Hasta La Gadget!

To recap: This week, amidst massive public outcry, anti-women’s health politicians in Congress canceled a planned vote on dangerous and deeply unpopular abortion restrictions and instead voted on … dangerous and deeply unpopular abortion restrictions.

You read that right: After a sweeping ban on abortion at 20 weeks proved to be so politically toxic House Majority leadership couldn’t even get their members lined up behind the bill, they switched it out for a different bill with the same goal: to ban abortion altogether.

While it’s encouraging that some people in office are beginning to realize the impact these dangerous and unpopular abortion restrictions can have on their political careers, it would be better if they realized the impact these policies have on women’s lives. Make no mistake: The bill passed by the House yesterday – just like a 20-week ban or the myriad abortion restrictions already introduced in state legislatures around the country in 2015 – is a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate access to abortion and undermine a woman’s ability to make personal decisions about her own health care.

What Americans really want isn’t a mystery: In nearly every poll – including the one on Election Day – voters have expressed their strong desire for Congress to focus on growing the economy and expanding opportunity for women and families. Instead, in their first five days in session, members of the 114th Congress introduced seven anti-women’s health bills. Then the U.S. House of Representatives – not a governing body known for their political expediency – worked around the clock to introduce and pass legislation that would all but eliminate abortion access for low-income women.

I’ve seen headlines these last few weeks that say extreme politicians in Congress have wasted no time pushing an anti-women’s health agenda, and I strongly disagree: This is a monumental waste of time. Instead of advancing an extreme agenda ultimately designed to end access to abortion, Congress should focus on addressing real public health issues in this country. 42 years after Roe v. Wade, let’s make the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion a reality for every woman in this country – whether they live in Texas or New York. Let’s continue to agree, as President Obama pointed out in his State of the Union, that it is a great accomplishment that teen pregnancy in this country is at a historic low – and let’s also recognize that didn’t happen by accident. Let’s celebrate the tremendous advances women have made in public life over the last century and celebrate the fundamental right that underpins each one: the ability to determine whether and when to have children. Let’s recognize that we cannot move ahead if half the population is left behind.

So if Congress wants to grow the economy and keep up with progress on the global stage, if they want to unleash the potential of all American people, there are some things they could do right now to protect women’s health:

> Expand access to publicly funded planning services – the single best way to support women so they can get an education, succeed in the workforce, and support their families.

> Recognize that appropriate sex education for every young person in this country isn’t just a great idea – it’s absolutely necessary. Even with teen pregnancy at the lowest point in history, the U.S. still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among developed countries. This costs the U.S. about $9.4 billion each year – and more importantly, it costs young women their opportunities and their futures. We’ve got work to do on this front.

> Make birth control affordable and accessible – over the counter, at the doctor’s office, but always fully covered by insurance with no co-pay, just like all other women’s preventive care.

> Support efforts to strengthen and protect Medicaid – so women and families in desperate need of affordable health care can get it.

> Pass the Women’s Health Protection Act so that abortion is always safe and legal, no matter where you live.

For nearly a century, Planned Parenthood has believed in the power of women to determine their own lives and futures. We’ve seen the progress that’s possible when we expand access to care instead of standing in the way. California’s new law to allow nurse practitioners to provide early abortion meant that women in rural parts of the state could access abortion in their community for the first time. In Colorado, researchers found that when women have access to birth control and cost isn’t a barrier, it brings down teen pregnancy and unintended pregnancy rates. Let’s build on this progress.

So as we reflect on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and House Majority leadership’s abortion fiasco, let’s make sure the lesson we learn is the right one: The majority of Americans want their lawmakers to focus on policies that keep women – and this country – moving forward, not on turning back the clock. Think of what could happen if we stopped using reproductive health as a political bargaining chip and focused on improving access to health care for everyone. It’s time we stopped giving credit to legislators who recognize the horrible optics of attacking women’s health and rights and start giving it to those who actually advance them.

TV Review Jackie K Cooper
“Away and Back” (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

It is time to celebrate as the real “Hallmark Hall of Fame” is back. After too many years of silly comedies and soapy romances this special event of television has returned to the hallmark of what it once represented – good, enjoyable family entertainment. The show that brings it back is “Away and Back,” an original movie that is endearing and enjoyable.

“Away and Back” presents Jason Lee portraying Jack Peterson, a widower raising three children. The youngest of the three is Frankie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones), a young girl trying to get her world back together after her mother’s death. Her loneliness leads her to fixate on the arrival of two trumpeter swans at the family pond. The swans lay a nest of eggs and Frankie is amazed.

When word of the eggs reach Ginny Newsom’s ears she immediately comes to the Peterson property. Ginny (Minka Kelly) is a wilderness biologist/ornithologist. She declares the eggs are the government’s property and packs them up for study. This provides Frankie with another loss. Soon. However, she convinces her father to take the entire family to the wilderness park where the young cygnets are being kept.

The whole theme of things (and people) leaving and coming back is played throughout the show. Each absence teaches a lesson and each return gladdens the heart. Nothing in the story feels rushed or fabricated and each incident is played out to the fullest.

The cinematography is beautiful and the scenes of the landscape with the swans is picturesque. Everything is done to bring the viewer into the story. The look, the sound, the acting and the story are all complementary to make the whole effective.

Lee and Kelly are perfectly cast as the two adult leads while Jones proves child actors don’t have to be pretentious and/or cloyingly sweet. The actors who play Frankie’s brothers, Connor Paton and Jaren Lewison, are also completely believable in their roles.

“The Hallmark Hall of Fame” had a nice long run on network television and now it is seen on cable’s Hallmark Channel. I urge you to seek this movie out and let yourself surrender to its impressive story of love, loss and hope. Watch it with your family. You will all enjoy it.

“Away and Back” airs on the Hallmark Channel, Sunday, January 25 at 8PM AT/PT.

Jackie K Cooper
www.jackiekcooper.com

The history of the American labor movement is rich and diverse–diverse, exhilarating, depressing, inspirational, weird and heartbreaking. Ever since passage of the landmark National Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act), in 1935, unions have been recognized as the legal, government-sanctioned entities dedicated to improving the wages, benefits and working conditions of employees.

Despite Corporate America’s attempts at demonizing and debasing it, organized labor has proven it still plays an important role in the economy. During the affluent 1950s, when our middle-class was in the process of becoming the envy of the world, union membership stood at close to 35-percent. Today, with the middle-class under siege and continuing to be chipped away, it hovers at barely 11-percent.

The establishment of unions was predicated upon one simple principle: The time-honored belief that without some form of unified resistance–without the “strength in numbers” leverage that only collectivism can provide–workers would remain at the mercy of management’s self-serving definitions of “fair wages” and “adequate working conditions.” Simple as that.

When Douglas MacArthur was placed in charge of “reconstructing” Japan after World War II, he insisted that the Japanese establish labor unions (which they never had), fearing that, without them, management would become too powerful. It should be noted that General MacArthur was no “We shall overcome” liberal. He was a rightwing Republican.

But unions still draw fire, and, surprisingly, the biggest complaint involves their handling of discipline. People are confused by the distinction between a union “representing” its members and “defending” them. Accordingly, these observers tend to judge organized labor harshly (and unfairly), believing that unions are committed to defending bad employees–lazy workers, incompetent workers, pilferers, vandals….cops accused of shooting unarmed citizens.

As the former president of an industrial union, I may be able to clarify that distinction. I will use the real-life example of a long-term employee who was fired for theft. The man was caught red-handed trying to walk out with stuff that obviously didn’t belong to him. A 17-year employee being deprived of his livelihood was a big deal. As union prez, it was my job to “represent” him.

First of all, we need to be clear. There’s no way in hell anyone is going to “defend” theft. Other than a case of a desperate father stealing food in order to feed his starving babies, how does one go about defending one’s right to steal, particularly from one’s long-time employer?

What I did was represent this dues-paying member. And by representing him, all I really did was cover the bases: Make sure that the salient facts were accurate, that the man wasn’t under duress, that he understood what he was doing, that his rights hadn’t been violated, and that the punishment (in this case termination) fit the crime. Pilfering was a pretty much a non-issue in that plant. In fact, employee theft didn’t even move the needle. So a theft discharge was fairly unique; there wasn’t much of a road map from which to work. Chronic absenteeism was the chief reason people were fired.

As it happened, even though this guy was guilty, it was tough seeing him get clobbered. He stole $35 worth of maintenance equipment (some grinding stones, duct tape, and a clamp), and for that he had kissed off a $50,000 a year job with full benefits and pension. Making it even tougher, you could see he was genuinely contrite. He wept. Not only at having lost his job, but at having disgraced himself so abjectly.

Again, while no one is going to defend a man’s right to steal, there are forms of punishment other than economic homicide available. Nowhere was it written that this man had to be fired. Indeed, in everyday life, thieves don’t get the death penalty; they get put in jail. But my request that his 17 years of good service be taken into account, and that he be suspended for 30 days without pay, was denied.

The plant manager argued that that would send the wrong message. It would be telling people that everyone was entitled to one “freebie”–one occasion where you could be caught stealing and not have to worry about being terminated, only suspended. I found that to be a bizarre interpretation, given that the plant had no theft problem. But he wouldn’t budge.

Afterward, people on the floor were annoyed to learn the union had “defended” the man, that their union had “wasted the membership’s dues” on a thief. “How could you defend that guy?” a woman asked me angrily. I tried telling her that I had represented him, not defended him. “Bullshit,” she said. “You’re playing with words.”

David Macaray is a playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor,” 2nd edition). He can be reached at Dmacaray@gmail.com

Where I grew up people make their own whiskey in rusty bath tubs. Houses explode. Shotguns are fired. Cop chases ensue. Tragedies are inevitable. So when an all-in-one home brew kit showed up at our office, I wondered: How hard can beer be?

Read more…

Remember last week when Speaker of the House John Boehner was raked over the coals for reducing a complex political argument to a series of glib Taylor Swift GIFs? Well, now it’s New York representative Charlie Rangel’s turn. The apparent congressman…