tv Democracy Now PBS March 7, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
03/07/17 03/07/17 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> this new executive order stigmatizes the face of islam and muslims. it does not make america any safer. amy: president trump has signed a new executive order temporarily banning all refugees as well as people from six majority muslim countries from entering the united states. we will get the latest. then we speak to gavin grimm, a transgender high school student at the center of a landmark lawsuit. roomcannot use the woman's because, quite rightly, i am not a girl. it is good your child, your sister, your brother, your
knees, your nephew. i am not the only transgender student in gloucester county. i am just a human. on monday, the supreme court opted not to hear his case. and then to on monday, the supre court opted not to hear the repr against obamacare. pres. trump: i am calling on all democrats and republicans in congress to work with us to save americans from this imploding obamacare disaster. amy: congressional republicans have introduced legislation to repeal the nation's most significant health care law in half a century. insurance companies appear to be big beneficiaries of the new bill, but what about the sick and the poor? all of that and more coming up. , welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman.
president donald trump issued a new executive order monday temporarily banning all refugees, as well as people from six majority muslim countries from entering the united states. according to white house officials, trump signed the executive order out of public view a sharp departure from the , way he signed his first travel ban order, which caused nationwide protests at airports before being blocked by the court last month. the new ban applies to people from syria, sudan, iran, somalia, libya, and yemen, but not those from iraq. the band will not apply to people from the six countries with green cards or who already have a visa. despite the changes, immigration advocates say the new ban still discriminates against muslims. this is nihad awad from the council on american-islamic relations. >> this administration is actively working to undercut religious liberties and freedom of mayor can muslims.
-- and american muslims. despite freedom of religion to all. amy: the new ban is set to take effect march 16. we'll have more on the new ban after headlines with faiza patel. israel passed its own travel ban monday, barring supporters of the boycott, divestment and , sanctions movement, known as bds, from entering israel. the bds movement is an international campaign to pressure israel to comply with international law and respect palestinian rights. the israeli parliament voted to ban non-israelis from entering the country if they, or any organizations they are a part of, support the economic, -- boycott. the law calls it to "new front of war against israel." house republicans unveiled legislation to repeal much of the affordable care act monday, including its expansion of medicaid. the proposal includes a large tax break for insurance companies that pay their ceo's over $500,000 per year. it also defunds planned parenthood and eliminates abortion coverage.
the republican proposal does retain obamacare's requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, however it scraps the revenue-generating , mechanism that makes this possible -- the individual mandate, which required all americans to sign up for health insurance or pay a fee. the proposal now goes to two house committees for review. republican lawmakers have been facing increasing resistance from their own constituents over their vows to repeal the affordable care act. last week, thousands confronted republicans at town hall meetings, including south carolina republican senator lindsey graham. >> here is what we're going to do. here's what is good replace obamacare. employers -- affordable health care. employers are eventually going to drop coverage and everybody that worked for a company is going to go into a state exchange. --are down to one company one company, will have a choice
-- i tell you what. you're going to get kicked out in about 30 seconds if you don't shut up. amy: we'll have more on the republicans' plan to repeal parts of the affordable care act later in the broadcast. in a setback for the transgender rights movement, the u.s. supreme court has announced it is sending a landmark transgender case back to a lower court. the suit was brought by virginia transgender high school student gavin grimm, who sued his local school district over its policy forcing him to use a separate, single-stall restroom that no other student was required to use. in a one-sentence order, the supreme court vacated an appeal's court decision that had ruled in grimm's favor. the ruling comes less than two weeks after president trump rescinded president obama's directive telling public schools to let transgender students use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. we'll have more on the supreme court decision later in the broadcast with gavin grimm and chase strangio of the aclu. secretary of housing and urban development ben carson sparked
outrage when he described monday enslaved africans as immigrants. aboutt is what america is , a land of dreams and opportunity. there were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer and harder for less. but they, too, had a dream. ,hat one day there sons granddaughters, great granddaughters, great-grandson's my pursuit of prosperity and happiness in this land. amy: dr. carson's comments true widespread criticism. the naacp tweeted out simply "immigrants?" award-winning director ava duvernay tweeted -- "their dream? not be kidnapped, tortured, raped, forced to mate, work for another's gain, torn from family and culture."
white house press secretary sean spicer has refused to hold a televised white house press briefing for seven straight days. on monday, there was no way for the public to watch his press conference where he addressed trump's unsubstantiated claims that president obama had trump's phones tapped during the 2016 election. at the briefing, spicer offered no evidence but said "there is no question something happen. the question is, is it surveillance? is it a wiretap? or whatever." in toronto, organizers have canceled an event after learning that khizr khan, the father of a muslim u.s. soldier who was killed in iraq, was told his travel privileges are being reviewed. the event was to take place today. the gold star father and his wife, ghazala khan, were verbally attacked by then-republican presidential candidate donald trump over the summer after the khans took to the stage at the democratic national convention, where khizr khan addressed trump directly.
>> donald trump, you are asking americans to trust you with their future. you, have you even read the united states constitution? [applause] -- i will gladly lend you my copy. speech, trump made fun of ghazala khan, suggesting she hadn't spoken on stage because she wasn't allowed to. khan has lived in the u.s. since 1980 and both he and his wife are u.s. citizens. it's not known which of his travel privileges are under review. their son, u.s. army captain, was posthumously awarded the bronze star and purple heart after he was killed in iraq in 2004. planned parenthood has rejected a proposal by president trump under which the federal , government would stop threatening to defund the
women's health organization if planned parenthood stops providing abortions. in response, dawn laguens of the planned parenthood federation of america said -- "let's be clear: federal funds already do not pay for abortions. offering money to planned parenthood to abandon our patients and our values is not a deal that we will ever accept. providing critical health care services for millions of american women is nonnegotiable." an afghan couple and their three young children have been released after being detained at the los angeles airport thursday and held in custody over the weekend, despite having valid visas to enter the united states. the family all arrived with special immigrant visas, which they had received because the father had worked for the u.s. government in afghanistan. they were released just before a scheduled hearing this is the monday. family's lawyer, mark rosenbaum. >> this is happening way too often. this is a recruitment anti-poster, to say to
individuals in afghanistan and other nations where we count upon nationals to our -- assist our military, that if you do it for a decade and then you come to the united states with your wife and three children, the response is going to be, we're going to put you into minute for 40- in comedic auto hours, label you terrorists. amy: on monday, the white house released a statement on exxonmobil that included an entire paragraph lifted from an exxonmobil press release issued less than an hour before. , which celebrates exxonmobil's investments in new oil refineries and chemical manufacturing projects, was first noticed by washington post reporter who posted the side-by-side comparison on twitter. at three: 2 p.m. and the white house statement was an to reporters at 3:44 p.m. besides all copy editing, they differed by only one word for the exxonmobil release calls its project the growing the gulf
expansion program, while the white house calls it the growing the gulf program. the final sentence of the white house statement is also nearly identical to one in the exxonmobil release, which claims it will create many more jobs. longtime exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson is now the secretary of state. the pentagon has opened an investigation into an invite only facebook group were a male marine -- where male marines have been posting thousands of naked or sexually suggestive photos of their fellow female marines, along with a barrage of misogynistic comments, including some saying the women should be raped. some of the photos were clearly shot without the consent or knowledge of the women, such as a photo of a corporal bent over. others are private photos, or photos taken off social media sites such as instagram. the invite-only group is called "marines united" and includes 30,000 men who are active-duty and veteran soldiers. the naval criminal investigation , nci s, has launched an
investigation and e marine corps has warned soldiers they could face court-martial by participating in the group. a 2014 pentagon report found the marines have the highest rate of sexual assault of the u.s. armed forces with an estimated 8% of , active-duty female marines experiencing sexual assault in 2014 alone. dozens of schools have announced they will be closing for the wednesday nationwide "day without a woman" strike on international women's day. the entire public school system of alexandria, virginia has , announced it is closing after 300 women requested the day off to participate in the strike. schools are also closing in chapel hill, north carolina, and in new york city. the "day without a woman" strike was called by the organizers of the women's march on washington, the largest nationwide day of protest after an inauguration in u.s. history. and internationally, women's protests marking the upcoming international women's day have already begun. on sunday, thousands of women took to the streets of warsaw
and other polish cities to protest government plans to even further restrict abortion access. meanwhile, thousands women also marched in london, where human rights activist bianca jagger denounced president trump. >> so i am calling today for equal pay for gender equality, the end of violence against women and girls. i am calling as well for us to think about what we are facing with the president in the u.s. who wants to be little women, who once to reduce our rights, andwants to diminish us that we should stand up. amy: and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. juan: and i'm juan gonzalez. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. president donald trump has signed a new executive order on monday temporarily banning all refugees, as well as people from six majority muslim countries, from entering the united states. in contrast to the fanfare that
accompanied trump's rollout of january's ill-fated travel ban, monday's signing was a decidedly more low-key event. trump signed the executive order out of public view. secretary of state rex tillerson later outlined the details. >> the executive order signed by the president earlier today protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the united states is a vital measure for strengthening our national security. it is the president's solemn duty to protect the american people. and with this order, president trump, he is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe. juan: the new ban applies to people from syria, sudan, iran, somalia, libya, and yemen, but unlike the original order not , those from iraq. trump's first muslim travel ban was blocked by the courts in february amid massive nationwide protests. unlike the first ban, the new executive order will not apply
to people from the six countries with green cards or who already have a visa. amy: immigration and human rights advocates say the new ban still discriminates against muslims and fails to address some of their concerns with the previous order. this is nihad awad from the council on american-islamic relations. >> this new executive order ofll stigmatizes thefaith islam and muslims. it does not make america any safer. but does make america less great. this muslim order still blocks travel to the u.s. by citizens from six muslim majority countries. continues to receive reports from systematic ideological questioning of american muslim citizens and foreign travelers by cbp about their religious fell use and political views. amy: for a more we're joined by faiza patel, co-director of the liberty & national security program at the brennan center.
welcome to democracy now! you say this is still unconstitutional and you still call it a muslim ban. explain. peoplee categories of were covered by the first order. people who had green cards, people who had visas, but also people who will come into the country in the future. and what this new version of the order does is it takes care of the first two categories, but it keeps in place the restrictions, the ban on travel, for anybody else from those countries. so what it is doing at the end of the day is saying, making a determination that, you know, we just assume that people from these six muslim majority countries are terrorist threats, so we are just not going to let them and. to me, that is a muslim ban. juan: in terms of the difference that you feel between the trump
administration continuing to say this is not a muslim ban because there are many other muslim countries that are not included in the order, obviously? >> i think the selection of the countries is primarily a political judgment. we certainly have seen that now that they have dropped iraq from the list and the justification given for that is a sickly they are our counterterrorism -- basically, they are our counterterrorism partners. we are against al qaeda and isis. in my view, that kind of undermines the overall argument for the band. on this point that just because it doesn't discriminate against all muslims, it is not a muslim ban, to me, that argument is laughable. if you had a law that discriminated against some black people but did not discriminate against every single one, say a literacy test for voting, you lawd not say that wall -- was not discriminatory. you would understand its target was only one race, one ethnicity or one religion. to me, that is the essence of discrimination. amy: what about the fact iran has been taken off the ban list. it is gone -- iraq.
it is gone from seven countries to six, apparently. secretary of state tillerson in the department of homeland security secretary kelly wanted iraq removed from the list because of many people, like interpreters who were helping u.s. soldiers, were getting caught. >> they initially had already said they were not going to use this panic is people who have these special visas, for people who had worked with the united states in iraq. but the fact is that -- i'm happy for the iraqis, will put it that way. on the other hand, the fact that counterterrorism cooperation is the yardstick by which we measure whether or not summit he can come into the country does not strike me as the right measure. when you're looking at whether or not to issue a visa, you basically look at a couple of things. you look at the likelihood the person is when to stay in the country, that they're going to become a permanent resident by any other means. and you look at whether this present a security threat. u.s. embassies around the world, including in the six countries
mentioned in the order, do that job. if you look at refusal rates, between 40% and 60% of visas from those countries are refused. it is not like these embassies and consulates are saying, oh, we're going to just let anybody in. there is our district vetting procedure in place. juan: there have been reports leaked that show the national origin is a poor indicator of a possible terrorism activity. in fact, some reports are saying as many as half or more of the people who have already been convicted of some terrorism-related acts in the united states were u.s. citizens. will that be a possible avenue for further legal challenge of this new order? to this.are two things one, the clear discriminatory purpose, which we know from multitude of statements coming from the trump campaign through rudy giuliani's remarks at the time that the first order was issued. the second is the lack of any real national security
rationale. i think it is fairly obvious to most serious commentators of the national security rationale is simply a pretext. trump promised you would do a muslim ban, so he is trying to do a muslim ban. amy: let's go to the announcement of the new travel ban. it was not president trump, and he was not there with all sorts of people around him -- i do not know of people would stand around him on this 1 -- the jeff sessions spoke and he cited the u.s. refugee program as an entry point for potential terrorists. trumpst come as president noted in his address to congress, the majority of people convicted in our courts for terrorism related offenses since 9/11 came here from abroad. we also know that many people seeking to support or commit terrorist acts or try to enter through our refugee program -- will try to enter through our refugee program. today, more than 300 people, according to the fbi, who came here as refugees are under an
fbi investigation today for potential terrorism-related activities. like every nation, the united states has a right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm. this executive order seeks to protect the american people as well as lawful immigrants by putting in place in enhanced screening and vetting process for visitors from six countries. the attorneyis general jeff sessions. your response to what he says and also included -- it is interesting who the country, who donald trump has chosen, and not chosen. for example, not saudi arabia. i would say a couple of things. the first is the attorney general said the majority of people convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses were foreigners. we went back and look at the
data he is citing. about half of the people he is talking about fall under the category of terrorism-related. that is a very, very broad category and includes immigration violation, having -- you get the illegal cigarette sales. it is a range of categories. whether or not those are related to terrorism, it is really hard to tell. both good to me by using of those categories, they're just trying to inflate the numbers. the second point i would raise is the fact that overall terrorism of any kind, whether inspired by al qaeda, isis, or sovereign citizen or whatever ideology you're talking about, are very low numbers. we do not have huge numbers of terrorist attacks in the u.s. each one has a huge psychological impact. the overall number is quite frankly quite low. the second thing also in terms of the refugee program, which they suddenly started citing this never the fbi has 300 open terrorism cases involving
refugees. they are not telling you where they came from. they could be from completely different countries than the ones being affected by the ban. secondly, just because there's an open investigation does not mean there is actually a terrorism connection. 2011spect to that, back in , "the new york times" published an analysis which showed roughly 3.7% of fbi investigations even lead to a full investigation. and from there, you still have another leap before you get to prosecution. so the fact that 300 fbi investigations are open involving refugees needs very little without any context. juan: on monday, washington state attorney general bob ferguson who sued over the first executive order held a press conference to address questions about the new executive order. officiallyident was -- he knew he would lose again.
the original executive order, to be blunt, was illegal and unconstitutional. the fact they have taken a month since judge report issued is original decision to complete a revised executive order speaks fall yams about the constitutionality of that original executive order. juan: your response to his comments? >> i think it is certainly true this version of the executive order is much more carefully drafted than the first version. the first one was such an obvious overreach by reaching out to get green card holders, people who had lived in this country for 10, 12 years, have their lives over here, or people who were students here on a student visa studying at universities such as washington state. there is definitely a narrowing of the order. theit still leaves in place fundamental discrimination, which is that it assumes nationality is a proxy for religion, is a proxy for
potentially emitting terrorism and we should have these blanket rules that cover people based on country rather than make individualized determinations as to whether or not someone poses a risk, in which case, it is perfectly all right to exclude people. amy: the nypd has just agreed to over -- greater oversight over the intelligence gathered programs while it seeks to settle a lawsuit over the surveillance of muslims. can you talk about thesis significance -- these significance? >> the nypd reached a settlement agreement which was meant to tighten the rules around nypd surveillance of political activity. this came in the wake of ap stores revealing nypd's surveillance of muslims. the court, which was required to approve the settlement, said, you know, it does not go way for an up. it relied on this report, which has just come out, and pointed to some serious deficiencies in
how they continued investigations and how they tossed informants. the nypd and the plaintiff's attorneys went back to the table. they have renegotiated the settlement and made a stronger. it provides more continuing oversight from the civilian member who will be part of the committee overseeing the investigations. amy: we want to thank you for joining us. is co-director of the liberty & national security program at the brennan center for justice. when we come back, republicans have unveiled their health care plan. we will find out just what it looks like. stay with us. ♪ [music break]
long-awaited legislation to repeal much of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, including its expansion of the medicaid program for the poor. the proposal includes a large tax break for insurance companies that pay their ceo's over $500,000 per year. it also defunds planned parenthood and eliminates abortion coverage. the republican proposal does retain obamacare's requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions. however, it scraps the revenue-generating mechanism that makes this possible -- the individual mandate, which required all americans to sign up for health insurance or pay a fee. it is unclear if the bill has enough support to pass the republican-led congress. it now goes to two house committees for review. during a speech last week, trump urged congress to repeal obamacare. pres. trump: tonight i am also calling on this congress to repeal and replace obamacare. [applause]
pres. trump: with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower cost, and at the same time provide better health care. [applause] pres. trump: mandating every american to buy government approved health insurance was never the right solution for our country. amy: president donald trump and fellow republicans have repeatedly promised to repeal and replace obamacare but their , efforts have faced internal divisions as well as sustained outcry from constituents at town hall meetings across the country. for more in the future of health care we go now to boston, , where we're joined by john mcdonough, professor at the
harvard school of public health. he is the former executive director of health care for all in massachusetts, which played a key role in the passage of the 2006 massachusetts health reform bill, which was known as romney care. he later became a top aide to the late senator ted kennedy and worked on the development and passage of the affordable care act. he is also author of the book "inside national health reform." professor john mcdonough, welcome to democracy now! your assessment of what has been released so far? >> what we see so far is not a surprise and it has been revealed in bits and pieces along the way. republican plan represents a massive tax cut to benefit wealthy households and powerful corporation in america. in exchange, millions of
americans, lower income and lower middle income, are going to lose her health insurance coverage to make up for the last revenue from these tax cuts. juan: in what way do you say it is a tax cut for the wealthy? >> so the affordable care act is significantly financed. and most people don't know this, by major tax increase on wealthy households, both on earned income and unearned income. it has been a major target come although they don't talk about it a lot of republicans, to repeal these tax cuts. and just to give you some perspective on this, the bill the republicans put out would repeal these taxes to the 400 wealthiest households in america because of this tax cut will see annual tax cuts of $7 million per household. with60 million households
incomes below $200,000 will get zero from this, except some 10 million to 20 million lose health insurance coverage because of this. juan: another feature of the proposal appears to be dealing with medicaid and turning the expansion of medicaid under obamacare for a greater number of low income individuals into block grants that would be capped. in essence, the state at one point or another within face a cap on federal aid under medicaid. >> yes, absolutely. the republican agenda is to try and shrink the federal obligation to low-income coverage through medicaid, as much as they can. this has been a tough balancing states them because 31
expanded states expanded medicaid to about 10 million low income americans, 10 million to 11 million. there is been a real struggle because about half of those states are now represented by republican governors who do not want to see the dramatic losses in coverage that the republicans would like to achieve if they were able to do what their instincts were leading them to do. so there is tension in the party . the conservatives want to see much more drastic cuts to medicaid. the more moderate or less conservative republicans from states that expanded are unwilling to see a wholesale throwing off of hundreds of thousands or millions of people from coverage. and so the speaker ryan and his team are really trying to walk a tightrope between those two sides. but either way, we're looking over years in the significant reduction in the number of americans covered through medicaid. either way, we don't have
precise numbers on this because the republicans are pushing this forward before the congressional budget office has put out a score of both in terms of cost and coverage losses. -- weare a little bit will probably learn within the next week to two weeks of what these numbers are, but right now we're just doing our best estimating. the trend is clear. if you are a horrible americans with health insurance a bigger tax cuts -- vulnerable americans entrance a bigger tax cuts. amy: can you explain age rating and what this means? >> so the affordable care act created tax credits. there often referred to as subsidies. it will enable people sort of lower middle income people above medicaid eligibility to be able to get health insurance covera credit for americans who
cannot get coverage elsewhere. the big difference is, the aca are incomedits that adjusted. so the lower your income, the more generous the tax credit. as you go up the income ladder, it scales out. at four times the popular level, you get no more support from those tax credits. republicans are saying, let's just create a flat tax credit. it varies only by your age. whether you're in your 20's, in which you get a $2000 at it, after your 60's, where you would get a $4000 credit. in all of those cases, the support you would get would be significantly less than what you would obtain under the aca income tax credits for the people who need it the most, which is the people with less income. the new tax credits are a little bit like giving a six-foot
ladder for someone to get out of a 20 foot hole. most of the people who are getting coverage right now through the aca will not be able to afford to buy coverage with the republican invasion tax credits -- envisioned tax credits that no longer take account of your income, only your age. to ask about another section of the proposal called the continuous coverage provision. apparently, this is a replacement, to some degree, for the mandate. under the old mandate, people would have to pay a fine if they did not have insurance to the government. what happens now under this continuous coverage provision? >> you are right. so the so-called individual and forin the aca is by the least popular part. although, it is essential for guaranteed issue in illuminating pre-existing conditions -- eliminating pre-existing conditions. basically, it is not a mandate. you do not have to buy coverage.
however, if you do not buy coverage and you're able to afford it, then you face a tax penalty when you pay your taxes of up to $695 for a full year without coverage, or a percent of your income. the republican plan gets rid of that. it reduces all of those penalties to zero. it puts in place a different kind of a penalty. in thealty says that if prior year, in the 12 months prior, you had a gap in health insurance coverage of more than 63 days, then when you go back tobuy health insurance, you will pay a premium on top of your premium that will represent 30% more. inlet's say that i had a gap coverage and i want to buy health insurance in the following year. and i want to buy in individual policy that costs me, let's say
$7,500 in a premium. i would pay on top of that a penalty of an additional $2200. so the maximum penalty under the aca is 600 under five dollars. but you are looking at a penalty here right now to replace the individual mandate that is significantly more punitive and more difficult and will in fact keep many americans from being health get back and buy insurance was a that coverage. there is no hardship exemption. there is nothing. this is on anybody -- everybody if you had a gap in coverage of more than six degree days. it will be a real impediment for people who say, ok, i am ready now and able to afford it and i want to buy health insurance coverage. it is not making it easier for people to buy it, but making it harder. juan: isn't there a difference in the penalty under the affordable care act went to the government to supposedly defray
the cost of the overall plan? but this additional premium would go to the insurance companies, not the government to basically help their bottom line, right? >> enough said. amy: what about reproductive rights, professor? >> yes, so in addition, the bill being promoted by the republican leadership will eliminate funding for planned parenthood very quickly. all funding for all services. there is a federal funding that goes to planned parenthood for abortion, but this would eliminate all funding for any service to this one organization called planned parenthood. which is a significant political risk for them because already there are at least two republican senators, susan collins from maine and lisa murkowski from alaska, who has said they will not vote for a bill that eliminates funding for planned parenthood. republicans can only lose three
votes in the senate -- they got a letter the other day from four senators saying the house treatment of medicaid is unacceptable and they could not support that bill. houseis uncertain in the politically, and highly uncertain what is going to happen to this plan over in the senate. juan: i want to ask about some of the more bizarre provisions of this bill. i understand it is a 66-page bill which the republicans touting in comparison to the hundreds of pages of the affordable care act. but seven pages are more art 10% of the bill are dedicated to dedicatedf the bill a to excluding lottery winners from the insurance? can you explain that? little is one of those curious tales that journalists will ferret out in the next couple of days. i am honestly not sure where that came from except that clearly they had some advocacy
from some lottery winners around this. so there is an exclusion of lottery winners in terms of when making it medicaid and when they can't. and it is bizarre to focus that much on it. i am sure there is a tale behind it of how that got in there. amy: and the watch, the buzz word, is "accessibility." people will have access to health care. that is that the same as people will be able to afford health care. so overall, what is the take away you have right now? it was just released yesterday. as you said, it has not even been scored. what did it take, two years for you guys to figure out how much this was going to cost? could it actually cost more overall for the country? >> well, it could. i think there are other parts of the aca that remain untouched
that have significant economic consequences. so a big piece of the financing of the aca represented substantial reductions in the medicare program to health care providers -- the hospitals, to home health agencies, to insurance companies in the medicare advantage program. about half of the cost was through reductions in medicare payments. for the most part, particularly from the hospitals -- hospitals are giving up about $350 billion in revenue that they would otherwise collect because they wanted to make a serious real contribution to getting most of america to have health insurance. the hospital industry is now deeply alarmed. it is ringing a lot of alarms saying, hey, we gave up an enormous amount of money, 300 $50 billion over 10 years, in
order to get america covered with health insurance. and they're saying, listen, if you want to take away that coverage, then we want our money back. the republicans are not planning on giving that money back, so they're going to be taking away the coverage and they're going to be leaving the cuts in place for hospitals who are going to be on the front line of dealing with the millions of americans who will be newly uninsured because of this law. so because they leave that money in place, it will not be challenging for this bill to in fact be -- will be fiscally neutral and not add to the deficit. i do not anticipate that because they're leaving that whole other part of the law. they are repealing each and every tax increase in the aca, including things that you just wonder what was on their mind. there was a tax on indoor
tanning salons, which is a significant cause of skin cancer and melanoma and other serious skin cancers. but they leave in place all of the reductions to the medical providers who are on the sharp end of care. i would not expect this to be a deficit increase. but of course, we will see when the congressional budget office score comes out in the next couple of weeks. amy: john mcdonough, they could for being with us, professor at the harvard chan school of public health. between 2008 and 2010, he served as a senior advisor on national health reform to the u.s. senate committee on health, education, labor and pensions. was a topic to the late senator ted kennedy. we will be back in a moment. ♪ [music break]
juan: in a setback for the trans gender rights movement, the u.s. supreme court has announced it is sending a landmark transgender case back to a lower court just weeks before oral arguments were scheduled. the suit was brought by a transgender high school student from virginia named gavin grimm who sued his local school , district over its policy forcing him to use a separate, single-stall restroom that no other student was required to use. in a one-sentence order, the supreme court vacated an appeal's court decision that had ruled in grimm's favor while sending the case back to the fourth circuit court of appeals. amy: the ruling comes less than two weeks after president trump rescinded key protections for transgender students in public schools. the move reverses president obama's landmark decision to order public schools to let transgender students use the bathrooms matching their gender identity. in a moment we will be joined by , gavin grimm himself. at i want to turn to part of a first, short video produced by the aclu. it includes an interview with gavin and his mother as well as
archival footage from a 2015 meeting of the gloucester county school board in virginia. it begins with gavin speaking out at the meeting. >> i prepared a speech today, but i think in light of the comments i have heard, it is better for me to speak without this paper. i cannot use the woman's room in a quite friendly, because i am not a girl. >> two years ago when i spoke to the school board, i remember being very afraid, but i also never having a purpose. a goal, which was just to be myself. i did not even know what transgender was when this all started. one of the first things i read was that almost 50% of these gets try to commit suicide. as a parent, that is all you really need to know to support your child. no child ever should be treated like my child has been. my son has boy parts. he does not want to be in the bathroom with people with grow parts. it matters what is on the outside.
>> a young man can come up and say, i'm a girl, i did use a ladies room now. -- i need to use a ladies room now. >> it is been really difficult. really difficult. as a mom, you're terrified for your kid's safety. it has also been wonderful because my kid is so awesome. >> this could be your child. this could be your sister, your brother, yourniece from your nephew. i'm not the only transgender student in gloucester county and i deserve the rights of every other human being. i'm just a human. i'm just a boy. rights whenider my you make your decision. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] amy: that was transgender high school student gavin grimm speaking in 2015 before the gloucester county school board in virginia. talk more about monday's supreme court decision, we're joined
by gavin grimm from a studio in richmond, virginia. also with us here in new york is chase strangio, staff attorney at the aclu. chase, just what exactly the supreme court ruled. thank you for having me. yesterday, the supreme court sent act gavin's win to the lower court, asking the court to reevaluate the decision in light of the change in position from the trump administration. the lower court, had relied almost exclusively on the obama administration's interpretation of title ix. yesterday, the court's decision ,asto take away gavin's win send it back to the lower court to reconsider the issue of the legality of the gloucester county school or policy in light of that change. juan: there is been no actual hearing on the merits of the issue of whether title ix is being violated by the school district.
>> and that is important. nothing about yesterday's decision from the supreme court or the decision of the trump administration to rescind the obama administration's guidance changes the substantive protection of title ix of the constitution. we think it is important for young people in school districts to know the law still protects them. this delays resolution of the high court, but the lower courts are continuing to roll laws and policies like the gloucester county school board's violates trans students rights. amy: gavin grimm, it is great to have you on most of can you respond to what the supreme court decided? is definitely disappointing. it will draw the process at longer, which will leave a lot of kids in limbo. we are determined as ever to push forward. if it takes 10 years, i will stick with it. amy: those who do not about your case, tell us your story, gavin. >> about two years ago, in the summer before my sophomore year of high school, i transitioned. i approached my school and told
them this is what was going on and i wanted to be respected as a boy. initially, i did not ask to use the boys restroom because i was reaction.the peer they received me well, so asked for permission. for seven weeks, i used it with no incident at all. then a member of the community complained and school board meeting was held, without our knowledge. we were not told by anyone. we found out by chance the night before. at that meeting, the decision was postponed to a meeting the next month. ultimately, it was decided i was to use either a unisex separate option or the women's room at my school. juan: then you decided to challenge that? >> yes. with the help of the aclu, i decided to challenge that and we have moved forward through the court system. previously, we had arrived at the doorstep of the supreme court but it has been kicked down to a lower court.
juan: you become a national figure in many ways in terms of -- why do think it is so important to wage this battle to the end? >> well, transgender kids are especially vulnerable population. in high school, it is already difficult to get along, especially if you don't fit some kind of mold you are targeted to a grou greater degree than norm. when you're in the environment where you are not being affirmed and separated and kept apart from your peers, not only does us in a very negative message to you, but to yourpeers and kind of conveys a president for how they will treat you. i think it is very important we talk about the rights of bathroom usage for trans, especially if you can't use the bathroom come economic is a of public life and that is really what is at the center of this. amy: talk more about that, why this is more than a case of doubt where you go -- case about
where you go to the bathroom. >> if you could imagine how your life would be if you did not have a bathroom accessible to you outside of the home, it would be quite stressful. you have to plan your trips very carefully around how long you would be out. you would probably restrict your food and drink intake. and then going to work, going to school, they are very difficult things. without available restrooms, this is our reality. juan: what was your response last month when you heard the trump administration was revoking the obama administration's position on this issue? disappointing. certainly, very frustrating. but he did not this heart me at all. i was just as determined to push forward. as for everyone who is been working for this case. certainly, it was not ideal and is in a very negative message to the trans youth of our nation.
amy: how have your classmates, your family, friends, people you don't know -- run the gamut press how people have responded to you, gavin. >> classmates have gotten a lot of support. teachers have gotten a lot of support. family come a lot of support. and people i don't know, i have been approached by at least one person who congratulates me and says how supportive they are of me. this is in my community and outside of it. i then thanked and congratulated. whereas i've never once had a public confrontation that was negative. juan: you are a senior and you will be graduating in the spring. where do you hope to go to study and what do you hope to do after college? >> i'm definitely pursuing higher education. after college, right now what career goal.is a i would like to be a geneticist.
one day would be nice to have my own practice. amy: what do you say to other --ng transgender people first of all, i mean, the supreme court -- i think i might've been a mixed message they ruled against you. that has not been the case at this point. there has not been a ruling. what do you say to others to give them hope? >> i would say the fight is not over. this does not mean we are at the end of the road. it is a detour. we have faced many detours in the process. it has certainly been a fairly certificate was process. there are people still fighting very, very hard, every moment of every day, for the rights of station.th in the do not be discouraged. this might take a while, but it will be resolved. regardless of the outcome of this case, equality will absolutely prevail. i believe that with every bone in my body.
juan: chase, i would ask you the imports of having a transgender speakso eloquently can about the issues involved in his case in the importance of his case nationwide? >> as i was saying yesterday many times, when i was growing up, as a young trans person, i had no idea it was possible to sort of have future as a transmittal and now we have trans am people like gavin out there in the state legislatures, bringing their cases to court. they are transforming our consciousness and our political system and they are absolutely going to be the people leading us into victory and justice on this issue in the and. amy: what is message, gavin grimm, to the trump administration and to president trump himself? >> i don't think it is necessary to speak to the detractors. i think i want tpromote a very positive message of support to other trans youth and definitely
positivity. i guess i will go back to the message to trans youth everywhere and that is, keep your chin up. these things take time, but we're working towards equality every day. amy: and your comments to young people to follow their path? the last twoabout years, but when you were growing up, how you made your way, how you came to understand who you were and how you wanted to express that? i mean, growing up it was difficult. i did not have a lot of outlets. one thing i found great solace and was pokemon. you can choose to be a boy or girl. similarly, other role-playing games were refugees for me. online spaces where i could express myself as a boy. ist a masculine identity carried throughout my childhood that allowed me, in some degree, to become double and do things i enjoy doing and dress the way i enjoy dressing. it was not easy. i was still forced to behave in
officially be raised as a girl. change andn did that what message do you have two parents for trans kids? >> it especially started changing around puberty. my engine -- mike anxiety grew. -- mine study group. there was a lot of extra stress and distress during that period of time so asserted expressing myself as more of a masculine. i pretty quickly established a male is who i was. i came out when i was 14. i was it other trans youth, be carefuli came out when i. it might not be safer for everybody to come out where they are. some people might be at risk of violence or being cast out by their families. there is a future for you in which you can live as you you
(music playing) ♪ hello, i'm hubert keller. if you're planning on entertaining a large crowd in your house and you're looking for some tips or recipes, today's show is for you. our first recipe is a pork rillette, something you will find in nearly every household in france. using fragrant and rich spices and flavorings, slow-cooked pork is transformed into a delicious spread. our next dish is an unusual lasagna made with succulent short ribs. meat, spinach and cheeses are turned into layers of deliciousness. for dessert i've got a great secret for meringues in just minutes. the result? happy floating islands swimming in a sea of creme anglaise. it's delicious, it's fun, and it's all happening here on today's show. ♪