Friday, January 06, 2012

Obama administration improves definition of rape

| | »
“NO means NO!”
[full size (300×324)]

A seemingly small but nonetheless important step for criminal justice today: The Obama administration is expanding its definition of rape to include male victims and to account for non-violent rapes, such as when a victim is incapable of giving valid consent due to drugs or age. CBS News reports:

The government is expanding its definition of rape, including men for the first time when counting the number of victims, the Obama administration announced Friday.

[…]

Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required.

The new definition will not change federal or state laws and will not alter charges or prosecutions.

Not only will this help ensure that more rape victims are correctly identified as such (rather than having their complaints dismissed due to lack of physical force in their ordeal, as happens too often to count), but it will also correct rape statistics that only account for violent assaults, this giving the populace a false idea of the infrequency of these acts. Knowledge is always power. This is one of those policy updates that make such obvious sense as to make one wonder how the hell it took so long to be implemented in the first place.

Tags:

Fail Tweet: Fischer blames women & gays for military rapes

| | »

From the crème du bigot, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association:

Perhaps the most tell-tale sign of a hateful ass: Blaming a problem on the victims. It can’t just be that the military needs to reevaluate and restructure its policies and disciplinary oversight and make it easier and safer for victims to report abuses without fear of retribution. Nope, it’s the fault of those damn gheys and wimmen for being there in the first place.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Edit (03/02/12 6:11 PM ET) – Changed tweet embed format.

Revised chart of enacted anti-abortion measures by year

| | »

The research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, has released an updated version of last year’s chart showing the number of enacted anti-abortion provisions per year, with an increase from last July’s 80 to 92 by the end of 2011:

Graph: “Enacted Abortion Restrictions By Year” (2011 = 92)

By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)

Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.

Now there’s one record not to be proud of. Unless you’re a power-hungry woman-hating Republican, of course, in which case, major kudos on this record-breaking victory against women’s reproductive rights.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Study debunks “slippery slope” argument against assisted suicide

| | »
Live or Let Die?

One of the more common arguments used against assisted suicide/humane euthanasia (a right for which I’ve made no secret of my vehement support) is that allowing people to end their own lives on their own terms will somehow lead to doctors taking more patients’ lives without their valid consent. But this new report from the Royal Society of Canada utterly demolishes this slippery slope, concluding that allowing long-suffering patients to end their own lives is not only a moral imperative, but also demonstrably cuts down on rates of non-consensual euthanasia:

Last month, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada, chaired by Udo Schüklenk, a professor of bioethics at Queens University, released a report on decision-making at the end of life.[PDF, 2.43 MB] The report provides a strong argument for allowing doctors to help their patients to die, provided that the patients are competent and freely request such assistance.

The ethical basis of the panel’s argument is not so much the avoidance of unnecessary suffering in terminally ill patients, but rather the core value of individual autonomy or self-determination. “The manner of our dying,” the panel concludes, “reflects our sense of what is important just as much as do the other central decisions in our lives.” In a state that protects individual rights, therefore, deciding how to die ought to be recognized as such a right.

The report also offers an up-to-date review of how assistance by physicians in ending life is working in the “living laboratories” – the jurisdictions where it is legal. In Switzerland, as well as in the US states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana, the law now permits physicians, on request, to supply a terminally ill patient with a prescription for a drug that will bring about a peaceful death. In The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, doctors have the additional option of responding to the patient’s request by giving the patient a lethal injection.

The panel examined reports from each of these jurisdictions, with the exception of Montana (where legalization of assistance in dying occurred only in 2009, and reliable data are not yet available). In The Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia accounted for 1.7% of all deaths in 2005 – exactly the same level as in 1990. Moreover, the frequency of ending a patient’s life without an explicit request from the patient fell by half during the same period, from 0.8% to 0.4%.

