Video: "It's a big ship" but we can turn it around – elections in 2010

Video: Rick Snyder's record on killing jobs

Michigan Republican Gov. Candidate Snyder killed jobs

Even the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Republican media outlet, expressed strong doubts about Snyder's claims at creating jobs: http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/08/03/michigan-governor-hopeful-rick-snyders-venture-capital-past/

Kent County Commissioners Go Crazy Over Abortion

Crossposted on Sept. 13 at DailyKos

Today I received an e-mail from Planned Parenthood saying that county commissioners where I live plan to pressure local bargaining units to stop providing health insurance plans that cover abortions to county employees. When I sent a message to my county commissioners objecting, I found out that at least one of them thinks provision of coverage for abortions in the case of rape or incest is an "elective" procedure.

The Planned Parenthood e-mail read in part:

Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 14th, Kent County Commissioners [Western Michigan in and around Grand Rapids] will consider the elimination of abortion care coverage from the health insurance policy that covers county employees.

By prohibiting abortion care coverage, County Commissioners are threatening the health and safety of Kent County’s employees and their families based solely on their personal and political opinions about abortion.

This reckless and dangerous move will place the health and safety of county employees and their family members at risk. This restriction on access to abortion services will only make it harder for County employees and their family members to access abortion care if they should need it.

[...]

We know that when women have limited access to safe, legal, high-quality abortion services, they are forced to seek other - often dangerous - alternatives. Are the commissioners really willing to sacrifice the health and safety of hard-working County employees and their families based solely on their personal opinions about abortion and their desire to advance their personal political agendas?

If the County Commissioners really have an interest in reducing the need for abortion, they would work on expanding access to family planning services and other pregnancy prevention programs for all residents in Kent County.

Because a woman's right to choose when to be pregnant is an important issue for me, I sent the message that came with the PP e-mail to each of the county commissioners.

I promptly received responses from three commissioners. The first came in from Republican Commissioner Stan Ponstein, who interestingly and annoyingly claims endorsements from the anti-choice "Right to Life" and the Sierra Club of West Michigan. (That's how weird West Michigan politics are right now.) By e-mail he said, "Safe , legal abortions will still be available. Taxpayers won't be footing the bill."

When I responded that the county should provide coverage for such medical procedures, he retorted a little more sharply: "Abortions are not a medical procedure. It's a death of an unborn baby."

When I pointed out that he might be imposing his values on county workers, he retorted again, "My values? Didn't President Obama eliminate funding in the federal plan?"

I, of course, noted that that part of health reform was written and enacted by members of Congress and he should check into how a bill becomes a law.

I am sure that he is angry enough about the issue to keep writing, and I will report.

The second response from Commissioner Tom Antor, whose Tea Party page can be found here.

He said:

Thank you for your e-mail.

While I understand abortion is legal, It should not be covered using tax
payers dollars. I am very saddened that County residents who oppose this
procedure like myself have had a part in paying for this in the past.

I have always been a pro-life advocate and can not, in good concience [sic],
support the continued coverage under the counties [sic] health plan for its
employees.

I also oppose any other elective procedures now or in the future as part of
our health benefits. If the opportunity arises I will vote accordingly.

Thanks again for your input.

(True to Tea Party spelling standards.)

I responded by asking if taxpayers should pay for any medical procedures for County employees.

He said: "Tax payers should never ever be saddled with paying for "elective" procedures in my opinion. Do you think the county should pay for face lifts or other cosmetic surgery which are equally legal in Michigan?"

Clever as I am I replied:

Your point is a good one and I hope the Commission will make a careful study of the health plan to make sure taxpayers like myself pay nothing for electives such as coverage for contact lenses, ED medication, non-generic drugs, and so on. I hope you will take the lead on that.

Finally, do you think that an abortion in the case of rape or incest is "elective." Please clarify if you would support coverage in such instances.

Thanks for you input.

His reply:

"Rape & Incest has historically been the tipping point on this issue for many but I subscribe to the sanctify [sic] of all life in these matters. Jesus loves the little children and I trust his devine [sic] intervention to guide me as well."

The third response came from a Democratic member of the Commission, Brandon Dillon, who is also now running in my district for Michigan's state house. The point is a tricky one, because the Democrats control the state house by a slim margin and this election could see major changes.

Nevertheless, Dillon wrote:

Thank you for writing to me with your opposition to removing coverage for elective abortions currently included in the Kent County employees standard medical insurance plan. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me on this issue.

First let me start by saying that I respect and value your views on this matter. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what is actually being proposed by Commissioner Bob Synk.

The action item that the Legislative and Human resources Committee will consider tomorrow does not ban abortion coverage for county employees. The action item, simply stated, expresses the sense of the Committee that this elective procedure should not be subsidized with taxpayer funds. Furthermore, since county employees are covered under collective bargaining agreements, any change to the current plan would require the agreement of each bargaining unit. Commissioner Synk's proposal asks employees to voluntarily remove this coverage from their plan effective January 1, 2011 and if they do not, it directs the County Administrator to propose elimination of this coverage when the current contract expires in 2012. There is nothing in the proposal that prohibits an employee or other covered family member from obtaining an abortion, nor is there anything that would prohibit an employee from purchasing a rider to the standard insurance plan to cover elective abortion if the benefit is eventually removed through the collective bargaining process.

Most counties in Michigan do not offer this benefit in their medical plan and there is nothing in state or federal law that requires any employer, public or private, to provide insurance coverage for elective abortions. I understand we may disagree on this issue, but I certainly do not believe this proposal, if adopted, will harm women and their families.

Once again, thank you for writing to me on this issue. If I can be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

With warm regards,

First, Commissioner Bob Synk is the commissioner in my district and is running for reelection. He lives nearby, and I met him during one of his recent canvasses. Because he is the one who has introduced this measure, I can't say I will support his candidacy right now.

Second, I replied to Dillon expressing my disappointment at his response and urged him to rethink it and to take a special consideration in the case of rape and incest, to at least not describe that as "elective." I also noted I would be reconsidering my support for his candidacy.

He replied just moments ago thusly:

The term "elective" is not meant in a pejorative way. It is how it is referred to in the plans coverage. This proposal in no way precludes any future plan from covering abortion under circumstances such as rape or incest. Thanks again for your input.

To me describing an abortion for a woman who has been raped as an "elective" procedure is little more than justification for rape and is a second violation on her. And when a government official intervenes to do that.... :-(

Somebody call Rachel Maddow and get her on the abortion crazies in West Michigan, please!