Can we please send this woman hating Prick back to the private sector or the unemployment office next month?
There is no real reason for the people of this country to be supporting this pile of pathological woman hating human garbage.
By David Edwards
Friday, October 19, 2012
Tea party-backed Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) suggested on Thursday that exceptions to abortion bans were not necessary to protect the mother’s health because science had advanced to the point that pregnant women can’t die.
In their final debate before the November election, Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth noted that Walsh did not support “exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother” and he “would let a woman die rather than give a doctor the option to save her life.”
“That’s not fair,” Walsh complained.
Following the debate, the Illinois Republican told reporters that abortion was “absolutely” never medically necessary to save the life of the mother because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance,” according to WGN.
“This is an exception that opponents of life through out there to make us look unreasonable,” Walsh explained. “There’s no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing. With advances in science and technology — health of the mother has become a tool for abortion for any time under any reason.”
Statistics released by the United Nations in 2010 indicated that the United States ranked 50th in the world for maternal deaths.
From Counter Currents: http://www.countercurrents.org/mcelroy171012.htm
By Erin McElroy
17 October, 2012
As I stood in the slowly moving line toward the full-body scanner at San Francisco International Airport this past July, the last thing on my mind was my relationship to gender. Probably like most people in line, an array of thoughts were swimming through my head, some more banal than others. I was about to present at a conference on racism sanctioned upon Roma communities through transnational praxes of securitization, and perhaps my paper abstract was most poignant in my head as I approached the TSA. Mindlessly I took off my jacket and sneakers, and upon instruction, entered the claustrophobic space of the full-body scanner. Following orders, I lifted my hands as if being interrogated by an armed officer, and then walked out, ready to retrieve my bags from the conveyor belt.
But before I was able to make my way to my bag, a TSA officer approached and obstructed my way. “Excuse me,” he queried, his face less than a foot from mine, “Are you female, or a guy?”
True, my gender confuses people often. I was born female, and then began transitioning to male several years ago. After a year of transitioning, I decided that rather than fully pass as male, I wanted to remain more ambiguous. Not only did I feel most myself enacting androgyny, but politically I also preferred subverting the gender binary over performing one side of it or the other. Sure, this choice has come with risk and compromise, and I find myself having to practice strategic essentialism throughout various contexts, often to avoid harassment. It hadn’t occurred to me up until this airport moment, that TSA checkpoints were one of these contexts.
“Are you female, or a guy?” He was attempting to conceal a smirk below his professional stoicism.
“Why does it matter?” I cautiously inquired.
“We didn’t recognize your body in the body scan,” he explained, matter-of-factly. “And so we need to pat you down. We need to know which gender TSA officer should perform the pat-down.”
Ah ha! So because my body was not recognizable on the scan, I needed to be further examined. Not because I contained any suspicious objects, but because my gender was deviant. Frustrated and dejected, I pointed to a female TSA officer nearby, and said that she could pat me down. The whole thing took less than a minute, and soon enough I was on my way to the terminal, growing more confused and angry with each step.
Continue reading at: http://www.countercurrents.org/mcelroy171012.htm
Ruling Declares Government Discriminated Against Edie Windsor After Death of Same-Sex Spouse
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; email@example.com
NEW YORK – A federal appeals court ruled today that the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutionally discriminates against married same-sex couples.
In striking down DOMA, the court held that government discrimination against lesbians and gay men now is assumed to be unconstitutional and that DOMA’s defenders could not offer any good reason for treating married same-sex couples differently from all other married couples.
This is the first federal appeals court decision to decide that government discrimination against gay people gets a more exacting level of judicial review, known as “heightened scrutiny.”
The law had been challenged by Edith “Edie” Windsor, who sued the federal government for failing to recognize her marriage to her pa rtner Thea Spyer, after Spyer’s death in 2009. Windsor and Spyer, who were a couple for 44 years, were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York.
“This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish,” said Windsor. “I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity.”
In her lawsuit, Windsor argued that DOMA violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution because it requires the government to treat same-sex couples who are legally married as strangers. Windsor’s lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
When Thea Spyer died in 2009, she left all of her property to Windsor, including the apartment they shared. Because they were married, Spyer’s estate normally would have passed to her spouse without any estate tax at all. But because DOMA prevents recognition of the otherwise valid marriages of same-sex couples, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes.
“Yet again, a federal court has found that it is completely unfair to treat married same-sex couples as though they’re legal strangers,” said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU LGBT Project. “Edie and Thea were there for each other in sickness and in health like any other married couple, and it’s unfair for the government to disregard both their marriage and the life they built together and treat them like second-class citizens.”
Windsor, a senior computer systems programmer, and Spyer, a clinical psychologist, met in the early 1960s, and lived together for more than four decades in Greenwich Village. Despite not being able to get legally married, they were engaged to each other in 1967. Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and Windsor helped her through her long battle with the disease. They were finally legally married in May 2007.
“We are pleased that the federal circuit that represents three states that provide their gay and lesbian citizens with the right to marry affirmed the decision of the district court,” said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, counsel to Ms. Windsor. “Given her age and health, we are eager for Ms. Windsor to get a refund of the unconstitutional tax she was forced to pay as soon as possible.”
Windsor has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case. The court has not yet decided whether to hear her case, or any of several other challenges to DOMA.
“Edie and Thea’s home state of New York has long respected the marriages of same-sex couples and explicitly supports the freedom to marry,” said Mariko Hirose, staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. “It is only right that the federal government respect the state’s decision and treat all married couples fairly.”
For a copy of the decision, go to:
More on this case can be found at: www.aclu.org/edie
WASHINGTON — Beware, Wisconsin, because a “radical lesbian” is poised to take over one of your Senate seats and behave like “Barney Frank in a dress,” according to Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner.
In a column titled “Radical Lesbian Knocking On Senate Door,” Kuhner writes in Thursday’s paper that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is running for U.S. Senate against Republican Tommy Thompson, doesn’t just want to make history by becoming the first openly lesbian senator in history. Because she is gay, she also wants to advance “the destructive sexual revolution of the 1960s.”
“She is … a postmodern socialist who wants government to underwrite birth control pills and homosexual unions,” Kuhner wrote. “Ms. Baldwin has made no secret of her lesbian lifestyle. She is a vocal supporter of gay pride and the LGBT community.” Kuhner criticizes Baldwin, a 12-term congresswoman in Wisconsin’s 2nd District, for her advocacy on behalf of the LGBT community, such as encouraging LGBT candidates to run for elected office, voting to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and backing same-sex marriage.
“The homosexual lobby is no longer interested in tolerance,” reads the column. “Proponents such as Ms. Baldwin want something more: legitimacy that is enshrined in law.”
And while Thompson is “a feisty conservative who embraces small government and traditional morality,” Kuhner writes that Baldwin is so far out of the mainstream that she is effectively the female version of another openly gay member of Congress, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
“The last thing [Wisconsinites] need is Barney Frank in a dress,” he concludes.
A Baldwin campaign spokeswoman declined to comment. Requests for comment from Thompson’s campaign and Frank were not immediately returned.