Hometown: Seattle, WA
Member since: Mon Dec 13, 2004, 01:55 AM
Number of posts: 7,886
Hometown: Seattle, WA
Member since: Mon Dec 13, 2004, 01:55 AM
Number of posts: 7,886
Still, it's unlikely that the President has cuts to benefits in mind because he has always stressed that he will protect benefits and that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit.
Yet here (I have bolded the sentences for ease of viewing):
June 27, 2010
Remarks by President Obama at G-20 Press Conference in Toronto, Canada
And we have set up this fiscal commission who will provide reports starting in November -- and one of the encouraging things, although there was resistance, ironically, on the part of some of the Republicans who originally had been co-sponsors of legislation to create the fiscal commission and they, in fact, ended up voting against it -- what’s been encouraging, based on what I’m hearing both from Democrats and Republicans, is that there’s been a serious conversation there. People are looking at a whole spectrum of issues to get at what is basically a structural deficit that preceded this financial crisis.
Even if -- the financial crisis made it much worse, but even if we had not gone through this financial crisis, we’d still have to be dealing with these long-term deficit problems. They have to do with Medicaid; they have to do with Medicare; they have to do with Social Security. They have to do with a series of structural problems that are not unique to America. Some of it has to do with an aging population. And we’ve got to look at a tax system that is messy and unfair in a whole range of ways.
Posted by suffragette | Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:33 AM (0 replies)
AT&T ended its effort to buy T-Mobile USA on Monday, acknowledging that it could not overcome stiff opposition by the Obama administration to form the nation's biggest cellphone service provider.
The Justice Department took the aggressive step of suing to block the deal in late August, while the Federal Communications Commission had signaled its intent to fight the merger as well.
"People in this town didn't think that the department was willing to take the risk to litigate big, complex cases," said a senior Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to go beyond the department's public statement. "But this puts down a very firm marker that we are taking antitrust enforcement very seriously."
"Consumers won today," Sharis Pozen, the Justice Department's acting assistant attorney general for antitrust, said in a statement. "Had AT&T acquired T-Mobile, consumers in the wireless marketplace would have faced higher prices and reduced innovation."
Credit where credit is due. It's good to see the DOJ taking this stance in this are. I hope we see more in this direction.
Posted by suffragette | Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:28 PM (8 replies)
Center for Reproductive Rights Prepares New Legal Challenge to Lift FDA Restrictions on Emergency Contraception
Center will reopen its 2005 lawsuit against FDA and add HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a defendant in the case
12.13.11 - (PRESS RELEASE) The Center for Reproductive Rights announced today it will reopen its 2005 lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for imposing unnecessary age restrictions on emergency contraceptives, and seek immediate relief to allow broader access to available drugs. The Center also plans to add U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a defendant in the reopened case for her role in overruling the FDA’s approval of Plan B One-Step last week.
“This fight is far from over. We intend to take every legal step necessary to hold the FDA and this administration accountable for its extraordinary actions to block women from safe, effective emergency contraception,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEP for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It has been ten years of battling to bring emergency contraception out from behind the pharmacy counter. The FDA cannot simply continue moving the goal posts down the field for women’s reproductive health care.”
While U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman found the contempt motion moot because late last night, the FDA decided to deny the 2001 Citizen Petition to lift age restrictions on emergency contraceptives— two years after the judge had ordered the agency to fairly reconsider the petition— he proceeded to invite the Center to reopen its 2005 lawsuit and agreed that the Center could add Secretary Sebelius as a defendant.
During the hearing, Judge Korman repeatedly noted the striking similarities between recent events —including last night’s denial of the Citizen Petition and Secretary Sebelius’ unprecedented decision to intervene and block the unrestricted sale of the drug—and the findings in 2009 that the FDA under the Bush Administration had “acted in bad faith and in response to political pressure.”
Here's an article from 2009 about the outcome of the previous case:
Judge: FDA Overstepped Bounds in Restricting ‘Plan B’ Contraceptive
In setting special requirements for the controversial contraceptive, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug from prescription to non-prescription use," says U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in a 52-page written opinion today.
The FDA has been requiring teens less than 18 years old to get a prescription, in order to use the over-the-counter Barr Pharmaceutical Inc. medication. As a result, pharmacies must keep it behind the counter, effectively requiring women 18 and older to ask a pharmacist to purchase it.
In his order today, however, Korman tells the FDA to make Plan B available to women age 17 and older within 30 days and to reconsider whether to require a prescription for teens of any age who seek access to the drug, according to Reuters and the Washington Post.
The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in January 2005, and the FDA subsequently approved Plan B for over-the-counter use in 2006. However, the center continued on with the lawsuit, challenging the manner in which the FDA handled the matter, reports the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.).
Note: there are embedded links in the articles on their original sites which lead to more information
Posted by suffragette | Tue Dec 13, 2011, 06:27 PM (0 replies)
So by creating the post with your journal link or mine, as so:
then adding it to journal creates the link for the old journal within the new.
Took me a moment.
This is a great fix for now.
Posted by suffragette | Sun Dec 11, 2011, 08:04 PM (0 replies)
Sen. Patty Murray talks about Foster Friess’ contraception comments and the lack of a female presence at a Congressional meeting on women’s health saying it’s like “waking up on the set of Mad Men.”
if it was a joke, it was an insulting joke to women . if he was being real, that is frightening. as we watch what is happening here on capitol hill from a panel of men talking about health care choices for women and the comment on your show yesterday about using aspirin between your knees for contraception, i feel like i'm waking up on a set of the "madmen" going back centuries here, it's astonishing but this is what is going on, we are seeing the republicans coming out and talking about the deficit and the other things they care about, but the policies they are putting forward here are frightening for women and their health care choices. we will not sit back and be silent. we will take them on.
There's video and a rushed transcript at link.
Also includes statement from the young woman who was not allowed to testify.
Adding link to Murray's website with more information:
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke on the Senate floor about the continued attacks by Congressional Republicans on women’s health care. She highlighted the House Oversight Committee hearing yesterday on contraception, which included only male witnesses to discuss this critical women’s issue.
Key excerpts from the speech today:“
"The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee decided that he wouldn’t allow a young woman who had been asked by the minority to testify to tell her story…So this 19 year old woman was left to watch – just like all of the rest of us – as five men addressed the committee about how they supported efforts to restrict access to care.”
“I’m sure by now many of my colleagues here have seen the picture of this all-male hearing. It’s a picture that says a thousand words. And it’s one that most women thought they left behind when pictures only came in black and white.”
“There is nothing new about the Republicans’ attacks on our family planning decisions. In fact from the moment they came into power Republicans in the House of Representatives have been waging a war on women’s health.”
“But Republicans have made clear from the start that this isn’t about what’s best for women, men, and their family planning decisions. This is about their political calculations. This is about their constituency. And it’s about their continued push to do whatever it takes to push their extreme agenda.”
As I watch this, I keep thinking back to the conformity films made after WWII and in the 1950s, especially this one:
Are You Popular? (1947)
One of the best examples of post-World War II social guidance films, with examples of "good" and "bad" girls, proper and improper dating etiquette, courtesy to parents, and an analysis of what makes some people popular and others not. A scream and a sobering document of postwar conformity.
Posted by suffragette | Fri Feb 17, 2012, 03:19 PM (8 replies)