
brierebecca
Members-
Content
1,190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by brierebecca
-
I'm not going to respond because you're confusing the issues of "undue burden" and "burden of proof." You're also confused between "belief" and "has reason to believe." See my post below for more clarification. brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
The statute is clear that she is criminally liable if she falsifies the form. If her husband reports her to a criminal justice agency after she has an abortion without telling him, and that agency prosecutes, that's a lawsuit. It's been a year since I was in a criminal law class, but the language "reason to believe" in several cases (I'd have to drag out my casebook to cite them, I'll try to do that later) required there be something upon which the defendant could base his beliefs. If there is no documented history of abuse (no complaints, etc), then I could see the prosecution having a very easy time proving that she had no basis for believing that she would come to bodily harm. Especially because the proof that the belief was reasonable is not subjective. It's objective. That's from Com v. Hill, and it's the standard for reasonable belief in Pennsylvania. If the reasonableness part is objective, then I could see a jury finding that if there is no documented history of abuse, then there is no reason for her to believe that she may be abused, even if that belief was warranted. I guess I disagree that the husband gets any rights at all when it comes to having the child. He doesn't have to carry it, and he doesn't have to expose himself to the dangers of childbirth. I would never want to live in a society in which my husband could make me carry a child for nine months and have it if I truly didn't want to have it, or if it wasn't safe for me to have it. Responsibilities? It doesn't seem part of the discussion to me. We're talking about having a child, not supporting the child after it is born. That's just my take on it. I've known several women who were abused, and I would never want to be in that situation, especially if an abortion was in the picture. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
Even if she isn't lying, she shouldn't be put in a position where she has to prove it. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.... The burden is not that she would have to lie. It's that if she makes these allegations, she may have to prove them in a criminal proceeding. The statute is clear about this. You are belaboring something that isn't the point. I'm done explaining the legal issues here. It's obvious that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to this. I don't even think the bypass list is all-inclusive. There are many other reasons a woman wouldn't want to tell her husband that she is having an abortion than the 4 the statute lists. I don't see a problem with it. It's her choice. I'll be back in here if there's another Supreme Court thread, but I'm tired of this one.... Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
It doesn't matter. Whether the effect of the burden actually happens is not a factor in the undue burden analysis. It's whether the burden exists at all. Here, the burden is the ramifications of the signature. A woman shouldn't have to put herself in that position to have an abortion. That is the burden. It's not whether she is actually confused and subjected to criminal prosecution, it's that she could be. A woman should not have to answer for her belief that she will be abused in a courtroom. It shouldn't even be an issue. But the language of the statute makes it an issue, and this is why it's an undue burden. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
I wholeheartedly agree with this. This is because competititon is not just about competing. It's about the fellowship. And the opportunity to meet other female swoopers would be another factor in my decision to compete. It goes the same with female competition. The women in this sport are amazing, and I'd jump at the opportunity to attend a women's event. As for the female teams with the male camera flyer, I'd disagree that it's truly a female team, especially for freefly or 4-way VRW. The camera slot is just as hard, and just as crucial, as the other slots on the team. just my two cents. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
believing and having reason to believe are not the same thing, especially from a legal standpoint. I'm sure the lawyers on here would agree with me. If you have to have reason to belive something, you have to be able to point to a specific instance which would support your belief. If the abuse is undocumented, that could be difficult. Restraining orders and abortion are not the same thing. It's a specious analogy. Undue burden is not just about what could happen. Just as you didn't understand the ramifications of the phrase "reason to believe," a woman claiming abuse could get confused, and unknowingly subject herself to criminal prosecution because she was not aware of what she was signing onto. Okay, agree to disagree. I also never said that Alito was anti-abortion. I said his opinion of what "undue burden" means is troubling. I think that he is anti-abortion, but has been stopped from ruling abortion statutes unconstitutional because he doesn't have the power to do so. If he becomes a Supreme, he will have the opportunity to set the precedent. Not that I think Roe is going out the window. I just think that it will become so restricted that it will become less about choice and more about medical necesssity. The Casey, Thornberg, and Hodgson rulings all support my contention. In fact, almost every ruling to come out of the Supreme Court recently on abortion has restricted it. I also don't think you're not Pro-choice. I just think that this undue burden analysis is not a highly publicized debate, and it's quietly chipping away at a woman's right to choose. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
