ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

Court Again Strikes Down Florida Attempt To Privatize Prison Health Care

By Nicole Flatow on Dec 7, 2012 at 4:10 pm

A Florida court has ruled for the second time that the state Department of Corrections improperly circumvented the legislative process to privatize prison health care. Last October, some state legislators had attempted to privatize the state’s prison health care by folding the funding into budget proviso language. That attempt was held unconstitutional by a Florida judge, who said the legislature could only do so through a separate bill. The legislature then proposed a separate bill in February 2012 that, unsurprisingly, could not garner enough votes to pass.

But that failure wouldn’t satisfy legislators bent on outsourcing the state’s prison health care to private corporations. This time, they were able to include in the legislature-reviewed appropriations bill funding for private prisons in one South Florida region. Seeking to also privatize prison health care in three other regions, the Department of Corrections sought additional funding from the state’s Legislative Budget Commission rather than the full legislature. The LBC granted funds for all four regions and increased the budget from 41 million to 58 million — a move also struck down by Leon County Judge Jackie Fulford:

Whether to privatize some or all of the state’s prison operations is a significant policy decision. Under existing law, the legislature weighs in on this policy decision through its appropriations power. Where, as here, there is no specific appropriation for privatizing health services in Regions I, II or III, it cannot be said that such a significant action has been approved or authorized. [...]

Authorizing and funding privatizing health care services in Florida’s prisons is the prerogative of the full legislature and not that of the Legislative Budget Commission.

Even at the time of the vote, some members of the Legislative Budget Commission questioned the legality of expanding funding for private prison health care. But the state nonetheless entered into a contract with Corizon Healthcare to serve those three regions, and forged ahead with notices to nearly 2,000 state workers who would be laid off as a result of the move.

Privatization of health care for nearly 100,000 inmates was billed as a way to cut costs, in part because prison officials anticipated the private companies would offer less benefits to their workers. But studies in other states have shown that private prisons actually cost the state more, while enabling “inhumane” conditions and prompting allegations of preventable deaths. Privatization of the prison system has also incentivized private corporations to lobby for policies that incarcerate more Americans. The United States already has the world’s highest incarceration rate.

Health

How The People Who Brought You Curves Are Actually Working Against Women’s Health

By Josh Israel on Dec 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

The latest filings from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads show a last minute contribution of $1 million received just days before the election (10/29/12) from Gary Heavin — the co-founder of Curves International Inc., which calls itself “the world’s leader in women’s fitness.”

Curves, a chain of women-only fitness center franchises, claims nearly 10,000 locations in more than 85 countries. Heavin and his fellow co-founder, his wife Diane, sold Curves International to an private equity firm in October, but they remain prominently featured on the company’s website. The Heavins say they “share a passion for and commitment to women’s health and fitness.” But his massive donation to the right-wing super PAC is only the latest in a long pattern of their efforts
in support of policies that undermine women’s equality in the workplace and restrict women’s access to health care services.

American Crossroads spent $91 million to elect Mitt Romney over President Obama. Romney refused to endorse key pro-women legislation including the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act, but backed reinstating the “global gag rule” on even discussing abortion as a family planning option and supported the infamous Blunt Amendment to allow employers to deny health benefits that go against their personal views. Crossroads also worked to help far-right extremists like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and George Allen. Much of the American Crossroads attack strategy focused on criticizing Obamacare and those who backed the effort to expand health insurance access to all Americans.

In addition to helping fund American Crossroads, the Heavins also combined to give $92,400 to the House and Senate Republican campaign arms, $2,500 to Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), $30,800 to the Republican National Committee, $7,300 to Romney’s campaign, and $2,500 to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in 2012.

And this past election isn’t the only time that Curves and the Heavins have worked against women’s reproductive rights. Gary Heavin pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars for controversial “pregnancy crisis centers” that try to talk women out of abortions and have been accused to providing false information. They also made large donations to abstinence-only education programs — programs which often misinform and make teens more likely to engage in risky behavior and become pregnant. Curves also pulled its funding for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation over its objection to the charity’s funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening services. In a 2004 editorial, Mr. Heavin attacked Planned Parenthood’s sex education literature, writing “I have a 10-year-old daughter. I would absolutely not allow her to be exposed to this material. I don’t want her being taught masturbation and told that homosexuality is normal.”

