PoliticsView from the Center and Left

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: T L Comiskey who wrote (186419)3/31/2012 6:50:52 PM
From: epicure
of 369724
you mean a Dick Cheney people hunt.

Maybe the guy he show was a matching blood type. Cheney's got to keep those spare parts coming...

One never knows when the dark lord might need another organ.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Dale Baker who wrote (186418)3/31/2012 9:49:00 PM
From: Win Smith
of 369724
'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point

[ From a somewhat local rag wrt to this story, we have this scary little bit of background. Totally aside from the obscure circumstances of this particular case, there is this nasty political backstory with the usual suspects hard at work. In this case, the NRA and Koch Bro front ALEC, not satisfied with the Supreme Court having done to gun regulation what they did to campaign finance, have moved on to the next stage. The Florida legislators behind the particular law in question are running around claiming their special little legislative masterpiece doesn't apply here, but that's not what the judges, prosecutors, and criminal defense lawyers say. I imagine the NRA will lay low for a month or so on this one, but I'm sure they'll be back pushing the same crap around the country when the news dies down. ]

By Ben Montgomery, Times Staff Writer

Published Saturday, March 31, 2012

The men responsible for Florida's controversial "stand your ground'' law are certain about one thing: Because of his actions before he pulled the trigger and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman is not protected from criminal prosecution.

Because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, because he followed Martin, because his actions put him a situation where he felt it necessary to shoot a boy dead, he should be booked, jailed and forced to face a jury of his peers.

Said Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill: "The guy lost his defense right then. When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Said Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the bill into law: "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

But the lawmakers are wrong.

Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended.

Early morning, Jan. 25, 2011. Greyston Garcia was in his apartment in Miami when a roommate told him someone was stealing the radio from his truck.

Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and ran outside. The burglar saw him coming, grabbed his bag of stolen radios and fled.

Rather than calling the police, Garcia chased the thief down the street and caught up to him a block away. The confrontation lasted less than a minute and was captured on surveillance video. The thief swung the bag of radios at Garcia, who blocked the bag with his left hand and stabbed the thief in the chest with his right.

Pedro Roteta, 26, died in the street.

Those are the facts. You be the judge.

Florida statute 776.013(3) says: (a) person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The old law required a person to use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force, except when the person was in his or her home or place of work. "Stand your ground'' expands that to any other place where he or she has a right to be.

Should that be enough to protect Greyston Garcia from prosecution?

Does it help to know that a medical examiner testified that a blow from a 4- to 6-pound bag of metal to the head would cause great bodily harm, possibly even death? Does it change your mind to learn that police found a folding knife in the dead man's back pocket?

Does it matter that Garcia didn't call the police? That he went home and fell asleep? That he later sold the other stolen car stereos and hid the knife and denied killing anyone when police finally caught him?

The judge considered all those facts. In the end, she ruled that Garcia's use of force was justified. It didn't matter that he had chased the thief for a block with a knife in his hand.

All that mattered was what happened in those few seconds when the two men stood face to face.

“Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine" wrote state Rep. Dennis Baxley, the Ocala Republican who co-authored the law, in a column March 21 for "There is no protection in the 'stand your ground' law for anyone who pursues and confronts people."

Lawyers say the bill's supporters are either uninformed or politically motivated.

"That's not what the law says," said Steven Romine, a Tampa Bay lawyer who has invoked "stand your ground'' successfully. "They might think that in their own heads, but it's just not true.

"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground."

Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.

"The real issue is what happens around the 60 seconds prior to the shooting," said Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which brought the charges against Greyston Garcia. "Everything else has emotional content, but from a legal perspective, it all comes down to the 60 seconds before the incident."

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

In May, Carlos Catalan-Flores, 26, a security guard at a Tampa strip club called Flash Dancers, confronted men who were drinking beer in the parking lot. One of the men threw a beer bottle at Catalan-Flores' head and prepared to throw another. Rather than taking cover inside the club, or using his baton or pepper spray to protect himself, Catalan-Flores drew his weapon and began firing. Several of the six shots hit the man who threw the beer.

A judge ruled that Catalan-Flores was justified, even though he initiated the confrontation. Being hit by a beer bottle constitutes a forcible felony, so he had the right to shoot, to protect himself.

"Fundamentally, this law is in place to protect us from prosecution and to allow us to protect ourselves," said Catalan-Flores' attorney, Joe Caimano. "If somebody takes it to the extreme, it will come out in the investigation."

Some extreme cases have tested the law.

A man got into a shootout on a Sarasota street, for instance, killing a man who owed him money and endangering bystanders. But a judge granted him immunity because a witness testified that his rival had claimed he had "fire in his pocket" and threatened the shooter. Police found no weapon at the scene, but that didn't matter. What mattered was that the shooter believed his enemy had a weapon and was ready to use it.

The court has even ruled that the statute can protect someone who shoots a retreating person. In overturning a ruling against Jimmy Hair, who shot a man who was retreating from a fight, a judge in Tallahassee wrote that the statute "makes no exception from the immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

Prosecutors argue that these types of cases should be brought before a jury.

"Jurors understand self-defense," said Griffith, the spokesman in Miami. "That's really where it should be."

Nine days after Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Sanford, Brandon Baker, 30, and his twin brother were driving separate cars toward the apartment they shared in Palm Harbor.

Seth Browning, a 23-year-old security guard who later told deputies he was concerned with Baker's erratic driving, pulled in close behind Baker to get his license tag number.

Baker turned off East Lake Road, then onto an access road and came to a stop, according to Pinellas sheriff's investigators. Browning followed and stopped behind Baker's Chevy truck.

Baker climbed out of his truck and walked to Browning's window. His brother, Chris, watching from behind, said Baker was trying to figure out why Browning was tailgating him.

Browning sprayed Baker with pepper spray, then shot him in the chest. He told deputies that Baker had punched him and he was in fear for his life. Browning called police as Chris Baker tried to revive his brother.

His father, Kevin Lindsay, rushed to the scene and watched as Browning was questioned at length. Then he learned the man who killed his son was released.

Baker's parents had never heard of the "stand your ground" law. Waiting for some type of action has exhausted them. They long for justice in what appears to them to be a clearly unjustifiable killing.

"I always knew that the law would protect you if somebody broke into your home. Sure, you can protect yourself," said his stepmother, Alex Lindsay. "But why did they have to expand it to protect people who do things like this?"

Their friends and family are just as shocked when they learn Browning might not be charged.

"They're incredulous," Alex Lindsay said.

More than 500 people have signed their online petition to get "stand your ground" repealed.

"This case is being considered a 'stand your ground' case and should not be since Seth Browning was the sole 'AGGRESSOR' and 'CHOSE' to tailgate, pull over, pepper spray, and shoot and kill Brandon Baker," it says. "Seth Browning did NOT act out of self defense and should be prosecuted for killing Brandon Baker."

But if history serves, the pursuit may not matter. The case will hinge on what happened in the moments before Browning pulled the trigger, and whether he feared for his life. Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gaultieri said this week that the case is still under investigation.

Baker's parents, like Martin's, are appalled that the law might protect the man who killed their son, and shocked that men who backed the law are saying they didn't know it could.

"Even if they had the best of intentions, they need to change this law," Alex Lindsay said. "They will never fully understand the repercussions of it."

"I don't wish this on anyone," said her husband. "And this is going to keep happening. It's going to happen to other families."

Times computer-assisted reporting specialist Connie Humburg and staff writer Kris Hundley contributed to this report. Ben Montgomery can be reached at or (727) 893-8650.

fort myers

Defendant: Demarro Battle

Victim: Omar Bonilla

Case: Battle fatally shot Bonilla, who was unarmed, during an argument at a party in Fort Myers in July 2009. Battle was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors later dropped the charge.


Defendant: Charles Podany

Victim: Casey Landes

Case: Podany, 49, asked a man driving through his Thonotosassa neighborhood to slow down. The driver's drunken friend, Landes, 24, objected and began beating Podany, who shot him in the head. A Hillsborough judge granted Podany immunity.

new port richey

Defendant: Max Wesley Horn Jr.

Victim: Joseph Martell

Case: Horn, 47, shot and killed Martell, 34, after an argument in March 2008. According to Horn, Martell threatened his sister-in-law. Witnesses disagree on whether Martell punched Horn, who fired six bullets at Martell. A judge denied "stand your ground," but Horn was acquitted at trial.

palm harbor

Shooter: Seth Browning

Victim: Brandon Baker

Case: Browning, an off-duty security guard, shot and killed Baker, 30, on March 5. Concerned about Baker's erratic driving, Browning followed to get his tag. The cars pulled off, and Baker approached Browning's car. Whether Baker threatened or punched Browning is in dispute, but Pinellas sheriff's investigators have not charged Browning.

'feared for life'

Shooter: Oscar Delbono

Victim: Shane Huse

Case: Delbono shot Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument in June 2009 between the neighbors. An autopsy showed Huse was turning to leave when shot. Delbono said he "feared for my life." The State Attorney's Office in Citrus County declined to prosecute.

miami chase

Defendant: Greyston Garcia

Victim: Pedro Roteta

Case: When Greyston Garcia discovered Pedro Roteta was stealing his car radio in Miami in January 2011, he grabbed a knife, ran downstairs and chased him down the street. Roteta reportedly swung a bag of car radios at him, and Garcia fatally stabbed him. The officer who supervised the case asked, "How can it be 'stand your ground' ?"

shot from inside

Shooter: Damian


Victim: Benjy Young

Case: Damian Niemeyer, 37, shot and killed Benjy Young, 19, in December as Young and two men tried to steal his motorcycle. Niemeyer of Royal Palm Beach said one of the men pointed a gun at him as he shouted at them from his second-story townhouse window. Sheriff's officials declined to prosecute Niemayer, saying he fired in fear.

backyard killing

Shooter: Todd


Victim: Michael Frazzini

Case: Frazzini, 35, was shot and killed near his mother's back yard by the father of a man who Frazzini believed was harassing her. Todd Rasmussen shot Frazzini as Frazzini squared off with Rasmussen's son. The State Attorney's Office said Rasmussen was allowed to use deadly force as long as he was in fear for himself or someone else.

unarmed, drunk

Shooter: Gregory


Victim: William Kuch

Case: William Kuch was unarmed and drunk when he wandered up to Gregory Stewart's door about 5 a.m in August 2009. When he tried to open the door, Stewart warned him off. When he tried again, Stewart pointed a gun at him. Stewart said Kuch then moved toward him, so he fired. Kuch recovered and Stewart faced no criminal action.

alley scuffle

Defendant: Nadim Yaqubie

Victim: Roberto Camacho

Case: Nadim Yaqubie, 19, bought a homeless man's ID from a third party so he could get into a nightclub in South Beach in 2008. When Roberto Camacho, 50, demanded it back, the men scuffled in an alley and Yaqubie stabbed him four times. A judge initially denied Yaqubie's claim of immunity, but an appeals court asked him to reconsider.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Cogito who wrote (186409)3/31/2012 9:59:10 PM
From: koan
of 369724
Boy, great explanation and right on the money.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Win Smith who wrote (186421)3/31/2012 10:22:35 PM
From: Win Smith
of 369724
Ok, so I made the mistake of checking the nether regions of SI on the "stand your ground" issue, and I stumbled on what seems to be a bizarre return to the black helicopters mindset, this time based on an obscure UN conference and its report. The main issue seems to have been sustainable development, and the plan itself seems 20 years old and no doubt deader than the Kyoto protocols, but it doesn't matter to the ever rational right. The RNC has taken a stand.

Bare bones from Wikipedia,

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.

. . .

Agenda 21 is viewed by some on the American right as a plan to stealthily impose world-wide centralised control over people, attacking private property and energy usage. [3] [4] A resolution approved by the Republican National Committee on 13 January 2012 asserted that Agenda 21 "is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control" [5]

The RNC declaration can be viewed at and I'm going to append it. My cursory reading seems to indicate that either sustainable development is a crime against humanity or that one of the two major political parties in the onetime greatest nation on earth has gone officially insane.

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme
environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local
communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other
“Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development”
views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car
ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the
environment; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is
described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded
us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist
redistribution of wealth; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed
a social injustice; now therefore be
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious
nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers
the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further
RESOLVED , that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the
United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and
therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well
informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda
21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its
radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall
deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican
candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC
sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office and recommend for
adoption into the Republican Party Platform at the 2012 Convention.
As Approved by the Republican National Committee, January 13, 2012

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Win Smith who wrote (186423)4/1/2012 1:14:34 AM
From: epicure
of 369724
And if you needed any more proof of the nuttiness of some of the wingnuts on SI, there you have it.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: epicure who wrote (186424)4/1/2012 5:42:56 AM
From: MoneyPenny
of 369724
April 1, 2012 Republicans Reveal that Entire Presidential Race was a Prank April Fool’s Day Announcement Brings Practical Joke to an End
WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report) – In an April Fool’s Day announcement that took the political world by storm, the Republican Party revealed today that its entire presidential race had been an elaborate prank.

“April Fool!” exclaimed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at a press conference in Washington, where they were joined by fellow merrymakers Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

Moments after revealing that the GOP primary had been one long practical joke, Mr. Santorum explained the rationale behind staging such a complicated and expensive prank.

“A lot of Americans are suffering right now and need a good laugh,” he said. “I think my colleagues and I can be justifiably proud of the entertainment we provided – even if it meant me wearing these ridiculous sweater vests.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain agreed that the prank had gone well, but added, “I’m just amazed that the American people never figured out we were kidding.”

“I mean, I kept saying ‘9-9-9’ every four seconds, which was total and utter bullshit,” he said. “And everything out of Michele’s mouth made her sound like a mental patient.”

“True that,” Rep. Bachmann agreed.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said he worried that “every time I screwed up at a debate people would figure out I was pulling their legs,” but added, “The American people seemed to accept the idea that a Governor of Texas could be a blithering idiot.”

When one reporter mentioned that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was not at the press conference, a sudden silence fell over the gathering.

“Did anyone ever tell Ron this was supposed to be a prank?” Mr. Romney asked. “Holy cow, maybe he’s really serious.”

Borowitz report.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: MoneyPenny who wrote (186425)4/1/2012 7:42:19 AM
From: epicure
of 369724
Ok- that's a good explanation for what we've been seeing- possibly the best explanation.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Bread Upon The Water4/1/2012 9:41:04 AM
of 369724
SC grapples with the issue of Government Mandates being everywhere. Why is health care different?

Article by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar Of the AP.

