ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Mississippi To Strip Abortion Coverage From Health Insurance Exchange, Florida Not Far Behind

By Igor Volsky on Apr 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm

Following Arizona’s lead, Mississippi is moving to finalize legislation prohibiting insurers from offering abortion coverage in the exchange, even if it’s paid for with private dollars. The state legislature sent the bill to Gov. Haley Barbour (R) yesterday, after House leadership tabled a motion to re-consider.

In some ways, the Mississippi bill may be even more draconian than Arizona’s law. While women in Arizona would still be able to purchase an abortion waiver with private dollars in an exchange, women who want to buy abortion coverage in Mississippi that goes beyond the life of the woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, would be forced out of the exchange. From Senate Bill 3214:

SECTION 2. Legislative findings and purposes. (1) The Legislature of the State of Mississippi finds that Section 1303 of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, states are explicitly permitted to pass laws prohibiting qualified health plans offered through an exchange in their state from offering abortion coverage.

(2) It is the purpose of this act to affirmatively opt out of allowing qualified health plans that cover abortions to participate in exchanges within the State of Mississippi.

SECTION 3. Opt-Out. (1) No abortion coverage may be provided by a qualified health plan offered through an exchange created pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act within the State of Mississippi.

Health reform has opened a Pandora’s box of state efforts to restrict abortion coverage by removing coverage from the exchange and placing other restrictions on abortion access. Most recently, the Oklahoma Senate overrode the governor’s veto to pass a law that requires “women seeking an abortion have a viewable ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus prior to the procedure.” “Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims,” the New York Times observed.

Similarly, the Florida state senate just voted 22-17 “in favor of a new government mandate that women seeking abortions must pay for ultrasounds — which averages from $200 to $1,000 — and, in most cases, view live images of the fetus.” “They also adopted an amendment banning abortion coverage for individuals and businesses who buy insurance under insurance exchanges.” The bill is set for a final vote Thursday in the Senate and will then move to the “deeply conservative” House.

For more on this wave of new abortion restrictions, click here.

Politics

Gingrich’s ‘Drill Here, Drill Now’ campaign continues as oil rig disaster grows.

By Brad Johnson on Apr 29, 2010 at 7:06 pm

The Earth Day oil rig disaster that began with an explosion that claimed 11 lives is becoming an ecological catastrophe. The Coast Guard has set some of the West-Virginia-sized oil slick ablaze, even as it grows by thousands of barrels a day. Although this deadly catastrophe calls into question the pro-drilling campaigns by the oil industry and its conservative allies, the propaganda continues. In 2008, Newt Gingrich began American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), the casino-funded 527 that used the slogan “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” to promote the false idea that new offshore drilling could lower gas prices. On its website, Gingrich’s ASWF is continuing its petition while reporting on the inevitable consequences of dependence on dirty oil:

Drill Here, Oil Spill

Similarly, other oil-industry front groups — American Petroleum Institute, Energy Tomorrow, Institute for Energy Research, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, and the Institute for 21st Century Energy — are still promoting increased drilling and attacking green economy legislation that would reduce our dependence on oil. (HT Wonkette)

Climate Progress

A Response To Michael Levi On Iran And Climate Policy

By Brad Johnson on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:44 pm

Iran electionsAt the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Levi has a thoughtful response to my April 9 post on carbon policy and Iran, “Carbon Cap Would Deny Iran Precious Petrodollars: Over $100 Million A Day.” Levi expressed his concern at the idea that U.S. dependence on imported oil “makes Iran $100 million richer every day.” While recognizing that the methodology used was sound, Levi noted:

The problem is that while the Iranian nuclear problem is unfolding on a relatively short timescale, most of the projected decline in oil revenues comes in the out years. The annual savings, using CAP’s own methodology (which is admirably transparent), reach less than $5 billion annually in 2015, or about $10 million dollars a day. (That roughly doubles by 2020.) That’s about 2-3% of what EIA thinks Iranian oil revenue will be in 2015 (based on the 2009 IEO) – a nontrivial number, but not one that’s of much strategic consequence.

Hopefully it was transparent in my post that this is a long-term strategic shift (after all, there is a pretty chart to that effect), not a short-term crisis response. I will take issue with the idea that a long-term change isn’t “of much strategic consequence.” The generational move to a low-carbon economy will likely determine the arc of history in the coming decades.

It is of course difficult to get into nuance in a single blog post, but it comes in the context of my colleagues’ work — Matt Duss and Max Bergmann have written many thoughtful posts on how the United States and the international community should engage with Iran and the Middle East in the here-and-now.

I would certainly prefer if the Beltway dialogue focused more on nuanced discussions of how, say, an international commitment within the next year or two to a low-carbon economy by 2050 would reshape the geopolitical balance of power, especially vis-a-vis petrostates.

But we literally have our counterparts at the Heritage Foundation arguing that the United States should engage in nuclear-armed “preventative war” with Iran, and that climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to deceive the American public into passing a proto-fascist energy tax.

So there’s a bit of work to be done before serious discourse rules the day.

Update

Michael Levi responds:

I’m quite interested in the broader question of what energy geopolitics would look like in 2030 if we were part way to a circa-2050 low-carbon economy — it’s a tricky question that has received little careful thought. I may do a post outlining some ways to think about that question.

Climate Progress

Looks like BP stands for Burning Petroleum; worst spill since ExxonValdez heads for LA coast

By Joe Romm on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:37 pm

I’ll be on MSNBC’s Countdown at 8:35 edt

Offshore Oil Safety Awards Luncheon Postponed

And it gets more ironic:  CBS reports that last year BP won an award for “promoting improved medical care and evacuation capabilities for offshore facilities.”

The photo “provided by the U.S. Coast Guard shows fire boat response crews battling the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, April 21, 2010.”

I wish I had more time to write a longer post, but I’m doing a couple of interviews on this tonight, including Countdown.

By the way, Halliburton appears to have been involved in the spill.  They have been named in two lawsuits by Louisiana fishermen and shrimpers, Climate Wire (subs. req’d) reports:

Read more

Economy

If Republicans Are Really Concerned About Community Banks, They Should Support A Bank Tax

By Pat Garofalo on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Today, the Senate began debate on financial regulatory reform, after Republicans finally agreed to end three days of obstruction last night and allow the bill to come to the floor. Ever since regulatory reform first began to move through the House of Representatives last year, the GOP (and its allies in the big business community) have sought out sympathetic figures that it (falsely) claims the legislation will have an adverse effect upon. Florists, churches, and the makers of Snickers bars have all had their moment, and today’s choice is community bankers.

First, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) appeared on MSNBC to decry the effect of derivatives regulation on community banks. Then, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, went to the Senate floor to claim that resolution authority — the proposed mechanism for unwinding large, failed financial firms — would give large banks an advantage over their smaller counterparts. Watch a compilation:

Neither of these concerns has a basis in reality. Chambliss is worried about the effect of derivatives reform when 97 percent of the activity in the $300 trillion derivatives market is undertaken by just five mega-banks: JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Wells Fargo. I’m not sure what sort of derivatives trading Chambliss thinks is occurring at the community level, but reform should make it cheaper for businesses to use derivatives to legitimately hedge against risk.

As for Shelby’s concern, the fact that resolution authority will enable the very biggest banks to fail (instead of being propped up by the government) should benefit smaller banks — which already have a mechanism in place for when they fail — by removing the big firms’ implicit government guarantee.

But if the GOP is really concerned about the effect of regulatory reform on community banks, then it should be embracing the push to levy a bank tax on the biggest financial firms. This would help level the playing field by making it more expensive to be a large interconnected firm (offsetting some of the funding advantages that such size conveys). The Congressional Budget Office has said that a bank tax would “improve the competitive position of small- and medium-size banks, probably leading to some increase in their share of the loan market.”

Of course, the GOP has shown no inclination to support a bank tax. In fact, it has actively scoffed at the idea. But Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier this week that “I don’t think there’s much doubt that there will be a bank tax.” So will Chambliss and Shelby jump on board?

Related Posts

Politics

Conservatives Mock Pelosi For Airbrushed Magazine Shot, Stay Silent On Laura Bush’s Retouched Book Cover

By Amanda Terkel on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is on the May/June 2010 cover of the DC magazine “Capitol File,” and conservatives are all worked up that the photograph of her may have been airbrushed. The Washington Examiner has a piece titled “Cover girl Pelosi looking rather … airy in D.C. glossy”:

If you haven’t managed to score a copy of the May/June 2010 edition of Capitol File magazine (typically flanked on every table or bathroom at any D.C. social function) you’ll notice the cover girl Nancy Pelosi looking particularly young.

Celebrity plastic surgeon Dr. Ayman Hakki of Luxxery Medical Boutique in Waldorf, Md., said although he believes Pelosi has had work done (specifically Botox of the frown lines, fat injections, a mini face-lift), the image is not the product of additional plastic surgery.

“There is airbrushing around her eyes, her upper lid has been airbrushed to make it look like there is less fat on the inside,” Hakki told Yeas & Nays. “And there is airbrushing on the line of her jaw.”

The story was touted on Fox Nation and featured on the Drudge Report:

Drudge doesn’t seem to sense any irony in the fact that next to his Pelosi story is a picture of former First Lady Laura Bush’s book cover, which also looks less than 100 percent natural. ThinkProgress spoke to a couple of graphic designers who said that there definitely was some airbrushing done to the Laura Bush photograph. (View a larger version of the cover here.)

Additionally, in the past, conservatives have advocated more airbrushing of female politicians. They were outraged when Newsweek featured a picture of Sarah Palin that showed her natural features. So basically, airbrushing conservative women is acceptable, but airbrushing Democratic women is ridiculous.

While people debate the merits of airbrushing magazine shots, it’s a common practice and certainly not a scandal that says anything about the person being photographed.

Yglesias

Ben Nelson and Berkshire Hathaway

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:30 pm

File-Ben_Nelson_official_photo

Rachel Slajda flags Ben Nelson’s curious outburst against critics of his apparently Buffet-motivated filibuster of financial regulatory reform:

“To be absolutely clear, I did not vote no because of Berkshire Hathaway. Nor did the fact that I and my wife have owned Berkshire stock for 30+ years have anything to do with my vote. It has never been an issue. It isn’t now,” he said in a statement. “I voted no because of concerns about what is in the underlying bill drafted by Senator Dodd.”

He said he did support the exemption Berkshire wanted, as a matter of policy. To force existing contracts to conform to new rules, he said, would be unconstitutional.

So he wanted the same think Berkshire wanted, and he owns shares in Berkshire, and Berkshire is located in his home state, and he filibustered the bill, but he didn’t filibuster the bill because of Berkshire’s concerns. It’s just a big coincidence. Now we’re clear.

Meanwhile, the rule in question is clearly constitutional. In fact, if it were unconstitutional it probably wouldn’t bother Warren Buffet so much. He’s concerned precisely because the law would be enforced and he doesn’t want to comply with it.

Justice

Immigration Draft Proposal Would Allow U.S. Citizens And Residents To Sponsor Same-Sex Partners

By Igor Volsky on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:00 pm

immigrationgaySens. Harry Reid (D-NV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) will unveil a draft immigration proposal today that’s meant to entice Republicans to support a bipartisan and comprehensive bill. The 26-page draft, obtained by the Associated Press, “attempts to woo GOP senators in part by calling for ‘concrete benchmarks’ to secure the border before granting illegal immigrants the opportunity to gain legal status.” The draft includes a path towards legalization of the estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants but also establishes enforcement benchmarks like “increasing the number of border patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents,” CNN notes.

Significantly, the draft would also allow U.S. citizens and legal residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency. From page 22:

The proposal will also address several remaining technical issues that prevent widows and orphans of U.S. citizens from obtaining immigration benefits. It will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status.

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other immediate family members) for immigration purposes, but does not recognize same-sex partners as spouses. Consequently, the approximately 36,000 Americans who are in same-sex relationships in which one member is a citizen are frequently forced to re-locate to another country or live separately once a visa expires or an immigration problem arises. Children are separated from their parents and relationships are torn apart.

Twenty-two countries already recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes and Democrats have tried to advance inclusive immigration legislation since 2000. Most recently, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Uniting American Families Act which would apply “the same standards to same-sex couples that the United States applies to opposite-sex couples where one member is seeking to bring a foreign partner into the country.” The bill has 122 co-sponsors in the House and 23 co-sponsors in the Senate.

Democrats remain skeptical, however, that Congress will take up immigration reform this year. Just yesterday, President Obama told reporters aboard Air Force One that he didn’t think Congress had the “political will” to pass reform this year. “Now, look, we’ve gone through a very tough year, and I’ve been working Congress pretty hard. So I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue,” he said. Meanwhile, Republicans have walked away from the proposal, claiming that immigration reform has no chance of passing.

Last year, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced a reform proposal that did not allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their partners for residency.

Climate Progress

Lindsey Graham says, “yeah,” there’s a chance for climate to move forward this year

By Joe Romm on Apr 29, 2010 at 4:53 pm

On the bipartisan bill he wrote with Kerry and Lieberman: “I really believe in this product. I think it’s a damn good solution.”

WashPost‘s Ezra Klein has posted an interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) about the immigration and climate bills.  Since my Monday post, it’s been hard to tell whether the Senator has been principled or petulant — or perhaps a bit of both.

I’ll excerpt the parts of his interview with Klein about the climate bill and you can decide:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up