CVIndependent

Mon09232019

Last updateTue, 18 Sep 2018 1pm

With a small brown paper bag in her hand, Julie walked out of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Roseville with a new supply of birth control. It didn’t matter that she didn’t have health insurance.

“It’s awesome to have Planned Parenthood,” said Julie, who did not wish to give her last name. “To go to a regular health clinic like this would have cost $100, which would make you think twice about having to go.”

It’s the kind of clinic that President Donald Trump and conservative Republicans in Congress hope to cut off from receiving any federal funds. The federal government already prohibits any federal dollars from paying for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. But this effort seeks to block federal funds from paying for any other kind of health care by providers who also perform abortions.

If the effort succeeds, the impact would be particularly strong in California—a state where legislators over the years have interpreted federal laws and rules in ways that have allowed more federal dollars to flow to Planned Parenthood clinics. Roughly half of the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives nationwide currently goes, mostly via Medicaid reimbursements, to cover health care and family planning services for Californians, mostly in the lower-income brackets.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood officials say if they were to lose all their federal funding, their California abortion clinics would remain open; those already are funded by private sources and by state reimbursements for poorer patients. Instead, what would be at risk are all the nonsurgical sites that provide other medical and contraception services.

The state’s progressive state policies, put in place 30 years ago under Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, created a friendly environment for Planned Parenthood to expand and offer family-planning services to low-income men and women above the federal poverty level. That’s in stark contrast to states such as Texas and Mississippi, which unsuccessfully sought to ban their state Medicaid healthcare programs for the poor from channeling any money to health care providers that perform abortions.

As a result, Planned Parenthood today is one of California’s major health care providers, operating 115 clinics that serve 850,000 mostly low-income patients a year who rely on Medicaid (in California, Medi-Cal) for health care. That’s nearly a third of the 2.5 million patients who visit Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide for basic health-care and family-planning services.

“Planned Parenthood is a major safety-net provider at a time of increased health care demand,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. “In a state like California, with more Planned Parenthoods, the reliance would be that much greater.”

The Republican-controlled Congress, bolstered by President Trump’s election, is eyeing several strategies to stop the flow of federal funding to Planned Parenthood. That money—roughly $500 million a year nationwide, through Medicaid reimbursements, Title X family planning money and grants—pays for services such as cancer screenings, breast exams, birth control, prenatal care and the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

Although Trump has frequently acknowledged that Planned Parenthood helps millions of women, he also has said he would support congressional efforts to ban funding.

“I would defund it because of the abortion factor,” he said at a February 2016 GOP presidential debate. “I would defund it, because I’m pro-life.”

A draft House GOP bill obtained by Politico would eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood as part of a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. While that provision is likely to clear the House, its fate is uncertain in the Senate, where several moderate Republicans could side with pro-choice Democrats.

If the effort were to prevail, California Planned Parenthood would lose $260 million a year in federal funds—approximately 80 percent of its operating budget. Unless it found a way to replenish that money, the organization warns that it could have to close its 82 California sites that furnish basic health care and family-planning services to mostly low-income patients.

Meanwhile, its remaining 33 surgical abortion sites—which don’t get federal funding—would remain open, said Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of California Planned Parenthood.

“The irony here is that they are going to put in place more barriers for women to gain contraception, and that will lead to more abortions—and by the way, all the abortion sites will stay open,” Kneer said.

The House recently voted to reverse an Obama administration regulation that requires states and local governments to distribute family-planning funds to health centers, even if they perform abortions. President Barack Obama issued the rule in his final days in office after more than a dozen conservative states directed those funds only to community health-care centers.

Such an 11th-hour move by an outgoing president, Republicans argued during the floor debate, was an affront to states’ rights.

“I know that vulnerable women seeking true comprehensive care deserve better than abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood,” said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn.

The resolution is now awaiting a vote in the Senate, where California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein is working to defeat it. It would have no effect on California, given that it is not among the states that have tried to limit those Title X dollars. Nonetheless, she noted that Planned Parenthood provides the only Title X family planning services in 13 California counties, and that any effort to strip federal funding would take a toll in other states and leave “huge numbers of women across the country (with) no place to go for essential health services.”

Trump on the campaign trail vowed to defund Planned Parenthood, and then he appointed Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who has supported cutting off taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood. Both men have suggested the federal government could reallocate taxpayer dollars to community health centers. But many experts and health care advocates say those health centers cannot absorb the significant number of patients who now rely on Planned Parenthood.

That concern was echoed in January when the Democratic-controlled California Legislature approved resolutions opposing any congressional efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. They did so after Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards met with Democratic senators at their annual policy retreat in Sacramento.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, proclaimed: “California stands with Planned Parenthood, because Planned Parenthood stands with California.”

But his sentiment was not unanimous. Several Republicans spoke out against the resolutions, with state Sen. Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga, saying he could not support an organization that provides abortions. 

“I have no war against women,” he said. “But I also do not have a war against babies created in the image of God.”

With a Democrat-controlled state Legislature, California Planned Parenthood is hopeful it could ask lawmakers to backfill any federal shortfall. However, Medicaid funding is already strapped in the state, where a record one in three Californians are receiving Medi-Cal benefits. Given the potential for other federal cuts in health funding, it’s unclear whether the state would be able to make up the difference.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is drafting contingency plans.

“We are looking at scenario planning. These are all very difficult decisions,” Kneer said. “Closing any location is the last thing we want to do.”

One option is to more aggressively raise funds, but Kneer said private donations can’t possibly make up what they would lose. She also raised the question of whether private funds should be required to pay for a government reimbursement that other organizations receive.

Even if President Trump receives and signs legislation to strip Planned Parenthood of all its federal funding, Planned Parenthood could still challenge in court whether such a restriction is constitutional.

In the last few years, federal courts across the country have denied other states’ efforts to block Planned Parenthood as an eligible provider of taxpayer-funded health, ruling that such moves violated the First Amendment right of free speech and free association to choose a medical provider, and the right of a clinic to provide abortion services under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, said Julie Cantor, an adjunct professor at UCLA who teaches a law class on reproductive medical ethics.

“The government’s behavior has to comport with the Constitution,” Cantor said.

Samantha Young is a contributor to CALmatters.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in National/International

I’d like to share some of my reactions to the inauguration—rough notes I took while watching wall-to-wall coverage from Thursday through Sunday.

Think of it as a sacrifice made on your behalf.

TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER

I’m a sucker for tradition and ceremonial continuity. Even parades make me cry. So when President-elect Trump and Vice-President-elect Pence visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to place a wreath on Thursday, my first tears of the weekend began to flow.

When representatives of the armed services marched out—holding the flags of their service, along with the American flag—and then executed the perfect turn and dipped the service flags just the right amount to highlight the national flag for the playing of the national anthem, I was moved. The solemnity of the event and the significance of what that location represents cannot be minimized.

INAUGURAL CONCERT

I didn’t cry at all watching this event. In fact, I must admit I occasionally laughed. Aside from the fact that the Trump inaugural committee had trouble booking any major talent … did you notice that whenever Donald Trump puts his hand over his heart during the playing of the anthem, he occasionally pats his chest, apparently attempting to keep the beat with the music? What made me laugh was the realization that the president has no rhythm at all. And who pats their heart during the playing of the national anthem?

THE INAUGURATION

Again, this is a solemn rite of passage in our democratic history—opposing members of Congress greeting each other; four past presidents attending to acknowledge the peaceful transfer of power; and a crowd of well-wishers (along with some protests that included burning trash cans—I’m still not sure what the political significance of that is).

The lasting impressions for me are the appearance and demeanor of our new first lady, and the poise and grit of Secretary Hillary Clinton. Both women did themselves, and us, proud.

The inauguration speech was unfortunate, painting a picture of a dystopian America and playing directly to the president’s election base—with little regard to the majority of Americans who did not vote for him.

There was one fantastic statement made by President Trump—if only it had been indicative of the overall tone, which, alas, it was not: “No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.”

He should have stopped there.

At lunch after he was sworn in, President Trump made a gracious statement acknowledging the Clintons for attending, and saying how much he respected them. This is the same man who only a couple of weeks ago said that Secretary Clinton was “guilty as hell” and should not have even been allowed to run for president.

I guess it’s easier to trash people when they’re not right in front of you.

THE INAUGURATION BALLS

Let’s start with how truly stunning Melania Trump looked, and give her credit for having the good sense, at the third ball—honoring the Armed Services—to thank the veterans for their service and to say how proud she is to be their first lady. If only President Trump had shown that much grace—all he talked about was his crowd numbers and the assumption that those attending the ball had voted for him. His absolute favorite word is “me.”

Let’s also give a nod to Ivanka Trump, whose ball gown, hair style and demeanor was exquisite. However, watch for criticism of the way she attempts to identify with average women and their policy issues when she has never faced any of the same situations. Time will tell what influence she may be able to have on her father, but it’s somewhat telling that it’s her husband who got hired for an important job, not her.

The most glaring reality of the balls was that men can’t dance—regardless of age. Neither Trump nor Pence have any sense of rhythm, and they come from a generation when ballroom dancing was actually taught in school. The younger men in both families are hopeless, too. It did make me miss President Obama—remember his first dance with Michelle?

Also, have you noticed that Donald Trump seems to have no sense of intimacy toward his wife? She often reaches for his hand, but he almost never reaches for hers. While “dancing” with her on inauguration night, Trump could barely keep his attention on her, constantly waving to others in the crowd or doing his signature “thumbs up” gesture. Even during the playing of a romantic song, he wasn’t into her—he was into the adoring crowd. He’s the guy you meet who’s always looking over your shoulder to see if there’s anyone more important in the room. There was maybe one moment of affection, and it came from her toward him.

The catty side of me thought: I don’t care how much money or power he has … can you imagine sleeping with that man? Petty, I know, but I’m just sayin’ …

THE DAY AFTER

At the prayer service the morning after the inauguration, the president seemed to have trouble staying awake and engaged. During a prayer, he was looking around the crowd in the church, occasionally with his signature “thumbs up.” He can’t sit still or stay focused for very long. His grandchildren were better-behaved.

Then there was the visit to the hallowed wall honoring lives lost at the CIA—Trump’s first official stop, to assure the intelligence community of his support. He began by saying how much he respects them, then spent two-thirds of his time defending the inauguration attendance, bragging about having the most appearances on Time’s cover (which is not true, by the way), and blaming the media for inventing a rift between him and the intelligence community after he had compared them to Nazis.  

WOMEN’S MARCH

What can one say when millions of women, children and men take to the streets in solidarity across the world?

“What are they marching for?” asked some. As someone who has marched in the past, against the Vietnam War and for civil rights and women’s rights, here’s what: They marched to show that women’s rights cannot and must not be rolled back, and to show their lack of confidence in a president who has publicly disrespected women and the real-life issues that are important to them.

Whatever the differences in individual issues among the marchers, they all stood up for equality without exception.

Marches took place in more than 600 cities across the country, with total estimates now topping 3 million marchers throughout the U.S. More than 1,500 women marched in Palm Desert, and locals Carlynne McDonnell, of Strong Women Advocacy Group; Dori Smith, of Moms Demand Action; Amalia deAztlan, of Democratic Women of the Desert; and Palm Springs resident Eileen Stern made a trip to Los Angeles or D.C., along with many others.

Women and their supporters also showed up by the tens of thousands around the world, from New Zealand and Australia to Rome, London, Austria, Mexico City, Paris, Barcelona and even Kosovo—concerned about not only women’s rights, but also international security, which they believe is threatened under a Trump presidency. Watching this amazing outpouring of support worldwide once again brought tears.

I thought the best sign at the marches was: “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.” I loved the guy from Long Beach who said, “I’m marching for my 91-year-old mother and my 30-year-old daughter, who both taught me how to be a man.”

Meanwhile, amidst this historic outpouring of solidarity and concern, the new president could only talk about how big his crowd was and how he was being disrespected by “the media” in their mostly accurate reporting.

By the way, in case you didn’t understand the pink-knitted caps with pussycat ears, I’ll leave you to figure that one out for yourself.

If you are blasé about the changing of the guard, or disgusted with everything political, I want to remind you that your grandchildren’s grandchildren will study the current period in their history classes. We’ve seen the election of the first private-sector president—with absolutely no political experience and no apparent interest in history or traditions or self-restraint. There is much to make fun of in this unfolding reality show; in truth, when you’re worried or afraid or angry, humor can help.

It’s important to remember we’re living in unfolding history. That’s worth paying attention to, regardless of who gets the biggest crowds or who gives the better speech or whether you believe the political process works to your advantage.

I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, but the bottom line for me is that the peaceful transfer of power transcends all else. It endures as the epitome of what we stand for as a nation.

And that makes me cry.

Anita Rufus is also known as “The Lovable Liberal,” and her radio show airs Sundays at noon on KNews Radio 94.3 FM. Email her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Know Your Neighbors appears every other Wednesday.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

After hearing the lamentable Rush Limbaugh refer to the “chickification of America,” because NFL football players wore pink to support breast cancer research (men have breasts too, you know, and also get cancer), I was fuming and determined to write about my anger and frustration.

In spite of that initial impulse, here’s what I’m NOT writing about today:

October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As someone who was once in an abusive relationship (and if it could happen to me, it can happen to anyone, men included), I’m NOT writing about how important it is that society recognize the reality of how difficult it is to leave and to stay alive. I’m NOT writing about how 44 percent of all women murdered with guns in the U.S. are killed by a current or former intimate partner

More than 135,000 women became extremely poor in 2012—not just poor, but “extremely” poor—and people 65 and older are now more vulnerable to poverty, up significantly from 2011. Although my big fear is to end up eating cat food, I’m NOT writing about why women haven’t demanded compensatory Social Security for those whose “job” is to be a homemaker and mother, so they can survive old age.  Nor am I writing about the growing economic disparity between those at the very top and everyone else, and its disproportionate impact on women.

• The United States is among only eight nations in the world who don’t give women paid maternity leave—it’s often unpaid if you get it at all without jeopardizing your job—and our need for universally available and affordable day care is an embarrassment among nations. But I’m NOT writing about how this affects women’s ability to hold gainful employment or complete their education and thus be economically independent. 

• Women are not present at all on the boards of major corporations. Twitter has a seven-man board with no women; 36 percent of the 2,770 largest public companies have no women on their boards; and companies with women on their boards have better overall economic results. Yet I’m NOT writing about why women aren’t controlling and influencing all investment decisions based on this regrettable fact—although if we could get rid of apartheid, we should be able to get qualified women on corporate boards.

• While “half of all American children will at some point during their childhood reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time,” I am NOT writing about the callousness of those who refuse to make work pay a living wage, or who demand deficit reduction by penalizing the vulnerable with food stamp cuts, or who characterize those who need assistance as lazy and unmotivated “takers,” yet won’t support the education or child care that would allow self-sufficiency. 

• Even as abortion and access to “women’s health services” are increasingly subject to ridiculous and onerous restrictions, I’m NOT writing about the difference it makes who appoints judges to federal courts—although it does.

As a political commentator, it’s enticing to address any of these issues and take both policy and political stands. But I decided to write about something bigger than issues or politics: the need to set an entirely new policy agenda. I believe that women, and men who respect women, are uniquely poised to make that happen.

My experience as a mediator has shown that when two polarized sides of a debate are dug in, there is room to head right down the middle and define a new way of moving forward.

Politicians are staking out ever-more-radical positions for niche constituencies, so I am sending out a clarion call to women of every political stripe: WE can demand a new agenda. 

There are more of us. We live longer. We’re getting more educated. We already do whatever we have to do to take care of ourselves and our children. We make choices—not always good ones—and we live with the consequences. We have a collective voice, and it’s time to be heard.

Get involved. Demand, as a group along with your neighbors, to meet with elected officials at every level, and tell them you expect them to pay attention, or you will organize voters against them. If big business and the wealthy can influence public policy, organized and informed voters as a bloc can have an even greater impact.

We can’t leave it to anyone else. Change takes time. Results won’t come quickly. But we have to be present and involved, invested for the long haul.

Get informed. Educate others. Consider running for office. Vote in EVERY election, no matter how small or local. Contrary to conspiracy theories, votes do count! 

Don’t get suckered in by slick slogans designed to “sell” a candidate with sound bites that don’t really inform.

Visit nonpartisan websites like the League of Women Voters or No Labels. Spend as much time on this as you do playing computer games.

Bottom line: I think it’s time for a women’s strike. 

What if, for just two days, women (and the men who support them) across the country stayed home from work, didn’t cook or clean, didn’t deliver a tray of drinks, didn’t operate the cash register, didn’t re-hang clothes on the racks, didn’t make appointments, didn’t help people fill out forms, didn’t sell anyone’s home or didn’t process a bank deposit. 

What if a few agenda items—paid maternity leave, universal child care, comparable equal pay, a raised minimum wage, and greater representation where decisions are made—were highlighted as SO important they must no longer be ignored?

If all else fails, there’s always the Lysistrata strategy

This is adapted from a speech given to the Sun City, Palm Desert Democratic Club on Oct. 28, 2013.

Published in Know Your Neighbors