My stepdaughter spoke out against faith-based 'sex ed.' Her district just ensured it won't return.

Community

Friday August 17, 2018 · 11:57 AM PDT

2018/08/17 · 11:57

Abby McElroy shows a poster like the one titled "The Steep Slope of Arousal" used in a sex education class in her high school. — Abby McElroy, at last month's Wallingford-Swarthmore School Board meeting.

Last week, Joan McCarter told you about my stepdaughter, Abby McElroy, 17, who rocked her district's school board last month when she informed them that a local faith-based crisis pregnancy center, Amnion Pregnancy Center, had been invited into tenth grade classes repeatedly to teach a sex ed segment.

As Abby explained, the presentation was filled with pseudo-science and lies, as when relationships were compared to sticky tape, and “teens were told ‘if you have sex with too many people it becomes less sticky—and you can't make healthy relationships.’” They were told that hand-holding, hugging, and kissing were all forms of touching that release the hormone oxytocin, and "that too much youthful activity depletes oxytocin and thus makes it harder for a person to eventually bond with a future spouse”—which scientists have pointed out is based on research with prairie voles, not people.

The school board members were horrified. Wallingford-Swarthmore is a liberal area outside Philadelphia in Delaware County, and they had no idea this was going on.

So after much local hullabaloo, in advance of next Monday night’s next school board meeting, the district superintendent announced a new policy via email last night: no more outside presentations for sex ed, just classroom teachers ensuring “factual, balanced information that empowers our students to make healthy choices.” A more stringent review for all outside speakers invited into the classroom. And no more presentations from this particular group, ever. You can read the letter below the fold.

In the meantime, Abby’s activism is by no means over. Strath Haven isn’t the only school which has been infiltrated by Amnion and other so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” with this rubbish. There’s more work to be done, more information which needs to be brought to light, more policies which need to change. And I am so proud of her.

Adam B

Community

Monday October 23, 2017 · 11:24 AM PDT

2017/10/23 · 11:24

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 18: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill October 18, 2017 in Washington, DC. Committee members questioned Sessions about conversations he had with President Donald Trump about the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, the Defered Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, the ongoing investigation about Russian intereference in the 2016 presidential election by Robert Muller and other subjects. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) — Jeff Sessions, your shamefulness knows no bounds.

On Friday, a panel of the D.C. Circuit’s U.S. Court of Appeals entered an order preventing a 17-year-old undocumented woman in federal detention from exercising her constitutional right to choose. This happened despite the fact that she had already sought and received an order from a Texas state court judge confirming that she was mature enough to make this decision on her own, and that all she needed was the same freedom to visit her doctor for the purposes of terminating her pregnancy, which the Trump/Sessions Department of Justice (DOJ) would readily grant if she were continuing her pregnancy.

Over the weekend, the ACLU filed an emergency petition calling for for the entire D.C. Circuit to review this case, and it makes the same strong arguments as Judge Patricia Ann Millett’s dissent on Friday: time is of the essence, given that Jane Doe is 15 ½ weeks pregnant, her constitutional rights are clear, and there is no reason to believe that the Department of Health and Human Services will approve a “sponsor” for Doe in the next week, given how intensive and burdensome that process is.

In response, the DOJ has filed a brief this morning so patently false that it would be worthy of laughter if a young woman's rights weren’t at stake. They argue that Doe could resolve this predicament herself by “filing for voluntary depature”—i.e., self-deporting—except, as they conceded in Friday’s oral argument, her home country actually bans abortion. They then claim that they don’t want to “facilitate” her abortion, though it carries the same paperwork and health monitoring burdens for them as it would if J.D. were visiting a doctor for prenatal care instead. And they finally suggest that another eight days for finding a sponsor (the panel’s deadline) will prove no burden to the young woman’s health, even though medical studies make clear that sooner is better, and the Trump/Sessions DOJ obviously disregards the profound dignitary harms of continuing to force her to carry a child against her will. As the ACLU argued in its emergency brief:

J.D. is not seeking any assistance from Defendants to obtain the abortion: Her court-appointed representatives or the shelter personnel stand ready to transport her; the health center stands ready to provide the care; and private funds have been provided to pay for the procedure. All Defendants must do is to step aside and stop blocking the door.

The D.C. Circuit is expected to act quickly. At present, it has seven Democratic-nominated judges and three Republicans, with one vacant seat.

Trump administration, conservative judges unite to deny an undocumented immigrant's abortion rights.

Adam B

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday October 20, 2017 · 7:02 PM PDT

2017/10/20 · 19:02

The Hon. Patricia Ann Millett (right), being nominated by President Barack Obama to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Chuck Kennedy) — President Obama announcing the nomination of The Hon. Patricia Ann Millett (right) to the D.C. Circuit in 2013. She would become the first judge confirmed via the nuclear option. She was a hero today, albeit in dissent.

Today, two conservative judges and the Trump administration successfully conspired to at least delay, and possibly prevent altogether, a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant’s decision to have an abortion. It was an appalling, brutal decision, thoroughly in defiance of established constitutional rights.

To be clear: there is no question under the Constitution that immigrants who lack lawful status are protected persons under the Due Process Clause. And there is no question that this young woman, known to the courts as J.D., has done everything she was supposed to do under Texas law upon learning she was pregnant: she sought and obtained a guardian ad litem, then had a Texas state judge determine she was mature enough to make this decision by herself. She has even endured Texas’s mandatory counseling, including a visit to an anti-choice “crisis pregnancy center” where she was forced to view an ultrasound, and she has not changed her mind.

But that’s not enough for the Trump/Sessions DOJ, which stammered that it doesn’t want to “facilitate” her choice. Two conservative judges — one (Brett Kavanaugh) with Supreme Court aspirations and therefore no interest in recognizing a woman’s right to choose no matter how well-established by law — saw fit to agree today, instead placing another roadblock in J.D.’s path: she must find a suitable “sponsor” by Halloween so that the federal government would itself have no role here. The administration won’t release her to her guardian, they won't let her lawyers take her to the doctor. (Of course, if she were continuing her pregnancy, they would.) If HHS refuses to approve a sponsor in time., we’re back in court. And J.D. will be 17 weeks pregnant by then, with Texas banning abortions after 20 weeks.

Judge Patricia Ann Millett, an Obama nominee, dissented, and if you have a choice between reading the rest of this piece versus reading her 10-page opinion, read hers. It begins:

There are no winners in cases like these. But there sure are losers. As of today, J.D. has already been forced by the government to continue an unwanted pregnancy for almost four weeks, and now, as a result of this order, must continue to carry that pregnancy for multiple more weeks. Forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy just in the hopes of finding a sponsor that has not been found in the past six weeks sacrifices J.D.’s constitutional liberty, autonomy, and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reason. The flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.

Adam B

Community

Monday June 26, 2017 · 8:41 AM PDT

2017/06/26 · 08:41

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 31: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House January 31, 2017 in Washington, DC. If confirmed, Gorsuch would fill the seat left vacant with the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) — We're stuck with him for another 30 years. Ugh.

As part of its Orders List today, the Supreme Court announced that it would not review a Ninth Circuit decision which held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. The case had been brought by residents of San Diego and Yolo Counties who had sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the “good cause” requirements in their counties. Two Justices dissented from this denial of review—Justices Thomas and Gorusch—and, hoo boy, they’re upset.

Some background first: Yolo County defined “good cause” as including “ a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause. This criterion can be applied to situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.” So under this policy, “Victims of violent crime and/or documented threats of violence” or “Business owners who carry large sums of cash or valuable items” had good cause; “Self protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)” or “Employment in the security field” by itself did not.

And Justices Thomas and Gorsuch wanted this case to be heard. And reversed:

Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. … As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

… [T]he Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be “most acute” there. “Self defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house.

Adam B

Community

Monday June 26, 2017 · 8:08 AM PDT

2017/06/26 · 08:08

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 01: Front row from left, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, back row from left, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch pose for a group portrait in the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. The U.S. Supreme Court held a photo opportunity for photographers after Justice Gorsuch has joined as the newest member. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

One more big fissure has been opened up in the wall of separation between church and state. As Justice Sotomayor (for herself and Justice Ginsburg) wrote in dissent today:

This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government—that is, between church and state. The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.

For generations, the basic rule when it came to the separation of church and state was that the government could not fund any religious entities or programs. That wall developed some cracks over the years, with decisions holding that a school district had to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf student at a Catholic high school as part of a federal aid program, or that governments could choose to fund religious programs as part of an overall school tuition voucher scheme.

In the latter case, the court reasoned that it was effectively the parents, not the government, choosing to fund these schools, and government’s purpose in having the voucher program was not the advancement of religion. Two years later, though, the court again recognized that there was “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, holding in a 7-2 decision that states could choose to not fund students pursuing devotional theology degrees as part of a neutral aid program, to avoid advancing religion.

Today, the court went one step further, constraining the reach of that 7-2 precedent and instead holding that the State of Missouri is required to include religious schools in a state program which provides grants to nonprofits to allow them to resurface their playgrounds with recycled tires. Missouri’s objection was rooted in a state constitutional provision, passed in 1875 as part of a general anti-Catholic wave across the country, which stated that no money from the state treasury could go “directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.”

The chief justice wrote for the court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan in full; by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch for the most part (and get to used to hearing this: “though they would have gone further”), and Justice Breyer for separate reasons. In addition, the court announced today that they are taking up the case of whether Colorado can compel a bakery to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage.

Adam B

Community

Monday June 19, 2017 · 12:20 PM PDT

2017/06/19 · 12:20

Lester Gerard Packingham was forced to register as a sex offender following a guilty plea involving charges relating to a 13-year-old girl. As part of that conviction, he became subject to a North Carolina law which forbade him from accessing any “commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages.” And while we can bore deeply into the details, suffice it to say that such sites are basically defined as the ones where you can create a personal page and communicate with others.

Undaunted, Packingham set up a Facebook page using a pseudonym. In 2010, he went onto the site to exclaim “Man God is Good!” after he had a traffic ticket dismissed … and the local police cross-referenced the date with court actions and, eventually, the folks in the crime lab figured out it was Packingham. He disputed the charges, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally broad.

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that North Carolina had gone too far. Basically, Justice Kennedy wrote for a five-Justice majority, The Internet Is Important, and this law forbids too much involvement in modern society:

By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”

In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Adam B

Community

Monday June 19, 2017 · 11:08 AM PDT

2017/06/19 · 11:08

(Warning: this diary, of necessity, contains language which may offend.)

As Simon Shiao Tam explained it to the Supreme Court, when he formed a rock band in 2006, his “purpose was not just to play music. He also intended the band to be a vehicle for expressing his views on discrimination against Asian-Americans. To that end, he recruited Asian-American band members, and he called the band The Slants ... We want to take on these stereotypes that people have about us, like the slanted eyes, and own them.”

The band wanted to trademark the name—which is crucial if you want to make sure no one else can sell your merchandise, for instance. Problem was, there’s this thing in the trademark law that says you can’t register a trademark for something that “may disparage ... persons, living or dead … or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” And their trademark application was denied on that basis back in 2011, with various examiners and later courts holding that the term was “disparaging to persons of Asian descent,” “likely offensive to a substantial composite of people of Asian descent,” etc.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States was unanimous in holding that this nondisparagement policy was unconstitutional, though the Court was divided 4-4 on some of the reasoning. They agreed unanimously that the federal government couldn’t defend this policy on the ground that its granting a trademark was like its adopting the trademark (a “retweet does not equal endorsement” theory). But what made it unconstitutional?

Adam B

Community

Tuesday January 31, 2017 · 10:35 AM PST

2017/01/31 · 10:35

Local area students protest the election of President-elect Donald Trump during a march outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, November 15, 2016. / AFP / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) — This isn't a reality show.

This just in:

The two judges considered top finalists for the President's Supreme Court nomination,Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, being brought to DC
Ã¢ÂÂ Steve Brusk (@stevebruskCNN) January 31, 2017

Okay, let me explain something here: this is real life. It is not the Apprentice or one of his beauty pageants. You don’t decide on a Supreme Court justice based on who wins you over in a last-minute boardroom interview. You do it based on an assessment of the person's entire career and record in the law, his or her demonstrated jurisprudential vision and sense of judgment.

In other words, if Trump hasn’t made his decision as to the nomination for a lifetime appointment yet, he is being reckless in how he’s making it, having bound himself to an announcement tonight.

And if he has made his decision but is putting the finalists through this process to build “suspense,” as is being reported, then this is gratuitous humiliation of a runner-up who—whatever awful things we deservedly think of him ideologically—is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, and not as a television prop.

What an awful, unfit person the president is.

Election fraud is real in Pennsylvania. But look who's responsible.

Adam B

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 18, 2016 · 11:30 AM PDT

2016/10/18 · 11:30

Let’s be absolutely clear about this, as reported by BillyPenn.com:

Joshua Lorenz a Republican councilman in Murrysville, part of Westmoreland County in southwest PA. He is a member of the state bar, working for the Meyer Unkovic Scott law firm in Pittsburgh.

And the “proof” he tweeted is absolute bullshit designed to deceive voters.

Big problem here: Pennsylvanians can’t vote online. For that matter, neither can voters in any state. Lorenz did not respond to a request for comment from Billy Penn.

It is illegal for elected officials to knowingly share misinformation when it comes to elections

And he’s not alone. This image was being spread on Facebook, starting in the comments to a Katie McGinty ad:

Be wary of crap like this, folks. NO state has "online voting". Period. This is what "rigging an election" looks like. pic.twitter.com/oPUb4v3ro6
Ã¢ÂÂ Matthew Ciszek (@mciszek) October 17, 2016

I don’t know how to say this more plainly: the only people trying to rig the election in Pennsylvania are the folks who are trying to deceive or intimidate voters. As Philadelphia elections official Al Schmidt, a Republican, said yesterday:

"The real threat to the integrity of elections in Philadelphia isn't voter fraud, though it does rarely occur," said Al Schmidt, vice chairman of the city commissioners and the three-member board's lone Republican.

"And it isn't even Russian hackers, though they may certainly exist. The real threat to the integrity of elections is irresponsible accusations that undermine confidence in the electoral process."

… "I don't think there is any added amount of integrity to the process that can be brought by some knucklehead from Altoona coming to Philadelphia on Election Day," he said.

Adam B

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 21, 2016 · 8:52 PM PDT

2016/07/21 · 20:52

I gave. A lot.

Look: I was with Barack Obama start-to-finish in 2007-08. This cycle, I started as a Martin O’Malley supporter, took a detour because my former professor Larry Lessig asked me to pitch in (feels like years ago), and I did not enthusiastically jump aboard the Hillary Clinton bandwagon for quite some time.

But I saw that speech. I know what we’re up against. And we cannot let Trump, or Trump-ism, win. Our country cannot surrender the gains it has made and turn towards the darkness. We are stronger together, and need to move forward. Together.

So #ImWithHer. Give what you can, right now, and join me,

President Obama has a message for Netroots Nation, and progressive activists everywhere.

Adam B

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday July 16, 2016 · 6:29 PM PDT

2016/07/16 · 18:29

And it’s from … the future? From today’s Netroots Nation closing keynote in St. Louis:

YouTube Video

It was great seeing so many of you this weekend. Next year, please join us as we visit the South for the first time: registration is already open for Netroots Nation 2017 in Atlanta!

[Updated w/video] Hillary Clinton announcement on money in politics coming at Netroots Nation today

Adam B

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday July 16, 2016 · 9:39 AM PDT

2016/07/16 · 09:39

President Obama and Hillary Clinton waving to crowd at joint appearance in Charlotte, NC, July 5, 2016. Superimposed words "I'm here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton."

CNN has the scoop:

Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.

Clinton first made the pledge to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for outside money in politics, while campaigning in Iowa in 2015. She will tell an audience Saturday in a video to be played at Netroots Nation, a liberal organizing conference in St. Louis, that a key way to restore order to politics is to curb unaccounted money.

A Clinton aide said the plan was a "a key plank of Clinton's plan to challenge the stranglehold that wealthy interests have over our political system" and would allow "Americans to establish common sense rules to protect against the undue influence of billionaires and special interests and to restore the role of average voters in elections."

…. Clinton also will lay out other aspects of a campaign finance plan that she had previously announced, including pushing for federal legislation to require disclosure of political spending and promoting a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that requires publicly traded companies to inform shareholders of their political spending.

The former first lady also pledged in September to sign an executive order that required federal contractors to disclose their political spending.

Once I have the video, I’ll update this diary. So great seeing so many DK friends this weekend in St. Louis, including at the DK caucus yesterday.

Newer
Older

RSS

My stepdaughter spoke out against faith-based 'sex ed.' Her district just ensured it won't return.

Sessions' Dept. of Justice will say anything to prevent an undocumented immigrant's right to choose

Trump administration, conservative judges unite to deny an undocumented immigrant's abortion rights.

Supreme Court declines to hear case on right to bear arms, infuriating Justices Thomas and Gorsuch

For its final act this term, conservative Supreme Court majority resets church-state balance

Supreme Court announces broad protections for Internet-surfing rights. Even for sex offenders.

Unanimous Supreme Court upholding right to racist trademarks is good news for Washington NFL team

Trump Supreme Court search reaches new levels of obscenity, disrespect

Election fraud is real in Pennsylvania. But look who's responsible.

How I decided to respond to Donald Trump's acceptance speech.

President Obama has a message for Netroots Nation, and progressive activists everywhere.

[Updated w/video] Hillary Clinton announcement on money in politics coming at Netroots Nation today