Minor change, but change it is! We're in the process of setting up our brand new political website, www.politicalpotluck.com and we wanted a blog with a similar name. We rather liked "Potluck Politics" but it seems someone else figured we'd like it someday and bought the name and parked it for sale. Didn't ask, but I'd imagine it doesn't come cheap.
Our NEW blog is http://politicalpotluckblog.blogspot.com (don't forget the "blog" at the end of the name as someone else grabbed political potluck last year... they're not using it, but it exists and we'd hate for you to think it was ours).
It's getting harder and harder to find good names for political blogs and sites given the heightened interest in politics these days. There are a lot of creative people in this world!
Hope you'll favorite our new blog and, when the new site goes up, check in to see what we're sharing!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sebelius Places Interests of Late-Term Abortionists Ahead of Unborn Children
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement after Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a pro-life bill that increases reporting requirements for doctors who perform late-term abortions and allows lawsuits against them if a patient later comes to believe such a procedure was illegal.
"Governor Sebelius has placed the interests of late-term abortionists ahead of the lives of viable unborn children. It's that simple. It's clear that Governor Sebelius is unburdened by any concern for the well-being of women and their pre-born children.
"Her ties to the late-term abortion industry appear to be even stronger than her desire to be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. If you want a preview of President Obama's health care plan, take a look at Governor Sebelius's record.
"Each U.S. senator must decide whether they will give support to a nominee who gives so little concern to the killing of near-term babies. We call on the U.S. Senate to reject her nomination, stand up for integrity, and call on President Obama to offer a nominee without such ethical baggage."
To watch Tony Perkins address the Sebelius nomination in Wichita, Kansas, click here http://www.frcblog.com/2009/04/perkins_on_point_kansas_editio.html.
---
Community News You Can Use
Follow us on Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
"Governor Sebelius has placed the interests of late-term abortionists ahead of the lives of viable unborn children. It's that simple. It's clear that Governor Sebelius is unburdened by any concern for the well-being of women and their pre-born children.
"Her ties to the late-term abortion industry appear to be even stronger than her desire to be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. If you want a preview of President Obama's health care plan, take a look at Governor Sebelius's record.
"Each U.S. senator must decide whether they will give support to a nominee who gives so little concern to the killing of near-term babies. We call on the U.S. Senate to reject her nomination, stand up for integrity, and call on President Obama to offer a nominee without such ethical baggage."
To watch Tony Perkins address the Sebelius nomination in Wichita, Kansas, click here http://www.frcblog.com/2009/04/perkins_on_point_kansas_editio.html.
---
Community News You Can Use
Follow us on Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---
Middle East Opinion on Obama's First 100 Days
/PRNewswire/ -- A recent survey by the market research company Real Opinions in the Middle East on the first 100 days since US President Obama was inaugurated shows that although the image of the US and leadership on the global stage has improved, performance on issues closer to home in the Middle East are dividing opinion.
There is success for Obama with overall opinion of the US from a Middle Eastern perspective improving by 42%. This is backed up with 35% believing the leadership of US on the global stage has also improved while 43% believe there is no change and just 9% believe it is actually worse. There are also encouraging signs on the subject of the economy with more than twice as many than his predecessor believing they are more confident with the global economy recovering under his leadership (37% improved, 15% worse).
However, in terms of key issues such as Middle East stability, the opinion is more closely divided with 20% believing it has improved and 14% believing it has become worse.
Dan Healy, the CEO of Real Opinions who conducted the survey commented 'Breaking some of these results down to the areas directly impacted by recent events such as those in the Palestinian Autonomous Area (PAA), 19% believed Middle East stability has worsened, 17% believe it has improved while just over half believe it has not changed (54%). When it came to the issue of the Palestinian & Israeli situation, 30% in PAA thought this was worse under Obama's leadership, which is twice as many as those who thought it had improved on 14%. For half of these respondents, they don't believe there is any change between Presidents Bush and Obama.
Healy added, "The overall acceptance of the image of U.S. has greatly improved but in terms of some key issues in the Middle East there is very little change. I think it's safe to say that under Bush's leadership and policies the goodwill and the favourable disposition towards the U.S. in the Middle East eroded away and now it's a new chapter, like a love affair, rekindled, very much awakened and I think it's a window of opportunity to leverage this favouritism in terms of policies to tackle some of these issues."
Research on the eve of the US presidential election showed the Middle East very much in favour of Obama over his then rival McCain in terms of being perceived as the best person capable of handling these key regional issues. Healy added "With the election of Obama, many have raised expectations in the Middle East of a change being made to policies and this appears to be transferring into dissatisfaction for some with the perception of little change being made by the time of this study."
On the eve of these results being released was the announcement by US officials that leaders of Egypt, Israel and Palestinians have been invited for talks in Washington in a new push for Middle East peace.
Healy commented 'Overall, these results suggest there is certainly a dramatic and favourable image change for the US in the Middle East with Obama as leader over the last 100 days. In terms of policy on some key Middle Eastern issues, there is certainly room for an improvement and this might be about to change with this invitation for talks.'
Research Methodology
The survey was conducted in both Arabic and English online from 10th to 20th April with n=2,789 respondents in the Middle East. Respondents were from the Real Opinion online panel and the results have approximately a 2%+/- margin of error with a CI of 95%.
About Real Opinions
Real Opinions is a full-service market research company, specialising in online media, with global and Middle East research expertise and best practice. Based in Dubai and London, Real Opinions has proven ability to help strategically guide communication, insight and assess the effectiveness of campaigns.
Real Opinions is an accredited member of ESOMAR, an international organisation for market research. For more information about us and this study, please visit http://www.real-opinions.com
Q. The US President Barack Obama will soon have been in office for 100
days and this is often a time to assess a political leader's progress.
Please rate how you believe the following has changed under his
leadership.
Leadership of US on global stage
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 35 52 35 23 35 47 25 39
Worse 9 8 12 8 6 6 10 9
No change 43 30 45 51 45 44 51 41
Don't know 13 10 8 18 14 3 14 11
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 59 32 31 33 32 38 36
Worse 3 2 11 15 11 13 10
No change 32 59 47 37 44 47 39
Don't know 5 7 11 15 13 3 15
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 40 25 33 39 29
Worse 10 7 5 21 0
No change 40 54 46 29 43
Don't know 10 14 15 11 29
Palestinian & Israeli situation
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 12 13 8 10 10 16 12 17
Worse 21 15 20 23 22 13 25 13
No change 58 60 67 56 60 63 55 61
Don't know 9 12 6 11 8 9 9 9
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 16 9 14 7 14 13 11
Worse 11 18 24 33 30 22 22
No change 62 68 55 56 51 59 58
Don't know 11 5 8 4 5 6 9
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 8 11 15 18 0
Worse 15 19 21 26 0
No change 71 62 54 45 86
Don't know 6 7 10 11 14
Iran nuclear issue
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 28 28 35 30 25 34 25 28
Worse 13 11 14 10 12 25 13 9
No change 43 46 41 36 45 34 48 46
Don't know 17 15 10 24 17 6 14 17
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 46 20 30 44 28 31 23
Worse 11 11 13 11 20 19 14
No change 32 50 41 41 35 38 46
Don't know 11 18 17 4 17 13 17
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 36 28 38 39 71
Worse 7 14 5 5 0
No change 42 42 38 29 14
Don't know 15 16 18 26 14
Middle East stability
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 20 20 31 13 15 22 17 26
Worse 14 11 6 13 17 9 16 9
No change 56 58 55 59 59 69 58 59
Don't know 10 11 8 15 10 0 9 6
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 38 14 22 26 17 25 21
Worse 8 14 15 26 19 28 14
No change 46 66 53 33 54 38 53
Don't know 8 7 10 15 9 9 12
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 22 29 10 29 14
Worse 14 11 23 18 14
No change 58 52 51 45 57
Don't know 6 8 15 8 14
Confidence with global economy recovering
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 37 46 37 28 38 41 35 37
Worse 15 10 8 15 14 16 18 19
No change 33 31 37 30 35 34 32 28
Don't know 16 13 18 27 13 9 15 17
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 41 27 35 37 41 50 37
Worse 5 14 19 30 10 16 15
No change 35 41 31 19 30 25 32
Don't know 19 18 15 15 18 9 16
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 40 26 33 50 14
Worse 14 15 21 21 14
No change 33 43 36 16 43
Don't know 13 16 10 13 29
Overall opinion of US
Total UAE Bahrain Algeria Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Base: All 2789 334 51 191 487 32 251 54
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 42 53 49 37 42 53 39 44
Worse 10 9 6 7 9 6 10 6
No change 30 25 35 30 31 31 34 39
Don't know 19 14 10 26 18 9 18 11
Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman PAA Qatar Saudi
Base: All 37 44 288 27 116 32 538
respondents
Minimum % % % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 51 30 37 33 44 44 41
Worse 3 7 13 33 12 16 10
No change 24 32 31 15 23 19 30
Don't know 22 32 19 19 21 22 19
Sudan Syria Tunisia Yemen Iran
Base: All 72 151 39 38 7
respondents
Minimum % % % % %
Base: 20
(**), Small
Base: 50
(*)
Improved 40 40 46 50 57
Worse 6 9 18 8 0
No change 32 32 18 21 29
Don't know 22 18 18 21 14
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Pro-Life Spokeswoman Objects to FDA Approval of 'Morning-After Pill' for Minors Without Prescription
/PRNewswire / -- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced late on April 22 that it has expanded over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, Levonorgestrel or "Plan B," for 17-year-old minors as well as to adults. Deirdre McQuade, Assistant Director for Policy and Communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, objected to the move in the following statement:
"The FDA's court-driven decision to make Plan B available without a prescription to 17-year-old minors - as well as to adults - flies in the face of common sense. Levonorgestrel is a powerful drug, taken in two doses over a 12-hour period. It is 40 times more potent than comparable progestin-only birth control pills (Ovrette) for which a prescription is required.
"Wider access to Plan B could endanger the lives of newly-conceived children, and will put minors at risk for unnecessary side effects, undermine parental rights, and contribute to higher STD rates.
"Pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a pathological condition, so Plan B has no authentic therapeutic purpose, and can actually cause harm to women and their newly-conceived children.
"The FDA describes Plan B as 'a contraceptive drug.' Although Plan B can prevent fertilization, the manufacturer admits it may also prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb, which is essential to his or her continued survival. Since it takes several days for the growing embryo to reach the uterine lining and implant in the mother's womb, the child in his or her second week of life could die as a direct result of Plan B. This is properly understood as an early abortion.
"Without the benefit of a doctor's supervision, many teens will be unaware of this possible abortifacient action and the other risks posed by Levonorgestrel, particularly the risks from repeated use.
"Much to the surprise of the morning-after pill's early advocates, five years of research in Europe and the U.S. shows that increased access to emergency contraception has failed to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. But it has led to greater sexual risk-taking among adolescent populations, in turn leading to higher rates of sexually-transmitted disease. In the unlikely event a teenager will bother to read the Plan B package insert all the way to the end, she will find sound advice: 'Of course, not having sex is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and stay free of STDs'."
"The FDA's court-driven decision to make Plan B available without a prescription to 17-year-old minors - as well as to adults - flies in the face of common sense. Levonorgestrel is a powerful drug, taken in two doses over a 12-hour period. It is 40 times more potent than comparable progestin-only birth control pills (Ovrette) for which a prescription is required.
"Wider access to Plan B could endanger the lives of newly-conceived children, and will put minors at risk for unnecessary side effects, undermine parental rights, and contribute to higher STD rates.
"Pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a pathological condition, so Plan B has no authentic therapeutic purpose, and can actually cause harm to women and their newly-conceived children.
"The FDA describes Plan B as 'a contraceptive drug.' Although Plan B can prevent fertilization, the manufacturer admits it may also prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb, which is essential to his or her continued survival. Since it takes several days for the growing embryo to reach the uterine lining and implant in the mother's womb, the child in his or her second week of life could die as a direct result of Plan B. This is properly understood as an early abortion.
"Without the benefit of a doctor's supervision, many teens will be unaware of this possible abortifacient action and the other risks posed by Levonorgestrel, particularly the risks from repeated use.
"Much to the surprise of the morning-after pill's early advocates, five years of research in Europe and the U.S. shows that increased access to emergency contraception has failed to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. But it has led to greater sexual risk-taking among adolescent populations, in turn leading to higher rates of sexually-transmitted disease. In the unlikely event a teenager will bother to read the Plan B package insert all the way to the end, she will find sound advice: 'Of course, not having sex is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and stay free of STDs'."
All Violent Crimes Are 'Hate Crimes,' Protect Equal Justice Under the Law
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement after approval by the House Judiciary Committee of a proposed federal "hate crimes" bill, H.R. 1913.
This measure would allow the federal government, for the first time ever, to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that "is motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Following is Perkins' statement:
"Congress should protect all Americans equally and not provide special protections to a few politically favored groups. A vote in favor of so-called 'hate crimes' legislation today is a direct violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Congress needs to remember that preserving the meaning of equal justice under the law is more important than catering to the whims of political fashion.
"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and every victim is equally important. All of our citizens deserve equal justice under the law. Do we somehow care less about victims violently assaulted because of robberies or personal disputes than we do about those assaulted because they belong in a federally designated category?
"Additionally, this poorly-worded legislation shows contempt for the moral and religious views of millions of Americans by including 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' as protected categories at a time when a large plurality of our fellow citizens rejects the implied meaning of those labels. The bill sends a message that disapproval of homosexual behavior alone - even if expressed peacefully and lovingly - constitutes a form of 'hate' that is equivalent to racial bigotry.
"This is an insult to many compassionate individuals who sincerely object to such conduct, not only based on religious and moral boundaries that are thousands of years old, but also based on well-founded concerns about the serious health risks of such conduct.
"This also sets us on a slippery slope toward serious infringements of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. By ratifying the 'thought crimes' mentality, this bill paves the way for future expansions of its scope. Indeed, Christians have already been prosecuted under thought crime laws for peacefully expressing disapproval of homosexual behavior in Sweden, England, Canada, and even in Philadelphia."
This measure would allow the federal government, for the first time ever, to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that "is motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Following is Perkins' statement:
"Congress should protect all Americans equally and not provide special protections to a few politically favored groups. A vote in favor of so-called 'hate crimes' legislation today is a direct violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Congress needs to remember that preserving the meaning of equal justice under the law is more important than catering to the whims of political fashion.
"All violent crimes are hate crimes, and every victim is equally important. All of our citizens deserve equal justice under the law. Do we somehow care less about victims violently assaulted because of robberies or personal disputes than we do about those assaulted because they belong in a federally designated category?
"Additionally, this poorly-worded legislation shows contempt for the moral and religious views of millions of Americans by including 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' as protected categories at a time when a large plurality of our fellow citizens rejects the implied meaning of those labels. The bill sends a message that disapproval of homosexual behavior alone - even if expressed peacefully and lovingly - constitutes a form of 'hate' that is equivalent to racial bigotry.
"This is an insult to many compassionate individuals who sincerely object to such conduct, not only based on religious and moral boundaries that are thousands of years old, but also based on well-founded concerns about the serious health risks of such conduct.
"This also sets us on a slippery slope toward serious infringements of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. By ratifying the 'thought crimes' mentality, this bill paves the way for future expansions of its scope. Indeed, Christians have already been prosecuted under thought crime laws for peacefully expressing disapproval of homosexual behavior in Sweden, England, Canada, and even in Philadelphia."
FDA Fails to Consider Risks of Over-the-Counter Plan B
/PRNewswire / -- Moira Gaul, Family Research Council's Director of Women's and Reproductive Health, released the following statement regarding the Obama Administration's decision to sell the morning-after-pill to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
"The Obama Administration is permitting a judge to make a scientific decision as to the safety of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. This decision places policy preferences before safety. The best interest of women's health is not advanced by these decisions. Reason, science, and compassion clearly are not the animating factors of the decision.
"In order for a drug to be sold over-the-counter, patients must be able to safely medicate themselves without medical supervision. Studies tracking the label comprehension for Plan B show poor awareness that Plan B is not a substitute for standard contraceptives. The FDA-approved label for Plan B gives no clear indication that repeated use of Plan B in a short period of time is not safe.
"FDA officials understood these safety concerns in 2006 and were not convinced that the label comprehension data for teens demonstrated that they could use Plan B safely. The FDA officials believed more data needed to be submitted.
"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to women, especially sexually abused women and minors, under coercion or without their consent. Interaction with medical professionals is a major screening and defense mechanism for victims of sexual abuse. The availability of Plan B over-the-counter also bypasses the necessary routine medical care of sexually active girls and women, which is important for the screening of health conditions, and for providing screening for sexually transmitted diseases."
"The Obama Administration is permitting a judge to make a scientific decision as to the safety of the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. This decision places policy preferences before safety. The best interest of women's health is not advanced by these decisions. Reason, science, and compassion clearly are not the animating factors of the decision.
"In order for a drug to be sold over-the-counter, patients must be able to safely medicate themselves without medical supervision. Studies tracking the label comprehension for Plan B show poor awareness that Plan B is not a substitute for standard contraceptives. The FDA-approved label for Plan B gives no clear indication that repeated use of Plan B in a short period of time is not safe.
"FDA officials understood these safety concerns in 2006 and were not convinced that the label comprehension data for teens demonstrated that they could use Plan B safely. The FDA officials believed more data needed to be submitted.
"There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to women, especially sexually abused women and minors, under coercion or without their consent. Interaction with medical professionals is a major screening and defense mechanism for victims of sexual abuse. The availability of Plan B over-the-counter also bypasses the necessary routine medical care of sexually active girls and women, which is important for the screening of health conditions, and for providing screening for sexually transmitted diseases."
Threat to Consumer Protections Sparks Opposition to House Mortgage Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The following is being released by the National Consumer Law Center:
A bill backed by leading House Democrats who promise that it will rein in predatory lending and reform the mortgage market would do more harm than good by undermining existing state consumer protection laws and replacing them with unworkable federal mechanisms.
That's the position of nine labor, civil rights and national consumer advocacy and progressive groups that formally announced their opposition to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act at a hearing Thursday of the House Financial Services Committee.
"The bill is complex, convoluted and simply will not accomplish its main goal - to fundamentally change the way mortgages are made in this country," said Margot Saunders, a lawyer for the National Consumer Law Center. Saunders testified at the hearing on behalf of the nine national organizations and 40 state and local legal services and public interest organizations that also oppose the bill, HR 1728.
The bill's most serious flaw is its proposed preemption of state laws that allow homeowners to challenge predatory mortgages and prevent foreclosures. HR 1728 would shut the door on these efforts to save homes. Instead, it would shelter Wall Street companies from accountability for the predatory loans that they purchase from lenders.
HR 1728 would replace the use of these important state laws with limited, complex and confusing federal claims that that would not provide any effective protections for homeowners facing foreclosures or struggling to pay predatory mortgage loans.
"This provision is so onerous and potentially harmful to low-income homeowners saddled with predatory mortgages or struggling to avoid foreclosure that we must oppose this bill, despite its promise of additional funding to legal services offices and some other positive provisions," Saunders said.
Saunders testified on behalf of the low-income clients of the National Consumer Law Center, a non-profit organization with 38 years of experience working on issues that affect vulnerable consumers, and these other national groups opposed to HR 1728: the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Fair Housing Coalition, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Woodstock Institute.
Saunders' testimony and a list of state and local legal services and public interest organizations that oppose HR 1728 are posted on-line at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/nclc_-_saunders.pdf.
A bill backed by leading House Democrats who promise that it will rein in predatory lending and reform the mortgage market would do more harm than good by undermining existing state consumer protection laws and replacing them with unworkable federal mechanisms.
That's the position of nine labor, civil rights and national consumer advocacy and progressive groups that formally announced their opposition to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act at a hearing Thursday of the House Financial Services Committee.
"The bill is complex, convoluted and simply will not accomplish its main goal - to fundamentally change the way mortgages are made in this country," said Margot Saunders, a lawyer for the National Consumer Law Center. Saunders testified at the hearing on behalf of the nine national organizations and 40 state and local legal services and public interest organizations that also oppose the bill, HR 1728.
The bill's most serious flaw is its proposed preemption of state laws that allow homeowners to challenge predatory mortgages and prevent foreclosures. HR 1728 would shut the door on these efforts to save homes. Instead, it would shelter Wall Street companies from accountability for the predatory loans that they purchase from lenders.
HR 1728 would replace the use of these important state laws with limited, complex and confusing federal claims that that would not provide any effective protections for homeowners facing foreclosures or struggling to pay predatory mortgage loans.
"This provision is so onerous and potentially harmful to low-income homeowners saddled with predatory mortgages or struggling to avoid foreclosure that we must oppose this bill, despite its promise of additional funding to legal services offices and some other positive provisions," Saunders said.
Saunders testified on behalf of the low-income clients of the National Consumer Law Center, a non-profit organization with 38 years of experience working on issues that affect vulnerable consumers, and these other national groups opposed to HR 1728: the AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Fair Housing Coalition, Public Citizen, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Woodstock Institute.
Saunders' testimony and a list of state and local legal services and public interest organizations that oppose HR 1728 are posted on-line at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/nclc_-_saunders.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
