What’s in a Name: Repealing the Affordable Care Act

Supporters drop off petitions and rally at Rep. Martha McSally’s Tucson office, March 15, 2017

As this post goes to press, word has come that Speaker Paul Ryan has pulled the American Health Care Act, being unable to muster enough votes to pass it. So we have escaped that disaster, and it appears no attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act will proceed in the near future. But the fight is not over. Aspects of this bill will come up in other forms and we will have to be vigilant. But this is a victory for activism, so many thanks to all of you who made phone calls, demonstrated, told your stories, and reminded the Republicans that destroying something is not the same as governing.

So as you read this, realize what we have escaped, and what we need to watch out for as we proceed.


People were going to die. But the free market would have triumphed.


Republicans called it Obamacare, and used that name as a slur to run against President Obama in 2012. It didn’t win that race for them, but there are enough people in this country for whom the name Obama is enough to damn a program. One woman, whose son lost his job and had his monthly insurance premium fall from $567 to $88, attributes that decrease to the tax credits in Trump and Ryan’s new American Health Care Act. You know, the bill that never passed. In actuality, her son became eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare — the Affordable Care Act — which is still the law.

Paul Ryan and his cronies in the House of Representatives hated the Affordable Care Act before it was written. They hated it even more when it passed and more than that when it was implemented.

What did they hate about it? Continue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

A note to our dear readers: One of the things I will begin highlighting in our rundowns in reference to anti-choice legislators will be whether they have a personal history of adopting or fostering children in need.

On any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States.

Unfortunately, there are simply not enough families willing or able to provide homes for these children.


Legislating women’s bodies does nothing to help children in need.


Oddly, nearly all of the white, wealthy, highly privileged men who make laws limiting what women can do with their reproductive organs under the guise of being “pro-life” have never adopted or fostered an actual child.

It strikes me as not only hypocritical, but also as a supreme moral failure from a group of Christian men who speak so passionately about the value of an embryo’s life and fight relentlessly to preserve it. Interestingly, anytime I try to find something positive one of these “pro-life” men has done for children in need after they’ve been born, I come up with … nothing. Continue reading

Mike Pence’s America

mike-penceSince the election of Donald Trump in November, countless people have reveled in the hope that perhaps some obscure constitutional gambit or criminal indictment would take place preventing him from taking office on January 20.


Mike Pence’s legislative record stands in opposition to his self-proclaimed reverence for life.


The sentiment is understandable to those of us who abhor this man and all that he stands for, but such a scenario would present an awful alternative in the form of Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who would take Trump’s place in the Oval Office as our new president.

While Trump has spoken about his frightening and detestable political views, he has no legislative record to back them up. Former congressman and current Indiana governor, Mike Pence, however, has a lengthy one.

And it is positively horrifying. Continue reading

Tom Price, Secretary Against Health and Human Services?

Protesters at Sen. McCain's Tucson office, December 20, 2016.

Protesters at Sen. McCain’s Tucson office, December 20, 2016.

On December 20, I took part in a demonstration opposing changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We gathered outside Sen. John McCain’s Tucson office and told our health care stories. Almost all of us were women, but our stories included issues like the cost of diabetic testing supplies and insulin, the difficulties with employer-provided health plans that don’t allow specialized testing and care outside of their network, the prohibitive cost of medication for chronic conditions like AIDS, and my story of a CT scan (which I could only afford with government assistance) for something unrelated that found my kidney cancer. We were unable to meet with anyone from the office, but the written stories were given to staff and a later meeting was set up.


Tom Price is among those who could do the most harm to the greatest number of Americans.


I begin with this story because Tom Price, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of health and human services, doesn’t think the government has any place in our health care system. He fits very well among Mr. Trump’s choices to head government departments and agencies, a group of people who don’t believe in the work of their respective departments: Jeff Sessions for attorney general, who was denied a federal judgeship because of his racist comments and judicial overreach as Alabama’s attorney general; Scott Pruitt, who has sued the Environmental Protection Agency 13 times because he opposes regulations and doesn’t believe in climate science, to head that agency; Betsy DeVos for secretary of education, who has no background in education and has spent millions of dollars lobbying to get money away from public schools; and Rex Tillerson, who worked all his life for Exxon, which had a large deal with Russia put on hold by sanctions imposed after Russia annexed Crimea, as secretary of state, with the ability to lift those sanctions. And that’s just a sample.

Since 2009, Price, an orthopedic surgeon, has been a member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a group whose members sign a “declaration of independence” renouncing payments from third-party payers, whether government or private insurers. Their journal has published articles opposing taxes on cigarettes, linking abortion and breast cancer, doubting whether HIV causes AIDS, and opposing mandatory vaccinations. They oppose regulating medical practice even as far as hospital peer reviews, and are fiercely for free-market medicine. Continue reading

Post-Election Reflections: Our Bloggers Speak Out

Photo: Jamelah E.

Photo: Jamelah E.

When Donald Trump won the electoral vote after the presidential election on November 8, the majority of us — by more than a million — were deeply disappointed with the results. In the ensuing days, we battled our depression and wondered what had gone so terribly wrong. Collectively, we imagined what a Trump presidency would mean for civil rights and civil liberties, for the economy and the environment, for education and for health care.

And those of us championing women’s right to bodily autonomy worried that reproductive justice had never been in more danger. Those of us concerned with the safety of the LGBTQ community were terrified that their hard-won gains might be rolled back. Those of us standing in solidarity with other marginalized groups — immigrants, religious minorities, refugees, people of color — were filled with anxiety at the thought that Trump’s hate-filled campaign had empowered bigots to let their prejudice reign free.

Here, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona bloggers have collected their thoughts to share with our readers.

Gene:

I was always inspired by Hillary’s words to the United Nations in 1995, when she said that “Women’s rights are human rights.” Whenever a woman’s reproductive and sexual rights are denied, I take it personally, for it is telling her that she is less of a person and does not have the same rights as I do as a male. So I will resist in whatever ways I can the ignorant, misogynist forces unleashed in this election. I will stand tall with this organization I love, and will openly show my support. One thing we can all do right now is to wear our Planned Parenthood T-shirts whenever we can. It’s a little thing, but it’s guaranteed to make you feel better during these dark days. I wear mine at least two or three times a week, on my walks downtown or when attending various events. It is surprising to me how often I’ve attended large public gatherings and not seen one other Planned Parenthood shirt. Let’s all get out there with our T-shirts and turn Arizona pink. Let’s tell everyone that this is our country, too — one where women have the same rights as men.

Continue reading

Post-Election News Rundown

hangers-croppedIt would be an understatement to simply say we’re all reeling from last week’s election.

Ironically, in a nation where only 1.2 percent of the population are actual “real Americans” who are natives to this country, a swath of angry, non-native voters, with the intention of “taking their country back” (from whom is still a mystery) chose to pull the proverbial lever for a self-serving, authoritarian, demagogic, misogynistic, race-baiting, ego-maniacal, predatory, pathological liar.


Thanks to the 46,000 (and counting!) folks donating to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name.


The fact that hate speech and fear-mongering triumphed is truly frightening and demoralizing.

Most disappointing to many of us is the stunning betrayal we are realizing has been perpetrated by white female voters — 53 percent of whom voted for Donald Trump. #InsertFrownyFaceEmojiHere

Sorry to shatter your dream of a sisterhood! White ladies decided not to support a woman who has a long and storied history of advocating for children, affordable health care, equal pay, family leave, and women’s health and reproductive rights. Sadly, a majority of white women proved they would rather cast a vote for an openly cruel and vindictive man who doesn’t care about consent or gender equality, and publicly assigns and strips women of their value and humanity solely based on their appearance, and bullies female journalists and other women in the public sphere for his own entertainment.

Oh, and he blatantly and outlandishly lies about abortion. A procedure that one in three women has undergone.

Fairly certainly from a statistical standpoint, many of them were Trump voters.

I guess his statement that women who have abortions should be “punished” didn’t bother them.

In other harrowing news: Continue reading

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt: Finally, Facts Matter

On Monday, June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided that Texas HB2 was unconstitutional, eliminating requirements for Texas doctors to have hospital admitting privileges near their clinics and for abortion clinics to become surgical facilities. Many fine summaries of this landmark decision popped up within hours of the decision. See Planned Parenthood’s press release and “The Court once again makes the ‘undue-burden’ test a referendum on the facts” on SCOTUS Blog.


On Monday, the Supreme Court demanded that laws be supported by facts.


What struck me most about the majority opinions written by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg was the lack of assertion and conjecture so often found in the court’s previous abortion case decisions. Recall Justice Kennedy’s 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart opinion upholding Congress’ Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003: “We find no reliable data” that abortion causes women emotional harm, but we find it nonetheless “self-evident” and “unexceptional to conclude” that “some women” who choose to terminate their pregnancies suffer “regret,” “severe depression,” “loss of esteem,” and other ills. “Some women”? Did we really uphold a law based upon this kind of neo-paternalistic, fuzzy thinking?

Not this time out. The Supreme Court put future litigants on notice: Facts matter, science matters, logic matters, common-sense inference matters. Unsupported assertions? Nah. Consultants parading as scientists? Not so much. In workmanlike fashion, dealing with abortion in a frank and unapologetic way, the majority read into law 15 separate District Court findings of fact gleaned from stipulations, depositions, and testimony. Further, the court chastised Texas for “attempting to label an opposing expert witness, Doctor Grossman, as irresponsible.” Breyer writes, “making a hypothesis — and then attempting to verify that hypothesis with further studies, as Dr. Grossman did — is not irresponsible. It is an essential element of the scientific method. The District Court’s decision to credit Dr. Grossman’s testimony was sound, particularly given that Texas provided no credible experts to rebut it.” Wow — The Supremes defend the scientific method. Color me happy.  Continue reading