Jerk Tweets Sexist Remark, Prompts Me to Muse About the Meaning of "Freedom"

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" - Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

It took a long time before this saying made any sense to me. Surely everyone knows that women are people, right? What else would they be? Space aliens? Robots? Very convincing holograms?

That was a joke --- I knew, even when I first heard the saying, that it was referring not to the tautology that female Homo sapiens are Homo sapiens, but to the philosophical concept of personhood. At the time, though, I couldn't imagine that anyone did not extend personhood fully to women, so the saying still struck me as bizarre.

Well, here is a wonderfully clear example of someone doing just that:

Tweet from Pax Dickinson saying "Women's suffrage and individual freedom are incompatible. How's that for an unpopular truth?" Image taken from the Public Shaming tumblr

This guy was, until recently, the Chief Technology Officer at Business Insider, a popular news website with an emphasis on business and technology (particularly information technology) news.

But I don't care so much about who the speaker is so much as I do about what he is saying: Women's suffrage and individual freedom are incompatible. What? People are freer when fewer of them can vote? How does that make any sense?

I would submit that it only makes sense when you assume that the "individuals" he's talking about are men. Women's freedom is compatible with women's suffrage --- see recent elections in which women's votes made the difference between a Republican rape philosopher and a more liberal (if not always pro-choice) Democrat.

Women's votes made the difference in 2012 in the Indiana U.S. Senate race between Richard Mourdock (the "pregnancy from rape is God's will" guy) and Joe Donnelly*, in the Connecticut Senate race between Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy**, in the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren***, in the Ohio Senate race between Josh Mandel and Sherrod Brown****, in the Pennsylvania Senate race between Tom Smith and Bob Casey*****, and in the Virginia Senate race between George Allen and Tim Kaine. 

Women's votes failed to make the difference in the Wisconsin Senate race between Tommy Thompson and Tammy Baldwin, and in the governor's races in Montana and Washington --- if only women had voted, the Democratic candidates would've won those races, but the Republicans' advantage among men was strong enough to carry them to victory anyway.

(It should be pointed out that, for the most part, abortion and other "women's issues" do not drive the gender gap in voting behavior --- there are much bigger differences between the sexes on whether to strengthen or cut back the welfare state and whether to pursue a hawkish or dovish foreign policy, according to Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics. The hard-right candidates that women voters rejected in 2012 espoused both extreme anti-abortion, anti-contraception positions and a desire to greatly diminish the welfare state, so it's hard to tell whether their anti-choice zealotry was the deciding factor in alienating women voters. But the fact remains that, if only men had voted, a lot more of those anti-choice zealots would be sitting in Congress today.)


So, besides being more likely to vote against candidates looking to curtail their reproductive freedoms, women also vote for candidates they think will strengthen the social safety net. What does that have to do with personal freedom?

Well, I think having a robust social safety net is critical for maximizing individual freedom: there are a lot more choices available to you if you don't have to worry about losing your home and being unable to feed yourself and your family if you lose your job. You're more free to blow the whistle if you think your employer is doing something unethical, to fight against what you see as unfair or exploitative working conditions, and to engage in political activism or commentary outside of work without being afraid that these things will cost you your job. You are also more free to leave a job for whatever reason. There's a reason FDR named "freedom from want" as one of his Four Freedoms, and why he used that word --- freedom --- instead of, say, "rights" or "entitlements" or "needs."

There's also a subset of welfare-undermining measures that serve only to criminalize poverty, to subject people needing government assistance to intrusive, degrading treatment and erode their freedom. Things that fall into this category are mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, requiring welfare recipients to document that they spent a certain number of hours each week either working or engaging in approved job-seeking or job-preparatory activity, tying the amount of money a family receives to how well their children are doing in school, or requiring people applying for welfare to be fingerprinted.

People who favor such mean-spirited measures usually think there are legions of idlers living on welfare just because they don't want to work, and spending their benefits on luxury items. 

(They are mistaken --- almost every form of public assistance that exists in the US is time-limited or situation-specific, like unemployment insurance (which expires after a certain number of weeks that varies by state), the program people are usually thinking of when they say "welfare" (which is officially called TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which has, among many other limitation, a five-year lifetime cap on benefits), or WIC (which you can only get if you are pregnant, nursing, or have children younger than five years old). The one program that doesn't come with a predetermined expiration date is food stamps, which you can only get if you make 130% of the federal poverty rate or less, and which you can only use to buy food).

But whether or not the idlers exist, it's important to focus on the fact that these people --- the people who favor draconian measures to curb welfare fraud --- are more concerned with ferreting them out than with getting aid to those who need it, and subjecting those people to minimal state intrusion and hassle. That does not sound like a person who is concerned with human freedom; to me, that sounds a lot more like a person who cares little for people and a whole lot for pinching pennies.

There are some personal-freedom issues on which women tend to favor more restrictive policies than men do: according to this poll, women are less likely than men to support legalizing marijuana, to give just one example. But the conclusion one draws from that, taking into account everything I've said above, isn't that men are pro-freedom and women are anti-freedom; it's that most people favor at least some restrictions on individual freedoms, and that there are some differences between the sexes in terms of what should be allowed and what should be forbidden. The only way you arrive at "Women's suffrage is incompatible with individual freedom" is by defining "individual freedom" so selectively as to leave out any personal-freedom issue on which women are more liberal than men.

*Donnelly is pro-life, but unlike Mourdock he would allow an exception to a general ban on abortion for victims of forcible rape. He also voted for the Affordable Care Act and for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

**McMahon supported the Blunt amendment, which would've allowed employers to opt out of providing insurance coverage for contraception. She also wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is slightly more popular among women than among men (i.e., for women it's almost a 50/50 split, while men are opposed by a slim majority). 

***The biggest issue at stake in this race was obviously regulation and reform of the financial sector, which is not a "women's issue" but is, according to Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics, a greater priority with women voters than with men, though this poll shows huge majorities of both sexes favoring reform.

****Mandel seems to have campaigned on his opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and the fact that his opponent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, voted for it. Mandel also opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and including sexual orientation and gender identity in anti-discrimination laws. 

*****Casey is pro-life, but unlike Smith he would allow an exception to a general ban on abortion for victims of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. He voted for the Blunt amendment, but has also voted to protect Planned Parenthood's federal funding under Title X, and to rescind the Mexico City Policy (aka the "global gag rule" forbidding aid organizations from even referring people for abortion services). He also supported the Paycheck Fairness Act and introduced a bill to require colleges to do more to prevent (and track, and prosecute) sexual assault and domestic violence. Smith, as I mentioned, favors a total ban on abortion with no exceptions, and is one of the lesser-known Republican rape philosophers.

Senator Envy

I am often envious of people living in other states, or even other parts of my state, for their awesome state senators and representatives.

As I live in the Kansas City Metro Area, I read a lot about Missouri Sen. Jolie Justus, who represents a district including parts of Kansas City, MO. She's an out lesbian, and the first openly gay member of the Missouri Senate. She also generally seems to look out for her poorest constituents; whenever I see her quoted in the Kansas City Star she seems to be talking about how such-and-such measure would affect the poor, the disabled, the homeless etc. She seems to want to make Missouri a kinder, gentler, more inclusive place.

I have also had reason to wish that I lived in a different part of Kansas, so that Kansas Sen. Marci Francisco would be my senator instead of Sen. Greg Smith. I wrote to both of them (and the rest of the members of the Natural Resources subcommittee of the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee) concerning an effort to reintroduce black-footed ferrets on private property in western Kansas, and a resolution their committee was considering that would oppose this effort. Sen. Francisco wrote back to me, and gave the impression that she was well-informed on the issue, and that she shared my concern that the resolution being discussed was written in a hugely misleading way. She also told me about several efforts she had made to change the language of the resolution by amending it, and that she would keep trying to edit out the parts that she thought were wrong. (Sort of hedging one's bets, is how I took it: the ideal outcome would've been for the resolution to fail, but if it looked like it might pass, it would be less hostile to the reintroduction effort than it would've been without her intervention. I can appreciate that.)

Now I have another state senator to covet and admire from afar: Texas Sen. Wendy Davis. She's filibustering a particularly draconian set of restrictions on abortion that would close the vast majority of Texas's abortion clinics. Should the bill become law, only five clinics (out of 47) could stay open, and those five are all clustered in the eastern part of Texas.

Map:

Map showing all clinics in Texas that offer abortion (top), and all of those clinics that meet the requirements laid out in SB5. Graphic made by Whole Woman's Health

Anyway, Sen. Davis is taking heroic measures to block this bill! She's been standing on the Senate floor and speaking since 11:18 this morning, and she's going to keep speaking until midnight tonight. She has had to stay in that spot for the whole ten hours she's been speaking, and will have to stay there for the two hours and forty-five minutes she still has to go. She can't stop talking, leave (even to use the bathroom), eat or drink. Republican senators have even called foul on her for wearing a back brace at one point in her filibuster. At least she's wearing good shoes!

I am in awe of how hardcore she is. I'm a lot younger than she is, and in good physical shape, but I don't think I could do what she's doing, even on a pure physical level. (Seriously. I can work outside for six, seven or eight hours in the hot sun, like when I dug an 80-foot-long, maybe 18" deep on average trench in my mom's backyard to put in a brick wall border for a giant flowerbed we're still filling up. Did that all by myself, during peak sun hours in a Kansas summer. It was probably high 80s or low 90s*. Yet I am probably 85%-90% certain I would collapse before the end of the twelve-hour, forty-two-minute filibuster she's powering through.) Obviously I wouldn't have the quick wits to come up with original, relevant content to fill a twelve-hour filibuster; apparently in real life you can't just grab the nearest book and start reading aloud.

*For any international readers I might have, those numbers are on the Fahrenheit scale. In degrees Celsius, it was probably 30-35. Hot by my standards, anyway. Some of you might scoff at that, but I am a transplant from further north, and I miss winter. 

Is Fear of Vaccines a Liberal Thing?

That's what I had always thought --- that the right wing can have their creationists, their global warming deniers, their opposition to stem-cell research, and whatever else, but we on the left have to claim the lion's share of the anti-vaccination crowd.

Photo taken by Flickr user captaincinema

I believed this mostly for two reasons: first, most of the anti-vaccination rhetoric I had heard focused on scary chemicals that may or may not be present in vaccines, and scary-chemical rhetoric is also a staple of diverse left-leaning causes ranging from the legitimate (i.e., environmentalism) to the kooky (alternative medicine, the cult of the "natural"). The second reason is that, to the extent that the anti-vaccine celebrities I'd heard of can be said to have politics, their politics tend to be Democratic. The one obvious example is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a Democrat and prominent environmentalist, and the two other anti-vaccine celebrities I can think of, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, aren't involved very much in U.S. politics, but the profiles of them I linked to suggest that they're Democratic-leaning.  

Anti-vaccine booth at the 2008 Netroots Nation convention in Austin, TX. Photo credit: Lindsay Beyerstein

The famous science writer Chris Mooney was also under the impression that anti-vaccine-ism is a crank ideology peculiar to the left, though I'm not sure he is anymore.

The mass freakout on the right over Gardasil made me reevaluate that impression, though.

It's true, Gardasil is a special case because it's a vaccine for adolescents --- and, initially, adolescent girls, although it's now recommended for all young people --- meant to protect against the cancer-causing strains of human papillomavirus, which spreads through genital contact. That puts it squarely in the middle of the Religious Right's Freakout Zone, which encompasses anything involving young women and sex.

I would've been perfectly content to accept just that explanation for the anti-Gardasil backlash, but then Michele Bachmann came out with her howler about Gardasil causing developmental disabilities. That sounded so much like what I had been hearing from Jenny McCarthy et al. that I started wondering whether anti-vaccine crankery was actually bipartisan.

There have been a lot of polls about people's attitudes toward vaccination, but I can't find very many that also include respondents' political affiliation. 

Chris Mooney wrote about two polls suggesting that anti-vaccine sentiments are spread evenly across the political spectrum: a USA Today/Gallup poll from 2009 that asked people to identify themselves as liberal, conservative or moderate and then asked them whether they had heard of Jenny McCarthy and whether they agreed with her or not; and a Pew poll, also from 2009, that asked, among lots of other things, whether children should be required to be vaccinated or whether that choice should be left to their parents.

With above photo, anti-vaccine protest signs at a Tea Party Express rally held on April 8, 2010 in St. Paul, MN. Photo credit: Fibonacci Blue

Larger version of printout attached to sign in lower half of the above pair of photos

Mike the Mad Biologist wrote about another Pew poll from 2009, this one asking people whether they would get the swine flu vaccine if it were available to them. It found Republicans and Independents more likely than not to refuse it (54% to 41%), while Democrats were almost 2:1 in favor of getting the vaccine. Republicans were also the most likely (54%), and Democrats the least (35%), to say that the news media were overstating the danger of swine flu.

Another poll, this one conducted just a couple months ago by You Gov, found that greater percentages of Republicans than Democrats said they were "not so confident" or "not confident at all" that the current vaccine schedule recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services is safe. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say they were "very confident" or "somewhat confident," although strong majorities of both parties fall into those two groups.

That poll also asked people which conditions they think vaccines can cause, and Republicans were slightly more likely than Democrats to say vaccines cause autism.

I don't know what the New World Order is, but this graphic is a great example of attributing nefarious motivation to vaccine makers

It's also worth pointing out that there are different fears that underlie different people's opposition to vaccines. Some people might be afraid of Big Pharma profiting off their sickness; others might be afraid of the government telling them what to do with their bodies, or with their children's bodies, and other people might be afraid of the Scary Chemicals in vaccines. 

You can see appeals to all of these different fears in anti-vaccine rhetoric: most obvious (to me, at least) is the Scary Chemicals rhetoric that emphasizes what kinds of scary-sounding things are in vaccines (or, in the case of thimerosal, used to be in vaccines), but there's also the tactic of discrediting anything a medical professional says about vaccines by saying they're being paid off by the pharmaceutical companies. 

One type of anti-vaccine rhetoric I hadn't noticed before I started writing this post is the kind that objects to mandatory vaccines. Even when there's a very good reason for it, like requiring health-care workers to be fully vaccinated because they're in contact with lots and lots of 1) sick people and 2) people whose immunity is compromised.

People protesting a proposal to make swine flu vaccination mandatory for health care workers in New York state in 2009. Both photos taken by Louise McCoy for The Epoch Times

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how a libertarian-minded person, probably a lot like the people in the two Tea Party pictures above, might see mandatory vaccination as yet another unwarranted government intrusion into their affairs.  

This old article in the Seattle Weekly about the antivaccination movement in Washington state makes note of the movement's bipartisan appeal:

A closer look at [Washington state Department of Health] data reveals the potent mix of demographics that makes vaccine resistance such a sturdy presence in the state. Some of the highest [vaccine] exemption rates are in eastern Washington, where any kind of government mandate --- whether immunization or taxation --- is viewed with hostility. 

At the opposite end of the political spectrum are the liberal enclaves of western Washington, which are also resistant to vaccines. At Vashon Island's public elementary school, 25 percent of students have skipped at least one vaccine. At the Seattle Waldorf School, ... the number is a whopping 47 percent. 

These schools are part of well-educated and affluent communities that one might think would be most likely to follow the recommendations of scientists and doctors. But in fact, as journalist Seth Mnookin points out in his new book The Panic Virus, they perfectly reflect the base of today's anti-vaccine movement. Its constituents are part of what you might call the suburban counterculture --- parenthood and affluence mixed with creative aspirations, a crunchy-chewy lifestyle, and an inclination to question authority.

Finally, let's look at laws making it easier for people to opt out of vaccination.

Here is a list of states whose laws allow parents to refuse to vaccinate their children for "philosophical" reasons:

• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin

As you can see, it's a pretty mixed bag of "red states" and "blue states."

Autism Congressional Hearing Transcript: Opening Statement (2)

Right after Rep. Darrell Issa gave his opening statement, the Oversight Committee's ranking member, Rep. Elijah Cummings, gave a second opening statement.

Here's the video:

Transcript
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, and I do thank you for holding today’s hearing. Before I get started I want to take special note, as you have already done, to our friend who is leaving, Mr. Burton. Over my seventeen years on this Committee, this has been an issue that he has constantly put forth and constantly made sure that we tried to address as best we could. Mr. Burton, I want to thank you for your vigilance and I want you to know that although you may be leaving the Congress, as the Chairman just said, we will continue the fight. And I know you will too.

Mr. Chairman, we have learned much about autism spectrum disorders over the past decade. Taxpayer-sponsored research has identified risk factors and evaluated therapies to assist with some symptoms. Physicians and parents now have a better understanding of the developmental signs and the symptoms, allowing for earlier detection, and educators have experience with new methods and approaches for assisting children with autism. 

Congress has also acted to help individuals with autism and their families in significant ways. In 2010 we passed the Affordable Care Act, which contained significant new protections. Insurers may no longer discriminate against people based on pre-existing conditions. Insurers may no longer impose lifetime caps on health care coverage. New plans must include screening for autism without additional costs to the parents. And young people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders may remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until they are 26 years old. These are real and significant protections that will improve the lives of millions of American families. 

Even with this progress, there is still more to learn and there is still more to do. While autism affects all racial, socioeconomic and ethnic groups, some studies have shown that African-American, Hispanic and Asian children are less likely to receive an early diagnosis. These delayed diagnoses cause minority children to be further behind in development of language and motor skills. We must be vigilant in emphasizing earlier detection for all our children, as an early diagnosis can make a critical difference in the lifelong development of a child.

We must also continue to invest federal research dollars in new and evolving therapies to improve the lives of those with autism spectrum disorders. In my district we house the Kennedy Krieger Institute [link], an internationally recognized institution dedicated to improving the lives of individuals with developmental disorders. These institutions improve the quality of life, education, and continued development of those affected by autism spectrum disorders, and we must continue to support them. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to examine what has been done about autism spectrum disorders to date and what more needs to be done in the future. There are many experts, individuals and groups who can help us in this effort. I want to take this moment to thank all of you for being here. 

As the Chairman said, there are so many people who are interested in this issue, so many who wanted to speak, but I want to say to you what I said to Bob Wright of Autism Speaks a little earlier in the day: I thank you for caring about somebody other than your children and yourselves, because what you are doing here today is raising this issue so that other children, other than those, or other folks, other than those maybe in your own families, maybe your friends, will benefit in the future. 

In other words, you are touching the future, and you are making it possible for those who are going through the autism spectrum disorders to have a better future. And so I thank you all for what you are doing, and as I said to Bob Wright, you must stay the course. One of the things that I’ve learned from being in Congress these seventeen years is that, in order for these causes to move forward, you have to keep banging the drum, and you must keep banging it louder and louder and presenting your case so that, after it’s all over, there’s high, as my mother would say, motion, commotion, emotion, and no results. I want you to be successful in what you’re doing. Life is short, and so what we must do is try and use our energy so that we can get the best possible results. And I am so glad the Chairman said what he said, about sticking with this, addressing it, and we encourage all of you to work with us as we move forward, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(end transcript)

Rep. Cummings raises some important points: he's absolutely right that there are inequities in who gets diagnosed with autism, and in who has access* to the kinds of therapies, services and educational accommodations that can make an autistic person's life so much easier. He is absolutely right that these inequities are starkest along racial, ethnic and class lines.

He's also right to point out the gains autistic people and their families made with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. 

Unlike Rep. Issa, Rep. Cummings seems to place the highest priority on identifying and providing services that improve actual, living autistic people's lives, as opposed to the more academic, theoretical research about what causes autism or what autism is at the molecular level.

I admit that I find the latter category of autism research more interesting, because I majored in biochemistry and I want to know about everything at the molecular level, but there's no question that the former category of research is more useful.

You can make the argument that scientific research shouldn't be funded solely based on its potential usefulness, or lack thereof, and I'd agree with you, but given that we're dealing with a limited amount of money that's supposed to cover pure research and applied research and actual provision of services, and that right now the bulk of the funding from both public and private sources goes to pure research, I'm okay with funneling some of that (public) money into the other two avenues. Private charities (looking at you, Autism Speaks!) would, of course, continue to be free to allocate grant funding however they see fit. 

*As this article from the Los Angeles Times makes clear, these disparities persist even when services are supposed to be paid for by the state. In 2010, the California Department of Developmental Services spent $11,723 per child on white autistic children ages 3 to 6; on services for Asian children, they spent only slightly less: $11,063 per child. Black and Hispanic children fared the worst, with the state spending only $6,593 per child (just a little over half what they gave the white families!) on the former and $7,634 per child on the latter.

Autism Congressional Hearing Transcript: Opening Statement (1)

I'm slowly making my way through watching the video of the Nov. 29 congressional hearing, transcribing as I go.


(I'm not just doing it to have a complete, public, textual record; I also find having something I can read helps my own understanding, too.)

I'm going to post a bunch of separate, shorter transcripts here, one for each separate speaker.

Here's Rep. Darrell Issa*, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, calling the meeting to order and making his opening statement**:
____________________________________________________________

(gavel pounding)

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. This hearing on “1 in 88 Children: A Federal Response to Rising Rates [of autism]” will come to order.

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent, and second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn obligation is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. This is our mission, and I might say today, in many cases we are dealing with people who, because of this affliction, may never pay taxes, but in fact their families and others pay for their entire life. 

Congress spends a lot of time discussing and debating issues, and in determining by our philosophical beliefs what the role of government should be. As we have seen in these debates surrounding TARP, stimulus, healthcare reform, these kinds of issues oft come down to where you fall on an ideological spectrum.

Today is no such thing. We’re having a hearing focused on something that spans from the ideological left to the ideological right. We’re drawing attention to something that has no political affiliation, no partisan allegiance, and sometimes --- and we believe, today --- not nearly enough focus on something that does not shorten life but dramatically --- or even slightly, but usually more than slightly --- reduces the quality of life, both for the individual and for their families.

I’m a father. As far as I know, I’m one of the fortunate ones. I’m not the 1 in 88. But right now, if the numbers are accurate, and if they continue to grow from the now 1 in 88 who are in some way ASD-affected, we in fact have an epidemic. It could be that some of the 1 in 150 at the start of this century was too low, that in fact people were simply not diagnosed. But few people believe that, in fact, there aren’t factors in our society and our behavior, in the air we breathe, the water we consume, or others, that are affecting how many people will be afflicted. 

We’re going to hear from a distinguished panel first, of people who do this for a living, try to get to the causes, prevention --- I won’t say “cure” today --- but at least the treatment, the understanding, and perhaps, in some cases, truly something that would mitigate their suffering. I know they’re frustrated. Congress, although we put nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year directly into research, has not put the kind of dollars, perhaps, that could bring specific outcomes sooner.

On our second panel, a number of individuals who will say that in fact, one of the problems is we’re looking on one side of the equation and not nearly enough on what to do for the victims of various forms of autism.

The fact is, they’re all right. There is not enough money being placed into the various possible causes of autism. There is not enough study. Our government does not collect statistics as well as perhaps someday soon we will, so that in fact we can find out what the true number is, cross-check every aspect of how that number, which is a human being, came to be afflicted. 

The truth is we have a lot to do. I will not claim that I have come here timely. This is the last two days of my first two years as chairman, and this is our first hearing. But what I will promise you here today is that we will stay involved in this issue. We will stay involved through staff and through, if appropriate, additional hearings. I also would say to our first distinguished panel that one of the most important priorities I place today is in fact that we work with you and help you in this process, that we be a conduit to the rest of Congress on this important issue. In a few moments I’ll be swearing in --- I’m sorry, I’ll be recognizing, by unanimous consent, a number of members who would not ordinarily be here at a hearing, because they are involved in this issue but serve on other committees. 

Additionally, I want to apologize to all of those people who, rightfully so, would be well (?) to be heard here today. I could’ve had a second panel of at least twenty witnesses from organizations and affected individuals. We had the difficult job of selecting just six, and as the ranking member will undoubtedly agree, six is already a fairly large single panel. 

That’s one of the reasons I pledge to you today that any organization or individual that in the next seven days provides to us, as required by our rules, in electronic format --- or, if you give it to us in paper we will try to scan it --- we will include your statements and your information in the record. 

We’ll hold the record open so that the many who could not be heard live in testimony will in fact be at least in the record. I want to particularly recognize Brian Hooker [link] with Focus Autism [link] in the American Academy of Children --- well, actually it’s a long, long title --- sorry --- who in fact has been one of the people who has championed for today’s hearing, and a number of others. They’ve been essential in my getting a better understanding. 

I’d also like to thank --- and we will be recognizing two witnesses, er, two members, on each side: the former Chairman of the [mumble] Committee[***], Dan Burton, who years ago began a process of focusing on some aspects of this terrible disease. We in fact don’t know enough; our goal is to know more, and today is but a down payment on that. With that, I’d like to thank the ranking member for his assistance in putting together today’s hearing and recognize him for his opening statement.

_____________________________________________________
(end transcript)

I won't be offering a whole lot of commentary right now, but I would like to make note of the two people to be name-checked in this short speech: Rep. Burton, whose testimony I will put up shortly and which really speaks for itself, and this Brian Hooker, who is affiliated with some group I'd never heard of called Focus Autism. It turns out to be a crank group dedicated to the notion that vaccines are "an important contributing factor" to autism in children.

So that's not good. We're just in the opening statement, and already the vaccine hypothesis --- which ought to have no place at all in a discussion of how best to spend federal money on autism research, therapies and services --- has been moved front and center.

*I'd post the video, too, but I cannot find a separate clip of just this speech. I can find one for the second opening statement, by Rep. Elijah Cummings, but I can't find one for Rep. Issa's statement. If you can, and you give me a link in comments, I will gladly embed it.

**I'm not going to blockquote my transcripts because I find that, in this blog template at least, blockquoting makes things a lot less readable! These transcripts are going to be kinda long, so I really don't want to sacrifice readability. I will set them apart some other way, like drawing lines above and below the transcribed speech.

***I didn't completely catch this, but looking at Rep. Burton's webpage, he has chaired both the Oversight Committee and another committee, a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Rep. Issa is probably referring to his past chairmanship of the Oversight Committee. 

Republicans vs. the EPA - Part II

In this installment of the "Republicans vs. the EPA" series I'm going to focus on one particular legislative attempt to abolish the EPA.

In the spring of 2011, Republican legislators in both houses introduced two versions of a bill that would abolish both the EPA and the Department of Energy, and replace them with a combined Department of Energy and Environment.

This was promoted as a cost-saving measure, but it seems to me that it would also mean the environmental-protection aspect of the combined agency's mission would necessarily be compromised by no longer being the sole guiding purpose of its own agency, but instead one of many different, sometimes competing objectives.

For instance, the proposed DOEE would be responsible, not just for drafting and enforcing regulations to protect the environment and human health, but also for making sure the country's power plants (particularly the nuclear ones) are safe from terrorist attacks, and for research into better ways to generate electricity.

It seems to me very likely that, in the tug-of-war for funding, the counterterrorism and R&D functions would win a greater share of the agency's budget than the boring, stick-in-the-mud regulatory function. I also find it easy to imagine intra-agency pressure building on the regulatory side not to regulate natural-resource extraction too heavily --- especially in areas where the expected energy yield is high, like the use of hydraulic fracturing to get at buried reservoirs of natural gas.

(You don't have to take my word for it that combining these agencies would produce a conflict of interest, either --- here's a short article that former DOE employee Joe Romm wrote for Think Progress explaining why he thinks that would be the likely outcome of such a merger.)

Anyway, that's enough background information. On to the lists!

Here are the seventeen Republican senators who co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill:
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)*
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) - wrote and introduced the bill
Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)**
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

And here are the eleven House members who co-sponsored the House version of the bill almost a year later:
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) - introduced and sponsored bill
Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick (R-NC)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
Rep. David P. (Phil) Roe (R-TN)

The Senate bill seems to have died in committee on the same day it was introduced. The House bill, though it bounced around lots of different committees, also seems to have been tabled. Neither one ever came up for a vote.

*I'm really tempted, doing those party-and-state abbreviations, to borrow Melissa McEwan's convention of writing things like "R-Epulsive", "R-Idiculous," "R-etrograde," "R-Eally??", etc. But I figured I'd best stick with writing their actual state, in the interest of providing more information.

**Aren't Wyoming and Utah lucky? Both of those states' entire Senate delegations co-sponsored this bill!

Republicans vs. the EPA - Part I

I read a post on a blog called Brute Reason listing the worst parts of the Texas Republican Party's platform, and the first thing on the list was a call to repeal the Endangered Species Act and abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


This was not the first time I'd seen the EPA targeted in Republican rhetoric; actually, I seem to read something about how the EPA is too powerful*, too radical**, and ought either to have its influence greatly diminished or be dissolved outright coming from a prominent Republican on a regular basis!


I started to leave a comment to that effect on the other blogger's post, and decided to perform an exercise in just how mainstream this virulent anti-environmentalism is in the Republican Party.

Since Miriam's post was about a state party platform, I think I will start there as well.

Here's a list of all the states whose Republican party platforms include calls for the abolition of the EPA: 
Iowa (PDF - relevant quotes on page 5):

Environment 

9.1 We support the pre-eminence of personal property rights and the freedom for individual property owners to manage their property above the protection of wildlife. We support maintaining an environmental policy that protects the rights of humans before animals, insects, and other creatures.

... 

9.3 We call for closing government branches, offices, and agencies that strip us of economic prosperity in the name of saving the environment. We should eliminate policies and rules related to this.

Nevada:

We support eliminating the ... Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other bureaucracies that have consistently demonstrated wasteful spending and operational inefficiencies. We believe these functions, where needed, should be relegated to the States as defined by the Tenth Amendment.

Oklahoma (PDF - relevant quote on page 34):

WE SUPPORT: 

...6. Abolishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, ... and distribution of [its] powers and responsibilities to state authority.

Texas (PDF - relevant quote at top of page 4):

Protection from Extreme Environmentalists - We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard as either a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

Wyoming (PDF - relevant quote on page 48):

Be It Further Resolved that the Wyoming Republican Party calls for elimination of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

... and here are all the states whose branches of the Republican Party have language in their platforms that, while not calling for the outright elimination of the EPA, seeks to restrict its  
California (PDF - relevant quotes on pages 1 and 4):

Government should create a favorable policy environment supportive of California's farmers and ranchers ... . California's approach, rather, has been one beset by over-regulation, environmental extremism, and restricted access to water, the agricultural sector's lifeblood.

... 

We believe that we can have both a healthy economy and a healthy environment, and believe in environmental policies supported by sound science, innovation, new technologies and incentives rather than regulation, taxation and litigation. Environmental regulations must be balanced and tempered by the effect that they will have on workers and on the economy. We believe that the Kyoto Treaty is fundamentally flawed because ignores the fact that the largest source of greenhouse gas in the world is China, which is exempt from the requirements of Kyoto.

...

We believe that entrepreneurs, using technology, innovation and incentives, are more likely to solve environmental problems than bureaucrats. 

Idaho (PDF - relevant quotes pp. 6-7):

Sec. 1 We believe that it is ultimately the individual's responsibility to act as stewards of their environment. The quality of our natural environment should be protected, and enhanced, while allowing reasonable, orderly growth with emphasis on multiple uses, local control, and minimal government regulation. 

Sec. 2 We believe the administration of federal environmental policy must be modified. These policies must give equal consideration to potential human suffering caused by restriction or elimination of basic human needs such as jobs, energy and overall quality of life. We support federal and state measures to re-establish the primacy of state government for implementation of environmental policy. 

Sec. 3 We discourage international regulations on industry which attempt to halt the production of certain industrial byproducts. Instead, we encourage citizens to adopt buying habits that promote a clean earth.

Maine:

Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power.

Missouri (PDF - relevant quotes pp. 4-5):

At a time when the state and federal economy is faltering, some in Washington have proposed extreme, job-killing measures to regulate carbon dioxide. While it is important to balance economic growth and the environment, these regulations, which would raise prices on every single person in the country, are a step too far.  

Therefore, the Missouri Republican Party SUPPORTS:

• Efforts to prevent any state or federal cap & trade scheme from taking effect.

• Efforts to prevent EPA from unilaterally regulating carbon dioxide.

...

• Environmental regulation premised upon sound free market principles and elimination of environmental regulation that imposes excessive financial burdens for tenuous incremental benefit.

North Carolina (PDF - relevant quote bottom of page 6):

If regulation is needed to protect the environment, government should only proceed with evidence that the benefits warrant the cost. Humans are a critical component of the ecosystem. Regulations must ensure a balance between humans and the environment.

