AZ Governor Jan Brewer To Supreme Court: Overturn Same-Sex Benefits

Jul8 by D Gregory Smith

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is asking the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex partner benefits for Arizona state employees. The Arizona Daily Sun reports:

Legal papers filed by Attorney General Tom Horne contend that a three-judge panel of the appellate court got it wrong when it concluded earlier this month that it is illegal for the state to provide health care and other benefits to the partners of married workers while refusing to do the same for same-sex couples.

He said the state is allowed to make such distinctions.

In the opinion of several lawmakers in Arizona (who disagree with the move), this appeal is purely “to make a point” against immorality- oh, and to save the state some money. The Daily Sun again:

Hanging in the balance is whether gay workers will lose benefits they have had since 2008. That is when then-Gov. Janet Napolitano got her Department of Administration to rewrite the state’s personnel rules to expand the definition of who is a “dependent” for purposes of state employment.

Under those rules, that included someone living with the employee for at least a year and expected to continue living with that person. The rules, which did not specify the gender of the partner, also required a showing of financial interdependence and an affidavit by the worker affirming there is a domestic partnership.

But in 2009, after Napolitano resigned to take a post in the Obama administration, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved — and Brewer signed — a state law narrowing the definition and specifically excluding unmarried couples.

… According to the Department of Administration, there are 226 employees of the state, the University of Arizona and Arizona State University who are receiving same-sex domestic partner benefits. He said the annual cost is slightly more than $5 million a year.

Does this sound familiar? Prop 8, anyone? The question is whether the balance of social opinion and acceptance will have an affect on this decision. Fascinating also that this request comes just as the general elections ramping up…

Full story here

Brewer Asks High Court To Reverse Benefits For Same-Sex Partners (huffingtonpost.com)
Arizona Appeals Same-Sex Partner Benefits Ruling (lezgetreal.com)

Why Romney Won’t Repeal Obamacare

Jul6 by D Gregory Smith

Mitt Romney Steve Pearce event 056 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just as I suspected. If Mitt Romney wants to (as he claims) overturn Obamacare, it’s going to cost the taxpayers billions of dollars to rollback the healthcare changes already underway. Not to mention the debt cliff that he will need the cooperation of Democrats to negotiate.

Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker:

Mitt Romney, speaking just before noon today, declared that on his first day in office, “I will act to repeal Obamacare.” I think he chose his words carefully. As President, he may indeed “act” to repeal it on Day One, but I don’t believe he will actually be able to overturn the law.

If Romney were to win in November, the first matter he’d have to deal with would be the fallout from the so-called fiscal cliff of December 31st, the day when some five hundred billion dollars worth of tax increases and spending reductions take effect, which could put the economy into another recession (if it’s not already in recession by then). This moment would perhaps be Romney’s greatest chance at repeal. Because the fiscal-cliff negotiations will be an enormous fight over the size and scope of the federal government, every government policy will theoretically be open to debate—including, Romney might insist, repeal of the A.C.A.

But it’s a fantasy. The negotiations would be dead before they started if Republicans demanded repeal as a price for a Grand Bargain on taxes, spending, and entitlements. The fiscal-cliff negotiations will undoubtedly include a great deal of horse-trading that will infuriate and cheer partisans on both sides. But there is literally nothing Republicans could offer Democrats in return for repealing the Party’s greatest achievement since the Johnson Administration.

The reality of the huge (enormous) cost of repeal will pull the bloom off the rose PDQ. It’s insanity.

Read the rest: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/why-romney-wont-repeal-obamacare.html#ixzz1zr4S7Yoi

Why Romney Won’t Repeal Obamacare (newyorker.com)
Michele Bachmann: It Only Takes 50 Plus One Senators to Repeal Obamacare (Video) (thegatewaypundit.com)
Why Repealing Obamacare is a Fantasy (politicalwire.com)
If Romney wins, he can repeal health reform. And he should. – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
Constitutional Defiance: Romney Says He’ll Repeal ObamaCare (thenewamerican.com)
Supreme Court OK of Obamacare is a huge gift to Romney and GOP (irishcentral.com)

“…with liberty and justice for all.” A Good Start

Jul4 by D Gregory Smith

The President is making good on his promise to finally repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act- an act designed to smugify people who can get married (and have- some of them four or five times) and alienate those who can’t (like this couple, who have been together for 48 years). From the Atlantic Wire:

Washington DC: United States Supreme Court (Photo credit: wallyg)

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to hear appeals for two different cases to finally decide whether or not DOMA is constitutional.

Metro Weekly’s Chris Geidner reports David Verelli filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court asking them to review the law’s controversial Section 3 to see if it “violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.” The question is connected to the Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management case. In a ruling in February, a U.S. District Judge ruling on the case said that DOMA was unconstitutional. It’s currently slated to be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but now it’ll be presented to the Supreme Court before the Ninth Circuit can even make a ruling.

The other case the DOJ asked SCOTUS to look at is Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services. A judge from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against DOMA in the case in May. Another judge from the First Circuit Appeals Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional at the beginning of June.

The Associated Press reports the “earliest the justices might decide to hear the case is in late September.” Arguments would be made over the winter, with a final decision coming in late June. So basically, DOMA is the new blackAffordable Care Act.

This administration is taking the dignity of LGBT persons to an all-time high, politically speaking. We are closer to being equal citizens than we have ever been, and today- despite the miles left to go- I’d like to celebrate that.

Click here for an exhaustive list of the Obama administration (and Congress’) accomplishments.

US House petitions Supreme Court to rule on DOMA (jurist.org)
DOMA ban on gay marriage falls (scotusblog.com)
Quick review sought on DOMA (politico.com)

Rehberg Votes To Harass Gay People

May11 by D Gregory Smith

The U.S. House yesterday purposelessly voted to stop the Obama administration from going against the Defense Of Marriage Act- even though, officially, the administration is still enforcing the law. Essentially- and obviously- this is an attempt to countermand Obama and Biden’s personal positions on the issue of marriage equality. From The Washington Blade:

In a 245-171 vote, House lawmakers approved the amendment, introduced by freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), as part of Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations legislation. The amendment reads, “None of the funds made available under this Act, may be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the amendment in effect does nothing because although the Justice Department is no longer defending DOMA in court, the Obama administration is still enforcing it.

“The Huelskamp Amendment is a solution in search of a problem,” Thompson said. “While there are multiple legal challenges to DOMA working their way through the federal courts, it is still binding. This amendment serves absolutely no purpose other than to score political points at the expense of gay and lesbian couples.”

After the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional, the Justice Department filed legal briefs against the anti-gay law and sent Justice Department attorneys to argue against the statute in court during oral arguments. However, the administration continues to enforce the statute, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

According to Roll Call newspaper, Huelskamp had initially planned an amendment that would barred the use of funds for arguing against DOMA in court — which, if passed into law, would have had real impact. Huelskamp ultimately didn’t press forward with that amendment.

Huelskamp reportedly said he introduced the amendment not only because the Justice Department stopped defending DOMA in court, but also because of Vice President Joe Biden’s endorsement of same-sex marriage Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The most immediate reason was the comments of the vice president of the United States,” Huelskamp was quoted as saying. “Stating his position is fine, but you tie that together with the issues with the lawsuit in California in which, essentially, the attorney general walked away from DOMA and said, ‘I’m not going to defend that.’”…

Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House Republicans “voted to tie the hands of the Obama administration with respect to their efforts to end discrimination against America’s families.”

“House Republicans continue to plant their feet firmly on the wrong side of history,” Hammill said. “Republican leaders refuse to bring up a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act that includes critical domestic violence protections for the LGBT community, and Speaker Boehner continues his legal boondoggle to use taxpayer funds to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act in court, including cases involving the families of our men and women of our U.S. Armed Forces.”

Hammill added, “These discriminatory actions only serve to advance fundamental unfairness in our society and are against the principles of liberty and equality that our country is built upon.” (emphases mine)

Harassment. Of course Denny Rehberg- who once told a friend of mine, “There aren’t any gay people in Yellowstone County”- voted for the measure. Click the roll call link above for votes. Full Blade story here.

House approves amendment to prevent ‘undermining’ of DOMA (rawstory.com)
House strikes back on gay marriage (politico.com)
Obama’s next moves on marriage (salon.com)
Tell the Senate: Repeal DOMA by Daily Kos (socialactions.net)
Obama dragged into Montana Senate election (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)

Bestiality More Accepted Than The Gays

May10 by D Gregory Smith

“There are, you’ll probably not be surprised to learn, three times as many states with no direct prohibitions against the sexual assault of an animal (according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund) as there are states that allow gay marriage.”

Hmmm. Some legislatures are much more concerned with oppressing a particular class of people than in enforcing this biblical mandate (and before some of you write with weird humorless critique, I’m being sarcastic). Click map for story.

Gay Marriage Leads to Bestiality? REALLY? (therightisalwayswrong.wordpress.com)

Who’s Your Daddy?

May9 by D Gregory Smith

As if you had to ask.

Some Startling HIV Facts

May8 by D Gregory Smith

…from The CDC’s Annual Report from the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP), Accelerating Progress, Investing for Impact. This report provides an overview of some of the HIV prevention activities conducted and supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during late 2010 to the end of 2011.

Too few Americans with HIV are getting the testing, treatment, and care they need to stay healthy and prevent transmission to others.

Surprisingly, only 28% of all HIV-infected persons are considered to have HIV under control ( viral load less than 200/ml). That’s not enough.

Percentage of HIV-infected Individuals Engaged in Selected Stages of the Continuum of HIV Care, 2010-11

All HIV positive individuals- 100%

Aware of their infection- 80%

Linked to HIV care- 62%

Retained in HIV care- 41%

Receive antiretroviral therapy- 36%

Have their virus under control*- 28%

*Plasma viral load < 200 cells/ml

Source: MMWR 60(47);1618-1623

HIV Diminishes Lung Function (dgsmith.org)
77 nations share HIV, AIDS best practices at IMilHAC (dvidshub.net)
Predictive tool could cut HIV test costs (scidev.net)
Fact and Fiction About HIV Transmission (everydayhealth.com)
Gay partners’ HIV transmission study due to start, despite practical barriers (lass.org.uk)

Forward

Apr30 by D Gregory Smith

I’m an unabashed Obama supporter. Here’s why:

“Top 10 GOP Attacks On Women’s Health”

Apr26 by D Gregory Smith

Want some facts regarding women’s health issues and the GOP? The Montana Democrats break it down:

One of the symbols of German Women's movement (from the 1970s) Deutsch: Ein Logo der deutschen Frauenbewegung (aus den 70er Jahren) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

National political observers have coined the term “War on Women” to describe Republican attacks on women’s health, ranging from plans to block access to contraception to massive cuts to cancer screening services.

But here in Montana, Republicans’ War on Women is far from a recent development. In Congress, Dennis Rehberg has a long record irresponsible decisions on women’s health, and Republicans in the state legislature have been with him every step of the way, even going so far as to compare women to animals. (Yes, really.)

To bring the story home, here are Montana Republicans’ Top Ten most extreme attacks on women’s health:

10. In Washington, Congressman Rick Hill voted multiple times to gut funding for access to contraception [Roll Call 290, HR4101, July 16, 1998 + Roll Call 493, HR4104, October 7, 1998 + Roll Call 494, HR4104, October 7, 1998].

9. Congressman Rehberg has earned the support of Foster Fries, the billionaire donor who said women use “asprin between their knees” as birth control.

8. Republican legislators pushed a bill to force women to view ultrasounds. Women’s health advocates called the measure an “offensive intrusion.”

7. Congressman Rehberg has been exposed by women’s health advocates for not understanding how funding for women’s health services works .

6. Congressman Rehberg has voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which aims to make sure women are paid equally with men. [Vote 768, 7/31/07; Vote 37, 1/27/09; CQ Votes]

5. State Rep. Keith Regier compared pregnant women to “preg-tested” cattle during a discussion about family planning.

4. In his first campaign for Congress, Hill attacked his opponent Nancy Keenan for being a single woman without children, though Keenan was unable to have children due to health reasons.

3. Congressman Rehberg wrote two bills in the last year that would have completely ended funding for Title X, which helps women access preventative care like cancer screenings.

2. When law student Sandra Fluke testified in opposition to plans to block access to contraception, state Rep. Krayon Kerns compared her to to a breeding dog.

1. Congressman Hill and Congressman Rehberg both want to let women pay higher health insurance premiums than men.

(For his part, Congressman Rehberg voted to overturn the law in the state legislature in the 1980s. [3r, HB 519, 2/18/87, House Final Status; and 1987 Women’s Lobbyist Fund News] Congressman Hill used to profit off insurance premiums as an insurance company executive.)

ADAP Watch 4/19/12

Apr24 by D Gregory Smith

Last week (while I was on vacation)- NASTAD released the ADAP waiting list. From NAPWA (emphasis mine):

There’s some good news on the ADAP front: the FY 2011 emergency federal ADAP funding has brought waiting list numbers down in a number of states. South Carolina has eliminated its waiting list altogether, for the time being.

The bad news is that the numbers aren’t coming down very much. Georgia and Virginia – big states with big budgets – account for almost two-thirds of the nation’s total waiting list, and it looks like they are accepting their waiting lists as the “new normal.” Other states have disguised their real unmet need by setting income eligibility ceilings artificially low, and that looks set to become the “new normal,” too.

It’s hard to understand and hard to forgive. Over five years, it will cost the states with visible waiting lists or waiting lists whisked away by lowering income ceilings more to care for PLWHA who become sick enough for Medicaid than it would have cost to give them drugs to keep them healthy. It’s already a dollars-and-cents blunder before we even think about the human cost.

Here are the latest numbers from our friends at NASTAD: