More Jobs In 1 Year Under Obama Than 8 With Bush

Following up on the recent jobs data, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi commented that more jobs were created under Obama in 2010 than were created during the entire 8-year Bush administration from 2001-2009.

Think Progress notes:

Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

MOVIE REVIEW: Waiting for 'Superman'

Finally saw the acclaimed documentary Waiting for 'Superman'. It was showing at my favorite second-run theater, the Regency Academy 6 in Pasadena ($2 for a matinee, $3 other times). As an educator myself and someone interested in reforming mathematics education (especially 8th grade algebra) I had heard that this was a must-see film, and I was not disappointed.

Waiting for 'Superman' is the film which provoked the greatest emotional impact on me this year. It made me cry with despair and it made me gasp and groan with shock and disappointment. In the year of films with $100 million visual effects budgets, the most suspenseful moment I experienced in a movie theater in 2010 was waiting for a lottery ball to drop and reveal whether a student had been selected by random drawing for a slot in a public charter school!

The movie follows the educational hopes of five multicultural children, Daisy (a Latina 5th grader in East Los Angeles), Francisco (a Latino 1st grader in The Bronx), Anthony (a Black 5th grader in Washington, DC), Bianca (a Black kindergartener in New York City, NY) and Emily (a white 8th grader in Redwood City, CA). Each of these kids has engaged parents(or caregiver)  who have inculcated a love of education in their charges. However, the school uses an array of facts and figures to demonstrate that in order to improve their chances in life they will need to get a superior education, and in order to do that they will need to change what  schools they are going to. However, the decision of what school a child gets to attend in America depends on a number of things, and the primary thesis of the film is that the most important factor in the decision is luck. Either luck in being born to parents who have the resources to send you to private school, or the resources to buy a house in  a school district with good public schools. If you are not lucky to have been born to rich parents then you need the luck of the draw to win the lottery for admission to a public charter school that is committed to insuring that all their students have a good education and a better future.

The director, David Guggenheim, is already an Oscar winner for An Inconvenient Truth, and decided to tackle the issues of education reform when he realized that he was driving by numerous public schools on the way to dropping his kids off at at their private school.

Some would question the director's motives and are upset by the depiction of teachers' unions (American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association) as the primary impediment to meaningful education reform and the lionization of controversial Washington, D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee and charter schools KIPP and Harlem Children's Zone. But I think people who dismiss the film for these reasons are missing the point; what Guggenheim's movie is trying to point out is that the American education system is  "about the adults" instead of being "for the children." And until that prioritization is corrected (and hopefully reversed) education is not just "other people's problem" it is all of our concern.

Title: Waiting for 'Superman'
Running Time: 1 hour, 42 minutes.
MPAA Rating: PG for some thematic material, mild language and incidental smoking.
Release Date: Friday, September 24, 2010.
Seen: Tuesday, December 28, 2010.

Plot: A+.
Acting: N/A.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: A+.

Overall Grade: A/A+ (4.11/4.00).

Polls Show Wide Support For Obama-Republican Tax Plan

Huffington Post is reporting on two new polls which show that President Obama's new tax cut deal with Congressional Republicans is widely popular with Americans.

The Pew poll has support at 60-22 and the ABC/Washington Post poll has support at 69-17, with various levels of support for the various policy items which make up the deal.

Today cloture was reached in the Senate on the tax cut measure, so it is very likely that the deal will be enacted by Congress before the end of the year (possibly the week).

MadProfessah Endorsements for CA's November 2, 2010 General Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for!  Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I will be voting in the November 2 Statewide General Election, compared with endorsements from other organizations like the Los Angeles Times, Calitics.com, CA Democratic Party, Los Angeles County Democratic Party, Stonewall Democratic Club (LGBT group), CA League of Women Voters and Courage Campaign's Progressive Voter Guide. Previously, I had posted my endorsements for the June 8, 2010 primary election.

Proposition        ME   LAT  CALITICS CA DEM LA DEM LWV
19 (Marijuana)     YES   NO    YES    ---    YES   ---
20 (Redistricting) NO    YES   NO     NO     NO    NO
21 (State Parks)   YES   NO    YES    YES    YES   ---
22 (Local Funds)   NO    NO    ---    NO     NO    ---
23 (Suspends AB-32)NO    NO    NO     NO     NO    NO

24 (Ends Tax Cuts) YES   NO    YES    YES    YES   YES

25 (Majority Vote) YES   YES   YES    YES    YES   YES

26 (2/3 Fee Vote)  NO    NO    NO     NO     NO    NO

27 (Undoes Prop 11)YES   NO    YES    YES    YES   NO

Statewide Races          ME         LA TIMES DEMOCRATS
Governor                 Brown      Brown    Brown

U.S. Senator             Boxer*     Boxer*   Boxer*
Lieutenant Governor      Newsom     Newsom   Newsom
Attorney General         Harris     Cooley   Harris
Secretary of State       Bowen*     Bowen*   Bowen*
Treasurer                Lockyer*   Lockyer* Lockyer*

Controller               Chiang*    Chiang*  Chiang*
Insurance Commissioner   Jones      Jones    Jones   
Supt. of Public Inst.    Torlakson  Aceves   Torlakson

Bd. of Equalization, #1  Yee*       ---      Yee*    

Bd. of Equalization, #2  ---        ---      Parker

Bd. of Equalization, #3  ---        ---      Christian-Heising

Bd. of Equalization, #4  ---        ---      Horton*  

Jerome Horton is an African-American incumbent, but when he was in the state legislature he was an unreliable vote on LGBT issues. He has since tried to make amends, but MadProfessah can not in good conscience endorse him, although I will note that the Stonewall Democrats have.

There are several judicial races on the ballot for which it is often hard to get information on.

Other Races                ME        LA TIMES        DEMOCRATS
CA Sup. Crt. Chief Justice ----      Cantil-Sakauye

CA Sup. Crt. Justice       Moreno    Moreno          Moreno

CA Sup. Crt. Justice       ----      Chin            ---

Superior Court, No. 28     Ameli     Hammock         Ameli

Superior Court, No. 117    Schneider Schneider       Schneider

L.A. County Assessor       Noguez    Yong            
Noguez 
     

Additionally, every Court of Appeals Justice and three State Supreme Court justices are up for re-election (or re-appointment). The Los Angeles Times basically says that every incumbent justice is worthy of re-election. However, Justice Carlos Moreno is the only State Supreme Court justice that thought Proposition 8 violated the state constitution. Ming Chin was in the minority of the 2008 In Re Marriage Cases decision and should NOT be re-appointed. Tani Cantil-Sakauye is Governor Schwarzenegger's nominee to replace Chief Justice Ron George; if approved she'll be the first female and Phillipine-American to head California's highest court. Since we know so little about her, I can't support voting to confirm her. I think it's silly that George didn't wait until the new Governor to be elected  before retiring earlier this year anyway.

There are numerous openly LGBT people running for elected office. John Noguez for Los Angeles County Assessor. In statewide legislative districts there is Ricardo Lara (AD-50) and John Perez (AD-46).

Gigantic Pew Poll Confirms Public Opinion Shift Towards Marriage Equality

More good news on the polling front for supporters of marriage equality. A new Pew Research poll of nearly 6,000(!) Americans again reveals the extent of the rapidity of the shift in public opinion towards marriage equality.

There are several points to highlight from these results, but the  main ones are:

For the first time in 15 years of Pew Research Center polling, fewer than half oppose same-sex marriage.

[..] 

There are substantial age and generational differences in opinions about same-sex marriage. Millennials, born after 1980, favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally by a 53%-to-39% margin. Support for gay marriage among Millennials has changed little in recent years, but is up from 2004 when opinion was more divided.

Among Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1980), 48% now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 43% are opposed. Support is up from 2009 when 41% favored this and 50% were opposed, but is on par with levels in 2001.

There is less support for same-sex marriage among Baby Boomers -- those born 1946 to 1964 -- than among younger age groups. Currently, 38% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 52% are opposed. Still, support among Baby Boomers has increased over the past year (from 32%).

The Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) continues to oppose same-sex marriage; just 29% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 59% are opposed. Even among the Silent Generation, however, there is somewhat more support than in 2009 (23% favor) and substantially greater support than in 2003, when just 17% backed gay marriage.

[...]

Whites are now evenly divided over gay marriage; in polls conducted this year, 44% of non-Hispanic whites favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally and 46% are opposed. In three surveys between August 2008 and August 2009, 39% of non-Hispanic whites favored same-sex marriage compared with 52% who were opposed.

By contrast, blacks continue to oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin. In 2010, just 30% of non-Hispanic blacks favor gay marriage while 59% are opposed. From 2008 to 2009, 28% of blacks favored same-sex marriage and 62% were opposed.

The sub group breakdowns are summarized in the following table.

Simpsons laugh: Ha-ha! The heterosexual supremacists must be shaking in their boots.

Happy ObamaCare Day!

Today is exactly 6 months to the day since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010.

Despite Republican lies and distortions to the contrary, health care reform is not a Government take-over of health care, instead it is a number of common sense reforms bundled together, several of which go into effect today, namely:

• Requiring that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions.

• Making it illegal for insurance companies to drop coverage for people who get sick.

• Cracking down on unjustified premium hikes.

• Placing a cap on out-of-pocket health care costs. 

• Providing free preventive care

It should be noted repeatedly that not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for the final version of the measure, and when Republicans say they will repeal the law if they take over the Congress they are also lying. Obama still has the power to veto legislation, and if a bill was to pass which repealed parts of ObamaCare it would definitely not become law with his signature.

State Senate Passes Bill Excising Anti-Gay Language From CA Code

Equality California sends out a press release touting the State Senate's passage of Bonnie Lowenhal's AB 2199 by a rare unanimous vote of 36-0. The bill had previously passed the State Assembly in April.

AB 2199 removes language from the Califgornia Welfare and Institutions Code which instructed the California Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the "causes and cures of homosexuality."
The language is a relic from the 1950s when homosexuality was linked with sexual deviancy such as pedophilia and homosexuals were considered threats to children. Of course, nowadays we know that the vast majority (90+%) of child molesters are heterosexual men.

From EQCA:

“It is outrageous that California law requires the state to expend scare resources in a futile attempt to ‘cure’ homosexuality,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “Every reputable study has demonstrated conclusively that it is an immutable characteristic that cannot and should not be changed. This offensive code must be stricken from the books immediately.”

The code, which was originally authored in the 1950s, implies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise.

“Support for this bill has been fantastic,” said Assemblymember Lowenthal. “That speaks volumes about how far we've come since 1950.”

This bill, Repeal of Discriminatory Code, heads back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote and will then go to the governor’s desk.

Another win for the good guys.

Graphic of the Week: Impact of Bush Tax Cuts

Congress Passes Act Reducing Cocaine Disparity

Finally! The disparity between criminal sentences for possession of two different forms of the same illegal substance has long been a bitter pill for progressives like myself to swallow. Happily, this week, Congress passed legislation t reduce the disparity in sentences for powder versus crack cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. As I put it before, they made the war on drugs 82% less racist.

From The New York Times:

Under the current law, adopted in 1986 after a surge in crack cocaine smoking and drug-related killings, someone convicted in federal court of possession of five grams of crack must be sentenced to at least five years in prison, and possession of 10 grams requires a 10-year minimum sentence. With powder cocaine, the threshold amounts for those mandatory sentences are 100 times as high.

In the bill passed Wednesday, the amount of crack that would invoke a five-year minimum sentence is raised to 28 grams, said to be roughly the amount a dealer might carry, and for a 10-year sentence, 280 grams.

While crack use has declined since the 1980s, arrests remain common, and some 80 percent of those convicted on crack charges in recent years have been black. A growing number of criminologists have concluded that the sentencing disparity is unjustified and has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to lengthy prison terms while offering more lenient punishment to users and sellers of powder cocaine, who are more often white.

Of course, many people are unhappy with the compromise legislation that has passed, since the new law is still racially discriminatory, as James Rucker of the online activist group Color of Change argues in The Root:

The Senate's compromise is still racially discriminatory and morally wrong, and we have yet to hear anyone explain why a disparity is necessary. It's time for those of us who care about this issue to force Sen. Sessions and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,--the architects of the compromise--to offer an explanation that actually holds water. If Jeff Sessions really wants to argue that 18:1 is better for our country, we should create a media stir that requires him to defend that position in public. And if the explanation doesn't pass muster, if it doesn't appear to be in line with our communities' interests, we have to say so.

We understand that compromise is sometimes necessary, and we agree with our allies that some level of sentencing relief is better than none. But we can't afford to fold before the final hand has been played, and we shouldn't be negotiating from a position of weakness. That's how we ended up with an 18:1 compromise in the first place versus 10:1 or a 5:1. Real change--on ending this sentencing disparity and on other policy issues important to our communities--depends on our willingness to shine a light on backroom deals and apply grassroots energy to hold our elected officials accountable. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and our responsibility to raise our voices in protest is not something we should ever compromise.

My position is that one can both argue for a 1:1 bill and still celebrate the progress inherent in the reduction of the previous draconian sentencing disparity. Compromise does not have to be a dirty word, as long as everyone involved realizes this is just one stage, not the end, of a long struggle for change.

POLL: Support for AZ Immigration Law Hits 57%

A new CBS national poll indicates that support for the arguably racist Arizona immigration law has hit 57%.

Support for the measure increased five points since May. Since then, the Justice Department has filed suit against the law, claiming that it usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The measure in question, signed into law in April and slated to go into effect later this month, makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. It also requires local law enforcement to question a person about his or her immigration status during all "lawful stops" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be in the country illegally.

Twenty-three percent of Americans think the law goes too far, according to the poll, conducted July 9 - 12. That's down five points from the 28 percent who said in May that the measure goes too far. Another 17 percent said it doesn't go far enough.

About half of Americans - 52 percent -- say states should be able to enact laws regarding illegal immigrants, while 42 percent think only the federal government should able to do so.

There is a sharp partisan divide on this question: most Democrats (58 percent) say laws covering illegal immigration should be the responsibility of the federal government only, while Republicans (64 percent) and independents (58 percent) think the states should be allowed to pass such laws.

Half of Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want, while fewer - 42 percent -- say they take jobs away from Americans.

The CBS poll also indicates that public support for the health care reform legislation has dropped seven points since May 20th.

Interestingly, a poll of LGBT respondents show that they overwhelmingly oppose the Arizona law.

White House Unveils National HIV/AIDS Strategy

The White House released the National HIV/AIDS Strategy today, the first time (more than 29 years after AIDS was discovered) the United States has had a coherent, coordinated response to this public health emergency.

From the press announcement:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 13, 2010

White House Announces National HIV/AIDS Strategy

$30 Million of Prevention Fund Dedicated to Implementation of Strategy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the United States, approximately 56,000 people become infected with HIV each year and more than 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV. To combat this growing epidemic, the White House today released the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) and accompanying NHAS Federal Implementation Plan.

Secretary Sebelius also announced that $30 million of the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention Fund will be dedicated to the implementation of the NHAS. This funding will support the development of combination prevention interventions. It will also support improved surveillance, expanded and targeted testing, and other activities.

“We can’t afford complacency – not when in the ten minutes I’ve been talking to you, another American has just contracted HIV,” Secretary Sebelius said. “That’s why our strategy calls for aggressive efforts to educate Americans about how dangerous this disease still is and the steps they can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

The vision of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy is to make the United States “a place where new HIV infections are rare, and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic circumstance will have unfettered access to high-quality, life-extending care, free from stigma and discrimination.”

The NHAS has three primary goals:

1) Reducing the number of new infections;

2) Increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV;

3) Reducing HIV-related health disparities;

To accomplish these goals, the NHAS calls for a more coordinated national response to the HIV epidemic and includes a NHAS Federal Implementation Plan that outlines key, short-term actions to be undertaken by the federal government to execute the outlined recommendations. Additionally, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to take specific steps to implement this strategy.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has taken extraordinary steps to engage the public to evaluate what we are doing right and identify new approaches that will strengthen our response to the domestic epidemic. The Office of National AIDS Policy hosted 14 HIV/AIDS Community Discussions with thousands of Americans across the U.S. and reviewed suggestions from the public via the White House website. ONAP also organized a series of expert meetings on several HIV-specific topics, and worked with Federal and community partners who organized their own meetings to support the development of a national strategy.

Go to www.AIDS.gov and www.whitehouse.gov/onap for more information and resources.

###

As Rod 2.0 points out, many AIDS activists have immediately criticized the NHAS, particularly the odious Michael Weinstein of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest AIDS/HIV organization in the country (if not the world). The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was kinder, saying:

“Today the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever plan for a coordinated strategy to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States. Such a plan is long overdue, and implementation can’t happen fast enough. On average, someone contracts HIV in the U.S. every nine and a half minutes. Each day without action means lives are changed forever, lives that are disproportionately gay, bisexual, transgender, people of color, and the financially disadvantaged.

“This plan offers much-needed relief by focusing on high-risk communities, directing money to states with the highest need based on reported cases of HIV/AIDS, and by recognizing the unique needs of affected populations. The administration has taken a historic step today in the fight against HIV/AIDS. However, the plan doesn’t yet go far enough in ending new infections and helping those already coping with the disease to manage it. The government must make available the necessary resources and life-saving medicines for those in need. Adequate attention to and funding for implementation as well as aggressive timetables are essential to the success of this plan. This ongoing national tragedy requires an immediate, potent and cohesive federal response that is appropriately funded.”

MadProfessah applauds the Administration for actually announcing and implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy, something which has been needed for a long time.

Gay Blood Donor Ban Retained By 9-6 Vote

The Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability of the Department of Health and Human Services voted 9-6 on Friday to retain the current policy (in place since 1983) of preventing any man who has had sex with a man since 1977 from donating blood for the rest of their life.

Earlier this year, Senator John Kerry and a group of lawmakers sent a letter urging the FDA reconsider its long-held policy. The Los Angeles Times encouraged (sorta) the change.

Reporting from The Advocate:

Addressing the committee on Thursday, Kerry said he was joined by the nation's largest blood-banking organizations in opposition to the current policy. The American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, and America’s Blood Centers have all blasted the policy as “scientifically and medically unwarranted.”

"This is a discussion with real social significance for gay men," Kerry said before the committee. "They are clearly the target of this policy, which was initiated in the early '80s, when little was known about HIV/AIDS, except that gay men seemed to be contracting it almost exclusively. Today, this lingering policy carries with it a social stigma for this population that is still engaged in battles for civil rights on a whole array of fronts."

In a unanimous vote the panel also called the policy "suboptimal," however, and recommended that distinctions be made between low- and high-risk potential gay donors in a report to the assistant secretary of HHS.

I suspect the question of who gets appointed to this committee in the future as well as possible federal legislation will be next steps. LGBT groups are NOT HAPPY.

BLOGSWARM: Revise FDA Gay Blood Donor Ban

Rod 2.0 and other blogs are doing a blogswarm today to end the ban on gay men donating blood.

Here is a letter summarizing the scientific and social reasons for revising the ban for yourconvenience. Feel free to copy and paste into an e-mail to jerry.holmberg@hhs.gov

Jerry A. Holmberg, PhD
Executive Secretary
Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability
Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
1101 Wooton Parkway, Suite 250
Rockville, MD 20852

June 10, 2010

Dear Dr. Holmberg,

I am pleased that the Health and Human Services Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is planning to review the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decades-long ban on blood donation by any man who has had sex with another man since 1977. I strongly urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review its policy prohibiting gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating blood.

The FDA's current blood donor eligibility policies are largely inconsistent, imposing significantly less restrictive deferrals to heterosexual men and women who engage in high-risk sexual behavior, yet banning gay and bisexual men who are HIV-negative, consistently practice safe sex, or are in monogamous, long-term relationships. This policy reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about gay men and HIV, and results in a significant loss of healthy blood donors.

The advent of new HIV testing technologies, which can detect HIV directly and has a window period of only 9-11 days after infection, has provided scientific and technological reasons to reconsider the policy. In the face of chronic blood shortages in the nation's blood supply, the unnecessary exclusion of large numbers of HIV-negative blood donors may harm patients in need of blood transfusions.

I join a growing consensus of voices who have called for reform of the FDA's donor eligibility policy. Many public health experts, the American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks, America's Blood Centers, and others have supported reforming the policy. Additionally, 18 U.S. Senators, as well as U.S. Representatives, have recently sent letters to the FDA calling for the long-standing policy's review and modification.

It is both timely and necessary that an exhaustive review of alternative policies is conducted. I encourage Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to act quickly to address our mutual concern for expanding the blood donor pool and ensuring the safety and adequacy of our nation's blood supply.

Sincerely,

White House, DOD, LGBT Groups Endorse DADT Repeal Method

There is breaking news out of Washington that the White House and Defense Department have agreed to endorse an amendment to be added to this year's 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which would pass Congress this year and make progress towards repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter to Pennsylvania U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy which endorses his legislative strategy of attaching repeal language to the Defense Department authorization bill this week.

Here's the letter:
0524 Rep Murphy
The vote on legislative language would occur this year, but it's effect would be delayed beyond the December 1, 2010 release date of the Pentagon's report on the implications of letting openly gay and lesbian soldiers serve in the U.S. armed forces. Then, pending certification by The Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chief of Staff that repeal would not negatively impact the military's ability to conduct it's primary mission, DADT repeal could proceed in 2011.

There are multiple press releases from LGBT organizations endorsing the demolition of the legislative roadblock to repeal.

