Arizona enacts law requiring doctors to tell patients abortions can be reversed

Tuesday, Mar 31, 2015
The law also limits public insurance coverage for abortion 
Jenny Kutner

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Monday signed a controversial bill to require doctors to tell women who undergo medication abortion that the procedure can be reversed, despite no medical or scientific evidence to substantiate the claim. The law also bans abortion coverage for insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act, except in cases of rape or incest.

“The American people overwhelmingly oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, and it’s no different in Arizona, where we have long-standing policy against subsidizing them with public dollars,” Ducey said in a statement.

Arizona is already one of several states that requires doctors to acquire admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinics where they perform abortions. The new law, however, also dictates how physicians interact with patients, and was criticized by just one Republican for requiring that doctors indicate to women that medication abortion is reversible. Reproductive rights advocates have also challenged that provision of the law, calling it infantilizing.

“It is just insulting to her intelligence to imply that she isn’t capable of making a decision and following through with that decision,” NARAL Arizona board member Gabrielle Goodrick told RH Reality Check. “We trust women can make their decisions as consenting adults.”

Debtor’s Prison for Failure to Pay for Your Own Trial

by Alex Tabarrok on April 18, 2012

Debtor’s prisons are supposed to be illegal in the United States but today poor people who fail to pay even small criminal justice fees are routinely being imprisoned. 

The problem has gotten worse recently because strapped states have dramatically increased the number of criminal justice fees. 

In Pennsylvania, for example, the criminal court charges for police transport, sheriff costs, state court costs, postage, and “judgment.” Many of these charges are not for any direct costs imposed by the criminal but have been added as revenue enhancers. A $5 fee, for example, supports the County Probation Officers’ Firearms Training Fund, an $8 fee supports the Judicial Computer Project, a $250 fee goes to the DNA Detection Fund. 

Convicted criminals may face dozens of fees (not including fines and restitution) totaling a substantial burden for people of limited means. 

Fees do not end outside the courtroom. Jailed criminals can be charged for room and board and for telephone use, haircuts, drug tests, transportation, booking, and medical co-pays. 

In Arizona, visitors to a prison are now charged a $25 maintenance fee. In PA in order to get parole there is a mandatory charge of $60. While on parole, defendants may be further assessed counseling, testing and other fees. Interest builds unpaid fees larger and larger. In Washington state unpaid legal debt accrues at an interest rate of 12%. As a result, the median person convicted in WA sees their criminal justice debt grow larger over time.

Many states are now even charging the accused to apply for and use a public defender! As a result, some defendants are discouraged from exercising their rights to an attorney.

Most outrageously, in some states public defender, pre-trial jail and other court fees can be assessed on individuals even when they are not convicted of any crime. Failure to pay criminal justice fees can result in revocation of an individual’s drivers license, arrest and imprisonment. Individuals with revoked licenses who drive (say to work to earn money to pay their fees) and are apprehended can be further fined and imprisoned. Unpaid criminal justice debt also results in damaged credit reports and reduced housing and employment prospects. Furthermore, failure to pay fees can mean a violation of probation and parole terms which makes an individual ineligible for Federal programs such as food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Family funds and Social Security Income for the elderly and disabled.

It’s difficult to argue against criminal justice fees for those who can pay, but for those who cannot– and most criminal defendants are poor–such fees can be a personal and public policy disaster. Criminal justice debt drags people further away from reintegration with civil society. A person’s life can spiral out of their control when interest, late fees, revocation of a driver’s license and ineligibility for public assistance, mean that unpaid criminal justice debt snowballs. You can’t get blood from a stone but if you try, you can break the stone.

Optimal punishment is swift and sure but also has a defined endpoint. As with bankruptcy, punishment must end, leaving both hope and opportunity. We used to release criminals without a nickel or a nail but with an understanding that their debt to society had been paid. Today, we release criminals with a ball of debt and other restrictions that chains them to the criminal justice system and which can pull them back into prison long after their sentences have been served. Releasing people with little hope or opportunity for reintegration with civil society is good for neither the releasees nor society.

On Eve of Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, Arizona Sues to Overturn Voting Rights Act

(Oh Arizona...1860 called. They want their simple-minded lunacy back. If there are any rational people living in Arizona, could you please man up and take your state back from the backward and clueless who are trying to send you back a century or more in the past. It has to be so embarrassing for you. Get off your asses and take back your state. Otherwise, we'll be forced to nuke Arizona from orbit...to be safe.--jef)

Friday, August 26, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Jeff Biggers

 

It took years for Arizona to recover from right-wing Governor Evan Mecham’s disgraceful act to rescind the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in 1989.

Now, on the eve of the unveiling of the national memorial to the civil rights leader in Washington, DC, Attorney General Tom Horne has joined a lone county in Alabama to make Arizona the first state to file a suit against the Obama administration to strike down parts of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 — spurred by the horrific violence encountered by King and civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama — as unconstitutional.

