Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Rome to discuss adding abortion restrictions to the health-care legislation. (Associated Press)
The health-insurance reform bill passed by the House contains an unnecessary new restriction on abortion that the Senate should eliminate from the legislation.
An amendment sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R., Pa.) would go beyond current law, which in most cases prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The practical impact of the House bill would be to make it more difficult even for women buying health insurance with their own money to find policies that cover abortion.
Under the House measure, uninsured people would be able to purchase health insurance from private companies or the government — the so-called public option. Families of four earning $88,000 or less would receive government subsidies.
But the Stupak-Pitts amendment would prohibit anyone with a government subsidy from purchasing an insurance policy that covers abortion. Currently, that restriction applies mainly to women covered by Medicaid, federal employees, and inmates at federal prisons.
Because most customers in the newly created marketplace, or “exchange,” would receive subsidies, it’s unlikely that insurers would offer any plans aimed at nonsubsidized customers that cover abortion services.
The bill would allow people to buy insurance “riders” that cover abortions, but that’s a senseless proposition. Nobody plans on an unwanted pregnancy. In five states that already bar private insurers from covering elective abortions, those riders are difficult to obtain.
It would be more sensible to adopt the requirements of a previous version of the House bill, which would have segregated premium payments and co-pays to allow for coverage of abortions. It would have prohibited tax subsidies from going to pay for the procedure.
Seventeen states, including New Jersey, follow a similar approach by using their own funds, not federal matching funds, to cover abortions under Medicaid.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) agreed to this new restriction after she calculated that the bill wouldn’t pass without it. There was enough pressure from antichoice Democrats to force her hand.
But the health-reform bill also could have been killed by abortion-rights supporters, who didn’t want this issue to stop the overall legislation. As the debate returns to the Senate, lawmakers should restore the workable compromise that the House rejected. To allow the
House version to become law would be to unduly interfere with decisions best made by women and their physicians.
The fight over abortion shouldn’t thwart health-insurance reform. But neither should a new law to overhaul health care in this country end up further restricting a woman’s right to lawful reproductive health services.
Towing companies are the subject of a new report from the city controller's office.
A half-dozen years ago, Philadelphia tow-truck operators were reported for fighting over customers — literally slugging it out in front of startled motorists. As an industry, towing firms also routinely overcharged, leading one city councilman to remark that “these guys obviously don’t want to play by any rules.”
Well, at least the fistfights have been brought under control.
But a report issued last week by City Controller Alan Butkovitz cited eight of the busiest private towing companies for “openly violating the law” by socking customers with excessive fees in take-it-or-leave-it dealings that left customers with no appeal.
While the city code caps towing charges at $150, Butkovitz found that most of the companies charged higher fees, ranging from $175 for cars to $200 for commercial vehicles. Butkovitz even found the illegal, higher prices posted on signs around private parking lots.
Many tow-truck operators reviewed by the controller also refused to accept credit or debit cards from motorists seeking to recover their towed vehicles, despite a 2008 law requiring it.
Old habits die hard. While some firms offered lame excuses like not getting around to changing the prices on signs, towing companies here and elsewhere have been fighting caps on their rates and other restrictions for years.
Fortunately, at the urging of Councilman James F. Kenney, City Council has upheld price caps and taken a strong stand against what Butkovitz called “predatory towing.”
Where the city has fallen down, though, has been in enforcement on towing-fee abuses. It comes as no surprise that the city’s Department of Licenses and Inspections — perennially overburdened and dogged by corruption over the years — is cited by the controller for lax enforcement.
L&I officials, who coordinate enforcement with the Police Department, say enforcement has improved since the controller’s review was done. They pledge to be even more vigilant. For one thing, L&I plans to crack down on signs showing inflated towing rates.
The higher fines that Butkovitz recommends could strengthen the hand of L&I.
The fact that L&I receives few complaints over towing fees from motorists doesn’t mean much. Few owners of towed cars even know about the rate caps. And facing mounting daily storage fees, drivers obviously pay whatever they’re told is the going rate.
Even for motorists who want to contest the fees, there’s no clear appeals process. That bolsters the case for a Council proposal Kenney plans to introduce to establish an appeals board.
Rogue tow-truck operators function like bad-will ambassadors for the city — since any resident, commuter, or tourist who drives in and around Philadelphia could fall prey to their tactics.
It’s in the city’s interest to keep after firms that don’t, um, toe the line. The controller’s report shows that this is a work in progress.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 1:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Chief Justice Ronald Castille
Even before two judges were charged with racketeering in the Luzerne County kids-for-cash scandal, most Pennsylvanians told pollsters they suspected state justice was for sale, since judicial elections were awash in campaign donations. Many judges agreed with that perception, other surveys showed.
So it’s a challenge of the highest order for the state Supreme Court — which oversees the court system — to try to instill confidence in the judiciary the wake of the upstate scandal. If public cynicism was high before the scandal broke early this year, it has surely spiked since.
After a late start, though, the court, led by Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, is making the right moves to reassure citizens.
Even with a politicized judiciary, the treachery of the conduct attributed to the former judges, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan, is breathtaking. Federal authorities have charged the pair with taking $2.6 million in payments from the operators of two privately run detention centers where Ciavarella then dispatched hundreds of teens after perfunctory hearings.
So the court’s Oct. 29 ruling tossing out 6,500 juvenile-court cases tainted by the alleged kickback scheme was a major step.
While deliberating over that ruling, Castille and his fellow justices also joined with Gov. Rendell and state lawmakers to launch an inquiry by a panel that began holding hearings last month.
The key question the 11-member Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice has been wrestling with is how Ciavarella and Conahan could get away with what was described last week as “an almost routine disregard for the rights of juvenile offenders.”
At hearings over two days in Wilkes-Barre, the panel heard how a conspiracy of silence from lawyers, court employees, and school officials enabled the rogue judges to trample over the rights of thousands of teens.
The hope has to be that the eventual recommendations from the commission will prompt reforms that could prevent another such perversion of justice.
On a related front, the Supreme Court made it clear it will follow all of the tentacles of the Luzerne County scandal. The court overturned a multimillion-dollar defamation award last week against a Wilkes-Barre newspaper because the judges conspired with a reputed mobster to fix the case. Conahan, then president judge, had assigned Ciavarella as judge in the case against the Citizens’ Voice.
The justices ordered a new trial “to remedy the pervasive appearance of impropriety in this case, and to give justice … an opportunity to prevail.” All of the other judges’ cases should be examined.
As Castille’s court also noted, “A jurist is either fair or unfair; there are no acceptable gradations.” Indeed, the state courts need such stirring words coupled with decisive action to finally tear down those “For Sale” signs.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 8:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Union members rallied outside the DRPA headquarters in Camden in 2005 to support dredging the Delaware River. Debate over the issue between politicians in Pennsylvania (for) and New Jersey (against) still hasn't ended.
Renewed objections by New Jersey and Delaware officials to deepening the Delaware River’s shipping channel are important enough to put the project on hold, at least for a few more months.
The Army Corps of Engineers last month announced it would begin dredging the channel to a depth of 45 feet, despite lacking the approval of Delaware’s environmental regulators. Delaware and New Jersey responded by filing suit in federal court to stop the project.
Both states and environmental activists argue that the project would violate environmental laws. They contend that the Army Corps has never fully assessed the impact of dredging 16 million cubic yards of muck from the river bottom. The Corps says its environmental impact studies support the 102-mile-long deepening.
There is also continued disagreement about the firmness of Gov. Rendell’s pledge that Pennsylvania would become the dumping ground for the dredge spoils, which could be toxic. (Rendell reiterated in a letter to Gov. Corzine in May that Pennsylvania will accept the dredge materials after they have been “dewatered” at sites in New Jersey, a process that is part of the Army Corps’ plan. But the agreement isn’t legally binding on the Army Corps, sponsor of the project.)
This long-running debate really hasn’t changed since Congress authorized the project in 1991. Pennsylvania sees the $379 million dredging plan as the key to keeping Philadelphia’s port operations competitive. New Jersey and Delaware oppose it largely due to environmental concerns.
This Editorial Board has long supported the dredging project based on earlier projected economic benefits. But it would be useful, at this stage, to have a fresh independent assessment of the project’s value and its environmental impact. It just so happens that such a review is on the way.
The Government Accountability Office is expected to issue a new analysis of the project’s benefits and environmental impact early next year. The GAO has been one of the few independent brokers in this saga.
In 2002, the GAO criticized the Army Corps for vastly overstating the project’s annual economic benefits, then pegged at $40 million per year. Since then, the Corps has estimated that the project would generate annual benefits of about $31 million.
The opposing sides in this debate don’t agree on much, but they should be able to agree that the GAO doesn’t have a dog in this hunt. In the past, the agency has undertaken a sober, fact-based review of the project’s pros and cons.
Waiting for that review a few more months couldn’t hurt, for a proposal that has been 18 years in the making. Given the GAO’s last report, there’s reason to wonder if the Army Corps decided to move ahead now because it wants to begin dredging before the new GAO report comes out.
A spokesman for Rendell said there’s a danger of this project’s being “studied to death.” It’s a valid concern. But given the serious objections by New Jersey and Delaware, and the imminent release of the GAO study, delaying the project a few more months is reasonable.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 3:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
New Jersey State Sen. Diane B. Allen
New Jersey State Sen. Diane B. Allen, who has championed health care for others, is now in a personal battle of her own.
The Burlington County Republican announced this week that she has been diagnosed with an “aggressive cancer” and expects to undergo surgery.
Allen, 61, of Edgewater Park, declined to release details about her illness and requested privacy.
A popular former Philadelphia TV news anchor, Allen has a reputation for beating the odds. A social moderate and fiscal conservative, she has been a fixture in a strongly Democratic district and easily retained her seat while fellow Republicans were ousted.
Colleagues say if anyone can win this health battle it is Allen, the deputy minority leader. She was sidelined with pneumonia for much of last year.
Elected to the Legislature in 1996, Allen has ably represented the Seventh District in Burlington and Camden Counties and vows to return to the Senate floor as soon as possible.
In Trenton, she has been a staunch advocate for child care, education, housing, and property tax relief.
We wish her well in her latest fight.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 12:00 PM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Temple professor Laurence Steinberg
Temple University Professor Laurence Steinberg’s $1 million award for his research on teen behavior is timely recognition for his groundbreaking work.
It comes as the Supreme Court is debating two cases in which Steinberg’s research may help influence the outcome.
The court is considering whether it is unconstitutional for juveniles to be sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than homicides.
Steinberg advised the American Psychological Association in preparation for a brief filed with the high court.
Posted by Inquirer editorial board @ 2:05 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
President Barack Obama recently signed a bill that expands civil rights to gays.
President Obama gave wary gay-rights activists a reason to celebrate when he signed a milestone federal hate-crime bill.
Long overdue, the legislation expands civil rights-era laws by adding violence against people based on sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the list of hate crimes.
Hate-crime laws passed after the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. covered crimes based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
But hate-motivated violence has prompted attacks in recent years against other victims who deserve the same protection. The legislation represents what Obama aptly called a “long-awaited change” to protect people from being targeted because of “who they love ... or who they are.”
Posted by Inquirer editorial board @ 2:05 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
CEO of Philadelphia Newspapers Brian Tierney, center, announces it's Holiday Toy Rush to benefit the Toys For Tots toy drive on November 12, 2009. He is pictured with U.S. Marine Corps Reserves Gunner Sgt. David Pierson, left, and Staff Sgt. Elliott Miller, right. ( David Maialetti / Staff Photographer )
Last year, as the economy was in meltdown, thousands of residents stepped up to give food and toys to ensure that the less fortunate could celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The economy appears to be stabilizing, but that doesn’t mean the need has gone away. In fact, the unemployment rate is even higher, and thousands of area residents are still struggling.
That’s why your help is needed even more this holiday season.
The Marine Corps kicked off its annual Toys for Tots program this week, with a goal of collecting 150,000 toys, up from last year’s target of 60,000.
Posted by Inquirer editorial board @ 2:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Rep. John Perzel (R., Phila.) was indicted yesterday along with nine others in Harrisburg.
The indictment yesterday of Rep. John M. Perzel (R., Phila.) and nine other Harrisburg Republican insiders brings a pathetic bipartisanship to the legislature’s cesspool of corruption.
Attorney General Tom Corbett announced the charges, 16 months after he indicted a dozen Democratic House officials in the wide-ranging “Bonusgate” probe.
Critics had accused Republican Corbett, a candidate for governor, of ignoring the GOP in his investigation. But the new round of charges has finally produced an ugly symmetry.
As Philadelphians know, Perzel isn’t any old minnow in the political pond. He was Speaker for nearly four years, and has served 30 years in the state House. The former maitre d’ from the Northeast was for a time one of the most powerful legislators in Harrisburg.
Conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan campaigned against the open-space bond issue. (BEN FOGLETTO / The Press of Atlantic City)
Some causes are worthy enough to overcome any amount of misguided opposition. Consider the effort to preserve what’s left of New Jersey’s open space.
Last week, voters passed a referendum to continue funding state purchases of open space and farmland. In doing so, they not only rejected an eleventh-hour campaign against it by Steve Lonegan, the conservative Republican activist who has made a hobby of defeating ballot questions (or at least taking credit for doing so). They also overruled the environmental lobbyists who had launched what amounted to an ill-timed attack on, um, environmentalism.
The $400 million referendum, which passed with about 52 percent of the vote, will replenish the nearly empty Garden State Preservation Trust, which pays to preserve open space, recreational areas, farmland, and historic sites in the nation’s most crowded state.
Its passage was remarkable in a year of economic distress and palpable voter anger, which led to the rare ouster of an incumbent governor. It was also reminiscent of the 2007 voting, in which a similarly peeved electorate passed another open-space referendum even as it refused to borrow funds for stem-cell research, normally a popular cause.
It seems New Jerseyans have learned from experience that unspoiled land is a precious and dwindling commodity that they are willing to pay for. This was the 13th consecutive success for statewide open-space questions in the past half-century.
Representatives of two state environmental groups, the New Jersey Environmental Federation and the state Sierra Club, had done their best to end the streak by opposing the ballot measure earlier this year. They argued that the Legislature should instead pass a new tax on water or something else and dedicate the revenue to open-space purchases.
Most of the state’s environmentalists supported the measure from the get-go, and the dissenters ultimately backed off after lawmakers decided to put the question to voters.
New Jersey’s mounting debt has caused deserved concern — much of it, incidentally, from the governor who was just thrown out. But some critics have become so hysterical in recent months as to suggest that all state borrowing should be rejected out of hand. Soon they’ll be demanding a return to the gold standard.
Unlike covering day-to-day expenses by mortgaging a tobacco settlement — as former Gov. Jim McGreevey did — buying open space is one of the most defensible uses of government bonds imaginable. The state is gaining a capital asset that would otherwise disappear, and it is seeking voter approval to do so. Critics of the measure have yet to explain why that’s any less desirable now than it was two, 10, or 50 years ago.
Yes, New Jersey has a debt problem created by decades of irresponsible and unnecessary borrowing. And it absolutely should avoid any further such borrowing while looking for ways to retire the accumulated burden. But forgoing even reasonable borrowing would only create other problems, some of which — such as the disappearance of the state’s last green spaces — would be permanent.
Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 1:00 AM
Permalink |
Post a comment
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
Partners:
