ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

Illinois House Committee Advances Marriage Equality Bill

By Zack Ford on Feb 26, 2013 at 11:27 pm

This evening, after being delayed six hours by a concealed carry bill, the Illinois House Executive Committee advanced the marriage equality bill with a vote of 6-5. Passage was expected, as all seven Democrats on the committee previously supported same-sex civil unions. The bill now advances to the House, where advocates are optimistic it will pass. Still, it faces a tougher fight than it did in the Senate, where it passed on Valentine’s Day with a vote of 34-21. A poll released last week found that only 29 percent of Illinois voters oppose marriage equality.

Health

Will The Obama Administration’s Efforts To Expand Medicaid In The States Lower Access To Care?

By Sy Mukherjee on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:30 pm

In a blow to Americans relying on Medicaid — the state-federal partnership public health insurance program that covers disabled and low-income Americans — the federal government on Tuesday reaffirmed to a California federal appellate court that, in the Obama Administration’s opinion, “states could cut Medicaid payments to many doctors and other health care providers to hold down costs in the program,” paving the way for massive state health care cuts that will further discourage doctors from treating low-income patients enrolled in the program.

Doctors, health care providers, and patient advocacy groups sued California in response to state health officials’ decision to cut already-low reimbursement rates for providers that treat patients on Medi-Cal — California’s Medicaid program — by an extra 10 percent. State leaders led by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) argue that the payment cuts are necessary for California’s fiscal security, especially as the state expands Medi-Cal to an addition 1.8 million Californians under Obamacare. But critics assert that the drastic payment cuts will make treating current and prospective Medi-Cal beneficiaries anathema to California care providers:

Medicaid is one of the fastest-growing items in state budgets. Cutting payment rates saves money for states and for the federal government, which will pay most of the costs for people who become eligible for Medicaid under the new law.

Health care providers said California’s payment rates were inadequate even before the cuts. They pointed to a federal study that said, “California stands out because of its very low Medicaid payment levels.”

In an interview, Dr. Paul R. Phinney, president of the California Medical Association, a plaintiff in one of the court cases, said: “Two-thirds of doctors in California cannot afford to participate in Medicaid because the rates are so low. The problem will only get worse if rates are cut as we move more and more people into Medicaid.”

The Administration’s endorsement of the Medicaid payment cuts underscores just how badly federal officials want states to take part in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Formally blessing states’ abilities to “reasonably” lower their Medicaid physician payment rates is likely a concession aimed at luring reticent governors into accepting the expansion, since it will save both states and the federal government money. But while expanding Medicaid under Obamacare is crucial for the health and financial security for millions of low-income Americans, drastically lowering hospitals’ and physicians’ Medicaid reimbursements — which are already far less generous than Medicare reimbursements — is rife with risks.

Certainly, provider cuts are preferable to cutting special Medicaid benefits for the poor and disabled that are not available on lower-tier private insurance plans, especially in a state like California that has had its fair share of problems with providing adequate services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. But California already has 6.8 million residents on Medi-Cal, including one in three Californian children and the majority of HIV-positive Californians. Payment cuts that discourage providers from treating these Medi-Cal beneficiaries will leave millions of Americans with few facilities to go to for their care, making them dependent on either free clinics, costly emergency room care, or forcing them to travel massive distances to find an accepting provider.

Reporting on a 2012 study finding that one in three American doctors won’t take new Medicaid patients, Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff presciently wrote that that could spell trouble for states with historically low Medicaid reimbursement rates — such as California — that also wanted to expand Medicaid, since “fewer than 60 percent of providers accept new patients in the [Medi-Cal] program.” With Brown’s new Administration-endorsed payment cuts set to hit California’s safety net providers, that number has nowhere to go but down.

Alyssa

The Leading Driver Of Diversity In Sports Journalism? It’s ESPN

By Travis Waldron on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:23 pm

The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport has released its 2012 study of minorities and women covering sports at America’s news outlets this week, and unfortunately, its findings haven’t changed much since it released its first study in 2006.