Human Rights Campaign:

WASHINGTON – The ban on open military service by lesbian and gay Americans is on a path to repeal this week with the White House, Pentagon leaders and Congress outlining a process that includes votes in the House and Senate as early as Thursday. Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be considered as amendments to the National Defense Authorization bill – the same vehicle by which the law was enacted 17 years ago. The Obama administration endorsed the approach today in a letter to Congressional leaders from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Today’s announcement paves the path to fulfill the President’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The proposal would allow Congress to vote to repeal the current DADT law now with implementation to follow upon completion of the Pentagon Working Group study due December 1, 2010. The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would need to certify that implementation policies and regulations are prepared and that they are consistent with standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. The plan therefore addresses concerns expressed by the Pentagon that the implementation study process be respected.

“Without a repeal vote by Congress this year, the Pentagon’s hands are tied and the armed forces will be forced to continue adhering to the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law,” said Solmonese. “A solution has emerged: Congress needs to vote to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ now.”

The leadership of Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Penn. along with the White House, has been critical to setting the stage for these votes.

Servicemembers United:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, commended the announcement today that the administration will now support an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law this year. The proposed amendment would include a delayed implementation provision that would not allow repeal to take effect until the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group completed its nine-month implementation management study and until the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that the military is ready to implement repeal smoothly.

"This announcement from the White House today is long awaited, much needed, and immensely helpful as we enter a critical phase of the battle to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a former U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "We have been making the case to White House staff for more than a year now that delayed implementation is realistic, politically viable, and the only way to get the defense community on board with repeal, and we are glad to see the community and now the administration and defense leadership finally rally around this option."

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, passed in 1993 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, has resulted in the abrupt firing of more than 14,000 men and women because of their sexual orientation, and has led tens of thousands more to voluntarily terminate their careers because of the burden of serving under this outdated law. There are an estimated 66,000 gays, lesbians, and bisexuals currently serving in the U.S. military and an estimated 1 million gay, lesbian, and bisexual veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

For more information about Servicemembers United, please visit www.servicemembersunited.org. For the latest information on discharge numbers, polling, statistics, studies, and other archival and reference information related to the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' issue, please visit www.dadtarchive.org.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN):

“The White House announcement is a dramatic breakthrough in dismantling ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The path forward crafted by the President, Department of Defense officials, and repeal leaders on Capitol Hill respects the ongoing work by the Pentagon on how to implement open service and allows for a vote this week. President Obama’s support and Secretary Gates’ buy-in should insure a winning vote, but we are not there yet. The votes still need to be worked and counted.

“If enacted this welcomed compromise will create a process for the President and the Pentagon to implement a new policy for lesbian and gay service members to serve our country openly, hopefully within a matter of a few months. This builds upon the support Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed for open service during the February hearing in the Senate, and further underscores that this Administration is committed to open service.

“We would not have reached this moment without the leadership and commitment of our allies on the Hill – Senators Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin, and Congressman Patrick Murphy; they all worked tirelessly to get us this far.

“For the upcoming votes in the House and Senate to succeed, it is critical that all proponents for full repeal weigh in now. The blogosphere and activists have been admirably pressing for full repeal this year and we are grateful for their help. Everyone in support of repeal needs to continue contacting their Members of Congress and ask for the vote.”

Looks encouraging so far. To me this process looks reasonable since it allows President Obama to say that he is following commitments that he has made to both constituencies here (military brass and DADT repeal activists).

I'm sure there are other LGBT activists who will not be happy that openly gay and lesbian servicemembers will not necessarily be able to start serving this year. I do think that a moratorium on kicking out openly LGB soldiers as well as a deletion of the military principle that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" should be included in the language that Congress votes on, but as of right now, actual legislative language has not been released, but the vote in the U.S. Senate Armed Service Committed is Thursday May 27th.

FDA Schedules Hearing On Gay Blood Donor Ban

There comes news about the possibility that the lifetime ban on men who have had sex with men since 1977 from donating blood may soon be reconsidered.

From the (recently resurrected Washington Blade):

A notice published Thursday states the Department of Health & Human Services has scheduled a meeting next month of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety & Availability to discuss the issue. The committee is charged with providing recommendations to HHS on blood supply and blood products.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is set to take place at the Universities of Shady Grove in Rockville, Md. Discussion is scheduled over the course of two days — from June 10 to June 11. The meetings on both days are set for 9:30 am to 5:00 pm.

FDA instituted the blood donor ban in 1983 in response to the AIDS crisis. The policy prohibits any man who’s had sex with another man since 1977 — even once — from donating blood. At the time, the policy was deemed necessary because gay and bisexual have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS infection.

LGBT rights supporters have been seeking to overturn the ban on the grounds that it unfairly targets gay and bisexual men and that testing procedures for HIV/AIDS have improved significantly since 1983.

According to the Federal Register notice, the committee will consider “the most important factors (e.g. societal, scientific, and economic) to consider in making a policy change” as well as whether current scientific information is sufficient to support ending the policy and what studies and safety measures are needed before a change takes place.

MadProfessah has been following the story of the "gay blood ban" for quite awhile, and these latest steps are the most movements since 2007's review of the policy which left the ban intact.

Not all LGBT rights supporters are in favor of a complete lifting of the ban, as evidenced by a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times.

The simple fact is that it is a "blood libel" to claim that any man who has had sex with a man since 1977 is completely ineligible from donating blood.

LA TIMES semi-endorses gay blood ban repeal

The Los Angeles Times editorialized on the topic of modifying the lifetime ban on gay men (who have had sex with another man since 1977) on donating blood, a subject that MadProfessah has been following for quite awhile. They want to change that to a ban on gay men who have had sex with a man since 2005:

Beyond the theories, the reality is that there were only four known cases of transfusion-related HIV infection from 1999 to 2007, out of more than 112 million units of blood. In all four cases, the donors had denied having any risk factors. In addition to sexually active gay men, the high-risk groups banned from donating include anyone who was ever an intravenous drug user, people with a history or family history of certain illnesses and anyone who has ever accepted payment for sex. Other groups cannot donate for up to a year -- people who have had acupuncture or body piercings, for instance, or heterosexuals who have engaged in high-risk sexual practices.

[...]

A 2008 report by the American Medical Assn., which reviewed a host of pertinent studies, concluded that there was a very small but statistically significant increase in risk of transmission of AIDS and other diseases if men who had abstained from sex for one year were allowed to give blood. That risk, small as it might be, is nonetheless too big. The FDA should reject a shift to a one-year abstention policy.

But the agency should seriously consider allowing donations from gay men who have abstained from sexual contact for at least five years. Under that scenario, the AMA found, the risk would be indistinguishable from current levels. The figures are theoretical, of course, based on statistical probabilities. If anything, they are probably conservative. The four transfusion-related HIV cases in recent years were a tiny fraction of what the statistical models predicted. Because not all donors remember exactly how long they have abstained from sex, the FDA should consider adding a buffer of several more years. If it does ease the restrictions, it should require.

No one should be deceived about how meaningful such a change would be. Mostly, it would give a symbolic victory to the gay and lesbian community. The number of gay men who have abstained completely from sex for at least five years is considered to be quite small. Fewer yet would be interested in donating blood. The AMA report predicts that even though changes in risk would be unnoticeable, the number of blood donors would not increase appreciably.

But that's not a valid defense for clinging to what might be outdated guidelines. The country has more effective tests and other safety measures than when these rules were devised. If there is no reason to think the country would see a rise in transfusion- related illness with a five- to 10-year rule, refusal to relax the restriction would indeed be unfairly discriminatory.

So, they think the lifetime ban should be lifted, but want to replace it with a 5-10 year ban if you have had sex with another man, as opposed to a year for all other "high risk groups." Still sounds discriminatory to me.

What I find bizarre is that there is no mention of safer sex in their analysis. I'd like to see statistical analyses of the difference in probabilities between a gay man who has had sex with a condom a year ago and straight man who has had sex without a condom a year ago. Plus, it must be remembered that all donated blood is tested for HIV antibodies. The very low probability scenario that everyone is trying to avoid is the case of someone who has HIV (and doesn't know it) because they are in a one-month window of when they haven't developed detectable antibodies to the virus but they have donated blood.

Is it really reasonable to tar all gay men with the broad brush of medical hazard to avoid this infinitesimally small event? As the editorial mentions, there were 4 known cases of transmission out of 122 million units of blood donated between 1999 and 2007. Even if the rate were to DOUBLE this would still be a vanishingly small probability, on the order of being struck by lightning.

FDA To Review Ban on Gay Blood Donors

There is news about the irrational ban on men who have had sex with another man since 1997 from donating blood.

Federal health officials announced Friday that they would reexamine a 27-year-old set of restrictions on blood donations by gay men. 

The restrictions, enacted in the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the United States, impose a lifetime ban on men donating blood if they've had sex with another man at any time since 1977.

In recent years, the American Red Cross, the American Assn. of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collectively represent almost all blood banks in the country, have recommended loosening the restrictions to allow men who have abstained from gay sex for one year to donate blood.

The American Medical Assn. also has proposed revising the policy but recommended a five-year instead of a one-year waiting period.

Gay rights groups also have pushed for a change in the donor policy, arguing that it stigmatizes gay men and does not adequately address threats to blood safety posed by high-risk heterosexual behaviors.

Recently, a letter was written by 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry (and signed by 18 United States Senators) to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg which cogently deconstructed the purported rationales for the gay blood ban policy.

See for yourself:

Dear Commissioner Hamburg:

We write today to express our concerns regarding outdated, medically and scientifically unsound deferral criteria for prospective blood donors.  With hospitals and emergency rooms across the country in constant and urgent need of blood products, we believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America.

The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB reported before an FDA-sponsored workshop on March 9, 2006 that the ban on men who have had sex with other men (MSM), even once, since 1977 from ever donating blood “is medically and scientifically unwarranted.”  Then in 2008, the Council on Science and Public Health at the American Medical Association also advocated modifying the lifetime deferral requirement for MSM.   We all recognize the practical and well-intentioned origins of this ban, first established in 1983 at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis when modern screening procedures and advanced testing methods for HIV were yet to be developed.  Standards and selectivity is of course necessary to protect the blood supply.

We live in a very different country than we did in 1983.  Today, the high-risk behaviors associated with HIV contraction are more fully understood and dramatic technological improvements have been made in HIV detection.  Collecting facilities now screen all donors for history of certain high-risk behaviors, and FDA regulations determine that all donated blood be analyzed by two highly accurate screening tests; one for antibodies to HIV-1/2 and HIV-1 Group O variants, and the other for the actual sequences of the virus using molecular technologies.  As a result, the blood banking community believes that the lifetime deferral is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the blood banks.

It is our understanding that there is a window period of up to three weeks following a person’s initial exposure to HIV during which infection may be missed by the blood tests.  It is this window period that rightfully serves as the scientific basis for a deferral period for prospective donors deemed to be of high-risk for HIV.  Similar approaches and deferral periods are used to prevent window-period transmission of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C by blood transfusion.  However, there is a clear and unscientific double standard embedded in the current deferral rules for potential exposure to HIV.

Reflecting the dangers associated with the window period, prospective donors who have engaged in heterosexual sexual activity with a person known to have HIV are deferred for one year.  At the same time, male donors who engaged in protected homosexual sexual activity with a monogamous partner 26 years ago are deferred for life.  The FDA-imposed lifetime ban for men who have sex with men does not fall in line with the one-year deferral required for high-risk heterosexual behavior, nor does it correspond in any way to the window period.  The ban also does not distinguish between safe and unprotected sexual activity.  As a result, healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it.

With the safety of the blood supply as our top concern, our examination of the deferral process has brought to our attention a second issue that we believe requires your consideration.  It is our understanding that there are rapidly rising rates of new HIV infections among certain segments of the heterosexual population.  While the screening and testing procedures are rigorous for certain high-risk behaviors, there is no expressed concern with unprotected heterosexual sex during the window period in which the administered HIV tests are unreliable.  Unprotected sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is recognized as a significantly higher risk behavior for HIV transmission than protected sexual activity.  We urge you to take this important distinction into consideration when reexamining possible changes to deferral policies.

The safety, availability, and integrity of our nation’s blood supply are vital.  For these reasons, we agree with the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others that the time has come for the FDA to modify the lifetime deferral for MSM to be consistent with sensible health and safety policy and with FDA deferral guidelines for high-risk heterosexual behavior.  We request that you initiate a review of the lifetime deferral requirement for men who have sex with men wishing to donate blood and that you reexamine the deferral criteria for all blood donors to ensure all high-risk behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Thank you for your leadership in promoting public health and safety.  We look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

           

John Kerry                             
United States Senator

Kirstin Gillibrand                   
United States Senator

Dick Durbin

United States Senator              

Daniel Akaka
United States Senator                         

Sheldon Whitehouse              
United States Senator

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator
 
Frank Lautenberg                   
United States Senator

Bob Casey                              
United States Senator

Bernie Sanders

United States Senator
 

Russ Feingold                        
United States Senator

Mark Udall                             
United States Senator

Al Franken

United States Senator

Maria Cantwell                      
United States Senator

Carl Levin                              
United States Senator

Tom Harkin 

United States Senator
 

Mark Begich                          
United States Senator

Rolland Burris                        
United States Senator

Michael Bennet

United States Senator

It should be interesting how  big a story this becomes in June when the commission meets to review the policy. Last time I blogged about this story in May 2007 there was not much outcry when the Bush administration's FDA refused to modify the policy.