A New York Times article posted about a week ago calls James Pouillon "proof that abortion doctors are not the only ones under duress," nearly calling him a martyr to the peaceful anti-abortion cause.
But the article omits any reference to Pouillon's son's accusations back in September that his dad was a woman-hating domestic abuser who protested abortion not to protest abortion, but rather "to stalk, harass, terrorize, scream at, threaten, frighten, and verbally abuse women" any chance he got. "He was at the high school," the younger Pouillon points out, "because my niece was there, and female family members were always his favorite targets."
mlive.com link via Mithras.
15 October 2009
14 October 2009
Study: when abortions are outlawed, only outlaws get abortions
The Guttmacher Institute has released a study that shows what most women already know anyway: when abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will get abortions:
On the other hand, when women are educated about contraception and can obtain it, the rate of unwanted pregnancies goes down -- which means fewer abortions, whether safe or unsafe, legal or illegal.
Because about 1/3 of all American women will have at least 1 abortion during their childbearing years, you know a woman who's had an abortion, whether she's told you or not. Women will seek abortions whether they are safe, legal, and fully paid by insurance, or whether they have to get them under less feminist circumstances. If you care about women, mothers, and children, then you care about their access to safe, legal abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.In other words, banning abortions doesn't make the abortion rate go down. It only makes the safe abortion rate go down. It drives women to get illegal, dangerous abortions, either self-induced or performed by unlicensed practitioners using abortifacient toxins, such as "pouches containing arsenic" -- I like the phrase poison pessary myself. These practices lead to hospitalizations, lifelong disability, future infertility, and early death. When such a woman seeks an abortion because she already has children at home, then now we're talking motherless children, to the tune of 70,000 dead mothers globally every year.
It did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate over the last decade.
But unsafe abortions, primarily illegal, have remained almost static.
On the other hand, when women are educated about contraception and can obtain it, the rate of unwanted pregnancies goes down -- which means fewer abortions, whether safe or unsafe, legal or illegal.
Because about 1/3 of all American women will have at least 1 abortion during their childbearing years, you know a woman who's had an abortion, whether she's told you or not. Women will seek abortions whether they are safe, legal, and fully paid by insurance, or whether they have to get them under less feminist circumstances. If you care about women, mothers, and children, then you care about their access to safe, legal abortion.
13 October 2009
Orly Taitz update III: Judge Land: "My bad, make that $20,000"
Judge Clay Land has doubled his originally threatened sanction and assessed a $20,000 penalty against "attorney" Orly Taitz for her breathtaking Rule 11 violations in Rhodes v. MacDonald (PDF):
In short, this was the third time, and in the second federal court, where Taitz had shopped around her attempt to get a lawsuit started that would require President Obama to submit his birth certificate into evidence. Judge Land ordered her to show cause why he should not fine her $10,000 for violating Rule 11, and instead she filed a Motion for Recusal (PDF) against him that reads worse than most of the less-than-literate filings you see from pro se tax protestors. Accordingly, Judge Land has denied the motion and fined Taitz, attaching an opinion that's like a Cliff's Notes of what arguments not to make to a federal judge, even a Bush appointee (hint: don't compare yourself to Justice Thurgood Marshall and your case to Brown v. Board).
Mithras had wondered about the fate of the sad sack local counsel who must have vouched for Taitz in order for her to be admitted pro hac vice. Judge Land mentions in Section III of the Background part of his opinion that "[b]ecause of the alleged urgent nature of the request, the Court waived its local rule that requires counsel admitted pro hac vice to associate local counsel." But it looks as though the judge sincerely regrets that decision, since Taitz used much of her oral argument time to threaten the court that she would file "a wave of subsequent similar actions" if she didn't get the discovery she was fishing for . . . basically the exact conduct that Rule 11 aims at.
Why did the court double the threatened sanction? Because, by filing a nonsense motion for recusal and a "Motion for Enlargement of Time" (PDF), Taitz exhibited a "pattern of conduct reveal[ing] that it will be difficult to get [her] attention" without hitting her with a "significant sanction." Which is legalese for "don't accuse yer judge of treason in a signed pleading, dumbass." (Of course, it's not that simple. Taitz had forced the court to interrupt an ongoing jury trial, have an expedited hearing, draft multiple responses to her filings on an expedited basis -- and finally
Finally, dig the court's footnote 11:
When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.And that's just from the introductory comment and order. The judge's opinion (PDF) goes into much more detail and provides the nuts-and-bolts Rule 11 legal reasoning behind the penalty.
[ ... ]
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court.
In short, this was the third time, and in the second federal court, where Taitz had shopped around her attempt to get a lawsuit started that would require President Obama to submit his birth certificate into evidence. Judge Land ordered her to show cause why he should not fine her $10,000 for violating Rule 11, and instead she filed a Motion for Recusal (PDF) against him that reads worse than most of the less-than-literate filings you see from pro se tax protestors. Accordingly, Judge Land has denied the motion and fined Taitz, attaching an opinion that's like a Cliff's Notes of what arguments not to make to a federal judge, even a Bush appointee (hint: don't compare yourself to Justice Thurgood Marshall and your case to Brown v. Board).
Mithras had wondered about the fate of the sad sack local counsel who must have vouched for Taitz in order for her to be admitted pro hac vice. Judge Land mentions in Section III of the Background part of his opinion that "[b]ecause of the alleged urgent nature of the request, the Court waived its local rule that requires counsel admitted pro hac vice to associate local counsel." But it looks as though the judge sincerely regrets that decision, since Taitz used much of her oral argument time to threaten the court that she would file "a wave of subsequent similar actions" if she didn't get the discovery she was fishing for . . . basically the exact conduct that Rule 11 aims at.
Why did the court double the threatened sanction? Because, by filing a nonsense motion for recusal and a "Motion for Enlargement of Time" (PDF), Taitz exhibited a "pattern of conduct reveal[ing] that it will be difficult to get [her] attention" without hitting her with a "significant sanction." Which is legalese for "don't accuse yer judge of treason in a signed pleading, dumbass." (Of course, it's not that simple. Taitz had forced the court to interrupt an ongoing jury trial, have an expedited hearing, draft multiple responses to her filings on an expedited basis -- and finally
draft the present order, which is longer than it should be because the Court must address the additional frivolous arguments made by counsel in her motion to recuse and also must make sure the Court of Appeals has the complete picture of counsel’s misconduct. Although the Court has not attempted to place a price tag on the time and expense caused by counsel’s misconduct, any objective observer can ascertain that it is substantial.But hey, look at the bright side. It's a textbook example of what Rule 11 is for.)
Finally, dig the court's footnote 11:
The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today’s Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation.
Driberally tonight
Drinking Liberally is a weekly social gathering where progressives talk politics and get to know one another. In Center City Philadelphia, we meet on Tuesday nights at Triumph Brewery's upstairs bar, where there are drink and food specials from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I hope to see you there!
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: Recently in Colorado, a health insurance company denied coverage to an otherwise very healthy 4-month-old baby who was in the 99th percentile for his weight, explaining that they won't cover babies who weigh more than the 95th percentile. (Note that breast-fed babies, like the one in question here, often get fat so quickly that their weight measurements go off the charts, because the charts are based on growth curves for formula-fed babies, who don't gain weight as quickly.) Facing the negative PR that comes from insisting that the parents starve their baby down to a "healthier" weight, and a pediatrician who apparently explained to them that BMI is not a valid indicator for gauging infant health, the insurer has since reversed itself and has decided to cover this gorgeous, obviously thriving child and other "fat" babies (PDF). But it makes me want to ask: What's your pre-existing condition?
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: Recently in Colorado, a health insurance company denied coverage to an otherwise very healthy 4-month-old baby who was in the 99th percentile for his weight, explaining that they won't cover babies who weigh more than the 95th percentile. (Note that breast-fed babies, like the one in question here, often get fat so quickly that their weight measurements go off the charts, because the charts are based on growth curves for formula-fed babies, who don't gain weight as quickly.) Facing the negative PR that comes from insisting that the parents starve their baby down to a "healthier" weight, and a pediatrician who apparently explained to them that BMI is not a valid indicator for gauging infant health, the insurer has since reversed itself and has decided to cover this gorgeous, obviously thriving child and other "fat" babies (PDF). But it makes me want to ask: What's your pre-existing condition?
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
09 October 2009
Friday jukebox: Elton John
For my friends, especially everybody last weekend at the wedding:
This Broadway's got
It's got a lot of songs to sing
If I knew the tunes I might join in
[ ... ]
I thank the lord for the people I have found
This Broadway's got
It's got a lot of songs to sing
If I knew the tunes I might join in
[ ... ]
I thank the lord for the people I have found
08 October 2009
Glomarization, almost-Esq.
Results from July's Pennsylvania bar exam are out, and I passed!
About 1 more month until I hear whether I'm admitted to the Commonwealth's bar.
About 1 more month until I hear whether I'm admitted to the Commonwealth's bar.
Men I've dated, part n in a series
In the early 1990s I was halfway through my undergrad degree, and my high-school boyfriend invited me to his wedding. He had gone to a small state university out West, while I stayed in the mid-Atlantic to finish high school and start college more locally. We'd kept up the long-distance relationship for a while, going through a fortune in long-distance dimes (this was the olden days, before everyone had e-mail); but eventually he fell in love with a fellow engineering student, and they married in the summer after his college graduation.
It wasn't the first time I'd driven across the country. The first time had been with that same high-school boyfriend, to help him return to school his sophomore year. I remember the car, a 1983 Chevy Cavalier wagon. We hung our graduation tassels, 198x and 199x, from the rearview mirror -- do kids still do that? We stopped at Wall Drug, where I bought a waxed-cotton hat with a leather wind cord. We visited Yellowstone National Park, which at the time was astoundingly beautiful with the wildflowers that proliferated after the 1988 fires. The car's odometer flipped to 100,000 miles somewhere near the Continental Divide in Montana; we stopped and took pictures. A few months later, the graduation tassels were lost when someone broke into the car to steal the rearview mirror. I never understood why they hadn't left the tassels behind.
The wedding was the first I attended in the circle of my age-mates, and it showed. The couple obviously had a very limited budget; the groom asked for his parents' permission to break a glass for good luck; I wore a type of inappropriately short dress that only someone in her early 20s could get away with; and on the strength of that dress I slept with the best man a few times, sometime later that fall when we were both back East.
But this post isn't about my high-school boyfriend or his best man; it's about the date I took to his wedding. My date was someone I'd met in a social club at university. He was short. He bore a striking resemblance to John Denver, so much so that some people in our social club called him that when he wasn't there to hear. He was a little older and was going back to school after a stint in the Army. He was good at camping and hiking and making do on a road trip with a limited budget. Late 1 night while we were camping, he pointed out some of the more obscure constellations to me, which I appreciated. Then he told me that if I looked at them indirectly I'd see them better, which irritated me, because I already knew that trick. He expanded my practical understanding of driving a stick-shift car by making me the designated driver out of Mile High Stadium's parking lot and into the Denver mousetrap after he'd had a few during a baseball game.
We drove his 1979 Toyota Celica Supra. When we ran the air conditioning, the gearbox heated up dramatically, so most of the drive was very, very hot. Somewhere in Colorado he put "Rocky Mountain High" on the cassette player and I had to turn my face very quickly to the window so that he wouldn't see me laughing and ask why.
The road trip itself was largely uneventful. We camped a couple of nights, slept other nights in overpriced interstate motels, and mostly spent as much time as we could on the road because we had to get back to school. Unfortunately for my date, I passed a lot of time on the trip quietly mooning over another fella. Somewhere in Kansas he put "Bridge over Troubled Water" on the cassette player and I had to turn my face to the window so he wouldn't see me coming to tears for missing the other guy, who played a lot of Simon and Garfunkel when we were together. I tried to be a good sport, though, and I put out for my date a few times, including one pine-needly encounter in the tent one cold, mountainous night. But I think we both knew that he was merely my lift to the wedding, and this was my "payment," and we weren't going to be able to continue once we got home. It didn't end gracefully, because I didn't yet have the communication skills or even the self-knowledge to understand what I was doing and be completely honest about it, both to me and to him. Truthfully I feel ashamed about how we ended: I pettily fussed at him over the phone to mail my Swiss Army knife, which I'd left in his car, to my dorm room. I was so young and immature, even for the age I was. I wasn't nice to him at all.
