Archive for pro-life my ass

Obamacare covers 8-11 million mostly "satisfied" Americans. #BlameObama

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

obamacare is winning, anti-obamacare fight

As our own Sherry Hardy pointed out, Regressives Handed Out Emergency Care Death Sentences in North Carolina. GOP-run states have done everything they can to obstruct access to Obamacare from the get-go, including refusing to expand Medicaid coverage. As a result, those self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are hypocritically and intentionally putting lives at risk. People will die without care.

Fortunately, millions are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. In fact (hide your ears, Republicans), they even like it!

gasp smaller

More and more Americans are signing up, and the numbers of insured will only grow. Some of our previous posts include reports like these:

In today's Los Angeles Times, there's a piece that reveals customer satisfaction that will drive conservatives to (more) drink:

President Obama's healthcare law has reduced the number of uninsured adults by 8 million to 11 million in its first year, according to three new studies, and the vast majority report satisfaction with their new health plans. [...]

Nationwide, roughly 1 in 4 people who were uninsured last fall now have received coverage, representing a significant first step toward Obamacare's goal of near-universal coverage. [...]

... [M]ore than three-quarters of those who had either enrolled in Medicaid or bought a private insurance plan in the new marketplaces reported that they were either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with their new coverage.

gasp silent movie smaller

Why, that's positively unAmerican!

Here in my home state of California, the number of uninsured has been cut in half. In half!

And nationally, it's the young 'uns who have been signing up more than anyone else. Remember back when? Remember when there was a big question mark about under-35s signing up? Put that one in a Tupperware, burp it, and seal it.

By the by, 54% said that some or all of their preferred doctors were covered. And 58% said they were better off with Obamacare:

[R]oughly 3 out of 4 Republicans said they were also satisfied.

What

Clearly, with all that positive feedback, the GOP must be seeing the error of their blocky ways, right? I mean, who would deny the very people who trusted you enough to elect you, a longer and healthier life? What self-serving politician would prioritize his own ambitions and petty political games over the health and well-being of families and individuals? What kind of amoral, obsessive, insensitive, merciless sphincter of a person would deny their fellow Americans a lifeline?

[T]he remaining uninsured Americans increasingly are concentrated in states that have declined to expand Medicaid — primarily Southern and Midwestern states with Republican-controlled governments that have been hostile to the new law and, in many cases, have tried to impede its implementation. That political resistance could be a major factor in holding down enrollments in the next couple of years.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Dear pro-forced birthers: "What causes more abortions than not having contraception?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion choice pro-forced birthers

Pro-forced birthers don't seem to have much depth, knowledge, or insight when it comes to how babies are made, how contraception works, or what women's health care agencies actually do.

Here's a tweet I just received, along with my reply:

Here is one of many excellent replies:

'Nuff said.

Sadly, "Franky's" tweet is typical of so many I receive from pro-forced birthers about women's reproductive rights, with one exception: He was civil.

With that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg's column on the Hobby Lobby case takes as given the distortion of scientific facts at the core of the case. ("Alito agrees: Your birth control is not your boss' business," Op-Ed, June 30)

Overwhelming evidence has shown that emergency contraception does not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy. Therefore, emergency contraception it is not an abortifacient, contrary to what the Supreme Court justices and Goldberg contend.

Such uncritical endorsements of distorted science are the source of much misinformation, as I have discovered in my own research on barriers to access to emergency contraception. It is sad that the highest court in the nation has propagated this false belief and created another barrier for access to safe, effective and evidenced-based pregnancy prevention.

Tracey Wilkinson, MD, Los Angeles

..

Goldberg compares requiring employers to provide contraceptive health insurance to their employees to hypothetically requiring these companies to pay for their employees to attend a "Game of Thrones" convention.

Goldberg ignores the fact that every time a couple engages in unprotected intercourse, they are putting the woman's life at risk. According to a study published in the medical journal the Lancet, 18.5 women died in childbirth for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. in 2013.

The intimate relations between couples are no mere game. The ability to obtain and use contraceptives is a matter at the heart of family life.

Goldberg and the five men who make up the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the recent Hobby Lobby case have shown the world that they place little value on the lives of women.

Eleanor Egan, Costa Mesa

..

I suspect that because Hobby Lobby is so deeply religious, it would not support a woman's right to have an abortion. What causes more abortions than not having contraception?

Sarah Maze, Orange

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Study: Young adults healthier after passage of #Obamacare

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

obamacare is winning, anti-obamacare fight

Young adults and the Affordable Care Act are very compatible, despite all the Repeal Obamacare fanatics in the GOP-run House of Representatives. The Los Angeles Times has the story:

Expanding the number of young adults with health insurance appears to have improved their health and saved them money, according to a new study that is among the first to measure the effect of the healthcare law that President Obama signed four years ago.

Starting in 2010, the Affordable Care Act allowed adults under age 26 to remain on their parents’ health plans, the first coverage expansion to take effect under the law.

Previous surveys have indicated that this provision, which remains among the law’s most popular, allowed millions of young adults to get health insurance over the last several years.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., suggests the coverage expansion also measurably increased the number of young adults who reported that they are in excellent physical and mental health.

What?! Why, that's crazy! Wasn't it the GOP that claimed Obamacare would destroy this country and kill everyone in it?

but wait there's more smaller

Additionally, per the article, researchers discovered that there was a "significant drop in how much young people were paying out of pocket for their medical care after the law went into effect."

Say it with me: Another GOP talking point bites the dust. And for you trolls out there who have literacy issues, here it is in pictures:

another talking point bites the dust

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Surge in insured CA students defies #Obamacare concerns

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

obamacare is winning, insured students surge

Two words, GOP: Neener nanner. All those "repeal Obamacare" efforts in the House of Representatives are becoming more and more laughable as good news stories continue to emerge about Affordable Care Act sign-ups. Here in my home state of California, there has been a surge (a word John McCain and his "pro-life" buddies seem to covet when it comes to killing people, but not when it comes to saving lives here at home) in insured students.

Read it and weep, obstructionists, trolls, and Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers. And while you're at it, take a gander at the story below this one, because it, too will annoy the hell out of you. First, the insured student "surge," via the L.A. Times:

New data show the number of students without health insurance on California State University campuses dropped by 60% after health insurance enrollment, defying concerns that not enough young people would sign up for health insurance. [...]

According to a poll released Thursday, at the 15 largest CSU campuses, between 25% and 30% of students were uninsured before enrollment began, and 10% were uninsured after. The drop accounts for 60,000 students who became insured, and illustrates the late surge of young people who signed up for policies. [...]

Walter Zelman, chair of the Cal State L.A. Public Health Department and director of the project, said that he believes the 10% uninsured rate among the students is "virtually unheard of in California." He pointed out that the 60% drop in the number of uninsured CSU students is vastly higher than the 26% reduction in the number of uninsured nationwide that was reported by a Gallup poll this month.

Twenty-three-year-old Natasha Buranasombati signed up through Covered California, and observed that "the issue is not invincibility, it's affordability." Which brings me to article numero dos from the L.A. Times:

In the strongest indication yet where Obamacare rates are headed, industry giant Anthem Blue Cross said its California premiums for individual coverage will increase less than 10% on average next year. [...]

The outcome in California will be closely watched because the state is a key barometer for the health overhaul nationwide.

Another GOP talking point bites the dust.

neener nanner smaller

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Hey Big Oil "pro-lifers": Fossil fuels may be killing babies!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

we cannot drink the water big oil frackingScreen grab from "Fracking hurts Californians, Governor Brown" video below.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Melissa Harris-Perry took a disturbing look at a mysterious spike in infant deaths in Utah that could very well be linked to air pollution from the oil and gas industry. Yet, we haven't heard a peep about Big Oil possibly killing newborns from those very same "pro-lifers" who hypocritically devote themselves to "saving babies."

And while we're on the topic of Big Oil killing living things, look how their self-serving, corporate activities are contributing to land loss along the Louisiana Gulf Coast:

louisiana coastline destroyed by big oil

The Los Angeles Times has the story:

For decades, oil and gas companies cut canals through fragile wetlands with the state's approval to haul equipment and install pipelines. But scientists say the dredging let salt water flow in, killing vegetation that kept the land from eroding.

Without the buffer of these marshes and barrier islands, Louisiana's many low-lying coastal communities — and its biggest city — now have little natural protection from storm surges created by hurricanes. ... Last summer, the independent board that oversees flood protection for New Orleans decided that oil and gas companies should pay their share. In a move that roiled a state where the energy industry is the economic foundation, the board voted unanimously to sue all 97 companies operating in the state for unspecified damages. [...]

Over the next 50 years, the state is expected to lose as much land as it did in the last 80. The disappearance of the coast has left the state vulnerable to flooding from hurricanes, but it also affects the whole country. Nearly 90% of all offshore U.S. oil and gas production occurs off the state's coast, and the industry's infrastructure is stitched into the shoreline. The region is a hub for shipping and fisheries. The marshes attract millions of migratory birds annually.

Of course, it goes without saying that Gov. Bobby Jindal would do anything to save his state-- and the entire nation-- from environmental disaster... right?

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal and key legislators denounced the litigation, initiating legislation that would quash the lawsuits and undo post-Hurricane Katrina reforms aimed at removing politics from flood control. Last month, the state Senate passed a bill that would allow Jindal to kill the New Orleans lawsuit by replacing the lawyers who are handling it.

Oops. My bad.

And while we're still on the topic of how fossil fuels are slowly snuffing life as we know it, remember this? Frackers set sights on largest oil shale reservoir in US... near CA's San Andreas fault. Hey, me too! Well guess what, there was an L.A. Times sequel: "U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%."

Families are already suffering everywhere, and there's more where that came from.

"What is all that money worth if there will be no future generations?"

Now let's take a look at today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor responses to those reports, because our voices matter:

Gov. Jerry Brown has displayed cognitive dissonance by supporting both climate change mitigation and fracking in California.

Fracking not only perpetuates our dependency on fossil fuels, it also releases methane all along the supply chain, which is a greenhouse gas less prevalent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.

Brown is trying to be slick like the streets of Atwater Village after the 10,000-gallon oil spill last week by appealing to both sides of the aisle. But like those streets, he is finding himself mired in a sticky situation, where he will need to fully commit to a side.

Californians are noticing that the governor's position on the issue of climate change is about as stable as the ground upon which Big Oil is fracking.

Amanda Grossi

Los Angeles

The writer is a field manager for Environment California.

***

I don't know why companies are even looking for oil anymore. What oil is left will be used up at some point. Meanwhile, extracting it gets more costly, and that doesn't include the hidden costs of the damage to the environment, including its contribution to global warming.

The sun produces energy; it has done so for billions of years, and when it stops, so will our planet. We should not build another house without solar panels. There should also be small wind turbines for our home patios that can help out when it is windy.

We don't need oil, and we really don't need shale oil.

Jenny Wilder

Apple Valley

Bonus insanity: House Votes To Deny Climate Science And Ties Pentagon’s Hands On Climate Change.

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Use of the death penalty by government legitimizes violence as a solution to problems."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

capital punishment death penalty pro-life my ass

The interview with Sister Helen Prejean starts at about 5:30:

"We gotta change this thing."

"'Why are you people so vengeful...?'"

"I cannot turn a switch and say, "YOU are not human like the rest of us, and we can kill you."

"The human being who did that outrageous act is more than that one act in their life... It's a journey to get there."

"Lookin' at bodies... the victim's here, the guy on the gurney here, where are we? What have we accomplished?"

I have never supported the use of the government using murder, aka the death penalty, as punishment for a crime, no matter how heinous the act. It's more costly, it doesn't deter killers from killing, innocent lives (most often poor and non-white lives) are mistakenly snuffed out, and it puts the "good guys" in the same position as the bad guys by putting a living, breathing human being to death (even the scummiest, sickest, most vile beings) when there are other options available.

More violence is not the answer. Inflicting more pain is not the answer.

And with that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg admits that whenever perpetrators of especially heinous crimes, such as Oklahoma's Clayton Lockett, are executed, they are "entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law." ("Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless," Opinion, May 6).

He also acknowledges that "deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others."

He even says that "innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable."

Although he explains why he's not persuaded by some arguments against the death penalty and states that he is a death penalty supporter, it is remarkable that he fails to express even a single rationale for that support. If it's revenge, I think he should have the courage to admit it and then present a justification for his belief.

Don Payne

Santa Ana

***

In his column on the botched Oklahoma execution, Goldberg goes over the arguments for and against the death penalty. Unfortunately, he did not include what I consider the most compelling argument against its use.

The use of the death penalty by government legitimizes violence as a solution to problems. This endorsement of violence sets a tone in society that is counterproductive and damaging.

Murder is a problem for society. That we attempt to solve the murder problem by killing people reflects the same simplistic logic used by so many murderers.

Stephanie Neiman presented a problem to Lockett: She refused to say she wouldn't report Lockett to the police. He tried to solve his problem by killing Neiman.

Solving problems by killing didn't work for Lockett, and it has not worked for society.

John La Grange

Solana Beach

Here's another interview with Sister Helen Prejean that is a must-see. She discusses lack of transparency and also how we "imitate the worst behavior" by "killing our criminals in order to be safe."

 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"What we are witnessing are the death throes of the anti-Obamacare crowd."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

obamacare is winning, anti-obamacare fight

My favorite columnist at the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik (scroll), has written another excellent piece, this time covering anti-Obamacare Republicans and their deadly and perplexing fight against Medicaid expansion.

Here is what Medicaid could do to keep the neediest Americans alive and well:

The final battle of the war over the Affordable Care Act is being waged today over expanding Medicaid. As the act was originally conceived, Medicaid would provide healthcare for more than 10 million of the poorest uninsured Americans, most of them childless adults with earnings up to 138% of the federal poverty level. (This year, that income ceiling is about $16,000.)

But then along came the Roberts Supreme Court to make Medicaid expansion voluntary, aiding and abetting GOP-run states in their quest to destroy all things President Obama. This "amazes and frustrates health experts. That's especially so because the federal government covers 100% of the cost of expansion through 2016. After that, the federal share will slowly decline to 90% in 2020 and beyond."

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth:

What's most curious about states with Republican leaders ostensibly devoted to fiscal responsibility is that shunning Medicaid expansion makes no budgetary sense, given the huge federal financial commitment and the potential for reducing other state costs, including the public cost of treating uninsured patients.

Hiltzik goes into detail about how various states are handling health care coverage. At the end of his piece, he confirms what many of us have observed over the past few months-- that those self-professed "pro-life" Repeal, Repeal, Repealers are fighting a futile war and are losing.

But their fight is costing lives: Their own political lives, and sadly, the lives of those who need a helping hand in order to survive:

What we are witnessing are the death throes of the anti-Obamacare crowd. Expanded access to health coverage is here to stay. The GOP's resistance to expanding Medicaid has merely turned 5 million Americans into refugees from ideological warfare, awaiting the moment when peace offers them a chance at better health.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare