This just in: MA Senate passes the PATCH bill

Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, Inc.

Dear SEARCHINGFORREASON.NET, Exciting news – moments ago, An Act to Protect Access to Confidential Health Care, otherwise known as the PATCH bill, passed the Massachusetts Senate! Because of your activism, a dangerous loophole in patient privacy may soon be closed.  Thank your state senator for taking action to protect patient privacy.  Currently in Massachusetts, young adults on their parent's health insurance or spouses on their partner's health insurance often pay out-of-pocket or forgo the care they need because their insurance plan will routinely inform their family members of the services they received. In my 20+ years as a primary care physician, I've seen firsthand how confidentiality concerns can negatively impact the health and well-being of so many. The PATCH bill will help close this insurance privacy loophole and improve health care access for residents across the state.  Everyone deserves access to confidential care. Thank your state senator for passing the PATCH bill. Thanks to the Massachusetts Senate, we're now one step closer towards ensuring patient confidentiality. Today's progress proves that Massachusetts can and should continue to lead on health care access. Sincerely,

QUICK HITTERS. FOR THE PEOPLE...? PT 3.

So HOW CAN WE TELL IF A CANDIDATE, POLITICIAN, PARTY, LAWMAKER etc., IS JUST PLAYING LIP SERVICE TO "SUPPORTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?", AND IS ACTUALLY PROMOTING HARMFUL LEGISLATION?

-  Look at past QUOTES AND SPEECHES REGARDING OTHER TOPICS, ISSUES, OR PROPOSED LEGISLATION.  Did They Predict Dire Consequences if the Opposition Prevailed? Did Their DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS SEEM TO BE AN EXTREME OVERREACTION?

-  If They have been on the Losing End of EITHER SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION, HOW CLOSE WERE THEY TO THE TRUTH IN PREDICTING THE OUTCOME, IN CASE THEIR ADVICE WASN'T FOLLOWED?

-  Listen Carefully to the claim that certain INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND PARTS OF
SOCIETY/ELECTORATE WILL BENEFIT FROM SUPPORTING THE POSITION BEING TAKEN.
How likely is this to be True? What Type of Argument or Evidence can they produce to support this Conclusion.

-  WHEN CRITICIZING THE OPPOSITIONS VIEWPOINT, DO THEY RELY ON AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, OR CAN THEY CITE VALID REASONS THAT BACK UP THEIR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE JUDGMENTS BEING MADE BY THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THEM?

-  CAN THEY PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM ADVOCATING A PARTICULAR STANCE ON AN ISSUE, AND IF SO, IS IT AFFECTING THE JUDGMENTS BEING MADE?

REMEMBER, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING SELFISH, AND BEING SELFLESS.

APA- Elimination of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and other cultural agencies in 2019.

Dear DAVID, Yesterday, the Trump administration issued a budget framework calling once again for the elimination of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and other cultural agencies in 2019. In response, the American Philosophical Association is partnering with the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) to urge supporters of the humanities to call and/or email their members of Congress. Please join us in opposing the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to eliminate funding for the NEH. The NHA’s email system makes it quick and easy to contact your representatives. I urge you to take advantage of the system and to email your members of Congress today. All the best, Amy E. Ferrer Executive Director P.S. On March 13, Humanities Advocacy Day, I’ll be in Washington D.C. along with many other humanities advocates to meet with members of Congress to make the case for federal funding for the humanities. Please consider joining us if you can!

NPR: Trump Administration Plans To Defang Consumer Protection Watchdog.

Trump Administration Plans To Defang Consumer Protection Watchdog The new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is set to unveil a  strategy Monday that radically reshapes the agency's mission, according to an internal memo obtained by NPR.

Read More