Stop playing politics with women’s health

By Emma Davidson
Tell Them

Every year for the past 15, legislation has been introduced in our state that would outlaw your right to birth control. It’s just one of many policy attempts that put basic individual rights at risk. Nearly every day, I meet citizens who are shocked to learn just how aggressive the attacks on reproductive health have become.

During the past three legislative sessions alone, 41 ideologically motivated bills related to women’s reproductive health were introduced in the General Assembly. This legislation is being promoted by a vocal minority with an agenda that reaches into uncharted waters. The supporters use intense emotional arguments, often based on misinformation.

As you read this, our lawmakers are considering legislation that undermines people’s right to make decisions about their own health. The “Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act” (H.3408) would allow health-care professionals and institutions to use their personal ideology as a reason to deny patients information and services. That means any provider could legally interfere with decisions made by you and your doctor. For example, a pharmacist could legally refuse to fill any prescription (including birth control, HIV medications and even cancer medications) based on personal values versus what is in the best interest of the patient.

While the bill targets reproductive health, the language is so broad that it extends to general medicine. The precedent it sets threatens general medicine and even the very standard of care established in the Hippocratic Oath.

Would you approve of a nurse denying families routine vaccinations because she believes immunizations cause autism? Would you back the anesthesiologist who lets an expecting mother with pre-eclampsia suffer stroke because his “conscience” refused blood-pressure medication that might affect the baby? And what about the would-be parents who miss an opportunity to conceive because of a physician’s assistant who’s unwilling to dispense in-vitro fertilization medications?

These scenarios are just the tip of the iceberg. Some lawmakers are advancing a legislative platform that erodes long-standing health protections that most consider fundamental rights. They hide their real motives under seemingly benign language like “conscience” and “personhood” when in reality it’s a deliberate attempt to take away existing rights. How many South Carolinians are comfortable with this approach to policymaking? The answer is a tiny minority.

Citizens’ views on reproductive health are clear. Contraception is something that 88 percent of Americans support; something that 98 percent of sexually active women use during their lifetime. It is safe, effective and recommended by every legitimate medical association in this country. And yet an entire decade, and inestimable resources, has been spent attempting to frame it as controversial.

These efforts to misrepresent the majority’s views on contraception are particularly alarming in a state that consistently ranks in the top 10 nationally for the highest rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia and HIV/AIDS and struggles with a high number of unintended pregnancies.

South Carolina is not alone. Experts point to a long-gathering movement in this country to restrict health rights, specifically women’s rights. Currently, 13 states allow some health-care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception; 18 states allow some health-care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services; and a recent ballot initiative in Mississippi sought to ban many forms of birth control and assisted reproduction such as in-vitro fertilization.

So how do we curb a minority agenda that sacrifices the health and well-being of millions of South Carolinians? We let consensus lead.

It’s time to restore balance to these important conversations by asking policymakers to get on board with what the majority of voters believe. Women should have the right to decide when they become pregnant. Couples should have the right to pursue fertility. Patients deserve to see their doctors’ treatments carried out.

Let’s call upon state leaders to acknowledge the many voices of reason speaking out on these issues. I hope yours will be one of them.

Davidson is the program manager for Tell Them, a member of the SC Progressive Network, which works to prevent unintended pregnancies, HIV and sexually transmitted infections.

Don’t miss Dave Lippman in South Carolina!

Thrill to the post-corporate comic stylings of satirical songster Dave Lippman. The anti-war troubadour afflicts the complacent, takes the air out of the windbags of the week, and de-distorts history. On the extreme other hand Dave’s alter-ego, Wild Bill Bailout, the Bard of the Bankers, champions the beleaguered 1 percent in this hysterically funny, not-to-be-missed show.

Favorite tunes from this dynamic duo include Brother Can You Spare a Diamond, What the Frack?, I Hate Wal-Mart, Your Car is Disgusting, and many more endearing titles.

Charleston

Friday, Feb. 17, 6pm

Mad River Bar and Grille
32B North Market St.
FREE SHOW! Presented by Charleston Peace and the SC Progressive Network.

Columbia

Saturday, Feb. 18, 7pm
The Big Apple
1000 Hampton St.
Dave will headline the SC Progressive Network‘s annual Thunder & Lightning Awards Celebration. See details here.

See what people are saying about Dave:

“Laughing hysterically.” – Medea Benjamin

“Viciously funny” – Guardian

“God, that man can talk! I tell you, he’s good.  What a great writer!” – Utah Phillips

“The Dean felt that more harm than good would come from your visit.”? – student, Skidmore College

“He makes me laugh every single time.” – Holly Near

The lies that corporations tell

By Jeff Koob
Columbia, SC

Near the end of the 19th century the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations should have all the rights of people. In the latter half of the 20th century, it ruled that monetary contributions to political causes are a form of free speech and, since corporations are people, their investments in political decisions that favor them are covered by the First Amendment. And now in the 21st century, the court has ruled that there are no limits to the “right” of corporations and political action groups to sponsor advocacy advertising.

Thus has the Supreme Court opened the floodgate to an unprecedented barrage of propaganda, paid for by wealthy interest groups. More than ever, political office is up for sale to the highest bidder. To borrow from Orwell, all citizens have free speech, but some now have a lot more than others.

Propaganda aims to persuade, not inform, and one of its primary tactics is to present opinions as facts. That’s precisely what attack ads do. I’ll leave it to someone else to predict what left-wing propagandists may put forth this year, but we’ve already seen the unsubstantiated opinions that the right wing will represent as facts in the presidential campaign:

• Raising taxes on the rich or otherwise leveling the economic playing field is class warfare or envy of the rich.

• President Obama is an abject failure/the worst president ever.

•  Obama is a freedom-hating socialist with a hidden agenda. Only the most vehement Obama-haters believe this, but they’ll try to sell the notion that we have to “take back” an America that’s being “lost” under Obama.

•  The Republicans could have done a better job getting the economy back on its feet. This is pure conjecture. Obama’s plan seems to have prevented the Great Recession from turning into a second Great Depression; nobody has the facts to prove otherwise.

• Obamacare (sic) is socialized medicine, and therefore bad. In fact, many of the reforms are viewed favorably by a majority, but the propagandists have demonized the whole package as “Obamacare.”

Sad to say, the electoral process is no longer a matter of civil discourse, and the glut of money from corporations and interests groups is largely to blame. The only solution I see is public funding of elections.

Jeff Koob is a longtime supporter of the
SC Progressive Network.

Anti-union bill threatens Charleston port

SC Progressive Network

One of South Carolina’s largest economic engines, the Port of Charleston, is threatened by an anti-union bill (H-4652) now making its way though the state legislature. Sponsored by Rep. Bill Sandifer (R-Oconee), it would require unions to disclose every single financial transaction, publicize membership lists, and would raise the fine for violations of the state’s Right to Work Act from $100 to $10,000.

Sandifer, who chairs the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee that is hearing his bill, stated at a Feb. 2 subcommittee meeting, “We do have one of the toughest right-to-work laws in the country; my goal is to have the toughest.”

The bill was passed out of subcommittee, and is scheduled to be heard by the full committee in the next two weeks.

Ken Riley, President of the Longshoreman’s union that works the Charleston port, questioned why punitive laws were being directed at the 5 percent of the state’s workers who belong to unions and make decent wages and benefits. “This unwarranted attack is political grandstanding intended to shift the blame for our economic problems from policy makers to workers,” Riley said.

Ken Riley, President, ILA Local 1422

According to the State Ports Authority, trade through South Carolina ports facilitates 280,600 jobs and provides an overall economic impact of $45 billion each year. The per unit cost of containers handled by Charleston Longshoremen is the lowest of all US ports.

“Ninety-five percent of all containers shipped out of East Coast ports are required by contracts to be handled by union labor,” Riley said. “If you bust our union, you close the port of Charleston.”

“It’s ironic that the same politicians who decry government intrusion in business affairs want to force more government regulations on productive businesses that use union labor,” said SC Progressive Network Director Brett Bursey.

Bursey warned that if the bill becomes law, citizens who believe that workers’ rights are equal to those who profit from low-wage jobs will picket the port of Charleston.

“My guys won’t cross a picket line,” Riley said.

2012 Thunder & Lightning Awards Celebration

Honoring South Carolina’s outstanding agitators

Feb. 18, 7pm

The Big Apple
1000 Hampton, downtown Columbia

Silent auction.  Finger food.  Cash bar.

This year’s Thunder & Lightning honorees were instrumental in successfully blocking the voter photo ID law in South Carolina, a major victory that showed grassroots activism at its best.

HONOREES

Larrie Butler was born at home in Calhoun County in 1926 and never had a birth certificate. Mr. Butler exposed the governor’s lack of knowledge about the law by having sufficient photo ID to buy Sudafed and a plane ticket, but not to vote in South Carolina. He was featured in local, state and national news programs, and his story illustrated how the new law would prevent some people from voting. (See video the SC Progressive Network shot of him in his home.)

Delores Freelon, a Columbia resident, never had a first name on her birth certificate, so the SC DMV would not issue her a driver’s license — in spite of having a valid license from another state and plenty of other identification. Her story was picked up by the media. (See video the SC Progressive Network shot documenting her story.)

Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Darlington County attorney, took the point with the US Dept. of Justice, packaging our grassroots testimony into a clear, compelling case.

Virginia Sanders, a Richland County resident and SC Progressive Network co-chair, is being honored for her tireless dedication in raising public awareness about the ID law by working the radio call-in shows and organizing in Midlands communities. (See photos of her in action here.)

Dr. Brenda Williams and her husband, Joseph, have run a family medical practice in Sumter for nearly 30 years, where they have long been dedicated to promoting civil rights. Dr. Williams gathered scores of affidavits from area residents whose voting rights were threatened by the law. She was also featured in local, state and national news pieces about her work on the ID law.

••••••••

Dave Lippman

Dave Lippman will provide the evening’s entertainment. A satirical troubadour with an international reputation, Dave afflicts the complacent, takes the air out of windbags, and updates worn-out songs with brand-new parody. His alter-ego, Wild Bill Bailout, is the bard of the bankers. (For a taste of his work, check out this video.)

Tickets are $25 single/$40 couple. Price includes a year’s membership in the Network. Event proceeds will be used to further our work improving the quality of life and government in South Carolina.

You may pay at the door, but reservations are requested as space is limited. Call 803-808-3384 or RSVP on Facebook.

Make an online donation here.

•••••••••••

Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are people who want crops without plowing the ground, rain without thunder and lightning. Power concedes nothing without demand and struggle. It never has and it never will.

Frederick Douglass

Note to Nikki: Unions do have a role in SC

By Erin McKee

President, Charleston Central Labor Council

In her State of the State address last week, Gov. Nikki Haley stated, “We’ll make the unions understand full well that they are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina.”

Gov. Haley was born in 1972. The Central Labor Union in Charleston was chartered in 1912. The majority of labor unions in this state have been on this Earth longer than our governor. Union members in South Carolina pay taxes (and her salary), and the majority have higher wages, health benefits and retirement, which enable them to take care of their families.

Unions are needed in South Carolina. Union members are the only workers protected from at-will employment. Union members want to work with management to make their companies safe, have a contract that everyone can understand, have a grievance procedure (like due process) and protect workers.

Unions are the anti-theft device for workers. Is our state better off with low-wage jobs and no benefits? What will that do to our tax base over time, what will that do to our children, what will that do to our middle class? When labor was strong so was our middle class. What will happen to small businesses when people don’t make enough money to shop? Do we really want the big business world to take over and have more companies keeping wages so low that the workers need public assistance while they make record profits?

Gov. Haley chose a union facility to have her inauguration. She works in a Statehouse painted by the Painters Union, gets her mail from the United States Postal Service, which has the Postal Workers Union, the National Letter Carriers, the Mail Handlers Union. Most of what she buys more than likely came through the Port of Charleston, where the International Longshoremen’s Association handles cargo. She likely uses AT&T which has the Communications Workers of America union.

UPS workers who deliver packages to her office are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The power she consumes is provided from SCE&G whose workers are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Some of our very large companies like Kapstone, Mead Westvaco, Bowater, International Paper are union as are our firefighters and lots of our construction workers.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers did the solar panel job at Boeing in the heat of the summer. Many in our wonderful symphony in Charleston are members of the American Federation of Musicians.

We’ve got union members at our military bases and VA hospitals. Gov. Haley should be representing everyone in South Carolina including union members.

We feel like we are being taxed without representation, yet you support right to work which makes us represent those who do not pay their share for the costs of the benefits they receive.

I ask the governor, as one mother to another, to please stop attacking union members as unwanted and unneeded as our children watch the news and wonder why you say bad things about their hard-working parents.

The truth behind Gingrich’s false food-stamp claims

INSTITUTE INDEX
Institute for Southern Studies

Date on which Republican presidential candidate and former Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich, speaking during a debate in South Carolina, claimed that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history”: 1/16/2012

Number of days later that the Gingrich campaign unveiled a TV ad making the same claim: 1

Number of people who have joined the food stamp program — known since 2008 as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — under President Obama: 14,200,000

Number of people who became SNAP beneficiaries under President George W. Bush: 14,700,000

Number of people added to the SNAP rolls in the 12 months before Obama took office in January 2009: 4,400,000

Percentage by which that exceeds the number added in 2007, when the economic downturn began: 300

Number by which the SNAP rolls declined in October 2011: 43,528

Number of people receiving SNAP benefits, according to the latest figures available: 46,224,722

Proportion of U.S. residents that represents: 1 in 7

Proportion of residents receiving SNAP benefits in Mississippi, the state with the highest poverty rate: 1 in 5

