Murs shows support for LGBTQ community through hip hop

by Jack DeJesus 

For those unfamiliar, Murs is somewhat of a legend in the independent hip hop scene, first coming up as a youngster with L.A crews Log Cabin and 3 Melancholy Gypsies (respectively), then moving up to Oakland as part of the definitive Bay Area rap collective Living Legends. As a lyricist, Murs was always someone who stuck out to me, both stylistically and content-wise, in ways that would make me nod my head and cringe at the same time. It was his uniqueness and honesty that endeared him to so many people, and blew him up to international underground stardom.

Earlier this month, Murs released a video for his song, "Animal Style," which is a story about two high school-aged men in a secret relationship. Murs plays one of the characters, a popular teen who keeps his sexuality and relationship with Jonathan (an openly gay student) on the DL.

 

From the youtube page: 

"Animal Style is a song I did for many reasons," Murs explains. "The first was to be an advocate for people close to me who are out, and those who have yet to come out. It's also a love song, which is nothing new for me. But with this one I wanted to challenge the listener to ask themselves: Is the love shared by two people of the same gender, really that different than the love I have for my partner of the opposite sex? And finally, I just felt it was crucial for some of us in the hip hop community to speak up on the issues of teen suicide, bullying, and the overall anti-homosexual sentiment that exist within hip hop culture. I felt so strongly about these issues and this song that I had to do a video that would command some attention, even if it makes some viewers uncomfortable. Even if it came at the cost of my own comfort."

I definitely appreciate Murs showing the courage to come out in support of the LGBTQ community, especially coming from a culture (hip hop) that is historically heterosexist and homophobic. Additionally, it's great seeing a notable hip hop figure like Jay-Z showing support for Soul/Hip Hop vocalist Frank Ocean, or more rappers putting out songs addressing homophobia like Macklemore's "Same Love" (AMAZING, by the way - see below). My hope is that the same attention can be given to the stories of hip hop heads who are actually from the LGBTQ community. Queer folks have been the ones fighting homophobia and heterosexism forever, they deserve to be the ones receiving credit and love for raising the awareness of us all to this struggle.

Affordable Care Act: Impact on Low-Income Women

Strong Families partner SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW has published a press release, reflecting on the impacts of the Affordable Care Act and its new extended coverage for reproductive health services.  

US Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act:
SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW Cautiously Celebrates Impact on Poor Women 
Originally published on July 13th, 2012 here by SPARK RJ NOW

Press Release

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the historic Affordable Care Act (ACA) was constitutional. This means that starting January 2014 nearly 2 million Georgians and potentially 16 million Southerners will receive comprehensive health coverage through either Medicaid or a state health exchange.

For women, this also means coverage for a wide range of preventive reproductive health services without additional out-of-pocket costs, including Pap tests, STI screening and counseling, prenatal care, and the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV); as well as obstetric and gynecologic care without preauthorization or referral. It also means that insurance companies can no longer charge women higher premiums than men nor can they exclude coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions. Health insurance plans would also have to support maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting programs, which are designed to improve prenatal, maternal and newborn health, including pregnancy outcomes, childhood outcomes and reduce disparities among women of color.

While overall, women will receive better coverage and more choices in their health care, the Court also dealt a potentially serious blow to the Medicaid expansion portion of the health care law.  Under the ACA, states would have been required to expand eligibility under Medicaid to all Americans with a family income up to 133% of the federal poverty level beginning in 2014 or risk losing their current Medicaid funding. Unfortunately, the court ruled that states’ participation in the expansion must be optional and that the government could not penalize those states that decide not to do the expansion.

Currently, most state Medicaid programs, particularly in the south, cover pregnant women and children within state specified thresholds. Expansion would allow individual adults, many of whom are parents, the ability to participate in the Medicaid program. If a state “ops out” of the expansion,, poor women, especially women of color, who cannot afford to buy into the state exchanges or do not qualify for a subsidy, will be in a “healthcare limbo.”

Our mission as a southern-based reproductive justice organization is to not only increase awareness about the health benefits that women gained under the ACA, but to also raise alarms about the potentially harmful impact the Court’s decision about the Medicaid expansion could have on poor women.  As policymakers in Georgia and throughout the South implement the ACA, we must be vigilant to ensure that all women and their families receive affordable, quality health care, regardless of their income.

"When the law targets Latinos"

Photo Credit: NLIRH

Strong Families member, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, co-wrote an op-ed for The Daily Beast with the National Immigration Law Center and the National Council of La Raza.

It discusses the provisions of the Affordable Care Act,  as well as the racial bias promoted by Arizona’s largely unconstitutional SB 1070 and the recent House passage of the Violence Against Women Act. Here's an excerpt. Read the full article here.

When the Law Targets Latinos: The Battles Yet to Be Fought
By Jessica González-Rojas, Marielena Hincapié and Jennifer Ng’andu

In the same week the Supreme Court upheld the historic health-care act, it also upheld the most controversial tenet of Arizona’s notorious racial-profiling law, otherwise known as SB 1070. This provision gives police officers the right to demand “papers” of anyone who “appears” to be in the country without authorization.

Add that to the recent House passage of the Violence Against Women Act—legislation that is intended to protect women from violent crimes, but actually excludes or weakens protections for many groups, especially immigrant victims of violence—and it is clear there is much more to do.

It’s not unusual for immigrants—and even those who “look like” immigrants—to be ignored and even dehumanized by immigration opponents. But the law should not support such behavior.

And so, even as we applaud news that the Affordable Care Act stands, we are concerned about some of its provisions.

Certainly some tenets of the act will benefit immigrants and their families, including support for community health centers, language and cultural competency training for providers, the expansion of Medicaid coverage, new marketplaces for insurance, and an investment in women’s health that will mean better access to preventive care such as contraception, mammograms, and cervical-cancer screenings, without co-pays. Still, millions of immigrants will be excluded from coverage. Lawful permanent residents who have been in the U.S. for fewer than five years are barred from Medicaid. Further, undocumented immigrants are prohibited from participating in the state health-insurance exchanges, even when purchasing insurance with their own money.

Even more concerning: the racial-profiling in Arizona’s largely unconstitutional SB 1070 immigration law, and the House’s Violence Against Women legislation—which removed safeguards for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for residency visas. These laws encourage suspicion, bias, and profiling of immigrants, Latinos, and other people of color. Anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation are nothing more than thinly veiled attacks on Latino civil rights.

These laws are being used as a political organizing tool that pits one community against others. And they reflect a profound misunderstanding of Latinos. They remind us that there is more to be done to guarantee our civil and human rights are fully acknowledged and enforced.

Broken immigration system separating families

Our broken immigration system has too many harmful consequences for us to count. Breakthrough's #ImHere campaign points to a few of them, making it clear why we need to put an end to Alabama's H.B. 56, Arizona's notorious S.B. 1070 and other copycat laws:

Credit: matti keltanen/ keltanen on Flickr, under Creative Commons

• separate children from parents indefinitely by deportation or detention, often without due process
• imprison families in their own homes for fear of police harassment or worse
• force women to choose between the threat of an abusive husband and the risk of deportation if they call the police
• trap women and LGBTQ people in immigrant detention centers under constant threat of physical and sexual abuse
• send pregnant immigrants to give birth in shackles or with ICE agents by their side
• push immigrant women to work for substandard wages 14% lower than female U.S. citizens and 13% lower than immigrant men
• drive parents to give power of attorney over their children to friends and neighbors, even employers or landlords, for fear of sudden detention or deportation
• commit — as of right now — over 5000 children of detained or deported parents to foster care 
• spawn federal laws and amendments specifically removing freedoms and protections for immigrant women.

Immigrant families shouldn't be hurt and separated like this. Our Strong Families campaign believes that every family should have the rights, recognition and resources it needs to thrive. Here's an excerpt from a very relevant article by Mallika Dutt, originally published by RH Reality Check. Read the full article here.

The War on Immigrant Women: Part of the Sweeping Crusade Against the Fundamental Rights of All Women
by Mallika Dutt, originally published at RH Reality Check

The current attacks on women’s health, sexuality, and self-determination — in states, in GOP debates, on the airwaves, and beyond — are appalling enough. But they are only part of the story. The war on women is even more than an assault on the most basic and personal choices in our lives, even more than an assault on our right to determine if, when and under what circumstances to become mothers. It is also an attack on our essential right to mother — to raise healthy, safe children in healthy, safe families. And on that front, it is immigrant women and women of color who suffer the most.

Laws such as Alabama’s HB 56 and federal enforcement measures such as 287g have injected fear and anguish into even the most routine aspects of many women’s daily lives: going to work or taking kids to school, or seeing the doctor. HB 56 gives police officers sweeping authority to question and detain anyone they suspect of being undocumented, with snap judgments based on skin color -- that is, blatant racial profiling -- accepted as an utterly fair method of determining who to accost. The law also requires school administrators to track the immigration status of their students. It is shocking in its singularity of purpose: to make everyday life so intolerable for undocumented immigrants to the United States that they will, indeed, "self-deport." And already, the consequences for immigrant families have been unspeakably high.

These are families like that of Jocelyn, a fourteen-year-old girl who was sent to live with relatives when it became too dangerous for her mother and father to stay in Alabama. Jocelyn is not alone: a growing number of parents are giving power of attorney over their children to friends, neighbors and employers — even landlords and other near-strangers because the threat of deportation and indefinite detention is just too real. Immigrants in detention are often denied the right to make arrangements for their children or attend family court hearings. Others have been stripped of their parental rights entirely. The Applied Research Center estimates that deportation of parents have left five thousand children currently in foster care.

All this in a climate where worship of "family values" — that is, in reality, certain value placed on certain families — has reached near maniacal proportions. Ask Maria about how this country really values women, babies and families, and she will tell you how harassment by ICE agents — who refused to leave her hospital bedside — nearly led to dangerous labor complications. Ask Juana about giving birth to her son in shackles. Ask Tere about "family values," and she will tell you how she risked everything to bring her son to the United States for life-saving heart surgery. Today, the danger is on our soil: she is so afraid of being picked up and detained that she has stopped taking her son to the medical appointments his condition requires.

Ted's Transphobia in #HIMYM

Photo credit: Ron P. Jaffe/AP

Here's an on-point post originally from ReproRepro, the blog of Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ). 

How I Meet Your Casual Transphobia

Rosie Wang, LSRJ Summer Legal Intern

*trigger warning for transphobia.

In mid-December of last year I was at the tail end of finals. I hadn’t left the two block radius around library for weeks. I kept coming up with terrible law jokes like: “What did the turtle say after he had to pay damages to a thin skull plaintiff? …Tort-is-hell.” Obviously, I was facing major burnout.

It was under those conditions that I decided to give up on studying in favor of escaping into a more cheerful version of mid-20’s New York life than I was currently leading – namely, by watching Netflix marathons of How I Met Your Mother. My classmates referenced it constantly and favorably as a cultural touchstone for our generation. I figured that since one of the main characters attended Columbia Law, it would almost be like studying vicariously. Well, Marshall had way too much free time to be remotely realistic as a law student and the show turned out to be virulently transphobic. It was a multi-season phenomenon (spoiler alerts ahead!):

Season 1, Episode 19:

[Barney pays an escort $500 to attend a social function with Ted.]

Barney: Ted you’re my cabrone, you think I’m going to stick you with some toothless tranny from Port Authority?

Season 2, Episode 9:

[Ted’s wonders why his friends dislike his date. He alternately imagines that she had a man falsely imprisoned for statutory rape, enjoys killing puppies, and the following:]

Ted: I’ll be back in one second.

Kathy: I bet he’s going to the urinal. Yeah, I remember when I had a penis.

Season 3, Episode 8:

Ted: If there’s some potential “Ohhh….” [dealbreaker] moment, I want know about it right away. I mean, what’s the alternative?

[Cut to fantasy sequence Robin and Ted at the altar]

Priest: I now pronounce you man and wife.

Ted: I love you.

Robin: I used to be a dude.

Ted: Ohhh….

Season 6, Episode 5:

[Ted, in a rough part of town, is approached by a blonde woman shortly after being approached by a cross dressed, possibly transgender sex worker.]

Ted: Look, mister you are very convincing, and I’m very flattered. Confused, even, but I’m not looking –

Zoe: Definitely not a drag queen. But you have me rethinking this eyeshadow.

[Later in the episode after Ted compliments her looks.]

Zoe: That’s sweet. It would be sweeter if you hadn’t said I was a tranny before, but it’s still sweet.

Season 7, Episode 5:

[Ted wonders why his date is secretive. A fantasy sequence ensues where Ted is in the bathroom of the restaurant and Janet comes in.]

 Ted: This is the men’s room.

[Janet strides to the urinal and hikes up her dress.]

Janet: I know. I’m a dude.

Ted: [gasp of horror]

Ted, the main character, the everyman we are supposed to champion and identify with, apparently lives in constant fear of transgender people and his friends are not much better. HIMYM consistently takes cheap, easy shots at trans people, a kneejerk reaction to the portrayal of transgender sexuality and bodies as something unfamiliar to be feared. The writers clearly assume that the audience will guffaw along with this, because they assume that everyone agrees that a person undergoing a gender transition is the least desirable partner possible, someone’s worst nightmare. And on top of being portrayed as inherently unattractive, transgender people are also portrayed as inherently immoral. Ted imagines trans women as predators who trap poor deceived straight men into marriage by pretending they are cis-women (because how else would they find a romantic partner)! People in the transgender community even belong in the same train of thought as sadists who target baby animals. The slur “tranny” is bandied about as if it were hilarious in and of itself. Zoe, who later becomes Ted’s serious girlfriend, uses it in an  especially clueless way by equating cross dressers, drag queens, and “trannies” into one non-conforming group of People She is Insulted To Be Associated With.

The message that biology trumps any internal sense of self or personal choice is reinforced through Ted’s imaginings. The hypothetical “reveals” are always crass and focused on intimate anatomy and bodily functions. People are identified as transgender, not because of different gender expression, but because they visually or verbally announce the presence of a penis or erstwhile penis. All this is completely disassociated from any reference to internal sense of self or humanity.

If it seems ridiculous that this actually happens on a show watched by over 9 million people, what is even more startling to is that HIMYM has won six Emmy’s and was nominated for a GLAAD award. The GLAAD nomination probably is a result of HIMYM starring an openly gay actor and writing a gay brother for him (who is a total amalgamation of non-threatening gay stereotypes). However, Neil Patrick Harris’ sexual orientation in no way begins to excuse the frequent potshots at people with gender identities that do not match the biological sex they were born with. Indeed, GLAAD awards are given to recognize “outstanding images of the LGBT community,” but what part of being outstanding is the tired trope of “gay panic” supposed to fit into?

Season 8 of HIMYM starts in two months. Its highly anticipated as the season in which the audience might find out the answer to the titular question, but I’d rather know when these characters will meet some empathy.

A different way to look at the Internet's power

Photo credit: forbes.com

By Mina Itabashi

When I think of power, I immediately think of top-down, oppressive, manipulative, hierarchical power. Like the exploitative multinational corporations and the rich lobbying groups in DC.

Hierarchical power of course also exist in less exploitative forms, and when managed well, can be used to organize against these evils. For example, many big non-profit organizations have hierarchical systems unless they are collectives.

And then I think of the bottom-up grassroots power that community organizers use in order to confront these evils. The beauty of community organizing, for me, is that we get to connect with people in our communities and form strong networks of relationships - whether they be face-to-face networks in our neighborhood or virtual networks through the internet.

But Deanna Zandt points out in her article, Don't Mess with Our Boobs: Ad-Hoc Networks and Online Power, that hierarchical power and networked power are not the only forms of political power. She explains that we're forgetting another form: Ad-hoc power. She uses the example of the Susan G Komen Foundation's announcement in February to stop funding Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screenings:

We’re stuck in a very linear progression when it comes to Internet power: OK, let’s bring people together quickly and easily, and then we’ll consider them part of our network, and then we’ll get them to help us kick out the current people “in power.”

Let’s look at how these 3 systems of power were activated in the days following Komen’s announcement.

Hierarchical. This is where Planned Parenthood activates the resources within their control or domain. Sending out emails, getting local chapters/clinics the word. We go down one hierarchy and up another.
Networked. The people that already have relationships with Planned Parenthood were activated and motivated to Do Something. The level of participation varied as to where they were in their relationship– many spread the word and pointed people to PP’s comments; others donated, and encouraged others to do so. There were the creators who did things like what I did. I have an emotional connection to the work that they do and the services they provide, and they’ve successfully navigated that relationship with me to the point that when something bad happens to them, it feels very personal.
Ad-hoc. These were, in this case, many women who were new to activism, and for whom this attack on Planned Parenthood was their point of entry into the War on Women.™ A few of them could likely be converted into networked power, but it was their ad-hoc power that did the most service here. They were the women who contributed stories to my Tumblr, who spread the news of the defunding into their own networks. It’s likely these networks were previously unreached by traditional activism. You saw this in the language that they used: “I don’t normally post political stuff,” or “I don’t usually forward these kinds of things.” And that’s OK. The effect was to activate their own untapped networks, and make this particular message heard widely.

There are mistakes that other groups make when it comes to how we view these systems of power interacting. One is the problematic notion that all ad-hoc power *has* to be transformed into network power. We want to take every one of those dotted line connections and make it solid. That’s just not realistic. Sure, some of those folks are going to have their emotional connection turned into the network, but spending an inordinate amount of time on that transformation can waste precious resources for groups and organizations that just don’t have that capactiy. *And,* it misses and erases the power of ad-hoc to reach the previously unreachable.

The other mistake that’s made is thinking that networked power is bottom layer of hierarchical power. Many think that what technology has done for us is brought all those people in the bottom layers together, so that we can fight the people in the top layers. We have to shift our thinking around this. Networked power is just starting to *replace* hierarchical power. It’s beginning to wrap around those pyramids, infiltrating it and breaking it apart, and maybe even dismantling hierarchies altogether. YAY.

I definitely found it helpful to think about this additional form of power that Zandt describes, because it points to the political power of those who don't necessarily consider themselves 'politically engaged' - people who just happen to be on twitter or tumblr, who can resonate to the issues being raised. But this ad-hoc power also only really works for one-time issues that already have substantial support on a large scale, like in the example of breast cancer funding. For other issues that are more localized or that affect a smaller marginalized group, ad-hoc power can be a great entry-point, but it actually does need to be transformed into network power to be able to make the changes that are really needed.

Mina is a summer intern at Forward Together, a Japanese American raised all over east & southeast Asia. She embraces her identity as a womyn of color and doesn't believe in borders.

Transgender rights in Argentina puts us to shame

Photo credit: Natacha Pisarenko/Associated Press

By Mina Itabashi
 
During this last semester, I was studying abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina - which meant that I got to live through some amazing historic moments in transgender rights.

In Argentina, political activism and campaigning by groups such as La Federación Argentina LGBT led to a huge legislative victory that set a new standard for transgender rights. They first proposed this legislation, Ley de Identidad de Género (Gender Identity Law), in 2007. Five years later, on May 9th, 2012, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 55-0. One senator abstained, and more than a dozen declared themselves absent... but at least they didn't vote against it. CBS quoted Senator Osvaldo López of Tierra del Fuego, the only openly gay national lawmaker in Argentina, "This law is going to enable many of us to have light, to come out of the darkness, to appear."

This law allows adults to change their legal name or gender without having to receive approval from a judge or doctor, and without having to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. Furthermore, sex-change surgery and hormone therapy will be covered by both public and private health care plans. Transgender youth under 18 have the same rights, except that they will be required permission from their legal guardians. Last week, on July 2nd, Argentina began issuing its first identification cards under the new law.

La Federación Argentina LGBT is a federation of 24 organizations across Argentina working towards access to all human and civil rights for the LGBT community. During the campaign leading up to the passing of the legislation, the vice president of the federation, Marcela Romero stated, "For us, to not have a DNI (National Identification Document) means the denial of the basic right to identity. In addition to the moral damage that this causes, it often prevents us from accessing the healthcare system, excludes us from the educational system, and impedes us from finding jobs, being able to sign contracts, or receiving retirement support and medical insurance... Even to vote we have to use the line for men. In many provinces, the police stop us, incarcerate us, and kill us. For transgender people, the democracy has not yet arrived."

The federation has also published a guide (in spanish) to inform the media about the new law and how to talk about it. For example, it makes clear that although the law states that surgeries and hormone therapy can be covered by public or private health care plans, these medical procedures do not imply that this is a diagnosis for any form of illness. The guide declares that instead, these procedures are considered as professional support to fully guarantee the health of transgender citizens. Health, within the framework of this project, is considered as the complete physical, mental and social well-being in accordance with the identity and gender expression chosen independently and according to each individual's own lifestyle.

California (and the whole US in general), is waaay behind in comparison. Last year, in October 2011, California's Vital Statistics Modernization Act stated that proof of surgery is no longer required in order to the gender designation on birth certificates. BUT a note from a doctor declaring that “clinically appropriate treatment” has been undergone is still required, and has to be brought to court. (For more info about the requirements in CA, see here).

It'll be exciting to see this law actually be put into practice in Argentina - because its success can be used to support transgender rights movements here in California, and all over the world.

Mina is a summer intern at Forward Together, a Japanese American raised all over east and southeast Asia. She embraces her identity as a womyn of color and doesn't believe in borders.

6 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Medicaid Expansion

Making Program’s Extension Optional Could Hurt Vulnerable Populations

SOURCE: AP/Cliff Owen

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), center, holds up a copy of the Supreme Court's health care ruling during a news conference on Capitol Hill. At least seven states have abandoned an expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

By Jessica Arons, Center for American Progress 
This piece was originally published on CAP's blog.

In the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, an important question before the Court was whether it was coercive for the federal government to threaten to withhold current federal funding for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, if states did not expand the program in compliance with a new requirement in the health reform law. The Court ruled that yes, it is coercive to do so.

Below are the six key things you need to know about the Court’s decision and how it will affect women, the working poor, and state and federal governments.

The federal government keeps its carrot but loses its stick

The Supreme Court said that it is up to states to decide whether they will join the Medicaid expansion established under the Affordable Care Act. That means states must have the ability to take or leave the new funds offered under the Medicaid expansion. If they take the new funds, then they must comply with the new rules of the program, which means extending eligibility to anyone who meets certain income requirements.

But if they choose not to participate in the expansion, the federal government cannot penalize them by taking away the Medicaid funds they already receive. This means that governors have full discretion to decide whether their states will participate in the expansion. Already seven states have denied Medicaid coverage to millions of citizens who became eligible under the Obamacare expansion.

The working poor will suffer if states do not participate in the Medicaid expansion 

Under the old Medicaid rules, only certain categories of poor people such as pregnant women, parents with dependent children, the disabled, and the elderly could qualify for Medicaid. But under the Medicaid expansion, anyone can qualify for Medicaid as long as their annual income is less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level.[1] In addition, the Affordable Care Act offers tax credits that help people with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($11,170 to $43,320 for an individual) purchase private health insurance.

Two groups of people will be left out if a state chooses not to expand its Medicaid program: 1) those who make less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level but do not fit into one of the traditional Medicaid categories, including people who are single, childless, or do not live with their children; and 2) low-income people who qualify for premium assistance under the Affordable Care Act but nevertheless cannot find insurance that they can afford to purchase or use. The majority of people in both these categories are low-wage workers.

Women have the most to lose

Women make up a disproportionately high share of Medicaid recipients for three reasons: the traditional categorical eligibility requirements (such as being pregnant or a parent), women’s longer lifespans, and the fact that women are more likely than men to be poor. Indeed, women currently constitute 68 percent of all adult Medicaid enrollees.

Many more men will be able to join Medicaid once eligibility is determined solely by income level. But of the approximately 15 million adults eligible for coverage under the Medicaid expansion, around 10 million of them—or two-thirds of the expanded Medicaid population—are nonelderly women.

Because poor women who are pregnant or parenting already qualify for Medicaid in many instances, most of the women living under the poverty level who qualify for the expansion do not have children. But many of those whose incomes are between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level likely do. In addition, many of the women who qualify for the expansion are among the working poor—maids, waitresses, and home health aides whose jobs do not offer benefits and who earn too much to currently qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase private insurance on their own.

The decision may set a bad precedent for other social welfare programs

The full reach of the Court’s opinion is unclear, but it is certainly possible that states will use this precedent to challenge a number of social welfare programs and civil rights statutes as unconstitutionally coercive under the Medicaid ruling. Federal statutes that limit a penalty for a state’s noncompliance to the denial of federal funds for a small government program or to a small portion of a large program may fare better in a constitutional review, but the door to challenging these laws has been opened.

States can’t afford not to participate in the expansion

The federal government pays on average approximately 57 percent of Medicaid’s total costs under the current program. But under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will pay the full cost of the Medicaid expansion for the first two years, from 2014 to 2016. The federal government’s share will then drop to 95 percent in 2017 and ultimately to 90 percent by 2020.

But even when states have to pay 10 percent of the coverage for the new group of enrollees, states will save far more than they spend. That’s because they currently pay high costs for uncompensated care obtained by the uninsured at public hospitals and clinics, and because insurance premiums for state employees and others are inflated to cover costs that are passed on from caring for the uninsured.

Under the expansion, states will be able to increase the number of insured people by an average of 25 percent, with an increased state cost of less than 3 percent. A report from the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that California would spend close to $2 million under the expansion but would save more than $2.2 billion. At a time when state budgets are shrinking, these savings are critical.

The initial uptake of Medicaid was slow but ultimately successful

When Medicaid was first enacted in 1965, states were given the option of whether to participate in the program. It took a little while, but all states joined the program by 1982. A similar time lapse may occur with this expansion, but ultimately all states will likely participate in the expansion because it is too good an offer for them to refuse.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion has created a bump in the road on our country’s long journey to universal health care coverage, but the incentives are strong for states to participate in the expansion. All Americans deserve access to affordable health insurance. We can only hope that this political moment will pass quickly so that we can return to the work of repairing our nation’s tattered safety net.

Jessica Arons is Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

See also:
Interactive Map: Why the Supreme Court's Ruling on Medicaid Creates Uncertainty for Millions by Maura Calsyn and Emily Oshima
Endnotes

[1] The statutory threshold is 133 percent of the federal poverty line, but 5 percent of an individual’s income is disregarded, which effectively raises the limit to 138 percent of the federal poverty line.

Detroit Storytellers and Other Magical Things

by Tavae Samuelu

I’ve had two weeks to mull it over, let it marinate, and figure out what delicious nuggets of information to present to you, the phantom reader, that I learned at the Allied Media Conference this year. Language is failing me and I’m sitting here sans sufficient words and articulate thoughts. The Allied Media Conference is described as a space to “strategize for a more just and creative world,” but more accurately it’s a gathering of marginalized media producers and consumers. It’s only fitting that it has made its home in Detroit, where residents truly understand the urgency of creating, redefining, and participating in media.

There was a time when the only thing I knew about Detroit was depression. Mainstream media had me convinced that the expansive Michigan city is where the economy went to die. I’ve read and watched countless news stories about soaring unemployment, a failing auto industry, and a generally grim prospect for the future of this urban sprawl. Poverty was my oversimplified understanding of Detroit.

No one told me about the storytellers, the litany of raconteurs who would be so generous with their time and words. I sat in workshops with proud Detroit natives who were quick to remind me that Detroit was their home, a place with a long, complicated, and beautiful hystory of struggle and resilience. I met modern day minstrels who were practiced in countering the dominant mythologies about their city. The opening ceremony boasted a tribute to D. Blair, a poet whose life read like a love letter to Detroit. a shining example of how we tell stories to heal.

