I am not a feminist. I am a woman who has assumed I have the same right as anyone else to choose my own course, make my own future, and do so on equal footing with men. I believe the government exists to serve citizens, not to act as an authoritarian axe or discriminate against one class of citizens over another. I really don’t care if moms stay at home or work. I’ve done both, both have advantages and disadvantages, and I’m not out to overturn patriarchy. I actually like men. I’m married to one. I get along well with them. Those who act like idiots don’t get any attention from me.

Now that you know a little about my perspective…

I debated about whether to take on the latest turd Dana Loesch dropped on SFExaminer.com in the form of an op-ed column or ignore her. Other than being the latest Ann Coulter wannabe, she hasn’t said much original for the past year or so. (Yes, I snark. It serves as a reminder not to take her too seriously.)

The Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, and other members of the “feminist right” can always be counted on to echo the newest Luntz talking points through the echo chamber. Now that Betsy McCaughey, Pamela Geller and Dr. Laura have been thoroughly discredited, they just pick up some other woman looking for her five minutes of fame and hackery. Dana is the newest candidate. Not the first and she won’t be the last.

Do conservative women — especially intelligent ones (yes, they do exist) — ever wonder why the party faithful finds the dumbest, most extreme groupies to deliver their message? Republican cynicism at its best — pay lip service to women’s equality but find the ones dumber than a rock to deliver it. Bachmann, Foxx, Palin, Angle….need I say more?

At any rate, this little litany of smashes against “liberal women” is classic Luntz/Rove framing, and deserves a thorough debunking.

Let’s begin with her assertions about Avastin, a drug originally developed to treat colon cancer.

This past month, liberal feminists made more hay made over Palin’s “mama
grizzlies” talk than the matter of the Food and Drug Administration
jerking Avastin off the market. Avastin is a drug used to treat
late-stage breast cancer and has been shown to extend the life of some
breast cancer patients by five months, but was deemed “cost-prohibitive”
by the government.

Liberal feminists made more hay about Palin’s chest than I saw them make
over the nine women who were recently stoned to death in the Middle
East. Those same liberal feminists were also silent when Alle Bautsch
was beaten in the street for being a conservative woman.

When people hate you, you have to LOVE HARDER. (Paraphrasing Van Jones here.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some religionists and others who believe that discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folk should be legal will of course appeal. The fight isn’t over.

But they’ll be met with legions of us who believe in our hearts that equal protection under the law means everyone is included. That’s who we are in America, that’s who we really are.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

Finally, some analysis of the data taken from voters as they left the polls in November, 2008, when the California anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8, was on the ballot.

One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the
vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks,
supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but
certain.

…

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home many of them white Democrats.

…

The lesson: It’s not enough to make the case for same-sex marriage. It’s
also important to arm voters particularly parents against an
inevitable propaganda attack. And it’s crucial to rebut lies so parents
don’t panic.

We at MOMocrats knew this about parents–that’s why we had post after post after post after post here on the site (maybe 9 or 10 in all) reassuring parents. We also knew religious conservatives who backed Prop 8 have made deep, dangerous incursions into Latino and Asian Pacific American communities via their churches, and we reached out to APA parents with bilingual video PSAs made on shoestring budgets to help counter this.

I just hope leadership on the marriage equality efforts can absorb these painful, but important lessons and take different steps in the future. When Prop 8 passed, we were horrified and hurt too. Maybe not as much as the people directly affected, but we were right alongside you. Mobilize your allies. We have to validate each other. We will do all we can, but we need your guidance, help, and resources.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

By SEAN MURPHY (AP) 6 hours ago

via www.google.com

Oklahoma now has two women vying to fill the seat of governor of the state.

After a come-from-behind victory in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, current Lieutenant Governor Jari Askins wins to face an anti-choice Sarah Palin-backed GOP candidate, Congresswoman Mary Fallins.

While not full-throatedly pro-choice, Lt. Governor Askins supports women’s access to abortions in “hard cases,” a more moderate position than avowedly anti-choice Fallin. Oklahoma is among the most anti-choice states in the country, the legislature having earlier this year voted in a “compulsory ultrasound” law for women seeking abortions and approving public posting of information on women who receive abortions. Askins’ message of gender equality through pay equity resonated with women voters, so it’ll be interesting to see how Fallin responds on that issue.

Askins also benefited from last-minute support from a popular football coach who had also campaigned for sitting Governor Brad Henry previously. She’s demonstrated a bipartisan approach so far, emphasizing bread and butter issues like jobs and education.

It’s important to note that for all of Palin’s vaunted popularity among hard-right Tea Party Republicans, endorsement from the former half-term governor can just as likely be the kiss of electoral death as a boost.

Why? The quitter from Wasilla consistently turns off most moderates and an overwhelming percentage of liberals. One blogger notes that her 29% favorability rating makes her about as popular as George W Bush was–quite a feat when she hasn’t yet had an opportunity to launch two costly and unsuccessful wars or tank the economy. That makes it hard for her strident persona to translate into electoral success–she’s a hothouse orchid who blooms best in the overheated swamps of Faux News and the fact-free right-wingosphere. We’ll see if Oklahoma’s moderates outnumber its hard-right ideologues, and if Askins can get Democrats and independents out to vote.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

MamaBee recently
opined about her ambivalence about work life policy and her upcoming BlogHer panel
with Morra Aarons-Mele on the same.

MamaBee wondered: Wearing my manager hat, I bristle at the
idea of government involvement in how I manage my employees. How can
government possibly understand the unique needs of my business and
workers? Im all for legislating anti-discrimination and family policy
equal pay; affordable, high-quality childcare; and paid family and sick leave,
for example. But Im having a hard time getting my mind around how the
government can practically be involved with flexible work.

I wonder how we can continue without government intervention. Ive no doubt that MamaBee is a terrific manager but thats my point: she is one manager. For most U.S. employees, your work life balance, your ability to telecommute, to have
flextime or comp time, to have paid time off, or to job share, is only as good (or
bad) as your manager, your department head, your unit, and/or your company. Most of
us are one job reclassification, downsize, merger, acquisition, or reorganization
away from instantaneous disappearance of our work life policies.

I too have concerns that legislating work life policies could result in a backlash against hiring women, particularly those of childbearing age. But when I weigh the potential backlash against our federalist patchwork of worker protections, anything is preferable to what weve got now, which can be summed up as “not much.”

We already see the segregation of women, particularly those with children, into lower paying jobs that have the least worker protections, especially as union membership declines.

Yes, some statutes and regulations exist: the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, the ADA only covers businesses with 15+ employees. And FMLA is a pathetic excuse for family leave 12 weeks of unpaid leave if you work for a company with at least 50 employees and you worked at least 1250 hours in the previous year.

Save
the Childrens Mothers Index ranked the US 28th because of our
high maternal morbidity and mortality rate and less generous maternal leave
policies. I wonder how much of that maternal morbidity and mortality could be
avoided by strengthening FMLA? If women didn’t work until the absolute last
minute in an effort to save their measly leave, might our national incidence of
preeclampsia responsible for just about 1 in 5 maternal deaths be reduced? Might
our birth outcomes be improved? Some researchers
seem to
think
so.

Sure itd be nice for employers to voluntarily create family-friendly policies. But I’d rather force employers’ hands via legislation than continue defining what is essentially discrimination against families as a “private matter” to be negotiated between employer and employee. Actually, I feel uncomfortable even using “negotiation” when one party’s power so dwarfs the other.

When employers won’t do the right thing, or can’t because it would hinder them in the free market — shades of the health care debate — then legislation is the answer. Businesses learn to cope: FMLA was abhorred by several large
business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, as was Title VII (pregnancy
nondiscrimination), and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Today employers crumble over requirements but instituing those merger provisions hasn’t brought down capitalism.

Employers have had eons to make the workplace a better, fairer place for women and families. Instead were seeing national reversal: only 16 percent of employers provide full pay during the period of maternity-related disability, down from 27 percent in 1998. Were seeing more
lawsuits around family responsibilities discrimination. Less pension
investment (29 percent in 2008 compared with 48 percent in 1998). Sure some
companies (Intel, Raytheon, HP, etc.) have been innovative. But why should that
innovation be available only to white collar women?

Without policy to push business wed still have women being fired for getting married (notable examples being teachers, stewardesses, and women in the postal service). Wed be making even less than we do now. Women still wouldnt be able to get their own credit. Wed still be getting fired for being pregnant. Just as flextime and other work life policies are seen as
part of the private contract between employer and employee, so too were all the
aforementioned conditions. All were changed via legislation and/or regulation.

Im a believer in policy change. When I look at how poorly we regulate protections for pregnant women, and then look at, for example, our world ranking for maternal death (were 39th, behind Canada, tiny Malta, Croatia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates)
I see a need for more regulation, not less.

At a minimum we should have paid maternity leave. Were the only
industrialized nation that doesnt. At a minimum we should raise the tax credit employers who provide or help pay for childcare (direct payments are more effective than tax credits but politicians HATE direct payment). At a minimum we should have paid sick leave (the late Sen. Kennedys bill is still languishing in Congress). Want to stop the spread of H1N1? Give workers in the lowest earning quartile (60ish percent of whom have NO paid time off) guaranteed leave. And the Fair Labor Standards Act should be updated to protect individuals and families from mandatory overtime above, say 55 hours per week, unless an emergency demands it.

What else would you change?

I’m a little sad that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her White House handlers appear to have given in to the running media ‘Kagan is a fashion frump/is she a lesbian’ fascination.

This is what Kagan looked like when President Obama announced her nomination — boxy suit jacket in an odd shade of green with a wash-and-wear kind of look with make-up and hair — a no-nonsense look from a woman who’s got more important things to think about than mascara and eye liner.

And that should be okay. We need Supreme Court justices to be smart, not fashion forward.

But after countless days of stories about her perceived frumpitude or whether her choices in her appearance suggest anything about life preferences, this picture appeared on the front page of the New York Times —

Here Kagan is sporting a much more tailored jacket with a slim belt at the waist and a saucy kick pleat in the skirt. And it sure looks like she’s had a professional blow out on her hair, added a few sparkly baubles and a tad more make-up. Were Stacy and Clinton in Washington, D.C. this week? Because if they were and they didn’t stop by my house, I’d be a annoyed!

Seriously, though, is this what we have to do to get people to move on to the next discussion item and not obsess over the sexual preferences of a woman who doesn’t sport a full make-up counter face every day?

Kagan isn’t the only woman of note I’ve watched this happen to. When Rachel Maddow came on the news scene, she was much less made up for on-air appearances than she is today. Neither Bobbi Brown nor Clinique are going to get rich off the amount of make-up that Maddow uses, but it struck me then and it strikes me again now — to be accepted, or be acceptable, do women have to conform to a single idea of beauty to be successful, regardless of their professional accomplishments or personal lives?

Don’t get me wrong — I love me some What Not to Wear or a nice rerun of Tim Gunn’s Guide to Style so I can get some tips about broadening my wardrobe horizons beyond my work-at-home uniform of jeans or yoga pants. But I just wish we could get past the idea that if a woman is in a position of power, she has to get all gussied up to be taken seriously.

Somehow I don’t think anyone was questioning Chief Justice Roberts’ fashion sense and what his suits or grooming regimen said about his personal life. I’d bet money that few were wondering about Justice Alito’s skin care regimen as he met with Senators during his confirmation process (though applying a little Lubriderm with sun block before heading out for oral arguments never hurts!) Yet, no matter the woman, it seems acceptability comes back to walking that fine balance between how we look on the softball field and how dress for a night out on the town.

I do hope someone on her SCOTUS nomination team has warned her that if she goes too far in the other direction on the fashion spectrum, Kagan risks the treatment that Hillary and her cleavage got not so long ago.

And don’t even get me started on the waste of column inches about whether Kagan sits “like a lady” or not. Next thing you know, someone’s going ask if she’d like some hair extensions and send her a subscription to Vogue.

When Joanne isn’t hanging out with her fellow MOMocrats or at her place, PunditMom, she’s waiting to find out the release date for her book about how mothers and social media are revolutionizing politics!

A woman’s platform is a good one for America. Public safety, education, health care, sustainable energy…
no matter what it is. This is a time for women to exercise the right
to vote. Women have to find cookie jar money to fund good candidates.
If everyone just gave $10…if women had $10 on a horse, they’d pay
attention to a race. emphasis mine –candidate for Congress Beth Krom

It was just Mother’s Day, and after the hugs and tributes, it’s time to think about improving the lives of women and girls in this country every day. If we aren’t all mothers, we women are certainly daughters, nieces, sisters, and aunts. And if we do a simple thing like vote in every election up and down the ticket, we can really turn this country around. I recently had the good fortune to interview Beth Krom, a Democratic candidate for congress challenging the Republican incumbent John Campbell in the 48th district of California.

Conventional wisdom’s written off Orange County/Southern Caifornia as the all-too cozy home of hardcore anti-choice Republicans like Darrell Issa (CA CD-49), John Campbell (CA CD-48), and Dana Rohrbacher (CA CD-46). But as Krom points out, the demographics of her home district in Orange County are changing and in 2008 Obama won the 48th congressional district by a slim margin (49.3% to 48.6%) over McCain. I’m not a handwringer worried about a GOP onslaught this November. I think it’ll be about what it’s always about: who has the better and more motivated support that’s willing to GOTV. And after talking to Beth Krom, I think she has an excellent chance at winning.

See what Beth Krom has to say over the jump.

Cynematic: At MOMocrats, we have both a local and national audience. For people who aren’t familiar with CA-CD48, could you quickly sketch this part of Orange County in Southern California? What are some of the unique things about the people and region that make it home for you?

Beth Krom: CA CD-48 is made up of four major coastal cities, contains most of the preserved open space in Orange County, is the home of University of California, Irvine, seven public school districts, an environmental district, and a high-tech business hub: Irvine-Laguna-Tustin-Dana Point. Some folks might know of us from a tv show called The Real Housewives of Orange County.

Cynematic: You’ve been a mayor and city council member in Irvine, CA. What were the factors that compelled you to set aside a $30 million rainy day fund for Irvine when everyone else was ignoring the signs of a bursting real estate bubble and collapse in the financial services industry? What are some of the ways the city of Irvine is currently buffered from budget stresses other cities are experiencing?

BK: Irvine is the largest city in the district, with a population of 200,000-plus. During good economic times, we did well. We tripled reserves. Instead of $10 million, we had $30 million in reserves. The state’s current economic challenges impact local government–we need someone who understands the intersection of local government and Congress.

We have about 3 million people in CA CD-48. From 2003 onwards there was a big home lending boom–Irvine became the hub of the subprime lending industry. The Washington Post’s take on why the O.C. became the hub here. –Ed. High-tech, med tech, clean tech, subprime mortgage loan industries, and real estate development are all big SoCal industries. With the subprime meltdown, lots of jobs were lost.

Cynematic: Are there any issues where you feel you overlap with the incumbent, John Campbell, currently Congressman from CA-CD48?

BK: I don’t see any see any similarities between myself and John Campbell. He’s someone who’s never had to run a competitive race. Campbell was a CA State Assemblyman before winning a special election to replace Chris Cox when Cox vacated office to become chair of the SEC. –Ed. I’ve run for 5 seats. As Congressman for the district, he’s been non-responsive. When I was Mayor of Irvine, he never once came to city hall–there was no letter of congratulations when Irvine was named safest big city four years in a row. The current congressman is out of touch with his home district. He hasn’t made any effort to work with people there. The only point of overlap is that we do both live inside the district.

Cynematic: The incumbent, John Campbell, positions himself as a fiscal conservative. He sits on the House Budget and the Financial Services committees. His major contributors are real estate development companies and insurance/financial services companies.

BK: Campbell takes a stridently partisan position on everything, but didn’t show up to vote on jobs bill. His largest contributor base is the financial industry. He consistently doesn’t look after his constituents, but looks after himself.

I believe government shoud be a watchdog on behalf of the consumer. Campbell voted to roll back regulations on car loans, an industry in which he has investments.

To me, people are important to the equation.

Cynematic: How well do you feel he’s done as a watchdog of the financial services industry, which, as new discoveries come to light, seems to have preyed upon homeowners and investors? What are the ways you feel you can offer better protection to consumers?

BK: Unfortunately, a lot of policies feel like new layers of wallpaper. We now find ourselves in a situation where we’re looking for reform in financial industry services, homebuying, and health insurance. It’s hard when Congress is so divided. Since our conversation the Senate has taken up financial regulation and reform with renewed activity and even bipartisan agreement on many key points, no doubt in response to many allegations of underhanded dealing by Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment firms. –Ed.

Cynematic: As we know, health care reform passed and that will have not only impact on the physical well-being of Americans, but help family budgets as well by ending medical bankruptcies and poverty-inducing rescissions of coverage.

BK: It’s good that the health care bill passed. It’s disconcerting to me that many people didn’t know what were the provisions. As a newscaster’s daughter, I hope media will do a better job reporting what’s going on. As an educator I believe in a structure for improving basic education in this country. It’s unfortunate that the health insurance industry doesn’t feel a need to regulate themselves internally, so we have a responsible business environment as well as successful businesss environment.

Those on right must explain why the insurance industry gets public funding, but feels no compulsion to serve the public.

Cynematic: I’m really excited by the ways you’ve worked to make Irvine a green city. What are some of the ways you feel its successes could be repeated in other cities on a national scale? Are there examples of experiments that didn’t work, but might if revamped?

BK: Irvine was a leader in the ban of ozone-damaging fluorocarbons. I was one of the first mayors to sign on to green cities via the Mayors for Climate Protection Center –Ed. We’ve had green building ordinances in place for years. I believe we need to help advance initiatives — be environmentally respectful but we also have to be innovative in our business models. We should strive to be sustainable environmentally and sustainable economically. In terms of environmental stewardship. We were the first city to implement curbside recycling in the 1980s and ban fluorocarbons. As mayor, I noticed that the city was talking certain things for granted. We instituted the Irvine green ribbon committee to set and keep the bar high and keep an eye on water agencies and green construction.

Cynematic: To that point, Campbell recently passed a bill giving coastal rock formations protected status. What’s that all about?

BK: Here’s the thing about Campbell’s latest bill–rocks off the coastline that were previously under the stewardship of the coast guard are now managed by the California Coastal National Monument. Nothing impressive has been done with them. He has only done this since I launched my campaign; all the years prior in office nothing else has prompted him to take this action. It’s a compliment to my campaign that he’s making an attempt to up his environmental perspective. It does show he’s out of touch with the people of his district.

Cynematic: I know a big issue for SoCal communities like Santa Barbara (and I’d also imagine parts of Orange County and San Diego) is offshore drilling. Where do you stand on this? Since the interview was conducted, the Deepwater Horizon/British Petroleum spill has become an ongoing environmental crisis as well as a situation where worker safety may have been egregiously ignored, resulting in the deaths of 11 BP workers on the ocean rig.

BK: I strongly oppose offshore drilling. I was first appointed to the sanitation district as city council member. I opposed dumping fecal waste into the ocean. I was the deciding vote on moving this to full secondary treatment. I’m opposed to not only offshore drilling, but also coal mining and coal sequestration. My biggest fear is that economic downtown will stop us from thinking aspirationally when it comes to green energy and have us start thinking what’s the easiest way.

I’m all for energy independence. I strongly favor research into alternative fuels. I’ve always supported a more innovative path.

I’ve never been a supporter of nuclear energy because of the significant downsides. How you deal with waste? “Clean coal” has similar problems. However, I don’t want to take any thing off the table for discusison. Instead, let’s have industries invested in what will be most beneficial/productive.

Cynematic: What are some of the caucuses you’d like to join once in Congress?

BK: I’m something of a hybrid–I’m least inclined to join Blue Dogs (because I think it’s a confusing message to define oneself as a “fiscally conservative” Democrat as if Democrats are not already fiscally conservative). The Progressive and New Democratic caucuses are appealing. I haven’t given it too much thought… I’m a teacher, parent, and business owner. I want to participate in every conversation for the people on behalf on my constituents.

Cynematic: What are some areas of pending legislation you’d like to take on?

BK: I’d like to focus on health care, financial services reform, fulling funding special education in public schools. I’m an educator by nature and training. We have tremendous need for college loans and grants, and a need to have an educated population. The things that touch peoples’ lives the most are most important. On Afghanistan, I’m deeply concerned about path forward and the responsibility to remove yourself in a way that doesn’t create a much more dangerous situation. I care about the impact of war on the financial and human level–even the lack of diplomacy in our Congress… We have a long a way to go to even achieve this on an international level. We need to start leading again and be a better watchdog for those who need the advocacy and support of the U.S.

On special education: I was trained to teach visually impaired kids. I grew up a product of public education and attended UT Austin. We need to shift the focus back to what’s inspirational. Let’s revamp No Child Left Behind…look at President Obama’s initiative with Race the Top. Teaching to the test is concerning. I’ve raised 4 children and have seen often how kids are given the newfangled approach of the day when the quality of the teachers they had should have equal emphasis. We need to encourage our best and brightest to enter the profession. Engage and inspire…not teaching to the test. In our own community, we’ve suffered a $2.3 million cut to school budgets. This pushes responsibility back to local districts but with no resources. This isn’t the most optimal environment to serve the interests of young people.

Cynematic: From speaking to the residents of CA CD-48, what do you think are the top 3-5 priorities of people in this district?

BK: laughter I call my campaign “Mrs. Krom Goes to Washington”–a combination campaign & civics lesson. I’ve been in every city in the district and the #1 concern is jobs. #2 is seeing us expand transportation resources, such as high speed rail and inteconnected transportation throughout the district. #3 water quality/the environment. #4 concern from parents regarding fewer programs for their kids, whether that’s after school or summer camp. #5 what we hear consistently, people are frustrated the level of negative discourse. We have people in positions of “leadership” who are there to tear down rather than build things up. This is not the kind of environment that people want to see in DC.

Cynematic: Do you feel as if you might be going up against an entrenched GOP machine or that you’re running an underdog campaign?

BK: Any time you challenge an incumbent, it’s tough. I’ve won 5 consecutive local elections…several without any sense from those who have opinions that I’d win. One advantage we enjoy: Irvine’s the biggest city in the 48th district. The University will be an excellent source of votes all coming from an extremely diverse base. In the past, I’ve worked very closely with East Asian and South Asian American communities. This district has changed: it used to be 57% R, 15% D. It’s now about 44% D and adding in Independents, about 52%.

I also have the advantage of understanding what it means to run a real campagin. It’s not an easy thing to do for the incumbent when you haven’t paid any attention to your constituents. We’ve seen crossover polling with 20% of Republicans supporting us, which is encouraging.

Our current rep is an extremist ideologue. He co-sponsored the “birther” blll. I have an opponent who feels comfortable challenging our first African American president’s citizenship. Yet ours is a very diverse district. I grew up in an era where we had segregation–but young people find this very strange.

I think we have assets, we’re committed to raising what we need to win. We’ve not had as competitive a race in as long as any one can remember.

I’m extremely proud to be endorsed by NOW, Planned Parenthood, Women in Leadership. I’m a vocal pro-choice supporter. I have a daughter–I want her to have every opportunity.

It’s offensive to me that the Hyde amendment was passed, because it demonizes women. It always seems to be men who are comfortable using that issue to undermine the long term interests of women.

Women have a unique place in our society. In our role as mothers, we deserve a great deal of value as well. The choice to have children, or if to have children, or how many. The same people who oppose pro-choice sic also oppose sex education. When they’re willing to fund contraception at a higher level, when they’re willing to give women tools and choices of how to live their lives and have their families, then they can talk to me about being “pro-life.”

Women are still the most important part of the electoral process. Women voting as a bloc are the most important force for change in this country. You can’t be disappointed if you discover they don’t represent you. You just vote differently.

Cynematic: We’re all about full electoral participation here at MOMocrats! And for more and better pro-choice Democrats in Congress.

BK: This is what I bring: a willingness to work across party lines and a willingness to get things done.

Cynematic also blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

In light of our abysmal maternal health statistics — we’re 39th in the world, behind Canada, tiny Malta, Croatia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates — the U.S. needs to make every effort to promote and improve maternal health. Knowing that 1.5 trillion text messages were sent in the U.S. in 2008, several groups have teamed up to create text4baby, a mobile messaging service to promote the health of pregnant women, new moms, and
their babies.

Yesterday I attended a briefing sponsored by Womens Policy,
Inc., the Congressional Caucus for Womens Issues, the Office on Womens
Health, and the National Healthy
Mothers, Healthy Babies (HMHB) Coalition to promote this terrific new initiative.

Text4baby is a free service that provides thrice-weekly
messages to pregnant women and new moms during the first year of their
childs life. The messages focus on health and safety everything from where
to find tobacco cessation services, to appointment reminders, to breastfeeding
education, WIC eligibility, safe sleeping, and child care.

Among HMHB’s many
partners is the Department of Defense Military Health System (yahoo for not
overlooking our military families!) and MTV, which is featuring the service on
16 and Pregnant.

If you want to sign up (FREE!) just text BABY to 511411 (BEBE for Spanish).

You may recall the greed of Wellpoint, a health insurer that thought it could raise premiums for California purchasers of individual insurance by 39% and do it with impunity.

After much deserved brouhaha, including passage of a health insurance reform law designed to prevent this kind of extortion from happening in the future, one of the results of the conflagration over the proposed rate hike in California was a scheduled review by an outside agency. Their assessment would inform a decision on premium increases by the California Insurance Commission. The deadline for Wellpoint to provide the California Department of Insurance with justifications for rate hikes is May 1, 2010, with a decision released shortly thereafter.

Keep that in mind when you read this long, exhaustively detailed story documenting how Wellpoint used computer algorithms to identify women who developed breast cancer in order to cancel their policies.

Please let the following executives at Wellpoint know exactly how you feel about their rescission policy for those unlucky enough to have breast cancer.

• Angela Braly, CEO, Wellpoint (Blue Cross Blue Shield’s parent company): Wellpoints Indiana headquarters: 120 Monument Circle Indianapolis, In 46204, (317) 488-6748
• Brian Sassi, Executive Vice President, President and Chief Executive Officer Consumer Business, Wellpoint: 1 Wellpoint Way, Westlake Village, CA 91362-3893, (805) 557-6655 or (805) 557-6333
• Cheryl Leamon, Public Policy and Governmental Affairs, Wellpoint: cheryl.leamon@wellpoint.com, (317) 488-6748

While you’re at it, let GOP gubernatorial candidate and current California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner know he’d better deny Wellpoint’s proposed rate hike if he has a hope in hell of running for governor: 916-492-3500 Sacramento state capitol offices; CA residents 1-800-927-4357.

Cynematic writes at P i l l o w b o o k. She’ll be directing a short film soon which has nothing to do with health insurance, thank goodness. Because that would be a horror show.

Many of J.K. Rowling’s critics and fans have speculated about what sort of underlying political messages the author might have been trying to send in the Harry Potter series, and whether the fictional heroes and villains she portrays in her fantasy wizarding world have real world models in the form of certain European or American heads of state (MSNBC political pundit Keith Olbermann has said Rowling told him she told really did hide an endorsement of Barack Obama in Book 7).

But this week in The Times, Rowling made a very clear, straightforward political statement in her article, The Single Mother’s Manifesto, in which she argues that Britain’s conservative Tory Party has a history of cutting programs that help impoverished children and publicly vilifying single parents for political gain — a history that belies the compassionate conservative image the party is pushing in this year’s election. (We all remember how well “Compassionate Conservatism” worked out here in the U.S., right?)

But beyond an astute, passionate analysis of political situation in Britian The

Single Mother’s Manifesto is a scathing indictment of general Western social attitudes toward struggling single mothers, and a concise call to remember the social consequences societies face when they fail to support the very children and families who most need the help of their community. Trust me: whether or not you pay any attention to the finer points of politics across the pond, if you are a parent who has ever struggled to pay for decent health care, housing, or schooling for your child (or even if you’re just a Harry Potter fan who has long wondered what sort of passionate political voice might be hiding under all that allegory) Rowling’s manifesto is well worth 15 minutes of your reading time.

Elsewhere on the web, this week The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates has come up with a brilliant way to honor Confederacy Heritage Month! Wait — what’s that, you say? There’s a Confederacy Heritage Month?

Why, yes, there is! At least, there is now, in the fine Southern states of Virginia, and Mississippi, where both states’ white Republican governors have recently issued official celebratory proclamations declaring April Confederacy Heritage Month — proclamations that, somehow, accidentally, originally totally failed to mention slavery as being part of the Confederacy’s heritage. (Don’t worry, though! Mississippi’s Governor Barber assures us that the controversy over this teensy tiny little oversight “doesn’t amount to diddly.”)

Ta-Nehisi Coates, apparently never one to miss an opportunity to turn lemons ridiculous institutionalized ignorance and bigotry into lemonade the start of an educational, intellectual conversation on American society, has decided to celebrate Confederate Heritage Month by posting a series of historical papers, drawings and photographs that document, in the faces and voices of real people, the horrific realities of Southern slave culture.

In his post Honoring CHM: One Drop, Coates reminds us both that slavery was all too often a family affair, and American slaves weren’t always as black as some imagined them to be.

Yesterday the Lancet released a major study highlighting maternal morbidity and mortality in 181 countries from 1990-2008.

The United States ranks 39th with 16.7 deaths per 100,000. We’re behind most of the OECD — behind Canada, tiny Malta, Croatia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates. Instead of declining is accordance with Millennium Development Goal 5 — the target is a 75%
reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 1990 to 2015 — the U.S. saw a 2% increase in MMR from 1990-2008.

I want you to gaze upon these picture for a few minutes:

I know this is hard to read but bear with me: Countries in blue, from very dark to light, have seen a decline in maternal mortality. Notice that the U.S. is in red. That’s because instead of declining, our rate has increased. Our company in seeing at least a 1% increase, in descending order: Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, South Africa, Namibia, Cte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, Malawi, United States, Cameroon, Denmark, Singapore, Georgia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Slovenia and Chad.

The rate of maternal mortality in the United States has doubled since 1987.

That’s the latest news on the status of women’s health in America, according to a new report issued by the human rights organization Amnesty International.

In the year 2006, for every 100,000 women who gave birth in the United States, more than 13 died from childbirth complications. (In contrast, in our neighbor nation, Canada, only about 7 out of every 100,000 women will die in childbirth.) Two to three American women now die in childbirth every day. Serious but non-fatal health complications during pregnancy and childbirth are also on the rise in the U.S.

A woman in the United States is now more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, or the U.K.

The United States also has one of the highest infant mortality rates in
the industrialized world. Yet we spend more on health care per capita than any other nation.

According to the Amnesty International report, 25% of women in the United States do not receive adequate prenatal care. Those American women who lack access to proper prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications. Their infants are also more likely to die during or after birth.

Lack of access to health care is literally killing pregnant women and infants daily, in the wealthiest country in the world. And American women are more likely to die in childbirth now than in the 1980s not because the quality of our health care knowledge or technology has declined, but simply because a quarter of all pregnant women in the U.S. apparently can’t afford to regularly visit a doctor.

All while Republicans in Congress continue to describe our broken health care system as “The best health care system in the world.”

The Washington Post recently ran an excellent article about “the gentlemom” from New York, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). I’m all for highlighting how moms Can Do, Will Do, and Have Done in order to better promote cultural understanding that women are capable and successful, even after having children.

