I am guessing Obama approached her and asked her to do this for him...she's a great person to do this for Big Pharma because she has such a great reputation and she's a woman of color. Sadly she is also now a traitor to her country and the human race.

"why is there no mammography on men's private parts?"

LOL

Loss of preventive health services? Sounds scarier then it might be. Could be a blessing in disguise. Preventive care just means political sanctioning of not necessarily necessary early intervention with prescription medications.
What is included in "preventative"?
1. Vaccines? Need I say anything?
2. Cholesterol screening? (the paradigm now shown to be a complete misinterpretation of the role of fat in health and heart disease and leading to overmedication with statins, which has lead to diabetes and other rampant health concerns)
3. Breast cancer screening with radiation emitting machines, which causes an increase in breast cancer in women who might not have otherwise had it, and has shown no reduction in mortality rates due to early detection, with thermography shunned, so glaringly that other countries are actually no longer funding breast cancer screening clinics?
4. Prostate screening? Now the watchful waiting approach instead of early intervention is taking hold (why is there no mammography on men's private parts?), because early intervention (prevention) has not reduced mortality and has elicited too many false positives.
5. Blood pressure testing? Also subject to political statistical machinations, now showing that keeping senior citizens blood pressure below 150 is not better, even though it really generated a lot of prescriptions. And some are saying sugar, not salt, is more dangerous for hypertension.

Are there any serious health issues that the government has NOT been wrong on yet? Have fast might have real solutions progressed regarding these issues if the gov., controlled by pharma/chem/medical lobbying, had NOT gotten involved in health recommendations?

And ALL of the risks of these health issues (or non issues, depending on your opinion) can be reduced by proper nutrition, which the government doesn't have a good handle on either, which general practitioners are NOT trained in, and which the govt won't promote due to lack of profit making potential in that solution, not to mention that certain dietetic and medical licensing boards are now bought and sold representatives of the the chemical/big ag/pharma triad.

So would states really be so bad off without government funded preventative health funds and their attached narrowminded lobbyist-driven health approaches? Maybe their politicians would, maybe the triad would have a few less bucks, but I doubt the general population would be any worse off.

Seems to me that the more the govt. gets involved in health, the sicker we and the environment get. (http://phys.org/news/2015-01-diabetes-drug-affecting-fish-lake.html)

It's my belief that African American women in politics are being used by the pharmaceutical companies as the best "cross-over" messengers. I do not think they pick their messengers lightly. They would deliberately be looking for people that have worked to support populations "at risk" from other political shenanigans in order to capitalize on the public impression that these particular politicians would never "sell out" their own demographic supporters.
How well would such a message be received by the women and African Americans US populations if male white men were the only ones spewing pharma propaganda? It would probably be the fastest way to raise a slew of red flags, wouldn't it?
But they need a cloak of beneficence, and they go to the demographics that are most likely to advocate for fair access to medical care, and children, on other matters.
There was a similar bill sponsor in the NC Senate bill to remove their religious exemption. She had a very impressive "appears to care" background. Of course in her case, she also turned out to be a voluteer that determines who gets grant funding for the CDC or NIH or something (they get thank-you monies for that)

I'd bet my last dollar that they have not been informed about William Thompson's disclosures re: the CDC's decision to NOT act on racially pertinent scientific findings within it's recommended vaccine administration schedule.

I would like to know whether or not the CDC itself informed the vaccine advisory committee of those MMR findings when they were discovered, and if so, when, or were they kept in the dark for a while. Does anyone know? I wonder if those records were part of the FOIA requests.

Perhaps Representative Wilson should agitate to hear William Thompson's evidence in Congress before introducing such a bill. It is a grotesque testament to the way information is controlled in mainstream politics and the media that this is not already a major issue among African Americans. As to Keenan Austin, she is also a native of Atlanta, so it was her community which was abandoned (not for the first time) by the CDC when they buried the results of the De Stefano MMR study. I don't think there is any doubt that even in the UK the African community have disproportionately been the victims of autism. Those are the people that need representing: unfortunately the pharmaceutical companies are already represented well enough.

Everything points to the fact that Rep Wilson is a good person who is being used.