Copenhagen Sham

This is just me expressing my disgust at the leaders of the Western world and hence a repost of an  opinion from the president of Friends of Earth U.S.

Source: http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-us-reaction-sham-deal-requires-nothing-accomplishes-nothing

Friends of the Earth U.S. Reaction: Sham Deal Requires Nothing, Accomplishes Nothing

"Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries. This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new. The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate.

"The blame for the failure to achieve a real deal lies squarely on the rich countries whose pollution has caused the climate crisis -- especially the United States. Rich countries refused to budge from the grossly inadequate emissions reduction proposals they brought to Copenhagen, and they failed to put sufficient money on the table so that poor countries that did not cause this crisis have the capacity to cope with it.

"With the future of all humans on this planet at stake, rich countries must muster far more political will than they exhibited here. If they do not, small island states will become submerged, people in vulnerable communities across the globe will be afflicted with hunger and disease, and wars over access to food and water will rage.

"The devastation will extend to those of us who live in wealthy countries. If we cannot find a way to cooperate with others to produce a real agreement to solve this problem, climate change impacts will devastate the U.S. economy, undermine our security, and inflict irreparable harm on future generations.

"The failure to produce anything meaningful in Copenhagen must serve as a wake up call to all who care about the future. It is a call to action. Corporate polluters and other special interests have such overwhelming influence that rich country governments are willing to agree only to fig leaf solutions. This is unacceptable, and it must change.

"Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the United States, which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails."

The Obama Healthcare Bill and Women's Healthcare coverage.

The Obama Healthcare bill as it stands now is a bum deal for women.

The watering down of women's healthcare - Mikulski amendment won't be discussed on the floor. (http://bit.ly/56Murn)

The Mikulski Amendment is designed to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage quoting current guidelines for procedures like routine mammograms which were recently modified to start only at age 50 and to happen biennially instead of annually, especially if a specialist recommends the patient have one.  The Mikulski Amendment: (http://bit.ly/4CPg2G)

The other thing is abortion coverage.  The Stupak-Pitts Amendment that made it possible to pass the Bill through the House and had similar language added on in the Senate version prohibits insurance companies from offering plans on the exchange with abortion coverage to anyone that receives governmental aid.  An NY Times Op-Ed on this issue: http://bit.ly/iw0WS

The problem, as I see it and perhaps my physician friends can clarify, is that the procedure that removes a foetus is termed a D&C (Dilation and Curettage).  This same procedure removes a foetus in an unwanted pregnancy or removes the remains of a miscarriage or foetal demise.  It is also the same procedure that is used to remove intra-uterine polyps.  The medical term for all these procedures, irrespective of the pathology, is the same.  And since the language of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is so broad and vague, it is highly likely (extremely likely, I would argue given past history) that insurance companies will use its language to deny women coverage.

All this because the Catholic Church and a bunch of religious fanatics are worried about the life of an unborn child to the point where they don't care about the lives of the living that can and will be jeopardised by not having access to this procedure.

If Obama really means what he says when he says that people who like their current medical coverage can keep it, then he needs to do real work on modifying this Bill as it progresses through the debating process.  If even the larger companies that currently offer such coverage to their employees were to decide to let its employees purchase insurance from the exchange, then it is very likely that many, many more women stand to lose abortion coverage, in the unlikely event of their ever needing it.

I love the slogan of one of the women's healthcare advocates: "Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition!".