Daily Archives: December 15, 2009

SC Blue Cross Blue Shield’s #1 Job: protecting profits

Posted on by

By Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network

Rep. Tim Scott (R Charleston) has introduced legislation that calls for a state constitutional amendment to protect your right to be screwed by the health insurance industry.

“Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights, be amended so as to add a new section preserving the freedom of South Carolinians with respect to the providing of health care services, by prohibiting any law, regulation, or rule to compel an individual, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system, by allowing individuals and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines for these direct payments, by providing that the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems must not be prohibited by law, regulation, or rule, by providing those incentives in which the rights provided by this section do not apply, and to provide appropriate definitions?”

A “Yes” vote on this question would prohibit South Carolinians from participating in a “public option” national health care system that requires individuals to participate. While the chances for the US to join the rest of the civilized world in considering health care a right, corporate defenders like Scott aren’t taking chances.

The bill, written by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with the assistance of Blue Cross Blue Shield, would make any federal mandate for participation in a national health plan against the law in SC.

The BCBS initiative to “protect your health care rights” has been introduced in 12 states. (See Think Progress for more information.)

Part of the reason the BCBS Association has claimed that it opposes the reform bill in its current form is because of what it perceives as a weak individual mandate. But the BCBS Association-supported ALEC campaign depicts the very notion of an individual mandate as “anti-freedom.” So either way the US Senate acts, BCBS will be able to trash the bill and try to kill reform.

The health industry has contributed $1.7 million to SC politicians since 2008, and BCBS accounted for $503,000 of the total.

Other legislative initiatives for 2010

S1011: Sen. Mike Rose (R-Charleston): Provides that a person with a special restricted driver’s license may drive unaccompanied between his home and his place of worship. As Sen. Rose can’t regulate religious preference, I guess this bill would allow those who worship beer to drive to their local bar to pray for eternal happy hour.

S902: Sen. Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston): This bill would repeal the state income tax and sales tax and replace them with a really big sales tax on the consumption of all goods and services excluding business to business sales. This regressive tax system would put the burden of maintaining the roads to the rich folks gated communities on the back of working people.

S1002: Sen. Mike Rose (R-Charleston): Constitutional amendment to permit the enactment of laws and Constitutional amendments by initiative petition. While the ballot initiative process in many states allow the citizens more direct control over their government (pro-gay, anti-gay and marijuana bills come to mind), there is a fear that SC might vote to bring back the Confederacy.

S947: Sen. Larry Grooms (R Berkeley): Amends the Constitution to provide procedures for recalling and removing from public office persons holding public offices of the state or its political subdivisions in the executive and legislative branches of state or local governments. This “Appalachian Trail” bill is intended to prevent disappearing governors. It may be the only way to get rid of politicians like Grooms, who bills himself as the “Tea Party Guy.” He is running for governor with the pledge to “take our nation and state back” from those who disbelieve in the primacy of white guys with guns.

S916: Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter): A rare good bill that would include persons in a dating relationship – EVEN SAME SEX COUPLES – in the definition of a household hold member and to define “dating relationship” in the Protection From Domestic Abuse Act.

Atheists in office: Déjà vu all over again

Posted on by

This piece, written by SC Progressive Network member Herb Silverman, ran in The Washington Post.
By Herb Silverman
Founder and President of the Secular Coalition for America and Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry

I’m reminded of my South Carolina experience when I hear that some folks in Asheville, NC, want to remove Cecil Bothwell from City Council. What he and I have in common is not just that we are atheists, but that we are open about it. The constitutions of both North and South Carolina bar atheists from holding public office.

I first heard about the South Carolina exclusion in 1990. I’m no constitutional scholar, but I knew that Article 6 of our U.S. Constitution explicitly states that there may be no religious tests for public office. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that this provision also applies to the states. So I assumed this was just an anachronism, and could easily be changed. I was wrong. I wound up to running for public office, first as a gubernatorial candidate and then as a notary public, in order to challenge this unconstitutional provision. It took eight years and a unanimous verdict of the South Carolina Supreme Court to state the obvious, that no religious test for public office may be applied, not even in South Carolina.

Our state wasted about $100,000 trying to keep me from becoming a notary public. None of the political leaders in South Carolina, and certainly not the lawyers advising them, believed they would prevail legally if I continued to pursue my case. Yet, those same politicians showed that they would rather waste time and money on a lost cause than risk the wrath and lose the votes of the state’s well-organized religious right. But South Carolina is known as a state that fights lost causes. Et tu, North Carolina?

Atheists are now eligible to run for any office in South Carolina, which means the provision against atheists is unenforceable. However, the South Carolina Constitution can only be amended by a referendum in which the majority of voters approve the change. This is not likely to happen anytime soon. It took a referendum in 1998 for South Carolina to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the State Constitution. Even then, 38% of South Carolinians voted against allowing blacks and whites to marry, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that states could no longer prevent interracial marriage.

I noticed in recent newspaper articles that both Bothwell and I were called “avowed” atheists, though neither of us had taken vows. I once had a discussion with a public editor about why the local paper always put an adjective before “atheist,” but did not apply one to people of religious faiths. I was told it was unnecessary for those who belonged to communities of worship, but the newspaper had only the word of one person who says he or she is an atheist. I asked which is more likely, that a religious person in this country would pretend to be an atheist or that an atheist would pretend to be religious? The paper conceded I had a point, but it continues to “avow” me. Even worse, I’ve been introduced on radio as a “so-called atheist” or an “admitted atheist.” I wonder what the reaction would be were someone introduced as a “so-called Jew” or an “admitted Southern Baptist.”

What Bothwell and I also have in common is that some people judge us more by our beliefs than by our behavior. H.K. Edgerton, a North Carolina voter, is threatening a lawsuit to remove Bothwell from office. Here is one of his reasons: “I have problems with people who don’t believe in God.” Edgerton continued, “I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man.” This reminds me of the time in 2003 I was invited to give an invocation at a Charleston, South Carolina, City Council meeting. As I got up to speak, half the council members walked out because they knew I was an atheist. Those who stayed to listen said my invocation was fine.

One councilman justified the walkout by quoting from Psalm 14: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is not one who does good.” He then told me it was not personal. In other words, his religious beliefs compelled him to ignore or demonize an entire class of people he was elected to represent. Frankly, I would rather it had been personal.

That walkout vividly showed that we are still engaged in one of the last civil rights struggles in which blatant discrimination is viewed as acceptable behavior. Of course, bigotry exists everywhere, but it is especially lamentable when government officials defend public acts of intolerance at government functions. What would have been the reaction had city council members walked out because a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist was giving an invocation?

Prior to 1990, I was apathetic about my atheism, feeling I had better things to do than talk about the nonexistence of gods. When I began to view atheism as a civil right issue, I helped found the Secular Coalition for America, whose mission is to increase the visibility of, and respect for, nontheistic viewpoints. The Secular Coalition held a contest for people to nominate the person they believed was the highest-ranking elected leader with no god beliefs. As a result, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) became the first in the history of Congress to publicly acknowledge he doesn’t believe in God. Does anyone think there aren’t scores more who feel the political need to remain in their atheist and agnostic closets? It is my hope that one day politicians like Cecil Bothwell and others will be judged on the content of their character and the issues they find important, rather than on their professed religious beliefs. That would be my idea of true religious freedom.

All 100 senators should agree START is vital first step

Posted on by

By Susan Shaer

Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions

A flu pandemic is nasty, brutish, and a global danger. All U.S. Senators and other leaders agree, and leap to keep everyone safe and healthy.

Another nasty, brutish and global danger, which additionally is outrageously expensive and out of synch with today’s defense needs, is the continued maintenance of our huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. All our senators should agree on this.

However, since there are threats and plotters, the U.S. needs to have a strong and effective defense.

In his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, President Obama acknowledged these threats; and he also reiterated his call for a world free of nuclear weapons. As he has noted, they pose too much risk to all of us, as humans sharing a single planet. The longer nuclear weapons lurk, and grow, the graver the danger that they could fall into the wrong hands.

So how do we proceed toward the goal of liberating the world from the threat that nuclear weapons pose? The answer is simple: Step by step. The road to disarmament is, necessarily and rightly, long, and will take time and patience, and many steps that guarantee our safety and prevent any cracks in our security.

One of the first steps is to take stock of the existing nuclear arsenals – and then reduce the number. The reality is that it is possible, and it’s in the works. President Obama and President Medvedev committed to this goal months ago; and will soon sign onto a new START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that pledges and ensures the U.S. and Russia will chip away at their huge stockpiles.

The fact is that the U.S. and Russia still hold onto around 95 percent of the world’s roughly 23,000 nuclear weapons. When the Cold War was drawing to a close, both countries acknowledged the urgent need to reduce these stockpiles, and signed onto START I. It was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history.

Since that treaty expired on Dec. 5 of this year, the U.S. and Russia have been working to fashion a new treaty acceptable to both. A critical piece is a reliable system to provide an accurate assessment of the size and location of each country’s nuclear forces. The new treaty will reduce the strategic deployed arsenals of each country by about one quarter (to a ceiling of 1,675 within seven years).

After the treaty is finalized, it heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration– first in committee hearings, and then on the floor. There will be ample time for debate. There are many reasons for the Senate to ratify this treaty, and to do so with deliberate speed.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons to provide a strong defense; and to destroy life on the planet. We need to begin the long process of dismantling some of the thousands before they slip into the wrong hands.

Maintaining these many thousands is enormously, and wastefully, expensive.

We have better information than ever about Russia’s situation, and so are assured they are acting in accordance with the treaty. We should cultivate a positive relationship with Russia, particularly today.

The world is waiting for its leaders to choose a sane path to help keep from destroying the planet.

At least 67 Senators must vote to ratify START. This is a considerable number. And yet, really, it should have the support of all 100. START is in the interests of the U.S., it makes us safer, and ideally, it helps to build momentum toward the ultimate goal of a safer world without nuclear weapons.

This piece was provided by the American Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization which provides the media with the views of state experts on major public concerns in order to stimulate informed discussion.