Since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has rejected Obama’s contraception compromise, and since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called the mandate unconstitutional, it’s a good time to look at what the Supreme Court has decided. A critical case is Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in which J. Scalia wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Although there has been a torrent of invective regarding the Smith decision, I find it well-argued and compelling.
It appears that the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Republicans are not happy with the change that President Obama made to the health care contraceptive coverage requirement for religious employers. The President’s announcement about the change yesterday initially met with a “reserved response” from the bishops who said it was a “first step in the right direction.” Hours later, however, the bishops issued a statement “blasting the plan.” Along with others, the bishops are calling for Congressional legislation that would reverse the contraceptive policy.
In a blog post earlier today, Judy Waxman, who is Vice President for Health and Reproductive Right at the National Women’s Law Center, expressed her concern about some of the proposed legislation. Waxman wrote that “opponents of birth control in Congress are still focused on taking away access to contraception introducing extreme legislation that threatens health across the board. The pieces of legislation range from allowing any employer, regardless of whether it is a religious entity, to deny coverage of contraception to giving employers the right to refuse coverage of any health care service they find religiously or morally objectionable.”
Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress echoed Waxman’s concern. He reported that Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, is expected to introduce an amendment next week “that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.
The post fashion show booking photo of Andrew Toothman.
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Sc. 5
Some days when you wake up, don’t you just feel like doing something new and exciting? A way to change things up? Most people follow through with this urge by going to a new restaurant or visiting some place new or getting a different haircut. Perhaps trying a new outfit. Like all ideas, you can go too far with this impulse for change. Sometimes people get an idea and figure anything worth doing is worth overdoing, but I’m still trying to guess where the good idea/bad idea line was crossed in this case. If any forethought was given, I’m thinking the line was crossed fairly early on.
But crossed it was early on the morning of February, 3, 2012, in Neon, Kentucky. Andrew Toothman, 22, was apparently feeling the need to change things up when he broke into the IGA grocery store. What were his intentions you might be asking? I think possibly his intention was to make a bold fashion statement. That or he had simply taken leave of his senses. When the IGA employees arrived for work that morning, they found a surprise waiting for them. They found Mr. Toothman wearing black boots, chocolate and peanut butter. That’s it.
It has long been my conviction that Saudi Arabia is a bigger player on the world stage than it is given credit for in media reports. The normal Western prejudice viewing this country as a cultural, repressive backwater may be true if one looks at the non-royal Saudi citizenry. However, the Saudi Royal family and its minions are quite sophisticated in worldly matters and for years have skillfully played the game of international politics. Odiously repressive Royals, enforcing an archaic view of Sharia Law, can nevertheless be quite modern and sophisticated in outlook. Everywhere in our current and in our historic world, there have been many examples of a nation’s elite demanding adherence to repressive religious standards, while indulging themselves in what is forbidden.
“WHOWhatWHY” an excellent investigative news site run by Russ Baker, a distinguished investigative journalist, ran an article that caught my attention. This article discussed the fact that most media was diffident and/or silent in reporting that Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal, had invested $300 million in Twitter, a privately held corporation:
“Twitter’s market valuation is something like $10 billion (choose what huge number you prefer). Given that, why would this company, which is all about empowering ordinary people to communicate unfiltered and thereby get control of their lives and their governments, sell a big chunk to a representative of one of the quintessential repressive forces—an element that has a stake in preventing exactly the sort of communication that defines Twitter?”http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/02/close-reading-the-saudis-a-twitter-investment-and-the-end-of-arab-spring/
It is common knowledge at this point that Twitter has been the driving force in much of the uprisings now characterized as “The Arab Spring”. With Twitter, government opponents were able to organize their ranks/actions and quickly communicate news updates to people who would not be able to get this information from a controlled media. In an oil rich country, such as Saudi Arabia, ruled with an iron fist by the top half of one percent, there is great danger of overthrow by a people poverty stricken in the midst of great opulence. Mr. Baker finds it curious when in the past year Twitter has had an ominous change in policy, at the same time allowing an investment by a member of one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Is this merely coincidence or an indication of an underlying effort to prevent the Saudi Royals from following the fate of other Islamic countries ruled by despots? Continue reading “Twitters Arab Winter?”→
Eve Ellis, a major fundraiser for Susan G Komen for the Cure, has raised her last dollar for the charity. Ellis calls for the resignation of CEO and founder Nancy Brinker and the nine member board to be replace. In an angry letter, Ellis condemns the decision to end funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast screening as political and misguided.
Texas Southern University Jonathan Chan and Karla Ford have created their own form of clinical education. They are suing the law school in the Southern District of Texas for the D grades given to them by adjunct professor Shelley Smith teaching a first-year contracts class. They allege that the grades were “arbitrary and capricious” and meant to “curve them out” of the class.
While the Sioux tribe in North Dakota is fighting the use of “Fighting Sioux,” the Suing Sioux of South Dakota are in federal court with a rather novel (and in my view thoroughly frivolous) lawsuit of their own. The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is suing the largest beer makers for contributing to the corruption and abuse of members of South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation by supplying alcohol through local stores. The tribe is demanding $500 million in damages for the cost of health care, social services and child rehabilitation.
A former state trooper and Guadalupe County Judge Michael Thomas Wiggins, 58, was almost late for a conference of judges this week . . . he had to make bail to be released from jail on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge.
Television producers in Egypt have been shooting the novel “Dhat” by Egyptian author Sonallah Ibrahim. The problem is that the novel takes place in the 1970s “when women wore short clothing.” That will not do for professors and students at Cairo’s Ain Shams University who forcibly stopped the shooting because the clothing was indecent during that period. Presumably, they could shoot the film so long the characters are dressed according to current Islamic standards — much like requiring a film on Woodstock to be filmed with women in prairie dresses.
The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes in Texas has rejected the claim of “lactation discrimination” as a form of employment discrimination. The claim was made by Donnica Venters who says that she was terminated by Houston Funding for using a breast pump at work. The company insists that she was not terminated but left on her own accord. However, Hughes (left) made that dispute moot by ruling that “Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.”
The University of North Dakota has decided to challenge the NCAA and its threat of sanctions for using Native American names and symbols for its sports team. The UND is bringing back its traditional nickname of the “Fighting Sioux” and said that it will take whatever punishment is meted out by the NCAA. Various universities have withdrawn such names except schools like the the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas who received tribal permission to keep their nicknames.
Television anchor, Kyle Dyer, was bitten in the face by a 85-pound Argentine mastiff named Gladiator Maximus during an interview this week. The dog was the scene of a heroic rescue in icy waters after falling into the water while chasing a coyote. Firefighter Tyler Sugaski who rescued the dog is shown here with the owner 39-year-old Michael Robinson. The video is below.
Debasish Majumder, 54, a court clerk in London, has pleaded guilty to watching pornography during a rape trial in court, including while the victim testified on her sexual assault. Majumber pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office and five counts of possession of indecent images. The latter charge appears to be child pornography found on his home computer. The Right Honorable Judge Nigel Seed (left) discovered the pornographic surfing.
Since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has rejected Obama’s contraception compromise, and since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called the mandate unconstitutional, it’s a good time to look at what the Supreme Court has decided. A critical case is Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in which J. Scalia wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Although there has been a torrent of invective regarding the Smith decision, I find it well-argued and compelling.
