ThinkProgress Logo

Health

2012 Saw The Second Highest Number Of New Abortion Restrictions

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Jan 2, 2013 at 4:25 pm

According to the Guttmacher Institute’s annual report on state-level abortion legislation, anti-choice lawmakers enacted the second highest number of new abortion restrictions in 2012 since the organization began tracking the annual data in 1985.

This past year, 19 states passed 42 different provisions intended to restrict women’s access to abortion services — second only to the record-breaking 92 anti-abortion provisions that were passed in 2011:

Guttmacher’s analysis tracked abortion-related “provisions” rather than laws, since states passed women’s health laws that often contained several relevant provisions — contributing to the fact that the new anti-abortion legislation was highly geographically concentrated. Twenty three of the new restrictions, over half of the total number of anti-abortion restrictions passed in 2012, were enacted in just six states.

Arizona topped the list by enacting seven abortion restrictions, including a stringent 20-week abortion ban that currently has the unfortunate distinction of being the harshest law in the nation. Not to be outdone, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin each enacted at least three pieces of anti-abortion legislation to limit their residents’ reproductive rights as well.

Most of the new anti-choice provisions enacted in 2012 restricted abortion access by banning later-term abortions, denying insurance coverage for abortion services in the health exchanges created under Obamacare, and limiting the availability of medicine-induced abortions. On the other hand, exactly zero laws were enacted in 2012 to improve women’s access to abortion, increase the availability of family planning services, or expand comprehensive sexual education programs.

Alyssa

In Pennsylvania Lawsuit, NCAA Gets Challenge It Asked For With Penn State Sanctions

By Travis Waldron on Jan 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm

Last July, the NCAA leveled Penn State University’s football program with sanctions for its involvement with and cover-up of the Jerry Sandusky rape scandal. The sanctions vacated 14 years of wins, banned the school from participating in bowl games for four years, and levied $60 million in fines. With the exception of the so-called “death penalty” it leveled on Southern Methodist University in 1986, it was the most far-reaching punishment the NCAA had ever issued.

This morning, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) announced at a press conference that his state was bringing an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA to challenge those sanctions. Flanked by area business owners, state politicians, and Penn State students, Corbett called the NCAA’s actions “overreaching and unlawful,” and accused the organization of overstepping its legal bounds in punishing Penn State.

The lawsuit may be futile. Penn State, after all, agreed to the sanctions, though Corbett reasoned that it did so only to evade the “death penalty.” Corbett’s motivations, meanwhile, seem far from pure. He has an election coming up in 2014, and he’s about to become the subject of another investigation, as incoming Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) has promised to probe his role as attorney general in the investigation and cover-up of Sandusky’s crimes. And there are plenty of other questions to be asked. Neither Penn State nor the current attorney general are party in the suit, which only contributes to the feeling that the lawsuit is more exhibition than substance. It is also unclear how expensive the case will be for taxpayers at a time when the state is already facing a multibillion-dollar budget gap.

Despite the facts against the case and the murky questions that remain, though, it is hard to argue that the NCAA and president Mark Emmert didn’t leave the door open to such a suit when they punished Penn State. And as such, it’s hard to imagine that the organization and Emmert are getting anything else than what they asked for.

The NCAA’s punishment of Penn State was sloppy. It reeked of desperation, a public relations ploy to comfort everyone into thinking that it had done something — anything — to address the Penn State problem. The NCAA never conducted its own investigation, instead relying on the Freeh Report commissioned by the university. There was no hearing before the Committee on Infractions, no notice of allegations, no charges against the school, all typical components of an NCAA case. In announcing the sanctions, which he seemed to reach unilaterally, Emmert never specified which NCAA rule Penn State had broken.

That is the heart of Corbett and Pennsylvania’s suit. “The NCAA has punished Penn State without citing a single concrete NCAA rule that Penn State has broken, for conduct that in no way compromised the NCAA’s mission of fair competition, and with a complete disregard for the NCAA’s own enforcement procedures,” the complaint states. In doing so, the complaint asserts that the NCAA, acting as a trade association, violated antitrust law in a way that will have a “devastating, long-lasting, and irreparable effect on the Commonwealth, its citizens, and its economy.”

That the NCAA violated antitrust law, that its members essentially conspired to decimate Penn State football, is “going to be very hard to prove,” ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack said this afternoon.

Regardless of whether Pennsylvania wins the suit, though, the NCAA’s sloppy punishment has indirectly turned this into an even bigger mess than it already was, and it could get even worse. The lawsuit could jeopardize the investigation Kane, who takes office this month, has promised to lead, giving Corbett an easy out to avoid commenting on a pending issue and perhaps preventing the public from learning exactly how far into the state government the vines of the Sandusky scandal stretched. Corbett isn’t a hero here, and I’m still not sold that this lawsuit should have been filed. But it is now entirely and unfortunately possible that the NCAA’s punishment may inadvertently cause more problems in the clean up of Penn State than it ever hoped to fix.

NEWS FLASH

Connecticut Governor Nominates State’s First Openly Gay Justice | Last week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) nominated former state senate Judiciary Chair Andrew McDonald for a seat on the Connecticut Supreme Court. If confirmed, McDonald will be the first openly gay member of Connecticut’s highest court. As a state lawmaker, McDonald was a leading proponent of marriage equality, and a backer of an earlier law providing for civil unions in Connecticut. McDonald stepped down from his seat in the state senate to become Malloy’s top legal advisor.

Health

Unlike The U.S., Most Countries Offer Birth Control Pills Over The Counter

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Jan 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm

A new study from reproductive health researchers in Oakland, CA finds that the majority of countries ease women’s access to reproductive health services by making birth control pills available over the counter. The United States is one of 45 countries that still require women to obtain a prescription for oral contraceptives.

The lead researcher of the study, Dr. Daniel Grossman, noted that a pattern emerged along economic lines — perhaps because countries that tend to have residents with lower incomes have invested more in family planning services:

“The patterns we saw were interesting,” said Grossman. “Higher income countries — western Europe, Australia, Japan and North America — generally require a prescription.”

Grossman told Reuters Health he couldn’t explain why these patterns have emerged.

“Perhaps in places like China and India that have pills available over-the-counter formally without a prescription might be consistent with strong national family planning programs,” he speculated.

But ensuring robust family planning programs and accessible contraceptive services is a smart economic policy for wealthier countries as well. Women here in the U.S. report that having readily available access to birth control is essential to helping them achieve their economic goals, since family planning resources allow them to delay having children until they are financially prepared to support dependents. And studies show that eliminating barriers to effective forms of contraception lowers the rates of unintended pregnancy — which cost taxpayers an estimated 11 billion dollars annually in public insurance coverage.

New guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that the U.S. amend its policy to allow women to purchase birth control pills without a prescription. Oral contraceptives are the most popular form of birth control, but the outdated practice of requiring women to visit the doctor to obtain a prescription leads some women to take their pills less regularly and compromise the method’s effectiveness.

Climate Progress

Film Review: Matt Damon Takes On Fracking In Promised Land

By Climate Guest Blogger on Jan 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm

by Tina Gerhardt, via The Progressive

Hydraulic fracturing, known colloquially as fracking, is a contentious issue, and Hollywood has not overlooked it.

Promised Land, directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Matt Damon, takes on fracking, which involves blasting millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into rock, often shale, in order to extract the oil and natural gas within the formations. Critics argue that the process wastes colossal amounts of water; contaminates air, soil, and drinking water; and may be implicated in causing earthquakes.

The screenplay, written by Matt Damon and John Krasinski, is based on a story by Dave Eggers. It’s a decidedly mixed bag.

In Promised Land, Steve Butler (Matt Damon) is a salesman, who — along with his colleague Sue Thomason (Frances McDormand) — travels to rural Pennsylvania. He sees fracking as a chance to help struggling farmers. Working for Global Crosspower Solutions, they sign lucrative leases: the farmers earn money by leasing their farmland, while Global earns by extracting its resources.

