Lambda Letters Project - News about and articles by the Lambda Letters Project

By Shirin Buckman, board chair

(May 22, 2008) – It is with great pleasure that the Lambda Letters Project announces that the California Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage in California. In so doing, it has become only the second supreme court in the United States to so rule.

On May 15 the California Supreme Court held that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying (in re Marriage Cases, S147999).

The court concluded that permitting opposite-sex couples to marry—while affording same-sex couples access only to the novel and less-recognized status of domestic partnership—improperly infringes a same-sex couple's constitutional rights to marry and to the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the California Constitution.

The decision directs state officials who supervise the enforcement of the state's marriage laws to ensure that local officials comply with the court's ruling and permit same-sex couples to marry. The decision becomes final in 30 days unless that period is extended by court order. Thus same-sex couples should be able to obtain marriage licenses in California by June 15. People wishing to marry may obtain marriage licenses at the office of their county clerk recorder.

This decision continues a tradition of ground-breaking decisions by the court. For example, in 1948, in Perez v. Sharp, it became the first supreme court in this nation to rule that laws banning interracial marriages are unconstitutional. In 2005, in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law prohibits a country club from offering membership fee discounts to married couples while refusing to offer them to registered domestic partners.

Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist, noted that Lambda Letters has worked hard in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry in California: "The members and friends of the Project have delivered well over 50,000 letters and e-mails to elected officials in support of three bills in the California legislature that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry in our state." Two of those three bills (AB 849 and AB 43) were approved by the legislature but then vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

When he vetoed AB 43, the governor sent this message to the legislature: "In 2000, the voters approved Proposition 22, a challenge to which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. I maintain my position that the appropriate resolution to this issue is to allow the court to rule on Proposition 22." Well, now the Supreme Court has spoken and it has declared that same-sex couples do indeed have the right to marry in California.

By Boyce Hinman, Chief Lobbyist

(May 22, 2008) – What is the tunnel? It is a list of five constitutional initiatives that have been proposed for the November 2008 ballot. Two of those initiatives have already failed to qualify. One of the failed initiatives would have banned same-sex marriage and the other would have banned same-sex marriage and taken away the rights of domestic partners in California.

The supporters of another initiative have submitted more than enough signatures to the Secretary of State to qualify their initiative for the November ballot. The Secretary of State is now checking to see if there are enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. This initiative would amend state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in California. It appears, by the way, that the passage of this constitutional initiative banning same-sex marriage would overturn the recent California Supreme Court decision granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Signatures are now being gathered on petitions for two other constitutional initiatives. Both initiatives would amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage and to take away the rights of domestic partners in California.

So the dark tunnel is that the voters may well vote in support of one of the initiatives that both ban same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits. The light at the end of the tunnel is that the initiatives that ban domestic partner benefits seem to have serious legal flaws. I am not an attorney, and only an attorney can determine whether or not I am right, but here is my take on the situation.

Each of the initiatives banning domestic partner benefits revoke all the California and local government laws and policies which provide benefits to domestic partners. However, they also prohibit state or local legislative bodies, and state and local officials, from granting benefits to domestic partners in the future.

In 1992 the voters of Colorado passed an amendment to their constitution (Amendment 2) that did two things. First, it overturned any state or local laws or policies banning discrimination against homosexuals. Second, it forbade the state of Colorado, local governments in the state, state courts, and any officers in state or local government from enacting any new laws, policies, or court decisions banning discrimination against homosexuals.

In 1996 the US Supreme Court (in Romer v. Evans) overturned the Colorado law saying it violated the federal constitution. The court said, "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to anyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the equal protection clause."

Apparently it was the fact that the constitutional amendment prohibited granting rights to homosexuals in the future, while still allowing the granting of rights to other groups, that caused the court to rule that Amendment 2 violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

Similarly, any California initiative that says no rights can be granted to same-sex couples, but rights can still be granted to other couples, would seem to violate the Supreme Court's ruling in Romer v. Evans.

So even if one of these initiatives to take away the rights of domestic partners passes in November, it may be overturned by the courts. But don't hold your breath. Amendment 2 was not overturned until four years after its passage in Colorado. Also, we have a very different Supreme Court now than we did in 1996. The current court is much more conservative. It may not follow the precedent established in Romer v. Evans. So the best course for us is to do all we can to assure that these onerous initiatives do not pass in the first place.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(May 22, 2008) – On May 12 the state Senate approved the California Dream Act, SB 1301, and sent it to the state Assembly for their consideration. This bill would allow certain undocumented immigrants to receive scholarships from California's public colleges and universities. Lambda Letters provided major support for the bill. It sent over 2,000 letters and e-mails of support for the bill to the Senate.

Here is an explanation of SB 1301. Several years ago, the members of the Lambda Letters Project fought hard in support of AB 540. With our help that bill did pass.

Prior to the passage of AB 540, all undocumented youth who wanted to attend this state's public colleges and universities had to pay out of state tuition, which is at least twice as high as the tuition paid by the residents of California. Undocumented immigrants had to pay the higher tuition even if they had been brought here by their parents at age one or two.

AB 540 allows undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition if they:

Attended high school in California for three or more years
Graduated from a California high school or passed the GED
Filed an affidavit with the college or university stating that they have applied for a lawful immigration status or will apply as soon as they are eligible to do so

The passage of AB 540 opened a window of opportunity for the first time for many young people who had lived here for most of their lives.

But there is a problem. Many of these would-be students are on a limited income. Any other student on a limited income would have the opportunity to apply for one of several possible scholarships or student aid programs. But students who are eligible to attend college at in-state tuition rates (under AB 540) are prohibited from applying for these scholarships.

This doesn't make sense. Allow them to attend college, but don't provide them with the scholarships that will make it possible? Many of these youth are bright, promising people who can add a lot to the support and advancement of our society if they are allowed to get a college education.

SB 1301 is a good bill and Lambda Letters has been happy to support it.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(May 22, 2008) – On May 19 the California Assembly approved AB 2567. This bill would require the governor to proclaim May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day, and would designate that date as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions, and encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in a major city, serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from 1977 to 1978. Sadly he was assassinated the day after Thanksgiving in 1978. His birthday, May 22, was the day chosen to commemorate him. If AB 2567 is approved by the legislature and signed by the governor, California will become the first state in the union to commemorate the life of an openly gay person.

By Boyce Hinman, Chief Lobbyist

(March 1, 2008) – The news from our legislative committee is very good. In January, with your help, we delivered a total of 36,819 letters and e-mails to elected officials. By comparison, in January 2007, we delivered only 7,285 letters and e-mails. How did we do it? With the help of many good people like yourself.

Much of this month's count came from our work on "two-year bills." Such bills were introduced in the state legislature last year, but not approved in their house of origin before the end of 2007. For example any bill beginning with the letters "AB" and introduced last year was introduced in the Assembly. Any such bill that did not get out of the Assembly by the end of 2007, and which had not lost a vote in the Assembly, became a two-year bill. Those bills had to be approved by their house of origin, and sent to the other house of the state legislature, no later than January 31, 2008. Any bills that did not make that deadline are now dead.

There were a lot of two-year bills this year. So the members and friends of Lambda Letters worked very hard on them. Most of our January count came from e-mails sent to legislators by our supporters in response to e-mail alerts that we sent out. We sent 24 alerts. By the end of the month, people responding to our alerts had sent 33,900 e-mail messages to elected officials. You, our members, also sent paper letters to elected officials on five different bills.

Our success rate was good too. In our letters and e-mails we asked legislators either to support or oppose bills. They voted the right way 18 times and the wrong way four times. Votes on seven bills are still pending.

Our treasurer tells us the Lambda Letters Project spent $2,987 in January. We delivered 36,819 letters and e-mails that month, and our cost per letter or e-mail that month was just 81 cents. You would be hard pressed to find any other civil rights and social justice organization that gives you more bang for the buck.

I hope that you will take the time to send us a generous contribution that will help us continue the important work that we and you are doing together.

By David Cameron Strachan

(March 1, 2008) – When sexuality is discussed, I think that one's sex (the noun, not the verb) and one's gender need to be discussed first, since those are what define our sexuality. In my opinion, all religions need to educate their members by not avoiding these subjects and the uncomfortable feelings that may come up.

What is intersex?

Many different people have their own definition. To me, intersex is an umbrella term for variations in sex anatomy, sex chromosomes, or mixed reproductive differences that have legal, social, and medical implications. Because many intersex people don't fit into a legal or social definition (within our society's "two sex, two gender" binary system), intersex children and adolescents are often surgically and hormonal "fixed" and "cured" of their ambiguity so they "fit visually" into the system.

Most people have the standard "male" or "female" sex anatomy appearance; intersex people are somewhere in between the two. Not all intersex persons are born with ambiguous genitalia. Some of our anatomical variations arrive at puberty, when we don't develop like others. It's estimated that one in 2,000 persons have some sexual birth ambiguity and 1 in 150 have other anatomical sex variations. An estimated 65,000 intersex people are born worldwide every year, and five surgeries are performed in the US each day on babies who look sexually different. Most cultures hide this "shameful" variation that their god created, although most surgeries happen in America.

There are many "condition-specific" groups that ignore the term intersex and are usually run by parents wanting their children to turn out normal. They tend to be transphobic and homophobic.

There is much debate about what to call us: hermaphrodites, eunuchs, hijras, female and male pseudo-hermaphrodites, disabled persons, persons with differences or variations of sex development, and "disorders or abnormalities that need fixing." For lack of a better word, I prefer intersex.

Socially, intersex people experience much shame and secrecy about their bodies, what happened surgically/hormonally to them as children or adolescents, and the trauma they received by the medical establishment, even if well intended. Many didn't find out until they were able to access their medical records about what happened to them. I'm hoping to encourage doctors to stop doing hormonal and surgical gender assignments unless that person (not the parent) can give full informed consent of how they prefer their own bodies to look.

I was born with XXY sex chromosomes, but it wasn't discovered until I was 29 when I was examined at an infertility clinic. It's estimated that one in 400 "male" births result with this variation (among others, such as XYY, XXYY, and XY/XXX). Many parents abort such fetuses when they find out they are not the standard XX or XY person.

My anatomical variation is called Klinefelter's syndrome and my almost nonexistent sex glands produce 10% of what is considered "normal" testosterone production. I do not produce sperm.

This reality has a major spiritual significance for me because so much of society is surrounded by family. I can't reproduce, and I often wonder why God made me this way? Many intersex people cannot reproduce; where is the religious support when we are called to go be fruitful and multiply?

Many intersex persons are heterosexually identified. Others are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Many of us have gender identities other than the standard man = male, woman = female and are intergendered, bigendered, both and neither man nor woman. And there are those who identify in the "traditional" binary terms. How can religion serve these populations?

Then there's the question about identity. Can there be an intersex identity? I think so. I identify as intersex although I pass as a masculine man, thanks to 30 years of testosterone replacement therapy and all the side-effects that I've had to endure. I was never given an "informed" choice for this to happen. The first puberty I went through between 13 and 15 was fine with me. The second in my 30s was disturbing because of all the changes my anatomy and psyche went through—just so that medical society could call me "normal."

Since the intersex movement is still young (not quite 15 years old), it is my hope that younger intersex persons will be proud of who they are and be able to live with the sexual anatomies they were born into.

See the Intersex link under Community Voices on the Marriage Equality USA website, marriageequality.org, for more information.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(March 1, 2008) – Each month you receive paper letters to sign and return to us for delivery to your legislators. We are proud of how many of you actually do that each month. Typically 80–85% of our members do return signed letters to us each month. That has a great impact on our legislators.

However, there is another way you can contact your legislators and have an impact on the decisions they make. Each month we send e-mail alerts to people who have signed up to receive them. These alerts mirror what you get from us via the post office each month. However, the e-mail alerts often are about different bills than those covered in the newsletter and sample letters we mail you. Also the e-mail alerts help us keep you informed of fast-breaking legislative events in between newsletter mailings.

Creating the newsletter and sample letters is a long process. It takes time to compose the articles and sample letters, lay out the newsletter, and print them and mail them to you. It takes time for you to read them, sign them, and return them to us for delivery to your legislators. As a result, the newsletter you get in the mail must be about votes expected to occur several weeks after we start the process of creating the newsletter and sample letters.

Often we hear about a vote that will occur on an important bill in the coming week. In that case, there is simply no time to get letters to you via the post office. However, our e-mail alert system allows us to get that information to people the day we hear of the vote. People can then use our easy automated system to send messages to their legislators that same day or the next day. That allows us to get large volumes of mail to legislators well before the vote.

Each e-mail alert we send provides background on the bill and why it is important to support or oppose it. Each alert also contains a sample letter. The alert even has a link to a copy of the bill so you can determine whether you agree with our position on it. And each alert contains links that make it easy to send messages to your legislators. Most people tell us it takes about five minutes to respond to each alert and send messages to their legislators.

We invite you to sign up for our e-mail alerts. It's easy to do. Just look for the "Get our e-mail alerts" box in the left navigation area. Type in your e-mail address and then click Send. We will then start sending our alerts to you.

I hope you will make use of this easy way to increase your influence over the legislation that affects your life.

(February 1, 2008) – As you may remember, the US Congress recently almost passed a federal hate crimes law that would have banned hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Unfortunately that bill was dropped when the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided they could not get the number of votes needed to pass it.

More progress is being made on the state level. California's hate crimes law bans both sexual orientation and gender identity hate crimes. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 32 states ban sexual orientation–based hate crimes and 11 states ban gender identity–based hate crimes. To find out which states those are, you may read the following map online: Hate Crime Laws in the U.S. (PDF, 60K).

However, as we've noted elsewhere in this newsletter, New Jersey's governor is expected to sign a law banning hate crimes against transgender people. That would make 12 states with such laws.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(February 1, 2008) – We gratefully acknowledge that most of the following information was provided by the National Center for Transgender Equality and was forwarded to us by Phyllis Frye.

Recently the New Jersey General Assembly passed A4591/S2975 by a large majority of 65–10. This follows action last week in the state senate where the bill passed unanimously 35–0. The law that passed will now go to Governor Corzine's desk for his expected signature.

We congratulate the Garden State Equality and Gender Rights Advocacy Association of New Jersey (GRAANJ) who have continued to represent transgender people in New Jersey with incredible skill and determination.

Basically, the bill adds gender identity and expression to the state's hate crime law and gives teeth to New Jersey's safe school, anti-bullying laws.

According to Garden State Equality specifically, the new law does the following:

Adds "gender identity or expression" as a protected class to the state hate crimes law.
Updates other parts of the hate crimes law by adding "national origin" as a protected category, which thus far has been included in the law by interpreting "ethnicity" to include such; and substitutes the more sensitive term "disability" for "handicap."
Specifies that a "mistake of fact" by a defendant committing a hate crime is not a defense.
Requires two hours of hate-crimes sensitivity training for all new police officers.
Specifies suggested sentencing options to which judges can sentence defendants, such as anti-hate sensitivity training.
Creates a study Commission on Bullying in Schools, which has nine months to investigate the problem and make recommendations to the governor and legislature for further legislation.
Requires schools post their anti-bullying policies on their websites, and to distribute their anti-bullying policies, within 120 days after enactment of the law.

Congratulations, New Jersey!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(February 1, 2008) – We are now well into election season. We should all be voting in the primaries and in the general elections. Unfortunately, some people face difficulties in exercising their right to vote. Transgender people have difficulties that are unique to their situation. Much of the following information on this issue was provided to us by the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Everyone should vote! Unfortunately there are issues that sometimes make it difficult for transgender people to vote. Don't let these barriers stop you from voting—you have a right to vote. Transgender people may find voting to be an intimidating process for many reasons. Below are some of the reasons.

You may be transitioning so that the apparent gender of your clothing and appearance does not match the apparent gender of your name in the voter registry. Transgender voters should change their names on the voter registration rolls to their new name as soon as possible. Contact your local registrar of voters to do this. Their office is usually listed in the county government section near the front of the phone book.

But if it is not possible to register in your new name in time, here is what the California secretary of state's office suggests you do when you go to your polling place. Identify yourself under your former name, presumably the one shown on the voter registry. If someone at the polling place challenges you, insist that you are that person. California law does not require you to provide any form of identity document to prove who you are. Insist that you be permitted to vote under your former name.

If you are still refused, ask for a provisional ballot. Complete and sign the provisional ballot using your former name. According to the secretary of state, your county registrar will compare your signature on the provisional ballot with your signature on the document you signed to register to vote. If the name is the same on both documents, and the signatures look like the same writing, your ballot will be counted.

In the unlikely circumstance that you are refused even a provisional ballot, call your local county registrar of voters' office to complain. If you call early enough, they may resolve the issue in time for you to vote before the polls close.

Transgender people may also face just plain discrimination when they attempt to vote. Some poll workers may try to prevent a transgender person from voting out of sheer prejudice. One way to avoid all these problems is to apply for an absentee ballot. That way you avoid all the stress and possible challenges. However, when completing an absentee ballot you will need to sign it with the name you are registered under, even if that conflicts with your present gender presentation.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(January 1, 2008) – In 1986 Congress passed a law making the penalty for the sale of crack cocaine much higher than for the sale of powder cocaine. Specifically, under the law, the penalty for selling one gram of crack cocaine is the same as selling 100 grams of powder cocaine.

The problem with this federal law is that African Americans account for about 80 percent of the federal crack cocaine convictions. This results from the fact that African American drug abusers typically use crack cocaine, while white drug abusers more often use powder cocaine. This pattern of use, combined with the way the federal law was written, means that most black drug users receive much harsher penalties than white drug abusers do.

Recent actions at the federal level are beginning to correct this injustice. Just last month the Supreme Court said that federal judges have the authority to assess lesser penalties for the sale of crack cocaine than called for by federal law in order to address the disparity in punishments for crack and powder cocaine trafficking. This Supreme Court decision was made with seven justices voting for it and two dissenting from the majority decision. This is a surprising and gratifying decision considering the current makeup of the court.

The United States Sentencing Commission has been issuing rulings on this same issue. In a recent statement, the commission said that it "unanimously and firmly concludes that the various congressional objectives can be achieved more effectively by decreasing substantially the 100-to-1 drug quantity ratio." It recommended that Congress substantially increase the number of grams of crack cocaine in a sale that would trigger the higher penalties under federal law. This would substantially reduce the disparity in punishment between African American and white offenders.

The bipartisan commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the federal government. It was organized in 1985 to develop national sentencing policy for the federal courts. The resulting sentencing guidelines help to ensure that similar offenders who commit similar offenses receive similar sentences.

In an annual report sent to Congress in May 2007, the commission announced that it had amended federal sentencing guidelines to lower the sentences imposed on people convicted of federal crack cocaine offenses. In a decision made on December 11, 2007, the commission made its earlier decision retroactive. This means that its new guidelines apply to those already in jail for selling cocaine.

The combined effects of the Supreme Court decision and the commission's decisions are that federal courts may be giving sellers of crack cocaine sentences that are more similar to those given to sellers of powder cocaine, and some convicted sellers of crack cocaine may be having their sentences reduced. So some may be getting out of jail earlier than expected. However, when considering an early release, the courts will be allowed to consider whether the offender poses a current threat to society. If so, the courts can decide on a case-by-case basis not to release the prisoner early. At any rate, this may address at least some if the previous injustices to African Americans.

Unfortunately, there have been similar disparities in cocaine penalties in California state laws. For several years Assemblyman Merv Dymally (D–Compton) introduced bills to equalize the penalties for the sale of the two forms of cocaine. So far he has not succeeded in getting them passed. Last year he introduced AB 337 to do the same thing. It was scheduled for a vote in the Assembly Public Safety Committee but he cancelled the vote when it became apparent that the bill would be defeated in the committee.

The bill is still alive and he will probably move it again. You can be sure that Lambda Letters will be supporting this important bill.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(January 1, 2008) – Many of us were heartened by the fact that hate crimes bills protecting lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people were passed by both houses of Congress earlier this year. However, the Senate and House of Representatives passed different versions of the bill. That meant that a House Senate Conference Committee would have to meet and come up with a compromise bill for both houses to vote on. It now appears that there will be no bill at all.

The bill was called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill. That name was to commemorate Matthew Shepard who was brutally murdered in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998. His attackers killed him because he was gay.

President Bush had announced that he would veto the hate crimes bill. There had been a plan to attach the bill to a military appropriations bill. It was thought that the president would not veto that appropriations bill. He does not have the authority to veto just part of any bill. Thus, if the hate crimes bill were attached to the military appropriations bill, the hate crimes bill would have become the law of the land.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided not to try this tactic. They claimed that too many liberals would be unwilling to vote for the military appropriations bill and too many conservatives would be unwilling to vote for it if it included a ban on hate crimes against the LGBTI community. The combined bill might have been approved by both houses of Congress. But it was felt it would not be possible to get the two-thirds vote needed in the House of Representatives to overturn a likely veto by the president.

The political process is very frustrating!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(January 1, 2008) – There has been a lot of emotional debate surrounding the growing Latino and Latina population of California and the nation. Many people seem to fear that Latino and Latina immigrants will not blend into the culture and that, as a result, our European-based culture will become increasingly "Latinized." Some fear that a growing Latino culture will take over California to the point that it may become necessary for everyone to learn Spanish. Many people therefore support legislation to make English the official language of this state and nation.

In response I would like to say that Spanish culture has much to offer and it is not necessarily a bad thing for Anglos (of which I count myself as one) to learn other languages. However, a fundamental assumption of those who fear the increasing number of Latino/a immigrants is not true. That assumption is that Latino immigrants are not learning English and will not do so, so the rest of us will be forced to learn Spanish to get along. A recent report released by the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that the rate at which Latino and Latino immigrants are learning English parallels that of previous waves of immigrants.

According to the report, fewer than one in four (23%) of first-generation Latino immigrants believe that they converse in English "very well." Pew researchers reported further that this assessment jumps dramatically in the second and third generations—the children and grandchildren of immigrants—to percentages which indicate a universal command of English among those groups. The survey was based on more than 14,000 interviews of adult Latinos over four years.

The study found that today's Latino and Latina immigrant families are following the same general pattern as previous ethnic groups: The longer that first-generation immigrants live here, the more education they get, and the younger they were when they arrived, the more English they speak.

Indeed, most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work. Only 28% say they speak just Spanish on the job. About 11% of adult children of Latino immigrants speak only Spanish at home, while just 6% of the children of US-born Latinos speak only Spanish in their homes—a sign that Spanish fades just as mother tongues did for the offspring of previous immigrants to the United States. So the fear that Spanish will overcome English as the dominant language or culture is simply not true.

Another common stereotype about Latino/a immigrants is that many, if not most, of them end up on public assistance, so they are a drag on the economy. A recent report in the New York Times demonstrates the inaccuracy of that stereotype. The article reported the findings of the Fiscal Policy Institute, which found that immigrants contributed $229 billion (or 22.4%) of New York state's gross domestic product in 2006.

According to a recent report of the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2005 there were roughly 9,984,000 immigrants in California, representing 27.8% of the state's population. At the same time there were roughly 3,900,000 immigrants in New York State, or roughly 20.5% of their population. (Source: Immigrants at Mid-Decade: A Snapshot of America's Foreign-Born Population in 2005, Center for Immigration Studies, 2005). So it seems plausible that immigrants may contribute more to California's economy than they do to the state of New York.

We hear a lot these days about the difficulties in our economy. We should be grateful to the contributions made by immigrants to the economy. And it is clear that the stereotype that immigrants are a drag on the economy just is not true.

So here's to a peaceful, prejudice-free New Year!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(November 1, 2007) – When I took tests in school as a child, 65% was considered a passing grade. By that standard, Governor Schwarzenegger failed the test this year. The Lambda Letters Project gave him an overall rating of just 55% for his actions on bills sent to him that were supported by Lambda Letters.

We graded him on bills in five subject areas. Those scores, and the score he received for each area, are as follows:

HIV/AIDS issues: 50%
Economic justice issues: 56%
LGBTI issues: 75%
Person of color issues: 45%
Women's issues: 50%
Overall score: 55%

It may surprise most people that the one area in which he got a passing grade was LGBTI issues. But when I went to school that score would still only have merited a C. That is hardly something to celebrate.

The governor's overall score was better than last year, but only by one percent. His overall score in 2006 was 54%. Last year he did considerably better on women's issues (81%) and considerably worse on LGBTI issues (58%). As was true this year, in 2006 he got a passing grade on only one issue area.

Some of the governor's vetoes this year were especially cruel. He vetoed a bill (AB 1334) that would have allowed nonprofit groups to distribute condoms in our state prisons. This would have done much to slow the spread of HIV among prisoners and from them to the general public when they are released.

In the economic issue area, the governor vetoed AB 8, which was designed to provide health insurance to all California residents. Health insurance is a big issue. In this state, 6.7 million people have no health insurance, mostly because they cannot afford it. But the governor vetoed SB 137, which would have made it easier for people on a limited income to qualify for the Healthy Families health insurance program.

The governor also vetoed a bill (AB 1413) that would have established tighter compensation rules and greater transparency in compensation for California State University executives. This is particularly important because of the huge increases in tuition rates for students attending our state's public colleges and universities. It is worth noting that my father taught at the City University of New York for 44 years—and for most of that time New York City residents paid no tuition to attend that university.

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill (AB 43) that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. He also vetoed two bills (AB 537 and SB 727) that would have required employers to allow employees to take time off to care for seriously ill domestic partners, among other family members.

In the people of color issue area, the governor vetoed a bill (AB 174) that would have allowed the State Personnel Board to award attorney's fees to a complainant when the board finds that the state engaged in illegal employment discrimination. As a result, victims of discrimination will still have to pay their own legal fees even when the state has broken the law.

The governor vetoed AB 658, which would have created a pilot project to test ways of reducing a very distressing rate of violence and homicide in African American neighborhoods in the state. This veto was particularly cruel.

In the women's issue area, the governor vetoed AB 1429 which would have required insurance companies to pay for HPV vaccinations. HPV is a leading cause of the deadly cervical cancer in women. Studies have shown that by age 50, 80% of women are infected with HPV. AB 1429 would have done much to bring down the cervical cancer rate among women—but it just wasn't important enough to the governor.

You can see what the governor did on all the other bills we have been tracking by reviewing the Legislative Update elsewhere in this newsletter. We also hope to post scorecards for the governor and state legislators on our website soon. Please look for them on lambdaletters.org; they are linked to from the left-hand navigation area.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(November 1, 2007) – According to the US Census Bureau, 6.7% of California's population is African-American. (1) According to the California Department of Health Services (DHS), 3.4% of the state's population is African-American women. (2)

But also according to the DHS, nearly 19% of the people living with AIDS in California is African-American and 4% of people living with AIDS is African-American women. (3)

This might not seem too bad to the casual observer. The number of African-American women living with HIV is just slightly larger than their percentage of the total population of the state. But these statistics relate to the numbers of people currently living with HIV. The statistics on new infections is much worse for people of color and for African-American women in particular.

According to the California Office of AIDS, African-Americans now account for about half (49%) of new HIV infections in the United States—most of them through heterosexual contact. (4) Women account for a growing portion of those new infections (26%)—again most of them through heterosexual contact. About 64% of the new infections in women are among African-Americans. So the incidence of new HIV infections in African-American women is way out of proportion to their representation in the population of this nation. And AIDS is the number-one killer of African-American women aged 25 to 34.

So how do African-American women get help dealing with the health and economic challenges of living with HIV and AIDS? Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in California) is the largest funder of care for low-income people with HIV/AIDS. Medicaid covers about 55% of these costs; it is the second highest source of funding for HIV and AIDS care. The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, known simply as "Ryan White," is the third largest source of funding. Unlike Medicaid and Medicare, Ryan White is not a health insurance program. It serves as the payer of last resort for services provided to people with HIV/AIDS who are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, but who are low-income and uninsured or underinsured.

These are all federal or federal and state programs combined. Federal funding in 2005 for Ryan White was $2.1 billion. One of the better known programs under the Ryan White CARE Act is the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). This program helps people on a limited income pay for their AIDS drugs. About one-third of all Ryan White funding—$788 million in FY 2005—was earmarked by Congress for ADAP.

