#the irony of this happening as the supreme court tries to destroy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

candy--heart · 7 years

Text

HOW THE G.O.P. SABOTAGED OBAMACARE- ACA:

By ABBE R. GLUCK MAY 25, 2017 Obamacare is not “collapsing under its own weight,” as Republicans are so fond of saying. It was sabotaged from the day it was enacted. And now the Republican Party should be held accountable not only for any potential replacement of the law, but also for having tried to starve it to death. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday released its accounting of the House Republicans’ replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act, and the numbers are not pretty: It is projected to leave 23 million more Americans uninsured over 10 years, through deep cuts to insurance subsidies and Medicaid. The report underscores how the bill would cut taxes for the rich to take health care away from the less well-off. The A.C.A. is not perfect, and improvements to it would be welcome. But it worked in many respects and would have worked much better had Congress been a faithful guardian of the law. It is worth making a record of those Republican saboteurs’ efforts. The A.C.A.’s opponents brought a lawsuit against its requirement that people buy insurance — a Republican idea — the very day the statute was signed into law. The Supreme Court rejected that claim. But the court gave opponents a major victory on another front, ruling that Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid was optional for states. Yet another lawsuit seized on some sloppy language in the law to make the implausible argument that Congress did not provide for the insurance subsidies on which the law depends. The Supreme Court also rejected that challenge. But if the Republicans lost those cases, they succeeded in sowing the insurance markets with doubt and forcing states to slow down implementation while awaiting the court’s decisions. That in turn may have reduced sign-ups, further destabilizing the insurance market. The second case challenging the subsidies was not decided until 2015, more than a year after the statute’s critical 2014 deadline for implementation. Even worse, these lawsuits helped make the A.C.A. the salient partisan issue of the Obama administration, turning the law into the ultimate Republican litmus test: Implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid, even when it seemed in a state’s interest, became treasonous for the party. Nevertheless, about a dozen principled Republican governors bucked their party and expanded their programs. In 2014, the House brought a lawsuit, arguing that a critical piece of A.C.A. funding — the cost-sharing subsidies that pay insurers to lower premiums — had not been properly appropriated. For insurers, not knowing whether that money could be cut off — President Trump is still threatening not to pay them — has caused anxiety about whether to remain in the A.C.A. markets. More than 100 other suits have been filed, including challenges to contraception provisions and the requirement that employers provide insurance. On the political front, the Republicans targeted provisions of the law that provided crucial transitional financing to steady the insurance markets early in the program. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, calling the money an insurance “bailout,” sponsored a measure that prevented appropriation of some of those funds. The courts have issued mixed rulings on whether the federal government must pay, adding yet more instability to the insurance markets. The Affordable Care Act, like any major statute, surely could use adjustments. For example, the insurance subsidies were probably set too low initially. The Obama administration’s decision to allow more people to stay on their old plans than originally expected may also have narrowed the new pool of insurance customers in ways that contributed to premium hikes. The Republican-controlled House never provided any additional implementation money after the initial appropriation set forth in the Affordable Care Act itself, forcing the Department of Health and Human Services to scrounge for needed funds. A caretaking Congress would have fixed what wasn’t working. Instead, opponents did everything possible to shut off all the A.C.A.’s financing — starvation intended to wreak havoc in the insurance markets and to make it falsely appear that the A.C.A. was collapsing because it was just bad policy. The irony is that the A.C.A. was vulnerable to this strategy because the Democrats had tried to compromise with the Republicans in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to build bipartisan support for the law. If the Democrats had instead enacted a single-payer policy — such as Medicare for all — the entire health care system would have been in the hands of the federal government, instead of dependent on the states and private insurers. For now, it would be better to fix/repair ACA, then try to convince Congress to consider single-payer. It would probably be too confusing for them, since all they want to do is destroy Obamacare, rather than working with Democrats to make the much needed improvements. Now the Republicans find themselves in a mess. The Affordable Care Act has brought health care to an estimated 20 million more Americans and has expanded services — including access to drugs and preventive screening — for many more. A good number of Americans, including Republicans and the president himself, say they like elements of the law. It’s not a coincidence that the Trump administration’s first proposed health care regulation was aimed at stabilizing the insurance markets. Still, Republicans are using the Affordable Care Act’s so-called collapse as an argument for a much stingier law, one that would leave states responsible for paying many health care costs. Some conservatives are using the assault on the A.C.A. not to assail its novel insurance provisions — which many people like — but rather to grind an old ax against the entire Medicaid program, which was enacted in 1965 to help the poor. As the Senate turns to its own bill, it still has time to preserve the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are working and, more importantly, strengthen those that could succeed with proper support. That would be responsible — and, indeed, is what should have happened all along.

4 notes · View notes

avaalexblog · 4 years

Text

Women's Reproductive Health

Women’s Reproductive Health

ABOUT THIS CAMPING:

The supreme court has put the future of abortion rights in doubt. We must organize This is happening against the will of the American people. The vast majority — 77% — support Roe v Wade

Abortion access in America is hanging by a thread. On Wednesday, I sat in the US supreme court and listened to the case — June Medical Services v Russo — that could be the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade.

As the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, it was my privilege to be one of the few listenings in the court — but the reality is that this case will affect the rights and lives of millions.

If the court upholds the medically unnecessary Louisiana law at the center of the case, it could leave 1 million women of reproductive age in Louisiana with only one health center that provides abortion. Nationwide, the impact could reach even further: this decision could pave the way for states to in effect ban abortion for more than 25 million women across the country.

The supreme court already ruled — just four years ago — that a nearly identical law was unconstitutional. The only difference now is the composition of the court: Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to strike down the law, has retired, and now the justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch sit on the court.

It’s not by accident that the supreme court is in a position to jeopardize abortion for millions of people. This happened by design.

The Future of Women’s Reproductive Health — Hope you’d like this Women’s Reproductive Health T Shirt. Special Run of Women’s Reproductive Health T Shirts produced just for you.Grab Women’s Reproductive Health Shirt Today.Here you can get your Women’s Reproductive Health Shirts.

Grab now official Women’s Reproductive Rights Shirt:

https://teespring.com/en-GB/stores/womens-reproductive-health

https://teespring.com/en-GB/keep-abortion-legal-t-shirts

https://teespring.com/en-GB/fight-for-her-t-shirts

The abortion case that could threaten women’s reproductive rights in the US

For decades, anti-abortion politicians have worked to take away our right to control our bodies and access basic healthcare. Five states have only one healthcare center that provides abortions, forcing women to travel hundreds of miles to see a provider. Medically unnecessary laws can require patients to wait up to three days between their first appointment and going in for the procedure — but taking that much time off work, or finding childcare for two trips to the clinic, often makes jumping through those hoops impossible.

And abortion is just one piece of the picture. At the same time as anti-abortion politicians have been pushing these harmful state policies, the current administration has been carrying out a full-throated attack on our reproductive health. Officials have tried to make it harder to get birth control by gutting the only national program for affordable birth control, known as Title X; tried to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which granted tens of millions of women access to birth control without a copay; and given bosses and universities permission to deny their employees or students insurance coverage for birth control for any “moral” reason. In fact, the supreme court will be taking up two of those issues later this year — in cases about access to birth control coverage and healthcare coverage for millions.

To be sure, the fight for access to reproductive healthcare started long before the current administration. Roe v Wade has not ensured that access to abortion is equitable in this country. For people of color, and black women in particular, the promise of reproductive freedom has never been fully realized. Our country’s history of structural racism and discrimination has meant many people of color have less economic opportunity, and with it, less access to healthcare and health insurance.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that the stakes for our reproductive rights have never been higher. If this administration and their allies have their way, millions of people could lose access to birth control and to safe and legal abortion.

To the politicians who aim to rob us of justice — brace yourselves for the strength of our resistance The irony is that this is all happening against the will of the American people. The vast majority — 77% — of Americans support Roe v Wade. There is no state where the prospect of banning abortion has popular support. Americans want access to birth control, and they want more access to healthcare, not less. These are everyday issues that affect our lives: nearly one in four women in this country will have an abortion. Nearly all women who have had sex have used birth control.

We cannot stop fighting for everyone’s right to access sexual and reproductive healthcare. That means battling efforts to overturn Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion. But it also means diminishing the gap between what is a legal right and what is accessible; legal abortion means nothing if only the privileged have access. Together, alongside our reproductive justice partners on the ground, we must fight state by state to protect access where it still exists, and to expand access where we can.

We have no choice but to fight for justice. We cannot be free to imagine a better world for ourselves, for our children, for our brothers and sisters and non-binary siblings, if we don’t have justice. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, quoting Thomas Jefferson: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”

To the politicians who aim to rob us of that justice — brace yourselves for the strength of our resistance.

Alexis McGill Johnson is the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund As 2020 begins… … we’re asking readers, like you, to make a new year contribution in support of the Guardian’s open, independent journalism. This has been a turbulent decade across the world — protest, populism, mass migration and the escalating climate crisis. The Guardian has been in every corner of the globe, reporting with tenacity, rigour and authority on the most critical events of our lifetimes. At a time when factual information is both scarcer and more essential than ever, we believe that each of us deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

More people than ever before are reading and supporting our journalism, in more than 180 countries around the world. And this is only possible because we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.

We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media — with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias — never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.

None of this would have been attainable without our readers’ generosity — your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.

As we enter a new decade, we need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.

#womensreproductiverightsshirt #womensreproductiverightstshirts #womensreproductiverightstshirt #womensreproductivehealthshirts #womensreproductivehealthshirt #womensreproductivehealthtshirts #womensreproductivehealthtshirt #reproductivehealthtshirt

0 notes

hellofastestnewsfan · 5 years

Link

ISTANBUL—In the summer of 2001, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a charismatic former mayor of Istanbul, promised to transform Turkish politics. “The period of ego-centered politics is over,” he said, announcing the founding of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). “We will not obey nor idolize anyone. A team will administer the party. The leader will not overshadow it. Those who come by election will go by election.”

These promises carry a dark sense of irony today. A party built on grassroots mobilization and local governance is controlled by those at the top. Foreign investors who helped fuel years of unprecedented economic growth are cowed by the erosion of independent institutions. Critics of the government are detained late at night over a tweet insulting the president. Yet one pledge—to the supremacy of the popular will—had long remained largely intact. Ever since 2002, the AKP’s power has, above all, been based on an undeniable fact: It just kept winning elections.

Now this fundamental principle, too, may be at stake. Following local elections last month, the AKP challenged results in several cities where it did not win a majority. In Istanbul, it pushed for a recount that dragged on for more than two weeks. Just before the opposition candidate Ekrem Imamoğlu was eventually declared mayor, the AKP filed a request to invalidate the outcome of the election and rerun the vote, on which the Supreme Electoral Council is expected to decide soon.

[Read: Erdoğan is dividing Turkey against itself]

These moves have brought already existing divisions and discontent within the AKP to a boiling point. For years, members of the party have privately complained about their frustrations and worries, but only when nobody could hear them. Shocked by recent events, some have now decided to speak out, offering a rare glimpse into a party that seems to have forgotten what it once stood for. Pushing for a cancellation of the election, these internal critics warn, would harm not just Turkish democracy, but the future of their own party as well.

“I am voicing criticism because others are not,” Kemal Öztürk, a former spokesman for Erdoğan who also served as the head of Turkey’s state news agency Anadolu from 2011 to 2014, told me. “I am a member of the AKP and want it to stay in power. But for that to happen, the party should constantly renew itself.”

Öztürk said structural problems have beset the AKP in recent years, since it embarked on a more nationalist course. This mounting nationalism reflected a global trend, he said, adding that it was in part a reaction to what were perceived as anti-Turkish sentiments in the West. As relations with Europe soured, many liberals left the party, and its commitment to meritocratic principles dwindled.

