Dr. Kenneth Katz recently published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Health Hazards of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This week, he penned an op/ed for RH Reality Check about his experiences treating U.S. military at an STD clinic in San Diego. Dr. Katz sees the Pentagon's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule for LGB members of the military as a huge roadblock to good medical care. He's pretty confident that his military patients feel safe divulging their sexual histories to a civilian doctor like himself. But when those troops go overseas, they are cared for by military doctors. Technically, doctor-patient communication is exempt from DADT, but many patients don't realize that they can tell their military doctors about gay sex without fear of reprisals (at least in theory). Dr. Katz's patients have told him that they won't go for recommended follow-up STD screening after they ship out because they're afraid to be honest with their doctors. He worries about how many troops are suffering from treatable infections in war zones because they aren't allowed to serve openly.
Food stamp use skyrockets, swordfish sales unaccountably flat
Monica Potts of TAPPED points to the alarming statistic that in the last month alone an additional 500,000 Americans went on food stamps. She notes that the right wing website Daily Calleris alarmed not by the fact that fellow citizens can't afford food, but rather that there's no gruel-only foodstamp program available:
Meanwhile, the conservative news site The Daily Calleris shocked, shocked, to learn that you can use food stamps to buy all manner of food. The government, apparently, doesn't restrict you from purchasing an $18-per-pound swordfish steak from Whole Foods. But that kind of discovery, like almost everything else in the "debate" over food stamp use, is the sort of ridiculous one that comes from a person who's never been hungry.
The Hyde Amendment
In Campus Progress, Jessica Arons and Madina Agénor call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment for being an assault on the reproductive rights of poor women and women of color. The Supreme Court declared abortion to be a constitutional right in 1973, yet nearly 40 years later, the Hyde Amendment still prohibits nearly all federal funding for abortions. In practice, the women most affected by the Hyde Amendment are those who depend on government health care programs like Medicaid and the Indian Health Service:
Former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the law's sponsor, admitted during debate of his proposal that he was targeting poor women because they were the only ones vulnerable enough for him to reach. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman," he said. "Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the ... Medicaid bill."
Meanwhile, ultra-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is calling on Congress to de-fund the reproductive health provider Planned Parenthood, Andy Birkey reports in the Minnesota Independent. In an interview with a conservative news site, Bachmann doubled down on that idea, suggesting that all of health care reform be de-funded because it funds abortions. This is not true. The aforementioned Hyde Amendment guarantees as much. Furthermore, even though health reform never would have funded abortions, President Obama signed an eleventh-hour executive order guaranteeing that health care reform would not fund abortions.
Brooklyn bees gorge on maraschino cherry run-off
Home beekeeping is the hottest new trend for health-conscious locavores. New York City recently changed the law to accommodate beekeepers in the five boroughs. Just because you live in an industrial neighborhood in Brooklyn is no reason to miss out on this sweet action, right? Well, actually, there is a catch. That nice honey at the farmers' market tastes like lavender because that's what those rural bees ate. What do bees in Red Hook, Brooklyn eat? Run-off from a maraschino cherry factory. The overindulgent bees "look like vampires" according to one local keeper and their honey runs bright red. Maraschino honey sounds like a delicious mash-up of high and low culture. Unfortunately, Sarah Goodyear reports in Grist that the end product doesn't taste nearly as good as it looks. Arthur Mondella, the owner of Dell's Maraschino Cherries, wants to do right by the beekeepers. He initially suggested putting out vats of different colored syrup to "help" the bees make rainbow honey. His proposal was not well-received by the crunchy set. Instead, he has agreed to work with the beekeepers to keep the bees out of the vats next year.
A few weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that Don't Ask, Don't Tell violates the First and Fifth Amendment.
Today, Phillips issued an injunction against enforcement- great news. Her order, she writes:
DECLARES that the act known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;
ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.
However, a stay could come from Phillips (as it did in a similar form by Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 case), the 9th Circuit, or the Supreme Court. And then there's the issue of appeal, should the DOJ choose to do so (they have 60 days to do so).
Alex Nicholson, a colleague who testified in the case, released the following statement:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, proudly hailed today's announcement of an injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips barring enforcement of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and ordering the Department of Defense to halt investigations and discharges pursuant to the law.
"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. "While this is certainly news to be celebrated, we would also advise caution in advance of a potential stay from the Ninth Circuit. If the appellate court wishes to put itself on the right side of history, however, it will allow this sound and long-over due decision to remain in effect."
The case that won the injunction, Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States of America, was originally filed in 2004. Just last month, and after a two-week trial in July, Judge Phillips issued her final ruling in the case, finding that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was unconstitutional on first and fifth amendment grounds. She also indicated her intent to issue an injunction barring further discharges in light of that finding. A copy of the injunction can be found at www.ServicemembersUnited.org/injunction.
Update: Chris over at Metro Weekly reports the DOJ has filed appeal, both in this case as well as the Massachusetts case striking down DOMA.
For jogging your memory on the DOMA case, I did a lengthy analysis here at OpenLeft of next steps after consulting with some respected experts. It can be found here.
This week, Republicans in the Senate successfully showed their collective contempt for our men and women in uniform and in the process they made our military weaker and our country less safe.
Led by John McCain -- the upper chamber's cranky uncle -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay men and lesbians openly serving in the military.
If McCain's comments after the repeal effort failed are any indication, members of the Grand Old tea Party fail to grasp the finer details of the policy or how it has been implemented. Worse still, they are defiant in their ignorance.
Just now, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled Don't Ask, Don't Tell violates the 1st amendment rights of gays and lesbians. The case was recently argued by Log Cabin Republicans on behalf of servicemembers. LA Times:
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a "direct and deleterious effect'' on the military.
Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended "don't ask, don't tell" during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.
I've uploaded the full 85-page ruling, which can be found here.
The opening summary:
Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act ("the Act" or "the Policy"), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations. Plaintiff's challenge is two-fold: it contends the Act violates its members' rights to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and its members' rights of freedom of speech, association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The Court finds Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans (sometimes referred to in this Order as "Log Cabin," "LCR," or "Plaintiff"), a non-profit corporation, has established standing to bring and maintain this suit on behalf of its members. Additionally, Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act.
While Phillips issued an injunction preventing the policy's enforcement, it's not clear whether a higher court would issue a stay on the ruling, similar to the Prop 8 case.
This was the case in which friend and colleague Alex Nicholson, who heads up Servicemembers United, testified. Over e-mail, a statement from him:
"This is an historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a multi-lingual U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' "As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication."
UPDATED Midnight by Paul: Fittingly, since Rachel Maddow has done more to keep this issue in public eye on national tv than anyone else, I learned about the ruling from her:
Despite Obama's criticism of the policy, the Justice Department vigorously defended "don't ask, don't tell'' and even tried to undercut the case with a technical legal challenge over whether the named plaintiffs were dues-paying members of the organization that filed the lawsuit: the Log Cabin Republicans.
I was originally writing something up on the conservative response to Lt. Dan Choi's arrest when I wrote this sentence: "If conservatives want us to stop equating their homophobia to the racism that the civil rights movement experienced, they should stop using the same talking points." I decided to write the following instead of a typical conservatives-freak-out-at-liberal-activism post.
Let us play a game. I am going to give you a quote about the bigotry of the armed forces. I will redact all names, dates, and any words along the lines of "homosexual", "gay", "sexual orientation", "black", "negro", "race." You try to guess what kind of bigot these perfectly rational arguments came from, homophobic or racist! Sounds fun, right?
Editorial note: I will be taking a break and going on vacation starting tonight, and back the week of the 15th. See you all then!
In last week's essay on constructive criticism in the LGBT movement, I wrote on how no one- neither external activists nor traditional legacy organizations- has a monopoly on good strategies and tactics in our movement. Everyone brings something to the table. I also wrote regarding how external netroots activists should listen to pushback and good ideas from our colleagues in legacy organizations. That doesn't mean just good theories of change, but also that folks should see and promote sound tactics when they see them.