A large portion of the funding to care for people with HIV and AIDS comes from the federal government through Medicaid, Medicare, and Ryan White, among other programs. According to a report from the National Health Policy Forum, the breakdown of this federal funding, as of 2005, was as follows:

Treatment: $11.6 billion (59% of the federal spending)
Prevention: $0.7 billion (4% of the federal spending)
Research: $2.9 billion (15% of the federal spending)
Cash housing assistance: $1.9 billion (10% of the federal spending)
Global: $2.6 billion (13% of federal spending)
Other: $0.2 billion (51% of the federal spending) (5)

Congress established the Minority AIDS initiative (MAI) in 1999 as the result of the advocacy of the Congressional Black Caucus to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS among African-Americans. In 2000, Congress expanded the MAI to address the growing needs caused by the epidemic of other ethnic and racial minorities. The MAI was designed to focus special attention on solving a growing public health problem as well as to develop and improve the capacity of minority community-based organizations (CBOs) to serve their communities more effectively.

So the effect of HIV and AIDS on African-American women is huge. Are the resources being directed among these women towards prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS adequate to the challenge? I have done considerable research and talked to people at almost a dozen agencies. It appears that there are no federal or state funds specifically targeting African-American women living with HIV/AIDS. Given the seriousness of the problem among African-American women, this seems really wrong.

It has also been very difficult to find data on how much is being spent on prevention and treatment of HIV among African-American women and whether or not their share of funds is proportional to their share of the problem.

However, here is some data that I have been able to find. The Federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) manages much of the federal dollars spent on HIV and AIDS. They report that nearly half of their domestic HIV prevention budget ($300 million) is directed to fighting AIDS in African-American communities. They say that roughly $140 million of these funds goes to state and local health departments that work with local community groups to reach African-American populations.

In addition, they report that $30 million is given directly to community-based organizations that serve the African-American community. (6) But this CDC data does not indicate how much of those funds serves African-American women in particular. Similarly a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation says that roughly 61% of participants in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, nationwide are people of color. (7) It does not say, however, how many of them are African-American women.

According to the California Office of AIDS, there are currently 31,221 people enrolled in California's ADAP program. Just 9% of them are women and less than one percent of them (659 women) are African-American women. This is a very small percentage when you consider the magnitude of the problem in the African-American women's community. But it results from the fact that the HIV crisis has been around for a very long time, and for much of its history it was concentrated in the gay white male population. However, as I said above, 4% of the people living with AIDS are African-American women. So the ADAP data suggests that a lot of work needs to be done to ensure that African-American women are provided with their fair share of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment resources.

Sources:

(1) Source = http://censtats.census.gov/data/CA/04006.pdf
(2) Source = http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/tables/datafiles/vsofca/0117.pdf
(3) Source = http://www.dhs.ca.gov/AIDS/Resources/PDF/2622aAfricanAmerifactsheet2007.pdf
(4) Source = http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm
(5) Source = http://nhpf.org/pdfs_bp/BP_RyanWhite_08-22-05.pdf
(6) Source = http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/1584_08.pdf
(7) Source = http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/pdf/AA_response_media_fact.pdf

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(October 1, 2007) – The Governor has called two simultaneous special sessions of the state Legislature. One of them focuses on health insurance reform; the other focuses on water issues.

The legislators were due to finish their business and go home on September 14 at the latest. However, because of the governor's call, they will stay in Sacramento in a special session to work on these two issues. The Lambda Letters Project will attempt to monitor the new concepts or bills on health insurance reform and make it possible for the community to provide input on those concepts and bills.

This is a very important issue. Currently over six million people in California have no health insurance. Even though many of them are working, their employers do not provide health insurance. For many, health insurance is just too expensive.

Some legislators have proposed keeping essentially the same health insurance system in place, but requiring everyone to buy insurance. Massachusetts tried that idea but ended up having to excuse 25% of the uninsured because they clearly could not afford the insurance available from private insurance companies.

Some legislators have suggested that they could fix this problem by requiring insurance companies to insure everyone. But they can issue policies in which the insured people have to pay the first $5,000 to $10,000 in medical costs. The premiums for these policies might be lower, but paying the initial medical costs could bankrupt many people.

Because of time constraints, it may not be possible to provide you with sample letters by regular mail. We will probably have to do it via our e-mail alerts. With these alerts, we can keep you informed about what concepts for health insurance reform are being considered and what health insurance reform legislation is being introduced. We can also provide a way for you to express your opinion on those concepts and bills. Our alerts will usually have a sample message you can send to legislators to let them know how you feel about the concepts and bills being considered.

If you are already on our e-mail alert list, you will be getting these alerts as the special session unfolds. If you are not on our e-mail alert list, you can easily join by e-mailing LambdaLP@aol.com and putting the word "Subscribe" on the subject line of your message.

You can stay informed about health insurance legislation being introduced by visiting the Lambda Letters website at www.lambdaletters.org and clicking on Legislative Update. Then scroll down through the list of bills to the section called "Special Session Health Insurance Bills." As bills are introduced, we will post descriptions of them in that section of our bill list.

The eventual shape that health insurance reform takes in California can be absolutely wonderful or—like electric utility deregulation a few years ago—an absolute disaster. We at Lambda Letters hope you will stay involved. Help us make it wonderful!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(October 1, 2007) – We are happy to report that in August 2007 the Lambda Letters Project and its members and friends delivered the two millionth piece of mail to elected officials in just this decade. Since just the year 2000, you all have delivered 2,000,639 letters and e-mails to elected officials.

And those letters and e-mails do make a difference. No less a person than Senator Sheila Kuehl has told us that the work we at Lambda Letters (and that includes you) does often makes the difference between a bill passing and failing.

The process that Lambda Letters provides for you to use in communicating to your legislators really works. We provide an easy, efficient way for ordinary people to let their legislators know exactly what they should be doing on the important issues of the day. Our process helps people from all across the state to speak loud and clear—and with a unified voice—on those important issues. The massive amount of mail we send to legislators, all of which has a unified message, really gets their attention.

We have delivered over two million letters and e-mails in just the past seven and a half years. There are roughly two and a half years left in this decade. Can we make it three million by the end of 2009?

A lot of that depends on you. To accomplish that goal, we will need you to be sure you get your letters back to us promptly each month. If you are on our e-mail alert list, you will need to watch for the alerts we send out and respond promptly to them all. If you are not on the alert list, and would like to be, e-mail LambdaLP@aol.com with the word "Subscribe" on the subject line.

In addition, it is very important that you help us find others to join Lambda Letters and to get our monthly newsletter and sample letters. We also ask that you get all your friends to join our e-mail alert system.

Although we have an efficient system for telling legislators what they must do, we could serve many more people than we are serving now. We have accomplished much in the past, and we can accomplish much more in the future if you will help us find others to use our services.

Thank you for helping us accomplish the first two million this decade. Here's to the third million!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(October 1, 2007) – Lambda Letters Project is one of the premier civil rights organizations in California. We have long been telling you that you can help raise funds for the work of Lambda Letters by doing Internet searches at www.goodsearch.com. Every time you do an Internet search at that site, a little bit of money is donated to Lambda Letters—and it costs you nothing.

Now you can also raise money for Lambda Letters by shopping online. The people at GoodSearch have launched GoodShop.com. This is an online shopping mall of world-class merchants dedicated to helping fund worthy causes across the country. Each purchase made via the GoodShop mall results in a donation to the user's designated charity or school—averaging approximately 3% of the sale but going up to 20% or even more. The percentage of the purchase price that goes to Lambda Letters is listed below the icon of each merchant.

Currently there are over 200 mainstream merchants in every field of business from babies and banking to toys and travel. Major merchants include stores like Macy's, Best Buy, The Gap, Amazon.com, Lands' End, Apple Store, and Barnes & Noble. If you've done any online shopping this past year, chances are good you already know these vendors.

Try it out. Direct your browser to www.goodshop.com. Once you get to the GoodShop page, type the words "Lambda Letters Project" in the entry box near the top of the page. Then click the icon of the merchant where you want to shop. As long as "Lambda Letters Foundation – Lambda Letters Project" appears in the box under "Who do you GoodSearch for?", we will get a percentage of your sale.

Please support Lambda Letters. Please do your shopping at GoodShop.com.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(October 1, 2007) – This article cites a lot of percentages, but please bear with me. I am doing this to prove an important point. According to the National Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there have been 988,376 cumulative diagnosed cases of AIDS reported in the United States. Of those cases, 385,537 occurred among white non-Hispanic people, and slightly more (397,548) among black non-Hispanic people. There have been 155,179 cumulative cases of AIDS reported among Hispanics in this nation.

Therefore, in overall percentages, 39% of diagnosed cases were among white non-Hispanic people, 40% were among black non-Hispanic people, and 16% were among Hispanic people.

Some of the people counted above have died from AIDS. According to the CDC, 31% of those now living with AIDS are white, 48% of them are black, and 18% of them are Hispanic.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2005, 29.1% of new AIDS cases nationally occurred among whites, 48.4% were among blacks, and 20.3% were among Hispanics.

Three things stand out in all these statistics. First, the total number of people of color who have been diagnosed with AIDS is almost one and a half times that of whites. Second, the number of people of color currently living with AIDS is over twice the number of whites living with the disease. Third, well over twice as many people of color are now being diagnosed with AIDS as compared to white people each year.

It is worth noting that the cumulative number of cases and the numbers of new cases of AIDS among blacks is way out of proportion to their presence in the general population. African-Americans are reported to be about 11% of the national population and a little over 7% of the population of California. And yet they make up 40% of those diagnosed with AIDS since the epidemic began, and 48% of those being diagnosed with AIDS each year in recent years.

What are the racial breakdowns in California? According to the California Office of AIDS, as of the end of 2006, 48.6% of those living with AIDS in California are white, 18.9% are black, and 29.4% are Hispanic

Now let's look at those who receive assistance under the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). This is the primary program that helps people with AIDS pay for their very expensive medications. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that, nationally, 36% of those receiving help from ADAP are white, 33% of them are black, and 26% of them are Hispanic. In California, the figures are 40% white, 11% black, and 41% Hispanic.

Nationally, therefore, 66% of those now living with AIDS are people of color and 59% of those receiving help from ADAP are people of color. In the state of California, 48.3% of those living with AIDS are people of color and 52% of those receiving help from ADAP are people of color. That makes it look as though people of color are getting their fair share of ADAP help in California and a little less than their fair share nationally.

That might make us feel good. However, we must remember the other figures quoted above: 48% of new cases every year occur among African-Americans and 20% occur among Hispanics. This means that an ever-increasing number of people living with AIDS will be people of color. We will need to remain vigilant to be sure that this population continues to get its fair share of help.

What about women—and African-American women in particular? Are they getting adequate access to ADAP and other HIV/AIDS programs and funding? Today women account for more than 25% of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. In fact, AIDS is now the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 25–34. Are women—and African-American women in particular—getting adequate access to ADAP and related programs?

I will discuss that topic in the next issue of this newsletter.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(October 1, 2007) – It was in 1988 that I and others founded the Lambda Letters Project. Ever since then, Lambda Letters has been fighting hard for, among other things, the right of same-sex families to enjoy all the rights available to married families. That has been one of my personal dreams since long before the founding of Lambda Letters.

Together with other individuals and organizations, we have largely succeeded on this issue. There is now a wide array of laws that protect the rights of same-sex families. When you look at the whole picture, we do not yet have the right to marry. Nonetheless, the progress we have made is breathtaking.

There is a serious problem with all of this, however. The laws that provide all these new benefits are varied and complex. These laws cover insurance law, property law, inheritance law, and income tax and property tax law, among others. It has become increasingly obvious that most people in the LGBTI community have very limited knowledge of the rights and duties granted to same-sex couples by the domestic partner laws that have been enacted. Sadly this means that many couples will benefit little from the laws we have worked so hard to get passed.

We at Lambda Letters have a plan that we think hits that problem head on. It would create a program that would, in time, bring widespread understanding of these laws to a broad portion of the LGBTI community. This would enable people to take full advantage of the domestic partner laws of the state of California.

Our plan is to provide a series of classes that would teach people about their rights and obligations under California's domestic partner laws. We would also support and train them in providing that same information to others in their communities. In so doing, the program would provide concrete, useful information on domestic partner rights to an ever-widening body of people. In time, it could spread knowledge about domestic partner rights throughout the LGBTI community.

This program is based on the model of a very successful nationwide program called the Master Gardener program, which teaches people about gardening and helps them participate in teaching others.

We intend to hire someone to seek grants to help pay for the program and to do much of the work of getting it started. We have someone in mind who would do an excellent job. But we need at least $9,000 in seed money to put her to work doing these things. This seed money would be used to pay her until she can bring in grants and other donations to help pay for the program. Senator Sheila Kuehl and Assemblymember Mark Leno have already contributed $500 each to help get us started. Two of our members have contributed an additional $1,500. But we are still $6,500 short.

I hope you will make a generous contribution to help us reach that goal of $9,000. Please help us begin the educational program that will make it possible for all members of the LGBTI community to benefit fully from the domestic partner laws we have worked so hard to create. If you make out your check to the Lambda Letters Foundation, you can take a tax deduction for your contribution.

Please help me fulfill my dream. Please support our educational project by enclosing your check with your signed letters or by sending your contribution to:

Lambda Letters Foundation
717 K Street, Suite 224
Sacramento, CA 95814

Please put “Fulfill the dream” on the note line of your check. Alternatively, you can contribute online by clicking on Contributions/Membership on the Lambda Letters website.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(September 1, 2007) – It is a bitter irony that the George W. Bush administration is now saying they will take aggressive action to force employers to fire any undocumented workers which they currently employ. For years I have heard it said that undocumented immigrants don't come here to work, they just want the welfare and other benefits provided to low-income people in this country.

And yet, recently Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Senator Lindsey Graham (R–South Carolina) said they want to control the "magnet" drawing illegal immigrants into the country: jobs.

They went on to say, "The root cause, the basic problem, with immigration is employment. The reason people come here in such great numbers is to get jobs in America that pay more in a day than they would make in month at home."

I have also often heard it said that undocumented immigrants get all the social benefits (like welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid) offered in this country, but don't pay the taxes that we all pay and which are needed to support those social programs.

In another bitter irony, the federal government plans to identify undocumented immigrants by looking for names and Social Security numbers of workers (provided by employers to the federal government) which don't match any records in the Social Security Administration's files. The assumption will be that most of those unmatched Social Security numbers are for undocumented immigrants who made up their SSNs when they went to work in this country.

So the undocumented immigrants, who some say do not pay taxes, will be caught precisely because they are paying Social Security taxes. Most of the undocumented workers in this country pay Social Security taxes. They probably have state and federal income taxes withheld from their checks as well. And they all certainly pay sales taxes when they shop.

There are additional ironies. We have heard much recently about how the Social Security program is in danger of going broke sometime this century. The reason is the ratio of senior citizens (who receive Social Security benefits) to workers (who pay Social Security taxes) is going the wrong way. There are growing numbers of seniors receiving Social Security and too few workers paying taxes to fund those payments.

And yet the plan to force employers to fire undocumented immigrants will greatly reduce the number of people paying Social Security taxes. Based on the national census in 2000, the Census Bureau estimates there are 8.7 million undocumented immigrants. As of 2003, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services put the number at 7 million. Since then, United States immigration officials have said the number has grown by as much as 500,000 a year (Brad Knickerbocker, "Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?", The Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 2006). This means that hundreds of thousands of Social Security paying workers could be thrown off the job. That will worsen Social Security's fiscal problems.

Numerous employer groups in agriculture, tourism, and other industries complain that the plan to force the firing of undocumented immigrants may cripple their industries. They say that crops may rot in the fields this fall because there are no workers to harvest them. That could make many food items scarce and expensive for all of us.

Scientists tell us that the human race originated in Africa and then slowly spread throughout the world. They say one of the primary reasons people moved was that there were too many of them to live off the resources available to them where they were. If they wanted to feed themselves and their families, they had to move to areas where it was easier to live.

Similarly there was a great potato famine in Ireland in the 1840s. It occurred when potatoes, the main food for poor people in Ireland, were destroyed by a blight. By 1850 one million Irish had died of starvation and another million immigrated to other countries where they could better work and feed their families.

Between 1890 to 1900, 655,888 immigrants arrived in the United States from Italy. They came here because of overcrowding, high taxes, and recurrent economic recessions in Italy. They could not support themselves and their families in their home country.

The urge of people to move to support their families is as old as the human race. And when you think of it, that is a very noble reason for moving. We should be encouraging people to do that rather than punishing them for doing so.

By Pat Washington, Ph.D., LLP chair

Some great people answered our call for volunteers to staff the Lambda Letters Project table at the San Diego PRIDE Festival, July 21–22. Because Lambda Letters is largely a volunteer organization whose members make their voices heard in the California legislature by participating in our letter and e-mail campaigns, we afford our members a unique opportunity to influence public policy "from the comfort of their homes and computers."

Being willing to staff an information booth at one of the largest civic events in San Diego county is a bit more of a visible role than many of our members are accustomed to. But both the new and long-term members who answered the call to assist us in San Diego had a lot of fun "going public."

Even before the weekend's festivities began, San Diego member Fiona Dunlop reached out to her friends, soliciting additional volunteers. Fiona proved to be particularly adept at recruiting others to join us for the weekend effort. But then Fiona has a special place in her heart for the Lambda Letters information booth at SD PRIDE. She first learned about us at last year's festival, and she's been a devoted member ever since. Fiona was especially pleased to be asked to recruit others this year.

Throughout the festival weekend, I could see that each volunteer was extremely enthusiastic in their efforts to educate festival attendees about us. Everyone took our festival presence seriously as they urged people to join Lambda Letters, answered questions, shared their perspectives on the organization, or simply asked people to contribute to our work in any way.

I asked some of them what motivated them to volunteer this year. Jean Valbracht was recruited by Fiona Dunlap, but before the day was over, she herself had joined LLP and had successfully encouraged others to do the same.

Volunteers described feeling a sense of satisfaction from their efforts because they saw themselves helping the organization "foster social justice." Maggie Allington described volunteering for the LLP booth "as an opportunity to interact with members of the public in ways that made the diversity of people who work behind the scenes for the constituencies that LLP serves more visible."

One of our youngest volunteers that weekend, Cal-State Northridge student Rachael Levitt, felt this was a great use of her time because, for her, this was an opportunity to "build bridges of understanding." Rachel described this work as a way to promote "multigenerational bonds of friendship" among young activists like herself and more seasoned activists who also "worked to promote positive change." Being new to Lambda Letters, Rachael feels that the organization should attract younger activists precisely because it's California-based. She noted that LLP clearly enables Californians to "coalesce around laws and practices that we can hold our own statewide legislators accountable for. " Rachel thought this alone represented "democracy at its finest."

While members Ricardo Moran and Jim Martin found the monthly letter-writing to be extremely important and rewarding endeavors themselves, they welcomed an opportunity to interact with the public at the festival. It was important to "put a human face on the organization through our outreach efforts." They added that volunteering in this way helped energize them to dedicate a few concrete hours in one location where they could reach out to the very constituents served by LLP. When Ricardo was asked to elaborate, he explained that he felt it was really important to "talk to people in person because that's one way to keep organizations like LLP alive."

Throughout the weekend, volunteers shared a little about themselves with one another, spread the word about the outstanding work that Lambda Letters does to festival attendees, and urged people to become a part of what one member described as "the top-notch California advocacy organization," the one that is "good because it's simple, it's effective, and it's fun."

For Fiona, answering the call to share the good news about the work that Lambda Letters Project does was easy. She says Lambda Letters is "well-organized and the design makes it easy for everyday citizens to be involved in the political process." She and our other volunteers wanted to make sure they played a role in helping more people learn about the organization that makes advocacy easy—and they had fun doing it.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

On July 12, the Lambda Letters Project held its first annual Jazz Civil Rights Fund Raiser and Awards Ceremony. Over 50 people attended this happy event.

By the latest count we netted over $5,000 at this event, $4,000 of which came from two corporate sponsors. Comcast donated $2,500 in support of the event and Time Warner Cable donated $1,500. We owe a lot of thanks to one of our honorees, Dennis Mangers. He urged us to approach Time Warner Cable and Comcast for their support and he made many other helpful suggestions to make the event a success. We also heard some wonderful music provided by The Jazz Generation.

Several of the honorees who were present are great stars in the communities we serve. In addition to Dennis Mangers, we were honored by the presence of Terry Sidie, owner of FACES in Sacramento and Senator Gil Cedillo (D–Los Angeles). Although Assemblymember Karen Bass (D–Los Angeles) was unable to attend, she sent one of her staff to represent her.

It is worth noting that Assemblymember Bass was kind enough to sponsor a luncheon in honor of Lambda Letters that very same day. She really cares about us. She paid for the lunch for about 30 people that day.

The Executive Director of the California NAACP and a representative of Assemblymember Dave Jones (D–Sacramento) were also present at the fund raiser in the evening.

Terry Sidie has long been a generous supporter of the Lambda Letters Project, and he has provided much-needed financial assistance to several LGBTI organizations here in Sacramento.

We honored Karen Bass as Outstanding Female Legislator of the Year and Senator Cedillo was honored as Outstanding Male Legislator of the Year. He returned the favor by giving a stirring speech which, among other things, included eloquent support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. He said he asks other legislators who are afraid to support important issue like that: "Why did you come to Sacramento if you are not willing to vote on the tough issues?"

We believe the event was a programmatic and financial success. But I must raise the following point. Although we did raise $5,000, our annual expenses run usually about $100,000. So we hope you will send us a contribution whenever you can. That will help us to continue our important work on your behalf.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(August 5, 2007) – The bill to allow same-sex couples to marry, AB 43, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 10. It now seems likely that it will be approved by the full legislature and then sent to the governor for an almost certain veto.

This, of course, is probably the most important LGBTI rights bill in the legislature this year. It is worth working on it even in the face of a likely veto because doing so helps to normalize the concept of same-sex marriage in the eyes of elected officials and the public.

On the other hand, the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to approve AB 250, another really important LGBTI rights bill. This is a bill that the governor might actually have signed because it provides significant help to heterosexual senior citizens as well as to same-sex couples. They held the bill in committee without even recording a formal vote. They did this in spite of the fact that the bill had previously gotten through two Assembly committees without a single no vote. On the Assembly floor, 79 of the 80 members voted for it; only Nell Soto (D–Ontario) was absent.

AB 250 would allow the owner of a home to transfer title to the home, at his or her death, by competing a brief revocable transfer on death deed. It is designed mainly to help heterosexual senior citizens who live together to share expenses, but who don't marry because the woman would lose her social security. The bill would allow the homeowner to assure that his friend will still have a place to live if the homeowner dies first. Title to the property would transfer immediately on the death of the homeowner. The home would not have to go through the lengthy, expensive probate process.

This bill is very important to same-sex couples as well. Many of them move in together in their 30s or 40s. Often one or both of them have had two or three failed relationships previously. One of them owns their home. Given those past relationship failures, it would be foolhardy for the homeowner to immediately transfer their home to joint ownership. But the homeowner might want his or her partner to get the home if the owner dies first. With the revocable transfer on death deed, the owner gets the best of both worlds. If the relationship sours, the owner can just revoke the deed. If it doesn't sour, and the owner dies first, the surviving partner gets the home with very little fuss or expense.

Some people worry that bad people will persuade homeowners to compete the transfer on death deed to rob the owner of his home. But who is going to rob your home by getting a deed that does not mature until you die? They are much more likely to persuade you to sign a deed that gives them immediate ownership. That deed would be irreversible. A revocable transfer deed could be revoked prior to the home owner's death if it was determined that someone defrauded the owner.

Others complain that the deed is too confusing. They appear to say that people won't understand the purpose of the deed, and it will be misused. But they don't cite any likely misuses of it. The concept is really simple: If you want to deed your home to someone at your death, this document would do it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee staff recommended that the bill be sent to the California Law Revision Commission for study. But the Commission representative noted that a previous version of the bill had been referred to them. They liked the concept so much that they were now the sponsors of AB 250. He said there was nothing left for the Commission to study.

So the committee decided to just hold the bill for study. It can be considered again in January. We will probably be trying to persuade them to pass it then.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(July 12, 2007) – Today the Lambda Letters Project hosted its annual Jazz Civil Rights Fund Raiser and Awards Ceremony. The following awards were given:

Female Legislator of the Year: Assemblymember Karen Bass. Honorable mentions: Assemblymember Judy Chu and Senator Sheila Kuehl.

Male Legislator of the Year: Senator Gil Cedillo. Honorable mentions: Assemblymembers John Laird and Mark Leno.

Outstanding Volunteer of the Year: Dennis Mangers.

Outstanding Service Award: Equality California, Stefan Gruenwedel, and Dr. Jerome Murphy.

Outstanding Community Member: Terry Sidie of Faces.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(June 3, 2007) – In the first four months of this year the members and friends of Lambda Letters delivered 81,813 letters and e-mails to elected officials. That is 32,000 more e-mails and letters than we delivered in the first four months of last year. That is really good news! We at Lambda Letters owe a debt of gratitude to all of you for making that possible.

At the same time, the actual percentage of our members who return signed letters has gone down. We know what the problem is and we are dealing with it. But we are going to be inactivating the memberships of a large number of people who have sent no signed letters in the first four months of 2007. That will considerably reduce the number of real members whom we have on our mailing lists.

We need lots of members. The more members we have, the more signed letters and e-mails we can deliver to elected officials. And the letters we deliver do have a real impact. Senator Kuehl has told us that the work done by Lambda Letters often makes the difference between a bill being passed or failing.

So we really need to rebuild our membership! If you value your civil rights, if you really want to make this a better place for us all, please talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. Tell them about Lambda Letters and the work we do. Please get them to join Lambda Letters today. You will find a small envelope delivered along with your newsletter. You can have someone join Lambda Letters by filling out the information on the envelope and sending it to us.

We are counting on you to help us build a large, powerful membership so that we can make California a state in which all people are treated with respect. Thank you for your support.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(June 3, 2007) – SB 840 is doing very well in the state legislature. This is the bill that would provide affordable, comprehensive health insurance to every resident of the state of California. It is Lambda Letters' favorite of the several bills introduced this year to expand health care insurance for Californians.

Introduced by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D–Los Angeles) and coauthored by 37 other legislators, SB 840 was approved by the Senate Health Committee. As of this writing, it is awaiting a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Seven of the 17 members of the Appropriations Committee are coauthors of the bill, and there are three other Democrats on the committee. So it is likely that the bill will get the needed nine votes to gain approval by the committee. Actually a very similar bill was approved last year by the state legislature before being vetoed by the governor. So it seems likely that SB 840 will be approved by the legislature this year. That is the good news.

The bad news is that a companion bill to SB 840 failed in the Senate Revenue and Tax Committee. SB 1014 failed in committee because it was not voted on by the committee prior to the deadline for bills to get out of their policy committees. SB 1014 would have established the rules for providing the needed financial support for the health care system contemplated by SB 840. It is necessary to say how the system would be paid for, which is what SB 1014 would have done.

However, Senator Kuehl is still working on how to finance SB 840. If all else fails, SB 1014 has been made a so-called "two-year bill." That means she can try to move the bill again next year. We are hoping that SB 840 will be approved by the legislature and signed by the governor. We will keep you posted on how that bill is doing and on efforts to create a financial basis for the health insurance program it will create.

By Shirin Buckman, legislative analyst

(June 3, 2007) – Assembly Bill 1597, authored by Assemblymember Curren Price (D–Inglewood), died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 24. This bill would have punished law enforcement officials for uttering any slurs because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation (gender identity is included under the definition of "gender"), or because of the victim's association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. These groups are also protected under the California Hate Crime Law (California Penal Code Section 422.55).

Price's office will reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session, provided there is enough community support for it. They have asked Lambda Letters members who have experience with police misconduct to write letters, demonstrating that this bill is necessary. Because some powerful forces in Sacramento refuse to admit that misconduct by law enforcement officials occurs, the Assemblymember Price needs your help in proving that it does really happen.

Please send your letter of experience to:

Assembly Member Curren Price
Attn: Tracey St. Julien
California State Legislature
PO Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0051

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(June 3, 2007) – Recently there have been allegations that as many as 10 hospitals in the Los Angeles area have dumped poor, homeless patients on skid row after discharging them from the hospital. Often this puts these patients in grave danger of further medical problems.

City officials are investigating 55 alleged cases. A report in the New York Times indicated that, for a year, reports surfaced that hospitals in Los Angeles were leaving homeless patients on downtown streets, including a paraplegic man wearing a hospital gown and colostomy bag who, witnesses say, pulled himself through the streets with a plastic bag of his belongings held between his teeth. At this point no state law penalizes hospitals for dumping patients on the streets.

It seems unlikely that this problem is confined to Los Angeles. After all, there is no evidence that Los Angeles hospitals routinely treat their patients worse than hospitals in other parts of the state.

This situation must not be allowed to continue. SB 275 provides penalties that hopefully will motivate hospitals to do better and to make sure that proper arrangements are made for care of their patients before discharging them. Under SB 275, hospitals that violate the law could be fined up to $10,000. Individuals, such as doctors and ambulance drivers, who dump patients could be sent to county jail for two years. For repeat offenses, individuals could be fined up to $2,500.

SB 275 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee for a vote on May 14. Stay tuned for further developments on this important legislation by visiting the Legislative Update on this website.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(June 3, 2007) – There has been lots of talk about the fact that the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is very common among women and that it is one of the primary causes of cervical cancer. In these discussions it is noted that most women probably get HPV from the men with whom they have sexual intercourse, but much less has been said about the health effect that HPV has on men.

However, in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, it was reported that studies have shown that people who have oral sex (men and women) are likely to have an increased incidence of throat cancer. The researchers found that this cancer was likely caused by HPV virus. The study found that participants showing evidence of prior infection with HPV were up to 32 times more likely to develop the cancer. Evidence of the HPV-16 strain of the virus was found in 72% of tumors.

However, most HPV infections clear with little or no symptoms. "People should be reassured that oropharyngeal cancer is relatively uncommon, and the overwhelming majority of people with an oral HPV infection probably will not get throat cancer," said Maura L. Gillison, MD, PhD (one of the researchers) in a press release.

Many state legislatures, including the California state legislature, have been considering bills to require middle school girls to get vaccinated against HPV as a condition of attending school. This has been a controversial idea and the jury is still out on this question. But the findings on oral cancer suggest that maybe boys as well as girls should be vaccinated. In the long run, that may help gay men, many of whom engage in oral sex.

Pharmaceutical researchers are now working on an HPV vaccine for men. A vaccine for women has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration. However, they have not yet approved a vaccine for men. Stay tuned for further developments.

You can read more about this topic and find a link to the New England Journal of Medicine article by going to sciencenews.org/articles/20070512/fob1.asp.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(May 5, 2007) – On April 10 the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. This is the bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in California. The bill won on a straight party line vote. All the Democrats voted for the bill and all the Republicans voted against it. The final vote was seven in favor and three against. The bill goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which will probably vote on the bill in May.

The members and friends of the Lambda Letters Project delivered over 1,500 letters of support for the bill to the committee. That level of support from constituents plays a significant part in persuading legislators to support controversial bills like AB 43. We owe a debt of gratitude to those of you who took the time to support the bill in this way.

It is interesting to note that all of the legislators on the committee were present during the whole discussion of the bill, which lasted about an hour and a half. It is typical for legislators to wander in and out of the meetings during discussion of bills before the committee. So the presence of all the committee members demonstrates how high the stakes are for either side on this bill.

Some of the most vocal supporters of the bill on the committee were heterosexual legislators. Assemblymember Laird from Santa Cruz is gay. He spoke eloquently in support of the bill. But so did Assemblymember Mike Feuer from Los Angeles, Lloyd Levine of Van Nuys, and Dave Jones of Sacramento.

The supportive comments of Assemblymember Feuer were of particular interest. He is new to the Legislature this year and has no record of voting on previous versions of the bill in prior years. It seems likely that the Democrats generally will support the bill and the Democrats are in the majority in both houses of the state legislature. However, they were in the majority in 2005 when one version of this bill (AB 19) was defeated in the state Assembly. The positions of new Democratic members of the state legislature will be key to whether or not the bill can gain approval in the Senate and Assembly this year.

The Lambda Letters Project and its members and friends will be working hard in support of this bill.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(May 5, 2007) – For the last several months we have been urging our members to help us find new Lambda Letters members. We have done well so far, but there is certainly a potential for much greater increases in our membership out there.

In the first three months of this year, several long-standing members of the Lambda Letters Project have brought us a total of 24 new members. However, we have been asking each of you to seriously consider talking to your friends and encouraging them to join Lambda Letters. We currently have over 1,100 members. Consider this fact: If each of you brought us just one new member, we would instantly have over 2,200 members.

Consider what this would do for our movement. In the first three months of this year we delivered over 42,000 letters and e-mails to your legislators. And we did that with just over 1,100 members. If we had had 2,200 members in the first three months of this year, we might have delivered 84,000 letters and e-mails to elected officials. And if we did as well all year, we would deliver over 336,000.

Do you wonder whether your letters and e-mails really have an effect on elected officials? Here is what Assemblymember Mark Leno said about that: "These types of efforts make the Lambda Letters Project a vital part of the legislative process." Assemblymember Christine Kehoe had this to say about our work: "Your hard work has helped in passing several key pieces of legislation." Senator Sheila Kuehl said, "Lambda Letters activities have often been a crucial factor in determining whether a particular bill passes or fails."

The Lambda Letters Project has designed a very efficient process for getting mail to legislators in support of the bills that would benefit all of you. But our process is greatly underused. We could do so much better if we had more members. Lambda Letters Board members and staff recruit new members at pride festivals and other events. But when we do this, we are strangers to the people we approach. They do not know whether to believe us or trust us. We have to talk to many people to get just a few good new members.

You, on the other hand, are known and trusted by your friends. You also know all about what membership involves for people like yourself. People will trust and believe what you tell them about Lambda Letters. That puts you in a very good position to recruit new members for our Project.

I hope you will do that. I hope you will help us at least to double our number of members by the end of the year. You can use the small remittance envelope that comes with your newsletter every month to sign up your friends. Please do not disappoint me.

By Pat Washington, chair

(May 5, 2007) – The Lambda Letters Project's board of directors is proud to introduce our new administrative assistant, Myeva Thierry, to our members and allies. Myeva is an outstanding addition to the LLP leadership team.

Myeva Thierry Chief Lobbyist Boyce Hinman, who works most closely with Myeva, routinely experiences the highest confidence in her work performance and attention to the administrative needs of our organization, especially in her capacity to undertake important office duties with minimal supervision.

"I find Myeva to be a tremendous asset to the daily operations of our office, and to our outreach to members, elected leaders, and the communities we serve," Boyce said.

Myeva's background offers some insight as to why she seems so well-suited as a staff member for the Lambda Letters Project.

Myeva Thierry was born in Los Angeles, the only child of James and Eva Freeman. Her family instilled a strong sense of service to others in Myeva at a very young age. She recalled that her parents and other relatives taught her to "work diligently for the best, for herself, her family, and absolutely for others."

Myeva would soon act on that family mandate to become a leader by openly embracing her own zeal for leadership during her high school days at St. Mary's Academy college preparatory school for girls. While at St. Mary's, Myeva "learned how to fight for what she believed in and to use her influential voice on behalf of others." Myeva would find herself championing the issues and concerns of students as a leader in student government and to speak out on behalf of women through her work with women empowerment groups, where she served as an advocate and counselor for pregnant and troubled teens.

Myeva remains grounded in a strong sense of family. In addition to being a leader, a student at Sacramento State University, and a daughter, Myeva is also a wife and mother. The greatest joys in her life are her son, Tyler James; her daughter, Morgan Marie; and her husband, Frederick. With the busy schedule of a mother and wife, Myeva prides herself in maintaining a 3.0 GPA while raising a family.

She met her husband in 2002 and they were married soon after. At that time they vowed to one another to be a voice for those individuals who are unable to be heard.

Myeva is currently working towards a bachelor's degree in Psychology at Sacramento State University and will enter a master's program in Public Policy and Development next spring with aspirations to further her career in the California State Legislature.

Myeva's enthusiasm for government guided her to her current position as an administrative assistant at the Lambda Letters Project. Her duties include administrative support for the chief lobbyist, Boyce Hinman, and chair, Pat Washington, as well as the board members of the project.

Prior to her work at the Lambda Letters Project, Myeva worked for Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, formerly Deen + Black Public Relations. Myeva was quickly tapped as a leader while working for Ogilvy, and was hired as a secretary. Within six months, she was promoted to administrative assistant to one of the partners of the firm. In her capacity as administrative assistant, Myeva worked on women's health, government, and environment issues.

Her experience also includes lobbying. Prior to working with the Lambda Letters Project, Myeva worked with Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes and the California Medical Association in Sacramento. At both these firms she worked on education and health issues.

Myeva has already proven herself to be a great asset to the Lambda Letters Project. We anticipate that both Lambda Letters and Myeva will thrive during her tenure with us.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(April 2, 2007) – We have been running articles in this newsletter asking our current members to help us enroll one new member a month. So far we have enrolled 13 new members this year. But if each of our members took the call seriously and enrolled one friend or family member each month, we could enroll hundreds of new members!

As you will see from the bill list on our website, we are now tracking 138 state bills. We also have an extremely efficient system for delivering letters and e-mails to our legislators about those state bills. However, our system is underused. If you could help us find at least one member a month, we could have a huge impact for good on state legislation.

Please do your part. Please help us find one new member a month. I am counting on you!

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(April 2, 2007) – When you search the Internet for information—or for your latest source of music, images, or video—you could be donating money to the Lambda Letters Project. It won't cost you a penny. The way to do this is to go to GoodSearch.com.

Here is how to do it. Go to www.goodsearch.com or click the image of it at the top of the right column. When you get there, you will see two text entry boxes. Type "The Lambda Letters Project" in the lower one and then click the Verify button to the right of that box. Type what you are searching for in the upper box, and then click the "Search the Web" button next to it.

You will get your information and we will get a donation. Repeat visits to the site will not require you to re-enter "The Lambda Letters Project" as the name of the charity. Please support Lambda Letters by using GoodSearch.com as you search the web.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(April 2, 2007) – Recently I spoke with a representative of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who told me that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will soon be reintroduced in Congress. Versions of this bill have been introduced in Congress almost every year since Representative Bella Abzug (D–NY) introduced her version in the early 1970s.

According to the HRC website, ENDA would provide basic protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military, and does not require benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.

The HRC has been ENDA's chief sponsor for many years. Up until now, the bill had proposed protecting lesbians, gays, and bisexuals from employment discrimination; it did not cover transgender people. Both the bill's authors in Congress and the HRC had resisted adding that protection because they claimed that doing so would hurt the chances of getting the bill passed in Congress.

In recent years, however, the HRC has come under increasing pressure to add protections for transgender people. Indeed, it seems to me that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have made great progress to date. They now face much less discrimination than transgender people do. So it is important that transgender people be protected by ENDA as well as the rest of the LGBTI community.

I've been informed that the version of ENDA to be introduced this year will, in fact, include transgender people. We at the Lambda Letters Project will be very gratified if this turns out to be true. We'll be sure to let you know.

(March 14, 2007) – Please sign the endorsement form for AB 43, the Marriage Equality Bill (Mark Leno, D–San Francisco). You can download a copy in Microsoft Word (57K, DOC) and Adobe Acrobat (23K, PDF) formats to print out, fill in, and mail back to us.

By Boyce Hinman, chief lobbyist

(March, 2007) – This may well be the year when really comprehensive health insurance reform is approved by our state legislature and signed by the governor. Four major health insurance reform plans have been announced, along with several less comprehensive ones. This is the first of a series of articles in which I will discuss these reform plans.

Governor Schwarzenegger is promoting one of those plans. Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez have each introduced their own: SB 48 and AB 8, respectively. Senator Sheila Kuehl plans to reintroduce her single-payer health insurance bill of last year, SB 840.

Why the need?

There certainly is a need for health insurance reform. Roughly 6.5 million people in California—that's one in five—have no health insurance. There are over 46 million people nationally without health insurance.

That creates several problems. First of all, it hurts hospitals. People without health insurance tend to use hospital emergency rooms for their medical care, frequently waiting until they are really sick before seeking care. Current law prohibits hospitals from turning them away. That means hospitals must absorb the cost of this care. Many of them are closing their emergency rooms because they simply cannot afford the cost.

People with no health insurance, or with inadequate health insurance, suffer in at least two ways. First, they put off seeking medical care until they are really sick and have no choice. Not only is this rough on them, but they are sick longer and have more time to spread communicable diseases.

They also suffer economic hardship. A new Harvard study reports that bankruptcies of as many as two million people annually are attributable to illness or medical bills. Many of the people who go bankrupt had health insurance but it covered only a small part of their medical expenses. The exclusion of so many conditions and medical procedures by insurance companies, combined with their large co-pays, is bankrupting too many people. It may end up bankrupting the whole health care system.

The governor's solution

This article discusses the governor's solution to the problem. Here is what he proposes:

Insurance is mandated. Every Californian would be required to carry health insurance. If it is not provided by their employer, they must buy it.
Employers must provide insurance. Employers with 10 or more employees would be required to provide health insurance for their employees and those employees' family members. Otherwise employers would have to pay 4% of their annual payroll into a state insurance pool which would then subsidize the purchase of health insurance by their employees.
No minimum mandated coverage. The governor's plan sets no minimum for the coverage benefits that must be offered by insurance plans. In fact, he has called for a reduction in government regulation.
Guidelines on consumer costs. The governor also suggests that, under his plan, people would pay up to 6% of their income for insurance coverage. This would actually increase costs for some limited-income people currently covered by Medi-Cal.
Guaranteed coverage. The governor's plan states that no insurance applicant can be refused by an insurance company.
Provider fees mandated. Doctors and hospitals would be required to contribute 4% of their gross income to a fund to provide health insurance for the poor.

In evaluating this plan, I'll begin with the assumption that any acceptable plan must do the following:

Cover everyone
Make coverage affordable to all
Require health insurance to be comprehensive with no exclusions of major ailments or medical procedures
Not discourage employers from providing comprehensive insurance for their employees

Pitfalls of the governor's solution

Unfortunately, the governor's plan falls short of these criteria in several ways. The governor says that, under his plan, everyone in California would have health insurance. However, he plans to achieve this by requiring everyone to buy insurance unless insurance has been provided by his or her employer. This method of guaranteeing universal coverage has proven ineffective in the past.

For example, take our current laws on automobile insurance. Every driver is required to buy it. Yet so many drivers do not buy auto insurance, that the rest of us have to buy uninsured motorist coverage. Requiring people to buy health insurance does not guarantee that they will. There is a danger in the governor's plan that we would all, in effect, end up having to pay for "uninsured patients insurance" by paying larger premiums to cover the cost of caring for the uninsured.

A more effective way of assuring that everyone has health insurance is to just provide it to everyone without waiting for them to purchase it. That is the approach taken by Senator Kuehl's bill, SB 840. It is also the approach that Medicare has taken for over 60 years.

The governor plans to continue depending on insurance companies to pay doctors and hospitals for their medical care. That is among the most expensive ways of paying caregivers. About 30% of the premiums paid to health insurance companies go to pay their administrative costs. Even worse, premiums paid to health insurance companies have been rising by double digits for the last five years.

A much more cost-effective way of paying doctors and hospitals is to use a single-payer plan, where one paying entity replaces the thousands of insurance companies to pay doctors and hospitals for their services. This approach could reduce administrative costs from 30% to less than 10%.

Senator Kuehl has suggested that the single payer be a government-run program. Do you feel that single-payer, state-run health care programs don't work? Medicare is just such a program. It has paid for the medical care of millions of senior citizens for over 60 years, it is very popular, and there would be a howl of protest if someone decided to discontinue Medicare because it was an "inefficient government-run program."

A single-payer plan could make health insurance much more affordable. By cutting administrative costs, it could provide a financial pot of resources with which to pay for health insurance for those not now covered by any health insurance.

The governor's plan does not mandate any minimum coverage. So a barebones policy covering only catastrophic events with a $5,000 deductible could meet the requirement for each person to have health insurance. That arrangement would be essentially the same as we have now. Insurance companies with high administrative costs would be running the payment system but they would refuse to pay for treating many conditions and would make people pay large deductibles and co-pays.

Sadly, the governor's plan would encourage employers to reduce their contribution to health insurance for their employees. His plan mandates that they provide coverage for their employees or else contribute 4% of their payroll to a state-funded program. Most employers who now provide coverage for their employees are paying 9–11% of their payroll to do so. Many will be tempted to drop this coverage and pay only the 4%. That would reduce the pot of money available to provide health care for all.

In summary, we need to evaluate the governor's plan and all other health insurance reform plans using the above stated criteria. We need a plan that meets all those criteria.

By Pat Washington, chair

(March, 2007) – Black and Latino communities have often been slow to respond appropriately to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in this country. One explanation for the historically slow response is that public information about who was most likely to be infected with the virus focused almost exclusively on the so-called "4-H" group: homosexuals, hemophiliacs, heroin users, and Haitians. For many black people, just knowing that HIV/AIDS was primarily viewed as the "junkie disease" or the "gay disease" was an excuse not to be concerned—an excuse not to do anything—because these populations were often discounted even within our own communities.

Well, it's 2007 now and we should have never behaved as though there were any "disposable" populations in our communities. Although we cannot undo the past, we can certainly do something about the present. There are no "disposable" people or groups in our communities when it comes to HIV/AIDS—or anything else. We are all directly or indirectly affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, education level, economic standing, or sexuality.

Two of society's most vulnerable populations, blacks and Hispanics, continue to be hardest hit by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Indeed, a study published in the May 2006 issue of the journal AIDS Care found that HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for black women aged 25–34 and that many of these women were infected while in college. Moreover, as scholar-activist Cathy Cohen reminds us in her book, Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics, "AIDS touches on...many other issues confronting, in particular, poor black communities: health care, poverty, drug use, homelessness." Our issues are connected. Our lives are connected.

Today appropriate responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic include, but are not limited to, educating community members at every level and at every opportunity about the importance of being tested for HIV/AIDS; making sure information is widely available regarding safe, anonymous HIV/AIDS testing; supporting legislation that increases the likelihood that individuals known to have been—or known to be—in high-risk environments are tested for HIV/AIDS; and making sure that all of us are given incentives to reduce the likelihood that, if we have the virus, we will unknowingly infect others.

There are several important pieces of proposed legislation currently being reviewed in the Assembly that, if passed, could help reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in our communities. These bills warrant our support.

AB 66 by Assemblymember Merv Dymally would require inmates in California prisons to be tested for HIV/AIDS. This bill would require HIV testing for all inmates entering a correctional facility for incarceration for a period of at least one year, and for persons entering a state prison or state hospital. The bill would require testing 30–60 days after entry into a facility, and 30–60 days prior to being discharged.

AB 110 by Assemblymember John Laird would authorize any public entity that receives general funds from the State Department of Health Services to use that money to support clean needle and syringe-exchange projects authorized by the public entity. The bill would authorize the money to be used for the purchase of sterile hypodermic needles and syringes. The bill would also require funds allocated for that purpose to be based upon epidemiological data as reported by the health jurisdiction in its local HIV prevention plan submitted to the Office of AIDS.

These are just two examples of important legislation proposed by our elected leaders to protect our communities from the spread of HIV/AIDS. Legislation is important—and so it meaningful community responses. Ensuring that every individual is aware of her or his HIV/AIDS status is important. We all must take responsibility for reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. And we have to start now, if we haven't already.

References

Cohen, Cathy. 1999.

Where to go...

News about and articles by the Lambda Letters Project