A Reframing I'd Like to See: Government-Enforced Childbirth

Posted on June 14, 2005 by Ampersand

For all the talk about “reframing” the abortion debate, the reframing I’d like to see never seems to come up. The issue is government-enforced childbirth. Right-wingers want government-enforced childbirth; lefties don’t.

The issue is not whether we favor or oppose abortion. Plenty of people who are personally opposed to abortion are still pro-choice. You can’t tell the difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers by asking, “do you favor abortion?” You can tell the difference by asking, “should there be government-enforced childbirth for pregnant women?” Government-enforced childbirth is the defining issue; wanting government-enforced childbirth, not wanting abortion, is the difference between the opposition and us.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 50 Comments

Orson Scott Card: Fat Activist Bedfellow?

Posted on June 13, 2005 by Ampersand

As Decnavda pointed out, fat politics makes for strange allies. Case in point: Right-wing columnist (and science fiction/fantasy novelist) Orson Scott Card’s latest column is a pretty decent fat rights column. (Link via Big Fat Blog). Here’s a sample:

When you look at the gloomy prediction that obesity will chop two to five years off the lifespan of overweight individuals, you find out that the study this was based on made some very iffy assumptions, relied on old data, did not look at potential deaths from underweight, and ignored the possibility of future advances in medicine.

Even with all those iffy assumptions and omissions, the study only showed a death rate increase of four to nine months. The “two to five years” warning is a wild guess based on what might happen in future decades. In other words, it’s a made-up number.

And you could look at the same stats, change the assumptions in perfectly reasonable ways, and reach the conclusion that the increase in deaths due to obesity will be zero.

Although Card highly praises W. Gibbs’ recent, terrific Scientific American article on obesity (and well he should praise it, a lot of his column is cribbed from it), he singles out one aspect of it for criticism:

Gibbs (and some of the critics he cites) thinks it’s significant that many or most of the studies that supposedly support the claims about a “fat epidemic” were funded in part by the weight-loss industry.

Aha, one thinks. So they have a motive! It’s about making money from people who want to lose weight!

But that’s absurd — pure conspiracy theory.

Card goes on to claim that Gibbs had jumped “to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest,” had committed “irresponsible journalism,” and “should be ashamed of himself.”

Unfortunately, in his eagerness to club Gibbs, Card parted ways with the facts (note his conspicuous lack of direct quotes from Gibbs to support Card’s accusations). No where in the article does Gibbs “leap to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest”; Card should have had the honesty to inform his readers that this is something he was reading between Gibbs’ lines, not something Gibbs actually said.

Nor is worrying about funding logically the same thing as suggesting a conspiracy theory, and it’s deceptive of Card to say it is. Most of the funding for obesity and diet related research comes from corporations who have a lot invested in supporting the theory that obesity equals death and weight loss equals health; those companies are, as Card admits, going to fund researchers who “share the same assumptions.” That’s not dishonest, but it does create a legitimate concern that the field is structured in such a way to give researchers whose work supports “fat = death” a prominence and funding unrelated to the scientific merit of their work.

In short, it’s possible that “funding bias” has caused the entire field of obesity and diet research to be strongly biased towards a particular view of the issues, regardless of scientific merit. Being concerned about funding isn’t the same as accusing people of conspiring or of deliberate dishonesty, and it’s Card’s accusation against Gibbs that is “journalistically irresponsible.”

I was also struck by this passage:

Yet they are condemned, ridiculed, treated hideously — often by medical professionals to whom they have come for help. You think fat people don’t know how they’re despised? You think they don’t want to be different?

It’s especially galling because the people mocking them are often of that tribe that doesn’t gain weight no matter what they eat. In other words, it’s easy for them to stay thin because their bodies burn up whatever they eat. People like that should keep their thin little mouths shut when fat people are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to be heavy, or what it takes to lose the weight, when it can be lost at all.

First of all, although Card’s rhetoric has appeal, I wonder how true it is. It seems to me that many of the most fanatical fat-bashers are among the 5% of dieters who have successfully lost weight (unlike the 95% for whom diets fail).

Second of all, considering Card’s incredibly hateful views towards lesbians and gays, it would be appropriate to point out that queer-haters are often of that tribe that couldn’t be attracted to the same-sex no matter how hard they tried. People like that should keep their hetero little mouths shut when gay rights are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to experience same-sex attraction, or what it’s like to be denied substantive legal equality just because you love someone of the “wrong” sex.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat, Same-Sex Marriage | 54 Comments

Anyone up for brainwashing LGBT teens and imprisoning them too?

Posted on June 11, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

This is far too infuriating for words so I’ll let Egalia of Tennessee Guerilla Women and others handle this. But hey, it’s all about the “love” ultra-conservative Christians have for those who are LGBT.

Memphis Gay Kid Imprisoned in Gay Brainwashing Camp: Save Zack

Mike Ditto has the story. You can read Zack’s blog here – the 16-year-old is being held against his will and hasn’t blogged since being imprisoned in the camp a few days ago.

This place is sinister. So, of course, they call it: Love in Action.

Ditto says the following is from the guy who runs the camp:

“I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery.”

We need to raise a stink about this one. It sounds like Zack will be lucky to get out of there with only psychological trauma.

Apparently protests are being held outside the Memphis camp. If you’re in the area, you might want to join them. Or better yet, find a way to break this kid out. Call the media. Save Zack.

Via Talkleft

Here are some of the camp’s rules via Mike Ditto again…

Kids in the program are not allowed to speak to anyone, not even their parents, for at least the first two days.

Kids are not allowed to go anywhere unless they are accompanied by at least two other participants, one of which has to have at least 8 weeks of prior indoctrination.

Kids are not allowed to keep a journal or a diary

Kids are not allowed to discuss what goes on in the program with anyone, not even their parents

Kids are not allowed to have contact with any family members other than parents, who also go through the program

Kids are not allowed to have any physical contact with any human being other than a hand shake or a pat on the shoulder, and only when authorized.

Kids are not allowed outside of a small geographic area within Memphis, even if accompanied by parents, without prior written authorization

Kids are not allowed to listen to any music that is not explicitly Christian (Bach and Beethoven are specifically forbidden as being non-Christian)

Kids are not permitted to enter restaurants that serve alcohol

Kids are not allowed to speak after 9:00 p.m. under any circumstance

Kids may be placed in a state of isolation where they are not allowed to communicate with one another

Remember it’s all about the “love. ” And thus, George Orwell’s room 101 is a reality thanks to these people. Hate is indeed fast becoming a “moral family value” of the far conservative Christian Rightwing. Once again, save Zack!

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues | 59 Comments

Typical hypocrisy from anti-choice politicians on the Hill

Posted on June 10, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Apparently, not only are anti-choice politicians on Capitol Hill against a woman’s right to choose and have control over her reproductive destiny, but they’re also against giving pregnant mothers and newborns proper healthcare and economic support.

Hypocrisy on the Hill: Anti-Choice Lawmakers Vote “No” on Measures to Help Pregnant Women

Washington, DC ““ Today, 11 anti-choice Republican members of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending for health, labor and education programs voted against a proposal offered by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) aimed at making it economically easier for low-income and vulnerable women to choose to carry pregnancies to term.

Among its proposals, Rep. Obey’s amendment would have increased funding for such common-sense programs as child care, maternal and child health care, domestic violence prevention, job training, and others.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the vote illustrated the hypocrisy of anti-choice lawmakers who oppose a woman’s right to choose but then refuse to support initiatives to help women who carry their pregnancy to term. “We were disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that anti-choice lawmakers on the subcommittee voted against measures that support pregnant women and their newborns. Anti-choice politicians have demonstrated that they are opposed not only to abortion, but also to non-controversial, consensus programs that help women give birth to healthy children, and this is no exception,”? Keenan said. “Rep. Obey’s amendment would have eased some women’s economic and personal stresses. These proposals would improve the lives of real women, contributing to healthy pregnancies and healthy babies. It is outrageous that the hypocrisy of 11 members of Congress could halt consideration of such common-sense proposals.”?

I suppose–well I know–the Hypocrisy of Life doesn’t include improving the quality of Life, even if they are women who have chosen to carry their pregnancies to term. ‘More bodies born’–by any means–regardless of socioecomic issues or lack of healthcare, is a tenet and the desired ‘end‘ of that pitiful and false “pro-life” philosophy, the Rightwing woefully attempts to masquerade as “compassionate conservatism.” They simply want women to “fulfill their biological duties as women, as god intended them,” (aka: birthing chattel) but not actually give half-a-damn about those women while they’re pregnant and when they do give birth. Unless they’re upper-middle-class or higher and married Christian women, oh, then they do care. Besides if they’re low-income pregnant women, that must mean they’re unmarried–and therefore whores, who should be punished for their “sexual promiscuity” and failure to marry with more poverty, and little or no healthcare. It’s all about punishment, keeping women not only pregnant but socioeconomically and medically vulnerable, and promulgating the Hypocrisy of Life. How about some of these anti-choice politicians–especially the fellas–trying this pregnancy and birthing stuff, and even living in poverty with little or not healthcare themselves since they’re so for it? Seriously, was this proposal too “Commie” or “socialist,” or something? Or was it too much of a dare for the so called “pro-life” and “pro-Culture of Life” politicians to put their rhetoric into deeds rather than bullshit words?

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Gender and the Economy | 24 Comments

Well maybe if hetero people didn't act so flamin' straight…!

Posted on June 10, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Via Culture Kitchen, with more commentary from Amanda at Pandagon.

FOR THE STRAIGHT FOLKS WHO DON’T MIND GAYS BUT WISH THEY WEREN’T SO BLATANT

You know, some people got a lot of nerve.
Sometimes I don’t believe the things I see and hear.

Have you met the woman who’s shocked by two women kissing and in the same breath, tells you she is pregnant?
BUT gays, shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or this straight couple sits next to you in a movie and you can’t hear the dialogue because of the sound effects.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

And the woman in your office spends and entire lunch hour talking about her new bikini drawers and how much her husband likes them.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or the “hip” chick in your class rattling like a mile a minute while you’re trying to get stoned in the john, about the camping trip she took with her musician boyfriend.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

You go in a public bathroom and all over the walls there’s John loves Mary, Janice digs Richard, Pepe loves Delores, etc., etc.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or your go to an amusement park and there’s a tunnel of love and pictures of straights painted on the front and grinning couples are coming in and out.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Fact is, blatant heterosexuals are all over the place. Supermarkets, movies, on your job, in church, in books, on television every day day and night, every place-even- in gay bars and they want gay men and woman to go and hide in the closet.

So to you straight folks I say, “Sure, I’ll go if you go too”
BUT I’m polite so, after you.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues | 28 Comments

MSM department: Pseudo-Adrienne on MSNBC today!

Posted on June 9, 2005 by Ampersand

Neat! Pseudo-Adrienne’s post on Janice Brown was mentioned on MSNBC today!

Maziltov, P-A!

Posted in Whatever | 12 Comments

What Some Feminists Demanded in 1967

Posted on June 9, 2005 by Ampersand

Egalia at Tennessee Gurilla Women reproduces NOW’s “Bill of Rights” from their first national conference, which took place in 1967. As Egalia says, it’s interesting to look at this, nearly 40 years later, and see what has – and hasn’t – been accomplished, and what is still under fire.

BILL OF RIGHTS

WE DEMAND:

I. That the United States Congress immediately pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution to provide that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and that such then be immediately ratified by the several States.

II. That equal employment opportunity be guaranteed to all women, as well as men by insisting that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforce the prohibitions against sex discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the same vigor as it enforces the prohibitions against racial discrimination.

III. That women be protected by law to insure their rights to return to their jobs within a reasonable time after childbirth without loss of seniority or other accrued benefits and be paid maternity leave as a form of social security and/or employee benefit.

IV. Immediate revision of tax laws to permit the deduction of home and child care expenses for working parents.

V. That child care facilities be established by law on the same basis as parks, libraries and public schools adequate to the needs of children, from the pre-school years through adolescence, as a community resource to be used by all citizens from all income levels.

VI. That the right of women to be educated to their full potential equally with men be secured by Federal and State legislation, eliminating all discrimination and segregation by sex, written and unwritten, at all levels of education including college, graduate and professional schools, loans and fellowships and Federal and State training programs, such as the job Corps.

VII. The right of women in poverty to secure job training, housing and family allowances on equal terms with men, but without prejudice to a parent’s right to remain at home to care for his or her children; revision of welfare legislation and poverty programs which deny women dignity, privacy and self respect.

VIII. The right of women to control their own reproductive lives by removing from penal codes the laws limiting access to contraceptive information and devices and laws governing abortion.

From Sisterhood Is Powerful, a great anthology which is available on Amazon for a quarter.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 64 Comments

Politics as usual, unfortunately

Posted on June 8, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

In case you haven’t heard, the Senate confirmed extremist-conservative judicial nominee Justice Janice Brown. Now how about a reminder as to why she is a threat to the highest levels of the Judiciary and our civil rights…

Unfit to Judge: Brown was the first California Supreme Court Justice to receive an unqualified rating from the state bar and still be nominated by a governor … Republican Pete Wilson in 1994. Three-fourths of the state bar evaluators felt Brown was ill-equipped to hold the position. They are not alone. The American Bar Association gave Brown a low rating of qualified/unqualified for nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Complaints filed by her peers said that she was “insensitive to established legal precedent . . . and lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views.”

Anti-government: Brown has made it crystal clear that she does not believe in government involvement of any kind. She abhors the New Deal in its entirety and has said regarding Social Security that “Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have the right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.” Her anti-government, anti-regulation sentiments are particularly disturbing because she has been nominated to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals, which makes decisions on most federal administration and regulation cases such as those involving regulations set by agencies like the Social Security Administration, Federal Elections Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and those dealing with federal environmental and labor laws.

Affirmative Action: Brown is infamous for her 2000 decision in Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 24 Cal. 4th 537 (2000), which upheld California’s voter-approved initiative, Prop. 209, banning affirmative action for women and minorities in public contracts, hiring and college admissions, where they are under-represented. Brown’s 18-page opinion attacked not only the facts of the case but affirmative action in general and made her a darling of the Republican right wing.

Discrimination: Brown has written a truly stunning array of opinions ruling against people filing lawsuits for discrimination. She has been inconsistent in her reading of the First Amendment, ruling that it should protect racial slurs and discriminatory speech in the workplace and in another case asserting that the First Amendment should not protect the right to freely assemble. She has also written opinions that imply that ageism is not a form of discrimination; that it should be more difficult to prosecute against discrimination based on disability; and argues against second-parent adoptions … a critical option for lesbian and gay families.

Abortion: In the case of American Academy of Pediatrics v. Daniel E. Lundgren, Brown’s dissenting opinion, which dismissed a minor’s right to privacy by holding that a parental notification law should not be thrown out even though it violated California state law because California state law cannot provide more privacy than the United States Constitution, she displayed her hostility toward abortion rights. In her opinion, she also showed a disturbing lack of compassion and understanding towards the plight of a young woman trying to navigate the legal system in order to get an abortion. In a more recent case, Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, Brown was the sole dissent in a decision which found that Catholic Charities was violating a state contraceptive prescriptive equity statute. She stated that if employees felt that they were discriminated against they were free to move to “more congenial employment.”

Violence Against Women: Brown was the lone dissenter in opining that a jury should not be allowed to hear evidence of Battered Women’s Syndrome. She also wrote a shocking dissent in 2003 regarding criminal charges against a man accused of raping a 17-year-old woman on a date. The woman had verbally expressed that she did not want to have sex several times throughout the night. Although she consented to kissing and fondling and at one point to sex, she asserted that she quickly changed her mind and continued to say no and struggle when the man forcibly penetrated her. The question before the court was whether criminal charges of forcible rape could be brought when a woman withdraws her consent and the man continues against her will. The California Supreme Court found that indeed criminal charges could be brought but Brown’s dissenting opinion questioned whether the woman had protested enough and asked the question, “Is persistence the same thing as force?”

Objectivity: Brown participates in many invitation-only private “seminars” thrown by ultra-right wing organizations such as the Liberty Fund and the John M. Olin Foundation. Attending such events, and even making speeches at them, contributes to an appearance of impropriety at best and at worst may influence judges and affect the outcomes of cases.

Also…

A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown’s record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers’ rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There’s more here on the Justice’s views of the government and these here are her own words. Now let’s all thank the ever shamelessly compromising and cowardly Congressional Democrats, who not only enjoy losing elections but selling out their voting base, by allowing justices such as Brown to sit on the highest levels of the Judiciary in order to appease the neocon Republicans. Thanks.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 11 Comments

African-Americans face discrimination even within the LGBT Community

Posted on June 8, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Imagine being not only African-American, but Lesbian, or Gay, or Trans, or Bi, in this country as well. A nice double-whammy, isn’t it? Not only do you face discrimination and bigotry for being Black, but for being Queer too?! Sad, but yes, it does happen. LGBT African-Americans not only face racial and homophobic discrimination and bigotry from hetero whites and blacks, but sometimes and unfortunately even from the white LGBT Community as well. Hard to believe that some people of the LGBT Community would divide themselves and even discriminate amongst themselves, as they already have a whole population homophobic bigots with more than plenty of political power to reduce their already few civil rights to nothing. Fortunately, a majority of LGBT people could care less about the color of one’s skin or their ethnicity, as vitriolic homophobia appears to be on the rise within our society and political atmosphere, and is taking precedence over small differences such as race or ethnicity. However, though race and ethnicity may seem like small differences, they still matter here in America,…and who you sleep and fall in love with also matters. Still, some LGBT African-Americans are encountering racial discrimination within the LGBT Community and a lack of representation, as this article from The Black Commentator details…

[…]…As Black gay pride organizers scramble to provide comprehensive cultural celebrations for their thousands of anticipated guests this year, the [Miami] Herald’s top ten list was a slap in the face and further feeds into the notion that gay and now gay pride is white.

The International Federation of Black Prides is home to 25 Black gay pride celebrations, including Toronto and South Africa. These cultural celebrations are flocked to each year by thousands of Black same-gender loving persons are all over the country, some with a cult following…[…]

These celebrations each typically bring in around 10,000 people that are culturally diverse, socially active, event loyal, frequent travelers and beauty, health, fitness and fashion conscious. Given all of these facts, why then do Black prides still receive less financial support than their white counterparts?

A look at the websites of the Herald’s top ten picks shows financial support from Delta Airlines, Travelocity, Absolute Vodka, Gay.com, Showtime, Starbucks, Bud Light, Bank of America, PlanetOut.com, Hertz, Virgin and more. But take a closer look at who is sponsoring Black pride celebrations.

Black pride organizations cater to the Black gay community and unfortunately, this community is still being affected in large numbers by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. So it’s only obvious that pharmaceutical companies and AIDS service organizations would want to sponsor events where they can target a high number of Black gays with their message. However, there is so much more to the Black gay community than HIV/AIDS prevention. We dine out, read the newspaper, watch television, travel, buy clothes, and are included in the overall contributions of African-Americans to the U.S. economy.

In addition, it’s not just at the corporate level that companies do not sponsor Black gay pride celebrations. Many elected officials shun off Black pride celebrations to their health deputy’s (HIV/AIDS) instead of to their city’s cultural affairs office where these celebrations should be getting support from as well. Like Black film festivals that highlight Blacks in the filmmaking business, Black gay pride celebrations are cultural events that celebrate the uniqueness of being Black and gay. So that should open up a plethora of sponsorship opportunities for Black gay prides, not only from the companies listed above but from Viacom who owns Black Entertainment Television, TVOne, RadioOne, Ebony, JET, ESSENCE, Walmart, Target, NAACP, Urban League, music labels, and other businesses that thrive off of Black dollars.

[…]

I once had a corporate marketing executive tell me that they sponsored a Black film festival and sponsored a gay pride celebration so they didn’t see the need to sponsor a Black gay pride. In their minds, Black was straight and gay was white and there was nothing in between. Sadly, that’s the misinformed thinking of many corporate executives when it comes to marketing.

The irony in all of this is that at most white gay pride celebrations, you see about a handful of Blacks. In a recent poll, Black gays were asked, if given a choice would you attend a white pride celebration or a Black pride celebration. An overwhelming number of those polled indicated that they would attend their Black pride celebration.

If white Conservative Christian evangelicals can see the value in marketing to straight Blacks regarding gay marriage, why can’t companies see the value in marketing to Black gays?

[…]

So while, the Miami Herald probably boosted the incoming sponsorship dollars for the 10 prides it listed in its article, it did a disservice to people of color gay prides across the nation and further fed into corporate America’s notion that gay is white.

Well we do have a tendency to hold white as the default race in this country. Old habits die hard. I just love how this is about marketing and appeasing corporate sponsors. Thanks consumer-based economy. I also find it disturbing that there’s a sense that you, as a LGBT African-American (or any racial or ethnic minority), must choose between either racial/ethnic pride or LGBT pride. You can’t be both, according certain individuals. I don’t buy that b.s. for a moment. I suppose it’s just our country’s legacy and “tradition” of racism, being carried on into new sociopolitical movements such as LGBT civil rights. Of course, those perpetrating the racial discrimination and bigotry within the LGBT Community do not represent LGBT people as a whole. It’s only a few individuals, not the entire LGBT Community. But it only takes a few to screw it up for everyone else, and alienate a group of people (ie: LGBT Blacks) from the entire community.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Race, racism and related issues | 14 Comments

Activist Judges Again

Posted on June 8, 2005 by Ampersand

Quoted from “The Backfiring of the Domestic Violence Firearms Bans,” by Lisa May, published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law in 2005.

Dale Barsness was a convicted wife batterer. At the time of his conviction, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. He admitted in open court that he assaulted his wife, and the court found him guilty in a final adjudication of the matter. Because he was a convicted abuser, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits all persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing firearms, applied to Barsness.

Barsness’s employer, the Minneapolis Police Department, required him to possess a gun. Since the federal law compelled Barsness to surrender his gun, he faced losing his job. A local judge took it upon himself to expunge Barsness’s domestic violence record, not because the matter was wrongly decided, or because it had been reversed and resolved in his favor, but simply because Barsness would otherwise be subject to suffer the consequences of the federal gun control law. The Hennepin County judge set aside Barsness’s adjudicated conviction, stating that because the federal law would force him to relinquish his gun and likely his job, the conviction created a “manifest injustice.” That local judge single-handedly overrode federal legislation, and Barsness was reissued his firearm and restored to his gun-carrying position (subject to appeal by the County Prosecutor).

In February 2003, a rural Missouri judge credited the testimony of a severely battered woman who described her husband throwing her to the ground, threatening her with death, and waking her in the middle of the night by holding her down and beating her. The woman’s husband admitted to the abuse in testimony under oath. The judge, however, denied the victim’s request for an order of protection, instead advising the woman to change the locks on her doors to keep herself safe. By denying the protective order, the judge allowed the batterer to escape the Domestic Violence Gun Safety Law, which prohibits individuals with civil protective orders entered against them from owning or possessing firearms. Later that day in open court, the same judge cited the approach of quail hunting season in open court as one reason not to issue another protective order.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 35 Comments