By CAP Action War Room

Fight Back Texas

by CAP Action War Room Posted on June 10, 2015 at 6:16 pm

The 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals Stuck A Knife In Roe v. Wade

Yesterday, three George W. Bush-appointed judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with anti-abortion lawmakers in Texas to uphold sweeping restrictions that will cause abortion clinics across the state to close. The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, is a big blow to Texas abortion providers who hoped to fight against a law passed by Texas lawmakers that will shut down all but eight of the state’s abortion clinics.

The law in question—HB 2—requires clinicians who provide abortions to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital and requires clinics to comply with a list of prohibitively expensive and completely unnecessary architectural and other requirements. The legal question at issue in the case was whether these restrictions place “undue burden” on women seeking abortion services. These restrictions would force hundreds of thousands of women to travel more than 150 miles to the nearest clinic but the 5th Circuit did not find that burden “undue.”

Here are three key takeaways from this case:

Politicians, not clinicians, are behind these restrictions: Anti-abortion lawmakers have pushed these laws through the legislature under the guise of making abortions safer for women despite the fact that there is little evidence to support that claim. In fact, a federal judge determined that there is “no rational relationship” between the restrictions included in HB 2 and improved patient outcomes.

The decision will cause almost all abortion clinics in Texas to close: In August 2013, before HB2 took effect, Texas had 40 licensed abortion clinics. If the law takes full effect, only eight clinics will remain open. What that means is 900,000 reproduction-age women will have to travel more than 150 miles to the nearest clinic.

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it could undo Roe v. Wade: This case is almost guaranteed to be heard by the Supreme Court next fall. And if the Court were to side with the ideologically-charged 5th Circuit’s ruling many other states would have broad discretion to further restrict access to abortion. In the event that the Supreme Court does uphold the 5th Circuit decision, it could effectively destroy what little remains of Roe v. Wade protections.

Rather than working to pass sweeping abortion restrictions under the guise of protecting women’s health, lawmakers should focus on real ways to improve women’s abortion access. This report from the Center for American Progress cites expanding those who provide abortion services as a meaningful way to expand abortion access.

BOTTOM LINE: Texas’s law expanding abortion restrictions has already had a visibly detrimental impact on the state, and the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the restrictions could have far-reaching consequences. If this case goes to the Supreme Court and is another to fall victim to the ideology of the Roberts Court, it could mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

By CAP Action War Room

this is a repost

Conservatives Continue To Use The Court To Dismantle The Affordable Care Act

The amicus briefs were due for King v. Burwell¸ the Supreme Court case which threatens to cause a meltdown in the health care system. If the Supreme Court rules against the law, tax credits for health insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces in approximately three dozen states would be eliminated. This case, as we have written in the past, is a thinly veiled attempt by ideologically-motivated conservatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act, despite the overwhelming evidence that the law is working.

Simply put, conservatives have no ground to stand on in making their argument—the text of the law is simply at odds with the plaintiffs’ view. Their case is so shaky, in fact, that many prominent conservatives who are fighting against the law have previously undercut their own arguments:

• In a 2013 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gov. Scott Walker said he spent nearly two years studying the law, and found there is no functional difference between a federal and state exchange, “[b]ut, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership.”
• Sen. Orrin Hatch was one of six Republicans to file an amicus brief in favor of gutting the law. Yet the brief directly contradicts an op-ed Hatch co-wrote in 2010 in which he wrote that a state establishing its own exchange, “[i]s not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states.”
• The Heritage Foundation has supported the challengers in King v. Burwell, despite the fact that they wrote an entire white paper on the basis that subsidies would be available to any enrollee. According to that paper, “whoever controls the AHB exchange,” tax credits will be available.

Recently, the challengers in this case have turned to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to substantiate their case because during debates on the law he insisted that states should take the lead on establishing exchanges. But Sen. Nelson, now retired, set the record straight saying: “I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange, and the final law also reflects that belief as well.”

Much more than a political victory rests on the decision of this case. Stripping premium tax credits from all eligible individuals enrolled in a federal marketplace would have dire consequences. Here are just a few examples:

• The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 8 million people would lose health coverage.
• Health insurance companies and hospitals have said stopping subsidies in 34 states “would create severely dysfunctional insurance markets,” and “[i]t would leave consumers in those States with a more unstable market and far higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted.”
• Public health experts estimate that 9,800 preventable deaths will occur each year if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act.

BOTTOM LINE: King v. Burwell is an ideologically-charged case whose real-world implications are much more serious than political gain. Many conservatives arguing against the law have undercut their argument in the past, showing the weakness of their own case. Conservatives should stop playing politics with the livelihood of the American people. The well-being and financial stability of millions of Americans is much more important that partisan politics.

                                           Public Safety is Sometimes a Matter of Appearance

By Joyce McGinnis, Office of Legislative, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs (CSOSA Newslink, August 2003)

As CSOSA prepares to unveil its second Strategic Plan, which is currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget, we should pause to remember the literature and statistics that support what we do. Our supervision practices are rooted in the rich soil of criminal justice scholarship.

One of the most influential theories in recent criminal justice literature is that of “broken windows.” This theory, originally introduced in 1969, has been the subject of heated debate in all areas of law enforcement. In an article in the Atlantic Monthly, James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling discussed a study of foot-patrol policing in Newark, New Jersey. Interestingly, although the presence or absence of officers on foot patrol did not influence crime rates in the city’s neighborhoods, citizens perceived they were safer—and that crime was lower—if they saw a cop on the beat. Wilson and Kelling argued that the perception of safety was in fact the result of the police officers performing an important function. Foot-patrol officers maintained a “surface” order in their neighborhoods. They silenced boisterous teenagers, moved loiterers along, and noted unusual activity. They provided a visible law enforcement presence. Because residents felt that presence, they were more likely to enforce the neighborhood’s “rules” themselves.

The authors also discussed an experiment performed with an abandoned car. If the car was placed on a street in the Bronx, it was stripped of all useful parts and destroyed within hours. In quieter, more affluent Palo Alto, California, the car was not ransacked unless it appeared to be damaged. After the study’s authors smashed one window with a sledgehammer, passersby viewed the car as “disposable” and soon joined in the destructive fun.

Wilson and Kelling summarized their views as follows:

Untended property becomes fair game for people out for fun or plunder and even for people who ordinarily would not dream of doing such things and who probably consider themselves law-abiding…We suggest that “untended” behavior also leads to the breakdown of community controls. A stable neighborhood … can change, in a few years or even a few months, to an inhospitable and frightening jungle.

This theory had a significant impact on all aspects of law enforcement that touch the community. The “community policing” and “restorative justice” movements can be traced to this theory. Community involvement, partnership with law enforcement officers, and the idea that offenders should make amends with the community are all linked to the idea that visible involvement brings visible results. If people appear to care, then potential criminals will believe that they do care—and will respect their rights and their property.

By the close of the 1990s, public policymakers began to examine the applicability of the “broken windows” model to community supervision. A group of practitioners and policymakers convened as the Reinventing Probation Council in 1998. Their report, “Transforming Probation Through Leadership: The ‘Broken Windows’ Model” appeared in August 1999. Both the report and subsequent commentary on it have influenced CSOSA’s approach to community supervision.

The “broken windows” model of probation maintains that the primary “product” of community supervision is not services delivered to those under supervision, but public safety for the entire community. The authors argued that public confidence in community supervision had eroded significantly, and that to rebuild it, administrators and policymakers must adopt an approach that redefines the “customer” of community supervision to encompass all citizens—offenders, victims, and ordinary individuals. To that end, the authors articulated seven principles through which community supervision can be “reinvented”:

1. Place public safety first;
2. Supervise probationers in the neighborhood, not the office;
3. Rationally allocate resources;
4. Provide for strong enforcement of probation conditions and a quick response to violations;
5. Develop partners in the community;
6. Establish performance-based initiatives; and
7. Cultivate strong leadership.

CSOSA has incorporated these principles into its program model. Our approach to community supervision is grounded in the idea that public safety is our most important outcome. Moreover, our Community Supervision Officers work in the community to maintain a visible law enforcement presence and contribute to public order.

While the “broken windows” model is a compelling statement of the public’s stake in effective community supervision, it does not address the significant needs and deficits that impede offenders’ desire to change. The offenders under CSOSA’s supervision must overcome significant functional deficits, poor work histories, and overwhelming drug addiction to establish a viable, crime-free lifestyle. A comprehensive community corrections system that ignores these needs and focuses solely on enforcement does little to increase public safety or public confidence.

Faye Taxman of the University of Maryland and James Byrne of the University of Massachusetts articulated this deficiency in a 2001 article, “Fixing ‘Broken Windows’ Probation.” Taxman and Byrne argued that treatment is an essential component of a successful, truly comprehensive community corrections strategy. They wrote:

Our review of the research … reveals that it is offender improvement in the areas of employment, substance abuse, personal and family problems that is directly related to recidivism reduction. At its core, offender change in these areas is precisely what probation officers should focus on during supervision.

In developing its supervision model, CSOSA recognized that the principles articulated in the “broken windows” model need not be viewed as conflicting with the provision of treatment and other support programming. On the contrary, the external control exercised through close supervision, meaningful sanctions, and surveillance drug testing can complement the offender’s participation in support programs. If the principles of “broken windows” are aimed at establishing a system of external accountability—the offender is watched and is punished when non-compliance is detected—treatment and other programming are intended to establish a system of internal accountability. Through success in treatment, education, job training, and other experiences, the offender learns that change is possible and desirable. He or she develops the desire to behave differently.

CSOSA’s supervision model adapts an influential theory to the realities of our population. It is a unique blend of accountability to the community and opportunity for the individual. Our success will therefore benefit both the public we serve and the offenders we supervise.

Resource: csosa.gov

Again, there are so many problems with the bw law … Ask yourself, has the bw law lead to systematic population control civil unrest and civil rights abuses or an established system of internal accountability, job training or education to gain access an alternative lifestyle.  If you listen to the people who experience the “brokenwindows” law, the practice seems to only occur in white communities and in some instances the model is a great path toward jail time that does not meet the charges rendered. It’s no shock that unemployment among men&women of colour is high then include an arrest that could be because you couldn’t pay for a ticket or a misdemeanor changes your life forever. The solutions seem easy … stop treating people of colour as if they need controlling offer equal education jobs and strive for income equality for all, #blacklivesmatter ~Nativegrl77