According to Galip Dalay, a visiting scholar at Oxford University, experienced politicians have, as a result, been replaced by Erdoğan’s personal confidants. “President Erdoğan values loyalty above everything else,” Dalay told me. “This has promoted a politics of favoritism and the rise of a class of careerists. These figures put their own interests above everything else and fuel personal rivalries within the party.”

Four sources with ties within the AKP, all of whom requested anonymity out of fear of reprisals, in particular expressed concerns about the growing influence of Erdoğan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak, who was appointed finance minister last year. The election loss in Istanbul, these sources said, was at least partly related to a power struggle between Albayrak and the AKP’s candidate for mayor, Binali Yıldırım. According to one of the sources, a former political adviser still in touch with the party leadership, the two clashed as Albayrak demanded to maintain his influence in the future management of the city, which undermined Yıldırım’s already lackluster campaign.

[Read: The decline and fall of Turkish democracy]

The infighting is tied in large part to the enormous financial interests at stake. The budget of Istanbul’s Metropolitan Municipality amounted to 42.6 billion Turkish lira ($7.3 billion) last year, higher than that of most national ministries. A large proportion of this money goes to private companies to which the municipality outsources the provision of services or infrastructure projects. Controlling Istanbul therefore means presiding over a huge network of nepotistic relations that have increasingly become the oil that keeps the AKP’s power machine going. The Albayrak family has invested in these relations since the mid-1990s, when Erdoğan was mayor of Istanbul and outsourced municipal projects to Albayrak Holding, a Turkish conglomerate that has taken on large construction and infrastructure projects ever since.

It seems no coincidence, then, that media outlets managed by members and business partners of the Albayrak family, such as Sabah and A Haber, were quick to discredit the election results, accusing the opposition of “theft” at the ballot box. Erdoğan himself initially responded in milder fashion, calling on all parties to respect an ongoing recount in several districts, but when it became clear that doing so would not change the result, he too claimed that the election was marred by “organized crime.”

Given the narrow margin of the opposition’s victory, the AKP’s initial request for a recount was understandable. Yet according to Osman Can, a former judge-rapporteur at Turkey’s Constitutional Court and onetime member of the AKP’s board, the party failed to deliver sufficient evidence for irregularities and violated the time frame within which a recount can take place. “The whole process was unconstitutional,” Can told me.

Abdullah Gül, a co-founder of the AKP and a former Turkish president, also condemned the government’s handling of the recount, which he said “cast a shadow over our democracy.” His statement gave support to long-running speculation that onetime AKP heavyweights were preparing a new splinter party. A potential leader of such a breakaway faction would be Ahmet Davutoğlu, a former prime minister. One of the sources I spoke to, citing a recent conversation with Davutoğlu, told me that the politician was planning to make such a move in the coming months, but had struggled to join forces with Gül because of personal rivalries. Davutoğlu’s frustration was apparent in a lengthy post on his Facebook page, in which he lamented the AKP’s losses in last month’s local elections and criticized “a circle which considers itself to be above our party’s governing bodies and tries to run it like a parallel structure.”

Öztürk said he believed new political movements would take shape this year, but doubted Gül or Davutoğlu would enjoy much public appeal. He instead expressed concerns over the rising star of Istanbul’s new mayor-elect, Imamoğlu, who, unlike his own secularist Republican People’s Party, has managed to reach out to AKP voters by promising inclusiveness and accountability—much like Erdoğan once did himself. Efforts to discredit Imamoğlu’s victory, Öztürk argued, have only increased his popularity: “He was just going to become a mayor. Now he became a leader.”

[Read: Grocery stores are at the front line of Turkey’s latest political battle]

Critics of the AKP’s strategy therefore fear that a rerun would only make matters worse for the party. One source, the former political adviser, said that the party not only would struggle to increase its share of the vote, but also could face even greater economic unrest. With youth unemployment at more than 25 percent, a currency in decline, and high levels of inflation, he said that the last thing financial markets needed was a new election period.

The Supreme Electoral Council now faces a momentous decision. “If it goes on to cancel this election, it would destroy its credibility altogether,” said Can, the former judge-rapporteur. “People would lose their trust [in] elections, which would be an absolute turning point in the history of Turkish democracy.”