Having grown up in rural Iowa, where his grandfather owned a farm, Steve knows first-hand the struggle of farmers, so sees no issues with his mission at first. All the arguments from “can’t survive on federal farm subsidies” to “it will fund the rising cost of a college education” are included in the sales pitch and made in quick succession.

As in real life, heated debates among the area residents ensue. The farmers, who are struggling financially, are tempted to take the badly needed monies to make ends meet. Yet Frank Yates (Hal Holbrook), a science teacher at the local high school, expresses concerns at a town meeting about the long-term effects of hydraulic fracturing on the region, its soil, water, and air, and consequently on livestock and residents’ health.

And then Dustin Noble (John Krasinski), an environmentalist, arrives in town, expressing just these and other concerns, too. Who will pay for the clean up that might be needed, once the resources are depleted and the company moves on? The company? The state? The local coffers? Who will pay for any adverse effects on health that might be incurred? Who will replace the lost jobs that the boom and bust economic wave might unleash? A one-man organizer, he goes farm to farm, talking to the residents and putting up signs in their front lawns that read “Global Go Home” and are adorned with images of dead cows.

Read more

Security

District Court Rejects Request For ‘Kill List’ Disclosure

By Hayes Brown on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain disclosure of a set of memos that describe the use of targeted killings in combating terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times intended to secure the release of the criteria used to determine who is and is not eligible to be targeted in the Obama administration’s drone strike program after being rejected by the administration in June.

But in her ruling, Judge Colleen McMahon found that though she agrees that debate on the usage of drone strikes should be made in the open, she is unable to force the government to turn over the documents under FOIA:

However, this Court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland [sic] nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret.

White House top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the program, part of which was first revealed in May 2012, has a very strict set of limits on who is targeted for drone strikes. However, those limits have never been clearly put forward in public, as the CIA’s drone strikes program remains classified.

In putting forward their suits, the ACLU and New York Times were focused on determining the decision-making process behind the choice to target and kill American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, a leading figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Since then, policymakers and scholars have debated over the legality of the strike that killed al-Awlaki.

LGBT

Bank Of America Settles HUD Complaint About LGBT Discrimination

By Zack Ford on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm

The Bank of America has agreed to settle a claim brought by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on behalf of a lesbian couple that was denied financing for a home mortgage. Last year, HUD implemented sweeping nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, and this settlement marks the first implementation of that new policy. Helen Kanovsky, HUD’s General Counsel, commended Bank of America for “stepping up and taking immediate correction action” after being notified of the violation.

Here is how HUD describes what took place:

HUD claimed BOA denied a loan to a Florida couple seeking to obtain an FHA-insured mortgage because of their sexual orientation and marital status.  Because one partner was not employed, the applicant enlisted her partner’s mother as a co-applicant on the loan.  The couple worked with BOA for several weeks to provide all of the necessary loan application documents and the couple was assured by BOA that they were likely to receive a mortgage.  One business day prior to closing, BOA denied the mortgage because it did not consider the loan applicant and the co-applicant directly related because the applicant and her partner were not married.  As a result of BOA’s actions, the couple was not able to close on the loan.

Under the terms of the agreement, BOA agrees to pay HUD $7,500 and to notify its residential mortgage loan originators, processors and underwriters of its Settlement Agreement with HUD. In addition, BOA will remind its employees that they are prohibited from discriminating against FHA-loan applicants on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.  BOA will also update its fair lending training program to include information on HUD’s rule.

The settlement is an important victory for the well-being of the LGBT community, but also a reminder that discrimination still persists in society.

Economy

Chris Christie Rips House GOP For Blocking Sandy Relief: ‘Shame On You’

By Igor Volsky on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) — a rising star within the GOP — tore into the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for failing to vote on a Hurricane Sandy aid package before the end of the 112th Congress on Tuesday night. “Our people were played last night as a pawn,” Christie said, adding that residents of New Jersey and New York have been treated as second-class citizens.

Noting that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle provided relief for victims of past national disaster at a greatly expedited pace, Christie charged that Republicans put politics “before our oaths to serve our citizens.” “Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state,” he said.

