Senate Bills We Should Be Watching

[From the diaries -- Hunter]

Many of us were caught napping on two pieces of legislation that have/will become law; the so called 'Class Action Fairness Act of 2005' and most recently the vile 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005'. My intent in writing this is to provide a heads up on a few other Republican bills that have been introduced in the Senate. Most of the proposed legislation will be familiar, and I have provided the bill number and appropriate committee where it has been assigned.

The bills I have chosen to draw attention to are relevant to the following; Social Security, medical malpractice liability, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, abortion prerequisite and 'profanity' on public airwaves. One additional topic has a joint resolution calling for a constitutional amendment on same sex marriage; they don't have the votes but introduced it anyway.

if you're interested, there is more below

MEDICAL LIABILITY

As we have seen, special interest legislation seems to be the urgent call of the Senate. I'll begin with a bill that rewards the insurance industry S.354

A bill to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

This is the bill that caps plaintiff non-economic damages at $250,000 regardless of medical error, legislates plaintiff attorney remuneration and sends a hearty fuck you to the jury after they have finished deliberations. Why do the Republicans trust a jury to decide life or death, yet don't trust a jury when it comes to money? Full text of S. 354

ABORTION PREREQUISITE

Eliminating abortion is always on the Republican agenda, but this next bill, S.51 'Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005' inserts Congress into the dialogue between a woman and her physician;

Amends the Public Health Service Act to require an abortion provider, before beginning any abortion of a pain-capable unborn child (defined as an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development of 20 weeks after fertilization), to: (1) make a specified statement to the pregnant woman that Congress has determined that there is substantial evidence that the process will cause the unborn child pain, and that the mother has the option of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the child; (2) provide to the woman an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure (unless she waives receipt) and an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form; and (3) obtain on the form the woman's signature and her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of drugs to the child.

I am sure that there is large percentage of people who would find opposing this bill to be incompassionate, yet one underlying danger is that it establishes the concept of pain in the fetus without conclusive medical evidence; one more small step to legitimize the 'pre-born' ideology. This bill has 33 co-sponsors including the chairman of the committee Mike Enzi and three other committee members, Alexander, Ensign, and Sessions. Full text of S. 51

Let the members of the committee know of your thoughts on the above two bills; The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions membership;

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Tom Harkin (D-IA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
James Jeffords (I-VT) Tel: [phone]
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Patty Murray (D-WA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jack Reed (D-RI) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Mike Enzi (R-WY) Chairman Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Judd Gregg (R-NH) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Bill Frist (R-TN) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Richard Burr (R-NC) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Mike DeWine (R-OH) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John Ensign (R-NV) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Pat Roberts (R-KS) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

BROADCAST DECENCY

Next up is the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 S.193, which essentially increases the fines on broadcasters that offend the Christian fundamentalists;

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that, if the violator of the terms and conditions of any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, permit, or certificate is either a broadcast station licensee or permittee or an applicant for a broadcast license, permit, or certificate, and such violator is determined by the FCC to have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the amount of forfeiture penalty shall not exceed $325,000 for each violation or day of such violation, to a maximum of $3 million for any single act or failure to act.

This bill is simply more intimidation of free speech. I wonder how long it will take for the fundies to take aim on the Internets (watch out Maryscott!). Anyway, the bill has 26 co-sponsors including Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Pryor from the Democratic side of the aisle. Full text of S. 193

The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has the bill; these are the members

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) Tel: [phone]
John Kerry (D-MA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Tel: [phone]
Bill Nelson (D-FL) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Ben Nelson (D-NE) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Mark Pryor (D-AR) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Ted Stevens (R-AK) Chairman Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John McCain (R-AZ) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Conrad Burns (R-MT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Trent Lott (R-MS) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Olympia Snowe (R_ME) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Gordon Smith (R-OR) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John Ensign (R-NV) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
George Allen (R-VA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John Sununu (R-NH) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jim DeMint (R-SC) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
David Vitter (R-LA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

This Joint Resolution sits in the Judiciary committee

S.J. Res.1. SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The piece of shit has 26 co-sponsors, all Republican. Full text of S.J. Res. 1 Anyway here are the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This might be valuable in contacting Senators on the judicial nominations as well;