Maybe it's just my law background, but the words "has reason to believe" have far-reaching ramifications. If a lawsuit is brought against her, she will have the burden of proving that she thought her husband was going to beat her. This is because it's a subjective standard. A layperson signing a form wouldn't know this. Also, in states where the burden is high, it could be difficult to prove that there was reason to believe that she would be abused. She doesn't just have to say she's afraid. She has to subject herself to the possibility of criminal punishment, especially if she can't point to a documented history of abuse to prove her subjective viewpoint. A startling number of abuse cases go unreported. The supreme court thought this burden was too high. I agree with them. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
Here is the section to which you refer: wrong. It is not a voluntary statement. It is required that the woman certify in writing that he told her husband. She is criminally liable if she lies about this. It isn't some offhand statement. The woman has the choice of telling her husband or exposing herself to criminal liability. Also, let me reiterate that Justice O'Connor, the author of the undue burden standard, wrote the opinion which stated that this was an undue burden. Wrong again. There is no case worker assigned. The forms are made available at the abortion clinics (see the statute above), and the women have to fill them out and sign them. These forms have huge ramifications, and I wouldn't want to sign one, and expose myself to criminal liability, without a full understanding of the criminal justice system. I will also note that doctors are criminally and civilly liable if any false information is given. Once again, if you don't think this limits a woman's right to choose, then I will have to respectfully disagree with you. There are different levels of choice. Some states have more stringent abortion statutes than others. Making a woman tell her husband, or lie about it and be criminally liable, is an undue burden according to the supreme court. However, if Alito would have been on the court, it would have come to a different decision. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
Happy birthday!!!!! I'm see you on Sunday my dear.
-
QuoteThat is the undue burden you are referring to. As I've said, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see that as an undue burden. The finding that "A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely." is flawed IMO. I don't see how asking a woman if she told her husband would be likely to prevent her from obtaining an abortion.Quote this is a classic conservative argument. The flip-side of it is that a substantial number of women who don't want to tell their husbands that they are having an abortion don't do so because they fear physical abuse. Alito doesn't seem to care about the fact that some women who are made to tell their husbands will get the shit beat out of them. He doesn't think it's an undue burden, because the women who fear abuse can pursue a Belotti bypass (which is traditionally for juveniles, but Alito directly analogizes the bypass part of the statute to juvenile cases in the quote I provided above). The problem with this is that these bypasses are so complicated in some states that it is difficult for low-income, uneducated women - who are much more likely to suffer abuse - to navigate the system. If you still don't think it's an undue burden, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. But I studied some of these systems in my constitutional law classes, and the paperwork alone is an undue burden. PM me if you want other examples of measures states are taking to limit a woman's right to choose - I'll send you some court cases. Hope this helps. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
actually, I purposely didn't include specifics because I was trying to start more of a conversation. I'm sure you can see from my earlier posts that I have a good grasp of con law (I actually booked con law one and two), and I understand what is needed to make a constitutional argument. I wasn't looking to make one here, just start a conversation on the issues. I have found that including specifics on the law stops the conversation on this forum. However, if you want specifics, take a look at US v. Fatin, the immigation case, where a woman was seeking asylum because her country would make her have an abortion. Her boyfriend, with whom she had been living for 20 years, was not allowed the same asylum because they weren't married. Alito then turned around and allowed another pregant woman's husband in the country, even though it was demonstrated that they married just for this purpose, and had only been married for 3 months. Now what happens when gay married couples try to gain asylum when we don't recognize gay marriage in our federal law? As for the Belotti bypass, take a look at Hodgson v. MN, wherein the Belotti bypass applies to parental notification, despite the fact that the system is very cumbersome. in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito DIRECTLY analogized the harms the legislature contemplated with the Belotti bypass with the parts of section 3209 of the statute, which he determined were not an undue burden. The definition of undue burden, I'm sure you'll agree, is very much up for debate. He construes a system which would require women to navigate a complicated court system in order to not have to notify their husbands is not an undue burden. This is the same system which would require minors to do the same thing. Here's the quote, since you seem to require it: ""the minor may confront physical or emotional abuse, withdrawal of financial support or actual obstruction of the abortion decision." These harms are almost identical to those that the majority in this case attributes to Section 3209. See majority opin. at 711-12. See also Planned Parenthood Association v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 505, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 2532, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (O'Connor concurring and dissenting) (statute requiring parental consent or judicial authorization "imposes no undue burden"). " He made a lot of assumptions in that opinion about what O'Connor meant about undue burden, and he was obviously wrong, because she overturned him. The fact that he thinks that this kind of notification is not an undue burden is what troubles me, especially if you look at some of the bypasses available to minors these days. Despite the fact that you are not one of my professors, I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to solidify my opinions on this matter. It's very clear in the Casey opinion that alito analogizes women to children, but you had to treat me like one to get me to take a better stand. "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
I disagree that he ruled the way he did because that was what the law dictated. O'Connor's undue burden threshold has been discussed by many scholars, and is generally thought to be overly vague. He ruled the way he did because he thinks the Belotti bypass option (the option allowing children to petition the court to avoid having to notify their parents that they are having an abortion) applies to women. In short, he equates WOMEN to CHILDREN. Read the Casey and Belotti opinions and you'll see what I mean. The problem with the Belotti bypass option is that some states which want to disallow abortion have made their Belotti bypass option so complicated that it is virtually impossible for a person who is not legally educated to navigate the system. Therefore, low-income women who are more subject to spousal abuse, who would be less able to obtain the information and expertise to obtain a bypass, would be subject to the abuse because they can't navigate the system. There are several cases pending in courts of appeals about the constitutionality of the Belotti bypasses in Texas and other strict states. Also, I have trouble believing that Alito strictly construed the law in this case, simply because of his track record concerning the supremacy of the familial structure in general. Take a look at his immigration cases to see evidence of this. It's pretty clear that he's not the judical conservative many republicans are asserting he is. Just because an opinion is devoid of passion doesn't mean the writer is, too. In fact, in my experience, judges who assert radical political agendas try VERY HARD to ground their assertions in case law, so they look like they're being conservative. It's a protective mechanism. Also, it's true that most judges get overturned at one point or another. But this dissent was the lone dissent in a notable case, and it largely held to be a very radical opinion, despite the fact that he thinks it's not an undue burden.
-
I'm kindof surprised that this thread didn't explore more of Alito's opinions themselves...he's a lot more radical than you think. So I'm bumping the thread. He had held that lawyers who don't read their clients' files and who don't listen to their clients' allegations in death penalty proceedings are not guilty of ineffective assistance of counsel - look up the Romilla case. It was later overturned by the Supreme Court 5-4, with O'Connor as the 5th vote. He has held that women have to notify their husbands before they can have an abortion, a case which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in the Casey decision, with O'Connor writing the majority opinion and as the 5th vote again. He has a track record of discriminating against unmarried people when it comes to asylum in the US, which is troubling considering the amount of civil rights and gay rights legislation coming up for consideration this term. Any other thoughts? Brie
-
Chicago plans High School for Black Males
brierebecca replied to Gravitymaster's topic in Speakers Corner
I absolutely agree with you. I've had interesting arguments with various libertarian friends who claim that racism has been totally eradicated, and cite the fact that the richest pop stars are black. It doesn't occur to them that they're citing the exception to everyone in society. As to your question about charter schools, I was talking about anything that is publicly funded, as this all-male predominantly black school seems to be. A charter school is still public, and is created with different interests than a normal public school. The SC has said that this interest is impermissible. the two interests that have been asserted in terms of affirmative action statutes are: diversity interest - basically, schools that are diverse have a better learning environment, because students have the opportunity to learn from eachother and about different backgrounds remedial interest - the government has fucked up in the past in terms of race and sex discrimination. They need to rectify this, and so they provide additional opportunities for those who have been disadvantaged in the past because they deserve it. I'm not saying that I agree or don't agree with these interests, just that this is how you have to style an affirmative action claim in order to win. Whether the discrimination contained in the statute is based on sex, race, or other groupings makes it easier or harder to implement affirmative action. Racial affirmative action is harder to pass, because the courts require the government to assert very substantial interests in terms of diversity and remedial interests. If the affirmative action is based on sex, the government only has to assert important, rather than substantial, interests. Here, the interests asserted are really remedial, beause they are making up for black male drop-out rates, presumably because of the history of oppression of black males in schools. Because this argument didn't pass muster in terms of affirmative action statutes based on sex, it REALLY is not okay based on race. PM me if you have further questions, I feel like my constitutional analysis is clouding the debate about whether this measure is morally right or not. -
Chicago plans High School for Black Males
brierebecca replied to Gravitymaster's topic in Speakers Corner
there are all male and all female schools in the country, but they're not public. That's the issue. the government is subsidizing the school, and so they have to provide the compelling interest. "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie -
Chicago plans High School for Black Males
brierebecca replied to Gravitymaster's topic in Speakers Corner
I'm curious as to the outcome, too. Personally, I think the Court of Appeals ruling I brought up earlier is pretty controlling. I found the case, and it is directly on point. Therefore, according to the court, if you want something done about the drop-out rate among black males, you can't establish an all-male school in the inner-city (where the population is predominantly black) to combat the problem. The court suggests that there are other ways to do this, and utilizing the public school system is not the answer. To break it down for you, the Court of Appeals said NO to an all-male high school in a predominantly black area because it is a form of affirmative action. In order to have a form of affirmative action that discriminates in the basis of sex (this is an all-male school) you have to have a compelling state interest in order to regulate. The Court of Appeals for whatever federal circuit Detroit is in has already said that black male drop-out rates are not a compelling state interest, and the Supreme Court denied cert. End of story. Find some other way to combat the problem. I'm not saying I'm not in favor of this type of affirmative action. I am, however, saying that when you're trying to fix a problem, usually you don't go with the options that have already been disallowed by the Federal Circuit. That seems like a dumb idea to me. brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie -
I work for the Department of Health, in their General Counsel's office. I'm not allowed to say a lot about it, but trust me, its a big deal and needs adequate attention. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
Chicago plans High School for Black Males
brierebecca replied to Gravitymaster's topic in Speakers Corner
actually, they are excluding a group: females. This was another reason this SAME situation was deemed unconstitutional in Detroit for the reasons I argued above Also, it doesn't matter if you actively exclude one group or not. If you imply that a school is directed toward alleviating a problem associated with one group, you're still in trouble. This is because these kinds of programs are not about what affect they have. Its about the justification the government gives when they are established. This jusification has already been weighed and been found wanting. Still trying to find the case cite, but trust me, this exact situation has already been addressed, and its unconstitutional. Brie *edited for clarity "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie -
Chicago plans High School for Black Males
brierebecca replied to Gravitymaster's topic in Speakers Corner
This high school program is unconstitutional on its face because of equal protection standards. US v. Fordice was recently applied to this exact situation in Detroit, which was attempting to establish all-male afrocentric high schools to help with the black male drop-out rate. The court of appeals applied US v. Fordice and found that it was unconstitutional to focus a school system on a certain group to the exclusion of everyone else, because this isn't a compelling interest. I can't remember the case name for the life of me, but its in my notes for my Constitutional Law class. This issue hasn't been dealt with by the Supreme Court, but the fact that Detroit dropped the program immediately after the ruling is a pretty good indication of how it'll turn out. Just my two cents. -
that's because there's no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is someone who does something you don't agree with. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
riiiight.....as I was SHOVING Leslie out of the way so you guys could launch the 4-way. You need to see my video - it's great. I was videoing the funnel thinking "man, that thing is tall" because it went verticle and was 4 people high. I'll try to post a screen grab later.
-
oh no! I'm in the same boat, too! Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie
-
OMG this thread is so perfect for how I feel right now....2 more hours of work, nothing to do, and I'm ITCHING to get to SA and start this boogie. BUT, I did just committ a random act of handiness: I hung a bulletin board up in my office by myself. I even nailed in the nails!
-
humpy humpy? Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie