May 25, 2016
News and Views
http://www.redbookmag.com/life/news/a44321/baby-injured-babysitter-case/
This Child's Babysitter Abused Him But Won't Be Charged For the Craziest Reason
Absolutely absurd.
By Brie Schwartz
May 23, 2016
An Oregon couple dared to go on a date night, leaving their one-year-old son in what they thought were the capable hands of their babysitter.
Instead, when they got home, they heard their child screaming while their babysitter slept on the couch, and the next morning, in the light of day, they saw that their little boy, Jacob, was covered in bruises.
The sitter admitted to abusing Jacob, but the sitter can't be prosecuted due to a ruling in Oregon that states the victim has to be able to definitively prove that the mistreatment was intentional, which is difficult to do when the victim is a baby who can't speak.
Jacob's dad, Joshua Marbury, who is understandably irate that justice won't be served, wrote in a viral Facebook post, "Something needs to be done. NOBODY can just hit a child and more to just get away with it because the child can't verbally tell you."
"We had a confession from the abuser saying they did it. Still this person was not arrested because they had to build a case and a jury to find him guilty before they go to jail. (Side note: If I'm not mistaken, if I strike a person in the face and the cops were called I would be put in handcuffs immediately). After two months of waiting we find out that charges are dropped because my one-year-old can't tell you verbally he was abused and my son did not show he was in pain or that this person 'intentionally' did this."
"A dead body can't tell you who killed them. Yet a baby isn't held to the same standard because he can't talk?" Marbury continued.
According to the Oregonian, if the abused person is "impaired," then that could be substantial proof of the crime, but little Jacob's bruises were apparently not considered damaging enough to press charges.
Marbury, and Jacob's mother, Alicia Quinney, are hoping that by sharing their story, the law will ultimately be changed so that no other child will have to suffer from this injustice.
Joshua Marbury
on Friday
I normally keep my matters with family very private cause i dont need the attention. But this is different. TWO months ago if not longer my 1 year old son was smacked across the right side of his face by our babysitter (keep this person anonymous) to the point where MULTIPLE doctors (who in fact showed us hand prints) and the detective said it could have killed him. After several days if not week of being distracted at my job (only commission sales job and only source of income) we had a confession from the abuser saying they did it. STILL this person was not arrested because they had to build a case and a jury to find him guilty BEFORE they go to jail. Side note if im not mistaken (if i strike a person in the face and the cops were called i would be put in hand cuffs immediately). After TWO months of waiting we only find out that charges are dropped BECAUSE my one year old cannot tell you verbally he was abused and my son did not show he was in pain OR that this person "intentionally" did this. I am SO furious that im not using profanity HOPING something is done and this goes viral. I did my part with GOD and your "advise" to not recourse to my own action with revenge. DO YOUR PART, you have a verbal confession and evidence showing a hand print!!!! A dead body cant tell you who killed them. Yet a baby isnt held to the same standard because he cant talk???? Well neither can a dead body. THATS BLASPHEMY. You waited 2 months if not longer to tell us this???? Something needs to be done. NOBODY can just hit a child and more to just get away with it because the child cant verbally tell you. Your help is appreciated in the portland area if we can share or tag news and or local papers etc. Alicia Quinney
“According to the Oregonian, if the abused person is "impaired," then that could be substantial proof of the crime, but little Jacob's bruises were apparently not considered damaging enough to press charges. Marbury, and Jacob's mother, Alicia Quinney, are hoping that by sharing their story, the law will ultimately be changed so that no other child will have to suffer from this injustice.” It is possible that the police might have failed to act because they felt uncertain who had abused the child, but even so the child welfare agency would intervene. In this case, nothing was done and the police dropped the case for lack of proof. Maybe there’s more to the story than has been revealed, but the parent’s Facebook statement has the tone of truth. Her anguish alone speaks for her.
EMAIL -- May 24, 2016
The Sanders campaign sent me this email. In it are the names of 8 up and coming new progressive candidates around the country. This effort to increase awareness and strengthen the organization of progressives could, you know, be the basis of a new political party – “Progressives” would be a fine name, or if the old guard will allow it, a rejuvenated Democratic Party. Then we could build a group who are committed to the views of FDR, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, and others. If we get such people into offices across the country there will certainly be fewer Tea Partiers in there to block all important legislation and try to push through budget cuts to our public school system, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
It’s time for the right thinking Americans to come together and replace the dangerous Rightist forces with social and economic fairness. I am sending Bernie’s email on in this blog to post their names and accomplishments, and to alert the public that some energy as well as hope is being put together to fight the influence of the Koch contaminated parties, some of whom used to be good friends. It’s sad, but sometimes truth is sad.
Bernie Sanders
To
Lucy Warner
Bernie Sanders for President
Lucy –
No president, not Bernie Sanders, not the greatest president you could possibly imagine, can take on the billionaire class alone. And that’s because change never happens from the top down, it always occurs from the bottom up.
That’s why today I am announcing my support for eight progressive state legislative candidates who embody the spirit of our political revolution.
Today, they are state representatives running for re-election or challenging to win their first race. Tomorrow, they’ll be progressives running for Congress and maybe even the presidency. And in 2020, they’ll help determine how congressional districts are drawn for the remainder of the next decade — a key to Democrats taking back and holding the House of Representatives for the decade to come.
It’s up to us to transform the future of the Democratic Party, and that’s why I am proud to ask:
Can I count on you to split a $28 contribution to our campaign and a great slate of progressive state legislative candidates as a way of saying we are going to fight to transform our country, and the Democratic Party, from the bottom up?
Justin Bamberg is a state representative from South Carolina who was an early endorser of Hillary Clinton’s campaign but switched his endorsement before the primary because of Bernie’s work for "racial, social, and economic justice." Justin won his last election by ONLY 113 votes and needs our support in what’s sure to be another close race this November.
David Bowen is the son of Jamaican immigrants who is running for his second term in the Wisconsin State Legislature. He fought for and won a living wage for Milwaukee city employees and is a progressive champion Wisconsin needs.
Clara Hart is a refugee from Mozambique whose family fled from violence when she was just 8 years old. Now she's running for the South Dakota House, where she hopes to continue her work for immigrant families.
Terry Alexander is a representative in the South Carolina legislature who supports raising the minimum wage, expanding health care, and protecting the right to vote. He is a courageous legislator who I'm proud to support.
Carol Ammons became the first African-American woman to win election in her district of the Illinois State Legislature, scoring an upset election victory against a well-funded establishment opponent. She's fighting for progressive issues and candidates and deserves our support.
Chris Pearson is running for the Vermont State Senate after spending four terms in the Vermont House of Representatives. He is a champion on the issues of livable wages, strong labor union advocacy, climate change, and voting rights. This year he was able to pass a bill into law for automatic voter registration. Chris is a good friend of working people and of mine.
Jane Kim is the first Korean American to win election in San Francisco, and she's running to become a California state senator. The daughter of immigrants, Jane is a civil rights attorney who's fought for affordable housing and fair wages in her city.
Joe Salazar is a representative to Colorado's state house who is a tireless advocate for stopping fracking, protecting civil rights, and advancing criminal justice reform. He won his last election by just 221 votes, and your support will go a long way to helping him win this year.
Can you split a $28 contribution to our campaign and these candidates as a way of saying we are going to fight to transform our country, and the Democratic Party, from top to bottom?
We are going to keep fighting for every vote, every delegate, and every state, but this moment also requires helping progressives who are fighting for change at the local level. That is the political revolution, and that’s why splitting your contribution between our campaign and this great slate of local candidates is so important.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
View ad and Sanders videos on this abc news site.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-air-california-15-million-ad-buy/story?id=39342613
Bernie Sanders Goes on the Air in California With $1.5 Million Ad Buy
By JOSH HASKELL
May 24, 2016, 3:15 PM ET
Although Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders' California campaign will still center around large-scale campaign rallies over the next two weeks, the campaign has decided to go on the airwaves with a $1.5 million dollar buy.
The ad will start airing in Los Angeles tomorrow, Fresno and Sacramento.
The 30-second ad shows California farmworkers, scenes of Venice beach and college students contrasted with images of Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders Argues He's Not 'Harming' Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders Blasts Hillary Clinton's Refusal to Debate as 'Insulting' to Voters
Bernie Sanders Will Have More Input in Democratic Party Platform
In the ad, Sanders explains how California has "the power to choose a new direction for the Democratic party.”
California holds its primary on June 7.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-argues-harming-democratic-party-staying-race/story?id=39337863
Bernie Sanders Argues He's Not 'Harming' Democratic Party by Staying in the Race
By VERONICA STRACQUALURSI JOSH HASKELL
May 24, 2016, 12:41 PM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders argued today that he's "absolutely not" harming the Democratic Party by staying in the 2016 primary race, but rather "invigorating" the party.
"I don't think I'm harming the Democratic Party," Sanders said in an interview on ABC's "The View." "I think I'm invigorating American democracy and invigorating the Democratic Party. The establishment obviously doesn't like it. They would like us to go away and do things in the same old, same old."
Follow
ABC News Politics ✔ @ABCPolitics
.@BernieSanders to @TheView: "Absolutely not" harming Democratic Party by staying in race, but "invigorating it"
11:44 AM - 24 May 2016
60 60 Retweets 76 76 likes
The Vermont senator, who continues to battle Democratic rival Hillary Clinton despite her delegate lead, also asserted that he's brought in more voters and suggested that his candidacy has helped the Democratic Party achieve an "unprecedented increase in voter registration among young people, among Latinos."
Sanders also clarified remarks he made in a recent interview with The Associated Press in which he said that the convention would be "messy."
"People in America have the right to demonstrate," Sanders said on "The View." "It's kind of what the Constitution of the United States is."
"It goes without saying ... that I will condemn any and all forms of violence," Sanders said, adding, "I don't see anything wrong with a vigorous debate."
"I don't think I'm harming the Democratic Party," Sanders said in an interview on ABC's "The View." "I think I'm invigorating American democracy and invigorating the Democratic Party. The establishment obviously doesn't like it. They would like us to go away and do things in the same old, same old."
I love to find great quotations, but this one by Mark Twain really sums this situation up: “It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.” Any of you who have seen a real fight between two angry opponents of any species, not one of those fake affairs that you see on TV, you know the truth in this statement. Mark Twain was a very intelligent and humorous “little d democratic” man. For a treat and a considerable amount of enlightenment, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_rTMNnxwSE for Hal Holbrook’s marvelous portrayal of him called “Hal Holbrook in "Mark Twain Tonight!" (1967). This youtube snip is incomplete because I saw him do this at UNC-CH when I was a student there, but it gives you a good idea of the performance. Twain in his later life did go on many speaking tours around the country and the world and “philosophize.” The audiences loved him.
Our great Democratic Party, after FDR, that is, has turned from being the bully on the block to the champion of the underdog. What that change is amounts to vision and hunger. Since the turn to the right under Bill Clinton in order to put themselves more in step with the blue collar white men, we have lost fewer of them to the Republicans but we have become like the salt that Jesus described, which has “lost its’ salt.” The watchdog at the door of American democracy has gotten old and gone to sleep. That isn’t just a theoretical problem. The burglar is already in the house and menacing the owner.
The economy, the environment, civil rights, medical care, jobs, education, true freedom of religion which includes freedom from religion, food and other family aid are all under threat, not to mention “The American Dream.” I wonder how long we will be able to buy books other than the Bible. Let’s get up off our duffs and do something really useful. In Bernie Sanders we have an intellectual leader and a serious fighter. If Clinton is nominated I will vote for her in order to defeat the fascist-leaning megalomaniac Trump, but up until the last moment I’m with Sanders. I’m also in favor of his effort to aid progressives across the country so that we can get lots more of them in the legislature, the Democratic Party, and state houses across the country state by state. Go, Bernie!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-pm-shinzo-abe-slams-obama-over-despicable-okinawa-murder/
Japan PM Shinzo Abe slams Obama over "despicable" Okinawa murder
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
May 25, 2016, 11:29 AM
Play VIDEO -- President Obama warns of growing tensions in South China Sea
Related -- Japan asks U.S. to finally stop military-related rapes, deaths
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe publicly chastised President Obama Wednesday over the recent murder of a woman in Okinawa, which Japanese police have linked to an American worker at a U.S. military base.
"At the outset of our small group discussion, I firmly launched a protest against President Obama as the Japanese prime minister with regards to the most recent case in Okinawa," Abe said at a press conference with Mr. Obama, shortly after the two leaders' bilateral G7 summit meeting in Shima, Japan. "I feel profound resentment against this self-centered and absolutely despicable crime," adding that the case has shocked not just Okinawa but all of Japan.
"I convey to the president that such feelings of the Japanese people should be sincerely taken to heart," Abe continued. "I also urge the United States to make sure to take effective and thorough means to prevent a recurrence and rigorously and strictly address the situation."
The prime minister added that when it comes to "proceeding with the realignment of U.S. forces," Japan "will not be able to make progress" in light of the rising anti-American sentiment over the Okinawa murder.
"There is a tough and challenging road ahead of us as we seek to regain confidence which was lost in the most recent case," Abe said.
Mr. Obama, for his part, said the U.S. is "appalled" by any violent crime that may have been committed by any American personnel or contractor. He extended his "sincerest condolences and deepest regrets" for the Okinawa murder and pledged to assist Japanese investigators to "make sure justice is served."
Addressing the growing international strains over the South China Sea, the president said all the U.S. wants is freedom of navigation, overflight, and enforcement of international rules. Rising tensions, he said, are not of America's making, adding that it is "entirely within China's power" to resolve disputes there.
The president plans to visit Hiroshima during this week's trip to Japan, where he says he will reflect on how "war involves suffering" and how the world should "always do what we can to prevent it."
The prime minister said he "wholeheartedly welcomes" the decision by Mr. Obama to take a trip to Hiroshima, the site of a nuclear bomb drop by U.S. forces in World War II. Mr. Obama will be the first sitting American president to do so.
Abe said that the visit "will create momentum for a world free of nuclear weapons."
The prime minister, when asked during the press conference whether he would make a reciprocal trip to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, said he had no current plans for a visit.
"At the outset of our small group discussion, I firmly launched a protest against President Obama as the Japanese prime minister with regards to the most recent case in Okinawa," Abe said at a press conference with Mr. Obama, shortly after the two leaders' bilateral G7 summit meeting in Shima, Japan. …. The prime minister added that when it comes to "proceeding with the realignment of U.S. forces," Japan "will not be able to make progress" in light of the rising anti-American sentiment over the Okinawa murder. …. Addressing the growing international strains over the South China Sea, the president said all the U.S. wants is freedom of navigation, overflight, and enforcement of international rules. Rising tensions, he said, are not of America's making, adding that it is "entirely within China's power" to resolve disputes there. …. Abe said that the visit "will create momentum for a world free of nuclear weapons." The prime minister, when asked during the press conference whether he would make a reciprocal trip to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, said he had no current plans for a visit.”
A good many years ago, between ten and twenty, there was another American soldier who raped a young Japanese woman, with a diplomatic incident firing up over it. Men, especially soldiers, can’t be fully trusted. A large part of the problem, though, is that American dominance is apparently still a large component in our international relationships in the East, which produces two dangerous things – contempt on the American side and smoldering resentment on theirs. I do hope our military and Department of State have not behaved disrespectfully to Japan. We owe them a great deal for allowing a relationship after all that has happened. I’m sure that among Japanese citizens there is noticeable rancor just as there is in the South toward General Sherman, so a brutal incident against an innocent citizen is more dangerous internationally than we might expect. There has been too much tension in the far East, not to mention Russia and Eastern Europe, of several kinds this last year. Added to the increased problems in the Middle East and Europe, this does make me nervous.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/25/479473829/watchdog-finds-secretary-clinton-violated-policies-by-using-private-email
Watchdog: Hillary Clinton Violated State Dept. Policies By Using Private Email
EYDER PERALTA
May 25, 20161:09 PM ET
Photograph -- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training center on Tuesday in Commerce, Calif., John Locher/AP
During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton violated department policies when she used a personal email account to conduct official business, a new report from the Office of the Inspector General for the State Department found.
The report, which was obtained by NPR's Susan Davis ahead of its public release, reads:
"According to the current [Chief Information Officer] and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, *DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so."
The report also found that previous secretaries of state made similar decisions. Secretary Colin Powell, for example, used a personal email account "from a commercial Internet provider." His use of private email was well known, yet the department at the time had an "outright prohibition on both the installation of privately owned computers in Department facilities and the transmission of [sensitive but unclassified] information on the Internet."
In a statement, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said the Inspector General report shows "how consistent" Clinton's "practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department."
The report notes, however, that by the time Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, the guidance "was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated."
Speaking to reporters on background because the report was leaked ahead of time, a senior State Department official said that "some of the most useful guidance were not issued until 2013." The official said the department also did not do a "good job" making sure that "people understood them and had the tools to implement them."
"This has been a historic and systemic challenge," the official said, adding that they are looking toward the future and are not planning to discipline any current employees.
The report does make clear that Clinton violated policies, the official added, but she also "mitigated" that when she turned over emails from her private server to the State Department.
The official said Clinton's use of private email was well known in the department. In late 2010, the report found, two employees from the Office of Information Resources Management said they brought up concerns that Clinton's "account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements."
The report continues: "According to the staff member, the Director [of that department] stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."
The Inspector General found no evidence that the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Clinton's use of a private email server.
The report concludes with eight recommendations, including adding communication about the perils of using non-government systems and adding administrative penalties for not complying with policies. The State Department agreed with all the recommendations and has begun to make changes. Any email sent by Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, is now automatically archived.
It's worth noting that Clinton refused an opportunity to speak to the Inspector General. Here's the full report: [SEE WEB SITE]
IRM means Bureau of Information Resource Management [OR Internal Revenue Manual]
DS means Bureau of Diplomatic Security
“Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the [Foreign Affairs Manual] and the security risks in doing so."
I have no doubt that her underlying reason for wanting control of the Emails in her own hands was because there had been ongoing persecution of her by Republicans in the Legislature and at least one mention in the news of spying between the Executive and the Legislative branches. That was a couple of years ago. See https://news.vice.com/article/the-google-search-that-made-the-cia-spy-on-the-us-senate, The Google Search That Made the CIA Spy on the US Senate, By Jason Leopold, August 12, 2015 | 12:10 pm. There not only was no trust between them, but no reason for any, on Hillary’s side at any rate. Spy vs. Spy. The following juicy excerpt is from that article:
“John Brennan was about to say he was sorry.
On July 28, 2014, the CIA director wrote a letter to senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss — the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) and the panel's ranking Republican, respectively. In it, he admitted that the CIA's penetration of the computer network used by committee staffers reviewing the agency's torture program — a breach for which Feinstein and Chambliss had long demanded accountability — was improper and violated agreements the Intelligence Committee had made with the CIA.
The letter was notable in part because Brennan initially denied the January 2014 search of the Senate's computer network even took place. And later, when it became clear that it had — and that he had known of it while publicly denying that it happened — he refused to acknowledge that it was wrong. For months, Feinstein and other committee members were clamoring for a written apology to make part of the official record.
Brennan's mea culpa was prompted by a memo he'd received 10 days earlier from CIA Inspector General David Buckley. After the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was tasked with looking into the intrusion, it found that the CIA employees who broke into the Senate's computer network in hopes of tracking down CIA documents the Senate wasn't allowed to see (according to the agency) may have broken federal laws.
"I recently received a briefing on the [OIG's] findings, and want to inform you that the investigation found support for your concern that CIA staff had improperly accessed the [Intelligence Committee] shared drive on the RDINet [an acronym for rendition, detention, and interrogation] when conducting a limited search for CIA privileged documents," Brennan wrote. "In particular, the [OIG] judged that Agency officers' access to the... shared drive was inconsistent with the common understanding reached in 2009 between the Committee and the Agency regarding access to RDINet. Consequently, I apologize for the actions of CIA officers.... I am committed to correcting the shortcomings that this report has revealed."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/25/479460710/defiant-female-ukrainian-pilot-freed-from-russia-in-prisoner-swap
Defiant Female Ukrainian Pilot Freed From Russia In Prisoner Swap
MERRIT KENNEDY
May 25, 201612:59 PM ET
Photograph -- Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko (center), who was freed from jail in Russia as part of a prisoner exchange, talks to the media upon arrival at Kiev's Boryspil airport on Wednesday.
Anatolii Stepanov /AFP/Getty Images
YouTube -- Savchenko "was exchanged for two Russians who were captured while fighting with separatists in eastern Ukraine," as Corey reports.
Ukrainian pilot and national hero Nadiya Savchenko has been released from Russia, where she has been held for almost two years.
The release was "part of a tightly coordinated prisoner exchange" and Savchenko received a "hero's welcome back in Kiev," NPR's Corey Flintoff tells our Newscast unit. He adds that she vowed to "continue fighting for other Ukrainians who are prisoners in Russia."
"I want to thank everyone who wished me well. Thanks to you, I survived," she told reporters in a defiant speech after landing in Kiev, according to translation provided by Ukraine's Hromadske TV. "I want to thank those who wished me harm. I survived in spite of you. And I want to thank those, who were indifferent. Thank you for not interfering. Thank you all."
This comes after a Russian court in March found Savchenko guilty of murdering two Russian journalists in 2014 in Ukraine and sentenced her to 22 years in prison.
As the Two-Way has reported, she has maintained her innocence and called the trial a "Russian propaganda stunt." Savchenko's defense maintains she couldn't have killed the two journalists — because "cellphone records prove that she was captured by separatist militia fighters at least an hour before these journalists were killed," as Corey reported.
As the judge read the guilty verdict, Savchenko loudly burst into song with a patriotic Ukrainian tune.
Displays of defiance like this throughout the trial "turned her into an unrivaled national hero," The Associated Press reports. "A poster with her picture and a call for her release has adorned the rostrum at the Ukrainian parliament for months."
View image on Twitter, Follow, Daniel Sandford ✔ @BBCDanielS
Nadiya #savchenko looking as defiant as ever 8:34 AM - 25 May 2016
34 34 Retweets 33 33 likes
During her time in Russian prison, she was elected to Ukraine's parliament and also "appointed to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe," the wire service adds.
Savchenko's release was welcomed by EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini.
Follow
Federica Mogherini ✔ @FedericaMog
Nadiya #Savchenko is free and back in #Ukraine. Long awaited good news, that the EU celebrates together with her country.
8:35 AM - 25 May 2016
“Ukrainian pilot and national hero Nadiya Savchenko has been released from Russia, where she has been held for almost two years. …. "I want to thank everyone who wished me well. Thanks to you, I survived," she told reporters in a defiant speech after landing in Kiev, according to translation provided by Ukraine's Hromadske TV. "I want to thank those who wished me harm. I survived in spite of you. And I want to thank those, who were indifferent. Thank you for not interfering. Thank you all." As the judge read the guilty verdict, Savchenko loudly burst into song with a patriotic Ukrainian tune. Displays of defiance like this throughout the trial "turned her into an unrivaled national hero," The Associated Press reports. "A poster with her picture and a call for her release has adorned the rostrum at the Ukrainian parliament for months." …. During her time in Russian prison, she was elected to Ukraine's parliament and also "appointed to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe," the wire service adds.”
I can see why she’s a national hero. She’s smart and full of spice. I’m glad to see Ukrainians are alive and well after the recent problems with Russia. Is it possible that things will go back to normal? I do hope so. I knew a young woman from Ukraine at one of my jobs in Washington DC. She was both sweet and strikingly beautiful, with black hair and blue eyes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/authorities-in-belgium-detain-4-suspected-isis-recruiters/
Authorities in Belgium detain 4 suspected ISIS recruiters
AP May 25, 2016, 3:08 PM
Photograph -- Three police officers stand guard at the Meiser neighborhood in Schaerbeek in Brussels on March 25, 2016, during an anti-terrorist operation searching for suspects of the Brussels terrorist attacks. LAURIE DIEFFEMBACQ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
35 PHOTOS -- Deadly explosions in Brussels
BRUSSELS -- Belgian prosecutors said Wednesday they have detained four suspected Islamic State group recruiters, who they said may have planned new attacks in the country.
The suspects were charged with participating in the activities of a terrorist group, the Federal Prosecutor's Office said in a statement. Two were ordered arrested by an investigating judge, one was released under strict conditions and one was released with an electronic bracelet.
The statement said the four don't appear to have links to the suicide bombers who struck the Brussels Airport and subway on March 22, killing 32 people.
Prosecutors said initial findings of the investigation into the suspects detained Wednesday indicated there may also have been plans for attacks in Belgium, but provided no details.
Searches were carried out in the port city of Antwerp and in two other locations.
The prosecutors said some of those detained were planning to go to Syria or Libya and join IS. All of the suspects are believed to have wanted to recruit people to go to those conflict zones, the statement said.
Belgium has been one of the most fertile recruiting areas in Europe for the extremist group, which also claimed responsibility for the attacks in Brussels as well as the Nov. 13 attacks that killed 130 victims in Paris.
The prosecutor's office said no additional details would be made public in order not to hamper an ongoing investigation.
“Belgian prosecutors said Wednesday they have detained four suspected Islamic State group recruiters, who they said may have planned new attacks in the country. The suspects were charged with participating in the activities of a terrorist group, the Federal Prosecutor's Office said in a statement. Two were ordered arrested by an investigating judge, one was released under strict conditions and one was released with an electronic bracelet. The statement said the four don't appear to have links to the suicide bombers who struck the Brussels Airport and subway on March 22, killing 32 people.”
I hope the Belgian authorities will maintain control over what they do before their trial, if there will be a trial. If the law there is like ours, we can’t be jailed for merely holding a viewpoint or being a member of a group. If they had been linked to one of the bombings or had left personally to join ISIS, that would mean a more serious problem for the men. If I were the boss in that situation, however, I would confiscate their computer and cell phone. Of course, that may not be legal.
I would like to know what evidence the police had of their complicity in the matter. The FBI and CIA sometimes let people remain loose so they may be followed and observed. Such a person often will lead authorities to more highly ranked criminals. It is my memory from an article after Bin Laden was assassinated that his location was discovered by just such a maneuver. The Feds didn’t move in to kill him until they were 99.9% certain of their information, and until he was sound asleep, and then moved in with some dozen Navy Seals to take the whole compound. Unfortunately, one of his wives was killed in the firefight.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a35804/20-week-abortion-bans-explained/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-signs-20-week-abortion-ban/
S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley signs 20-week abortion ban
AP May 25, 2016, 4:38 PM
Photograph -- South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley speaks at the 2016 Kemp Forum on Expanding Opportunity in Columbia, South Carolina, January 9, 2016. REUTERS
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has signed legislation outlawing most abortions at 20 weeks beyond fertilization.
The law took effect Wednesday with the Republican governor's signature. The only exceptions are if the mother's life is in jeopardy or a doctor determines the fetus can't survive outside the womb.
These bans are now in effect in 13 states and blocked by court challenges in three other. South Dakota's ban takes effect July 1.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a nationwide right to abortion, states were permitted to restrict abortions after viability. But the ruling offered no legal definition for viability, saying it could range between 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy. The high court has yet to rule on the 20-week bans.
THE 20 WEEK ABORTION BANS
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a35804/20-week-abortion-bans-explained/
10 Things You Should Know About 20-Week Abortion Bans
By Jill Filopovic
January 30, 2015
Abortion rights advocates expect them to be a major issue in the coming year and beyond.
Bans on abortions after 20 weeks have been in the news this month, after one such ban written by Republicans and set for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade was pulled due to mounting concern that it did not include an adequate exception for rape and incest survivors. Abortion foes were nonetheless incensed that Republicans pulled the proposed ban, even though the party quickly replaced it with another anti-abortion bill.
But the battle over 20-week abortion bans isn't over, even if the issue is moot (for now) in Congress. Similar bans have passed in the House before, 13 states have passed bans on abortions after 20 weeks, and several more proposed 20-week bans in the early weeks of 2015. Abortion rights advocates expect the bans to be a major issue in the coming year and beyond.
Below, Cosmopolitan.com answers 10 common questions about the bans.
1. What are 20-week abortion bans?
Twenty-week abortion bans are increasingly popular laws that make abortion illegal 20 weeks after fertilization. They are written, introduced, promoted, and passed by organizations and politicians who seek to outlaw abortion entirely. The National Right to Life Committee has deemed 20-week bans a top legislative priority.
The "20-week" term is a little tricky though. Because these bans aren't written by doctors or medical professionals, they start counting the weeks after a sperm fertilizes an egg, the point at which anti-abortion advocates say life begins but not, from a medical standpoint, the point at which pregnancy begins. Pregnancy actually begins when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus, which is often several days after fertilization. But that's almost impossible to pinpoint to the day, so the medical community assess gestational age from the pregnant woman's last menstrual period (LMP). That means that in practice, "20-week" bans actually ban abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy.
State laws banning abortions after 20 weeks are typically very strict. None offer full exceptions for the health of the pregnant woman. Only a few include exceptions for fetal abnormalities. Only one offers exceptions for rape and incest survivors. The federal legislation, for example, did not offer a full exception for the pregnant woman's health, and required that rape and incest victims reported their assaults to police.
2. Why 20 weeks?
The 20-week bans are often called "fetal pain" bills — for example, the bill that congressional Republicans put forward and then pulled was called "The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" — because abortion opponents say 20 weeks is the point at which fetuses begin to feel pain.
3. Do fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks?
Probably not. While the right-to-life movement has found a few people willing to testify that they do, the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence indicates that fetuses don't have the necessary brain connections to feel pain until about 24 weeks.
4. So if the bans are not scientifically accurate, why are they such a priority for the anti-abortion movement?
Because abortion opponents also latch on to polling that indicates most Americans don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade or make abortion illegal, but are OK with certain restrictions on the procedure (although people back off supporting the bans when they're told about the real-world circumstances under which abortions after 20 weeks might be necessary). Abortion foes realize that gestational restrictions like 20-week bans are one inroad into making the procedure difficult to get and, they hope, eventually illegal.
"These are people who are against abortion in almost all circumstances," said Donna Crane, vice president for policy at NARAL Pro-Choice America. "They're chipping away at reproductive freedom from every angle."
Crane says the 20-week bans are part of a wider attempt to restrict abortion rights generally. Those restrictions target every aspect of abortion care, from requiring women to wait 24 or even 72 hours after a mandatory counseling session before they can terminate a pregnancy, mandating that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals even if no hospitals will grant such privileges, making providers read medically inaccurate scripts to women intended to scare them out of terminating, barring some insurance carriers from covering abortion, requiring that abortion clinics adhere to costly and unnecessary requirements akin to hospital surgical facilities, and blocking Medicaid from covering abortions for low-income women. Crane says gestational age is just one piece of a coordinated assault on abortion rights.
5. Are 20-week bans constitutional?
Under the current legal framework for abortion rights, no. The Supreme Court has been clear that fetal viability is the point at which abortion can be outlawed. Before viability, states can restrict abortions rights, so long as those restrictions don't place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion care. But because everyone's body is different, viability is not the same for each pregnancy, and it's up to doctors to assess the viability of each of their patients' pregnancies rather than the law declaring that viability universally exists at a particular week.
"The Supreme Court has recognized that it's different for every person," Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said. "If you're not well, if you have complications, viability may be later [than a healthy pregnancy], and in some very tragic cases, the baby is never viable. The Supreme Court has recognized that laws have to take into account the medical reality and give doctors the ability to decide when any particular pregnancy is viable."
6. If 20-week bans are not constitutional, then why are women's health advocates worried?
Because proponents of 20-week bans see them as a step toward overturning Roe v. Wade. When the first such ban passed, in Nebraska in 2010, the bill's sponsor, Mike Flood, told the Washington Post, "Clearly my bill walks away from viability as a standard and instead substitutes a scientific standard that I think the state of Nebraska has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life at that point."
When Idaho followed suit and also banned abortions after 20 weeks, a federal court struck down the ban. But the National Right to Life committee celebrated the ruling nonetheless, "because it provides an opportunity to get to the Supreme Court and to further water down Roe v. Wade."
Just because 20-week bans (and other bans on abortions as early as six weeks) are unconstitutional doesn't mean they aren't a threat: Every time one of these bans passes, women's rights advocates have to bring a court case, dedicating time, money, and resources to fighting against it. And someday, these bans could reach the Supreme Court and change the law, if the Court decided to overturn Roe and set out a new legal standard for abortion rights.
"We shouldn't have to go to court every time to ensure that women are able to get the care that they need and that they're entitled to," Dalven said. "The fact that [the bans] are flatly unconstitutional makes people think, 'I don't have to worry about it,' but that's just not the case."
7. Are abortions after 20 weeks common?
No. According to the reproductive research organization the Guttmacher Institute, only 1.2 percent of all abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later. So that means the number of abortions after 22 weeks (those that would be outlawed by the 20-week ban) make up an even smaller percentage of the procedures.
8. If the 20-week bans only impact 1.2 percent of procedures, why should we care?
The women who are most impacted by 20-week bans are often the most vulnerable. And anti-abortion laws are also squeezing women from all angles, making even early abortions increasingly difficult to obtain. That can push abortions to later in pregnancy.
"We've seen the impact of abortion restrictions through news reports and other accounts of how women couldn't access services when they needed them, and that's really interfering with women's medical decision-making," Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute, said. "So [20-week bans] are a big deal for those individual women, even if their number is small. And it's a big deal when we think about abortion rights, because what we're seeing is an attack on abortion rights with many different variations. We see abortion rights being attacked early in pregnancy and we see abortion rights being attacked later in pregnancy and all of that impacts how women access health care."
There are a few groups of women who are disproportionately impacted by 20-week bans:
• Women whose pregnancies have gone tragically wrong. Many 20-week bans don't offer exceptions for severe fetal abnormalities, but 20 weeks is right around the time that pregnant women receive detailed ultrasounds, tests for defects, and amniocentesis. A ban on abortions after 20 weeks means that women who receive terrible news about a wanted pregnancy may not have much time to decide what to do; even worse, they may not have any time at all and be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, putting their own health at risk and often leveraging a great emotional cost. Then there are stories like Danielle Deaver's. Deaver lived in Nebraska after that state's 20-week ban, and when her water broke at 22 weeks, she was told her baby would never survive outside her body and that her uterine walls were slowly crushing the fetus. She wanted to induce labor, but because of Nebraska's law, she couldn't. Instead, she had to carry the pregnancy for eight more agonizing days, risking infection, only to give birth to a daughter who survived for just 15 minutes.
• Women who face serious health consequences. Human biology is notoriously noncompliant with man-made laws, and pregnancy is no exception — threats to a pregnant woman's life or health don't all crop up before 20 weeks. But many 20-week bans don't offer a health exception, meaning that if continuing a pregnancy is going to, say, cause severe kidney damage that will leave a woman on dialysis for the rest of her life, or if the pregnancy will exacerbate an existing condition and make her go blind, she's out of luck.
• Young women and girls. There's some evidence that parental consent and notification laws, which require minors to get their parents' permission before they can terminate pregnancies, may push abortions later. And girls who have only started menstruating, who have irregular periods, or who haven't started menstruating before they become pregnant are also at risk of discovering their pregnancies later. One of those girls was 13-year-old Gina, who was raped by a worker in her house and didn't realize her period was late — her periods were irregular, and she's a child. By the time she took a pregnancy test, she was 19 weeks pregnant. She had an abortion at 20 weeks. "Is that the kind of country we want to live in?" Crane asked. "We're gonna tell that 13-year-old, 'Sorry, your periods weren't regular enough that you knew you were pregnant sooner, so now you're out of luck: You're going to have to carry your rapist's pregnancy to term'?"
• Rape and incest survivors. Many 20-week bans, including the federal one, either offer inadequate exceptions for rape and incest victims, or no exceptions at all — for example, some bans require victims to have reported the crime to police, something the majority of sexual assault survivors do not do. Women and girls who have undergone a trauma like a rape may also not recognize that they're pregnant right away or may be in denial. Some survivors of sexual violence also find it traumatic to have their private parts examined by a doctor, which can lead to them delaying medical care such as visiting a gynecologist or seeking an abortion.
• Poor women. Abortions cost money, and thanks to laws passed by anti-abortion politicians, federal Medicaid — what low-income women typically rely on to pay for their health care — never covers abortion services. Some state Medicaid funds will cover abortions, but many don't, especially in more conservative states. And states are also passing laws making it illegal for private insurance companies that offer plans on the Affordable Care Act health care exchanges to cover abortion care. For low-income women, coming up with $500 for an early abortion is no small task, especially when getting the abortion also involves taking a day off of work and losing that necessary income (many low-wage jobs don't offer paid vacation or personal days), finding and paying for child care (most women who terminate pregnancies already have at least one child), and finding and paying for transportation (for some women, like those in Texas, the nearest abortion clinic may be several hundred miles away). In states that require 24-, 48-, or 72-hour waiting periods, women have to do all of that twice. Putting all those pieces together can take time, pushing women past 20 weeks, when the procedure itself gets even costlier.
• Women whose lives have been disrupted. Women who have experienced what researchers call "disruptive life events" are more likely to have later abortions, especially if their lives have been disrupted by multiple events. Disruptive life events include losing a job, being unemployed, falling behind in the rent, moving, and ending a relationship, and all those things can be such major life distractions that women either don't realize they're pregnant until later or are unable to dedicate the necessary resources to terminate a pregnancy early. "There are women from a wide variety of circumstances who have abortions later," Dalven said. "Every pregnancy is different, and people's circumstances change over the course of a pregnancy. Husbands leave, jobs are lost, all sorts of things happen. For some people, it takes a significant amount of time to overcome the obstacles that it takes to get an abortion, even if they decided early on they wanted one."
9. So it's not just women intentionally putting off the procedure?
No. It's often women in difficult circumstances, including those with wanted pregnancies gone wrong. The overwhelming majority of women who terminate pregnancies do so in the first trimester.
10. Are 20-week bans the only proposed bans on abortions after a certain gestational age?
No. Lawmakers in North Dakota, for example, banned abortions after six weeks (that law was quickly overturned by the courts). And "heartbeat bills" that ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected are a common anti-abortion strategy, and they outlaw abortions as early as six weeks. They're clearly unconstitutional and tend to lose in court, but they've nonetheless been proposed in states including Ohio, Arkansas, Wyoming, and Mississippi. And every time they pass, women's rights groups have to mount costly and time-consuming challenges in court.
The point, advocates say, is that 20-week bans are a smokescreen for a more aggressive anti-abortion agenda.
"[Anti-abortion legislators] say that this is just about preventing later abortions," Dalven said. "But we know it's not. In the first week of the new [U.S.] Congress, they introduced five restrictions on access to abortion, and this is just a part of it. It's just the beginning and just one piece of the puzzle of trying to take this decision out of women's hands. The challenge is for people not to look at each of these restrictions by itself. It's to put them all together in a lineup and make very clear what's going on here, which is attempting to make it difficult if not impossible for a woman to get the care she needs."
Follow Jill on Twitter.
To make phone calls for Bernie, go to this website:
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/phonebank
Wed. 5/25 at 8:00 (8:30??)
https://BernieSanders.com/Revolution/
You're Registered!
Intro to Phone Banking
Wed, May 25, 2016 8:00 PM - 8:30 PM EDT
Add to Calendar https://global.gotowebinar.com/join/5667431960591020036/504577849
Note: This link should not be shared with others it is unique to you.
2. More webinar details:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/additionalInfo.tmpl?duplicate=false&webinar=5667431960591020036&aregistrantConfirmation=1295636289703225603
At the time above, join the webinar.
Before joining, be sure to check system requirements to avoid any connection issues.
A confirmation email with information on how to join the webinar has been sent to you.
Questions or Comments? Contact: dialertraining@berniesanders.com
To Cancel this Registration
You may cancel your registration at any time.
No comments:
Post a Comment