Indeed, several surveys suggest that ending a patient’s life without an explicit request is much more common in other countries, where patients cannot lawfully ask a doctor to end their lives. In Belgium, although voluntary euthanasia rose from 1.1% of all deaths in 1998 to 1.9% in 2007, the frequency of ending a patient’s life without an explicit request fell from 3.2% to 1.8%. In Oregon, where the Death with Dignity Act has been in effect for 13 years, the annual number of physician-assisted deaths has yet to reach 100 per year, and the annual total in Washington is even lower.

Thursday, January 05, 2012

This video of adorable baby animals in love will doom us all

| | »

Oh, I get it. All these insanely cutesy videos of baby animals – they’re really just a ploy to get everyone to drop their guard and be reduced to dewy-eyed drivelers so that alien forces can invade us while we’re staring and going “cootsy-coo” at our screens, right? Ha, I knew it.

Oh well, no point in forestalling the inevitable, then. Here’s a video of Faline the baby deer and Boots the kitten, cuddling and nursing each other to the delight of audiences worldwide.

I guess it’s time we welcomed our new extraterrestrial overlords, then. Praise King Goobot!

(via @thinkgeek)

Tags:

Lawsuit: Cop stalks woman he ticketed to ask her out

| | »
Angry cop with note: “Will u date me?”
Rumors of cop’s angry delivery remain unsubstantiated

Serving as a reminder that scenarios akin to Hollywood romcoms don’t always work out for the best in real life:

A suburban Chicago police officer used a $132 speeding ticket he issued to track down a woman and ask her for a date, saying the least he could do for costing her so much money was to buy her dinner, a lawsuit filed by the woman alleges.

Evangelina Paredes accuses Stickney cop Chris Collins of violating her privacy by searching motor-vehicle records for her address, then leaving a handwritten note on her car windshield outside her apartment two days after she was ticketed.

A copy of the alleged note was attached to the lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Chicago. It starts with an attempt at self-deprecating humor, saying, "It's Chris ... that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you that ticket."

"I know this may seem crazy and you're probably right, but truth is I have not stopped thinking about you since," it continues. "I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to ... even go for a guy like me, but I'm taking a shot anyways."

The note goes on to say he would understand if Paredes did not get in touch.

"But hey," it continues apologetically, "I did cost you $132 — least I can do is buy you dinner."

[…]

"The letter caused plaintiff to suffer great fear and anxiety," the lawsuit says. "Plaintiff could not believe that a police officer would use his access to her personal information to find her home and stalk her."

The suit, which seeks unspecified payments in damages, also accuses Collins of using his "authority and position as a police officer not to protect the public, but to attempt to manipulate the plaintiff into going out on a date with him."

I’m not sure, but I think that’s a “no”.

(via @radleybalko)

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 04, 2012

| | »
Jacob Rogers
Jacob Rogers

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Florida Republican tries yet again to ban abortion

| | »
Rep. Charles Van Zant (R-Florida)
Rep. Charles Van Zant (R-Florida)

Well, how’s this for a rousing start to the new year. Barely three days into 2012, Florida Rep. Charles Van Zant (R) is restarting his party’s war on women’s reproductive health with another radical initiative to ban abortion outright in the state:

Last week, state Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka, followed through on his announcement that he would bring back a bill that bans abortion in the state of Florida, providing only an exception to save the life of the mother. Van Zant’s bill would make performing an abortion a felony.

House Bill 1151 would create the “Florida for Life Act,” a law that would essentially outlaw all abortions in direct defiance of legal abortion rights in the U.S.

According to a summary, the bill would prohibit “induced abortions,” the operation of a facility that provides abortions, the termination of any pregnancy “unless specified conditions are met.”

[…]

The bill does not provide exceptions for rape or incest, either. It only provides an exception for a woman who is facing a threat to her life if she carries out a pregnancy. According to the bill, “woman’s life is a superior consideration to the concern for the life of the fetus and the woman’s health is a superior consideration to the concern for the health of the fetus when such life or health concerns are in conflict.”

Oh, well, glad to see he’s made sure to clarify the matter of whether the fetus carrier’s life means anything compared to the sacred little parasite dwelling within her. Not that she’s worthy of any right over what goes on with her own body, of course, but hey, at least she’ll be allowed to live if things go really bad. Shouldn’t she be thankful?

Sadly, this is just the latest in a long string of anti-choice bills snaking their way through the state legislature [links removed for brevity]:

Van Zant, an ordained Baptist minister, has unsuccessfully introduced a similar bill multiple times. This past October, he told Creative Loafing he would be introducing the bill again.

The Legislature has already introduced a bill written by the Florida Catholic Conference that would redefine the death of a “viable fetus” as the death of an “unborn child.” The bill would also change laws for vehicular manslaughter involving a pregnant woman.

The Top Ten (Most Inane) Anti-Christian Events of 2011

| | »
Christian Persecution Syndrome

For all the outrage from conservative-Christian ranks about how they’re supposedly being victimized daily by all those godless gay pinko radicals and whatnot, they certainly seem short on actual cases of anti-Christian persecution to validate their claims. For a prime example, here are the Top Ten Anti-Christian Events in 2011 as chosen by DefendChristians.Org voters:

10) NBC television network twice took the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in its lead-up to the U.S. Open at Congressional Country Club.

9) In Franklin Massachusetts a pro-life man was beat by the police for peacefully handing out pro-life materials. The police accused him of conspiring to plant bombs.

8) A Christian man in Minnesota was fired from his job because one of his female co-workers attended a Bible Study that his wife led.

7) A Christian Florida teacher was suspended after school administrators discovered his support of traditional marriage posted on the internet.

6) In Kalispell Montana, pro-lifers were attacked by a fire-bomb during a prayer vigil in front of an abortion clinic. No one was hurt, but a police officer remarked pro-lifers should expect this sort of reaction to their activities.

5) Because of a complaint filed by the ACLU, the liberal 9th Circuit Court ruled that the Mt. Soledad War Memorial in San Diego was unconstitutional.

4) A homosexual activist effort caused investigations by the online money-transfer company, PayPal, against pro-family Christian organizations.

3) A Bible study was shut down by San Juan Capistrano, CA officials who claimed the group needed a permit because it posed a risk to public safety and health.

2) President Obama declared June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" and hosted a White House celebration by homosexuals.

1) California Governor Jerry Brown signs a bill forcing public school curriculum and textbooks to "celebrate" homosexuals, transgenders and bisexuals.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Indian court tells networking giants to remove offensive posts

| | »
Social networking site logos: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Digg, Technorati, Vimeo, LinkedIn, RSS and StumbleUpon

Calls for censorship are ordinarily quite troubling, especially when coming from courts and other authorities, but this ruling by some Indian tribunal ordering numerous international social networking giants to delete any and all postings that pearl-clutchers may find offensive!, wrong-headed as it is, is just amusing:

A Delhi Court on Saturday ordered 22 social networking sites, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, to remove all "anti-religious" or "anti-social" contents in the next one-and-a-half-month and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012. Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.

Kumar had on December 20 issued summonses to the social networking sites and asked them to remove objectionable photographs, videos or texts that might hurt religious sentiments.

The order comes a day after a criminal court issued summonses to the sites for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents. The court had also directed the Centre to take "immediate appropriate steps" and file a report by January 13.

Yeah … lemme know how that works out for ya.

(via RichardDawkins.net)

Monday, January 02, 2012

Daily Blend: Monday, January 02, 2012 [updated ×2]

| | »
Billboard: “IMAGINE NO RELIGION? SO DID HE. [Stalin]”
The usual combination of both wrong and stupid
[full size (500×227)]

So, y’all have a good last week or two?

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Sometimes, you just need a moment to relax peacefully

| | »

I don’t have anything to blog yet, so have a pretty – wait, make that gob-smackingly gorgeous – doggy picture:

Of course, bet’s on that not ten seconds after this was taken, Fido got up and started digging up crab poo.

(via @radleybalko)