Talk about cognitive dissonance. That’s about all I can say (via NRO) about this story:
A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.
he complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.
Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.
Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it “was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant,” according to the complaint.
Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.
It was only when Raper went to the New England Medical Center emergency room for treatment of pelvic pain in late September that year that she found out she was pregnant, the suit said.
She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.
She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.
Why did she keep this previously unwanted child?
[Open full post]Perhaps if House Democrats would refrain from debating utterly non-Rhode Island related “legislation” such as H 5340, a House Resolution “RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO OPPOSE PRESIDENT BUSH’S PLAN TO INCREASE US TROOPS IN IRAQ,” then they wouldn’t have to put the pedal to the metal in June. (Of course, that’s assuming they don’t like shoving all of the legislation down our throats with little chance for review). Besides, does it really matter what the Rhode Island Legislature has to say about Iraq? Well, for those who wake up every day and drink a tall glass of hubris (Reps. Crowley, McNamara, Naughton, Shanley, and Lewiss), I guess it does:
WHEREAS, The initial war plans for Iraq had a preliminary American invasion force of about 130,000 soldiers and Marines, which would drop to 30,000 to 50,000 by the end of 2003; and
WHEREAS, As of mid-November 2006, there were approximately 152,000 United States troops deployed to Iraq; and
WHEREAS, In his State of the Union Address, President Bush affirmed his commitment of more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq; and
WHEREAS, This policy of “escalation” is simply the wrong answer to the situation in Iraq at this time; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges the United States Congress to oppose President Bush’s plan to increase United States troops in Iraq; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this House urges the Congress to support a plan to redeploy American Troops currently serving in Iraq and seek a political resolution to the internal Iraq conflict; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Rhode Island Congressional delegation.
Setting aside the total lack of perspective with regards to the first “WHEREAS” concerning initial troop estimates vs. reality (apparently, they’ve read somewhere that pre-conflict troop estimates are always accurate and never change as the situation changes.) And temporarily setting aside the aforementioned fact that it is a total waste of time. (Newsflash: no one gives a darn what the freakin’ RI Legislature thinks about foreign affairs. Get over yourselves). The reality in Iraq is quickly bypassing their “RESOLVE”s, but they don’t realize it because, like so many politicians, they have already made up their minds on Iraq–facts be damned–and are still sticking to the November 2006 script. What a wonderfully static way to look at the world.
The Mainstream Media has also been following the same template, which is why NBCs Brian Williams should be given credit for going to Iraq to see things for himself. And he’s beginning to realize that the Conventional Wisdom in the U.S. doesn’t reflect the reality in Iraq.
Maybe Sen. Alves is trying to save money and improve the average education that students receive by pushing wealthier children into private schools.
School quality is a critical factor that parents consider when purchasing homes, so those with the means are likely to have the same emphasis on choosing better schools if it turns out that the kids are going to have to travel, anyway. Thus, the wealthier town’s schools will have more room for poorer kids, and the poorer town’s schools will have fewer students among whom to divide its resources.
Hey, it’s win-win… until those motivated parents realize that Rhode Island has merely offered them additional incentive to pack up and ship the family to a more sane state.
Dan Yorke of WPRO radio (630 AM) had Senate Finance Committee Chairman Stephen Alves (D-West Warwick) on his show yesterday to discuss the Rhode Island budget shortfall. As part of a long-term plan for bringing fiscal stability to the state, Senator Alves proposed regionalizing Rhode Island’s school districts into 5 county-level school systems. Now, maybe I’m making too much of one example, but when the Senator mentioned that East Greenwich residents might have to get used to sending their kids to schools in West Warwick as part of his plan, I think he provided an unintended insight into what he believes the real benefits of regionalization to be.
Senator Alves’ example, after all, seems to have things backwards. Someone thinking rationally about maximizing the state’s education resources should be developing ways to move students in the direction opposite of the Senator’s suggestion, from the troubled school system, to the better one. But moving East Greenwich students to West Warwick does make sense if you assume that providing the best education possible to Kent County students is less of a priority than finding new sources of revenue (namely East Greenwich’s property tax money) that can be used by West Warwick, regardless of how wisely the money is spent. This, sadly, would be Rhode Island politics-as-usual, where budget debates have long focused on delivering new monies to municipal education and social welfare bureaucracies that have maxed out their existing revenue sources and are demanding “more”. School regionalization will become an extension of the same old battle over a stagnant or shrinking pie, unless it can be carried out with some creativity.
So here’s some creativity. If statewide regionalization is to occur in Rhode Island, it should, at a minimum, be coupled with open choice within the public system, where parents can send their children to a public school they choose, and funding is allocated to a particular school based on the number of students that choose to go there. In other words, if Kent County gets regionalized, let parents, and not Stephen Alves, choose whether their children go to school in East Greenwich or West Warwick. And some real creative stuff, like vouchers, public scholarships and increased use of charters, should be considered too. This kind of open choice, more so than a regionalization plan, is the funding formula that will improve the quality of education in Rhode Island in a fiscally responsible manner.
Here’s the package of tax-increases proposed by the “Campaign for Rhode Island Priorities” for closing the state budget deficit…
Some comments, in no particular order…
- Stop the elimination of the 5% capital gains tax scheduled for 2008. Massachusetts, which eliminated its own capital gains tax suffered so badly, and fell so far behind in meeting the needs of its people, it rescinded the law and now tax long-term gains at 5.3%.
- Close abusive corporate tax loopholes.
- Broaden the sales tax to reflect our changed economy by taxing selected services such as golf, marina and fitness memberships.
- Eliminate sales tax exemptions for luxury items like private aircraft.
- Freeze the alternative flat tax – an entitlement benefiting only 13,119 of the wealthiest Rhode Islanders. When fully phased in, the flat tax will cost Rhode Island as much as $73 million!
- Place a moratorium on ‘06 tax legislation that artificially limits the ability of cities and towns to meet their own needs – in the face of stagnant state support to cities and towns for education
- Impose a tax on the capital gains from short-term land sales. This legislation exempts owner-occupied homes but targets short-term investors that flip properties for large profits, driving property rates and rents out of reach for many Rhode Islanders.
- Implement ‘06 legislation that sets up a state office of revenue policy analysis.
- The overall philosophy of proposing nothing but tax-increases to balance the budget is flawed. It says Rhode Island taxpayers should accept paying more to receive the same failing education system and social welfare programs they always have. RI has already fallen behind in “meeting the needs of its people”. Pouring money into the same fiscally irresponsible and failing programs won’t fix the problem.
- The description of Governor Carcieri’s proposed education increases as “stagnant” tells you where the priorities of this group really are. The Governor has proposed a 3% increase in education aid to all cities and towns. That’s only stagnant if you believe that the smaller cities and towns should be slow-bled of their resources, so that the urban core can get a bigger percentage of state subsidies each year.
- On a related note, the call to lift the local property tax caps is code for demanding that the smaller cities and towns raise their property taxes so that more state money generated from sales and incomes taxes will be available for transfer to the urban core. Someone remind me what the towns get out of this deal?
- I don’t know much about capital gains tax-policy, but I’m not sure there as much logic behind the capital gains tax proposals as there is visceral hostility to the concept of profit. I’m assuming the short-term land sales tax would apply to cases where someone buys a property, improves it value, and then sells it without ever moving in. Isn’t that a good thing, in terms of the property-tax revenue from the improved property eventually captured by the city or town — and in terms of the quality of life in the neighborhood where the property is improved? Isn’t CRIP basically saying they want to keep property taxes low by keeping property values low by discouraging the improvement of substandard housing? Is there anyone familiar with the ins and out of capital gains who’d like to chime in on this (and/or the long-term capital gains proposal in the CRIP plan)?
- Finally, it would be nice if CRIP could add some numbers on how much revenue they expect each of these proposals to generate.
To no one’s surprise, the various “advocates” who have taken up permanent residence at the State House pleaded with lawmakers to accept their solution to the budget shortfall: either raise taxes or stop any scheduled tax cuts:
Freeze the so-called “tax-cut-for-the- rich” in its tracks before state government loses tens of millions of dollars.
Halt the phaseout of the capital gains tax before the state loses millions more.
And then extend the state’s sales tax to “luxury items,” such as airplanes; boat moorings; fitness, golf and country-club memberships; medical and legal services and any single article of food or clothing that costs more than $150. And slap a new tax on land speculators who make big money buying and quickly reselling real estate at inflated prices.
Ahhh yes, nothing like pulling the good ol’ class warfare card. Unfortunately, it seems like–this time at least–the House rules have changed and that trump card has been devalued:
But the notion of raising taxes to plug a projected $354-million revenue-spending gap this year and next drew a cool reception from key Democratic lawmakers interviewed after yesterday’s news conference — and outright opposition from Republican Carcieri.
House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox was non-committal, saying: “I recognize the need for long-term planning regarding budgetary matters. However, I will refrain from commenting on the specific proposals that were raised today because they all have to be viewed in the context of the overall state budget.”
House Finance Chairman Steven M. Costantino said he would consider proposals for reining in the state’s expensive historic tax-credit program, but would not look favorably on any proposal to halt the long-promised capital gains tax phase-out or revoke the new opportunity lawmakers gave the state’s wealthiest taxpayers last year to reduce their income taxes by paying an alternative flat tax…
The tax cut was not linked — as its predecessors had been — to the creation of a specific number of new jobs. But it was pitched to lawmakers — and enthusiastically embraced by House Democratic leaders — as a way to both keep and bring “major decision-makers” to Rhode Island who would produce jobs.
Given how concerned the legislature remains about jobs, Costantino, D-Providence, said he would be “afraid to touch that right now.”
The “advocates” are all about short-term thinking. They want “their” money–including an already-spent annual increase, of course–and they want it now, to heck with the long-term repercussions. For their part, it appears as if some State House Democrats are finally looking beyond meeting the short-term needs of one of their valuable constituencies. For his part, the Governor would not budge:
A statement issued late yesterday by [the Governor’s] office said: “Fundamentally, Governor Carcieri believes we must cut spending so we can cut taxes. By contrast, this group’s only answer is to increase Rhode Island taxes so we can also continue to increase state spending. Unfortunately, the ‘Coalition to Raise Your Taxes’ continues to cling to the mistaken belief that we can tax and spend our way to good fiscal health.”
“Like every Rhode Island family,” spokesman Jeff Neal said, “state government must begin to live within its means. A family cannot increase its spending by 8 or 9 percent each year if their household income is only going up by 4 or 5 percent. Similarly, state government cannot continue to increase spending by 8 or 9 percent a year if our underlying revenues are only growing by 4 or 5 percent a year.”
According to the story, written by the ProJo’s Katherine Gregg, the coalition “also proposed lifting the newly lowered cap on how much the cities and towns can raise their own taxes each year.” But, as Gregg pointed out, “That too promised to be a hard sell.” Indeed:
The state is firmly committed to enforcing the new 5.25-percent tax levy cap, but also acknowledges that some details have not been worked out. Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed, one of the key sponsors of the tax cap, which passed last summer, called the tax relief act a work in progress and stressed that the state is committed to helping municipalities work through all their questions.
Despite that assurance, many local officials were left shaking their heads yesterday. They cited the burden of the new levy cap and said they think it was implemented too quickly and without addressing state aid to education and other key factors that affect municipal spending.
“Were my questions answered? No,” said Suzanne McGee-Cienki, chairwoman of the East Greenwich School Committee. “I applaud the state effort to try to control property taxes, which have increased so significantly, but I question as to whether they’ve really gotten to the root of why taxes have continued to go up, and I also don’t think that they studied all the implications the cap will have on school departments and communities.”
Perhaps the General Assembly has finally realized that they have to rein in the spending. One way to do this is by implementing laws that force they and others to do so. The property tax ceiling will be felt on the municipal level, for sure, and there seem to be some valid concerns regarding the acute issue of education spending. But, that aside, the limit on how much property taxes can increase will help limit the growth of local government. But it will take more than just starving these budgetary bear cubs. Rhode Island needs to starve the she-bear, too. Hopefully, the legislature agrees: it’s time to starve the Beast. To do so, they need to follow the advice of McGee-Cienki and get “to the root of why taxes have continued to go up.” Here’s a hint: payroll.
[Open full post]Well we’re waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved
So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coal
Chromium Steel
And we’re waiting here in Allentown
But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground
And the union people crawled away.
So goes a portion of Billy Joel’s ’80s hit “Allentown“, a working man’s song about how life was changing in a union town. With the news that the House of Representatives has passed the “Employee Free Choice Act“, which really seeks to strip away the right of workers to vote up or down on unionization via secret ballot and requires a so-called “card check,” Joel’s song came to mind. For the heck of it, I thought that, instead of me rehashing (and here and here) why this was so wrong, it might be worth finding out what the local newspaper of a union town–like Allentown–had to say. The Morning Call of Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley is the Allentown hometown newspaper. After editorializing that “[i]t was a cynical and misleading vote, one that was more about politics than it was about helping workers,” the paper explains:
Union leaders say employer intimidation contributes to this decline. They cite statistics that workers who try to organize fellow employees stand a one-in-five chance of losing their jobs. They complain about employers hiring consultants who specialize in pressuring workers into not supporting unions. It happens.
However, the solution this legislation proposes would replace one form of coercion with another. In doing so, it does away with one of democracy’s most hallowed tools to preserve freedom of choice — the secret ballot. In its place, it would allow unions to organize workplace simply by getting a majority of employees to sign authorization cards — the so-called card check. In place of a boss leaning on a worker not to vote for the union, it puts face-to-face peer pressure from a labor organizer to unionize. Pressure can work both ways, and without the protection of privacy, workers could subject themselves to harassment, or worse, from just another source. It happens.
This isn’t the way to make the workplace fair. The National Labor Relations Act already makes it illegal for employers to bully their workers into not supporting unions. There are legitimate questions about whether the act’s enforcement provisions are adequate to protect workers’ rights. In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act would give the National Labor Relations Board more power to penalize employers when they fire workers for trying to organize — something that gets to the heart of labor’s concern. Paired with a secret ballot, it would allow workers to vote according to who they think made the better case — labor or management.
The union bosses and their Democratic friends have sought to use legitimate concerns about the shortcomings of the NLRB as an opportunity to strengthen their control over the rank and file–both current and prospective. As the Call’s editorial staff wrote, this was indeed “cynical and misleading.” And entirely unsurprising.
[Open full post]File under “Moderates on the March”: Providence Phoenix editor Ian Donnis spoke to Lincoln Chafee and got a couple interesting tidbits out of him:
During one of Lincoln Chafee’s last news conferences as a US senator, he faced the inevitable questions about his political future. Noting how he had bought a home near Brown University, the Republican joked that he would run in 2010 to be the mayor of Providence.
Was Chafee serious?
Currently ensconced at Brown’s Watson Institute, Chafee last week told me, “I’m very happy doing what I’m doing.” Asked if he was gravitating toward running for mayor of Providence, he says, “This is all four years away. It’s way too early.”
Political junkies have been intrigued by the possibility of a rematch, for governor, between Chafee and Steve Laffey, his 2006 GOP primary opponent. Chafee’s response to another question, however, suggests that this may not be in the cards.
Asked what he thinks Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian will do in 2010, Chafee says he expects his mayoral successor to “probably run for governor.” Chafee went so far as to say, “At this stage, I’d encourage him to think about [running for] governor.” Avedisian, who served as a Senate page to the late US Senator John Chafee, has close ties to the Chafee family, as well as to some Democrats, including Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts. Chafee says a primary between Avedisian and himself “will not happen, from my perspective.”
…Running for mayor might seem counter-intuitive for Chafee. Then again, he retains considerable goodwill, would run well in a number of neighborhoods, particularly the East Side, and he could be the first Republican since Buddy Cianci to have a good shot of taking City Hall.
Stay tuned, sports fans.
[Open full post]According to the Projo’s 7-to-7 blog, Superior Court Justice Joseph Rodgers has ordered the Narragansett Smoke Shop Trial moved from South County to Providence citing better use of “juduical resources”. In Saturday’s Projo, Katie Mulvaney described the complete argument made by the Narragansetts for changing venue…
While arguments may focus of practical issues, the defense’s petition recounted the tribe’s troubled history in Washington County, namely the massacre of 1,000 Narragansetts and Wampanoags at the Great Swamp during King Philip’s War of the Colonial era. It details legal struggles between the tribe, the state and Charlestown over the Narragansetts’ 1,800 acres.The totality of the Narragansetts’ position is that the people of South County are good enough to live near their casino, but not good enough to sit on a jury. [Open full post]
“What is abundantly clear from this history is that there have been long, consistent and very public disputes between the Town of Charlestown and the Narragansett Indian Tribe over the past 30 years,” the tribal members’ lawyers wrote. “Virtually every legal dispute, including the smoke shop raid, has centered on the issue of Narragansett Indian sovereignty and the use of Narragansett reservation lands in Washington County.”
According to frequent AR commenter Scott Bill Hirst, Dave Cote has withdrawn his candidacy for State GOP Chair and asked fellow Republicans to support Gio Cicione. Awaiting additional confirmation.
UPDATE: Off the top of his broadcast, WPROs Dan Yorke mentioned that Cote pulled out around noon today.
