The Wisconsin Supreme Court Thursday is expected to issue three historic rulings affecting union bargaining, election law and same-sex couples.
Set for release this morning are long-awaited opinions on whether Gov. Scott Walker’s labor law is constitutional, whether voters can be made to show photo IDs and whether the state can run a registry for same-sex partners.
Court watchers have said that the simultaneous release of the three major decisions is unlike anything in living memory and that the late release suggests that on at least one case there’s a divided court in which some justices are writing either dissenting or concurring opinions.
The rulings, coming out just as this year’s midterm elections heat up, are fraught with political implications. As governor, Walker, a Republican, is one of the official defendants in all of the cases. His re-election challenger, Democrat Mary Burke, serves on the Madison School Board, the employer of the teachers suing the state in the labor case. By its very nature, the issue of voter ID can influence elections.
This reminds me of the Louisiana legislator who was horrified to learn that her school voucher bill would benefit Muslim schools as well as her pet fundy ones.
I learned a long time ago to be careful what you wish for. When the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby could use its religion to violate parts of a federal law, anyone with half a brain knew that the floodgates had just been opened.
Because that ruling wasn’t just about Hobby Lobby being given the right to deny four different types of birth control to their employees, it essentially established the precedent for people or businesses to use their religion to try to get their own way and ignore federal laws.
Similar to how a woman in Florida is suing a health clinic for religious discrimination because she admitted during her interview that she wouldn’t prescribe birth control to patients because it was against her religion.
Well, in a very interesting take on this whole situation, The Satanic Temple is urging women to print out a letter they’ve drafted to present to their physicians that exempts them from having to comply with several of the anti-choice laws that have been passed in many states around the country.
They’re calling this push, “The Right to Accurate Medical Information.”
Many states have anti-choice laws that require things like women to have a sonogram performed, or basically be subjected to conservative “pro-life” propaganda, before having an abortion.
You might recall back in 2011, Florida passed a law that Doctors couldn’t ask patients about gun ownership or talk to them about gun safety. The legislature in Tallahassee felt these questions were not related to medical practice. (Because, as we all know nobody has ever had to go the the Hospital because of a firearms injury).
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state Legislature had the right to pass the law, which includes provisions restricting doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.
These are the same people who reject the ACA on the grounds it supposedly places government between a patient and their physician.
Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote. “In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct — which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy — the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.”
Yeah, you know how it is with those pesky doctors. Always asking about what you eat, if you exercise, if you have trouble sleeping…whats up with that?
In a sharp dissent significantly longer than the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Charles Wilson said the law was an unconstitutional “gag order” that infringes on doctors’ rights.
“The holding reached today is unprecedented, as it essentially says that all licensed professionals have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking to their clients or patients in private,” Wilson said. “This in turn says that patients have no First Amendment right to receive information from licensed professionals — a frightening prospect.”
First amendment? Doesn’t he know only the Second Amendment counts in Florida.
I agree. Bans are not an option. Jurisdictions like DC will just have to deal with the fact that regulation is the path. Bans don’t work. Bans are illegal and unwise. It’s simple. we as a society have chosen to have an effective means of self defense available to the at risk.
A federal judge has found a Washington, D.C., ban on carrying handguns unconstitutional, according to court filings made public Saturday.
In a 19-page order, Judge Frederick Scullin ruled in favor of four plaintiffs and the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun-rights advocacy group, which had sued the District of Columbia and Police Chief Cathy Lanier. The plaintiffs claimed the city’s refusal to issue carry permits restricted their right to self-defense.
“There is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny,” Scullin wrote.
The plaintiffs, three of whom are D.C. residents, filed suit after the police department deemed self-defense an “unacceptable” reason for requesting a permit to carry a firearm in public. A fourth plaintiff had been arrested in D.C. and sentenced to probation on a weapons charge for carrying his firearm, which was licensed in several other states.
BOISE, Idaho - A federal judge has struck down Idaho’s law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on beliefs held by physicians and others that the fetus is able to feel pain at that point.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled late Wednesday in favor of Jennie Linn McCormack, who was 33 at the time she decided to challenge the state’s so-called fetal pain law and other abortion laws.
Idaho was one of seven states to adopt fetal pain laws in 2011, following in the footsteps of Nebraska’s approval of the law in 2010. But those laws are no longer the most restrictive. This week, lawmakers in Arkansas overrode a veto of a near-ban on the abortion procedure starting from the 12th week of pregnancy.
In his 42-page decision, Winmill sided with McCormack and her attorney, Richard Hearn, declaring Idaho’s fetal pain law places an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion. The judge also took the Legislature — dominated by Republicans in both chambers — to task for the motives driving adoption of the law, finding that efforts to protect a fetus don’t outweigh a women’s right to choose.
Be responsible with your flying Quadcopter/ GoPro. Respect the major airports and areas of official concern. The airspace is not protected as public areas like sidewalks are.
The link below will take you to an interactive map you can use to check out your area.
More: Don’t Fly Drones Here
Wrongly Jailed Man Not Adequately Compensated
By JEFF D. GORMAN
A Nebraska man who was wrongfully convicted of murder may not have received enough compensation, the state’s highest court ruled.
James Dean and Ada JoAnn Taylor were convicted of second-degree murder in the 1985 death of Helen Wilson, who was brutally raped and killed in Beatrice, Neb. The case remained cold for four years before the plaintiffs and four other suspects were arrested.
Dean originally claimed innocence, but he confessed after a dreaming of the murder. He believed that a psychologist who visited him in prison had removed a “block” of repressed memories of the crime.
Taylor also doubted her own memories and confessed after seeing a videotape of the crime scene.
Dean and Taylor testified against Joseph White at his trial, and White was convicted of first-degree murder.
More: Courthouse News Service
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to announce Wednesday that it has reached agreements with the owners and managers of two Berlin, N.H., properties, to settle allegations that they engaged in housing discrimination for refusing to rent to a woman who was a victim of domestic violence.
Although most know that the Fair Housing Act from 1968, and the amendments and executive orders that followed, protect against discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability, it may come as a surprise that victims of domestic violence are covered as well. It is a violation of the act to treat victims of domestic violence differently than victims of any other crime.
“These individuals are being victimized twice,” Gustavo Velasquez, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity told She the People — first by the aggressor and then by a landlord who is refusing to renew a lease or threatening to evict. He called the situation both “immoral and illegal,” and said that “HUD remains committed to ensuring and promoting fair housing opportunities for women and men alike.”
He advised those who believe they have experienced discrimination to file a complaint at HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at[no phone numbers allowed] (voice) or[no phone numbers allowed] (TTY), or to go to hud.gov. Other options include a local, private or nonprofit fair housing agency.
Last summer, after two special sessions and amid unprecedented protest, Texas Republican lawmakers passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. New research conducted by Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TX-PEP) and released on July 18, 2014—the one-year anniversary of the signing of House Bill 2—highlights the devastating consequences of HB2.
Half of Texas abortion clinics have shut down or stopped providing care, while the number of women of reproductive age who live more than 100 miles from a Texas abortion clinic more than doubled. There are now no abortion clinics in southeast Texas or the Rio Grande Valley.
And by September 2014, it will get even more difficult for women in Texas to access abortion, with only 6 clinics open across the state and more than 1.3 million women living more than 100 miles from a clinic.