“President Lyndon Johnson’s high spirits were marked as he circulated among the many guests whom he had invited to witness an event he confidently felt to be historic, the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act,” King wrote. “The bill that lay on the polished mahogany desk was born in violence in Selma, Alabama, where a stubborn sheriff … had stumbled against the future.”

Claiming that sections of the Voting Rights Act are “either archaic, not based in fact,” Horne has indeed stumbled against his own future and Arizona’s unfinished history of voting rights violations.

Horne, of course, is infamous in Arizona for his controversial witch hunt and eventual ban of bilingual education and the acclaimed Mexican American Studies Program in Tucson. The Attorney General has openly lied in the past about his history of bankruptcy and has the unique distinction of being banned forever from the Securities and Exchanges Commission after he “willfully aided and abetted” securities law violations.

His law suit this week marches in step with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and her Arizona Gone Wild legislature’s obsession to defy federal authority over gun laws, health care, immigration policy, and border security.

US Attorney General Eric Holder immediately responded to Horne’s suit: “The Department of Justice will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in this case, as it has done successfully in the past.”

Despite the fact that President George W. Bush signed the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act in 2006, it clearly rankles Horne to be included as “covered jurisdictions” among Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia and a handful of others states for “preclearance,” which requires Department of Justice approval for any changes in election policy, practices or administrative functions.

Echoing the state’s right mantra of notorious State Senate President Russell Pearce, who is currently embroiled in a recall election, Horne declared in his suit: “The State of Arizona is a sovereign state within the United States of America.”

The Canadian-immigrant Horne, who likes to claim that he attended the historic March on Washington in 1963, could benefit from a conversation with Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) on the deadly violence during the “Bloody Sunday marches” in Selma, Alabama in 1965, which led to the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

Horne could also benefit from a lesson in Arizona voting rights history — and present reality.
In preparation for the reauthorization vote in 2006, an extensive report by Arizona State University researchers on Arizona’s voting rights record from 1982-2006 cited numerous violations and concluded: “Arizona’s record since 1982, when the temporary provisions were last reauthorized, shows that the state still has a long way to go.”
It gets worse.

Last fall, a report by Common Cause ranked Arizona at the bottom of swing states for the worst voting laws. According to Tova Wang, author of the report, the strained atmosphere behind Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 “papers please” immigration law was just the beginning of larger voter irregularities: “One of the biggest concerns in this election, especially in Arizona, is that the ugly immigration debate will be leveraged into the elections and the voting process. We are worried about the use of vote suppression tactics such as challenges at the polls and bogus charges of noncitizen voting being used as a way to impose obstacles to voting that could affect a wide range of voters, but primarily people of color. Just the climate that has been created could have an impact on its own.”

Here are some of the “notable obstacles” to voter participation in Arizona:

Citizens must register to vote a full 29 days prior to the election, which could block some Arizonans from participating.

Restoration of voting rights is only available to individuals with a single felony conviction. Persons with two or more felonies are permanently disenfranchised. Not only is it problematic that many people who have served their time are disenfranchised, but the distinction between single and multiple offenders confuses even election officials, leading to the potential disenfranchisement of people who should have their rights restored.

Arizona is the only state that requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Many citizens are not able to produce such documentary proof.

All voters must present either one form of photo ID or two forms of non-photo ID. If the voter does not have what the poll worker deems the requisite identification, he is forced to cast a provisional ballot. Some voters will not have the necessary ID.

Voters who cast conditional provisional ballots must provide proper identification to the county recorder within three to five business days in order for the ballot to be counted. Provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct will not be counted.
Arizona’s laws regarding challengers at the polling site are lax: voters may be challenged by any qualified elector of the same county and standards for initiating challenge procedures are low.

The absence of specific laws targeting deceptive practices such as dissemination of misinformation about the electoral process leaves voters vulnerable to confusion and disenfranchisement.

Arizona has historically had inadequate outreach to certain language minority communities covered by the Voting Rights Act, and gaps in coverage for qualified and trained bilingual poll workers.

America's 51st State?

Say Hello To Baja Arizona
Ian Power-Luetscher | May 13, 2011 | TPM

It's hard out in Arizona for a liberal. From recently announced deep cuts to health care and education, to the now infamously tough immigration law currently tied up in court battles, Arizona remains one of the country's more reliably conservative states. However, a group of Arizonans from the Tucson area are looking to distance themselves from the more conservative policies of their state, literally, by seceding. Headed up by Tucson attorney and former state Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom, SOS or "Start Our State," is calling for the progressive alcove of Pima County, located near the Mexican border, to break off from the rest of Arizona and form the 51st state, tentatively called "Baja Arizona."

It's a daunting task and one with little hope for success, but with a petition drive in full gear, SOS's political action committee has grown from a group of democrats with an idea, to a fledgling movement. "Start Our State," in their own words, aims "to establish a new state in Southern Arizona free of the un-American, unconstitutional machinations of the Arizona legislature and to restore our region's credibility as a place welcoming to others, open to commerce, and friendly to its neighbors."

Baja Arizona wouldn't be the smallest state in the country, it's a fact that SOS optimistically points out via their Facebook home base. They'd be larger than a handful of other states like Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, and Pima County's population of of 1,020,200, according to the most recent census, gives it a denser headcount than Montana, Alaska, Delaware, or either of the Dakotas. America's even full of state-split precedents: Maine was an exclave of Massachusetts until 1820 when it was carved off to become the 23rd state and West Virginia broke off from the rest of Virginia after refusing to become part of the confederacy during The Civil War.

That's not to say the quest for statehood is easy though. To even get the idea of "Baja Arizona" on the table, SOS must get 48,000 petition signatures by June of next year. With that, the proposal would go on a 2012 ballot in Pima County to ask voters if they support petitioning Arizona lawmakers for permission to split away, Reuters reports.

According to NPR Eckerstrom and organizers aren't having trouble getting people to sign, but the local ballot, if it's successful, is a non-binding resolution. The ballot would serve to test the waters and measure interest more than anything else, it's the first step in a long and difficult process, involving state legislature, the governor, and ultimately the U.S. Congress.

Also according to NPR, SOS and Paul Eckerstrom remain optimistic, understanding Baja Arizona's slim chances, yet still looking to make a point. "If we do this vote, at least we can send a message not only to the state Legislature but also to the rest of the nation to tell the rest of the nation that not everybody in Arizona is crazy."

Clockwork Orange America

The Media Loves Massacres, Not Foreclosure Stories
By SAUL LANDAU

The Tucson massacre yielded the media and politicians weeks of fodder for their nattering mills. Yes, Americans hate violence and love guns, just as we stand for peace and practice non-stop war. It’s not hypocrisy. We are two nations – at least – living under one crowded flag.

Does anyone think Americans have a gene that produces more mass killers than other nations? When was the last time Portugal, Norway or New Zealand had a gun-driven massacre? In this country we have yearly mass killings – with guns.

Hours after Congresswoman Gifford took a bullet, some Tea Partiers began blaming the victim for “lax security.” Sarah Palin’s speech writers turned the former Alaska governor into the victim: the media had practiced “blood libel” on her. (The media as Jews using her blood – well, words – to conduct a ritual before making matzo?)

Why did no reporter ask her: “How’s that locky loady thing workin’ fer ya now?”

In US politics aspirants’ ambitions often surpasses – by many points – their intellect. Politics is less about issues than name-recognition, or symbolism. “She can’t speak a correct English sentence just like me so I kinda feel she sorta represents me.”

Republicans have built their Party on such pablum and finding candidates with name recognition who can pass the new patriotic tests: love guns, hate taxes on the rich and espouse Christian principles: “Abortion is a sin. So is welfare.”

What did Jesus teach that relates to American reality?

“Screw your neighbor after he gets foreclosed and thrown into the street; don’t share any of your hard-earned (or inherited or stolen) money with him.”

The “good” Republican dismisses talk about high unemployment as liberal myth. The lazy bums should find jobs instead of waiting for the government to give him hard earned tax money to pay his bills.” That’s what the Bible teaches or should teach.

Listening to angry rhetoric about government pissing away our money on welfare cheats who should be working to pay their mortgages, one might forget that in the killing fields of Arizona, “one in every 17 households got a foreclosure filing last year” compared to the national average of “one in every 45 U.S. households.”

In 2010, almost 3 million Americans got eviction notices, “up 1.67 percent from 2009.” In 2010 banks reclaimed about 1 million homes. Many more are in litigation. (Janna Herron, AP Jan 13, 2011)

The Tucson shooting served as temporary cover for more important issues and nastier villains - like bankers who have assumed again their Scrooge positions, preparing to repossess a record number of homes in 2011. Maybe this knowledge would provoke American gun owners to rally against banks: to protect their homesteads? Am I dreaming?

Some 5 million “home-owners” have fallen two or more months behind on mortgage payments. Unemployed people pay the monthlies, and the assessed value of homes has dropped -- often below the size of the loan.

Last September, the bankers got exposed for the true perverts they are. Lawyers hired by those targeted for eviction showed courts the flaws in the banks’ “legal” papers. But bank lawyers “remedied” those legal failings. Bankers have now returned to their foreclosure stampede.

Residents of states where bankers promoted housing booms will suffer most. Over half the foreclosures occurred in Arizona, Florida and California -- some 1.5 million households received “get out” papers -- along with Michigan and Illinois, hit hardest by the recession.

In 2010, one in every 11 Nevada households “received a foreclosure filing last year.” And that was lower than the 2009 rate of repossessions. (Herron )

The media doesn’t chin wag on possible relationships between growing poverty, misery and homicidal madness. Instead, the media speculates about events in Tucson, not foreclosures, rising unemployment or rapidly dwindling public services. A barely reported story indicates some US cities are quickly falling into anarchy.

Congress allocates hundreds of billions for futile wars with little result while Camden New Jersey (population 80,000) “one of the nation's most impoverished and crime-ridden cities,” had to lay off half its cops and a third of its fire fighters.

In 2009, CQ Press used FBI figures to rate Camden, “the nation's second-most dangerous” city with, “ 2,380 violent crimes — more than five times the national average.” The police union warned in a full-page ad that the lay- offs would make Camden a "living hell." (Geoff Mulvihill AP January 18, 2011)

Does Camden loom as a future scenario for other former industrial cities?

Yes, guns don’t kill people, only criminals with guns do that - as well as fanatics, trigger happy “property defenders,” large corporations that make poisonous products and the US military and drones … yawn!

Welcome to Clockwork Orange America – two nations living in fear, the small rich one, the large poor and suffering one, and both in some stage of denial.

Reefer Madness Forever

Califano Tries to Pin Tucson Shootings on Pot
By FRED GARDNER

"Marijuana's Role in the Tucson Shooting" was the extremely misleading headline on an article by Joe Califano that the Huffington Post ran Jan. 21. Why is that supposedly liberal site disseminating propaganda by a leading Drug Warrior? There is no evidence that marijuana had any "role" in the Tucson shooting. Readers who only glance at the story will assume otherwise.

Califano begins by blowing politic kisses towards Barack Obama and John Boehner. Then he changes tone to sneer at "the thousands of pundits, left and right, arguing about the meaning of the tragedy in Arizona," who missed a lesson "as important as any other lesson to come out of this tragedy. It's about the relationship of marijuana use to psychotic illness."

After another shot at commentators preoccupied with laws that allow automatic weapons and super-size ammo clips, Califano makes his pitch: "I haven't seen press reports or talking heads discuss their concern about how easy it has been for this mentally ill young man to get marijuana. And there has been no mention of the potential of marijuana to spark latent psychosis and exacerbate schizophrenia and other mental illnesses."

Califano cites a study in "the British Medical Journal Lancet [The M and the J should be lower case, since he's referring to a piece in the Lancet. Califano or the staffer who writes his stuff must have vaguely remembered a publication called the British Medical Journal and conflated the two] and two other studies suggesting that using cannabis leads to psychotic breaks. Califano does not allow that these studies are considered inconclusive at best by many psychiatrists, including Lester Grinspoon, whose textbook on Schizophrenia has been the standard text.

Califano quotes reports that Loughner once used marijuana; but he ignores other reports that Loughner quit three years ago and that his drug of choice was Salvia Divinorum. Califano wants the question settled: "If the police have any of the hair shaved from Loughner's head, they can easily find out if marijuana was in his system at the time of the shooting. They may even be able to do so from hair that grows back in."

It seems like an easy test to rig if one were so inclined. And we know Joe Califano of old, he has few qualms about manipulating the facts. The following is from O'Shaughnessy's report on the Prop 215 campaign (the ballot initiative by which California voters legalized the medical use of marijuana on November 4, 1996):

In the final weeks of the campaign some leading drug warriors from Back East -stunned that the people of California were on the verge of rejecting a lifetime of their propaganda-decided to step in. Joseph Califano, president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, flew out to Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct. 28 to warn Californians that they did not understand the open-endedness of Prop 215. Califano had hired two pollsters to query 800 residents over the weekend. He must have been very confident of the outcome because arrangements for his press conference were made before the questions had been asked. "It was a push-pull," explains Paul Maslin, a San Francisco pollster. This is a type of survey in which the questioner, after getting an initial response, provides additional information and then asks again, evoking a changed response. Califano announced at his press conference that 46 percent of the respondents supported Prop 215 when first asked, but only 36 percent after its inherent looseness had been pointed out to them. Califano's goal in commissioning the poll, according to Maslin was to make voters think that the "no" side still had a realistic chance on Election Day and to minimize any bandwagon effect that would magnify the "yes" vote.

Flash-forward to the Huffington Post, Jan. 21. Califano concludes: "we should be asking this question: Is Jared Loughner an individual whose psychosis was prompted or exacerbated by the use of marijuana? Whether or not he is, it is important for the press and parents to see this horrendous incident not only as a teaching moment about the easy availability and dangerous potential of automatic weapons, but also as a teaching moment about the easy availability and dangerous potential of marijuana to spark and exacerbate psychosis and schizophrenia in individuals with latent mental illnesses.

"The missing story line in existing news reports and television chatter shows is about the terrible trinity of easy availability of guns, easy availability of marijuana and mental illness. The question for all of us, especially parents of teenagers, to ask is this: Is the media's failure to acknowledge this tragic trinity due to its tendency to overlook or underplay the dangers of marijuana use?

"Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Founder and Chair of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Carter Administration, and served from 1965 to 1969 as chief domestic affairs assistant to president Lyndon B. Johnson."

At which time one of his top aides, a Harvard honors grad and future corporate CEO, used to roll amazingly perfect joints with hospital corners. Califano never thought his aide was impaired at work because he wasn't.

Outgrow CBD Opportunism

It's very tempting for those of us who are talking up the medical potential of Cannabidiol to emphasize the absence of psychoactive effects in such a way as to imply that CBD is the good cannabinoid, as opposed to THC, the bad cannabinoid. That is a shortcut to acceptance that we consider opportunistic at best, unethical at worst. Countless scientists have spent countless millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars trying to establish the harmful effects of high-THC marijuana, and they heaviest they could come up with is bronchial irritation.

To explain what we mean by "CBD opportunism" we quote from an article in the New Scientist by Lady Amanda Neidpath of the Beckley Foundation, a British charitable trust "that promotes the investigation of consciousness and its modulation," and Paul Morrison, a researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.

It's lack of balance that makes skunk cannabis do harm. The effects of cannabis on mental health have attracted much attention over the years. As far back as the 19th century it was recognised that cannabis could induce a transient psychosis which mimics the symptoms of schizophrenia. Despite this, until the last decade or so, most psychiatrists regarded cannabis as essentially benign.

This is the reverse of the truth. "Most psychiatrists" in the UK and the US are Prozac purshers who have accepted cannabis Prohibition without a peep.

...The type of cannabis taken is an important factor. Street cannabis has indeed changed over the years. So-called "skunk" does contain higher than normal concentrations of the main psychoactive compound, a molecule called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). What is less well known is that another constituent, cannabidiol (CBD), has been eliminated from skunk through selective breeding to increase the THC content.

CBD has been bred down to trace amounts not just in skunk but in virtually all strains grown for psychoactivity.

The elimination of CBD may play a key role in the development of psychosis. Laboratory studies have shown that pure, synthetic THC causes transient psychosis in 40 to 50 per cent of healthy people.

At what doses? Which studies? This is Reefer Madness 2011.

In stark contrast to THC, CBD appears to have an anti-psychotic effect, at least in animals. Studies in humans, though few in number, have produced similar findings.

The elimination of cannabidiol from skunk may play a key role in the development of psychosis. In one human study, published in Neuropsychopharmacology (DOI: 10.1038/npp.2009.184), Sagnik Bhattacharya and colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry in London used functional MRI brain scanning to study the effects of THC and CBD on the brains of healthy volunteers. They found that THC and CBD acted in opposition; in brain regions where THC increased neural activity from a baseline, CBD decreased it, and vice-versa.

In a further experiment, a group including one of us (Morrison), in collaboration with the Beckley Foundation, compared the effects of a mixture of synthetic THC and CBD (to mimic traditional cannabis) with THC on its own (to mimic skunk). The aim was to find out if CBD offered protection against the psychotic effects of THC. Healthy volunteers were given the molecules intravenously for two sessions.

Two synthetic molecules don't "mimic traditional cannabis," and people don't shoot cannabis. What does this experiment have to do with the real world? Niedpath and Morrison conclude,

The evidence supports the idea that nature knows best, and that the reintroduction of CBD would be beneficial. Two molecules are better than one.

But the whole plant is better by far.

An isolated incident?

The shooting in Arizona--Oh, and by the way, all those other threats were isolated too.
By Tom Tomorrow

Two States Sue Bank of America Over Mortgages

Arizona and Nevada sue BoA for "Widespread Fraud"
By ANDREW MARTIN and MICHAEL POWELL

The attorneys general of Arizona and Nevada on Friday filed a lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing it of engaging in “widespread fraud” by misleading customers with “false promises” about their eligibility for modifications on their home mortgages.

In withering complaints filed in state courts in both states, the attorneys general accused Bank of America of assuring customers that they would not be foreclosed upon while they were seeking loan modifications, only to proceed with foreclosures anyway; of falsely telling customers that they must be in default to obtain a modification; of promising that the modifications would be made permanent if they completed a trial period, only to renege on the deal; and of conjuring up bogus reasons for denying modifications.

“Bank of America’s callous disregard for providing timely, correct information to people in their time of need is truly egregious,” Catherine Cortez Masto, the attorney general of Nevada said in a statement.

Many Nevada homeowners continued “to make mortgage payments they could not afford, running through their savings, their retirement funds or their children’s education funds.”

The lawsuit comes as top prosecutors nationwide are investigating whether the paperwork that banks used to support foreclosure cases often was egregiously sloppy, sometimes relying on robo-signers — employees who signed hundreds of documents a day — to sign sworn court documents.

Tom Miller, Iowa’s attorney general who is heading the multistate investigation into foreclosure fraud allegations, said the two states’ lawsuits would not dilute his inquiry. “It is clear that attorneys general in Arizona and Nevada believe that it is in their two states’ best interests to pursue coordinated civil cases against Bank of America,” he said in a statement.

A Bank of America spokesman, Dan Frahm, said bank officials were disappointed that the lawsuits were filed “at this time,” given the bank’s cooperation with the multistate investigation.

Mr. Frahm disputed the allegations in the lawsuit, saying the bank was committed to making sure no property was foreclosed until the customer had a chance to modify the loan or, if ineligible for a modification, to pursue another solution.

He said the attorneys general didn’t acknowledge the many improvements the bank had made, like providing a single point of contact for customers who have started the modification process and increasing staff to support “homeownership retention initiatives.”

Arizona and Nevada are among the states hardest hit by the housing downturn, and the state attorneys general said their lawsuits were prompted by hundreds of complaints by consumers who sought modifications of their mortgages.

The complaints in the lawsuit in many ways echoed problems encountered by homeowners nationwide who have tried with little luck to obtain mortgage modifications from banks, often through a federal program set up for that purpose. Thousands of homeowners complain that banks repeatedly lose their documents, fail to return calls or foreclose when a homeowner believes he or she is still negotiating a modification.

Indeed, according to the lawsuits, Bank of America’s efforts were the most anemic of the big banks and were not confined to the Western states but rather “reflect a pervasive nationwide pattern and practice of conduct.” The lawsuit noted that Bank of America ranked last in “virtually every homeowner experience metric” monitored in a monthly report on the federal home loan modification program.

Ms. Masto of Nevada said her office’s findings were confirmed by interviews with consumers, former employees, third parties and documents. Former employees said that Bank of America’s modification staff was “chaotic, understaffed and not oriented to customers,” according to a news release. One former employee said, “The main purpose of the training is to teach us how to get customers off the phone in less than 10 minutes.”

Another employee said, “When checking on a borrower’s status, I often found that the modification request had not been dealt with or was so old that the request had become inactive. Yet, I was instructed to inform borrowers that they were ‘active and in status.’ One time I complained to a supervisor that I felt I always was lying to borrowers.”

The Arizona complaint cites the case of an Apache Junction couple who faced foreclosure. When the wife called the bank, a representative told her ‘not to worry,’ there was a stop order on the foreclosure and the couple’s loan modification package would arrive the next day. The next day the homeowner learned that her house had already been sold, the suit says.

Terry Goddard, attorney general of Arizona, said the lawsuit was filed in part because the bank had violated the terms of a 2009 consent decree that Countrywide Home Loans — which Bank of America purchased in 2008 — had engaged in “widespread consumer fraud” in originating and marketing mortgages. As part of the judgment, Countrywide had agreed to create a loan modification program for some Arizona homeowners.

Mr. Goddard, a Democrat who lost a bid for governor, will leave office in January.

Lobbyists Tie AZ Gov Brewer Administration To Private Prisons

New Questions Raised About Lobbyist Advice
August 31, 2010

PHOENIX, Ariz. -- Gov. Jan Brewer took center stage last Tuesday night after she officially clenched the Republican nomination. Standing just behind her was a man most Arizonans would not recognize.

He’s Chuck Coughlin, Brewer’s campaign chairman, policy adviser and a lobbyist for the largest private prison company in the country. And he’s one of two people in the Brewer administration with ties to Corrections Corporation of America.

The other administration member is communications director Paul Senseman, a former CCA lobbyist. His wife still lobbies for the company.

According to campaign finance records, CCA executives and employees contributed more than $1,000 to the governor’s re-election campaign. The company’s political action committee and its lobbyists contributed another $60,000 to Brewer’s top legislative priority, Proposition 100, a sales tax to help avoid budget cuts to education.

Caroline Isaacs from the American Friends Service Committee, which advocates for social justice issues, said the money is evidence of influence the company has on the governor.

Isaacs said private prison companies have been buying influence in Arizona politics for years. The number of private prisons and jails operating across the state shows the result of that influence, he said. Currently, there are at least 12 for-profit prison, jail and detention facilities in Arizona.

Isaacs said the state has something else that attracts these companies.

“The other Holy Grail, if you will, of private prison construction is immigrant detention,” Isaac said.

Corrections Corporation of America holds the contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to lock up illegal immigrants picked up in Arizona. Tough immigration laws like Arizona's SB 1070 could send thousands of new bodies its way, and millions of dollars.

But CCA’s lobbyist and Brewer’s adviser, Chuck Coughlin, told CBS 5 News and other media outlets that there is no connection between his client and illegal immigrants arrested by local law enforcement.

Coughlin appeared on KAET TV’s “Horizon” two weeks ago. “When somebody gets arrested, they go to jail. There are no private jails. Those are public jails. ICE has said they are not taking prisoners arrested under that, so there would be no transport into the state prison system when this happens,” he told the host of “Horizon.”

But ICE’s spokesman in Phoenix told CBS 5 News the agency gets most of its detainees from local law enforcement. Records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request show Arizona agencies turned over 23,000 illegal immigrants to ICE over the past three years. Hundreds of them ended in up CCA facilities.

“Anyone who is a serious criminal or is a flight risk is more than likely going to end up in detention here in Arizona,” said Vinnie Picard from ICE.

CBS 5 News invited Coughlin to explain what he told the governor about the effects of SB 1070 on CCA, but after weeks of negotiating through e-mail, Coughlin backed out of an on-camera interview.

He sent CBS 5 News e-mail from CCA, which stated: “CCA has neither directly, nor indirectly attempted to influence immigration policy, including SB 1070, and absolutely did not engage anyone in the Governor’s Office on signature of that bill.”

People like Carline Isaacs, who study the private prison industry, said they don’t buy it.

“My reaction to that statement is then why did they give them all that money?” she said.

Chuck Coughlin’s company canceled all of the governor’s campaign advertising on CBS 5 News.

US Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona Immigration Law

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 by Reuters

PHOENIX - A U.S. judge on Wednesday blocked key parts of Arizona's tough new immigration law, granting the Obama administration's request for an injunction on grounds that immigration matters are the federal government's responsibility.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed to an injunction on provisions including one that required a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believes the person is not in the country legally.

The Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature passed the law in April to try to stem the flow of illegal immigrants over the state's border with Mexico and cut down on drug trafficking and crime -- setting it on a collision course with the federal government.

Immigration, Civil Liberties and the Drug War

The Consequences of Prohibition
By SHELDON RICHMAN

Arizona’s horrid law empowering cops to demand that people show their “papers” when suspected of being in the country without government permission holds an important lesson for both so-called progressives and conservatives. It’s a lesson about a seemingly separate issue: drugs.

Concern about illegal immigrants along the Mexican border would undoubtedly diminish if the “war on drugs” ended. (It’s not really a war on drugs; it’s a war on manufacturers, merchants, and consumers of certain drugs.) Drug prohibition in Mexico and the United States has not made the drug trade disappear. It merely turned the trade over to violent gangs. That is how prohibition always works. By definition, black markets are illegal, which means people with grievances can’t sue or call the police. They take “justice” into their own hands. The ensuing violence inevitably injures and kills innocent bystanders. If the violence is perpetrated by Mexicans and spills over the border, or if it drives villagers to seek safety in United States, the affected American communities will be tempted to blame foreigners, particularly illegal aliens.

Ending prohibition would bring the drug trade into normal commerce and under the control of social mores similar to those that govern alcohol. Just as we don’t have turf wars and other violence surrounding the liquor and tobacco industries, we would not see it in a legal drug industry.

That in itself would defuse much of the animosity toward Hispanic immigrants.

Moreover, ending the black market would shrink drug profits, which are now used to buy sophisticated weapons for drug gangs.

Now let’s tie the drug issue back to progressives and conservatives.

Progressives portray themselves as sympathetic to immigrants, legal or otherwise, although there is a group that thinks the competition with American workers is unfair. Progressives also regard themselves as civil libertarians and therefore are not happy with the Arizona authoritarian law. (Aside: If they are upset with that law, why do most progressives give Barack Obama a pass on his Cheneyesque policies regarding enemy combatants, indefinite detention, and assassination?)

But if progressives are so concerned about civil liberties, why are they not attacking the war on drugs? Not only does prohibition violate the civil liberties (not to mention property rights) of every legal resident; it also foments hostility to and suspicion of illegals. That hostility in turn leads to policies that erode everyone’s civil liberties. It’s not only immigrants who will have to carry papers in Arizona. Anyone likely to be questioned (read: anyone with brown skin) will have to carry an ID if he wants to ensure he will not be detained.

What about conservatives? Years ago they might have been counted on to protest an ID requirement. Now they seem to have no problem with a state requirement that one produce papers on demand. Rush Limbaugh says that Democrats oppose the Arizona law because having to show an ID will make it hard for them to stuff the ballot box with illegal votes. Are we to infer that Limbaugh (who speaks for many conservatives) therefore favors empowering the police to demand an ID on the mere suspicion that someone is in America without government permission?

That’s not the only problem for conservatives. They repeatedly raise alarms about the threat to gun owners, but they stubbornly refuse to see the connection between the war on guns and the war on drugs. As noted, the black market spawns well-armed drug gangs. Police have complained that they are outgunned by these gangs. This in turn has fueled the anti-gun movement. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that one way to combat the Mexican drug violence is to crack down on the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico. We know what such a policy would mean.

Progressives and conservatives, wake up! The war on drugs undermines civil liberties and the rights of peaceful gun owners, not to mention the freedom of Hispanics to move freely. If you mean it when you say you care about freedom, you will demand a halt to drug prohibition. Your own proclaimed values are at stake.

Tread on me only when it comes to immigration?

Immigration, the Tea Parties, and Big Government
April 29, 2010

The Arizona law enabling police to ask for immigration papers or proof of citizenship of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally has fanned the flames of an already hot debate over immigration. How these issues play out in the Tea Party movement will be interesting. Polling data indicate that Tea Partiers have a significant anti-immigration element to them. So, will people who claim to dislike big government be consistent and oppose this new law?

That opponents of big government would support immigration control is surprising on its face. Enforcing such laws requires governments, federal or state, to exercise powers that small-government advocates should reject. It’s not that immigration law requires enormous expenditures, or that it dramatically increases the size of government. But it does increase the scope of government power.

This distinction between scale and scope is made by Robert Higgs in his masterful Crisis and Leviathan. The real damage to freedom comes not necessarily from government growing bigger but rather from Big Government. The former is about scale, the latter about scope. So much of the Tea Party talk seems to be about scale: how much government spends, taxes, and borrows. Little of it has been about scope: the powers that government has to interfere with the rights of individuals.

The Arizona law will cost little and will not necessarily require more police, but it gives a great deal more power to the existing government. The same is true of building border fences or stricter labor regulations. Their direct expenses are not that large (compared to bailouts and stimuli anyway!), and they often get passed on to firms and consumers. But they expand State power in way that should concern those who oppose big government.

Anti-immigration laws restrict the freedom of at least two groups. One is American employers who want to hire immigrant workers. Laws that restrict immigration to officially approved people or that punish firms for hiring those who aren’t approved limit the economic freedom of employers. (By doing so, they also limit cost-cutting competition by firms, which lowers prices for American consumers.) Tea Partiers who wave Gadsen flags might consider the ways in which immigration law treads on the freedom of their friends and neighbors who are employers. If one really supports free enterprise, one should support the right of voluntary contract among any and all consenting adults, regardless of which side of an arbitrary political border they were born or live.

Immigrants’ Rights

Too often forgotten in these debates are the rights of immigrants. Libertarians believe in human rights, not just citizens’ rights or Americans’ rights. People everywhere have, or should have, the right to travel where they wish and to contract for work with whomever they wish. On what grounds do those who profess a belief in freedom prohibit them from doing so? (To anticipate a possible objection: Illegal immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes, and the U.S. crime rate has fallen since the 1987 amnesty program.) People who break the law to look for work in America are mostly trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Why risk life and limb to come here to go on welfare when they can do the same thing at home without risk? And by what right do we prevent them from trying to make better lives for themselves, just as we would wish for American citizens? The reverence with which supposed opponents of big government treat the artificial lines governments draw is yet another puzzle.

Enforcing immigration laws, including the new Arizona law, often requires encroaching on constitutional rights. Tea Partiers claim devotion to the Constitution, but those who support the Arizona law apparently missed the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Again, asking people for proof of citizenship is not going to add anything noticeable to the Arizona state budget, or the federal deficit if done on a national scale, but it does expand the scope of government power in a way that turns it from just being “big” to being “Big.”

Tea Partiers need to decide just what they are worried about. Is their opposition to big government coming from a principled objection to the larger scope of government power at all levels to interfere with the freedoms of all people (that is, Big Government), or are they just upset about the growth in federal giveaways that don’t benefit them?

MLB might Boycott AZ; AZ cities consider fighting immigration law; TX Rep to introduce similar bill

AZ cities consider fighting immigration law

PHOENIX – At least three Arizona cities are considering a lawsuit to block the new immigration enforcement law.

The cities include Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff. Their possible legal action could lend momentum to the backlash over the harsh immigration crackdown.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon criticized the measure as "economically devastating." But he was unable Tuesday to muster support from Phoenix City Council members to jointly file suit to block implementation of the law.

The mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.

In Tucson, council members want more time to discuss whether they should take legal action. Flagstaff council members are expected to review their legal options against the measure.

###

Texas lawmaker to introduce tough immigration bill

A Republican Texas lawmaker plans to introduce a tough immigration measure similar to the new law in Arizona, a move state Democrats say would be a mistake.

Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.

"The first priority for any elected official is to make sure that the safety and security of Texans is well-established," said Riddle, who introduced a similar measure in 2009 that didn't get out of committee. "If our federal government did their job, then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas."

###



###

Major League Baseball Considering Pulling Out of Arizona