#Kentucky Court of Appeals

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A ‘twisted’ experience: How KY’s abortion bans are depriving pregnant patients of health care

BY ALEX ACQUISTO

On the way to her 20 week ultrasound, Amy English texted her family group chat inviting guesses on her baby’s biological sex.

“Baby boy English muffin!” her father in-in-law texted.

“I thought boy at first but I’m thinking girl now,” her sister-in-law said. “My official guess is a girl :).”

It was December 28. Earlier that morning, Amy, 31, her husband David, and their 20-month-old daughter Annie had celebrated a belated Christmas at their house in Louisville with family visiting from out of state.

Amy and David had planned this pregnancy, and it was, in a way, perfectly timed. Their baby’s due date was five days after Annie’s birthday. Her children would be two years apart almost exactly to the day — a reality Amy was “ecstatic about.”

Sitting in a fluorescent-lit room inside Baptist Health Louisville, Amy looked for familiar shapes on the screen as an ultrasound tech probed her abdomen. Familiar with radiology in her career as a physical therapist, she has a baseline understanding of how to read ultrasounds: gray shapes usually indicate fluid, and bone shows up as white.

Amy remembers seeing her baby’s arms, legs and the curve of its back. But there was no recognizable outline where the skull should be.

“I couldn’t see the top of my baby’s head,” Amy said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. “I kept waiting for the tech to move the probe in a way where we could see what we should be seeing. I could tell she was searching for it, too.”

Amy had also learned in school about anencephaly, a severe fetal birth defect impacting the brain and skull. A lack of folic acid early in pregnancy increases the likelihood of this happening. This possibility flashed in her mind but she quickly batted it down; she’d been taking her prenatal vitamins, rich in folic acid, for months even before discovering she was pregnant.

The tech paused, then spoke.

“What we’re looking for here is an outline of the baby’s head, and right now I’m not really seeing that,” the woman explained before calling in Amy’s longtime OBGYN.

Over the next few minutes, Amy remembers the room blurring as she heard her doctor use the word “acrania,” which is when a fetus matures through pregnancy without ever developing parts of its skull. It can spur anencephaly, when the brain, too, is underdeveloped and partially missing. Pregnancies with either of these conditions are nonviable.

Amy’s baby, which they learned was a boy, had both. He would not survive into childhood, likely not beyond a few minutes after birth.

This, alone, was devastating news. Her dismay was compounded the next day when she learned that terminating her nonviable pregnancy, even by way of an early induction — a commonplace and provider-recommended method of treatment for such a diagnosis — couldn’t happen.

Even though Amy’s baby would never survive outside her womb, the pregnancy still had a fetal heartbeat — a technicality, considering the diagnosis. Coupled with the lack of immediate threat to her health, her doctors explained they couldn’t induce labor, much less give her an abortion. Kentucky laws forbade it, they said.

“I don’t know what was more shocking: to find out the baby had anencephaly, or that I would have to go out of state to get this care,” Amy said.

Kentucky’s abortion bans do not legally permit the standard of care treatment for a nonviable pregnancy like Amy’s. As a result, doctors must refer patients needing otherwise medically-recommended terminations out of state in droves, along with people desiring elective abortions, according to interviews with seven providers across four hospital systems. Providers who terminate pregnancies in violation of the trigger law can be charged with a felony in Kentucky.

Though this scenario is increasingly common statewide, it’s one arbiters of the state’s laws have yet to remedy, and one lawmakers are not publicly working to resolve.

Kentucky’s trigger law, enacted in late June 2022, criminalizes abortion except to prevent a “substantial risk of death,” or to “prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.” The fetal heartbeat law also includes these exceptions but otherwise bans abortion except in a “medical emergency” once fetal cardiac activity begins, usually around six weeks.

Any time a pregnancy is terminated, each law requires a provider to document in writing why it was necessary to, in the case of the six-week ban, “prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

The law permits the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to audit any licensed health care facility to make sure its abortion reporting requirements are “in compliance” with the law.

Both bans allow physicians to use their “reasonable medical judgment” when deciding whether pregnancy terminations are medically necessary. But providers interviewed for this story said that guidance is antithetical with the rest of the law’s limits, which only permit terminations in medical emergencies. There are no exceptions for fetal anomalies, or for the gamut of conditions that may make a pregnancy nonviable but don’t pose an immediate or emergent health risk to a pregnant person.

Moreover, the lack of uniform guidance from the state on what’s considered an emergency means definitions across hospitals sometimes vary, the Herald-Leader found. This has created a legal thicket for health care institutions. As a result, the final say on some critical medical decisions affecting pregnant patients is falling not to medical experts, but to hospital attorneys and administrators, who are worried about legality, liability and reputation.

The Herald-Leader asked the University of Kentucky, UofL Health and Baptist Health for insight into how their respective risk management teams and providers are navigating the laws. None responded to multiple questions about respective protocols for deciding when terminations are legally defensible, or how risk management teams, administrators and providers go about deciding.

“Clinicians have a responsibility to provide compassionate, evidence-based care and counsel to their patients, and also comply with the law,” Baptist said in a statement.

“UofL Health is committed to provide comprehensive health care to all its patients and their families,” UofL said in a statement. “In the case of a nonviable pregnancy that poses a health risk to the mother, we explain options for care while complying with all state and federal laws.”

“Although we cannot discuss when or how our legal counsel gives advice,” UK HealthCare said, “in Kentucky, state law prohibits the University’s physicians and staff from performing abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger. In the case of a nonviable pregnancy, our health care staff work with patients to determine the best course of care for the patient that is consistent with state and federal law.”

‘WE COULD NOT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE HERE’

The morning after Amy learned her baby likely had a fatal birth defect, the diagnosis was confirmed at a second ultrasound with a high-risk specialist. The buoyancy and excitement of the prior day was replaced with dread and grief. Amy remembers the quietness of the room during the second ultrasound, the hollow clicking of the keyboard keys and the intermittent clicking of the computer mouse.

Baptist Health refused to make Amy’s doctor available for an interview. But their conversation was outlined in Amy’s medical records, which were provided to the Herald-Leader.

“I discussed this finding with the patient and offered my sincerest condolences — that this was not compatible with life and that I am so sorry she and her husband are in this situation,” the doctor wrote in her notes. “She was understandably tearful.”

Amy listened as her provider explained her two options: Amy could carry her son to term and deliver him via C-section. He would immediately be taken to palliative care, where he would live a few minutes, maybe hours. Grief counselors would be on standby.

Her second option was to terminate the pregnancy early by way of an abortion or preterm induction. “Choosing not to continue the pregnancy: we discussed that this is also a loving choice for a baby that will certainly not survive,” her doctor wrote.

Pre-trigger law, termination under these circumstances would’ve happened in a hospital, and Amy’s health insurance likely would’ve covered it.

“No part of me wanted to be pregnant anymore,” Amy said. “Every flutter and kick he gave felt like a literal gut punch reminder that I would never get to take him home.”

Strangers were already approaching her at the grocery to ask to touch her stomach. Her patients at work often asked how far along she was. It seemed emotionally unthinkable to continue subjecting herself to a life where, at any moment, she would be forced to repeat that her growing body was nurturing a baby that wouldn’t live, she said.

Termination was what Amy wanted. She erupted into sobs when her doctor told her that under her current circumstances (her life wasn’t immediately threatened, and there was still a fetal heartbeat) it wasn’t an option.

“We discussed that due to our current Kentucky laws, we could not provide this service here,” her doctor wrote in her records.

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m so sorry,” Amy remembers the specialist saying.

She gave Amy a list of hospitals and clinics in surrounding states that might be able to terminate her pregnancy. Her doctor recommended calling Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, or another clinic in Illinois, where abortion is widely available.

“Am I just supposed to Google the number, call the front desk and ask, ‘How do I get an abortion at your hospital?’” Amy remembered thinking.

Over the next few days, she, her husband and sister-in-law cold-called a handful of clinics to request a dilation and evacuation abortion, common in the second trimester. But a combination of abortion restrictions in Indiana and Ohio, including gestational limits on when abortion is legal — Amy was 21 weeks along at this point — left her with few options.

Then, Amy’s sister, a nurse anesthetist at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, west of Chicago, stepped in. Her hospital lacked the equipment for a D&E, but they agreed to induce Amy.

On January 4, after driving close to 400 miles, Amy was induced and gave birth to a son she and her husband named Solomon Matthew. He didn’t cry. His heart beat for about two minutes before it stopped.

‘NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO’

The Republican-led General Assembly has made no moves to amend or further clarify either abortion ban since both took effect seven months ago, even though the combined impact has harmed patients, doctors have told lawmakers.

The Kentucky Supreme Court still hasn’t issued a preliminary opinion on whether either law infringes on a person’s constitutional right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. Deciding so would temporarily block one or both bans from being enforced. Convened for a regular session through March, the Republican supermajority has yet to file any bills related to reproductive health care access and likely won’t until the high court weighs in.

In the meantime, there’s disagreement about whether or not either ban infringes on providers’ ability to dole out the standard level of care to pregnant patients.

Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Michelle Keller and former Deputy Chief Justice Lisabeth Hughes raised this point during November oral arguments in the pending court case from the state’s two outpatient abortion clinics challenging the constitutionality of both laws.

The trigger law “doesn’t recognize an exception for women who are under the care of a physician who tells them that the standard of care would be to terminate the pregnancy,” Hughes told Solicitor General Matt Kuhn, arguing on behalf of the Attorney General’s office.

As a result, “What’s really happening is physicians in (hospitals) all over the commonwealth are calling the risk managers and attorneys for the hospitals not knowing what to do,” Keller added. “You’re obfuscating what this trigger statute says. There isn’t a strict life of the mother exception.”

The law’s proponents, including Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron, have cited the provision in the law that allows for use of “reasonable medical judgment” as protecting doctors’ autonomy, and that any challenge to that fact is overblown.

“The law has an explicit health exception, (which) depends on a ‘reasonable medical judgment’ from physicians,” Kuhn told Kentucky Supreme Court Justices that day. There’s been “a lot of misinformation” suggesting the law doesn’t adequately protect a pregnant person’s health, he said, citing two advisories Cameron’s office has issued since both measures took effect. Both clarify that in vitro fertilization, and abortions as treatment of miscarriages, preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancies don’t violate the law.

As for the host of other conditions not mentioned, “we are continuing to work with Kentucky doctors giving guidance on that,” Kuhn said.

But no written evidence of that guidance appears to exist. In response to an open records request from the Herald-Leader, Cameron’s office said this week it had no written or electronic records of communication between the Attorney General’s office and licensed health care facilities or providers regarding the trigger law or six week ban.

‘AN UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK’

It was mid June when Leah Martin, 35, discovered she was pregnant with her second child.

Pregnancy at ages 35 and above is considered geriatric. Aware that her age meant she faced a heightened risk, she opted for genetic testing early on to gauge any abnormalities.

Her first ultrasound didn’t raise any alarm. At just over nine weeks, Leah took a prenatal genetic test. The results a week later showed “low fetal fractal numbers,” she said in an interview.

That result, her OBGYN told her, could mean there hadn’t been enough material collected to show a clearer result. It could also signal an abnormality.

Leah, wanting to be judicious, got a more exact genetic test just before 12 weeks. She quickly learned her fetus had triploidy, a rare condition that causes the development of 69 chromosomes per cell instead of the regular 46. It causes not only severe physical deformities, but triploidy stunts development of crucial organs, like the lungs and heart. It means a fetus, if it even survives to birth, will likely not live beyond a few days.

What’s more, Leah was also diagnosed with a partial molar pregnancy, which causes atypical cells to grow in the uterus and, as Leah’s doctors told her, could lead to cancer.

It was mid-July, and Kentucky’s trigger law and six week ban had been in effect for barely two weeks. Leah was familiar enough with what both laws restricted and assumed that because her pregnancy could cause her cancer and was nonviable, she would lawfully qualify as an exception.

So, she weighed her options with her doctors at Baptist Health Lexington, who included Dr. Blake Bradley, her longtime OBGYN.

Similar to Amy’s diagnosis, Leah’s doctors told her that even if she opted to carry the pregnancy to term, her baby “would live a short life in palliative care, most likely never leaving the hospital. It would really be a quite painful existence,” she said.

“I have a 2-year-old at home, and I’m 35, weighing how I would like to expand my family. It seemed like the safest option for me and the compassionate choice for my unborn child was to terminate the pregnancy,” she said.

Like Amy’s, a medically-necessary abortion under these circumstances would typically take place at a hospital, doctors interviewed for this story said. Leah’s health insurance had already agreed to cover it. It was also the quickest way to help Leah to her end goal: getting pregnant again in order to birth a child that would survive.

It was July 21 and Leah was just over 12 weeks pregnant when she learned that Baptist’s legal counsel had blocked her doctors from giving her a dilation and curettage abortion.

“I was told the hospital refused to perform the procedure while the case was being litigated. I was dumbfounded,” Leah said. Hospital lawyers cited an ongoing lawsuit from Kentucky’s two outpatient abortion providers that’s pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

According to Leah, hospital providers, relaying the message from administration and risk management, reportedly said if her fetus died on its own, doctors would be able to terminate her pregnancy. But their hands were tied as long as it had a heartbeat.

“People minimize that pregnancy, even under its best circumstances, is associated with life-threatening risks, life-altering risks and emotional impacts,” Bradley told the Herald-Leader. “So, to compel a woman to continue a pregnancy that is by everyone’s assessment, doomed, by definition places that woman at an unreasonable and unnecessary physical and psychological risk, period.”

Baptist Health refused to make Leah’s high-risk doctor available for an interview.

The following Monday, July 25, Leah had an ultrasound at the hospital to confirm what she already knew. As an ultrasound tech probed her abdomen, a wheel of dizzying emotions spun in her head: she desperately wanted a baby, but she didn’t want to birth a child into a painful existence.

Already faced with a gutting dilemma, she felt further burdened by having such an intimate choice ripped from her. And she was furious at now being forced to remain pregnant despite there being no chance for survival, despite the risks continuing such a pregnancy posed to her own body.

She remembers staring at the ultrasound screen waiting to hear the muffled heartbeat of her fetus, racked with guilt because she hoped she wouldn’t.

“It was such a twisted experience being pregnant with a baby I desperately wanted, lying there hoping its heart had stopped,” she said shakily. “It was horrible to have to wish for that in order to receive care. It just felt so unsafe and cruel.”

Leah had already arranged to drive to Chicago to get an abortion when a Jefferson Circuit judge issued a preliminary injunction on July 22, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing both bans. She immediately called EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville — one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state — and made an appointment.

On Wednesday, July 27, almost 13 weeks pregnant, Leah paid $950 out of pocket for her abortion. Her insurance wouldn’t cover it, since it was considered elective. The following Monday, the Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned the circuit court injunction, reinstating both abortion bans.

After Leah’s abortion, she sent a message to her high-risk doctor. Her doctor responded the following day. Leah shared that correspondence with the Herald-Leader.

“You’ve been on my thoughts a lot,” her doctor wrote. “Words cannot express the dismay I feel right now. I’ve spent my whole adult life learning how to care for mothers in heart wrenching or dangerous situations like yours, and the politics now make it not only impossible, but to work to take care of patients like they deserve — with compassion and science — in these horrible situations is wrong and immoral.”

“I hope your procedure yesterday was smooth, though I know it was hard,” her doctor wrote. “I’m so sorry we could not (were not allowed, rather) to take care of you here.”

#us politics #news #Kentucky Herald-Leader #2023 #abortions #Abortion bans #anencephaly #acrania #nonviable pregnancies #kentucky #fetal heartbeat laws #Cabinet for Health and Family Services #dilation and evacuation abortions #Kentucky Supreme Court #Daniel Cameron #triploidy #palliative care #dilation and curettage abortions #Kentucky Court of Appeals #reproductive rights #bodily autonomy

[203y]

hahahahaha big big big mistake i just made looking up “reversing an adoption oregon” whyd i do that! whyd i do that!! whyd i fucking do that!!!

#im paralyzed to even start trying to change my legal name bc im scared ill fail to appeal to a court order somehow and wont get to try again #like ive waited far too long so theres no reason for it to matter anymore #i want those fucking wretches names off of my birth certificate and off of my record alltogether i DESPISE them both #im going to be twenty-six years old is there fucking ANYTHING i can do besides move to fucking kentucky or something to change my name #if my only hope is to get back in contact with the woman who called me a liar when i told her i caught her husband molesting her daughter #im going to go fucking ballistic LOLOL the last time i had anything to do with her was when i was homeless and she needed my foodstamps #a humiliating but graciously brief experience while i waited a couple days to be approved to move into a 12-month-only homeless shelter

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[officialyourdailyinspiration]

by Talia Wise | A federal appeals court has ruled that both Tennessee and Kentucky can enforce laws that would protect children and teens struggling with gender confusion from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mutilating irreversible surgeries. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction last Thursday allowing Tennessee and Kentucky to uphold laws that would bar sex-change surgeries and hormone interventions for minors…

[offender42085]

Post 1047

Travis M Bredhold, Kentucky inmate 315046, born 1995, incarceration intake in October 2020 at age 25, parole consideraiton in December 2033, expected release date October 2042

Murder, Robbery, Theft

The Crime occurred in December 2013. Motions and pre-trial proceedings went on for almost 7 years before a guilty plea was accepted in November 2020.

The prosecutor sought the death penalty at the time of indictment. The case was appealed before trial. The trial judge ruled that the death penalty consideration in this case would be inappropriate. The judge wrote in his ruling:

“(I)t appears there is a very clear national consensus trending toward restricting the death penalty, especially in the case where defendants are eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) years of age.”

“Not only have six more states abolished the death penalty since Roper in 2005, four more have imposed moratoria on executions, and seven more of de factoprohibitions on the execution of defendants eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21),” Scorsone wrote.

“Travis Bredhold was eighteen (18) years and five (5) months old at the time of the alleged crime,” Scorsone wrote. “According to recent scientific studies, Mr. Bredbold fits right into the group experiencing the ‘maturational imbalance,’ during which his system for sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and susceptibility to peer pressure was fully developed, while his system for planning and impulse control lagged behind, unable to override those impulses.”

The state Supreme Court overruled the local court. In the end, the prosecutors decided to withdraw their intent to seek the death penalty in subsequent proceedings.

3s

#inmate

[beardedmrbean]

Indiana can now enforce a law banning minors from seeking gender-transitioning treatments after a federal appeals court ruled to remove a temporary injunction issued by a judge last year, which kept the ban from going into effect last summer.

A three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago handed down the decision on Tuesday. Two of the judges were appointed by presidents Reagan and Trump, while the third judge was appointed by President Biden.

The bill, which was signed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb on April 5, 2023, was set to become law on July 1, 2023, but was blocked by a judge a month prior following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon issued the injunction, which halted the parts of the law prohibiting minors from accessing hormone therapies and puberty blockers, and prohibiting Indiana doctors from communicating with out-of-state doctors about transgender-related treatments for minors. The law's ban on gender-transitioning surgeries for minors was still allowed to take effect.

On Tuesday, the ACLU of Indiana issued a written statement in response to the appeals court's ruling, describing it as "heartbreaking" for transgender minors, their families and doctors.

"As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all the transgender youth of Indiana to know this fight is far from over," the statement read. "We will continue to challenge this law until it is permanently defeated and Indiana is made a safer place to raise every family."

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita did not share those sentiments and praised the court's decision in a post on X, formerly Twitter, Tuesday evening.

"Our commonsense state law, banning dangerous and irreversible gender-transition procedures for minors, is now enforceable following the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s newest order. We are proud to win this fight against the radicals who continue pushing this horrific practice on our children for ideological and financial reasons," he wrote.

The ACLU of Indiana filed the lawsuit last year on behalf of four minors undergoing gender-transitioning treatments and a doctor providing such care. The organization argued that the ban violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees and strips parents of the right to make medical decisions for their children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, among other medical groups, claim minors can safely seek gender-transitioning treatments if they are being administered properly.

Representatives from the state's only hospital-based gender health program at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis told legislators last year that doctors do not perform or provide referrals for genital surgeries for minors, according to The Associated Press. The hospital was not involved in the lawsuit opposing the ban.

Twenty-two other states have also enacted laws restricting or banning gender-transitioning treatments for minors. They are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

The bans are in limbo in some of those states as a federal court ruled Arkansas' ban is unconstitutional and temporary injunctions were placed on the laws in Idaho and Montana.

#nunyas news

[mariacallous]

When Bill Lee donned a cheerleader uniform, fake pearls and a wig as part of high school senior year antics, he probably didn’t think the goofy costume would come back to bite him. But, more than 40 years later, the now governor of Tennessee is at the forefront of efforts to ban the innocent costumes he and his friends once wore, waging a battle that strikes at the heart of our first amendment freedoms.

Since the beginning of this year, at least 32 bills have been filed in Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia targeting drag performances, with more on the way.

Tennessee was the first to pass its bill into law last week, barring “adult cabaret performances” on public property or in places where they might be within view of children. The bill bans, among other things, “male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers”. Violators may face misdemeanor or even felony charges.

In Texas, at least four different bills would put venues that host drag performances in the same category as adult movie theaters and strip clubs.

Driving support for these bills is discomfort and distaste for expression that defies conventional gender norms. The growth of library Drag Queen Story Hours – programs that feature drag performers as a way to provide “unabashedly queer role models” for kids – have led some to question whether young children should be exposed to those who defy traditional gender patterns.

Participation in Drag Queen Story Hours is voluntary – libraries decide whether to program these events and families choose whether to attend them – but some critics seem to regard their very existence as deviant or dangerous. This reaction is part of a wider backlash against the increased visibility of transgender and non-binary identities. States and communities have banned books featuring transgender characters and prohibited teaching about transgender identities in school.

Though the history and cultural role of drag goes well beyond current tensions over transgender issues, this form of performance and display has now come into the crosshairs. Drag performances have been targeted with violence and are now the subject of state laws to limit or even outlaw them.

Anti-drag legislation varies from state to state, but tends to share some common provisions. Most bills define a drag performer as someone performing while using dress, makeup and mannerisms associated with a gender other than the one assigned to them at birth. A number of bills include lip-syncing within their definitions and many specify that the person must be performing for an audience.

Some bills would designate any establishment that hosts drag performances as an “adult” or sexually oriented business, often making it illegal for such businesses to be located within a certain distance of schools or residential areas.

While the details of the legislation may change from state to state, most of these bills represent a broad and dangerous chilling of Americans’ right to free speech. The US supreme court has repeatedly found that clothing choices are a constitutionally protected form of expression under the first amendment.

The Tennessee law’s reference to “prurience” – defined as something intended to arouse sexual interest – should limit the sweep of the law so it doesn’t affect things like children’s story hours. But, inevitably, concerns over the intent and enforcement of the law will cast a chill over shows, jokes or comedy bits that might be anywhere close to the line. That chilling is intentional: by targeting drag performances, lawmakers intend to intimidate transgender and non-binary performers and shows into hiding.

The breadth of the bills is staggering, and many would risk chilling expression that goes well beyond the drafters’ purported goals of protecting children or limiting displays that may border on the obscene.

Productions of Shakespeare plays like As You Like It or Twelfth Night – both of which feature cross-dressing characters – could run afoul of some of these bills, as might a singer performing the musical version of Mrs Doubtfire. Sandy Duncan’s performance as Peter Pan would be banned under several of these bills. Movies like White Christmas, Tootsie, Some Like It Hot, Bridge on the River Kwai and South Pacific – all of which feature comic performances by men wearing women’s clothes – could be off-limits for screenings in schools or libraries.

Even Governor Bill Lee’s decades-old dress-up could lead to serious legal repercussions under the law he just signed, if it were to be interpreted and enforced broadly. If students wore similar costumes today on the grounds of a public high school, and then went on to make a sexual joke in front of a small group, their behavior might be criminalized.

The legislation has even broader impacts for transgender people. Under some draft laws a string quartet with a transgender violinist might not be able to perform chamber music. A trans chef talking about their new cookbook could be restricted to venues designated as “adult businesses”.

It’s perfectly fair for parents to want to decide how and when their young children engage with questions of gender identity. But the drive to protect children from witnessing people whose dress defies traditional gender binaries must not become the basis for draconian restrictions impinging upon the free expression rights of children and adults alike.

Whether it’s youthful pranks, beloved plays, historical costumes or adult performances, the ability to dress up and play characters unlike yourself is core to artistic expression. In the name of curbing drag, legislatures across the country are dragging down first amendment freedoms for all.

[appalachiananarchist]

He can cry me a damn river...that is, if any pro-lifers actually cried over the supposed “lives” lost to abortion. The truth is that they never cared about children or "life." If they did, they wouldn't be trying to force child rape victims to give birth before they are old enough to drive a car or to put away their toys for the last time. If they did, they would be fighting to improve the lives of children born into poverty. If they did, they would be fighting to reduce maternal mortality rates, especially among black women. If they did, they would be promoting sex education and contraception. If they did, they would be mourning the lives of the already-born people with lives and dreams and families and undebatable personhood whose lives are uprooted and ended due to forced pregnancies. They do not do any of these things because they only ever cared about control. This was never about state's rights or limiting the federal government or any similar nonsense. They want abortion outlawed and will use any rhetoric and any excuse to create that reality.

First they tell us we cannot use the "right to liberty" to mean that females have the right to control their own bodies because a group of white slave owners in the 1700s would not have wanted this. However, those same slave owners also didn't intend for human rights to fully extend to anyone except white men. We have rectified their mistakes (somewhat) by granting oppressed groups federally protected rights that the founding fathers most certainly did not intend for them to have when originally penning our founding documents. However, when it comes to abortion, we are only allowed to interpret "liberty" in the same way that sexist slave-owners did hundreds of years ago. Now they are trying to tell us that the Kentucky Constitution, which also states a right to liberty, similarly cannot be used to protect the right of bodily autonomy for females because they don't want it to mean that, either.

Listen: if you are out there trying to argue that the right to liberty and self-determination shouldn't apply to certain groups, you are probably on the wrong side of history.

Anyway, this is all to say that these pieces of paper which purport to grant us rights do not and cannot protect us. The recent overturning of Roe vs. Wade in and of itself is proof of that. Authoritarians will always find a way to argue that the protections of laws and constitutions should not apply to groups they deem undesirable. With enough support, their arguments will succeed. 

We are not weak. We cannot continue to be idle. We cannot continue to be docile. We cannot continue to go about our days and smile and nod and say "just vote in X election to fix this problem!" when people are affected by this right now. We need to raise hell.

#abortion #reproductive rights #women's rights #human rights #kentucky #roe vs. wade

[handeaux]

Cincinnati Gasped At The Idea Of ‘Trial Marriages,’ But Practiced Them Anyway

Judge Stanley Struble was fed up. As he looked over his docket in 1929, the judge grew suspicious that the Hamilton County Courts were being forced into abetting the immoral practice known as the “trial marriage.” It was increasingly common, Struble noticed, for Ohio teenagers to elope to Northern Kentucky, where marriage laws were much looser, and then, when the match proved unsatisfactory, to ask Ohio courts to annul the union on the basis of their immaturity. Judge Struble told the Cincinnati Post [30 November 1929]:

“These marriages seem to be becoming a habit among youthful couples, and clerks who issue licenses in such cases seem to be interested only in obtaining the fees, the same as would appear the case of those who perform these marriage ceremonies.”

Judge Struble held two annulment appeals aside until further investigation revealed the motivation behind those cases. The couples placed under the microscope were Leola Stouder McCloskey, who testified that she was only 16 when she married 19-year-old William McCloskey in Covington in 1926 and Elizabeth Bruenen Edwards, married at age 16 to Robert Edwards in Newport, also in 1926. In neither case did any testimony reveal why each couple had waited three years before seeking annulment.

