Down East safety issues
As the members of the bargaining yeam for the Maine State Nurses Association, or MSNA, we felt we had to address statements made by the CEO of Down East Community Hospital in local media outlets.
We believe the issue here is absolutely a public health issue. The community relies upon a well staffed hospital; if there is a staffing shortage on any given shift or in any department that becomes a safety problem. At the heart of this dispute are staffing issues.
Management is insisting on an 11 percent pay cut for the night shift to be taken immediately. We have been trying to explain to the hospital that these differentials have been established to fill a need and were actually introduced by the hospital several years ago in order to recruit and retain employees for these areas. Traditionally it has always been more difficult to recruit and retain nurses on the night shift.
We have been through a lot in the last few years as a hospital. This is no time to talk about taking things away from the very employees who have been loyal to this hospital. In addition to the undersigned, this letter is written by the MSNA bargaining team; Karma Alley, LPN; Shirley Brown, RN; Cheryl Christie, MLT; Liz Faraci, RN and Scott Huber, CRT.
Veronica Conley, RN
MSNA
Keep mercury rule strong
The EPA recently passed new standards that will slash emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from the nation’s dirtiest power plants. This will clean up our air significantly.
In December 2011, President Obama signed into law the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, which will slash toxic mercury air emissions by 90 percent. As the tailpipe state of the nation, this is great news for Maine. Nationwide, reports say this rule will save as many as 11,000 lives, prevent as many as 130,000 asthma attacks among children and prevent as many as 4,700 heart attacks each year, according to the EPA.
However, there is an attempt to undermine this lifesaving rule. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, is trying to use the obscure Congressional Review Act to kill the new mercury rule. If he succeeds in this cynical procedural ploy, he’ll not only kill EPA clean air standards, he’ll unwittingly be costing thousands of Americans their lives and health, particularly children who would otherwise live and suffer less by the new EPA rule. Doctors, nurses, scientists and public health professionals agree this is a standard to save lives and prevent illnesses.
We need to protect our kids, families and communities from mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other toxics pouring out of dirty power plant smokestacks! Therefore, I urge Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins not to support this Congressional Review Act proposed by Sen. Inhofe.
Gail White
Orono
Same-sex marriage, abortion
After reading letters to the editor by Carol P. Gater and Peter Rees in the Feb. 28 BDN, I must respond.
First of all, Mr. Rees is misguided if he really believes marriage is a right. It’s a privilege, just like a drivers license. Gays, lesbians and others sympathetic to their cause are trying to mislead this country and reduce that once sacred privilege to something morally wrong.
Don’t let them mislead or sway you with sad stories of their terrible plight or by their sneaky TV commercials. Vote no on the same-sex referendum.
Although Ms. Gater is correct when she says Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, she is naive if she doesn’t realize abortion is just a glamorized and far less convicting word for the taking of a human life, or murder. Just because it involves an unborn child instead of someone having a physical presence outside the womb and it being not quite as messy, it doesn’t make it any less cruel.
I feel sorry for Ms. Gater and anyone else who condones murder. We need to get our country back in our control and away from the immoral and satanic powers that are slowly, over time, taking it over.
John Henderson
Bridgewater
Respect Thoreau, please
Henry David Thoreau has been recognized by leaders of societies as a leader of men. Gandhi and Martin Luther King both cited his philosophy as a cornerstone of the humanitarian movements that they led. These leaders of millions of people credited Thoreau’s writings for leading these humanitarian movements to the changes that Gandhi and King brought to the human race.
David Thoreau has the oldest and largest following of any American writer. There are millions of people in the world who follow these philosophies. Millions of people know and love his writing.
The town manager of a shrinking community in the Katahdin area has the mistaken belief that nobody cares about Henry David Thoreau’s travels through the North Woods. This town manager went to a college podium and said he believes Thoreau was in “a drug-induced coma” when he was traveling through this part of Maine.
This town manager is an embarrassment to the people of Millinocket. His own words prove this to be so. The town council needs to instruct the manager to spend more time restoring the economy of the downtown area and stop traveling the countryside declaring that he represents the population of Millinocket. Many of us would like to see the followers of Henry David Thoreau coming to visit our great community and spending time recognizing the true value of this beautiful area.
Charlie Cirame
Millinocket
Birth control freedom
What a fool I was. I’ve been a conservative all my life. I grew up on a farm and was raised by two generations of farm people that went through the Great Depression. I was taught you had to take care of yourself. You had to be responsible to help get things done.
When my wife and I got married, we took responsibility for our own birth control. We didn’t expect someone else to be responsible for our sex life. Now, after 31 years of marriage, I learn that some of the D.C. bunch want to provide free birth control so people don’t have to take responsibility for their sex life.
Well, Mr. Stephen King, maybe I will join up with your bunch after all. No responsibility? What a “novel” idea.
Ron Cota
Burnham
Marriage is not a right, but, being married confers many legal rights upon the couple that marries: the right to raise children together, the right to be with and/or speak for the partner in medical and legal situations, certain financial benefits, the right of inheritance and the right not to be shut out of the partners life by others. It is these rights that are being sought by the gay couples.
If the US would cancel church’s right to confer legal rights and benefits to partners in marriage and transfer that right to the courts in civil unions as they do in the UK the problem of SSM would come to an end. Churches would be free to bless these civil unions or not according to their dogma and gay couples would still have all the rights and recognition conferred upon them by civil union preserved.
The fight over whether SSM should be legal would then be decided in the courts, where it belongs; not in antediluvian religious communities and in the bigoted conservative media.
Very well stated. I agree with you 100%. Fancy that :)
Okay I agree 90%. I’d prefer to see gay marriage legalized through public referendum as it will be in Maine this November. That way there can be no accusations of “liberal activist judges imposing their will” or “liberal legislatures being paid off”. I want the people to say we recognize SSM because it is just.
LOL
We should have coffee sometime. Conversation would be lively. LOL
I certainly take your point, but is it right to have citizens voting on other citizens civil rights?
We voted in affirmative action policies, and non-discrimination laws. We didn’t vote on abortion laws by state. Look at the bitterness left over from imposing a right, versus legislating them. People may grumble that they don’t want to hire, or rent to certain people, but they don’t organize yearly demonstrations protesting the anti-discrimination laws. Well–occasionally they do protest, but I hope you see my point.
I do.
This is a incredibly ridiculous argument. Marriage is a province of religion, it is part of that “separation” Jefferson wrote of in his letter to Baptist bishops.
Many churches have already preformed same sex marriage, and the idea that believers from one religion or the government can tell other churches what is acceptable under their theology would be poison to the founders.
The State no longer has reason to be in the marriage business. Give marriage back to the churches.
What about people who aren’t religious?
Maybe you are right, but on the other hand the state has an interest in promoting marriage through the benefits they offer married couples. It is not just a religious contract the couples enter into. They also enter into a civil obligation, which may include the raising of children, the acquisition of joint property, the pursuit of common interests. All of this needs to be subject to the state laws and regulations–especially if couples divorce.
This could not be better stated. Thank you mssallyjones.
Marriage is a religious rite. If the separation clause were firmly in place, the State would have no role in marriage, and this subject would be moot.
I’m looking forward to gays becoming mainstream. I think they may turn out to be fiscal conservatives. That would be their natural bent given their demographic.
Ms. Conley: I would love to see the pay cut management has said THEY are taking, to get through these tough times. How long will it be, after people quit, that they will have to spend way more to lure someone to Machias? For months you’ve been trying to hire a lab director without success, no matter how many inducements they offer.
John Henderson & Ron Cota – Well said. Should be an interesting thread. You two just might get more hate mail than I do today. But, that’s what happens when people are right.
Yup, because as long as you’re “right” with EJP, you can spew all the hate you want, including calling people sl**s.
Huh. You know, at a baseball game when a runner is out by a mile and the umpire calls it correctly, very few people criticize him. That’s because he was right. But if he blows the call, he will surely hear about it.
Problem is, the umps on the left need glasses.
No, not actually. Some of us New England fiscal conservatives see financial benefit in preventing and halting unwanted pregnancies.
It is hard for me to see how a (fiscal) conservative can argue against this. It costs over $100,000 to raise a child through the senior year of high school, and maybe another $50,000 to put them through college. Do you want that bill?
More than 70% of all foster children spend time as adults in homeless shelters, mental institutions, or jail. Do you want to foot the bill for that?
Children who grow up in loveless families generally get out as fast as possible, this often results in teen pregnancies, dropping out of school, and ending up on Welfare. I know from previous posts you don’t want that bill.
Parents stuck with unwanted children usually keep them through the preschool years. it is children 9 through 16 who usually find their way into the system. Most knowledgeable social workers say that prospects for adoption go to almost zero by age six. Many of these children have the additional burdens of being born addicted to drugs, fetal alcohol syndrome, mental health disorders, passed from one home to another or from a half-breed or minority parents. Add to this the fact that these children usually have not been socialized, they have no manners, foul-mouths, and no attachment to anyone, and people just begin to see too much trouble…
I’ve fostered over 100 of these children, and adopted six. The only thing they all have in common was that they think I was crazy for doing it.
HHS – Read what I’ve written. I’m not against contraception. I’m not against contraception being provided through insurance policies. I’m against the government telling providers to provide things that the providers don’t believe in or support. And that goes for government intrusion in religious and non-religious organizations.
I’m also against people demanding they be provided for in every aspect of their lives. When will the demands end? I’ll tell you when. When the government goes bankrupt. And that day is coming sooner than later if we don’t change things in this country.
Actually it is impossible for the “government to go bankrupt. The debts are backed by the country’s resources, potential income (GDP) and the property owned by private citizens. The wealth of the USA is so very great, that there is no number to represent it as yet.
Although I believe in personal responsibility also, I am pragmatic enough to realize everyone is not going to live up to my expectations. Therefore I would rather insurance companies be mandated to supply contraceptives, then have them pay for an abortion, or a delinquent child later.
……and I have a financial interest here too, because I own stock in at least two insurance companies.
Of course you are smart enough to know that insurance companies WANT to supply contraceptives. this law just gives them cover to do so.
How do you feel about mandatory auto liability insurance? You must have a whole bunch of christian faith in your fellow man to be against that.
Sorry, but it’s not impossible for us to go bankrupt. And if Obama gets 4 more years and the Dems get back the House, he’ll prove me right.
Thoreau lived in a very different era and he himself believed in the use and management of the land and it’s resources. He was a number of things and had a lot of experiences that many of us lack. He saw things from a multitude of angles that many have not and will not see.
He was also a fake and a lied about most of his “adventures”.
Says who, you got a reputable source to back that claim up or you going to use wikipedia? No ones perfect and history’s prominent figures all had their short comings but that is a bold statement.
Mr. Henderson, read Loving v. Virginia, a Supreme Court case which declared marriage a basic right that could not be restricted by a state law banning interracial marriage. Were marriage a privilege, the government could take away the right of you and your wife to be married once you ceased to be of child-bearing years.
Mr. Cota, there was a time that states banned birth control. The standardization of health insurance policies to cover contraceptives costs the public nothing and saves the insurers money as they are no longer having to cover the far more expensive risk of unintended pregnancies.
If you and your wife have ever had health insurance through the same insurer as I, then I have likely paid part of the cost of your wife’s pregnancies through my premium dollars. Therefore, I have paid for your sex life. Feel free to thank me.
Mr Chenard, thank you. Gosh! I wish you had been around forty plus years ago when we had a thousand bales of hay to get in plus the cows had to be milked twice a day. The calves and cows had to be fed and cleaned out in the same day. Milk tank had to be washed and so much more. Your help would have been appreciated on the farm. One thing, though, we would have paid you for your help. We wouldn’t have expected you to do it for nothing.
I truly want to thank you for subsidizing our sex life. Because of that, we have three beautiful children who are a great asset to society. Without your help, my wife and I would not own everything we have – lock, stock and barrel. I bet my Great Grandfather McDougal would had loved your help one hundred thirty plus years ago when he was splitting firewood by hand(I still do) for a dollar a day to put food on the table for his family. Anyways, I know my history. So once again,thank you. Don’t worry! You won’t be hearing from me again. Mr Chenard! You have put me in my place!!. One thing. Would you watch Hank Willams Jr’s music video “Country Boy Can Survive” on You Tube. Thats what I really have to say to you. Sincerely,Ron cota.
John Henderson and Ron Cota: Thanks for your interesting letters. I suspect you don’t object to taxpayer support of the American military going abroad, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and killing many innocent civilians. Those who most fervently oppose abortion and even birth control pills commonly lavish praise on the military, never oppose executions of convicted criminals (vs. having them live out their lives in prisons), and oppose policies and organizations that cater to the poor and the disabled. What illogic.
way to generalize, bunyan1.
So if it is a privilege, why do we straight people get to be the ones with special privileges?
VERONICA,
There is no public health issue here, but there is an is an issue of greed. At any point you or others are not satisfied with your employment you or other employees may feel free to seek other employment opportunities anywhere in the country you choose. It is what makes America great.
GAIL,
I can only hope Sen. Inhofe is successful, and we can begin to build many a new coal fired power plants. What we need in this country is protection from government regulations that would prevent energy independence.
JOHN,
We need folks who think and believe like you and me representing our great state and nation. We should consider a run?
CHARLIE,
I follow no one but Jesus!
RON,
I’ve been thinking the same thing here lately. Why fight em when we can join em? A life totally void of responsibility. Where do I sign up?
On your return point to Gail,I totally disagree.Maine is subjected to the Mercury that other states produce.If it affects us,which is does.She is correct we need to reduce it.Our streams are toxic enough,we should be able to eat more fish without concern.This is just one of the many affects of mercury.
Your response to Veronica is similar to my response to people who don’t want to pay union dues in a union shop.
So you would vote for a man you do not know because he agreed with you. I have some Kool aid you thirsty?
The outrage over abortion and now over contraception is beginning to look more and more about controlling women and less and less about concern for life.
Surely you’re not saying that abortion supporters have a concern for life.
Interesting. Ignoring the fact that the issue is one of choice, not the advocating of aborting fetuses, one could counter your argument by saying that those who align themselves with the “pro-life” movement aren’t really pro-life because they tend to favor invading sovereign nations and dismissing civilian deaths in such offensive (as opposed to defensive) campaigns as “collateral damage.”
Chubby Checker you must be.
If you want to decrease abortion support contraception.
I’ve never not supported contraceptives. If one wants to play, one should be willing to pay. When do we stop with the freebies?
Yeah, those insurance premiums count for nothing apparently.
Insurance premiums are paid to cover whatever the policy covers. When a person signs on to an insurance package, they are given specifics about what is covered and what is not. If a company or group providing the policies does not want to cover a particular item or items, then that should be between the provider and the purchaser, and the government should not be allowed to come in and force a provider to provide that which the provider does not wish to provide.
This issue is about the government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, not about denying anyone anything.
But then you don’t get to say that you will be paying for it. The argument is that contraceptives should be covered under insurance plans.
I personally think it’s pretty silly and disingenuous to all of a sudden argue that the government shouldn’t be allowed to set a standard for healthcare plans because they always have. It’s way too selective of a complaint.
If a providing organization doesn’t believe in contraceptions or abortions or whatever, shouldn’t it be their right to deny those particular coverages? If not, and the government is allowed to trump the provider’s rights to offer what it wants, then freedom is out the window.
Should a Muslim owned restaurant be forced to serve pork?
Or an Indian food store be forced to sell steaks?
Should a Mazda dealer be forced to sell Fords?
Should we force abortions in order to keep the population in check?
Should a Southern Baptist preacher be forced to marry a same-sex couple?
Freedom is under attack in this nation, and we have to fight back.
You keep changing your story. First you don’t want to pay for it — which you never would, because it’d be included under the insurance plan. Now you say it’s an assault on religion freedom — which it isn’t, as there is an opt out which circumvents the religious institution and goes through the insurance provider instead. What kind of logical twist and turn are you going to come up with next to oppose this?
The government mandates a minimum standard for all sorts of things and it isn’t done to specifically target religious institutions, it’s neutral. You oppose this because emotionally you oppose this, so say that. Quit trying to manufacture all these weird and inconsistent reasons.
You should join msally in a comprehension class. By the way, your side is the first to scream separation of church and state, and now you want the state to tell the church what it can and cannot do. Interesting.
What religion is Mazda or Ford?
Yup, last resort: personal attacks.
The government can mandate a minimum standard all it wants. Nothing stops you from worshipping, believing, gathering, etc. The issue here is that these places are in the business of providing a secular service — here, healthcare and there definitely needs to be a standard set. If that is too troubling to deal with, then get out of the business.
Would it be fair for a business owner, based on moral beliefs, to deny black people service based on their skin color? A Christian restaurant owner to deny service to Muslims because they’re Muslim? The answers are no because we have a standard in this country. No one is forcing you to own a business, but if you are going to have a business, then you have to play by the rules that the government determines to be so.
You’re talking about discrimination (apples). I’m talking about what’s included in a business provided insurance policy (oranges).
Does the business have the right to provide benefits, such as an insurance policy, that fits the business’ framework, or do they have to provide what the employee wants, regardless of the beliefs of the business owners?
It’s the same logic though and you are making discrimination claims yourself anyway. You want to say that businesses should be able to do whatever they want without government intervention and the buyer just simply has to beware. I pointed to an example where that logic simply doesn’t work and it doesn’t work here either. A racist certainly believes what they believe, doesn’t mean they should have free reign to circumvent the standard.
The point is the government OBVIOUSLY can set standards. You can’t claim that that is hindering freedom of religion when it is setting the standard for a secular service. Just like they can say you have to pay workers a minimum wage, they can say you have to provide a minimum standard of care.
Freedom isn’t under attack in this nation. Sexist, misogynistic, victorian, crap is under attack. This is the 21st century and we are going to have universal health care, SSM, contraceptives, sex, diversity and senile old white men are just going to have to get used to it. LOL
Freedom isn’t under attack? And you think I live under a rock!!
Well, your freedom to be the ultimate law giver simply because you are male, old and white may be under some stress. Let’s hope so. Us uppity women are a bit tired of listening to senility run off at the mouth.
I object to your reference to senile old white men. What was it I have to get used to?
LOL!
Pre-existing conditions……. I hope you don’t have any.
Nope, you’re not going to switch the argument to religious freedom. You’ve been arguing against contraceptive coverage saying those that play must pay. Nope, covering contraceptives isn’t an invasion by the government any more than covering prostate exams is government invasion. Go back under your antediluvian rock until you learn how to debate a question and find some facts. Fergodsake, man get some facts before you start writing.
You really need to learn how to comprehend. I have not been arguing against contraceptive coverage. I’ve been arguing for the rights of the provider.
aha !!! you want unregulated ‘rights of the provider’
EJParsons 16 hours ago in reply to chenardI’ve never not supported contraceptives. If one wants to play, one should be willing to pay. When do we stop with the freebies?
Sound like an argument against covering contraceptives to me EJ.
Right. I have never NOT supported contraceptives. Actually, that is simple English.
Child immunization will be a “freeby” under the new health insurance system. Would you like to chuck that out too? How about colonoscopies, or cancer screening, or prostate exams, or well baby check-ups or pre-natal care or all the other “freebies” universal health insurance is going to cover for the working poor; let’s toss out everything, they’re just “freebies”.
You do understand how insurance works don’t you? Do you understand anything about “Obamacare”?
Nothing is “free”. And “Obamcare” is unsustainable and unconstitutional.
How do you know that? The Affordable Care Act won’t start until 2013 so there is no hard facts yet. The figures floating around are speculation. And naturally you are listening only to conservative rants that say it is unsustainable. The OBM has said it would lower costs. Hmmmm, let’s see, who should we have more faith in; Glenn Beck’s “Blaze” and his foam flecked hacks or the United States Office of Budget and Management statisticians and graduate accountants? Hmmm???
Obamcare isn’t supposed to kick in until 2014. However, start-up costs of about 150 billion kicked in last year and another 125 billion this year. Because of the gridlock in the Senate, nothing could be done to stop or reduce these costs, and as long as Reid and the Dems are in charge of the Senate, nothing will be done.
Hundreds of waivers have already been issued, most of which have gone to Obama’s supporters and buddies, like unions. Congress is completely exempt from Obamacare, and several have publically denounced the plan in favor of what is already in place for them.
Businesses of all sizes are worried about the effect of Obamacare on their employees and the businesses as a whole. Pharmacies are feeling the negative effects, and now Tricare is under attack.
By the way, the OBM have to work with the figures they are provided by the Obama Administration. And it’s already been proven that the numbers that were provided were way off the mark. It is unsustainable.
And Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are working with facts and statistics and really reliable information. LOL
Don’t criticize EJ’s Messiah, Rush Limbaugh. That is sacrilege.
Responsible health care coverage does clearly save money. It saves the country i.e. the tax payer money.
When the male players get to pay with their time and money, for the consequences of their play time.
It takes two to tango. And that tango often ends up with the creation of another life. I guess that since the two were only engaged in “play time” then it’s all right to discard the product of their risky endeavor. But, the unborn child has no face or voice, so it’s not “real”.
So why are you against covering contraceptives if they prevent conception. And what’s wrong with sex anyway. You act as if sex was a sin.
Why are you against personal responsibility?
Look, many insurance policies cover contraception. This is an issue of government intrusion into the rights of private organizations offering, or not offering, what they feel is right. It has nothing to do with sex or preventing conception. It has everyting to do with freedom.
On another note, if birth control pills are prescribed for other health issues, and a doctor signs off on that fact, then just about all of the policies cover this.
Personal responsibilty? What a joke. That’s not an argument. You could argue against ALL insurance coverage by citing personal responsibility. Why should I indirectly subsidize coverage for a heart attack? I haven’t had a heart attack. Why can’t those who have a heart attacks just pay out of pocket? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
It’s the personal responsibility of purchasing an insurance policy that covers what the purchaser feels he or she will need. But, instead, people neglect the need to read the policy. They just check off the box that says they agree and sign it, then, when they find it doesn’t cover a particular issue, they kick and scream that it’s not fair. Then Nancy Pelosi invites them to testify before Congress and turn everything political by feeding on the pity of the liberals in order to further erode the freedoms of private organizations through public outcrys and government intrusion.
You’re still arguing against government mandates though. So is that all a black person had to do decades ago in the south? Just research which businesses to go to? Is that what solved the problem — just lots of research?
What if the only affordable option doesn’t include the necessities? What does a person do then? Keep researching in hopes to find the non-existent?
And then, why can’t you argue that a religious organization should just research which businesses they can get into and continue to be into before kicking and screaming?
And finally, what’s with your personal attacks? It’s just like these weird buzzword/dog whistles. Oh no, Nancy Pelosi! Do you actually have a substantiated argument or is calling people socialists and whiners enough for you?
Just calling them as I see them.
Then you don’t see straight because what you constantly do is call out the behavior of others (real and imagined), but engage in that exact same behavior (and worse) yourself.
Then I hope you say the same thing about Viagra and vasectomies.
Yep. If your insurance policy doesn’t cover them, then either get a new policy or pay for them yourself. Don’t expect the government to intervene and force a private organization to provide something that goes against the providers beliefs.
And don’t forget, in the case of every insurance policy, there is a signed agreement where the purchaser agrees to the terms of the policy. It’s a long and boring read, but may be well worth a person’s time.
I’d be curious if the insurance packages offered by the Church cover vasectomies. Does anyone know?
EJ, do you really understand that your “pay for play” is saying that women ought to “pay” because they are the initiators of sex. And that men are exempt from payment because they have been victimized by women and sex. This is exactly what the most conservative of Muslims believe.
I didn’t say that at all, and you know that. I was emphasizing the fact that women have a responsibility in this issue, just as men do. So many on your side forgets this fact and lays all the blame on the man. It takes two.
Yes EJ that is what it means when people say women must pay to play. If that is not what you mean don’t use the phrase and spell out what you actually mean.
The freebies began when we covered the cost of child birth in a standard policy. The employee is indirectly paying the cost of any health insurance policy. The value of the premium paid is part of his benefit package and, but for special tax language would be counted as taxable income.
Yes, the woman’s life.
According to an AMA study a few years back, there are no instances where the life of the mother requires an abortion.
Show us this study
Good luck with that.
There wasn’t one. It’s just EJ’s usual confusion of fact and opinion.
Ohh for a return to those golden years before Roe v Wade. When the poor women could rely on some back alley abortionist to take care of their problem and the well to do women could go to their Gynacoligist and have a nice clean D&C to have their female problem taken care of. Tra la la, tra la la.
No EJ there was no AMA study. The AMA is a union; a doctors union. They do not do medical studies. You are probably referring to an opinion article called the “Rational for Banning Late Term Abortions” which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
You’d save yourself some embarrassment and the rest of us some time if you would do just a little bit of research before you spout nonsense. It took me 5 minutes to find the above information.
Regardless of the source, there have been no legitimate reasons for the health of the mother being a reason for an abortion. That’s just an excuse made up by abortion supporters to further their inhumane cause.
Regardless of the source? No, what you’re saying is, regardless of reality. You believe what you want to believe and that’s it. Quit trying to act like facts matter to you.
Thank you Dr. EJ for you medical opinion. I’m sure women dying from the complications of pregnancy and gestational diabetes or eclampsia or ectopic pregnancies or cancer or heart disease will be happy to know there is no medical reason for abortion. Additionally the parents that are faced with producing a child with a genetic malformation that is incompatible with life such as anencephly or Tay-Sachs disease or Niemann-Pick disease also thank you for your medical services.
Consider it the Talibanization of the Republican Party
Extending equality to gay people is morally wrong? A lot of folks don’t share your opinion, Mr. Henderson. On election day, you’ll see how many…and I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised.
way to generalize, bunyan1.–I think that the two letters I criticized are rather worthier examples of over-generalizations. The one letter condemns all abortions in the spirit of Rick Santorum and the other claims that birth control should be exclusively private and never be supported by governments in the spirit of the Catholic Church. Victims of rape or incest? Too bad. World overpopulation? Cultural pressures to have large families? Who cares? Neither letter writer offers any exceptions. Most impressive.
Veronica Conley, RN
MSNA
Stop the sob story about patient safety.
It’s about money.
You think the healthcare consumer has it and you want more of it.
It really IS that simple.
Charlie Cirame
Millinocket
The wedding is over.
Time to go home.
Oh……. and take Matt with you.
Isnt the cost of health insurance already high? Is it really to the point where we have to have insurance companies offering contraceptive coverage and employers contributing towards the cost of that coverage through the premiums towards a group policy?
If the answer is yes then I ask you to think about this-
Proper Dental Health is vital for many reasons. It is a medical issue, a self esteem issue. Not getting basic dental care can lead to more expensive dental procedures that may be needed. This can drive up dental coverage costs. Therefore should we force dental insurance companies to cover the cost of toothpaste, toothbrushes and dental floss? Should employers that offer group dental insurance polices have to contribute towards the cost of my toothpaste through the premiums they contribute towards the cost of the group policy?
If toothpaste required a prescription, then yes.
The law states that if an insurance policy covers prescriptions it must cover contraceptives, which are obtained by prescription also. It does not require non prescribed medications or preventative methods. Otherwise it would be in violation of non discriminatory laws and regulations based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 2000 ruling of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Thank You for sharing this with me. You are the first person to provide information showing the legal basis for these requirements.
I avoided ¨unintended pregnancies¨¨ by using birth control methods that my partners and I paid for.
So did I and now I am happy that we will be extending that ability avoid unintended pregnancies to women who in the past hadn’t the financial means to purchase contraceptives. Are you trying to say you are in favor of unintended pregnancies specifically for the poor?
Im saying that it seems to be a little bit over the top that we are expecting insurance companies to cover the costs of not getting pregnant in the first place.
They are paying the costs of getting pregnant and have for years. We reduce overall medical costs by mandating contraception coverage. It’s simple economics.
We mandate airbags in your car and don’t have to pay for your brain injury the next time you crash.
very well said but it will go nowhere…
Has he already suffered a brain injury?
Insurance companies would rather pay for contraception than pregnancies. Much,much less expensive which is, of course, what insurance companies want.
Then why do they need to be prompted by the government? I’m automatically suspicious when the government needs to mandate good business practices.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but it’s true. Just think about it. Pregnancies ar a lot more expensive, even when they are without complications. Insurance companies already do pay for contraception. For those that have insurance, that is. And except for the Catholic Church which will pay for viagra but not for contraception.
I think that most people who have health insurance can afford contraception if they want it, so I wouldn’t expect the insurance companies to save much. I wonder if women on the Catholic insurance plans have more babies than other women? When the government steps in to save me money, I want to run the other way.
Here’s the problem as it stands now Real Mainer. With insurance the co=pay for BC pills and other types of women’s contraceptive can run as high as $30/month. Without insurance these contraceptive methods are extremely expensive, which places them out of the reach of women with limited or no financial resources unless they can get to Augusta or Portland to a Planned Parenthood clinic.
When universal health insurance (Obamacare) was being designed the USPreventative Services Task Force was asked to research what medications and services gave the greatest return for the least amount of money invested. They determined that childhood immunization and women’s contraceptives were the most cost effective.( Probably botox injection were determined to be the least cost effective)
So when universal health insurance is gradually introduced starting in 2013 among the first things covered will be immunization for all children and woman’s contraceptives. Other features of the universal health insurance: extended coverage to children over 18 and prohibiting insurance companies from denying insurance for pre=existing conditions.
The idea that “the government” is some foreign entity bent on harming you and your family is unfortunate and misinformed. You and I , we are “the government”. If you dislike universal health care and want to pin blame on someone, blame me and all the millions of other people that have sent people to Congress to work toward universal health care. President Obama didn’t create universal health care. I and several million others did.
Even that is not completely true. Loyola, Baylor, and Georgetown Universities all have health insurance coverage which includes contraceptives. The Church has already watered this subject, which is why I don’t see the need to revisit this decades old argument.
Yeah, it seems more like seizing the opportunity for a political issue rather than true moral qualms.
As we’ve seen following the 2008 melt-down some business mandates are necessary.
Insurance companies already cover the cost of contraceptives to women who are fortunate enough to have health insurance. Now with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) all women will have access to contraceptives. How is this a bad thing?
I think we are getting to a point in our society that we think everyone else(taxpayers and companies) has to pay or contribute something towards the cost of everything related our daily living.
Do we really accept the idea that there are people in our country that cannot avoid becoming pregnant unless the cost of their contraceptives is partly funded by an outside source?
It would be in the best interest of dental insurance companies and medicaid programs if people had good dental health and avoided expensive treatments for root canals, extractions and cavity filling. Does that mean we should mandate that dental insurance companies cover the cost of toothpaste and dental floss?
Im not against birth control at all. I just think its silly that we have gotten to a point that we cant expect people to cover the full cost of their contraceptive use.
what a dumb thing to say
LOL, thank you for saying what I was thinking.
Why? Because you dont agree? Is your opinion so much better than mine, or mine better than yours?
What is over the top is the price the companies are charging for pills that cost them little to nothing to make. Again I will say that greed and money are one of this countries biggest problem followed closely by sloth and a sense of entitlement without work.
I agree with you on all counts.
There is NO problem in this country today that could not be vastly reduced by halving the population.
Or deporting all Republicans
..and Democrats
Thank you, Mr. Henderson, for your fine letter upholding the rights of our unborn children. It always chills me to the bone when people are so arrogant and condescending when it comes to their “reproductive rights,” which translates to having abortions whenever the contraception fails or because an ultrasound predicts a disabled or malformed baby(and these ultrasounds do have a high error rate), or because the baby is not “gender specific” for the parent(s)–yet, that would suggest that these same people are not truly grateful for the life they were given so they can enjoy the sunlight, a snowstorm, the beauty of the sky, the faces of their family members, etc.
Mr. Cota: It IS outrageous that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for contraception–or that we would have to pay for it through higher insurance premiums. Having been told before by the Superintendent of Insurance’s office that “unfortunately, you are paying for those who are not insured,” it is certainly disconcerting to pay for mine and everyone else’s when I try to stay healthy/
Thank you Mr. 4lifeandfreedom for you fine post upholding the 1950s and the rights of old men to make decisions for young women.
It chills me to the bone when men are so arrogant and condescending when it comes to women’s reproductive health and decisions which translates into being forced into having unplanned babies, babies with life threatening defects or babies that the family can not support suggesting that women are not truly grateful for the advice from senile old men and other wonders of nature like sunlight and the sky and the smiling faces of the sanctimonious. And it is outrageous that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for contraception -or that we would have to pay for undisciplined women through our insurance premiums.
Having been told before by the Superintendent of Insurance Office that “you are paying for those who are not insured ” it is certainly disconcerting to have to pay for mine and and for everyone else having sex while I am staying healthy
Were you better informed you would understand that every insurance actuary who has looked at covering contraception agrees that it will lower the price of the policy: the insurer is no longer covering the much higher cost of unintended pregnancies.
What is truly outrageous is that you wish to decrease abortion and yet denounce the best way to do that: mandate contraception coverage.
You cannot be for life if you oppose a measure that will decrease abortions.
You cannot be for freedom if you wish to grant the employers the right to control the prescription drugs their employees buy.
If a woman wishes to receive contraceptives, that is her choice. People who pay premiums to your health insurer have been subsidizing your Viagra for years.
How many unwanted children have you adopted?
It is truly “outrageous that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for a unwanted child because the mother was denied an abortion, or could not “manage” her body in such a way to prevent this zygote’s maturation.
Charlie Manson’s mother didn’t want that child from the day she got pregnant. We all sure paid for that lack of contraception didn’t we?
Mr. Henderson, comparing getting a marriage license to getting a driver’s license is laughable. There is no test to pass to obtain a marriage license. There is, however, a test to pass to obtain a driver’s license.
If marriage were truly a privilege, then there would be the chance that Mr. Jones and Miss Smith, who are not related and are consenting adults with no mental problems that would interfere with their ability to make an informed consent, could be denied a license to marry.
John Henderson, your comparison of a civil marriage license to a driver’s license actually reinforces our argument for same-sex marriage!
With drivers licenses, the government does not discriminate against any group of American citizens except where there are valid reasons for restriction (such as age and driving ability).
And yes, there are restrictions on marriage that have good reason (such as age of consent laws).
But whenever the courts have examined the issue of civil marriage for same sex couples, they find no valid reason for the government to restrict marriage from this group of citizens.
And this is why the benefits—the “privilege” as you call it— of civil marriage should absolutely be offered to same sex couples in Maine. I look forward to joining hundreds of thousands of Mainers in voting for this in November!
Once upon a time, you were correct. Once all you needed do to get a driver’s license was to know how to drive, and be the correct age. (oh yeah, and have the money to pay for the license.
Now you must have a social security number, and provable street address, The government discriminates against homeless folks, and those who (for whatever reason) don’t need a social security card.
Fair enough; either way you slice it, Mr. Henderson is using faulty logic to defend his opposition to same-sex marriage.
We agree
Well Mr. Henderson the SCOTUS disagrees with you that marriage is a privilege. They have ruled that marriage is a civil right.
Ms. Fluke recently lied when testifying before the “mock congressional” hearing when she said she was 23–she is actually a 30 year old women’s activist and former president of women’s reproductive rights, so she could be a plant as suggested by Rush Limbaugh who spoke the truth.
Sounds like paranoia. Oh no, she “could be”!
Rush has exposed himself as a classless dolt. No one should speak to / or about / any woman in this manner.
Ms Fluke never said she was 23 and she is not a “plant” from anywhere. These lies comes straight from sites like Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze”.
Exactly what women’s reproductive rights organization was she president of? I’m betting you don’t know and don’t know how to find out. Anyone that relies on Rush Limbaugh for the truth has limited intellectual resources.
Ms 4lifeandfreedom: It took only one entry in google to find out the name of the organization Ms Fluke is past president of. Would you like to know the name of the organization or are you just interested in repeating the lies pumped out by the right wing media.
Have you ever been to the dentist and NOT gotten a free toothbrush and floss?
All this harping about contraception is just so much drama. Tired of all these conservatives going on and on about patriotism and serving the country, and not being able to give up 4 cents in their yearly taxes for something that’s an overall good.
How long have we been paying for dumb military conflicts, and a military budget that’s way beyond what ANY other country spends?
Veronica Conley, RN
The night shift is a hard piece of work, and I would suggest Mr. Jones might wish to work it (down in med-surg) for a couple of weeks before he makes those pay cuts. The unfortunate truth is that most people criticizing your letter never worked nights… some may never have worked at all.