According to the Institute, 90 percent of sports editors are white and an equal percentage are men. As the first chart below shows, whites make up at least 86 percent of all assistant editors, columnists, reporters, and copy editors covering sports too. And as the second chart shows, at least 80 percent of those in each category are men:

The most interesting part of the study, though, is that without the world’s largest sports outlet, the numbers would be far worse. ESPN is the target of constant (often deserved) complaints in the world of sports journalism, but when it comes to diversity, the Worldwide Leader is leading the way, as the Institute’s president Richard Lapchick wrote at Sports Business Daily:

In the new report card, of the 12 people of color who are sports editors at “Circulation A” media outlets (the largest newspapers and dot-coms, with a circulation of 175,000 or more), four work for ESPN, which employed two of the six African-American sports editors and two of the four Latino sports editors. If ESPN’s people of color were removed, the percentage of sports editors in the “A” organizations who are people of color would drop from 15 percent to 11 percent.

Of the 11 women who are sports editors at this circulation level, six work for ESPN. If the ESPN sports editors who are women were removed, then the percentage of female sports editors at this level would drop from 14 percent to 8 percent.

Those numbers translate down the ladder too. Without ESPN, the percentage of columnists of color working at top outlets would drop from 20 percent to just 7 percent. Without ESPN, the percentage of female columnists at top outlets would drop from an already-low 13 percent to just 5 percent.

Indeed, ESPN has a strong diversity hiring policy outlined on its web site and it has won numerous awards for hiring a diverse cast writers, editors, and columnists. It regularly features minority and female hosts, analysts, announcers, and journalists on both its scheduled programming and its live broadcasts. ESPN is proof that there are qualified minority and female reporters and editors out there, and it is also proof that the rest of the sports world needs to do a better job finding them.

But ESPN also has the benefit of being able to cherrypick from the entire sports world, since most of its reporters are already established names before they join the Worldwide Leader, so the idea that this is a problem that begins and ends with the hiring process fails to explain the problem entirely. The problem starts well before hiring and runs far deeper.

As Chip Cosby, a sports reporter and former colleague of mine, explained in September, minorities face obstacles involving access, economics, and history. Many young minorities don’t see journalism as a way into sports, and many are less able to pursue jobs that are pretty low-paying before a reporter climbs the rungs to a top beat or columnist job. Even if they wanted to pursue writing, many don’t see it as a profession that is accessible to them, since they don’t often see minority reporters writing and talking about the sports they follow. Most of those problems also extend to women, who still face stigmas when reporting on sports, especially when they cover men.

Many of those problems are beginning to fade, thanks in large part to ESPN, which has made both minority and female sports reporters covering sports more visible and prominent. But as the latest edition of the Institute study make clear, many of the barriers blocking both minorities and women from entering the world of sportswriting still exist.

Climate Progress

Permamelt: 500,000-Year History of Permafrost Reveals Further Warming of 1.5°C Would ‘Thaw Significant Regions’

By Joe Romm on Feb 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Last fall, a major study found that the carbon feedback from thawing permafrost will likely add 0.4°F – 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100. That was based on climate modeling. A new study looks at the paleo-climate record and comes to an equally worrisome conclusion — JR.

Caves point to thawing of Siberia

Oxford University news release

Evidence from Siberian caves suggests that a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius could see permanently frozen ground thaw over a large area of Siberia, threatening release of carbon from soils, and damage to natural and human environments.

A thaw in Siberia’s permafrost (ground frozen throughout the year) could release over 1000 giga-tonnes of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, potentially enhancing global warming.

The data comes from an international team led by Oxford University scientists studying stalactites and stalagmites from caves located along the ‘permafrost frontier’, where ground begins to be permanently frozen in a layer tens to hundreds of metres thick. Because stalactites and stalagmites only grow when liquid rainwater and snow melt drips into the caves, these formations record 500,000 years of changing permafrost conditions, including warmer periods similar to the climate of today.

Records from a particularly warm period (Marine Isotopic Stage 11) that occurred around 400,000 years ago suggest that global warming of 1.5°C compared to the present is enough to cause substantial thawing of permafrost far north from its present-day southern limit.

Read more

Security

The 7 Worst Predictions About The Chuck Hagel Nomination

By Hayes Brown on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:53 pm


As the overlong saga that has been Chuck Hagel’s Secretary of Defense nomination comes to a close, it’s worth looking back on the number of ways in which conservatives predicted his impending downfall.

In addition to the many instances in which the right distorted Hagel’s record, the list of ways that these predictions turned out to be mistaken — and it is extensive — bridges conspiracy theories and cynical political calculations, attacks on character and long-standing grudges, both policy and personal. Now that the Senate has voted to break the Republican filibuster of Hagel’s nomination and he has been officially confirmed, here’s a list of some of the right wing’s more farcical predictions in its pursuit of trying to prevent Hagel from becoming the next Pentagon chief:

1. “Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.”

Before Hagel’s nomination was even officially announced, the neoconservative smear machine was gearing up to make sure Hagel would pay for opposing the war in Iraq. In the first of many stories centered around a quote from an anonymous Senate aide, the Weekly Standard quoted one as saying, “Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.”

However, the claim that Hagel is an anti-Semite effectively died soon after the Council on Foreign Relations’ Elliott Abrams lobbed it in an NPR interview, causing CFR’s President Richard Haass himself to smack the claim down. In the aftermath, only a few have dared to make the accusation directly against Hagel, instead resorting to misleading statements about his pro-Israel stance.

2. Democrats will turn on Chuck Hagel.

Politicos were speculating for weeks ahead of the announcement that the former Republican Senator would have a tough time gaining support among Democrats. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) topped several lists of those who would turn on Hagel, with non-committal comments of his blasted out by venues like The Weekly Standard.

Mainstream media got in on this idea as well, with NBC News’ Chuck Todd saying as many as ten Democrats might oppose Hagel and the National Journal writing up why Democrats don’t love him. In the end, though, it turned out that not only did Schumer announce his full support of Hagel, not a single Democrat voted against cloture for Hagel.

3. The LGBT community won’t accept Hagel.

In the days leading up to Hagel’s nomination, Republicans appeared to have found their long-lost concern for the equal rights of gays and lesbians. Hagel in 1998 said that James Hormel, then-President Bill Clinton’s nominee for Ambassador to Luxembourg, was “aggressively gay,” and thus unfit for the post. Right-wing concern trolling commenced, including Washington Post blogger Jen Rubin’s prediction that “along with the eggnog and mistletoe, Hagel will disappear after the holidays.” The attack reached its peak with the Log Cabin Republicans’ purchase of two full-page ads against Hagel.

That charge fizzled quickly, however. Hagel apologized publicly for his comments, which Hormel accepted graciously. Former staffers came out in support of Hagel, the Human Rights Campaign withdrew its complaints, and the opposition that Republicans hoped to elicit from the gay community never materialized.

4. GOP will walkout on Hagel vote.

With the Democrats unlikely to turn on Hagel, Republicans then opted to do everything they could to delay a vote on Hagel indefinitely. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) was forced to postpone moving Hagel out of committee by a hold from Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). News outlets soon reported — via more anonymous sources — that Republicans would walk out on the committee vote for Hagel. ThinkProgress learned differently, and Hagel moved out of committee with barely an incident.

5. Hagel will withdraw.

After Hagel’s confirmation hearing, Foreign Policy blogger Tom Ricks saw “50-50” odds that Hagel would withdraw. Hagel’s personal confidants said he would not withdraw his nomination and when asked about the matter, White House spokesman Jay Carney said “absolutely not.” Republicans took no chances, choosing to make history by filibustering a Defense Secretary-nominee for the first time, going against previous stances on up-or-down votes on nominees. Despite that filibuster’s obvious inability to hold, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and 14 of his colleagues still sent President Obama a letter to pull Hagel — despite still not having the votes to block confirmation.

