Mediaboss Marketing

By Emily Barbero By Emily Barbero January 27 at 6:15 PM

Emily Barbero lives in Minneapolis.

In 2012, while expecting our first (and only) child, my husband and I went in for a routine ultrasound. The technician saw something and alerted the resident perinatologist, who alerted the genetics team. We quickly wiped the gel from my belly, and they escorted us down the hall. In the rush, the black-and-white photos of our baby were left on the printer. Someone probably threw them away long ago.

After reviewing our file, the genetics counselor explained to us that they couldnt quite know what was wrong for sure without further testing, but that our sons brain showed clear anatomical issues. She said that some children with our sons condition never walk or talk. They sometimes have cognitive, social and emotional delays. Their quality of life can suffer, and they can be a considerable drain on the emotional and financial health of families.

She hesitated, but then posed the question: Did we want to keep our baby?

My husband and I simply had to glance at each other. We each knew what the other was thinking. We werent going to terminate.

We didnt say yes to our son because any political party said that it was the decision that differentiates those with good morals from those with bad ones. We made our decision holding hands, with a prayer on our lips, oceans of love in our hearts, a spark of hope and a lot of naivete. It was our personal decision to make, not any sort of political or religious agenda to be had.

Our son turns 4 this month.

He has developmental delays and a complex health history, but he is happy and thriving. He is also a true success story for early-intervention services. Without his weekly occupational, physical and language appointments, without his surgeons, gastroenterologists, developmental specialists and neurologists, he would not be where he is today.

But what about tomorrow? Currently, because of the Affordable Care Act, insurers cannot discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. They cant deny coverage, they cant limit coverage, and they cant charge exorbitant premiums to those with significant health problems.

So right now, my sons insurance coverage is secure. But in their drive to repeal the ACA, Republicans in Congress are conjuring up a different world one where one little gap, like the job my husband lost several years ago, can result in bankruptcy and in the rapid decline of health in a loved one, even death.

The Republican Party prides itself on being a pro-life party and has delivered a pro-life president into office. During campaign season, we heard messaging about the value of life and our collective responsibility to protect it. The GOP wants everyone to know that no matter what the ultrasound says, they should choose life.

We did. And now, sleeping in our house tonight is a beautiful boy with dimples, a boy who loves Lego Ninjago and Batman, a boy who thinks tackling snowmen is hilarious. Just this month, he showed us he can hit a baseball off a tee.

He also happens to be a boy with a preexisting condition and six-inch-thick medical file.

Has our language become empty? Suddenly, Republican members of Congress no longer seem to view him as so precious and beautiful. Now hes expensive, and a risk, and a liability. The argument that his life should be supported and protected at all costs has fallen eerily silent. The new argument is over which of the ACAs protections should be preserved, if any, and to what extent, and whether the law should be done away with even before a replacement is worked out.

We gave my son life, despite the warnings, and now he needs care. There are millions like him. But the Republicans in Congress look the other way.

So who is the real pro-life supporter among us?

Read the original post:
We kept our baby. Here's how Republicans can prove that they're pro-life, too. - Washington Post

(Jayne Orenstein/The Washington Post)

PHILADELPHIA Republican members of Congress came here in search of brotherly love and a firm plan for the months ahead. They will leave with big questions about how to move forward on major planks of their agenda.

Now we have to deliver, President Trump told GOP lawmakers Thursday, addressing them directly for the first time since his inauguration. This Congress is going to be the busiest Congress weve had in decades, maybe ever. ... Enough all talk, no action.

But for scores of rank-and-file lawmakers looking for clarity, Trumps 25-minute address did not contain the specifics they were seeking.

The health reforms known as Obamacare are a disaster, the president said, without detailing how to replace them, despite saying in a recent interview with The Washington Post that it was very much formulated down to the final strokes.

Trump spent one sentence on a tax reform bill that he said would help deliver on another key promise a Mexican border wall, sparking confusion about what exactly he meant. And Trump dwelled on trade protectionism, a concept with limited appeal to the free-market conservatives that formed a large part of his audience.

GOP lawmakers spent Wednesday and Thursday inside a closed-off downtown hotel here, listening to their leaders sketch out plans for the coming months, laid out in charts and bullet points.

But they looked to Trump and Vice President Pence, who addressed them separately Thursday, to flesh out their own proposals and give them some road map for a way forward. They hoped to leave on the same page when it came to the GOP agenda, shifting the focus to policy after less than a week of Trumps presidency defined by his unpredictable outbursts.

Lawmakers queried Pence about some of the issues on which Trump has tweeted in recent days, with some conservatives empathizing with the presidents concerns about alleged voter fraud in the election and whether intelligence officials were seeking to undermine Trump.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) asked Pence during the private session whether the White House would have lawmakers backs and support them in their home districts as they pursue their agenda.

Short answer, Pence said, according to two people in the room: You bet.

Republican leaders acknowledged that their ambitious legislative agenda will now unfold over a course of many months, not weeks, as some Republicans including Trump had previously touted.

The timeline presented by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) extends beyond the traditional 100-day window for a new administrations top priorities.

We have ambitious goals and ambitious timelines, Ryan told reporters. Our goal is to get these laws done in 2017.

In the case of repealing and replacing Obamacare, leaders appear to be looking far past the initial window that they originally targeted. Ryan and McConnell now expect to put legislation repealing and partially replacing the law onto the House floor by the end of March.

Ryan defended the delayed timeline, saying the scale of the GOP agenda, as well as the need for the Senate to spend scarce floor time on Trumps nominations, meant taking a longer view: We are trying to fix peoples problems in this country. Its going to take more than simply 100days.

[Hill Republicans want answers. On Wednesday, Trump gave them only more questions.]

Many lawmakers looked at a Thursday morning session on health care as a key opportunity for leaders to offer more details about their plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. But those leaders appeared to have only a few new details on offer.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the Ways and Means Committee chairman who will have jurisdiction over health care, said he was pursuing the concept of a health-care backpack that would include age-adjusted refundable tax credits, health savings accounts and access to electronic health records. All of those concepts were laid out in a House GOP blueprint issued last year.

Key elements, such as how to preserve the viability of the individual insurance market while also requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, were not addressed in detail, several lawmakers present said.

No decisions today ... but very positive conversations, Brady told reporters.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that members now understand the movement, the timing and whats going forward on health care.

He described an action plan consisting of three buckets a fast-track reconciliation bill that Republicans can pass without Democratic cooperation but is limited in scope under congressional rules; a series of executive actions by the Trump administration to restructure insurance markets; and a series of traditional bills to replace the ACA that will need to gain some Democratic support to be implemented.

All three of these things move at the same time, McCarthy said.

Under pressure from constituents, rank-and-file Republicans have expressed the desire for more clarity on how the law, which has expanded coverage to roughly 20million Americans, will be replaced.

I think really the only thing new that I learned that hasnt been talked about previously is the expectation of a House floor vote in March, said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.).

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in an interview that House leaders are expecting to include significant parts of a replacement plan in legislation slated for action by March.

That could include a system of refundable tax credits, state high-risk pools that would subsidize coverage for the sickest Americans and tax-free health savings accounts. Other parts of the GOP plan such as federal mandates on insurance coverage requirements and provisions for selling policies across state lines would have to wait because of budget rules.

Several GOP leaders acknowledged uncertainty about the replacement plans, but said that they could not afford to change their plans based on Democratic criticism.

Those who think were going to suddenly appear with a 2,000-page replacement bill are mistaken, Walden said.

Intraparty tensions also surfaced on other matters such as funding the Mexican border wall, a project that leaders told rank-and-file lawmakers could cost as much as $15billion.

Ryan brushed off several questions about whether Republicans would offset the cost of the wall with spending cuts elsewhere or new revenue. Many GOP lawmakers have refused to support previous bills that did not offset federal spending but instead added to the budget deficit.

Were going to wait and see from the administration to see what their supplemental [spending bill] looks like, Ryan said. Im not going to get ahead of a policy and a bill that has not been written yet.

Read more at PowerPost

See the original post:
Hill Republicans leave retreat with few answers on key questions - Washington Post

PHILADELPHIA Congressional Republican leaders said Thursday that they plan to move forward with legislation to provide $12billion to $15billion to pay for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

But it is still unclear who will end up footing the bill for the gigantic construction along the 2,000-mile border U.S. taxpayers or, in some form, Mexico.

Trump and his aides insisted throughout a confusing day that Mexico would ultimately pay for the wall through, they said, reforms to the U.S. tax code. But Republicans were confused about whether such a change would be considered a tariff or a tax; many do not support a tariff. Lawmakers are also concerned that without such changes, there is no way to offset or make up elsewhere the costs of the enormous structure.

Border security yes, tariffs no. Mexico is 3rd largest trading partner. Any tariff we can levy they can levy. Huge barrier to econ growth, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on Twitter late Thursday.

He added: Simply put, any policy proposal which drives up costs of Corona, tequila, or margaritas is a big-time bad idea. Mucho Sad.

In an address to Republican lawmakers here, Trump said that his administration was working on a tax reform bill that would generate revenue from Mexico with the aim of paying for the wall.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer later told reporters that the wall could be paid for with a 20percent tax on imports from Mexico, a line that some Republicans initially read as a reference to a House GOP proposal to tax imports a mechanism known as a border adjustment.

By the end of the day, Spicer clarified that he had, indeed, been talking about an idea that House GOP leaders have floated, but he said that no final decisions had been made.

By doing it that way, we can do $10billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone. Thats really going to provide the funding, Spicer said.

Later in the day, Spicer said: One idea through comprehensive tax reform is that there could be this idea that Speaker [Paul D.] Ryan and others have floated that through tax reform you could actually look at imports with countries that we have a trade deficit for, that can generate revenue.

What hes referring to is border adjustment, said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, of Spicers initial remarks.

Nunes was referring to a proposal to tax all imports at a rate of 20percent and exempt exports from tax entirely. Trump seemed to dismiss that plan this month when he told the Wall Street Journal that the idea was too complicated.

A system of taxing all imports is often confused with a tariff because both systems effectively drive up the prices of imports. The difference is in how the two ideas are executed. A tariff is a punitive fee on specific goods, and a border tax is a tax exclusion for exports. Republicans say their idea acts as an incentive for companies to buy U.S.-made goods.

[White House press secretary says border wall will be funded by 20percent import tax on goods from Mexico]

Without some mechanism to pay for the wall either through additional revenue generated in the United States or by Mexico, as the administration insists Republican concerns about building it could grow.

Asked at a news conference here Thursday morning whether spending on the wall would be offset, Ryan punted.

As far as the offset, were going to wait and see from the administration what their supplemental [spending plan] looks like, he said. Im not going to get ahead of a policy and a bill that has not been written yet. But the point is, we are going to finance the Secure Fence Act, which is the construction of the physical barrier on the border.

Pressed on whether he could guarantee that the broader Republican agenda would not add to the federal deficit, Ryan did not respond directly.

Were fiscal conservatives, he said. What that means is we believe government should not live beyond its means.

Asked about Spicers comments, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who chairs the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, did not endorse the idea but also did not fully reject it.

We have to explore a number of options on how to pay for that. You know, generally speaking, Im against tariffs, Meadows said. You know, I look at it from an economic standpoint. At the same time, I dont want to hamstring the administration in things they are willing to explore.

Meadows said he was confident that lawmakers could find immediate offsets of some kind through the appropriations process to cover the costs of the border wall. But he also sounded open to doing that after the fact.

Ill stay true to my commitment that were going to give the president the tools necessary whether it is a non-offset spending on this on a short-term basis, that we find the offsets at a later date.

[5 challenges Trump may face building a border wall]

For other Republicans, paying for the wall upfront is paramount.

I generally dont vote for anything thats not offset, said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), adding for emphasis: Everything needs to be offset.

Aides to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that congressional Republicans were being hypocritical.

The same Republicans who howled fiscal responsibility when it comes to investments to help working families are apparently willing to light billions of taxpayer dollars on fire and add to the federal deficit in order to build Trumps useless border wall, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told reporters here Thursday that lawmakers and officials need to be more precise when they talk about building a wall and that a single physical barrier is unlikely to suffice.

When you say, quote, build a wall, what does that exactly mean? McCain said. It means to me drones, technology, surveillance all that. If youre talking about just building a wall, history shows that you can tunnel under them, you can breach them and you can climb over them.

McCain predicted that there will be a down payment to begin construction of border security but that it will not be anywhere near $15billion.

Kelsey Snell in Washington, and Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis in Philadelphia, contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Congressional Republicans wonder who will pay for the wall - Washington Post

Wisconsin Republicans enacted a restrictive voter identification lawin May 2011, just months after they took control of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship for the first time in over two decades.

The timing of that law, which made it more difficult for low-income and minority Wisconsinites to cast a vote, was no coincidence.A new study in the journal American Politics Research finds that states are more likely to pass voter ID laws soon after their governments switch to Republican control.

Republicans newly in charge of state legislatures are also more likely to embrace voter ID laws if their states have large black and Latino populations, according to the study from Daniel Biggers, a law professor at the University of California, Riverside, and Michael Hanmer, a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Those lawmakers often contend that stricter voter ID requirements help reduce voter fraud, but in-person voter fraud is exceptionally rare. An analysis of voter fraud from 2000 to 2014, published in The Washington Post, found just 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation. Still,President Donald Trump has claimed, without evidence, that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election and called for an investigation into voter fraud.

Between Trumps encouragement and Novembers election results, the studys findings would suggest that more voter ID laws are on the horizon. Republicans won majorities in both chambers of the legislatures in Iowa, Kentucky and Minnesota meaning they now have total control in 32 states, an all-time high. Iowa isalready considering a voter ID proposal.

Its not just that you have Republicans in power. Its that you have Republicans who have just come into power, Biggers told The Huffington Post. Theyve just taken over the mechanism necessary to implement these laws and they are more likely to adopt these laws, with one potential motivation being that they want to adopt these laws before they lose the ability to adopt them.

He also noted that passing strict voter ID laws can give Republican legislators, even if its on the margins, a better chance of retaining their offices.

Between 1972 and 2013, the study found, states were 7.9 percent more likely to implement a photo ID law after Republicans took complete control of a state legislature than in periods of steady GOP control, Democratic control or split control of the legislature. After a state switched to a Republican governor, it was 5.4 percent more likely to adopt a photo ID law.

The size of the local minority population also seemed to be a factor in whether a state where Republicans had just taken control of the legislature would adopt a photo ID law: States with higher percentages of African-Americans were 7 percent more likely to pass a law requiring photo ID. States with higher percentages of Latinos were 5.5 percent more likely to do so.

In most cases, Biggers said, the lawmakers appeared to be influenced by the size of both the black and Latino communities.

No matter how you define voter ID laws, very strict voter ID laws, some are more lenient, no matter what time period you look at, its consistently the case that the percent black, the percent Latino in the state is influencing whether or not the states are adopting these things, he said.

The chances of implementing voter ID increased after 2002. In the most recent years covered by the study, states were 23.8 percent more likely to implement a photo ID law after Republicans took control of the state legislature and 19.2 percent more likely after switching to a Republican governor.

Biggers and Hanmer attribute the spike to the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002. The federal law requires first-time voters who register by mail to show ID the first time they vote, a change that the researchers suggest awakened Republicans to the possibility of extending voter ID laws to the entire electorate.

How will Trumps first 100 days impact you? Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get breaking updates on Trumps presidency by messaging us here.

View original post here:
States Are More Likely To Pass Voter ID Laws Right After Republicans Take Power, Study Finds - Huffington Post

Trump and Republicans Strain to Set Agenda Wall Street Journal PHILADELPHIAPresident Donald Trump and congressional Republicans struggled to understand each other at the party's retreat here on Thursday, as they fell short of reaching agreement on complex policy issues involving taxes, trade and other pillars of ...

Read more:
Trump and Republicans Strain to Set Agenda - Wall Street Journal