Recently in US Senate Category

Elena Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate today on a 63 to 37 vote. Iowa's senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, split with Harkin voting in favor.

Will add to this list as more are received...

I know I join many Iowans in congratulating Elena Kagan on her confirmation to the Supreme Court, she will be a great asset as she upholds the constitutional promise of equal justice under the law. Her forthrightness with Senators from both parties and her informed and intelligent answers to the toughest legal questions facing our nation is proof that she will be a strong and fair voice. Kagan's professional career and dedication to public service will serve her well as she takes her seat on the bench.

"While I am glad to see bipartisan support for her nomination it is troubling that Senator Grassley chose to stand in opposition, guided by nothing more than blind partisanship. His vote is unsurprising given his recent opposition to everything except extending tax cuts for the rich."

~ Sue Dvorsky, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party

---

"Senator Grassley's vote against Elena Kagan is proof that Washington is broken, and any bipartisanship in the Senate is on the verge of extinction. Senator Grassley has chosen to vote against two talented, qualified women nominated to the Supreme Court, by a Democratic president, after decades of support for past nominations. This is an incredibly dangerous and disturbing precedent. Voting on a Supreme Court nominee is a serious responsibility and Iowans deserve much better than childish, partisan games."

~ Roxanne Conlin, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate

---

"Today, I was proud to cast my vote to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan to our nation's highest court. As a student, she excelled at Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School. She has stellar legal credentials that have been recognized by liberal and conservative lawyers alike. And, throughout her career, including as a professor of law, as a key advisor to President Clinton, as Dean of Harvard Law School and as Solicitor General, she has demonstrated a great mind and intellect.

"Solicitor General Kagan will be an important and needed voice on the Court to ensure that appropriate respect and deference is given to Congress, and proper effect is given to our most important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, so all Americans receive the fullest protections of the law. And at the heart of her credentials is a strong sense of justice for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

"And as the fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court, her confirmation is a historic one, similar to her accomplishments as the first female Dean of Harvard Law School and first female Solicitor General. I congratulate her on this honor."

~ U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat

Sharron Angle, a Nevada Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, told conservative radio entertainer Bill Manders that she cannot and will not accept abortion under any circumstances, specifically stating that women who are victims of rape and incest should not be allowed to access an abortion.

From a press release by the Nevada State Democratic Party:

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

Ask any Christian if his/her God is mighty and I'm sure you'll soon learn that the Christian God is so powerful that he defies human understanding. I've yet to understand why a God with so much power would only be able to accomplish certain tasks through horrific means. Yet, if we are to agree with Angle, this is exactly what we must believe.

But don't overlook the first answer Angle gives to Manders when asked if there is "any reason at all for an abortion." Angle says, "Not in my book."

According to Angle's book, women who suffer severe pregnancy complications should die instead of accessing abortion services. I guess the woman's grief-stricken spouse and other children can just have a little faith that God works in mysterious and, at least according to Angle, horrific ways.

Few have forgotten the idiocy of August 2009 when U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley and other conservatives falsely proclaimed that health reform legislation would include "death panels."

"In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life," Grassley said at a town hall meeting held in mid-August. "You have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."

The statement struck a chord because most Americans fiercely believe that government, insurance companies or really any other-than-family influence should not play a role in end-of-life decisions. The ironic thing is that those who were yelling the loudest while carrying the "Obama lies and grandma dies" signs are the very individuals who believe there are instances where the government should decide such matters -- and not just in the case of capital punishment.

To be clear: Sen. Grassley, Sarah Palin, U.S. Rep. Steve King, former N.Y. Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, U.S. Rep. John Boehner, U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, Newt Gingrich and a host of other conservatives, who like to tout "small government" beliefs, advocate and want the government be involved in end-of-life decisions.

Don't believe me? Ask any one of them how they feel about abortion when a mother's life is at risk.

It is not logical or ethical to use some fictional lack of autonomy in end-of-life-decisions as a scare tactic, but it is even worse when those making such hallucenogenic statements would stand up and fight for the ability to enact it. Under the rules these "conservatives" would enact, women, regardless of circumstance, would be forced to carry dangerous pregnancies to labor, term or death -- even when there is no hope of a living child ever resulting from those pregnancies.

Seven years ago today a 23-year-old woman was crushed by a bulldozer while acting as a human shield for homes and other development in the Gaza Strip. To this day, the events surrounding her death are in dispute.

Rachel Corrie was a student at Evergreen State College in Washington state who had taken a year away from her studies to work for peace in Gaza. She was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led group that seeks to change the current conflict between Palestine and Israel through nonviolent protests.

Her parents, Craig and Cindy, have fought to learn the truth of what happened to their daughter since the horrible event occurred. They also believe that if the events surrounding Rachel's death had been more transparent, other deaths and injuries to peace activists and journalists in the conflict area -- such as the shooting of 37-year-old American Tristan Anderson a year ago -- would likely not have happened.

Just this month the Corrie family began providing testimony in Haifa court (in Israel) as part of the civil suit they have brought against the country -- something the family said on Democracy Now! that they were encouraged to do by members of the U.S. state department.

Although Iowans are not always as in-touch with international news as they are with current domestic events, the name Rachel Corrie is likely familiar to many who followed presidential hopefuls throughout the state in 2007. It was not unusual for friends and family members to ask presidential candidates about the case at Iowa events, and to ask for support in their quest for justice.

According to those on the scene the day of her death, Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it moved toward a home owned by Palestinian medical professionals. When the bulldozer did not stop or change directions, she climbed into the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of the machine so that she would be in the direct line of sight of the driver. Despite her wearing a fluorescent jacket, the bulldozer continued to advance, and she was pulled under the pile of dirt, rubble and, eventually, the bulldozer itself. Seven other members of the ISM team dug her out once the bulldozer moved. She was transported to A-Najar hospital where she later died.

Today, we remember Rachel Corrie -- her courage and passion -- but we must not forget the countless others who have taken life-changing or life-ending stands in an effort to promote peace or right a perceived wrong. We can never fall into the trap of condoning, regardless of our particular stance on a specific conflict, the violent taking of one who stands in non-violent protest.  

Peter Orszag, director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, blogged Thursday about the cost of Pres. Barack Obama's health care reform proposal.

Feel free to read the full blog post, but here is an excerpt:

... the President has put forward a health plan that would reduce deficits by roughly $100 billion over the next ten years and by roughly $1 trillion in the decade after that.

Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to a claim that this deficit reduction is achieved only through a business-as-usual Washington budget gimmick: paying for just a few years of costs with many more years of savings.

This charge is simply false ...

If you are confused regarding what's in the different plans, have a look at the excellent side-by-side comparison developed by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Note, however, that this comparison only includes the plan presented by Pres. Barack Obama on Feb. 22. There were additional GOP proposals identified during and following the Feb. 25 health care summit that Obama believes should be a part of the final bill. Those are not included in the side-by-side comparison, but can be found on the White House Web site.

There are some individuals who honestly believe that the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate would usurp years of federal policy and allow for taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Those people -- including Michigan anti-abortion Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak -- are wrong.

Stupak, who is backed by the like-minded U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated this week that he and 11 other members of the U.S. House are willing to completely derail reform efforts if the language he was able to insert in the House bill is not included in the Senate package. As U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin explained to me and other reporters on a conference call this week, however, the language will not be inserted into the bill because it is a policy issue not a budgetary concern. (A requirement of reconciliation.)

Because such rumblings could effectively kill all health care reform, Slate has taken a look at why Stupak and others believe the Senate bill allows government coverage or subsidy of abortion. According to reporter Timothy Noah, despite all the grumbling about taxpayer-funded abortion, the argument isn't really about that at all. Instead, the Bishops and lawmakers of the same ilk as Stupak are upset because of "market economics" and not being able to forever change the policies that have governed abortion in America.

... A common misconception is that the government's ban on abortion funding through the Hyde Amendment (which covers spending by the Health and Human Services Department, chiefly through Medicaid; other laws ban abortion funding through other government agencies) has the force of permanent law. It does not. It is merely a rider routinely attached to annual appropriations bills. Should the appropriations committees in Congress decide one year not to attach it, then HHS will become free to fund abortions. Pro-lifers live in fear that this will happen, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the possibility, lest they discourage the public from thinking the Hyde Amendment is writ in stone...

In fact, it is this fear that the Bishops forwardly state in a press release: "...this annual rider is far less secure than the House bill's permanent provision."

Stupak is a bit more coy about this. His amendment prohibits government subsidies to anyone purchasing health insurance through the exchanges if that insurance covers abortion. To Stupak, it doesn't matter that the Senate bill already prohibits any federal dollars from paying for abortions. "Our amendment maintains current law," he has written, "which says that there should be no federal financing for abortion." This is wrong on two counts. Current law doesn't care one way or the other whether private insurers cover abortion. And to the extent it cares about government funding for abortion, it doesn't ban it forever. It bans it for this year.

In a better world, Stupak and the bishops believe, the federal ban on taxpayer-financed abortions would be permanent. It's true that the Senate-passed bill is at odds with this Platonic ideal. But the bill is completely consistent with the earthbound status quo. Why can't they accept that?

Don't be confused by the verbal gymnastics on display by those who want to equate the abortion debate with the health care reform debate. The Senate bill, which will likely be the bulk of the eventual plan, maintains the status quo and does not allow for government funded or subsidized abortion services.