In a post at Think Progress last Friday, we once again learn that the REPUBLIBAN’s culture war against the LGBT community is still raging —
By Ian Millhiser on May 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Carolyn Compton is in a three year-old relationship with a woman. According to Compton’s partner Page Price, Compton’s ex-husband rarely sees their two children and was also once charged with stalking Compton, a felony, although he eventually plead to a misdemeanor charge of criminal trespassing.
And yet, thanks to a Texas judge, Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves.
According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.
Compton can appeal Roach’s decision, but her appeal will be heard by the notoriouslyconservative Texas court system. Ultimately, the question of whether Compton’s relationship with Price is entitled to the same dignity accorded to any other loving couple could rest with the United States Supreme Court.
This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe. Image credit to http://timetowrite.blogs.com
This week, the GOP-dominated Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments about whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be thrown out as unconstitutional, and the GOP-dominated U.S. House is debating Rep. Paul Ryan’s Path to Poverty budget proposal which would repeal all provisions of the PPACA and return everything to the way it was before it was enacted.
“Women continue to face unfair and discriminatory practices when obtaining health insurance in the individual market—as well as in the group health insurance market. Women are charged more for health coverage simply because they are women, and individual market health plans often exclude coverage for services that only women need, like maternity care. Furthermore, insurance companies—despite being aware of these discriminatory practices—have not voluntarily taken steps to eliminate the inequities. While some states have outlawed or limited these practices, only when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014 will they end nationally.” — National Women’s Law Center
If either attack succeeds, women can kiss that 2014 promise of medical premium equality goodbye and expect to continue paying far more for the same health insurance policy than any man would have to pay. If you’re a woman, and you don’t believe you’re nothing more than a pre-existing condition to be denied and overcharged, then you need to get busy. If REPEAL is not what you want to see happen, then you need to learn all you can learn about the PPACA debate. You need to write/call your representatives in Congress expressing your disapproval, and you need to encourage everyone in your circle of friends to actively stand against repeal.
If the Supreme Court decides to strike down the PPACA, women (and Americans, in general) will need to watch carefully to see what other pieces of legislation are adversely affected by the Court’s action.
RESOURCES PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT
- Amicus Brief: Department of Health and Human Services, et al., v. State of Florida, et al.
- The Health Care Litigation: What Women Could Lose
- Health Care Law Litigation: Glossary of Terms
- Amicus Brief: Susan Seven-Sky, et al., v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al.
- Amicus Brief: State of Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services, et al.
- Amicus Brief: Commonwealth of VA, Ex. Rel., Cuccinelli, II, v. Sebelius