The electoral council is under “great political pressure,” Can told me, but he said he nevertheless expected that the AKP had by now realized the risk of a rerun. Indeed, there are some signs that Erdoğan himself has begun to change his tune. In a statement that contrasted with his previous attacks on the election results, the president on Friday said that “it’s time to shake hands” and refocus on improving the economy and security.

The former mayor of Istanbul understands like no other what this might entail for his future grip on power. “If we lose Istanbul, we lose Turkey,” Erdoğan is reported to have said. Turkish electoral history teaches that control over municipalities is the key to success in subsequent national elections. Above all, voters demand efficient local services and economic benefits, the two cornerstones of the AKP’s own success.

The only way to win the national elections in 2023, Öztürk argues, is to respect the foundational promises Erdoğan made back in 2001. “The AKP must return to its default settings,” he said, not without a sense of nostalgia. “Being in the field, hearing the voice of the streets. That’s how it used to be.”

from The Atlantic http://bit.ly/2IymjM7

#Blogger

0 notes

learnprogress · 7 years

Text

BREAKING: Supreme Court Approves Impeachment For Powerful Republican. Make It HAPPEN.

Governor of Alabama Robert Bentley will soon face impeachment for his many crimes. The Alabama Supreme Court just cleared that way for impeachment hearings against Governor Bentley.

The high-and-mighty, family-values Governor of Alabama fell from his high horse to face impeachment. The governor faces charges of willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, and offenses of moral turpitude.

Bentley fired an Alabama employee who helped the media expose an affair that the governor had with his staffer.

To make matters worse, Bentley tried to cover up the affair by using state resources. This prompted the Alabama Ethics Commission to issue the following press release regarding Bentley:

“Today, the Alabama Ethics Commission found probable cause to believe that Governor Robert Bentley committed violations of both the Alabama Ethics Act and the Fair Campaign Practices Act. We have referred those matters to the Montgomery County District Attorney for further consideration and possible prosecution.”

Then a special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee released a report that said:

“Gov. Robert Bentley engaged in an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with his chief adviser, then used intimidation tactics and deployed state law enforcement officials in an effort to cover it up.”

Bentley campaigned as a God-fearing conservative with “family values” and won. Now, he faces impeachment for destroying his family and wasting government money to cover it up. The irony is undeniable.

“We’re looking at this governor who has essentially betrayed the trust of the people of Alabama through actions and lies that have caused us to have some doubt about his leadership,” Republican State Representative Ed Henry said.

“We have the votes to pass it [impeachment], but if we brought it up today, I believe it would fail,” Henry continued.

While Henry has his doubts, the movement for Bentley’s impeachment is gaining steam quickly. Hopefully, the Alabama legislators will put party aside and do what’s right.

Bentley vows to fight the impeachment hearings and issued a statement regarding the hearings.

“For five years, I have faithfully served the people of Alabama,” Bentley’s statement reads. “We have made great progress streamlining the way state government operates and have saved taxpayers more than $1 Billion annually.”

“There are no grounds for impeachment, and I will vigorously defend myself and my administration from this political attack,” Bentley continued. “Today’s press conference is nothing more than political grandstanding intended to grab headlines and take the focus away from the important issues the Legislature still has to address before the end of the session.”

What Bentley doesn’t understand is that this isn’t political grandstanding. Those who call for his impeachment simply want justice.

After all, he stole taxpayer money to cover up an affair. That is despicable and deserves consequences.

Such con artists as Bentley, Devin Nunes, Charles and David Koch, Jamie Diamon, and even Donald Trump are not exempt from the law due to their positions in government or the corporate world.

Anyone else who stole from the government would face consequences. Bentley should too.

If you agree that the Alabama House must impeach Governor Bentley, please share this article on Facebook.

The post BREAKING: Supreme Court Approves Impeachment For Powerful Republican. Make It HAPPEN. appeared first on Learn Progress.

from BREAKING: Supreme Court Approves Impeachment For Powerful Republican. Make It HAPPEN.

#Corruption #affair #Alabama #impeachment #Robert Bentley

0 notes