6. Hagel’s secret speeches will sink his nomination.

Republicans and the right-wing media have been desperately hunting for nefarious speeches given by Hagel after his time in the Senate as a way to block his confirmation. One of those speeches, given before the liberal pro-Israel group J Street in 2009, was sure to be the silver bullet that ended Hagel’s nomination according to Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. Rubin — who has written over 100 posts trying to derail Hagel — claimed that J Street was hiding the video out of fear for what it showed. J Street eventually released the video in question, which was received with a yawn by most of the world.

The right then hoped that Hagel’s long-sought after comments to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League would be the final nail in his coffin — the speech turned out to be a dud. A supposedly explosive comment made by Hagel, calling the State Department an “adjunct” of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, was likewise denied by a professor in attendance at the speech.

7. Hagel’s ties to the “Friends of Hamas” will end his bid.

Attempts by the likes of Sen. Cruz to insinuate that Hagel has received funding from shady sources likewise hasn’t been able to stand up to scrutiny. One such effort claimed that Hagel had the backing of a group called the “Friends of Hamas.” That claim — later revealed to have started as a joke — was spread across the right-wing before being debunked. The so-called “Friends of Hamas” doesn’t exist. In the end, Hagel survived a set of lengthy confirmation battles that in the words of Sen. Levin “far exceed” the scrutiny previous nominees have faced.

(Photo: Scripps Howard Foundation Wire)

Alyssa

‘Golden Boy’ Could Have Been A Network Version Of ‘The Wire,’ But That Is Not The Case

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm

During the first episode of CBS’s new police procedural Golden Boy, which premieres tonight at 10 PM, Walter Clark (Theo James) tells a reporter who is interviewing him about his rapid rise from street cop to police commissioner, “Inside me there are two dogs at war. One good and one evil. Now which one wins?” The reporter knows the answer immediately: “The one you feed the most.”

The language might sound a bit stiff. But it’s a great premise for a television show. Many major problems in law enforcement today are the results of gorging the evil dog, from the profits police departments can make from asset forfeiture, the kinds of quotas that were the subject of the third season of The Wire, and an arms race between police departments and criminals that have made it more likely cops will bring military-style force to bear on civilians. Golden Boy, which flashes back and forth between Clark’s arrival in the Homicide department seven years before his appointment as Commissioner and his early days performing his duties in that new post, sets itself up as the story of how Clark acquired the principals that guide him in his post. It could have been a fascinating—and dark—look at how someone acquires the sense of power that allows them to become former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who is currently in jail for committing conspiracy, mail fraud, and lying to the Internal Revenue Service, or to see how The Wire‘s Ervin Burrell turned into the kind of craven career-hound he was.

But Golden Boy doesn’t have the guts to go there. Instead, the show is the story of Walter Clark’s journey from hotheadednes to sober spouter of aphorisms. Commissioner Clark is the kind of man who says of confidential informants “They’re an important part of the job and they die forgotten…It’s doubtful his associates know he was a snitch. It might bring trouble to the family,” failing to acknowledge the kind of pressure that police departments put on suspects to turn them into confidential informants, and once they’re doing that job, that the incentives can encourage such sources to bring in false information. He is, apparently, the police brass equivalent of television’s bevy of moderate Republicans, a guy who turns his back on the Mayor to meet with victims’ advocates because he’s appalled by the suggestion that he’d “Blow off a victim’s advocate for a guy I don’t like?” As a fantasy of police immunity from political pressure goes, this dream practically comes spangled in My Little Pony-style rainbows and sparkles, it’s so sweet optimistic. And the show seems to exist in a world where there’s no such thing as a bad police shooting like the ones we saw in the Los Angeles Police Department’s hunt for Christopher Dorner—Walter’s shooting of a suspect in the case that made him a hero was good, and as Commissioner, he tells a shaky female cop not only that “Preliminary investigations indicate it was a clean shooting in a difficult situation. In my view, that makes you a hero,” but that she should get all the PTSD treatment she needs before coming back to work.

This is an irritating enough framework. But Golden Boy, despite its innovative framing of police questions, falls into cliches in its execution. Initially, it looks like the show’s use of Chi McBride as Detective Don Owen, Walter’s older partner, is promising. When the two of them first go out on assignment, Walter leaving their office building through a haze of reporters eager to cover him as a tabloid-moving Hero Cop, Walter mistakes Don opening a car door as a courtesy. “Who am I, Morgan Freeman?” Owen asks him. “Open your own damn door.” And when Walter breaks into a suspect’s apartment to try to advance the case against him, Owen tells him that “All this information: useless. If this gets out, this guy is going to walk,” and points out that Walter’s endangered Owen’s prospects for a secure retirement, being careless with the man who is suposed to mentor him in an already-difficult situation. But he quickly devolves into aphorism, revealing himself to be Walter’s union delegate when he’s caught talking to a reporter, an event that apparently has no real effect on their relationship. Owen, it seems, is mostly there to admit minor personal flaws for the sake of drama and to steer Walter in the right direction.

Structurally, the show couldn’t have him reject his protege or really dislike him, but I wish it would at least engage with why someone like Owen couldn’t be police commissioner while Walter can. Is it race? Ambition? Does Walter’s willingness to bend the rules to bring in big collars and more media attention make him a more attractive candidate than someone who wants to do the job with integrity? Golden Boy would be a much more interesting show for posing these questions, and for offering up a different, but more discomfiting, end result.

Health

Arkansas Governor Vetoes ‘Fetal Pain’ Bill

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:45 pm

As promised, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe on Tuesday vetoed an anti-abortion “fetal pain” bill. The measure will likely be pushed through without his consent, however, since the Republican-controlled legislature is able to override vetoes through a simple majority vote.

If overridden, the law will be among the most restrictive abortion bans in the nation. It would outlaw abortions after merely 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the junk science that a fetus can feel pain after that point. Seven other states have similar 20-week restrictions in place, although two of them are currently being challenged in court.

Economy

Eurozone Commission President Pleads With Europe To Continue Austerity

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Voters in Italy — while not giving any party firm control of their government — did deliver a rebuke to austerity during yesterday’s national elections. “This election, I think, is the logical consequence of pursuing policies that have dramatically worsened the economic and social picture in Italy,” Simon Tilford, the chief economist of the Center for European Reform, told the New York Times.

But Eurozone Commission President Jose Barroso (who holds the highest EU office) wants to make sure that other Europeans don’t get any ideas regarding ditching their own austerity programs following Italy’s results:

Speaking at a Reuters summit on the future of the euro zone, Barroso said efforts to revive Europe’s economy would take time and required determination. The fact Italian voters had turned Monti out of office did not mean his policies, or those advocated by the European Union, were wrong.

“I hope we are not going to follow the temptation to give in to populism because of the results in one specific member state,” Barroso, speaking with passion, said of the EU’s efforts to combat the sovereign debt crisis.

“The question we have to ask ourselves is the following: should we determine our policy, our economic policy, by short-term electoral considerations or by what has to be done to put Europe back on the path to sustainable growth? For me the answer is clear.” [...]

Barroso said it was incumbent on all EU and euro zone countries, especially those receiving aid from the bloc’s rescue funds, to retool their economies and cut deficits in an effort to improve competitiveness and stimulate growth.

Barrosso is far from the only EU official imploring countries to stay the course, despite the clear evidence that austerity is stifling economic growth in Europe while not delivering significant debt reductions, as these two charts from economists Paul De Grauwe and Yuemei Ji show:

As De Grauwe and Ji wrote, “As it becomes obvious that the austerity programs produce unnecessary sufferings especially for the millions of people who have been thrown into unemployment and poverty, resistance against these programs is likely to increase. A resistance that may lead millions of people to wish to be liberated from what they perceive to be shackles imposed by the euro.”

Justice

GOP Congressman Introduces Constitutional Amendment To Permanently Ban Obamacare

By Scott Keyes on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS)

It was debated for an entire year. It overcame a GOP filibuster. It was signed into law. It survived at least 33 repeal attempts. It won a Supreme Court challenge. Its namesake was re-elected president.

But at least one Republican isn’t ready to accept defeat on Obamacare just yet.

Appearing on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Weekly radio show, Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) discussed a new constitutional amendment he has introduced to outlaw Obamacare. Called the “Right To Refuse” Amendment, Palazzo’s idea is to enshrine in the Constitution that “it’s unconstitutional to force an American citizen to purchase a product or be taxed,” thus undermining the individual mandate that’s central to ensuring universal health insurance through Obamacare.

PALLAZZO: We’ve dubbed it the Right To Refuse Amendment. With the Supreme Court coming in and actually saying that they can actually tax Americans for refusing to purchase a product, there’s a lot of people out there, an overwhelming majority of the people, who still think that’s unconstitutional, or it’s unfair, or it’s a violation of their personal liberties or their individual rights. So what we did with help from a young man named Marshall Thomas in my office, who is my legislative counselor, we’ve crafted some legislation that is basically a constitutional amendment to say it’s unconstitutional to force an American citizen to purchase a product or be taxed. It’s that simple.

If undermining 30 million Americans’ health insurance isn’t enough, Palazzo’s amendment would completely rework the scope of federal power. There is simply nothing novel about the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most people either carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes. The tax code gives tax breaks to people who take out mortgages or who buy products making their homes more energy efficient. A law giving tax breaks to people who buy health insurance — which is what the Affordable Care Act does — is no different.

Health

Five More States Consider ‘Ag Gag’ Laws To Silence Factory Farm Whistleblowers

By Aviva Shen on Feb 26, 2013 at 5:15 pm


As state legislatures begin their 2013 sessions, a flurry of new “ag gag” bills to protect factory farms from potential undercover whistleblowers have been introduced in 5 states. This week, the Indiana Senate is debating a proposal to criminalize taking photographs or videos inside an agricultural or industrial operation without permission.

Senate Bill 373 is the first of two ag gag bills introduced during Indiana’s 2013 session. New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming and Arkansas are also considering them.

Since trespassing is already illegal, ag gag laws can only have one clear motive: to punish whistleblowers, advocates, and investigative reporters who use undercover recordings to reveal the abysmal conditions in which our food is produced. Undercover investigations have captured factory farms all over the country abusing livestock, passing off sick cattle as healthy, and discharging unregulated amounts of animal manure, which the US Geological Survey identified as the largest source of nitrogen pollution in the country.

The bill’s author, Sen. Travis Holdman (R), added a provision exempting anyone who turns over their video or photos to law enforcement within 48 hours — as long as they do not also share the footage with non-law enforcement, such as media or an animal rights group. But, as the Indy Star points out, many exposés are “undertaken precisely because the authorities failed to do their job. Sometimes, they have spotlighted conditions that were not illegal but were disturbing enough to inspire new laws.”

Indeed, factory farms have largely escaped regulatory and legal scrutiny. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency abandoned an effort to require these operations to report even basic information like location, number of animals, and amount of manure discharged. Meanwhile, the meat lobby’s grip on lawmakers is so powerful that the USDA was pressured into apologizing for an internal “Meatless Monday” last year by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who claimed the optional vegetarian day was a full-scale attack on agriculture.

One USDA inspector even had his job threatened after he tried to report egregious violations at a California slaughterhouse. He then tipped off the Humane Society, which released an infamous video of employees torturing and slaughtering downer cows (sick cows deemed “unfit for human food” by the USDA). The video triggered the largest beef recall in U.S. history and resulted in an unprecedented $500 million penalty.
Read more

Older

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

Sign Up