When the founding fathers gathered to declare independence, they were responding to consolidated power in the form of the monarchy and the church. The system that they designed to govern the United States was intentionally complex and diffuse, with checks and balances in place to prevent any single individual or group from exerting undue influence over the process. This past Thursday, with their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court violated these intentions, enhancing the influence of a small handful of very powerful institutions and providing them with the tools to crowd out diverse voices.
Many critics of the ruling in favor of Citizens United, which lifted a six-decade-old ban on corporations using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates as well as a set of rules about the timing of corporate-sponsored political advertisements, have focused on the degree to which it will further strengthen the power of special interests over policy decisions. While this is true, it is also important to note that the ruling will almost certainly further limit the representation of women and people of color, who traditionally have more trouble raising the sums of money necessary to effectively compete in increasingly expensive elections. By and large, the candidate who spends more money wins, and this has long contributed to the political underrepresentation of many communities. Having to compete with not only a better funded opponent, but with freer-spending corporate interests as well, will cause many candidates not to run and many candidates who do choose to run to lose against the increasingly long odds. And, as the voices of underrepresented communities are stranded further and further away from the halls of power, existing disparities in opportunity will almost certainly worsen.
As reported yesterday on NPR, current efforts by telecom providers threaten access to information and applications on the Internet. Possible changes by the Federal Communications Commission highlight these efforts, which pertain to what power Internet service providers have in restricting access that conflicts with their own interest. What is at stake are the values of opportunity, something that should be examined as the FCC released the proposed regulatory changes for public discussion.
Restricting the use of Internet based alternatives to telephones, such as Skype and other voice over Internet applications, is just one example of what changes could take place. As telephone and cable providers aggressively market often monopolized products, bundling Internet and telephone packages into one service plan, services that are free over the Internet jeopardize telecom companies own share in person to person communications.
It is certainly an important time for America's discussions of health, but also an important time to talk about equality in America as it relates to access to reproductive health care.
University of Pennsylvania professor Salmishah Tillet wrote on June 4th about where reproductive justice fits into the broader discussion of civil rights. She argues that the threat to reproductive justice that George Tiller's murder constitutes is critically important to women of color, who often face particular challenges in obtaining comprehensive family planning materials. She says:
"While abortion is rarely seen as a civil rights issue, the dismantling of Roe v. Wade would have dire consequences for African-American women.... Today, reproductive injustice continues to adversely affect African-American women. Federal underfunding of adequate family-planning programs and lack of access to inexpensive, readily available contraceptives certainly play a role."
However, this civil right is being challenged for African-American women and women throughout the United States. Recent events remind us that legislation is only the beginning of what access means. Aside from financial barriers, abortion providers are increasingly terrorized out of serving American women. In many communities, violent extremist groups provide endless challenges to providers of women's health care. In a recent LA Times article, DeeDee Correll describes the safety concerns that Tiller's friend and colleague Warren Hern endures every day
"Hern has been familiar with the hazards for decades. After performing abortions for more than half of his life, the 70-year-old doctor has never been injured, but the constant threats with which he has lived since 1973 have transformed his life into a series of security measures: sleeping with a rifle, scanning rooftops for snipers, wearing a protective vest.
Obviously, this is a difficult issue to stand up for when the stakes are so high. This anonymously produced video, "Silenced," details the challenges faced by those who work at abortion clinics. It was released on May 26th, just five days before Tiller's death. Recent events make it painfully timely.
The abortion debate seems to be spiraling out of control, as evidenced by "pro-life" activist Bob Enyart's recent irresponsible statement in the LA Times: "If a Mafia hit man gets killed, people recognize it's an occupational hazard." Additionally, Sotomayor's nomination raises the stakes in the debate about reproductive justice. At such a defining moment, and with so many voices are chiming in about reproductive justice, it is important to come out strong and show support for the doctors that provide access to critical health procedures for all Americans.
