It has been a year since I was let out of the hospital, and 2008 was one of, if not the best, years of my life as far as my depression goes, and I am thankful to still be here. I miss my parents who both passed away, dad 5 yrs ago, and mom 3 years ago. I think I am more happy in my own skin that I ever was in the past.
What is starting to bother me a bit now is that I am having some doubts regarding if I will ever get to a place in life where I am proud, stable in a life that brings me joy and a sense of making a difference. How do you find your way? How do you manage to always find the happy moments that makes it worth waking up each and every day? I am by no means suicidal anymore. I think what I do now is try to think my way through situations instead of the way I would react in the past, and that would be to just think I was in the worse place possible and it could not get better and life was just a total catastrophe, all the time, every day, no matter what. Such little things bring me joy today but it does not last long because I begin to rate where I am right now in my life.
I am so blessed to have the best big sister that God ever placed on the planet, and to have some friends who are really friends in every sense of the word. I have a wonderful best friend who had been put through the ringer with my depression and I am so thankful for his friendship. I understand that life is full of trials, and ups and downs but what I wish I could learn how to get to a place in my life where I am totally content with where I am in my life. What is missing and preventing me from getting to that place? It is a scary thing to think about but how do you not when you have this gut feeling that you should be doing so much more, making a difference.
If anyone has any thoughts, ideas, suggestions or just some insight I would love to hear from you. Please share, we can learn alot from each other if we just open ourselves to the input. Thanks!
Another great night view of our City!
Cincinnati is simply beautiful....
News source for Cincinnati Gay and Lesbian community.
The Greater Cincinnati Gay and Lesbian News!
Cincinnati's Freestore Foodbank
Help this organization help those in need!
Cincinnatis Premier Gay & Lesbian Softball League
PLAY BALL!!!!!
Cincinnati's Gay & Lesbian Golf League
FORE!!!!!!!
Cincinnati's Gay and Lesbian Volleyball Connection.
DIG, SET, SPIKE!!!
Cincinnati Rainbow Pride Tennis League
Cincinnatis Gay & Lesbian Tennis League
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Ever have questions regarding life, nature, and just the universe and what it all means??
Below is just a tidbit that can lead you to a great source with information that will casue you to really think about the nature of things. The nature of things here in our world.
To read the entire article, click on the link above and come to your own conlusions.
QUANTUM UNIVERSE
The Revolution in 21st-Century Particle Physics
Executive Summary
What is the nature of the universe and what is it made of?
What are matter, energy, space and time?
How did we get here and where are we going?
Throughout human history, scientific theories and experiments of increasing power and sophistication
have addressed these basic questions about the universe. The resulting knowledge has led to
revolutionary insights into the nature of the world around us.
In the last 30 years, physicists have achieved a profound understanding of the fundamental particles and
the physical laws that govern matter, energy, space and time. Researchers have subjected this “Standard
Model” to countless experimental tests; and, again and again, its predictions have held true. The series of
experimental and theoretical breakthroughs that combined to produce the Standard Model can truly be
celebrated as one of the great scientific triumphs of the 20th century.
Now, in a development that some have compared to Copernicus’s recognition that the earth is not the
center of the solar system, startling new data have revealed that only five percent of the universe is made
of normal, visible matter described by the Standard Model. Ninety-five percent of the universe consists
of dark matter and dark energy whose fundamental nature is a mystery. The Standard Model’s orderly
and elegant view of the universe must be incorporated into a deeper theory that can explain the new
phenomena. The result will be a revolution in particle physics as dramatic as any that have come before.
To read the entire article, click on the link above and come to your own conlusions.
QUANTUM UNIVERSE
The Revolution in 21st-Century Particle Physics
Executive Summary
What is the nature of the universe and what is it made of?
What are matter, energy, space and time?
How did we get here and where are we going?
Throughout human history, scientific theories and experiments of increasing power and sophistication
have addressed these basic questions about the universe. The resulting knowledge has led to
revolutionary insights into the nature of the world around us.
In the last 30 years, physicists have achieved a profound understanding of the fundamental particles and
the physical laws that govern matter, energy, space and time. Researchers have subjected this “Standard
Model” to countless experimental tests; and, again and again, its predictions have held true. The series of
experimental and theoretical breakthroughs that combined to produce the Standard Model can truly be
celebrated as one of the great scientific triumphs of the 20th century.
Now, in a development that some have compared to Copernicus’s recognition that the earth is not the
center of the solar system, startling new data have revealed that only five percent of the universe is made
of normal, visible matter described by the Standard Model. Ninety-five percent of the universe consists
of dark matter and dark energy whose fundamental nature is a mystery. The Standard Model’s orderly
and elegant view of the universe must be incorporated into a deeper theory that can explain the new
phenomena. The result will be a revolution in particle physics as dramatic as any that have come before.
What is wrong with people today?
I am becoming more and more amazed, worried, confused, angry and simply pissed off at the continued ignorance here in the US in regards to the last 8 years of "Rule" under president George Bush. I am also totally bewildered about how gays and lesbians are continuously treated as lower class citizens by society, the government and their own families.
I have read a recent letter from my nephew who is in the NAVY asking us all to unite behind the recently elected president Obama. On the surface it seemed all nice and genuine, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Never more clear from a point in his letter that he stated that the weeks since the election have been some his darkest and most depressed times. Its teetering on insult. He did not have to live through Katrina, a mess totally caused by the lack of leadership of his president and party. These last 8 years have been such a huge mess but republicans will go to their graves thinking George Bush was some sort of icon in the history of US Presidents.
Over 4,000 US troops, god bless them, male and female have given, not lost, but given their lives to this war that should have never happened. George Bush was quoted as saying in 2001, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001. How filled is that comment with hypocrisy?
Let us not forget the ongoing problems with the acceptance of gays and lesbians in our country. We can not get married, some states are not letting same sex couples adopt or be foster parents. The system is bulging, ready to burst and yet people who can provide quality, loving, and supportive homes are denied because the Christians say it is bad for the child. Some idiot of a psychologist who never took the time to get to know a family with same sex parents, spew stats that its better for a child to come from a house with a loving mom and a loving dad. We as gays have never disputed that, BUT we are just as capable as being nurturing, loving parents, regardless of us being same sex couples.
Religion has no place in this discussion. Why? Because the pilgrims came her long ago to find a land where they could practice their religion, one which was different from what was the norm where they cam here from. But instead of accepting people for their differences we eventually took the land from those that had lived here for thousands of years, the native Americans. We are a nation of hypocrites. We are a nation where parents teach their children hate at a very young age. The scariest and most recent example of this in my lifetime is the persecution of The Dixie Chicks just because they said at a concert in London that they were embarrassed that the president of the US was from Texas. Threats were made against their lives, and their families. Radio stations refused to play their music, people were seen in the streets burning their Cd's, and people were chanting hate for these 3 talented women, who just happened to have an opinion. Last I heard, our first amendment right was freedom speech. BUT, DON"T you who were involved in this hate hide behind the first amendment saying that you were just voicing your first amendment right to destroy their music, and perpetuate all the hate you were breeding regarding what was said. MY god, you are all cowards, ignorant cowards at that. I can not shake the image from the news where some women was holding her child and telling her to say that she hated the Dixie Chicks. WOW America, one of our brightest moments.
After suffering from, and battling depression for my entire life, I finally was given the proper diagnosis and 2008 has been an awesome year for me, free from depression. After I was out of the hospital I wanted to hike the Appalachian Trail to being depression and mental illness out into the light. I called my second oldest sister to see if it would be OK with her if I asked her minister if I can could come to her church and give a talk about mental illness, and how it is not some dark evil that lurks in bad people, and I also wanted to talk about the hike and being gay. She flat out told me she did not want me to do it, not at all. I was so furious, I later called her back and left her a voice message about how angry I was and she was being a bigot. We now no longer talk, as she, " The Christan " will not forgive me for what I said to her. If we do not do something in our country to slow down the destroying of people who are different, or who are not Christian in our society, we are going to have a hugely divided country. Much more so than it is today.
I have read a recent letter from my nephew who is in the NAVY asking us all to unite behind the recently elected president Obama. On the surface it seemed all nice and genuine, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Never more clear from a point in his letter that he stated that the weeks since the election have been some his darkest and most depressed times. Its teetering on insult. He did not have to live through Katrina, a mess totally caused by the lack of leadership of his president and party. These last 8 years have been such a huge mess but republicans will go to their graves thinking George Bush was some sort of icon in the history of US Presidents.
Over 4,000 US troops, god bless them, male and female have given, not lost, but given their lives to this war that should have never happened. George Bush was quoted as saying in 2001, "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem." — George W. Bush, Jan. 2001. How filled is that comment with hypocrisy?
Let us not forget the ongoing problems with the acceptance of gays and lesbians in our country. We can not get married, some states are not letting same sex couples adopt or be foster parents. The system is bulging, ready to burst and yet people who can provide quality, loving, and supportive homes are denied because the Christians say it is bad for the child. Some idiot of a psychologist who never took the time to get to know a family with same sex parents, spew stats that its better for a child to come from a house with a loving mom and a loving dad. We as gays have never disputed that, BUT we are just as capable as being nurturing, loving parents, regardless of us being same sex couples.
Religion has no place in this discussion. Why? Because the pilgrims came her long ago to find a land where they could practice their religion, one which was different from what was the norm where they cam here from. But instead of accepting people for their differences we eventually took the land from those that had lived here for thousands of years, the native Americans. We are a nation of hypocrites. We are a nation where parents teach their children hate at a very young age. The scariest and most recent example of this in my lifetime is the persecution of The Dixie Chicks just because they said at a concert in London that they were embarrassed that the president of the US was from Texas. Threats were made against their lives, and their families. Radio stations refused to play their music, people were seen in the streets burning their Cd's, and people were chanting hate for these 3 talented women, who just happened to have an opinion. Last I heard, our first amendment right was freedom speech. BUT, DON"T you who were involved in this hate hide behind the first amendment saying that you were just voicing your first amendment right to destroy their music, and perpetuate all the hate you were breeding regarding what was said. MY god, you are all cowards, ignorant cowards at that. I can not shake the image from the news where some women was holding her child and telling her to say that she hated the Dixie Chicks. WOW America, one of our brightest moments.
After suffering from, and battling depression for my entire life, I finally was given the proper diagnosis and 2008 has been an awesome year for me, free from depression. After I was out of the hospital I wanted to hike the Appalachian Trail to being depression and mental illness out into the light. I called my second oldest sister to see if it would be OK with her if I asked her minister if I can could come to her church and give a talk about mental illness, and how it is not some dark evil that lurks in bad people, and I also wanted to talk about the hike and being gay. She flat out told me she did not want me to do it, not at all. I was so furious, I later called her back and left her a voice message about how angry I was and she was being a bigot. We now no longer talk, as she, " The Christan " will not forgive me for what I said to her. If we do not do something in our country to slow down the destroying of people who are different, or who are not Christian in our society, we are going to have a hugely divided country. Much more so than it is today.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sodomy laws in the history of the United States
Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (see above). It is not clear whether or how sodomy laws that apply to both homosexual and heterosexual sex are affected by Lawrence. The United States Supreme Court also implied that the age of consent must be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals when it ordered the Kansas courts to review the constitutionality of the state's Romeo and Juliet Law.
Despite Lawrence v. Texas, Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the article banning sodomy, remains a special case in the U.S. Armed Forces in recognition of the fact that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society."[13] The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the last court of appeals for the military before the Supreme Court, has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125.
In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court."[14] However, the court went on to say that despite Lawrence's application to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" which would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence."[15] Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. In both Marcum and Stirewalt, the court found Article 125 to be "constitutional as applied to Appellant."[16]
United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock are two known cases in which consensual sodomy convictions have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence precedent.[17][18
This information goes with the above map and you can easily see that several states did not get rid of these laws until 2003. Two consenting adult men could goto jail if caught breaking this law. I think it is very important to learn about such things that have existed in our country as well how far we have come.
Monday, December 1, 2008
State of Adoption and Foster Parenting in our great country!!
I am always amazed at how ignorance is alive and thriving in our country still today, 2008. Why anyone would deny a child love, the sense of being wanted and a safe place to grow and prosper? How many children and young teens have to fall through the cracks before someone says enough is enough!
Discrimination in Adoption and Foster Care of Children
Current State of Gay and Lesbian Rights to Adopt Children and Provide Foster Care
ARKANSAS
Task Force Denounces Arkansas Foster Care Ban
UTAH
State Agency to Consider Adoption Limits
TEXAS
New Texas Legislation Targets Gay Foster Parents, Sodomy
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bill Would Allow Gays and Lesbians to Adopt, Be Foster Parents
For up-to-date information link to:
www.lldef.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
CURRENT STATE OF GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND PROVIDE FOSTER CARE
Our adversaries have worked hard to end any hope of gaining our rights to same-gender marriage. Now, they are beginning campaigns across the nation to end our rights to adopt children or to provide foster care for children in need.
In 1998, the Governor of California led the way in his executive order banning homosexuals from adoption and foster care. Our allies rushed to pass a bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status in state adoptions but that bill was dropped without a vote. It was the only pro-gay adoption bill introduced this year in the country. The anti-adoption and/or foster parenting bills introduced this year in five states are either dead or not likely to progress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
2. ARKANSAS
TASK FORCE DENOUNCES ARKANSAS FOSTER CARE BAN
WASHINGTON, DC---January 7, 1999--- The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force denounced a decision to ban gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in Arkansas from becoming foster parents. Yesterday, the Child Welfare Agency Review Board passed a resolution that would make Arkansas the second state to enact such a ban. As worded, the ban would prevent a child from being placed with anyone who has engaged in same-sex sexual behavior or anyone sharing a household with someone who has engaged in same-sex sexual behavior. There is a comment period, which will likely take a number of weeks and will entail five public hearings, before the ban will take effect.
"This ban is not about the welfare of children, it's about attacking and demonizing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people," said Kerry Lobel, executive director of the Task Force. "Right-wing extremists are aiming their arsenal at our families more than ever before. We will face similar battles in a number of states this year, and we will do everything in our power to face down these lies, distortions, and myths with the simple truth," added Lobel.
Arkansas would become the third state to ban gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people from adopting and/or becoming foster parents. The New Hampshire legislature passed a law banning both adoption and foster care in late 1980s. Florida passed a law banning adoption in 1977. Also, in Oklahoma, people convicted under the state's sodomy law are banned from adopting.
According to the Task Force, similar measures are likely to be introduced this year in at least three other states (IN, TX, MI). Last year, anti-adoption or anti-foster care measures were introduced in five states (AZ, CA, GA, OK, TN). All of them were defeated. Both the New Hampshire and Florida laws are currently being contested. In Florida there is a lawsuit challenging the ban, and yesterday in New Hampshire advocates introduced a bill (HB 90) that would reverse the law.
"Regulations like this are responsible for robbing thousands of needy children from loving, nurturing, supportive homes. It is time to listen to the voices of young people who know that what is important is a good parent, not a parent whose sexual orientation has been run through a government-sanctioned litmus test," said Felicia Park-Rogers, Director of the organization Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and herself a 27-year old lesbian daughter of a gay man and a lesbian.
The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community and its allies, including the Interfaith Alliance for Equality, are organizing to prevent the ban from being enacted. "There are many serious problems with Arkansas' foster care system. Rather than using time and resources to address them, the state is wasting them on a non-issue," said Judy Matsuoka of the Little Rock-based Women's Project, and a coordinator of the efforts to block the ban.
Many organizations, including the Child Welfare League, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the American Psychological Association oppose the use of sexual orientation as a criteria in foster care and adoption placement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
3. UTAH
STATE AGENCY TO CONSIDER ADOPTION LIMITS
SALT LAKE CITY - A proposal before the Board of Child and Family Services may prevent gay couples, lesbian couples, heterosexual couples living in common-law relationships and polygamists from adopting children.
Board chairman Scott H. Clark said state adoption standards are now silent on the issues.
"I don't believe that given all the alternatives, it is a reasonable choice to permit people who are not married - be they man-woman, woman-woman, man-man or living together in a clan but not legally married - to be an appropriate adoption choice," he said.
The revision would not "limit or discourage single-parent adoptions," he said.
Family units
The proposal would require a "verification that adults present in the home are legally related to the (prospective adoptive) parent or parents by blood or legal marriage."
The board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed policy change on Jan. 22 at the Division of Child and Family Services.
Clark and his wife, Mary Beth, are the parents of 18 adopted children. Clark said he believes that married, heterosexual couples can provide adopted children the greatest degree of stability.
"I feel it is the duty and obligation of the division to promote those situations which are probably the most stable for children," he said. DCFS director Ken Patterson said Wednesday that "the division did not seek to put this on the agenda of the board. We think, in fact, there are more pressing issues for the division to deal with, like carrying through with the instructions (U.S. District Court) Judge Campbell gave us in September," referring to the David C. vs. Leavitt case that challenges Utah's child welfare practices.
"We see this as an individual initiative of the chairman of the board," Patterson said.
While the division is not seeking guidance on the point, Patterson said he believes the policy should originate from the Legislature.
No bars on adoption
Although adoptions are handled by juvenile court judges in closed proceedings, some polygamist groups have moved to adopt children from other polygamist families. In 1991, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that practicing polygamy does not automatically make a couple ineligible to adopt, even though plural marriage is against the law.
In a 3-2 opinion, the court found that "neither the statute, the Constitution, nor good public policy justifies a blanket exclusion of polygamists from eligibility as adoptive parents."
Department of Human Services legal director Kate Lahey told the board in December that the policy revision may conflict with state adoption statutes, Utah case law and licensing rules.
There also could be constitutional challenges to the amendment. Otherwise, the Department of Human Services has not taken a stand on the issue.
Roz McGee, executive director of Utah Children, objects to the proposal. "I would be really disappointed to see this board take this kind of narrow position, which will surely involve you in a lot of public attention, media attention and perhaps litigation. It will distract your attention from some critically important areas you are addressing and should be addressing," McGee said.
SOURCE:
Judy Matsuoka of the Women's Project is available at (501) 372-5113 for information about local efforts to block the ban. Felicia Park Rogers of COLAGE is available for further comment at (415) 861-5437.
Provo Daily Herald, January 7, 1999
The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
4. TEXAS
NEW TEXAS LEGISLATION TARGETS GAY FOSTER PARENTS, SODOMY
By Stephanie Elizondo Griest, Associated Press
AUSTIN -- Social workers are rigorous in their search for potential foster and adoptive parents. They call references, check criminal backgrounds and calculate finances.
And if two Texas lawmakers get their way, social workers will consider sexual preference, too.
State Reps. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, and Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, have filed bills to ban the placement of children into gay or lesbian households.
Chisum said such households provide an improper atmosphere for raising children.
"It is not conducive to Judeo-Christian beliefs and it can be destructive for the children," he said, adding that heterosexual couples offer the most solid home and best lifestyle.
Gay and lesbian advocates point to American Psychological Association studies which have determined sexual orientation is irrelevant to a parent's ability to raise a child.
"People who support proposals like this say they are pro-family, but what more antifamily thing can you do than to say to children in foster care that we are going to deny you the opportunity to be raised by loving parents who could give you a good home and leave you in institutional care instead?" asked Matt Coles, director of the lesbian and gay rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services reports an average of 1,850 children are available for adoption each month in Texas for some 2,000 willing households. The numbers are even greater in foster care -- about 11,000 children are living with some 6,000 licensed foster families on any given month.
Stewart Davis, an agency spokesperson, said matching families' and children's criteria is complex. Some children want to stay with their siblings and families often request a particular age, race, and gender.
"This legislation would reduce the potential number of families that could be considered for foster care and adoption," he said.
A state child welfare worker who sued the agency in September was the inspiration for the bills.
Rebecca Bledsoe, a 12-year employee of the agency's Child Protective Services division, said the agency demoted her for taking a 3-month-old boy from a lesbian couple's home in Dallas. According to a grievance she filed last year with the agency, she reasoned "homosexual conduct is against the law in Texas."
The law she cited also is up for consideration in the 1999 Legislature, which convenes Jan. 12. Rep. Debra Danburg, D-Houston, has filed a bill to repeal a clause in the Texas Penal Code which makes "sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a Class C Misdemeanor.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lawyer for the national gay legal group Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, called the state's 119-year-old anti-sodomy law an outrageous invasion of privacy.
"It licenses police to enter the bedrooms of consenting adults," said Ms. Goldberg.
In September, two Houston men were caught in the act while police were responding to a false report of an armed intruder. The men pleaded no contest to sodomy charges and then appealed with a motion to quash the charges.
The case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, as the men's challenges are based upon state and federal constitutional questions involving privacy rights.
But Ms. Danburg may have a hard time getting the bill past Texas, where the anti-sodomy law has some staunch support.
"It is easy to see how society is going in the wrong direction; we don't need to take any other barriers down that would further advance our decline in morality," said Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land.
Rep. Warren Chisum's bill is HB 382. Rep. Robert Talton's bill is HB 415. Rep. Debra Danburg's bill is HB 337.
SOURCE:
Fort Worth Star Telegram
January 2, 1999
www.startext.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
5. NEW HAMPSHIRE
BILL WOULD ALLOW GAYS AND LESBIANS TO ADOPT, BE FOSTER PARENTS
Associated Press, December 31, 1998
CONCORD, N.H. - Four-year-old Josh calls both Keryn Kriegel and June Bernard "Mommy."
Kriegel and Bernard are lesbian partners who have raised Josh and his younger brother, Spencer, as most parents do - from the decision to have children through the diaper-changing years and beyond.
But only Bernard, who got pregnant with sperm bought by Kriegel from a California sperm bank, has parental rights. Kriegel would like to adopt the boys, because she fears that if something happened to Bernard or they split up, she would lose any right to be part of their lives.
"You have anxiety buried in there,"she said. "What if anything ever happened to June? It's the big uncertainty of what my rights would be to the kids."
But Kriegel can't adopt.
Under a state law passed in 1987, gays and lesbians cannot adopt children or serve as foster parents. New Hampshire is one of only two states with such restrictions; Florida is the other.
That could change in 1999. Rep. Raymond Buckley, D-Manchester, has proposed a bill that would undo the ban on gay adoptions, passed during what he calls "the height of the season of hate."
The legislative debate in 1987 revolved largely around the belief that most gays were child molesters and could give children AIDS. One supporter of the ban argued that gay people wanted to "raise their own meat" to sexually molest.
A minority argued that most child molesters are heterosexual and the ban would be discriminatory. However, the state Supreme Court said in an advisory opinion the ban would be constitutional, so the law has never been challenged in court.
Buckley says his bill would help children by increasing the number of available foster and adoptive parents. Right now, there are 1,500 children in state care ranging from foster homes to residential programs, but only about 820 licensed foster families, according to the state Division of Children, Youth and Families.
"I don't see it so much as a gay rights issue,"Buckley said. "I see it as a `What's best for the children?' issue."
Some would-be foster parents have challenged the law. Richard and Ruth Stuart of Laconia, who have acted as emergency foster parents a dozen times, balked when their license came up for renewal and the state said they had to sign a form stating there were no adult homosexuals living in their home. They refused to sign, even though neither one is gay.
"We felt that was unduly intrusive and nobody's business and patently discriminatory,"Ruth Stuart told the Concord Monitor.
Betsy and Harold Janeway tried to become foster parents, but ultimately were turned down because two of their five grown children are gay, and the state wanted assurances those children would not visit their parents for an extended time.
"It is a purely homophobic law,"said Betsy Janeway. "Think what an incredible insult it is to a human being to tell that human being they are not safe people to leave children with. This is based on old myths about gay people and the confusion in many people's minds between pedophiles and gay people."
The prospects for Buckley's bill are uncertain.
In many ways, the tenor of the Statehouse has changed in the past 11 years. The governor and a majority of senators are Democrats.
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill giving gays and lesbians equal rights in housing, employment and public accommodations. Gov. Jeanne Shaheen signed it.
House Speaker Donna Sytek supported that bill, but she also voted for the ban on gay adoptions and foster parents 11 years ago. She could not be reached by the Monitor for comment on Buckley's bill.
And some legislators have doubts about allowing gays and lesbians to adopt.
State Sen. Mary Brown, R-Chichester, said she believes in equal rights for everyone, but she fears Buckley's bill would give the state's stamp of approval to homosexuality.
"I don't like the thought that we can have a society where all this stuff is absolutely normal, "she said. "I don't think it is normal. I think it is deviant behavior."
Discrimination in Adoption and Foster Care of Children
Current State of Gay and Lesbian Rights to Adopt Children and Provide Foster Care
ARKANSAS
Task Force Denounces Arkansas Foster Care Ban
UTAH
State Agency to Consider Adoption Limits
TEXAS
New Texas Legislation Targets Gay Foster Parents, Sodomy
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bill Would Allow Gays and Lesbians to Adopt, Be Foster Parents
For up-to-date information link to:
www.lldef.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
CURRENT STATE OF GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS TO ADOPT CHILDREN AND PROVIDE FOSTER CARE
Our adversaries have worked hard to end any hope of gaining our rights to same-gender marriage. Now, they are beginning campaigns across the nation to end our rights to adopt children or to provide foster care for children in need.
In 1998, the Governor of California led the way in his executive order banning homosexuals from adoption and foster care. Our allies rushed to pass a bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status in state adoptions but that bill was dropped without a vote. It was the only pro-gay adoption bill introduced this year in the country. The anti-adoption and/or foster parenting bills introduced this year in five states are either dead or not likely to progress.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
2. ARKANSAS
TASK FORCE DENOUNCES ARKANSAS FOSTER CARE BAN
WASHINGTON, DC---January 7, 1999--- The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force denounced a decision to ban gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in Arkansas from becoming foster parents. Yesterday, the Child Welfare Agency Review Board passed a resolution that would make Arkansas the second state to enact such a ban. As worded, the ban would prevent a child from being placed with anyone who has engaged in same-sex sexual behavior or anyone sharing a household with someone who has engaged in same-sex sexual behavior. There is a comment period, which will likely take a number of weeks and will entail five public hearings, before the ban will take effect.
"This ban is not about the welfare of children, it's about attacking and demonizing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people," said Kerry Lobel, executive director of the Task Force. "Right-wing extremists are aiming their arsenal at our families more than ever before. We will face similar battles in a number of states this year, and we will do everything in our power to face down these lies, distortions, and myths with the simple truth," added Lobel.
Arkansas would become the third state to ban gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people from adopting and/or becoming foster parents. The New Hampshire legislature passed a law banning both adoption and foster care in late 1980s. Florida passed a law banning adoption in 1977. Also, in Oklahoma, people convicted under the state's sodomy law are banned from adopting.
According to the Task Force, similar measures are likely to be introduced this year in at least three other states (IN, TX, MI). Last year, anti-adoption or anti-foster care measures were introduced in five states (AZ, CA, GA, OK, TN). All of them were defeated. Both the New Hampshire and Florida laws are currently being contested. In Florida there is a lawsuit challenging the ban, and yesterday in New Hampshire advocates introduced a bill (HB 90) that would reverse the law.
"Regulations like this are responsible for robbing thousands of needy children from loving, nurturing, supportive homes. It is time to listen to the voices of young people who know that what is important is a good parent, not a parent whose sexual orientation has been run through a government-sanctioned litmus test," said Felicia Park-Rogers, Director of the organization Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and herself a 27-year old lesbian daughter of a gay man and a lesbian.
The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community and its allies, including the Interfaith Alliance for Equality, are organizing to prevent the ban from being enacted. "There are many serious problems with Arkansas' foster care system. Rather than using time and resources to address them, the state is wasting them on a non-issue," said Judy Matsuoka of the Little Rock-based Women's Project, and a coordinator of the efforts to block the ban.
Many organizations, including the Child Welfare League, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the American Psychological Association oppose the use of sexual orientation as a criteria in foster care and adoption placement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
3. UTAH
STATE AGENCY TO CONSIDER ADOPTION LIMITS
SALT LAKE CITY - A proposal before the Board of Child and Family Services may prevent gay couples, lesbian couples, heterosexual couples living in common-law relationships and polygamists from adopting children.
Board chairman Scott H. Clark said state adoption standards are now silent on the issues.
"I don't believe that given all the alternatives, it is a reasonable choice to permit people who are not married - be they man-woman, woman-woman, man-man or living together in a clan but not legally married - to be an appropriate adoption choice," he said.
The revision would not "limit or discourage single-parent adoptions," he said.
Family units
The proposal would require a "verification that adults present in the home are legally related to the (prospective adoptive) parent or parents by blood or legal marriage."
The board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed policy change on Jan. 22 at the Division of Child and Family Services.
Clark and his wife, Mary Beth, are the parents of 18 adopted children. Clark said he believes that married, heterosexual couples can provide adopted children the greatest degree of stability.
"I feel it is the duty and obligation of the division to promote those situations which are probably the most stable for children," he said. DCFS director Ken Patterson said Wednesday that "the division did not seek to put this on the agenda of the board. We think, in fact, there are more pressing issues for the division to deal with, like carrying through with the instructions (U.S. District Court) Judge Campbell gave us in September," referring to the David C. vs. Leavitt case that challenges Utah's child welfare practices.
"We see this as an individual initiative of the chairman of the board," Patterson said.
While the division is not seeking guidance on the point, Patterson said he believes the policy should originate from the Legislature.
No bars on adoption
Although adoptions are handled by juvenile court judges in closed proceedings, some polygamist groups have moved to adopt children from other polygamist families. In 1991, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that practicing polygamy does not automatically make a couple ineligible to adopt, even though plural marriage is against the law.
In a 3-2 opinion, the court found that "neither the statute, the Constitution, nor good public policy justifies a blanket exclusion of polygamists from eligibility as adoptive parents."
Department of Human Services legal director Kate Lahey told the board in December that the policy revision may conflict with state adoption statutes, Utah case law and licensing rules.
There also could be constitutional challenges to the amendment. Otherwise, the Department of Human Services has not taken a stand on the issue.
Roz McGee, executive director of Utah Children, objects to the proposal. "I would be really disappointed to see this board take this kind of narrow position, which will surely involve you in a lot of public attention, media attention and perhaps litigation. It will distract your attention from some critically important areas you are addressing and should be addressing," McGee said.
SOURCE:
Judy Matsuoka of the Women's Project is available at (501) 372-5113 for information about local efforts to block the ban. Felicia Park Rogers of COLAGE is available for further comment at (415) 861-5437.
Provo Daily Herald, January 7, 1999
The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
4. TEXAS
NEW TEXAS LEGISLATION TARGETS GAY FOSTER PARENTS, SODOMY
By Stephanie Elizondo Griest, Associated Press
AUSTIN -- Social workers are rigorous in their search for potential foster and adoptive parents. They call references, check criminal backgrounds and calculate finances.
And if two Texas lawmakers get their way, social workers will consider sexual preference, too.
State Reps. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, and Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, have filed bills to ban the placement of children into gay or lesbian households.
Chisum said such households provide an improper atmosphere for raising children.
"It is not conducive to Judeo-Christian beliefs and it can be destructive for the children," he said, adding that heterosexual couples offer the most solid home and best lifestyle.
Gay and lesbian advocates point to American Psychological Association studies which have determined sexual orientation is irrelevant to a parent's ability to raise a child.
"People who support proposals like this say they are pro-family, but what more antifamily thing can you do than to say to children in foster care that we are going to deny you the opportunity to be raised by loving parents who could give you a good home and leave you in institutional care instead?" asked Matt Coles, director of the lesbian and gay rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services reports an average of 1,850 children are available for adoption each month in Texas for some 2,000 willing households. The numbers are even greater in foster care -- about 11,000 children are living with some 6,000 licensed foster families on any given month.
Stewart Davis, an agency spokesperson, said matching families' and children's criteria is complex. Some children want to stay with their siblings and families often request a particular age, race, and gender.
"This legislation would reduce the potential number of families that could be considered for foster care and adoption," he said.
A state child welfare worker who sued the agency in September was the inspiration for the bills.
Rebecca Bledsoe, a 12-year employee of the agency's Child Protective Services division, said the agency demoted her for taking a 3-month-old boy from a lesbian couple's home in Dallas. According to a grievance she filed last year with the agency, she reasoned "homosexual conduct is against the law in Texas."
The law she cited also is up for consideration in the 1999 Legislature, which convenes Jan. 12. Rep. Debra Danburg, D-Houston, has filed a bill to repeal a clause in the Texas Penal Code which makes "sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" a Class C Misdemeanor.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lawyer for the national gay legal group Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, called the state's 119-year-old anti-sodomy law an outrageous invasion of privacy.
"It licenses police to enter the bedrooms of consenting adults," said Ms. Goldberg.
In September, two Houston men were caught in the act while police were responding to a false report of an armed intruder. The men pleaded no contest to sodomy charges and then appealed with a motion to quash the charges.
The case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, as the men's challenges are based upon state and federal constitutional questions involving privacy rights.
But Ms. Danburg may have a hard time getting the bill past Texas, where the anti-sodomy law has some staunch support.
"It is easy to see how society is going in the wrong direction; we don't need to take any other barriers down that would further advance our decline in morality," said Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land.
Rep. Warren Chisum's bill is HB 382. Rep. Robert Talton's bill is HB 415. Rep. Debra Danburg's bill is HB 337.
SOURCE:
Fort Worth Star Telegram
January 2, 1999
www.startext.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to Top]
5. NEW HAMPSHIRE
BILL WOULD ALLOW GAYS AND LESBIANS TO ADOPT, BE FOSTER PARENTS
Associated Press, December 31, 1998
CONCORD, N.H. - Four-year-old Josh calls both Keryn Kriegel and June Bernard "Mommy."
Kriegel and Bernard are lesbian partners who have raised Josh and his younger brother, Spencer, as most parents do - from the decision to have children through the diaper-changing years and beyond.
But only Bernard, who got pregnant with sperm bought by Kriegel from a California sperm bank, has parental rights. Kriegel would like to adopt the boys, because she fears that if something happened to Bernard or they split up, she would lose any right to be part of their lives.
"You have anxiety buried in there,"she said. "What if anything ever happened to June? It's the big uncertainty of what my rights would be to the kids."
But Kriegel can't adopt.
Under a state law passed in 1987, gays and lesbians cannot adopt children or serve as foster parents. New Hampshire is one of only two states with such restrictions; Florida is the other.
That could change in 1999. Rep. Raymond Buckley, D-Manchester, has proposed a bill that would undo the ban on gay adoptions, passed during what he calls "the height of the season of hate."
The legislative debate in 1987 revolved largely around the belief that most gays were child molesters and could give children AIDS. One supporter of the ban argued that gay people wanted to "raise their own meat" to sexually molest.
A minority argued that most child molesters are heterosexual and the ban would be discriminatory. However, the state Supreme Court said in an advisory opinion the ban would be constitutional, so the law has never been challenged in court.
Buckley says his bill would help children by increasing the number of available foster and adoptive parents. Right now, there are 1,500 children in state care ranging from foster homes to residential programs, but only about 820 licensed foster families, according to the state Division of Children, Youth and Families.
"I don't see it so much as a gay rights issue,"Buckley said. "I see it as a `What's best for the children?' issue."
Some would-be foster parents have challenged the law. Richard and Ruth Stuart of Laconia, who have acted as emergency foster parents a dozen times, balked when their license came up for renewal and the state said they had to sign a form stating there were no adult homosexuals living in their home. They refused to sign, even though neither one is gay.
"We felt that was unduly intrusive and nobody's business and patently discriminatory,"Ruth Stuart told the Concord Monitor.
Betsy and Harold Janeway tried to become foster parents, but ultimately were turned down because two of their five grown children are gay, and the state wanted assurances those children would not visit their parents for an extended time.
"It is a purely homophobic law,"said Betsy Janeway. "Think what an incredible insult it is to a human being to tell that human being they are not safe people to leave children with. This is based on old myths about gay people and the confusion in many people's minds between pedophiles and gay people."
The prospects for Buckley's bill are uncertain.
In many ways, the tenor of the Statehouse has changed in the past 11 years. The governor and a majority of senators are Democrats.
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill giving gays and lesbians equal rights in housing, employment and public accommodations. Gov. Jeanne Shaheen signed it.
House Speaker Donna Sytek supported that bill, but she also voted for the ban on gay adoptions and foster parents 11 years ago. She could not be reached by the Monitor for comment on Buckley's bill.
And some legislators have doubts about allowing gays and lesbians to adopt.
State Sen. Mary Brown, R-Chichester, said she believes in equal rights for everyone, but she fears Buckley's bill would give the state's stamp of approval to homosexuality.
"I don't like the thought that we can have a society where all this stuff is absolutely normal, "she said. "I don't think it is normal. I think it is deviant behavior."
Music Stars Help Fight AIDS in Africa With New Digital Magazine (RED)WIRE
Filed under: campaigns, green and famous, magazines, music — parrish @ 10:39 am
Some of the biggest names in music are donating their names and talent to support (RED)WIRE – a new digital magazine aimed at helping fight the spread of AIDS in Africa.
If that RED names sounds a little familiar, it’s because (RED)WIRE is an offshoot of the activist organization RED founded by U2 frontman Bono last year. Not only will the magazine be digital (thus SUPER green), but all proceeds will benefit HIV-infected people in Africa.
For only 5 dollars a year you can subscribe to (RED)WIRE and receive a new issue every Wednesday, featuring an exclusive song from a major musician, a song from a new performer and a multimedia presentation about how the organization is helping Africans in need. SIGN ME UP!
Oh and you better believe the music is gonna rock, because about a bazillion stars are getting involved like: U2, Coldplay, the Dixie Chicks, John Legend, REM, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, the Police, Sheryl Crow, Keith Urban, Elton John and Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys.
To find out more and get YOUR subscription, visit RedWire.com!
Filed under: campaigns, green and famous, magazines, music — parrish @ 10:39 am
Some of the biggest names in music are donating their names and talent to support (RED)WIRE – a new digital magazine aimed at helping fight the spread of AIDS in Africa.
If that RED names sounds a little familiar, it’s because (RED)WIRE is an offshoot of the activist organization RED founded by U2 frontman Bono last year. Not only will the magazine be digital (thus SUPER green), but all proceeds will benefit HIV-infected people in Africa.
For only 5 dollars a year you can subscribe to (RED)WIRE and receive a new issue every Wednesday, featuring an exclusive song from a major musician, a song from a new performer and a multimedia presentation about how the organization is helping Africans in need. SIGN ME UP!
Oh and you better believe the music is gonna rock, because about a bazillion stars are getting involved like: U2, Coldplay, the Dixie Chicks, John Legend, REM, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, the Police, Sheryl Crow, Keith Urban, Elton John and Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys.
To find out more and get YOUR subscription, visit RedWire.com!
Hate is alive and well here on the Earth today!!
Just because you are against the war, it does not mean that you DO NOT support our men and women over there fighting for their lives. Democracy is a great thing, but where do we draw the line? Are fighting the Iraqis the real answer? How can some of the most powerful Intel in the world not find one man?
In a letter from my nephew he mentions " I must admit that I have spent everyday since the election in perhaps one of the worst depressed periods of my like. " I'm sorry, but were you in a coma for the last 8 years.
Bush cut these programs:
The fiscal year 2007 budget proposal that President Bush announced last week would eliminate six HHS programs, for a savings of $866 million, and reduce spending by about $1 billion for five additional programs, CQ HealthBeat reports. The proposal would save $630 million though the elimination of the community services block grant, which funds "Community Action Agencies" that offer employment, housing, nutrition and health care for low-income individuals. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the CDC Preventive Health and Human Services Block Grant -- which funds chronic disease prevention, immunization, injury reduction programs.
Along with this:
Additional Comments
Stephen McConnell, vice president for public policy at the Alzheimer's Association, criticized the budget proposal, which he said would eliminate $12 million in state grants for community-based Alzheimer's care, in addition to a $1.6 million "Maintain Your Brain" campaign. He said, "It costs Medicare three times as much to take care of somebody with Alzheimer's disease than not," adding, "If we could even just slow the progression of this disease, we could reduce the cost substantially." However, HHS CFO Charles Johnson defended the spending reductions included in the budget proposal and said that the proposal has "a very substantial amount of funding going into Alzheimer's." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the Bush administration included "tax cuts for the wealthy and giveaways for the drug industry" in the proposal. Vinay Nadkarni, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, criticized a provision in the proposal that would eliminate a $1.5 million program that provides defibrillators to rural communities and trains local personnel to use them. He said, "Coronary heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the United States. This is actually something we can arm ourselves with" (Connolly, Washington Post, 2/14).
Cancer Research Spending Reductions
The budget proposal also includes the first spending reductions for cancer research in 10 years. The proposal would reduce spending for the National Cancer Institute by 0.8%, or $39.4 million, to $4.75 billion. In addition, the proposal would reduce spending for the CDC cancer prevention programs by 1% to $304.7 million. The proposal also would reduce spending for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for low-income women by $1.4 million and reduce spending for the CDC Office of Smoking and Health by $2.1 million. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies, said, "Instead of funding a war on cancer, the president' budget is funding a retreat." Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) said, "When you are so close you don't jog, you sprint" (Cohn, CongressDaily, 2/14).
Veteran Fee Increases
The budget proposal also would require veterans younger than age 65 to pay more for TRICARE, the military health care program, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. The proposed fee increases would affect about 3.1 million military retirees and their families nationwide. Annual enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime, the managed care program, currently are $230 for an enlisted retiree or retired officer and $460 for a family. Under the proposal, the fees would increase to $325 for a junior enlisted retiree and $650 for a family; $475 for a senior enlisted retiree and $950 for a family; and $700 for a retired officer and $1,400 for a family. The fees are based on retirement income levels (Fitzsimons, San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/14). In addition, under the proposal, copayments in the TRICARE retail pharmacy network would increase to $5 from $3 for generic medication and to $15 from $9 for brand-name treatments (Tacoma News Tribune, 2/11). Defense Department analysts have estimated that, without increased fees, TRICARE expenses could reach $64 billion, or 12% of the estimated department budget, by 2015. Under the proposal, the fee increases would "be phased in over two years beginning in October 2007," the Union-Tribune reports (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/14).
Also cut:
The Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, which subsidizes children's hospitals, from $297 million to $99 million;
Health Resources and Services Administration Health Professions Programs, which direct health care professionals to underserved communities, from $295 million to $159 million;
HRSA Rural Health Programs -- which fund rural health care facilities, state offices of rural health and the establishment of rural provider networks -- to $27 million, for a savings of $133 million; and
Poison control centers, from $23 million to $13 million, (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 2/10).
** All facts and figures come from http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35402
If those 8 years didn't make you pull out your hairy, then nothing will.
thanks,
Carl
In a letter from my nephew he mentions " I must admit that I have spent everyday since the election in perhaps one of the worst depressed periods of my like. " I'm sorry, but were you in a coma for the last 8 years.
Bush cut these programs:
The fiscal year 2007 budget proposal that President Bush announced last week would eliminate six HHS programs, for a savings of $866 million, and reduce spending by about $1 billion for five additional programs, CQ HealthBeat reports. The proposal would save $630 million though the elimination of the community services block grant, which funds "Community Action Agencies" that offer employment, housing, nutrition and health care for low-income individuals. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the CDC Preventive Health and Human Services Block Grant -- which funds chronic disease prevention, immunization, injury reduction programs.
Along with this:
Additional Comments
Stephen McConnell, vice president for public policy at the Alzheimer's Association, criticized the budget proposal, which he said would eliminate $12 million in state grants for community-based Alzheimer's care, in addition to a $1.6 million "Maintain Your Brain" campaign. He said, "It costs Medicare three times as much to take care of somebody with Alzheimer's disease than not," adding, "If we could even just slow the progression of this disease, we could reduce the cost substantially." However, HHS CFO Charles Johnson defended the spending reductions included in the budget proposal and said that the proposal has "a very substantial amount of funding going into Alzheimer's." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the Bush administration included "tax cuts for the wealthy and giveaways for the drug industry" in the proposal. Vinay Nadkarni, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, criticized a provision in the proposal that would eliminate a $1.5 million program that provides defibrillators to rural communities and trains local personnel to use them. He said, "Coronary heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the United States. This is actually something we can arm ourselves with" (Connolly, Washington Post, 2/14).
Cancer Research Spending Reductions
The budget proposal also includes the first spending reductions for cancer research in 10 years. The proposal would reduce spending for the National Cancer Institute by 0.8%, or $39.4 million, to $4.75 billion. In addition, the proposal would reduce spending for the CDC cancer prevention programs by 1% to $304.7 million. The proposal also would reduce spending for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for low-income women by $1.4 million and reduce spending for the CDC Office of Smoking and Health by $2.1 million. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies, said, "Instead of funding a war on cancer, the president' budget is funding a retreat." Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) said, "When you are so close you don't jog, you sprint" (Cohn, CongressDaily, 2/14).
Veteran Fee Increases
The budget proposal also would require veterans younger than age 65 to pay more for TRICARE, the military health care program, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. The proposed fee increases would affect about 3.1 million military retirees and their families nationwide. Annual enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime, the managed care program, currently are $230 for an enlisted retiree or retired officer and $460 for a family. Under the proposal, the fees would increase to $325 for a junior enlisted retiree and $650 for a family; $475 for a senior enlisted retiree and $950 for a family; and $700 for a retired officer and $1,400 for a family. The fees are based on retirement income levels (Fitzsimons, San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/14). In addition, under the proposal, copayments in the TRICARE retail pharmacy network would increase to $5 from $3 for generic medication and to $15 from $9 for brand-name treatments (Tacoma News Tribune, 2/11). Defense Department analysts have estimated that, without increased fees, TRICARE expenses could reach $64 billion, or 12% of the estimated department budget, by 2015. Under the proposal, the fee increases would "be phased in over two years beginning in October 2007," the Union-Tribune reports (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/14).
Also cut:
The Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, which subsidizes children's hospitals, from $297 million to $99 million;
Health Resources and Services Administration Health Professions Programs, which direct health care professionals to underserved communities, from $295 million to $159 million;
HRSA Rural Health Programs -- which fund rural health care facilities, state offices of rural health and the establishment of rural provider networks -- to $27 million, for a savings of $133 million; and
Poison control centers, from $23 million to $13 million, (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 2/10).
** All facts and figures come from http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35402
If those 8 years didn't make you pull out your hairy, then nothing will.
thanks,
Carl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
