Healthy is for the Wealthy

“…What do the young know or care about health insurance?”

According to conservative columnist Michael Barone young people have “the fewest medical problems of the whole population.” Clearly this guy hasn’t talked to me. I’m one of the millions of young people carrying the permanent label “sick-for-life.”

I’ve been in and out of doctors offices and hospitals for as long as I can remember. As a kid I was lucky enough to have health care through my parents plan, but I still understood my treatment had a cost. My parents voices still echo in my head: “Without insurance we’ll go bankrupt. We’re not going to just let you die.”

As I got older, the expectation of losing insurance became a serious pre-occupation with getting insurance. I calculated the costs of the bare-minimum medication I need to get by… It’s over $3,000 a month.

No one should have to be rich to be healthy.

For the rest of my life I have to be sure to have a job with benefits, not just any benefits, good benefits. Some plans don’t cover prescriptions, others don’t cover certain types of doctors or testing. “PRE-EXISTING CONDITION” is a haunting phrase. If you got it when you get there, then its not covered. My condition is pre-existing…

“NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY” is another scary slogan, especially for us genderqueers. If a company doesn’t think your condition is important enough, you don’t get covered. Almost every U.S. insurance company considers any gender-related transitional care not medically necessary. We are diagnosed mentally ill and then are incapable of getting “treatment.” Precious few are close enough to a non-profit informed-consent based clinic, the rest pay hundreds to thousands of dollars out of pocket. I drive to Chicago: five hours there, five hours back.

The power that the medical institution has over us is sickening. I am dependent on other people’s decisions in order to live a close-to-healthy life. Doctors decide if I get treatment, insurance companies decide if I deserve it. Last time I checked this was MY life and MY body. I think I deserve more control than run-around phone calls and piles of paper appeals. Who is sitting on these faceless boards that decide my fate? I doubt if it is anyone who is really on my side because my side costs money. If health care becomes “universal” will the government be on my side? From where I’m standing the record doesn’t look good, but at least it would not be a wealth based system so I would have a better chance.

With all the so-called great minds in the world I can’t believe that no one can think up an accessible health care system that is high-quality, cost effective, and promotes patient autonomy. Anyone who argues against universal health care must have never had face the fear of living in uncontrollable pain or realize the chance of losing their physical ability to function. Someone who is healthy or someone who is wealthy can not possibly fully conceive what it feels like, which makes it an easy concept to ignore. We need comprehensive, universal health care now. I’m sick of waiting for health care and I’m tired of being afraid to lose it.

-JAC
Midwest GenderQueer
x-posted midwestgenderqueer.com

Re New York

To answer the couple of questions I got via email today...

I have no idea what's going on in New York State, but it vaguely resembles a small coup, with Democrats jumping ship over to the Republican side and people issuing nasty statements and an attempt to disrupt the power structure of the Senate there. 

Seriously, guys, something fucked up this way comes.

Queerty, btw, has a great rundown of what this might mean for marriage. The answer: possibly nothing (as one of the Dems that switched was pro-marriage), possibly everything (Republican leadership not allowing the bill come to a vote). 

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Pres. Obama has tapped Second Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to replace outgoing Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor is being widely applauded by Democrats and liberals as a great pick, and it's looking like she will sail to an easy seat on the SCOTUS... making her the third woman and the first Latina to ever serve on the bench. Her experience is widely applauded and seems to the be "ideal" in terms of all those little things we like to see when we talk diversity -- unless, of course, you're Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich who are going so far as to call her a racist. Of course, there are two other major complaints about her: 1) that she's not the smartest judge in the country, but is, instead, strong willed and opinionated... which I'm trying to figure out how much different that makes her than conservative firebrand Antonin Scalia, and 2) she made a statement in 2005 that alluded to the fact that judges help make policy:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

That particular quote keeps popping up over and over again, but the incarnation I chose to use is from a Huffington Post article entitled Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Nominee: All You Need to Know. Though it's been fun to wade through article after article on Sotomayor trying to glean good information, that particular one sums it up very nicely:

• She has only ruled once on any abortion policy, supporting Bush's Mexico City Policy, preventing the government from funding overseas groups that provide abortions. The pro-lifers are down playing that opinion as "not that influential."
• She has never ruled on an LGBT issues, but her personal and professional history indicates that she is supportive, though no word on marriage.
• She will be one of the most experienced justices to ever sit on the bench.
• She "saved baseball" in 1995 when she ruled in favor of the players during the strike over the wishes of the owners.
• She was originally nominated to the Federal Circuit by George H.W. Bush and received wide Republican support. Though, now, she'll be in a much more volatile position, so I have no doubt many more will challenge her.

Again, I'm still learning about her, and I have no doubt most of our opinions will be shaped by the hearings in the Senate... but, so far... so good. I like this one. It's certainly better than Samuel Alito. Jeez.

Also check out these articles: from On Top Magazine, applause from LGBT folks over the appointment of Satomayor, including from the National LGBT Bar Association (which I didn't even know existed...); and an important reminder that abortion and marriage are not the biggest things that SCOTUS rules on, and we should be asking where Satomayor stands on executive power, instead.

Rep. Roosevelt Coats... maybe

BearsLeft.com is doing a whole series on Christopher Redferm, the Ohio Democratic Party Chairman. In the midst of the bout, an interesting story arose out of Cleveland.

State Representative Eugene Miller recently resigned from the state house. In his place? Cleveland City Council's Democrats (every last council member, btw) want Roosevelt Coats who did not vote for the domestic partner registry in that city and use the Bible as a way of justifying his decision. From Cleveland.com:

At a committee hearing, Coats cited biblical passages that he said denounce homosexuality. "Many of you may disagree," he said.

Hrm. I'm a little divided on this issue. On the one hand, the Democrats in the state are almost universally the only ones co-sponsoring the Equal Housing and Employment Act (excluding Rep. McGregor and one or two others), which means they may be fairly supportive. On the other hand, Rep. Coats does not sound like someone who is exactly "supportive" of LGBTQ rights... or, well, LGBTQ people at all. On the other hand (I have three hands, STFU), it sounds like Coats is a highly respected Cleveland politician.

It is the great rub of politics, innit? Whereas we as LGBTQ people want to demonize people like Rep. Coats because of his anti-gay background, he still is a good Representative, and probably a good person. When I lived in South Carolina, Gov. Sanford was (is) hugely popular because he's a good elected representative, despite his non-history on LGBTQ rights. I want to believe, because I liked Sanford and voted for him, that, if it came up, Sanford would go for what's right and not what's politcally expedient.

...so there's an argument to made that a good representative would be one who sees that anti-gay politics are merely political diversions.

But maybe Councilmember Coats genuinely believes in his words. Which is worse for us, better for him.

Regardless, I think the Democrats should find another person to fill Rep. Miller's seat. This one makes me feel a little dirty. (BearsLeft.com reports that Equality Ohio has forwarded Coats' testimony on the DPR to the Democratic Party ... maybe something will come of it?)

Libertarian Analysis of State Freedoms

From the Department of Pulling Numbers out of Our Ass Mercatus Center at George Mason University ...

A study was commissioned to look at the personal and economic freedoms enjoyed by the residents of all fifty states. They used two primary distinctions: personal freedoms (which includes gambling, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, campaign finance, automotive, and marriage rules) and economic freedoms (a combination score of both regulatory -- labor, health insurance, eminent domain -- and fiscal -- tax burden, state/local spending -- policies). I was intrigued by the study as MileHighGayGuy reports that Colorado rates fairly high on the index... #2 overall, in fact. I was intrigued futher when the top of the list included New Hampshire (#1), South Dakota (#3), Idaho (#4) and Texas (#5). Then I realized...

...oh, here there be libertarians. 

On the personal freedom scale, Ohio ranked #46 and #32 on the economic freedoms scale. Overall? We're #38, which is awfully low, IMHO, but I'm not sure how to "take" the study except to go, "Um, ok." This is what the study has to say about Ohio's laws:

Ohio (#32 economic, #46 personal, #38 overall)has much to improve. Adjusted government spending is over a standard deviation higher than average. Ohio is higher than average in every spending category except transportation. Gun control laws are relatively poor, though not in a class with Illinois, New Jersey, and others. Marijuana laws are liberal overall, but cultivation and sale sentencing could be reformed. Most gambling is illegal. Private and home school regulations are unreasonable, including teacher licensure and mandatory state approval of home school curricula. Asset forfeiture rules are appropriate. Eminent domain reform has not gone nearly far enough. Draconian smoking bans are in place.

I think that this is, for the most part, it's an interesting take with a bias, clearly. "True" libertarianism would indicate the abolition of the institution of marriage under civil law, as it is an unwanted involvement of the government in the private life of individuals.

I've often said that the majority of Americans are probably far more libertarian than they think... wishing for less governmental involvement, for the most part, in both their personal and economic lives. As it stands, the current Dem-Rep dichotomy allows for a progressive-conservative distinction, but little mixing of the two (and, far more often, social conservative/economic progressive candidate and, far more rarely, a social progressive/economic conservative).

Anyways, it's an interesting look at us and the US.

The picture above is the results from the World's Smallest Political Quiz at Advocates for Self Government. It's very short, but it's interesting. I think I actually agree with the results.

My Prediction on DC

Based off a news article on Yahoo! News...

The only way the DC vote to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions can be stopped once the Mayor signs it is intervention by Congress. To overturn the laws set forward by the City of Washington, DC would require a vote by both House and Senate, and then signed on by the President.

My prediction: this will not happen. It will break down as such:

• Obama: Continue to remain silent -- he has not commented on any of this yet. We are all pretty sure he has no problem with marriage privately, but has publically only supported civil unions and the repeal of the 1996 Federal DOMA. By saying nothing, he registers as a "no vote," thus not angering conservatives by celebrating the marriages, and not angering the liberals by coming off as half-hearted.
• House: A far-right wing Representative (from the South, perhaps?) will introduce the bill, but the House leadership will never let it see the light of day. Pelosi is all ready saying that they have bigger things to deal with and wrangling over simple recognition is not on their plate. This is a political win for both parties, for the reason stated above. The Republicans, especially in the Midwest, are starting to realize that they will win no friends and gain little more support by coming off as anti-gay, and they can play it off like they have been -- "it's the right of the elected officials to make those decisions, and not ours to intervene."
• Senate: Likely, nothing will even come up. Senators will be too dignified to bother with it, even if they are privately fuming,

What may happen, and the situation that I'm excited to see: the DC Council proposes and passes marriage equality, bringing same-sex couples from all over the country to the front door of the US government to get married... then some fast-thinking activist starts redirecting the newly wed couples towards their local Senator/Representative, marriage certificates in hand, and demanding the repeal of DOMA.

In my head, marriage equality in DC should be the next step.

But, people rarely listen to me on these things.

Saint Johanna

Johanna Sigurdardottir is poised, after yesterday's election, to become Prime Minister of Iceland, becoming the first openly LGBT individual in the world to take on the executive position of any state.

Iceland went bankrupt earlier this year, causing the PM to resign and the government to dissolve. Sigurdardottir was appointed temporarily as PM until a new government could be elected, and her Social Democrat party won yesterday with 35 seats in the Parliament, 4 more than necessary to claim a majority.

Sigurdardottir has been nicknamed "Saint Johanna" for her spearheading of multiple social causes; she has been repeatedly polled as the most popular Cabinet member, despite her reputation as a hard-nosed politician with little patient for delays.

Sounds familiar. I love her. But I do wonder if it is politically feasible for a lesbian governmental executive to push marriage rights... or whether it would chip away at her capital. Regardless...

Congratulations, Iceland!

Gov. Patterson Withdraws Marriage Bill

Seriously, Gov. Patterson? After all the hooplah about personally taking it on, lobbying for it yourself, and the "what's wrong with proposing it and losing" approach?

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

In a disappointing switch, New York Governor David Paterson now says he will “go along with a plan by State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith not to put a same-sex marriage bill to a vote without knowing it would pass.” His introduction just one week ago of a gay marriage bill, which he asked be debated in the Senate regardless of whether or not it had enough votes to pass has met with much controversy. The governor’s response last Thursday was, “Silence should not be a response to injustice, and that if we take no action we will surely lose, maybe we’ve already lost.” Well, today it seems we’re closer to losing than winning.

A bill needs 32 votes to pass. State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith has said, “I’m very concerned about putting a bill on the floor that’s going to be symbolism and not pass… . I’m going to count until I know that I have 32, if not 34, votes.” Last week, to overwhelming applause, Paterson described lack of marriage equality as “not a crisis of issues but a crisis of leadership.” There is no set date now on when or if the bill will be introduced and voted upon.

That "crisis of leadership," Gov. Patterson, now includes you.

I wonder what was said in those back rooms. I wonder what was threatened or promised. I wonder what deal was made to end this. I'm disappointed, Gov. Patterson. You have a lot of explaining and apologies to make ...

... and I think you just lost the LGBT vote.

On the flip side, here's an acceptable scenario, which would be perfectly fine if it were true: Gov. Patterson shelves the bill with the promise of widespread support from the Democratic party and an OK on his nomination for Governor -- that is, no primary challengers. In turn, the bill gets reintroduced in the legislative session after the election with universal support by the Democratic state Senators. That would be OK, but it's not something you can build a campaign on.

Gay Outing Hubbub About to Begin

A movie is coming out this week, being screened at the Tribeca Film Festival on May 1, known as Outrage the Movie which, according to the film narrative "tells the story of the history and workings of Washington DC’s glass closet and the hypocrisy of powerful forces that benefit politically by promoting public policies that deny rights to gay and lesbian citizens."

In short: it's a documentary about being gay and political in Washington, DC. There has been a little hype, but BlogActive decided to shake things up today...

...reporting that the movie will out Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Some rumors have flown that we'll be seeing quite a few prominent anti-gay folks outed with this documentary, but surely, if they do out Crist, then that will be the hallmark of the show. 

I just have two questions:

• Is it time, then, to reapproach the ethics of outing an elected official? I once read somewhere that outing is only ethical under a few circumstances, in cases like anti-gay legislators, moderate legislators that support anti-gay legislations, and, in some cases, even pro-gay legislators (but I forget the circumstances). Of local note, one of the important points is that it is considered unethical to out a politician who is in the closet but supports LGBT issues.
• Is this just the creation of buzz? Are they trying to create interest in the movie, all of a sudden? I'm just asking. It would be freakin' awesome if it were real, especially since Gov. Crist took a nosedive into a marriage to seem more friendly as a VP ticket in 2008. In my world, we call those women "beards." My fear is that it's just further speculation and won't have anything definitive, if anything at all.

Regardless, I'll be interested in seeing the movie.

If you look further at BlogActive... he even has a list of in the closet reps/etc. on the left side of the page. 

The Five States of Texas

For your edification, the five states are: Guns, Jesus, Bush O'Reagan, Country Music, and Austin. AMERICAblog is asking you to name the five states.

You may have heard about this hubbub:

If you don't have time for YouTube, here's what the perpetually terrifying-looking former Congressman Tom Delay says:

"Texas as a republic joined the Union as a treaty. There's a process in the treaty by which Texas could divide into five states. If we invoke that, and the last time it was voted on was 1985, if we invoke that, the United States Senate would kick us out and nullify the treaty because they are not going to allow ten new Texas Senators into the Senate. That's how you secede."

All in response to Gov. Rick Perry's suggestion that they should secede. Just to clarify, then, these teabaggers are merely the first fighters towards a new Civil War? I'm just clarifying, of course.

Don't worry, Texas, Chuck Norris has no problem being your new President.

Can I also just say that this is the difference between the right and the left. With the left, we protest and yell and shout, but know that, in the end, the democratic process will win out. With the right, if they don't get their every wish, they stomp their feet and threaten to secede?

And all I ever threatened to move to Canada.

Of course, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has a great workup, of course, of how a Texas secession would play. Hey Nate! Is Perry running for President?

Ted Stevens, back in the news

Ted Stevens, the embattled former Senator from Alaska, is back in the news after Attorney General Eric Holder ask a federal judge to drop the charges arising from allegations that the trial process had been tainted.

From Reuters:

"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come. It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair," he [Stevens] said in a statement.

This is a man who was accused of concealing huge -- $250,000 huge -- gifts from lobbyists, a major ethics crime.

Eh. Innocent until proven guilty, huh? But he's still kinda guilty, isn't he? A jury convicted him, right? I'm so confused by criminal law.

Aaron Schock: GOP stud

We've talked about him before, but I have to say: I love Aaron Schock. Even if he is a Republican. 

So does Meghan McCain.

(And we've talked about him before, btw)

Obama to UN: Decriminalize Sodomy!!!!

In the long list of things Pres. Obama is doing to bring the country into the 21st century, supporting international. universal decriminalization of homosexuality is one of them. (This is on top of ending the global gag rule on abortion and re-allowing the cultivation of stem cells for research.)

From the Associated Press:

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.

Little steps at a time. I think it's fantastic we are starting to see movement on progressive issues. And, hopefully, the economy will continue to improve ever so slightly...

...in short, I'm starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, how about you?

Thank you, President Obama.

NYT Op-Ed

There's a lot of great stuff coming out from the NYTimes these days. Maybe they are the liberal paper.

Including this most excellent op-ed piece (which I stole from JMG):

When Barack Obama ended the Bush stem-cell policy last week, there were no such overheated theatrics. No oversold prime-time address. No hysteria from politicians, the news media or the public. The family-values dinosaurs that once stalked the earth — Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Reed — are now either dead, retired or disgraced. Their less-famous successors pumped out their pro forma e-mail blasts, but to little avail. The Republican National Committee said nothing whatsoever about Obama’s reversal of Bush stem-cell policy. That’s quite a contrast to 2006, when the party’s wild and crazy (and perhaps transitory) new chairman, Michael Steele, likened embryonic stem-cell research to Nazi medical experiments during his failed Senate campaign.

What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate? Here, at last, is one piece of good news in our global economic meltdown: Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford.

Not only was Obama’s stem-cell decree an anticlimactic blip in the news, but so was his earlier reversal of Bush restrictions on the use of federal money by organizations offering abortions overseas. When the administration tardily ends “don’t ask, don’t tell,” you can bet that this action, too, will be greeted by more yawns than howls.

I made this argument to a fellow progressive the other day, and he didn't seem to care or agree. Meanwhile, the amount of progressive (and especially gay) activism that is going on in the world is literally amazing to watch happen.

Keep it going guys... Cincinnati will catch up shortly! I promise!

That is, if people I'm actually restraining myself right now. Amazing, I know. Actually, that was a lot of restraint and a lot of deleting I just did. Be blown away folks.

HIV Update!

For years and years, working in and out of AIDS agencies, there were two fights that we always thought were left to really be fought. On the one hand, we have the disproportionate amount of money being spent on money for AIDS when other long-term, chronic diseases get left to fend for themselves. The fact that AIDS has a higher mortality rate, more complications, higher cost of treatment over a longer time, etc. etc. never entered into the debate.

The other was the drastic disparity of AIDS money, which was distributed back in the classic days of AIDS when the disease was focused on the urban centers and classically gay meccas. Now it's moving and President Obama is being asked to retool the money to reflect that:

Following a battle on the Senate floor last night, San Francisco may once again receive a disproportionate amount of HIV/AIDS funding if the omnibus appropriations bill passes. U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., introduced an amendment to stop that funding shift and ensure rural and southern states with increasing HIV/AIDS populations are properly funded. The Senate voted against the amendment by a vote of 42-53.

“This body just gutted a carefully worked formula where all individuals with HIV/AIDS truly got the funding and resources needed. Now we’re back to square one with rural and southern states taking a back seat to the districts of Democratic leadership,” said Enzi.

The omnibus package includes a provision to overturn funding formulas that the Senate and House carefully negotiated in the reauthorization of Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act in 2006. Enzi worked on those funding formulas to ensure all states were treated fairly, especially rural areas and the South, where the disease is spreading most rapidly. Enzi’s 2007 amendment, identical to this year’s omnibus amendment, passed the Senate by a vote of 65-28. House Democratic Leadership inserted a provision in the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, that would put funding for Ryan White at levels prior to the 2006 changes. Those formulas favor cities like San Francisco that have a longer history of AIDS infections over states where the disease is now spreading.

“This exact amendment passed the Senate two years ago and now it was voted down by strict party lines. If this is bipartisanship and change in action then we’re in trouble. It is unfortunate that HIV/AIDS patients are turning into pawns for leadership to score political points,” said Enzi.

Enzi said this change in the omnibus bill does not allow money to follow the patient; it allows money to follow those who are in power.

It's actually a really good point to be made, but we were always in a semi-lucky place here in Ohio in that we didn't stand to lose much, nor did we stand to gain much either. So, yea...

On another front of the HIV/AIDS issue, the newest step towards an HIV vaccine is starting to show promise:

With the support of the National Institutes of Health, the Arnolds and their team have been able to take a piece of HIV that is involved with helping the virus enter cells, put it on the surface of a common cold virus, and then immunize animals with it. They found that the animals made antibodies that can stop an unusually diverse set of HIV isolates or varieties.

Some researchers have previously been able to elicit effective antibodies, but usually only against a very limited number of HIV types. With HIV’s known propensity to mutate, antibodies developed against one local strain may not recognize and combat mutant varieties elsewhere. These geographic varieties with different mutations constitute one of the great challenges to finding a broad spectrum vaccine capable of protecting against the vast array of HIV varieties.

The approach taken by the Arnolds and their colleagues has been to identify a part of the AIDS virus that is crucial to its viability – something the virus needs in order to complete its life cycle – and then target this Achilles heel.

“The part that we targeted plays a role in the ability of HIV to enter cells, and is common to most HIV varieties,” Gail Ferstandig Arnold said. “That is a mechanism that would not be easy for the virus to reinvent on the fly, so it turns out to be a really helpful target.”

...but a lot of possibilities have shown promise, so this is, as yet, of undetermined significance. Not until we get a good, strong, human study will we know much more than this.

Irrelevant Republicans

I don't like Mr. Cafferty over at CNN, but, in what seems to be a media turn on Obama sometimes, I have to say that I'm impressed with his newest column.

Especially the final line:

The Republican Party is marching double-time down the road to irrelevance and they don't even know it.

I know, I know, I've been slow in blogging lately. Shit has been crazy at the Casa de Queer known as my life. I promise to make it up to you, but I have six meetings, two work shifts, clinical, and two classes in 36 hours and probably six hours to sleep in two days... so, yea... I promise I'll be around soon.

I'm Sorry, Rush

I love gross, histrionic political stunts on the interweb.

Proposed Amendment

Missed this a few weeks ago, but, apparently, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has proposed a new constitutional amendment which would require an election to fill empty seats in the Senate.

From the Washington Post, which supports it:

SEN. RUSSELL Feingold (D-Wis.) has a problem with all the folks filling vacated seats in the Senate. The issue is not with them personally. Rather, it's how they got there: not by the will of the people but by the will -- or whim -- of the governors of their home states. So Mr. Feingold has introduced a constitutional amendment that will put the power to fill Senate vacancies in the hands of voters through a special election.

Thanks to the election of President Obama, who plucked a vice president and two cabinet secretaries from the Senate, governors in Illinois, Delaware, New York and Colorado were tasked with appointing their successors. In some cases the seats have been treated like family heirlooms or -- allegedly -- like property to be sold to the highest bidder. In another case, the process to choose the next occupant was opaque and unbecoming. But in all cases, how the new senators came to Washington is undemocratic and shouldn't continue.

What Mr. Feingold proposes would be a fix of the 17th Amendment, which gave voters the right to elect their senators. It also gave governors the power to fill vacancies. The Feingold amendment reads, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

It got me thinking about all the dead and proposed amendments in the past that never saw the light of day. Let's review shall we? These are ones that were actually ratified by some states:

• The Constitutional Apportionment Amendment, which was almost our first amendment, which is unexpired by seems to have become useless now with the population the size it is (for a state to become a state, for example, you have to have 60,000 people... the amendment only made consideration for congressional districts up to 50,000 people).
• The Titles of Nobility Amendment would have rescinded citizenship to anyone who took a title of nobility from another country ... this was proposed two years before the War of 1812 (yea, which means it was proposed in 1810 :-)). (Can still pass - no expiration)
• The Corwin Amendment was essentially a politically correct way of saying that the federal government can't rule on slavery. Period. It was a last-ditch effort before the Civil War, and no southern state actually passed it. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The child labor amendment gave the federal government the right to pass laws against child labor. Seriously. This, however, ended up being unnecessary and the government passed laws anyways. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The controversial Equal Rights Amendment which would have barred discrimination based on sex. Personally, I think it should have gone after more. The ERA has expired and some of the ratifying 35 states (two short of necessary 2/3 for passage) have rescinded their ratification.
• The DC Voting Rights Act would have rescinded the 23rd Amendment and treated DC as a state in representation -- complete with one (maybe more) Representative and two Senators. To this day, I don't know why this hasn't passed. But politics will play in this one -- DC is Democratic territory -- and because we no longer believe in actual represenation, it will never pass.

Then there are hundreds of little amendments that no one ever approved, including (from here):

• Ensuring reproductive freedom for women (2005-2006 Congress)
• Allow non-natural citizens to run for President if they've been a citizen for 20+ years, which we'll call the "Schwarzenegger Amendment" (05-06, 01-02)
• Guarantee the filibuster in the Senate (05-06)
• Lower age of Senator/Representative from 30 and 25 to 21 (03-04)
• Restrict marriage between a man and a woman (03-04)
• Require a federal balanced budget (01-02)
• Specify a right to "equal high quality" health care to all persons (01-02)
• Apply the 5th and 14th amendment to unborn children (99-00)
• Establish the right to have a home (97-98)
• Clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer (97-98)
• Clarify the 2nd Amendment (95-96)
• Repeal the 16th Amendment and end income tax (95-96)
• Remove from public office any person convicted of a felony (95-96)
• Provide for run-offs in plurality wins in a Presidential election, which we'll call the "Clinton Amendment" (93-94)
• Representative term limits (91-92)
• Mandatory moments of silence in public schools (91-92)
• Lowering the voting age to 16-year olds (91-92)

Just to clarify the last Amendment to pass was the 27th, and that was 1992, which set a bar on Congress granting mid-term pay raises. This was one of the original 12 Amendments suggested as the Bill of Rights, but it and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were not passed.

My point in all this is this: most amendments proposed reflect a particularly divisive issue at the time which eventually kind of works itself out. It's only when, after many years of debate, that it seems to be a real problem or a real sticking point before it can pass. I'm not sure how the gubernatorial power over Senatorial replacements will be viewed, but it seems relatively important...

...in fact, when you look at the history of proposed amendments, the Federal Marriage Amendment seems to be ... well ... just another bunch of crazies in Congress proposing a hot button issue amendment.

Picture of the Day

From the Washington Independent, also appearing on Joe.My.God.

Conscience Clause to End

Obama's administration taking the first steps for, well, common sense. Thank god we're done talking about the stimulus and we can talk about things that matter -- you know, abortion and religion. No pitfalls there.

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

"We are proposing rescinding the Bush rule," said an official of the Health and Human Services Department, which drafted the rule change.

The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections not only to health care workers who object to abortion but also to a wide range of health care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.

"We've been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written it could make it harder for women to get the care they need. It is so worded so vaguely written that some have argued it could limit family planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care," the official said.

We are taught, in nursing school, that our personal feelings don't matter, that it's the patient that matters... that we serve the sick regardless and provide compassionate care for all of our patients.

When it comes to abortion, to cite Cider House Rules, we should deliver the mother or deliver the child.

Apparently, the docs who have adviced our former President forgot about determinism and free will, or, rather, twisted it so much to forget that they don't matter when it comes to caring for other people.