|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label S Dakota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S Dakota. Show all posts
18 May 2026
MOTHER JONES CLIMATE DESK WEEKLY: "Irresponsible": Backlash as Utah Approves Data Center Twice the Size of Manhattan, Why a federal gas tax holiday is a terrible idea, How climate change could help hantavirus find hosts, We bet you can’t guess which states rely most on wind and solar power, How you—yes, you—can make a difference when it comes to climate change, Smuggled in Syringes: How Nairobi Became a Nexus for the Black Market in Giant Harvester Ants 17MAI26
04 March 2011
ACLU in the Supreme Court, Wal-Mart, South Dakota and more 4MAR11
UPDATES on the congressional assault on Planned Parenthood, abortion rights in S Dakota, the material witness law case, Wal-Mart, voting rights in Florida, DOMA, civil unions and the US military's use of PSYOPS on members of Congress....all from the ACLU, because freedom isn't free....
 Stop the Assault on Family Planning and Planned Parenthood Enough Is Enough: The Latest South Dakota Attack on Women's Access to Abortion Goes Too Far ACLU In Supreme Court to Argue Former A.G. Ashcroft Should Be Held Accountable For Wrongful Arrest and Detention of U.S. Citizen President Obama Says Discriminatory "Defense Of Marriage Act" Is Unconstitutional Class Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart Should Go Forward Take Action: Stop Florida From Taking Away Voting Rights...Again Congress Should Investigate Military Use of "PSYOPS" on Members of Congress Victories for Same-Sex Couples in Maryland and Hawaii Congress Should Investigate Military Use of "PSYOPS" on Members of Congress Congress should investigate allegations that a U.S. Army general improperly ordered military personnel to conduct "psychological operations" (PSYOPS) on members of Congress to manipulate them into supporting funding for the war in Afghanistan. The ACLU also urged Congress to broaden its oversight of the military's intelligence gathering operations. The allegations of the illegal use of PSYOPS first appeared in Rolling Stone magazine late last week. If the allegations are true, the reported conduct was in direct violation of U.S. law and Department of Defense policy, and represents an affront to core democratic principles of civilian control over the military. "Any effort to secretly and illegally investigate and manipulate elected officials or improperly influence them is a shocking challenge to democracy itself and requires a full public examination of the facts," said the letter, signed by Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, and Michael German, ACLU Senior Policy Counsel and former FBI Special Agent. According to the letter, "The National Security Act of 1947 requires the executive branch to keep Congress fully informed regarding all intelligence activities. With such ample evidence of abuse, Congress is obligated to fully investigate all intelligence operations that potentially impact U.S. persons or improperly influence domestic policies with misinformation. Congress must reassert its independence from the military intelligence community and reassure the American public that civilian elected officials retain control over all military and intelligence activities." The ACLU's letter asked Congress to investigate whether military intelligence resources were used to improperly collect information on members of Congress and whether military operations were used unlawfully on members to influence legislation or manipulate public opinion regarding the war in Afghanistan. >> Learn more about the ACLU's work to keep America safe and free. back to top Victories for Same-Sex Couples in Maryland and Hawaii Last week, the Maryland state Senate approved a bill that would legalize marriage for same-sex couples. SB 116 — the Civil Marriage Protection Act — now heads to the House of Delegates for consideration. If it passes there, it will be sent to the desk of Governor Martin O'Malley, who has indicated that he will sign it. Previously, same-sex couples in Maryland were granted limited rights. The Civil Marriage Protection Act would grant same-sex couples the full benefits of marriage, making Maryland the sixth state to do so. In addition, the bill protects the constitutional right to free exercise of religion by protecting objecting religious institutions from being forced to perform civil marriages. Also last week, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a bill that legalizes civil unions for same-sex couples. The bill stops short of granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry, but grants committed same and different-sex couples the rights, responsibilities, benefits and protections that Hawaii law provides to married couples. "Across the nation, we are seeing steps toward providing committed couples with the security of knowing they can take care of each other, and that their relationships are recognized in the eyes of the law," said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. >> Learn more about the ACLU's work protecting the rights of LGBT Americans. back to top  Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend. | March 4, 2011
Stop the Assault on Family Planning and Planned ParenthoodThey're not just against abortion. They're against family planning. The anti-choice majority in the House has declared an all-out war on women's reproductive health, and it's up to the Senate to stop them. >> Take action: Demand that your senators refuse to participate in the vicious assault on reproductive rights underway in Congress and all across the nation. Enough Is Enough: The Latest South Dakota Attack on Women's Access to Abortion Goes Too FarThe South Dakota legislature recently passed an extreme bill that places unprecedented restrictions on access to abortion care. This bill requires women to wait 72 hours between their first counseling session with the doctor and an abortion; it also requires women to first visit "crisis pregnancy centers," (CPCs) entities that are notorious for providing false and misleading information. The bill also requires doctors to tell their patients about any possible risk factor published in medical and psychological journals since 1972. CPCs often lack licensed medical personnel, and are designed solely to "encourage" a woman to carry to term and keep her child. The federal government has documented that CPCs often provide women false and misleading information in order to achieve their goals. Furthermore, these new restrictions require physicians to tell their patients about risk factors from all journals that date back to 1972 — never mind that the information in those journals may be outdated, misleading, and irrelevant. These unprecedented measures push the envelope to the detriment of women's access to basic health care. South Dakota is not alone in attempting to deny reproductive health care to women. This bill is just one in a long line of attacks on women. Enough is enough. These assaults on women's health care must be stopped. >> Learn more about the ACLU's work all across the country to protect women's reproductive freedom. back to top ACLU In Supreme Court to Argue Former A.G. Ashcroft Should Be Held Accountable For Wrongful Arrest and Detention of U.S. Citizen
"In America, we don't just arrest people and lock them up without probable cause to believe they violated the law," said Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case on behalf of al-Kidd. "The government officials who turned that unlawful practice into official policy — in clear violation of the Constitution — must be held accountable." The government sought al-Kidd's arrest as a witness in the case of Sami Al-Hussayen, who had been indicted for visa fraud and making false statements to the government. Al-Kidd was held for 16 days in jails in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho, where he was placed in high-security wings with convicted criminals, strip-searched and routinely shackled. He was eventually released from detention, but was placed under onerous conditions that included confining his travel to four states, surrendering his passport and reporting to probation officers. Al-Kidd lived under these conditions for more than a year even though he was never called to testify or charged with a crime. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2009 that the federal material witness statute cannot be used to preventively detain and investigate suspects for whom the government lacks probable cause of wrongdoing. The ruling also held that Ashcroft does not have immunity in the case and can be held personally liable after trial for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd. Ashcroft appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. "The appeals court made it clear that former Attorney General Ashcroft can be held responsible if he instituted a policy of improperly misusing the material witness statute as a preventive detention tool," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU. "The appeals court decision was correct, and it should be upheld by the Supreme Court." >> Learn more about the case. back to top President Obama Says Discriminatory "Defense Of Marriage Act" Is Unconstitutional
The president's action comes in response to a series of lawsuits challenging DOMA, including a critical case filed by the ACLU in November 2010 on behalf of Edith "Edie" Windsor, who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years. Windsor filed a lawsuit against the federal government for refusing to recognize their marriage and imposing a $350,000 tax on Spyer's estate when she died that Windsor would not have had to pay if she were married to a man. Our Constitution promises that the government will treat everyone equally. This announcement is recognition that gay people, too, are promised equal treatment under the law. It is only a matter of time before LGBT people in the United States will finally have full equality in our society. While this is a huge step forward, the Obama administration's action does not immediately signal the death of DOMA. The Department of Justice is required to give Congress an opportunity to defend the law. And Speaker of the House John Boehner has until March 11 to decide whether to hire a lawyer to defend DOMA, now that the Justice Department no longer will. That's where you come in: Urge your members of Congress to stay out of the litigation, and not defend DOMA. But if the House does decide to press forward and defend DOMA, we'll be there too — ready to fight. >> Take action: Urge your members of Congress to support legislation to repeal DOMA, so it is taken out of the statute books for good. >> Learn more about Edie and Thea's story and the challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act." back to top Class Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart Should Go Forward
"All employees should have the right to challenge unequal treatment in the workplace," said Lenora M. Lapidus, Director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. "A class action lawsuit is the best mechanism to allow the employees of Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in the country, to address their claims of discrimination." The evidence presented by the plaintiffs includes reports that Wal-Mart managers across the country relied on archaic sex stereotypes in denying promotions and equal pay for women. In court declarations, women described how they were told that men deserve the promotions and higher pay because they have families to support, while women are just working to make "extra money." They also described how they were confined to departments such as cosmetics and women's clothing, and denied jobs in hardware, meat-cutting and firearms. Other women reported that they were told they could never advance because they were not part of a "boys club" or were told they should stay in the kitchen with a "bun in the oven" instead of advancing their careers. The ACLU's brief argues that a class action lawsuit is necessary because many of the employees affected would not have the ability or resources to bring such a lawsuit individually, and would have reason to fear retaliation if they proceeded alone in challenging the company. Additionally, because employees claim they are forbidden from discussing their pay levels with each other, it is difficult to determine if they are being treated differently. The class action rules were designed, in part, to allow individuals to overcome such barriers. >> Learn more about how the ACLU is fighting on-the-job sex discrimination. back to top Take Action: Stop Florida From Taking Away Voting Rights...AgainFlorida has an ugly history of taking away people's voting rights, and a new proposal threatens to do the same thing again. Currently, offenders convicted of non-violent crimes in Florida have their voting rights automatically restored upon the completion of any prison sentence and parole. Under this new proposal, non-violent offenders would have to go through the same onerous application process that violent offenders currently go through. And all offenders would have to wait three to five years before they could even apply to get their rights back. Making people who've paid their debts wait for years to regain their voting rights is not democracy. Given Florida's history, there's concern that this proposal is designed specifically to keep low-income and minority voters — who will be disproportionally impacted — from being able to vote. Let Florida know that America will NOT stand for more attempts to keep Floridians from being able to vote! >> Take action: Tell Florida: Don't restrict voting rights. back to top Join us on...    |
02 March 2011
Revealed: The Group Behind the Bills that Could Legalize Killing Abortion Providers 28FEB11
THE thing that really gets me about all these bills is that most of the people and organizations writing them, submitting them as legislation and supporting them are Christians (I will not get into judging their claims of faith, I will leave that to God). These people who profess to cherish and value human life think nothing of supporting legislation that will result in murders. AND these same people and organizations who cherish and value human life are generally opposed to the government providing a social safety net for those who need it that will provide the basic health care, nutrition, housing needs, education and more for the women, children, and families that need it, completely disregarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in the Beatitudes and in Matthew 25.
Americans United for Life at the US Supreme Court in January 2011.
Americans United for Life at the US Supreme Court in January 2011. It's no coincidence that bills to expand justifiable homicide laws have popped up in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa. Meet the group that launched the effort.
First, it was South Dakota. Then Nebraska and Iowa. The similarly worded bills, which have quietly cropped up recently in state legislatures, share a common purpose: To expand justifiable homicide statutes to cover killings committed in the defense of an unborn child. Critics of the bills, including law enforcement officials, warn that these measures could invite violence against abortion providers and possibly provide legal cover to the perpetrators of such crimes.
That these measures have emerged simultaneously in a handful of states is no coincidence. It's part of a campaign orchestrated by a Washington-based anti-abortion group, which has lobbied state lawmakers to introduce legislation that it calls the "Pregnant Woman's Protection Act" [PDF]. Over the past two years, the group, Americans United for Life, has succeeded in passing versions of this bill in Missouri and Oklahoma. But there's a big difference between those bills and the measures floated recently in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa.
That these measures have emerged simultaneously in a handful of states is no coincidence. It's part of a campaign orchestrated by a Washington-based anti-abortion group, which has lobbied state lawmakers to introduce legislation that it calls the "Pregnant Woman's Protection Act" [PDF]. Over the past two years, the group, Americans United for Life, has succeeded in passing versions of this bill in Missouri and Oklahoma. But there's a big difference between those bills and the measures floated recently in South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa.
While the Oklahoma and Missouri laws specifically cover pregnant women, the latest measures are far more sweeping and would apply to third parties. The bills are so loosely worded, abortion-rights advocates say, that a pregnant woman could seek out an abortion and a boyfriend, husband—or, in some cases, just about anyone—could be justified in using deadly force to stop it.
A Planned Parenthood official testified last week at a hearing on Nebraska's LB 232 that such legislation "authorizes and protects vigilantes." And it isn't just abortion-rights advocates who fear the implications of the AUL-inspired legislation. "This could be used to incite violence against abortion providers," said Omaha's deputy chief of police, David Baker. The office of South Dakota's Republican governor—no defender of abortion-rights—has called the version of the bill introduced in the state's legislature a "very bad idea." (Following a national outcry, the South Dakota bill was shelved.)
Lawmakers who have sponsored their own versions of AUL's legislation, including South Dakota's Phil Jensen and Nebraska's Mark Christensen, say their measures were inspired by a 1999 case in Michigan, in which a pregnant woman killed her boyfriend after he punched her twice in the stomach. (Jensen did not respond to a call and an email seeking comment.) Jaclyn Kurr, who eventually miscarried quadruplets, was convicted of manslaughter based partially on the fact that she had a history of criminal offenses—a ruling that was later overturned on appeal.
The case opened a thorny debate about fetal personhood and it became a rallying cry for anti-abortion groups seeking to advance the rights of the unborn. It features prominently in the introduction to AUL's model legislation [PDF], which was drafted by Denise Burke, the group's vice president for legal affairs. "Applying the affirmative defense of 'defense of others' to protect the unborn is a victory for women and children, and opens a new chapter in the fight to protect the lives of the unborn," Burke writes in the 9-page document. (AUL asked that questions be submitted in writing, but declined to respond to a detailed request for comment from Mother Jones.)
The Kurr episode is "a lesson Nebraska doesn't want to repeat" Christensen said during a hearing last week on his bill. "I personally do not want to see a pregnant woman in Nebraska go through the same trauma of losing her unborn child, her baby, and then be prosecuted and punished by trying to protect the child from its attacker."
In an interview, Christensen told Mother Jones that AUL "brought the idea" and "helped draft the language" for the bill he introduced. And he said he was unaware of the controversy a bill similar to his had caused in South Dakota a week earlier. In fact, he added, "I didn't realize it'd been introduced other places, so I'll have to evaluate that."
Christensen added that he regretted citing the Kurr case in support of his legislation: "As I look more at the Michigan case, there were a lot of outlying factors," he said. "It was probably not a good one for me to have been quoting." After Christensen's bill was criticized for opening the door to violence against abortion providers, he said he had decided to "narrow it down to just protecting mother and unborn child."
AUL's efforts to expand justifiable homicide statutes are part of a broader push by social conservatives to advance the political front lines on abortion and other social issues. After Republicans won the House of Representatives and swept to almost unprecedented state-level success in November, social conservatives were invigorated. Since state and federal legislative sessions began in January, they have pushed GOP lawmakers to introduce scores of bills aimed at promoting what they call a "culture of life."
That effort hasn't failed to stir up controversy. At the federal level, House Republicans have attempted to limit the circumstances under which the government would pay for abortions to cases of "forcible rape," a measure that was eventually dropped after it caused a national furor in January. Since then, cuts in federal funding for family planning, proposals specifically outlawing funding for Planned Parenthood, a Georgia bill that could criminalize some miscarriages, and the series of AUL-backed bills allowing for justifiable homicide in defense of a fetus have all helped put the culture wars back on the nation's front pages. With conservatives riding a wave of 2010 success and anti-Obama feeling into the 2012 elections, anti-abortion forces are just getting started.
A Planned Parenthood official testified last week at a hearing on Nebraska's LB 232 that such legislation "authorizes and protects vigilantes." And it isn't just abortion-rights advocates who fear the implications of the AUL-inspired legislation. "This could be used to incite violence against abortion providers," said Omaha's deputy chief of police, David Baker. The office of South Dakota's Republican governor—no defender of abortion-rights—has called the version of the bill introduced in the state's legislature a "very bad idea." (Following a national outcry, the South Dakota bill was shelved.)
Lawmakers who have sponsored their own versions of AUL's legislation, including South Dakota's Phil Jensen and Nebraska's Mark Christensen, say their measures were inspired by a 1999 case in Michigan, in which a pregnant woman killed her boyfriend after he punched her twice in the stomach. (Jensen did not respond to a call and an email seeking comment.) Jaclyn Kurr, who eventually miscarried quadruplets, was convicted of manslaughter based partially on the fact that she had a history of criminal offenses—a ruling that was later overturned on appeal.
The case opened a thorny debate about fetal personhood and it became a rallying cry for anti-abortion groups seeking to advance the rights of the unborn. It features prominently in the introduction to AUL's model legislation [PDF], which was drafted by Denise Burke, the group's vice president for legal affairs. "Applying the affirmative defense of 'defense of others' to protect the unborn is a victory for women and children, and opens a new chapter in the fight to protect the lives of the unborn," Burke writes in the 9-page document. (AUL asked that questions be submitted in writing, but declined to respond to a detailed request for comment from Mother Jones.)
The Kurr episode is "a lesson Nebraska doesn't want to repeat" Christensen said during a hearing last week on his bill. "I personally do not want to see a pregnant woman in Nebraska go through the same trauma of losing her unborn child, her baby, and then be prosecuted and punished by trying to protect the child from its attacker."
In an interview, Christensen told Mother Jones that AUL "brought the idea" and "helped draft the language" for the bill he introduced. And he said he was unaware of the controversy a bill similar to his had caused in South Dakota a week earlier. In fact, he added, "I didn't realize it'd been introduced other places, so I'll have to evaluate that."
Christensen added that he regretted citing the Kurr case in support of his legislation: "As I look more at the Michigan case, there were a lot of outlying factors," he said. "It was probably not a good one for me to have been quoting." After Christensen's bill was criticized for opening the door to violence against abortion providers, he said he had decided to "narrow it down to just protecting mother and unborn child."
AUL's efforts to expand justifiable homicide statutes are part of a broader push by social conservatives to advance the political front lines on abortion and other social issues. After Republicans won the House of Representatives and swept to almost unprecedented state-level success in November, social conservatives were invigorated. Since state and federal legislative sessions began in January, they have pushed GOP lawmakers to introduce scores of bills aimed at promoting what they call a "culture of life."
That effort hasn't failed to stir up controversy. At the federal level, House Republicans have attempted to limit the circumstances under which the government would pay for abortions to cases of "forcible rape," a measure that was eventually dropped after it caused a national furor in January. Since then, cuts in federal funding for family planning, proposals specifically outlawing funding for Planned Parenthood, a Georgia bill that could criminalize some miscarriages, and the series of AUL-backed bills allowing for justifiable homicide in defense of a fetus have all helped put the culture wars back on the nation's front pages. With conservatives riding a wave of 2010 success and anti-Obama feeling into the 2012 elections, anti-abortion forces are just getting started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)