The Far Right Preachers’ Free Ride

Scott Swenson

With so much talk about how religious figures are impacting the election, one wonders where the media has been for the past 30 years?

With so much talk about how religious figures are impacting the election, one wonders where the media has been for the past 30 years? Obama denounces an ego-maniacal minister, the Texas polygamy scandal involving teen girls in a fringe LDS sect may impact Mitt Romney’s slim chance at the GOP veep-stakes, with the Rev. Wright story getting nearly a month of non-stop coverage. Finally someone in mainstream media asked about the impact of far-right wing nuts like the Reverends Robertson, Falwell and Hagee. E.J. Dionne was polite in saying, "Now the question is whether we will be just as tough on false prophets who happen to be white and right-wing." Can you imagine the hue and cry from "oppressed fundamentalists" if the media focused on all the exclusionary, hate-filled, anti-democratic and un-Christian things these and other far-right preachers have said and done? With truly "fair and balanced" reporting, we might actually understand the wisdom of our founding documents and why separation of church and state is, and always should be, a cherished American value.

Editorial Politics

Five Reasons the GOP Can’t Be Taken Seriously on ‘Poverty’

Jodi Jacobson

No summit can fix what ails the GOP when it comes to concern for people struggling to make ends meet, or who no longer have any means whatsoever.

GOP leaders will attend a “summit on poverty” in South Carolina on Saturday. But no summit can fix what ails the GOP when it comes to concern for people struggling to make ends meet, or who no longer have any means whatsoever.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan originally planned the summit in September 2015, when he was chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, along with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). “Poverty” is a recurring theme for Ryan: He talked about it during the 2012 presidential campaign, called for a “new battle plan” on poverty last summer and as speaker mentioned it four times in one of his first major speeches. Interestingly, however, poverty is not listed anywhere on his congressional website as a priority issue or legislative focus. Nor is it prominent anywhere on the speaker’s page. So for now, the rhetoric and the summit feel reminiscent of Ryan’s 2012 staged photo op, when as a vice presidential candidate he “ramrodded” his way into an empty soup kitchen to wash clean dishes for the cameras but stayed far away from the actual people being served.

Poverty also appears to be a popular new topic for GOP presidential candidates floundering about for an agenda that “sells.” As Rebecca Vallas wrote in the Huffington Post:

2015 seems to have been the year of Republicans finding religion on poverty and inequality, with GOP presidential candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Governor Jeb Bush making major speeches on the subject, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and then-Speaker Boehner (R-OH) lamenting the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in a widely-noted joint interview on 60 Minutes.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Normally, we’d write a critique of policies after they’d been presented at the summit, and that may be yet to come. But for a party that is persistently disdainful of the working class and those without jobs, it’s hard to take any of the rhetoric seriously, especially given that GOP legislators overwhelmingly voted for a bill to overturn the Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood before many of them boarded planes for South Carolina. If the bill had not been vetoed by President Obama, those two actions alone would unquestionably have added to the economic struggles of millions of Americans. Moreover, the GOP has a knack for wrapping the same old policies—already found to worsen poverty and inequality—in new rhetorical packages. Jeb Bush, for example, is apparently now campaigning on a “fix welfare” platform straight out of 1992. So I think a “prebuttal” of whatever policy announcements are planned for Saturday is fair.

Here are a few of the actions Republicans have taken in recent years that suggest their platform won’t fix poverty:

Reinforcing Poverty Wages: From 2013 to 2014, the inflation-adjusted wages of American workers have stagnated across the spectrum, including for those with advanced degrees, despite increased corporate profits and productivity. According to the Economic Policy Institute, this has largely been the pattern, with some temporary shifts, since 1979. EPI notes:

The poor performance of American workers’ wages in recent decades—particularly their failure to grow at anywhere near the pace of overall productivity—is the country’s central economic challenge. Raising wages is the key to addressing middle-class income stagnation, rising income inequality, and lagging economic mobility, and is essential to moving families out of poverty.

Increasing the minimum wage is one critical portion of a larger effort to dramatically reduce poverty, especially among women: The U.S. Department of Labor explains that “89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.” Nonetheless, in 2014 and 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress twice voted against a federal minimum wage hike. And in recent debates, GOP presidential hopefuls have expressed resounding opposition to increasing the minimum wage.

Ignoring the Role of Medical Debt in Poverty and the Financial Crisis: Good health is critical to personal well-being and to economic productivity. It’s hard, and actually economically counterproductive, for both individuals and for businesses when sick employees come to work. Many people facing chronic or acute diseases also need time off to see a doctor or receive treatment. But health care is expensive, especially in the United States.

And despite enactment of the Affordable Care Act, a longer-term trend of higher and higher deductibles and co-pays has made paying for insurance and for medical care increasingly expensive, a reality that weighs disproportionately on low-income workers. Moreover, health-related expenses contribute to more than half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States. A poll by the New York Times and Kaiser Family Foundation found that health care costs from both chronic and catastrophic illness can leave people with “crushing debt.”

While an increasing number of people, including those with preexisting conditions, are now able to get health insurance under the ACA, the costs of insurance and rate of growth in co-pays has left many others struggling. As has always been the case with other large and sweeping laws, updates and changes need to be made to the ACA to fix gaps and unintended consequences so we can reach the ultimate goal of affordable health care for all. Despite the fact that health care is a critical aspect of poverty reduction and economic prosperity, the GOP both refuses to fix the ACA and has worked ceaselessly to overturn it, voting more than 54 times to repeal it without any backup plan.

Choice in Childbirth: Personal decisions about whether, when, and with whom to have a child have lifelong consequences and are among the most fundamental economic decisions. Having a child when you are in school, for example, may mean you have to postpone or entirely forego your education. Low-wage jobs are precarious as it is; having a child may mean losing work due to lack of options for affordable child care. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the price of child care exceeded the cost of rent in 500 out of 618 municipalities in the United States underscoring just how difficult it would be for a low-income worker to sustain a family and have the supported needed to actually go to work.

Feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care and other necessities for a child is not only very expensive, it also entails a lifelong emotional and physical commitment. It’s a profound personal choice. Worldwide, studies show that access to both contraception and abortion are positively correlated with higher incomes and better personal outcomes. Ironically, while Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates recommendwaiting until you are ready” to have children as one of their recommendations for addressing poverty, they have at the same time been gutting funds for family planning and placing an increasing number of restrictions on access to abortion. If they really believed in addressing poverty, Republicans would pledge to ensure all people have access to both contraception and abortion.

Raising a Family: As noted above, kids are expensive. The average cost of raising a child to age 18 in urban areas of the United States is now roughly $245,000. For this and other reasons, two-income households are the norm, not the exception—a result, as columnist E.J. Dionne has noted, of “an economic struggle highlighting yet again the social costs arising from decades of stagnating or declining wages and growing income inequality.”

All families need and deserve basic choices, including the choice to be home with a new or sick child, or when caring for an ailing family member. And all children, including those who live in low-income households, deserve to have enough food, heat, and a safe place to sleep. Ensuring paid family leave is a critical aspect of broader efforts to combat poverty because so many people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and especially women, lose jobs for lack of family leave. The GOP, however, lauds family values but consistently votes against actual families. For example, though a majority of U.S. voters support legislation guaranteeing paid family leave, the GOP has consistently voted against it. And today’s crop of GOP presidential contenders all oppose legislation to ensure paid family leave.

Education and Student Debt: As a social good, education is critical. While individual opportunities vary from one field to another and one city or state to another, on the whole, education is vital for economic success. High rates of student debt and high rates of interest paid on those debts have, however, kept many from paying off their student loans or getting an education in a different field of expertise, therefore limiting their ability to advance economically. Still, the GOP has several times voted against bills, including those introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), that would have allowed students to refinance their debts from rates of 6 to over 10 percent interest to under 4 percent interest. While they’ve rejected these plans, congressional Republicans have not presented an effective plan to lower the burden of student debt.

So as Republican leaders convene in South Carolina, remember that the GOP has consistently made clear, through its legislative and policy choices (and I’ve only noted a few) and through its rhetoric, that it has little actual concern for people living in poverty and those who are most economically vulnerable. If you follow the axiom, “It’s not what they say, it’s what they do,” the GOP has done a whole helluva lot to undermine the economic prospects of those who are not male, not white, and not wealthy. Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates as a whole not only don’t seem to care much about poverty, they don’t seem to understand what factors push people into poverty and keep them there. And they certainly don’t appear to understand what it would really mean to address poverty, yet are eager to exacerbate many of the problems that contribute to it in the first place.

Investigations Sexual Health

The Right’s Answer to Gutting Planned Parenthood? Elementary Schools, Homeless Shelters, Jails

Sharona Coutts, Zoe Greenberg & Brie Shea

Most people would consider it unusual to pick a corrections facility if they were in the market for a breast exam. But that’s exactly what is suggested by a new website launched last month by 17 of the nation’s most prominent anti-choice groups.

The receptionist at the clinic at Washington D.C.’s Correctional Treatment Facility seemed baffled to receive a call last week from a reporter asking whether she could schedule a breast exam at the facility.

“This is a jail,” the receptionist said. The reporter asked whether people from the community could nonetheless make appointments at the facility for a breast exam, a Pap smear, or a test for sexually transmitted infections. “Ma’am, this is a jail,” she said again, before suggesting that the reporter contact doctors’ offices nearby.

Indeed, most people would consider it unusual to pick a corrections facility if they were in the market for a breast exam. But that’s exactly what is suggested by a new website launched last month by some of the nation’s most prominent anti-choice groups.

The site, GetYourCare.org, is registered to the Alliance Defense Fund, a deep-pocketed fundamentalist Christian group based in Phoenix, Arizona, now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom. Other sponsors of the site include Concerned Women for America, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Family Research Council. Together, these groups have played leading roles in either promoting or bankrolling some of the most significant anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ campaigns and lawsuits of the last few years.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The new site was launched on September 28, the day before Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, testified before Congress about the discredited claims that her organization profits from fetal tissue donation. The claims were made in a series of surreptitiously recorded and deceptively edited videos. Though they were the focus of a media frenzy over the summer, no evidence has been found to substantiate them, despite multiple hearings and both state and federal investigations.

Planned Parenthood serves an estimated 2.7 million people throughout the United States per year, many of them students, parents, and low-income individuals reliant on Medicaid for health care. GetYourCare.org is a not-so-subtle effort by anti-choice groups to double down on their repeated claims in Congress and the media that women’s health care would be largely unaffected if federal and state governments stripped Planned Parenthood of public funding. The site features a green map of the United States, covered in a spray of thousands of yellow dots, each of which is supposed to represent a health-care facility that could ostensibly fill the vacuum left by Planned Parenthood’s absence. The site says it draws its information “primarily from two separate lists: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Centers (RHC).”

“GetYourCare.org was created to show that women have real choices when it comes to health care,” the site says. “All across America, thousands of low-cost health centers offer women and their families high-quality health care.”

A press release from the Alliance Defending Freedom claimed that the facilities listed on the map “typically offer the full range of women’s health services without all the scandal of Planned Parenthood.”

But in an investigation into the facilities, Rewire has found that these “real choices” include hundreds of elementary, middle, and high schools; clinics that provide care for homeless people; nursing homes; pediatrics centers; and even the D.C. jail. Rewire called and emailed hundreds of the facilities listed on the map, and discovered that many of their spokespeople were bewildered by the notion that women would be directed to their facilities for reproductive health services.

School officials, in particular, were confused that they would be asked to provide reproductive and sexual health services to the general population. The GetYourCare site explains that there are over 600 schools listed because they “have been identified as providing girls’ and women’s health care services at ‘school-based health centers’ on location. Thus, the school serves as a very real option for girls and young women in the area who need healthcare.”

In fact, virtually none of the 60 schools Rewire contacted from the list said they provide health care to girls and women in the community.

That includes Wearwood Elementary School, which sits nestled at the foot of the Great Smoky Mountains in Wears Valley, Tennessee. Wearwood, which teaches students from kindergarten through eighth grade, is part of a rural farming community—and not the first place you might think to go for an STI screening.

Instead, the clinic is like many other elementary school nurse’s offices, where a full-time school nurse provides limited care to the 190 students in attendance.

The nurse primarily tends to the school’s one diabetic student, the principal, Jon Manning, told Rewire in a phone interview. She can also treat scrapes, fevers, and headaches, although the district has a telemedicine program for more serious ailments.

Principal Manning described the school as “remote;” the nearest commercial district is nine miles away in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. If women need to make an appointment for a breast exam or a birth control prescription, Wearwood Elementary is certainly not the place to go.

“We just don’t have the equipment or the staff,” Principal Manning said, when asked if women from the community could make check-up appointments there.  “What we have to offer really wouldn’t be feasible. One thing is, normally, we don’t allow strangers in during the school day for security reasons.”

Of the 60 elementary, middle, and high schools Rewire contacted across six different states, only two said they provided health services to women in the community. Both were based in Sneedville, Tennessee, and are funded by the East Tennessee State University’s college of nursing, according to a receptionist at the clinic. She said the school-based clinics provide care to students during school hours, but are open to the general public after hours and on weekends. They do provide Pap smears, breast exams and STI screenings, and they accept Medicaid patients, she said.

But many respondents at the schools were mystified by the question of providing sexual and reproductive health care.

“You called an elementary school,” a receptionist at the Heritage Hill School in Springdale, Ohio, said.

“To women?” asked a receptionist at the Delhi Charter School in Delhi, Louisiana. “No ma’am, we just do the children here that go to this school.”

“We don’t have a school-based clinic and we never have,” the receptionist at the Abiquiu Elementary School in Abiquiu, New Mexico, told Rewire.

Other types of centers explained that they did not provide services to the general population.

Rewire attempted to contact more than 20 clinics that provide health care for homeless people listed on the map. Many facilities that we contacted did not return calls or emails seeking information about the care they offered. Of those that did answer calls, several said that they did provide some type of primary health care, but in some cases those services were available only to people who met their criteria for homelessness. For a facility in El Paso, Texas, that meant providing a referral letter from a homeless shelter. For the Jessie Trice Community Health Center in Miami, Florida, a receptionist said that treatment consisted mainly of primary care for residential drug treatment patients, and not for the general public.

Similarly, the pediatrics centers we contacted were puzzled by the notion that they could offer comprehensive reproductive and sexual health services to women and girls. For instance, the receptionist at the pediatrics clinic on Marco Island in Florida—the only facility listed by the map in the area of Marco Island—confirmed that they could see girls for general pediatric complaints, but for anything involving reproductive or sexual health issues, they would need to refer patients out. She told us that the closest facility was in Naples, some 30 miles away.

It should come as no surprise that so many of these facilities do not offer comprehensive sexual and reproductive care. The official government document that explains what is included in the list that the anti-choice groups used to populate the map does not specifically mention sexual or reproductive care. Rather, it enumerates some more general forms of care—such as physician services, “other ambulatory services,” and some screening treatments—that could potentially encompass sexual and reproductive care. But the list also explicitly includes services that seem to be unrelated, such as nursing home care and diabetes self-management.

When informed of our findings, the Alliance Defending Freedom was unperturbed.

GetYourCare.org includes clinics serving different populations and demonstrates that Planned Parenthood is very rarely the only option even for the very limited services Planned Parenthood actually provides,” wrote spokesman Bob Trent in an email. “Even if Planned Parenthood were to stop providing these services, it would hardly be a blip.”

The notion that shuttering Planned Parenthood could be done without affecting access to care for those patients has been widely rejected by academics, experts, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that 15 percent of current patients would immediately “face reduced access to care” should Planned Parenthood cease providing family planning services. That conclusion focused on “services that help women avert pregnancies,” and not the many other services, such as cancer screenings and STI testing, that Planned Parenthood provides. The CBO also concluded that the move would result in more births, and therefore greater costs to Medicaid.

But that hasn’t stopped prominent anti-choice politicians and groups from sticking to the claim.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, made that argument in court filings over his state’s efforts to strip Planned Parenthood of state reimbursements for services it provides to some 5,200 patients. When the federal judge hearing the case questioned why Jindal and his lawyers had included dentists and ophthalmologists in their list of facilities that could pick up the slack, Jindal’s administration had to back down and acknowledge that a dentist’s office is probably not the right place to go if you’re in need of a Pap smear or other reproductive health service.

The groups backing GetYourCare.org are no small-bit players. The Alliance Defending Freedom is a key architect behind legal strategies to frame anti-LGBTQ laws as protections for religious liberty. It had $35.5 million in assets, according to its 2014 public tax filings. The Family Research Council has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its homophobic vitriol. It reported assets of more than $4 million and revenue of $13.7 million in the fiscal year ending in 2014. Concerned Women for America and the Susan B. Anthony List both clock in with around $4 million in revenue according to their most recent tax filings. Each of these groups actively campaign to end access to safe and legal abortion in the United States, as well as to restrict access to contraception. Another sponsor, Americans United for Life, generates hundreds of the model laws that have been used by state and federal legislators to further the same goal.

Based on efforts to contact hundreds of the roughly 11,000 facilities that appear to be included on the map, Rewire found that many locations did say they could provide the services we requested. Facilities in Arizona and Ohio were more likely than those in Nevada, Oklahoma, northern California, or Oregon to be able to make appointments within the next week. For those other states, wait times were typically until late December or early January. A receptionist at a facility in the northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C., said that since the clinic wasn’t taking any new patients until January, she wasn’t able to schedule appointments at this time. In Kansas and Nevada, receptionists suggested looking to facilities nearby, often more than an hour away, to schedule well-woman visits. Many voicemails and emails simply went without a reply.

Insurance coverage was also patchy. Some facilities said they accepted Medicaid and others said they charged on a sliding scale, depending on ability to pay. However, other facilities said they did not accept the types of insurance that a reporter cited.

Rewire’s reporting, though not a scientific study, strongly supported the conclusions of numerous experts who found that closing or limiting Planned Parenthood services would have a dramatic impact on women and girls—especially those in low-income communities and communities of color.

Writing in the Health Affairs Blog last month, Sara Rosenbaum, a professor and founding chair of the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, argued that defunding Planned Parenthood would be a disaster for women and girls: “Unable to access the contraceptive care they need, women would be left to pay the price, as more unintended pregnancies and abortions result.”

Rosenbaum, who is also a commissioner on the Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) Payment and Access Commission, concluded:

[A] claim that community health centers readily can absorb the loss of Planned Parenthood clinics amounts to a gross misrepresentation of what even the best community health centers in the country would be able to do were Planned Parenthood to lose over 40 percent of its operating revenues overnight as the result of a ban on federal funding.

Based on Rewire’s reporting, not even the nation’s elementary schools, homeless shelters, and nursing homes could fill that gap.