mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

““La la la, I Can’t Hear You”: South Dakota Cures Gay Domestic Abuse

We all know that homosexuals are big on indoctrinating our children and pushing their agenda. But in their favor, did you also know they’re incapable of committing domestic violence? It’s true! Just ask South Dakota.

In a political statement that basically says, “La la la, I can’t hear you so you don’t exist,” the state’s House on Tuesday approved a bill to revise the South Dakota’s definition of domestic abuse — and to conspicuously exclude the same-sex variety. Of course, it’s not just the Gays who are today magically rendered incapable of domestic abuse. Siblings, roommates – you’re all in the clear now.

You can thank Republican Rep. Mark Venner for clarification. He’s the guy who voted in favor of Bible study in the public schools last month. And it passed. He has also supported drug testing for welfare recipients, the regulation of registered midwives and – wait for it — rules requiring pre-abortion counseling and a waiting period. Little wonder he’s the one who moved to revise the “legal definition of the term, domestic abuse” so that on the bill, the words “relationship,” “partners” or “intimate relationship” would be followed with “with a person of the opposite sex.” A majority of his peers agreed.

Forget that the American Bar Association says that same-sex cohabitants report more domestic abuse than their straight counterparts. Or that the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project says that one in four gay men will experience abuse. And thanks, Venner, for understanding that just like marriage itself, domestic violence is something that God intended to occur between strictly a man and a woman.

 

By: Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, February 29, 2012

February 29, 2012 Posted by | LGBT | , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals To Rehear South Dakota Law Promoting Abortion-Suicide Link

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will re-examine on Jan. 9 whether a 2005 South Dakota law mandating what doctors say to women seeking abortions is constitutional. The court will address again a specific provision in the law requiring physicians to inform patients of possible suicide risks in relation to the procedure.

The provision allows women seeking abortions to make informed decisions and should be allowed to stand, said South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley.

“The state is pleased that the full court will address the important issue of suicide risk disclosures for women considering an abortion,” Jackley said in an email. “The 2005 disclosure legislation was an attempt by the [South Dakota] Legislature to put in place proper disclosure requirements to ensure a women considering an abortion makes a knowing and voluntary decision. … It is the state’s position that the legislative enactment on suicide risk disclosures is reasonable, factually accurate, not ambiguous, and lawful.”

Planned Parenthood officials and other abortion rights advocates argue that a link between abortion and suicide never has been proven, and that the law forces doctors to provide patients with erroneous medical information.

“We believe that scientific research is on our side and that when the court hears the merits of the issue, they will uphold the court’s prior decision,” said Jennifer Aulwes, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. If the provision is allowed to stand, “doctors providing abortions would need to read a medically inaccurate and scientifically unsupported script to a patient that he or she is about to provide medical care to. It brings up ethical issues for health care providers.”

A long court history

The abortion disclosure requirements have been in dispute since their enactment in 2005. Among other mandates, the state law required doctors to tell women seeking abortions:

  • That abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.
  • That the patient has an existing relationship with the unborn human being that is protected by law.
  • A description of all known medical risks associated with having the procedure, including an increased risk of suicide.

Before the law took effect, Planned Parenthood sought an injunction against the requirements, a request that was granted by a district court. An appeals court subsequently overturned the injunction, in part, as it related to the law’s “human being disclosure” provision. In a September 2011 decision, a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court agreed with the state that doctors must disclose “all known medical risks” of abortion, but the court concluded that the specified suicide risk disclosure violated the U.S. Constitution. The full court, and not just the panel, will rehear the case Jan. 9.

The state says suicide is three to six times more frequent in women who receive abortions  compared with women who undergo childbirth. The state’s data primarily relies on a 2009 analysis done by Priscilla Coleman, a human development and family studies professor at Bowling Green (Ohio) State University. She examined the mental state of women who had abortions from data collected by the National Comorbidity Survey, a national mental health survey. She found that compared with other women, women who had abortions were at increased risk for anxiety, mood disorders and substance abuse.

But Aulwes, of Planned Parenthood, pointed to an analysis of the same data in 2010 by Julia Steinberg, an assistant professor of health psychology at the University of California, San Francisco. Steinberg’s analysis failed to find the same connection, even without taking into account preexisting factors such as a history of mental health problems.

 

By: Alicia Galleges, American Medical News, January 2, 2011

January 4, 2012 Posted by | Abortion, Women's Health, Womens Rights | , , , , | Leave a comment

School of Glock-Get Your Graduate Degree Here

It’s been nearly nine weeks since that tragic shooting in Tucson, and you may be wondering whether there’s been any gun legislation proposed in the aftermath.

Well, in Florida, a state representative has introduced a bill that would impose fines of up to $5 million on any doctor who asks a patient whether he or she owns a gun. This is certainly a new and interesting concept, but I don’t think we can classify it as a response to Tucson. Jason Brodeur, the Republican who thought it up, says it’s a response to the health care reform act.

A sizable chunk of this country seems to feel as though there is nothing so secure that it can’t be endangered by Obamacare. It’s only a matter of time before somebody discovers that giving everyone access to health insurance poses a terrible threat to the armed forces, or the soybean crop, or poodles.

Brodeur’s is one of many, many gun bills floating around state legislatures these days. Virtually all of them seem to be based on the proposition that one of the really big problems we have in this country is a lack of weaponry. His nightmare scenario is that thanks to the “overreaching federal government,” insurance companies would learn who has guns from the doctors and use the information to raise the owners’ rates.

However, it turns out that the health care law has a provision that specifically prohibits insurers from reducing any coverage or benefits because of gun ownership. A St. Petersburg Times reporter, Aaron Sharockman, looked this up. I had no idea, did you? Apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid himself stuck this in to make the gun-lobby folks happy.

Which they really aren’t. The gun lobby will never be happy, unless the health care law specifically requires every American to have a pistol on his or her person at all times.

Great idea! thought State Representative Hal Wick of South Dakota, who tossed in a bill this year requiring every adult citizen to purchase a gun. Actually, even Wick admitted this one wasn’t going anywhere. It was mainly a symbolic protest against the you-know-what law.

Actual responses to the Tucson shooting — that is, something that might actually stop similar tragedies in the future or reduce the carnage — seem to be limited to a proposal in Congress to ban the sale of the kind of ammunition clip that allowed the gunman to fire 31 shots in 15 seconds. That bill is stalled at the gate. Perhaps Congress has been too busy repeatedly voting on bills to repeal the health care law to think about anything else. But, so far, the gun-clip ban has zero Republican supporters, which is a problem given the matter of the Republicans being in the House majority.

Meanwhile in the states, legislation to get more guns in more places (public libraries, college campuses) is getting a more enthusiastic reception.

The nation’s state legislators seem to be troubled by a shortage of things they can do to make the National Rifle Association happy. Once you’ve voted to allow people to carry guns into bars (Georgia), eliminated the need for getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon (Arizona) and designated your own official state gun (Utah — awaiting the governor’s signature), it gets hard to come up with new ideas.

This may be why so many states are now considering laws that would prohibit colleges and universities from barring guns on campus.

“It’s about people having the right to personal protection,” said Daniel Crocker, the southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Concealed Carry on Campus is a national organization of students dedicated to opening up schools to more weaponry. Every spring it holds a national Empty Holster Protest “symbolizing that disarming all law-abiding citizens creates defense-free zones, which are attractive targets for criminals.”

And you thought the youth of America had lost its idealism. Hang your head.

The core of the great national gun divide comes down to this: On one side, people’s sense of public safety goes up as the number of guns goes down; the other side responds to every gun tragedy by reflecting that this might have been averted if only more legally armed citizens had been on the scene.

I am on the first side simply because I believe that in a time of crisis, there is no such thing as a good shot.

“Police, on average, for every 10 rounds fired, I think, actually strike something once or twice, and they are highly trained,” said Bill Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner.

Concealed Carry on Campus envisions a female student being saved from an armed assailant by a freshman with a concealed weapon permit. I see a well-intentioned kid with a pistol trying to intervene in a scary situation and accidentally shooting the victim.

And, somehow, it’ll all turn out to be the health care reform law’s fault.

By: Gail Collins, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, March 9, 2011

March 10, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, GOP, Guns, Health Reform, Insurance Companies, National Rifle Association, Politics, Republicans | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: