Sunday, July 10, 2011

15-Year-Old Girl Faces Life in Prison for a Miscarriage

It is certainly an anomaly to allow abortion and prosecute the woman below but the basic idea of protecting the unborn certainly warrants some sanction -- if only as a warning to others.

The danger, however, is arbitrary prosecution. Official advice is that women should abstain from alcohol during pregnancy. Yet there is good medical evidence that light drinking does no harm. Would a woman who followed medical evidence rather than official advice be prosecuted in the event of a miscarriage? Possibly. So it is clear that the law as it stands is unsatisfactory. There should be flexibility as to penalty and a clear stipulation about what counts as a breach

While Leftists say that the unborn have no rights, however, balanced reform is going to be difficult

Rennie Gibbs became pregnant at the age of 15 and subsequently lost the baby when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy in December of 2006. Stillborn, it was. Prosecutors in Mississippi discovered she had a cocaine habit and charged the girl under the 130-year-old "depraved-heart murder" statute - which is filed when someone is suspected of placing another person in imminent danger of death.

If convicted of the death of her child under this law, Gibbs faces a mandatory life sentence in the state.

As several outlets have pointed out, Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. The case was argued before the Mississippi State Supreme Court way back on May 25, so currently, we're just awaiting a decision over Gibbs' fate. Their decision could have huge ramifications for the rest of the country.

Right off the bat, that should raise a red flag as to what is going on here. Under Mississippi law it is a crime for any person except the mother to try to cause an abortion.

"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," said Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer who argued the case on behalf of Gibbs. "I hope it's not a trend that's going to catch on. To charge a woman with murder because of something she did during pregnancy is really unprecedented and quite extreme."

The tactic of prosecuting an unsympathetic woman is a purposeful one to blur the line between abortion and homicide. Rennie Gibbs is just one part of the larger puzzle on the new assault against abortion. Since anti-choice opponents have come to realize they won't have much success over-turning Roe vs. Wade entirely, they have attempted to chip away at it with minor encroachments like the de-funding of Planned Parenthood or by prosecuting miscarriages so that eventually pregnancy termination procedures will be so expensive and difficult to do properly that it effectively becomes banned.
It is a remarkably sly tactic that has produced detrimental results for something that is still a constitutionally protected right.

Studies have shown that abortion rates have remained fairly steady whether the medical procedure is legal or not, suggesting in part that making it illegal does little to deter women from having one. Yes, abortion is a political can of worms, especially in America. But at the end of the day the outlawing of the serious medical procedure could potentially be more harmful.

No woman takes the decision to terminate her pregnancy lightly, and Planned Parenthood would be the first to say its intention would be to make abortion safe, legal and a last resort.


Following Media Criticism, TOMS Shoes Founder Apologizes for Speaking at Focus on the Family Event

You can bet if he had spoken at a pro-homosexual meeting, no one would notice or care, but you speak to people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, you are a target

Following media criticism, TOMS Shoes founder Blake Mycoskie has released a statement apologizing for speaking at an event with Focus on the Family (FOTF) about "faith in action." He used the release to make sure people know that his appearance was a mistake and that he and his company support "equal human and civil rights for all." And, he drove home the fact that FOTF will not be affiliated with his "One for One" movement giving shoes to children in developing countries:
"Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret. In the last 18 months we have presented at over 70 different engagements and we do our best to make sure we choose our engagements wisely, on this one we chose poorly.

Furthermore, contrary to what has been reported, Focus on the Family is not a TOMS giving partner.

So there is no misunderstanding created by this mistake, let me clearly state that both TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all. That belief is a core value of the company and of which we are most proud."

"What has been reported" refers to a recent article in Christianity Today that suggested FOTF is "working to become a TOMS international distributor in Africa." Following the event announcement and Christianity Today's article, Ms. Magazine organized a petition through asking TOMS to cut ties with "the notorious extreme right-wing, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-woman fundamentalist Christian group Focus on the Family."

FOTF describes its core beliefs as follows: All people are of infinite value, marriage is the foundation of family life, children are a gift from God, sex is an expression of love, and Christians have the responsibility to promote truth and social policy that improves the strength and health of the family.

Following Mycoskie's statement, media outlets have spun and twisted "Furthermore, contrary to what has been reported, Focus on the Family is not a TOMS giving partner," to mean "Focus on the family misrepresented [its] relationship with TOMS Shoes."

In reality TOMS Shoes was referenced in three sentences of a larger 3500-word feature about FOTF's attempt to "thrive-and survive-past its founder." FOTF is never quoted claiming to be a "TOMS giving partner," only "making slow strides" to to become a TOMS international distributor in Africa.

Do you think this is a sign of things to come? Will companies be increasingly black-balled by the media for participating in any sort of apolitical charity work with groups supporting traditional marriage and pro-life views?


Texas Woman Says She Was Fired Because of Her Gray Hair

Image is important to a business and a woman who won't do even minor things to assist the business SHOULD be fired. When so many women change the color of their hair, to say that a woman has a RIGHT to one particular color is absurd

A 52-year-old Houston woman is suing after what she says was an order from her boss to dye her shoulder-length gray hair.

Sandra Rawline, who was an escrow officer and branch manager at Capital Title of Texas, said she was also instructed to wear "younger fancy suits" and lots of fancy jewelry. When she refused to dye her hair, Rawline says she was told her services were no longer necessary and she was replaced by a younger woman.

Rawline filed an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in federal court in Houston.

Capital Title of Texas says it didn't terminate Rawline in 2009 because of her age or appearance, but because a customer no longer wanted to do business with her. CEO Bill Shaddock calls the allegations "completely baseless and preposterous."


A Sharia law advocate now sits on America's highest court

Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan's views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It's unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder? After all, as Obama's Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court's docket had nothing to do with Obama's eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan's advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?

Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy summarized Kagans' 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School in the following five points. They tell the story of Elena Kagans' "deep appreciation" of Sharia law.


With Kagan's direction, Harvard's Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated "to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world's major legal systems." That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan's direction, her chief of staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Sharia law - fulfilling her mission "to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law." In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.


When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City's Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the Middle East were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Guiliani stated, "There is no moral equivalent for this act." But, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 - Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional law. As presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal's blood money. But in 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal's policies at Harvard.

Not only there, but as reported earlier this year, "Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families" in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama's Solicitor General, said in her brief "that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims" and that the families' claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell "outside the scope" of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

So Kagan actively solicited Saudi financing to promote Sharia law in the U.S., and she actively protected Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.


In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq's Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article "Why Sharia" in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted "Islamists" - the Muslim Brotherhood - as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Sharia as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: "In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world." The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman's promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law by honoring him with the endowed "Bemis Chair" in International Law. Feldman's speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, "outward interpretation" of the Constitution that could "require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations," and allow for an "experimental Constitution."

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman's speech:

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about "Islamists" in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states,

"Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB).the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine."

In summary, Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of "big-lie" forms of pro-Sharia propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not "eschew the use of violence against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine." Kagan's financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East (specifically in Israel and Palestine) were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the prince did not "eschew the use of violence" against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 "use of violence" against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: