NewsTaco

By Sandra Lilley, NBCLatino

When it comes to gay marriage and Latino public opinion, the last few years have seen dramatic changes, according to Ingrid Duran. She and her partner, Catherine Pino, are one of  the nation’s most visible – and powerful – gay Latina couples.

“When the Congressional Hispanic Caucus put out their 9 principles for immigration reform and marriage equality was number two on the list – that’s a big deal,” says Duran, who co-founded a lobbying and consulting group with Pino called D&P Creative Strategies.  ”When you see that 62 percent of Latino Catholics support allowing gay couples to marry, it’s a huge shift,” Duran states, referring to polling they conducted as part of their Familia es Familia campaign, a gay rights public service campaign.

As the Supreme Court heard arguments today for and against California’s Proposition 8 - the state’s ban on same-sex marriage – the reality is that Latino public opinion – as well as the position of many Latino leaders – is increasingly supportive of gay marriage.

“When one group is denied the dignity and the right to marry, it diminishes us all,” said National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) president and CEO Janet Murguía, standing in front of the Supreme Court today.

“What the Supreme Court will hear this week is what lower courts have already affirmed – no American should be denied equal protection under the Constitution,” stated California Democratic Congressman and Democratic Caucus chairman Xavier Becerra.

Last year the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and Pew Hispanic  found that for the first time since conducting its National Survey of Latinos, more Hispanics favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally (52 percent) than oppose it (34 percent). An ABC News election exit poll found 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they support same-sex marriage.  A recent Latino Decisions poll found 64 percent of Hispanic voters said comprehensive immigration reform should include the same rights for gay couples as heterosexual couples.

Reflecting this support, Murguía added today in the Supreme Court steps that “our policies should not separate families due to their immigration status, sexual orientation or anything else,” she stated. NCLR notes that in nearly one-half of the binational LGBT couples facing separation, one of the partners is Latino.

In discussing the possible Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, Latina constitutional scholar Enid Trucios-Haynes says shifting public opinion does have an impact on the nation’s highest Court.

“In 1896, for example, equality under the Constitution allowed segregation, but in 1954, the Court found equality under the constitution could not permit segregation,” explains Trucios-Haynes, a professor of law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville.

In the event the Supreme Court upholds California’s gay marriage ban as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, Trucios-Haynes says laws in support of gay marriage will most probably start being enacted state by state, as public opinion increasingly supports this.  ”It will take longer, but it might be faster than many of us think it would be,” she remarks.

“This is about families, and if we value families, this is about the 40 thousand children (in California) whose parents are living in a committed relationship and who should be able to get married,” says Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who said today on MSNBC he has supported gay marriage since 1994.

Inside the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked defenders of California’s same-sex marriage ban what is the harm done by allowing same-sex couples to marry. NBC News’ Pete Williams says that most members of the Court, including its more liberal Justices, seemed to hint they might not issue a sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage but might limit it to California.

In the meantime, Ingrid Duran hopes the Supreme Court affirms the legal basis for gay marriage in the U.S.

“It’s great that public opinion is changing, but that still doesn’t impact mine and Catherine’s ability to get married in our state of Virginia; right now it is illegal for us to get married and adopt a child,” she says. Duran says it has been difficult – and costly – to set up things like health care proxies so that if something happens to one of them, the other partner is allowed rights which come effortlessly to a married couple.

“The laws really have to change,” says Duran.

This article was first published in NBCLatino.

Sandra Lilley loves being an active part of our “national conversation”, on everything from politics, education and the economy to the latest books and people in the news. Sandra started out in Telemundo-NY as a general assignment reporter and later News Director. She was also a Dayside Managing Editor at MSNBC and a Planning Editor for the NBC Domestic Desk. Born and raised in Puerto Rico, Sandra studied history at Brown University, and currently lives in New Jersey with her family. Sandra hopes our site inspires and informs Latinos as they work toward their family’s “American Dream.”

[Photo by stevendamron]

By Warren Richey, Christian Science Monitor

Click on picture to read story.

[Photo by runJMrun]

By CBS News

Click on picture to read story.

[Photo screenshot from CBS video]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

Here’s a small blip on the radar that’s sure to be getting brighter this year: Six out of the nine states covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are supporting a challenge, in the Supreme Court, that could overturn one of the strongest tools that advocates have in their defense of voting rights.

It’s called preclearance, and it says that when any of the nine fully covered states (Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Alaska), and parts of seven others (Florida, California, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire) make any changes to their voting rules, those changes must first be cleared by the federal government.

Shelby County, in South Carolina, has challenged the rule saying it’s out dated and no longer needed. The challenge has ended up in the Supreme Court. Five states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, are backing Shelby’s suit.

That’s where the issue now lies. Not a big concern compared to gun control or the series of impending fiscal cliffs – but that just may be what makes this issue all the more serious, it’s a sleeper, just because there’re more immediate things to worry about these days. But this case should have our full attention, it’s that important.

The preclearance clause provides the teeth to the voting rights advocates’ bite. Without it there’s no fight, no defense against an election authority arbitrarily changing times, locations, language on a ballot, rules, etc… The final authority on election changes and practices would be the very same authority that made the change.

We should point out that the preclearance rule is not universal. It only applies to states where voting discrimination practices were and are proven to still be a problem. So the Shelby County challenge is expected. And if Section 5 prevails this time, we should expect more of the same brought by other counties and states in the future, it’s the nature of the law. And that only means that our vigilance on the issue shouldn’t wane.

This is as important as immigration reform, health care, gun control and the rest. The difference is that this one is going to keep sneaking up on us.

[Photo by yeowatzup]

By Suevon Lee, ProPublica

The Supreme Court has remained a largely unspoken topic on the campaign trail — even though the Court plays a critical function in Americans’ lives. (This past June’s Affordable Care Act ruling, anyone?)

The next president could very well appoint one or two new justices. And who steps down first could also depend on who’s elected.

Monday July 30, 2010

Most Aging Latinos Struggle, Some Get Active, Inspiring Other (New America Media):  According to a recent AARP report, middle-aged and older Hispanics are having the hardest time coping with the Great Recession. About one in five of them have delayed retirement, and one in 10 have taken on a second job.

Jennifer Korn: For Latinos, Owning a Home is Central to the American Dream (Fox News Latino):  For Hispanics, owning a home is a source of pride like no other. It is a sure sign of accomplishment, and a reward for years of hard work and sacrifice.

New Americans Represent Team USA at the London Olympics (Immigration Impact):  Today, the 2012 Olympics formally kick off in London where the best athletes from around the world are meeting to compete. The United States is well-represented, not only by our native born-athletes but by many “New Americans.” In fact, approximately 38 of those competing on Team USA are naturalized U.S. citizens. These athletes remind us that Americans come from all over the world.

Esther J. Cepeda: For Latinos, turnout is the thing (San Jose Mercury News):  Well, folks, I’ve analyzed the trends, stuck my finger in the wind and waded through a sea of writings attempting to predict the upcoming presidential elections. Now I’ll rock your world with a groundbreaking insight into Hispanic voters: As an electorate, they are … drum roll, please … pretty much just like all other voters.

A throwback to poll taxes (The Washington Post):  THE U.S. DISTRICT Court is soon to rule on Texas’s new voter ID law. Ostensibly to combat voter fraud — the existence of which has yet to be demonstrated — the law would require every voter to present a government-issued photo ID at the poll. After a week ofarguments this month, the question before the panel of federal judges is whether this law — one of many to emerge in the wake of 2010’s Republican legislative resurgence — places an undue burden on minorities.

Mitt Romney, GOP still don’t get it: Immigration remains defining issue for Latino voters  (New York Daily News):  Lately much noise has been coming from the Republicans about how immigration is not that big an issue for Hispanics and how it will not turn Latino voters away from Mitt Romney, their presumptive presidential contender. The economy, not immigration, is the number one issue for Latinos, they say. And the economy is Romney’s strongest point, they argue. I have news for them: As poll after poll makes clear, even if it is not at the top of their list of concerns, there is no more defining issue than immigration for the nearly 20 million Latinos who are eligible to vote.

Romney Will Push Immigration Reform, Giuliani Says (EFE/Fox News Latino):  Immigration reform would be possible if Republican Mitt Romney wins the presidency, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Efe in an interview.

A Bus Ride to Show the Cracks in Immigration (The New York Times):  The route they will take on their cross-country trek resembles a slithering snake — up, down and around in a series of intentional detours that are equal parts political strategy and provocation. Their bus leaves from this sprawling city in the desert at sunrise on Monday, carrying 30 men and women who say they have chosen to live in the shadows no more.

Illegal immigrants plan multistate protest tour (USA Today):  A group of illegal immigrants angry over deportations and racial profiling will embark on a multistate bus tour Monday that will culminate Sept. 1, just before the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

Scalia Rebuffs Criticism of Dissent in Immigration Case (Bloomberg):  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected criticism that he improperly went outside the court record in his dissent to last term’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law, saying his consideration of presidential remarks was appropriate.

Swing states give Obama the edge (The Hill):  President Obama has an overall edge in the 12 decisive battleground states that is measurably greater than his advantage in national polling.

Lupe Ontiveros dies at 69; ‘Desperate Housewives’ actress (Los Angeles Times):  Ontiveros, a longtime resident of Pico Rivera, died Thursday of liver cancer in a Whittier hospital, said her agent, Michael Greenwald. She was 69.  ”Lupe Ontiveros was a gift,” actor Edward James Olmos told The Times on Friday. “She was part of the evolutionary process of the art form of Latino storytelling in the last 30-plus years. She was one of the true pioneers of the Latin artistic movement in theater, film and television.”

Twitter Responds to Lupe Ontiveros Death (Hispanic Business):  CNN and Yahoo! has her photo on its website’s frontpage, proving the Latina actress made her mark on Hollywood as well as paved the way for Hispanic actors. Social media users are also mourning her loss, especially Twitter users who are writing messages about Ontiveros and who have made her name a trending topic.

By Latino Decisions

In polling data released today, Latino Decisions reports that Latino registered voters oppose the Supreme Court decision to uphold the controversial provision in Arizona’s SB1070 law that would require state and local police to check immigration status if they suspect a person they have stopped is an undocumented immigrant.  The poll finds 66% of Latinos oppose the recent court decision while 29% support.  Among foreign-born naturalized citizens, 76% opposed and 19% supported, and among second generation U.S. born Latinos 60% opposed and 34% supported the Court decision. The release is part of a larger poll commissioned by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and America’s Voice to ask Latinos their reaction to the Supreme Court decision on SB1070 and the possible implications of the law now taking effect.

Because the court decision was complex and had different components, the poll asked: As you may have heard, the United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision on the Arizona immigration law SB1070.  The court blocked some parts of the law from going into effect, but they upheld part of the Arizona law which will require state and local police to check the immigration status of a person if there is a reasonable suspicion he or she is an undocumented immigrant, if they have already stopped the person for another reason. From what you have heard, do you [rotate: support or oppose] the Supreme Court decision to uphold one part of the Arizona law to require state and local police to check immigration status if they suspect the person is an undocumented immigrant?”

Further, a great majority of Latino voters say they are concerned over racial profiling and that U.S. citizens will get caught up in the police immigration checks.  When asked, “how likely is it that Latinos who are legal immigrants or U.S. citizens will get stopped or questioned by police,” 79% of Latinos said it was likely and 19% said not likely.  The concerns were strongest among second generation U.S. born Latinos where 89% said it was likely compared to just 9% unlikely.

Beyond concerns over racial profiling Latinos report that the new immigration checks will not increase public safety, and in fact, many are worried that some immigrants will be reluctant volunteer information to police, out of fear for their own immigration status.  Overall 70% say that allowing police to check people’s immigration status will NOT increase public safety and 68% agree that immigrants may be less likely to report a crime or volunteer information to the police under the new law. [ Full results posted here ]

On Monday, July 23rd, Latino Decisions will co-host a webinar with the Center for American Progress and America’s Voice to examine the implications of the SB1070 decision on the 2012 presidential election, and release many more questions related to how Latinos evaluate the two presidential candidates vis-a-vis the Arizona immigration law and on prospects for future immigration reform.  Click here to register now for the webinar.

About the poll

Latino Decisions interviewed 504 Latino registered voters between July 7-16, 2012 using live telephone callers, sampled across all 50 states, and the Latino population in our sample is proportionate to the actual Latino population across all states. A mix of landline and cell phone-only households were called, and up to 5 attempts were made per number. Latino respondents had the opportunity to complete the survey in either English or Spanish, using fully bilingual callers, and overall 39% of Latinos chose to complete the survey in Spanish.  Overall, the sample has a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.

This article was first published in Latino Decisions.

Latino Decisions is the leader in Latino political opinion research. Founded by professors of political science,Dr. Gary M. Segura and Dr. Matt Barreto, our firm leverages a unique combination of analytical expertise and cultural competencies that are unparalleled in the industry. Our team is comprised exclusively of credentialed research scientists with established publication records, rigorous methodological training, and experience with large-scale collaborative research projects. We employ our professional insights and specialized technical skills to produce the most accurate information about Latino political attitudes, experiences and engagement.

By Martha Burk, Other Words

The unprecedented attack on women’s health hit a roadblock on June 27, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, effectively upholding the entire law. It was a big win for women.

In upholding Obama’s landmark health care reform, the Roberts Court threw a hand grenade at the conservatives waging an unrelenting “war on women” that uses access to health care as its main battering ram. The decision may not stop the war, but it surely feels good to win such a decisive battle.

The law, which benefits virtually all Americans, scored these big wins for women:

Reproductive Care: Birth control will be covered as a preventative measure without co-pays. Yes, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will continue their assault on this basic service, but they’re now less likely to prevail. Other very important but less divisive preventative services like pap smears, mammograms, and domestic violence screenings must also be covered without co-pays.

Motherhood: Maternity coverage will now be mandated. A widespread myth about health coverage has been that maternity coverage is generally available — it just costs more. A corollary myth is that women’s coverage costs more because of maternity coverage. Not so. According to the National Women’s Law Center, almost 90 percent of independent market-share policies exclude maternity coverage altogether. They don’t provide it at any cost. Nursing mothers who work for large employers will also benefit, as they will now be able to have breaks and a private place to pump breast milk.

Equality: Flat-out sex discrimination in coverage and pricing will no longer be allowed. The Affordable Care Act prohibits the widespread practice of charging women higher premiums than they charge men of the same age for the same coverage. This is known as “gender rating,” and the usual excuse is that women are more likely to get check-ups. The law makes any kind of sex discrimination in plans that get federal support a no-no, including policies in the new insurance exchanges.

The one place women may lose out is in expanded Medicaid coverage, since the Court’s decision said the Feds can’t threaten to take away existing Medicaid funding (which primarily benefits women and children) if states refuse to expand their Medicaid programs.

Still, the Supreme Court handed women a huge victory. In a continuing war with no end in sight, it’s a welcome one.

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco Editor

At face value the recent Supreme Court rulings regarding immigration and health care will do nothing to move the needle on Latino votes. Don’t misunderstand such a simple statement – these are issues that affect Latinos’ daily lives in direct ways, but most Supreme Court rulings on their own don’t resonate at kitchen tables, where daily lives swirl and layer and are laid out in their most stark reality.

All the talk about whether the Affordable Care Act is a tax or a not, or about which states will or will not accept the Medicaid extension money is a scrambled nuance that doesn’t distill to the work-a-day Latino voter four months away from November. Right now the good news is that gas prices are falling, and that the summer months are ahead. And soon there will be back to school stuff to think about and whether there will be work over the winter months. It’s not that Latinos are unsophisticated voters, it’s that they’re American voters. And they’ve got other things on their minds at the moment.

So somebody does a poll to gauge the Latino vote in July after the headlines read that the Supreme Court upheld  Healthcare Reform and the “show me your papers” law in Arizona, and it will have an affect on the outcome – but that’s because someone asked, today. Does it mean that more Latinos will be energized to vote four months from now?

None of that is up to the Supreme Court or it’s rulings.

The LVEI (Latino Voter Energy Index – my own invention, not sanctioned or followed by any political party or, goodness forbid, nationally syndicated Latino opinion leader) depends largely on the decibel level of the partisan drumbeat between now and November. In that sense, whether the Latino voting block is energized or not depends on the same factors as whether the general electorate is energized or not: targeted political hype, or GOTV as the pols call it (the more up to date term is voter mobilization, but it boils down to the same idea: get folks riled up, then get ‘em to the polls).

The trick is to take the Supreme Court rulings and turn them into slick political messages. That’s what’ll energize the voters. The fact that the message targets Latinos is a matter of adjusting the scope.

The rulings on immigration and healthcare are political opportunities, and those can either be carried, fumbled or missed. It’s too early to say whether Latinos will be energized in the fall because of two weeks worth of Supreme Court decisions at the beginning of summer. It’s not too early to guess that given the nature of the decisions and adding those to the recent Presidential directive on DREAMer immigrants, Latinos may be inclined to favor President Obama in July polls.

But what both presidential campaigns know well is that polls or not, the Latino votes that matter are the ones in Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina. And the time they matter is November, not July.

[Photo by echobase]

By Griselda Nevárez, Voxxi

Voter turnout may increase significantly thanks to a pair of Supreme Court rulings this week that awakened Latinos and outraged Republicans, political analysts predict.

Hispanics, who are angry about the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to uphold the “papers-please” provision of Arizona’s immigration law, are mobilizing in support of President Barack Obama. At the same time, Republicans, who oppose the justices’ ruling to uphold key parts of the Affordable Care Act, have vowed to prevent Obama from getting reelected.

“All of that put together seems to me like it could lead us to a higher voter turnout election,” said political analyst Michael O’Neil.

Historically, angry voters tend to turn out at the polls en masse. In the past, both Latinos and Republicans have proven that they can create enough force to shift the election in their favor.

Latinos did it in 2008 when they helped elect Obama by voting in sizable margins in all states with large Latino populations. Republicans did it in the 2010 midterm elections when they turned out to vote and picked up a net total of 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. That gave the GOP control of the chamber, which they had lost to the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections.

Policy policy consultant Arnoldo Torres said that as a result of the two Supreme Court decisions, he expects “the right-wing is going to be very aggressive in turning people out to vote. Meanwhile, the Obama team is going to pull out all the stops to get angry Hispanics to come out to vote.”

Recent actions by Latinos and Republicans prove Torres might be right.

Motivated by Arizona’s immigration law and Obama’s recent announcement to stop deporting young undocumented immigrants who have no criminal backgrounds, Latinos have already begun mobilizing to strengthen the Latino vote. One organization, Voto Latino, has a goal of getting 12 million Latinos to vote this year, that’s an increase of 2.3 million voters over 2008. The group also wants to raise Latino voter registration to 15 million voters, an increase of 3.3 million compared to 2008.

At the same time, Republicans are saying the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act has provided enough fuel to mobilize their followers and prevent Obama from getting reelected. Before the ruling, the GOP had already been upset with how Obama has handled a number of issues, including the economy and illegal immigration. Political analysts say that could add to the frustration over the healthcare reform and could motivate Republicans even more to boot out Obama.

But while the GOP sees the Supreme Court’s decision on the healthcare law as a way to mobilize voters against the president, Democrats are seeing it as a victory that could help Obama gain votes.

O’Neil said that without a doubt, the justices’ ruling “is a big win for the president” and it could change people’s minds about how they view Obama and his healthcare law. Polls show half of Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act and the way the president has handled healthcare.

“There are always some people who get swayed by action,” O’Neil said. “Having the Supreme Court say that this is legitimate might uptick the percentage of people who support him and his healthcare plan.”

Meanwhile, Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, said having the Supreme Court uphold SB 1070′s key provision “slightly helps Romney because it reminds the public, which generally supports the bill, that Obama has opposed it and has asked the Department of Justice to challenge it.”

Though history shows angry Republicans have had a larger impact on the elections than angry Latinos, political analysts say that the question of whether Republicans or Latinos will have a bigger impact in the 2012 presidential election is hard to answer.

“Both groups really have a lot at stake here,” Torres said.

This article was first published in Voxxi.

Griselda Nevárez is a reporter with Hispanic Link News Service in Washington D.C.

[Photo by creactions ]

PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an order rejecting the State of Arizona’s attempt to avoid a Ninth Circuit ruling that the state must accept the federal voter registration form in advance of the coming 2012 elections. The order denied an emergency stay requested by Arizona to block the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which compels Arizona to allow voters to register with the federal voter registration application provided by the National Voter Registration Act. MALDEF hails today’s order by the Supreme Court as a victory for all voters and a vindication of the rights of voters improperly rejected by Arizona’s unlawful state registration process.

“This decision is of tremendous importance to Arizona voters preparing for the upcoming November elections,” stated Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation for MALDEF, who successfully argued for use of the federal form before the en banc Ninth Circuit. “The use of the federal voter registration form in Arizona will help ensure that eligible voters are not unlawfully turned away and that their votes will count,” continued Perales.

The Supreme Court vacated the stay in Arizona v. Abeytia (previously known as Gonzalez v. Arizona). In the original case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling struck down critical provisions of an Arizona law that restricted voter access. The ruling affirmed that the National Voter Registration Act, a comprehensive law enacted by Congress to combat discriminatory and onerous state voter registration schemes, supersedes additional documentation requirements that Arizona has imposed on voter registrants. MALDEF had challenged the 2004 law, also known as Proposition 200, as unconstitutional and in violation of federal law, because it forced many new U.S. citizens to register to vote twice and forced all U.S. citizens to produce unnecessary paperwork in order to register to vote.

Following the Ninth’s Circuit’s en banc decision, the State of Arizona filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the mandate from the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kennedy entered a stay temporarily and today’s decision, by the full court, lifts the stay and allows the Ninth Circuit to issue its mandate and give effect to its decision. The state may still ask the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision, but in the meantime, Arizona must accept the federal form before this fall’s election.

MALDEF originally filed this case on behalf of individual voters and voter registration applicants as well as the following organizations: Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Valle del Sol, Friendly House, Chicanos Por La Causa, the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum, ACORN, Project Vote, and Common Cause. Danny Ortega of Ortega Law Firm P.C., and Karl Sandstrom of Perkins Coie are co-counsel with MALDEF in the case.

—–

Founded in 1968, MALDEF is the nation’s leading Latino legal civil rights organization. Often described as the “law firm of the Latino community,” MALDEF promotes social change through advocacy, communications, community education, and litigation in the areas of education, employment, immigrant rights, and political access. For more information on MALDEF, please visit: www.maldef.org.

[Photo by yeowatzup]

By Erwin de Leon, Feet in 2 worlds

Our Supreme Court justices have been rather productive this week and their rulings will impact the lives of all of us who live in this country, including those who have chosen the United States as their adopted home, with or without proper documentation.

Yesterday the justices upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a 5-4 ruling.

In a statement applauding the move, the Southeast Asian Resource Action Center (SEARAC) released a statement saying the ruling will clear the way for 465,000 Southeast Asian Americans and millions of others currently living without health insurance gain access to coverage.

“Today’s decision is an opportunity for policymakers, state agencies, private insurers, community stakeholders, and consumers to put aside differences and begin the complex and important work of implementing the Affordable Care Act,” stated Doua Thor, SEARAC’s executive director. “There are still far too many families who cannot afford care, far too many elders who must choose between life-saving prescription medication and paying rent, and far too many individuals who suffer from a health system filled with consumer pitfalls and lacking resources for culturally and linguistically appropriate care. Our communities cannot afford to wait.”

Yet the justices ruled that states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion stipulated in the law without risking their funding for their existing Medicaid programs. The expansion offers coverage to anyone with an income at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, expanding eligibility to mainly children, pregnant women, elderly and disabled adults.

Many immigrants, particularly those who are naturalized or have permanent legal residency (green cards), could potentially benefit from the expansion of Medicaid. It remains to be seen what insurance will be offered to those who live in states that opt out of the expansion. (Read Victor Landa’s breakdown of how the ruling will impact the Latino community).

One must not forget that the ruling has absolutely no bearing on the welfare of unauthorized immigrants, who are ineligible to participate in federal programs. Even if they are willing to pay out of pocket they will not have access to the health exchanges mandated by the law.

Earlier in the week, the justices handed down a split decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070. They blocked the implementation of three parts of the law, which opens the door for courts to strike down similar measures in states like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Utah that have endeavored to make it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to live and work in the U.S. The Court did sustain the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an undocumented immigrant.

Immigrant communities, their advocates and fair-minded Americans have decried the provision’s survival, rightfully fearing that it could lead to racial profiling. The justices did suggest that the law would be open to new challenges based on civil rights violations. The ACLU immediately took up the gauntlet and vowed to fight the “papers please” provision in the courts with its $9 million war chest.

It will take time to feel the tangible effects of the Supreme Court rulings. But it shouldn’t take much time for anyone to realize how these nine individuals make such a tremendous impact in our lives. It is likely that at least one new justice will be nominated to join the Court in the next four years. Who will be the man who choosing the next Supreme Court justice? Will it be President Obama, who will try to balance the scale of the Court, which currently tilts to the right? Or will it be President Romney, who will tilt it further to the right?

Immigrant communities can have a say on who that president will be. They need to organize, mobilize and get those who can vote to the polls.

Erwin de Leon is a Policy Researcher andwriter based in Washington, DC. He writes on immigration, LGBT, and nonprofit issues. You can follow him on Twitter at @ErwindeLeon or read his blog.

Fi2W is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Ralph E. Odgen Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

[Photo by  SEIU International]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco Editor

There’s enough fodder in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act to last through the election in November and beyond, and we’ll be talking about this thing for at least that long – unpacking the nuance, untangling the parts. For now, on an immediate first-glance, there’re political implications to look at vis-à-vis Latinos, the election, health care, etc… And for that we need to take a few steps back, for perspective.

• the Affordable Care Act will affect the Latino community in a big way
  • 42% of Latinos don’t have health insurance
  • Latinos are a mostly young population
  • 39% of Latino children are able to remain under their parents health insurance
  • About 16% of Latino seniors that have pre-existing conditions will have access to health care
  • a large number of low income Latinos will now have access to affordable health care

With all that said, does this ruling have a political implication, five months down the line?

Probably not as much as the SB1070 ruling may have in the Latino community. In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immigration President Obama’s approval rating among Latinos increased by at least five points and now stands at 67%. It’ll be hard to beat that. And as much as this sounds like a political hot point for the election, I don’t think it will be. The President will tout his accomplishment on the stump, and Romney will make it a campaign plank, but I’d bet a stack of dollars that the GOP will try to avoid this issue from now on because it’s a losing issue for them and because the American public is already tired of it – voters in particular have had enough.

The Republican’s in the House of Representatives have said that they’ll bring the entire law to a vote for repeal next week. The repeal is unlikely to pass and that’ll only cram politics in a partisan funnel and fire-up both bases that needed a lift as it was. So expect the decibel level to increase over this, but nothing more. It’ll be hard for either side to relate this ruling to the economy, which is where most Americans are looking (the link is there, but hard to make on a campaign talking point).

So overall, this law looks to be good for Latinos, but we won’t see the effects of it before November. And while this ruling may help rile the partisans on both political camps, it may do little to move the needle among the undecided, and among Latino voters in key swing states. Unless the campaigns manage to convince Latinos and the undecided middle, and that’s going to take some fancy message making

What’s your take?

[Photo By bryanrmason]

By Hope Gillette, Voxxi

The Supreme Court has upheld the entire Affordable Care Act in a monumental ruling set to impact millions of people in the United States. Only the government’s power to eliminate states’ Medicaid funds has been deemed “narrowly read” – meaning it is limited but not invalidated.

“Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” says the Court’s live blog report from page 55 of the opinion.

Twenty six states took the health law to court in this landmark case, claiming the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was unconstitutional, and that the government had overstepped its bounds on certain provision of the law. The individual mandate, which requires eligible residents of the country to purchase health insurance or face a penalty, was at the heart of the debate.

During the courtroom debate, Justices acknowledged the potential repercussions of repealing the law, but ultimately decided to uphold ACA, with Chief Justice Robert’s being the swing vote in the 5-4 ruling.

Now, with the law, young adults, seniors and minorities, as well as 30 million people who stood to gain insurance in 2014, will continue to march toward that goal. Those who are eligible and do not participate in the health care programs available will be subject to a minimum tax penalty.

With the health care reform, young adults will be allowed by law to remain on parents’ insurance plans until age 25, a provision of the health reform that ultimately increased coverage to 75 percent for people between the ages of 19 and 25, according to the Associated Press.

With over 3 million young adults added to insurances plans through the ACA, the provision was popular enough with the nation’s residents many private insurers stated they would carry on this form of coverage in one way or another.

Seniors are similarly affected by the ruling in favor of health reform law. Under the ACA, senior patients were already seeing benefits in regards to prescription coverage, with many individuals able to obtain important medications through discounts on name-brand and generic purchases. Seniors will retain no-cost no-co-pay preventative disease screenings and wellness visits, as well as a guarantee their coverage would not be adjusted based on chronic illness or capped with a lifetime limitation.

Latinos also benefit from the already-created Office of Minority Health and its efforts toward eliminating health disparities.

A 2009 Gallup poll found that 41.7 percent of Hispanics in the country, aged 18 and over, lacked health insurance, compared with a national average of 16 percent and 11.6 percent of Non-Hispanic whites.

Under the ACA, many Hispanics will now have access to health care, including the 39 percent of uninsured Latino children who will be allowed to remain on their parents’ policies until the age of 26.

But the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t just affect certain age groups or ethnicities; the law affects residents of the United States as a whole, with important health care issues no longer left hanging on the Court’s decision.

By 2014, 30 million people will gain access to health care coverage, able to shop for their own plans through government mandated exchange programs.

Insurance companies will be held accountable for their spending and for premium increases, and those who fail to meet certain standards will issue refunds to the insured.

One of the most popular portions of the law in regards to children, eliminates policies from insurance companies pertaining to preexisting conditions. Now, no child can be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition.

But it’s not just children benefiting from a lift of insurance limitations. Adults can no longer be denied coverage for medical conditions, nor can a lifetime limitation be placed on their coverage. Insurance companies won’t be able to increase premiums either.

Women, like seniors, will benefit from free wellness programs. Breast cancer screenings and contraceptives will be covered under no-cost or no-copy visits.

This article was first published in Voxxi.

Hope Gillette is an award winning author and novelist. She has been active in the veterinary industry for over 10 years, and her experience extends from exotic animal care to equine sports massage. She shares her home with four cats, a dog, a horse, and her tolerant husband.

[Image By nffcnnr]