Under the economic stimulus bill President Obama signed in 2009, increase in monthly SNAP benefits for a family of four: $80

Income limit for a family of four to be eligible for SNAP: $29,000

Percent of SNAP beneficiaries who are white: 36

Percent who are African-American: 22

Percent who are Latino: 10

Percent who are children: 47

Percent who live in a household where someone has a job: 41

Percent of SNAP households that also received cash welfare benefits in 1990: 42

In 2010: 8

SNAP’s annual cost to taxpayers: $75,000,000,000

Percentage by which that cost has increased since 2008: 200

Value of economic activity generated for every $1 spent on SNAP benefits: $1.84

(Click on figure to go to source. To comment on this index, click here. Image of Gingrich during the Jan. 16 GOP debate is a still from Fox News video via FactCheck.org.)

The real meaning of “self-deportation”

By Wendy Sefsaf

Immigration Policy Center

The term “self-deportation” has found its way into the GOP presidential primary race, with candidate Mitt Romney outlining a vague immigration platform which includes “self-deportation,” or the idea that unauthorized immigrants will voluntarily choose to leave the U.S. if life here is made unbearable enough. While “self-deportation” may be a new idea to some, those who monitor immigration policy understand that it is code for “attrition through enforcement” – a plan pursued by extremist immigration-control organizations in Congress and state houses across the nation.

Mr. Romney explains how he thinks “self-deportation” would work by saying “if people don’t get work here, they’re going to self-deport to a place they can get work.” However, as described in a forthcoming report from the Immigration Policy Center, “self-deportation” – or, more accurately, “attrition through enforcement” – goes far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. The strategy is currently embodied in state laws that include provisions denying education, transportation, and even basic services like water and housing to anyone who cannot prove legal immigration status. So far, the states that have attempted to roll out this plan have done little more than undermine basic human rights, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.

There is little evidence that “attrition through enforcement” is causing unauthorized immigrants to leave. In fact, a July 2011 study from the RAND Corporation found that, despite improved economic conditions in Mexico and worsened conditions in the United States, fewer Mexican immigrants returned to Mexico in 2008 and 2009 than in the two years before the recession.

The Urban Institute’s Juan Pedrozo has also pointed out that “it’s tough to tell whether (and how many) immigrants have left a community if you are looking right after a state passes a law. It can take years of evidence to test claims of a mass exodus.” Moreover, “growing evidence suggests that most immigrants (especially families with school-age children) are here to stay, except perhaps where local economies are particularly weak.”

Furthermore, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, “nearly two-thirds of the 10.2 million unauthorized adult immigrants in the United States have lived in this country for at least 10 years, and nearly half are parents of minor children,” most of whom are U.S. citizens. There is no reason to believe that they are going to “self-deport” as their ties to the country have grown much deeper.

Whether you call it “self-deportation” or “attrition through enforcement,” this is a policy that offers no genuine solution to the growing instability of our immigration system. Relying on a strategy conceived by immigration restrictionists and pursued by opportunistic politicians is no game plan. This country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—ones that will offer a way forward, rather than ones grounded in divisive and punitive approaches to unauthorized immigration.

The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC’s mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

South Carolina issues pro-equality license plate

We are delighted to announce the SC Equality license plate! The plate will be available on Jan. 30, and is a wonderful way to show support for the LGBTQ community in South Carolina. This plate is not just for the LGBTQ community, but for family members, allies and the community at large!

This week, South Carolina joins Indiana as one of three states to claim pro-equality license plates, Maryland being the first in 2008.

The license plate was created as a way of allowing residents of South Carolina to publicly display their support of community, culture and policy that encourages and advocates for equal treatment for all South Carolinians, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

2012 represents our 10th Anniversary of providing LGBT advocacy in the Palmetto State, and we can think of no better way to kick off our year of celebration! We begin the New Year feeling grateful and fortunate that South Carolina license plate policy allows a broad expression of diverse opinion and organizational support.

With one of the lowest specialty license plate fees in the state ($25.00), the SC Equality license plate is an affordable way to show support for equality and the over 120,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals who call South Carolina home.

To get YOUR SC Equality license plate, visit your local DMV, complete the specialty plate application and pay the $25.00 fee along with standard registration fees.  Half of the $25.00 fee will support the education and advocacy work of South Carolina Equality Foundation.

Join us for the following events to celebrate the plate:

In Columbia, Jan. 20, 5:30 – 7:00pm at 701 Whaley St.

In Charleston, we celebrate with Takeover! Club Blu at Tides on Folly Beach, Jan. 21, 2012 at 8pm.

To be eligible to receive one of the first 100 plates issued, please contact Christine at christine@scequality.org.

SC Equality is a member of the SC Progressive Network.