The world of music licensing and distribution is pretty complex. So when I read an article about venues scrapping live music because they’re being harassed for licensing fees, I have to resist the urge to leap directly from zen to foaming at the mouth.

The gist of the article is that ASCAP and BMI are becoming aggressive about collecting licensing fees from small venues to the point where a lot of them are simply opting to no longer offer live music. The minimum yearly licensing fee is $650 in order to “be legal” and ensure that the authors of any cover songs performed in your venue are properly compensated ($650 to each company, mind you). That’s either the deal of the century or a deal-breaker, depending on the number of cover songs performed in your venue over the course of a year.

My knee-jerk instinct is to get raving mad at “the man,” aka the corporate music industry. If the trend mentioned in the article continues, there will be far fewer places for the bands I love to get the exposure they so desperately need. When a venue closes to live music, it affects *all performers* who might use the space including indie bands, open mic participants, local singer-songwriters, etc. Regardless of whether they play cover tunes, or whether they themselves hold licenses for their work, they’re being deprived of performance space and potential revenue. That ain’t good, no matter how you look at it.

However, I have too many unanswered questions to feel comfortable unleashing a rant, which is what I sat down fully intending to do. I was picturing something along the lines of a Snidely Whiplash-type dude cackling and saying, “Muahahahaha! We will crush you, indie bands! One way or the other!” But my gut tells me it just isn’t that simple. What I would love is if my musician friends would take some time to comment and help me better understand this issue.

Because let me tell you, if Snidely really is behind the scenes twirling his moustache, I will unleash hell not only in this space, but in every online space that I occupy. (As a trailer for you fans of creative profanity, the words doucheweasels, assclowns and fucktards will be used in abundance).

The Nation’s health care policy blog recently pointed out the shocking fact that affordable coverage for comprehensive women’s reproductive health care is completely absent from both the House and Senate versions of Health Care Reform. That’s right. Not pared-down or buried beneath legislative double-speak. Absent.

To understand what I mean by this, and why I’m so angry about it, you need to understand the concept of cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is a fancy way of describing the co-pays, coinsurance and deductibles that policy holders are liable for when they seek medical care. Different types of plans have different types of cost-sharing.

Both versions of the legislation contain language exempting certain services from cost-sharing. Among them:

• maternity care
• newborn care
• pediatric vision and dental care

Pap smears and mammograms are also provided for in the legislation.

If the bills passed today and went through reconciliation with this language intact, insurers would be required to provide those services at no additional cost to the policy-holder. In other words, if you get pregnant and have a baby under this proposed legislation, your insurer could not charge you a dime beyond your basic premium.

But that’s great, right? What a step forward for women!!

Yeah…not so much. Because markedly absent from the list of protected services are:

• birth control counseling
• birth control procedures (such as IUD insertion, tubal ligation, etc.)
• pelvic exams
• STD screenings.

Congress is essentially saying that if you’re procreating, we’ll take care of you. If you’re having sex for any other reason, you’re shit out of luck unless you have the money to pay for reproductive health services out of pocket. It’s a legislative version of the old Madonna/whore complex. Tut, tut, says Congress. Don’t you know that sex is for making babies, you unrepentant whores? If you’d just keep your legs shut, you wouldn’t need those services anyway.

Congress can kiss my ass, because that isn’t reform. It’s a sick joke that’s going to continue to doom hundreds of thousands of women to sub-standard health care. Women who are going to die from cancer, become infertile from undiagnosed STDs, or *god forbid* women who are going to add to the abortion rate because they didn’t have access to affordable reproductive health care.

The article rightly points out that Congress can’t cater to every special interest group in crafting this legislation and I get that. However, 50% of the population is not a special interest group. We deserve to be heard over the braying cacophony of the hard-right wingers.

More importantly, we deserve to be treated with respect by the growing group of so-called Democrats in Congress who refuse to go to bat for anything involving the word “reproductive” because “women’s bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.” That kind of chicken-shit defection from traditional Democratic values makes me even more angry than the Republican asshattery, because at least that, I’ve come to expect.

The Senate is now considering their version of the legislation and eventually will have to reconcile their bill with the House. Contacting your representative won’t do much good at this point, so I suggest you contact your Senator about this. You can be sure I have.