Senator Schumer (D-NY) made (what we call in our house) a Bad Choice. Using ugly words and mean tone are Non Grata in our house — nevertheless, they happen.As a parent, it’s my responsibility to ensure that I help my children grow into good people by rebuking this behavior, but more importantly, by redirecting poor impulses like this to better choices. This responsibility, however, does not convey over to the workplace (as much as we do as work colleagues, mentors, and bosses have a degree of responsibility towards each other). There are a eleventy million reasons why, but honestly, they don’t matter because the truth is, this is a big fat red herring — a case of the tattletells meeting the blame game and the Oughts.

[Official White House transcript of First Lady Michelle Obama's speech to women's advocacy groups at the White House today. You can view video of the entire event here. I have added at the end links to studies or issues mentioned where there were none in the original transcript. Giant H/T to MOMocrat Julie Pippert for organizing outreach/spreading the word on this, and to MOMocrat Glennia for the WH briefing. --Cynematic]

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the First Lady

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate
Release
September 18, 2009

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY

ON WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM MEANS

FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Room 450

11:33 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit.
Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so
thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House.
Welcome. And that’s including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height.
(Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and
before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to
be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again
today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you’re doing every
day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to
thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen
Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her
tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just
pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing
cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly
this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific
job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing
today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of
our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling
together today’s event — not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making
sure that we’re all aware of what’s going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me — to Debi, Easter, and
Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your
story. And these stories aren’t new. You know, these stories are
happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women — for
millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I
heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current
structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we’ve
heard today, and all of us — if we’re not experiencing it, we know someone who
is. These are the stories that remind us about what’s at stake in this
debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting
so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face
of the fight.

And that’s why I’d like to talk to you today. That’s why I’m here.
That’s why reform is so critical in this country — not tomorrow, not in a few
years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk
today. There’s a reason why we’ve invited the leaders not only from
family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many
organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for
women. And that’s because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary
said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in
our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing
with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they’re the ones responsible for
choosing their children’s doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for
managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers
are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same
thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of
women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly
relative. It’s often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother –
or a relative of some sort — but it’s often a parent. So they’re making
critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now
finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that’s not
just a work/family balance issue anymore. It’s not just an economic issue
anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It’s something
that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that
she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something
was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician
that next morning. He examined her and same something’s wrong. We
didn’t know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So
we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we
all know and love today — (laughter) — who is causing me great –
excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we
engage in this health insurance conversation. It’s that moment in my
life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had
not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl
if we hadn’t been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an
emergency room? The consequences I can’t even imagine. She could
have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait
because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right?
Because if we hadn’t had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we
would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for
her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those
bills.

And this issue isn’t something that I’ve thought about as a mother. I
think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple
sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know,
my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day,
even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated.
And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South
Side of Chicago if my father hadn’t had insurance, if he hadn’t been able to
cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his
illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he
had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had
changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the
millions of Americans, families, who can’t get insurance because of a
preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and
hope that we get it right.

But let’s be clear: Women aren’t just disproportionately affected by this
issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen
mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this
economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to
work in small companies or businesses that don’t provide any insurance at
all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies
can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to
me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that
women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting
conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states,
it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she’s been the victim of
domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent
more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And
as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent — 48
percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it’s not just women without insurance, as we’ve heard, as we know who are
affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn’t cover
basic women’s health services like maternity care or preventative care like
mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can’t go
without these basic services. But many insurance policies don’t even
cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you’ve heard,
or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care.
Or maybe people have coverage but they’re worried about losing it if they lose
their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance
carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It’s hard to
be able to plan your monthly bills when you don’t know what your premiums are
going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance
because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care
coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that
women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men — to a man. So it’s not
exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report
putting off needed medical care simply because they can’t afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources — just
making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings,
to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend
to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can’t have
insurance, you don’t have insurance — it’s not surprising that so many
millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at
all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state — this current
situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No
one in this country should be treated that way. It’s not fair. It’s
not right. And these are hard-working people we’re talking about,
right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives.
And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those,
“There but for the grace of God go I” kind of situations. None
of us are exempt — ever.

So I think it’s clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our
families is very much a women’s issue. It is very much a women’s issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we
want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our
goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things
that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have
to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding
women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband’s plan proposes to do, and it’s
important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan.
Under his plan, if you don’t have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at
some point in the future, you’ll be able to purchase affordable coverage through
an insurance exchange — a marketplace with a variety of options that will let
you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is
used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is
that if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for
the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have
insurance — and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that
they’ll lose what they have under this plan — but under this plan, if you
already have insurance, you’re set. Nothing changes. You keep your
insurance, you keep your doctors — and you’re blessed. (Laughter.)
This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from
the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we’ve heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people
like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a
good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or
hypertension — or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment
that you had in your past — none of that will be a reason to refuse you
coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you’re
fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn’t also have to be in the
process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time.
(Applause.) It’s a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your
coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or
to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will
limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting
sick in this country shouldn’t mean that you go bankrupt. That’s a basic
principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic
preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine
checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears — and this would come at no extra
charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of
screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we
catch diseases like cancer early — we know this — it’s much less costly to
treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It’s not
just good medicine but it’s good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don’t know about
you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it’s a good plan as
well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that
what we’re doing here, this fight, is important. It’s important to this
country, it’s important to women, it’s important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to
act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its
own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is
that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That’s nothing that you all haven’t done before, right? (Laughter.)
You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care
achievements, whether it’s been children’s health insurance; to funding breast
cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave
Act. The folks in this room, you’re the ones that made those phone calls,
right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors.
You’re the ones that helped make that happen.

And that’s exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance
reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like
you’ve never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about
what the plan really is and what it isn’t, because education is the key to
understanding, and it’s going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things
through, to make sure that people understand not just what’s at stake but what
this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the
plan is and isn’t, so it’s so important that you make sure that people know the
facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this
plan is and isn’t. We need you to make your voices heard right here in
Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won’t be easy, because there are always folks who are a little
afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all
during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even
if it isn’t right, feels comfortable because it’s what we know. So it is
understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this
society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the
way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so
much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United
States of America, because you all didn’t settle for the world as it is,
right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of
many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could
have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my
grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am
raising these beautiful young women, you know — (applause) — who are going to
be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the
work that you’ve done.

Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is
the next step. So we’re going to need you all, focused and clear, picking
up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making
this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make
sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that
they can; that they don’t have to worry about whether they can insure
themselves. They don’t have to worry about whether their kids are going
to break an arm. That’s what kids do, they break stuff.
(Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you’ve done, and for what I
know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to
be, what, fired up and what?

AUDIENCE: Ready to go!

MRS. OBAMA: And ready to go. A little fired up and ready to
go. So thank you so much. God bless you all, and God bless
America. (Applause.)

**************************************************************

Additional resources:

Kaiser Family Foundation Women’s Health Policy

Kaiser Family Foundation Women’s Health Policy: Coverage and Access (highly recommended ppt presentation)

Health Insurers Abandon Gender Premium Disparity, also Gender Disparity in Health Insurance Premium Costs

Health Care for Women: Access, Utilization, Outcomes

Institute for Women’s Policy Research: Health and Insurance

Did you know that today, August 26 is Women’s Equality Day in the US? This
day commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment to the US
Constitution, giving women the right to vote. Women’s suffrage was first proposed in 1848, but did not become law until 1920, 72
years later. For 72 years, American women organized, rallied, and
fought for the right to vote, something we take for granted today.

Women’s Equality Day was first celebrated in 1971, after New York
Congresswoman Bella Abzug proposed to mark August 26 as Women’s
Equality Day. I had the honor of meeting Bella Abzug in 1980 at a
rally. She was a formidable, charming woman with a great passion for
social change and women’s rights. She died in 1998.

In 1995, at the World Summit on Economic Development in Copenhagen, Bella said:

Our struggle is about resisting the slide into a morass of anarchy, violence, intolerance, inequality and injustice.

Our struggle is about reversing the trends of social, economic, political and ecological crisis.

Our struggle is about creating sustainable lives, and attainable dreams…

Because the root of the problem is persistent inequalities and growing inequities.

For us to realize our dreams, we must keep our heads in the clouds and our feet on the ground.

We must marshal our courage and creativity and act together…

If we love ourselves, if we love our young, if we love our
country and the earth, — and we do — then that same motivation must
move us to create not only the words but the actions to remove the
great divide between rich and poor.

In a Presidential Proclamation on Women’s Equality Day, President Obama said:

Today, our country renews its commitment to freedom and
justice for all our citizens. As we prepare to celebrate this women’s
day of equality, we reflect on the sacrifices once made to allow women
and girls the basic rights and choices we freely exercise today. The
future we leave to our daughters and granddaughters will be determined
by our willingness to build on the achievements of our past and move
forward as one people and one Nation. The fight for women’s equality is not a woman’s agenda, but an American agenda.

I hope that
all women of voting age in the US will remember what a precious gift it
is to be able to vote. I hope that all women will take to heart
Bella’s words and know that the first act in the struggle for equality
and justice for all people is to exercise your right to vote, not just in Presidential and national elections, but on every level.

–Glennia

Howard Dean on Health Care

The second day of Netroots Nation opened with a discussion of health care with Howard Dean. Dean was interviewed by Tanya Tarr and Mike Lux in a town hall format. Many audience members wore hardhats handed out by the United Steelworkers Union to show support for union efforts on health care reform. During his talk, Dean referred to his new book, Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform: How We Can Achieve Affordable Medical Care for Every American and Make Our Jobs Safer. Dean asked, “Who do you want controlling your health care, you or your insurance company?” He noted that insurance companies are not in the business to provide health care, but to make money. They are a reflection of the free-wheeling Wall Street culture that led to the current recession.

One audience member asked how we can keep innovation going in medical technology, and Dean responded that there is a role there for the private sector, noting pharmaceutical companies, though much derided, are responsible for some extraordinary innovation. He also noted that we need to move away from illness-based medicine to a prevention and wellness focus. There, companies like Kaiser and self-insured corporations are leading the way, because employee illness affects the bottom line. Many companies have highly evolved wellness programs and incentives for employees to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

In a somewhat prescient statement, Dean remarked that public co-ops don’t work and will be beaten up in the marketplace by public companies. When asked about single-payer plans, Dean remarked that he thought that America is a “small ‘c’ conservative country” and that too much change too fast will not work. He thought the Public Option is the best plan, because it does not force anyone into change if they don’t want to, but provides health care benefits for those who want and need them.

Dean encouraged the audience to get behind the President’s plan, and use all the tactics used in the campaign to get the bill passed. He encouraged phone banking, canvassing, and talking to friends about what the health care plan does and does not mean.

Arlen Specter Town Hall

Later that day, the Netroots had the opportunity to hear from both Senator Arlen Specter and his challenger for the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, Congressman Joe Sestak. Specter went first, interviewed with questions from the audience and on Twitter, by Susie Madrak and Ari Melber. When asked why he was running, Specter spoke candidly, “I’m a fella with a good job, and I’d like to keep that job.”

Ari Melber noted that the Netroots community is understandably skeptical of Specter and his recent switch from Republican to Democrat. Specter defended his record as an independent voice in the Republican party, often siding with Democrats on key votes, including voting against the confirmation of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, consistent pro-choice votes, voting against wiretapping, and voting for the stimulus package.

He noted that he supports the President’s health care plan, and has held four town halls, facing down hostile crowds. Specter came across as a knowledgeable, tough Senate veteran.

Joe Sestak Town Hall

Immediately following Arlen Specter’s session, Congressman Joe Sestak took the stage and made his case for election as Pennsylvania’s next Senator. He is a veteran, a three-star Admiral, and father of a child who survived a brain tumor, just after he returned home from his last tour of duty. He spoke about his family and his desire to make a difference, particularly in health care, so that all families could have the kind of care his daughter had.

Sestack spoke very slowly and deliberately, and seemed to be presenting more of a set of talking points than direct answers to questions. He seemed earnest in his desire to pursue a progressive agenda in the Senate.

Building A Conversation Across Generations of Progressive Women Panel

MOMocrat Joanne moderated this fabulous panel discussion of what feminism and the progressive movement means to women of different generations. Joining her on the panel were Jen Nedeau, Gloria Feldt, Tracy Viselli, and Emily McKhann. Gloria Feldt noted that her generation “did not do a good enough job of reaching out to younger women,” but Jen Nedeau countered that she has benefited from fantastic mentors in work as an activist.

One audience member pointed out that women of color should be included in this discussion, because historically the feminist movement has been focused on white, middle class women. Another, queried how to raise issues of disparity in the workplace with younger women who may not want to confront sexism in the workplace.

The panel concluded that women need to start by telling their own stories, educating their peers on issues, and reaching out to women, regardless of age, race, or socioeconomic boundaries.

Crowdsourcing: What Happens When We’re all Experts? Panel

The final panel I attended on Day 2 was the panel on Crowdsourcing. I admit, I didn’t really know what “crowdsourcing” was or how it was distinguishable from “polling”, but I thought it sounded interesting, so I went. The panel, moderated by Tracy Viselli, drew on the expertise of Jim Gilliam, Josh Levy, Gina Cooper, and Ari Melber (filling in for an ailing MOMocrat, Sarah Granger).

Part of the discussion centered on marijuana legalization activists who gamed the system at Change.gov and Change.org to raise their issue to the top of the issues list. One of the panelists noted that he didn’t see anything wrong with this, since this is exactly what lobbyists do using money instead of technology. Gina interjected that now that the activists had elevated the issue, they needed to work on the rest of their movement to have any hope of being taken seriously in political discourse going forward.

Josh gave four reasons that crowdsourcing was a valuable tool: 1) gauging public opinion; 2) getting people involved; 3) going beyond limited resources; and 4) publicity.

Jim actually develops crowdsourcing tools, and developed a petition system for twitter called act.ly that should become part of any activist’s toolkit.

This panel made me think that the difference between traditional polling and crowdsourcing was in the notion that the wisdom of crowds could be used to actually come up with actual solutions rather than just voting on a finite, predetermined set of solutions. The panel also talked about the need for some level of expertise to sift through the data to come up with ideas and solutions gleaned from the effort.

Overall, Day Two of Netroots Nation was much like Day One: full of lively discussions and inspiring people.

Photos by MOMocrat Glennia. All Rights Reserved.

Thought we were done with how men in the media find as many disparaging ways to talk about women as possible? No, I didn’t either.

Just as the MSM found lots of subtle and not-so-subtle ways to express their feelings that women just aren’t as smart or as qualified as with their ongoing sexist comments about Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has given them a fresh chance to brush off all those old, and some new, ways to tell anyone who’s watching — including our kids — that girls just aren’t good enough.

I’m thinking that if Pat Buchanan doesn’t believe that it’s possible for four women to be on the SCOTUS finalist list as the best qualified, he doesn’t want to appear before the Canadian Supreme Court — it’s got four women AND it’s Chief Justice is a woman!

Quel horreur! Why, the next thing you know, us uppity chicks will think that we should have parity in all things! Now where is THAT in the Constitution?

MOMocrat Joanne is sometimes better known as PunditMom around these parts. You can also find her political wonkiness at BlogHer!

This week’s Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor closed Thursday, not so much with a bang, but a whimper, with the confirmation committee’s ranking Republican member Senator Jeff Sessions going so far as to say to the judge, “I will not support and I don’t think any member of this side will
support a filibuster or any attempt to block a vote on your
nomination. I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess in
August.”

Sessions’ remarks were a fitting coda to match Republican Senator Lindsay Graham’s statement during opening remarks on the first day of the hearings, “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to get confirmed.” But Republican politicians and conservative pundits managed to fit quite a show of political theater in between.

For a nominee who is apparently almost guaranteed to be confirmed, and may even garner a few Republican votes, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has faced quite a gauntlet of unfounded accusations by conservatives this week. Here are a few of the talking points most frequently aimed against her:

The Accusation: Sonia Sotomayor Wants to Take Away Your Guns

Fox News said, “Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning
to question some controversial positions she’s taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.”

The NRA said, “From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the
confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock
questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayors judicial record and
testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment
and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S.
Constitution.”

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch grilled Judge Sotomayor extensively during the confirmation hearings on her decision in a particular case, Maloney v. Cuomo, in which she ruled that while the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from prohibiting citizens in general from owning weapons, states have the right to regulate weapon ownership by placing restrictions on the types of weapons people can possess, as long as they have a rational basis for doing so.

At one point, Hatch strongly implied her ruling had generally endangered the Second Amendment, saying “As a result of this very
permissive legal standard — and it is permissive — doesn’t your
decision in Maloney mean that virtually any state or local weapons ban
would be permissible?”

The Reality: Sonia Sotomayor Wants to Take Away Your Nunchucks, Sort Of. Okay, Maybe Just James Maloney’s Nunchucks. Oh, Wait– He Still Has His Nunchucks? And He Never Actually Went to Jail Over Them? Hmm.

You read me right — not guns — nunchucks. Nunchacku. You know, that stick weapon with the two short sticks connected by a chain in the middle? And okay, she doesn’t really necessarily want to take away your nunchucks in particular, unless you live in New York, and have violated the law — in the case Senator Hatch, Fox News, the NRA and several hyperventilating conservative bloggers have referred to, Maloney v. Cuomo, a man who had been charged with misdemeanor weapons possession for possessing nunchucks (the charges were later dropped) sued the state of New York, claiming a violation Second Amendment rights. Judge Sotomayor merely upheld the state’s right to charge Maloney under a particular New York regulation that prohibits the possession of nunchucks. There were no guns involved in this case. None.

So why all the fuss? Well, this was the only case that conservatives could find to try to challenge Sotomayor’s Second Amendment stance. She hasn’t ruled on any major cases concerning guns.

(Incidentally, James Maloney has since started a club called the National Alliance for Relief of Nunchuck Intolerance in America, aka NARNIA. Yes, I’m serious.)

The Accusation: Sonia Sotomayor Wants to Apply Foreign Laws In the United States and Ruin Our Constitution with Foreign Ideas

In February, Supreme Court Justice Anonin Scalia gave a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute about the influence of foreign legal precedent on judicial decisions in the United States. In his talk, Scalia warned of what he perceives as a growing over reliance of U.S. judges on foreign legal opinions:

If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders
of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans
should be governed the way that Europeans are – and nothing
has changed. I dare say that few of us here would like our
life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian
criminal justice, not because those systems are unjust, but
because we think ours is better. What reason is there to believe
that other dispositions of a foreign country are so obviously
suitable to the morals and beliefs of our people that they
can be judicially imposed through constitutional adjudication?
And is it really an appropriate function of judges to say
which are and which aren’t? I think not.

In April, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech in response to Scalia’s, in which she said,

Conservative National Review blogger (and paragon of professional virtue outer of anonymous bloggers who have reasonable reasons to be anonymous) Ed Whelan freaked out over this speech before the hearing even began, claiming “she offers a blanket defense of freewheeling resort to foreign and international legal materials.”

During the hearings, Senator Lindsay Graham said, “I mean, the speech you gave to the ACLU about foreign law, we’ll talk
about that probably in the next round, was pretty disturbing.”

The Reality: Sotomayor’s Views Are Closer to Scalia’s Than Conservatives Would Like to Admit

Here are some quotes from one of the abovementioned speeches:

Moreover, I do not take the position that foreign law is
not ever, never ever relevant to American judicial decisions.
It sometimes is, for example, in the interpretation of treaties.
The object of treaties is to have nations agree on a particular
course of action, and if I’m interpreting a provision of a
treaty which has already been interpreted by several other
signatories, I am inclined to follow the interpretation taken
by those other signatories, so long as it’s within the realm
of reasonableness. [. . .]

In other cases, moreover, the issue that arises under the
statute depends upon foreign law [. . .]

And finally, I think foreign law can also profitably be discussed
in opinions of United States Courts where it is consulted
in response to the argument that, “if you interpret it
this way, the skies will fall” – you know, predictions
of disaster if you rule a certain way. Well, you can look
to foreign law and say “well, they did this in Germany,
and the skies didn’t fall.” That’s certainly a very
valid use of foreign law.

Which judge said these words about the need to incorporate foreign law into certain decisions made by U.S. courts? Scalia did.

What? You mean even Justice Scalia thinks we tcould benefit from comparing our legal issues to those faced by other countries, and that we technically ought to abide by the international treaties we’ve signed on to?

Why, yes. Yes he does. Sorry, Mr. Cheney.

And in the very Sotomayor response that Senator Graham claimed to be so disturbed by, Sotomayor herself made it clear that, except in cases where it would be required by treaty or circumstance, she did not think it would be appropriate for judges to base their decisions on foreign laws as precedent, but rather she thought it was important for judges to increase their knowledge of a subject by studying foreign law, saying:

I always find it strange when people ask me, How do American courts
use foreign and international law in making their decision? I pause
and say: We dont use foreign or international law, we consider the ideas that are suggested by international and foreign law. Thats a very different concept. And
its a concept that is misunderstood by many, and its what creates the
controversy that surroundsin America especiallythat surrounds the
question of whether American judges should listen to foreign or
international law. And I always stop and say, how can you ask a person to close their ears?

The Accusation: Sonia Sotomayor Is a Racist

If you haven’t heard this one, you’ve been living under a rock. In a 2001 speech, Judge Sotomayor is recorded as saying, regarding judges, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a
white male who hasnt lived that life.” Several conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich, have claimed this statement is racist and implies that the judge thinks Hispanics are better than white people.

The Republican Senators at Sotomayor’s hearing couldn’t seem to go more than a couple of hours at a time without bringing this up in some fashion. Senator Graham, in his opening comments, said that he didn’t want the hearing to be all about “The Hispanic thing,” and yet somehow, the Republicans still managed to make the hearings mostly about “The Hispanic thing.”

The speech was mentioned numerous times by multiple Republican Senators as a main source of reservation about Sotomayor; it was referenced in conjunction with her ruling in the Ricci v. De Stefano case — where she upheld a municipality’s decision to throw out a promotion test for firefighters that the municipality deemed produced racially disparate results — as evidence that Sotomayor has a habit of allowing her cultural background to unduly bias her decisions in favor of minorities.

Republican Senators even attempted to paint Sotomayor’s membership in the charitable Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a perfectly respectable legal aid organization, as a connection to some sort of radical leftist racist group. Senator Jeff Sessions claimed, “During her time there, the organization took extreme positions on legal
issues ranging from the death penalty to abortion to racial quotas.”

But Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York set them to rights by publicly praising both the organization and Sotomayor’s work there.

The Reality: Sonia Sotomayor Thinks Women Judges Better Understand Women’s Circumstances, and Ruled Against an Hispanic Man in the Ricci Case

If you read the Sotomayor’s entire speech, you will find that she was actually talking very specifically about how the growing presence of women and minority judges on the bench is changing the way cases involving women and minorities are handled; she mentions that “The Judicature Journal has at least two
excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state
supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male
counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases.” Her argument in the speech is really that the presence of more women and minorities in the judicial system, with the experience they bring to the court has been scientifically shown to produce better, fairer outcomes for women and minorities seeking justice — not that Hispanic women are in some way intrinsically superior to white men.

Moreover, she takes care to note, “I [ . . . ] believe that we should not be so myopic as to
believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are
incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a
different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to
me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on
many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

And in that Ricci v. De Stefano firefighter test case? Conservatives seem to frequently fail to mention that Mr. Ricci’s cocomplainant in that case was Benjamin Vargas — an Hispanic man who had passed the test in question. Sotomayor ruled against an Hispanic man in Ricci when she upheld the law.

If Sotomayor is to be confirmed anyway, what exactly have the Republicans accomplished with these unscrupulous attacks on her record and character? Were they putting up a tough front, opposing Obama’s nominee for the sake of looking like an organized opposition? Were they attempting to distract the media from Obama’s health care reform agenda by protracting the debate? Were they simply trying to stay in the news for their own sakes, fishing for soundbite coverage?

Were they crassly playing to a portion of their base they know is still uncomfortable with the idea of not just a woman, but a Latina woman, joining the Supreme Court?

Whatever their motive, I wonder if they have considered the cost. Women voters and Hispanic voters, many of whom are thrilled at the prospect of better representation on the Supreme Court, do, in fact, get CSPAN.

In an interview with Rachel Maddow tonight, Pat Buchanan makes an ass of himself stating that Sonia Sotomayor, a sitting judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is not qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor isn’t qualified? Seriously? She’s never written anything? Except detailed and well researched legal opinions. You forgot about those, didn’t you, Pat?

Buchanan then goes on to say that this country was built by “white folks” and states that Sotomayor was appointed to the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court because she is a hispanic woman. And for only that reason. Buchanan wraps it up by stating that the reason we’ve only had white MEN (excluding Thomas) on the Supreme Court, is that the men have been more qualified.

Rachel has a good point, Pat. Let’s compare your grades at Georgetown to Sotomayor’s at Yale. Stop trying to paint white men as victims. Your problem is the one that Melissa’s husband, DADocrat Daniel Levine, so aptly pointed out earlier this week: Pat, you are completely and utterly blind to your own prejudices and the privileges granted to you as a white male. You don’t have a clue.

Pat, until you walk a mile in a woman’s heels or walk a mile in Sotomayor’s heels, a latina woman raised in the Bronix who really knows what working class Americans are like, shut the hell up. You don’t speak for us.

It’s people like Pat Buchanan who really make me fear for this country,
who make me worry and fret about the world I’ve brought my children
into. People like Pat Buchanan are completely unable to see the world
outside their small sphere of experience. People like Pat Buchanan
prefer to blame their own white, male shortcomings on the reverse
discrimination bogey man than to get off of their own asses and work
harder. People like Pat Buchanan find it easier to belittle an
accomplished and intelligent JUDGE like Sonia Sotomayor, who has done
far more for society than Pat Buchanan ever has, than to think for even
a tiny moment that maybe, just maybe she actually is smarter.

And then Pat goes back to his office and asks his female secretary to
fetch him some coffee. Because that’s the way it should be. Because
this country was “built by white folks.” And by men. Women had
absolutely nothing to do with it. Neither, apparently did anyone of
color. Not even those who literally built the South.

Pat, you can stick this woman’s size 6 1/2 high heeled shoe up your white, pompous ass.

After you dig Rachel’s out.

Thanks to Tracy Viselli for the video. She has an excellent post of her own up about Buchanan.

Cross posted at Lawyer Mama in slightly different form.

For liberal New Yorkers mulling the fall 2010 race to fill current Senator Kirsten Gillibrand‘s (D-NY) seat, the declaration of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney‘s (D-NY) interest in it represents an interesting wrinkle. Under state rules governing a vacated Senate position, Governor Paterson chose Gillibrand to fill what had been former Senator Hillary Clinton’s seat for the remainder of what would’ve been her term when Clinton joined Obama’s cabinet. In 2010, the U.S. Senate seat goes wide open, and there’s tremendous interest in having the strongest possible challenger to whoever the Republicans put up. In this case, it’s accepted that the Democratic aspirant will be a woman. What’s unusual is that in addition to the question of who’s more “electable” (and why), there’s the additional question, who has the better feminist record?

The American Prospect notes NARAL’s recent endorsement of Gillibrand, and speculates as to how other feminist groups with influence will align. With their longtime advocate Maloney? Or with the seemingly party-approved relative newcomer, Gillibrand?

CQ Politics looks at how polling for the two Democratic U.S. Senate candidates shakes out: dead even in many respects.

The NYT has a more “inside baseball” look at backchat among NY’s Democratic Party heavy hitters, including unsourced, moistened finger-to-the-air implications that from Obama on down, Democratic Party machinery is lining up behind Gillibrand.

Truly, I wish Texas or maybe Utah had these problems: two strong
Democratic women candidates in a contest to be elected their state’s Senator, both of whom are avowed feminists and advocates for women
and/or children, each with credible policies behind them and worthy proposals
for future work ahead of them. They vie for mainstream support, of course,
but especially for women’s votes because they matter. Hell, I’d be happy if Texas or Utah could put up one accomplished Democratic feminist candidate who knew what she was doing when she spoke to women about the breadth of their concerns.

Last year, Sarah Palin separated the wheat of truly discerning, women’s issues-literate women from the chaff of you-go-girl women who mistook one woman’s high achievement (Palin’s) for a tide that would lift their boats too, policy-wise. (GOP darling/bete noire Palin? Palin’ in Comparison to BOTH Maloney and Gillibrand.)

Now it looks as if among truly discerning, women’s issues-literate Democratic voters, there’ll be a struggle over definitions of “electability” and whether voters and the party are ready to be pushed left by Maloney, or slightly to the right of her by Gillibrand. This isn’t a cause for concern, so long as the debate remains substantive–right now, two highly-qualified and overtly feminist Democratic candidates constitute an embarrassment of riches.

(Let me have a kumbaya moment, just like I did in late January, 2008.)

Stay tuned. Their respective records and platforms are about to undergo close scrutiny. WIth any luck we who graduated from Feminist Electoral Politics 101 by observing and discussing Hillary Clinton’s run for president will have a chance to further refine our stances and voting preferences in Feminist Electoral Politics 201: the Gillibrand/Maloney contest for NY’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.

Disclosure: members of MOMocrats have previously participated in a book club featuring Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s Rumors of Our Progress Are Greatly Exaggerated. MOMocrat Kady interviewed Maloney here. No MOMocrat to date has stated on this blog a preference for either Democratic candidate in the current race, but I’m sure some will soon.

I didn’t participate in the book club, and I don’t live in NY. Nor am I sure which candidate I’d even hypothetically support at this moment. But I’ll opine about it anyway.

• lowering teen pregnancy rates through sex education,
• supporting maternal and prenatal care for those women who DO choose to be mothers,
• improving adoption policies so that birth mothers, adoptive parents, and adopted children can all feel honored, connected, and justly treated within the adoption system,
• advocating for adoption of children with disabilities and other hard-to-place children
• and encouraging the lifelong involvement and responsiblity that fathers also have to nurture and provide for their children

In terms of the public sector, however, we’ve only just pivoted from the Bush administration’s support of abstinence-only over other methods of sex education, to the Obama administration’s stated re-direction of governmental support. But exactly what is that new direction?

Its roots lie in the re-working of the Democratic Party’s official plank on choice at the Democratic National Convention. That was chronicled in several different places back in August, 2008, among them by Pro-Choice America (NARAL), a group whose executive director was given time to address the general body of the DNC and who worked extensively on revising that plank’s language. The plank currently reads (p 52 out of 59):

In Slate, addition of the language of abortion reduction in need/number was characterized as one way among others to woo disaffected Catholics back to the party. A Washington Post article highlighted the pleased response of anti-abortion Democrats upon the unveiling of the new plank’s language. Finally, BeliefNet.com’s editor in chief weighed in with a discussion of the nuances in meaning between an explicitly pro-choice “reduction in need” versus anti-abortion’s preference for “reduction in number,” a distinction that continues to confound attempts to find common ground in the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s murder.

President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley,
executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG),
to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the
Department of Health and Human Services. Kelley is a leading proponent
of “common ground” abortion reduction — only CACG’s common ground is
at odds with that of Obama. While the administration favors reducing
the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has
made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion.

Today, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Department of Homeland
Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Director of National Drug Control
Policy Gil Kerlikowske released President Obamas strategy to stem the
flow of illegal drugs and their illicit proceeds across the Southwest
border and reduce associated crime and violence in the region.

SOTOMAYOR:
The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as
Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out
there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it
is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is
on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I
know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK.
Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes
the final decision, the law is percolating — its interpretation, its
application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you’re
on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So
you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the
application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential,
so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is
developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so
you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step
in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care
about the next step,” and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, “We’ll worry
about that when we get to it” — look at what the Supreme Court just did. But
the point is that that’s the differences — the practical differences in the two
experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled
most of the time.