American Forum Op-Ed

By Mark Mellman

COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Emilie C. Ailts and Vicki Cowart

As national health care reform faces its next hurdle -- a conference committee bill that reconciles the House and Senate bills -- we believe it's critical to draw attention to a provision contained in the House bill. This provision, brought by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and known as the Stupak abortion coverage ban, would create barriers to women's reproductive health care far worse than any encountered since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

This new abortion coverage ban makes insurance coverage for abortion virtually unavailable for millions of women purchasing insurance plans through the newly created health insurance exchange.

Federal law already bans use of federal funds for abortions, but the Stupak measure goes much further. It denies use of private money -- not just public money -- to cover abortions.

Six of Colorado's nine-member congressional delegation, Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, Betsy Markey and Ed Perlmutter, understood the danger posed by the Stupak abortion coverage ban and its Senate companion and voted against it. The remaining three, Reps. Doug Lamborn, Mike Coffman and John Salazar, voted for the House Stupak provision, choosing to strip women of health insurance benefits they already have and imposing further restrictions on their access to a full spectrum of reproductive health care services.

The Stupak amendment has real-life implications for all women obtaining health insurance through the new health insurance exchange. This exchange is intended to provide a source of affordable, quality health insurance coverage for Americans who are uninsured, self-employed or work for small businesses. In Colorado, small businesses vastly outnumber large employers and are a major force in the state's net increase of new jobs. Because so many women potentially will be insured through the exchange, millions of women would lose reproductive health care benefits they now have.

As the health care reform debate continues, our goal is clear -- to pass health care reform while stopping the Stupak abortion coverage ban. The Senate's health care proposal maintains the status quo, ensuring that no federal funds pay for abortion. While we fundamentally do not agree with this, as since 1976 this policy has codified discrimination against low-income women, we acknowledge a compromise is necessary to advance the health care reform package. Yet, we strongly oppose going beyond the status quo, which the Stupak abortion coverage ban does.

Since the onset of health care reform, President Obama often has articulated a central tenet that no one lose benefits she or he currently has and likes. The Stupak abortion coverage ban would break this promise.

Defenders of the House amendment say that women who purchase health insurance through the exchange will be allowed to buy a single-procedure insurance policy, sometimes called a "rider," providing abortion coverage. Such a provision is as discriminatory as it is illogical, and it contradicts a basic objective of health care reform -- to ensure that all Americans have the health insurance they need.

Insurance by definition should protect us from the unexpected. As with diabetes or prostate cancer, both unplanned pregnancies and complications late in wanted pregnancies are unexpected events. Women who need a legal medical procedure in these situations should not be denied coverage any more than individuals with other unexpected health needs.

We all have different opinions about abortion. However, the debate about health care reform shouldn't focus on those differences. And real health care reform shouldn't cause women to lose insurance coverage they already have for a legal medical procedure.

Health care reform provides an opportunity to advance women's health.

With the exception of the Stupak abortion coverage ban, federal health care reform efforts include many provisions of benefit to women.

They include banning gender discrimination of premium rates, protecting survivors of breast cancer from being denied coverage because of a "pre-existing" condition, and covering preventive care, e.g. cancer screenings.

The President and Congress have moved us closer than we've ever been to achieving affordable, quality health care for all. But health care reform won't be fair -- and will not succeed -- if it comes at such high cost to women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ailts is executive director of Denver-based NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. Cowart is CEO & president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 12/09
12/09

By Susan Shaer

A flu pandemic is nasty, brutish, and a global danger. All U.S. Senators and other leaders agree, and leap to keep everyone safe and healthy.

Another nasty, brutish and global danger, which additionally is outrageously expensive and out of sync with today’s defense needs, is the continued maintenance of our huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. All our senators should agree on this.

However, since there are threats and plotters, the U.S. needs to have a strong and effective defense.

In his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama acknowledged these threats; and he also reiterated his call for a world free of nuclear weapons. As he has noted, they pose too much risk to all of us, as humans sharing a single planet. The longer nuclear weapons lurk, and grow, the graver the danger that they could fall into the wrong hands.

So how do we proceed toward the goal of liberating the world from the threat that nuclear weapons pose? The answer is simple: step by step. The road to disarmament is, necessarily and rightly, long, and will take time and patience, and many steps that guarantee our safety and prevent any cracks in our security.

One of the first steps is to take stock of the existing nuclear arsenals – and then reduce the number. The reality is that it is possible, and it’s in the works. President Obama and President Medvedev committed to this goal months ago; and will soon sign onto a new START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that pledges and ensures the U.S. and Russia will chip away at their huge stockpiles.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia still hold onto around 95 percent of the world’s roughly 23,000 nuclear weapons. When the Cold War was drawing to a close, both countries acknowledged the urgent need to reduce these stockpiles, and signed onto START I. It was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history.

Since that treaty expired on December 5 of this year, the U.S. and Russia have been working to fashion a new treaty acceptable to both. A critical piece is a reliable system to provide an accurate assessment of the size and location of each country's nuclear forces. The new treaty will reduce the strategic deployed arsenals of each country by about one quarter (to a ceiling of 1,675 within seven years).

After the treaty is finalized, it heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration– first in committee hearings, and then on the floor. There will be ample time for debate. There are many reasons for the Senate to ratify this treaty, and to do so with deliberate speed.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons to provide a strong defense; and to destroy life on the planet. We need to begin the long process of dismantling some of the thousands before they slip into the wrong hands.

Maintaining these many thousands is enormously, and wastefully, expensive.

We have better information than ever about Russia’s situation, and so are assured they are acting in accordance with the treaty. We should cultivate a positive relationship with Russia, particularly today.

The world is waiting for its leaders to choose a sane path to help keep from destroying the planet.

At least 67 Senators must vote to ratify START. This is a considerable number. And yet, really, it should have the support of all 100. START is in the interests of the U.S., it makes us safer, and ideally, it helps to build momentum toward the ultimate goal of a safer world without nuclear weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

By Riane Eisler

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference makes evident potential catastrophic effects of climate change, including its enormous economic and human tolls. It also clearly shows how poor nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and island states will suffer most from the inevitable floods, droughts and other weather disasters.

But there’s more that needs to be made clear in Copenhagen. If we look closely, there’s a hidden truth with huge implications that we must bring to the attention of conference delegates to ensure that allocated funds actually protect those most vulnerable to these natural disasters.

Studies show that women are 14 times more likely to die in natural disasters. One heart-rending study of a Bangladesh flash flood found that 90 percent of casualties were female. Many factors contributed to this high casualty rate, all were avoidable. A woman’s role in this Southeast Asian nation, as in most of the Middle East and parts of Africa, is one of dependency -- so of course, these Bangladeshi women were not taught to swim. But perhaps the most important factor was that they lived and died in a culture where women are so rigidly controlled that they aren’t permitted to leave their homes without being accompanied by a male family member. When the flash flood occurred, they sadly stayed and drowned.

Such cultural restrictions are inhuman, not only to women, but to children. Yet, their implications for any Copenhagen climate pacts are still generally ignored.

Also ignored are studies showing that when women become involved in disaster-response planning and training there are far fewer casualties -- not only of women, but of children and the elderly. One study even found no casualties when women engaged in disaster-response preparedness.

It’s incumbent upon us to bring this information to the attention of U.N. officials such as Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to official national delegations and nongovernmental groups attending the Copenhagen meeting.

In contributing funds for disaster training and response, the U.S. should insist that a sizable portion be given to women’s organizations. This is essential if our monies are to be used effectively and equitably.

We can use the Copenhagen conference as a way of changing restrictive traditions that are egregious human-rights violations (forbidding persons to leave their home alone is a form of house arrest!). We can also help the U.N. carry through on its promise to institute gender architecture mainstreaming. This will promote equal partnership between men and women, and show that when we speak of democracy and human rights, we really mean it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eisler is the author of “The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics” and president of the Center for Partnership Studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

By Greg LeRoy

Aside from health-care reform, probably the most divisive issue in Washington today is the $787 billion economic stimulus program.

