ACLU:
Dear Friend,
We need you to act immediately to undo a disturbing decision from the Obama administration. Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak's draconian abortion coverage ban during the health care debate?
Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn't allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn't even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.
Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.
Unless the Administration reverses this decision, some of America's most vulnerable women—those with pre-existing conditions who have been denied health care coverage on the individual market—won't be able to purchase abortion coverage except in the case of rape or incest or to save the pregnant woman's life.
You and I know that every woman should be able to decide what is best for her health and her family. A pro-choice administration should know that too.
It's especially discouraging to impose a ban on women participating in a high-risk insurance pool who are particularly vulnerable and may have a special need for abortion. For example, because of the restriction, a woman with heart disease or diabetes might be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term despite its potentially damaging effect on her future health.
Ask President Obama not to stand in the way of vulnerable women's health care choices.
It's urgent that you send your message to President Obama right now. When you do, we'll also forward a copy to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, whose department is putting this unnecessary and harmful restriction into effect.
Thank you for acting on this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington Legislative Office
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072401468.htmlMedical marijuana to be OK in some VA clinics
WASHINGTON -- The government says patients treated at Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics will be able to use medical marijuana in the 14 states where it's legal.
The directive from the Department of Veterans Affairs is coming out in the week ahead. It's intended to clarify current policy that says veterans can be denied pain medications if they use illegal drugs.
Veterans groups long have complained that such language could bar patients from VA benefits if they were caught using medical marijuana.
The new guidance does not authorize VA doctors to begin prescribing medical marijuana, which is considered an illegal drug under federal law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1297361/US-withdraws-pain-ray-Afghan-war-zone.htmlU.S. withdraws ‘pain ray’ from Afghan war zone
The Active Denial System (ADS), which cost about £42 million to develop, was on the brink of being deployed to disperse members of the Taliban as they attacked US forces.
The weapon, which causes immense pain to subjects but no lasting physical damage, was pulled from the war zone last week but US army chiefs in Afghanistan have stayed silent about the reason for the U-turn.
The ADS, which has been in development for almost 20 years, works by firing a beam of high-frequency waves at the speed of light.
The beam can cover a person’s entire body, causing agonising pain as it heats water and fat molecules beneath the skin’s surface.
The beam can hit someone up to a third of a mile away, and they are only relieved of the pain when they move out of the way.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.truth-out.org/the-attack-real-black-helicopter-gang-the-imf-is-coming-your-social-security61291The Attack of the Real Black Helicopter Gang: The IMF Is Coming for Your Social Security
...
Last week, the IMF told the United States that it needs to start getting its budget deficit down. It put cutting Social Security at the top of the steps that the country should take to achieve deficit reduction. This one is more than a bit outrageous for two reasons.
First, the IMF deserves a substantial share of the blame for the economic crisis that gave us big deficits in the first place. The IMF is supposed to oversee the operations of the international financial system. According to standard economic theory, capital is supposed to flow from rich countries like the United States to poor countries to finance their development. In other words, the United States should be having a trade surplus, which would correspond to the money that we are investing in poor countries to finance their development.
Let Truthout send our best stories to your inbox every day, for free.
However, the IMF messed up its management of financial crises so badly in the last 15 years that poor countries decided that they had to accumulate huge amounts of currency reserves in order to avoid ever being forced to deal with the IMF. This meant that capital was flowing in huge amounts in the wrong direction. One result of this reverse flow was that the United States ran a huge trade deficit instead of a trade surplus.
The trade deficit in the United States
was a big part of the story of the
housing bubble. The trade deficit
cost millions of workers their jobs. This was one of
...
Social Security.
The vast majority of middle-income retirees have most of their wealth in their home equity. This home
equity largely disappeared when the bubble burst. Maybe the IMF doesn't have access to house price series and data on wealth, because if they did, it's hard to believe that they would advocate further harm to some of the main victims of their policy failure.
The other reason that the IMF's call for cutting Social Security benefits is infuriating is the incredible hypocrisy involved. The average Social Security benefit is just under $1,200 a month. No one can collect benefits until they reach the age of 62. By contrast, many IMF economists first qualify for benefits in their early 50s. They can begin drawing pensions at age 51 or 52 of more than $100,000 a year.
This means that we have IMF economists, who failed disastrously at their jobs, who can draw six-figure pensions at age 52, telling ordinary workers that they have to take a cut in their $14,000 a year Social Security benefits that they can't start getting until age 62. Now that is real black helicopter material.
...
