While I’m waiting patiently for a time when we can have a discussion about reproductive justice and human trafficking without Young Republicans dressed up like pimps, I want to call attention to another video sting operation going on in the United States. Since 2009, the city of New York under Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been collecting evidence that people can buy guns illegally at gun shows around the United States. I learned about this project on The Rachel Maddow Show.

I had known that the mayor was working with other city and state governments on reducing the amount of illegal guns brought into NYC but I did not know that sting videos were being made.

I think that this project is a good idea and it’s different and from what Lila Rose and Live Action Films are doing for several reasons.

First, Mayor Bloomberg has solid evidence that these illegal guns kill people in New York City every year. Live Action Films has no such evidence that Planned Parenthood has ever aided or abetted sex traffickers. The issue of trafficking is being used to stir up outrage for the purpose of making abortion illegal and impossible to do safely.

Secondly, saying “I probably/don’t think I couldn’t pass a background check.” is deliberately vague enough that the sellers are breaking the law in not asking for a background check and yet this is not the same lying that went on in the Planned Parenthood sting videos. These actors are not saying “I am an ex-convict” for example, they are stating an opinion about their own ability to meet a standard.

Finally, Mayor Bloomberg has not named the dealers who sold the illegal guns to the public. Yes, their images and voices have been made public but there is no demonizing of them personally they are not called “murderers” or “gun runners” or “merchants of death” which they quite easily could be. They are simply part of a larger systemic problem of ignored gun laws in the Unites States. Bloomberg’s plan is to work within his network of mayors and governors to try and convince the Federal government enforce the law. Lila Rose’s goal is not for mandated reporting laws to be enforced – which in the firing of an employee, and reports to the police, FBI and US Attorney General they were. She has stated she wants to “bring down Planned Parenthood” and has no intentions to help trafficked women and children. Rose and her ilk want personal ruin for Planned Parenthood employees, and has proposed no alternative for the people who get contraceptives, care and testing for STIs and prenatal care from Planned Parenthood clinics.

If you have been following the news lately, you may have noticed a series of attacks on women’s reproductive rights. Rather than post a letter to Congress I’m writing this week – which I still encourage you to do, I’m going to list some other First Amendment Solutions you can employ to fight these attempts to restrict access to health care.

-The Republicans in Congress are sponsoring HR 3 which would make it illegal for private insurance companies to cover abortions. The “forcible rape” language has been dropped, no doubt in part due to the activism of thousands of feminists on twitter who used the #DearJohn hash tag to spread awareness of the issue. This is a victory to be savored, considering that the Republicans had no reason to do it as they had enough votes for it to pass the House and they knew it would never pass the Senate. They did it because the American public was a lot more feminist than they had expected, and didn’t want to look bad. Obviously they are saving face – but the fact that the public is on our side is heartening. #DearJohn is still going strong because although it’s no longer redefining rape, the bill is still unacceptable. If you have a twitter account, join the conversation. You can also send an email to congress opposing the bill here.

-An anti-choice group has made a series of videos they say depicts Planned Parenthood breaking the law. The full story is here, but there’s no reason to believe this is any different from the dishonest tactics used against ACORN or Shirley Sherrod. For a thorough response to the first “unedited” video, I recommend this post by Katie73. Amanda Marcotte is brilliant as usual here and here in response to the second video. There are ten more to go and while I wish we could have a real conversation about women’s health and how to better prevent unplanned pregnancies instead, it seems we have more mean-spirited conservatives dressing up like pimps to sit through first. On first hearing of this scandal, I made a donation to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and I encourage everyone to do the same. You can also use their website to find you local Planned Parenthood clinic. If you have some free time, call and see what volunteer opportunities are available. I have been a clinic escort, and it was a very worthwhile and rewarding experience.

-I’ve saved the worst for last. While HR 3 would limit a woman’s ability to pay for an abortion through private insurance, HR 358, the “Protect Life Act” could kill her. The bill would free hospitals of their legal obligation to treat pregnant women in emergency situations if the fetus would be harmed or killed or to provide an emergency abortion if the woman’s life was in danger. If your congressperson supports this bill, then I think a phone call, email or letter is in order. However, more than that, we should build on the momentum and success from what happened last week with HR 3. It wasn’t just tweets to John Boehner that took the language our of the bill, it was public outrage. So tell your friends and family about HR 358. Some are using #DearJohn to tweet about it, or think up a new hash tag. Post it on facebook. Don’t let these people hide behind the moniker of “pro life.” Denying women life saving care is anything but.

I mailed this letter to Congressman Ackerman on January 3, 2011. I received a response via email on January 25, 2011.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act, H.R. 5652. Like you, I firmly believe in a woman’s right to access sound and medically accurate information when making reproductive-health decisions.

If enacted, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate and enforce rules that prohibit crisis-pregnancy centers from deceptively advertising abortion services and providing inaccurate information about the physical and psychological risks and repercussions of abortion. This legislation seeks to prevent crisis-pregnancy centers from using misinformation and deceit as tools of persuasion.

My own view is that a woman has the right to make the choice to have an abortion privately, with the advice from objective medical professionals, her family, and her religious and personal advisors. It is critical that women have the most accurate information during this difficult decision-making process. I’m troubled by reports that certain crisis-pregnancy centers falsely advertise abortion services and provide untruthful information about reproductive health-care with the intention of manipulation. Should this legislation reach the floor during the 112th Congress, you can count on my support.

I appreciate your interest in this extremely sensitive issue. I hope that you will continue to share your views and concerns with me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress

A little over a year ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in what is now known as the Citizens United case.

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An “electioneering communication” was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

In other words, corporations have no limit on the amount of money they may spend on advertisements in political campaign. In addition, they do not have to state their identity in the advertisements, so the public has no way of knowing who is paying for them.

This gives corporations even more power over our government with no recourse for Americans who want to know who is influencing candidates and few options for those who want to make their voice heard.

There are several courses of action being taken to remedy this unjust ruling.

In the United States Congress, the DISCLOSE Act would

Require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

This bill passed the House of Representatives in 2010, but failed to pass in the Senate. If it is to become law, it must be reintroduced in the House.

Others have attempted to amend the Constitution. An amendment was introduced to Congress last year, and although none have been introduced to State Legislatures, I hope it is only a matter of time.

This week, I will be writing to my Representative and Senators about the DISCLOSE Act and a Constitutional Amendment, and also to my State Assemblyman and State Senator about the introduction of a Constitutional Amendment. This link provides more information about contacting your State Legislature.

This letter is modified from the one at Motion to Amend.

I am writing to you today because action must be taken to remedy the grave injustice caused by the Supreme Court’s Ruling in the Citizens United Case. I strongly urge you to support a reintroduction and passage of the DISCLOSE Act.

In addition, I would strongly support a Constitutional Amendment that would
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

For my letter to my State Legislature, I will simply remove the sentence about the DISCLOSE Act.

Further Reading.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

President Barack Obama’s vision of America is truly inspiring. This section of his speech is reminiscent of the famous “Audacity of Hope” speech from 2004. “There is not a Red America and a Blue America, There is a United States of America!…”

It makes me feel good, and it was super cute to see members of Congress on their bipartisan dates, but I don’t know if there’s a there there. I still think Melissa McEwan said it best a few years ago, but I have more to add because the situation has not changed much in 3 years, it might have even gotten worse. George W Bush supported Immigration Reform, the START Treaty and the assault weapons ban – all unthinkable in today’s Republican Party.

One of my favorite questions about America today is brought to the forefront of my mind when I hear rhetoric like President Obama’s. I like the idea that despite our differences in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and class we are all Americans. My father was not born in the US, and yet he is a proud citizen and veteran. I’m the daughter of a family containing different ethnicities and faiths, but in addition to the love that makes us a family, we also share a national identity as Americans.

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is this – what about people who don’t agree with the Constitution? People who oppose Birthright Citizenship, The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act or even Women’s Suffrage? If the definition of an American is one who believes in the vision of the founding fathers, in what way are those people Americans? I am deeply troubled by this question.

This question is one the President seems to ignore, and it makes it difficult for me to really believe that he is as effective of a leader as he could be because of it. It’s alienating to liberals like myself and I doubt it does anything for conservatives. I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m asking a question about his political worldview. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” President Obama wrote,

What’s needed is a broad majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill – who are reengaged in the project of national renewal, and who see their own self-interest as inextricably linked to the interests of others.

I don’t know what that means. I know that I am a liberal because I believe that my self interest is inextricably linked to the interests of others, among other reasons. But that view is wholly incompatible with modern American conservatism. It is in fact, fundamentally opposed. Why, then would President Obama write as if we have any philosophical common ground? We might have common ground on certain issues or policies. But not that one. Collectivism is a liberal, not a conservative value and you can’t just make it something everyone holds dear by fiat because it gives you goosebumps.

However, I might be wrong. In his first two years, President Obama has achieved an impressive amount of legislative victories, and if his incomprehensible (to me) point of view has contributed to his success in any way, I hope that he will continue to hold it. I would rather be making progress than have a leader who sits on his hands out of spite.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants. In addition to an initial list of pollutants, the Administrator of the EPA must periodically review it and add any new substances found to be hazardous. The EPA has decided to classify greenhouse gas emissions as hazardous air pollutants because of the role they play in climate change. This was in direct response to a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2007 which declared that they must make a decision on the matter. Now, the new Republican Congress has decided to take action to remove this authority from the EPA. The specific bill is HR 391, and was introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee and currently has 154 co-sponsors. Since the previous Congress (and all previous Congresses) failed to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, we cannot stand idly by while the EPA is rendered useless to deal with the problem.

The EPA’s course of action will not be to implement a cap and trade system, although that would be ideal, and a precedent has been set by some states and other countries. However, we must not let better be the enemy of the good. The effects of climate change grow exponentially and will have disastrous consequences, and so we must take any action we can to mitigate it.

The argument against EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is weak. Aside from straight up climate change denial are arguments that this will harm the economy and that it is an overstep of government authority.

While some industries like coal or oil will experience setbacks, we should not let this stand in the way of protecting not only the existence of human life on earth, but its quality in terms of health and the peace and stability of nations. Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will create an incentive for new technological innovations – to either abate pollution or to create clean, non-polluting energy sources. This will boost the economy. As standards tighten and industries strive to meet them this will become more apparent. For example, if such a thing as “clean coal” exists then this will be a boon for it.

Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is not an overstep of government authority. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and they have also upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act itself. Finally, one may question the validity of the existence of Environmental Protection Agency – but the reason we need it is clear – the problems addressed by the EPA may also be addressed by state and local governments, but since pollution knows no boundaries it is best assessed at as broad a scope as possible. President Richard Nixon wrote of the creation of the EPA:

Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.

Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.

Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily along media lines–air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangeable. A single source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and other wastes. Control of the air pollution may produce more solid wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the water-polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must be disposed of on land.

Similarly, some pollutants–chemicals, radiation, pesticides–appear in all media. Successful control of them at present requires the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments. The results are not always successful.

I will be sending the following letter to my Congressional Representative and both of my Senators.

Global climate change is a serious issue which has the potential to negatively impact every person on Earth. It is for this reason that I am writing to you today. I urge you to take all actions you can to oppose HR 391 and ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency retain its authority to regulate greenhouse has emissions.

Crisis pregnancy centers claim they exist to provide alternatives to abortion. At best, they can provide an adoption referral or offer a teddy bear and a few packs of diapers and formula for a pregnant woman too poor to afford them. At worst, they lie to make women think they aren’t as far along as they are – so they can run out the clock on how much time a woman has before she cannot have an abortion. Abortions get more expensive as time goes on, and it becomes more difficult to find a provider. They spread other misinformation like claiming there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, or that it often causes infertility or mental health problems.

If these organizations exist to convince people to “choose life” why would they advertise themselves to confuse people into thinking that they are an abortion provider? Many call themselves “clinics” when there are no doctors or nurses on staff, and some will list their centers under “Abortion Services” in the telephone book. Several states and local governments have passed ordinances like the agreement reached in New York, where centers are obligated to inform clients that the center does not provide abortion or birth control, that it is not a licensed medical facility, and that the pregnancy tests it provides are over-the-counter. Other centers have been forced to do the same via court order.

H.R. 5652, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act would put an end to these unfair practices. It’s sponsored by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and has 36 co-sponsors.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the bill:

Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to: (1) promulgate rules prohibiting, as unfair and deceptive acts or practices, persons from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such persons provide abortion services if such persons do not provide such services; and (2) enforce violations of such rules as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve continued to think about President Obama’s words on Wednesday night. I almost didn’t publish my post on continuting to criticize Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle for their refusal to tone down their discourse.

But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These rights are often used together. For example blogging is both freedom of speech and of the press. Religious freedoms are also tied to freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

I saw Amanda use the phrase “First Amendment Solutions” and thought it was brilliant. Not only as a rebuttal to Ms Angle but as an update to the slogan that “the solution to bad speech is better speech.” And so I’m going to try an use that phrase more often. Whether it’s Rebecca Drysdale’s awesome new video for the “It Gets Better Project” or Speaker of the House John Boehner following in Nancy Pelosi’s email addresss by setting up a direct email address – let’s call out these First Amendment Solutions where we see them for the positive attention they deserve.

On Saturday, liberal blogger Atrios tweeted “The real victim today is Sarah Palin.” When I read Sarah Palin’s statement yesterday, at first I was relieved. She spoke about peaceful assembly, shaking hands and finding common ground. Over the past week I have heard calls for unity from people on the right – moderates that I know personally. But nothing from people with a lot of influence. Finally, someone in power on the right is stepping up. Palin, however seemed not to be able to help herself. She did not stop with simple condolences and a call to tone it down. Palin proved Atrios right when she compared criticism of her rhetoric and the idea that it might have played a part in Saturday’s violence in Arizona to “blood libel” – the anti-Semitic belief that Jews kill Christian children and use their blood to make matzoh for Passover. This is especially appalling, considering that Congresswoman Giffords is Jewish.

Sharon Angle issued a similar statement, denying that repeatedly calling for “Second Amendment remedies” would influence anyone to actually shoot someone. What else could she have been calling for?

I do not believe that Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle are guilty of the deaths or injuries of the people shot on Saturday. I think that the violent, hateful and eliminationist rhetoric of the American Right as a whole – including talk radio, television shows, internet forums blogs and comments, and the signs and slogans of the Tea Party did play a part. No one person saying or writing something inflammatory is to blame, but as a whole their impact on the political climate in America was significant. In addition there was the actions of the shooter, (hat tip) our insufficient mental health services, and the ease at which a person, a deeply troubled person no less can acquire weapons that can do so much harm so quickly. However, I stand by my statement that it’s dangerous to deny the role that our political climate plays in these things.

I’m not the only one. Several moderate Republicans have resigned this week because they have been receiving threats from Tea Party members. In addition, some Republicans are speaking out against the vitriol they see in their party. Mike DeMoss, a conservative Christian tried to get Governors and Members of Congress to sign a civility pledge. He has since given up

“The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” he said. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn’t hear from them.”

After listening to President Obama’s speech, I considered my point of view. I was deeply moved by his words and I liked that he was calling for unity. However, I must concur with Peter Daou:

Nothing contradictory about praising Obama’s speech and simultaneously warning that one side’s language of incitement risks more tragedies

Finally, this video from Media Matters founder David Brock on the subject should be re-posted everywhere.

I mailed this letter to Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) on December 28, 2010. I received this response (via email) on January 10. Kudos to him and his staff for keeping good records (I did not include my email address in my letter but I have sent him emails before on issues that included my home address as proof I was a constituent.)

I am posting this because I want to encourage others to write to their members of Congress – you might get a response! Also, I wanted to acknowledge Congressman Ackerman for his fast response and highlight his position on Net Neutrality.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about government regulation of the internet. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this important issue.

The internet has transformed the way we communicate and share knowledge; it has spread information, spurred innovation, and connected the world in ways that were inconceivable just over a decade ago. Like no other advancement in history, the internet has become an indispensible ingredient of our education, our culture, and our democracy.

To ensure continued access to, and increased content on, the internet, it is absolutely essential that the flow of information over the internet is kept free. Unfortunately, under current law, internet providers are able to restrict the flow of online content that competes with the other services they offer. For example, this past summer, one national company began charging their customers based on bandwidth usage, limiting users’ ability to stream videos. Another large provider was recently exposed for restricting the connection speed of any users engaging in file sharing.

Fortunately, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed regulation codifying six principles of so-called “net neutrality” to ensure that the internet remains an open forum over which information and ideas are spread free of discrimination. The proposed regulation would forbid providers from giving preference to certain types of material and force them to disclose any restrictions they place on their customers’ online usage. I strongly support the administration’s continuing efforts to promote net neutrality and internet freedom and will continue to advocate for its implementation.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Of course, if I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

GARY L. ACKERMAN
Member of Congress