One camp argues that the Recovery Act has done a good job in preventing the country from plunging into a more serious crisis than the one we’ve got, while another camp says the whole effort has had little effect and was an expensive mistake. We suspect the former conclusion is correct, but would like better evidence.

Most arguments are based on differing assessments of the first round of jobs data released in October. The Recovery Act’s exemplary transparency provisions cover direct federal contracts and some of the grants to states—a limited part of the overall stimulus program. They counted about 640,000 jobs created or saved so far.

There’s been much media attention given to instances in which job numbers seem to have been seriously exaggerated. Yet, there also are cases in which they were apparently understated. More than 2,000 contract and grant recipients report that their stimulus projects are more than 50 percent complete—yet they claim not to have created or saved a single job.

Clearly, there is confusion about the right way to report stimulus-related jobs. This is not surprising, given that tens of thousands of companies, government agencies and nonprofits are being asked to do this for the first time.

But the blame is not entirely with recipients. Instructions given by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not adequately consider the variety of situations reporting entities would face. For example, exactly how does an employer determine which existing workers put on stimulus projects should be counted in computing the number of saved jobs?

Should they include only those who were about to be laid off before Recovery Act money was received—or should they also include those who might have been let go at some later point in the absence of those funds?

The furor over the quantity of stimulus-related jobs has obscured the question of their quality. Despite efforts of the Coalition for an Accountable Recovery (CAR) and others, the OMB decided not to collect data on wages, benefits or the number of full-time vs. part-time positions. Without this information, we cannot tell to what extent the Recovery Act is generating jobs that allow workers to support their families in a decent fashion.

Nor can we tell who is getting Recovery Act jobs. CAR also argued strongly for collection of data on the demographic characteristics and residential area of workers on stimulus projects. With information on factors such as race, gender and neighborhood of residence, taxpayers would be able to determine whether all communities are getting a fair share of Recovery Act employment.

The Recovery Act is a many-sided law meant to lessen what has turned out to be a more serious economic downturn than anyone expected. In the same way it may need to be adjusted because of the magnitude of the crisis, so must its reporting and transparency provisions be refined to reveal how well it is working and who it is serving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LeRoy is executive director of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit resource center on economic development accountability that is co-chairing the Coalition for an Accountable Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

NEW MEXICO EDITORIAL FORUM

By Max Bartlett and Jose Aguilar

One issue has generated little discussion during the heated health care reform debate: whether states should have the right to develop their own approaches to universal coverage.

The Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign wants to see language included in the national proposal that gives states flexibility to develop their own approaches to solving rising health care costs and growing numbers of uninsured.
The focus of current health care reform proposals is to create “insurance market exchanges.” These one-stop-shopping insurance exchanges must offer consumers -- primarily the uninsured -- choices of different insurance products, including some type of public option. A less than robust public option is in the proposal passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate is in the process of negotiating an alternative to the House version.

Unfortunately, the health care reform debate has skirted the issue of whether states can take a different path that reaches the same goals. States always have been laboratories for innovation. Women’s suffrage, civil rights, child labor and minimum-wage laws were developed in the states first and then became federal law. Why shouldn’t states be allowed to continue that role in health care reform?

If a state can develop an approach that is not based on the insurance market exchange model, an approach that still provides comprehensive health coverage for its residents and contains rising health care costs, why shouldn’t it be encouraged to do so?

The recently passed House bill contains no language enabling states to develop anything other than an insurance market exchange. The merged Senate bill now under consideration mandates that by 2014, states must set up an insurance market exchange and experiment with it for three years before requesting any waivers.

Why should states be forced to go through a long, expensive, complex and time-consuming process when they already may be working on approaches more appropriate to their circumstances?

In New Mexico, the Health Security Act offers a different solution from that based on an insurance market exchange. It is a “home-grown” solution that has earned enormous public support -- 146 diverse organizations are part of our coalition, and 32 New Mexico counties and municipalities have passed resolutions endorsing it.

The Health Security Act would enable New Mexico to set up its own health care plan that automatically covers most New Mexicans, provides comprehensive benefits and guarantees freedom of choice of doctor even across state lines.

