Failing a Test of the Emergency Broadcast System

Our emergency communications system needs an upgrade.
By 

Stephanie_WordenIn the early morning hours of April 19, some residents of Watertown, Massachusetts, received an automated phone call telling them to “shelter in place” while the suspected Boston marathon bomber roamed the neighborhood.

The system worked — to a degree. One homeowner ultimately realized a bleeding man, who turned out to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had holed up in the boat on his property. The Watertown man alerted the authorities, and the suspect went into custody.

But why didn’t everyone in Watertown get the call? Because our emergency communications system is flawed.

Free Press-Emergency-Filipão 28

The federal government began building official emergency notification systems in the 1950s. The most recognizable of these notifications is the Emergency Broadcast System, with its familiar bands of color spanning the television screen and the recognizable drone of repeated beeps on the radio announcing: “This is a test. This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.”

Clearly, we can no longer rely on TV and radio as the primary means of mass emergency communication. In Boston, danger arose at night while people were sleeping, their radios and TVs turned off. And in the information age, a growing number of people don’t access TV through traditional cable news or local broadcasting stations. Many of us get the news through other media.

The next logical step would be to meet people where they are. That means using our nation’s telecommunications infrastructure as a platform for emergency alerts. Nearly every American has a landline phone or a mobile wireless device, such as a smartphone. These gizmos are becoming the preferred medium for how we connect with each other and the world at large.

We already have the technology to deliver mass phone calls to large populations. Some reverse-911 systems are quite sophisticated, and can send calls to all landlines in very specific locations. But Americans are migrating away from landlines in favor of wireless. If you don’t have a landline, you’re out of range — and possibly out of luck.

Furthermore, many reverse-911 systems don’t work via Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP. VoIP routes call traffic over Internet Protocol networks rather than traditional telephone networks.

These technological limitations are a huge concern, since the most recent data indicate that less than half of American households have a traditional landline phone. One in three relies on wireless phones, while another quarter have VoIP landlines.

When promoting these reverse-911 systems, providers tout subscribers’ ability to self-register their phone numbers. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, the opt-in model is confusing for consumers.

And to complicate matters, some of our country’s most powerful communications companies are pushing to completely eliminate state and federal oversight of their services.

If policymakers go along with this grand plan, fewer people will have access to critical services like reverse 911, and no regulatory agency will have the authority to do anything about it.

So what’s the best way to reach people during an emergency?

Our leaders must encourage innovation and get the government to adapt to new and emerging technologies.

There are laws on the books about wireless emergency communications. The Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act established Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs), which are text-like warning messages that are 90 characters long and are sent in intervals.

But the only devices that are technologically equipped to receive these messages are high-priced smartphones. Those who can’t afford them won’t be able to receive emergency notifications.

And commercial wireless service providers aren’t even required to distribute Wireless Emergency Alerts: Participation in the program is completely voluntary. Low-income and senior populations tend to subscribe to phone plans from smaller wireless carriers that are less likely to offer WEAs.

This all adds up to a communications industry that relies on the public airwaves but isn’t required to alert the public in times of crisis.

As people cut their landlines and transition away from traditional TV and radio, we need effective emergency notification systems that will work on all mobile devices. The FCC should speed up the transition to mobile notification systems and pressure the industry to ensure that these systems work on all cellphones and landlines.

These changes can help save lives.


Stephanie Worden is a former project assistant at Free Press. FreePress.net  Photo Credit to:  Filipão 28/Flickr  Distributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org)

A New Education Debate

It’s time to focus on what the children who attend public schools really need to succeed.

Isaiah_PooleYou may have seen stories about the poor quality of Washington, D.C.’s public schools. You probably have also heard about how Michelle Rhee was brought from near-obscurity to take over the city’s schools, overnight becoming a national symbol of dramatic education “reform.”

What you may not have heard is that after years of high-stakes testing and mass teacher firings along with school closings and reorganizations by Rhee and her successor and protégé, Kaya Henderson, many D.C. public schools are no better. In some cases, they’re worse.

That should give us all pause as we jump to change local and national education policies based on catchphrases that mask decisions that will do lasting harm to our children.

CAF-Education-vanhookc

The Washington Post reported in June that test scores declined at 10 of the 18 schools that were reorganized under Rhee and Henderson between 2008 and 2010. Test scores are up in only six of those schools — two others have since closed. That’s a pretty poor record. As even Henderson conceded: “We have not always done reconstitution well.”

Track records like this one are fueling rising anger around the country over so-called reforms that offer lofty promises to justify the disruption of neighborhood schools, upended curriculums driven by standardized tests, widespread privatization, reduced budgets, and personnel policies that leave teachers feeling under siege, demoralized, and devalued.

The Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative, intended to encourage a “common core” curriculum buttressed by testing and teacher “accountability” measures, is galvanizing opposition from both the right and the left.

An Education Declaration to Rebuild America,” backed by a group of about 50 largely progressive education experts and academics, is the latest effort to bring some common sense to an often-fraught debate. It was released by the Education Opportunity Network, a new organization created through a partnership between the National Opportunity to Learn Campaign and the Institute for America’s Future, where I work. It has garnered support from more than 20,000 citizen endorsers.

The so-called education reform agenda, the declaration says, “imposes top-down standards and punitive high-stakes testing while ignoring the supports students need to thrive and achieve.”

The alternative, the declaration suggests, would — among other things — declare that public education is and always should be a public good, with both adequate public support and public accountability.

A child’s access to a good public education shouldn’t be determined by which side of the tracks the child lives on or the parent’s ability to work the system. Teachers should be treated as valued professionals, not as disposable widgets in a soulless machine. And the profession should be designed to attract our best and brightest.

National responsibility should complement local control. And reform should be “supports-based” rather than “standards-based,” focused on providing “every student with the opportunities and resources needed to achieve high standards.”

One of the successfully reconstituted D.C. schools might offer a partial glimpse at what this education declaration has in mind.

According to the The Washington Post, Scott Cartland was brought in to be the principal of a “chaotic and broken” Wheatley Education Campus in a low-income section of the city in 2008. Among other things, he poured resources into mental health and social workers and connected troubled youth with a community health organization. Teachers worked more closely with parents. One result: Reading and math proficiency scores at the school doubled.

A series of protests and grassroots organizing drives in Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington state — just to name a few — amount to a demand for a new debate over education policy.

Consider the Education Declaration to Rebuild America a reset button that calls on our leaders to stop swinging the wrecking ball at public schools. It’s time to focus on what the children who attend public schools really need to succeed.


Isaiah J. Poole is the editor of OurFuture.org, the website of the Campaign for America’s Future. He is a graduate of the Washington, D.C. public school system. OurFuture.org.  Photo credit to: vanhookc/Flickr.   Distributed via OtherWords.  OtherWords.org

Banking on Education

On July 1st, student loan rates are set to double, which spells dire consequences for our nation’s future. But it’s not just students, or even young adults who suffer from this debt crisis, but the economy as a whole! Find out how this impacts everyone and what you can do:

Click to Enlarge Image

Democracy for America Infographic

Banking on Education infographic via Democracy for America

Time is Money and the GOP is Throwing It Away

Earlier this week, the Republicans in Congress (including NV2’s Mark Amodei) voted for passage of yet another bill limiting a woman’s reproductive rights.  It not only would shorten the time frame during which a woman could choose to end a pregnancy, but would also require rape/incest victims to report that assault to authorities to be able to exercise that choice.  That bill would be HR1797.  That’s right, despite not having passed a single jobs bill, the REPUBLIBAN brethren in Congress would rather waste time and our taxpayer dollars on a bill the President has already promised to veto. Their actions are shameful and out of touch with what our country needs.

Available legislative time on the agenda is finite.  That means if the folks in charge of the House of Representatives, that would be the REPUBLIBAN brethren, choose to use their time to debate and process crap bills like this, the alternative cost is that there is NO TIME to devote to meaningful actions necessary to say, pass a jobs bill, pass comprehensive immigration reform, fix the still lingering foreclosure problems still facing many families, or ensure that students will be able to secure reasonable loan interest rates such that they don’t become mere indentured servants to the mighty megabanks.

Just looking at the time wasted on HR1797, here’s what’s shown on Thomas:

4/26/2013: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

4/26/2013: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (41 members)
4/26/2013: Referred to House Judiciary Committee (40 members)

5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. (15 members)
5/23/2013: Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. (12 members)

5/23/2013: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
6/04/2013: Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/04/2013: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 6 – 4 .

6/12/2013: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
6/12/2013: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 – 12.
6/14/2013 10:09pm: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-109, Part I.

6/14/2013 10:09pm: Committee on Oversight and Government discharged.

6/14/2013 10:10pm: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 77.

6/17/2013 7:32pm: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 266 Reported to House. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

6/18/2013 4:41pm: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 266. (consideration: CR H3730-3743)

6/18/2013 4:41pm: The resolution provides for one hour of debate on H.R. 1947 and provides for consideration of H.R. 1797 with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

6/18/2013 4:41pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1797.

6/18/2013 6:01pm: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H3743)

6/18/2013 6:01pm: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS – At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 1797, the Chair put the question on passage and, by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until later in the legislative day.

6/18/2013 6:15pm: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3743-3744)

6/18/2013 6:45pm: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 228 – 196 (Roll no. 251). (text: CR H3730-3731)

6/18/2013 6:45pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

6/18/2013 6:45pm: The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.

6/19/2013: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

So, what kind of alternative costs are we talking about?  Well, let’s start with the annual salary of a U.S. Representative to Congress.  That would be $174,000/yr.  Now, let’s look at the number of legislative days each of our Representatives will work this year. That would be 126 days (out of 365 calendar days).  Given that they’re only scheduled to be in DC for 4 consecutive days in any calendar week, I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt and say they work 10 hour days.  That means available legislative hours =  126 days x 10 hrs/day =1260 hrs.  That means that the cost for each legislative hour for each representative = $174,000 /1260 hrs =$138.10/hr.

So, for each subcommittee and each committee, and then the House as a whole spent only an hour dealing with this bill what did that cost us as taxpayers (you know, the folks who pay their salaries)?

Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Hearing/Markup: 15 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $6214.50

 Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Hearing/Markup:12 members x 3 hr x $138.10/hr = $4971.60

Full Judiciary Committee
Amendment/Vote of Yeas & Nays:  40 mbrs x 2 hrs x $138.10 = $11,048.00

Full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Vote of Yeas & Nays:  41 mbrs x 1 hr x $138.10 = $5662.10

Full House of Representatives (424 Voting/10 Not Voting)
Debate & Votes:  424 Mbrs x 2 hrs x 138.10/hr = $117,108.80

And none of these figures include the monies paid to that folks in the background, the clerks on the floor of the house, any payments made to those who testified for their travel (etc.), the webmasters who need to post information about the hearings, markups, debates, and votes.  But as you can see, the nominal cost of just the Representatives themselves for consideration of this onerous bill amounts to:

$6214.50 + $4971.60 + 11,048.00 + $5662.10 + $117,108.80 = $145,005.00

Just for reference sake, the average U.S. per capita personal income in 2012 was $42,693.  Thus, the alternative costs the Speaker Boehner and his REPUBLIBAN brethren chose to waste would have basically employed 3.4 individuals (3 full time jobs + 1 part-time job) for a year!  In Nevada, the 2012 per capita Income was only $37, 361 … so in Nevada, that same wasted money, on just that one bill, could have employed 3.9 individuals!

Rural Nevada Democratic Caucus

Earlier this week, the Republicans in Congress (including NV2’s Mark Amodei) voted for passage of yet another bill limiting a woman’s reproductive rights.  It not only would shorten the time frame during which a woman could choose to end a pregnancy, but would also require rape/incest victims to report that assault to authorities to be able to exercise that choice.  That bill would be HR1797.  That’s right, despite not having passed a single jobs bill, the REPUBLIBAN brethren in Congress would rather waste time and our taxpayer dollars on a bill the President has already promised to veto. Their actions are shameful and out of touch with what our country needs.

Available legislative time on the agenda is finite.  That means if the folks in charge of the House of Representatives, that would be the REPUBLIBAN brethren, choose to use their time to debate and process crap bills like this…

View original post 884 more words

If KXL is Approved, This WILL Happen ALL ALONG the Pipeline’s Route

Alberta, Canada has averaged two crude oil spills every day for the past 37 years — and that doesn’t even take into account spills of other types of toxic materials. Is the Obama administration willing to let the same thing happen right here in the United States?

Oversight Cmtee Transcript Reveals Darrell Issa Unethically Lied to the American Public

Manager Denies Republican Claims of White House Involvement or Political Motivation

Washington, DC (June 18, 2013)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released to Members of Congress and the American public the full transcript of an interview with an IRS Screening Group Manager in Cincinnati who provided a detailed account of how Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status were first identified by the IRS.  The Manager, a self-identified “conservative Republican” and 21-year veteran of the IRS, denies that he or anyone on his team was directed by the White House to take these actions or that they were politically motivated.

Click here to read the full transcript:  Part 1  Part 2

Click here to read a key portion of the Manager’s first-hand account explaining how his team first initiated this process.

As we suspected, the FULL transcript reveals that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) lied to the American public about claims that Obama himself was involved in the REPUBLIBAN’s trumped up IRS Scandal.

Cummings released the transcript in a letter to Chairman Issa (R-CA) today. The full letter is copied below:

June 18, 2013

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to inform you that I am making available to Members of Congress and the public the full transcript of an interview with the IRS Screening Group Manager in Cincinnati, which was conducted jointly by the Oversight Committee and the Ways and Means Committee as part of our investigation into the identification and screening of Tea Party applicants for tax-exempt status.  I am attaching a copy of this transcript, with redactions of specific names to protect individual privacy.

Transcript Shows No White House Involvement or Political Motivation

This interview transcript provides a detailed first-hand account of how these practices first originated, and it debunks conspiracy theories about how the IRS first started reviewing these cases.  Answering questions from Committee staff for more than five hours, this official—who identified himself as a “conservative Republican”—denied that he or anyone on his team was directed by the White House to take these actions or that they were politically motivated.

Instead, the Screening Group Manager explained that the very first case at issue in this investigation was initially flagged by one of his own screeners in February 2010.  He told us he agreed that this case should be elevated to IRS employees in Washington because it was a “high profile” application in which the organization indicated that it would be engaging in political activity.  He explained that he initiated the first effort to gather similar cases in order to ensure their consistent treatment, and that he took this action on his own, without any direction from his superiors, and without any political motivation.  He also confirmed that one of his screeners developed terms subsequently identified by the Inspector General as “inappropriate,” such as “Patriot” and “9/12 project,” but that he did not become aware that his screener was using these terms until more than a year later.

These statements from the Screening Group Manager directly contradict several serious and unsubstantiated accusations made by you and several other Republican Committee Chairmen over the past month.  For example:

  • On May 14, 2013, you stated:  “This was the targeting of the president’s political enemies effectively and lies about it during the election year, so that it wasn’t discovered until afterwards.”
  • On June 3, 2013, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers stated:  “Of course, the enemies list out of the White House that IRS was engaged in shutting down or trying to shut down the conservative political viewpoint across the country—an enemies list that rivals that of another president some time ago.”
  • On June 12, 2013, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp stated:  “We know it didn’t originate in Cincinnati.”

To be clear, I am not suggesting that IRS employees in Washington, D.C. played no role in these activities.  For example, the Inspector General has already reported that Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, became aware of the use of inappropriate criteria in 2011.  The Inspector General also identified a document called a “Be on The Lookout,” or BOLO, that directed IRS employees in Cincinnati to send these applications to a specific group within the Cincinnati office that was coordinating with IRS employees in the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in Washington, D.C.  According to the Inspector General, after Ms. Lerner learned of the terms used by the screeners, she immediately ordered a halt to the use of these terms, resulting in a change to the BOLO in July 2011 to apply to all organizations “involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).”

These facts are a far cry from accusations of a conspiracy orchestrated by the White House to target the President’s political enemies.  At this point in the investigation, not one witness who has appeared before the Committee has identified any involvement by any White House officials in the identification or screening of Tea Party applicants for tax exempt status, and the Committee has obtained no documents indicating any such involvement.

Release of Full Transcript of Screening Group Manager

Although you committed on June 2 to release the full transcripts of Committee interviews with IRS employees, you wrote to me nine days later reversing your position and arguing instead that taking such action would be “reckless” and “undermine the integrity of the Committee’s investigation.”[1]  Since you did not raise these objections previously, I wrote to you on June 13, 2013, seeking clarification to ensure that we proceed in a responsible and considered manner.  Unfortunately, you failed to respond to my letter, and you declined to provide answers to any of the questions I raised.

In my June 13 letter, I also provided you with a copy of the transcript of the Committee’s interview with the Screening Group Manager, with names redacted to protect individual privacy.  In order to provide the public with the most comprehensive information possible without jeopardizing the Committee’s investigation, I asked you to review this transcript and identify any specific text you believe should be withheld from the American people, as well as the specific reason you believe it should be concealed.  I requested that you provide any additional proposed redactions by June 17, 2013.  You did not identify any specific text you believe should be withheld for any reason, and you did not identify any text that would compromise the Committee’s investigation if released.

In my June 13 letter, I also proposed that our staffs meet to discuss a bipartisan procedure to handle these types of issues in the future.  Although I fundamentally disagree with the unsubstantiated claims you have made about the IRS matter being driven by the White House to attack the President’s political enemies, I wanted to give you appropriate deference in conducting Committee investigations.  I hoped we could focus on a bipartisan approach that maximizes transparency and accuracy, but your staff refused several follow-up requests to meet with my staff on this issue.

Rather than working together in a bipartisan manner, you apparently directed your staff to spend the weekend engaging in the same activity you condemned as “reckless” less than a week earlier.  Based on multiple press reports, you apparently reversed your position—yet again—and allowed select reporters to come into the Committee’s offices over the weekend to review full, unredacted transcripts from several interviews conducted by Committee staff.  For example:

  • USA Today reported that you allowed its reporters to review the full transcript of IRS official Holly Paz:  “USA TODAY reviewed all 222 pages of the transcript of her interview.”
  • The Wall Street Journal reported that you also allowed its reporters to review the full Paz transcript:  “The Wall Street Journal reviewed the transcript of her interview in recent days.”
  • Reuters reported that you allowed its reporters to review the full Paz transcript as well:  “Reuters has reviewed the interview transcript.”
  • The Associated Press reported that you allowed its reporters to review not only the full Paz transcript, but also transcripts of interviews with two other IRS officials:  “The Associated Press has reviewed transcripts from three interviews—with Paz and with two agents, Gary Muthert and Elizabeth Hofacre.”
  • Politico also reported that its reporters were given access to full transcripts of interview “conducted by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and reviewed by POLITICO.

It is difficult to understand why you changed your mind again so quickly after arguing last week that disclosing full transcripts would undermine the Committee’s investigation.  As a result of your actions, some of your own colleagues are now requesting that you disclose all of the transcripts.  For example, Republican Senator Rob Portman stated:  “Let’s see everything.  Let’s see it all.  And let’s see all the transcripts and you know let’s have a fair, objective analysis of this.”[2]  He added:  “I don’t know what their reasons are, but I think all of us should be able to get access to those transcripts.”

Despite your multiple reversals on this issue, there appears to be one constant in your approach:  you have not shared one word from the interview transcript of the IRS Screening Group Manager in Cincinnati who provided the most relevant information about how this entire process began.  This is the only transcript you evidently do not want the American people to see.

I do not believe this approach is a responsible, fair, or legitimate way to conduct the Committee’s investigation.  I have now given you ample opportunity to explain your objections to releasing the transcript of the interview of the Screening Group Manager.  You have not provided any compelling or consistent rationale for continuing to conceal this information from Members of Congress or the American public, and you have identified no House rule or Committee rule that prohibits such a release.

For all of these reasons, I believe releasing this transcript serves the best interest of Congress and the American people by ensuring that there is an accurate and fair picture of the management challenges facing the IRS and that recommendations for legislative reform are appropriately crafted to address the specific problems identified as a result of our oversight efforts.

Renewed Request for Bipartisan Approach

In my letter to you on June 13, 2013, I requested that our staffs work together to develop a bipartisan protocol for handling interview transcripts going forward rather than continuing to release excerpts to select reporters outside of any hearing, report, letter, or other official action by Committee Members.  Since that effort was unsuccessful, I now request that we meet to discuss this matter personally, and I continue to believe that the Committee is capable of conducting a truly bipartisan investigation of this issue that serves the best interests of the American people.

Sincerely,

Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member

Amodei Clearly Declares War on NV’s Women

Today, our congressional representative, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV2), essentially declared WAR on the women of Nevada by voting FOR passage of HR1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ).  This onerous bill bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on the medically disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain at that point. While it contains exceptions for women whose lives are in danger, it requires that rape and incest victims must prove that they reported their assaults to criminal authorities.  In addition, it contains no exceptions for severe fetal anomalies or situations in which the woman’s health is threatened by her pregnancy.  Here’s a summary of what the brethren of the REPUBLIBAN feel is the “appropriate choice” for women throughout our nation:

  • Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion except in conformity with this Act’s requirements.
  • Requires the physician to first determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child, or reasonably rely upon such a determination made by another physician, by making inquiries of the pregnant woman and performing such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent physician would consider necessary.
  • Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions. Permits a physician to terminate a pregnancy under such exception only in the manner that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless that manner would pose a greater risk than other available methods would pose of the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.
  • Subjects individuals who violate this Act to a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. Bars prosecution of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this Act for violating or conspiring to violate this Act.
  • Defines “abortion” to mean the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn child or to intentionally terminate a pregnancy with an intention other than: (1) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child; or (2) to remove a dead unborn child.

HE voted for passage of a such a bill based on propaganda and bogus science?  Really?  HE thinks women lie about being raped and therefore should have to PROVE they were actually raped?  Really?  HE thinks victims of incest must PROVE they were a victim of rape? Really?  HE thinks HIS judgment about womens’ health issues is superior to any woman’s, and therefore, it’s HIS job to legislate that decision for every woman throughout our nation?  Really?

HE thinks that fetus is just viable as a 9-month old fetus at a gestational age of just a mere 20 weeks?  Really?  This from the same guy who has voted to REPEAL health care reform how many times? This from the same guy whose party claims they want to “repeal and replace Obamacare”?  UH … where’s the replacement?  Who does HE think is going to pay the outrageous costs involved to care for a 20-week fetus delivered using” “the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive”?  What lifelong disabilities will that child/adult have related to all those “life-saving” procedures visited on that extremely, prematurely delivered child?  My guess is that HE didn’t spend a single moment to ponder any of those questions. HE doesn’t know diddily-squat about pregnancy and childbirth.   HE just voted the way Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor told him to vote!

Well Ladies, it’s time for a change in representation! HE clearly does NOT represent us. Who among us is going to step up to the plate and strike him out?  Start your campaign early … build your support team to knock on doors throughout CD2 and help folks learn who you are and who/what you represent.  This vote was the equivalent of one too many salvos over our front hedges.  The vote for passage of HR1797 may just be symbolic to Rep. Amodei and his  REPUBLIBAN brethren, but THAT vote was clearly a declaration of #WARonWomen!

If you are as  appalled and disgusted as me by Rep. Amodei’s vote on HR1797, his DC phone# is 202-225-6155. Business hours may be over at the time of this writing, but don’t let that dissuade you.  Please take the time to call his number and if nothing else, leave a voicemail expressing your displeasure with his YES vote for passage of HR1797.

TAKE ACTION: Senator, Confirm McCarthy At The EPA

President Obama has nominated Gina McCarthy to serve as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), our nation’s protector of clean air, clean water, and public health. She is a solid choice for the job.

Gina McCarthy has a long and respected career working in a bipartisan fashion to protect our environment. She has worked at the state level for Republican governors and served as assistant administrator at the EPA during the first term of the Obama administration.

In May, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted along party lines in favor of McCarthy for this position after an initial boycott of the proceedings by Republicans. Now, still other Republican members are stonewalling, placing holds on the nomination and keeping the full Senate from voting for McCarthy to take the helm at the EPA.

Many important issues remain unfinished at the EPA:

•  Carbon limits need to be set for new and existing power plants.
•  Coal ash needs to be regulated as the toxic pollution it is.
•  Protections must be restored for every American waterway.

But, first the Senate must vote to confirm her.

Please take action by encouraging your senator to vote to confirm Gina McCarthy.