Breaking News Events

[LeftWriteFemme]

Theft Stalls, but Does Not Stop, a Project



http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...-a-project/?hp

[Kobi]

According to NARAL, tomorrow the Senate Armed Services Committee will be voting on an amendment that will require the military to provide abortion services to victims of rape or incest - overturning a decades old federal ban on such health services.

Sexual assaults on women in the military have increased 64% in the last 6 years. The budget of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office increased from $5 million in 2005 to more than $23 million in 2010.

While it would be best for women to serve without the threat of sexual assault, having the option of an abortion, if needed, seems pertinent.

Good time to let your Congressperson know your thoughts on this.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Kobi

According to NARAL, tomorrow the Senate Armed Services Committee will be voting on an amendment that will require the military to provide abortion services to victims of rape or incest - overturning a decades old federal ban on such health services.

Sexual assaults on women in the military have increased 64% in the last 6 years. The budget of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office increased from $5 million in 2005 to more than $23 million in 2010.

While it would be best for women to serve without the threat of sexual assault, having the option of an abortion, if needed, seems pertinent.

Good time to let your Congressperson know your thoughts on this.

Somewhat ironic given the number of anti-choice bills the House (especially) has passed (or tried to pass) since the mid-term (2010) of so many "Teapublicans."

The idea of the presidency going to the GOP in November and possibly the Senate ending going to the GOP or nearly so scares the hell out of me just in terms of women's right/healthcare. Then there is the possibility of another Supreme Court nomination coming up. Bader-Ginsburg's cancer will catch-up to her (very unfortunately) and she is not a young woman. Sometimes I wonder if she will retire during the lame-duck session post general election so that she can be sure that Obama will make the appointment. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Romney wins. No way is going to last another 4-5 years.

Romney is gaining on Obama outside of women. It is time to mobilize and participate in this general election. So much is at stake.

[Andrea]

Target has come out with a line of Pride shirts. Does this mean I can shop there again?

http://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=pride+t-shirt&category=0

[Girl Friday]

Author, Orson Scott Card, Calls Homosexuality a "Dysfunction"


"Same-sex attraction is not a strait jacket; people's desires change over time; gay people still have choices; a reproductive dysfunction like same-sex attraction is not a death sentence for your DNA or for your desire to have a family in which children grow up with male and female parents to model appropriate gender roles."

[dark_crystal]

Why are Americans becoming more liberal on homosexuality but not on abortion?

According to the latest Gallup polls, public opinion on issues of sexual and reproductive freedom has become steadily more liberal. In 1977, Americans were evenly split on whether gay sex should be legal. Now they support its legality by a 2-to-1 margin. In 1996, the country opposed same-sex marriage by 68 to 27 percent. Now it’s a dead heat. In 2002, a 50-to-45-percent plurality said it was morally wrong to have a baby outside of marriage. Now a 54-to-42-percent majority says it’s acceptable. Birth control, as an issue of private morality, is a nonissue: 89 percent of Americans say it’s OK.

On issue after issue, the polls have moved to the left. But not on abortion. In 1995, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-choice, while 33 percent identified themselves as pro-life. That gap closed within three years, zigzagged a bit, and by last year stood at 49 to 45 percent, a narrow pro-choice plurality. In this month’s poll, however, 50 percent of respondents call themselves pro-life. Only 41 percent call themselves pro-choice.

[Kobi]

From NARAL:

Just moments ago, the Senate Armed Forces Committee passed an amendment to allow our military women to receive abortion coverage in cases of rape or incest.

Today’s vote was vitally important. Right now, women in the military are patently denied coverage for abortion services—even in cases of rape or incest.

This amendment, introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), was passed with bipartisan support and is a critical positive step towards over-turning this ban.

We applaud Senator Shaheen and the committee members for taking decisive action to provide women in the military with the coverage they need when facing rape or incest. The next step is for the full Congress to follow the committee’s lead.

Women serving in the armed forces defend and protect our country every single day, but the federal government has refused to do the same for them when it comes to their basic health needs in a time of crisis.

For years, the federal government has failed servicewomen by allowing this harsh and antiquated policy to stand. Every woman deserves access to the full range of reproductive health services—not just a select few Congress deems appropriate.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Target has come out with a line of Pride shirts. Does this mean I can shop there again?

http://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=pride+t-shirt&category=0

NO! Although I can't even recall why it was us queer boycotted them. Was it giving money to the GOP or maybe they gave money to someone who supported the whole ex-gay thing? Can't remember, but it was something related to politics I believe.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

NO! Although I can't even recall why it was us queer boycotted them. Was it giving money to the GOP or maybe they gave money to someone who supported the whole ex-gay thing? Can't remember, but it was something related to politics I believe.

Target donated money to a Tea Party candidate in a local election in a midwestern state. (Maybe Michigan?)

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Target has come out with a line of Pride shirts. Does this mean I can shop there again?

http://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=pride+t-shirt&category=0

Guess there is a profit to be made post Obama's pro-same sex marriage?

[Nat]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Why are Americans becoming more liberal on homosexuality but not on abortion?

According to the latest Gallup polls, public opinion on issues of sexual and reproductive freedom has become steadily more liberal. In 1977, Americans were evenly split on whether gay sex should be legal. Now they support its legality by a 2-to-1 margin. In 1996, the country opposed same-sex marriage by 68 to 27 percent. Now it’s a dead heat. In 2002, a 50-to-45-percent plurality said it was morally wrong to have a baby outside of marriage. Now a 54-to-42-percent majority says it’s acceptable. Birth control, as an issue of private morality, is a nonissue: 89 percent of Americans say it’s OK.

On issue after issue, the polls have moved to the left. But not on abortion. In 1995, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-choice, while 33 percent identified themselves as pro-life. That gap closed within three years, zigzagged a bit, and by last year stood at 49 to 45 percent, a narrow pro-choice plurality. In this month’s poll, however, 50 percent of respondents call themselves pro-life. Only 41 percent call themselves pro-choice.

I think maybe they are taking the "may the fetus you save be gay" bumper stickers seriously

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Target has come out with a line of Pride shirts. Does this mean I can shop there again?

http://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=pride+t-shirt&category=0

So we give them 13 bucks for a shirt that probably cost a tenth of that to produce - then they take the remaining profit and donate it toward people who think death penalty for gays is A-okay? No thanks.

They like gay money JUST FINE. And gay labor. And gay designers. But the profit they make - eh.

And they do offer same-sex partner benefits, which is better than my employer has to offer.

I know plenty of LGBT folks who think Target's the awesomest and don't care about the bs that happened with them. I see gay and lesbian couples heading to and from the local Target with regularity - and that's in a town where gay and lesbian couples are a rarity to see. But just the thought of giving that company a dime still feels like ashes in my mouth. I personally cannot bring myself to do it. Target was magic for me before that bs, and now it's lost all its sparkle.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Target donated money to a Tea Party candidate in a local election in a midwestern state. (Maybe Michigan?)

Thanks, Cheryl!

Andrea, I was just teasing, certainly I would never tell someone where they should/shouldn't shop in any serious manner.

[Nat]

Target donated $150k to a PAC for emmer's gubanatorial campaign in Minnesota (which is where Target is from). Emmer was not only anti-gay but very much in agreement with Arizona's policies against immigrants.

I remember this being pretty satisfying.


Did some more research and "up to $120k" of profits for the sale of these shirts will be donated to an equality organization.

A gay male friend from Minnesota did point out to me today that selling these shirts is pretty gutsy for Target at this time as there's an anti-marriage amendment currently being worked on in Minnesota at this time.

Sooo I think I am reversing my opinion on this - buying one of these shirts would:

1. Encourage Target to continue to be as pro-gay as they are
2. Ensure some organization working for our rights will receive almost as much as the donation made to Emmer's campaign.
3. Indicate to Target that LGBT folks spend money and they would be missing out on LGBT money when they treat our community as dismissively as they already did.

Based on the principle of approving of positive moves made by a corporation by purchasing merchandise that supports our community - since money speaks a different language when it's spent than when a place is entirely boycotted, I think I will buy one of these shirts while continuing to boycott other Target purchases. I can't find the YouTube on this type of activism but I did think it was a good idea - the opposite of a boycott - to spend money at companies for committing to doing the right thing as being an effective use of capitalism + activism.

I'm also more likely to shop at JCPenney's since they stood up against pressure to remove Ellen as a spokesperson despite anti-gay threats to boycott.

Also, the Obama campaign is now officially selling LGBT out for Obsma paraphernalia - and even though the designs aren't the best, I will likely purchase at least one of these items in support. Obama has had a lot of LGBT supporters despite his former disapproval of gay marriage and I want his campaign also to be able to count LGBT dollars among his supporters.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Kobi

From NARAL:

Just moments ago, the Senate Armed Forces Committee passed an amendment to allow our military women to receive abortion coverage in cases of rape or incest.

Today’s vote was vitally important. Right now, women in the military are patently denied coverage for abortion services—even in cases of rape or incest.

This amendment, introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), was passed with bipartisan support and is a critical positive step towards over-turning this ban.

We applaud Senator Shaheen and the committee members for taking decisive action to provide women in the military with the coverage they need when facing rape or incest. The next step is for the full Congress to follow the committee’s lead.

Women serving in the armed forces defend and protect our country every single day, but the federal government has refused to do the same for them when it comes to their basic health needs in a time of crisis.

For years, the federal government has failed servicewomen by allowing this harsh and antiquated policy to stand. Every woman deserves access to the full range of reproductive health services—not just a select few Congress deems appropriate.

I am willing to bet it will never pass the House or the Senate. I'm too lazy to go find the Committee vote....how many and which Repubs voted for it. I am shocked any Republican voted to spend taxpayer dollars on abortion for any reason for anybody. Those that did vote for this will be 'taken to the woodshed' for it.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I am willing to bet it will never pass the House or the Senate. I'm too lazy to go find the Committee vote....how many and which Repubs voted for it. I am shocked any Republican voted to spend taxpayer dollars on abortion for any reason for anybody. Those that did vote for this will be 'taken to the woodshed' for it.

I understand what you are saying. It's a wacky world out there. Here is the vote:


MOTION: To authorize the use of Department of Defense funds for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote, 16-10.
In Favor: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, McCain-R, Brown-R, and Collins-R.
Opposed: Senators Nelson, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Portman, Ayotte, Graham, Cornyn, and Vitter.

[DapperButch]

Nat -

I like the way you are thinking about this Target issue. Buy the shirts only. When I was reading your post and saw where you said that you were changing your mind on it I thought about how I still felt icky about shopping there. When I saw you say buy the shirts only, that made sense to me!

+1 to JcPenney's. The problem is that I don't like their clothing. I haven't been in one of their stores since I was a kid though (with mom...who, of course, calls it Penney's like many other women her age!), so I will have to go and see what else they carry.

[LeftWriteFemme]

A Company’s Stand for Gay Marriage, and Its Cost


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/bu...KWqbC7deWbZaXQ

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Thanks, Cheryl!

Andrea, I was just teasing, certainly I would never tell someone where they should/shouldn't shop in any serious manner.

No worries. I knew you were teasing me.

[Kobi]

SAN FRANCISCO—A judge in California has ruled that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions is unconstitutional because it denies long-term health insurance benefits to legal spouses of state employees and retirees.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken also concluded Thursday that a section of the federal tax code that made the domestic partners of state workers ineligible for long-term care insurance similarly violates the civil rights of people in gay and lesbian relationships. Both laws were based on what she called "moral condemnation" of same-sex couples.

"Congress's restriction on state-maintained long-term care plans lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, but rather appears to be motivated by antigay animus," Wilken wrote in ordering the California Public Employees' Retirement System to allow current and former state employees to enroll their same-sex spouses and partners in the extended care plan.

Congress passed both laws that the Oakland, Calif.-based judge determined to be constitutionally suspect in 1996, when the gay rights movement was just beginning to push for the state and local benefits that come with marriage. She is the second federal judge in California this year to conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the due process rights of legally married same-sex couples.

A San Francisco judge also declared the federal law unconstitutional in February in a separate case involving a federal court employee, who married during the brief period when same-sex marriages were legal in California, was not allowed to add her wife to her regular employer-sponsored health care plan. That ruling is under appeal and is scheduled to be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September.

"Lesbian and gay couples are entitled to fair and equal treatment from the federal government," Elizabeth Kristen of Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, which sued the U.S. Treasury Department and California's pension plan two years ago on behalf of three same-sex couples. "Judge Wilken's ruling ensures that both same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners will be treated fairly with respect to the CalPERS long-term care insurance program."

Lawyers representing a House of Representatives committee that has taken on the job of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court since the Obama administration said it no longer would did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Wilken said she would stay her decision in the event of an appeal.

The program to which the plaintiffs in the case Wilken decided are seeking access covers the cost of in-home care and other services for people who need help with basic daily tasks because of age, injury or chronic conditions such as Alzheimer's disease.

In seeking to end their exclusion from the program, the same-sex couples had argued that state workers and retirees are allowed to enroll not only heterosexual husbands and wives, but siblings and step-siblings, nieces and nephews, in-laws and stepparents.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...--+Latest+news