Instead of creating a system of competing insurance plans, each with different provider networks, this proposal would shift the role of private insurance companies to provide supplementary coverage – as they do with the original Medicare program. Any individual, employer or group wishing to purchase additional coverage could do so. A non-governmental, geographically representative citizens’ board would be in charge of the plan.

Two separate studies have concluded that if such a health plan were established in New Mexico, health care costs would be reduced by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars within five years.

Why is this so? Because this approach simplifies a very complex private insurance system with its hundreds of policies, different benefits, co-pays and deductibles, all of which affect administrative overhead of doctors, hospitals and clinics – and which, in turn, negatively affect health care costs.

In a state such as ours, with a small population, it makes economic sense for most residents to be covered under one health risk pool.

Coalitions in other states -- California, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Oregon, to name a few -- have been working on proposals that are not based on an insurance market exchange and are adapted to the particular needs of those states.

Acknowledging these developments, the National Conference of State Legislators recently passed a resolution containing a provision asking that states be allowed to create solutions that go beyond any federal requirements. New Mexico was counted as one of the resolution’s supporters.

In addition, New Mexico State Sen. Dede Feldman and others from the House and Senate sent a letter to our five-member congressional delegation, which included a request that states be given flexibility to develop their own comprehensive plans.

Health care reform should clearly encourage state experimentation. Aside from the need for state flexibility language in the national legislation, the Health Security for New Mexican Campaign believes states deciding to develop their own health plans also should have the right to access the same federal dollars as those states choosing to set up their own insurance market exchanges.

At this critical juncture, Congress needs to tackle this issue.

TENNESSEE EDITORIAL FORUM

By Dick Williams

The Tennessee Voter Confidence Act (TVCA) requires replacement of paperless touchscreen voting machines with optical ballot scanners by November 2010. Optical-scan voting systems read marked paper ballots and tally results, providing a tangible record of the voter's intent. They are now the most widely employed voting systems in the nation, used by 60 percent of voters in other states.

The TVCA was adopted nearly unanimously by the Tennessee Legislature – by both Democrats and Republicans -- and in 2008 enthusiastically signed into law by Gov. Phil Bredesen. But implementation of the law has been ensnarled in legalities and technicalities.

Tennessee's secretary of state and coordinator of elections have argued that the new law requires scanners be federally certified to 2005 standards, and because no machines have yet been certified to that standard, the law cannot be put into effect in time for 2010 Elections.

That’s why Common Cause Tennessee and other voters' rights advocates, in an effort to break the logjam, filed a lawsuit seeking clarification of the law's language. Nothing is more important than having verifiable ballots. There is no good reason for running the 2010 elections with systems that are vulnerable to error and don't allow a recount or an audit.

In a November 5 ruling, Chancellor Russell T. Perkins concluded that the TVCA does not require new ballot scanners to meet those 2005 standards, but declined to issue an injunction forcing application of the law. Still, the court ruled that the secretary of state was "obligated to take prompt, effective steps to meet the statutory deadline" as long as their choice of standards "does not jeopardize meeting the Legislative mandate to implement…on or before the November 2010 election."

Tennesseans need – and deserve – to have verifiable ballots in place for the 2010 election. Paperless systems are subject to unintended errors and possible hacking; hence votes might not be recorded as intended. Without a paper ballot available for audit or contested election, there is no way to tell whether a voter's intent was accurately recorded. These are not just abstract, theoretical concerns. California, after rigorous testing, decertified the same machines which are still deemed acceptable in Tennessee. Are California’s votes more precious, more sacred than the vote of Tennesseans?

Steven John Mulroy, a University of Memphis law professor and Shelby County commissioner, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said, “This is a vindication of the election reformers’ position all along. The court agrees with us that, contrary to what the secretary of state has been saying, the TVCA allows us to use currently available voting machines, and that the secretary is legally required to begin doing so immediately.”

State Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins said the court's conclusion could force the state to obtain obsolete equipment that would have to be replaced. But an affidavit submitted by voting technology expert Dr. Douglas Jones, associate professor in the Computer Science Department of the University of Iowa said that if election officials wish, optical scanners certified to 2002 standards could be upgraded to 2005 standards without difficulty.