That anti-choice and anti-LGBT stance was further demonstrated when Curves partnered with the American Family Association — a group that has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group.” They joined for a 2009 healthy recipe contest and sold a Curves fitness CD on the AFA’s website. Gary Heavin has also been an outspoken enthusiast for televangelist Pat Robertson, who has blamed natural disasters on same-sex marriage equality and blamed 9/11 on abortion, the separation of church and state, and civil liberties groups.

Climate Progress

Deadlock In Doha: Is Qatar Going To Be The Place Where International Agreements Go To Die?

By Climate Guest Blogger on Dec 7, 2012 at 3:17 pm

by Rebecca Lefton and Andrew Light

This year’s UN climate negotiations have once again deadlocked.  Negotiators and observers in the hall are concerned that this meeting could end with no outcome, much like the long-stalled Doha trade negotiations.  We’re tracking the major sticking points in the three tracks of the meeting and make recommendations on how to move forward.  Those interested can tune in here, and look for which sessions are going on live in plenary room one or two.

Kyoto Protocol

Going into this meeting, it appeared that t the creation of the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol would be a major area of contention.  But while there are some lingering disagreements on some of the points of controversy that were anticipated before Doha, most of the text agreeing to a second commitment period of the protocol is very close to approval.  As we have argued, the most important part of this agreement will be ensuring that the Clean Development Mechanism continue so it can be used for whatever new agreement is created under the new track of the Durban Platform.  The emissions reductions that will come out of the extension of the protocol will be marginal from a global perspective, because it will remain the case that developing countries that are parties to the agreement will not be bound to reduce their emissions in a second commitment period.  In that respect, some of the lingering questions over whether the protocol will be extended for five or seven years do not matter as much.

One thing to look out for, in case the meeting does end in a deadlock, is whether the president of the meeting (which is, as always, a representative from the host country) decides to try to move it forward without the other two tracks.  At this point the decision has been made to move all three tracks forward in one combined package.  If that happens though, then even if the Kyoto track is ready to go, it could get sidelined by disagreement over one of the other tracks.  This would delay implementation of a second period of the protocol and create a gap between the end of the first commitment period (which expires at the end of this month) and the beginning of the second period.  In this eventuality we would recommend splitting up the tracks, if that is at all possible.

Long-Term Cooperative Action

The track on “Long Term Cooperative Action” (or “LCA”) was created in 2007 in Bali and became the vehicle that created the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the 2010 Cancun Agreements.  We have long supported this development as the best outcome that could have come out of the Copenhagen meeting, where most of the major emitters were not yet prepared to negotiate, sign, or ratify a new top-down, legally binding agreement like the Kyoto Protocol that most had hoped would emerge.  The result has been an agreement that captures over 80 percent of global emissions, rather than the 15 percent captured by the remaining parties in the Kyoto Protocol who are legally bound to reduce their emissions, as a series of unilateral voluntary commitments for mitigation to 2020.  Given that this track was slated for ending this year, we’ve been working on a column for the main CAP website to go up next week outlining the successes of this track.

Unfortunately though, the LCA track is the sticking point in Doha.  As we had anticipated, there was a risk that parties would try to pack more into it at the very end, and that’s apparently what has happened.

Read more

Alyssa

What Sen. Joe Manchin’s Complaints About MTV’s ‘Buckwild’ Tell Us About Agency And Reality Television

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Dec 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is displeased that, in the wake of the end of Jersey Shore, in part because some of that show’s stars started doing things like having babies and acquiring responsibilities other than partying, MTV is coming to his state with a show that will start airing next year called Buckwild. The program will follow the antics of a group of twenty-somethings who live in a 4,000-person town. The Washington Post reports on his letter to MTV:

“As a U.S. Senator, I am repulsed at this business venture, where some Americans are making money off of the poor decisions of our youth,” Manchin wrote. “I cannot imagine that anyone who loves this country would feel proud profiting off of ‘Buckwild.’”

“Instead of showcasing the beauty of our people and our state, you preyed on young people, coaxed them into displaying shameful behavior — and now you are profiting from it. That is just wrong.”
In an interview Thursday before sending the letter, Manchin repeatedly called MTV’s decision “just awful.”

“I have no problem with people in this country trying to earn a profit, but I would ask them: Would they do this to their own children, in their own neighborhood, in their own home state?” Manchin said.

It would be nice of Manchin, in the course of defending the innocent young people of his state, would recognize that his own constituents are among the people who “are making money off of the poor decisions of our youth.” There are definitely reality television programs that can be exploitative. Scenes can be cut to be misleading. Producers can be less than honest with participants about their intentions for a project. And no matter how much anyone does to prepare the subjects of a reality show for the limelight, there’s no way to predict what the reaction to a program will be until it airs, or how people who haven’t previously broadcast their lives will react to being characters, as opposed to actual humans.

But we’re also at a point in the development of reality television where many, many people who agree to participate in it are aware of the genre’s conventions, and go into the process with open eyes and a clear sense of how they can leverage the process to their own advantage. The subjects of Breaking Amish appear to have given the producers what they wanted, no matter the facts of their actual lives. I have qualms about making very young children the main characters of reality shows, but the adults who are participating in a program like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo seem self-aware and happy, and rather than becoming objects of pure ridicule, there are a lot of people who have found them rather likable. Jersey Shore‘s stars showed a determined willingness to make fools of themselves, but in a way that was mostly calculated, rather than desperate.

If I were Manchin, I might have a little more respect for my constituents. The only real argument I can see making is that rather than setting the show in Sissonville, which is in Kanawha County in West Virginia, which has 6.1 percent unemployment, down from 6.7 percent last year, MTV might have considered going to Clay County, where the unemployment rate is 13.5 percent, up from 10.6 percent last year.

Economy

Despite GOP Fearmongering, Many Making Over $250,000 Will See Little-To-No Tax Increase Under Obama’s Plan

By Jeff Spross on Dec 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm

Republicans are dead set against President Obama’s plan to raise $1.6 trillion in new revenue through tax increases on Americans making over $250,000. Their argument generally boils down to warnings that the drag of the added tax burden on “job creators” will be so severe it will damage the entire economy. But as a new report by The New York Times detailed yesterday, even a significant minority of those making over the $250,000 threshold would see no increase under Obama’s tax plan, and for the rest the added burden would be minor in comparison to the size of their incomes:

A close look at the president’s plan shows that a large majority of families making up to $300,000 — as well as hundreds of thousands of families with even larger incomes — would not pay taxes at a higher marginal rate. [...]

While the president has said that he wants to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent, only about 1 percent of taxpayers will face higher marginal rates, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a widely respected research group.

The restoration of the other provisions temporarily suspended by the Bush tax cuts, including limits on deductions and higher taxes on investment income, still would raise taxes for only about 32 percent of families with income from $250,000 to $300,000, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. About 77 percent of families with income of $300,000 to $350,000 would face an increase.

That $1.6 trillion in revenue can be raised by applying a relatively small tax burden on a very narrowly defined set of Americans is an indication of how extreme and concentrated income inequality has become in America. It also reveals why multiple studies, the latest from the International Monetary Fund, have concluded that Obama’s preferred set of tax increases will have a negligible effect on economic growth — the income being hit is largely separate from the low and middle-income Americans who provide the bulk of the demand driving the economy.

It’s also evidence of White House policymakers’ desire to strictly adhere to the president’s promise that taxes would not go up on Americans under the $250,000 a year threshold. The cut-off was inflation adjusted to remain consistent with dollars in 2009, when Obama made the promise. And due to the complexities of the tax system, carve-outs aimed at protecting those under the threshold sometimes bleed over to benefit those above the threshold as well. And admittedly, these numbers do not include tax hikes passed under the Affordable Care Act, some of which will fall on the wealthier families spared by the President’s tax plan specifically.

Justice

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Backs Off Support For Arizona-Style Immigration Law

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Dec 7, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Even though he once supported the idea of having a Wisconsin version of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) said this week that he hopes state legislators avoid passing a harmful state immigration measure this year:

“I think that would be a huge distraction for us in the state,” he said. “There’s our niche and our priorities. I don’t think that falls into one of those priorities, so I would certainly hope that the legislature didn’t spend time focusing on that, instead focused on the economy.”

Walker declined, however, to say whether he would veto an immigration bill.

“I’d push to make sure it wouldn’t come up,” he said.

Two years ago as a gubernatorial candidate, Walker said he would sign a version of Arizona’s SB 1070, which aimed to make the state so hostile to undocumented immigrants that they self-deport. “The federal government has failed to secure the border, and states have a right to protect their law-abiding, legal citizens,” Walker said in a May 2010 statement. “The 10th Amendment gives states the right to act as Arizona has with the immigration law.”

But after a Supreme Court ruling struck down much of Arizona’s law and mass deportation policies have harmed state economies, Walker has backed away from his previous statements.

Walker is also one of several Republicans backing away from anti-immigrant measures after Latino voters, who strongly oppose the laws, overwhelmingly backed President Obama in November’s election. Six percent of Wisconsin’s population is Latino, but that number is growing nationally. Even conservative radio host Sean Hannity said he had “evolved” on immigration after the election. “It’s simple to me to fix it,” Hannity said. “I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here — you don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on.”

LGBT

Ugandan Tabloid Runs Photos Of Soccer Official ‘Sodomising Players’

By Zack Ford on Dec 7, 2012 at 2:25 pm

The Ugandan daily tabloid Red Pepper printed pictures today allegedly of Chris Mubiru, head of the Uganda National Football Team (the Cranes), “sodomizing players.” Gay Star News notes that the publication ran five such photos, with headlines like “MASTER AT WORK: Mubiru nails the boys butt” and “END GAME: The boy struggles to stand up after the bum shattering session.” The player is not identified, nor does anything confirm the validity of the pictures.

The pictures are clearly designed to stir up moral outrage as the nation’s Parliament considers the “kill the gays” Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would assign life sentences or the death penalty for homosexual acts or knowledge thereof. Both Red Pepper and a similar magazine, Rolling Stone, have exposed Ugandan citizens they believe to be gays or lesbians, printing their names, photos, and even addresses. Gay activist David Kato was murdered just days after he was exposed by Rolling Stone.

Queerty points out that the photos published today are from (or or meant to resemble) a 2010 incident in which Mubiru supposedly gave a player an unwelcome massage.

Health

Texas Republicans Reconsider Cuts To Women’s Health Clinics After Realizing Unintended Pregnancies Are Likely To Rise

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Dec 7, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Some GOP lawmakers in Texas are suddenly realizing that defunding their state’s Planned Parenthood clinics isn’t a good strategy for helping women avoid unintended pregnancy.

The state’s Health and Human Services Commission projects that — in the aftermath of stripping Planned Parenthood from over $70 million in funds that used to go toward its family planning services, in Texas lawmakers’ ongoing crusade to target the women’s health organization — low-income women will deliver an estimated 23,760 additional babies during 2014 and 2015 than they would have otherwise. The HHS credits the sharp rise in the birth rate to the state budget cuts that have reduced poor women’s access to affordable birth control, and estimates that taxpayers will be shouldered with an estimated additional $273 million in medical expenses and Medicaid coverage for those infants.

And now that the HHS report is being circulated among Texas legislators, some of them are experiencing a wake-up call about the real impact of defunding organizations that provide low-income women with essential preventative health services:

“I know some of my colleagues felt like in retrospect they did not fully grasp the implications of what was done last session,” said Representative Donna Howard, Democrat of Austin, who said she had been discussing ways to restore financing with several other lawmakers in both parties.

She added, “I think there is some effort they’ll be willing to make to restore whatever we can.” [...]

Senator Bob Deuell, Republican of Greenville, has been an advocate for getting Planned Parenthood off taxpayer financing, but he said last session’s family planning cuts had gone too far. He said he had the support of some of Texas’ leading anti-abortion groups to seek more money for birth control and reproductive health care in 2013 — as stand-alone services and as part of what he and Texas health officials hope will be a $70 million expansion of state-subsidized primary care.

“I’ve debated this in Republican clubs with people— people who say it’s not the government’s role to provide family planning ,” said Dr. Deuell, a primary care physician. “Ultimately, they’re right. But you have to look at what happens if we don’t.”

Even if the family planning funding is restored, it almost certainly won’t be able to go toward Planned Parenthood clinics, even though that organization is the largest women’s health provider for low-income women in Texas. In their war against abortion services and providers, GOP lawmakers have insisted on excluding Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Women’s Health Program funding — threatening the very survival of the organization, but also forcing unaffiliated clinics to close their doors as an indirect result of the new regulations to divert the funding.

And Texas Republicans may be interested to know that the new HHS report isn’t the only source warning about future soaring rates of unintended pregnancy in their state. A recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine also predicts that Texas women will be forced to start using less effective forms of birth control as a direct result of the shrinking number of health clinics providing affordable family planning services, increasing their chances of getting pregnant. And preventing such pregnancies should certainly be an attractive goal for the Texas GOP, even outside of the economic benefits, since lowered rates of unintended pregnancy directly correlate to lowered rates of abortion.

Economy

What You Need To Know About The Michigan GOP’s ‘Right-To-Work’ Assault On Workers

By Travis Waldron on Dec 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Michigan workers protest outside the state capitol Thursday

On Thursday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) backtracked on his commitment to avoid so-called “right-to-work” legislation and by the end of the day, both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan state Senate had introduced and passed separate bills aimed at the state’s union workforce.

Michigan Republicans claim the state needs the measure to stay competitive with Indiana, where lawmakers passed “right-to-work” last year. In reality, though, such laws have negative effects on workers and little effect on economic growth. Here is what you need to know about the state GOP’s campaign:

THE LEGISLATION: Both the state House and state Senate passed legislation on Thursday that prohibits private sector unions from requiring members to pay dues. The Senate followed suit and passed a different but similar measure that extends the same prohibition for public sector unions, though firefighters and police officers are exempt. The state House included a budget appropriations provision that is intended to prevent the state’s voters from being able to legally challenge the law through a ballot referendum. Due to state law, both houses are prevented from voting on legislation passed by the other for five days, so neither will be able to fully pass the legislation until Tuesday at the earliest.

THE PROCESS: Union leaders and Democrats claim that Republicans are pushing the legislation through in the lame-duck session to hide the intent of the measures from citizens, and because the legislation would face more trouble after the new House convenes in January. Michigan Republicans hold a 63-47 advantage in the state House, but Democrats narrowed the GOP majority to just eight seats in November. Six Republicans opposed the House measure; five of them won re-election in 2012 (the sixth retired). And Michigan Republicans have good reason to pursue the laws without public debate. Though the state’s voters are evenly split on whether it should become a right-to-work state, 78 percent of voters said the legislature “should focus on issues like creating jobs and improving education, and not changing state laws or rules that would impact unions or make further changes in collective bargaining.”

THE CONSEQUENCES: While Snyder and Republicans pitched “right-to-work” as a pro-worker move aimed at improving the economy, studies show such legislation can cost workers money. The Economic Policy Institute found that right-to-work laws cost all workers, union and otherwise, $1,500 a year in wages and that they make it harder for workers to obtain pensions and health coverage. “If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress wrote earlier this year. The decreases in union membership that result from right-to-work laws have a significant impact on the middle class and research “shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth,” EPI wrote in a recent report about Michigan. “Right-to-work” laws also decrease worker safety and can hurt small businesses.

Union leaders are, of course, aghast at Snyder and the GOP’s right-to-work push. “In a state that gave birth to the modern U.S. labor movement, it is unconscionable that Michigan legislators would seek to drive down living standards for Michigan workers and families with a law that will do nothing to improve either the state’s economic climate or the quality of life for Michigan residents,” RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, said in a statement.

Update

Michigan’s House of Representatives passed the “right-to-work” law for public sector unions, 58-51. It is expected to vote on similar legislation applying to private sector unions later today. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is also expected to sign the legislation into law today.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up