Gail White
… and people might want to take a trip to Pitcher Oklahoma, a little once working-class town in the northeast part of Senator James Inhofe’s State. When I was a boy this town had 10,000 people. now it is a ghost town, soon to be bulldozed (if it hasn’t already) Studies found lead poisoning in 34% of the children in Picher. Many of the adults had cancer. This was the result of the lack of regulation and public testing in Oklahoma. It will cost the US taxpayer almost 7 Billion dollars to clean this mess, including the purchase of every house and piece of land in Pitcher. As an aside, I knew these people. they were good hard-working folk who NEVER complained. They did not deserve their fate.
John Henderson
Please tell me WHERE you got the ridiculous idea that marriage is a privilege? There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution which allows the States or Federal Government to grant “privilege”. They can expand or remove rights. (the founders made this very hard to accomplish) When this Country was founded marriage was a province of churches. Neither the State or Federal Government was involved in this religious activity. In my opinion we should return to that separation. I know that the Society of Friends, the Uniterians, and the Methodists stand ready to preform same sex marriages. My only question is where do you get off telling other religions what they should do?
Charlie Cirame
I care
Ron Cota
In my day “conservatives” sought to save money. Giving young women the tools to avoid a unwanted pregnancy saves the whole society money. There is almost NOTHING as expensive as a unwanted child.
Thoreau revered nature. He climbed Mt. Katahdin and wrote “The Maine Woods”. He was also notoriously frugal. Thoreau would be shocked by the idea of blasting away mountains, leveling and de-nuding them to create sprawling industrial winds sites. He would be angry about encircling Baxter Park with wind turbines and would likely advocate “Civil Disobedience”, another of his great writings. He would scorn the idea of the government wasting taxpayer money on wind turbines that are useless and whose development is environmentally devastating.
More people need to heed the philosophy of this great writer and step forward to stop the proliferation of industrial wind sites. If we don’t, some writer in the next few years will write differently than Thoreau’s famous and inspiring description of Mt. Katahdin. Something like this will be written: “As we broke through the clouds surrounding this magnificent peak, we saw a forest of wind turbines on every ridge from the Penobscot River to the far horizon.”
as far as the eye can see. 2700 mw of WIND means thousands of turbines. as far as the eye can see.
To not allow all people to marry another consenting adult will tarnish our Constitution. For religion or government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry is against all we fought and died for. The fears people have about homosexuals have been proven wrong over nad over by countries who live in peace and without fear and who have SSM. Historically some of the longest lasting civilizations embraces homosexuality. For someone to say it was their ruin is a misconception and a bold faced lie reinforced by FRC who is led by an ex KKK member. On the other hand, Christians have a right to their religion. If they are being nasty they are not being Christians and it is not necessary to address them. The BIshop has taken a stance of civility, even though we are all aware it is a political move, so he doesnt look so bad.This will work for him if we act like he was acting. We will be fighting ourselves if we try to make them think we are attacking. Please be civil and, like my grandmother taught me, ignore nasty people.
As far as I’m concern the Bishop is trying to stay out of this political fray of SSM. He will however delineate the two components of marriage intended by nature. One is a loving complementary bond between a man and a woman, and the other, the extension of the human race through procreation and nurturing. Both of these components are necessary for the survival and well-being of the human race. Any other bond among men and women is clearly not the design of nature, and lacks the other component of procreation and nurturing. Any attempt to put SS relationships on an equal footing with the marriage of a man and a woman is foolhardy. The former is unnecessary and unnatural while the latter serves a universal good.
Thank you for your input.
test
Really, Charlie??!! Just so you know, the Town Manager DOES represent the town. As for your comment about him being an embarassment, wrong again. I don’t believe you have anything to say about it if the town manager travels – on his own time, at no cost to the town- to speak in the town’s best interests. All I can say is “Thank you, Gene!”
How quickly you forget that you ran for a town council position specifically based on a pro national park platform and came in dead last in the race. You may choose to ignore or forget this, but in the real world, it speaks loud and clear that the majority of the population here supports what our town manager is doing and DOES NOT WANT a national park which we also all know is Roxanne Quimby’s intended “seed for RESTORE”. Finally, all I can say to you and your Quimby friends is…take a hike.
No, unless a “town manager” is elected (something not usually done in the north) then he represents only the board which appointed him.
A town manager is hired/employed to manage, therefore, represent the town’s interests.
The town council (board which appoints/hires) is in full agreement with the town managers’s position on this issue as are the majority of residents.
I understand that there is a minority which does not agree, and recognize their rights to do so. But decisions go with the majority of voters. In Millinocket, East Millinocket, and Patten the majority have spoken against a national park. Voters in Medway have petitioned to have their opportunity to do the same.
In case you didn’t realize it in a democracy the law is determined by the majority but it is instituted to represent the rights of the minority. This is not a bully state.
Millinocket needs to rethink its type of government. The town has a population of about 4300 people. The town can’t continue to support the pay and benefits of our town manager. Maybe it’s time to go back to a selectman form of government, one person one vote.
That would change nothing. The majority of voters choose NOT to vote for anyone who was supporting the park. The selectmen form of government did not work well on this issue for Medway. The entire town was hijacked by a couple of people with an agenda. Thankfully, the residents of Medway have expressed their displeasure with this and petitioned for a fair vote by the residents. Respectfully, enroncrooks, this fight against a national park has absolutely nothing to do with wind power. It is about a fight against a national park which would become the seed for RESTORE’s 3.2 million acres.I hate to disillusion you, whatsright, but there are many people in Greenville who oppose this national park also.
And you are right about one thing, this is not a bully state. Perhaps you and your pro park friends should keep that in mind as you and Quimby try to blackmail and bully this national park onto the entire state. We watched as the Medway selectmen tried to bully their residents into supporting this park and cheered for them when they refused to be bullied by a few misinformed selectmen. We will not back down and we will not be bullied into losing what we treasure.
I love it when proponents of the Park quote Thoreau. Thought you might all get a kick out of Thoreaus description from his book ‘The Maine Woods
‘The mountain may be approached more easily and directly on horseback and on foot from the northeast side, by the Aroostook road, and the Wassataquoik River; but in that case you see much less of the wilderness, none of the glorious river and lake scenery, and have no experience of the batteau and the boatman’s life. I was fortunate also in the season of the year, for in the summer myriads of black flies, mosquitoes, and midges, or, as the Indians call them, “no‐see‐ums,” make travelling in the woods almost impossible; This was how Thoruea described the area that is proposed to become the seed of NWNP&P. Four years later in a trip down the East Branch they blew right by this area most likely for the same reason.
This is the way most people went to Katahdin back then and it sounds like he braved the bugs to do it. But, if you ever wonder why Greenville does better with tourism, go down by the water where the boat Katahdin is docked and you will find beautiful signposts greeting visitors that describe the Thoreau Trail actoss the North Woods. They know how to respect their visitors and pay homage to one of the intellectual greats of our country. Bad mouthing Thoreau only shows the lack of intelligence and self-respect of the town manager. I don’t think it mattered if he paid for the trip, he represents our whole town and, like it or not, not everyone agrees with his point of view, even on the council, who, incidentally, are his bosses.
No he specifically did not go until the end of summer so as to avoid the bugs. READ his book.
That is Ok with me. That is when the trout are biting
I would love to see someone try to get a horse around Quimby’s gate ! It would get all cut up from the barb wire that runs from the gate to the woods.
Great post, MaineKat!
Mr. Cirame:First of all, Gandhi and MLK promoted tolerance and compassion for MANKIND. MLK, particularly, was the voice of oppressed and downtrodden PEOPLE. The National Park agenda has no tolerance or compassion for the PEOPLE of the Maine Woods. The deceitful “sales pitch” of an “economic engine” (National Park) to an area who is now just realizing hope of regaining economic prosperity, is a JOKE. To ban the part of the tourist industry that has already made this area the snowmobile mecca of the Northeast, is just one example of the delusional deceit of proponents. By touting economic bliss, by numbers plucked out of the sky, the people of Maine are being gravely mislead. By banning motorized recreation, hunting and allowing limited access to timberlands, even the PRESENT economic situation will be wiped out. The absence of these activities, even in a hundred years, cannot be replaced by a 3.2 million acre National Park with limited use, targeted to only a select few. The JOKE is on the proponents, thinking that we are not FULLY AWARE of these things.Secondly, it sounds like you, Mr. Cirame, couldn’t even tie Gene Conologue’s shoes!
I thought Caribou was the snowsled destination. If property rights work both ways, Roxie should do whatever she wants, and if some do not like her, they should buy her property. What do you want for your area, waste dumps for out of state trash ? How about using common sense , there are not set in stone rules and there could be access thru or around any park/reserve/oxygen plantation etc. so everyone could get along. With gas prices set to go up again thanks to Wall Street, maybe more should consider non motorized recreation? For the record, I like sledding and think the electric snowsled is not in the near future. Town managers with an appreciation of the outdoors are few and far between. They only care about the dollars.
We need a compromise before Baxter Park and all of rural Maine is plastered with wind turbines. If you do not like a Nat. Park, or outdoor activities which are not motorized, fine. There should be room for everyone, but who wants to recreate in turbine sprawl and trans. lines? Lets not bicker on trivial points while a well funded pro subsidy industrial conglomerate has all of Maine in its sights.
Baxter plastered with Wind Towers? where did you come up with that one?
Not liking non motorized recreation? Show where any snowmobiliers are against non motorized recreation. I am a cross country skier. There is nothing that keeps us as a group from building XC ski trails. But you know what? I can never get anyone interested in helping cut , clear and maintian trails in my area. Everyone wants someone else to do it for them. So I volunteer with the local snowmobile club becasue they do take the time, the effort and responsibility without expecting someone else to do it fo them.
There are plenty of oppurtunites for skiing on RQ land now without the noise of snowmobiles. Why dont you call Matagamon Wilderness and find out how many skiers have rented their cabins this winter. Ask them how many XC ski tracks are on the gated road bed.
Its gated to keep out the undesriables so it must be a mecca right?
Must be in the thousands huh?
Did you go up and use the trails that are free of snowmobiles?
John Henderson,
Educate yourself before writing to the local paper (see: Loving v. Virginia).
No need to feel sorry for anyone. Focus on you. Help yourself grow as a person.
Very well put. Thank you for your civility.
I would like to respond to one statement in John Henderson’s letter that is totally off topic. You state that a drivers license is a privilege, and not a right. Mr. Henderson, you are wrong about that. A driver’s license is a right, just as free speech is a right. Just because the state can take away or deny a person a drivers license, makes it no less of a right. Freedom is a right, but that can be taken away if you mess up in society. Of course there is nothing mentioned in the constitution about a drivers license being a right, because at the time the constitution was written, there was no such thing. There are several reasons why the state could refuse to issue a license, such as medical, unable to pass a road test, habitual offender status, etc.,etc. It makes it no less of a right. Can you imagine what would happen if DMV told someone, we will not grant you a license because of you skin color, or your political beliefs. A qualified person can not be denied a drivers license. This makes it a right!
Depends on how you use the word “qualified” That person must have a valid and provable street address, the money to pay for the license, and a social security number.
None of these things can be “required” when accessing “rights.” Citizens can use the address of a homeless shelter, or designate “under the Joshua Chamberlain Bridge” as a location to access social services (Welfare in constitutional terms) They can vote if they can prove they live anywhere (they don’t need a house or apartment) in the voting district. Some vagrants in New York City put “The cardboard box in front of 990 Park Ave.” and get their ballot.
I’d like to suggest a compromise. Scrap wind power and its subsidies and invest in cleaning up the emissions from the coal fired power plants west of us. The techonolgy is there, its just too expensive for the owners of these plants to invest in. The people in those central and western states need and deserve reasonalably priced electric power as much as we deserve clean air, water and a healthy enviornment. Wind power is a risky and unreliable fiasco that is only benifiting a few select scamming investors.
I oove it when proponents of the Park quote Thoreau. Thought you might all get a kick out of Thoreaus description from his book ‘The Maine Woods’The mountain may be approached more easily and directly on horseback and on foot from the northeast side, by the Aroostook road, and the Wassataquoik River; but in that case you see much less of the wilderness, none of the glorious river and lake scenery, and have no experience of the batteau and the boatman’s life. I was fortunate also in the season of the year, for in the summer myriads of black flies, mosquitoes, and midges, or, as the Indians call them, “no‐see‐ums,” make travelling in the woods almost impossible;
This was how Thoruea described the area that is proposed to become the seed of NWNP&P. Four years later in a trip down the east Branch they blew right by this area most likely for the same reason.
John Henderson – You need to leave the 18th century behind.