First, a bill that gives immunity to doctors who lie to couples about the results of their prenatal tests in order to prevent them from getting an abortion. Now, a bill that would give your boss the green light to fire you for using birth control. You think I am kidding? I wish. For a decade now, Arizona insurance companies have been required to provide coverage for contraception just like other prescriptions. But, because they saw an opening to score some political points, some politicians there are suddenly moving to take that coverage away from women and their families.
Response to the last post…
Those who believe that righteous indignation and protest politics were appropriate in the struggle to end Jim Crow, but that something less will do as we seek to dismantle mass incarceration, fail to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge. If our nation were to return to the rates of incarceration we had in the 1970s, we would have to release 4 out of 5 people behind bars. A million people employed by the criminal justice system could lose their jobs. Private prison companies would see their profits vanish. This system is now so deeply rooted in our social, political and economic structures that it is not going to fade away without a major shift in public consciousness. Yes, some prison downsizing is likely to occur in the months and years to come. But we ought not fool ourselves: we will not end mass incarceration without a recommitment to the movement-building work that was begun in the 1950s and 1960s and left unfinished. A human rights nightmare is occurring on our watch. If we fail to rise to the challenge, and push past the politics of momentary interest convergence, future generations will judge us harshly.
Imagine: your family takes a road trip to Zion National Park in Utah. You’re only an hour away and didn’t notice the speed limit was reduced to 65mph. You see the flashing lights of a police cruiser and realize your mistake. Embarrassed, but not concerned, you’ll explain to the officer you’re from out of town and hope the ticket doesn’t cost too much.
The officer approaches the car to collect your license and registration. As you wait with your family, you realize the officer has been in his car for an unusual amount of time. Finally, he comes over and says something about your license not being adequate proof of your immigration status and asks if you’re a citizen of the United States. “Born and raised,” you reply, this being the first time you’ve been asked that question by a policeman. Something about your response, or the way you look, or perhaps your license picture from 20 years ago when you had brown hair instead of gray, makes the officer tell you he has to run some checks on your ID – “standard procedure.” You start to protest, baffled at what you’ve possibly done wrong, as you wait on the side of the road to see what might happen next.
Seem outrageous? Un-American? Unconstitutional? This could happen to you or any other person traveling, living or working in Utah, if Utah’s new immigration enforcement law, H.B. 497, goes into effect this week.
Two things here, Utah:
- Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right.
When the residents of Utah voted to become part of the United States of America, they accepted the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The 10th Amendment notwithstanding, this new law is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
Get your heads out of your asses, please.
We rely on the police to keep us safe and treat us all fairly, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. This card provides tips for interacting with police and understanding your rights.
American Civil Rights are under attack from the right.
In the case of Jose Padilla, nothing moves swiftly. He was arrested in March 2002, held without charge for two years in a South Carolina military brig without access to a lawyer, and was tortured to the point that brig authorities described his behavior (or lack thereof) as “like a piece of furniture.” The Bush administration sought to justify his detention and subjecting him to harsh interrogation methods in part by claiming Padilla was plotting with al-Qaeda to detonate a radiological “dirty bomb” in a U.S. city, but no evidence of such a plot has been presented in court. A maze of several legal proceedings, including one trip to the Supreme Court and back again to lower courts, landed Padilla where he is today.
Still without justice.
On Monday, the ACLU argued before a federal court judge in Charleston, S.C., that Padilla’s case against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other government officials for their role in his unlawful detention and torture should not be dismissed.
Yesterday, the federal court judge ruled in the government’s favor and dismissed Padilla’s case. The ACLU’s Ben Wizner, who argued the case, said in a statement yesterday:
The court today held that Donald Rumsfeld is above the law and Jose Padilla is beneath it. But if the law does not protect Jose Padilla, it protects none of us, and the executive branch can simply label citizens enemies of the state and strip them of all rights — including the absolute right not to be tortured. If Jose Padilla is not allowed his day in court, nothing will prevent future administrations from engaging in similar abuses.
(Source: facebook.com)
4th Amendment underwear, printed with a metallic ink that shows up in airport scanning equipment.
Get ready for your embedded chips folks!President Obama has signaled that he will give the United States Commerce Department the authorityover a proposed national cybersecurity measure that would involve giving each American a unique online identity. Other candidates mentioned previously to head up the new system have included the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security, but the announcement that the Commerce Department will take the job should please groups that have raised concerns over security agencies doing double duty in police and intelligence work. So anyway, what about this unique ID we’ll all be getting? Well, though details are still pretty scant, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, speaking at an event at the Stanford Institute, stressed that the new system would not be akin to a national ID card, or a government controlled system, but that it would enhance security and reduce the need for people to memorize dozens of passwords online. Sorry, Locke, sounds like a national ID system to us. Anyway, the Obama administration is currently drafting what it’s dubbed the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which is expected at the Department of Commerce in a few months. We’ll keep you posted if anything terrifying or cool happens.
This is not okay.
Given the Federal Government’s recent displays of expertise in managing their own sensitive information, I’m just fine with remembering my passwords, thank you. If you thought Julian Assange was a lot of fun, just imagine the blackmail potential available to any-(pick as many as sound like fun)
- Foreign government
- Crime syndicate
- Political party
- Police department
- Employer
- Employee
- Coworker
- Parent
- Spouse
- Teenager
- Local/Federal prosecutor
with access to everybody’s bank account, credit card records, e-mail, browsing history, and porn habits.
As a casual poll, who thinks this is something the Feds are incapable of bungling?
I am not amused.
(Source: idcaboutostriches)
Speaking at a hearing to explore whether Wikileaks violated the Espionage Act — which the Obama administration claims its editor-in-chief violated — Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said that “America was founded on the belief that speech is sacrosanct” and dismissed calls for censorship of media outlets publishing leaked documents.
“As an initial matter, there is no doubt that WikiLeaks is very unpopular right now. Many feel that the WikiLeaks publication was offensive,” Conyers said, according to prepared remarks. “But being unpopular is not a crime, and publishing offensive information is not either. And the repeated calls from politicians, journalists, and other so-called experts crying out for criminal prosecutions or other extreme measures make me very uncomfortable.”“But let us not be hasty, and let us not legislate in a climate of fear or prejudice,” Conyers closed, referring to the calls for new laws criminalizing the actions of Wikileaks. “For, in such an atmosphere, it is our constitutional freedoms and our cherished civil rights that are the first to be sacrificed in the false service of our national security.”
Too bad that he’ll be gone in less than a month :/
Yeah we’re moving in the wrong direction. I simply don’t get it. How bad do things have to get before people wake up? I can see it coming like a freight train, but I can’t stop it by myself.
