Editorials from around Pennsylvania:
---
ILL WILL
Last week, Gov. Corbett sent an official application to the federal government explaining why he thinks that his plan for offering health coverage to low-income Pennsylvanians is better than the feds' plan. A draft of Corbett's proposal was made public in December and was the subject of hearings in January. Unfortunately, the official application hasn't improved with time.
To review: As part of the Affordable Care Act, the feds have given states the option to expand Medicaid in order to make sure that as many people as possible will have health coverage. For the first three years, the feds will pick up 100 percent of the cost, and 90 percent thereafter. Corbett, who fought to overturn ACA, has declined the expansion, saying that it would be too costly for the state. (His math: Expanding Medicaid would lead to a swell of new enrollments, so even if the federal government starts picking up only 90 percent of costs, it will still be too much.) By turning down the Medicaid expansion, Corbett turned down $522 million this year alone.
What he's proposing is a plan that would use Medicaid money to allow low-income people to buy private health coverage on the open exchange.
Medicaid expansion is designed to ensure health coverage to many; Corbett's plan is designed to instill "personal responsibility" by requiring low-income people to pay a premium for their coverage, and engage in "healthier choices," including looking for work. The component that ties coverage to work/job-seeking is almost guaranteed to be scuttled by the feds.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging personal responsibility, but the implication is that ill health is a direct result of irresponsibility. That's offensive. So is the requirement that being able to access medical care should be tied to job-seeking; those working less than 20 hours a week will be required to enter job training and engage in job searches as a condition of their coverage. And there's more: According to Corbett, "Reducing the cost of health-care coverage needs to be the responsibility of both the provider and the individuals receiving care."
Really? So, in addition to paying a premium for health coverage - which is likely to be difficult for a great many low-income recipients - the state's poorest citizens will be busy making sure that they never get sick, and in their spare time, making sure that they're doing their bit to keep down health-care costs . . . which, the last time we looked, were driven primarily by high drug and physician costs, expensive technology and profound systemic problems. All of which, by the way, the Affordable Care Act was designed to address.
That's not encouraging personal responsibility; that's scapegoating our most vulnerable citizens.
Medicaid is a big expense to the state; one in six people receives benefits, and it accounts for 27 percent of the state's general-fund budget. But there are factors that drive these costs. According to the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, they include a higher percentage of seniors and disabled individuals than most states, as well as a reliance on expensive nursing-home care.
— The Philadelphia Daily News
---
TAXPAYER SAVINGS
The Department of Defense is right to slash $1 billion in subsidies to commissaries.
Each year, $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars go to the 178 commissaries nationwide and 67 located overseas.
The cuts are part of a broader budget plan. Currently a family of four can save $4,500 a year at commissaries on average, according to the Defense Commissary Agency. Under the new proposal, the savings for a family of that size would be closer to $1,500 a year.
The problem with taxpayers subsidizing commissaries is that former servicemen and women and their families may continue to shop there after they leave the service, regardless of their income. They may shop in commissaries regardless of where they served in the military, even if they didn't leave the U.S. People with good paying jobs continue to go to commissaries to save money.
The Defense Department does not plan to shut any commissaries. And people who are eligible to shop there will still see a big savings in their annual food bill.
People need to get a break on their taxes. Lower taxes would benefit everyone, including people who served in the military. There must be cuts in the federal budget and for the Department of Defense to cut commissaries subsidies is a good step toward that goal.
— (Somerset) Daily American
---
UKRAINE REVOLUTION IS JUST BEGINNING
The flight of President Viktor Yanukovich and the takeover of the government in Kiev by protesters does not mean that the revolution in Ukraine is over. The bloody battle in Independence Square was just the conclusion of Act I in a long play. Much is yet to come after the intermission.
Politicians are likely to begin jumping from their seats, marching down the aisle and shouting at the characters on the stage. They will inevitably boo those actors they consider villains, cheer those they see as heroes and heckle our own government for its actions or lack of them in regard to the crisis. Before they do, it might be a good idea to consider history and the motivation of the characters.
This is a critical moment in world history. Ukraine is not some little, out-of-the-way republic; with 45 million people, it is the size of France. Its industry, agriculture and natural resources are already formidable, its potential great. But it is also a country deep in debt, crippled by government corruption, and it is split by ethnic, cultural and linguistic traditions.
Ukraine has little experience as an independent nation. At various times over the past thousand years, it has been ruled by the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Mongols, tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Its land has been trampled by invaders and laid waste during World War II. Its people have been the victims of pogroms, famines and communist dictatorship.
Kiev is central to Russia and its history. It was the capital of Russia, or Kievan Rus, from 882 to 1169. Kiev and Ukraine came under the control of the tsars in 1686 and completely lost autonomy under Catherine the Great in 1775. Ukraine became an independent state late in the 20th century, but to suggest that Russia has no legitimate interest in it is to ignore a millennium of history. Much of the population of eastern Ukraine and the south, where Russia maintains a naval base, is ethnically Russian and speaks Russian. Many of them remember when Ukraine was called the breadbasket of the U.S.S.R. and Nikita Khrushchev, a fellow Ukrainian, was the Soviet Union's top man.
It is no wonder that many Ukrainians and Russians are alarmed at the country's separation and drift to the West. It should come as no surprise that Russian President Putin wants to maintain influence and control of Ukraine. We wonder how an American president would act if Texas, for example, were to declare itself an independent nation, or if California were to withdraw from the union and begin cozying up to China.
What will happen in Act II is anyone's guess. Counter-revolutionaries in Eastern Ukraine could split the nation in two, but not before a civil war. Putin might send in troops to reinstall a government of his liking. And if he did, what would the United States and the European Union do about that?
A more likely scenario would be the emergence of a government in Kiev that is willing to cooperate with Russia while at the same time move the nation more toward democracy. Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister freed from jail a week ago, has had a working relationship with Putin, according to an Associated Press article in this paper Tuesday. Should there be elections in May, and should Ukrainians choose her, she could be the one to guide her nation away from civil war and the world out of crisis.
That's the final scene of Act III we'd like to see.
— Observer-Reporter
---
ATTORNEY GENERAL KANE, DOMA AND THE DUTY TO DEFEND
In July 2013, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane drew national media attention when she announced that she would not defend Pennsylvania's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a lawsuit filed against the state challenging the act's constitutionality. Kane explained that she could not ethically defend the law when she herself believes it to be wholly unconstitutional. In support of her decision, Kane cited the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, noting that it was her duty under the act to authorize the Office of General Counsel to defend the state in litigation in which she deems such a decision to be in the best interest of the state. Kane also referenced her ethical obligations under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.
Kane's refusal to defend the law as it currently stands in Pennsylvania sparked controversy, with critics viewing her decision as an inappropriate interjection of her personal beliefs on gay marriage. On the other hand, Kane's supporters, of which there are many, point out that she made no secret of her stance on the issue during her campaign, and was eventually elected with the support of more than 3.1 million Pennsylvanians. Regardless of her motives, significant legal and ethical considerations regarding Kane's decision still remain.
For instance, Kane's reliance on the Commonwealth Attorneys Act to support her decision is curious in light of the fact that the act specifically provides that it is her duty as attorney general to "uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction." Pennsylvania's version of DOMA was lawfully enacted and the constitutionality of the law remains intact until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds otherwise or the legislature decides to revisit the issue. Simply put, Kane has no personal say in the matter, nor should her conscience. Her obligations to defend the statute derive from the law of the very state she refused to defend.
Attempting to further justify her position, Kane pointed to her ethical obligation under the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct to withdraw from a case in which she has a fundamental disagreement with the client, which, in this case, is the state of Pennsylvania. She repeatedly stated that she cannot ethically or in good conscience defend DOMA, finding it wholly unconstitutional. A lawyer's ability to withdraw from representation under such circumstances derives from Rule 1.16(b)(4), which provides that "a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement." Rule 1.16 cites several instances in which a lawyer shall withdraw, including if the lawyer's abilities are materially impaired by a physical or mental condition, and others in which the lawyer has the option of withdrawing at his or her discretion, such as the example cited by Kane. Indeed, while Kane has stated that it is her ethical obligation under the Rules of Professional Conduct to refuse to defend DOMA, the truth of the matter is that this is not an affirmative obligation, but rather an elected option she chose to exercise.
What role politics played in Kane's refusal to defend the law is not our focus here. Kane's political motivations, however, cannot be ignored when considering the ultimate effect her decision may have on similar issues in the future. As attorney general, Kane is charged with defending the laws of the state, regardless of political affiliation or partisan ideology. By rejecting this obligation on the strength of her own moral compass, Kane has arguably acted outside the power of her office, which is defined by the constitution that she claims to defend. Kane's role as attorney general does not bestow on her the authority to selectively choose what lawfully enacted state statutes she will and will not defend. Allowing her to do so creates a dangerous precedent for future inhabitants of her office, leaving those who assume her role in the future the ability to disregard state laws that are constitutionally sound.
Though unique, Kane's situation is certainly one we can learn from as young lawyers. The idea that everyone is entitled to representation is one that we, as lawyers, are tasked with fulfilling, even when such representation is not necessarily aligned with our own moral and ethical values. While our professional judgment is certainly guided by our own personal philosophies, our duty is to represent the interests of our clients, and there will no doubt be times when those interests are contrary to our own. We may be confronted with situations in which we are at odds with the actions or perspectives of a client, and it is during these times that we may find it most difficult to provide representation, perhaps to the point we find it necessary to withdraw as counsel.
The truth of the matter, however, is that as young lawyers, we may not have the luxury of picking and choosing those whom we represent. In such circumstances we must do our best to set aside our personal philosophies and instead focus on the law because it is our ability to interpret the law that our clients rely on most.
Of course, in those circumstances where we disagree with our clients' position on the law, a far more significant conflict results. It is important to remember in these situations, though, that our duty to represent our clients is not relieved by a difference of opinion. We have a responsibility to advise our clients of our interpretation of their legal rights and obligations. The important thing is that our clients understand our position on the issues so that an informed decision can be made on whether the representation should proceed. If, after we do so, a fundamental disagreement remains, terminating the representation may be best for all involved.
Kane has made no secret of her stance on DOMA. She has stated in no uncertain terms that she believes the statute is unconstitutional, and Kane is certainly not alone in that opinion. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto refused to defend Nevada's ban on gay marriage, and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring refused to do the same, explaining that he would not defend laws that violate Virginians' rights.
This, of course, all comes in the wake of the Obama administration's announcement that it would not defend DOMA, a law originally signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down a key portion of it this past summer. The high court's decision catapulted the issue to the political forefront, triggering a call for change in many states where similar laws still stand. Currently, 17 states allow for same-sex marriage, and that number is expected to grow as constitutional challenges on bans against it continue to mount.
Indeed, the ban on gay marriage continues to erode state by state, and it remains possible, if not inevitable, that it will one day fall in Pennsylvania. When all is said and done, Kane will likely find herself on the right side of history; however, we as attorneys are ethically bound to continue to question whether the ends justify the means.
As the state's chief attorney, Kane undoubtedly has the platform to pursue a change in the law, but must do so within the checks and balances of democracy. For example, per the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, she is to serve as a close adviser to the governor, including offering official comment on the constitutionality of legislation presented for approval. Likewise, her office is trusted to analyze the legality and constitutionality of certain rules and regulations promulgated by state agencies. It is through these channels that Kane will most effectively be heard, and perhaps then she can ultimately facilitate the change she so strongly stands behind.
— The Legal Intelligencer's Young Lawyer Editorial Board
---
POLITICS, HOMICIDE CASES JUST DON'T MIX
Of all the circumstances that have been politicized in Northumberland County, no one expected a homicide case to be next on the list.
It there's, though, with reaction to warden Roy Johnson's decision to move defendant Miranda Barbour from the county prison to the state correctional institution for women at Muncy.
Controversial as the move may have been, in part because it occurred within a few hours of a visit by Barbour's mother and grandmother to Sunbury and, more importantly, without her attorney's knowledge, a public spat over the details among county commissioners is not necessarily in the best interest of the public.
The dispute is merely an extension of the two-year-long Vinny Clausi and Stephen Bridy vs. Rick Shoch rift on the commissioner board. Shoch, currently the highest ranking member of the prison board as vice president, gave Johnson's decision his blessing - whether needed or not. That, in turn, prompted criticism from Clausi and Bridy, and the latest round of public name-calling was on.
Barbour's attorney, chief public defender Edward Greco, doesn't like the fact that his client was moved to Lycoming County, either. As the person probably most affected except for the defendant herself, Greco acted on his displeasure with the proper course of action: he filed a motion with the court asking a judge to consider reversing the warden's decision.
That's how such sensitive matters should be handled.
Shoch said the warden moved Barbour for reasons related to security, including disruptions to normal operations at the prison. Considering all of the publicity, that sounds reasonable, and a judge will have to weigh that argument against Greco's concerns that it violates his defendant's constitutional rights and affects his access and, therefore, his ability to prepare a defense.
The commissioners do have a role in the operation of the prison; they're part of a seven-member board charged with overseeing the management.
But engaging publicly in a dispute about this highly publicized case is wrong and could jeopardize the fair administration of justice.
The public the commissioners serve would be better off if they don't drag their ill feelings toward one another further into this homicide case.
— The (Shamokin) News Item