Reproductive justice is about real choices-- not just passing laws, but also training health care providers and ensuring access to crucial reproductive health procedures. Keeping abortion providers safe, and ensuring that the provision of women's health remains a viable career is an issue of health and equal access to opportunity for all Americans.
The eye is one of the most complex organs in the human body. What was millions of years ago a simple concave receptor sensitive to ultra low frequencies of light has not just become an advanced organ that utilizes one-third of the nerve endings in the human body, but it has also become one of the most powerful influencers in the craft of rhetorical persuasion. So much, that those who lack this basic faculty of perception face great obstacles in the pursuit of opportunity and equality.
I've been stewing over this for several days now, after learning of Pavel Obiukh, a Russian advocate who was denied access to a flight leaving Moscow the other week, after the flight crew learned that he was a patron who was blind. The air carrier, S7, said it was in compliance with Russian law, which can deny access to a person with special needs if that person doesn't notify the carrier of such needs. Pavel did, in fact, notify S7, which failed to inform the flight crew, who then refused Pavel's entry onto the aircraft.
It's difficult to imagine such a situation happening in the United States, where an entire generation has grown up since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet, American perception mirrors more of Russian shortsightedness than that of America's own foresightedness in progress for people who have vision loss.
It's been a big week for equality, as Congress has passed two major pieces of legislation that move the country in the direction of equal access for all Americans regardless of disability.
The major headline which you have probably heard about is the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments. These amendments restore the spirit of the original Americans with Disabilities Act, which had come under fire from Supreme Court rulings that put people with disabilities in a Catch-22 situation. As explained by Cristóbal Joshua Alex of the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights:
In one case after another, the Supreme Court whittled away at the landmark Americans with Disabilities Actby ignoring Congressional intent and narrowly interpreting the definition of disability. [. . .] This created a Catch-22 situation: if a person is able to limit the effect of having a disability, say by taking medication or using a medical device, that person would no longer be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and employers were free to discriminate at will. The result has been devastating. Plaintiffs lose 97% of employment-related cases under the ADA.
The absurdity played out in courtrooms across the country where judges, following the Supreme Court precedent, ruled that people with epilepsy, cancer, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation and even
blindness were not "disabled" under the ADA. But, as the bill's sponsor, Congressman Steny Hoyer points out, the ADA is not about disability, it's about the prevention of wrongful and unlawful discrimination.
The Amendments passed by an almost unheard of unanimous voice vote in both the House and the Senate. The impressive victory was a result of all stakeholders in the process, business, labor, and advocates for people with disabilities, recognizing that they were all part of the same community and could find common ground to restore the anti-discrimination protections of the law. When we unite around common American Values such as fairness and dignity, we can find commonalities with those who we might usually think of as our adversaries.
More good news came yesterday with the news that the Congress has also passed a long sought-after mental health parity bill that requires health insurers to treat mental health coverage on equal terms with physical health coverage. The legislation passed in the Senate as part of a larger renewable energy bill by a vote of 93-2, and in the House by a vote of 376-47. In the words of some of the Senators key to the passage of the legislation:
"This bill provides mental health parity for about 113 million Americans who work for employers with 50 employees or more," said Mr. Domenici, who has a daughter with schizophrenia.
"No longer will people with mental illness have their mental health coverage treated differently than their coverage for other illnesses like cancer, heart disease and diabetes."
With this bill, said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, "we are eliminating the stigma and affirming the dignity" of people with mental illness.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said, "Mental illness will no longer take a back seat to physical illness."
Mental health parity was one of the signature issues of the late progressive champion, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died tragically in a small plane crash while campaigning for re-election in 2002. His work, and those who have continued it, demonstrate that equality, opportunity, and dignity are American, not partisan, goals.
The Opportunity Agenda is pleased to help announce, on behalf of the Progressive Ideas Network, the release of a new collection of essays outlining a new long-term vision for America.
"New Progressive Voices: Values and Policy for the 21st Century" brings together leaders from a wide array of organizations, of different backgrounds, to present a bold, progressive agenda for America's future. Integral to the project is a commitment, not to just presenting a new direction, but also realistic approaches to solving our collective problems.
In recent decades, progressivism has faltered. It was conservatives who developed and moved the big ideas, while progressives triangulated, tweaked, and tinkered. Since the 1960s, progressives have been running on the fumes of the New Deal and Great Society, confining themselves largely to narrow issue silos and poll-tested phrases and positions. Content to play defense in many of the major political battles of the day, they have all too often been cowed into submission by the vitality and confidence of the other side.
Now that is changing. Instead of obsessing about what we are against, progressives have begun to think about what we're for -- to prepare once again to play our role as agents of bold ideas and political and social transformation. Finding new confidence and imagination, we have begun to renew our intellectual capital. The essays in this volume draw on that new store of capital to sketch the outlines of a progressive agenda for 21st-century America.
Our own Executive Director, Alan Jenkins, contributed an essay to the collection. You can read "The Promise of Opportunity" here.
On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a ground breaking executive order requiring all city agencies to provide language assistance services for people who speak Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Italian or French Creole. According to The New York Times, this is the first time that all New York City agencies will be forced to follow the same standard in providing translation and language interpretation services to people who do not speak English:
Immigrant advocates and city officials say it is the most comprehensive order of its kind in the country. The mayor refused to be specific about how much the services will cost, saying only that it was a "relatively small" amount given the size of the city's budget. He added: "This executive order will make our city more accessible, while helping us become the most inclusive municipal government in the nation."
The Opportunity Agenda fact sheet Immigration Reform: Promoting Opportunity for All details the need for immigrants to have access to language assistance services in order to achieve their full potential. In providing immigrant groups with this access, Mayor Bloomberg has taken the entire city forward and empowered communities throughout New York.
• Politicians have also been busy down in Washington, D.C. working to provide language assistance for immigrant families across the United States. At noon today, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congressman Mike Honda are introducing the "Strengthening Communities through Education and Integration Act of 2008." In addition to providing English language literacy and civics education to immigrant families who are in the process of becoming citizens, the bill:
will help immigrant communities become a more integral part of the American fabric and maximize their social and economic contributions.
Legislation like this is crucial to aiding immigrants on their way to becoming U.S. citizens, and is a necessary part of treating immigrants like full and equal members of our community.
• The aftermath of the ICE raids in Postville, Houston, and most recently Rhode Island, is still being felt in communities across America. However, a Washington Post article describes how it is not only workers and their families feeling this strife - now, it is employers as well:
The crackdown's relatively high costs and limited results are also fueling criticism. In an economy with more than 6 million companies and 8 million unauthorized workers, the corporate enforcement effort is still dwarfed by the high-profile raids that have sentenced thousands of illegal immigrants to prison time and deportation.
• A story in the MetroWest Daily News calls attention to a local organization in Massachusetts, the MetroWest Immigrant Worker Center, that is defending the rights of immigrant workers in the U.S. Immigrant workers are routinely subject to labor law violations, including the denial of compensation and overtime, as well as unnecessary injuries on job sites. In addition, the article points out that all immigrants, including undocumented ones, have worker rights:
Contrary to what many people think, illegal workers have rights. Although in the country illegally, those who work are entitled to be paid for their labor and overtime. If they are injured on the job, they are eligible for workers' compensation coverage, said [Diego] Low, [director of the MetroWest Immigrant Worker Center] who has been advocating for immigrant workers' rights for the last 25 years.
• A DMI Blog posting points to an extremely upsetting Associated Press report of a beating in a Pennsylvania town that left a 25 year old Mexican immigrant named Luis Ramirez dead.
Hate crime or not, the killing has exposed long-simmering tensions in Shenandoah, a blue-collar town of 5,000 about 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia that has a growing number of Hispanic residents drawn by jobs in factories and farm fields.
STATE BLOGS
