Research now finds sex-linked differences in the neural connections. So what? The media's rush to pop-psychologize the findings fuels retro gender stereotypes that only raise the obstacles to workplace advancement.
By Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers
WeNews commentators
Originally posted Friday, December 13, 2013
The news media are at it again; suggesting that a new study proves the old gender stereotypes about women being good at intuition and social skills and men being better at understanding systems and action.
A team of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania used high-tech imaging on the brains of 428 males and 521 females aged 8 to 22 and found neural pathway differences between men and women. (The study was published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.)
As the Guardian explained it, "Women's brains are suited to social skills and memory, men's to perception and coordination."
The entire article is here.
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Privilege Discomfort: Why You Need to Get the F&#k Over It
By Noor Al-Sibai
Femisphere
Here is an excerpt:
As alarming (and fascinating) as this situation has been to watch at my otherwise polite and 96% white liberal arts university, it sparked in me a conundrum that I’ve struggled with myself and watched other people struggle with: Why do people become so defensive when confronted with the possibility of their own prejudice? What is it about the suggestion that we benefit from systems of inequality that causes so many people (particularly, in my experience, men and white people) to claim that they’re not “all like that”?
In my attempts to get to the root of the conundrum, I decided to use myself and other “well-meaning” white people that I know. Many of us consider ourselves liberal, even radical. We all have or have had black friends. Most of us probably voted for Barack Obama, and a lot of us are fans of rap and hip-hop. To all of us, my past self included, the assertion that we could be racist and that we definitely benefit from our white privilege is offensive at worst, dissonant at best. Cue the endless whines of “I don’t see race!” or, my overused favorite, “We’re not all like that!”
The entire blog post is here.
Femisphere
Here is an excerpt:
As alarming (and fascinating) as this situation has been to watch at my otherwise polite and 96% white liberal arts university, it sparked in me a conundrum that I’ve struggled with myself and watched other people struggle with: Why do people become so defensive when confronted with the possibility of their own prejudice? What is it about the suggestion that we benefit from systems of inequality that causes so many people (particularly, in my experience, men and white people) to claim that they’re not “all like that”?
In my attempts to get to the root of the conundrum, I decided to use myself and other “well-meaning” white people that I know. Many of us consider ourselves liberal, even radical. We all have or have had black friends. Most of us probably voted for Barack Obama, and a lot of us are fans of rap and hip-hop. To all of us, my past self included, the assertion that we could be racist and that we definitely benefit from our white privilege is offensive at worst, dissonant at best. Cue the endless whines of “I don’t see race!” or, my overused favorite, “We’re not all like that!”
The entire blog post is here.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The Roots of Good and Evil: An Interview with Paul Bloom
By Sam Harris
Sam Harris Blog
Originally published November 12, 2013
Here is one excerpt:
Harris: What are the greatest misconceptions people have about the origins of morality?
Bloom: The most common misconception is that morality is a human invention. It’s like agriculture and writing, something that humans invented at some point in history. From this perspective, babies start off as entirely self-interested beings—little psychopaths—and only gradually come to appreciate, through exposure to parents and schools and church and television, moral notions such as the wrongness of harming another person.
Now, this perspective is not entirely wrong. Certainly some morality is learned; this has to be the case because moral ideals differ across societies. Nobody is born with the belief that sexism is wrong (a moral belief that you and I share) or that blasphemy should be punished by death (a moral belief that you and I reject). Such views are the product of culture and society. They aren’t in the genes.
But the argument I make in Just Babies is that there also exist hardwired moral universals—moral principles that we all possess. And even those aspects of morality—such as the evils of sexism—that vary across cultures are ultimately grounded in these moral foundations.
A very different misconception sometimes arises, often stemming from a religious or spiritual outlook. It’s that we start off as Noble Savages, as fundamentally good and moral beings. From this perspective, society and government and culture are corrupting influences, blotting out and overriding our natural and innate kindness.
This, too, is mistaken. We do have a moral core, but it is limited—Hobbes was closer to the truth than Rousseau. Relative to an adult, your typical toddler is selfish, parochial, and bigoted. I like the way Kingsley Amis once put it: “It was no wonder that people were so horrible when they started life as children.” Morality begins with the genes, but it doesn’t end there.
The entire interview is here.
Sam Harris Blog
Originally published November 12, 2013
Here is one excerpt:
Harris: What are the greatest misconceptions people have about the origins of morality?
Bloom: The most common misconception is that morality is a human invention. It’s like agriculture and writing, something that humans invented at some point in history. From this perspective, babies start off as entirely self-interested beings—little psychopaths—and only gradually come to appreciate, through exposure to parents and schools and church and television, moral notions such as the wrongness of harming another person.
Now, this perspective is not entirely wrong. Certainly some morality is learned; this has to be the case because moral ideals differ across societies. Nobody is born with the belief that sexism is wrong (a moral belief that you and I share) or that blasphemy should be punished by death (a moral belief that you and I reject). Such views are the product of culture and society. They aren’t in the genes.
But the argument I make in Just Babies is that there also exist hardwired moral universals—moral principles that we all possess. And even those aspects of morality—such as the evils of sexism—that vary across cultures are ultimately grounded in these moral foundations.
A very different misconception sometimes arises, often stemming from a religious or spiritual outlook. It’s that we start off as Noble Savages, as fundamentally good and moral beings. From this perspective, society and government and culture are corrupting influences, blotting out and overriding our natural and innate kindness.
This, too, is mistaken. We do have a moral core, but it is limited—Hobbes was closer to the truth than Rousseau. Relative to an adult, your typical toddler is selfish, parochial, and bigoted. I like the way Kingsley Amis once put it: “It was no wonder that people were so horrible when they started life as children.” Morality begins with the genes, but it doesn’t end there.
The entire interview is here.
Friday, November 1, 2013
The Spiritual Crisis Underlying American Politics
By John Amodeo
World of Psychology
Originally published October 17, 2013
America is a very religious nation. But sadly, we’re not a very spiritual one. Mother Teresa’s disquieting words resonate throughout the land: “You in the West have the spiritually poorest of the poor. . . . I find it easy to give a plate of rice to a hungry person . . . but to console or to remove the bitterness, anger, and loneliness that comes from being spiritually deprived, that takes a long time.”[i]
While it is obvious to anyone who graduated from sixth grade that America is reeling from a chronic political crisis, it may not be as apparent that the disabling political warfare is fueled by an underlying spiritual crisis. Disconnected from our human and spiritual roots, we flail around in a world that is oblivious to the suffering of others. Lacking a gentle mindfulness toward our own feelings and vulnerability, we quickly look away from those who are suffering or the environmental havoc we’re creating.
The entire article is here.
World of Psychology
Originally published October 17, 2013
America is a very religious nation. But sadly, we’re not a very spiritual one. Mother Teresa’s disquieting words resonate throughout the land: “You in the West have the spiritually poorest of the poor. . . . I find it easy to give a plate of rice to a hungry person . . . but to console or to remove the bitterness, anger, and loneliness that comes from being spiritually deprived, that takes a long time.”[i]
While it is obvious to anyone who graduated from sixth grade that America is reeling from a chronic political crisis, it may not be as apparent that the disabling political warfare is fueled by an underlying spiritual crisis. Disconnected from our human and spiritual roots, we flail around in a world that is oblivious to the suffering of others. Lacking a gentle mindfulness toward our own feelings and vulnerability, we quickly look away from those who are suffering or the environmental havoc we’re creating.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Internet Access Is Not a Human Right
By VINTON G. CERF
The New York Times
Published: January 4, 2012 (and still relevant today)
Here is an excerpt:
Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right.
But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.
The entire piece is here.
The New York Times
Published: January 4, 2012 (and still relevant today)
Here is an excerpt:
Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right.
But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.
The entire piece is here.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Meritocracy or Bias?
By Scott Jaschik
Inside Higher Education
Originally posted August 13, 2013
Critics of affirmative action generally argue that the country would be better off with a meritocracy, typically defined as an admissions system where high school grades and standardized test scores are the key factors, applied in the same way to applicants of all races and ethnicities.
But what if they think they favor meritocracy but at some level actually have a flexible definition, depending on which groups would be helped by certain policies? Frank L. Samson, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Miami, thinks his new research findings suggest that the definition of meritocracy used by white people is far more fluid than many would admit, and that this fluidity results in white people favoring certain policies (and groups) over others.
Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.
The entire story is here.
Inside Higher Education
Originally posted August 13, 2013
Critics of affirmative action generally argue that the country would be better off with a meritocracy, typically defined as an admissions system where high school grades and standardized test scores are the key factors, applied in the same way to applicants of all races and ethnicities.
But what if they think they favor meritocracy but at some level actually have a flexible definition, depending on which groups would be helped by certain policies? Frank L. Samson, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Miami, thinks his new research findings suggest that the definition of meritocracy used by white people is far more fluid than many would admit, and that this fluidity results in white people favoring certain policies (and groups) over others.
Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.
The entire story is here.
Monday, August 26, 2013
When Doctors Discriminate
By JULIANN GAREY
The New York Times - Opinion
Published: August 10, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
If you met me, you’d never know I was mentally ill. In fact, I’ve gone through most of my adult life without anyone ever knowing — except when I’ve had to reveal it to a doctor. And that revelation changes everything. It wipes clean the rest of my résumé, my education, my accomplishments, reduces me to a diagnosis.
I was surprised when, after one of these run-ins, my psychopharmacologist said this sort of behavior was all too common. At least 14 studies have shown that patients with a serious mental illness receive worse medical care than “normal” people. Last year the World Health Organization called the stigma and discrimination endured by people with mental health conditions “a hidden human rights emergency.”
I never knew it until I started poking around, but this particular kind of discriminatory doctoring has a name. It’s called “diagnostic overshadowing.”
According to a review of studies done by the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, it happens a lot. As a result, people with a serious mental illness — including bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder — end up with wrong diagnoses and are under-treated.
The entire sad story is here.
The New York Times - Opinion
Published: August 10, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
If you met me, you’d never know I was mentally ill. In fact, I’ve gone through most of my adult life without anyone ever knowing — except when I’ve had to reveal it to a doctor. And that revelation changes everything. It wipes clean the rest of my résumé, my education, my accomplishments, reduces me to a diagnosis.
I was surprised when, after one of these run-ins, my psychopharmacologist said this sort of behavior was all too common. At least 14 studies have shown that patients with a serious mental illness receive worse medical care than “normal” people. Last year the World Health Organization called the stigma and discrimination endured by people with mental health conditions “a hidden human rights emergency.”
I never knew it until I started poking around, but this particular kind of discriminatory doctoring has a name. It’s called “diagnostic overshadowing.”
According to a review of studies done by the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College, London, it happens a lot. As a result, people with a serious mental illness — including bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder — end up with wrong diagnoses and are under-treated.
The entire sad story is here.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Judges Extend High Court Same-Sex Ruling
By ASHBY JONES
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published August 4, 2013
Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of a federal law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, judges in lower courts are citing and even building on the ruling in battles over state laws concerning same-sex marriage and other issues affecting gays and lesbians.
A federal judge in Cincinnati cited the June ruling in U.S. v. Windsor in finding Ohio's 2004 law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states "likely" to be unconstitutional, at least in regard to the couple that brought the suit.
The entire story is here.
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published August 4, 2013
Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of a federal law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, judges in lower courts are citing and even building on the ruling in battles over state laws concerning same-sex marriage and other issues affecting gays and lesbians.
A federal judge in Cincinnati cited the June ruling in U.S. v. Windsor in finding Ohio's 2004 law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states "likely" to be unconstitutional, at least in regard to the couple that brought the suit.
The entire story is here.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Gay Spouses of Members of Military Get Benefits
By EMMARIE HUETTEMAN
The New York Times
Published: August 14, 2013
The Defense Department announced Wednesday that it would begin offering benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel and other employees by early September, in response to the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Under the plan, spousal and family benefits — including health care coverage, housing allowances and survivor benefits — will be available to all legally married military spouses. The same-sex spouses of service members and civilian Defense Department employees can claim the entitlements retroactively, starting with the date of the decision.
“The Department of Defense remains committed to ensuring that all men and women who serve in the U.S. military, and their families, are treated fairly and equally,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote in a memo released by the Pentagon.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: August 14, 2013
The Defense Department announced Wednesday that it would begin offering benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel and other employees by early September, in response to the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Under the plan, spousal and family benefits — including health care coverage, housing allowances and survivor benefits — will be available to all legally married military spouses. The same-sex spouses of service members and civilian Defense Department employees can claim the entitlements retroactively, starting with the date of the decision.
“The Department of Defense remains committed to ensuring that all men and women who serve in the U.S. military, and their families, are treated fairly and equally,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote in a memo released by the Pentagon.
The entire story is here.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam
NBC News
Originally posted June 26, 2013
In a pair of landmark decisions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of gay marriage, and it allowed gay marriage to resume in California by declining to decide a separate case.
The court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to gay couples who are legally married in their states, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, said that the act wrote inequality into federal law and violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection of equal liberty.
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal,” he wrote.
Edith Windsor, the 84-year-old woman who brought the case against DOMA, said that the ruling ensured that the federal government could no longer discriminate against the marriages of gays and lesbians.
“Children born today will grow up in a world without DOMA, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married,” she said.
In the second case, the court said that it could not rule on a challenge to Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage in California passed by voters there in 2008, because supporters of the ban lacked the legal standing to appeal a lower court’s decision against it.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage, but the effect of the decision will be to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. That decision was also 5-4, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Lt. Gavin Newsom told NBC News that gay marriage would resume in California within 30 days. Gov. Jerry Brown said counties could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as one formality was taken care of: A federal appeals court had to lift a stay issued by a lower judge.
The entire story is here.
NBC News
Originally posted June 26, 2013
In a pair of landmark decisions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of gay marriage, and it allowed gay marriage to resume in California by declining to decide a separate case.
The court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to gay couples who are legally married in their states, including Social Security survivor benefits, immigration rights and family leave.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, said that the act wrote inequality into federal law and violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection of equal liberty.
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal,” he wrote.
Edith Windsor, the 84-year-old woman who brought the case against DOMA, said that the ruling ensured that the federal government could no longer discriminate against the marriages of gays and lesbians.
“Children born today will grow up in a world without DOMA, and those same children who happen to be gay will be free to love and get married,” she said.
In the second case, the court said that it could not rule on a challenge to Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage in California passed by voters there in 2008, because supporters of the ban lacked the legal standing to appeal a lower court’s decision against it.
The court did not rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage, but the effect of the decision will be to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California. That decision was also 5-4, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Lt. Gavin Newsom told NBC News that gay marriage would resume in California within 30 days. Gov. Jerry Brown said counties could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as one formality was taken care of: A federal appeals court had to lift a stay issued by a lower judge.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Chief of Army message regarding unacceptable behaviour
Published on Jun 12, 2013
Message from the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army following the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by Army members.
This video was made in response to news reports to the following:
Editorial notes: This video is an interesting and thought-provoking way to share unequivocal moral and ethical standards to the military community under his leadership. Also interesting is the number of comments and the wide variety of responses to this video.
Additionally, compare and contrast this response to the United States military's response to the increased reports of sexual assault in our military community. The responses are not the same.
Message from the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO, to the Australian Army following the announcement on Thursday, 13 June 2013 of civilian police and Defence investigations into allegations of unacceptable behaviour by Army members.
This video was made in response to news reports to the following:
Australian news outlets reported last week that at least 17 soldiers circulated video of themselves having sex with women. The videos were shared without the women's knowledge. Some of the material was distributed over military computer networks, and those under investigation include a lieutenant colonel and a major, Morrison told reporters on Thursday.The following quote is from a CNN story found here.
Editorial notes: This video is an interesting and thought-provoking way to share unequivocal moral and ethical standards to the military community under his leadership. Also interesting is the number of comments and the wide variety of responses to this video.
Additionally, compare and contrast this response to the United States military's response to the increased reports of sexual assault in our military community. The responses are not the same.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
'Moral Mondays' are here to stay
By William J. Barber
The Guardian
Originally published June 10, 2013
Here is one excerpt:
It is not surprising, then, that a couple of months ago, when we called for moral witnesses based on Gandhi and Dr King's brilliant examples of nonviolent direct action, we had 17 ministers and other leaders answer the call and participate in the first inaugural "Moral Monday".
We were pleased, but not shocked, when 29 additional North Carolinians came the second Monday; 49 the third, 59 the fourth, and 151 last Monday, 3 June. Each week, the number of supporters multiplies; from about 300 the first week to more than 4,000 on 3 June.
The appeal for each Moral Monday has been the same: urging legislators to govern for the good of the whole, rather than for the wealthy. We didn't come to this decision lightly. In fact, we made several attempts to meet with the far-right legislative leadership. Governor Pat McCrory invited us to his house for a 20-minute chat. We said we wanted to work with him to be sure he governed for the good of the whole, as the US constitution requires him to do. But it was clear he was marching to the beat of a different drummer.
Since then, we have tried repeatedly to meet with legislative leaders. No luck. Once they refused to meet and refused to stop their destructive campaign, we had no choice but to commit our constitutional responsibility to instruct our legislators by engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience.
The entire story is here.
The Guardian
Originally published June 10, 2013
Here is one excerpt:
It is not surprising, then, that a couple of months ago, when we called for moral witnesses based on Gandhi and Dr King's brilliant examples of nonviolent direct action, we had 17 ministers and other leaders answer the call and participate in the first inaugural "Moral Monday".
We were pleased, but not shocked, when 29 additional North Carolinians came the second Monday; 49 the third, 59 the fourth, and 151 last Monday, 3 June. Each week, the number of supporters multiplies; from about 300 the first week to more than 4,000 on 3 June.
The appeal for each Moral Monday has been the same: urging legislators to govern for the good of the whole, rather than for the wealthy. We didn't come to this decision lightly. In fact, we made several attempts to meet with the far-right legislative leadership. Governor Pat McCrory invited us to his house for a 20-minute chat. We said we wanted to work with him to be sure he governed for the good of the whole, as the US constitution requires him to do. But it was clear he was marching to the beat of a different drummer.
Since then, we have tried repeatedly to meet with legislative leaders. No luck. Once they refused to meet and refused to stop their destructive campaign, we had no choice but to commit our constitutional responsibility to instruct our legislators by engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience.
The entire story is here.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Minnesota now 12th state to approve gay marriage
By Sofia Perpetua
NBCNews.com
Originally published May 15, 2013
As thousands cheered outside the state Capitol with rainbow and American flags, Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill on Tuesday that makes it possible for same-sex couples to get married.
Minnesota is the 12th state to pass a gay marriage bill and the first Midwestern state to do so through a legislative vote.
"What a day for Minnesota!" Dayton, a Democrat, declared moments before putting his signature on a bill. "And what a difference a year and an election can make in our state."
The bill was signed a day after it was approved by the Senate in a 37-30 vote.
"It is an overwhelming joyful day, the culmination of years of work. Two years ago it would have been unimaginable to be here," said Jake Loesch, communications director with Minnesotans United, a LGBT group. "It was incredible, we had 7,000 people cheering as the bill as signed, it was probably the biggest crowd the Capitol has ever seen."
The entire story is here.
NBCNews.com
Originally published May 15, 2013
As thousands cheered outside the state Capitol with rainbow and American flags, Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill on Tuesday that makes it possible for same-sex couples to get married.
Minnesota is the 12th state to pass a gay marriage bill and the first Midwestern state to do so through a legislative vote.
"What a day for Minnesota!" Dayton, a Democrat, declared moments before putting his signature on a bill. "And what a difference a year and an election can make in our state."
The bill was signed a day after it was approved by the Senate in a 37-30 vote.
"It is an overwhelming joyful day, the culmination of years of work. Two years ago it would have been unimaginable to be here," said Jake Loesch, communications director with Minnesotans United, a LGBT group. "It was incredible, we had 7,000 people cheering as the bill as signed, it was probably the biggest crowd the Capitol has ever seen."
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Parity Laws: Powerful Weapon--or Pipe Dream?
By Heidi Anne Duerr, MPH
Psychiatric Times
Originally published May 6, 2013
Is true mental health parity really possible, even with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? It’s beginning to look like the answer is maybe–but only with a fight.
Across the US, the war for parity is being fought, with numerous law suits asking courts to help ensure the law has real bite. In the meantime, does this mean patients without legal support and know-how are going without proper care—or that real parity is just a pipe dream?
Just recently, the US District Court for the District of Vermont was the first court to interpret and support the MHPAEA.1 In this case, the plaintiff alleged Fletcher Allen Health Care Inc, the plaintiff’s health plan administrator, violated the parity law “by imposing, both in writing and in practice, more stringent reviews for mental health benefits than are imposed for medical benefits.”
Specifically, the complaint noted the insurer “conducts prospective and concurrent medical necessity reviews of routine, outpatient, out-of-network mental health office visits while … [the plan] conducts no such reviews for comparable medical office visits.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the plan “imposes a numeric cap on the number of routine outpatient visits participants may request before pre-approval is required for all subsequent medical necessity reviews.”
Meanwhile, the New York State Psychiatric Association filed a class-action suit against UnitedHealth Group for violating both federal and state antidiscrimination laws. Among other complaints, the suit noted UnitedHealth Group denied or delayed access to care and required continuing authorizations for psychotherapy, intensive outpatient treatment, and partial hospitalization.
The entire story is here.
Psychiatric Times
Originally published May 6, 2013
Is true mental health parity really possible, even with the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA)? It’s beginning to look like the answer is maybe–but only with a fight.
Across the US, the war for parity is being fought, with numerous law suits asking courts to help ensure the law has real bite. In the meantime, does this mean patients without legal support and know-how are going without proper care—or that real parity is just a pipe dream?
Just recently, the US District Court for the District of Vermont was the first court to interpret and support the MHPAEA.1 In this case, the plaintiff alleged Fletcher Allen Health Care Inc, the plaintiff’s health plan administrator, violated the parity law “by imposing, both in writing and in practice, more stringent reviews for mental health benefits than are imposed for medical benefits.”
Specifically, the complaint noted the insurer “conducts prospective and concurrent medical necessity reviews of routine, outpatient, out-of-network mental health office visits while … [the plan] conducts no such reviews for comparable medical office visits.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the plan “imposes a numeric cap on the number of routine outpatient visits participants may request before pre-approval is required for all subsequent medical necessity reviews.”
Meanwhile, the New York State Psychiatric Association filed a class-action suit against UnitedHealth Group for violating both federal and state antidiscrimination laws. Among other complaints, the suit noted UnitedHealth Group denied or delayed access to care and required continuing authorizations for psychotherapy, intensive outpatient treatment, and partial hospitalization.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Rhode Island Legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th State to Legalize
The Huffington Post
Originally published May 2, 2013
Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage Thursday with a 56-15 vote.
Just before he signed the legislation into law, Gov. Lincoln Chafee took to the steps of the Rhode Island State House, where he told a jubilant crowd, "Today we are making history ... we are living up to the ideals of our founder."
The entire article is here.
Originally published May 2, 2013
Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage Thursday with a 56-15 vote.
Just before he signed the legislation into law, Gov. Lincoln Chafee took to the steps of the Rhode Island State House, where he told a jubilant crowd, "Today we are making history ... we are living up to the ideals of our founder."
The entire article is here.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Panetta announces benefits for military same-sex partners
By Tom Vanden Brook
USA Today
Originally published February 11, 2013
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Monday that the Pentagon is extending benefits to same-sex partners of military servicemembers, including the right to visit their loved ones in military hospitals.
The announcement falls short of an extension of full benefits, many of them involving health care, because federal law prevents same-sex couples from receiving them. Among the other benefits to be extended: participation in family groups on military bases, issuing dependent identification cards and privileges in commissaries.
"It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country," Panetta said in a statement.
The entire story is here.
USA Today
Originally published February 11, 2013
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Monday that the Pentagon is extending benefits to same-sex partners of military servicemembers, including the right to visit their loved ones in military hospitals.
The announcement falls short of an extension of full benefits, many of them involving health care, because federal law prevents same-sex couples from receiving them. Among the other benefits to be extended: participation in family groups on military bases, issuing dependent identification cards and privileges in commissaries.
"It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country," Panetta said in a statement.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Impending rules will guide equality for mental health
By Kelly Kennedy
USA Today
Originally published February 6, 2013
Regulations to be issued this month on the type of mental health coverage insurers must provide under the 2010 health care law may elevate mental illness to the status it needs, mental health experts say.
"Mental health solutions aren't likely to have an impact on this kind of violence," said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "But we have a broken mental health system, and this is an opportunity to rectify that. You take your opportunities where they are."
Since the shooting of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., President Obama has signed several executive actions designed to identify and help those with mental illness.
He has called for a discussion about mental health and has vowed to issue final rules this month that extend mental health parity to everyone who has health insurance under the health care law, also known as the Affordable Care Act.
Those regulations would go into effect in January, and though the specifics of those rules are unknown, advocates have clear ideas of what they'd like to see parity look like.
"In a broad-speaking way, we want to see parity be about what outcomes are, not specific tit-for-tat," said Debbie Plotnick, senior director of state policy at Mental Health America, a non-profit group that promotes mental wellness.
The entire story is here.
USA Today
Originally published February 6, 2013
Regulations to be issued this month on the type of mental health coverage insurers must provide under the 2010 health care law may elevate mental illness to the status it needs, mental health experts say.
"Mental health solutions aren't likely to have an impact on this kind of violence," said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "But we have a broken mental health system, and this is an opportunity to rectify that. You take your opportunities where they are."
Since the shooting of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., President Obama has signed several executive actions designed to identify and help those with mental illness.
He has called for a discussion about mental health and has vowed to issue final rules this month that extend mental health parity to everyone who has health insurance under the health care law, also known as the Affordable Care Act.
Those regulations would go into effect in January, and though the specifics of those rules are unknown, advocates have clear ideas of what they'd like to see parity look like.
"In a broad-speaking way, we want to see parity be about what outcomes are, not specific tit-for-tat," said Debbie Plotnick, senior director of state policy at Mental Health America, a non-profit group that promotes mental wellness.
The entire story is here.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Washington Approves Same-Sex Marriage, Marking Shift in Nation’s Views
ABC News
Originally published November 7, 2012
On Thursday, opponents of the same-sex marriage referendum on the ballot in Washington state conceded the race, marking a full slate of victories for gay rights on Election Night. Same-sex marriage was legalized by popular vote for the first time in our nation’s history in not one, but all three states where it was on the ballot: Maine, Maryland and Washington. In Minnesota, a proposed ban on same-sex marriage that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the state’s constitution was defeated.
Tuesday’s victories mark more than just a win for the gay rights movement; they represent a larger demographic shift in our country. In an election year where the president made history by publicly announcing his support for same-sex marriage — becoming the first sitting president to do so — the results in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota appear to be another sign of this increased acceptance.
The entire story is here.
Originally published November 7, 2012
On Thursday, opponents of the same-sex marriage referendum on the ballot in Washington state conceded the race, marking a full slate of victories for gay rights on Election Night. Same-sex marriage was legalized by popular vote for the first time in our nation’s history in not one, but all three states where it was on the ballot: Maine, Maryland and Washington. In Minnesota, a proposed ban on same-sex marriage that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the state’s constitution was defeated.
Tuesday’s victories mark more than just a win for the gay rights movement; they represent a larger demographic shift in our country. In an election year where the president made history by publicly announcing his support for same-sex marriage — becoming the first sitting president to do so — the results in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota appear to be another sign of this increased acceptance.
The entire story is here.
In Maine and Maryland, Victories at the Ballot Box for Same-Sex Marriage
By ERIK ECKHOLM
The New York Times
Originally published on November 7, 2012
Voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriage on an election night that jubilant gay rights advocates called a historic turning point, the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box.
While six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage through court decisions or legislative decisions, voters had rejected it more than 30 times in a row.
Results for the other two states voting on same-sex marriage, Minnesota and Washington, were still coming in late Tuesday, but rights groups said that the victories in two states and possibly more were an important sign that public opinion was shifting in their direction.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Originally published on November 7, 2012
Voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriage on an election night that jubilant gay rights advocates called a historic turning point, the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box.
While six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage through court decisions or legislative decisions, voters had rejected it more than 30 times in a row.
Results for the other two states voting on same-sex marriage, Minnesota and Washington, were still coming in late Tuesday, but rights groups said that the victories in two states and possibly more were an important sign that public opinion was shifting in their direction.
The entire story is here.
Same-sex marriage upheld by Spain's highest court
By Iciar Reinlein and Sarah Morris
Reuters
Originally published 6, 2012
Spain's highest court upheld the country's gay marriage law on Tuesday, rejecting an appeal lodged by the ruling People's Party seven years ago and confirming the legality of same-sex unions.
By the end of last year, more than 21,000 same-sex couples had tied the knot since Spain became the fourth country in the world to legalize gay marriage in July 2005.
Eight of the Constitutional Court's 11 judges voted in favor of the law, the court said in a statement, adding that the full ruling will be published in the next few days.
The entire story is here.
Reuters
Originally published 6, 2012
Spain's highest court upheld the country's gay marriage law on Tuesday, rejecting an appeal lodged by the ruling People's Party seven years ago and confirming the legality of same-sex unions.
By the end of last year, more than 21,000 same-sex couples had tied the knot since Spain became the fourth country in the world to legalize gay marriage in July 2005.
Eight of the Constitutional Court's 11 judges voted in favor of the law, the court said in a statement, adding that the full ruling will be published in the next few days.
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)