After the ruling, plaintiffs’ attorney Gerard Stranch stated “The ball is now in the secretary of state’s court. Hopefully, they will have greater respect for the will of the court than they did for the will of the legislature.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams is state chair of Common Cause Tennessee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Tennessee Editorial Forum. 12/09

By Susan Wysocki and Susan Scanlan

It’s not surprising that women are confused about the recently changed recommendations for cancer screening and prevention. New guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) – the leading medical group that provides health care for women – say women should wait longer to begin cervical-cancer screening and that they should be screened less frequently. On the heels of similar changes to breast-cancer screening guidelines, it’s understandable that many women might see this as a step backward.

On the contrary, the new cervical-cancer screening recommendations reflect advances in our understanding of this disease and in tools now available to prevent it. More importantly, they present an opportunity to educate women about the significant opportunity we have to further prevent – if not eliminate – cervical cancer.

New ACOG screening guidelines recommend women should begin getting Pap tests at age 21 (as opposed to within three years of becoming sexually active) and that, from ages 21 to 29, most women should have Pap tests every two years instead of annually. Additionally, screening for women 30 and older with a history of normal Pap test results now moves to every three years.

To understand the rationale for these changes, it’s important to first know how the disease develops. Cervical cancer is caused by “high-risk” types of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted infection. Most women will have HPV at some point in their lives, but their immune systems will typically clear the virus without symptoms or treatment. HPV infections that persist over time – typically many years – can cause cell changes that can potentially lead to cervical cancer. Because cervical cancer is slow-growing, it generally allows ample time for screening to detect problems that can be treated before the cancer can develop. The majority who die of cervical cancer in the U.S. have either never been screened or have not been screened in many years.

A Pap test is the traditional means of screening for cervical cancer. It involves examining cervical cells under a microscope to detect abnormalities that can then be treated, if necessary. Since its use became widespread 60 years ago, the Pap test has helped to significantly reduce cervical cancer rates. So, if the Pap test has been such a success, why change the guidelines? First, newer research shows that cervical cancer is extremely rare in women under 21. Cervical abnormalities among sexually active girls in this age group are common, but they typically go away on their own. Newer studies, however, show that treatment for these abnormalities that would most likely resolve themselves can cause later pregnancy complications, such as premature birth. This is one instance in which treatment can cause more harm than good. By delaying the start of screening, we can hopefully avoid unnecessary treatment.

The rationale for less-frequent screening is similar. Evidence shows that screening with a Pap test every year does not offer any additional benefit over screening every two or three years. Waiting longer between screenings can help avoid unnecessary treatment of abnormalities that likely will go away on their own.

Also, new technological advances offer women 30 and older – the group most at risk for cervical cancer – more protection against this disease. For these women, an HPV test is now available and uses molecular technology to determine whether HPV is present. An HPV infection that continues for years is what leads to increased risk of developing cervical cancer. If an HPV infection is found, a woman can be monitored more closely by her clinician. A negative HPV test in tandem with a normal Pap test can give a clinician and her patient increased reassurance that the woman is not at risk of developing cervical cancer for at least the next three years. The HPV test also is used for women of all ages to help clarify inconclusive Pap test results. The HPV test is not used routinely in women under 30 because HPV is so common in this age group that a positive HPV test could lead to unnecessary treatment.

While screening is critical to preventing cervical cancer, two HPV vaccines – the first-ever vaccines to fight a cancer – are now FDA-approved and offer significant potential to help reduce cervical cancer rates.

Remember, these new screening recommendations are simply guidelines and that clinicians, in conjunction with patients, need to determine the most appropriate cervical-cancer prevention approach for each woman. These new guidelines provide an opportunity for more conversation on this issue between women and their health-care providers. After all, few things are better for women’s health than educated and empowered patients.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wysocki is president and CEO of the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health. Scanlan is chair of the National Council of Women’s Organizations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

By Nan Orrock

MISSOURI FORUM

By Timothy D. McBride

GEORGIA FORUM

By Timothy Sweeney, MPA

MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By Lynn Evans

NORTH CAROLINA EDITORIAL FORUM
by Melissa Reed

by Sarah van Gelder

As the Copenhagen Climate Summit approaches, some world leaders predict there will be either no deal or one so weak that it will be virtually worthless.

Little wonder. Climate change could be one of the toughest issues the world has ever faced, less because of the technical challenges than the politics. That’s why the growing climate movement is so important to watch. Its success could determine if world leaders feel enough heat to take action.

What makes the politics of this moment so challenging? Unlike other critical issues, this one requires that we take action, based on science, before we see much damage. If we wait until the effects of long-term pollution are fully felt, climate scientists tell us, we will have passed critical thresholds that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to turn down the global thermostat.

Even now, these changes do more than cause occasional heat waves, droughts, and monster storms. As the effects of greenhouse gas pollution accelerate, millions of people will experience flooding, rising seas, crop failures, food shortages and drought conditions like those of the dust bowl era.

Still, it’s not too late. Climate scientists say we can yet avert the direst consequences if we halt the increase in pollution by 2015, then bring it down sharply. That means taking action now.

Yet, politicians worldwide have short-term reasons to pass this hot-potato issue off to future generations. After all, “cheap” coal-fired electricity offers high profits for a few companies and their shareholders, while the resulting climate damage is distributed to other people around the world.

And dealing with the crisis requires massive investments toward a transition to clean energy. While such investments will benefit economies in the long run, in the short term they will cost taxpayers money. And entrenched, powerful interests — from the oil and gas industry to mega-banks — use their money and connections to push for government handouts to subsidize business as usual. Some are even funding the think tanks and AstroTurf front groups that foster confusion and doubt about climate science.

In poorer countries, citizens want economic growth. They demand it. They want the cars, airline trips, big houses and high energy use we’ve grown accustomed to in the U.S. And without seeing the wealthier countries stepping up, they won't allow their governments to reduce carbon emissions.

Although every community, every nation and every family stands to lose without action on global warming, the political leaders gathering in Copenhagen to negotiate a climate treaty haven’t felt heat from their own citizens -- at least not yet.

The good news is that around the world there are climate heroes, those doing what they can -- putting up solar panels, standing in the way of coal plants, cutting their own household carbon footprints and promoting the clean energy technology we need.

And the pressure is mounting from those who want action. Young people, for instance, are mobilizing into a powerful force for change. Unlike the leaders meeting in Copenhagen, they know they will have to live with consequences of failing to avert climate chaos. These young people are lobbying, they are getting trained in green jobs, and they are building a movement they say is simply about survival.

Don’t underestimate these youths. Their energy and hard work helped elect the country’s first African-American president.

But it isn’t only the youth who are stepping up. People in all sectors of society are coming to see that our elected officials can’t get the job done unless they feel the heat at home. That puts a special responsibility on Americans. The world is waiting for leadership from the U.S., the country with one of the highest rates of greenhouse gas pollution. The future of our planet may hinge on whether “we the sovereign people” of the U.S. insist that our leaders step up to this global threat and lead the world toward a viable agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah van Gelder is executive editor of YES! Magazine www.yesmagazine.org, which has just published a special issue on climate action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 12/09

GEORGIA FORUM

By Sarah Beth Gehl

As families gather for Thanksgiving this week, we should consider that in just a decade Georgia has deteriorated from average (ranking 22nd) to 4th highest for food insecurity in the nation.

One in seven Georgia households experienced food insecurity during 2006-2008, according to a recently released report by the USDA. The share of Georgia households lacking resources for adequate meals rose from 10.9 percent during 1996-1998 to 14.2 percent during 2006-2008.

These sobering numbers highlight the importance of focusing solutions on combating hunger and poverty in our communities.

How do we do this? Communities across the state are providing support to hungry families through local food banks and pantries to address just this issue. In metro Atlanta, for example, the Atlanta Community Food Bank has distributed 24 percent more pounds of food through October of this year compared to the same period last year to meet the growing need.

Beyond local responses and resources, another important tool is public policy. By thoughtful budgeting and policymaking, the state government and local advocates have a powerful opportunity to reduce the number of Georgians experiencing food insecurity.

For example, expanding participation rates within the federally funded nutrition programs, especially among the unemployed, should be a top priority. Food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, and summer programs will reach more than one million Georgians this year, providing critical resources for nutritious meals. Additional benefits are available through the federal stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in February, increasing food stamp benefits by 13.6 percent and sending more than $650 million to Georgia tables over the next five years.

However, many more families remain eligible for federal nutrition assistance but are not enrolled. Participation levels in federal food aid programs in Georgia range from only 11 percent to 68 percent, and hit children worst of all — the very people who need adequate nutrition in order to develop their brains and bodies, and the ones least able to advocate for themselves.

The state needs skilled staff to reach and qualify residents who can benefit from the millions of untapped dollars in federal nutrition assistance available to Georgians. Although the federal stimulus package includes funds for state food stamp eligibility workers, lawmakers have chosen to furlough already-stretched eligibility workers to address the daunting loss of state revenues.

Moreover, the Georgia Department of Human Services plans to lay off 733 federal benefit eligibility workers in the coming year if the governor requires an additional 3 percent cut in services, as he states in his contingency plan. As stimulus funds expire next year, programs serving the elderly such as the Meals on Wheels will also be in danger.

At a time when more families are struggling with hunger and food pantries are stressed to the limit, we must all ensure public efforts are not diminished. Donations to food pantries are an essential ingredient, but they must be combined with thoughtful public policy and budgeting. Georgia has made great strides in reducing hunger in the past — we must do so again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gehl is deputy director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, an independent, nonpartisan organization engaged in research and education about Georgia’s fiscal health. To find county-by-county estimates of food insecurity, download the Institute’s report Reaching Georgia’s Tables at www.GBPI.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Georgia Forum. 11/09

By M. Patricia West, MSSW

Elected officials' religious views should be their own private affair, neither imposed by them upon the nation, nor imposed by the nation as condition to holding public office. This means their private religious views should not be imposed via the current debate over health care reform.

Important life decisions are responsibilities of individuals and families, not of government or religious groups. On that, most of us can agree. There is also a strong history of separation of church and state in America, and one of our founding principles is of freedom from religious intolerance. That's why I was deeply offended when Roman Catholic Church bishops lobbied Congress on health care reform in order to deny millions of women access to abortion.

As an American I am proud of our constitutionally guaranteed right to worship or not as one sees fit, and of our prohibition of government-imposed state religion. But what started out to be about health care for all has morphed into a referendum and debate on abortion unduly influenced by the church. Health care legislation passed by the House of Representatives compromises our personal choices and subverts the principle of abortion neutrality.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict a woman's access to abortion. By prohibiting women who receive partial federal subsidies from buying insurance plans that cover abortion, the Stupak amendment bans abortion coverage by any insurer participating in the health exchange. The amendment favors one religious view of abortion and enlists the federal government as enforcer. As such, it is an egregious assault on the rights of women and an enormous step backward for those who believe in separation of church and state.

President Obama has said, "If you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it's not going to change." But this House proposal potentially reduces health care coverage for the more than 80 percent of typical employer-based insurance plans that now cover abortion.

Women supposedly will be able to obtain abortion coverage by purchasing a separate, single-service "rider." However, according to the National Women's Law Center, in the five states that currently require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer such riders. Furthermore, women are unlikely to buy a rider to cover abortion, because they do not plan for unplanned pregnancy or one that is needed for medical or health reasons.

A number of national polls have shown that Americans strongly believe health insurance should include complete women's reproductive health services and that women have a full range of choices offered. A recent poll commissioned by Moving Forward, a values-based research initiative developed by the Women Donors Network and the Communications Consortium, found that a majority, 56 percent, believe those receiving subsidies should be able to purchase a health insurance plan that covers abortion. The House proposal does not reflect that view.

Meaningful reform has the potential to bring health care to more American women and their families than ever before. But Congress should not be in the business of restricting choices for women, particularly for religious reasons. As presidential candidate, John F. Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ... where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials ..."

Instead of kowtowing to Catholic bishops, Congress should stand up for what the majority of Americans want in health care reform -- and they want choices, not limitations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
West is a public health consultant who lives in Philadelphia. She is a member of the Women Donors Network and involved with their Moving Forward initiative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the American Forum. 11/09