Rick Santorum is one dangerously confused denialist. The former Pennsylvania Senator and presidential aspirant is best known for his inability to associate his professed compassion for life at the level of the zygote, with the physical realities of human sexuality. He has equated loving same-sex relationships to bestiality. He is opposed to abortion under any circumstance. Almost.
In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion. They don't like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross, Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person, as practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.
Republican extremists in Congress and the statehouses propose to make abortion illegal even if it would save the mother's life. Even the Santorums admit they would make that choice, while claiming that they didn't.
Losing a pregnancy because of a fatal fetal anomaly is never cause for celebration. The pain of second-trimester abortions is compounded by the hateful hypocrites who vilify families facing sorrowful circumstances, and the resulting scarcity of abortion clinicians.
It is revolting that Rick and Karen Santorum choose to stigmatize and harass those of us who, as they did, grieve over the loss of a possible child in the second trimester.
Abortion should not be driving U.S. policy. It's not a more fundamental right than the right to a job or safety from violence. But we can't stop it from being used as a wedge issue if we never talk about our experiences.
Here's the Santorums' description of their second trimester abortion, written by Steve Goldstein,
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 4, 1997
Karen was in her 19th week of pregnancy. Husband and wife were in a suburban Virginia office for a routine sonogram when a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die.
After consulting with specialists, who offered several options including abortion, the Santorums decided on long-shot intrauterine surgery to correct an obstruction of the urinary tract called posterior urethral valve syndrome.
A few days later, rare ``bladder shunt'' surgery was performed at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. The incision in the womb carried a high risk of infection.
Two days later, at home in the Pittsburgh suburb of Verona, Karen Santorum became feverish. Her Philadelphia doctors instructed her to hurry to Pittsburgh's Magee-Women's Hospital, which has a unit specializing in high-risk pregnancies.
After examining Karen, who was nearly incoherent with a 105-degree fever, a doctor at Magee led Santorum into the hallway outside her room and said that she had an intrauterine infection and some type of medical intervention was necessary. Unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen's body, she would likely die.
At minimum, the doctor said, Karen had to be given antibiotics intravenously or she might go into septic shock and die.
The Santorums were at a crossroads.
Once they agreed to use antibiotics, they believed they were committing to delivery of the fetus, which they knew would most likely not survive outside the womb.
``The doctors said they were talking about a matter of hours or a day or two before risking sepsis and both of them might die,'' Santorum said. ``Obviously, if it was a choice of whether both Karen and the child are going to die or just the child is going to die, I mean it's a pretty easy call.''
Shivering under heated blankets in Magee's labor and delivery unit as her body tried to reject the source of the infection, Karen felt cramping from early labor.
Santorum agreed to start his wife on intravenous antibiotics ``to buy her some time,'' he said.
The antibiotics brought Karen's fever down. The doctor suggested a drug to accelerate her labor.
``The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,'' Santorum said. ``Karen said, `We're not inducing labor, that's an abortion. No way. That isn't going to happen. I don't care what happens.' ''
As her fever subsided, Karen - a former neonatal intensive-care nurse - asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.
Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.
Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that ``ultimately'' she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.
``If the physician came to me and said if we don't deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,'' she said. ``But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.''
The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.
In the months after the birth and death of Gabriel Michael Santorum, rumors began circulating in the Pennsylvania medical community that Karen Santorum had undergone an abortion. Those rumors found their way to The Inquirer, prompting the questions that led to this article.
``There are a lot of people who aren't big fans of Rick Santorum,'' the senator said of the rumors. ``You're a public figure, and you're out there. Maybe it accomplishes a political purpose''...
_____________________________________________________________
see also:
http://www.slate.com/id/1210/ The New Yorker, Jan. 5, 1998
An article chronicles the troubled pregnancy of Karen Santorum, wife of partial-birth-abortion foe Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and the evolution of the senator's views on the procedure. A birth defect threatened the lives of both fetus and mother, forcing the couple to face the ethical question of whether or not to abort to save her life. Premature labor made the quandary moot--the baby died two hours after birth--but stiffened their resolve against late-term abortion. (A "Strange Bedfellow" bashes Santorum's "pathetic grandstanding.")
__________________________________________________________________
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo69a0/id81.html
Audio Interview: Santorum defends the GOP Platform on Reproductive Rights
Terry Gross, Fresh Air Aug 30, 2004 (20 min.)
Santorum discusses:
Human Life amendment to the constitution,
Why judges opposed to Roe are not activists,
That embryos from fertility clinics should be adopted,
The Catholic mass and viewing with his children at home of his son, Gabriel, who was born 4 months premature and lived for 2 hours .
Listen to entire interview.
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/alerts/11-13-97.html
Activists urged to call Family Circle on abortion article
November, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Circle magazine featured an anti-abortion article in the "Full Circle" section of their October 1997 issue. The article, written by Karen Santorum, decried the use of late-term abortion under any circumstances. And it told the story of her own tragic pregnancy and the decision she and her family made - an option she and her husband would deny to other women .
Karen Santorum is the wife of right-wing, anti-abortion Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). In 1996, Senator Santorum led the debate on a bill that attempted to ban late-term abortions, and refused to make an exception even in the case of "grievous bodily injury" to the woman. In Santorum's article, she expresses her view that carrying a non-viable fetus to term is the only option, and apparently does not think the woman's health or future fertility should be a consideration.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) responded by requesting that a patient response be printed in the next issue, thus presenting an opposing view and bringing the argument "Full Circle." We have learned from NAF that Family Circle is only planning to publish "Letters to the Editor," and your actions could change their decision. Please urge Family Circle to print the article by Sophie Horak, which was submitted to them by NAF, in its entirety. We do not have permission to send you the text of the original article.
We urge you to email Family Circle at fcfeedback@familycircle.com or call (212-499-2000) and express concern over their incomplete (and in this case, biased) reporting on the very private issue of abortion.
Send letters to:
Family Circle Magazine
___________________________________________________________
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/19980623corner.asp
Karen Santorum's letter to ill-fated son express joy, sorrow
Tuesday, June 23, 1998
By Karen MacPherson
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61804-2005Apr17?language=printer
Father First, Senator Second
For Rick Santorum, Politics Could Hardly Get More Personal
By Mark Leibovich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 18, 2005; Page C01
In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.
Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.
"That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.
He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."
Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, "Letters to Gabriel," a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel's premature delivery. At one point, her doctor raised the prospect of an abortion, an "option" Karen ridicules. "Letters to Gabriel" also derides "pro-abortion activists" and decries the "infanticide" of "partial-birth abortion," the legality of which Rick Santorum was then debating in the Senate. The book reads, in places, like a call to action.
"When the partial-birth abortion vote comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate for the third time," Karen writes to Gabriel, "your daddy needs to proclaim God's message for life with even more strength and devotion to the cause."
The issue came up again the following spring. Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, appeared on the Senate floor with oversize illustrations of fetuses in various stages of delivery. He described the process by which a physician "brutally kills" a child "by thrusting a pair of scissors into the back of its skull and suctioning its brains out." He asked that a 5-year-old girl be admitted to the visitors' gallery, though Senate rules forbid children under 6. "She is very interested in the subject," Santorum said, explaining that the girl's mother had been a candidate for a late-term abortion when doctors advised her during her pregnancy that the child was unlikely to survive.
Sen. Barbara Boxer objected, saying it would be "rather exploitive to have a child present in the gallery" during such a debate. Santorum relented, bemoaning Boxer's objection as proof that "we have coarsened the comity of this place."
The same has been said of Santorum. In so many words, or facial gestures....
Friday, April 15, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Government Shutdown Threatens Public's Health in CA, US
EQUAL Health Network
Women’s Health, Greenhouse Gas Emission Protection, Health Care Reform at Risk
The public’s health would be a collateral casualty of caustic ideological battles over the national budget. Republican demands to defund family planning and to stop EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions have brought the federal government to a standstill. Crippling the popular Planned Parenthood clinics and lowering air pollution standards would profoundly damage the health of the nation and of California.
Women and men in many of the poorest neighborhoods rely on Planned Parenthood facilities for basic health care services, family planning, HIV care and cancer screenings. The Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Inc., has been instrumental in public policy for the health of women and girls.
These ideologically-driven "social riders" to the proposed budget would also eliminate funds for implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the new consumer protection bureau, leaving hundreds of thousands of families struggling to afford medical care.
Cuts could also fall on the Center for Infectious Diseases & Emergency Readiness at the University of California Berkeley, the only research center in the United States on radiological and nuclear public health preparedness.
The proposed $60 billion in cuts that Congressional Republicans have demanded this year, and trillions to come, would devastate the very projects that could revitalize jobs and ensure prosperity. Millions of people’s livelihoods depend on publicly funded transportation, infrastructure, education, and health care.
In addition, the shutdown itself will weaken the fragile economy, immediately placing 800,000 federal workers on furlough, suspending paychecks for soldiers and delaying business loans.
We need to develop a comprehensive solution that revitalizes federal revenues, while requiring those who benefit the most from our society’s infrastructure to pay the most to ensure its upkeep. Taxes for corporations and for wealthy individuals declined over the last decade, resulting in significant income disparities between the rich and the poor in the U.S., and leading to health inequalities. Reversing tax giveaways to the super-rich and the nation's largest corporations could raise $4 trillion within a decade.
We stand in support of reproductive and public health and against the threat of climate change! We urge our federal representatives to insist that these important programs continue!
California Public Health Association-North http://www.cphan.org/
EQUAL Health Network www.equalhealth.info
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network www.cpehn.org
Women’s Health, Greenhouse Gas Emission Protection, Health Care Reform at Risk
The public’s health would be a collateral casualty of caustic ideological battles over the national budget. Republican demands to defund family planning and to stop EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions have brought the federal government to a standstill. Crippling the popular Planned Parenthood clinics and lowering air pollution standards would profoundly damage the health of the nation and of California.
Women and men in many of the poorest neighborhoods rely on Planned Parenthood facilities for basic health care services, family planning, HIV care and cancer screenings. The Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Inc., has been instrumental in public policy for the health of women and girls.
These ideologically-driven "social riders" to the proposed budget would also eliminate funds for implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the new consumer protection bureau, leaving hundreds of thousands of families struggling to afford medical care.
Cuts could also fall on the Center for Infectious Diseases & Emergency Readiness at the University of California Berkeley, the only research center in the United States on radiological and nuclear public health preparedness.
The proposed $60 billion in cuts that Congressional Republicans have demanded this year, and trillions to come, would devastate the very projects that could revitalize jobs and ensure prosperity. Millions of people’s livelihoods depend on publicly funded transportation, infrastructure, education, and health care.
In addition, the shutdown itself will weaken the fragile economy, immediately placing 800,000 federal workers on furlough, suspending paychecks for soldiers and delaying business loans.
We need to develop a comprehensive solution that revitalizes federal revenues, while requiring those who benefit the most from our society’s infrastructure to pay the most to ensure its upkeep. Taxes for corporations and for wealthy individuals declined over the last decade, resulting in significant income disparities between the rich and the poor in the U.S., and leading to health inequalities. Reversing tax giveaways to the super-rich and the nation's largest corporations could raise $4 trillion within a decade.
We stand in support of reproductive and public health and against the threat of climate change! We urge our federal representatives to insist that these important programs continue!
California Public Health Association-North http://www.cphan.org/
EQUAL Health Network www.equalhealth.info
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network www.cpehn.org
Fixing Health Care: Care + Cost
Yes we have to fix financing. Yes we have to fix the delivery system. It's not a choice. Whichever we do first will not "work" (that is, control costs, and improve health) til we do both. It's understandable that we are having this debate: the Administration has tried to sell the delivery system reforms in the ACA as sufficient cost controls; many mainstream health economists are dubious about this, as are we. But it is also not the case, as Dr. McCanne asserts, that "the single payer model is structured as an altruistic, aspirational system that, quite automatically, actually does, in itself, improve quality and control costs." That's why every single payer bill before Congress also includes delivery sustem reforms, and always did. We need to be ready to fight for these reforms and for equity and accountability, as well as cost control, or we'll be surprised when the elected officials we put in charge of the single payer system cave in to the medical industrial complex. (Read up on Taiwan pre-single payer to get an idea of the relative simplicity and low cost of their system pre-reform. Different universe from the U.S.) Or try to cut funding for family planning.
As a single payer advocate I value the delivery system reforms in the ACA. They will not control costs unless and until we impose a budget on the healthcare system. We need a 900 pound government negotiator saying "no" to the drug, medical supply, institutional care, and provider industries. We can "save" all the money these reforms can achieve and the industry will find another pocket to put it into. (And by the way the ACA does put a cap on the Medicare budget as of 2019; we cd debate about the value of this and the likelihood of it occurring; but can also recognize the value of using the levers we have, including this one.)
But when we get to that point we'll be in better shape to make it work if we understand (as you both do) what we need to do to fix it so that people get care, and what safeguards and incentives we need to have to keep the system accountable. (It helps that Sebelius at HHS and CA's Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, for example, are modeling what we want our regulators to do.)
Some people will not die in Massachusetts this year who otherwise would have because they have coverage. If they get sick next year, as the system becomes less "affordable" (meaning the state raises co-pays, instead of raising corporate taxes to pay for health care) they may be at greater risk.
We continue to murder people in hospitals through preventable errors in medications and other organizational dysfunctions, to say nothing of antibiotic resistance. This hasn't changed much since "To Err Is Human" came out in the 1990s. Electronic medical records will help address some of these problems. Better nurse staffing ratios will also help (something that nurses continue to fight for while fighting for single payer, because it improves quality and because it gives them more power as workers and professionals; it's a fight we can and must support at the same time as we fight to get rid of the parasitic insurance industry.)
Some teachers in CA took over a Wells Fargo bank in Oakland on Monday and closed it down for 2 hours.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/04/oakland-teachers-ask-wells-fargo-bank-for-bailout/
If people all over the country were taking militant action on a regular basis, things might look a lot different today. Didn't happen. in 2009-10; might happen now.
So. do we go back now and accept that delivery system reforms in themselves, including those in the ACA, will control costs? Nope.
When we talk - and think - about what a single payer system is going to do and how we're going to make it work, why on earth would we abandon talking about delivery system reforms?
The point is not just to make health care cheaper; we could put the whole military budget into CMS and it wd be a vast improvement in our health. The point is to make the health care system equitable, high quality, universal, accountable and affordable. And to rebalance power relationships so that we have more of it (a major determinant of health).
As a single payer advocate I value the delivery system reforms in the ACA. They will not control costs unless and until we impose a budget on the healthcare system. We need a 900 pound government negotiator saying "no" to the drug, medical supply, institutional care, and provider industries. We can "save" all the money these reforms can achieve and the industry will find another pocket to put it into. (And by the way the ACA does put a cap on the Medicare budget as of 2019; we cd debate about the value of this and the likelihood of it occurring; but can also recognize the value of using the levers we have, including this one.)
But when we get to that point we'll be in better shape to make it work if we understand (as you both do) what we need to do to fix it so that people get care, and what safeguards and incentives we need to have to keep the system accountable. (It helps that Sebelius at HHS and CA's Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, for example, are modeling what we want our regulators to do.)
Some people will not die in Massachusetts this year who otherwise would have because they have coverage. If they get sick next year, as the system becomes less "affordable" (meaning the state raises co-pays, instead of raising corporate taxes to pay for health care) they may be at greater risk.
We continue to murder people in hospitals through preventable errors in medications and other organizational dysfunctions, to say nothing of antibiotic resistance. This hasn't changed much since "To Err Is Human" came out in the 1990s. Electronic medical records will help address some of these problems. Better nurse staffing ratios will also help (something that nurses continue to fight for while fighting for single payer, because it improves quality and because it gives them more power as workers and professionals; it's a fight we can and must support at the same time as we fight to get rid of the parasitic insurance industry.)
Some teachers in CA took over a Wells Fargo bank in Oakland on Monday and closed it down for 2 hours.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/04/oakland-teachers-ask-wells-fargo-bank-for-bailout/
If people all over the country were taking militant action on a regular basis, things might look a lot different today. Didn't happen. in 2009-10; might happen now.
So. do we go back now and accept that delivery system reforms in themselves, including those in the ACA, will control costs? Nope.
When we talk - and think - about what a single payer system is going to do and how we're going to make it work, why on earth would we abandon talking about delivery system reforms?
The point is not just to make health care cheaper; we could put the whole military budget into CMS and it wd be a vast improvement in our health. The point is to make the health care system equitable, high quality, universal, accountable and affordable. And to rebalance power relationships so that we have more of it (a major determinant of health).
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Looks, presence and power
I am an Elizabeth Taylor fan. Manohla Dargis summed it up:
"Ms. Taylor managed the role of sex object effortlessly as if it too were just part of the job. In contrast to so many other actresses, she seemed as desiring as desirous, with the gift of a thrillingly unladylike appetite. She was a great lover of food, of course, as her cruelly documented weight gains make evident. Yet the appetite that appeared to drive, at times even define her, exceeded mere food to include everything, and her consumption of men, booze, jewels and celebrity itself was an astonishment."
However contrived and improbable the stories, her performances in "Place in the Sun" and "Butterfield 8" conveyed a passion and humanity that were consistent with her later public discussions about a studio system that gave her 2 weeks off after the death of her husband Mike Todd, and her later support for AIDS activism. Who knows what really goes on in the lives of the impossibly rich and famous - not me for sure. But to the extent our lives are bombarded with celebrity-dom, I liked it that rich gorgeous Liz made it a believable part of part of her public persona to stick up for herself and for the socially excluded. So, a salute.
"Ms. Taylor managed the role of sex object effortlessly as if it too were just part of the job. In contrast to so many other actresses, she seemed as desiring as desirous, with the gift of a thrillingly unladylike appetite. She was a great lover of food, of course, as her cruelly documented weight gains make evident. Yet the appetite that appeared to drive, at times even define her, exceeded mere food to include everything, and her consumption of men, booze, jewels and celebrity itself was an astonishment."
However contrived and improbable the stories, her performances in "Place in the Sun" and "Butterfield 8" conveyed a passion and humanity that were consistent with her later public discussions about a studio system that gave her 2 weeks off after the death of her husband Mike Todd, and her later support for AIDS activism. Who knows what really goes on in the lives of the impossibly rich and famous - not me for sure. But to the extent our lives are bombarded with celebrity-dom, I liked it that rich gorgeous Liz made it a believable part of part of her public persona to stick up for herself and for the socially excluded. So, a salute.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Do You Have Sex? Do You Have Power?
Ellen Shaffer, Defend the Dream Rally, San Francisco, March 15, 2011
Robert Reich is an inspiration to all of us, and one of the country's truly great thinkers. There are a lot of very smart people over at UC Berkeley, where he teaches.
As Co-Director of the Center for Policy Analysis, I want to demonstrate to Professor Reich that we can hold our own over here in San Francisco, too. So I have some complicated math questions I want to ask you. Some of them are multiple choice. I want you to huddle up and get warm and stand with some other people you think are really smart and we'll see if we can figure out what the problem is around here.
Are you ready?
Ok here's the first question, tell me if you can answer it:
Do you have sex?
Let me repeat: Do you have sex?
Ok here's the next question, this one has multiple parts:
Have you ever had sex, do you plan to have sex in the future, do you have any friends or relatives who you have reason to believe have ever had sex?
If you said yes to any of these questions, think about this one:
Do you think it's any business of Congress' if you do or if you don't?
All right, now let's get into some really tricky stuff.
When you've had sex, how many of you were surprised at some point when you got pregnant?
Here's a fact: 50% of pregnancies in the US are unintended pregnancies.
And 30% of women have an abortion at some time in our lives.
30%.
Here's another little-known fact: some of those women are - Republicans!
Now let's see what else we can discover here today.
We hear there are deficits, at the state and federal levels. The federal deficit is a big one, $1.5 trillion.
So let's see whose fault that is.
Did you make $810 billion last year? Anyone?
The oil industry did.
Anyone here vote to spend $3 trillion fighting phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, without any way to pay for it?
Fact: Corporate profits went up to $1.6 trillion in 2010. Over half of U.S. companies paid no federal taxes at some time in the last decade.
Anybody here make $1.6 trillion and not pay taxes?
Here in California we have seen some of the starkest financial tragedies, the tragic divide between rich and poor, entire communities devastated by the irresponsible, criminal negligence of banks and finance capital.
Now here's another question:
Do we have any power?
You bet we do. If we didn't have any power they wouldn't have to keep bopping us over the head to keep us down.
The right wing extremists in Congress are marching to the tune of the extremists in the corporate world.
In Congress, and in the states, the far right is going after us, all of us, with their guns drawn, literally and figuratively.
The Republican budget bill would slash funds to implement health care reform, slash Head Start early childhood programs, slash Pell grants to students, close down public radio, deregulate environmental polluters.
And to women, and to those of you who ever have had or ever will have sex, they would do this:
The would defund family planning, period. Defund Planned Parenthood, period - even the cancer screenings and preventive health services in poor neighborhoods that make up 97% of their budget. Remember, half of pregnancies are unintended; that percent would go straight up.
They would make it virtually impossible to get an abortion. Because many employers get a federal tax break for providing health insurance, extremists say this means you should not be able to use your private insurance to pay for an abortion, because there is a public dollar in there somewhere.
It gets worse than that. You've probably heard some of the proposals: defining the murder of abortion providers as justifiable homicide. Authorizing hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion even if the refusal would result in the death of the mother.
The number of reliable pro-choice Senators is now a bare 40.
The vast majority of Americans believe that we as individuals have the right to make our own decisions about how and when we're going to have children. The majority believe that abortion should be legal.
The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign was formed so that the 80% of us who support individual choices about our reproductive health can be visible and vocal, and can take action.
We can exert tremendous influences over our life courses, as individuals.
But in many other ways, do as well as our communities do.
It is when we are united that we truly have power.
That is why we have to be smart.
They are throwing everything at us at the same time: trying to smash our unions, smash our democracy, smash our freedom of choice about when we're going to have kids, and with whom.
Because we are strongest when we are united, and we are weakest when they can pull us apart.
We are here today with Madison, we are here today with Ohio, we are here today with the LGBTQ community, with undocumented immigrants, with men and women - and for sure with all of us who have sex!
We are here with the people near the Fukushima Daichi reactor, where caretakers kept saying, don't worry, it's perfectly safe.
We're here with each other because we know that when we stand together that is when we have power.
Do we have power?
Do we have power?
Do we have power?
Now let's show our leaders what power is and what to do with it.
Thanks to Weslyan Uncut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaxBR1AiFS4
Robert Reich is an inspiration to all of us, and one of the country's truly great thinkers. There are a lot of very smart people over at UC Berkeley, where he teaches.
As Co-Director of the Center for Policy Analysis, I want to demonstrate to Professor Reich that we can hold our own over here in San Francisco, too. So I have some complicated math questions I want to ask you. Some of them are multiple choice. I want you to huddle up and get warm and stand with some other people you think are really smart and we'll see if we can figure out what the problem is around here.
Are you ready?
Ok here's the first question, tell me if you can answer it:
Do you have sex?
Let me repeat: Do you have sex?
Ok here's the next question, this one has multiple parts:
Have you ever had sex, do you plan to have sex in the future, do you have any friends or relatives who you have reason to believe have ever had sex?
If you said yes to any of these questions, think about this one:
Do you think it's any business of Congress' if you do or if you don't?
All right, now let's get into some really tricky stuff.
When you've had sex, how many of you were surprised at some point when you got pregnant?
Here's a fact: 50% of pregnancies in the US are unintended pregnancies.
And 30% of women have an abortion at some time in our lives.
30%.
Here's another little-known fact: some of those women are - Republicans!
Now let's see what else we can discover here today.
We hear there are deficits, at the state and federal levels. The federal deficit is a big one, $1.5 trillion.
So let's see whose fault that is.
Did you make $810 billion last year? Anyone?
The oil industry did.
Anyone here vote to spend $3 trillion fighting phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, without any way to pay for it?
Fact: Corporate profits went up to $1.6 trillion in 2010. Over half of U.S. companies paid no federal taxes at some time in the last decade.
Anybody here make $1.6 trillion and not pay taxes?
Here in California we have seen some of the starkest financial tragedies, the tragic divide between rich and poor, entire communities devastated by the irresponsible, criminal negligence of banks and finance capital.
Now here's another question:
Do we have any power?
You bet we do. If we didn't have any power they wouldn't have to keep bopping us over the head to keep us down.
The right wing extremists in Congress are marching to the tune of the extremists in the corporate world.
In Congress, and in the states, the far right is going after us, all of us, with their guns drawn, literally and figuratively.
The Republican budget bill would slash funds to implement health care reform, slash Head Start early childhood programs, slash Pell grants to students, close down public radio, deregulate environmental polluters.
And to women, and to those of you who ever have had or ever will have sex, they would do this:
The would defund family planning, period. Defund Planned Parenthood, period - even the cancer screenings and preventive health services in poor neighborhoods that make up 97% of their budget. Remember, half of pregnancies are unintended; that percent would go straight up.
They would make it virtually impossible to get an abortion. Because many employers get a federal tax break for providing health insurance, extremists say this means you should not be able to use your private insurance to pay for an abortion, because there is a public dollar in there somewhere.
It gets worse than that. You've probably heard some of the proposals: defining the murder of abortion providers as justifiable homicide. Authorizing hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion even if the refusal would result in the death of the mother.
The number of reliable pro-choice Senators is now a bare 40.
The vast majority of Americans believe that we as individuals have the right to make our own decisions about how and when we're going to have children. The majority believe that abortion should be legal.
The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign was formed so that the 80% of us who support individual choices about our reproductive health can be visible and vocal, and can take action.
We can exert tremendous influences over our life courses, as individuals.
But in many other ways, do as well as our communities do.
It is when we are united that we truly have power.
That is why we have to be smart.
They are throwing everything at us at the same time: trying to smash our unions, smash our democracy, smash our freedom of choice about when we're going to have kids, and with whom.
Because we are strongest when we are united, and we are weakest when they can pull us apart.
We are here today with Madison, we are here today with Ohio, we are here today with the LGBTQ community, with undocumented immigrants, with men and women - and for sure with all of us who have sex!
We are here with the people near the Fukushima Daichi reactor, where caretakers kept saying, don't worry, it's perfectly safe.
We're here with each other because we know that when we stand together that is when we have power.
Do we have power?
Do we have power?
Do we have power?
Now let's show our leaders what power is and what to do with it.
Thanks to Weslyan Uncut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaxBR1AiFS4
Sunday, March 6, 2011
WILL YOU HAVE TO PAY A 3.8% TAX IF YOU SELL YOUR HOUSE? NO!!!
Here is one of the most insidious and widespread myths about the application of the Affordable Care Act. In presenting about the law in remote areas, I've found that people who had heard nothing about any of the benefits of the ACA had heard this: if you sell your house you'll have to pay 3.8% in new taxes on the amount of the sale.
Here's what is wrong with this:
Sec. 1411 is below. It does impose a 3.8% tax generally on unearned income, a progressive feature of the law.
And the 3.8% tax does apply to the sale of certain property.
But all of the following must be true for the tax to apply to proceeds from the sale of your home:
1. Your annual income must be $200,000 or greater if you file taxes as a single person, or $250,000 if you file as a couple. This excludes about 98% of Americans right there.
AND
2. The net gain from the sale of your home must be declarable as taxable income.
Now if you've sold a residence in the last 20 years you know that Congress is constantly finding ways to exclude home sale gains from taxable income. Right now you usually pay no tax on the sale for a variety of reasons. These change from time to time but right now include these conditions at least:
a. The first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already.
or
b. If you buy another home, you pay no tax.
Remember, you can make a million in taxable gains on the sale of your home and the new 3.8% tax will not apply unless you're also declaring taxable earnings over $200,000 a year.
You can find all this out in summary at FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
But I think you're better armed by knowing where to look in the law so here you are:
‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e)—
‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual,
there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax
imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to
3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such
taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.
‘‘(2) APPLICATION TO ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—In the case of
an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any
other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax
of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the undistributed net investment income for such
taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section
67(e)) for such taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax
bracket in section 1(e) begins for such taxable year.
‘‘(b) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the
term ‘threshold amount’ means—
‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under
section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
$250,000,
‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section
7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined
under paragraph (1), and
‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.
‘‘(c) NET INVESTMENT INCOME.—For purposes of this chapter—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘net investment income’ means
the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(A) the sum of—
‘‘(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities,
royalties, and rents, other than such income
which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or
business not described in paragraph (2),
‘‘(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or
business described in paragraph (2), and
‘‘(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account in
computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition
of property other than property held in a trade or
business not described in paragraph (2), over
‘‘(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are
properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.
‘‘(2) TRADES AND BUSINESSES TO WHICH TAX APPLIES.—A
trade or business is described in this paragraph if such trade
or business is—
‘‘(A) a passive activity (within the meaning of section
469) with respect to the taxpayer, or
‘‘(B) a trade or business of trading in financial instruments
or commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2)).
‘‘(3) INCOME ON INVESTMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL SUBJECT
TO TAX.—A rule similar to the rule of section 469(e)(1)(B) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVE INTERESTS IN PARTNERSHIPS
AND S CORPORATIONS.—In the case of a disposition of
an interest in a partnership or S corporation—
‘‘(A) gain from such disposition shall be taken into account
under clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(A) only to the extent
of the net gain which would be so taken into account
by the transferor if all property of the partnership or S
corporation were sold for fair market value immediately
before the disposition of such interest, and
‘‘(B) a rule similar to the rule of subparagraph (A)
shall apply to a loss from such disposition.
‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED
PLANS.—The term ‘net investment income’ shall not include
any distribution from a plan or arrangement described in section
401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, or 457(b).
‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE.—Net investment income shall not include
any item taken into account in determining self-employment
income for such taxable year on which a tax is imposed
by section 1401(b).
‘‘(d) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of this
chapter, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted
gross income increased by the excess of—
‘‘(1) the amount excluded from gross income under section
911(a)(1), over
‘‘(2) the amount of any deductions (taken into account in
computing adjusted gross income) or exclusions disallowed
under section 911(d)(6) with respect to the amounts described
in paragraph (1).
‘‘(e) NONAPPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section shall not apply
to—
‘‘(1) a nonresident alien, or
‘‘(2) a trust all of the unexpired interests in which are devoted
to one or more of the purposes described in section
170(c)(2)(B).’’.
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended—
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the tax under
chapter 2’’ and inserting ‘‘the tax under chapter 2, and the
tax under chapter 2A’’; and
(B) in subsection (f)—
(i) by striking ‘‘minus’’ at the end of paragraph (2)
and inserting ‘‘plus’’; and
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4) and inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by chapter 2A, minus’’.
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 2 the
following new item:
‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION’’.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December
31, 2012.
(b) EARNED INCOME.—
(1) THRESHOLD.—
(A) FICA.—øAmended section 3101(b)(2) of the IRC, as
added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906) of
PPACA, including inserting a new subparagraph (B)¿
(B) SECA.—øAmended section 1401(b)(2) of the IRC,
as added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906)
of PPACA, including inserting a new clause (ii) in subparagraph
(A)¿
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (m)
as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the following
new subsection:
‘‘(m) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEDICARE TAX.—For purposes of this
section, the tax imposed under section 3101(b)(2) (to the extent not
withheld) shall be treated as a tax imposed under chapter 2.’’.
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to remuneration received, and
taxable years beginning after, December 31, 2012.
Plus, if you've gotten this far, you can look up portions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) referred to above.
Here's what is wrong with this:
Sec. 1411 is below. It does impose a 3.8% tax generally on unearned income, a progressive feature of the law.
And the 3.8% tax does apply to the sale of certain property.
But all of the following must be true for the tax to apply to proceeds from the sale of your home:
1. Your annual income must be $200,000 or greater if you file taxes as a single person, or $250,000 if you file as a couple. This excludes about 98% of Americans right there.
AND
2. The net gain from the sale of your home must be declarable as taxable income.
Now if you've sold a residence in the last 20 years you know that Congress is constantly finding ways to exclude home sale gains from taxable income. Right now you usually pay no tax on the sale for a variety of reasons. These change from time to time but right now include these conditions at least:
a. The first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already.
or
b. If you buy another home, you pay no tax.
Remember, you can make a million in taxable gains on the sale of your home and the new 3.8% tax will not apply unless you're also declaring taxable earnings over $200,000 a year.
You can find all this out in summary at FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
But I think you're better armed by knowing where to look in the law so here you are:
‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e)—
‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual,
there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax
imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to
3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such
taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.
‘‘(2) APPLICATION TO ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—In the case of
an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any
other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax
of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the undistributed net investment income for such
taxable year, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section
67(e)) for such taxable year, over
‘‘(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax
bracket in section 1(e) begins for such taxable year.
‘‘(b) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the
term ‘threshold amount’ means—
‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under
section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
$250,000,
‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section
7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined
under paragraph (1), and
‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.
‘‘(c) NET INVESTMENT INCOME.—For purposes of this chapter—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘net investment income’ means
the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(A) the sum of—
‘‘(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities,
royalties, and rents, other than such income
which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or
business not described in paragraph (2),
‘‘(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or
business described in paragraph (2), and
‘‘(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account in
computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition
of property other than property held in a trade or
business not described in paragraph (2), over
‘‘(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are
properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.
‘‘(2) TRADES AND BUSINESSES TO WHICH TAX APPLIES.—A
trade or business is described in this paragraph if such trade
or business is—
‘‘(A) a passive activity (within the meaning of section
469) with respect to the taxpayer, or
‘‘(B) a trade or business of trading in financial instruments
or commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2)).
‘‘(3) INCOME ON INVESTMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL SUBJECT
TO TAX.—A rule similar to the rule of section 469(e)(1)(B) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVE INTERESTS IN PARTNERSHIPS
AND S CORPORATIONS.—In the case of a disposition of
an interest in a partnership or S corporation—
‘‘(A) gain from such disposition shall be taken into account
under clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(A) only to the extent
of the net gain which would be so taken into account
by the transferor if all property of the partnership or S
corporation were sold for fair market value immediately
before the disposition of such interest, and
‘‘(B) a rule similar to the rule of subparagraph (A)
shall apply to a loss from such disposition.
‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED
PLANS.—The term ‘net investment income’ shall not include
any distribution from a plan or arrangement described in section
401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, or 457(b).
‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE.—Net investment income shall not include
any item taken into account in determining self-employment
income for such taxable year on which a tax is imposed
by section 1401(b).
‘‘(d) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of this
chapter, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted
gross income increased by the excess of—
‘‘(1) the amount excluded from gross income under section
911(a)(1), over
‘‘(2) the amount of any deductions (taken into account in
computing adjusted gross income) or exclusions disallowed
under section 911(d)(6) with respect to the amounts described
in paragraph (1).
‘‘(e) NONAPPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section shall not apply
to—
‘‘(1) a nonresident alien, or
‘‘(2) a trust all of the unexpired interests in which are devoted
to one or more of the purposes described in section
170(c)(2)(B).’’.
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended—
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the tax under
chapter 2’’ and inserting ‘‘the tax under chapter 2, and the
tax under chapter 2A’’; and
(B) in subsection (f)—
(i) by striking ‘‘minus’’ at the end of paragraph (2)
and inserting ‘‘plus’’; and
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4) and inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by chapter 2A, minus’’.
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 2 the
following new item:
‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION’’.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December
31, 2012.
(b) EARNED INCOME.—
(1) THRESHOLD.—
(A) FICA.—øAmended section 3101(b)(2) of the IRC, as
added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906) of
PPACA, including inserting a new subparagraph (B)¿
(B) SECA.—øAmended section 1401(b)(2) of the IRC,
as added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906)
of PPACA, including inserting a new clause (ii) in subparagraph
(A)¿
(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (m)
as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the following
new subsection:
‘‘(m) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEDICARE TAX.—For purposes of this
section, the tax imposed under section 3101(b)(2) (to the extent not
withheld) shall be treated as a tax imposed under chapter 2.’’.
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to remuneration received, and
taxable years beginning after, December 31, 2012.
Plus, if you've gotten this far, you can look up portions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) referred to above.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The House's Budget Bill is a Bully's Snigger
We've had our children, or not. But we remember.
Worried when we were "late." Escaped to New York or California or Mexico where it was legal, if we could, or found lay caregivers through Jane. Mourned our friends, or relatives, or patients, who were not so lucky. The girls who had to quit school; their boyfriends who never did.
We remember when domestic violence didn't have a name. We know that too many still cower in the face of it. We remember when women couldn't get jobs as reporters. We cringe that they are still blamed by some when they are raped on the job.
We fought on the job for decent pay and union rights, and at home for equality and respect. We're so proud of the lives we've created and equally proud of the generations of women and men who are asserting their places in the world.
We're not surprised that Republicans with no solutions for an ailing global economy are going after the rights of individuals to make our own reproductive choices, the rights of workers to a voice on the job, the rights of all of us to public health and health care. We have been startled at how quickly the Democrats will throw us under the bus.
The House's budget bill, HR 1, and the companion HR 3, are the equivalent of a bully's snigger. Their plans to cut health care services including family planning would force more unintended pregnancies on the most vulnerable women. And then deny access to abortions. They have come to push us around and take our money for their own binges, while bellowing about freedom and fiscal responsibility.
So, we need to find each other again, link up as allies, to renew our vision and our voices, to rebuild our power.
The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign will wear our silver ribbons for reproductive health, rights and justice (www.oursilverribbon.org) at the Walks for Choices this Saturday, Feb. 26 at noon. There's one near you: http://walkforchoice.tumblr.com/
Let's get this party started.
Worried when we were "late." Escaped to New York or California or Mexico where it was legal, if we could, or found lay caregivers through Jane. Mourned our friends, or relatives, or patients, who were not so lucky. The girls who had to quit school; their boyfriends who never did.
We remember when domestic violence didn't have a name. We know that too many still cower in the face of it. We remember when women couldn't get jobs as reporters. We cringe that they are still blamed by some when they are raped on the job.
We fought on the job for decent pay and union rights, and at home for equality and respect. We're so proud of the lives we've created and equally proud of the generations of women and men who are asserting their places in the world.
We're not surprised that Republicans with no solutions for an ailing global economy are going after the rights of individuals to make our own reproductive choices, the rights of workers to a voice on the job, the rights of all of us to public health and health care. We have been startled at how quickly the Democrats will throw us under the bus.
The House's budget bill, HR 1, and the companion HR 3, are the equivalent of a bully's snigger. Their plans to cut health care services including family planning would force more unintended pregnancies on the most vulnerable women. And then deny access to abortions. They have come to push us around and take our money for their own binges, while bellowing about freedom and fiscal responsibility.
So, we need to find each other again, link up as allies, to renew our vision and our voices, to rebuild our power.
The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign will wear our silver ribbons for reproductive health, rights and justice (www.oursilverribbon.org) at the Walks for Choices this Saturday, Feb. 26 at noon. There's one near you: http://walkforchoice.tumblr.com/
Let's get this party started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)