And so in keeping up on my end of the stick, there are two important things I want to let everyone know about. The first is today's virtual lobby day HRC launched to coincide with yesterday's formal introduction of legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While it's important to keep calling for more media pressure and pushback, and to keep pressuring the Administration to commit to including repeal language in the defense authorization bill, our side must also do our part to build the votes, and now is a critical time to pressure lawmakers.
To that end- and particularly if you haven't done anything to support repeal- there are several things you can take a minute to do:
1. E-mail your House member and Senators. Then, perhaps more critically, follow-up with a phone call. The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121. Ask them to support repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
2. Promote the action on Facebook (also for those with 100% supportive members). There are also a number of additional virtual actions you can do at HRC's action page here.
The second thing I want to mention is that in a great example of blog-legacy org collaboration, The Bilerico Project (where I occasionally cross-post) and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (popularly known as PFLAG) are teaming up to offer scholarships to unemployed people who lost their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The scholarships, which are targeted at eight target states, cover travel to DC to attend National Center for Transgender Equality's ENDA lobby day on Tuesday, March 16th. The eight target states are:
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
West Virginia
If you or someone you know have lost your job because of who you are and are from one of these states, come to DC. One colleague of mine a few weeks ago noted to me is that ENDA activists don't have our Matthew Shepard or our Dan Choi- well-known examples in the media of how hate crimes and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, respectively, affect people. You could be that person on ENDA and help lots of other people.
Applications are due at midnight tomorrow night. More details can be found by clicking here. You can also donate to help bring even more people, and details on how to do that are in Jillian's post.
This year -- this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.
The Advocate: Senator Lieberman is planning to introduce a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill next week. Would the president like to see Congress pass repeal this year?
Gibbs: As you know, Kerry, the president is strongly in support of this, working with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. There is a process that's underway. You saw in Admiral Mullen the first Joint [Chiefs] Chair to openly - active Joint [Chiefs] Chair - to openly call for its repeal. We have stated throughout this process that the only durable way for this to happen is through legislation. We think that Senator Lieberman's proposal is obviously an important step in that legislation, and I would point out that you heard from commanders in the field over the weekend on news shows as well as former chairman Powell also come out strongly in support of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."
It's like the President never said "this year" at all. What's wrong with a simple "yes, the President and Commander in Chief made that clear at the State of the Union"?
The Advocate: A lot of people fear that if it doesn't happen this year that it very well may not happen throughout the entire first term, not to assume a second one.
Gibbs: I don't think the president shares that view because I believe, and i think you all have seen this throughout, obviously there's been a lot of polling on this done since the president's proposal and since Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen testified on Capitol Hill about this. There is strong bipartisan support for its repeal among, among the American people. The president obviously shares that, as do important members of the military, and we think it will become law.
Give me a break. There's "strong bipartisan support" for a lot of things. Doesn't mean they have a shot in hell of getting done in the next Congress. What are the reasons for Gibbs' equivocation? What would it cost the White House to re-commit to repeal and lay out a plan? If repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is as bipartisan and beloved by the nation as Gibbs says it is, then there should be no reason for this kind of equivocation.
And by the way, this is about the umpteenth opportunity of late for prominent LGBT organizations and advocates to take to the media and do the following: (a) Reiterate how critical it is that repeal, among other LGBT issues, is done before the 2010 midterms (b) Light a fire under Democrats' behinds by taking a page out of labor's book and warning that angry and/or apathetic base LGBT voters will stay home in droves, helping to cause another 1994. Stan Greenberg's polling demonstrated that from the 2008 elections to the 2009 off-year elections, Rising American Electorate voters- base Democrats, all- as percentage of the electorate dropped 9% in Virginia and 10% in New Jersey. There are a lot of reasons for that, but a big one is that they are demoralized by lack of action at the national level, and it played a role in losses across the board. And we all saw just how fired up Democrats were in Massachusetts.
