Category Archives: Network News/Events

Young people need good jobs now

Posted on by

By Liz Shuler and Donna Dewitt

As the new year rolls in, a four-letter word is on everyone’s lips: jobs.

With the unemployment rate at red-alert levels, the White House held a jobs summit, the president gave a major address and Congress is preparing legislation to create jobs. But not many are looking at the particular problems facing young workers. Not only have they been hurt disproportionately by the economic crisis, they could very well be the first generation in recent history to be worse off than their parents. Joblessness among young workers is even higher than the national average. They need jobs — good jobs — and they need them now.

In a recent survey done by the AFL-CIO and our community affiliate Working America, young workers spoke out about their dilemma. “Things are definitely harder for me today than they were for my parents at my age,” 31-year-old Laura told us. “Back then, you could graduate high school, get a job at the local grocery store and still be able to buy a house and even put a little away for retirement. It’s just not that way anymore.”

Today, young people are coming out of college tens of thousands of dollars in debt and unable to find jobs — certainly not the kind of jobs they thought they’d find. “Sometimes we wonder if it was really worth it to get an education for the price we’ve paid,” Jessica, also 31, reported.

More than half of the 18- to 34-year-olds we talked to earn less than $30,000 a year. Only 31 percent make enough money to cover their bills and put some aside. And benefits? Young people say the situation is just as bad. Thirty-one percent are uninsured, up from 24 percent 10 years ago. Less than half have retirement plans at work.

Many young people are worried they won’t be able to start their adult lives and pursue their dreams of having families of their own. And they’re right to be worried: One in three 18- to 34-year-olds lives at home with their parents.

Without immediate action to create jobs, living standards for young workers — and even their children — may be stunted permanently. History teaches us that deep economic troughs like the one we’re in can scar young people for their entire careers as their earnings may never recover and their children may earn even less.

Yes, we need longer term economic restructuring. But we have a jobs crisis right now — for young people and all of us. And Congress and the president must jump-start jobs immediately.

Our states and communities are starving for aid to keep teachers and firefighters (many of them young workers) on the payroll. Let’s get that aid to them now. Schools are crumbling and higher education costs are out of control. Without significant new federal investments, the state and local budget catastrophe and infrastructure collapse will strangle long-term solutions for young workers. Are we really ready to write them off as a lost generation?

When people need jobs so badly, it’s the right time to invest in the clean, green technologies of the future, and in the distressed communities, putting jobless people to work tutoring children, cleaning up abandoned buildings, or providing child care, to name a few.

And let’s move some of the leftover bank bailout funds from Wall Street to Main Street, so community banks can lend money to small businesses for the purposes of job creation.

Efforts like these can keep and create at least 2 million jobs in the next year. As I travel across the country, young people tell me they are ready to join the fight.

In the same survey, thirty-five percent say they voted for the first time in 2008, and nearly three-quarters say they keep tabs on government and public affairs, even when there’s not an election going on. Job creation, health care and education are their top economic priorities. And — by a 22-point margin — young workers favor expanding public investment over reducing the budget deficit.

Young workers are not just calling for action to create jobs and fix the economy — they’re depending on it. Their economic future — America’s economic future — is at stake.

Shuler is the secretary treasurer of the AFL-CIO. Dewitt is the president of the SC AFL-CIO and Co-chair of the SC Progressive Network. This column appeared in The Sun News.

Wrong Way on Afghanistan

Posted on by

By Eleanor LeCain

In March 2003, I traveled to Afghanistan to facilitate a leadership training for a group of Afghan women who were hoping to help lead their country away from the abyss that had been Taliban rule.

Afghans I met — men and women — were grateful that the U.S. had knocked the Taliban out of power. They wanted to get an education and a job, but there were few schools and jobs available.

That was the moment when we might have been able to fund education and economic development to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, and help build a central government capable of running the country. The U.S. had clarity of purpose and a sense of national unity for its mission.

After all, Al Qaeda had launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, complete with terrorist training camps. Nearly the whole world supported our efforts to uproot Al Qaeda and to build a new and representative government in Afghanistan.

But the U.S. did not provide the support needed to help Afghanistan recover and rebuild. Afghans were puzzled why even then the U.S. was supporting cruel regional warlords, undermining the power of the central government we claimed to support.

Just days after I left Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq began. President Bush shifted attention, military force, and funds to Iraq. U.S. efforts in Afghanistan languished. President Obama wants to recapture the historic moment that was lost in 2003.

But that moment has passed. An escalation of military force nearly seven years later cannot bring it back. Here’s why an escalation won’t work:

1)  The central government is too weak. People refer to President Karzai as the Mayor of Kabul because the only area he really controls is the capital. Afghanistan lacks even the basic elements of a functioning central government: it does not deliver services nationally like health care or education; it does not provide a national bank and finance system; it does not administer justice. Afghanistan is really a collection of regions, some ruled by warlords. So there will be no real central government to take over military operations in 18 months. That approach may work in Iraq, but it will not work in Afghanistan which is completely different. Iraq had a strong central government before the U.S. invaded; Afghanistan did not.

2)  The country is too corrupt. Corruption runs rampant from top to bottom. Funds intended to support military and development efforts are siphoned off by swindlers. Stealing isn’t a crime so much as a way of life. The police who should be protecting citizens are part of the problem: many of them shake people down for protection payoffs. In fact, protection payoffs are a large source of revenue for the Taliban.

3)  The country has become a big heroin den. Growing and trading opium is the country’s largest income source. Even people who don’t like opium feel it’s their best path to financial survival. So on top of political and religious feuds is a vast network of narcotics dealers.

4)  Local support for the US has dramatically diminished. The current war has dragged on for eight years. U.S. and Coalition forces have driven Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and have limited Taliban efforts to return to power. In those eight years, lots of Afghan civilians have been killed and injured. Bombs that have destroyed Taliban fighting units have also inflicted “collateral damage,” killing civilians. The neighbors and relatives of those dead civilians aren’t likely to welcome new troops as their liberators. Many Afghans now see the U.S. as part of the problem, an occupying force.

In addition to the likely ineffectiveness of escalation is the certainty of its expense. At a cost of about $1 million per soldier, 30,000 more troops will cost us about $30 billion a year. This is on top of the $1 trillion we have already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government is already in debt by over $12 trillion. Every dollar we spend is borrowed money. So we’re going to borrow more money to send more troops, thereby making us even more vulnerable to our creditors. Being heavily indebted to other countries is itself a threat to our national security.

There is another way forward. The U.S. first invaded Afghanistan to dismantle the terrorist training camps and their Taliban supporters. Mission accomplished. We can declare victory and set a new, clearly defined objective: prevent the resurgence of terrorist training camps. This objective can be met by the presence of a much smaller multilateral force. Also, more support for educating girls and women would lift families and communities while helping to reduce terrorism.

LeCain is a Washington, DC-based speaker and writer, the president and CEO of NewWayUSA, and a former Massachusetts Assistant Secretary of State. This piece was provided by the American Forum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization that provides the media with the views of state experts on major public concerns in order to stimulate informed discussion.

Support up for public campaign financing

Posted on by

‘Hustle for money’ compromises officials, group says, and more N.C. voters see that.

By Jim Morrill
The Charlotte Observer

When the N.C. Voters for Clean Elections began a decade ago, only a few reformers championed the idea of publicly financing state political campaigns.

Since then, North Carolina has adopted public financing for the campaigns of appellate court judges, three Council of State offices and local officials in one town.

“Little by little, we’re demonstrating that publicly financed election processes are not only possible but work better for candidates and voters alike,” said Chase Foster, director of the reform coalition.

Last week, more than 50 people gathered at a downtown Raleigh cafe to celebrate the coalition’s 10th anniversary. Among them were legislators and at least two statewide elected officials.

Ten years ago, North Carolina still had a reputation for clean politics. Since then, voters have seen a former state House speaker, a congressman, an agriculture secretary and two legislators imprisoned for corruption. This fall, a special state prosecutor began to investigate a former governor.

All that helps fuel hopes for more changes. Advocates of publicly financed campaigns point to polls they say show growing public support.

An Elon University poll last month showed 87 percent of North Carolinians think campaign contributions influence elected state officials. And a statewide survey by Public Policy Polling in November found 65 percent say they’d support giving “a limited amount of public funds” to candidates.

“More people recognize that we’ve got to address the heart of the problem, and that’s the hustle for money that’s going on in big campaigns,” said Bob Hall, director of Democracy North Carolina, a watchdog group. “That is translating into support for public financing of campaigns.”

Public-finance advocates say the escalating costs of campaigning has forced candidates to rely heavily on political action committees and other special interests. They say 90 percent of campaign money in North Carolina comes from less than 1 percent of the population.

There are several proposals for further public financing in the General Assembly, and at least one in Congress.

All but a handful of the 120 co-sponsors of the federal Fair Elections Now Act are Democrats; one of the few Republicans behind it is Rep. Walter Jones, of Eastern N.C.’s 3rd district. Virtually all the sponsors of the state legislation are Democrats.

“It’s absurd,” state Republican Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews said of public financing. “As far as I’m concerned, there’s still freedom of speech. You should be able to put the money you want to in a campaign and say what you want to say. The taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with this cost.”

North Carolina’s judicial public financing program is funded by voluntary tax check-offs and by $50 fees on lawyer licenses. While some N.C. elections have been funded with tax money, that could change.

Plans to expand public financing in Council of State races would be funded entirely by assessments on those doing business with the particular agency or are regulated by it.

To qualify for public funding, candidates typically have to raise a number of small contributions and agree to spending limits.

Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, said recent headlines about politicians in trouble adds momentum to the push for public financing.

“People are looking for ways this doesn’t spiral so far out of control,” he said, “that we lose the capacity of the public to really be the key factor in democracy.”

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.

SC has more than nuclear power option

Posted on by

By Susan Corbett
Chair, SC Chapter, Sierra Club

During the recent 2010 gubernatorial debate, it seemed apparent the candidates have decided the energy future of South Carolina: nukes, nukes and more nukes.

Virtually every candidate spouted nuclear power as a “clean, green, homegrown” energy source that will be the solution to climate change and our energy needs. This characterization of nuclear as clean and homegrown is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by the nuclear industry since the demise of their first round of economic boondoggles. (64 reactors left unfinished in the 80’s, in various stages of construction).

I cannot for the life of me understand how these candidates perceive nuclear as “homegrown’. Uranium is not mined in South Carolina, and most U.S. uranium is very low grade, making it uneconomical.  High grade uranium comes from foreign sources, and in fact most of the uranium we use presently comes from: Russia. Strike One – another foreign fuel source.

But how about the manufacturing and construction of nuclear reactors, that’s homegrown, right?

Wrong. At the recent Public Service Commission hearing where SCE&G asked for the first of what we believe will be many deadline extensions, it was revealed that virtually all major components of nuclear power plants are purchased in foreign countries like Korea, Japan and Italy.

In fact, the United States doesn’t even have forges large enough to make the reactor vessels, steam generators and other large parts needed for reactors. We are totally dependent on these foreign companies and the one or two manufacturers, like the plant at Doosan, Korea, for our big reactor parts.  We must get in line and wait our turn to get these key components, and pay whatever fee these companies charge, with all the money going out of the U.S.   Strike Two: all major parts produced outside the U.S. by foreign companies.

Two weeks ago, the usually permissive Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected a modified version of the AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse Electric Co., citing concerns about structural integrity.

This new design includes a mega-ton water containment system that sits perched on top of the shield building, using gravity to allow water to flow down around the reactor as a cooling system. The NRC review questioned the design of the shield building as suspect in withstanding earthquakes, tornadoes, air plane strikes or even high winds.

In other words, the major building that contains the reactor and ultimately shields us, the citizens, from the release of deadly radiation in the case of an accident, could itself fail. Although SCE&G assured the PSC these details would all get worked out, one must wonder about other design flaws, in an untested, unproven prototype reactor, which will operate in our backyard. Oh, and Westinghouse?   It’s owned by Toshiba, a Japanese corporation. Strike Three: a foreign-owned corporation with untested, unproven reactor design with serious safety questions.

Here’s my idea of a homegrown energy source: Up in Greenville, we have a U.S. corporation, G.E., producing wind turbines. They are using American-made parts and American workers. We could take these turbines down to the coast, and using our excellent port facilities at Charleston, and our excellent port facility workers, construct large wind farms off our coast to tap into the 2-4 Gigawatts ( that’s a HUGE amount) of offshore wind we know is available. We could use free American fuel to power all our coastal cities and then some, and never send a dollar out of state. Then we could help build wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast using our own homegrown technology and expertise.

Couple offshore wind with solar and rigorous energy efficiency programs that also put S.C. citizens to work, and we have a roadmap to true homegrown energy independence for South Carolina.

Don’t miss “Rethink Afghanistan”

Posted on by

dvdcovernew2-1

Join us on Sunday, Dec. 6, at 2:30pm for a free screening of Rethink Afghanistan, an 80-minute documentary about the US role in Afghanistan. The screening will be held at the Nickelodeon Theater, 937 Main St., in downtown Columbia. A discussion will follow, led by Dr. Stephen Sheehi of the Department of Arabic Culture at the University of South Carolina. Free and open to the public. For details about the film, see the web site. Sponsored by the SC Progressive Network and Carolina Peace.

LGBT groups spearhead Charleston anti-discrimination victory

Posted on by

Because of the collaborative effort among LGBT groups — including SC Progressive Network member organizations AFFA and SC Equality — the city of Charleston now has proactive legislation protecting LGBT people in both housing and public accommodations.

Last week, the Charleston City Council passed ordinances expanding the city’s existing policy prohibiting discrimination in housing to include age, sexual orientation and gender identity The council also passed a public accommodations ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ordinances were presented to the mayor’s office in August by AFFA, SC Stonewall Democrats, SC Log Cabin Republicans, American Civil Liberties Union and South Carolina Equality–who paved the way by successfully introducing similar ordinaces in Columbia, SC, last year.

Charleston is the second municipality in the state to pass comprehensive human rights ordinances in housing and public accommodations that include sexual orientation and gender identity. Council Member Gary White said, “It’s a step forward in the right direction in making sure that we are not discriminating against anyone.”

Read the ordinances here.

Abortion shouldn’t imperil health care reform

Posted on by

By Sloane Wheelen

S.C. field coordinator for Planned Parenthood Health Systems in Charleston, a member of the SC Progressivve Network

The House vote to establish near-universal health care coverage came at a steep cost to women. That cost, issued as an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), eliminates abortion coverage by private insurance companies even when women are paying for all or most of the premium with their own money.

Stupak’s amendment is a cynical attempt to push an anti-choice agenda that imperils badly needed reform. His amendment undermines the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.

Before its introduction, health care reform measures in both the House and Senate contained agreed-upon language regarding abortion. Public funding would remain prohibited, and women with private health insurance would continue to receive the benefits they already have. Though this language satisfied neither side completely, it enabled health care reform to move forward without being derailed by abortion politics.

In addition to undermining the reform effort, the amendment would impact the more than one in four American women who have at least one abortion during their reproductive years. Tens of millions of women will be required to pay for health care coverage that expressly excludes one of their most commonly requested medical procedures.

The Stupak Amendment, like the Hyde Amendment, allows coverage of abortion only in cases of rape, incest and for medical complications that “place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” However, if the woman’s health is in jeopardy – if her pregnancy risks organ failure or infertility but not death – then there is no coverage for care. The woman’s health, no matter how substantial and irremediable, is placed at risk.

Women’s health care should not be sacrificed on the altar of reform. President Obama repeatedly stated that under health care reform, “no one will lose the benefits they currently have.” The House bill now embraces a lesser ideal: No man will lose the benefits he currently has.

Is this sexual discrimination or abortion politics? Frankly, the two are inseparable. The 11th-hour amendment is just the latest example of statutes, regulations, medical standards and corporate policies that have caused women to pay more, suffer more and receive less: Pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The FDA imposed unwarranted and unscientific age limits on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. Health insurance companies demand higher premiums from women than from men.

Women pay nearly 68 percent more than men – much of it resulting from the uninsured expenses of reproductive health care.

The promise of reform was supposed to remedy all that. Health care reform sought not only to expand coverage but also to reduce gender discrimination.

No longer would women have to pay more than men for the same insurance policy. No longer could pregnancy or womanhood be treated as pre-existing conditions. No longer would women be denied affordable contraceptives. And all women’s health centers finally would be recognized as essential community providers no less than centers that cater to other segments of the population.

Because of Rep. Stupak, the House further entrenched a two-tiered health care system that limits access to care for women.

If Congress is capable of enacting health care reform, it is capable of treating women as equals who don’t have to settle for less. Already, members of the House and Senate pro-choice caucus are pledging to withhold their final votes unless the Stupak Amendment is removed.

Abortion politics should not scuttle health care reform. That is why the Stupak Amendment must be eliminated.

This piece originally ran in The State on Nov. 29, 2009.