"The Indiviudal Insurance Mandate that the Supreme Court is reviewing isn't the first federal mandate involving health care. There's a Medicare payroll tax on workers and employers, for example, and a requirement that hospitals provide free emergency services to indigents. Health care is full of government dictates, some arguably more intrusive than President Barack Obama's overhaul law. It's a wrinkle that has caught the attention of the justices. Most of the mandates apply to providers such as hospitals and insurers. For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others. One mandate affects just about everybody: Workers must pay a tax to finance Medicare, which collects about $200 billion a year. It's right on your W-2 form, line 6, "Medicare tax withheld." Workers must pay it even if they don't have health insurance. Employees of a company get to split the tax with their employer. The self-employed owe the full amount, 2.9 percent of earnings. Lindsey Donner, a small-business owner from San Diego, pays the Medicare tax although she and her husband are uninsured. Donner, 27, says she doesn't see much difference between the mandate that workers help finance Medicare and the health care law's requirement that nearly everyone has to have some sort of health insurance. "My understanding of what is going on in the Supreme Court is that it seems to be something of a semantics issue," she said. "Ultimately, I don't see the big difference. If I am paying for Medicare, why can't I also be paying into something that would help me right now or in five years if I want to have children?" Donner is a copy writer for businesses; her husband specializes in graphics design. In the past they had a health plan with a high deductible, but they found they were paying monthly premiums for insurance they never used — something she said they couldn't afford on a tight budget. Under the law, people such as Donner and her husband would have to get insurance or pay a fine. But they may qualify for federal subsidies to help pay premiums for policies that would be more comprehensive. Preventive care would be covered with no co-payments. "We have jobs, we pay our bills, we pay our taxes," said Donner. "Yet it is very difficult to find affordable, reasonable health care." There's no question the Medicare payroll tax is a government mandate, said Mark Hayes, former chief health counsel for the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee. But he makes a distinction between the payroll tax and the individual health insurance mandate in Obama's health care law. Congress used more clearly defined constitutional powers when it created Medicare. "The power to tax and the power to spend," Hayes said. "Here, with the individual mandate, it's a different question — regulating interstate commerce. This is a novel question from a legal standpoint." Obama's law makes health insurance both a right and a responsibility for most. It would provide coverage to more than 90 percent of the population, subsidizing private insurance for millions. But it also requires nearly everyone to carry health insurance, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying an individual policy. The mandate is well within the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the administration and the law's supporters contend. Opponents say Congress overstepped constitutional bounds by effectively requiring individuals to purchase a particular product. Supreme Court justices are trying to determine the distinction between Obama's law and other mandates, and whether it makes a difference. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy raised the matter during oral arguments last week. Ginsburg brought up Social Security as an example, likening it to a government old-age annuity that everyone is forced to purchase. "It just seems very strange to me that there's no question we can have a Social Security system (despite) all the people who say: 'I'm being forced to pay for something I don't want,'" she said. "There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, 'Oh, yes that's fine,' but if the government wants to ... preserve private insurers, it can't do that." Kennedy mused that Congress could have created a Medicare-style program for the uninsured, run exclusively by the government without the involvement of private insurers. "Let's assume that (Congress) could use the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single payer," said Kennedy. "How does that factor into our analysis? In one sense, it can be argued that this is what the government is doing; it ought to be honest about the power that it's using and use the correct power. "On the other hand, it means that since ... Congress can do it anyway, we give a certain amount of latitude," Kennedy continued. "I'm not sure which way the argument goes." The case may well turn on how Kennedy decides. Social Security and Medicare are no longer controversial mandates because they are part of the social fabric, said Hayes, the former GOP congressional aide. Not so the health care law's mandate. "Today, this is controversial because it is novel from a legal standpoint and also new from a societal standpoint," he said. The distinction frustrates supporters of the health care law. "It's so crazy to think that a society that has Social Security and Medicare would not find this (law) constitutional," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both the Obama administration and Massachusetts lawmakers as they developed the state mandate in the 2006 law that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney championed as governor. "The payroll tax is worse than the mandate, because that is a program where we take your money and there is no ability to get out of it," Gruber said. Citizens can avoid the health insurance mandate by paying a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. Other federal health care mandates include: — The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It requires nearly all hospitals to treat and stabilize anyone needing emergency care, regardless of ability to pay or legal U.S. residency. Critics call it an unfunded mandate. It was part of a budget law signed by President Ronald Reagan. — The 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. It prohibits group health plans from setting lower annual or lifetime dollar limits for mental health benefits as compared with medical and surgical benefits. — The 1996 Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act. It requires plans offering maternity coverage to pay for at a least a 48-hour hospital stay following most normal deliveries, and 96 hours following a Caesarean section. The mental health parity and maternal health laws were signed by President Bill Clinton. "
04/01/2012 8:33 © Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (186399)4/1/2012 9:42:25 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water
of 369724
Whoa! Yes that might have something to do with it as well.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: epicure who wrote (186424)4/1/2012 9:46:22 AM
From: Dale Baker
of 369724
When Bush was in power, he actually did things that pissed off and worried those who didn't support him. Now the fashion is to make shit up and scream to the rafters about how evil and dangerous it is.

Very paranoid and warped. But it speaks volumes about the people who indulge in it.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.