LGBT voters are far from fired up and ready to go, and statements like this from the White House don't help. LGBT organizations and advocates should all be reminding them of their political best interests.
This morning, Lieberman announced he will introduce legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the Senate. Heretofore, the Senate did not have a companion bill to Rep. Murphy's Military Readiness Enhancement Act, H.R. 1283. For a variety of reasons, the best avenue for repeal remains the defense authorization bill which will be coming up in the coming months (if you recall, the Matthew Shepard Act regarding hate crimes protections was attached to last year's bill as a means of passage).
Via press release, Servicemembers United, a lead group on this issue, outlines the Obama Administration's important role in that process:
In response to the opportunity presented by this historic testimony, Servicemembers United recently resurfaced its "Set End-date / Delayed Implementation" model for repeal legislation and made the case for the introduction and adoption of such legislation in 2010. The proposal would see to it that full repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law gets locked in this year while also allowing the Pentagon time to complete it's analysis.
To strengthen the prospects for the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and to reduce political risk, the President can still order the Pentagon to include "Set End-date / Delayed Implementation" repeal language in one of the legislative policy transmittals that will soon be sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by the Department of Defense. These policy proposal packages serve as indications of White House and Pentagon support for policy changes to be included in the next National Defense Authorization Act.
Additionally, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee could insert Senator Lieberman's new bill into the Chairman's mark of the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which will soon be drafted. Such a move, especially in combination with the Presidential action through Pentagon policy transmittals, could turn out to be the path of least resistance for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and could help shield vulnerable members of the President's and the Chairman's own party.
I would say rather than "the President can still order", the President needs to order that language included. A lot of cautious lawmakers are watching that language for signs of what the Pentagon wants, and for political cover. And, as Joe Sudbay writes, if the repeal language is in the bill, it will take 60 votes to remove it. In other words, the Senate leadership and the Obama administration play an important role here.
Related, tomorrow the Palm Center at UC-Santa Barbara will release a 151-page study looking at implementation of repeal in other countries, with some key findings:
The 151-page study, which updates existing studies on gay service members in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, offers the first broad look at the issue in foreign militaries since Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for an end to "don't ask, don't tell" earlier this month.
The report concludes that in foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass "comings out." The report found that "there were no instances of increased harassment" as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.
In addition, the report says that none of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, and that benefits for gay partners were generally in accordance with a country's existing benefits for gay and lesbian couples.
On implementation, the study said that most countries made the change swiftly, within a matter of months and with what it termed little disruption to the armed services. Mr. Frank said the study did not look at what happened if the change was implemented gradually because, he said, "I don't think any of the militaries tried it."
Mr. Frank's report cited a 1993 RAND study on the effects of allowing openly gay members to serve in the American military, which concluded that "phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new policy to intentionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable." On personnel policy decisions of this nature, the RAND study said, "Any waiting period permits restraining forces to consolidate."
This echoes what Rep. Sestak, who has experience overseeing Navy organizational change while serving in the Pentagon, said during our interview: implementation can be done within a matter of months and without separate shower facilities or the like. And legislative action on repeal should occur this year, not at the conclusion of a "study" next year.
I like to have a lot of discussions around political strategy with friends, both politically-oriented folks as well as more detached friends. I was e-mailing with one fairly politically-oriented friend of mine back and forth through the day yesterday about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the question of issue prioritization.
He wasn't comfortable with me publishing his response or naming him, but his complaint boiled down to why the LGBT movement is prioritizing repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell- which, in his eyes, affects a tiny fraction of LGBT people in this country- over passage of other issues, notably the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), given that employment discrimination at people based on sexual orientation is still legal in 29 states, and legal based on gender identity or expression in 38 states.
I think this question is an important and valid one, and I have a number of thoughts on it.
While it is true that the momentum has shifted from ENDA towards DADT, the work to pass ENDA has not completely stopped. There are a number of organizations out there who are focusing almost entirely on ENDA, as well as activists in online spaces such as this one. Frankly, that is probably a good thing. There shouldn't be one collective hive mind directing everyone to do one thing. There is a diverse movement that is moving on many different issues at once, so calls for "the LGBT movement" to do something, aside from being vague and unproductive, don't mean a lot since "the LGBT movement" never moves in lockstep.
That said, there is the question of resources. As I wrote when raising questions about the timing of the National Equality March and being spread thin, I have never been a "we can walk and chew gum at the same time"- you have to have enough gum to go around for every issue movement, and there isn't enough.
The answer to that is that sometimes this is out of activists' hands. President Obama mentioned DADT in the State of the Union (and did not mention ENDA). The result was increased chatter on DADT for the next several days on cable news, in op-ed pages, polling firms choosing to poll on the issue and release the results, and people like me writing about all of it. All of that led to John McCain's comments, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney choosing to speak out, and so forth. In other words, the President helped kick start the momentum- momentum we haven't had since 1993, in my view- and now that it's there, it's important to take advantage of it. You could say that activists like me calling for the President to discuss repeal in the speech, and institutions lobbying for the same, helped lead to all of that, but there wasn't any one major decision that "okay, the LGBT movement is going to collectively shift to Don't Ask, Don't Tell! Go!". Thus, another reason why attacks on "the LGBT movement" aren't entirely accurate. President Obama played a major role in starting this momentum, and when it's there, you have to grab it, and channel resources to that effect.
The third point I want to mention is on the question of resources and enthusiasm. The question was raised in the same way around how activists working on marriage equality were "sucking the energy out of the room" around ENDA. On this, I turn to the words of Kos- "it's a big internet". If you don't like the direction being taken in terms of strategy or prioritization, you can always do it your own way. I also would refer back to what Chris wrote here- "how to start your own netroots organization". One thing I mentioned in Dallas at a panel on the blogopshere is that a number of institutions- including OpenLeft- have sprung up in response to disagreement with the strategy or prioritization taken by other institutions. Hell, that's one big reason people started blogging. Now OpenLeft even has its own tools like an e-mail list and a fundraising apparatus, and with your help, together we got a public option in merged Senate bill, elected Rep. Donna Edwards in the face of establishment backing for Al Wynn, got every major 2008 Senate Democratic challenger to come out in favor of net neutrality, and other wins, not to mention some close losses like in Maine, and changing the debate on issues like no residual forces in Iraq. All of that came because a number of us didn't like the way other institutions were acting, so we built our own, and so can you.
The bottom line is that there are entirely valid questions about channeling resources and issue prioritization. Some of it is in activists' hands, and some is not, but there is no collective focus on just one issue, nor is it wise to just ignore all of the momentum on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and insist on focusing on ENDA. Opportunities must be taken as they come.
Over at AMERICABlog and elsewhere, John, Joe et al are asking folks to call HRC to ask the White House to ask Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. I think increased pressure from HRC is important, though what I'd really like to see is four-fold, and I've called for several for months now:
Increased pushback in the media when items come out like the Pentagon considering segregated shower facilities or the Pentagon memo originally advising the President "now is not the time" (here)
Increased pushback on the one-year "study", like Rep. Sestak did in my interview (here), and emphasizing that Congress must repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell this year while the Pentagon completes its study
Increased pushback by warning, like the labor unions are doing, that angry and apathetic LGBT voters will stay home in droves during the 2010 elections (here)
Mobilization aimed at the White House. The night of the State of the Union speech, HRC launched its Voices of Honor campaign around grassroots mobilization, media events and legislative pressure. This is all important, but what remains to be seen is presidential leadership on the issue. John is dead-on here:
Unfortunately, we've reached a point with the Obama administration where allies have to publicly demand action, or promises are never kept. Just last week, the AFL-CIO was forced to send an action alert to its members, targeting the White House. If it's good enough for the unions, it's good enough for us.
Just like I asked LGBT leaders and activists to take a page out of labor's book on media pushback, HRC could do the same on this front. I'm not going to be satisfied with an official HRC statement "calling" on the White House to ask Congress. I'd like to see grassroots mobilization to do the same.
John et al are right that the momentum is on our side. We don't just need legislative mobilization, we need strong leadership, both from traditional groups and from the Administration, to push this through, and I'd like to see it on multiple fronts.
Paul Rosenberg points to polling demonstrating that language matters- support for "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military jumps dramatically compared to when the term "homosexuals" is used. This is something LGBT people and straight allies have known for a long time, but it is still commonly used, and it's not just offensive, but detrimental to our cause. I remember Sen. Sessions hitting the term "homosexual" with a nice long Southern drawl at the Armed Services hearings a few weeks ago. He gets the public reaction to it. Please stop using the term if you do, and correct others if you hear it.
Also, on who the policy affects, I do want to point out that even "gay men and lesbians" is inaccurate, since bisexual individuals have same-sex relationships and are still treated the same as gay men under the policy. Don't Ask, Don't Tell also seriously affects transgender individuals, as the Transgender American's Veteran's Association and the Palm Center rightly point out. This policy hurts a wide range of people, not just "gay men and lesbians".
What is also important about the polling is the number- 58%- which support "gay men and lesbians" serving openly in the military. Just 28% are opposed. 66% think the ban on serving openly is "discrimination". Polling has shown for a long time that the public opposes this policy, and this poll demonstrates that once again.
President Barack Obama's February 25 health care summit, where he will appear on TV with Republican leaders, has been hailed and assailed as yet another gesture towards bipartisanship. But the summit is really a delaying tactic. It's a decoy, something shiny to keep the chattering classes entertained while Congressional Democrats wheel and deal furiously behind the scenes.
At this point, there are two ways forward, and neither of them require Republican support. The first option is for the House to pass the Senate health care bill as written-but with the understanding that the Senate will later fix certain contentious parts of the bill through reconciliation. The second option is for the Senate to pass the reconciliation fix first and the House to pass the bill later.
Someone has to go first
Art Levine of Working In These Times diagnoses a severe case of paralysis on the left: Nancy Pelosi is willing to entertain the first option, but labor leaders like Rich Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, want the Senate to go first because they don't trust the Senate to fix the bill later. Nobody wants to go first, but somebody has to. If neither the House nor the Senate takes the initiative, reform will fail by default and Americans will continue to suffer.
If the Democrats are going to attempt reconciliation, they need a plan to steer the legislation through the Senate. While everyone else is talking about the summit, procedural experts are probably huddling with leadership, nailing down the details.
Obama's 'Waterloo'
Everyone knows that Obama isn't going to pick up any Republican votes, summit or no summit. The House bill got 1 Republican vote, the Senate bill got 0. Quite simply, Republicans want health care reform to fail. No Republican president since Richard Nixon has attempted comprehensive health care reform. In opposition, Republicans have been intractably opposed reform because they're afraid the Democrats will take credit for it. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) famously said he wanted "break" Obama by making health reform the president's "Waterloo."
Health care reform in the media
Meanwhile, as Monica Potts notes in TAPPED, the media seems to be bending over backwards to treat the Republican's pro forma suggestions as serious proposals for reform, even though the Congressional Budget Office has already analyzed the plan and determined that it will leave millions uninsured without lowering costs. The health care bills as written are already chock full of Republican proposals, like eliminating the public option, easing restrictions on buying insurance across state lines, allowing people to band together in insurance-purchasing coops.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones worries that the upcoming summit will just give the Republicans more free airtime to spread falsehoods about "government controlled health care."
Voices of the uninsured
This week, The Nation is publishing the stories of some of the millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans: An uninsured woman who was diagnosed with throat cancer last month; a father with a severely disabled son who is about to hit is $5 million lifetime insurance benefit cap; a single mom on the verge of medical bankruptcy; and many others.
In other news
Dr. Gabor Maté, the official physician of Canada's only supervised drug injection site, talks about the science of addiction and his new book with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!.
Todd A. Heywood reports in the Michigan Messenger that American Family Association of Michigan is doubling down in the dying days of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Not only do they want to ban gays from the military, they want to re-criminalize homosexuality.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
I sat down this morning with Rep. Joe Sestak to discuss the news around Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and specifically questions around implementation of a repeal. Many of you know Sestak's political history, but a little on his military background. Sestak is a decorated, former 3-star Vice Admiral in the Navy and the highest-ranking former military officer currently serving in this Congress. He also served as Director of Defense Policy at the National Security Council and as policy adviser to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark, where he oversaw a process, in his words, "to try to change the Navy". I was interested in talking to Rep. Sestak particularly because he had spent time overseeing structural change in the Navy and understands the process.
The main point Rep. Sestak made to me is that the year-long "study" that Sec. Gates announced at yesterday's hearing is an unnecessary delay, and change could be instituted far more rapidly. More in the transcript.
Adam: Thanks for joining me. First, I want to ask about your reactions to yesterday's Senate Armed Services hearing.
Rep. Sestak: I was very pleased to see the significant step that's being taken by the Defense Department to move forward and accept that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has to be repealed. I also believe, however, that the implementation study that's going to be done doesn't need to take a year. I believe it should be done in a shorter period of time. We have many lessons that we've learned from previous areas of integration: African Americans into the military, women into defense combat roles. During 1970 through '74, we had a strategic naval operation by Admiral Zumwalt- this is as I was entering- and he instituted many significant changes in our military and he did them quite rapidly. Now maybe you don't just want to do them with what is known as a "Z-Gram", a message that comes out that says, "implement this", but I believe we can do this more rapidly. That said, it's a significant step that we've taken because it's going to happen, but the Congress has to vote on it, so let's make sure we have everybody there, let's make sure we have the courage to do it and do it rapidly.
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed. You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
We are a military that understands processes very well. If anyone can go off and implement something rapidly, it's the military, because we do so many war plans, we do so many contingency plans, it's a part of our culture, we can take how to do this, stick it into a model, and do it in a fairly short timetable. I don't want to take away from the importance of having moved this out there, but at the end of the day, we know this is going to be done. The military is such a young organization, and we're well beyond any previous stereotypes. We can go about this business, and I would like to see Congress move on this rapidly. In fact, I believe it should be in the defense authorization bill, and that would take 2-3 months to get it through the process. It's about time to implement it.
Adam: What do you think our odds are of including it in and passing it through the defense authorization bill?
Rep. Sestak: Well, I think it's pretty darn good. But then, I've only been in politics a few years, but this is something where the Commander in Chief speaks, I think people have the courage to do the right thing. There are those on both sides of the aisle who are still opposed. However, I think at the end of the day, the Commander in Chief saying let's do this, with the military's leadership saying let's do this, you'll find that there'll be more than enough votes to make it happen.
Adam: The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that the Pentagon was considering separate shower facilities and locker rooms. In the past, there has been discussion of pilot programs. Is any of this necessary to go through during implementation?
Rep. Sestak: No. They're serving out there right now. They go into showers, non-gay or gay, right now into sports gyms. It's a way of life. Let's go out and make it happen. We don't need to go through a pilot program. We don't need separation of showers. We're beyond all that.
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months. Because you can do this in a nice deliberate way and still finish it in that period of time. Someone used the phrase to me, the military is always "ready". We can do these things. I always remember former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Crowe once said, supposedly to President Clinton, just tell the military to do it and they'll do it. In the meantime, I think the President should consider an executive order, under a stop-loss provision, that when you don't want someone to be discharged while the study is being done, why kick people out that you know you're not going to in about a year? Second, I think those who were dismissed under the wrong policy should be permitted to come back in.
I've been keeping an eye on the latest developments regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. It's become clear that the most interesting questions are no longer concerning repeal and whether it will happen, but what the implementation will look like, and you can tell that by the signals being given. At today's Armed Services hearings, Sec. Gates is expected to name two advisers- one civilian, one military- to advise the Administration on steps to implement repeal, and according to the WaPo, planning alone is expected to take up to a year. He is also expected to announce the "Obama rule" on third-party discharges, about which the Palm Center says the devil is in the details:
The Palm Center has announced that President Obama's executive changes to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, expected to be announced Tuesday, could significantly impact the lives of gay troops. The expected statements from Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen would protect some service members from investigations based on third-party allegations and set a new standard for what constitutes reliable sources and credible information that trigger a "don't ask, don't tell" investigation. It is also expected that the military brass will announce changes to the adjudication of potential discharges, whose effect could be to require a flag officer to sign off on any discharge for it to move forward.
"This 'Obama Rule' could provide a new standard for 'don't ask, don't tell' investigations," said Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center. "Depending on how it's implemented, the executive action taken by the President could be seismic. 'Don't ask, don't tell' has rested on the belief that the presence of openly gay service members is always bad for the military. The new Obama Rule would mean a shift in the military's focus toward keeping gay troops, reflecting the military's belief that they are as essential as their heterosexual peers."
Belkin also said the effectiveness of the changes would depend on what message was sent by top civilian and uniformed leaders to the officers responsible for approving discharges. "If new discretion is being granted to two-stars, then the actual impact of the Obama rule will hinge on whether the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Service Chiefs send a clear signal that discharges are to be minimized," Belkin said.
Recent media reports have suggested the Pentagon leadership may promote a lengthy process of implementation that would unfold over several years, a prospect that Palm Center experts found problematic. Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center and author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," said the impact of the expected announcement would depend on an operational timeline that emphasizes strong leadership and swift implementation.
Meanwhile, Sen. Levin, who is chairing the hearings, has an op-ed out calling for caution and deliberation in any repeal effort.
There are a whole number of ways this could be done. It could be swift implementation overnight, or the Administration could slow-walk it with a 15-year plan, complete with segregated showers and pilot programs of integrated units. Or there could be another "compromise". Later this week I'm going to be exploring what the range of possibilities and what an ideal implementation would look like. We still have a ways to go in terms of making sure the votes are there for repeal, but a new front is opening up on how and when repeal will be implemented- an effort which is also critical to keep an eye on.
If you know anything about State of the Union speeches (or learned everything about them from watching The West Wing), you know everyone wants to get their issue mentioned in it, and if they do, that's A Very Big Deal.
The President: "And we need to make sure we do X!"
Advocates for X: "Yay!" pat each other on the back
Then much of the time, little or nothing gets done on X.
This morning, CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller wrote on Twitter:
On DADT, he's expected to call for gays to serve openly in the military.
A friend of mine, and no doubt lots of others, retweeted it as if it was A Very Big Deal. In truth, it's not, my friends. If my issue were, say, Electoral College reform, it would be A Very Big Deal. It would elevate attention dramatically, help me fundraise, etc. But on this issue, what is this, 2007? Obama calling for gays to serve openly in the military is nothing new, despite the forum. He, along with his press aides, have called for this over and over. What we need is action.
The President needs to do more than call for gays to serve openly. He needs to announce he will insert repeal language in the defense authorization bill he will submit to Congress in the next few months. Then, he needs to actually go out and round up the votes like he's doing on health care. Nothing less will suffice. If he does use the bully pulpit tonight as part of that case, great. That is part of it. But everyone should understand there's a difference between reiterating a policy commitment he made years ago, and announcing he will take action, then going out and doing it. If he does not do this, it will be a lot harder to pass repeal, and if he pushes it off until after we lose seats in the midterms, we may not have a chance at all.
You will tell how serious the President is about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell not by a bland, fleeting mention, but by what he does to go out and get it done, and that needs to start tonight.
STATE BLOGS
