Kara Jean

bison2winquote:

- Pop Simon, Bang Bead (Visco)

(Neo Geo - 2001)

If it’s Tuesday, this must be another post about a federal judge throwing out a state law banning same-sex marriage. The lucky winner this time around is Kentucky, where U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II overturned the state’s 2004 constitutional amendment against gay unions, writing another of those decisions (PDF link) that aim for a memorable turn of phrase:

In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.

Yep, that’s pretty good. But is there more? There is more.

Judge Heyburn put the ruling on hold, since there are several other marriage equality cases at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, so sorry, no rushing off to the county courthouse just yet. Except maybe to wave a sign that mostly says hooray for our side.

As you may recall, Kentucky’s anti-gay amendment was so lousy that the state’s hot Attorney General, Democrat Jack Conway, announced that he would not defend the thing, so Gov. Steve Beshear, also a Democrat, hired an outside firm to defend the law.

And now the Money Quote for this case: the only defense that the state presented for keeping the law was that “traditional” marriages keep the birth rate stable and help to ensure the state’s long-term economic stability, claims that Heyburn almost seemed irked by, saying, “These arguments are not those of serious people”:

Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have … The Court finds no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages

And if he was unconvinced by the “stable birth rate” argument, Heyburn seems almost irritated that the state wastes his time with by the “economic stability” claim:

The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering. These arguments fail for the precise reasons that Defendant’s procreation argument fails.

Numerous courts have repeatedly debunked all other reasons for enacting such laws. The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Once again, Yr Wonkette is compelled to note that Kentucky appears to have escaped the day without a single thunderbolt, meteor, seismic event, or plague of boils being visited upon the state by a vengeful Jehovah. This brings to 21 the number of federal courts that have thrown out state bans on marriage equality, and even though Yr Wonkette hasn’t covered every single one of them, it is getting increasingly difficult to say anything new or creative about them. Isn’t that terrific?

[Courier Journal]

Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He doesn’t mind the unanimity of the decisions, really.

If you want to spend your morning rage-reading the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., aka, Actual Science Stuff v. People Who Think Your Birth Control Makes Jesus Cry, you may want to reconsider, because it will make you want to burn all the things. So save yourself some time and what’s left of your sanity, put an aspirin between your knees, and enjoy hating these most sucktastic highlights of the Supreme Court’s decision that corporations, unlike ladies, are people, and their beliefs trump your health care. Because men. Because reasons. Because religion. Because because.

Justice Samuel Alito apparently won the coin toss against Justice Kennedy and, lucky fella, he got to mansplain why a closely held corporation is basically a person capable of having religious beliefs, which it believes very religiously, except that it doesn’t take up a parking space when it goes to church on Sunday. Said religious Corporation-American has a constitutional right to restrict women’s birth control if it believes it should have that right because it believes it very “sincerely” and “strongly,” and, as we all know, rights are all about the adverbs, man.

The whiny Corporation-Americans who are probably celebrating their judicial activism victory today with hookers and blow — but for Jesus! — believe that birth control, which is not abortion, actually is abortion. And because the only way they can possibly practice their religion is by discriminating against other people, well, it’s a whole First Amendment thing.

[W]e must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions.

Does it matter whether their “religious beliefs” are in any way, like, scientifically accurate? Nope, writes Alito, because “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.” They have a First Amendment right to believe whatever they want, even if it is mistaken or insubstantial, and that First Amendment right is far more important than, say, a woman and her doctor to choose the best method of contraception for her.

And look: they really believe their beliefs.

As explained in Conestoga’s board-adopted “Statement on the Sanctity of Human Life,” the Hahns believe that “human life begins at conception.” … It is therefore “against [their] moral conviction to be involved in the termination of human life” after conception, which they believe is a “sin against God to which they are held accountable.”

Wow, that is serious! Being involved — a funny word to use, on account of how the contraception mandate didn’t exactly require the involvement of the employer, unless simply existing in a world in which your lady employees can access birth control without a co-pay constitutes involvement, which, well, apparently it does not — is a one-way ticket to hell. And the Supreme Court has a compelling interest in protecting these closely held corporations from God’s punishment. Or something.

So, you are probably thinking to yourself, does that mean that any employer can seek exemption from federal law if they believe — but, like, really believe — God will give them a spanking if they comply? Don’t be ridiculous.

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

For those of you old enough to remember, why yes, this is quite a bit like the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court said its ruling applies to only this one thing, just this one time, it’s not like you can apply it to any other situations because that would be silly, wouldn’t it? We are specifically talking about contraception laws, the justices say, and how those laws only are subject to religious beliefs. You can’t just opt out of any ol’ law you don’t like. So don’t you closely held Jehovah’s Witnesses get any ideas about not paying for blood transfusions. Real people need those. For real reasons. This specifically applies to the lady laws only that are stupid anyway and serve no real purpose.

