May 2, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC — May 1 — Statement on judicial nominations by People For the American Way president Kathryn Kolbert:
“In the waning days of President Bush’s unpopular presidency, Senator Arlen Specter and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are throwing temper tantrums over judges. They’ve even repeatedly threatened to shut down the Senate — which would hold up crucial legislation as the economy teeters on the edge of recession — if they don’t get their way.”
“Senators McConnell and Specter conveniently forget that over 300 of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been confirmed — a greater percentage than were confirmed for President Clinton. More importantly, the longstanding and bipartisan Senate practice known as the ‘Thurmond Rule’ dictates that only non-controversial judicial nominees should be processed in the months preceding a presidential election.
“Senator Pat Leahy, who has gone far above and beyond what is required as committee chairman, announced that three additional federal circuit court nominees would be confirmed in short order. But that didn’t suit McConnell and Specter. They’re simply not interested in mainstream nominees that can win bipartisan backing — not when there are political points to be scored. Instead they’re playing to the base by pushing three highly controversial nominees.
“Senator Specter apparently learned a lesson four years ago when he nearly lost a primary to Patrick Toomey, the handpicked candidate of the Religious Right and Club for Growth. Ever since, Specter has been a pit bull for right-wing judges. That’s bad for Pennsylvania and bad for America.
“Senators Specter and McConnell will continue their pressure tactics around judges, but Senate Democrats must stand strong. The clock is ticking for President Bush, but it’s already run out for his controversial nominees.”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Press Releases,
Republicans,
U.S. Congress
April 23, 2008
Oh, no, I’m not being flippant about a death — I really do wonder what St. Peter had to say to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican’s poster boy for a Dark-Ages mentality on same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and a woman’s right to choose, and who, most (in)famously, outright lied when he said condoms don’t do anything to prevent the spread of HIV. (The World Health Organization set everybody straight — so to speak — on that note, reiterating that condoms are 90% effective, and failure was usually due to improper installation.)
Not, mind you, that I really believe in the whole St. Peter/Pearly Gates thing; I don’t. But I’m a happy little agnostic quite content with the idea that wherever we end up, it’s of our own making: If you expect to see St. Peter, or some Pearly Gates, then you will.
But I digress, as usual.
Serendipity flowing freely this week, it was ironic, but rather satisfying in a mean, Schadenfreude kind of way, to hear that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by one of our few remaining heroes in the Democratic Party, Henry Waxman [D-Calif.]) is holding a hearing today to re-open the issue of whether or not abstinence-only programs work.
The reality is: They don’t. But as long as Radical Righteous Religionists exist — and as long as they maintain their stranglehold on our government — the reality of the situation needs to be hammered into many thick skulls before the U.S. gives up this killer (and I do mean killer) notion that if you withhold contraceptives and fact-based sex education, people will stop getting STDs, and stop having abortions.
What needs to stop is handing over taxpayer dollars to “faith-based” institutions that do nothing to decrease the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, and in fact only serve to exacerbate the situation(s).
Sometimes it seems the only way to a new Age of Englightenment is to outlive the troglodytes who think they can pray the AIDS away. And so it is with an uncomfortable mixture of both sadness and relief that we mark the passing of Cardinal Trujillo: There was a man who stood no hope of being enlightened and reborn into a healthy, helpful, reality-based way of thinking, and now he’s gone. That’s the sad part. The relief (which troubles me to admit to) comes with the knowledge that there is one less powerful person on this planet standing in the way of countless millions being equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to save their own lives, and the lives of many others.
I’ll leave you with that thought, and with the ACLU’s writeup on today’s abstinence-only hearing — so my “faith-based” readers might understand that I’m not some sort of heartless ghoul celebrating the death of an “enemy.”
You see, Cardinal Trujillo called every struggle for control over our own lives and our own bodies, from same-sex marriage to euthanasia, a “culture of death,” when the truth is that lying about condoms and stem cell research and all the rest kills people. It is the Cardinal Trujillos of this world who propagate a “culture of death.”
Evidence Once Again Shows Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Don’t Work
WASHINGTON, DC — April 23 — The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing today titled “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.” The ACLU applauds Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) for bringing new attention to this deeply troubling policy and the committee’s willingness to examine the public health policy implications of abstinence-only programs. We look forward to the testimony of scientists, clinicians, researchers and youth activists who will report on the failures of abstinence-only education programs.
Their testimony is supported by research which has repeatedly shown that, at best, abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation and, at worst, may actually cause harm by providing young people with dangerously inadequate and inaccurate information. A troubling recent report found teens in Florida, a state that relies on abstinence-only programs, who believed drinking a can of Mt. Dew would prevent unintended pregnancy, or drinking a capful of bleach would prevent HIV/AIDS.
In addition to the clear and compelling public health concerns of abstinence-only programs, the ACLU has submitted a statement to the committee addressing the civil liberties concerns raised by these programs. Abstinence-only programs censor information, reinforce gender stereotypes, provide inaccurate and misleading information, promote religion, serve a narrow ideological agenda, stigmatize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and jeopardize the well-being of young people.
“The evidence leads to only one conclusion: abstinence-only programs represent a failed policy,” said Vania Leveille, legislative counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “They are driven by ideology and politics, rather than by science or good public health policy, and our young people are suffering as a result. Most troubling, they represent a purposeful campaign to mislead, distort, stifle and censor, and are part of a disturbing trend to politicize science. The ACLU urges congressional action to bring this failed policy to an end.”
Since 1996, the U.S. government has poured more than a billion dollars into abstinence-only education programs so ineffective and dangerous that seventeen states have refused funding. At a time when the administration emphasizes accountability in funding only programs with demonstrated success, the continued funding of unproven abstinence-only programs is unacceptable.
The ACLU’s statement to the committee is available here
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Catholicism,
Democrats,
HIV/AIDS,
Health & Wellness,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Press Releases,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Science & Technology,
U.S. Congress,
Women,
Youth
March 13, 2008
Out4Immigration Cheers Senate Action, Hopes for Similar Move with Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)
By Amos Lim
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — March 11, 2008 — Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) successfully secured a provision to repeal the discriminatory travel and immigration ban on HIV-positive individuals today as part of the Senate’s legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The underlying legislation, authored by Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), is expected to be considered by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this week.
“This is a monumental first step toward ending the discrimination the LGBT community faces under current US immigration laws,” said Michael Lim, Vice President of the national grassroots organization Out4Immigration, a group dedicated to raising awareness about the discrimination LGBT Americans and their foreign partners face under current US immigration law.
“For many years, the only long-term way around this ban was for HIV-positive people to be sponsored by a family member, similar to the immigration process,” explained Lim. “Under current immigration law, the word ‘family’ does not apply to gays and lesbians.” The majority of HIV-positive people denied entry because of the ban have been gay men, many with American partners who are shut out from the ‘family’ option. “This is similar to the larger problem of gay and lesbian American citizens not being able to sponsor foreign partners for green cards. It’s been an inhumane practice in this country for a long time,” said Lim.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, who along with Out4Immigration has repeatedly called for an end to this practice, the travel and immigration ban prohibits HIV-positive foreign nationals, students, and tourists from entering the US unless they obtain a special waiver that only allows for short-term travel. Longer-term options can only be obtained using the family member sponsorship not available to gay and lesbian couples.
The ban was originally enacted in 1987, and explicitly restated in 1993, despite efforts in the public health community to remove the ban when Congress reformed US immigration law in the early 1990s. While immigration law currently excludes immigrants with any “communicable disease of public health significance” from entering the US, only HIV is explicitly named in the statute. For all other illnesses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services retains the ability, with the medical expertise of his department, to determine which illnesses truly pose a risk to public health.
Senators Kerry and Smith introduced legislation, the HIV Non-Discrimination in Travel and Immigration Act (S. 2486), in December 2007 to repeal the ban. Representative Barbara Lee introduced the legislation in August 2007 in the House of Representatives (H.R. 3337).
“We hope that PEPFAR is reauthorized shortly and this major barrier to allowing all loving couples a chance to be together in the US is removed,” said Lim.
While the repeal of the discriminatory travel and immigration ban on HIV-positive individuals will allow foreign gays and lesbians with this illness some of the same options as their HIV-negative counterparts, there is still a long way to go until equal immigration rights are available to all.
“The good news is that those who are HIV-positive may soon be able to enter the US on work or student visas, in addition to travel,” said Lim. “This is often a first step that same-sex binational couples take in order to live together in the US.
“It will take the passage of the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221; S.1328) for gay and lesbian American citizens to have the same rights to sponsor a foreign partner for permanent residency as is available to heterosexuals,” explained Lim. “Out4Immigration remains hopeful that the UAFA could be attached to legislation that would move it as swiftly through Congress as the expected repeal of the travel and immigration ban.”
For more information:
Out4Immigration
The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221)
The Uniting American Families Act (S.1328)
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
HIV/AIDS,
Immigration,
LGBT Organizations,
Press Releases,
U.S. Congress
March 4, 2008
Hundreds of Grassroots Volunteers to Raise Awareness and Educate Congress on GLBT Issues
WASHINGTON, DC - March 4 - Volunteers and staff of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, will gather on Capitol Hill on Thursday, March 6, to lobby their senators and representatives to promote equality and civil rights of GLBT Americans.
“This is an opportunity for GLBT people from across the country to engage their members of Congress and speak out on the issues critical to our community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Whether it be calling for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ educating on HIV/AIDS, or working to prevent discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and sexual orientation, GLBT constituents will have their opportunity to be heard.”
The volunteers will share their experiences to help put a face to the issues of discrimination and the need for equality. The volunteers’ visits to Capitol Hill are a part of the Human Rights Campaign’s ongoing effort to pass fair-minded policies for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.
Members of the media seeking to arrange on-site interviews with volunteers or the HRC legislative team, please contact Trevor Thomas at 202.216.1547 or Trevor.Thomas@hrc.org.
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Events,
LGBT Organizations,
Press Releases,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, D.C.
January 30, 2008
The reason John Edwards dropped out seems clear to anyone who’s been following the 2008 presidential race closely. The NYT summarizes the official reason so:
It was a decision rooted simply in the political reality of the challenges he faced in the 22 states holding contests on Feb. 5, according to people familiar with the decision, and had nothing to do with the health of his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, who has been battling cancer.
More telling is this short paragraph:
Throughout the campaign season, Mr. Edwards had not been able to break through the dueling high-profile candidacies of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and he had not been able to raise the kind of money that his two chief rivals had early on.
True. And the reason for that is the mainstream media itself: Just as the MSM is responsible for creating a great part of the myth that is Obama the Risen Messiah, there’s been a practical news blackout on Edwards.
Why that is… Well, nothing happens by accident in politics, and timing is never coincidental. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to guess that the big guys working the Democratic Machine decided it was time for Edwards to pull out — before Super-Duper-Whoop-De-Doo Tuesday. So he did.
It’s a shame, really; had Edwards any sort of chance to win the Democratic nomination, no doubt a significant number of us Kucinich supporters (and Richardson supporters, and Gravel supporters, and even Biden supporters) would have thrown our support behind him.
But that’s that, and now we’re presented with just two candidates, just as it was planned from the beginning. You were told more than a year ago that you would be choosing between Clinton and Obama, and now you are.
There is some good news on the “So long, and thanks for all the fish” front: Yet another Republican congresscritter has announced his decision to retire at the end of his term this year: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. Why? He’s “just very tired,” he says.
Davis’ exit brings the total number of Republicans leaving the House (either through retirement or by running for higher office) this year up to 28.
Last week, Repubs Jim Walsh of New York and Dave Weldon of Florida announced their plans to retire this year; their departures leave two vacancies on the House Appropriations Committee.
With the continuing exodus of Republicans from the U.S. House, and the generally-accepted calculations of “vulnerable” Republican seats come November (Raising Kane offers an excellent breakdown), it’s as close to a sure thing as a sure thing can be that come swearing-in day, 2009, we will have a heavily Democratic — and filibuster-proof — House. And with a Democratic president (after eight years of the BFEE, a houseplant could take the White House as long as it had a D after its name)…
I’d like to say “the country will be ours again,” but the truth is, the new president and Congress are going to be spending the bulk of their time cleaning up Bush’s messes both overseas and domestically. Maybe, just maybe, sometime during the 112th or 113th session of Congress might we see some actual progress on other issues.
That’s assuming the president we get doesn’t screw up so badly (*coughObamacough*) as to lose re-election and sour voters on the Democrats.
But for now, we can be content in the almost-sure knowledge that the White House and the House of Representatives will be delivered back into the hands of the grown-ups come November.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Democrats,
Dennis Kucinich,
Election 2008,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
John Edwards,
Republicans,
U.S. Congress
November 7, 2007
ENDA Passes House Without Trans Protections
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but with without protections for trans-workers after more than five hours of debate, wrangling, maneuvering and lobbying. …
. . .
After a brief debate on the [trans-inclusive] amendment in the House on Wednesday [Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.] pulled it before a vote. It allowed Baldwin to speak in favor of trans rights on the record, but without a recorded vote Republicans will not be able to use transgender rights as an election issue in 2008. …
. . .
Democrat Jerrold Nadler (NY) disputed [its sponsor, Rep. Barney Frank]’s assertion that ENDA without trans protections was the best that could be done and said he could not vote for ENDA as long as it failed to include gender identity. …
. . .
Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich also voiced his concern that the Baldwin amendment had been withdrawn without a vote. …
. . .
On Wednesday, following the vote, HRC president Joe Solmonese was all smiles. …
“‘If we do not have the votes to go forward (with the bill including trans-people) do we do away with the bill altogether?’” Frank asked the House.”
Yes, that’s exactly what you should have done, this session!
Notice who (besides Kucinich, of course) gets it right: Jerry Nadler, as usual. The straight congressman from New York’s Upper West Side has been a greater friend to the LGBT community than the spineless gay rep from Massachusetts. (It was Nadler, remember, who introduced the Uniting American Families Act, originally the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, in 2000, and who has re-introduced it every year since.)
And: “Even if a final version is approved by both houses it is likely to be met with a presidential veto.” We KNOW THAT — so if you’re going to push it through this term, why not go for the whole enchilada? It’s GOING to get vetoed, assuming it even passes the Senate.
And: To get ENDA passed in the House, they had to reassure the bigots it wouldn’t touch their precious DoMA:
Two other amendments to specifically address White House concerns were passed.
One would tie religious exemptions to the same wording as currently in the civil rights act. The other would specify that ENDA does not negate any section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
P.S. Solmonese, we just don’t have the words for you. How can you sleep at night?
See also:
House Wants to Throw Transgenders Under Bus
Lane Hudson Doesn’t Want a Sex Change, And Neither Do We
ENDA: For Straight-Acting Only?
ENDA-Lite: It’s Worse Than You Thought
One Gay Congresscritter With Principle and Honor (No, Not Barney Frank)
So, Exactly How Much Does Barney Frank NOT Care… About ANY of Us?
Barney Frank Flips on ENDA Again, Supports Baldwin Amendment
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barney Frank,
Dennis Kucinich,
Employment/ENDA,
LGBT Organizations,
Marriage Equality,
Tammy Baldwin,
Transgender,
U.S. Congress
November 3, 2007
…or maybe that should be: “Just when you thought Obama’s campaign had run out of feet to stick in its collective mouth,” or maybe: “Just when you thought Obama’s campaign’s virtual mouth wasn’t big enough to stick any more feet into…”
Oh, never mind. The point:
This is the most ludicrous “attack line” yet, coming at the worst possible time — for Obama, that is:
Obama Launches New Attack Line: Clinton Copies My Votes
Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is launching a new line of attack on Sen. Hillary Clinton, accusing the Democratic presidential frontrunner of mimicking Obama’s votes.
For the first time, Obama aides have publicly charged that Clinton waits for Obama to weigh in on controversial issues before taking the same stand, often to avoid creating disagreements that could be used as campaign ammunition.
“Democratic leaders are starting to count on Barack Obama for delivering two votes in the Senate - his and Senator Clinton’s,” Obama’s spokesperson Ben Labolt told the Huffington Post on Thursday.
The comments echoed remarks on Wednesday by Obama’s communications guru David Axelrod, who was asked on Hardball whether the senator would have voted for the contentious Kyl-Lieberman resolution — which designates Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization — had he not been on the campaign trail.
“Absolutely not,” Axelrod declared. “He made that clear that day. And I venture to say that had he been there and voting on that perhaps Senator Clinton would not have voted that way either because, you know, Chris, lately every time he votes, she seems to vote after him, and seems to vote the same way. So maybe we could have spared her some of the difficulties.” …
. . .
It’s not certain that Obama influenced Clinton’s stance on any of these topics. And on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment as well as a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for their critical ad of Gen David Petraeus, Clinton cast a vote while Obama didn’t.
For Hillary to “copy” Obama’s votes, she’d have to not show up 80% of the time! 
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Election 2008,
Hillary Clinton,
Random Stupidity,
U.S. Congress
