tagged w/ Senate Judiciary Committee
-
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user idsartha, via Creative Commons LicenseLast week, the Obama administration preemptively caved to the anti-choice lobby by declaring that new high-risk insurance pools, a byproduct of recent health care legislation, will not cover abortions, even if states or patients pay for that coverage with their own money. Under health care reform, states must create high-risk insurance pools for people with preexisting conditions. These pools will be phased out in 2014 when the new insurance exchange comes online.
As you may recall, the Nelson amendment to the health care reform bill says that the federal government can’t pay for abortion coverage in the exchanges, but it doesn’t mention the high-risk pools. There is no overarching ban that would preclude federal funds for abortion coverage in the high-risk pools. The Obama administration’s ruling is purely a lack of political courage. In fact, as Jessica Arons explains at RH Reality Check, the pool rules are even stricter than Nelson’s rules for the exchange.
Hey, you! Outta the high-risk pool!
The Nelson amendment was hailed as a compromise because it gave women the option of buying their own abortion coverage. Now, the Obama administration has taken that option away from women in high-risk pools. This is especially troubling because high-risk pools are supposed to help people with chronic medical conditions—who might be more likely to need an abortion. That means that more women with diabetes and cancer will have to pay out of pocket for abortions to preserve their health.
Michelle Chen of ColorLines accuses the Obama administration of selling out women of color to avoid the wrath of the anti-choice lobby. She predicts that women of color will be disproportionately affected by these restrictions because they are more likely to end up in the high-risk pools in the first place.
Nail in the Coffin
In the latest of a series of videos on occupational health and safety, Brave New Films shines a spotlight on toxic chemicals in the nail salon industry. Currently, there are almost no federal regulations on what manufacturers can put in professional beauty products. The nail care industry is booming. There over a hundred thousand manicurists in California alone, most are female, and a large percentage are Vietnamese immigrants. Salon workers breathe a toxic soup of chemicals, many of which have never been tested on humans. Brave New Films is circulating a petition calling on Congress to protect workers by supporting safe cosmetics legislation.
Kagan gets the nod
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court by a vote of 13-6. The outcome of Tuesday’s vote was never in doubt. Many were mildly surprised to see that Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted in Kagan’s favor. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly predicts that the vote will ensure that Graham will get a conservative primary challenger. But Benen also doesn’t see what all the fuss is about.
[...] I still find the right’s outrage over Graham to be pretty silly. He’s voting for a qualified Supreme Court nominee? The horror! Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed on a 96 to 3 vote when her nomination was sent to the floor. How many of those Republicans were threatened with primary challenges because of it?
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Image courtesy of Flickr user... more
-
-
The Obama administration wants to extend three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are due to expire at the end of the year.The Obama administration wants to extend three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act... more
-
-
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears headed to quick confirmation as the first Hispanic justice in spite of opposition from a growing chorus of conservative Republican senators who say she would bring liberal bias to the high court.Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears headed to quick confirmation as the... more
-
-
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave the green light to S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act of 2008. We need you to show them the red light, NOW! This intellectual property enforcement bill lets the DOJ enforce civil copyright claims and lets the government do the MPAA and RIAA’s intellectual property rights enforcement work for them—at tax payers’ expense.
By allowing the federal government to sue infringers in civil court, the DOJ would be asking a court for monetary damages on behalf of content owners. In a civil suit brought by the government, the defendant loses many of the protections he possesses in a criminal action—including his right to free legal representation. What’s more, the government’s legal burden of proof is lower: the government only needs to prove infringement with a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that it’s more likely than not that infringement occurred, as opposed to the usual criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Does the content industry need this help from the Department of Justice? Absolutely not! In the last five years, the RIAA filed or threatened more than 30,000 suits against alleged infringers. If the Enforcement bill passes, not only will the number of such suits increase—they’ll also be paid for with your tax dollars.
Now, the bill’s backers are pushing to have it pass the Senate as early as today via a streamlined procedure, without the full Senate voting on the measure. Tell members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that you don’t want your tax dollars spent on DOJ’s civil enforcement of copyright, and to put a hold on the bill.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave the green light to S. 3325, the... more
-
-
New rules on FBI investigations of national security cases should be delayed, top Senate Judiciary Committee members said Monday, raising concerns that ethnic or racial groups could be targeted despite no evidence of wrongdoing.
In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the senators called for congressional hearings on the rules before they are finalized. They suggested delaying the rules — known as the attorney general guidelines — until FBI Director Robert Mueller appears before the panel Sept. 17.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's top Republican, called the guidelines a "laudatory effort to ensure that front-line agents are given clear rules to follow in pursuit of their investigations."
"Nevertheless, efforts to harmonize the rules governing criminal and national security matters also raise potential civil liberties concerns, given the broader latitude currently given to investigators to consider race and ethnicity in national security matters," Leahy and Specter wrote.
They added: "The important aims of the guidelines, and their potential implications for civil liberties, require a meaningful dialogue between Congress and DOJ."
DOJ stands for the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.
The rules are expected to be finalized later this week or early next week. Justice spokesman Peter Carr said Monday that the department is reviewing the letter.New rules on FBI investigations of national security cases should be delayed, top... more
-
-
The EFF would like to thank everyone for standing with EFF in opposing telecom immunity in the past. It's time to contact your Senators once again. As early as next Monday, the Administration and its allies are trying to end Senate debate on FISA and telecom immunity and force a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill -- a bill that would broadly expand the executive branch's spying powers while granting immunity to telecoms that broke the law and assisted in the NSA's illegal domestic spying.
Now is the time to urge your Senators to vote no on "cloture" in order to keep the debate going!
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=357
Every time you've taken action to fight against immunity, it's made a huge difference. In November, your calls helped to ensure that the Senate Judiciary Committee did not include telecom amnesty in its surveillance bill, and in December your calls helped convince Harry Reid to delay the vote until January. Both times, the pundits assumed we didn't stand a chance, and both times we proved them wrong.
It's time to beat the odds again. Visit the EFF Action Center now.The EFF would like to thank everyone for standing with EFF in opposing telecom... more
-
-
The citations will go to the full senate, but Republicans could still block the motion
-