HHS asserts that the contraceptive mandate serves a variety of important interests, but many of these are couched in very broad terms, such as promoting “public health” and “gender equality.”

Pffft. “Public health.” “Gender equality.” Like those are actual things, scoffs Alito. Why would the Supreme Court ever believe the government has a compelling interest in equality?

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction…Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

Oh, well, besides that.

In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

Do you see the difference? The Supreme Court is certainly not saying you can object to insurance coverage of health care that actually matters, like combatting the spread of infectious diseases. That’s the kind of real public health concern that does not require sarcastic air quotes. Fortunately, since we are only discussing lady health care, and not real health care, it is obvious to Alito and his fellow justices that “requiring the Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage…demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs.”

Seriously, dude. Like, seriously.

Because these closely held corporations are basically people with strong religious beliefs that must be protected from dumb things like “gender equality” and “public health” and the wrath of God, the Supreme Court has a super nifty suggestion for the government and its so-called interest in lady health care. If corporations think certain types of birth control are actually abortion, the government should just pay for those birth control abortions instead! If it’s so important.

If, as HHS tells us, providing all women with cost-free access to all FDA-approved methods of contraception is a Government interest of the highest order, it is hard to understand HHS’s argument that it cannot be required under RFRA to pay anything in order to achieve this important goal.

What a neat idea! Let’s see if we can think of any problems with saying that the government can just go ahead and pay for something that some people who are very stupid consider abortion. Hmm … thinking … thinking …

Oh yeah! Thanks to decades of conservative fundamentalists sobbing like babies that the government should not pay for abortion, guess what the government is prohibited from doing? If you guessed “pay for abortion,” you are correct. Now, of course, some of us who are not idiots realize that paying for certain types of contraception is not actually the same as paying for abortion, because contraception is not abortion, you see, but then, none of us are on the Supreme Court, which has just ruled that if you believe contraception is abortion, well heck, then it is.

So, let’s play a little game. Let’s imagine that the government says, “OK, you black-robed bastards, we will use taxpayer dollars to pay for contraception that some people consider abortion, just like you say we should, because yes, we actually do believe it is that important.”

What do you think the conservative fundamentalists who believe their beliefs very a lot will say next? Do you think they might object to the government paying for something that they consider abortion even though it is not? Do you think they might invoke, say, the Hyde Amendment to say the government can’t do that? Or maybe Executive Order 13535, signed by President Obama, saying (slight paraphrase), “No, seriously, for reals, you guys, the government will not pay for abortions”?

Yeah, but that probably won’t happen. Right?

soda cans produced between 1930’s to 1970’s

kaminas-spirit:

House dressed as a house painting a house on a house

So first let’s get the bad news out of the way: The Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances to abortion clinics, finding that it violates the First Amendment. And now the not-quite-as-awful-as it-sounds-at-first news:

The ruling itself is relatively narrow, according to SCOTUSblog. Essentially, states may pass laws that protect access to clinics, but not laws that prohibit speech on public sidewalks. “The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests,” Chief Justice Robert’s opinion reads.

So, let’s look a bit more at this “relatively narrow” ruling, while we continue to fear the worst. Also, unanimous? Jeeze.

From a pretty good backgrounder at The Wire, here’s what the case, McCullen v. Coakley, is all about:

“Buffer zone” laws — which provide a “bubble” or buffer around clinic entrances or patients — are not unique to Massachusetts, nor are they unique to abortion-providing clinics. They’re meant to balance the constitutionally-protected right to free speech with other constitutionally-protected rights, the right to conduct your daily business. Polling places are generally subject to their own versions of protester buffer zones. And some state laws provide buffer zones around funeral services. Even the Supreme Court building has a protester buffer zone.

But a handful of Massachusetts anti-abortion protesters say that the state law is too broad, and that it violates their First Amendment rights. McCullen’s legal team is asking the court to strike down all buffer zones as unconstitutional, and throw out an earlier ruling from the high court protecting those zones.

It looks like the ruling is somewhat narrower, focusing mostly on the fact that the Massachusetts law’s 35-foot bubble includes public sidewalks, which are pretty much free-range free-speech areas. ScotusBlog sums it up like this:

The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks. It also notably rejects the protesters’ broadest arguments that such restrictions require strict constitutional scrutiny and are viewpoint based.

So buffer zones are still legal, but protesters will now be able to go anywhere on sidewalks. It looks like the ruling “leaves no room for a law requiring as a general matter buffer zones of any size around the clinics,” but it does still allow more narrowly targeted responses to people obstructing clinics:

For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance. If in practice protesters still are obstructing the entrance, then it can consider a broader restriction.

Also, it looks like another decision on buffer zones, the 2000 Hill v Colorado case, remains in effect, if only because in his concurring opinion, Antonin Scalia says it should be overruled — which suggests that this decision hasn’t thrown it out. In that one, the Court ruled that a state can require an 8-foot “bubble” around any person within 100 feet of the entrance to a healthcare facility — though you can bet that challenges to Hill will be next, arguing that 8 feet of personal space is too much if that person is on a public sidewalk. Sheesh.

So there’s your quick-and-dirty overview of today’s decision; we’re hoping to have a more complete lawsplainer on this decision coming at you tomorrow. Looks like the “sidewalk counselors” won’t have free reign, but they’ll have considerably more ability to yell at slutty baby murderers, just as Jesus would want. Or as the plaintiff, Eleanor McCullen describes it, to “engage in personal, caring, consensual conver­sations with women about various alternatives.”  With big posters of bloody fetuses.

Still coming Monday: the big ol’ Hobby Lobby Slutpills decision.

[The Wire / The Wire again / SCOTUSBlog / Mother Jones]

ANOTHER SCORCHER ’94

bloodfarm: Initial impression of Earth, 2014

Nooooooo

Big News for Prolife Budget Hawks: The Michigan state legislature, which can’t afford anything anymore, did some Fiscal Responsibility the other day, appropriating $800,000 to “promote childbirth” and encourage pregnant ladies not to have no ‘bortions. It won’t include any money to actually help feed babbies or anything, but it will throw nearly a million dollars at “Real Alternatives, Inc.,” a nonprofit that opposes not only abortion, but also birth control — oh, and hadn’t seen a single client in the first eight months of its almost million-dollar contract. That really ought to help a heck of a lot in a state with high levels of unplanned pregnancies!

Let’s ask Detroit News columnist Laura Berman.

Real Alternatives is a group that does some truly important work in moving money around to prolife groups. It’s a

Pennsylvania nonprofit that helps anti-abortion, mostly faith-based centers comply with separation of church and state regulations and receive government funding.

The firm seeks out Michigan pregnancy centers that oppose abortion and the use of birth control pills and that counsel women to choose adoption or birth in unplanned pregnancies. Theoretically, state dollars will pass through Real Alternatives to reimburse the Michigan centers for diapers, baby furniture and counseling services.

Or at least that’s the idea, says Berman, pointing out that last year, “Real Alternatives failed to see a single client or sign up one Michigan provider during the first eight months” of its $700K contract for the year. But they did finally spend some $40,000 on actual “services” at some point, according to state reimbursement information. That must have done a lot of good, since they got another $100K for the coming year. Berman also notes that the contract is roughly equal to the total amount of money the state spends on pregnancy prevention and family planning for the same budget period.

Oh, and because it’s government money that comes with that evil “Wall of Church and State” stuff, a lot of the biggest Protestant anti-abortion places aren’t even applying for funding from Real Alternatives, because they’d rather pray with their clients. So the money’s mostly going to a couple of Catholic anti-abortion places, which will use state funding for counseling as well as for diapers and maybe even some parenting classes. And if the money just vanishes into Real Alternatives, well at least it’s better to pour money down the sewer than to give it to Planned Parenthood, right?

The expenditure probably seems like a great investment for pro-birth legislators, since it’s almost guaranteed to result in more pregnancies among women who will then need public assistance, and then can be yelled at for irresponsibly having babbies they can’t afford, the sluts.

[Detroit News]

Follow Doktor Zoom on Twitter. He wouldn’t buy this, not even for a dollar.

magictransistor: R. Crumb. Weirdo Magazine #7 (front & back). 1981.

lyndsayfaye:

Well, THIS needed to be said.

SUBMISSION: The entire contents of a box of Lucky Charms.

Ken Belson, "U.S. Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark Registration", NYT 6/18/2014:

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, canceled the trademark registration of the name Redskins for use in connection with a professional football team, saying that “a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term Redskins to be disparaging.”

Some previous LLOG posts:

"Fenimore Cooper, call your office", 10/7/2003
"The conventions for expressive content words", 10/11/2003
"Of limes and racial epithets", 1/18/2004
"Mascot names and etymology", 5/25/2004
"Disparaging trademarks and the lexicography of tools", 7/16/2005
"Adverbial license", 7/17/2005
"The origin of redskin", 3/26/2006
"When should linguists disclose a conflict?", 12/15/2009
"The Slants vs. the USPTO", 8/21/2013

"A 6-week-old cheetah cub at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park named Ruuxa was rejected by its mother and has no siblings. But keepers have given her a companion, a 7-week-old Rhodesian ridgeback puppy named Raina."

(more…)

(via Cliff Pickover's Reality Carnival)

them-witches:

#I wanna delete my whole blog and leave nothing but this

A World Where Everyone Believes What You Believe in Exactly the Same Way by McMalva Hoffins