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Tel: [phone]
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Joseph Biden (D-DE) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Herbert Kohl (D-WI) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Russ Feingold (D-WI) Tel: [phone]
Charles Schumer (D-NY) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Richard Durbin (D-IL) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Arlen Specter (R-PA) Chairman Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Charles Grassley (R-IA) Tel: [phone]
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Mike DeWine (R-OH) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Tel: [phone]
John Cornyn (R-TX) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Sam Brownback (R-KS) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Tom Coburn (R-OK) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

PERMANENT TAX CUTS

One of the very first bills introduced in this session was S.7 the 'Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2005'

A bill to increase American jobs and economic growth by making permanent the individual income tax rate reductions, the reduction in the capital gains and dividend tax rates, and the repeal of the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes

We all know that this is a pet project for Bush. It has 5 co-sponsors and sits in the Finance committee. They need to know that this is irresponsible. Full text of S.7

SOCIAL SECURITY

Lastly, Sen. Hagel introduced his `Saving Social Security Act of 2005'. Yep, right in the midst of the bankruptcy bill debates. It differs somewhat from the yet-to-be-announced 'plan' that Bush is talking about all around the country. The bill, S. 540 would only affect those at age 45 or younger.

`SEC. 250. DEFINITIONS. `For purposes of this part--
`(1) INVESTING WORKER- The term `investing worker' means any individual--
`(A) who after the date of enactment of this part--
`(i) receives wages on which there is imposed a tax under section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
`(ii) derives self-employment income on which there is imposed a tax under section 1401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
`(B) who was born on or after January 1, 1961, and does not make an election to waive investment-based social security under this part as provided under section 251(a).
`(2) SOCIAL SECURITY SAVINGS ACCOUNTS FOR EMPLOYEES (SAFE ACCOUNT)- The term `social security savings accounts for employees' or `SAFE Account' means an account established for an investing worker within the SAFE Investment Fund under section 252.
`(3) SAFE INVESTMENT FUND- The term `SAFE Investment Fund' or `Fund' means the fund established under section 253.
`(4) SOCIAL SECURITY INVESTMENT BOARD- The term `Social Security Investment Board' or `Board' means the board established under section 254.
`(5) COMMISSIONER- The term `Commissioner' means the Commissioner of Social Security.

You really should read the text of this bill. My guess is that it will be amended in committee, but as far as I know this is the first salvo. Full text of S. 540 The Committee on Finance members are listed below. Let them know what you think about the above two bills.

Max Baucus (D-MT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) Tel: [phone]
Kent Conrad (D-ND) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
James Jeffords (I-VT) Tel: [phone]
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
John Kerry (D-MA) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Blanch Lincoln (D-AR) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Ron Wyden (D-OR) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Charles Schumer (D-NY) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Charles Grassley (R-IA) Chairman Tel: [phone]
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Trent Lott (R-MS) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Craig Thomas (R-WY) Tel: [phone]
Rick Santorum (R-PA) Tel: [phone]
Bill Frist (R-TN) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Gordon Smith (R-OR) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Jim Bunning (R-KY) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Mike Crapo (R-ID) Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

Hopefully, folks here might find this information useful and open up a discussion on these issues.

•  Tip jar

  Did anyone find this useful?

  by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 01:55:53 PM PDT

  •  Great Work!! n/t

    by jj32 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:54:24 PM PDT

    •  Gannon-bashing is fun and all...

      ...but we need to keep focused on what's important.  Great diary.

      This comment is not meant in any way to defend Jeff Gannon (or whatever he calls himself).

      by Wynonie Harris on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Thank you very much.

    Great work. I appreciate it.

    Linking to you on my teeny tiny blog as well.

    by boadicea on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:28:41 PM PDT

  •  Kossacks napping?

    Many of us were caught napping on two pieces of legislation that have/will become law; the so called 'Class Action Fairness Act of 2005' and most recently the vile 'Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005'.

    There were many, many dKos diaries and front-page stories on both Acts.  

    What do you think Kossacks should have done, but did not?

    by dotpeople on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:29:51 PM PDT

    •  Class action didn't make it to the front page

      until just days before the vote went down (though some of us diaried it earlier, they slipped off the page quickly).

      Once it made it to a front-page story, it took some time for the implications to be discussed and understood, as it was at first unclear to many.

      We need more lead time to build an effort: make sure kos people are informed, reach out to other networks, contact reps, even start petitions and public education campaigns. A couple of days is nowhere near enough.

      by wont get fooled again on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:03:17 PM PDT

    •  Lessons Learned

      I think that one thing we can take away from the bankruptcy bill is that our approach to the next target needs to be two pronged.  It must include media as well as electoral pressure (phone calls faxes, lte, etc).

      Pat of the strategy is outcry, but the other part is shame.

      A friend of mine defines "cheating" in a relationship, as any behavoir you wouldn't do if your significant other were standing right next to you.

      It's the element of, "Would you vote for that if you had to explain this vote to your mother." element that I am looking for.

      I know people here will say that these folks are shameless, and to a certain extent that is true.  But I am not interested in them.  I am interested in the ones that don't dare to be caught.

      by jibsail on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:50:59 PM PDT

  •  Needs to be done at the state level also

    I'm currently putting together some "how to's" for our area DFA. In addition to identifying bills I also think we need to keep constant tabs on what bills our members of Congress and the state legislature sponsor and how they vote on each bill.

    It serves as an on-going journal for opposition research when you live in "red" areas and it keeps us on our toes in terms of knowing what to write and call about.

    by Cordelia Lear on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:38:32 PM PDT

  •  Definitely! why be depressed later...

    when you can be depressed sooner!

    (just kidding)

    by marjo on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:56:03 PM PDT

  •  make it a series!

    it's got everything an action alert diary needs!

    thank you ever so much!

    by Cedwyn on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:18:31 PM PDT

  •  Superior effort and great work...

    I am sure how we could organize it, but it would be helpful if we could divide up some of the bill research/opposition research and argumentation.  This is a huge load for one person.

    As I said, I am not sure how we would do that to make this project an open source forum on these bills.

    In any event, thank you for this hard work.  One of the best things it does is to lead by example.  I shall commit to researching two bill this week and posting them to my blog and getting the info over to here.

    Many thanks.

    by jibsail on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:45:36 PM PDT

•  keeping ANWR out of the federal budget

  May I add one thing to your useful list of bills we should watch for? I'm sorry I can't link to the source--it's part of an e-mail I received on a Sierra Club discussion list. This is excerpted from a memo to Sierra Club activists from Carl Pope:

  On Thursday, the Senate Budget Committee reported out the FY2006 Budget Resolution which includes $2.5 billion in revenues derived from lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  As you know drilling proponents are trying to use the Budget process to advance Arctic drilling because it protects them from a certain filibuster of this controversial issue.  A amendment in committee to strike the drilling revenues was defeated along party lines.  It wasn't a surprise, given the makeup of the committee but it demonstrates we are going to fight this along every step of the way.

  We expect a showdown on the Senate floor next week.  On Wednesday (note from desmoinesdem: that would be March 16) Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) will offer an amendment to strike the Arctic drilling revenues from the Budget Resolution.  We are getting ready by hosting over 1700 House parties showing "Oil on Ice," the Sierra Club Productions film on protecting the Refuge; by reaching out to the Sierra Club's partners in labor unions, communities of faith, the hunting and angling community, native American groups, and the business community.

  I know that there is pressure on Iowa Republican Jim Nussle, who chairs the Budget Committee in the House, to put ANWR in the federal budget. He has not done so in years past, although he has one of the worst environmental records in all of Republicandom. I haven't heard what has happened in the House on this front so far.

  by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:13:23 PM PDT

  •  Judd Gregg from NH

    who passes as an environmentalist in the state, is supposedly adding this to the budget bill in the Senate.  A number of organizations are coordinating letter writing and calls to him regarding the ANWAR issue.

    by nhselectwoman on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:05:33 PM PDT

  •  Why

    NOT filibuster the budget bill?  Highlight every single stupid piece of Rethug trash that got
    tossed in under the assumption it would sail through Congress.  Make them defend each one
    on it's own lack of merits.  Call for a roll call vote on each one.

    by nargel on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:16:16 PM PDT

    •  No filibusters allowed

      Budget bills are protected from filibustering...not allowed under Senate rules. That's why the Republicans plan to add drilling in Anwar to the Budget bill planned for next month.

      by heatwave on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

      •  Frell

        by nargel on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:55:57 PM PDT

•  Excellent diary!

  by Boppy on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

•  This Is What It Is About

  It's all about the policy.

  What happened with Social Security privatization should happen with all this legislation. They need to be "Borked." It would have been nice if the same level of distrust that privatization now has would be there for the bankruptcy bill. The repugs are going to try to get all the legisaltion they can get out of the mythical mandate.

  This diary is very worthwhile. Should be more like it. You may want to repost it every few days.  

  by HL Mungo on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:54:28 PM PDT

  •  there are a lot of people that are gonna find out

    about the bankruptcy reforms after they either lose their jobs or get hurt somehow and try to go bankrupt.  they'll understand then what they refuse to take the time to understand now.  there are a lot of people out there that don't bother to pay attention.  just believe what is spoon fed to them.  but by the time they realize what has happened, it will be too late for htem.  my siblings were praising the bankruptcy reforms.  because so many out there just declare bankruptcy every seven years after recklessly running up debts.   one of the morning shows stated that the number of those bankruptcies is less than 5% of all bankruptcies.  lets not forget all the exemptions to protect the well to do.  better hope you never get sick siblings of mine!  or lose your job.  how many americans are living paycheck to paycheck?  i know my bf got hurt at work and we almost lost everythng!  

    by ejpoeta on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:19:31 PM PDT

•  We also need to show support for our chidlren.

  Currently, there are 9,000,000 children under the age of 19 that are uninsured.    

  As a society, we need to take care of our children collectively.  John Kerry's Kids Come First Act of 2005 proposes to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every uninsured child in America has health insurance coverage, and for other purposes.

  "Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right."
  - Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Chicago Archdiocese

  by stayingpositive on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:59:04 PM PDT

  •  I have some "good" bills

    that I'm going to write about in another diary. There are several...

    by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:03:46 PM PDT

    •  I will be looking forward to that diary!

      I know the "good" bills seem impossible to pass but I think we need to create wedge issues and show the public what the Republicans truly support--Big Business and not much else.

      by stayingpositive on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

    •  Important To Emphasize Alternatives

      It defuses the obstructionist charges.

      by HL Mungo on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:04:15 PM PDT

      •  Obstructionist??

        Who the fuck cares if the vermin think we're "obstructionists?" I'm positive Hitler considered Churchill an "obstructionist." We're in the fight for our lives, our children's future, and the future of this country as a representative democracy. You're goddamn straiight, we're "obstructionists."

        Here are a few, choice quotes from old Winnie...

        
        I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

        You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

        You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

        Winston Churchill, May 13th, 1940
        

        
        Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

        We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

        Winston Churchill, June 4th, 1940
        

        
        Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

        Winston Churchill, October 29th, 1941

        by jakethomson on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:56:36 PM PDT

        •  Good Old W.C Fields. I Mean Winnie.

          "An iron curtain has descended across Europe"

          "..but in the morning I'll be sober. Now lets fuck."

          I'm unsure of the last one. I should google it.

          Think he might have proposed legislation from time to time. Maybe. I'll google it.

          by HL Mungo on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:02:46 PM PDT

          •  Odds are

            Winnie was having one of his famously cordial NOT chats with Lady Astor. As I recall the exchange went something like this:

            Lady Astor: Sir Winston, you are drunk. Very, very, drunk.

            Sir Winnie: I am indeed quite drunk madam. And you are ugly, very, very ugly. The differance is, in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.

            In another exchange Lady Astor said something like: If you were my husband, I'd put poison in your tea.

            To which Winston replied: And if I were your husband madam, I'd drink it.

            by jakethomson on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:14:25 PM PDT

      •  I don't care about "obstructionist"

        but it's true that in some cases some action needs to be taken - the estate tax for example. Having it be 0 in 2010 but back to where it was in 2011 is bad policy and wicked.

        I like the concept of the estate tax. However, there are some very real issues involved particularly with ranches and farms, which often have the curious combination of a very low cash flow but very high asset value. The thing to realize is that in some cases you have ranchers making say $30k or $40k a year running cattle on $50million land parcels.

        So if the parent dies, handing it down in the family, the taxes are due even if the children would like to keep the land and continue the business at the old level.

        This is bad for us as environmentalists because $50 million is its value as houses and strip malls. In California, land prices are through the roof and in general farmland is so high because of its concurrent development value that it is very difficult to make a profit if you are paying a mortgage of recent vintage.

        Conservation easements are a big help, but they also can limit the ability to change gears if times become truly tough.

        Setting up estate taxes so they only apply to assets that are liquidated would be an improvement. Or you could specifically exempt property where the beneficiary makes his primary residence, or where the beneficiary works more than half-time.

        by elfling on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:09:09 AM PDT

  •  Also need to support healthcare for adults.

    Senator Kennedy has introduced a bill to reduce the cost of quality health care coverage and improve the availability of health care coverage for all Americans.  S. 16

    by Boppy on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:15:36 PM PDT

  •  This bill

    IMHO is the most important proposal out there.  Ensuring health insurance coverage for America's children is the most decent, consequential task Congress could undertake.  Unfortunately, the definition of compassionate conservatism doesn't encompass protection of children--maybe if Congress added an amendment to include CEO's the majority party would go for this.

    One way to create a little cognitive dissonance among the right is to tie this with the issue of abortion.  If the right truly cares about reducing abortion (and given the surge in abortions under Bush, I don't think the right does care), the conservatives would be all about providing health insurance for children.  I wonder how many abortions occur because the prospective mother feels she simply can't afford to have a child.  No health insurance for children, I would think, has a real effect on these women.  But, as George Carlin once said, the right only cares about you when you're unborn; once you're born, "you're fucked."  

    by Varjak on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:25:40 PM PDT

    •  Where's Jonathan Swift when you need him?

      Cons would eat poor children for breakfast if they could get away with it. Actually, they're very good at imitating psychopaths. They mimic human emotion but inside there's a void. Then again, maybe it isn't imitation.

      by roosevelt on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:29:02 PM PDT

•  Holy crap

  I can't believe that abortion bill.  Drugs for the 'child'? WTF?  That's incredible.  Off to write some letters...

  by Willow72 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:10:32 PM PDT

  •  As I understand it

    it is a very difficult procedure, possibly limiting the ability of many clinics from performing the abortion.

    Perhaps some of our medical professionials on dKos can enlighten us.

    by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:13:57 PM PDT

    •   I'm not a licensed medical professional

      but according to the text of the bill, there would be three possible ways to practice within the requirements of the law:

      • Feticide by a dioxin injection to the heart on the day before the abortion -- still possible in a clinic, but a procedure currently performed by only a few highly skilled and experienced specialists in later abortion. For most women this would mean traveling a considerable distance and accepting a somewhat higher degree of medical risk, and the abortion procedure itself would become much more expensive;

      • Actual anesthetization of the fetus, a procedure that incurs a considerably elevated degree of medical risk to the woman, and that can only be performed in a fully equipped hospital setting. Since in most states abortion is performed only in freestanding clinics, it would be nearly impossible for most women to find hospitals willing to admit them for this procedure, and of course it would be astronomically expensive;

      • The doctor offers fetal anesthesia, as s/he is required by law to do, and the woman replies, "No, thank you."

      by moiv on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:53:52 AM PDT

  •  So sad

    When a woman needs to terminate after 20 weeks, something is going very very wrong wtih the pregnancy.

    A horribly sad situation for the family is made that much harder by these awful people.

    by karenc13 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:57:29 PM PDT

  •  Mission creep...

    One overlooked aspect of this bill is the increasing tightening of the window for legal abortion. First, the "partial-birth abortion" puts limitations on third trimester procedures. This bill sort of moves the window from second trimester abortions (24-26 weeks) back a month to 20 weeks.

    They will keep chiseling away at the window of legality. But I don't think they plan to eliminate abortion entirely as that is one of their perennial issues that keep getting them votes.

    BTW, Planned Parenthood says that only one point five percent (1.5%) of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

    creep, creep...

    by RonV on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:36:37 PM PDT

    •  yes, there are several key points

      continuing to define the fetus as a child and moving back viability as mentioned above

      perhaps the more pernicious is this notion of being able to feel pain, intended to continue to criminalize abortion and those who perform the procedure. Frist has talked about this issue of being able to feel pain. It was the basis of creating the outcry over "partial birth abortion" and attacking the democrats that voted against criminalization.

      The primary reason any number of abortions are performed after 20 weeks is because of lack of access or lack of funding. 90% of US counties have no abortion provider. The remainder are cases of severe deformity, or where the mother's life is in danger.

      by Windy on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:42:59 PM PDT

  •  In your letters

    you might want to quote liberally from this report.

    According to the latest research on the subject, a fetus is already naturally sedated.

    In a paper that will be published in an academic journal, Mellor will suggest that in mammals the foetal brain is kept in a deep sleep throughout pregnancy by a combination of natural sedatives and anaesthetics secreted by the brain and placenta.

    "Consciousness appears for the first time after birth. We conclude the embryo and foetus cannot suffer before or during birth. Suffering can only occur in the newborn when the onset of breathing oxygenates its tissues," Mellor said.

    In his paper Mellor, director of the Animal Welfare, Science and Bioethics Centre at Massey University in New Zealand, will focus on the implications of his research for the welfare of farm animals.

    He is writing a second paper about sentience and consciousness in the human foetus, which will be published later.

    Not that the Congressional antiabortion mob has any interest in anything as boring as science, but still . . .
       

    by moiv on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:20:12 AM PDT

•  While we're at it, we can draw attention

  to the good stuff that Democrats have sponsored:

  Action Alert: Support Democratic Legislation! PayGo, Kids Health Insurance, etc.

  Agenda setting is important (for one click the link above).  LTEs, call-in to CSpan, lobby Dems and Republicans, etc.  

  by Newsie8200 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:21:21 PM PDT

  •  Great diary

    How did I miss it? :(

    by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:25:32 PM PDT

    •  It didn't have "fuck Joe Lieberman"

      in the title, so it never made it to the rec list :-)

      by Newsie8200 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:36:03 PM PDT

•  I keep thinking Bush's Social Security push

  ... is a smokescreen to cover the rest of the incredibly egregious changes they're ramming through Congress under the cloud.

  The reason I've thouhgt this is that Rove had to know that Social Security would be a damn near impossible sale.  But by getting Democrats and interest groups to focus on the Social Security red herring (including USA Next's outrageous attacks on AARP which draw even more attention to the issue), Rove and Company take the focus off of the hundreds of favors they're doing for their corporate masters, including the bankruptcy bill and these bills Cold Blue cites.

  Has anyone else wondered the same thing?

  by Bob Johnson on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:24:17 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    I made a comment to that effect a few days ago.

    by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:29:08 PM PDT

    •  If true...

      ... Rove and the Republican Party's corporate masters have to be laughing.

      by Bob Johnson on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:30:45 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        laughing at our expense...

        by Coldblue Steele on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:36:24 PM PDT

    •  DAMM THANKS for the firefox extension :) nt

      by tiponeill on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:45:51 PM PDT

      •  ditto n/t

        by Cordelia Lear on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:52:32 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    how in the hell Bush's #1 priority became OUR number 1 priority is a mystery to me.
    

    by tiponeill on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:44:04 PM PDT

•  We also need to watch

  the (Un)fairness in Asbestos compensation bill, too. After laying low for a few weeks, Cornyn and Specter have renewed it. Frist wants it heard around Easter.

  After refusing a bankruptcy break for people with incredible medical bills from asbestos disease, the senate now proposes this law, which immunizes the companies that made them sick.

  by bornadem on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:41:03 PM PDT

•  Regarding the abortion bill:

  This bill is a shoddy piece of legislation based on a piece of fiction: Recent research from Australia states that the fetus does not feel pain at all in the womb. There are sedatives in the fetal brain which induce sleep and do not allow it to wake up.

  Also, I have a question. Why is the PNAC/Ken Blackwell wing of the Republican Party so concerned about the pain and suffering of a fetus and not concerned about the pain and suffering that unwanted children have to deal with for the 50 or so years of their lives?

  by Eternal Hope on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 03:49:49 PM PDT

•  This needs to be 'institutionalized'

  Somehow, this needs to become a weekly posting. The committee assignments can be relegated to an archived post and linked each week.

  We need to Recommend it each week.

  We need to figure out how to establish this without overtaxing a few diarists.

  by Elwood Dowd on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:06:20 PM PDT

•  Thank you!

  As someone who reads dKos every day I can't believe I didn't know that these bills were up until days before their votes.  

  I guess we were too busy working on Jeff Gannon...

  This is what it's all about- if we are to have a chance of winning in 2006 and 2008 we have to present a strong opposition to these bills.  If we roll over without objection we are implicitly endorsing Republicans for office in 2 years.  

  I second the institutionalization of this as a dKos feature- a great idea.

  by Preston on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:16:32 PM PDT

•  Caught napping?

  I don't think anyone who cares was caught napping; I was certainly aware of both of those bills and I don't spend anywhere near as much time on such issues as I did during the election.

  Problem is, the Radical Right controls both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, including both Houses of Congress.  Absent a full-court press as on Social Security there is nothing we can do to stop them from passing  their agenda into law.  Which they are doing.

  And while we should oppose every bill, an effort like that for Social Security can't be mounted on every issue.

  sPh

  by sphealey on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:25:24 PM PDT

  •  At least we and the Democrats can speak out

    make it clear what's wrong with the bill, on the record, and then they can VOTE AGAINST instead of 1/3 caving each time.

    Even if we can't stop the bill, we can make it clear that we oppose and that the Republicans are soley responsible.

    At a minimum, that will make good ammunition in 2006.

    At a maximum (see SS), there are some things many Republicans won't want to own without Democratic complicity.

    by wont get fooled again on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:09:50 PM PDT

  •  Oppose Every Bill...

    Means party discipline. Even though we can't keep Republicans from passing legislation, every single vote on these evil, evil bills should be 55 Republicans on one side and 45 Democrats on the other.

    by RHunter on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:31:25 PM PDT

•  Shit-Can S.7

  How in God's name, with $500 billion in deficits, foreign borrowers losing confidence in the currency, and the economy growing respectably, can anyone be talking of further tax cuts? ALL tax cuts are off the table.

  by BobNJ on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:41:19 PM PDT

•  Ditto on the napping bit

  in fact ... well, never mind.(expletive)

  I do appreciate the heads up, but i do not expect it to have any effect upon our "democratic" representation - talk about "napping".

  by tiponeill on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:42:10 PM PDT

•  Systematic approach?

  I wish we have a systematic approach to this instead of spurious mobbing action against each Bill.

  Maybe a special site?

  -tracking the most pernicious Bill
  -backgrounder
  -Who the players are
  -What possible course of action to take (people to call, organisation to rally, etc)
  -links and futher reading.

  by fugue on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Why spurious?

    (Just curious!)

    by wont get fooled again on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:05:53 PM PDT

•  CAFTA

  The Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, would extend the reach of NAFTA to those countries in the Southern Cone of North America, as well as Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

  This is being done in nearly stealth mode, with little discussion or public debate (particularly in comparison to the NAFTA debate of a decade ago.) AND THE VOTE WILL LIKELY OCCUR BEFORE THE SUMMER.

  Wake up, folks.  It's time to go to war.  That sucking sound you hear might just be YOUR job.

  by Thinking Republican on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:49:44 PM PDT

•  Relieved you did this

  I was going to do it, but got sidetracked and you did it better than I could.  I think a monthly series would be great.

  Coldblue, one suggestion, at the end of every bill description, could you post some action links so that folks can email their reps, senators, media after reading your description?  

  Great job, thanks, Karen

  by ksh01 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:58:01 PM PDT

•  Good List

  I would add the Cheney Energy Bill, full of gifts to energy corporations.  It will rise again.  By my estimate it is only one vote short of passage (that is, one vote short of 60 to prevent a filibuster).  Perhaps the best chance to stop it is if courts finally release the documents Cheney is holding from the meetings that constructed the bill.  There's got to be some embarrassment there.

  by WaitingForLefty on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:02:29 PM PDT

•  We need to build up resistence to these schemes

  ss early as possible! If we are the first to mobalize, then it will make it easier to keep our causcus in line.

  by Progressive Moderate on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:08:29 PM PDT

•  Go sign up...

  For the Mega Vote on Congress.org and sign up and track bills of interest on Govtrack.

  by rzklkng on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:50:16 PM PDT

•  The Christian Fundamentalists

  offend me!
  PEACE!

  by PC on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:11:24 PM PDT

•  Forewarned

  Good roundup of what is coming up and I can't really coherently talk about the fucking medical liability bill without foaming at the mouth due to personal experience on this whole subject.

  I do think we need not only to be aware of what certain bills are but have a concerted plan for dealing with these bills.  Not just wait till the last minute to send emails and make phone calls.

  Once again I can blame local/national press for not doing their jobs by covering these bills until the last minute or covering them only as a story of democrats obstructing certain bill.  As other people have mentioned we also have to have alternative proposals.

  I think it's up to people to start locally to get the issues of any bill on the news.  Keep the local news covering the pro/cons of a bill so it will sink into the public consciousness and give them time to call/write/email their representatives about certain bill.  Not just us here in the blogsphere who are active.
  

  by chocink on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:19:54 PM PDT

•  Other Bills to Watch

  Here's a list of GOP bills I wouldn't be at all surprised to see.

  And here's a list of bills the Dems might consider moving forward.

  by Avenging Angel on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:12:41 PM PDT

•  Start the List

  This is an excellent start for a list we badly need: What to Bring Down on Republicans in 2006. This is a list of all the stupid things that Republicans sponsored (and DINOs voted for) that we should use in our attack ads starting with the primaries leading up to the next Congressional election cycle.

  Here is a bill, for instance, that won't let you go bankrupt for crushing medical bills. If cancer nearly kills you, the Republicans will kick you when you are down. The attack ad for this should be Republicans literally mugging a cancer survivor in the gutter outside the hospital where he just got the news he was cured.

  The Democrats aren't going to be able to stop the Republicans from vitiating the government, but we can certainly stand by with the cameras rolling and put it all on film. I think that's going to be a hard hurdle for these guys to get over if they want to keep their cosy jobs. And, by the way, any Democrat who voted for these ought to be on the hit list. Putting this up against them in the primaries is one more way of attacking the Republicans when the general comes around.
  

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:30:01 PM PDT

•  Hacked?

  I'm in Awe at the amount of phone numbers you provided. Did you hack Paris Hilton's sidekick?

  Hmm, you'd probably only find Kennedy's booty call number.

  by mongoosejuice2004 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:31:32 PM PDT

•  S. 540

  As noted:

  You really should read the text of this bill.

  I'm sorry, but I'll need the Reader's Digest version. I can't tell what's SAFE in this legalese without help.

  However, at a glance, it looks like this suffers from the same problem that all of these proposals do: it isn't safe.

  I have one question: What do we do with someone who invests and their investment, for whatever reason, doesn't pan out? What do you say to a 78 year old worker who got it wrong and now has no money for retirement? "Go die?"

  This is the fundamental flaw of the President's proposal. Retirement is not where you try to maximize return, it's where you try to be prudent. His pa would know about prudent, but apparently sonny doesn't.

  Democrats should preempt all of this by putting up their own personal investment bill that:

  • Strengthens the social security fund by removing the upper income limit on contributions. (Repubicans like the flat tax, remember?)
    
  • Putting new limits on when pensions can be taken away.
    
  • Giving companies tax breaks for establishing pension plans.
    
  • Setting limits on fees charged on retirement accounts by brokers for all kinds (IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.)
    
  • Supporting state worker retirement plans by setting standards for states to follow that would make it difficult for states to screw their workers on these plans.
    

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:55:21 PM PDT

•  Brilliant...and more important

  highly and easily useful!  This gives us the issue to be pissed off about THEN the reasonable course of action to oppose the bills in an effective manner.

  If you wish to have this type of writing published elsewhere just send to here. And I will use it on my blog.

  Also I've just started The Political Dogfight Podcast and I'd happily spotlight this sort of information including an interview when needed. Great stuff. Perhaps I'll reference this diary in tomorrows Cast.

  Good job.

  RSS feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ThePoliticalDogfight

  by BigDog04 on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:54:29 PM PDT

•  Speaking of medical liability reforms

  Have any of you ever heard of The Health Care Leadership Council?

  They issued this Press Release on Feb. 2, 2005

  Tonight, the President laid out a blueprint for health care reform in this country that, if achieved, will take great strides toward both improving the accessibility of care and elevating health care quality.

  Placing quality health care within the reach of all Americans is one of our most important domestic priorities, and the President addressed that goal by emphasizing the need for health coverage tax incentives to expand access to private health insurance. The quality of the care all patients receive will be enhanced by the development and implementation of new health information technologies, and we will work with Congress to enable all providers to utilize these new tools.

  And, of course, Congress must follow the President's lead and act swiftly to enact common-sense medical liability reforms to stop the erosion of health care access being caused by excessive litigation.

  Are any of you familiar with this organization and how much power do they have?  

  by Jill Lehnert on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:55:17 AM PDT

•  That does it !

  I give Max Baucus the middle finger for voting yes on the final passage of the bankruptcy bill !

  by MT Democrat for Kerry on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:40:49 PM PDT

  •  And here's the source for you all to read !

    Published on Sunday, March 13, 2005 by
    The Progressive  

    Democratic Senators Cave on Bankruptcy Bill  

    by Matthew Rothschild

    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0313-31.htm

    by MT Democrat for Kerry on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:45:46 PM PDT