Judge Struble was reacting to a controversial topic that had stirred debate in Cincinnati since at least 1906 – the idea that temporary marriages, giving couples a no-fault option to leave the marriage after a brief trial period, were the solution to the social problems of divorce. The idea was most popularly promoted by pioneering anthropologist Elsie Clews Parsons in her 1906 book, “The Family.” Almost from the day it was published, Doctor Parsons’ book was widely (if surreptitiously) read and just as widely condemned. The Post [23 November 1906] was editorially outraged, claiming that it was already too easy to terminate a marriage:

“The reform is needed in the other direction. We need to get rid of the feeling that marriage is a mere experiment.”

In condemning the concept of trial marriage, The Post had lots of company. Doctor Sarah Siewers, one of Cincinnati’s foremost suffragists, told the Post [20 November 1906]:

“Abominable! Who ever heard of a woman making such a fool of herself? Why, the plan Mrs. Parsons proposes means the end of society and the home and a reversal to the dark ages. The whole thing is disgusting to me. The only solution to the divorce problem is for men to behave themselves better and for women to insist on being treated as equals, not as inferiors or slaves.”

Mrs. Jessie Oliphant, described as a “Norwood club woman,” declined to comment:

“It is a very serious problem that Mrs. Parsons has started out to solve. The subject is very distasteful to me and I would rather not discuss it.”

Judge John A Caldwell was four-square against the idea:

“Trial marriage could be no marriage at all, and would ultimately destroy the marriage relation altogether. Such a system would destroy the home, the greatest of all our institutions, and would illegitimatize thousands of children”

The more opinions the Post published in opposition to trial marriage, the more letters it received in support of the concept. Furniture dealer Maurice C. Williams wrote [26 November 1906]:

“The views of Mrs. Parsons, as expressed in the book, ‘The Family,’ are as the faint rays of a dawning day which become gradually more resplendent until the shimmering light gives way to the sun in all its glory, casting its benignant influence over all. So it will be with man. The ideas advanced are along the lines of altruism.”

In the same issue, cabinet maker Fred Walthard (Yes, most of the supporters of trial marriage were men.) wrote:

“The majority of marriage ceremonies still take place in churches or similar places, where a priest is the ‘matador.’ But you don’t find one couple out of a thousand that are advanced enough to seek the judgement of a reliable physician concerning their match. I am afraid the divorce problem will never be solved so long as law and religion have everything to say about marriage and science nothing.”

An unnamed judge of the Hamilton County courts dabbled in statistics and informed the Cincinnati Post [28 October 1909] that all marriages were trial marriages anyway, and that he had the data to prove it. Looking over his cases for the past month, the judge found 140 divorce suits. Of these, 107 requests for divorce were filed by couples married less than 10 years:

“’Proving,’ said a Judge of the Hamilton-co. courts, ‘that marriage is naturally a 10-year-trial proposition. The figures indicate to me that couples who manage to live together for 10 years will in most cases stay married the rest of their lives, and the couples unsuited for each other usually find it out before 10 years are over.”

The anonymous judge scoffed at the idea of a trial marriage, since his experience showed that all marriages had a natural trial period built in. A closer look at his numbers revealed that 73 divorces – more than half of the month’s total – involved marriages that had not yet marked a five-year anniversary.

Spotting a saucy topic, the entertainment industry jumped on the trial marriage bandwagon. Cincinnati audiences enjoyed a play and a couple of silent films based on the trial marriage concept.

As late as the rock ‘n’ roll era, the Post’s medical advice columnist, Dr. George W. Crane, warned young women to avoid over-sexed men who proposed this immoral arrangement [16 September 1958]:

“Trial marriage usually is suggested by a person who may feel sexual infatuation but no true love. And there is a whale of a difference! Trial marriage definitely does NOT benefit the girl. She makes the sacrifices and is likely to be left pregnant and unable to earn a living for herself.”

#trial marriage #marriage contract #cincinnati morality

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court on Monday said Idaho can enforce a law banning gender transition care for minors, stepping into the debate over an issue that has divided lower courts.

The court did so over the objections of the three liberal justices.

It’s the first case about restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under age 18 that the court has acted on. But it does not get to the underlying legal questions of the ban itself, an issue that has divided lower federal courts and is part of a wave of conservative legislation and litigation aimed at transgender Americans.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, writing for herself and Justice Sonya Sotomayor, criticized the majority for granting Idaho’s request through its “emergency” route, rather than letting it proceed through the regular channels.

“This Court is not compelled to rise and respond every time an applicant rushes to us with an alleged emergency, and it is especially important for us to refrain from doing so in novel, highly charged, and unsettled circumstances,” Jackson wrote.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the district court went further than it should have when it blocked the state from enforcing any aspect of the law while it’s being litigated. That decision threatened to suspend the law indefinitely because it can take years to reach final judgment, Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote his own defense of the majority’s order in a concurrence joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not make his position public.

The court could also decide soon whether it will review such bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. That election-year decision would come as transgender issues have become an increasingly potent political issue.

Passed last year, Idaho’s law is being challenged by the families of two transgender teenagers.

After lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement, Idaho asked the Supreme Court to let it go into effect with an exception carved out for the challengers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the two Idaho families, said that option won't protect the teenagers as medical providers won't want to risk triggering a law that could put them behind bars for a decade. Also, the teens would have to give up their anonymity.

AN 'AWFUL RESULT FOR TRANSGENDER YOUTH'

The ACLU called the Supreme Court's decision an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state."

"Today's ruling allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption," the group said in a statement.

Praising the court's decision, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the law ensures minors will not be subjected to life-altering drugs and procedures.

"Denying the basic truth that boys and girls are biologically different hurts our kids," he said in a statement.

Filed as an emergency request, Idaho’s appeal to the high court is a prelude to the larger pending issue: Whether the justices will uphold such bans, which have proliferated in recent years.

KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE TRANSGENDER CASES MAY COME NEXT

Families of transgender children have asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit allowing Kentucky and Tennessee to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors.

The Justice Department has weighed in on the side of the families, telling the court that its input is “urgently needed” to definitively resolve whether the bans are discriminatory.

“These laws, and the conflicting court decisions about their validity, are creating profound uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families around the nation,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a filing.

The court could announce as early as this month if they will hear the appeals.

Combined with other state actions to restrict the bathrooms transgender students can use and what sports teams they can join, the laws are expected to be a major issue in this year’s elections.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL PUSH TO BAN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE FOR MINORS

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has said he will press Congress to pass a law banning gender-affirming care for minors and will cut federal funding for schools pushing “transgender insanity” if he returns to the White House.

President Joe Biden has boasted about steps he’s taken to strengthen the rights of “transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans.”

The issue has gained prominence with startling speed, despite the tiny fraction of Americans who are transgender.

Since 2022, the number of states taking steps to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors has grown from four to 23, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. Restrictions were fully in effect in 17 states as of January.

That’s despite the fact that most major medical groups support youth access to gender-affirming care.

The American Medical Association has called the state bans a “dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of medicine and the criminalization of health care decision-making.”

“Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people,” Dr. Michael Suk, a member of the AMA board, said when the group reinforced its opposition to state bans in 2021.

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND SELF-HARM

One of the transgender teenage girls challenging Idaho’s law suffered from depression, anxiety and self-harm before starting gender-affirming medical care, according to filings. The mental health of the other teen likewise deteriorated as puberty began.

Their parents have told the courts they’re terrified about the impact on their daughters’ health and lives if they can’t continue treatment.

Labrador, Idaho's attorney general, argued the law is needed to protect “vulnerable children” from what he called “risky and dangerous medical procedures.”

“Idaho should be able to protect children from experimental medical procedures that cause irreversible and life-long harms,” Labrador wrote in his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in January, Idaho's law was temporarily blocked by a district court judge in Idaho while it’s being litigated. The San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision in January.

Despite the litigation swirling around transgender minors, the Supreme Court has largely been silent on the issue. In April, the high court sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who was challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition. The ruling came on the court's emergency docket and did not resolve the underlying questions in the case.

In January, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether schools can bar transgender students from using a bathroom that reflects their gender identity, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a transgender middle school boy in Indiana to use the boys' bathroom.

#us politics #news #us supreme court #idaho #Kentucky #Tennessee #2024 #gender affirming care #trans rights #reproductive health #reproductive rights #bodily autonomy #Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson #Justice Sonya Sotomayor #Justice Neil Gorsuch #Justice Samuel Alito #justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Brett Kavanaugh #Justice Amy Coney Barrett #Justice John Roberts #American Civil Liberties Union #Raúl Labrador #6th Circuit US Court of Appeals #Elizabeth Prelogar #president joe biden #donald trump #American Medical Association #9th Circuit US Court of Appeals

[millennial-review]

1. Supreme Court destroys E.P.A. ability to regulate carbon emissions.

Today the Supreme Court destroyed the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially getting rid of any ability to fight climate change and severely limiting federal authority to do so. In a 6-3 vote, in West Virginia v. EPA the court sided with Republican states and fossil fuel companies that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was wrong when it held the Clean Air Act gave the EPA significant power over carbon emissions. The decision deals a significant blow to any attempts to fight climate change and almost certainly spells significant hurdles for future efforts.

2. Supreme Court set to gut election protections, rig elections.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case next term that could give state governments almost total control of elections, even overriding state courts. The case Moore v. Harper centers the controversial “independent state legislature theory” which posits state legislatures have total control over federal elections. The case revolves around a dispute stemming from a Republican congressional map that was so gerrymandered state courts found it impermissible and told Republicans to correct it. The courts in North Carolina issued their own map and the state legislature of North Carolina sued claiming they had sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. If the court sides with the theory it would give Republican state governments significant control over federal elections just in time for 2024.

3. Stock market has worst half year since 1970.

To quote the Washington Post, “The stock market closed out its worst six-month stretch to start a year since 1970, as inflation-driven upheaval has spread across nearly every part of the economy.The S&P 500 index edged 0.9 percent lower Thursday to bring its 2022 losses to 20.6 percent. The tech-heavy Nasdaq, which fell 1.3 percent, has tumbled nearly 30 percent this year, while the Dow Jones industrial average’s 0.8 percent drop put its year-to-date decline near 15 percent.” While the stock market doesn’t measure the health of the economy for most working people, it is a good indicator what capital might do next. And with inflation concerns front of mind a fed engineered recession seems all but inevitable.

4. Florida judge blocks 15 week abortion ban.

The legal fight over reproductive rights continues as a Florida judge throws out Florida’s 15 week abortion ban. Joining judges in Texas and Kentucky who likewise threw out their state’s bans, Second Judicial Circuit Court Judge John Cooper issued a temporary injunction blocking the bill and leaving Florida’s law open to abortions up to 24 weeks. For now Florida remains one of the most open states in the South in terms of abortion regulation. This is just one small part in the on going legal battle over what terms with which a state can ban abortion. Even though Roe has been overturned many of the concepts, such as a right to privacy, are being invoked by judges overturning bans for the time being. How it all shakes out remains to be seen but without federal action from Democrats these court rulings are only a temporary solution.

5. Biden backs ending filibuster to codify abortion rights.

Joe Biden announced today that he backs ending the filibuster to codify abortion rights, specifically by making a carve out in the procedural hurdle for voting rights. While that is exactly what should be done it’s a rather hollow gesture that won’t mean much without significant political maneuvering to make it happen. Joe Manchin has long been skeptical of the Democrat’s position on abortion and has always been explicitly against ending the filibuster for anything, let alone abortion which he believes is unpopular. If Biden isn’t willing to play hardball, investigate Manchin’s daughter for pharmaceuticals fraud, something to put the pressure on, it’s a rather hollow gesture.

Podcast - Sunday Streams - Instagram - Twitter - Discord

Support it all by joining us on patreon.

[amor-est-potestas]

Good Stuff in 2023

Since every year seems to be shit, I thought I would go through some major news stories and pick out the ones that seemed pretty good, actually. There's a bit of a USA bias in the source I used... but here's some year-end positivity, anyway!

January

An ebola outbreak was successfully controlled in Uganda

Sierra Leone introduced a law that reserves more jobs for women

The UN declared the current approach to repairing the ozone layer is successful and could return it to 1980 levels

New York's gun restrictions were upheld by the Supreme Court

February

Google lost $100bn in shares because its chatbot was crap (lol)

Tesla had to recall over 350,000 cars because its self-driving system was crap (lmao)

March

The International Criminal Court put out a warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin

12 Democrat-led states in the USA sued to attempt to protect access to mifepristone (an abortion inducing drug)

Donald Trump was charged with criminal offences in New York

The Royal Society tested robotic prosthetics with the public and found that over 95% of people could use them well within the first minute

April

Finland was approved to join NATO

Christina Koch was announced as the first woman and Victor Glover as the first black astronaut on a NASA lunar mission

The tiger population of India was confirmed to have risen by around 200

A SpaceX rocket blew up (haha)

Japan approved an abortion pill for use for the first time

Pope Francis announced that women would be allowed to vote in meetings of bishops

The US Supreme Court rejected a West Virginia transgender athlete ban

Washington state eliminated the death penalty and sterilisation as criminal punishment

The US Supreme Court protected access to mifepristone (see March)

The UK fined TikTok for mishandling children's data

NASA was able to extract oxygen from lunar soil

Germany confirmed the shut down of nuclear power stations in the interest of safety

May

Colorado state signed several gun control bills into law

Donald Trump was found liable in a civil case where he was accused of rape and defamation

North Carolina's governor vetoed an abortion ban

The UK's first "three-parent baby" was born via IVF

June

Former Brazil president (Collor) was sentenced to prison for corruption

Federal courts blocked laws preventing healthcare for young trans people in Kentucky and Tennessee

July

Donald Trump's request for a new trial (see May) was rejected

Sweden's bid to join NATO was backed by Turkey

August

FDA approved use of the first drug (Zuranolone) to treat postpartum depression

Direct detection and nanopore sequencing (DDNS) used to halve the time for polio detection

India's space agency achieved their first unmanned moon landing

September

Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalised abortion rights

The African Union permanently joined the G20

The EU raised their renewable energy targets

Donald Trump was found guilty of fraud in New York

Apple announced a switch to USB-C charging ports in its new iPhone

October

California banned driverless taxis

November

A court in South Africa ruled in favour of introducing shared parental leave

The UK Supreme Court blocked plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

An assault weapons ban in Illinois was upheld by an appeals court

The first images were received from ESA's Euclid space telescope

The EU started talks to bring Ukraine into the union

December

41 workers were rescued from a tunnel under the Himalayas in India

Pope Francis allowed priests to bless same-sex couples (but not for marriage... but still a win maybe?)

Supreme Court dismissed Ohio's attempt to enforce an abortion ban

Colorado's Supreme Court declared Donald Trump ineligible to run for office (only applies to Colorado)

IBM unveiled a quantum computing chip and machine

Google, Meta and other tech companies agreed to work towards open digital ecosystems (prompted by EU regulations on digital markets)

#2023 #positivity #new year #year in review

[dwellordream]

Notable American Women: DIX, Dorothea Lynde (Apr. 4, 1802-July 18, 1887)

“...Dorothea’s childhood was unhappy, marred by the frequent absences of her improvident father and the semi-invalidism of her mother, which threw upon her the care of her two young brothers. Occasional visits to her grandparents in Boston gave her a desire for education and heightened her dissatisfaction with life in Hampden. 

When twelve years old she went to Boston to live with her now-widowed grandmother, who two years later, finding the headstrong child too great a responsibility, turned her over to a great-aunt in Worcester. Here the girl studied avidly and, though only fourteen, revealed an aptitude for teaching by opening a school for small children. She was a stern disciplinarian but appears to have made a success of her precocious educational venture.

…Though an attractive young woman with blue eyes and luxuriant, wavy brown hair, she affected the long, somber dresses, stern expressions, and severe hair arrangement then thought befitting to a schoolmistress. The resultant austerity clung to her throughout her life. One of her pupils, Mary Channing Eustis, has left a picture of her as “tall and dignified, but stooped somewhat, …very shy in her manners,” and “fond of natural history and botany. She enjoyed long rambles, always calling over attention to what was of interest in the world around us.” She particularly recalled her teacher’s “iron will from which it was hopeless to appeal”.

…One day in March 1841, however, a young Harvard divinity student asked her to teach a Sunday school class for women in the East Cambridge jail. As the thirty-nine-year-old Miss Dix set out on a cold and raw Sunday, she little realized that this was to be a turning point in her life. To her horror, she found among the drunks, vagrants, and prostitutes a number of unkempt and shivering women whose only crime was insanity. 

Their quarters were foul, bare, and unheated. The jailer’s response that “lunatics” had no sense of cold incensed her, and she brought the matter before the local court then in session. The philanthropist Samuel Gridley Howe came to her aid in a newspaper article, and despite angry denials of her charges, heat was provided for the deranged women and their quarters were renovated. More important, Dorothea Dix had found a vocation.

…As Mis Dix grasped the scope of the problems, she undertook, with Samuel Cridley Howe’s encouragement and the blessing of the aged Channing, an eighteen-month survey of every jail, almshouse, and house of correction in Massachusetts. Each day’s investigation brough new evidence of neglect and cruelty, In her notebook she recorded the shocking details of unfortunate persons “confined... in cages, closets, cellars, stalls, pens! Chained, naked, beaten with rods, and lashed into obedience.” 

…For the next three years, though plagued by illness, she covered 30,000 miles in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennesee, North Carolina, and other states painstakingly conducting her investigations and preparing for the state legislates her now-famous “memorials”. 

Though less extensive than her earlier reports and eventually somewhat routinized, these memorials marshaled sufficient evidence of neglect and abuse to shame most legislatures into action. She sometimes remained in a state until the appropriations for new facilities had been made, and on occasion had the pleasure of selecting the site for a new hospital.

…Few women have been so identified with a single cause, and with good reason, as has Dorothea Dix with that of the mentally ill. In 1843 there were thirteen mental hospitals in the United States; by 1880, 123. She played a direct role in the founding of thirty-two state mental hospitals and was the inspiration for many more in America and throughout the world. 

Her views on the nature of mental illness reflected the state of medical knowledge in her day; while opposing the indiscriminate use of physical restraints and favoring therapeutic rather than merely custodial treatment, she displayed but slight interest in psychiatric training or research. Nevertheless, by directing her considerable skills as a publicist against primitive and obviously unwise methods, she helped lay the groundwork for advances in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment.”

- Notable American Women, Volume I: A-F, 1971

#dorothea dix #history #american #cw: ableism #victorian #notable american women

[offender42085]

Post 850

Raulie Wayne Casteel, Michigan inmate 895859, born 1969, incarceration intake at age 44, scheduled for earliest possible release 11/05/2030, with full discharge on 11/05/2054

Assault with Great Bodily Harm other than Murder, Use of a Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, Terrorism

A man who kept a swath of southeastern Michigan on edge for weeks by shooting at two-dozen vehicles along a busy highway corridor was sentenced to 16-to-40 years in prison on a terrorism conviction.

Raulie Casteel, 44, learned his fate in Livingston County Circuit Court, where a jury found him guilty of terrorism, rejecting his claim that the shootings were the impulsive result of uncontrolled delusions and paranoia.

During the Livingston County trial, Casteel testified that he shot at the other motorists on Interstate 96 and nearby roads between Lansing and Detroit over a three-day period in October 2012. Testifying in his own defense, Casteel said he was consumed with anxiety while in traffic, most likely from undiagnosed delusions. He said he believed drivers were part of a government conspiracy against him.

Casteel said he never thought about the consequences of the shootings, only that he wanted "to send a message to back off."

Defense lawyers pleaded for an acquittal on the terrorism charge, arguing there was no premeditation as required by law, but the jury disagreed.

The terrorism charge brought by the state attorney general's office covered all the shootings in Livingston, Shiawassee, Ingham and Oakland counties. Casteel had faced 60 charges, including attempted murder, in Oakland County for shootings in Commerce Township and Wixom before pleading no contest but mentally ill to assault and firearms charges last year.

Casteel's lawyers and family members favored a plea deal, because it allows him to receive the mental health counseling he wants. Defense attorney Doug Mullkoff has said his client was diagnosed with delusional disorder, a condition associated with maintaining false, persistent beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.

Casteel is a St. Johns, Mich., native who lived in Taylorsville, Ky., before returning to Michigan in 2012 to live with his wife's family.

Police in Kentucky said they had no contact with him until June 2012 when he became agitated and complained about aircraft flying too low over his house. No one else had reported low-flying planes.

In 2020 he appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court to have his convictions quashed under the argument that he was not allowed to raise a proper insanity defense.  The appeal was not successful.

3f

[beardedmrbean]

COLUMBUS, Ohio – An Ohio man won $45 million in a civil lawsuit against a police department and detective whose actions led to his wrongful conviction and more than 20 years behind bars.

Dean Gillispie sued Miami Township police and former detective Scott Moore for suppressing evidence and tainting eyewitness identifications in the 1991 rape and kidnapping case against Gillispie.

Gillispie was convicted in 1991 in Montgomery County and released from prison in 2011. The Ohio Innocence Project at the University of Cincinnati law school, former Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro and Dean's mother, Juana Gillispie, worked to free him and clear his name.

Today, Gillispie is 57, and lives in Fairborn, a suburb of Dayton.

"The horror inflicted on Dean and his family and community is hard to wrap your mind around," Ohio Innocence Project Director Mark Godsey said. "The way the authorities pushed through a conviction and then fought back and refused to admit a mistake was so disappointing. Nothing can repay Dean for the horror."

He added: "The jury's verdict sends a strong message that those in power need to change the way they do things."

"Justice prevailed in this case, although it took a long, long, long time for that to occur," said Petro, who co-authored a book with his wife Nancy about wrongful convictions.

David Owens, whose firm Loevy & Loevy represents wrongfully convicted clients and represented Gillispie, said they believe $45 million sets an Ohio record.

It is unclear if Miami Township or Moore will seek to appeal the case or when Gillispie might receive payment.

Gillispie steadfastly maintained his innocence from day one. In 2021, a Montgomery County judge declared Gillispie a wrongfully imprisoned person.

He was convicted in the rape and kidnapping of twin sisters in one attack and a third woman in a second attack. But the jury in the federal civil lawsuit found that Moore violated Gillispie's rights by hiding evidence that would have helped Gillispie's defense and creating unfair lineup procedures for the victims.

Moore claimed a witness had made an identification when she had not, and later told the victims that they might not recognize Gillispie in court because he “dyed his hair.” Evidence was also presented that Moore failed to disclose camping receipts showing Gillispie was in Kentucky when the crimes occurred, his attorneys said. 

No biological evidence ever tied Gillispie to the crimes.

While imprisoned, Gillispie turned to art across multiple mediums. It was an outlet for his pain and imagination of how life would've been different. In 2020, his artwork depicting a miniature model camping trailer was included in “Marking Time: Art in the Age of Mass Incarceration,” an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

After his release, he bought and restored a camping trailer.

#nunyas news

[queer-clippings]

Southern voice, September 13, 1990, Andrea K. Brown

[Image description: An article from a magazine written by Andrea K. Brown and titled "SODOMY STARTS TO HEAT UP AGAIN", above the title reads "FEATURE" and below "The Georgia Privacy Coalition wants the 'S' word off the Georgia law books." In the center of the article, breaking the page, is an illustration of a torn dictionary definition of the word Sodomy, torn in such a way where the word, it's pronunciation, and "the homosexual proclivities of t-" "1: copulation with a member-" ":noncommittal and esp. anal or oral-" -posit sex" are the only words visible. the main text of the article reads

"Remember sodomy? It was the hot issue in SoVo's pages earlier this year, largely as a result of a controversial sodomy law repeal demonstration and lobbying campaign on the first day of the legislative session. ACT UP staged the demonstration—complete with inflatable, anatomically complete dolls arranged in different "sodomitic" positions —outside the Georgia Statehouse. No doubt you also remember that the repeal effort fizzled when legislation that would have amended the sodomy law to legalize private consensual sexual acts between adults regardless of sexual orientation was defeated 6444. An amended version that excluded gays and lesbians from protection was trounced 87-22 as supporters of the gay inclusive version withdrew their votes. Some blame ACT UP's high-visibility techniques for losing the reform bill's more conservative supporters. But others feel that disapproval of graphic demonstrations is just a rationalization for homophobia, and that the law had no chance of passage this year, regardless of what anyone did or did not do. For most, the issue has cooled. But in the minds and hearts—and other parts—of activists, it still sizzles. "Sodomy" as a criminal term is used to intimidate and harass gays and lesbians, and as a weapon that may be wielded in divorce and custody cases, in criminal trials, and in military and other forms of discrimination. In Georgia, sodomy laws prohibit anal and oral sex regardless of partner gender—but private consensual sodomy is not commonly prosecuted Nevertheless, Georgia has one of the harshest laws in the country: first-time "offenders," committing consensual sodomy may be imprisoned for up to 20 years. Forcible sodomy is punishable with lifetime imprisonment. The good news is that there are places in this country that have made significant progress on legalizing the way we make love. This summer, in both Michigan and Kentucky, Circuit Court judges struck down sodomy laws, using state constitutional privacy protections as grounds for their rulings. These are the first decisions applying to homosexual sodomy since the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 1986 Bowers v Hardwick case. In Fayette County, Kentucky, the state law— which criminalizes same sex sodomy only—was declared unconstitutional. The decision presently applies to the Lexington area only, but, since the state Attorney General is appealing, it could soon apply to the whole state. A Wayne County, Michigan judge ruled that state laws against sodomy (defined in Michigan as anal sex between partners of any gender) and gross indecency (oral sex and mutual masturbation, also without regard to sexual orientation) violate privacy rights, in the case of non-public consensual sex between adults. The case may or may not be appealed. In Hardwick, the Supreme Court's majority proclaimed that "homosexuals do not have a fundamental right to engage in acts of consensual sodomy" under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, on which activists had challenged the punitive Georgia law. The high court cited "millennia of moral teaching" as grounds for its decision. The existence of sodomy laws in 26 states (and D.C.) makes clear the government position that engaging in sodomy is a heinous and abominable "crime against nature." In some states, the statute is actually titled with those words, or with a variety of equally offensive terms. Generally speaking, there are laws on the books which prohibit anal and often, mutual masturbation —whether they all fall under each state's definition of sodomy or not. Seven states prohibit only same sex sodomy. All around the country, advocates of sodomy repeal and/or reform are organizing to make changes at the state level. There is some visible movement in Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland and Minnesota. Attempts at repeal have been and/or are being made in Mssouri, Texas, Tennessee and the District of Columbia. In Tennessee, the law has been reformed—reducing sodomy from a felony with a possible 15 years in the clink to a misdemeanor with a $25 fine. Some consider reform of this sort a victory —a step in the right direction. But others feel that reform will only make repeal more difficult. Members of the Georgia Privacy Coalition (GPC) are among those for whom the issue of sodomy remains hot. The GPC was formed in April of this year to lobby for and create awareness about the upcoming repeal effort. The strategy in '91 is, first and foremi to get the word "sodomy" off Georgia's law books. Aggravated sodomy and solicitation of sodomy are to be covered elsewhere: the first, under a new "aggravated sexual battery" statute being introduced alongside the repeal bill—Georgia's rape law does not presently cover forcible sodomy; the latter by the amending the solicitation for prostitution statute to include a description of the deed(s). In an effort to activate interest in repeal of Georgia's sodomy statute the National Lesbian & Gay Law Association and the Lesbian/Gay Rights chapter of ACLU Georgia will sponsor a Sodomy Track Day, October 8, as part of the Lavender Law Conference, to be held in Atlanta. Workshops, organized by Sue Hyde, Director of the Privacy Project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, will include information on post-Hardwick state court challenges and legal strategies, penal code revision and recodification, and legislative repeal/reform. Registration info for the Conference is contained in an ad on page 3 of this issue. The Georgia Privacy Coalition meets the fourth Wednesday of every month. Networking is essential to eventual sodomy repeal; contacts outside of Atlanta are particularly needed. Call the GPC at 286-2358 /end id]

#queer history #magazine #queer magazines #magazine clippings #queer rights #sodomy #lgbt rights #politics #georgia