Wednesday, Feb 22nd

Sign up for our FREE newsletters now!

Listen Demo!

Facebook Page: 181583088528500 Twitter: lisawexler YouTube: lisawex
 
 

On My Mind

Virginia governor no longer fully supports ultrasounds before abortions

E-mail Print

alt
Virginia governor no longer fully supports ultrasounds before abortions

RICHMOND — Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.

But delegates and governor’s staff were scheduled to meet Tuesday night to strike a compromise after learning that some ultrasounds could be more invasive than first thought, according to two officials who were aware of the meeting but not authorized to speak about it publicly. Many of the bill’s supporters were apparently unaware of how invasive the procedure could be, one of the officials added.

The Virginia legislation has become part of the broader national debate over reproductive rights and has drawn attention to McDonnell, a rising star in his party and a possible vice presidential contender. The legislation has been the topic of cable news shows, was part of a “Saturday Night Live” sketch and drew protesters to Richmond on Monday.

McDonnell’s office would say Tuesday only that the governor will “review” the bill if it is approved.

“Our position is: If the General Assembly passes this bill the governor will review it, in its final form, at that time,” McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said in a statement. He declined to explain the change in approach, but Virginia’s governors can sign, veto or amend legislation.

The House and Senate have approved their versions of the bill. On Tuesday, the House postponed a final vote on the legislation— as well as votes on other measures on guns and adoption — for the second day in a row.

“Something is happening,’’ Jessica Honke, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said hopefully. “It’s important for [the governor] to take a long, hard look before he actually does this.”

In recent days, abortion supporters have emphasized that women in the earliest stages of pregnancy may require a probe instead of an external test.

About 1,200 men and women held a silent protest outside the state Capitol on Monday, wearing hand-decorated T-shirts that bore such messages as “Virginia is for lovers, not probes.’’

Opponents of the measure expect to turn over petitions with 25,000 signatures on Wednesday and are planning a second rally on Thursday.

In the past week, the issue has been featured on left-leaning shows, including “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.” And “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” arrived in Richmond on Tuesday to film.

The legislation is being used against Republicans outside of the General Assembly. National and state Democrats have criticized U.S. Senate candidate George Allen for his anti-abortion stand and have derided McDonnell, who has hit the campaign trail for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

Republicans at the Capitol, however, remain optimistic that McDonnell will sign the measure.

“The governor is strongly pro-life, and I think he would hold consistent in his support for this bill,” said Del. Ben L. Cline (R-Rockbridge), co-chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

Republicans, in control of the General Assembly since last month, have other abortion-related bills pending during the 60-day legislative session.

Bills ending state subsidies for low-income women to abort fetuses that have serious birth defects and giving rights to a fertilized egg at the moment of conception are working their way through the legislature.

Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. (D-Chesapeake) took to the House floor Tuesday to say: “I’m deeply disappointed in some of you. I can’t believe you would disrespect women in this county, in this state.”

The ultrasound legislation would require women to undergo a test to determine the gestation age of the fetus, hear the heartbeat and be given an opportunity to see the images.

A woman who refuses to look at the ultrasound would have to sign a statement, which along with a print of the image would become part of her medical file.

The bill also would require women who live within 100 miles of their abortion provider to wait at least 24 hours before having the procedure, except in emergencies. Those who live farther would have to wait two hours.

Supporters of the ultrasound measure say it would provide crucial medical information to women seeking abortions; opponents say it would subject women to unnecessary tests and invade their privacy.

It is unclear whether insurance companies would cover the procedure.

Democrats hope to alter the bill on Wednesday to make the ultrasound voluntary.

“There is no doubt that this bill .?.?. is fundamentally and seriously flawed,” Del. Charniele Herring (Alexandria) told her colleagues. “It is time to end the shame that has been brought to Virginia and to this chamber by this extreme bill.’’

The officials with knowledge of Tuesday night’s Republican meeting said GOP leaders hope to introduce amendments on Wednesday, but it is unclear whether the rank and file would support them.

McDonnell, who signed legislation last year that imposed new regulations for abortion clinics, first said last month that he would sign the ultrasound bill. His position was reiterated by his press secretary, Jeff Caldwell.

Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation, which considers the ultrasound bill one of its top priorities, said Tuesday that she and her staff were trying to determine what they need to do to persuade the governor to sign the legislation.

“It is a change as far as I can tell,” she said of McDonnell’s shift.

By , Published: February 21 Washington Post

 

Whitney Houston's voice will never be forgotten

E-mail Print

alt
Milestones: Whitney Houston

 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Whitney Houston's downfall was so long and sad that, in an impatient public's mind, it overshadowed her many accomplishments.

Those achievements can be checked off easily in numbers - Grammy Awards, records sold, the string of seven consecutive No. 1 singles. Yet if there's any solace to her passing, it is that people will revisit recordings, videos and films to rediscover the majesty of her work.

Look up the video for one of those hits, "I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)." The arrangement and instrumentation - cheesy synthesizers, booming drums - date the recording immediately in the late 1980s.

It's a pop confection that could have been sung by any singer who might have been forgotten in a couple of years. Houston lifted it above the average with a voice that could just as easily be found on a gospel record or opera stage. She danced through it with a bearing that made you think of Michael Jordan stopping off at a schoolyard basketball game, knowing that she had far more talent than anyone around her.

The daughter of Cissy Houston and cousin of Dionne Warwick, Houston had talent that surpassed each of them. Her godmother was Aretha Franklin - how's that for pressure? - but in her prime, Houston's voice could match the Queen of Soul's.

"Didn't We Almost Have It All" and "How Will I Know" were other standouts, evidence that Houston could master balladry and up-tempo songs. She was one of longtime music executive Clive Davis' greatest signings, and although Davis may not have challenged Houston enough, he at least put her in position to shine.

Anyone who saw Houston perform "The Star Spangled Banner" before the 1991 Super Bowl will always remember it.

The 1992 film "The Bodyguard" and its soundtrack will remain her signature achievement. She portrayed a superstar singer, alternatively tough and vulnerable, guarded by a former Secret Service agent played by Kevin Costner. For the soundtrack, she took a little-known Dolly Parton song, "I Will Always Love You," and made it her own. And then some.

Again, there are the kudos - it won the Grammy Award for record of the year. The performance itself was remarkable. Houston's voice soared with the power of a jet engine and kept perfect tone for the quieter, tender moments. Every artist has a defining song; if they're lucky, it also shows the peak of their powers.

The hits didn't dry up immediately, but they became less frequent. Her marriage to singer Bobby Brown was ill-fated and she descended into drug abuse.

In September 1997, I had an interview scheduled with Houston as she was promoting a concert being televised on HBO. It was by phone, but the appointed hour of her call came and went. No Houston.

The next day a huge floral arrangement was delivered to The Associated Press office addressed to me with a note of apology attributed to Houston. When the interview was rescheduled, I thanked her for the arrangement and said it wasn't necessary. She had no idea what I was talking about.

One suspects there were many years and many other examples of instances like that, of covering Houston's tracks as she became increasingly unreliable. The years of abuse took a terrible toll on her talent. She made a comeback in 2009 with a "Good Morning America" concert that was sad to watch. She went through the motions and played hard to the crowd, but her voice could no longer hit the notes that once seemed effortless.

During that 1997 interview, Houston deflected talk about a life and marriage that was already clearly troubled.

"I didn't get in the business to talk about my personal life," she said then. "I got in the business to sing, to try to make music and to try to make people happy ... if I can.

"My life doesn't go on record. My voice does."

It is the only thing to be thankful for with this sad story.

  

 

 

Why Can’t You Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy?

E-mail Print
alt

If you’re struggling to pay credit card debt, car loans or even gambling debt, you can wipe the slate clean in bankruptcy. Struggling to pay your student loans? Sorry, you’ll just have to figure that one out on your own.

In an effort to shed light on a policy they say “doesn’t make any sense,” a group of bankruptcy lawyers issued a report on Tuesday that highlights the need to change the U.S. bankruptcy code so that it offers college grads relief from inescapable debt loads. In the report from the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys(NACBA), four out of five of the 860 lawyers surveyed said the number of potential clients they encounter with student loan debt has “significantly” or “somewhat” increased over the past 3 to 4 years.


It’s no surprise that student loan debt is a major concern. Federal and private student loan debt surpassed credit card debt for the first time in 2010 and is expected to hit $1 trillion this year. At the same time as college graduates are experiencing record-high debt, they are offered little opportunity to get back on track. “There’s no way to diffuse the bomb if the status quo stays the same,” NACBA Vice President John Rao said in a press call with reporters.

Which is why the group is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would allow graduates to discharge loans they took out from private lenders, including for-profit companies like banks and student loan giant Sallie Mae. Similar legislation has been submitted over the past two years by Democrats without making much progress, but nevertheless, NACBA is hoping this year will be different.

Changing the nation’s bankruptcy code wouldn’t just give the group of lawyers more work, it would offer an option for students to get rid of debt that, at its core, is not really any different from other types of debt that the government does allow borrowers to discharge. “It’s kind of strange that credit cards are dischargeable when private student loans aren’t,” said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the financial aid websites, Fastweb.com and FinAid.org. “They should be treated the same.”

They used to be. Before 1976, all education loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy. That year, the bankruptcy code was altered so loans made by the government or a non-profit college or university could not be discharged during the first five years of repayment. They could, however, be discharged if they had been in repayment for five years or if the borrower experienced “undue hardship.” Then, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 made it so all private student loans were excepted from discharge too.

Two decades of further tweaks to the bankruptcy code ensued until 2005, when Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which made it so that no student loan — federal or private — could be discharged in bankruptcy unless the borrower can prove repaying the loan would cause “undue hardship,” a condition that is incredibly difficult to demonstrate unless the person has a severe disability. That essentially lumps student loan debt in with child support and criminal fines — other types of debt that can’t be discharged.

Many people are OK with the fact that graduates can’t discharge federal student loans. After all, the government is the backer on those loans (and therefore would be out the cash) and federal loans have a lot of options for repayment such as Income Based Repayment and loan forgiveness programs that give borrowers more realistic options for repayment and a way out. Private loans are a different story. Basically, the only option with private loans is to repay them — and to repay them on the lender’s timetable. They do not allow deferment or income-based repayment. Extensions often don’t lower the monthly payments by much and, while they do allow forbearance, they often offer much shorter terms and sometimes charge fees. “There is a genuine problem here that needs to be addressed,” Kantrowitz said. “Too many people are struggling with no light at the end of the tunnel. They are basically stuck in purgatory their entire life, just because they made a mistake and borrowed too much money.”

Some fear allowing graduates to discharge their private loans would create a situation where students take out many loans during college and then turn around and file for bankruptcy when they get their diploma. But those who make that argument forget that bankruptcy is not for the faint at heart; it’s a lengthy, complicated legal process and there are also anti-abuse protections in place to guard against those who would opt for bankruptcy when they can in fact afford to pay their debts.

On the contrary, Kantrowitz says allowing private loans to be discharged could have some very positive effects. Lenders might be more careful about whom they lend to and how much. And when they have distressed borrowers, they might be more willing to compromise, he says. Which would mean for the first time in a long time, private lenders would have a little incentive to play nice with students.

Kayla Webley is a Staff Writer at TIME.


Deadline 2/7/12 Please Cast Your Vote Today!!!

E-mail Print

alt


PLEASE CLICK ON LINK AND SCROLL DOWN UNTIL YOU SEE THESE 2 CATEGORIES, IF YOU ENJOY LISTENING TO MY SHOW AND TURNING YOUR BRAIN ON, PLEASE HELP GET THE WORD OUT BY VOTING FOR US.  THANK YOU FOR LISTENING SO LOYALLY TO RADIO THAT MATTERS.

LISA WEXLER 1230AM WFAS

People and Media

   
Radio Station
Radio Broadcaster

Brilliant New Yorker Cover

E-mail Print

alt


Page 1 of 34

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »