{"id":3138,"date":"2021-01-03T09:00:55","date_gmt":"2021-01-03T13:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=3138"},"modified":"2021-01-04T12:13:07","modified_gmt":"2021-01-04T16:13:07","slug":"my-ideas-for-2021-legislation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2021\/01\/03\/my-ideas-for-2021-legislation\/","title":{"rendered":"My Ideas for 2021 Legislation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The 117th<\/sup> U.S. Congress started on January 3, 2021.<\/em><\/p>\n

Reminder: Opinions are those of the author and aren\u2019t official for the Consistent Life Network as an organization.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

by Rachel MacNair<\/p>\n

My mind isn\u2019t of the lobbying sort; my mind is of the conflict-resolution sort. This mainly means looking at the interests people have, rather than merely butting up against their hardened positions. The ideal is to then come up with creative solutions that address everyone\u2019s interests. Failing that, we can at least have a good horse-trade in which each side gets what it most cherishes and isn\u2019t quite as concerned about what it was that they gave up.<\/p>\n

Some of these ideas don\u2019t really have a chance, and I offer them to speak in a moral prophet\u2019s voice. Others might be quite workable or could be developed into something workable.<\/p>\n

U.S. Congressional Legislation<\/h3>\n

Title X Funding<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Title X provides funding for family planning. A rule that recipients couldn\u2019t do or refer for abortions finally went into effect a couple of years ago, and Planned Parenthood has accordingly turned down Title X money for its own program.<\/p>\n

Democrats have never liked this rule. Since it was put in place by executive order, it can be taken out the same way. Rescinding the rule will probably be among the earlier acts of a Biden administration.<\/p>\n

But since the family planning funding is what\u2019s most dear to most Democrats, and the rule that it not go to abortion is most important to many Republicans, how about this: triple the amount of funding for Title X, in exchange for having the rule about no abortions in the legislation.<\/p>\n

This solidifies the rule, rather than having it go back and forth depending on which party is in power. Will Democrats give up a chance to triple the family planning funds for the sake of abortion?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Community Health Centers<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Both Republicans and Democrats support Community Health Centers, and it\u2019s already in the CHC\u2019s legal definition that they don\u2019t do abortions. Funding more of them is therefore a workable way to increase healthcare access, one that a gridlocked Congress may be able to do.<\/p>\n

Republicans can be further incentivized if some CHC locations can be near to the 69 Planned Parenthood locations<\/a> that currently have no CHCs within five miles. This provides competition for PP. It also takes away from them the argument that they need tax dollars because they serve in under-served areas, since the areas wouldn\u2019t be under-served any more.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Making Hyde Permanent<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Hyde Amendment bars federal Medicaid dollars from paying for most abortions. It\u2019s a rider every year. It\u2019s a life-saving measure<\/a>, as shown in studies<\/a>. It\u2019s helpful to low-income women<\/a> as well, since it removes some of the pressures to abort.<\/p>\n

While Joseph Biden used to support it, he changed his mind last year when running for president. The 2020 Democratic platform calls for repealing it. Election results show this unlikely in the Senate. Still, it\u2019s quite close, and far more precarious than it\u2019s ever been since it first passed.<\/p>\n

We really need a permanent Hyde provision, in legislation that doesn\u2019t require annual renewal. Dealing with Medicaid, Hyde is in the health care realm, and Democrats may be keener on passing something<\/em> toward health care reform than they are on dispensing with the Hyde principle. They could try to pass something Republicans could tolerate \u2013 say, lowering the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60.<\/p>\n

I put that in terms of what Democrats and Republicans could tolerate for a bargain, but of course there are plenty of us that would see both sides of the bargain as progress and a delight.<\/p>\n

The International Community<\/h3>\n

Members of the U.S. Congress and the new president are unlikely to consider these, but we should be aware these are out there, with many nations having ratified:<\/p>\n

United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> (TPNW). The treaty has already been ratified by more than 50 nations, and is therefore going into effect this coming January 22.\u00a0Nations that actually have nuclear weapons are, unfortunately, ignoring it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

OHCHR | Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights<\/a>. This aims for the abolition of the death penalty. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly December 15, 1989. The Republic of Kazakhstan\u00a0was the 88th<\/sup> nation to sign, and did so September 23, 2020.<\/p>\n

A New Anti-Coercion Constitutional Amendment<\/h3>\n

We need to abolish slavery entirely <\/a>by removing the exception for those convicted of a crime. Last November, Nebraskans voted to remove it from their state constitution by 63%, and Utahans did so by 80%. Back in 2018, Coloradoans did so by 66%. Ten states still have this exception to outright slavery in their constitutions.<\/p>\n

But the exception is also in the 13th Amendment<\/a> to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, there are two horrendous court decisions<\/a> that, unlike Roe v. Wade<\/em>, everyone pretty much agrees now were horrendous: Buck v. Bell<\/em>, and Korematsu<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The ruling in Buck v. Bell<\/em> essentially said it was fine to coerce eugenic sterilizations. Laws allowing for this are all gone now, and the ruling is currently widely held in disdain. But this and other forms of reproductive violence against those with disabilities, and targeted to certain ethnic groups, are still not countered by constitutional protection.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Carrie Buck with her mother Emma Buck; her baby Vivian<\/p><\/div>\n

Korematsu<\/em> allowed the U.S. government to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during World War II. In a remark in another case, Chief Justice John Roberts said<\/a> it was \u201cgravely wrong on the day it was decided\u201d and that it has been \u201coverruled in the court of history.\u201d Many people interpreted this as overruling the case, but this is ambiguous. Roberts\u2019 point was to say that neither Korematsu<\/em> nor the revulsion against it applied to the case at hand.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Fred Korematsu<\/p><\/div>\n

Neither of these two cases is as firmly overturned as needed. There are only indications they\u2019re no longer regarded as precedent. The court can\u2019t just overturn a ruling because it takes a notion to, but has to do so based on a case in front of it.<\/p>\n

The cases aren\u2019t coming because no one takes those rulings seriously any more. Overturning them isn\u2019t controversial. It just can\u2019t be done without a pertinent case \u2013 or a constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n

What all three problems have in common is that they\u2019re forms of coercion – slavery for those committed of a crime, involuntary sterilization, incarceration because the government decides an entire ethnic group is a war-time threat. They all have racism in their very foundations. Buck v. Bell<\/em> also includes bigotry against people with disabilities (or, in this particular case, working-class people sloppily understood to have disabilities).<\/p>\n

Therefore, all three could fit in one theme. There was already a \u00a0a joint resolution<\/a> which was introduced last December<\/a>, calling on the U.S. Senate and House to craft an amendment saying \u201cneither slavery nor involuntary servitude may be imposed as a punishment for a crime.\u201d This is likely to be introduced again this coming session. Therefore, it\u2019s realistic to think that at least there may be legislation on the first problem alone that we can advocate on, and that in itself would be good. Whether adding on ways of overturning the two court decisions, when there\u2019s pretty much a consensus that they should be overturned, is something to think about.<\/p>\n

Other Ideas?<\/h3>\n

As you can see above, these are generated under brainstorming rules. The ideas may be followed up on. They may generate other ideas to be followed up on. Or they may serve as nothing more than social commentary on what our legislators could do but won\u2019t. Anyone who has any other ideas, please put them below in the comments, and\/or send them to: weekly@consistent-life.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n

=========================<\/p>\n

For related posts, see: <\/em><\/p>\n

Why the Hyde Amendment Helps Low-Income Women<\/a><\/p>\n

Our Experience with Overturning Terrible Court Decisions<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The 117th U.S. Congress started on January 3, 2021. Reminder: Opinions are those of the author and aren\u2019t official for the Consistent Life Network as an organization.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 by Rachel MacNair My mind isn\u2019t of the lobbying sort; my mind is of the conflict-resolution sort. This mainly means looking at the interests people have, rather… <\/p>\n