Take for example a young woman whose parents staunchly oppose abortion yet who are also abusive. For her, parental consent requirements not only disregard her personal agency and ability to make a personal choice, they may put her in danger if she has to report her pregnancy to her parents.
For young people who need to keep their abortion secret from family or friends, 24-hour waiting periods are also dangerous as they make it all the more difficult for a young person who must take time off school or give their parents reasons for being away. This is especially true for young people living in states where abortion clinics are few and far between, not to mention prohibitively expensive.
As a young American progressive, I grew up learning that the 1973 Roe assured me a right to an abortion and that once the Supreme Court released the ruling their decision was final - I would never be restricted by my government from making the reproductive decision I deemed fit for myself. As I continue to grow older and learn more about American policies on reproductive rights, I continue to learn that that is simply not the case.
The complaint alleged that Logan College violated Title IX—the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education—when the school told Kostal that its policy did not excuse absences related to pregnancy or childbirth and that she had to return to school immediately following her emergency Caesarean surgery or be penalized for any courses missed during her recovery.
Eleven days after her emergency Caesarean delivery, Kostal returned to classes—before she had fully recovered—in an effort to avoid being penalized for missing classes. In order to drive to school safely, Kostal had to stop taking her pain medications. At school she had to sit or stand for long periods of time without proper rest or medication and became extremely rundown both physically and mentally. One professor who taught two of Kostal’s masters-level classes penalized her for missing exams while she recovered from childbirth. Kostal received failing grades in those two courses, lost tuition money and fell behind in achieving her masters and doctorate degrees scheduled for Spring 2014. Before her hospitalization, Kostal had an “A” average in one of those classes and a “B” average in the other.
Kansas City Cops Tell Man They’ll Kill His Dogs and Destroy His Home if Forced to Obtain a Search Warrant
Good news, citizens! You have the right to refuse a warrantless search of your premises. It’s a right that’s guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. But that right won’t protect you from the consequences of your failure to roll over for law enforcement. Nope, the right to not be subjected to a warrantless search can actually be held against you — not in a court of law, mind you — but by the police themselves.
Eric Crinnian, an attorney in Kansas City, Missouri, says police came to his door looking for parole violators, and got upset when he refused them permission to tramp through his house and paw through his possessions. In fact, he claims, one cop went so far as to threaten to shoot his dogs if he made them abide by the requirements of the law by getting a search warrant to look through his home.
Here’s the direct quote from the news article:
“If we have to get a warrant, we’re going to come back when you’re not expecting it, we’re going to park in front of your house, where all your neighbors can see, we’re gonna bust in your door with a battering ram, we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs […] and then we’re going to ransack your house looking for these people.”
This sounds suspiciously like a threat (several threats, actually). This is the classic “you can do this the easy way or the hard way” persuasion technique that’s been deployed by law enforcement since there’s been law enforcement. Even when not spoken out loud, the “or else” always hangs in the air when LEOs “ask nicely” for permission to do things they can’t legally do without your consent.
“By force, it never happens,” Dharampal Singh Yadav declared of rape. He was standing with a gaggle of men at a barber stall outside the Sarojini Nagar market. Most of the men agreed… .
These presumptions and ways of talking about women can be found up and down Delhi’s class ladder. Consider the recent case of Tarun Tejpal, a muckraking crusader and newspaper editor who resigned after being accused of sexually assaulting a female subordinate. What the woman detailed in leaked correspondence as the forcible removal of her underwear and physical penetration was described by Mr. Tejpal as “drunken banter” — banter, like tango, being a thing that takes two.
To talk of rape with so many of Delhi’s men is to discover a chasm between the world of their minds, flush with medieval ideas of womankind, and the world of the modernizing megacity in which they find themselves. In fact, many men — including those at the barber stall that day — attribute the rape problem to vertiginous social change that has created new temptations at a faster rate than the new habits to cope with them.
The barber put it simply: Rape isn’t a man’s fault. “It’s the fault of the times,” he said.
It was Saturday September 1, 2007 and I was in Monte Carlo for a friend’s wedding.
We prayed that morning at the local synagogue and later walked to the nearby Hotel de Paris. Entering the lobby, I was surprised at the large security presence. I soon learned that the legendary former South African president Nelson Mandela was a guest in the hotel.
As it happened, he was sitting in one of the stately public rooms on the lobby floor as I passed by.
I instinctively wanted to meet the iconic statesman. The slim chance of gaining access to meet Mandela did not stop me from asking the security guard at the door if I could please step in to bless the former president. Just then, a second member of the security detail approached and asked what I wanted. The first bodyguard explained that I was a rabbi who wanted to bless Madiba on the holy Sabbath. They agreed to let me go over to greet him.
As I approached the former president, he looked up and beamed. I was dressed in the full Chabad Shabbat attire, the flowing black frock and black fedora, and since I had just left the synagogue my white and black tallit was draped over my shoulders.
(My son wrote this reminiscence of his meeting with Mandela)
The William Ayers Wrote Obama’s Book Guy, aka Jack Cashill, proffered one of the more toweringly stupid comparisons yesterday:
Last week, Cashill appeared on TheDoveTV to promote the book and was asked what he thought about the possibility that the Justice Department might file civil rights charges against Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin. Cashill was not supportive, to say the least, primarily because “George Zimmerman may have been the least racist person in the state of Florida.”
In fact, Cashill stated, Zimmerman was a civil rights hero and prosecuting him “would be like going after Nelson Mandela on civil rights, or Mother Theresa”:
As American workers, those fortunate enough to be employed anyway, rush to complete year-end projects, let us take a moment to marvel at the outgoing 113th Congress. As our own Sarah Jones reported last week, this group is the least productive on record. As of this writing, the sorry bunch of elected officials has passed just 55 laws this calendar year, seven fewer than the 112th Congress of 2012. The 62 pieces of legislation that last year’s bodies managed to get off the floor was, at the time, the lowest bar ever set.
Let’s set this overpaid, under-performing inertia against the productivity levels of the typical American worker, the one that hasn’t been desperately seeking employment or experiencing imminent fear of losing it. In the great Mother Jones piece, All Work and No Pay: The Great Speedup, from the magazine’s July/August 2011 issue, writers Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery observe, “We’d hear from creative professionals in what seemed to be dream jobs who were crumbling under ever-expanding to-do lists; from bus drivers, hospital technicians, construction workers, doctors, and lawyers who shame-facedly whispered that no matter how hard they tried to keep up with the extra hours and extra tasks, they just couldn’t hold it together. (And don’t even ask about family time.)”
This past weekend, Peter LaBarbera, founder of the Naperville, Ill.-based anti-gay hate group Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was in Jamaica pushing his extremist views. “Do not be like us, do not be like Britain, do not sit idly by as so-called ‘LGBT activists’ manipulate words and laws to achieve dominance in your country,” LaBarbera told a conference of Christian conservatives in the Caribbean country this weekend according to BuzzFeed.
LaBarbera spoke on Dec. 7 at a conference organized by the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society and the Christian Lawyers’ Association in Kingston. These groups have lobbied against a possible repeal of a colonial-era law that bans same-sex intercourse, commonly referred to as the “buggery law.”
In her 2011 campaign, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller said that she might put the law to a vote. Her government has not yet taken any action on the legislation. BuzzFeed also reported that Justice Minister Mark Golding told the group that he hoped to raise it next year as part of a broad review of the country’s sexual offenses law. The Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society recently launched a video opposing the law’s repeal.
Following in the footsteps of other antigovernment “sovereign citizens,” Robert Carr figured he could take ownership of houses in foreclosure simply by moving in, changing the locks and filing “quiet title” legal papers.
“If you abandon something, you forfeit all your rights and title to it,” Carr told WLWT-TV in Cincinnati, “and title is not a piece of paper. Title is when you grab it and say ‘mine.’”
Prosecutors in Cincinnati did not agree. And neither did a grand jury.