Turns out that in 2011, it spent just 15 percent of its donations on research — nearly half of what it did just a few years prior. And, significantly, its founder, Nancy Brinker, the woman whose vow to the sister she lost to cancer has served as the organization’s poignant, relatable narrative, stepped down as its CEO. In August, Brinker announced she was taking on a new role, as chairwoman of the executive committee. (She is, however, still listed as its CEO and founder on the Komen site. Komen says it’s still looking for her replacement.) In short, the whole series of fiascoes was so appalling that Deanna Zandt, author of “Share This! How You Will Change the World With Social Networking,” called the Komen fiasco a teachable “example of what not to do.”
Max Baucus Retiring: Montana Democrat Won't Seek Another Term In U.S. Senate
Goodbye Senator K St. Baucus was the true author of Obamacare
On February 1, the Obama administration announced they will hold the line on making no-cost birth control available to women under the Affordable Care Act, despite a small but vocal opposition. The president is making good on his promise to the 99 percent of sexually active American women who have used birth control at some point in their life.
Now, the fight starts anew. The administration has 60 days to collect public comments on the rule. We know what our opponents are capable of, and we cannot let them continue to stand between a woman and her body, her decisions, and her future. This is about whether our bosses decide if we get access to birth control, or if we do.
This is it. Fill out this form to add your name in support of the administration’s decision about birth control. Sign it now. Sign it for yourself, your daughters, and granddaughters. Sign it because independence, equality, and the right to make our own health care decisions are worth fighting for.
This is not a commitment shared with Democrats in Congress because Democrats have been apostate for years.
Cut the plane that ate the budget!
The F-35 program is the most expensive and least effective weapons system in history. The total lifetime cost of the F-35 program is $1.5 trillion—making it equal to the entire 10 years of cuts mandated by the sequester.
The F-35 program has been grounded twice and has a history of being overdue and over-budget. Why should we continue to throw money at outdated and ineffective weapons systems like the F-35 while cutting vital social programs instead?
Email your members of Congress today—remind them that there are some easy ways to eliminate waste without cutting programs that create real security.
C. Everett Koop, who raised the profile of the surgeon general by riveting America’s attention on the then-emerging disease known as AIDS and by railing against smoking, has died in New Hampshire at age 96.
Running out of money before the end of the year is something we’re trying to avoid
Special insurance program for the sick suspends enrollment | Yahoo! Health
Why are they doing it?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice on Friday saying it would suspend new enrollments beginning on Saturday to “help ensure that funds are available through 2013 to continuously cover people currently enrolled in PCIP.”
“The program has a limited amount of funding from Congress,” the notice added.
…Congress….
@diegueno Not sure I understand your meaning. TotT has always been a consistent voice on ending prohibition against cannabis
— ɹoʇɐuǝʌou (@novenator) December 26, 2012
What I mean is that I notice that mostly, if not exclusively, white people talk about either normalization, decriminalization or regulation (of which taxation is subordinate) of cannabis to be smoked or to be raised as a crop to make clothes, building materials, paper and other things which aren’t meant to be burnt and inhaled. The message is about getting your toke on because it’s not as bad as, say, getting loaded on bath salts then getting so dissociated from your senses that you run at cops shooting bullets in to your body, you start dismembering your body and you start dismembering other people’s bodies. The message is also about stopping deforestation. These are sensible, good arguments.
What I see missing from your argument is the analysis of prohibition in general. I see prohibition of cannabis as a subordinate of a process which feeds the penal-industrial complex. The difference in sentencing persons breaking laws prohibiting crack cocaine was more severe than those who broke laws prohibiting powder cocaine is one example. The bottom line is that the people who traded and ingested the substance with the hydrochloride molecule tended to have more income and education than the people who traded in the substance that didn’t have hydrochloride. Also, crack cocaine users and distributors tended to have more pigment (read: they were people of color) than the powder cocaine users and distributors. Do I need to find sites to support my assertion that a disproportion of persons of color convicted of crimes involving controlled mind altering substances are convicted to spend time in jail than people who do not? Need I find something similar about how poor people end up behind bars for such offenses much longer than people who can pay for a competent and committed defense lawyer? Then there is there is the way that inmates are turned in to profit centers. Take a collect call from anyone not behind bars from anywhere inside the USA for 3 minutes. Next take call from someone behind bars in the USA for 3 minutes. Compare the charge for the calls on your phone bill when you get it. My point is that jail and/or prison is, among other things, a money making scheme for a handful of cynical businesses. It’s not a message that I hear from people who are against the criminalization of cannabis in any manner.
It’s a bigger load to take on, but it’s the right and just thing to do. To pare off cannabis from other controlled substances in the discussion about prohibition diverts attention from the real direction that we should all move to treat substance abuse, regardless of the substance: to treat it as a public health issue.
Don't Throw Women's Reproductive Health Over the Fiscal Cliff
As we teeter on the edge of the fiscal cliff during budget negotiations in Congress, critical funding cuts to women’s health could be on the chopping block as part of any agreement.
It’s up to us to make sure women’s reproductive health services and coverage are protected in this debate – not sacrificed as a bargaining chip.
What’s at stake? For starters:
- Funding for Medicaid, which would gravely affect millions of women— nearly 1 in 8 women currently gets her health care coverage through this public insurance.
- Funding to health centers through Title X, which serves about five million patients a year, who might otherwise be unable to afford birth control.
- Funding in the Affordable Care Act that helps women buy insurance which includes birth control without a co-pay.
Will you sign our petition?
Finish the 2012 term by standing up for women by finding a solution that invests in women’s reproductive health and ensures all women have access to the personal health care they need.
We all need more mental healthcare