North Dakota (PDF, relevant quotes pp. 5-7, p.10, pp. 13-15):

RESOLUTION NUMBER 11: ENERGY INDUSTRY... BE IT RESOLVED: The North Dakota Republican Party supports a balanced approach to the environmental and economic issues which will provide resolution to emissions of all sources of green house gases; and  

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The North Dakota Republican Party opposes efforts like the Kyoto Protocol and legislative proposals such as McCain-Lieberman, Lieberman-Warner, Boxer-Sanders, Kerry-Snowe, Bingaman-Specter, and Feinstein-Carper that impose a cap and trade program that will adversely affect North Dakota's economy without balance to the environmental issues....RESOLUTION NUMBER 13: NATIONAL ENERGY SUPPLY STABILITYWHEREAS: The environmental impact of oil drilling and refineries can be reasonably controlled by modern technology; and  

WHEREAS: The United States needs increased supply of crude oil from North American sources....THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The North Dakota Republican Party supports private industry building or expanding more oil refineries in North Dakota and in the nation to lower the cost of gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil; and  

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The process for obtaining the permits or expand to build refineries should be changed in a manner that would speed the process; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The North Dakota Republican Party supports the drilling for oil off America's coasts and other places where it is now restricted....
RESOLUTION NUMBER 24: PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHTS'WHEREAS: At the national level, some administrative rules and regulations promulgated to implement legislation, such as, but not limited to, "Swampbuster," the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act have usurped the rights of citizens to the beneficial use of private property without just compensation; and 

WHEREAS: As state agencies promulgate rules and regulations to implement state laws, they regularly affect the use of privately-held resources without due consideration of the economic impacts the rules and regulations impose on the owners of those resources; and 

WHEREAS: As governmental agencies (and the regulations they foster) have grown, private property rights have been diminished, and the operating costs of businesses forced to comply with such increased regulation have increased dramatically; and 

WHEREAS: The quality of life for all North Dakotans hinges on the state's businesses being allowed to compete without unnecessary and undue regulations; 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the North Dakota Republican Party supports any legislation that prevents the taking of rights to the beneficial use of property by its owner without just and actual compensation....RESOLUTION NUMBER 32: OPPOSING DISCRETIONARY REGULATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE BY THE U.S. EPA... BE IT RESOLVED: That the North Dakota Republican Party opposes the delegated discretionary regulation of carbon dioxide by the U.S. EPA or any other agency, and supports that any restrictions on carbon dioxide should be directed only by the elected members of Congress....RESOLUTION NUMBER 35: OPPOSING THE EXPANSION OF FEDERAL CONTROL OVER WATERWHEREAS: The federalized control of "all" waters in the United States means centralized control of the most critical requirement for the sustenance of all life, including human life; 

WHEREAS: The federalized control of "all" water defines a jurisdiction so comprehensive as to constitute control of even ephemeral waters; 

WHEREAS: The management of land and non-navigable waters is fully integrated and cannot be separated, so that federalized control of "all" waters virtually constitutes total control of all agriculture, and all management or development of private land; 

WHEREAS: Therefore, federalized control of "all" waters constitutes nothing other than total federal control and jurisdiction over the water we drink, the production of the food we eat, the measures we undertake to protect or enhance our properties, and provides a tool so powerful as to create a risk of tyranny in its full application;...THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The North Dakota Republican Party opposes any federal agency rules ... that may be proposed to broaden the authority to regulate water, and urges their immediate repeal ...

South Carolina (PDF, relevant quote on page 25):

1. Environmental risks/concerns must be faced accurately, neither exaggerated nor underestimated; environmental remediation must incorporate the concepts of cost/benefit, risk analysis, and public/private cooperation. 

2. Environmental progress is integrally related to economic development as economic growth generates the capital to pay for environmental gains and as environmental preservation creates an atmosphere conducive to a high quality of life and economic development. 

3. The right to own, use, and dispose of private property is a fundamental political tenet of all free nations. Property rights are not to be violated by the misuse or overuse of government regulation and should dictate due compensation when a taking occurs. 

4. The United States, in the exercise of her sovereignty, should not "ratify any treaty that moves environmental decisions beyond our democratic process and transfers beyond our shores authority over U.S. property" (1992 Republican National Platform).

Vermont:

SECTION III  

BALANCING OUR ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT

Vermont Republicans believe we must value Vermont's economic environment with the same respect we value our natural environment. 

Wisconsin:

We believe we can solve our environmental problems more quickly and cost-effectively with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation. 

We believe entrepreneurs are more likely to solve America's environmental problems than bureaucrats. 

We support measures to encourage businesses to voluntarily cut pollution.

(A note about the wording on some of these, particularly about striving for "balance" between the environment and the economy, or, more specifically, between a given regulation's benefit to the environment and the cost to industry of compliance with it: the EPA already factors such cost/benefit analyses into its recommendations, so what these stipulations are actually asking is that greater weight be given to the economic-impact side of the cost/benefit equation.)


I was going to have this all be one post, listing not only all the state Republican Party platforms with anti-EPA (or generically anti-environmental regulation) language but also every currently-serving US Senator, Representative, or state governor who has made anti-EPA pronouncements, or acted to abolish, defund, restrict the EPA or block its actions, but the list got so long, and it was taking so long to ferret them all out, that I decided to break it up in the interest of being able to post something this month. (Hyperbole, I hope).

As to this part of the list, I'm not sure whether I'm more relieved to see that my current state of residence is not on the list than I am mortified to see the state I was born in, and still consider my home state, right there at the top. I had thought better of Iowa.

*It's not

**Oh, how I wish