NORTON META TAG

04 March 2019

Senate defeats anti-abortion bill, as GOP tries to jam Dems & MATTHEW 25: 31-46 25FEB19

Related image
GOP HYPOCRISY. Not the hypocrisy of Sen susan collins rf* ME detailed in this e mail from UltraViolet. I mean the institutionalized hypocrisy of the republican / gop greed over people party and their hypocritical right wing religious extremist supporters ( this includes protestants, catholics, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhist ). These people are anything but pro-life. The republican politicians consistently cut funding from the social safety net programs and the programs making up the American social contract, taking money from children and their families as well as the working poor and the working and middle classes and redistributing it to the 1%, to corporate America, to the war pigs and war profiteers of the military-industrial complex. They are even taking it from their right wing religious extremist, and these fools allow it because they are blinded by their own self-righteousness, their vile hatred of those they condemn as sinners. This legislation that was defeated in the U.S. Senate after all the lies, deception and propaganda spewed by the republicans and their right wing religious cabal is just more of their anti-life agenda. From UltraViolet and Politico.......
Senator Susan Collins built a career calling herself a "pro-choice Republican" who stands up for women’s rights.1
But then she voted to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh--the fifth vote to end Roe v. Wade.
Last week, Sen. Collins voted against abortion rights AGAIN, supporting a bill that smears women and abortion providers as murderers.2
UltraViolet Action is holding Sen. Collins accountable by making sure Mainers know the truth about her anti-choice votes. Will you chip in $40?
Sen. Collins talks a big game about reproductive rights. She once said she wanted Republicans to be "synonymous with a woman's right to choose."3 She calls herself pro-choice and has vowed to protect women's health care.4
But when Sen. Collins had the chance to stop Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and truly protect Roe v. Wade, she sold out every woman in America.
Now that she's shown her true colors, it seems that Sen. Collins is going to keep trampling reproductive rights. Last week, she voted for an extreme bill that would threaten prison time for doctors who treat women facing the most heartbreaking complications later in pregnancy.5
The goal of this bill is to demonize women and doctors and make it more politically feasible for the Supreme Court to end Roe v. Wade. But Sen. Collins voted for it anyway. It's time that Sen. Susan Collins was held accountable to her anti-choice record, and we're going to make sure Maine people know how she is voting to take away reproductive rights.
Thank you for joining in.
--Shaunna, Kat, Karin, Holly, Kathy, Susan, Anathea, Audine, Emma, Pilar, Natalie, Melody, Lindsay, Pam, Ryan, Sonja, and Noma, the UltraViolet Action team
CONTRIBUTE
Sources:
3. Susan Collins’ Choice, Slate, September 5, 2018

Senate defeats anti-abortion bill, as GOP tries to jam Dems


By 
 
The Senate on Monday rejected a bill making it a felony for a doctor to harm or neglect an infant who survives an “attempted abortion,” part of a Republican effort to squeeze Democrats ahead of the 2020 campaign.
The vote split mainly along party lines, 53-44. Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia crossed the aisle to vote for it; no Republicans broke ranks. Sixty votes are required for the bill to advance.
“Evidently the far left is no longer convinced that all babies are created equal,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Ahead of the vote, the bill’s Republican sponsors and outside anti-abortion groups lobbying for its passage made it clear that the intent of Monday’s vote was to undermine the growing pool of Senate Democrats running for president.
In a speech just before the vote, bill author Sen. Ben Sasse quoted campaign stump speeches by Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and independent Bernie Sanders vowing to look out for society’s “voiceless and vulnerable” and accused them of hypocrisy for opposing his bill’s regulations for the care of newborns.
"Was that all just clap track for the campaign trail and for soundbites? Or do people mean the stuff that they say around here?" he said of his colleagues with White House aspirations.
Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group closely allied with Hill Republicans and the Trump administration, said Monday that it was “watching this vote closely to see whether leading Democratic candidates for president in 2020 will go on the record for or against infanticide.”
"This bill is important in itself but it‘s also important as a setup for the coming election, where there will be a stark contrast between the president of the United States and any one of the Democratic nominees," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in an interview. She stood just outside the Senate chamber lobbying senators as they entered to cast their votes.
Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker and Gillibrand all voted against the measure. Sherrod Brown, another Democratic senator exploring a White House bid, complained to POLITICO that the vote was held in bad faith.
"This is pure Mitch McConnell. It's all aimed at keeping his base in line, while the president grows increasingly unpopular," the Ohio Democrat said. "We're not doing infrastructure, we're not doing health care. We're not doing anything that matters to help our country. It's just votes on abortion and other kinds of divisive votes he's going to bring."
Democrats and reproductive rights advocates blasted the bill, saying it's already a felony to harm or neglect an infant and that the “medically irresponsible” bill would restricts doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.
"This bill is not about protecting infants, as Republicans have claimed — because that is not up for debate and it is already the law," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). "This bill is government interference in women’s health care, in families’ lives, and in medicine on steroids."
The bill was previously introduced in the House by now-Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Sasse first tried to force a vote on it earlier this month, capitalizing on a wave of outrage among conservatives after New York loosened its restrictions on third-trimester abortions and embattled Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave an interview defending similar efforts in his state.
Democrats led by Murray objected to that fast-track procedure and blocked a floor vote, prompting Republicans to vow to try again.
Susan B. Anthony list said earlier this month that even though the Senate lacks the votes to pass abortion restrictions, it should continue to hold votes to put pressure on Democrats and divide the caucus. The move is part of a larger strategy designed to maintain current abortion restrictions while revving up the GOP’s conservative base ahead of 2020 and courting independents who may be turned off by Democrats' position on abortion rights.
"We're seeing a gradual movement to hammer a wedge right into the middle of the Democratic Party, and at some point soon here, they're just going to have to cry mercy," Dannenfelser said.

MATTHEW 25: 31-46

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Fact-checking Bernie Sanders on a $15 minimum wage 1MAR19


I would have given it a Mostly True rating, but the facts are the facts and here they are from PolitiFact......

Fact-checking Bernie Sanders on a $15 minimum wage

By Louis Jacobson on Friday, March 1st, 2019 at 2:15 p.m.
Share The Facts
Bernie Sanders
Democratic presidential candidate

Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 "would give more than 40 million low-wage workers a raise, more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce."
a tweet – Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Supporting a $15 minimum wage has become something of a litmus test for Democratic candidates these days -- strikingly so, since as recently as his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama supported a far more modest increase, a raise from $7.25 to $9. Later that year, he increased his proposal to $10.10.
In a Feb. 26 tweet, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. -- who had recently announced his second presidential bid -- touted the benefits of raising the minimum wage to $15.
"We must follow cities and states across the country and raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it to median wage growth thereafter," he wrote. "Doing so would give more than 40 million low-wage workers a raise, more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce."
We found that Sanders was close on describing a study released Feb. 5 by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. But it’s important to note that this study assumes that no net jobs will be lost as a result of a minimum wage -- an assumption that is speculative and, in some corners, controversial.
Analyzing the EPI report
The report looks at the potential impact of the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, which was sponsored by Sanders and other Democrats. The bill would phase in increases to the minimum wage so that it reaches $15 by 2024. It would also index future minimum wage increases to median wage growth.
The study took into account the projected natural growth of wages between now and 2024 and only counted as gains the amount above that baseline wage growth. It also excluded workers who would not be affected by a minimum wage hike, such as self-employed workers.
We should note that Sanders said "more than 40 million low-wage workers" would benefit, but the study itself said 39.7 million, which is slightly less than 40 million.
In addition, the tweet glosses over the fact that the study looked at the bill’s full phase-in period, from 2019 to 2024. The study does say that 39.7 million Americans will benefit once the $15 level is reached by 2024, but prior to that, the numbers are smaller.


As the chart above shows, the study referred to workers who are "directly" impacted by the minimum wage hike as well as workers who are "indirectly" affected by it. Indirectly affected workers were defined as having a wage rate just above the new minimum wage. The study assumes that these workers will receive a raise as employers adjust their pay scales upward to reflect the new minimum wage.
Will there be job losses?
The biggest concern with the Economic Policy Institute study, though, is that it assumes no net change in employment status as a result of the minimum wage increase.
For years, some economists have expressed caution about raising the minimum wage to $15, saying it could raise employers’ costs so much that it leads to higher unemployment.
Supporters of a higher minimum wage point to a recent study that indicated that minimum wages between $10 and $13 did not generally lead to negative labor-force impacts. The study didn’t test a $15 minimum wage, however, since that level hasn’t been enacted anywhere yet.
We reached out to several economists who had told us in 2016 that they were at least somewhat wary of increasing the wage that high.
Timothy Smeeding, a professor of public affairs and economics at the University of Wisconsin, said the study is incomplete because it only counts the benefits and not the drawbacks.
While conservatives "look only at job losses," liberals "look only at higher pay. The truth is that both will happen."
A particular problem is that a national minimum wage will pack a bigger wallop -- and potentially harm employment levels more -- in states with lower wage scales. In 2016, three states had median wages below $15, another 11 had median wages between $15 and $16, and another nine had median wages between $16 and $17.
In these states, mandating a $15 minimum wage could immediately raise wages for close to half of workers, with some seeing their pay roughly double overnight. This could have untold impacts on employment, consumer prices and other aspects of the economy.
"I can’t see how a rapid increase of the minimum to $15 would be in the best interest of such areas, since I’m afraid employment opportunities for the low-skilled might suffer real harm," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
One of the economists we checked back with, Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, said he finally ended his opposition to a $15 minimum wage this week, because Sanders’ bill phases in the increase over several years and because it indexes future increases, removing it from the realm of politics.
"In the past, we have had a minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, as high as the one that is proposed at a period when real labor productivity was lower, on average, than it is today or will be five years hence," Aaron said. "Will there be some employment effects in some places from establishing a $15 minimum wage in 2024? Probably. But the effects will be small and the boost in earnings for relatively low-wage workers will be high."
Ultimately, it’s impossible to know how many jobs will be lost due to a minimum wage hike to $15. What we do know is that Sanders’ tweet focuses on the benefits but not the potential downside, expressing certainty where uncertainty prevails.
Our ruling
Sanders said that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 "would give more than 40 million low-wage workers a raise, more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce."
That sticks closely to the top-line findings of a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group. Still, it’s important to note that the study assumed no change in unemployment. That’s a big assumption, and one that is not certain to pan out.
We rate the statement Half True.

About this statement:

Published: Friday, March 1st, 2019 at 2:15 p.m.
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: Economy, Jobs, Workers

Sources:

Bernie Sanders, tweet, Feb. 26, 2019
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, "The New Wave of Local Minimum Wage Policies: Evidence from Six Cities," Sept. 6, 2018
Governing, Median Wages by State, accessed March 1, 2019
PolitiFact, "Fact-checking a $15 minimum wage," May 9, 2016
Email interview with Gary Burtless, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Feb. 28, 2019
Email interview with Ben Zipperer, economist with the Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 28, 2019
Email interview with Timothy Smeeding, professor of public affairs and economics at the University of Wisconsin, March 1, 2019
Email interview with Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, March 1, 2019
Email interview with Josh Orton, spokesman for Bernie Sanders, Feb. 28. 2019

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

BERNIE UPDATE 4MAR19

GO TO BERNIE'S 2020 campaign website for more information on his campaign to be our next president.....
We're going to win this election not because we have a super PAC funded by billionaires. We're going to win this election because we will put together the strongest grassroots coalition in the history of American politics.
That is the message we sent in Brooklyn at our first official campaign event.
And that is the message we sent last night in Chicago at the second rally of our campaign.
While Donald Trump wants to divide us up by the color of our skin, our country of origin, our gender, our religion and our sexual orientation – we are going to do exactly the opposite. We are going to bring our people together – black, white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, young and old, men and women, native born and immigrant.
Because when we do that, we are going to finally create an economy and a government which works for all Americans, and not just the 1 percent.
In solidarity,
Team Bernie

The wealthy and the powerful will do everything possible to defend their financial interests. They have unlimited money, but we have each other. Not just Bernie – us.

Add your name to say you are committed to do whatever it takes to win this election, beat Donald Trump, and elect a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

H.R.1384 - To establish an improved Medicare for All national health insurance program 27FEB19

Image result for healthcare is a right not a privilege
I just called the D.C. office of my representative, Rep Jennifer Wexton D VA as she is not a cosponsor of H.R. 1384 Medicare For All Act of 2019 though she may be receiving, or at least has access to healthcare insurance, at taxpayer expense. Rep Don Beyer Jr D VA and Rep Robert "Bobby" Scott D VA  are original cosponsors of this legislation, signing on the day Rep Jayapal Pramila D WA introduced it to the US House, 27 FEB 19. The staffer in Rep Wexton's office I spoke with had never heard of Carrie Ann Lucas, was not aware she died because she was denied antibiotics by united healthcare due to corporate greed and Medicaid budget cuts. I made it very clear that I expect Rep Wexton to support and vote for H.R. 1384 without waiting to be told by the Democratic Party leadership it is OK for her to do so. Click the link above to her U.S. House website to e mail her on this issue and go to her facebook page to tell her to support this legislation ( I did both ). Here is my e mail to Rep Wexton

 I called your D.C. office and now am e mailing you to tell you to actively support H.R. 1384 Medicare For All Act of 2019 and to vote for the act when it comes before any committee you may be assigned to and to the House floor. You should already be a cosponsor of this legislation, the fact that you are not while you do have healthcare insurance, or at least access to it at taxpayer expense, is disturbing. You should not be supporting corporate greed and class warfare, nor should you be waiting for the Democratic Party leadership to tell you to support this legislation or not.  Healthcare is a right, not a privilege, I did not think you would need to be reminded of that.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Noted Disability Rights Activist Dies After Being Denied Medication 27FEB19

H16 lucas
HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE, or at least it should be. Disgustingly, united healthcare chose their profit margin over the life of Carrie Ann Lucas so she died on Sunday, 24 FEB 19 due to multiple medical complications as a result of their decision to deny her coverage for an antibiotic prescription last year. You may not have heard about Carrie Ann's death since the news media has been ignoring everything else to report on michael cohen's congressional testimony and (NOT MY) pres drumpf's / trump's - kim jong-un's summit failure in Hanoi. YOU can go to united united healthcare's facebook page and post a condemnation of their corporate greed that resulted in Carrie Ann's death ( I did) and take the time to e mail your representative and senators ( I did) about Carrie Ann's death and telling them you expect them to support and vote for H.R. 1384 Medicare For All Act of 2019 because HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE. GODSPEED Carrie Ann Lucas, I am ashamed nationally we place profits before life,  and God bless your family. From Democracy Now!

Noted Disability Rights Activist Dies After Being Denied Medication


And a prominent disability rights activist and attorney died this past Sunday after being refused an essential medication by her insurance company. Carrie Ann Lucas, who had a rare form of muscular dystrophy, helped pass legislation in Colorado to protect parents with disabilities from child welfare discrimination. In 2017, Lucas was arrested with several others after protesting Medicaid budget cuts with a 58-hour sit-in at Senator Cory Gardner’s office. According to a message on Lucas’s Facebook page, United Healthcare denied her coverage for an antibiotic last year, triggering a host of medical complications which led to her death. Carrie Ann Lucas was 47 years old and is survived by her four adopted children, who are also all living with disabilities.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)