Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts

March 5, 2014

Gay Rights Groups are Watching the Supreme Court “Abortion” Case Because It is Tied to Us


As a gay man or woman why would you concern yourself with contraception? Supposed you are a gay man, non religious because you feel that religion abandoned you. Or even though religion left you, you never left it. It is on your blood and you need it. So you have changed it to suit who you are. You might even wear the same garments and similar symbols that the well established religions use.

 Still in this country we are legally involved in a fight in which religions organizations would like the government to see this health issue as something else. To not back it and if it backs the current law to then give exemptions which is the another new name of the fight for gay rights, “exceptions.” We passed the law and they go to the judges elected by Reagan and Bushes to agree with exceptions to the law circumventing it and neutralizing it.
They haven’t had much luck with that thanks to the common sense and strict interpretation of the law, that judges have seen what the play here is and rejected it so far.

So I need to make the connection to you before we go on. These neocons and religious leaders have picked up the issue of abortion to come back at us through the back door. Once the women have no choice over her body then they pick that to us to interpret it in many ways. One of the ways is the way Russia does it arguing that kids have no sexual orientation and they can pick up the wrong one if they talk to the wrong people( gays parenting or talking, teaching them). They don’t make a distinction about gay parents and gay families, which means no body is safe talking to a child about anything. 

They want the youth because that’s how they have controlled the adults through generations. That is the hook, that is the play, that is the plan. Therefore we most defend the women’s right to choose. There is a lot of education we can have for those gays that believe that killing an embryo is killing a baby. Science contradicts that falsehood; An embryo is called an embryo and not a baby because is not a baby. You can say an egg is a chicken but is not. It could become one but an egg is an egg and you can have for breakfast. You will not be picking feathers off your teeth.

So please be aware on this front because we are getting his through every way they imagine. Crazy or stupid does not stop them. If the they can get a famous book writer and a Doctor that no longer practices to testify before a judge and jury, that is not a problem to them.

Hopefully those religious gays can see the difference. We as gay that had to fight for everything, we know that having choices is the way to go. We were not given choices, we were told who we were and still told in not so nice words of what they think we are( I don’t even think they believe it themselves in some cases, but in politics everything goes through a theatre stage in which people play a part writher is them or not.

Now in a flight that’s lasted decades a women has a right to choose what happens to her own body.We would like to keep it that way.

Access to hormonal birth control hasn’t typically been a goal of the gay rights movement. But after a near miss on an anti-gay bill in Arizona last week, LGBT advocacy groups are rallying around a Supreme Court birth control case, arguing that gay people’s rights will be collateral damage if the court rules that for-profit businesses do not have to provide contraceptives to female employees.

Related Stories

Hobby Lobby Win At Supreme Court Could Lead To More Anti-Gay Laws Huffington Post
Gay rights groups oppose religious protection bill Associated Press
Arizona governor seen as likely to veto anti-gay law AFP
Arizona Vetoes Religious Bill Criticized as Anti-Gay The Wall Street Journal
US governor vetoes controversial anti-gay bill AFP
On March 25, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby that the federal health care law is infringing on its religious liberty by forcing the company to provide contraceptive coverage in its health plan. The case is unusual because the family owned company is arguing that for-profit corporations — not just individuals and religiously affiliated nonprofits — have religious beliefs that should be protected under the Constitution and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Most of the dozens of “friend of the court” briefs in the case, filed in January, are from religious and anti-abortion individuals and organizations on the Hobby Lobby side, and reproductive rights groups on the government’s side. Only two gay rights organizations filed amicus briefs laying out the potential implications the case could have on gay and lesbian people. (The briefs favored Hobby Lobby’s side by a 3 to 4 ratio.)

But on Monday, just a few days after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a law that would have allowed  businesses with religious objections to refuse service to gay people, more than 30 LGBT groups signed on to a statement that says the birth control case is “cut from the same cloth” as the recently vetoed Arizona law.

If the conservative-leaning court rules that companies may deny contraceptives based on the religious beliefs of their owners, corporations would have more latitude to argue that serving gays and lesbians violates their religious beliefs, the groups argue.

“People from all across the country would face very real harm if corporations get a license to discriminate under the guise of religious liberty,” the statement says. The groups say the case could allow businesses to deny health care to employees with AIDS or HIV, or for hotels or restaurants to refuse to serve LGBT people.

“The case is directly about women’s access to reproductive health care and we don’t mean to suggest that that’s not the core issue there, but it is important to expand the lens,” said Jenny Pizer, general counsel for Lambda Legal, the gay rights groups that filed an amicus brief in the case.

The Arizona law served as a wake-up call for the general public and the gay rights community that a case about religious objections to birth control could have a big impact on gays.

“We’ve come to see the Hobby Lobby case as the biggest Supreme Court case that nobody’s heard about,” said Eric Ferrero, spokesman for Planned Parenthood. “What really happened with Arizona is it brought to life in very real terms what this agenda looks like.”

Interestingly, many of the nightmare scenarios the groups lay out of businesses turning away gays en masse are actually legal under existing law. There are few existing federal protections for discrimination against employees or customers based on sexual orientation, but advocates hope that Congress and states will move to adopt them soon. (Some gay discrimination cases can be brought as gender discrimination, but courts are split on the claims.) If Hobby Lobby prevails, businesses will have an argument in their back pocket going forward that religious objections to serving gays supersede any future anti-discrimination laws.

“Likely in the future we will have anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people so [this case] is attempting to get pre-emptive religious exemption from that,” said Doug NeJaime, a law professor specializing in gay rights at the University of California, Irvine.

More immediately, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby could also serve as a shield for businesses based in the 21 states that prohibit businesses from turning away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Hobby Lobby supporters argue that it’s far from clear that a ruling in the company’s favor would help a business owner who believes homosexuality is a sin and does not want to provide certain services to gay people.

“I know of no American religious group that teaches discrimination against gays as such, and few judges would be persuaded of the sincerity of such a claim,” writes Doug Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

Adam Gonzalez, Publisher

Liz Goodwin, Yahoo News 
Yahoo News

December 8, 2013

ACLU Brings American Bishops to Court

This week’s big news has been the lawsuit between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) over the pregnant woman denied an abortion of a nonviable 18 week pregnancy who was forced to wait out a miscarriage at a Michigan Catholic hospital. Abortion opponents have been scrambling to discredit the suit, which accuses the USCCB of refusing to let medical doctors practice best medicine due to the Catholic directives put on their hospitals. One pro-life doctor came out swinging, declaring abortion is “never medically necessary,” and reminding the public that an 18 week fetus can “make sucking motions.” True, but it is still weeks from being able to survive outside the womb, making it medically impossible for it to survive once the mother’s water breaks. Dr. Brian C. Calhoun is also the same doctor who was brought in to testify in favor of medically unnecessary clinic regulations meant to shutdown abortion providers, including in his home state of West Virginia, where he claims he sees patients from “botched abortions weekly.”
 The battle over Catholic bishops refusing to allow doctors to practice full spectrum care in hospitals is one that is even dividing the church itself. “There are 68 million Catholics in the United States, and only 250 of them are bishops,” Megan Smith, domestic program associate at Catholics for Choice told Salon. “The vast majority of Catholics disagree with the bishops on sex, sexuality and reproductive healthcare.”
But Amelia Thomson-Deveux wonders if the blame is being placed at the wrong feet. Although the USCCB writes the directives, it is the doctors who have to follow them, and it could be the doctors’ own conscience issues standing in the way of patient care. “As chilling as these cases are, it’s unclear whether the USCCB’s directives—rather than the decisions of individual Catholic hospitals, doctors, or bishops—are to blame,” she writes, noting that although the ACLU seems interested in finding a way to go at the policies themselves, the true blame for this exact incident may have a more local source.
Last week we learned that the French have discovered Plan B may not work on those who weigh more than 165 lbs. Writer and activist Jazmine Walker offers a gripping explanation of why that matters for people of color especially, and how the medical industry fails them. Meanwhile, another report explains that the major reason the French news came to light is because they also want to have an accurate label stating the scientific fact that the drug does not actually prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
The “rape insurance” bill is heading to the Michigan legislature for their approval, and one lawmaker is calling the proposal “one of the most misogynist” she’s ever seenAbortion rights activists hit the capitol to demand that legislators refuse to approve the bill and instead let the voters have their say via ballot initiative. The legislature must decide before the end of next week, when the winter recess begins.
One city in Washington state is considering pulling funds to a local family and children’s resources center because it offers referrals to places where a person can get an abortion. A Colorado city is returning a family planning grant to its local Planned Parenthood as long as it absolutely, totally and 100 percent promises not to use that money for abortion. Also, Wisconsin is giving it a go at appealing the ban on their law requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers, which would shutter most of the state’s clinics. So far, the federal judges haven’t been impressed by the state’s claims that the bill is about women’s health and not backdoor banning abortion.
Kansas is at the center of the news this week, as former Attorney General Phill Kline is trying to get his law license back. He lost it after being accused of misconduct in his witchhunt of the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliates and the late Dr. George Tiller. Also, high school students are coming to the Wichita clinic to protest and pray as part of an effort to get more high schools to actively protest clinics. In other clinic news, a New Jersey site is seeing protests escalate as anti-choice activists work to try to trick abortion patients, including trying to get them to eat chocolate before they enter the building so they can’t have the procedure, which needs to be done on an empty stomach.
Would you be willing to accept a straight 12 week abortion ban that allows exceptions only in cases of fetal anomalies and a pregnant person’s health if that meant easy access to abortion up to that point, affordable birth control and emergency contraception and actual assistance with child care and other programs to help children? Reproductive rights writer Jill Filopovic ponders:
Does Roe v. Wade really even exist anymore? No, and Think Progress explains why. Shorter version: we pretty much already have abortion free states if you don’t have large amounts of funding at your disposal, and it’s often far easier to go to a different state than to try to have the procedure in your own.
Based on this week’s news, it’s easy to see how such a thing could happen. 

January 29, 2013

Chris Brown Has Drafted Jesus To Help With His Scuffles

Chris Brown PaintingMichael Kovac/Getty Images; Chris BrownWhat Would Jesus Do?  I know what I would do! (Adam)
Being Chris Brown might not be easy—but apparently it's way harder than we thought.
The R&B star, who allegedly was involved in a studio scuffle involving up-and-coming hitmaker Frank Ocean last night, has now posted a photo of a painting of Jesus on the cross, flanked by the two prisoner who were crucified with Christ.
"Painting the way I feel today. Focus on what matters!" Brown wrote with the photo.
Brown didn't directly reference what happened—or didn't happen—with Ocean, who he has tangled with before via Twitter, but a source close to the artist told E! News earlier today, "It's easy to just assume Chris started this, but it's absolutely not the case."
Ocean, meanwhile, tweeted last night, "Got jumped by chris and a couple guys. Lol...cut my finger now I can't play w two hands at the grammys."
A suspected assault involving Brown is under investigation, according to the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, but authorities would not officially identify Ocean as the alleged victim.

August 18, 2012

Ryan’s Bill Would Make Romney’s Kids Criminals

Tagg Romney and sonTagg Romney and son. 
Now that Mitt Romney has chosen Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, Ryan's long history as a culture warrior is getting a fresh look. Women's groups have already honed in on his extreme anti-abortion record, which consistently has earned him a 100 percent voting approval rating from the National Right to Life Committee.
What isn't so well known about Ryan's record, though, is that one piece of legislation he supported is so extreme that it would have turned Romney's children into criminals.
The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which Ryan co-sponsored, would have enshrined the notion that life begins at fertilization in federal law, thus criminalizing in vitro fertilization—the process of creating an embryo outside of a woman's womb. In IVF, doctors typically create multiple embryos and then only implant the healthiest ones in the woman. Some of them stick and become babies, and some don't. The embryos that don't make it to the womb are either frozen for later use or destroyed. The Sanctity of Human Life Act, if passed, would make all those embryos "people" in the legal sense, so if they aren't used or don't become babies after being implanted, they would essentially become murder victims under the law.
In the more than 30 years since the world's first "test-tube baby," IVF has become a fairly common procedure and a lifeline to many infertile couples, Democrat and Republican, despite some of the thorny moral issues involved in the process. Some 60,000 babies every year are born thanks to IVF. Infertility is thought to affect some 10 to 15 percent of all couples in the US—especially those upper-class professionals who delay childbearing until their late 30s and early 40s. Infertility, in fact, is such a bipartisan problem that no fewer than three of Mitt Romney's own children have relied on the procedure to produce some of his 18 grandchildren.
In May, Romney's son Tagg became father of twin boys thanks to help from IVF and a surrogate mother. Tagg's son Jonathan was also produced this way. Two of Tagg's brothers reportedly have struggled with infertility issues and resorted to IVF as well. It's hard to imagine that Romney will score any points with voters by tapping a running mate whose anti-abortion views are so extreme that Romney's own kids can't live with them.
Ryan's position on IVF might give President Obama an opening for attack: While Romney's running mate has advocated criminalizing a procedure that has brought untold joy to about 3 million families over the past three decades, Democrats might be able to claim credit for making advanced infertility treatments available to the vast majority of Americans who can't afford them. Currently, most health insurance plans don't cover infertility treatment, so IVF and other advanced baby-making technology is mostly available to rich people—like the Romney boys.
One estimate puts the cost of Tagg Romney's new twins at more than $60,000, a price tag that puts IVF (and surrogate moms) totally out of reach for the average infertile couple. But Obamacare could change all that. The Department of Health and Human Services is currently drafting what's known as the Essential Health Benefits Plan, a collection of conditions and other medical care that many insurance companies will be required to cover. There's currently a push to have infertility treatments included as an essential benefit. Down the road, it's possible that Obamacare will not only help thousands of people take care of their children, but also help them conceive them in the first place. As campaign issues go, this one couldn't present a starker contrast. The supposedly pro-life GOP candidates want to turn infertile couples into criminals for trying to have a baby. The Democrats want to help them pay for it.
  Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau.  

Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

July 4, 2012

Laura Hangs up on Minister Because He Said "Abortion Existed During Jesus Time"

     Ed Called Laura a “Bitch” got suspended
  • That did not happen. [Rush transcript may not be verbatim]
    LI: Welcome to our show.
    RT: Thank you for inviting me.
    LI: You are a minister so I take it you follow the teachings of Jesus.
    RT: Yes, that’s true.
    LI: If Jesus were here today do you think he would counsel a woman to have an abortion?
    RT: Jesus always showed compassion to women. He acted with respect even to the ones who were accused of sexual impropriety. I'm sure Jesus would do the same thing today, and that’s my model.
    LI: [Angrily] You didn’t answer my question. So you think Jesus would applaud the murder of millions of innocent children, in the first, second, and third trimester?
    RT: We know that abortion existed during the time Jesus was on earth, and for thousands of years before that. If he were opposed to abortion he would have said something about it.
    LI: [More angrily] Where do you get the idea that Jesus knew about abortion?
    RT: We know that abortion has existed for thousands of years, so I’m confident that Jesus would have been aware. There were many plants used as medicinal abortifacients in that part of the world. And yet his concern was for the way women were being treated.
    LI: [Nearly screaming] What part of “Thou shalt not kill” don’t you understand?
    RT: The Bible actually says “Thou shalt not murder.” I’m sure you would agree that every ending of a life is not murder.
    LI: [Frustrated] Well you have your 40 prayers. I’ll pray for you and this interview is over! 
    LI: [Hangs up.]
    Post by EVAN DERKACZ

March 31, 2012

Sheriff Babeu is Being Investigated Over Missing Records Of Boyfriend

Babeu’s Office Investigated Over Missing Records In Ex-Boyfriend Scandal

Investigators in Arizona are looking into whether embattled Sheriff Paul Babeu’s office destroyed records that may have shed light on whether he threatened to deport his immigrant ex-boyfriend after their breakup.
Pinal County, Ariz. Sheriff and congressional candidate Paul Babeu

A report published Friday morning in the Arizona Republic said the inquiry is focusing on roughly 6,200 files that seem to have disappeared after state investigators requested they be preserved.
The new revelations mean that Babeu, an immigration hawk who was a rising Republican star before the scandal broke last month, is now facing three investigations — one each at the federal, state and local levels.
They come at a time when Babeu is also trying to make a step up to Congress, running for the Republican nomination in the state’s newly created 4th District.
Last month, a Mexican immigrant named Jose Orozco outed the sheriff as gay and said he had been involved in a romance with him for several years before a nasty breakup. Orozco told thePhoenix New Times, which first broke the story, that Babeu threatened him with deportation if their relationship ever became public.
Babeu denied Orozco’s accusations and responded with some of his own, saying his former lover hacked his campaign website and stole his identity after their breakup.
Since then, a special prosecutor has been assigned by the state to investigate whether the Pinal County sheriff or his former lover broke the law during the fallout.
On Feb. 24, according to the Republic, an attorney for the state sent a letter to Pinal County, asking officials there to make sure every file, email and text message sent to or from Babeu or accessed by him since 2006 was preserved for the investigation.
But sometime between when the letter was sent and March 7, according to the newspaper, about 6,200 files disappeared from a hard drive that contained mostly emails involving Babeu and two of his top aides.
The top prosecutor from neighboring Pima County is now investigating whether anyone in Babeu’s office broke the law by deleting the files.
Meanwhile, Babeu’s spokesman denied there had been any wrongdoing.
“The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has never deleted public records which have been requested, whether by media or any other entity,” spokesman Tim Gaffney told the newspaper.
political campaigning. They have denied wrongdoing in all three.
Besides the latest investigation and the one looking into the breakup, Babeu and several of his top aides are also facing a federal investigation into whether they spent government resources to engage in 

September 3, 2011

Rick Perry's 'Abortion' Doctrine: 'Humiliation to Women'

 The Texas governor, says the Guardian's Amanda Marcotte, continues to demonstrate an open hostility toward sex education, family planning, and women
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed into law anti-abortion regulations that suggest he's not a "reasonable Republican," says Amanda Marcotte in the Guardian.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed into law anti-abortion regulations that suggest he's not a "reasonable Republican," says Amanda Marcotte in the Guardian. Photo: Dennis Van Tine ./Retna Ltd./Corbis 
   The Guardian
Though Rick Perry is soaring in the polls as a GOP presidential candidate, his legacy as Texas governor continues to haunt him,says Amanda Marcotte of theGuardian, especially when it comes to the issue of abortion rights. Earlier this week, a U.S. district judge blocked a "draconian anti-abortion regulation" Perry signed into law in May. The regulation would have required women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram and listen to the fetus' heartbeat while a doctor rattled off a detailed description of the fetus' anatomical development — and then forcibly ponder their decision for an additional 24 hours before an abortion could be performed. The in-dispute regulation, in addition to Perry’s funding cuts to family planning programs, demonstrates his hostility to contraception, abortion rights, women’s health, and sex education. Here, an excerpt:
What's truly alarming about the law is the searing contempt for women's dignity and intelligence baked right into it. Women would be required to go through an uncomfortable, invasive vaginal probe sonogram in order to get the picture and audible heartbeat required. They would then be sent home 24 hours to "think" about the decision, putting the Texas government in the position of a schoolteacher sending women to the corner.
Probing "dirty girls" with vaginal wands and then punishing them as though they were naughty children? This seems like Perry and the Texas legislature have mixed up writing laws with scripting pornography. Unfortunately, for the women of Texas, these ritual humiliations dreamed up by Republican legislators aren't actually sexy fantasies but miserable realities — but for a federal judge remembering that women, too, have constitutional rights.
More of the article at the Guardian

Featured Posts

Police Union For NYS Troopers Want Out of NYC Because of the NO Chokeholds Law

"SEND THEM AWAY TO ANOTHER STATE I SAY" I hear Russia is Hiring...                                       ...