Bush Acts To Enable Social Conservatives To Deny Health Care

Bush might be a lame duck, but he is still able to do harm. The Washington Post reports:

The Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs, setting off an intense battle over opponents’ plans to try to repeal the controversial measure.

Critics began consulting with the incoming Obama administration on strategies to reverse the regulation as quickly as possible while supporters started mobilizing to fight such efforts.

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

But women’s health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists and some members of Congress condemned the regulation, saying it will be a major obstacle to providing many health services, including abortion, family planning, infertility treatment, and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.

The article concludes with further information on how this ruling could be used to deny health care:

Leavitt initially said the regulation was intended primarily to protect workers who object to abortion. The final rule, however, would affect a far broader array of services, protecting workers who do not wish to dispense birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraceptives and other forms of contraception they consider equivalent to abortion, or to inform patients where they might obtain such care. The rule could also protect workers who object to certain types of end-of-life care or to withdrawing care, or even perhaps providing care to unmarried people or gay men and lesbians.

While primarily aimed at doctors and nurses, it offers protection to anyone with a “reasonable” connection to objectionable care — including ultrasound technicians, nurses aides, secretaries and even janitors who might have clean equipment used in procedures they deem objectionable.

Fortunately this ruling, along with many others from the Bush administration, are likely to be overturned after Obama takes office:

On abortion and related matters, action is expected early on executive, regulatory, budgetary and legislative fronts.

Decisions that the new administration will weigh include: whether to cut funding for sexual abstinence programs; whether to increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control; whether to allow federal health plans to pay for abortions; and whether to overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Women’s health advocates are also pushing for a change in rules that would lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.

Obama aides will have to settle many of these questions in issuing their first budget in February.

“We have a lot of work to do to fix the damage the Bush administration has done,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

As one of his first actions, Mr. Obama is likely to issue an executive order lifting President George W. Bush’s restrictions on funding for research using embryonic stem cells, a move with bipartisan support.

Women’s health advocates also expect early action on the “global gag rule,” which bars foreign organizations from using their own money for abortion services or advocacy if they accept U.S. aid for family planning. This policy was instituted by President Ronald Reagan, immediately overturned by President Bill Clinton and then reinstated by Mr. Bush.

Obama and Drug Policy

NORML provides an unfortunate progression in Barack Obama’s statements on drugs:

“The war on drugs has been an utter failure. … (W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation’s) marijuana laws.”
-Barack Obama, January 2004 (Watch the video here.)

“I inhaled frequently, that was the point.”
-Barack Obama, November 2006 (Watch the video here.)

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”
-Statement from Change.gov, the official website of President-Elect Obama, December 15, 2008

I’m not at all surprised that Barack Obama is not publicly coming out in favor of legalization of marijuana at this time. What is said now and what happens over the next four or eight years is a different matter. It is premature for titles such as the one at Talk Left which reads Another Change You Won’t See From Obama. He hasn’t even taken office yet. It is too early to say with certainty which changes we will see.

Most likely we will not see legalization of marijuana and a total end to the drug war in the next eight years, but a brief denial of interest in such a controversial subject at this time can not be taken an absolute prediction of what will happen. More importantly we are likely to see more progress in reforming drug policy than we would see if Hillary Clinton had received the nomination, and see a considerable improvement over the status quo.

After the selection above, NORML also quotes Obama on medical marijuana:

In fact, Obama essentially said as much earlier this year when asked about the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Obama: “When it comes to medical marijuana, … my attitude is if it is an issue of doctors prescribing marijuana, … I think that should be appropriate. … Whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on (this) issue; the likelihood of that being real high on my priority list is not likely.” (Watch the video here.)

This is not going to be overly exciting to those who rank legalization of marijuana as a top issue, but this leaves open a far greater chance of at least seeing legalization of medical marijuana than under the Republicans. At least we are likely to see an end to the type of insanity I reported here and here.

Under the Bush administration the federal government has ignored Republican principles of federalism by using the DEA to take action against those using medical marijuana even in states where it is legal. Obama was the strongest opponent of this policy of the major candidates this year. Last year I linked to videos showing the major Republican candidates dodging the question or outright supporting continuation of the raids on marijuana clinics and arrests of patients.

While the greatest differences between the candidates was between the major Democratic and Republican candidates, there were also significant differences between Obama and Clinton on drug policy. For example, Obama has supported needle exchange programs while Clinton has been opposed. They also differed on the drug war with Obama supporting sentencing reform which Clinton opposed.

It is disappointing that Obama is not going further on drug policy, but he is also the best candidate we were likely to see elected. We will still need to push Obama on this issue. It is understandable that this is not at the top of his priority list, but he is sympathetic to scaling back the drug war and making real changes. There is also hope that once his presidency is more firmly established he might be willing to go even further than he is at present.

Majel Barrett Roddenberry Dies At 76

Majel Barrett Roddenberry, widow of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, has died of leukemia at age 76. Majel Barrett Roddenberry played nurse Christine Chapel in the original Star Trek series, Lwaxana Troi in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and was the voice of the Enterprise computer. From the announcement at Roddenberry.com:

Majel Barrett Roddenberry passed away this morning, December 18, 2008, at 12:27 AM in her Bel Air home. She died peacefully, in her sleep, and was surrounded by family and loved ones.

“My mother truly acknowledged and appreciated the fact that Star Trek fans played a vital role in keeping the Roddenberry dream alive for the past 42 years. It was her love for the fans, and their love in return, that kept her going for so long after my father passed away.” – Eugene “Rod” Roddenberry, Jr.

Information on donations and pending memorial service were also posted by her family:

The family has asked that in lieu of flowers, donations be made in her name to the CARE Organization or Precious Paws both of which share Roddenberry’s love for animals and dedication to animal rescue.

Precious Paws
18034 Ventura Blvd., #430
Encino, CA 91316
www.preciouspaws.org
(818) 304-5595

C.A.R.E.
P.O. Box 56631
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
www.care4pets.org
(818) 685-9980

Funeral details are pending and a public memorial will be scheduled sometime after Christmas or in early 2009.

There was a recent announcement that Roddenberry would be providing the voice for the Enterprise computer in the upcoming Star Trek movie but it wasn’t clear if this has already been recorded.

Russia Expands Definition of Treason

Russia under Putin is looking more and more like the old days:

Under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, people who fraternized with foreigners or criticized the Kremlin were “enemies of the people” and sent to the gulag. Now there’s new legislation backed by Vladimir Putin’s government that human rights activists say could throw Russia back to the days of the Great Terror.

The legislation, outspoken government critic and rights activist Lev Ponomaryov charged Wednesday, creates “a base for a totalitarian state.”

Government supporters and Kremlin-allied lawmakers said the bill — submitted to the Kremlin-friendly parliament last week — will tighten up current law. Supporters say prosecutors often have trouble gaining convictions because of ambiguities in the definition of state treason.

The bill would add non-governmental organizations based anywhere in the world that have an office in Russia to the list of banned recipients of state secrets. The government has repeatedly accused foreign spy agencies of using NGOs as a cover to foment dissent.

Critics warned the loose wording will give authorities ample leeway to prosecute those who cooperate with international rights groups.

Under current treason statutes, some NGOs are not considered “foreign organizations,” meaning a person who passes a state secret to an NGO might not be considered a traitor.

Some of Russia’s most prominent right activists, including Moscow Helsinki Group head Lyudmila Alexeyeva and Civic Assistance director Svetlana Gannushkina, said the bill in fact gives authorities the power to prosecute anyone deemed to have “harmed the security of the Russian Federation.”

It is “legislation in the spirit of Stalin and Hitler,” the activists said in a joint statement — legislation that “returns the Russian justice to the times of 1920-1950s.”

Sean Hannity: Misinformer of the Year

Congratulations to Sean Hannity on an award he certainly deserves–Misinformer of the Year. Media Matters for American presented him the awared writing:

As Media Matters for America has demonstrated time and again, Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been a prolific and influential purveyor of conservative misinformation. But never has he so enthusiastically applied his talents for spreading misinformation as he did to the 2008 presidential race, focusing his energies primarily on President-elect Barack Obama. Day after day, Hannity devoted his two Fox News shows and his three-hour ABC Radio Networks program to “demonizing” the Democratic presidential candidates, starkly explaining in August: “That’s my job. … I led the ‘Stop Hillary Express.’ By the way, now it’s the ‘Stop Obama Express.’ ” Hannity’s “Stop Obama Express” promoted and embellished a vast array of misleading attacks and false claims about Obama. Along the way, he uncritically adopted and promoted countless Republican talking points and played host to numerous credibility-challenged smear artists who painted Obama as a dangerous radical. When he was not going after Obama, Hannity attacked members of Obama’s family, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton and other progressives, and denied all the while that he had unfairly attacked anyone.

Hannity’s attacks may have also influenced mainstream media coverage. ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos appeared on Hannity’s radio program on April 15, during which Hannity suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama at the Democratic presidential debate the following evening about his “association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground.” Stephanopoulos assured Hannity that he was “taking notes right now.” Stephanopoulos then did ask Obama at the debate to “explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem,” though he later denied that Hannity had exerted any influence on his questioning.

Because of the unending stream of falsehoods and character attacks that fueled the “Stop Obama Express,” and the countless other distortions he promoted throughout 2008, Sean Hannity is Media Matters for America‘s Misinformer of the Year.

Media Matters proceeds to provide a long list of examples of falsehoods presented by Hannity, including a distortion of Obama’s comments on Pakistan to claim he would invade the country, repeating the false claim that Obama is the most liberal senator, distorting Obama’s views on defense spending, and repeating the usual right wing falsehoods about Obama’s associations.

Creationism and Fundamentalists

The people of several Muslim countries share the views of the two front runners (at this point) for the 2012 Republican nomination. The world might be a safer (and more ignorant) place if the Muslim and Christian fundamentalists spent more time talking to each other. They would then discover how similar their belief systems really are. This will probably not happen because there is that major obstacle that each has a belief system which insists they have the only true knowledge about the universe and neither is open to contrary evidence.

This above graph comes from Science via Andrew Sullivan. (Click on graph for larger image).  Salman Hameed writes:

…although the last couple of decades have seen an increasing confrontation over the teaching of evolution in the United States, the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world (i.e., predominantly Islamic countries, as well as in countries where there are large Muslim populations). Relatively poor education standards, in combination with frequent misinformation about evolutionary ideas, make the Muslim world a fertile ground for rejection of the theory. In addition, there already exists a growing and highly influential Islamic creationist movement (1). Biological evolution is still a relatively new concept for a majority of Muslims, and a serious debate over its religious compatibility has not yet taken place. It is likely that public opinion on this issue will be shaped in the next decade or so because of rising education levels in the Muslim world and the increasing importance of biological sciences.

Brownback to Leave Senate

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has announced he will not run for reelection in 2010. As one of the more socially conservative members of Congress this retirement gives hope for an improvement, possibly even if the Republicans continue to hold the seat. The bad news, at least for the people of Kansas, is that he is considering running for governor.

In 2007 Kansas decided to join the 21st century and teach evolution as opposed to creationism in its schools. Will Brownback reverse this?  Brownback was one of three Republican candidates who raised their hands when asked who does not believe in evolution at a GOP debate. Subsequently Brownback had an op-ed in The New York Times explaining why he does not believe in evolution.

One Rival Too Many For Inauguration Day

Rick Warren is certainly not the person I would have liked to see picked to give the inaugural invocation, as reported by CNN. The Salon War Room reports that the decision was made by The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies but it is hard to believe that Obama, along with Congressional Democrats, did not have a say. Right WIng Watch gives a recap of the reasons Warren should not have been chosen:

…in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were “non-negotiable” issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone.  He criticized Obama’s answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice.  He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying “there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” He’s declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

People For The American Way issued this statement:

It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I’m sure that Warren’s supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn’t need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.

Perhaps this decision was made as part of an “appeal to unity.” Damon Linker argues that  this was politically expedient decision in his response to the objections expressed by Andrew Sullivan. Linker writes:

…Obama’s a politician, and the Warren pick is just the latest sign that he’s an exceedingly shrewd one (as Andrew concedes). Warren is beloved by mainstream evangelicals, who have helped him to sell millions of books extolling a fairly anodyne form of American Protestantism. (Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell he is not.) It is in Obama’s interest (and the Democrats’) to peel as many moderate evangelicals away from the GOP as he can. Giving Warren such a prominent (but purely symbolic) place in the inauguration is a politically cost-free way of furthering this partisan agenda. (As for whether having Warren deliver the invocation is an example of “Christianism,” I’d only note that Obama didn’t start the tradition of including prayers in these civic occasions. And his own speech is guaranteed to be more restrained in this regard than others have been.)

Now, Andrew might be right that Obama will not prove to be a champion of gay civil rights (at least when it comes to the issue of marriage). But we can be absolutely sure that no presidential candidate of the current Republican Party would be anything other than a rabid opponent of these rights. And that means: What benefits Obama and the Democrats — and what harms the Republicans — contributes (if perhaps only negatively) to Andrew’s cause. And that should be what counts.

If reaching out to Warren would result in a division of the religious right with many moderate evangelicals suddenly deciding to support Obama and social liberalism this gesture would certainly be worth it. I just do not believe that is going to happen. There is a time for trying to get along with those you disagree with, but there are also times when it is best to marginalize those with extremist beliefs rather than to help provide them credibility.

Those who agree with Warren’s beliefs as summarized above are never going to support the agenda of those of us who supported Obama and desired an end to the rule of the authoritarian right. There is nothing moderate in Warren’s views, even if there are others who are even more extreme. To promote Warren’s views as moderate only allows extremism to continue to be promoted under the guise of mainstream thought.

If there are really true moderates who respect Warren it would still be best to seek their support by means other than associating with someone like Rick Warren. The right wing thrives by demonizing and distorting the views of their opponents with preposterous claims. Their propaganda claims that liberals seek to take away people bibles as well as guns, along with redistributing the wealth, appeasing foreign enemies, and having the government take over health care. Obama has a small opportunity to demonstrate the absurdity of the right wing claims that liberals are hostile to religion by featuring a liberal theologian who respects our heritage of separation of church and state in this role as opposed to a reactionary who opposes everything Obama stands for.

Update: More information on the inaugural plans at The New York Times. Obama’s talking points reported by Sam Stein.

Moved To New Server (With Some Problems)

Liberal Values was down again for part of Wednesday. Hopefully this will be the end of the intermittent problems we’ve had the last few months. The blog was moved to a new server (with claims that we “will not experience any downtime as a result of the migration). The server wound up crashing in the process, leading to the down time Wednesday.

Despite Wednesday’s problems I hope that this migration solves the problems in which the site has been intermittently down in recent weeks. Just in case it does not, this seems like a good time to remind regular readers that should we be down for a sustained period information on the blog status and possibly new material will be posted here.