“There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their Speaker John Boehner (R-OH),” Christie declared. Historically, “disaster relief was something that you didn’t play games with, but now in this current atmosphere everything is a subject of one-upmanship,” he continued. “It is why the American people hate Congress.” Watch a portion of his remarks:

Christie said that he called Boehner four times after 11:20 PM “and he did not take my calls” or explain why he pulled a vote on the measure, which had passed the Senate earlier in a bipartisan vote. 62 Senators supported the $60 billion relief measure and a House Appropriations Committee had approved a $27 billion bill.

“Sixty-six days and counting. Shame on you, shame on Congress,” Christie said. “My hope is that the good people in Congress will prevail upon their colleagues to finally put aside the politics and help our people now.” The New Jersey governor explained that he was given assurances that some version of the relief package would come to the floor as late as 9:00 PM last night and claimed that nobody has given him a “credible reason” as to why the bill wasn’t voted on. GOP House members from New York like Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm are also publicly questioned the reason behind Boehner’s decision.

Responding to Republican criticism that the relief bill wall full of wasteful projects, Christie explained that he and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) thoroughly substantiated the size of the package. “Those guys should spend a little more time reading the information we sent them and a little less time reading political talking points put together by their staff,” he said. Christie also left the door open to campaigning against certain House Republicans. “We’ll see,” he said. “Primaries are an ugly thing.”

In the last few years, House Republicans have embraced the practice of holding disaster relief hostage in exchange for Democratic concessions on spending cuts, but in each instance they have ultimately backed down and passed relief aid. The federal flood insurance program is expected to run out of money by the end of next week.

A spokesman for Boehner insisted in an email to Reuters that “The Speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month,” but believed that Tuesday night “was not a good time” to vote on relief.

Update

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is telling reporters that Boehner will now allow a vote on $9 billion for flood insurance on Friday. On Jan. 15, the chamber will vote on an additional $51 billion in relief.

Update

The New York Daily News reports that Boehner “yanked the bill to provide $60 billion in emergency aid to states ravaged by Hurricane Sandy to get back at a top lieutenant who defied him over the Fiscal Cliff fix.”

Justice

‘Armed Teacher Training Program’ Launches In 15 States

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:15 pm

An Ohio gun owners’ group is launching an “Armed Teacher Training Program” to instruct teachers and school staff on how to shoot off firearms in the classroom.

Perhaps at the outlandish suggestion of the National Rifle Association, who last month called for armed guards in every school as a response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary, such programs are popping up around the country. In Ohio, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation, along with a group called the Tactical Defense Institute, is crafting a curriculum specifically designed for teachers and school staff. A local Fox affiliate has details on who is signing up– they report that more than one third of the applicants are women, and that “more than half of the applicants work in high schools”:

As of Wednesday, the Armed Teacher Training Program has attracted more than 600 applicants from several states including Ohio, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

“We knew this would be popular, but the response has exceeded out expectations,” said Jim Irvine, Chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. “People doubted if we would fill the first class. That happened in hours. This is something many in our schools have been asking about for a long time.” [...]

“No one will be forced to be armed if they choose not to. The strategy is the same as ordinary concealed carry. No one will ever know who is or is not armed. Those who seek to do harm in schools should be met with armed resistance, even before law enforcement shows up. Over time, schools will no longer be considered easy, risk-free targets.”

Arming teachers is illogical. More guns in classrooms, inevitably, will lead to accidents and unintended harm. Shootouts between teachers and gunmen is unlikely to be a net positive for students. But moreover, doesn’t get to the heart of the issue. America’s gun violence epidemic is not limited to classrooms. Gun deaths are set to outpace motor vehicle accident deaths by 2015, and the victims are diverse: Women with abusive partners, couples caught in crossfire, teens caught up in gangs, men carjacked while driving down the street, women mugged walking home through the park. The list is endless. Even in a world where arming teachers is the best solution for preventing a tragedy like Sandy Hook, it offers no hope to victims of gun violence out in the rest of society.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up