I’m a storyteller. I tell stories to fill the awkward silences and spaces that separate me and a stranger. I tell stories because my ancestors did it to ensure my existence. I tell stories for my survival and the idea of them outliving my physical being is like achieving immortality. I tell stories because I don’t want anyone telling my story for me. The AMC taught me that telling your story is magical, not in the Disney sense of the word that has rendered it synonymous with fiction. I mean the kind of magical that “utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world.” The dominant narrative often feels beyond my scope of influence so providing an alternative account is by (re)definition magic.

My (sex ed) story

The Genderbread Person 2.0

By Aubrey Daquiz

Thinking about my experiences with sex education, my mind immediately jumps to a handful of stories that highlighted what I didn’t learn in the medium-sized, predominantly white town where I spent most of my childhood.

In 5th grade, we were separated from the boys to learn about our own reproductive body parts (not others’) and how they related to puberty. Our prizes for successful completion of this week were a sample pack of sanitary napkins and/or a stick of deodorant--girls got both!

The next year we were taught co-educationally about HIV and watched “The Miracle of Life”. Although I didn’t really learn about sex itself (i.e., a behavior that could result in one of these outcomes), we certainly focused on abstaining from it. As a cradle Catholic, this message mirrored my worldview at the time, as evidenced by my slogan choice for our abstinence posters: “Wait until you’re wed/Before you go to bed!”

My 9th grade health class included a few lessons on HIV and other STDs. I don’t recall the same abstinence focus, but I also don’t remember much information on contraception--not even the quintessential “condom-on-a-banana” demonstration. In fact, I’m sure the latter would have stood out to me then with my firm worldview.

In high school, instances of sex ed was even fewer and farther between.

Chip in $5 to support our work in 2016 and beyond  >>

Students in the Home Economics class carried around baby dolls for a week or two to get a taste of parenting.

Those in Senior Social Studies class had the infamous “STD week” where students viewed an unforgettable slideshow with graphic depictions of possible consequences of unprotected sex.

Although I’d argue now that these topics only scratch the surface of what young people need to know, I unintentionally bypassed both of these “experiences” because neither class was required and anyone who chose an Advanced Placement (AP) social studies class that year also missed it. I’m sure the latter was simply a result of what teacher was willing to teach the material, but it’s also interesting to note that those who were on a more traditional, college-bound track didn’t get this information that others did. As if we all didn’t need the information.

In college, it finally happened.

I signed up for a popular class called Human Sexuality, because it was required by my research lab and--I’ll admit--I was mildly curious. I had no idea that this exposure to comprehensive sex education would expand my worldview so much and shift my academic and career trajectory to where I am today.

While this class brought to light all the “basic” sex education I hadn’t gotten in previous classes, it also made explicit so many implicit “lessons” I had learned throughout my upbringing. This class taught about how most, if not all, people’s sexual orientation falls on a spectrum rather than falling in some finite category. I also grew in my awareness of how non-normative genders, sexualities, and relationships are made invisible in mainstream conversation and dialogue.

Although I appreciated that this class normalized sexuality in a way I had never heard before, it also encouraged me to challenge all that I had ever considered to be “normal” or “natural”. Specifically, it became clear that I was socialized to follow strict rules and live by nearly impossible standards about sexuality that I had come to see as normal. Combined with my Ethnic & Women Studies coursework, I felt both helpless and empowered to think that there are so few things in this world that have a clear right or wrong answer.

Chip in $5 to support our work in 2016 and beyond  >>

One thing that feels clearly right to me is that people--youth and adults alike--need more information than they currently have to make the best, healthiest decisions they can for themselves, their partners, and their families. We can’t expect parents and teachers who had poor sex education themselves to be able to improve for the next generation without continued education and support for them. Moreover, young people shouldn’t have to rack up student debt and attend some fancy institution in order to access good, well-rounded information about the amazing diversity of human beings and their relationships. We all deserve the chance to make truly informed decisions about how to live authentically, love ourselves, and love others.

Aubrey Daquiz is a Filipina American who is serving as a Youth Organizing Intern with Forward Together.