The reason I say “things like that” is because it has happened in the past, where conservatives and liberals add vague language to a bill that can be further “clarified” by the bench. It's where we get the terms “reinvestment” when it really means “corporate welfare; and where we get “womens' heath concerns” when it really could mean something else entirely. Both parties do this, Dorian. It's called spin. In the case of legislation, it's called preemptive post-legislation.

“Now the worst case scenario on this one could be that “women's health care needs” could be a thinly veiled attempt at funding abortion. I'm not saying that is the case, but it has been “subtly” referred to like that in the past.”

If you are “not saying that is the case,” then why say it in the first place.

That'll be my last post on this

Why are women singled out in this bill? The mental health of women and men are both handled presently within the system, as is women's health care needs. Why does this particular title need to be addressed? As a supervisor my people are my people. They are all sailors – not men and women. I understand that women have different medical needs than men, but as I stated, they are addressed now already. Now the worst case scenario on this one could be that “women's health care needs” could be a thinly veiled attempt at funding abortion. I'm not saying that is the case, but it has been “subtly” referred to like that in the past.

In addition to the extensive treatment available to them on active duty, there is also extensive care available to them via the VA right now. What is this bill giving us?

Yes, the homeless vets and rural health care issues are top notch and should have been in place long ago; but much of the rest of the bill seems to be useless or, at best, redundant.

And you, my brother, can have the last word.

I didn't know you were a lawyer! Cool. That was my first career choice (with an undergrad in Political Science) before my wife and I started having children.

I understand the protection of all speech – be it vile or pleasant. If a Nazi is down the road saying that Jews are scum, it's protected. If a Christian is preaching the Gospel on a corner, it's protected. And if Al Gore is on a movie screen saying that we are causing the temperature fluxuations that result from cycles of the earth and sun, that's protected too. (just had to put that in there for the neo-libs).

My main beef is when that speech is directed directly at a specific gathering or individual in front of them. As is the case with Pastor Fred, he's not on some corner – he's going to INDIVIDUAL vet funerals and aiming hateful speech toward those gathered there. If nothing else, it's disturbing the peace.

“.too much bueaucracy” “no much in this bill” “gets your suspicion up”

A matter of perspective. But you have the last word.

Never cite cases to a lawyer.

Did my research. Short law school tutorial. It is not only what a case purports to say, but how it is interpreted in subsequent cases. Particularly true with old cases.

Chaplinsky v. NH was a 1942 case (old in legal terms). It has since been considerably narrowed and the more appropriate case for the current state of the law would be Gooding v. Wilson (SCt, 1972), though Chaplinsky has never been expressly overturned. Gooding found that opproprious (meant to convey disgrace) and abusive language do not constitute fighting words…Georgia statute overturned as unconstitutional.

See also, Purtell v. Mason (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, 2008) noting that Chaplinsky never held that the government could regulate or punish speech that causes emotional harm.

There is also a line of legal thinking, alluded to in the Gooding case but not expressly adopted, that the Chaplinsky ruling can only be applied to words spoken to a specific individual as opposed to a group.

I understand, and to some extent sympathize with your perspective, but a lot of vile speech occurs and the courts protect it more often than not. Btw, I believe though haven't researched, the fighting words/incitement to violence exception was tried with regard to flag burning statutes and was rejected. Not suggesting you should agree with that; it's just the current state of the law.

PS. There is very little left of the defamation exception and even less left of the obscenity/pornography exceptions to free speech (except for regulated airways re: obscenity and child porn re: pornography).

Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:

Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity

The main point I was making is that some protesting can cause harm to the troops and literally endanger their lives. Under the “fighting words” subcategory….. If you were to call a soldier a “baby killer”, it is unlawful according to the Supreme Court and does not fall within your Constitutional rights (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

So to peacably protest is one thing….To verbally assault is another. As was mentioned with the Pastor Fred clown…… He is using “fighting words” against the families of fallen soldiers IMHO. Thus, he and his followers should be banned from those situations.

from: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C

It's nice to hear we almost agree on something now and again.

Regarding “tone” – It seems to be one of those things that we hear in others long before (if ever?) we hear it in ourselves… and it seems to be the tone in those we disagree with that we notice first and that bother us the most.

We agree again!

Sometimes it is I (me?) who gets too thin-skinned with innocent, well-meant remarks by commenters.

Dorian

“there's the ongoing pestilence of Pastor Fred and his ghouls who do their protests at vets funerals. And the motorcycle brigades that have come to drown him the heck out revving their hogs, thankfully.”

No argument. Freedom is a pain in the butt and you have cited the worst of the worst. On a lesser, but still inexcusably offensive scale, I would add naked women in cages (PETA), depictions of an African American president as a monkey, or any president as Hitler, armed protestors carrying implicitly threatening messages like the Tree of Liberty quote, environmentalists spiking trees resulting in death or injury to loggers as their chainsaws kick back on contact with the spikes. The list goes on as you well know. Many for worthy causes and truly held beliefs, but without caution or restraint or understanding of consequences or respect for others. Where freedom exists nothing is sacred but freedom itself. But, where freedom does not exist subservience is boundless. Guess I'll take the former with all its loutish and disrespectful, and sometimes dangerous, ramifications.

“Timely problem solvers. despite party affiliation… those who differentiate clearly too and effectively, usefully, quickly, are the breed we're holding out for. In our time. Like now would not be too soon.”

Yes.

As for the bill itself, I haven't read it. It probably does contain some pork, and I would prefer my meat, to use your analogy, leaner than what comes from Washington. But, I would say to JD, believing he would agree, and as you already know from your years in the trenches, their are many vets for whom a “hand up” is not an option and who need more.

On Coburn: he is consistent as CS points out, but he is a horse's patoot for picking this piece of legislation to make his stand…as everyone is pointing out.

CStanley wrote: “It may shock you, Steve, but I agree with most of your comments here (if not the tone) and particularly with that line. Veteran's benefits, including healthcare, should be generously funded and part of the overall defense budget.”

It's nice to hear we almost agree on something now and again.

Regarding “tone” – It seems to be one of those things that we hear in others long before (if ever?) we hear it in ourselves… and it seems to be the tone in those we disagree with that we notice first and that bother us the most.

These are the main provisions of the S. 1963: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009

The remainder are administrative, reporting, facilities, research, personnel matters.

Yes, perhaps some are “pork?”, bureaucracy, studies,etc. (e.g. Title VIII, IX). But, please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

And, where do you see “a loophole for VA covered abortions”?.

TITLE I–CAREGIVER SUPPORT

Sec. 101. Waiver of charges for humanitarian care provided to family members accompanying certain severely injured veterans as they receive medical care.

Sec. 102. Family caregiver assistance.

Sec. 103. Lodging and subsistence for attendants.

Sec. 104. Survey of informal caregivers.

TITLE II–WOMEN VETERANS HEALTH CARE MATTERS

Sec. 201. Report on barriers to receipt of health care for women veterans.

Sec. 202. Plan to improve provision of health care services to women veterans.

Sec. 203. Independent study on health consequences of women veterans of military service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Sec. 204. Training and certification for mental health care providers on care for veterans suffering from sexual trauma.

Sec. 205. Pilot program on counseling in retreat settings for women veterans newly separated from service in the Armed Forces.

Sec. 206. Report on full-time women veterans program managers at medical centers.

Sec. 207. Service on certain advisory committees of women recently separated from service in the Armed Forces.

Sec. 208. Pilot program on subsidies for child care for certain veterans receiving health care.

Sec. 209. Care for newborn children of women veterans receiving maternity care.

TITLE III–RURAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 301. Enhancement of Department of Veterans Affairs Education Debt Reduction Program.

Sec. 302. Visual impairment and orientation and mobility professionals education assistance program.

Sec. 303. Inclusion of Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in list of facilities eligible for assignment of participants in National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program.

Sec. 304. Teleconsultation and telemedicine.

Sec. 305. Demonstration projects on alternatives for expanding care for veterans in rural areas.

Sec. 306. Program on provision of readjustment and mental health care services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Sec. 307. Improvement of care of American Indian veterans.

Sec. 308. Travel reimbursement for veterans receiving treatment at facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sec. 309. Office of Rural Health five-year strategic plan.

Sec. 310. Oversight of contract and fee-basis care.

Sec. 311. Enhancement of Vet Centers to meet needs of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Sec. 312. Centers of excellence for rural health research, education, and clinical activities.

Sec. 313. Pilot program on incentives for physicians who assume inpatient responsibilities at community hospitals in health professional shortage areas.

Sec. 314. Annual report on matters related to care for veterans who live in rural areas.

Sec. 315. Transportation grants for rural veterans service organizations.

Sec. 316. Modification of eligibility for participation in pilot program of enhanced contract care authority for health care needs of certain veterans.

TITLE IV–MENTAL HEALTH CARE MATTERS

Sec. 401. Eligibility of members of the Armed Forces who serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom for counseling and services through Readjustment Counseling Service.

Sec. 402. Restoration of authority of Readjustment Counseling Service to provide referral and other assistance upon request to former members of the Armed Forces not authorized counseling.

Sec. 403. Study on suicides among veterans.

Sec. 404. Transfer of funds to Secretary of Health and Human Services for Graduate Psychology Education program.

TITLE V–OTHER HEALTH CARE MATTERS

Sec. 501. Repeal of certain annual reporting requirements.

Sec. 502. Modifications to annual Gulf War research report.

Sec. 503. Payment for care furnished to CHAMPVA beneficiaries.

Sec. 504. Disclosures from certain medical records.

Sec. 505. Disclosure to Secretary of health-plan contract information and social security number of certain veterans receiving care.

Sec. 506. Enhancement of quality management.

Sec. 507. Reports on improvements to Department health care quality management.

Sec. 508. Pilot program on use of community-based organizations and local and State government entities to ensure that veterans receive care and benefits for which they are eligible.

Sec. 509. Specialized residential care and rehabilitation for certain veterans.

Sec. 510. Expanded study on the health impact of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense.

Sec. 511. Use of non-Department facilities for rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic brain injury.

Sec. 512. Inclusion of federally recognized tribal organizations in certain programs for State veterans homes.

Sec. 513. Pilot program on provision of dental insurance plans to veterans and survivors and dependents of veterans.

Sec. 514. Expansion of veteran eligibility for reimbursement by Secretary of Veterans Affairs for emergency treatment furnished in a non-Department facility.

Sec. 515. Prohibition on collection of copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled.

TITLE VI–DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL MATTERS

Sec. 601. Enhancement of authorities for retention of medical professionals.

Sec. 602. Limitations on overtime duty, weekend duty, and alternative work schedules for nurses.

Sec. 603. Improvements to certain educational assistance programs.

Sec. 604. Standards for appointment and practice of physicians in Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities.

TITLE VII–HOMELESS VETERANS MATTERS

Sec. 701. Pilot program on financial support for entities that coordinate the provision of supportive services to formerly homeless veterans residing on certain military property.

Sec. 702. Pilot program on financial support of entities that coordinate the provision of supportive services to formerly homeless veterans residing in permanent housing.

Sec. 703. Pilot program on financial support of entities that provide outreach to inform certain veterans about pension benefits.

Sec. 704. Assessment of pilot programs.

TITLE IX–CONSTRUCTION AND NAMING MATTERS

Sec. 901. Authorization of medical facility projects.

Sec. 902. Designation of Robley Rex Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Sec. 903. Merril Lundman Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

Sec. 904. Modification on restriction of alienation of certain real property in Gulf Port, Mississippi.

CS:

I don't think I have called Coburn a hypocrite on the veterans' funding issue. I call him “shameless” (as I call Democrats who do likewise) for obstructing passage of a bill that includes badly needed veterans benefits to make his political, budgetrary, deficits point.

In this case, I do not believe that the end justifies the means.

That's all. And that's my opinion. Others obvioulsy disagree.

Thank you for yours

It may shock you, Steve, but I agree with most of your comments here (if not the tone) and particularly with that line. Veteran's benefits, including healthcare, should be generously funded and part of the overall defense budget.

Now, where you and Dorian are wrong though is in criticizing Coburn as a hypocrite on the funding issues. He's been a pretty consistent fiscal hawk, and he opposed Bush on both the Medicare expansion (since it was an unfunded mandate that added to the deficit) and on the use of emergency supplemental bills for Iraq War funding. And that article that Dorian cited where Coburn called PAY-GO a farce, it was precisely because of what he's pointing out in this current debate- it's a farce because the rule is passed but then there are constant bills being put through that are said to be an exception to the rule.

I think it's both wrong and impolitic for him to choose this particular battle to raise the funding issue, but he has been consistent and he was one of the few to speak out against some budgetary improprieties when Bush was president.

Senator Coburn of OK, likewise will earn the eternal opprobrium of some vets and their families who will see him as unable to deliver the meat just because there appears to be too much lettuce in the sandwich. You and I and other commenters here have had this discussion before. Obstructionists creat the party of 'No” trope over and over. Timely problem solvers. despite party affiliation… those who differentiate clearly too and effectively, usefully, quickly, are the breed we're holding out for. In our time. Like now would not be too soon.

Well, actually you are guaranteed the right to protest against other citizens. It's different from the right to make grievances to the government. It's the right of free speech and expression.

Having said that, I appreciate your perspective on protesting returning troops. It is rude, disrespectful and inconsiderate, even if it is constitutionally protected.

One of the benefits of having someone like you post comments here is that there is educational value to your experiences and observations. Perhaps some of that education will become knowledge that can be passed on so that those who wish to protest will be less inclined to confront troops in a manner that might be considered insulting to their service.

To those who do not learn or insist on being inconsiderate I would repeat the wise man's remark that “I despise what you are saying (or how you are expressing it), but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Your insight is valuable, and should be highly regarded, but within the context of the Constitutional guarantees that you and many others have given their service for.

It's not your typical “pork”, but there are many earmarks for the Veterans Administration iteself in the “Other Matters Title”.

I have read the legislation. It has a lot of well-meaning things in it. Iraq veterans are the focus of most of this bill. Most of these items are already provided in one extent or another. This bill merely bureauacracizes (is that a word) them into the VA. It is not needed. It provides for countless studies that are heavy in cost and light in substance. This is a waste. There are also many “taylored” Titles for Women veterans which is vague. If I didn't know any better, it allows a loophole for VA covered abortions. Don't quote me on that one YET. I'm still diggin.

I will say that I liked the Title that allows for financing of entities for Homeless Veterans. That's awesome. Bout time.

“My point was that this bill includes a bunch of pork.”

I am curious to know exactly which active duty and veterans benefits in this legislation you consider “a bunch of pork.”

Thanks”"

J.D. I have re-read your comments and I see now you are talking about pork in the entire omnibus legislation.

Noted,

Dorian