year if automatic U.S. budget cuts, known as sequestration, go into effect.

"We have expected for a long time that it would happen and have planned for that," Fetter said.

In the fourth quarter, Tenet said adjusted patient admissions, which include both inpatient and outpatient volumes, rose 2.9 percent, with outpatient visits up 7.3 percent and outpatient surgeries climbing 13.9 percent. Total admissions were flat, while emergency room visits increased 8.6 percent.

"All things considered, it was a decent quarter," said Jefferies & Co analyst Brian Tanquilut.

Uninsured and charity admissions rose 1.1 percent. Bad debt expenses as a percentage of revenue was 7.9 percent, up from 7.7 percent from a year ago, as more uninsured patients sought treatment, Tenet said.

Tenet, which last week announced plans to acquire Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock, California, is gaining a greater appetite for hospital acquisitions, after focusing on acquiring physician practices and outpatient centers in recent years, company executives said on a conference call with industry analysts.

Tenet shares were up 0.5 percent to $37.82 in Tuesday afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

View the original article here