April 5, 2016

News Clips For The Day


https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-reportedly-slammed-missing-boys-192200068.html

U.S.
Police Reportedly "Slammed" Missing Boy's Face Into a Car After He Was Found
Natasha Noman
April 4, 2016


After Amy Olzak notified the Idaho Falls Police Department that her 12-year-old son, who'd been reported missing earlier that day, was found, police officers came to the house and allegedly expressed their concern in an excessive manner.

According to Olzak, they smashed her son's face into a car.

"He walked over to my son and then he put my son's hand behind his back and like lifted him up in the air and slammed his face into the trunk of a car," Olzak told ABC Local News 8. The officers took the boy away in handcuffs.

The officer put "his head into the back of trunk hard enough that it chipped his tooth," Courtney Beck, the owner of the car, also told the local news station.

Olzak has since initiated legal action against the IFPD and the incident is being investigated by the department's internal affairs.

But IFPD Capt. Royce Clements told ABC Local News 8 the officer was not violating any laws in detaining the 12-year-old, as Idaho allows police to arrest runaways.

"In this particular case it was determined that we did send this to internal affairs and that is ongoing," Clements said.

"We know we can't effectively do this job without the trust of the public. When the public comes in and they're not happy with something that we're doing we take a hard look at it and see what we can do."

Watch the news report, including a reenactment video, here.


“… police officers came to the house and allegedly expressed their concern in an excessive manner. According to Olzak, they smashed her son's face into a car. The officer put "his head into the back of trunk hard enough that it chipped his tooth," Courtney Beck, the owner of the car, also told the local news station. …. Olzak has since initiated legal action against the IFPD and the incident is being investigated by the department's internal affairs. But IFPD Capt. Royce Clements told ABC Local News 8 the officer was not violating any laws in detaining the 12-year-old, as Idaho allows police to arrest runaways. "In this particular case it was determined that we did send this to internal affairs and that is ongoing," Clements said. "We know we can't effectively do this job without the trust of the public. When the public comes in and they're not happy with something that we're doing we take a hard look at it and see what we can do."


I sometimes think the things that police do are simply evil, but this is more like total insanity. The action was absolutely irrational as well as cruel. I do hope this guy will be fired immediately, put in a mental hospital and will not be let out until he is cured, which it seems to me will likely take years. He then should NEVER be considered for another police job. I also hope that this police chief will move quickly away from the habitual and ever so predictable defensive attempts on the part of police departments to make what the cops do look acceptable. To me, there’s no way to whitewash something like this, and they would do better to “face the music” and announce some good form of reformation in their department. It makes people begin to trust them again if they do that.

The article doesn’t say what the other cop did, which to me is significant. I’d like to hear his comments. I doubt that they are both dangerous nut cases. Too often witnesses to bullying do nothing to interfere or help the victim. There was one case in an article a few months ago, though, in which the second officer told his partner to stop the harassment, and he actually did it. That time he was pointing his riot issue rifle at a demonstrator.

That’s what a good cop does (or a good person of any kind), and it is often effective with no physical actions against the bully. What they want is to do bad things and get away with it free and clear. If someone speaks up it lets them know that they will have to go bully someone else. The names of the two police officers are not given in this article and the national and group origin of the victim isn’t either. It could be because the woman and her son are Jewish. Hatred and discrimination against Jews isn’t as common among Americans as it is in Europe, but it still goes on. Fascists in America are just like Fascists anywhere else in the world. They’re full of hatred and they’re more than a tad stupid.

See “OLZAK - olzak meaning - Jewish Genealogy
www.hebrewsurnames.com/OLZAK
OLZAK family genealogy and meaning of the Jewish surname OLZAK..



http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/11/3622045/montana-lawmaker-yoga-pants/

Proposed Bill Has Everyone Confused About Whether You Can Arrest People For Wearing Yoga Pants
BY TARA CULP-RESSLER
FEB 11, 2015 3:21 PM


A Republican lawmaker in Montana wants to prevent women from wearing leggings as pants, and he hopes that his proposed bill to strengthen the state’s indecent exposure law will be a step in that direction.

This week, State Rep. David Moore (R) introduced House Bill 365, which would outlaw “any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates the genitals, pubic hair, anus region, or pubic hair region.” Under that legislative language, “tight-fitting beige clothing” would likely be banned, according to the local lawmaker.

The Billings Gazette reports that Moore would have preferred to ban yoga pants of all colors; he favors giving the cops the power to arrest people for wearing “provocative” clothing. But HB 365 stops short of that because Moore wasn’t sure whether it would be possible for police to enforce a broader ban.

Moore drafted the proposed measure along with Walt Hill, a retired professor, after a bicycle event last summer that involved naked cyclists riding through downtown Missoula. The “Bare As You Dare” event — just one of many similar naked rides that are held in cities around the world — outraged the two men.

“I want Montana to be known as a decent state where people can live within the security of laws and protect their children and associates from degrading and indecent practices,” Hill said this week to explain why he wanted to help spearhead HB 365. “I believe this bill is written preserving that reputation.”

Under the proposed bill, a Montana resident who is convicted three times under the expanded definition of “indecent exposure” could be sentenced to five years in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.

Moore and Hill’s concerns about tight-fitting pants are shared by public school officials across the country. Schools in states ranging from Illinois, Oklahoma, California, and Massachusetts have moved to ban leggings and yoga pants, saying they “distract” boys who should be paying attention in class. Over the past year, an increasing number of middle school and high school girls have started to fight back, protesting what they see as sexist dress codes targeting female students.

This type of policy links girls’ clothing to boys’ inability to control themselves. “It’s a lot like saying that if guys do something to harass us, it’s our fault for that,” Sophie Hasty, a 13-year-old who protested her middle school’s ban on leggings last spring, told Slate. “We’re the ones being punished for what guys do.”

The Montana legislature is no stranger to these type of gender-based complaints. At the end of last year, Republican leaders approved new dress code guidelines for lawmakers that stipulated “leggings are not considered dress pants” and women should be “sensitive to skirt lengths and necklines.” Female politicians in the state pushed back, saying the new rules created “this ability to scrutinize women” and were “totally sexist and bizarre and unnecessary.”

“The code crosses a line. It singles women out for admonishment and suggests they can’t be trusted to get up in the morning and dress appropriately,” House Minority Whip Jenny Eck (D) said at the time.

Even beyond that, making specific rules to prohibit “provocative” women’s clothing furthers implicit societal assumptions about the way men and women should interact. It ultimately sends the message that women’s bodies are an invitation for sexual aggression unless they properly cover up. It also furthers a gendered double standard, as women are simultaneously encouraged to strive to present themselves as objects of men’s desire and criticized when they look or behave in a way that’s deemed too “promiscuous.”

Local lawmakers have gone after pants at the opposite end of the spectrum, too. Cities in Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, and Illinois have attempted to crack down on so-called “saggy pants,” seeking to target a different group — in this case, young men of color — for wearing their clothing in a way that’s deemed “indecent.”

UPDATE
Moore’s HB 365 has reportedly been stalled in the House Judiciary Committee over confusion about what exactly it would do.



I just want to say that, though most youths whose pants hang down 3 to 5 inches below the waist are, in fact, black -- I consider it to be a “political statement” no matter how immature, unattractive and stupid it is – I did see one young white teenager doing it in a library and I got a full view of his buttocks as he knelt down on the floor looking at books. He didn’t have on any of those so colorful boxer shorts like most do, so it was really objectionable.

The great movie, Borat, has a scene in which Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat) played a very bizarre Eastern European man who was doing a documentary of how Americans think and act. He focused on a group of three young black men around 18 to 20 years old, and told them to show him how to wear his pants to “fit in.” They did, and it was hysterically funny. They kept loosening his belt more and more until he had to hold his pants up with one hand. I’ve seen kids on the streets in Jacksonville doing that very thing. I wouldn’t be able to tolerate the tedium of holding my pants up all the time.

Either way, boys or girls, I think there should be laws against it, as a misdemeanor, of course, especially if lawmakers are going to write laws that only apply to female kids. That is overt and objectionable sexual discrimination. So I definitely don’t think this law should stand as it currently reads. As for nude behavior of any type, except a designated nude beach, it should always be against the law. NO more nude bicycle rides. There’s just no point in that type of thing.

About women, many young teens have so little breast development that going without a bra may not even be noticeable. If they’re a size B or larger, they should wear a bra. If they have on the type of garment that inevitably shows their bra, bra strap, the little erect nipple, or any other part of the breast itself, I think they should be charged with a misdemeanor also. If their skirt is more than 5” above the knee, that isn’t good either. I saw one on the bus with her pants cut so low in the back that it showed the strap of her teeny weeny thong. That’s something that they do purposely, and is called a ”whale tail!” I think people who do that should be arrested. I’m not so worried about it arousing boys and men, but rather the fact that is looks thoroughly trashy and simply ugly. I really feel sorry for them.

Again, doing those things just doesn’t look very bright. Ignorance may be “bliss,” but it gives those young men and women a well-deserved bad reputation. Imagine how they will feel when they ask a teacher for a recommendation and are denied. I also want to mention the fact that some young men and women wear all kinds of pants simply too tight, (jeans are no better than tights/yoga pants.) If you can see the shape of the sexual organs) it should not be allowed. I don’t’ think jail is appropriate, but a $500 fine is. But worst of all, young men can still buy a codpiece like those that were worn in the Renaissance and probably before that, with their leggings/tights so their magnificently erect “penis” would show to best advantage. It was in fashion even among the wealthy. There is a painting of King Henry the 8th sporting one of those on the Internet, and it really is obscene. Likewise wearing their shirt open to the waist is “trashy” and overly sexual as well. Let’s ban them all, but certainly not merely what women wear, because that is clearly antifeminist and should be unconstitutional. All of those ways of dressing are disgusting, however, and I don’t want to have to see them.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/02/politics/donald-trump-tennessee-delegates/index.html

Trump campaign: Tennessee GOP trying to unfairly appoint delegates
By Eugene Scott, CNN
Updated 2:23 PM ET, Sat April 2, 2016 | Video Source: CNN


Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's campaign is accusing Tennessee Republican Party leaders of trying to unfairly appoint delegates to the Republican convention that do not support the Republican front-runner.

"I can't believe I'm writing this but the Tennessee Republican Party wants to STEAL your vote TODAY," Dan Scavino, the campaign's social media director, tweeted Saturday. "There is a small group of Tennessee establishment insiders pulling a fast one. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN."



If they really are doing this, it absolutely is an unfair political method. It is not winning, after all, but cheating. We also need to be aware that if it can be done against Trump, it can be done to anybody. It’s a terrible precedent. Now if they can put together some election and campaign rules that keep insane fascists out of the running that would be different. We prohibit bad methods in this country, but we allow the freedom of any political party to espouse dangerous views unless they do specifically advocate the overthrowing of the government or commit violence. Unfortunately Trump, himself, is the one most likely to try to “overthrow the government” and those Militias out west, of course. Trump is the one who seems to want the ultimate level of power at any cost to the country. I think he should be careful, however, since all of us Americans can keep any number and type of guns. Someone may feel that they just have to “stop him” to protect America.



https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ivanka-and-eric-trump-loyal-offspring-proud-202153319.html

Politics
Ivanka and Eric Trump: Loyal offspring, proud surrogates — but not Republicans
Hunter Walker
April 4, 2016

Photograph -- Politics, Ivanka and Eric Trump: Loyal offspring, proud surrogates — but not Republicans, Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump attend a news conference in New York, May 1, 2014. (Photo: Brendan McDermid/Reuters)


Donald Trump’s three oldest children have campaigned with their father and served as surrogates during the presidential race. But only one of them is actually a member of the party Trump hopes to lead.

Records from the New York State Board of Elections show that neither Ivanka Trump nor Eric Trump are enrolled in a political party. Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is a Republican.

Both Eric and Ivanka Trump have also donated money to Democrats. Campaign finance reports show Eric gave $1,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in 2010. Eric has made 11 other contributions totaling over $138,000 that all went to Republican candidates.

Ivanka’s campaign contributions have a more bipartisan bent. Records show she has donated over $240,000 to both Democrats and Republicans. Ivanka has given money to Schumer, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.,, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. On the Republican side, Ivanka has given money to the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. In 2010, Ivanka gave $2,000 to Carly Fiorina’s U.S. Senate campaign. Fiorina ran against Donald Trump in this year’s Republican primary and the pair had several contentious exchanges. Florina ended her presidential bid in February and endorsed another Trump rival, Sen. Ted Cruz last month. In addition to giving money to both Republican and Democratic candidates, Ivanka has donated to committees benefiting both parties.

Both Ivanka and Eric Trump did not respond to requests for comment from Yahoo News. The Trump campaign also did not respond to a request for comment. Along with Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, Trump has two younger children. Tiffany Trump, 22, has not been as active in the campaign as her older siblings and Yahoo News could not find voting records for her. Trump’s youngest son, Barron, is just 10 years old.

New York State Board of Elections records show that both Trump and his wife, Melania, are members of the Republican Party. But Trump has a rather unusual relationship with the Republican Party, and has sometimes been at odds with the Republican National Committee. Like his daughter, Trump has given money to members of both parties.


Maybe in giving money to Democrats, they just want to keep their hand in with both parties. It probably gives them some power over even Democrats who are elected, also, and I tend to think that particularly of Clinton. She is a very clever woman, but not 100% trustworthy, and not more clever than BERNIE either. Go Bernie!



http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/16/blackout-tuesday-bernie-sanders-speech-corporate-media-chose-not-air?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Blackout Tuesday: The Bernie Sanders Speech Corporate Media Chose Not To Air
Though the talking heads were allowed to ramble on and on (and on) Tuesday night, the major cable and network news made no time for people to watch this...
byJon Queally, staff writer
byCommon Dreams
Published on Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders delivered a rousing hour-long speech on Tuesday night, but not a single cable news oulet [sic] chose to run even a portion of it. (Image: HuffPost/Screenshot)
Video -- Bernie Sanders: We are doing something very radical in American …
Photograph -- All three networks ignored Sanders’ speech Tuesday


Though Bernie Sanders had an admittedly disappointing night on Tuesday, losing four of five primary contests to rival Hillary Clinton, he still took to the stage in Phoenix, Arizona to speak to his supporters and television cameras about his vision for the nation and the drive of his campaign moving forward.

The problem? No cable or major news channel ran the speech. Not all of it. Not even some of it.

As Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim—specifically pointing at how cable news channels CNN, Fox, and MSNBC didn't air the speech because they were "waiting" for Republican frontrunner Donald Trump—quipped, "There just isn't enough time in the evening to get all that analysis in."

Well, here it is: See video, “very radical”

Writing for the media watchdog group FAIR on Wednesday analyst Adam Johnson argues that even as "critiques of corporate media choosing horserace over substance are evergreen," pointing out new examples remains as "urgent" as ever. "Political discourse that focuses on the meta, discussing perceptions or gaffes or polls rather than material issues, will inherently serve the Donald Trumps of the world," argues Johnson. "The corporate media didn’t create Trump, but they did pave and light the road for his candidacy’s unconstrained acceleration."

Meanwhile, Sanders backers and other media critics took to Twitter to express outrage over the glaring snub:

steve_mikulic ‎@steve_mikulic
The problem is bigger than one night. The national news media is in this for the money, and Trump = ratings.
You… http://ift.tt/253l9Lk
6:28 AM - 16 Mar 2016

Ban Torture ‎@BanTorture
Amazing that the #BernieBlackout is still in effect after all Bernie has accomplished. https://twitter.com/Elizasoul80/status/709925791996387328 …
10:19 PM - 15 Mar 2016

Bernie Wins ‎@berniewins2016
@CBSNews @NBCNews @FoxNews @ABC think waiting for Trump is more important than @SenSanders speech #BernieBlackout https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/709931300942168070 …
6:21 AM - 16 Mar 2016

Kevin Meyerson ‎@kevinmeyerson
WTF. Corporate media did a #BernieBlackout on @BernieSanders' speech to promote #Drumpf on #PrimaryDay.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/all-three-networks-ignored-bernie-sanders-speech-tuesday-night-promising-trump-would-be-speaking-soon_us_56e8bad1e4b0860f99daec81 …#FeelTheBern
12:17 AM - 16 Mar 2016

In a statement released Wednesday morning, Sanders congratulated Clinton for her wins in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida and thanked the people nationwide who have lifted his called for a political revolution. Despite an uphill climb to close the gap with Clinton, Sanders said his campaign has the energy and support to go all the way to the Democratic convention this summer.

"With more than half the delegates yet to be chosen and a calendar that favors us in the weeks and months to come," said Sanders, "we remain confident that our campaign is on a path to win the nomination."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



“The problem? No cable or major news channel ran the speech. Not all of it. Not even some of it. As Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim—specifically pointing at how cable news channels CNN, Fox, and MSNBC didn't air the speech because they were "waiting" for Republican frontrunner Donald Trump—quipped, "There just isn't enough time in the evening to get all that analysis in." …. "Political discourse that focuses on the meta, discussing perceptions or gaffes or polls rather than material issues, will inherently serve the Donald Trumps of the world," argues Johnson. "The corporate media didn’t create Trump, but they did pave and light the road for his candidacy’s unconstrained acceleration." …. steve_mikulic ‎@steve_mikulic
The problem is bigger than one night. The national news media is in this for the money, and Trump = ratings.


Why in heaven’s name would MSNs (mainstream networks) ignore Bernie’s speech “to promote Trump”??? Have they been bought lock, stock and barrel too? That is CBS, Fox and ABC, according to commenter called BernieWins2016. To quote the commenter, they are “in it for the money,” and clearly Trump has plenty of money. “Kevin Meyerson ‎@kevinmeyerson, WTF. Corporate media did a #BernieBlackout on @BernieSanders' speech to promote #Drumpf on #PrimaryDay.”

I get most of my news from CBS, and I do like the phrase “Corporate news” much better than mainstream because what they are is corporate. Some of them are radical and not “mainstream” at all. I get news mainly from the Internet sites, but my ideas often come from TV news, Google+, Yahoo.com, etc. Guess I’ll go exclusively to CNN, NPR and NBC and the ever trusty Huffington Post and dailykos now unless I simply can’t find the article in the other places. The last two are indeed biased to the left, but so am I, and they do often carry those important stories that Fox et al just don’t publish because they’re too spicy or “biased” toward the left. I also trust the truthfulness of their stories. As for Clinton and Drumpf, they are afraid of him because he’s proving himself to be a cagey and effective fighter. I don’t usually see that level of pure energy as he has, in the average 75 year. I’m behind him all the way, and above all I trust him. He’s a GOOD MAN.



http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/headlines/florida_nuclear_power_station_leaking_radiation_into_sea

Florida: Nuclear Power Station Leaking Radiation into Sea
MARCH 11, 2016 HEADLINES

Meanwhile, in Florida, the Turkey Point nuclear power station appears to be leaking radiation into the waters off the coast of Miami. A recent study by scientists at the University of Miami found tritium levels up to 215 times higher than normal in the water of the Biscayne Bay. Tritium is a radioactive isotope produced by nuclear reactors. The site’s cooling canals, which are the part of the facility that appear to be leaking the radiation, are currently permitted to operate at 104 degrees—the hottest in the nation.


I don’t care how useful nuclear energy is, it is also dangerous. Clearly in this case their system of containment is insufficient, but why are so few networks carrying the story? It is available on the Net under the heading of Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, in various sources. One says that the FL legislature is studying the situation, and unnamed environmental groups are mounting a lawsuit. One article speaks of the ocean in Biscayne Bay being polluted with radioactive waste, and another of city drinking water as well. I do hope something helpful will be done soon.



http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/01/indiana-senate-advances-measure-restrict-abortions-based-gender-fetal-disability/81167318/

Indiana Senate advances measure to restrict abortions based on gender, fetal disability
Chelsea Schneider and Tony Cook, tony.cook@indystar.com 8:08 p.m. EST March 1, 2016


The General Assembly is poised to give final consideration to controversial and potentially unconstitutional abortion restrictions that would prohibit the procedure when it is sought due to the gender or disability of a fetus.

The Indiana Senate advanced the proposal by a 37-13 vote Tuesday after adding the restrictions to House Bill 1337, which deals with other fetal-related issues. The fate of the measure now lies with its author, state Rep. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne.

Last year, the House scuttled a similar effort to ban abortions sought due to the gender or disability of a fetus. If Cox agrees with the Senate’s additions to his bill, it would set the proposed restrictions up for a vote by the House – the final action to determine if the proposal would advance to Gov. Mike Pence’s desk.

Cox said he agrees with the abortion restrictions.

“I support it,” Cox said. “When you think about it in the context of protecting the most vulnerable, it really furthers the pro-life cause in my view.”

Indiana currently restricts most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But the bill would restrict the procedure earlier in a woman’s pregnancy if her sole reason is because of the gender, race, color, national origin or ancestry of the fetus. The restrictions also would cover a woman seeking to end her pregnancy because the fetus was diagnosed, or potentially diagnosed, with Down syndrome or another disability.

However, Cox said Tuesday he hasn’t decided whether to concur with the Senate’s version because he needs to have more conversations with House members. If he doesn’t concur, it would set the bill up for further negotiations in a House-Senate conference committee.

The bill also requires aborted and miscarried fetuses to be interred or cremated. It also works to restrict the use of fetal tissue after this summer’s controversy over undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal organ donations.

Another measure that would restrict abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected stalled earlier in the legislative session. That measure would have restricted abortions as early as six weeks of pregnancy.

Any proposal to further restrict abortions likely would receive warm reception by Pence, a social conservative.

“As a strong supporter of the rights of the unborn, Gov. Pence will give careful consideration to any bill that comes to his desk that defends the sanctity of human life," according to Pence spokeswoman Kara Brooks.

Opponents of the proposed restrictions say they trounce on women’s rights.

Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, said the legislature shouldn’t go forward with bills that “make no sense.”

The bill defines a disability as a “defect or disorder that is genetically inherited,” and includes a wide-range of conditions including physical, mental and intellectual disabilities. A potential diagnosis refers to the presence of “risk factors” that are signs a health problem could occur. Opponents of the bill say the language is broad and could refer to the age of a pregnant woman.

“Every fetus has a potential diagnosis of disability,” said Sen. Mark Stoops, a Bloomington Democrat.

The bill does not prohibit a woman from seeking an abortion before 20 weeks of pregnancy for other reasons – a distinction lawmakers on both sides of the issue pointed out Tuesday.

“If you didn’t want a baby anyway to start with, this doesn’t stop you from having an abortion for anything under 20 weeks,” Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said.

Opponents of the bill have argued the proposed restrictions are unconstitutional. They’ve noted the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider overruling lower court decisions that found abortion restrictions early in a pregnancy were unconstitutional. States face restrictions in banning abortions before a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Under the legislation, a physician who performs an abortion could face disciplinary actions or civil liability for wrongful death if he or she knows the procedure is being done in violation of gender or fetal disability restrictions.

A woman could still receive an abortion if her fetus is diagnosed with a “lethal fetal anomaly,” which means a baby would not live more than three months after being born. The bill also requires that women receive information regarding perinatal hospice care.

Among other penalties set by the bill, a person who intentionally acquires, receives, sells or transfers fetal tissue would face a Level 5 felony. The bill also makes it illegal for a person to change the timing or method of an abortion to collect fetal tissue.

Call IndyStar reporter Chelsea Schneider at (317) 444-6077. Follow her on Twitter: @indystarchelsea.



http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/28/headlines/florida_indiana_governors_sign_sweeping_anti_choice_bills

Florida, Indiana Governors Sign Sweeping Anti-Choice Bills
MARCH 28, 2016 HEADLINES


Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a sweeping anti-choice bill that, among other measures, prohibits Medicaid and other public funds from going to clinics that also perform abortions. Planned Parenthood has warned the bill could end birth control, cancer screenings and other services for thousands of low-income Floridians. Nearly half of states have attempted to cut money for Planned Parenthood since last summer, when an anti-choice group released deceptively edited videos to falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of profiting off fetal tissue. The new Florida law also requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital or clinics to have a transfer agreement there. Governor Scott signed it the same day a federal judge struck down an admitting privileges law in Alabama, saying it would have a "enormous" impact, closing the only clinics in Alabama’s three largest cities. Meanwhile, a day earlier, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed a measure that, beyond requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers, also mandates burial or cremation for fetuses and makes Indiana the second state to ban abortions due to fetal disability.


IndyStar -- “The General Assembly is poised to give final consideration to controversial and potentially unconstitutional abortion restrictions that would prohibit the procedure when it is sought due to the gender or disability of a fetus. …. Indiana currently restricts most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But the bill would restrict the procedure earlier in a woman’s pregnancy if her sole reason is because of the gender, race, color, national origin or ancestry of the fetus. The restrictions also would cover a woman seeking to end her pregnancy because the fetus was diagnosed, or potentially diagnosed, with Down syndrome or another disability. …. The bill also requires aborted and miscarried fetuses to be interred or cremated. …. Opponents of the proposed restrictions say they trounce on women’s rights. Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, said the legislature shouldn’t go forward with bills that “make no sense.” The bill defines a disability as a “defect or disorder that is genetically inherited,” and includes a wide-range of conditions including physical, mental and intellectual disabilities. A potential diagnosis refers to the presence of “risk factors” that are signs a health problem could occur. Opponents of the bill say the language is broad and could refer to the age of a pregnant woman. …. Opponents of the bill have argued the proposed restrictions are unconstitutional. They’ve noted the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider overruling lower court decisions that found abortion restrictions early in a pregnancy were unconstitutional. …. The bill also requires that women receive information regarding perinatal hospice care. Among other penalties set by the bill, a person who intentionally acquires, receives, sells or transfers fetal tissue would face a Level 5 felony. The bill also makes it illegal for a person to change the timing or method of an abortion to collect fetal tissue.”


DemocracyNow -- “Nearly half of states have attempted to cut money for Planned Parenthood since last summer, when an anti-choice group released deceptively edited videos to falsely accuse Planned Parenthood of profiting off fetal tissue. The new Florida law also requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital or clinics to have a transfer agreement there. Governor Scott signed it the same day a federal judge struck down an admitting privileges law in Alabama, saying it would have a "enormous" impact, closing the only clinics in Alabama’s three largest cities. Meanwhile, a day earlier, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed a measure that, beyond requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers, also mandates burial or cremation for fetuses and makes Indiana the second state to ban abortions due to fetal disability.”



I really am surprised that a state would allow abortions under the 20 weeks on the grounds that the parents just “don’t want a baby,” but won’t allow it for a shocking fetal problem like the Zika virus condition. That, truly, doesn’t make sense as the Senator above said, especially as the law defines “disability” as a characteristic that is genetically inherited. What?? That’s just bonkers. A disability is a disability. Worse, if fetal disability is given as the reason, abortion is not allowed even within the 20 weeks. Sometimes conservatives just don’t seem to have full intellectual capacity, and this is one of those cases.

I not only hate, in general, restrictions on “a woman’s right to choose,” because they know “in their hearts,” whether or not they are mentally/emotionally/financially capable of caring for it at that time. Maybe they will be able to later if they get psychiatric help. I just don’t see the abortion of a baby that has been brain damaged or has extreme physical disabilities of any kind as being sinful or illegal. Of course I agree with euthanasia also. Nobody should be required by law to die a horrible death. The churches should stay out of the matter. You can’t find everything that’s important in the Bible, and what you do find there is going to be at least 2000 years old. I think things have improved since our more primitive days.

You’ll notice that Fundamentalist churches have the most to say on the subject but they aren’t the ones who will end up coping with the child, or in so many cases, paying for its’ food, clothing, medical care, etc. Some parents are literally too poor for that. It is especially painful if they can’t afford good birth control, and became pregnant for that reason, knowing what a hardship it would be. In fact, I think a society that allows a parent who is verbally, emotionally or physically abusive, under the guise of “discipline,” to keep that baby is really going down the wrong road.

The only thing in these articles that is really logical to me is Indiana’s allowing abortion within the 20 week period on the grounds that either parent, but especially the mother, just doesn’t want a baby. That does make sense to me, because in so many cases of child neglect and abuse (check it out in the News) it is due directly to that very fact. The pitiful woman in Texas several years ago who was suffering from postpartum depression is a case in point. She had a complete breakdown and killed all five of her children. Women who don’t want babies absolutely should not be entrusted with one. It’s terribly unfair to the child.

Denying the right of abortion on reasonable medical grounds, however, is ridiculous. The abortion of any severely brain damaged or miserably afflicted child of any type, inherited or not, should be allowed, even if the condition is discovered after the 20 weeks. The "conservative" community has preached especially loudly about the "partial birth abortions," which I can understand. In come cases they are understandably, however. The potential death of the mother, which I don't remember being discussed in these articles at all, is one such case, and a severe disability which doesn't show up in time for the 20 weeks to be a sufficient time period.

I think when they do allow the abortion only of "genetically inherited" conditions, they are moving toward the old business of genetic cleansing or Eugenics. That was done in America as late as the 1940s. These are complicated and serious issues, but the answer to the question of whether or not to prevent or punish abortion legally is definitely NO, on any condition whatsoever. The Supreme Court has definitely stood so far on the side of a woman’s right to choose. I hope they will continue to do so, especially since so many states are making utterly unfair laws of many kinds through the scary “conservative” ALEX program of model laws. This issue and other supposedly religious matters do threaten our nation as a democracy. It concerns me deeply to read about these new cases every few months.