<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Lynne Glasner's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/lynne-glasner"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/1910/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/1910/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-11-05T07:59:35-05:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Lame Duck Gambles: Beware of Court Appointees</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/12/lame-duck-gambles-beware-court-appointees" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/12/lame-duck-gambles-beware-court-appointees</id>
    <published>2008-11-17T08:00:00-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-11-16T22:18:14-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Lynne Glasner</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Election 2008" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="constitutional courts" />
    <category term="courts" />
    <category term="federal courts" />
    <category term="Supreme Court" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[If you think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is keeping Congress in session solely to deal with our economic crisis, think again. He's also trying to limit more damage to the judiciary and prevent lame-duck Bush from further stacking the courts.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>
If you thought Senate majority leader 
Harry Reid is keeping Congress &quot;officially&quot; in session solely to 
deal with our economic crisis, think again. He's also trying to limit 
more damage to the judiciary and prevent lame-duck Bush from further 
stacking the courts.  
</p>
<p>
While there was much ink spilled over 
the US Attorney scandals and the Bush Administration habit of making 
political appointments to civil service positions, less attention was 
paid to the fact that President Bush appointed more than <em>30 percent</em> 
of the current federal judiciary. That so many vacancies occurred during 
Bush's eight years in office is hardly news, but the degree to which 
they reflect Bush's effort to impose the right-wing/conservative ideology 
should set off the alarms.  
</p>
<p>
Without much fanfare, Bush appointed 
<strong>316 </strong>conservative judges to the federal courts. In <strong>10 of the 13</strong> federal 
circuit appeals courts, the majority of the judges are now Republican appointees. 
In all, these appointments have had a bone-chilling effect on the federal 
courts, changing the balance of power in ways that are little noted 
until a legal case winds its way into the national media. <br />
</p>
<p>
<span>To a large degree, stacking the courts accounts for the success of
right-wing anti-choice groups and their ability </span><span>to erode <em>Roe v. Wade</em>. </span><span>Their success in South Dakota is largely
attributable to judicial appointments. </span>
</p>
<p>
<span>Indeed, it is in the
Eighth Circuit federal appeals court where the South Dakota abortion fight is being played
out. It was this court </span>that ultimately let stand a South Dakota
state law, challenged by Planned Parenthood, that not only severely restricted
abortion, but also applied measures of authoritarian rule for doctors and how
they are to address their patients. <br />
</p>
<p>
The Eighth Circuit ruling was a 7-4 
decision, illustrating the reach of Bush's hand in shaping policy 
through the executive power of appointment and the unitary power amassed 
from lack of strong oversight. Six of the seven judges in the majority 
opinion are Bush appointees. Two are members of the Federalist Society 
(a favorite stomping ground for conservatives); one worked as an associate 
for Kenneth Starr during the Whitewater investigations; two had no previous 
judicial experience; one worked as a former state director of the Rutherford 
Institute, the organization that filed suit for Paula Jones against 
President Clinton; and three had worked on Bush/Cheney campaigns. All 
of these appointments were confirmed by the Senate with little notice 
by the media. 
</p>
<p>
Probably the most openly anti-choice 
judge now serving in the Eighth Circuit is Judge Lavenski Smith. Smith 
was appointed by Bush a few days prior to 9/11. His appointment was opposed 
by NARAL, Alliance for Justice, the National Abortion Federation, Planned 
Parenthood, and the National Council of Jewish Women, not only because 
of his extreme anti-abortion activism, but also because of his mediocre 
qualifications. (The ABA gave him a Q rating, which is like getting 
a ‘C.') Nonetheless, he was confirmed by the Senate in July 2002 
by a voice vote without opposition. 
</p>
<p>
Smith was appointed to the Arkansas 
Supreme Court by Gov. Mike Huckabee in 1999, not a surprising pick given 
Huckabee's well-known, strong opposition to abortion rights. Smith 
had represented a group in Arkansas, the Unborn Child Amendment Committee, 
that tried to challenge the use of Medicaid funds to pay for an abortion 
in a state hospital. The case was particularly egregious since it involved 
a young teen who was impregnated by her stepfather. Smith lost the 
case in the Arkansas Supreme Court.   
</p>
<p>
<span>With only two of the
eleven judges on the Eighth Circuit Appeals Court appointed by a Democrat, the
court is now one of the most conservative in the country. This is likely part
of the reason that the anti-choice groups keep going back there to try to chip
away at <em>Roe</em>. The anti-choice groups
will not be deterred by the vote against their latest ballot initiative, Initiated Measure 11. Had it
passed, they expected it to be challenged and brought to the Eighth
Circuit; in fact, <em>that was the point</em>. Anti-choice forces push laws that constitutionally challenge Roe; meanwhile, <a href="/blog/2008/05/16/trigger-laws-taking-aim-at-roe-abortion">they work to pass state trigger laws that would outlaw abortion upon the overturn of <em>Roe</em>, comprising the second prong of anti-choice strategy</a>.</span>
</p>
<p>
Bush's efforts to issue executive orders 
that will further deregulate limits on corporate behavior and environmental 
destruction have been widely reported. So has Obama's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html" target="_blank">strategy</a> to derail some of those efforts, including 
overturning the global gag rule. But Obama can't wave a magic wand 
and disappear the lifetime appointment of sitting federal judges; they 
can be removed only by impeachment, a rare occurrence. Decisions made 
by these appellate courts set precedents for multiple states, making 
them battlegrounds for right-wing litmus tests. It's also worth noting 
that all of the current Supreme Court justices were serving as judges 
in one of the federal circuit courts when nominated. <br />
</p>
<p>
While it is likely that Obama will 
get to select at least two new Supreme Court Justices, choices that 
will have enormous consequences, we shouldn't forget about the federal 
appeals courts, the last step before a case gets to the Supreme Court. 
Most cases never get to the Supreme Court, ending up in one of the federal appeals 
courts where approximately 28,000 cases per year are decided. The best 
Obama can do is to appoint more honest brokers to the judicial bench 
to fill the current three dozen federal district-court and 15 appellate 
court vacancies (none in the Eighth Circuit), and hope that they will 
provide a counterbalance to the Bush legacy.  
</p>
<p>
Given Obama's background and style, 
he is likely to make reasonable choices and his nominations are likely 
to be highly qualified. But abortion is only one of many issues that 
come before these judges and only one of many factors that will weigh 
on his choice of nominee. And we don't know the degree to which right-wing 
opposition will assemble to pressure Congress to start bloviating and 
filibustering to derail a new president with a big agenda.  <br />
</p>
<p>
We also don't know if or how Bush 
will attempt to fill any of these vacancies before January 20 rolls 
around. Bush could appoint &quot;acting&quot; judges to the open positions 
without submitting their names to the Senate for confirmation. According 
to the Vacancies Reform Act (1998), judges so appointed can remain in 
these posts for 210 days and would have the same legal authority as 
if they had been confirmed by the Senate. Then, when a nomination is 
made and forwarded to the Senate, the interim nominee can remain in 
that position for another 210 days or until the new nominee is confirmed. <br />
</p>
<p>
Thus, Sen. Reid has not recessed the 
Senate, scheduling meetings every few days so that it is officially 
in session. As long as two or more Senators are present, they can immediately 
adjourn until the next meeting. If Congress can keep this up, they will 
prevent further Bush packing of the courts and Obama will get to make 
these judicial appointments.  
</p>
<p>
It is in the federal circuit courts 
that the reach of the unitary executive may leave an enduring footprint 
with little public notice. When Bush submitted nominations for the Supreme 
Court, the Republicans publicly accused the Democrats of imposing a 
litmus test and advocating judicial activism if they objected to the 
nominee. It is true that judicial activism is alive and well, but the 
usual suspects are not &quot;liberals&quot; legislating from the bench. This 
is but another example of Republican projection.  <br />
</p>
The well-funded anti-choice groups 
have been successful at helping to elect strong anti-choice candidates 
at the state level and pressuring state legislatures to enact sometimes 
draconian bans on abortion. It is but one of their tactics. When a state 
votes to make abortion illegal, it opens up <em>Roe v. Wade</em> to legal 
challenge. The anti-choice folks know this and will continue to try to 
get the Supreme Court to hear further challenges to <em>Roe</em> before 
a President Obama has the opportunity to appoint any new justices to 
the Supreme Court. Bush being a risk-taker and decider may just opt 
to try and squeeze in a few more interim appointments. Sen. Reid has 
lived in the gambling state of Nevada all his life. The question is, 
how long will he play Texas Hold ‘Em?    ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Keeping the Faith Extends to Prescription Drugs</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/23/keeping-faith-extends-prescription-drugs" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/23/keeping-faith-extends-prescription-drugs</id>
    <published>2008-11-05T03:00:00-05:00</published>
    <updated>2008-11-05T07:59:35-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Lynne Glasner</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="anti-contraception" />
    <category term="Birth Control" />
    <category term="contraceptive equity" />
    <category term="Pharmacists for Life" />
    <category term="pro-life pharmacies" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[A new influx of faith-based pharmacies demonstrates that the "pro-life" groups want to take us back to the dark days when contraception was prohibited.    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>
In case you haven't noticed: there's a new influx of faith-based pharmacies. 
</p>
<p>
Turns
out that the &quot;pro-life&quot; groups have a broad agenda. It's not just that
they are against abortion on moral grounds, they want to take us back
to the dark days when contraception was prohibited. 
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_re_us/no_contraceptives_pharmacy">Recent news</a> tells us that now there are quite a multitude of pharmacies that can refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control: 
</p>
<blockquote>
	<p>
	Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy is among at least seven pharmacies across the nation that are refusing as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription. 
	</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Pharmacists
in Virginia are allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for any reason
whatsoever. So a small pharmacy in a Virginia suburb won't carry
contraceptives of any type, on moral grounds. This is their policy, in
keeping with their faith. However, a call to the pharmacy determined
that they do fill prescriptions for Viagra because it's for &quot;a medical
condition.&quot;
</p>
<p>
So for the faith-based, erectile dysfunction is a
&quot;medical condition&quot; but pregnancy is not. This interpretation of
&quot;medical&quot; is also in line with health insurance companies. Some
insurance companies cover Viagra but do not cover oral contraception,
using the same reasoning even though Viagra is a much more expensive
drug and thus costs them more. 
</p>
<p>
Impotence is no more a
disease than pregnancy. The drug industry promotes Viagra and other
similar drugs as a lifestyle &quot;choice.&quot; Recall some of those ads that
tout the &quot;choice&quot; of timing for sexual activity and compare it to the
anti-choice lobby that denies women a choice should that first &quot;choice&quot;
result in pregnancy. At the same time, the insurance companies and the
heath insurance industry claim ED drugs as the answer to correct a
&quot;medical condition.&quot; Technically, contraception prevents a medical
condition, whether that condition is pregnancy or some other medical
problem. If a woman is willing to fight her insurance company and prove
that she needs oral contraception to prevent something other than
pregnancy, she has a good chance of winning. 
</p>
<p>
But Viagra
doesn't prevent anything except deflation of the male ego and
genitalia. If medications that prevent medical conditions are not to be
covered by health insurance, then logically they can't also cover any
kind of preventive care, from flu shots to vaccines to check-ups to
mammograms. But most health insurance plans cover preventive care
because they know it's sound policy and cheaper in the long run. Since
when does health insurance cover cosmetic surgery, which might also
boost the ego? 
</p>
<p>
Slowly, the creeping faith-based initiatives
have worked their way into both public policies and private practice.
From foreign aid to medical dispensaries, the right-wing has forged a
back-door for enforcing a ban on both abortion and contraception. The
foreign aid policies may be changed with a new administration. What a
private pharmacy does or doesn't do is (and should be) outside of
legislative reach. 
</p>
<p>
That said, however, it seems like fair
game to push for a legislative initiative mandating that any pharmacy
that accepts Medicaid or Medicare prescription plans for reimbursement
must accept all bona fide prescriptions without discrimination as to
the purpose of the drug. If the Bush Administration can cut off funding
because an organization discusses abortion even if it doesn't offer
abortion services, why shouldn't pharmacies be held to the same
standards? 
</p>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
