Daily Archives: July 7, 2021

Multiple Perspectives on the ERA and its Impact on Womens RightsIn Name Only: The Inequality of the Equal Rights Amendment

By Cathi Herrod

The Equal Rights Amendment made more sense in 1923. Women had just won the right to vote three years prior, and the first woman to serve in Congress was elected just three years before that. Amending the Constitution to affirm those achievements would have radically changed womens standing in society.

But even without the ERA, women had made great strides by the time the effort resurfaced in 1972. Women had held a presidential cabinet position, sat on a federal court bench, headed a political party, and more.When the ERA hit the second deadline without reaching the 38 state ratification requirement in 1982, it had lost much of its urgency. Sandra Day OConnor had become the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Just two years later, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket. It has only progressed from there.

To clamor for the ERA, breathlessly painting women as victims who need their own Constitutional Amendment, while Vice President Kamala Harris stands one breath away from becoming President of the United States, is laughable. Heres why:

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled for decades that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects women from unequal treatment under the law.In 1971 one year before the first resurgence of the ERA Reed v. Reed set precedent when the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to unanimously strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Twenty-five years later, in the United States v. Virginia, the Court affirmed Reed, writing, Since Reed, the Court has repeatedly recognized that neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with equal protection when a law or official policy denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature-equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.

The American Civil Liberties Union boasted a 40-year precedent of equality for women. The ACLUs Womens Rights Project Director, Lenora Lapidus, was adamant back in 2011, saying, Since the 1971 case,Reed v. Reed, it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.

Neither does the wage gap claim stand up to scrutiny. Women usually do not do the same job, working the same hours, with the same background as men. Women typically work fewer hours than men; they choose different education and training; they choose different career paths; and they take time out of the workforce or choose to work from home over higher wages.When the work is comparable and women are denied equal pay, the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws ensure equal pay under the threat of penalty. For example, the University of Arizona recently paid $100,000 to settle a gender disparity lawsuit.

So, why in 2021 do we see such an effort to convince women they are not equal under the law, and will not be until a nearly one-hundred-year-old idea is carved into our Constitution?Because a well-funded, politically active industry stands to benefit in a major way. Dont take my word for it, listen to what those in the abortion lobby acknowledge.

The same ACLU that cited Reed in its understanding of womens rights ten years ago now ignores the landmark case and 40 years of precedent, demanding the ERAs passage. The ACLU argues that the ERA would pave the way to reproductive freedom meaning near-unrestricted abortion. The National Organization for Women writes, [the] ERA properly interpreted could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception. NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraised on the link between the ERA and abortion, claiming it would enshrine abortion in the U.S. Constitution, writing, The ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to an abortion by clarifying that the sexes have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws because they violate the constitutional right to privacy and sexual equality.

Pro-abortion activists have used state ERAs to roll back commonsense abortion restrictions and force taxpayers to fund abortions. They have done it in New Mexico and Connecticut, and are trying it in other states.

Legal counsel for the National Womens Law Center, Emily Martin, confirmed the pro-abortion agenda, with the Associated Press reporting, Martin affirmed that abortion access is a key issue for many ERA supporters; she said adding the amendment to the constitution would enable courts to rule that restrictions on abortion perpetuate gender inequality.

Another recent article quoted the then-acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood on the subject, stating, There are no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.

The equal rights amendments modern purpose extends beyond expanding abortion, as well. Although the phrase discrimination on the basis of sex referred to women in 1923 and 1972, that is no longer the case. Courts have recently interpreted the word sex more broadly to include sexual identity, which means the ERA would protect biological men identifying as women. This redefinition not only negates the intent of the original ERA but also necessitates the violation of womens rights.

Under the 2021 ERA, women are expected to forfeit to biological men their privacy and safety in locker rooms, showers, domestic violence shelters, even elementary school restrooms. They must also surrender their Title IX protections, relinquishing their athletic dreams and the scholarships and other benefits that come with excelling in sports. Women and girls must acquiesce to the new male dominant female sports.

The LGBTQ website Advocate recognizes this opportunity, writing, This burgeoning case law suggests trans+ people are protected under the current interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex it stands to reason that trans+ people may also fall under the umbrella of the ERAs protections.

With these new opportunities for special interest groups to swiftly and permanently obtain their goals under the guise of womens rights, one can begin to see why the Equal Rights Amendment is a top priority in 2021 and why they disregard obvious obstacles.

For example, a federal judge recently ruled the post-deadline ratification votes of three states came too late. Also, three other states rescinded their ratification votes, casting additional doubt on the optimistic viewpoint that the ERA is a Senate vote away from reality. The U.S. House voted in March to simply and retroactively dissolve the congressionally imposed and long passed deadline.They even ignore womens rights champion, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who cautioned against ignoring the deadline by suggesting proponents start over.

Yes, start over if you must. Mount a campaign for a new Equal Rights Amendment if you think it necessary. But, do not leave out the word women and claim women are the beneficiaries when in reality, they will pay the highest price.

By Kim Forde-Mazrui

Dear ERA supporter,

I strongly support the goals of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Womens equality is a legal and moral imperative that has not been achieved. Unfortunately, the current ERA would likely endanger womens equality. It would fail to advance womens equality over current law and, worse, it would likely prohibit efforts to advance womens equality.

Let me put my perspective and beliefs up front. Women should be equal to men in all respects, including legally, politically, economically, and socially. In addition, neither sex should be expected to serve particular social roles. Womens health and reproductive rights, including access to abortion, should be protected by law. The substantial inequality that persists today does not result from inherent differences between the sexes but rather from past and present discrimination, by law and custom, against women and girls that has limited and continues to limit their opportunities. Some laws have also aided womens equality over the past fifty years but much more needs to be done.

The ERAs main provision reads, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex. The ERA thus purports to ban laws and other government actions that discriminate on the basis of sex.

The equal rights amendment would make unconstitutional virtually any state or federal policies that intentionally discriminate against women. Examples include discrimination by government agencies and employers, public schools and colleges, the criminal justice system, and the military, and it would prohibit gender-motivated harassment and violence against women by government officials.

The ERAs good is largely redundant, however, because the Supreme Courts (Court) interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) already prohibits virtually all sex discrimination by the government against women. The ERA would thus make unconstitutional what is already unconstitutional.

The ERA fails to address principal sources of womens inequality that rightly concern ERA supporters. The ERA would only prohibit sex discrimination by the government. Most occupations in which women receive unequal pay and suffer harassment are private, and most violence against women is committed by men as private individuals. The ERA would also likely apply only to intentional discrimination, not to laws or policies that have a discriminatory impact on women not proven to be intentional. Nor would the ERA likely protect reproductive rights as the Court (counterintuitively) does not view such rights as sex-based, but rather as privacy-based; nothing in the ERA specifies that pregnancy or abortion should be viewed as sex-based.

My strongest concern with the equal rights amendment is that the Court would likely interpret the ERA to prohibit affirmative efforts through law and government policy to advance womens equality. The Court would likely apply the ERA to sex discrimination similar to how the Court applies the EPC to race discrimination. As scholars of racial equality know, the Court applies the EPC in an increasingly color-blind manner, prohibiting virtually all race-conscious government actions, including laws and policies designed to enhance opportunities for Black people and other historically disadvantaged racial groups. By expressly banning discrimination on account of sex, the ERA would likely cause the Court to require the government to be sex blind.

For example, public schools of higher education would no longer be able to recruit for fields such as STEM, business, and medicine which have an underrepresentation of women, because the Court would likely hold that such policies discriminate against men. Similarly, federal, state, and local governments could no longer preferentially award even a small percentage of government contracts to women-owned businesses because such practices take account of sex. Similarly, legislatures and government institutions would no longer be able to seek to increase the representation of women in mid- and high-level management and corporate boards. For example, Californias recent law requiring at least one woman on corporate boards would be invalidated. Government employers that provide maternity leave, or laws that require such leave in the private sector, would be legally vulnerable. The foregoing policies all take account of sex by seeking to support women.

The ERAs prohibitive effect would, moreover, likely extend to policies that rely on sex-neutral criteria if motivated at all by a desire to help women. As my scholarship on race equality explains, the Court views laws and policies that have a race-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use race-neutral means. Under the ERA, the Court would likely view laws and government policies that have a sex-based purpose as discriminatory even if they use sex-neutral means.

For example, laws designed to support women workers by requiring or merely encouraging paid parental or family leave (not just maternal leave) could be challenged under the ERA as discrimination against men. Or laws designed to promote equal pay for women by prohibiting employers from basing salary on an applicants prior salary could be invalidated under the ERA, because such laws would be motivated by a concern for women: i.e., on account of sex.

My prescription is twofold. First, we should let the current equal rights amendment go. It is worse than the status quo for womens equality. Second, we should promote an alternative ERA. For example, feminist legal scholars Catharine MacKinnon and Kimberl Crenshaw have proposed an Equality Amendment that would require affirmative efforts to advance sex equality, including for LGBTQ people. Also, several European countries have sex equality provisions in their constitutions, something ERA supporters point out. What such supporters seem not to recognize, however, is that, unlike the ERA, such constitutions expressly authorize policies to benefit women, and some even require a minimum representation of women leaders in corporations and legislatures. We can learn from the foregoing alternatives to draft and promote a more promising ERA.

I conclude with what I have observed elsewhere:

The failure of the ERA to address the sex inequalities of today is not the fault of those who proposed the ERA or of those who have fought for its ratification over the ensuing decades. When proposed in 1923, few, if any, Americans imagined that constitutional provisions that guarantee race and sex equality would be interpreted by courts to invalidate efforts to achieve race and sex equality. Intentional discrimination against Blacks and women, by government and private actors, was pervasive. Race and sex equality advocates sought to enlist the courts in prohibiting discrimination against Black people and women. But no one thought that constitutionalizing race or sex equality would prohibit the very political institutions that were oppressing Blacks and women from trying to rectify that oppression. Nonetheless, that is the state of the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on race, one that requires color-blindness even at the expense of racial equality and one that will likely be reinforced by the recent rightward shift of the Court. Similarly, the ERA would likely mandate sex blindness at the expense of womens equality.

This article is part of Divided We Falls Constitutional Questions series, covering a range of political topics fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and democratic institutions. Through this series, we ask constitutional scholars, journalists, elected officials, and activists to discuss how these ideals are and are not implemented today. If you want to read more pieces like this, clickhere.

Cathi Herrod

Cathi Herrod is serving her sixteenth year as president of the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). A champion of the pro-family movement, and an award-winning public policy leader, Arizona newspapers have recognized her as one of the ten most influential leaders of the 2000-2009 decade. She is the recipient of the Family Champion Award from Focus on the Family and the William Wilberforce award from Students for Life of America. One-hundred-seventy-four (174) CAP-supported bills have been passed into law since CAP made its first appearance at the state Capitol in 1995.

Kim Forde-Mazrui

Kim Forde-Mazrui teaches Constitutional Law, Employment Discrimination, Criminal Law, and Race and Law at the University of Virginia. His scholarship focuses on equal protection, especially involving race and sexual orientation. His articles have been published in several prestigious law journals, including the University of Chicago Law Review, the California Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and the Georgetown Law Journal. At Virginia, Forde-Mazrui has also served as the Barron F. Black Research Professor and the Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Research Professor of Law. In 2003, he was appointed the inaugural director of the Center for the Study of Race and Law. Forde-Mazrui holds a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Michigan and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

More:

Do We Need the Equal Rights Amendment Today? Divided We Fall - Divided We Fall

Michael Morse| Guest columnist

Michael Morse (mmorsepfd@gmail.com), a monthly contributor, is the author of "Let There be Light" and other books and a former captain with the Providence Fire Department.

A spirit of rebellion is in the air; people are questioning authority, standing up to government overreach, rejecting forced narratives being preached over the air and social media waves and following their instincts. When something feels wrong we trust common sense earned through experience and question the source, expose the frauds and celebrate the truth when and where we can find it.

This is a different kind of uprising than any in our history. The forces that seek to discredit us, and ridicule our beliefs are strong. They are united. They are relentless. They are absolutely certain that their way is the right way, and no matter what we sayor how much we reason, our words fall on deaf ears.

They are our children. It seems we just cannot trust anyone under 30.

This oppressive regime that we created has managed to create misery out of opportunity, racism from equality, censorship over free speech and oppression over liberty has decided for all of us that fun is a thing of the past. Until everybody thinks and behaves alike there will be no progress. Garage bands that shouted teen rebellion into quiet neighborhoods have been replaced by lonely kids in basements laying down computerized beats for other lonely kids to rap over.

A fun night out is no longer a keg party in the woods, Its an edible enhanced protest against something they have never experienced, led by people who are using them for leverage.

The adults in the room have literally fought for liberty, civil rights, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. We have survived decades of unrest, upheaval, numerous shifts in political philosophy and a few wars. We have worked for minimum wage, and paid our college loans, rented crummy apartments in crummy neighborhoods and somehow survived. We figured out how to navigate the world as it was presented to us.

We paid 18% interest on our first mortgages, worked second jobs, then another on weekends, treated those around us with respect and never considered blaming our elders for our problems.

But more important than all of that; we did not forgot how to have fun. Life can be miserable, and it can be great, all in the exact same place. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. People over 30 know how much fun can be had, and spent vast amounts of time figuring out how to have it. Nobody gave it to us, we made life fun.

I hope that some day soon the Malcontent Generation will figure things out, and stop demanding and start living. It is by enjoying what those who came before us have created that we progress. Being obsessed with righting the wrongs of the past leaves one stranded in a quagmire of irresolvable rage. Embracing the progress we have achieved while acknowledging the sins of our past, and then working toward making the world a better, more harmonious place, leads to a far more satisfying existence.

The amazing American Experiment has led us to this moment. We are 330 million individuals free to lead our lives to the best of our ability. Our republic gives us freedom from the demands of the majority. We do not have to go along to get along, and that is the beauty of this place.

Never in history have people from every corner on earth, in every shape, color, religious belief and orientation lived together peacefully under the same set of laws. We are a work in progress. Engaging in battles between races, genders, generations and sexes squanders so much, and accomplishes so little.

Original post:

Opinion/Morse: Never trust anybody under 30 - The Providence Journal

Facebook

San Cristobal (Agenzia Fides) - "With pain we have learned of the murder of our brother Simn Pedro Prez Lpez, an indigenous Tzozil, catechist of the parish of Santa Catarina, in Pantelho, diocese of San Cristbal de las Casas, who was president of Civic organization Abejas de Acteal, whose members have waged a peaceful struggle in the search for justice". Thus begins the statement of the diocese of San Cristbal de las Casas, in the state of Chiapas, signed by the Bishop, Mgr. Rodrigo Aguilar Martnez, by the Auxiliary Bishop, Mgr. Luis Manuel Alfaro Lpez, by the Chancellor and by the Vicar of "Justice and Peace". The Acteal massacre, named after the small indigenous village in the state of Chiapas, was committed on December 22, 1997: a paramilitary group killed 45 people, of the Tzotzil ethnicity, mostly women and children, while they were in church. In the text, sent to Fides, which bears the date of July 6, 2021, it is recalled: "In the context of the spiral of violence that we are experiencing in the State of Chiapas, added to the pain of the Tsotsil, Tzeltal, Ch'ol, Totic, Tojolabal peoples, are an open wound for the diocese, aggravated by countless testimonies of abuse, injustice and impunity, forced displacement, murder, political murder, theft of land and vehicles. Our memory reminds us of the events that took place before the Acteal massacre, which we struggle to forget". The diocese notes that several inhabitants of the municipality of Pantelh have denounced "that for several years they have suffered threats from people from the municipal authority who conspire with organized crime in the municipal seat and different communities of Pantelh, as well as the murders of people who have been left without justice being applied". He then recalls the murder of four people belonging to a political party, which took place on March 13, 2021, and underlines that "after the June 6 elections, violence and murders in this town hall have increased". After citing the analyzes of the Latin American continent and the dynamics that generate oppression, terror and death, the text denounces: "As a diocese, in various ways we have warned the municipal, state and federal authorities of these situations and we have become spokespersons for all these complaints and sufferings, but it seems that there are obscure interests that cause the omission of complaints, which are minimized. We are still witnessing, in Chiapas, the reactivation of the forces that have changed from paramilitaries to organized crime, allies of the narco-government, who have invaded our state to control the resistance of the organized peoples who defend their autonomy". This situation, continues the text of the diocese, pushes us to ask the government authorities to prevent similar events from happening again; to protect the population, especially those who defend human rights; to report on the progress of the cases that have so far gone unpunished. They then call on the "intellectual and material" perpetrators of acts that cause terror, cruelty and death to repent and change their attitudes according to God's plan. "May the blood of Simn Pedro and of all the murdered people - he concludes - be the seed for the liberation of indigenous children who suffer marginalization, persecution and displacement. The blood cries out for peace, the blood cries out for justice but never cries out for revenge". (SL) (Agenzia Fides, 7/7/2021)

See the article here:

AMERICA/MEXICO - An indigenous catechist, defender of rights, assassinated, the diocese's complaints on the increasing violence in Chiapas are not...

Are you kind of, sort of, not really into the fact that the Olympics are still going to happen later this month in Tokyo despite the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that the vast majority of our planets 7.8 billion people remain unvaccinated, with alarming outbreaks cropping up worldwide?

If so, youve got a friend in Kayoko Takahashi.

According to the Tokyo Reporter, the 53-year-old woman from Hitachi attempted to extinguish the flame of the Olympic torch as it passed through Mito en route to Japans capital on Sunday by shooting at it with a squirt gun.

We are opposed to the Olympics! she can be heard shouting in a video that has since gone viral on social media as she takes aim at the torch. Stop the Olympics!

Apparently, Takahashis opposition stems from the fact that only 14% of Japans population has been fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

Her efforts to extinguish the flame ultimately proved unsuccessful, though she was arrested for deliberately aiming at the runner [carrying the torch] and interfering with the relay, Noriaki Nagatsuka, Mitos deputy chief of police, told Vice News.

In Takahashis defense, its actually hard to put out an Olympic torch. (Unless youre a literal rainstorm, like the one at the 1976 Montreal Games that managed to put out the entire gigantic flame in the stadium.) Many have attempted to do just that, though! And often for political reasons. Others have taken advantage of the torchs far-reaching media visibility to stage other kinds of protests while leaving the flame itself alone. Here are some notable examples from the past few decades.

As the Olympic torch relay entered its final stretch on the way to Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Games, a young man hurled a bucket of water at it in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to extinguish it.

The man was not the only one who attempted to put out the torch in the lead-up to the 2016 games in Brazil. As the flame passed through Angra dos Reis, a group of striking teachers furious at Rios state government for funding the Olympics while not paying them for two months seized upon it, successfully putting it out as part of their protest.

Two years earlier on the torch relay to Sochi, a gay rights activist attempted to wave a rainbow flag as the flame passed through Voronezh, presumably to call attention the Russian state oppression of LGBTQ+ people. He was tackled and detained by police for doing so.

As the Olympic torch passed through London on the way to the 2008 Games in Beijing, a protester unsuccessfully tried to put it out using a literal fire extinguisher.

French protesters succeeded where that fire extinguisher fan failed, though, successfully extinguishing the flame at least three times in an effort to call attention to the Chinese governments record of human rights abuses in occupied Tibet.

And finally, we have ... bong hits for Jesus? Yep! Bong hits for Jesus. In 2002, an Alaska high school student held up a banner advocating BONG HITS 4 JESUS on the side of the Olympic torch relay as it cut through Juneau on the way to Salt Lake City. His 10-day suspension gave way to a first amendment legal battle, culminating with a 2007 supreme court ruling in favor of school administrators.

Link:

There is a light that sometimes goes out: the Olympic torch protests - The Guardian

After a year of lockdowns and letdowns, many Americans wanted to do Independence Day up right. They were ready to party, to let their patriotic party flags fly.

Only, according to The New York Times last weekend, flying the American flag is now problematic.

An article headlined A Fourth of July Symbol of Unity That May No Longer Unite suggested waving the national symbol is actually a political partisan act. Today, flying the American flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a persons political affiliation in a deeply divided nation, the Times wrote.

To paraphrase Woody Guthrie, this flag was made for you not me.

That was certainly the message of progressive Democrat and Squad member Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri:

When they say that the 4th of July is about American freedom, remember this: the freedom theyre referring to is for White people, Bush tweeted. This land is stolen land and Black people still arent free.

Not surprisingly, the tweet sparked a backlash in conservative media. But it also sent many progressivesto the Twitter barricades to re-tweet her message and defend her views.

Bush isnt a national political figure like her fellow Squad members such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but her message seems to fit right in. And while some Democrats might want to dismiss her as part of the fringe, they cant do the same to The New York Times, or The Washington Post, or National Public Radio.

The same day the Times was declaring the U.S. flag politically suspect, their fellow travelers at NPR were adding a trigger warning for the first time ever to their annual reading of the Declaration of Independence.

Over the past 32 years, Morning Edition has broadcast a reading of the Declaration of Independence by NPR staff as a way of marking Independence Day, the host announced. But after last summers protests and our national reckoning on race, the words in the document land differently.

It famously declares that all men are created equal even though women, enslaved people, and Indigenous Americans were not held as equal at the time, the host added before listing more grievances against the Founders.

And The Washington Post took the opportunity of the Fourth to argue its time to reconsider another iconic American symbol. Maybe Its Time To Admit That the Statue of Liberty Has Never Quite Measured Up, they wrote.

Not to be outdone, longtime MSNBC regular and social justice activist Toure tweeted,Fk Independence Day. Not only were we not free, the whole reason the Colonies wanted independence was because Britain was moving toward abolishing slavery. Why would Black people celebrate a day so wrapped up in our enslavement?

Democrats can dismiss claims that their party is anti-American or at the least unpatriotic and these examples as mere anecdotes. The problem is that these ugly claims about the grand old flag and the home of the free and the brave are now at the center of Democratic Party politics.

And as a result, theyre likely to be a drag on even the most patriotic Democratic candidates in their wake.

The fundamental premise of the Critical Race Theory, for example, is that America is a racist nation, infected with systemic racism and full of racist (read White) people who are pillars of the countrys white supremacy. New Hampshire Democratic legislators literally took turns during the budget debate declaring that not only is this true, but properly educating students is impossible if teachers cant advance these ideas.

They continue to insist, today, that refusing to allow government workers to use CRT is racist, as a recent House Democratic Caucus press release called it.

The Democrats economic policies are also premised on the notion that America is an unfair place where the rich (read White people) steal from the poor (read people of color.) Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have called for widespread wealth confiscation in the pursuit of economic justice.

In fact, Democrats went so far as to pass a COVID relief bill that gives some forms of COVID relief only to people of color, denying funding to White farmers and business owners in need. (Courts have since struck down those racist policies.)

It may come as a shock to Democrats in swing states like Arizona and New Hampshire, but when your party keeps bashing America as a racist hellhole and its flag a symbol of hate and oppression, voters are eventually going to notice. Theyll be tempted to conclude that being part of the Democratic Party thats pushed this anti-patriotism says something about the politicians who are members, and cast their votes in 2022 accordingly.

In the past, Republicans tried to label Democrats as unpatriotic, using issues like the War on Terror as political wedges. Not this time.

Saying Democrats dont like America isnt an accusation. Its quoting them accurately. Its not a smear from some right-wing talk host. Its the front page of The New York Times.

See the article here:

After This Fourth of July, Democrats Should Plead the Fifth InsideSources - InsideSources

On the eve of the entry into force of Hungarys new anti-LGBTIQ law, parliamentarians took aim at the gradual dismantling of the rule of law in Hungary during a plenary debate on Wednesday.

On June 15, the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law originally intended to fight paedophilia, which, following amendments proposed by members from the ruling Fidesz party, contains clauses prohibiting the portrayal of homosexuality and gender reassignment to minors.

The law also prohibits homosexuality and gender reassignment from being featured in sex education classes and stipulates that such classes can now only be taught by registered organisations.

On June 22, 18 Member States issued a statement expressing grave concern over Hungarys LGBTIQ discrimination, calling the new law a flagrant form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression that deserves to be condemned.

Speaking earlier in plenary on Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the new Hungarian legislation uses the protection of children as an excuse in order to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

It is a disgrace, this legislation. It is something that flies in the face of the values of the European Union. Protecting human dignity, equality, preserving human rights; these are our values, and they are anchored in Article 2 of our Treaty.

This law conflates gay people with paedophiles and it incites violence and hatred. If this is not enough for the EU to take action then nothing else will be. So stop funding Viktor Orbns corruption and apply the rule of law mechanism Katalin Cseh, Renew Europe

At the European Council, European heads of state and government made it quite clear that they wanted to support the Commission on this issue. I shall use all instruments available to the Commission in order to defend these fundamental principles, Von der Leyen added.

The ensuing plenary debate on breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary saw a groundswell of fierce opposition to Hungarys new anti-LGBTIQ law, as MEPs urged the Commission and Council to take punitive action against Hungary over its backsliding in democratic values.

Opening the debate, Ane Logar, Slovenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared, There is no place for homophobia in European Union. No one should feel a need to conceal their true selves in order to avoid discrimination, hate or even violence. All citizens of our Union are equal and should be able to live in freedom and safe from discrimination based on their age, sex, race, colour, religion or sexual orientation.

S&D leader Iratxe Garca Prez started her speech by stating that LGBTI rights are human rights and that acting against those rights in the European Union is illegal.

This is why the new Hungarian law must be revoked, because it is an attack on human rights and it is an indecent and shameful law. This retrograde law sows the seeds of hate and violence.

She added that reaction must now become action through the use of the conditionality mechanism linked to the rule of law, and sanctions via Article 7.

It is a disgrace, this legislation. It is something that flies in the face of the values of the European Union. Protecting human dignity, equality, preserving human rights; these are our values I shall use all instruments available to the Commission in order to defend these fundamental principles

Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission President

Dutch EPP member Jeroen Lenaers asked, What kind of message are we sending as a government to young people by insisting that even the mere portrayal of homosexuality in itself is already so abnormal or so dangerous that young people should be shielded from it?

What message does it send to a boy or a girl who falls in love for the first time with another boy or another girl, that their feelings aren't normal, that they have something to be ashamed about, that there is something wrong with them?

Lenaers added, The only one who has anything to be ashamed of is a parliament who sends such a message. The rule of law in Europe is in need of some long overdue maintenance and you Member States have all the tools necessary to make the difference and it is time now to put your money where your mouth is and finally act.

German Greens/EFA deputy Terry Reintke said, Between a Europe of freedom and a Europe of hatred and oppression, the choice is very clear: we choose freedom, we choose equality, we choose democracy.

And we choose a European Commission that will stand up for this freedom, for the freedom of people in Hungary, for the freedom of judges in Poland, for the freedom of everyone in the European Union to love who they want to love and to be who they are.

Renew Europe MEP Liesje Schreinemacher said, Let's make Mr Orbn listen the only way he knows how. If the law is not revoked, bring Hungary to court, repeal its voting rights and stop EU funds ending up in his pockets.

The new Hungarian law must be revoked, because it is an attack on human rights and it is an indecent and shameful law. This retrograde law sows the seeds of hate and violence Iratxe Garca Prez, S&D leader

This Parliament is doing everything in its power to make this happen. We are doing our job and now we are urging the European Commission, but especially the Council, to finally do theirs.

Hungarian Renew Europe colleague Katalin Cseh said, It is beyond tragic that we are here today, to witness the exact replica of Putins law being adopted in the EU.

Right now, in Hungary, its illegal for high school teachers to talk to high school students about diversity and acceptance, or for kids to watch cartoons with queer characters in them. This law conflates gay people with paedophiles and it incites violence and hatred.

If this is not enough for the EU to take action then nothing else will be. So stop funding Viktor Orbns corruption and apply the rule of law mechanism, because human rights abuses are only a means for him and kleptocracy is the ultimate end.

Though the majority of MEPs voiced their strong opposition to the Hungarian anti-LGBTIQ legislation, not all members were on board, as evidenced by some ECR and ID group deputies such as Polish ECR member Joachim Brudziski, who said that Poland and Hungary are part of Europe and will stay in Europe.

He said, No one gave the left [in Parliament] the right to decide who is a European and who isn't. In Poland and in Hungary, the governments have democratic legitimacy and they are permitted to protect the real values from the Old and New Testament and not from the lefts arsenal.

View original post here:

MEPs lament 'putinisation' of Hungary as EU urged to take urgent action - The Parliament Magazine

Now, the Fourth of July, as you know, celebrates our independence from some toothless weirds. Its quite an accomplishment to trounce an empire so 250 years later we can listen to this.

CAMPUS REFORM: Are you proud to be an American?

STUDENT: No. I feel embarrassed to be an American every day. I think a lot of things about this country are really embarrassing, just, like, I mean, racist history, colonization, even currently, just whats going on with politics and the cops.

STUDENT: Um, not really in this climate, like, Im a Black person, so obviously I experience a lot of, um, theres oppression that comes with that.

STUDENT: Not most of the time. I think sometimes its just a little embarrassing.

STUDENT: I think thats a complicated question for me. I think most of the time, no, at least over the past four years its been tricky to love to be an American.

STUDENT: Halfsies on that.

STUDENT: Like, partly, because like, I feel like there are certain topics where its, like, very controversial, but, like, I dont know. I just think our economy just cares about money and not, like, humans in general.

I mean, oh, my gee! I mean, like! She said like 433 times. Halfsies.

I cant wait until she enters the real world and takes my order at Arbys.

PROUD TO BE AMERICAN? STUDENTS STRUGGLE TO ANSWER

So, all these lovely people are embarrassed by America. But do they have any alternatives?

CAMPUS REFORM: Can you name a better country?

STUDENT: Im not sure if I can.

STUDENT: I dont think I can.

STUDENT: Um, probably a really tiny European country that is thriving.

STUDENT: Oh, good question, Europe.

CAMPUS REFORM: Europes not a country.

STUDENT: You know what Im saying.

Maybe the British are better off without us.

Their food still sucks, but at least they like their country.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS BASH AMERICA THROUGHOUT FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND

And I know surveys like this are like shooting really stupid fish in a tiny, tiny barrel.

College is where grades dont matter as long as you get a hammer and sickle tattoo on your but.

But hey, theyre just dumb kids, right? We can forgive them. But what happens when patriotism is considered offensive by our very own leaders.

This weekend, idiots from Maxine Watters to Cori Bush slammed the Fourth of July as nothing more than a celebration of racism.

I could read their tweets, but why.

Heres this gist from Bush. "The freedom theyre referring to is for White people."

This raises a point. Perhaps our politicians do such an awful job because they hate America. Did you ever think about that? Their incompetence is their weapon.

Think about how easy it is to subvert a Republic.

Get elected, then rot it from within, and if anyone challenges you, well thats racist.

Meanwhile, National Geographic marked the Fourth by tweeting that smoke from fireworks causes disproportionate harm to communities of color.

So I hope you enjoyed that Roman candle, you racist.

WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: IT WILL BE HARDER TO CELEBRATE AMERICA'S 250TH BIRTHDAY

But of course, National Geographics virtue signal comes after decades of exploiting communities of color all over the world.

Oh, look at topless women in their natural habitat. Remember that?

When I was a young man, I assumed that every naked woman carried a basket of food on their heads.

And then, theres the new Facebook feature that warns users when theyve been exposed to extremist content.

Facebook asks if you know someone whos becoming extremist, which is why this morning I ratted out every anchor at CNN.

But I did ask myself if I came across anything that seems extreme, and I did, but oddly, its from Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg himself.

What the hell was that? I mean, really, what the hell was it?

Have you seen anything as White as that in your life?

I mean, if riding a Hydrofoil surfboard holding an oversized American flag isnt extremist privileged behavior, what is?

All thats missing is the red hat, a rifle rack, and a plate of racist apple pie.

FACEBOOK WARNS USERS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO HARMFUL EXTREMISTS

In this era, where patriotism is merely a dog whistle for hate, couldnt one argue that any form of patriotism in an oppressive racist society is celebrating its past and therefore an example of extremism?

I believe thats MSNBCs mission statement.

Zuckerberg certainly isnt helping his own case here as he encourages citizens to narc on citizens.

And its working. At my Fourth of July cookout, I caught my brisket wearing a wire.

But thanks to Facebook, its no longer media and government policing your beliefs. Theyre motivating the public to do the dirty work for you. Its the new version of if you see something, say something.

The only difference is that something is no longer an unintended suitcase at the airport. Its your buddy getting a Dont Tread on Me tattoo.

The rise of cancel culture isnt a mistake. Its bad on purpose.

The fear of losing ones job over something you said, thats intended. So that fear self-polices your own words. You dont need a government to do it when your fear silences you and debate mysteriously disapp[ears.

When the worlds largest social media platform asks you to narc on your neighbors, its not just you theyre asking, but your neighbors too.

But at least real narcs point out people who actually broke the law.

So what if someone reports you?

According to Facebook, youll never know your accuser.

NPR DECRIES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AS A DOCUMENT WITH FLAWS AND DEEPLY INGRAINED HYPOCRISIES

How Stasi is that?

Big Brother eases you into becoming their informant by reminding you that "others in your situation have received confidential support."

Its a high-tech self-made witness protection plan, only when you rat somebody out, you dont need to change your name, grow a beard, and move to Scranton like Joe DeVito did.

You can think without repercussions.

"Take action now to protect yourself and others," Facebook says.

Let Facebook be the bad guy. Theyre protecting, not you.

I remember when we were young, we were supposed to fight Big Brother, not hold hands with him. I wonder what the Angry White Male thinks.

Tom Shillue, Angry White Male: Me, well I guess I spent the holiday feeling extremely proud, extremely thankful, and extremely blessed that I was born in the greatest country in the world. Hey, I guess I am an extremist.

Alright, how about you, Angry Black Male.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Tyrus, Angry Black Male: Yes, it was the Fourth of July. Yes, we celebrated Americas independence. Yes, this country was built on the backs of men and women of all colors, creeds, to make it what we are today. So cheers to everybody.

So I hope you all had a good Fourth, but no its the sixth. You might want to take that flag down now, before you get reported.

This article is adapted from Greg Gutfeld's opening monologue on the July 7,2021 edition of "Gutfeld!"

More:

Greg Gutfeld: We use to fight Big Brother, now Big Brother wants you to be an informant - Fox News

Dunamis International Gospel Centre said on Wednesday that it has no hand in the arrest and detention of #BuhariMustGo protesters.

The Department of State Services (DSS) had on Sunday, stormed Dunamis International Gospel Centre located on the Airport Road in Abuja and arrested six activists, who wore #BuhariMustGo T-shirts.

Convener of RevolutionNow, Omoyele Sowore, had accused the senior pastor of the church, Dr. Paul Enenche, of giving up innocent worshippers for arrest because of their beliefs.

But responding to the development in a statement signed by Dr Adah Ochowechi, on behalf of the church, Dunamis said the protesters were arrested outside the premises of the church without the knowledge of the Senior Pastor, Enenche.

For the records, the Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche who was engaged in preaching the sermon in the second service was not privy to the unfolding development, let alone giving the order for their arrest.

We wish to state categorically that Dunamis Intl Gospel Centre has no hands in the arrest and detention of the said youths as they were arrested outside the premises of the church, the statement said adding that church has no right to arrest and detain people, and has no detention custody.

The right of arrest and detention resides with government security agencies. The church of Christ, over the course of human history, has remained resolute in her advocacy for human right, justice and freedom. The Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche is known for his relentless voice against oppression, injustice and evil in the country at all levels.

The church that is praying and advocating for a free, just, orderly and peaceful society cannot but help to further the cause of justice, order and peace in the land.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The church holds three services every Sunday, and the Senior Pastor, Dr Paul Enenche preaches in all the services. After the sermon in the first service that Sunday, an altar call was made, to which many people came out, including the said youths, and nothing happened to them. No one questioned the legality or otherwise of the inscription on their T-shirts.

However, soon after their departure from the altar, they swung into protest with blaring trumpets and saxophones right from the exit door of the church. At the same time, the event was being covered and live-streamed with the background shots of the church building and those of the thronging crowd, both exiting and entering the sanctuary for the next service. The live streaming had the caption: BUHARI MUST GO Campaign Hits Dunamis Church in Abuja.

This appears intriguing for many reasons: No one knew who they were or where they came from, the statement added.

The church said no one knew the organization they represented as well as their ultimate agenda until the DSS apprehended them.

No standard rule of engagement was followed as they merely sneaked into the church and swung into protest on a holy day of service.

Moreover, the church is not an activism ground, but a centre for the projection of truth against all forms of evil. The church is non-political and non-partisan and thus, not an appropriate ground for political protests. It is not the seat of government where those being protested against reside.

As intriguing as it was to a common onlooker, so was it to members of undercover security forces on the premises for routine duties. Acting in their line of duty, the DSS officials arrested the protesters, the church stated.

Read the original:

We Have No Hand In Arrest Of Anti-Buhari Protesters Dunamis - LEADERSHIP NEWS

One of a number of statements that stood out during the recent court hearing regarding the conservatorship of pop star Britney Spears was the singer's testimony that she was being forced to remain on birth control against her will.

"I have (an) IUD inside of (me) right now, so I don't get pregnant. I wanted to take the IUD out, so I can start trying to have another baby, but this so-called team won't let me go to the doctor to take it out because they don't want me to have any more children," she said, according to a story from Variety, which notes that a live audio stream of the hearing was shut down by the judge, after learning that it was being broadcast online.

That revelation was surprising, if not shocking, to many because of the reproductive rights and justice issues it raises, especially for advocates and experts who work to ensure that individuals are able to choose to reproduce and obtain access to reproductive health services.

Rachel Johnson-Farias, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights & Justice (CRRJ) at Berkeley Law School; Debra Mollen, professor of counseling psychology at Texas Woman's University and a licensed psychologist and certified sexuality educator with the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT); and Sonja Goetsch-Avila, the California state senior organizer at URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity (URGE), a national reproductive justice organization that centers the voices and leadership of young people, share some of the history of the reproductive justice movement and their professional perspectives on the violation of reproductive rights that Spears' has testified to experiencing. (This email interview has been edited for length and clarity. )

Q: Multiple news outlets have reported that pop star Britney Spears has said that she's been forced to remain on birth control (through an intrauterine device, or IUD) against her will, as part of her testimony in court proceedings to end the conservatorship she's been under since 2008. What were some of your initial thoughts or concerns when you first learned of this detail in her testimony?

Rachel Johnson-Farias: I entered the reproductive justice movement via my work in California's women's prisons. A common human rights and reproductive abuse that I saw in prisons is incarceration during reproductive years. Even if the state did not intervene to sterilize someone inside, earlier contact with the prison system and longer and longer sentences have normalized such that people are incarcerated at younger ages and long enough to inhibit chances of reproducing upon release. In Britney Spears' case, an IUD can be removed, but the fact that she is not allowed to choose when that happens in combination with the amount of time that the IUD has already been in place (13 years) means that Spears' has been stripped of making reproductive choices, and, the longer it persists, the more her case looks like forced sterilization.

Debra Mollen: My initial reaction was one of concern about the potential for harm, particularly around issues of reproductive coercion, which are common and often associated with other patterns of relationship violence, trauma and abuse.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: I was disgusted but, sadly, not shocked after reading more about the situation. Forcing anyone to remain on birth control against their will is an explicit form of reproductive coercion. Our country has a dark history of racist, sexist, classist and ableist laws and practices that have targeted people through forced sterilization and coercion of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods, like IUDs and implants, to prevent wanted pregnancy in certain populations. It's unfortunate that many people are only learning more about how forced birth control and sterilization are still legal and in practice today when it happens to someone as famous as Britney Spears.

Q: Can you help us understand a bit about the basics of reproductive rights and how this particular issue fits into that understanding?

Rachel Johnson-Farias: Reproductive justice maintains that all people have the right to have a family, not have a family, and the ability to raise the families we do choose in safety and with dignity and respect. Reproductive rights forms the legal-focused arm of the reproductive justice movement and focuses on challenging laws and policies that impugn someone's human right to choose whether, when, and how to have a family. Because Britney Spears' right to have a child is impugned by the forced use of contraceptives, the current conservatorship case calls her reproductive rights into question. Reproductive justice is intersectional by definition, such that the historic conflation of disability and reproductive oppression should be a factor if the court reviewing Spears' conservatorship employs a reproductive justice lens.

Debra Mollen: Reproductive rights are grounded in ideas that undergird personal and bodily autonomy. In the same way that no one can force you to be an organ donor, reproductive rights activists are committed to allowing each person the ability to access reproductive care and make decisions about our reproductive lives. Reproductive justice, a broader idea that was coined in 1994 by a group of Black women who recognized the need for organizations that centered the rights of indigenous women, women of color and transgender people, asserts that people should have the ability to control how, when, and if they have children and be able to raise their children safely in supportive communities.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: Reproductive justice is defined as the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities. It was first officially coined by a group of Black women in 1994 in Chicago, right before attending the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. The mainstream reproductive rights movement in the U.S. was primarily focused on the needs of middle to upper-class white women and didn't address the intersecting reproductive injustices that Black women, other women of color, queer, trans, low-income, disabled and other marginalized communities had faced for generations.

The reproductive justice framework not only demands access to reproductive health care, birth control, abortion and sex education, but also freedom from abusive and coercive powers preventing one's ability to get pregnant on their own terms. Britney Spears' situation directly links to one of the key tenets of reproductive justice people deserve the right to determine if, when, and how they want to have children. In her own words, Britney Spears referenced her conservatorship as "abuse." Under this abuse of power and control, it's clear that Spears does not currently have the freedom and autonomy to make her own reproductive decisions.

Q: Can you also talk a bit about the history of forcing birth control or sterilization on people in this country? I understand that there's a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of this practice? How does this relate to what someone like Spears has testified to experiencing?

Rachel Johnson-Farias: "Buck v. Bell" (1927) was a textbook case of reproductive oppression in which the Supreme Court authorized the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew and, subsequently, became pregnant. The foster family, eager to hide their shame, had Carrie Buck committed to a mental institution and sterilized under a state sterilization law rooted in eugenics that legalized sterilization of "feebleminded" people. Several states, including California, had similar laws on the books and, together, these laws reflected a broader societal normalization of eugenics: a White supremacist pseudoscience that holds that humans can be bred to privilege "desirable" traits. These laws were red herrings for genocidal efforts to eliminate all deviations from a White supremacist standard and would inform the Nazi Party's antisemitic efforts.

"Buck v. Bell" provided the legal grounds for the sterilization of thousands of people who did not conform to arbitrary racist, ableist, classist and sexist standards and were deemed mentally and/or physically "unfit." This case also serves as a foundation for much of the ongoing sterilizations that happen in prisons today. Because more than half of Black people with disabilities in the United States will be arrested before their late 20s, our jail and prison system is ground zero for reproductive oppression at the intersection of race, class, gender and ability.

Like Carrie Buck, Spears was deemed "unfit" to make choices for her life as a result of her disability, including reproductive choices. If the court is not careful, it stands to replicate the reproductively oppressive outcomes that eugenics laws like the one that informed "Buck" procure.

Debra Mollen: Forced sterilization became popularized and widely practiced at the beginning of the 20th century. It's linked to ideas rooted in eugenics (which literally means "to be well born") about who should be able and encouraged to reproduce, and who should be prevented from having children. Chillingly, the Nazis borrowed extensively from U.S.-based eugenicists in both their justification and practice of genocide of 6 million Jews. Though it's tempting to see these ideas as antiquated, there have been documented cases of forced sterilization through 2013 in the California prison system.

By her account, Britney Spears is experiencing reproductive coercion, denied the ability to exercise her reproductive rights by being compelled to keep her IUD inserted against her will. Reproductive coercion includes pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage and abortion coercion. Though it is more common that people are deceived or coerced into pregnancy and to have their birth control use impeded, another example of pregnancy and birth control coercion is to prevent people from getting pregnant and compel them to use contraception against their wishes. While it is most common for men to perpetrate reproductive coercion against women, people of any gender can experience reproductive coercion.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: Forced sterilization has been going on in this country for centuries and has particularly harmed Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, immigrant communities, poor and disabled folks.

Yes, the "Buck v. Bell" case you mentioned set a precedent for the continued targeted sterilization of people in U.S. institutions, and Spears' experience is certainly connected to that legacy, particularly for those with mental health conditions.

State-supported control of reproductive decisions is still widespread. Dorothy Roberts writes at length about the forced sterilization of poor and incarcerated Black women in her book, "Killing the Black Body," and refers to horrific trends of requiring specific birth control to reduce sentences or even to qualify for certain benefits. And most recently, we have seen forced hysterectomies in ICE facilities in the United States.

While California is known for its progressive policies toward advancing reproductive freedom and access to health care, it's also important to recognize California's own egregious history with forced sterilization and reproductive coercion. California was the most aggressive state in the country throughout its 70-plus years of eugenics laws, sterilizing over 20,000 people in our state-regulated institutions.

Q: In some of the discourse around this story, there have been arguments made that the choice to have, or not have, children is a fundamental right. Why is this so? What makes this a fundamental right?

Debra Mollen: Having or not having children is a fundamental right as it allows us the ability to make our own decisions about vital aspects of our health and reproductive lives. Interfering with and violating these rights has profound implications for our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Historically and currently, White, middle and upper-class cisgender heterosexual women have been encouraged to have, and celebrated for having, children; while those from marginalized groups (women of color, poor women, people with disabilities, transgender people, incarcerated people) have been discouraged, prevented from, and shamed for exercising their reproductive decisions across the spectrum. Consider, for example, the ability to access treatment for infertility and the distinct lack of controversy or obstacles to those who most commonly pursue fertility treatments, generally class-privileged White people, that regularly result in the abandonment or destruction of hundreds of thousands of embryos. On the other hand, marginalized people, especially women of color, poor women, and trans people, have been systematically denied access to abortion, forcibly sterilized, and experienced reproductive coercion with much greater frequency.

In the case of Britney Spears, we are reminded that no amount of fame, celebrity or wealth is adequate protection against reproductive coercion.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: Everyone should be able to determine if, when, and how to parent on their own terms. Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized reproductive rights as fundamental human rights including having children, contraception, abortion, family relationships and child-rearing. Reproductive justice allows us the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies without interference from politicians and to decide what is best for ourselves and how to best build our families and communities.

Q: What is the denial of this right of allowing people to make their own choice about having children or not having children typically rooted in? What is it historically rooted in?

Rachel Johnson-Farias: As to historical roots in the United States, reproductive oppression has deep roots in slavery. As an institution, slavery was legal at the country's founding and repeatedly codified in law. Slavery mandated the separation of African families and necessarily required the removal of any reproductive rights for an entire class of enslaved people. This disregard for human rights based on race and class provided a broad foundation for the legal denial of basic human rights based on identity. It is not a coincidence that prisons continue to be hotbeds of reproductive oppression as the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery except in cases of conviction for a crime. If slavery can persist via jails and prisons, so too do attacks on reproductive choice and freedom.

The law is nothing else if not an iterative instrument that holds legal precedent in the highest regard. The precedent established during slavery, and later during "Buck v. Bell" when the eugenics movement was even more mainstream, continues to inform our reproductive rights today. "Buck v. Bell" was never overturned and cases like Britney Spears' highlight the ways that precedent rooted in human rights abuses echoes throughout our legal systems.

Debra Mollen: The denial is rooted in eugenics, Nazism, ableism, sexism, classism, antisemitism and racism. Of course, there are powerful implications for the intersection of these systems, which lead not only to oppressive practices but, exercised to their logical, albeit terrifying conclusion, to genocide. When the government makes decisions about who is deemed worthy and fit to reproduce, the results undermine our individual rights about one of the most vital decisions we ought to be able to make freely and with informed consent.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: Policies that seek to control whether and how people give birth are rooted in White supremacy and forced upon our communities to maintain power and control.

Policies requiring forced birth control and sterilization very often go hand in hand with anti-abortion legislation and attempts to restrict access to birth control, with these laws usually pushed by the same elected officials and political movements. All of these laws have racist, sexist, classist and ablest roots and are intended to strip away the dignity and autonomy of poor people, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ people, disabled people and young people who already face the greatest barriers to accessing care, and more stigma when they seek support as survivors of violence. Everyone should have access to reproductive health care in their own communities and on their own terms. This includes survivors of violence and those who have experienced domestic or family violence.

Q: What kind of mental, emotional and physical impact do you think the denial of this right to have an IUD removed/discontinue birth control can have on a person?

Rachel Johnson-Farias: Immense. People are quick to look to the "third world" for the impact of human rights abuses, but what we are witnessing in the Spears case, and the many cases like hers, is nothing short of abusive and inhumane. Unfortunately, what is happening to Britney Spears is legal and it highlights a central failing in our legal system: that which is morally bankrupt, abusive and inhumane is not necessarily illegal.

Debra Mollen: There is an established relationship between reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence. Women of color, poor women, single women and women younger than 30 are at higher risk of interpersonal violence, reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy. Interpersonal violence and reproductive coercion are associated with increased risk for adverse psychological, physical and reproductive outcomes such as depression, anxiety, inconsistent condom use, sexually transmitted infections, impaired physical health and substance use. Unplanned pregnancy is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including increased rates of depression and anxiety, delayed prenatal care, poorer relationship quality and less social support.

Sonja Goetsch-Avila: The reality is people should not have the right to decide if they want to be on birth control and the type of birth control they use taken away from them, as Spears has. Taking away someone's right to discontinue birth control, or any personal decision about their own health care and body, for that matter, has serious emotional, mental and physical impacts. When bodily autonomy and reproductive control is compromised, other aspects of one's life, sense of safety, stability, freedom and self-determination are impacted.

We can never undo the harm survivors of reproductive coercion have faced, but there are a few ways we can acknowledge them. In particular, URGE is supporting state legislation that would establish a Forced Sterilization Compensation Program to provide reparations to survivors of forced sterilization under California's eugenics law from 1909 to 1979, or who were subjected to coerced or involuntary sterilizations in women's state prisons after 1979. People can follow California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ), California Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP), Back to the Basics Community Empowerment (B2B) and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) for updates and advocacy opportunities.

Get the latest local entertainment news, dining reviews, and more delivered right to your inbox every Thursday.

Read this article:

Experts say alleged forced birth control of Britney Spears is clear reproductive justice violation - Gazettextra