|
Thursday, March 1, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a US teacher dies in
Iraq, Nouri continues his paranoid ravings, the VA Secretary tells the Senate he
has no idea if sequestration would apply to the VA, and more.
First off a correction to yesterday's snapshot, There were three hearings
we were trying to cover: Tuesday's joint-House and Senate Veterans Affairs
Comimttee, Wednesday House Foreign Affairs and Wednesday's Senate Veterans
Affairs. The snapshot ends: "It is also highly illogical to claim that you will
determine whether or not a group of people are terrorists and we're out of
space." I finished dictating right at nine p.m. as I was walking in front of a
group Ava and I were speaking to. That left a very dear friend with the issue of
editing to get the thing down to a workable size. The House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing was reduced to my commentary with no excerpts (which is
fine). It was still large and my friend had to condense and edit and ditched
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee's Wednesday hearing (which we'll cover
this snapshot), the Center for Constitutional Rights (which we'll include if
there's room today) and other things -- and that's all more than fine. The only
problem was that in condensing and several sections,the timeline went screwy.
That's not his fault, he wasn't at any of the hearings. I was so it's my
fault.and my apologies for that. Thank you to Kat who saw the snapshot when it went up last
night and immediately went in to add "yesterday" and make clear that the
joint-hearing by the Senate and House Veterans committees was Tuesday. And
thank you to ___ for editing and condensing and doing a great job. The mistake
falls on me and my apologies for that. I did not check it, I did not help edit
it and, let's be honest, it's cause I'm sick of the online life as much as it's
because I was pressed for time. Again, my apologies.
Okay, let's dive in. Tuesday's joint-hearing -- House and Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee hearing -- Senate Committee Chair Patty Murray noted that VA
Secretary Eric Shinseki would be before the Committee and she would be
attempting to get an aswer regarding sequestering from him. Sequestering refers
to automatic cuts that would kick in on various federal departments and
programs. Along with Senator Murray, Senator Jon Tester and House Veterans
Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller have noted that the inability of veterans to
get a straight answer on this issue is frustrating and that veterans have a
right to know what's going on with the budget of the VA.
Chair Patty Murray: [. . .] let me begin the questions by getting
this one off the table. It's on the issue of sequestration and cuts to
spending. Like I said in my opening remarks I believe that all VA programs
including medical care are exempt from cuts but there is some ambiguity between
the budget act and the existing law. And when I asked the acting OMB director to
adress this issue in a budget hearing two weeks ago, he said OMB had yet to make
a final determination. So I am concerned that by not settling this issue now,
we are failing to provide our veterans with the clarity they really deserve to
have. And so while you're here, I wanted to ask you: Do you believe that all VA
programs -- including medical care -- are exempt from any future
cuts?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I think, Madame Chairman, the answer that
the OMB director provided you was the same one that I understand. They are
still addressing the issue. For my purposes, I would tell you I'm not planning
on sequestration. I'mI addressing my requirements and presenting my budget as
you would expect me to do. I think sequestration in part or in whole is not
necessarily good policy. And I think the President would argue the best
approach here is a balanced deficit reduction and that the budget he has
presented does that and I would ask that the Congress look at that budget and
favorably consider it.
Chair Patty Murray: I think we all hope that is the outcome but we
want to provide clarity to our veterans. They are very concerned about this
issue.
Murray asked, she attempted to get an answer as to -- yes/no -- whether the
VA is a department immune to sequestering. Not only did she ask, she announced
in an open hearing the day prior that she would be asking. Shinseki came into
that hearing knowing he would be asked.
The answer? Another non-answer. The person in charge of the VA Department
has no idea, if sequestering goes into effect, whether or not his department
would be affected. That seems like an answer you would need to know for a
hypothetical. With sequestration looking more and more likely, that seems like
an answer you would need to know in order to plan for worst case scenarios in
the department you oversee.
But he can't answer the question and has no knowledge as to whether or not
VA would be effected if these cuts kick in.
On the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Patty Murray is the
Chair. Richard Burr is the Ranking Member. A number of witnesses accompanied
Shinseki to the hearing including Dr. Robert Petzel who is the Under Secretary
for Health, Allison Hickey who is the Under Secretary for Benefits, Steve Muro
who is the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Roger Baker who is the
Assistant Secretary for IT (Information and Technology) and W. Todd Grams
(Executive in Charge for the Office of Management and Chief Financial
Officer).
With that brain trust, you might think they could answer a basic question
but you'd be wrong. As was the case in a recent House Veterans Affairs
Committee hearing, the problems started with Allison Hickey (she refused to
answer Ranking Member Bob Filner's questions and then there was a rush by the VA
witnesses to 'wall her off' from Filner's questions -- see the February 15, 2012 snapshot and pay attention to
when Filner tells her, "You're not answering the question."). Claims
processing was the issue Ranking Member Richard Burr brought up yesterday in the
Senate Committee hearing. He was concerned with the diagnosis (it being
incorrect and a veteran suffering as a result) and with the timeliness of it.
There is a huge backlog -- when Chair Patty Murray held her Virtual Town Hall
with veterans February 9th -- sponsored by Disabled American Veterans, full transcript of
the exchange can be found here -- the claims backlog was an issue the veterans
repeatedly raised. In fact, it kicked off the discussion and Senator Murray
noted, "This is one of the most common complaints I hear. And let me say that w
know that the claims system is broken." So Ranking Member Burr was asking about
an important issue and just asking for basic information: How can, a year from
now, they determine whether or not there's been improvement?
Ranking Member Burr noted that the accuracy with diagnoses was at 84%
nationally for the VA but at regional centers it varied from 61% to 94%. What
part of the budget is going to go to evaluation of the diagnoses? Shinseki
passed it to Hickey. As usual, she began speaking at a hearing without turning
on her microphone. "I'm glad you're asking about quality because we're very
focused on production and quality . . .," she insisted as she avoided Burr's
question but continued talking for over two minutes about nothing of importance
and nothing that resembled an answer to his question. Ranking Member Burr
interrupted her and wanted to know how far into the year will they go before
they'll be able to determine if the plan for improvements is working?
Ranking Member Richard Burr: But at some point, you've got to say,
"We're going to look at this and see if it's working."
Allison Hickey: We did, sir, absolutely did.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So?
Allison Hickey: And we did it in local pilots and we are just this
week --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So a year from now, when we get
together for the 2014 budget if the quality is not improved or the timeliness
down, it will have failed?
Allison Hickey: No, sir, I don't expect the quality not to have
improved. We have some very significant decisions and initiatives
--
Ranking Member Richard Burr: My point is, what if it
doesn't?
Allison Hickey: Sir, then we will adjust as necessary to find the
reasons why, we will tackle that hard, but I don't expect that to be the
answer. I expect us to see improvement in both quality and
production.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Thank you. We have --
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Senator, Senator, if I might, quality is
the function of trained people with the right tools. And we're working on both
items right now.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: My question was, Mr. Secretary, at
what point we will determine whether what we've implemented is
working?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Fair. We'll be happy to provide that. We
set a target of ending this problem with backlog in 2015.
But they haven't even reduced it. House Ranking Member Bob Filner pointed
that out in Tuesday's joint-hearing. More people were hired by the VA to work
on claims and the backlog has only increased. Whatever the VA's doing thus far,
it's not working. Is it a comprehension issue? Does VA just not listen?
Senate Ranking Member Burr repeatedly asked how they would measure this year
whether the changes were working or not. He got no answer and it appears the VA
thinks they'll decide whether things worked or not to improve quality and speed
when 2015 comes to an end. Do they not understand the need for regular
evaluations? For checking the process? They didn't appear to yesterday before
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
You're a veteran and you need help with something, let's say PTSD. Is the
VA providing timely care? No. And yet in the proposed 2013 Fiscal Year budget,
they're asking for only a 5% increase in funding when it comes to health care
providers. Is that really enough, Chair Murray wondered?
Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Secretary, last year, we talked a
lot about mental health care and I think we together uncovered a lot of serious
issues best summed up by a veteran that I heard from recently who uses the Ann
Arbor Medical Center and had to wait months and months to get into counseling
but then he had glowing things to say about his mental health care once he got
in. So in order to address those types of issues, VA has to be certain it has
enough resources to not only keep up with the increasing number of veterans
seeking mental health care but also bring down that unacceptably long wait time.
Over the course of the last fiscal year, the number of Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans who are looking for mental health care went up by about 5%
and that's about 18,000 every quarter. So I wanted to ask you this morning if
you believe the increase in mental health funding in the budget request is
sufficient to accomplish the goals and keep up with this increasing
demand?
Secretary Eric Shinseki:: I-I believe that the budget, if you look
at the 13 budget request, I think it's adequate for us to meet what we
understand our requirements are in 13. Are there issues out there now that we
will discover between now and executional budget? I would say if we do, Madame
Chairman, I would be the first to tell you. Now you asked us to do a survey and
we did. It was very hastily done. Senator Burr referred to some of the output
conclusions out of that survey. Out of 27,000 of our health care -- mental
health providers, 319 were surveyed and the results were as described. My
question of VHA was did you go to the places we thought there would be
problems? And the answer was yes, because we were asked to go figure this out.
So I would say we got a pretty pure response. What I think we need to do is
make sure -- we're going to take another broader look -- to make sure we
understand across the larger population what our issues are and where there are
opportunities for -- reallocation or to hire more people? I would offer to the
Chair, I took a look at what we've done in mental health over the last 4
budgets. If we look at '12 to '13, it's rather unimpressive. I mean, it's 5%
and it matches the increase in the medical budget but between '9 and '13 our
increase is 39%. in mental health. And if you include the 14 advance appropes
[2014 advance appropriations requests] it will go up 45% --
Chair Patty Murray: And that is a result of the number of soldiers
who are coming home with the invisible wounds of war which is dramatically
increasing, correct?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uh, true but we are trying to anticipate
that there's going to be a larger requirement in the odd years even if we don't
have clarity, we're trying to prepare for that. We want to do a larger survey
here as I indicated and then see -- and then see what the outcomes are. But let
me turn to Dr. Petzel for any details.
Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Madame Chairman, as
a result of the hearing that we had earlier in the year, we have now done two
things that are, I think, important and on point with regards to your question.
One is that we've developed a staffing model. It is the only staffing model
that I know that is available about mental health. It's in the -- in the
beginning stages but it is giving us some information about what the need might
be. But I think more importantly, we're site visiting all 152 of our medical
centers to look at the access to mental health services -- both the initial
appointment and subsquent appointments, be it for PTSD patient program, a group
program or individual psychotherapy. And what we're finding is that there is --
We do meet the criteria for the first appointment in most every instance. We're
having some difficulties in some parts of the country making the next
appointment in a timely fashion, getting them -- as you mentioned earlier --
into the specialty services. This could be the result of three things. One, is
do we have enough staff out there? Have we given enough positions and enough
resources? Two is: are those positions filled? Are they filling those positions
up in a timely fashion. And then the third is are we getting the appropriate
level of productivity out of each one of those people? If we
do discover, as the Secretary just mentioned, that we do have additional needs
that are unment, I can guarantee you that we will be in communication with the
Commitee about those needs and in for a discussion.
Chair Patty Murray: Okay, I appreciate that. This is a top
priority for us this year.
Secretay Eric Shinseki: I would just share that in FY '11, we
hired about 897 additional mental health professionals bringing us up to about
20,500 mental health professionals so the interest is there in trying to
determine what the requirement is and we're not hesitant about increasing those
numbers.
As usual, Senator Daniel Akaka brought up a point that others miss (about
the rural nature of Hawaii -- and "others" includes me and I have a house in
Hawaii). I'd like to cover that tomorrow but we tried to cover the big issues
today (and tried to cover these yesterday but it had to be cut due to
space).
In Iraq today, the dead include an American. Reuters notes Jeremiah Small was shot
dead in Sulaimaniya Province by a student named Beyar al-Talabani who then shot
himself. AFP adds that the student was
18-years-old. Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall St.
Journal) note that the student was an 11th grader at Classical School
of the Medes ("a Christian school run by U.S. evangicals"). Jeremiah Small was
33-years-old and had taught with history and English lit at the school for seven
years. There are a number of details in dispute and we're not going to note
those. If you're looking for a strong article, Dagher and Nabhan are clear
about what happened, what's said to have happened and what's in dispute. Aswat al-Iraq notes a Mousl bombing
claimed the life of 1 Iraq solider and left another injured.
Iraq is in an ongoing political crisis which began approximately 15 months
ago when Nouri al-Maliki signed off the Erbil Agreement because it guaranteed he
would remain prime minister but once that was implemented (right away) he began
stalling on the other aspects before walking completely away from it. Since this
summer, the Kurds have been puclicly calling for him to return to the Erbil
Agreement. Iraiqy and some elements of the National Alliance have joined that
call. The New York Times repeatedly ignored the crisis but were forced -- only
after other US outlets were already covering it -- to give their half-assed
version of 'coverage' in the last third of December when Nouri began demanding
that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that Vice
President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested for terrorism. The crisis isn't
over despite the New York times repeated attempts to whitewash the realities.
Al
Mada reports unnamed sources are stating that Nouri and
al-Hashemi are set to resolve their differences. Not all unnamed sources got the
same memo. One of them tells Dar Addustour that Nouri and State
of Law (Nouri's political slate) believe that public statements Tareq al-Hashemi
made are the equivalent of a fatwa. In addition, supposedly Nouri's weighing
sending forces into the KRG to seize al-Hashemi. Should that happen,
Nouri will be declaring war on the KRG and, for a day or two, the New York Times
will 'address' it with articles explaining how the violence is an example of
diplomacy and wisdom on the part of Nouri. Other whispers this morning
are that Iraqiya -- this from State of Law -- is determined to disrupt the Arab
Summit and intends to bring up the political crisis at the national conference.
Al Mada notes that and many other
charges by State of Law. If there are storms moving in on the Arab Summit, one
has to look no further than the rain cloud that is Nouri. Aswat al Iraq reports, "The Emir of
Kuwait Sheikh Sabah al-Ahed Al-Jaber al-Sabah expressed keeness to attend the
coming Arab summit in person, according to a statement issued by Iraqi foreign
ministry." So Kuwait's excited? Al Mada
reports that Nouri's looking to 'clarify' border issues when
he visit Kuwait shortly. Add that to the millions Iraq still owes Kuwait (why
the United Nations has them in Chapter VII). Nouri thinks that's how you set the
stage for a successful Arab Summit. In other news of his paranoia, Al Rafidayn reports that the
Ministry of the Interior is insisting that there's a coup plot against Nouri in
the Maysan Province. It's so difficult to keep Nouri's paranoia coups straight
so please don't confuse this with claims that military officers are passing on
intel to the United States. Dar Addustour reports that there
will be a campaign of arrests on the military officers accused of spying for the
US. Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) explores the prospects for
the Arab Summit and the national conference to resolve the political crisis and
concludes: On the other hand, it takes a
different stance from the rest of the Arab world on a number of issues that are
related to its neighbors like Syria, Iran and even Turkey.In practice, neither of the two meetings will change
anything on the ground. The Iraqi meeting, if held, won't change the
relationship between's Iraq's Shia and Sunni leadership and
population.The Arab summit could
create more problems for Iraq with its neighbors.The only strength of the summit would be symbolic: an
Arab summit and a Kurdish head. It would be held in the absence of some of the
most brutal Arab dictators. The summit would be seen as the summit of the people
with more elected representatives. The Kurds could take the opportunity and get
a motion out of the summit that supports the Kurdish people in the Middle
East.In the US, 2012 is an election year. Jill Stein
is running for the Green Party's presidential nomination. The Green Party of
Michigan notes she has two events in Michigan (Ann Arbor and Ferndale) next
Monday:
Rick
Santorum is a former US Senator who is now running for the presidential
nomination of his political party (Republican). On Saturday, he weighed in on
the topic of Iraq with the following essay.
President Obama has an amazing ability to
make Jimmy Carter's foreign policies look good.
Opposition to imperfect allies and support of radical
Islamists has resulted in the almost-extinction of religious freedom for
religious minorities -- from the Copts in Egypt to the defenseless women and
children who were slaughtered in Homs, Syria -- in the Middle East.
Another example is the devolving situation in Iraq.
President Obama was so committed to fulfilling an arbitrary campaign promise to
get our troops out of Iraq that he ignored the advice of his senior military
officials about the consequences of establishing a firm withdrawal date and
about how long it might take before Iraq was ready to manage the situation on
their own. As a result, Al-Qa'ida is resurgent, Iran's influence is greater than
ever, religious tensions between Sunni and Shi'a are increasing, the existential
threat facing Iraq's indigenous minority communities has never been greater, and
our ability to affect the situation there is weaker now. Recent coordinated car
bomb attacks are just the latest in a string of such events since the start of
the new year, and they portend many more violent assaults to come.
The departure of our military forces has once again
left a security vacuum that is bound to be filled by someone, and all those with
the means to vie for that space will do so, whether Sunni insurgents, terrorists
like Al Qa'ida, security forces controlled by the ruling Shi'a political
establishment, and in parts of the country even Kurdish Peshmerga. These
machinations undermine institutionalizing the rule of law, protecting minority
rights, or developing the economy and infrastructure, let alone advancing
American interests in that country and the region.
The most vulnerable people in this situation also
happen to be the ones most aligned with our values and interests. These are
Iraq's besieged Christians -- the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs and Armenian
Orthodox communities. The role their faith has played in developing their
worldview is far more in keeping with America's values than any other
constituency in the country or the region. Moreover, because these communities
have an ethic that places a premium on education, entrepreneurship, and peaceful
co-existence and respect for others, they have constituted a disproportionately
large part of the upper-middle class, they have historically contributed far
more to the country's economy than their numbers would suggest, and they have
been the most trusted elements of Iraqi society. They also have a much greater
respect for the value of the rule of law, they were the ones who came along side
our military, diplomats, and contractors to provide translation services and
cultural advice.
With the departure of
our forces and the recent announcement of the Obama Administration that we will
also be reducing our embassy staff by 50 percent because it is now too dangerous
for our diplomats there we are effectively abandoning both Iraq and our
investment there as well as the communities who risked the most to help us in
that effort. What is more, walking away like this also sends messages to other
players in the region. It signals to potential allies in the future that we are
not dependable. It signals to terrorists that if they just lay low, they can
wait us out. It signals to the world that we no longer have the resolve to see a
situation through to the end -- that we can't finish what we started.
We need all the help we can get in that part of the
world, and Iraq's Christians are the ones most inclined to provide that help,
but not if doing so is only going to increase the prospect of their genocidal
annihilation.
Accordingly, we need a
comprehensive policy aimed at preserving these communities in Iraq. We need to
focus on helping Iraqis create the conditions that incentivize staying in Iraq
and making there a better future for themselves. The last thing we want is for
them to abandon the land their ancestors have occupied for nearly 7,000
years,forsake the culture they have preserved in that volatile region for all
these millennia, and deprive the country, the region, and the world of the
positive contributions they could still make if only some space was created for
them in Iraqi society. These people -- who are all but canaries in a coal mine
-- represent hope for a better future for a pluralistic Iraqi society.
First, they need security. By "security," though, I
mean more than just safety from terrorist and insurgent attacks. I mean they
need the means to protect themselves and their own communities so they do not
have to depend on political actors whose interests are not necessarily aligned
with the needs of their own communities. They should not be subjected to
political shakedowns and corrupt political machinations.
Second, they need political empowerment. They have the
right to some degree of self-determination and to have a say in how their local
communities should be governed. It is wrong for them to be treated as a
political football, constantly crushed between manipulative forces that surround
them.
Third, they need economic development in the region
where they now find themselves. Having been forced off their ancestral lands in
the last century, they reestablished themselves in the cities such as Baghdad
and Basra. In the aftermath of the second Gulf War, though, they have had to
seek refuge back in the North again. Yet this region was not developed very well
under Saddam's regime, and today's Iraqi Christians are disproportionately of
the urban professional class rather than farmers.
It is time that we stand with those who stood with us
over the last 8 years. We must not abandon them. I will stand with those who
stand for freedom of religion and conscience and against violent jihadism and
persecution of religious minorities in Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere.
As noted on Saturday, I'm not voting for Santorum. Because there are a lot
of little babies, I have to note that. "You quoted Santorum! You must be
voting for him! You must agree with him!" We usually note serious comments on
Iraq by any presidential candidate -- go look in the 2007 and 2008 archives. Oh,
and currently, I'm not planning to vote for president in 2012. That would
change if someone earned my vote. At present, no one has. If Jill Stein gets
the Green Party nomination, I will consider voting for her.
We do note the Green Party here and we'll note this from the Michigan Green Party on Jill Stein's
upcoming events (Monday) in Ann Arbor and Ferndale.
Ecological Wisdom • Social Justice •
Grassroots Democracy • Non-ViolenceGreen Party of
Michiganwww.MIGreens.orgNews ReleaseMarch 1, 2012For More Information, Contact:John A. La Pietra, Elections Co-ordinator /
GPMIjalp@triton.net (269)
781-9478Jill Stein Brings
Campaign for Green Party Nomination to Michigan(Ann Arbor, Ferndale) — The public is invited to
attend one of two meetings with Dr. Jill Stein of Massachusetts who is vying for
the Green Party's nomination for president of the United States on Monday, March
5th. Come hear her speak about the Green New Deal and what it would mean for
Michigan. Dr. Jill Stein is a
mother, housewife, physician, longtime teacher of internal medicine, and
pioneering environmental-health advocate. Presenting herself as a positive
option to the main two political parties, Dr. Stein's campaign has centered
around the Green New Deal which was created to help America regain its
prosperity in four ways: securing jobs with living wages for all Americans able
to work, adopting green technologies and production practices, revamping the
financial sector and strengthening our democracy so that the people's voice will
be heard in Washington. Dr. Stein
will make two stops in Michigan as she makes her way through the Great Lakes
region. First, she will be in Ann Arbor from 4pm to 6pm at Amer's Deli on S.
State Street. After Ann Arbor, she
will move on to Ferndale where she will be at AJ's cafe on 9 Mile Rd from 7:30pm
to 10:30pm.Dr. Stein will be
available to answer questions, talk about her candidacy and what the Green Party
can do to make America thrive. To learn more about Jill Stein, visit her website
at http://www.jillstein.org/ or look for
her on Facebook.Other candidates
seeking the Green Party's nomination include comedienne Roseanne Barr, Kent
Mesplay of California and Michigan's own Harley Mikkelson.For more information about the Green Party of
Michigan, its candidates, its positions on issues affecting Michiganders, and
upcoming party events, go to: www.MIGreens.orgAlso check out the Green Party/Partido Verde of
Michigan group on Facebook.# #
#
created/distributed using donated labor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 1, 2012
Contact: Francesca
Tarant, 703-522-2214, media@feminist.org
Women Leaders Vow to Fight Back Against Assaults
As the Senate prepared to vote on the Blunt Amendment, a coalition
of over 50 women's organizations held a press conference to announce an
unprecedented drive to mobilize women voters on the ground and online around
Health and Economic Rights—HERvotes—in 2012. Speakers emphasized the power of
women voters as a force for change, as well as their collective outrage over the
politicization of vital aspects of women's health care, such as birth control
and breast cancer services.
"This is a day in and day out fight. Women are not going to be
silenced," said Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal. "Women are not a
political wedge issue, and we are determined to ensure that women have access to
quality health care; to protect the gains women have made in the workplace,
health care, education and basic individual rights and to continue moving
forward an equality agenda,"
"Women's rights are under attack, with reproductive rights in the
center of the bullseye," said Byllye Avery, a founder of Raising Women's Voices
and the National Black Women's Health Imperative, who outlined the women's
health issues at risk in these elections and noted that the Affordable Care Act
will end discriminatory health care practices against women.
National Council of Negro Women Executive Director Avis
Jones-DeWeever highlighted economic perils for women and children, and saying
that women will stand up for jobs, equal pay and equal opportunities: "Women
will not be silent. We will not be bamboozled. We will not be
complacent."
Sarah Audelo of Advocates for Youth made it clear that young women
are part of this fight: "The right to basic preventive health care, such as
contraception. The right to decide if and when to have a child. The right to
vote and have our voices heard. These are rights our mothers and grandmothers
fought for and won. These are rights I never thought my generation would have to
fight for . . . . We will reward those who support and respect our rights, and
hold accountable those who do not."
HERvotes announced that the 51 organizations are working together
to mobilize voters and to sound the alarm that women's gains are at risk. For
example, Lisa Maatz described a $1.5 million campaign being launched by the
American Association of University Women to turn out women's votes, particularly
Millennial women. Maatz exclaimed: "There is a palpable buzz . . . women are
mad. We are fed up. We don't want you to touch our birth control. We're tired of
being told what we can do with our bodies. We'll be canvassing, advertising,
social media campaigns, and reaching women where they live."
National Women's Political Caucus President Linda Young, responding
to a reporter's question about the historic likelihood of women to vote more
Democratic than Republican, said "Women will vote for those candidates who
support our issues and who are not trying to take away our
rights."
HERvotes leaders outlined multiple online drives that will reach
over 20 million women. For example, there will be a massive online campaign by
MomsRising, which reaches over 3 million women through email, Twitter, Facebook
and other means.
"Women are tired of the politicization of birth control, the
politicization of breast cancer, and abortion bills that really are just about
humiliating women . . . The more they attack women's ability to get along day by
day… they are losing our votes," said Terry O'Neill, president of NOW, urging
women to go to www.HERvotes.us to find out about the
issues at stake. "People are waking up."
###
The 51 organizations of HERvotes will be on the ground and online,
educating voters about the 12 advances for women that are at risk in 2102, as
well as potential gains. To read about the 12 Advances at Risk in 2012 and see
the list of coalition members, go to www.HERvotes.us
| 