I haven't seen or talked to him in over 15 years. His name is too common for me to effectively Google him. I used to have a photo of him taken outside Mile High Stadium, but I tossed it years ago. I don't know if he went back into the Army; he's probably not too old to have been sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan. (The best man was Army, too. He went to Iraq in Desert Storm and got sent back for Iraqi Freedom, but in the interim he'd settled down, gotten married, and had 2 kids.) If I ever saw him again, I don't think I'd apologize, but I would acknowledge that I was less than classy with him, and that I hope I didn't turn him against women for too long.
It wasn't the first time I'd driven across the country. The first time had been with that same high-school boyfriend, to help him return to school his sophomore year. I remember the car, a 1983 Chevy Cavalier wagon. We hung our graduation tassels, 198x and 199x, from the rearview mirror -- do kids still do that? We stopped at Wall Drug, where I bought a waxed-cotton hat with a leather wind cord. We visited Yellowstone National Park, which at the time was astoundingly beautiful with the wildflowers that proliferated after the 1988 fires. The car's odometer flipped to 100,000 miles somewhere near the Continental Divide in Montana; we stopped and took pictures. A few months later, the graduation tassels were lost when someone broke into the car to steal the rearview mirror. I never understood why they hadn't left the tassels behind.
The wedding was the first I attended in the circle of my age-mates, and it showed. The couple obviously had a very limited budget; the groom asked for his parents' permission to break a glass for good luck; I wore a type of inappropriately short dress that only someone in her early 20s could get away with; and on the strength of that dress I slept with the best man a few times, sometime later that fall when we were both back East.
But this post isn't about my high-school boyfriend or his best man; it's about the date I took to his wedding. My date was someone I'd met in a social club at university. He was short. He bore a striking resemblance to John Denver, so much so that some people in our social club called him that when he wasn't there to hear. He was a little older and was going back to school after a stint in the Army. He was good at camping and hiking and making do on a road trip with a limited budget. Late 1 night while we were camping, he pointed out some of the more obscure constellations to me, which I appreciated. Then he told me that if I looked at them indirectly I'd see them better, which irritated me, because I already knew that trick. He expanded my practical understanding of driving a stick-shift car by making me the designated driver out of Mile High Stadium's parking lot and into the Denver mousetrap after he'd had a few during a baseball game.
We drove his 1979 Toyota Celica Supra. When we ran the air conditioning, the gearbox heated up dramatically, so most of the drive was very, very hot. Somewhere in Colorado he put "Rocky Mountain High" on the cassette player and I had to turn my face very quickly to the window so that he wouldn't see me laughing and ask why.
The road trip itself was largely uneventful. We camped a couple of nights, slept other nights in overpriced interstate motels, and mostly spent as much time as we could on the road because we had to get back to school. Unfortunately for my date, I passed a lot of time on the trip quietly mooning over another fella. Somewhere in Kansas he put "Bridge over Troubled Water" on the cassette player and I had to turn my face to the window so he wouldn't see me coming to tears for missing the other guy, who played a lot of Simon and Garfunkel when we were together. I tried to be a good sport, though, and I put out for my date a few times, including one pine-needly encounter in the tent one cold, mountainous night. But I think we both knew that he was merely my lift to the wedding, and this was my "payment," and we weren't going to be able to continue once we got home. It didn't end gracefully, because I didn't yet have the communication skills or even the self-knowledge to understand what I was doing and be completely honest about it, both to me and to him. Truthfully I feel ashamed about how we ended: I pettily fussed at him over the phone to mail my Swiss Army knife, which I'd left in his car, to my dorm room. I was so young and immature, even for the age I was. I wasn't nice to him at all.
I haven't seen or talked to him in over 15 years. His name is too common for me to effectively Google him. I used to have a photo of him taken outside Mile High Stadium, but I tossed it years ago. I don't know if he went back into the Army; he's probably not too old to have been sent back to Iraq or Afghanistan. (The best man was Army, too. He went to Iraq in Desert Storm and got sent back for Iraqi Freedom, but in the interim he'd settled down, gotten married, and had 2 kids.) If I ever saw him again, I don't think I'd apologize, but I would acknowledge that I was less than classy with him, and that I hope I didn't turn him against women for too long.
06 October 2009
Driberally tonight
Drinking Liberally is a weekly social gathering where progressives talk politics and get to know one another. In Center City Philadelphia, we meet on Tuesday nights at Triumph Brewery's upstairs bar, where there are drink and food specials from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I hope to see you there!
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: During a cross-country road trip in 1993, I happened to be driving through Denver when the newly formed Colorado Rockies baseball team was in town. My traveling companion and I decided to stop at Mile High Stadium to watch the game. I still have the cap I bought at the game -- and since it's the only baseball cap I have, I usually wear it whenever I attend anybody's baseball game -- but I probably won't be wearing it this week.
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: During a cross-country road trip in 1993, I happened to be driving through Denver when the newly formed Colorado Rockies baseball team was in town. My traveling companion and I decided to stop at Mile High Stadium to watch the game. I still have the cap I bought at the game -- and since it's the only baseball cap I have, I usually wear it whenever I attend anybody's baseball game -- but I probably won't be wearing it this week.
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
05 October 2009
Alcohol may have been a factor
A fan who was on the bus and posted his experiences on the local sports blog, The 700 Level, said he didn't know why there was a "big brawl" between the two factions of Flyers fans, but assumed it may have had something to do with all-day drinking.You can almost smell the fumes coming off the video at The 700 Level's blog entry.
02 October 2009
When a minor in Philadelphia needs an abortion
So you live in Philadelphia, you're under 18, and you need an abortion. What to do? It's a simple process, really.
Step 1. Go to New Jersey and get an abortion. If you don't have the means (cash, transportation, etc.) to go to Jersey, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Go to Planned Parenthood. The fee depends on how far along you are. There's also a sliding scale calculation based on your income. Medicaid will not pay for your abortion unless you were raped, or you were a victim of incest, or the pregnancy is endangering your life. Same deal if you're on a public employee's health insurance plan.
Step 3. Receive your state-mandated counseling. At Planned Parenthood, this counseling consists of a video performed by a doctor who is obviously very irritated and very bored to have to recite the state-mandated language to a roomful of women who need healthcare and the loved ones who are present with them to help them out.
Step 4. Get the written consent of your parent or legal guardian. If you can't get this consent because (a) your parent or legal guardian is the person who impregnated you; or (b) your parent or legal guardian will beat you, kill you, or kick you out of the house when they learn you're pregnant; or (c) you are an "emancipated minor"; or (d) your known parent is incarcerated, your other parent is unknown or deceased, and your caregiver is not legally your guardian, go to Step 5. If you have the written consent of your parent or legal guardian, skip ahead to Step 6.
Step 5: Judicial bypass. Meet in a small, windowless room with a volunteer to fill out the paperwork. Your volunteer is likely an earnest, well-meaning, upper-class white law student in their early 20s who can count on 1 hand the number of conversations they've had with someone from your socio-economic class. They've had very little training, but at least they've seen the legalese before. They will ask some very personal questions about your background and your medical status, which are necessary for the paperwork, and then will give you a phone number and name of a lawyer to call at the Philadelphia public defender's office. You do not have to pay this lawyer, and you do not have to pay the court for your judicial bypass. In a few days (because the judges handle judicial bypass cases only on certain days) you'll go to Family Court at 1801 Vine Street with the public defender's office lawyer, and you'll meet with 1 of 3 judges who deal with judicial bypass cases. If you're lucky, you'll get the judge who despises the legal hoops you're being forced to jump through, and they'll sign the bypass order quickly. If you're unlucky, you'll get the judge who will ask you some humiliating questions as to why you need an abortion, why you can't get your mom to sign the consent form, and where your dad is. But this judge will sign the paperwork, too. It is almost 100% certain that you will get your judicial bypass, at which point you may proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Wait 24 hours. The state requires that you go home and wait at least 24 hours. The hope is that you reconsider the abortion and decide not to go through with it. The reality is that the delay causes most women to lose twice as many hours at work and school than they otherwise would have to. Note that the 24-hour waiting period -- often more than 24 hours, because clinics do not perform abortions every day of the week -- may have moved your pregnancy so far along that your abortion would now be more complicated, more expensive, or more illegal to perform.
Step 7. Return to Planned Parenthood and get the abortion. Your appointment will probably be very early in the morning. There will likely be protestors there, holding up gruesome signs, loudly reciting scripture at you, and possibly chanting and shouting. However, volunteer "clinic defense escorts" wearing brightly colored vests will accompany you from your car or from the sidewalk to the clinic door, walking between you and the protestors.
Step 8. Go home, take a few days off, take care of yourself, and attend any follow-up appointments the clinic staff tell you to attend.
Step 1. Go to New Jersey and get an abortion. If you don't have the means (cash, transportation, etc.) to go to Jersey, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Go to Planned Parenthood. The fee depends on how far along you are. There's also a sliding scale calculation based on your income. Medicaid will not pay for your abortion unless you were raped, or you were a victim of incest, or the pregnancy is endangering your life. Same deal if you're on a public employee's health insurance plan.
Step 3. Receive your state-mandated counseling. At Planned Parenthood, this counseling consists of a video performed by a doctor who is obviously very irritated and very bored to have to recite the state-mandated language to a roomful of women who need healthcare and the loved ones who are present with them to help them out.
Step 4. Get the written consent of your parent or legal guardian. If you can't get this consent because (a) your parent or legal guardian is the person who impregnated you; or (b) your parent or legal guardian will beat you, kill you, or kick you out of the house when they learn you're pregnant; or (c) you are an "emancipated minor"; or (d) your known parent is incarcerated, your other parent is unknown or deceased, and your caregiver is not legally your guardian, go to Step 5. If you have the written consent of your parent or legal guardian, skip ahead to Step 6.
Step 5: Judicial bypass. Meet in a small, windowless room with a volunteer to fill out the paperwork. Your volunteer is likely an earnest, well-meaning, upper-class white law student in their early 20s who can count on 1 hand the number of conversations they've had with someone from your socio-economic class. They've had very little training, but at least they've seen the legalese before. They will ask some very personal questions about your background and your medical status, which are necessary for the paperwork, and then will give you a phone number and name of a lawyer to call at the Philadelphia public defender's office. You do not have to pay this lawyer, and you do not have to pay the court for your judicial bypass. In a few days (because the judges handle judicial bypass cases only on certain days) you'll go to Family Court at 1801 Vine Street with the public defender's office lawyer, and you'll meet with 1 of 3 judges who deal with judicial bypass cases. If you're lucky, you'll get the judge who despises the legal hoops you're being forced to jump through, and they'll sign the bypass order quickly. If you're unlucky, you'll get the judge who will ask you some humiliating questions as to why you need an abortion, why you can't get your mom to sign the consent form, and where your dad is. But this judge will sign the paperwork, too. It is almost 100% certain that you will get your judicial bypass, at which point you may proceed to Step 6.
Step 6. Wait 24 hours. The state requires that you go home and wait at least 24 hours. The hope is that you reconsider the abortion and decide not to go through with it. The reality is that the delay causes most women to lose twice as many hours at work and school than they otherwise would have to. Note that the 24-hour waiting period -- often more than 24 hours, because clinics do not perform abortions every day of the week -- may have moved your pregnancy so far along that your abortion would now be more complicated, more expensive, or more illegal to perform.
Step 7. Return to Planned Parenthood and get the abortion. Your appointment will probably be very early in the morning. There will likely be protestors there, holding up gruesome signs, loudly reciting scripture at you, and possibly chanting and shouting. However, volunteer "clinic defense escorts" wearing brightly colored vests will accompany you from your car or from the sidewalk to the clinic door, walking between you and the protestors.
Step 8. Go home, take a few days off, take care of yourself, and attend any follow-up appointments the clinic staff tell you to attend.
01 October 2009
Bar exam results in a week?
Word on the street is that the July Pennsylvania bar exam results will be posted next Friday.
Abortion restrictions enjoined in Arizona
A trial court in Maricopa County, Arizona, has granted a TRO enjoining the enforcement of some new burdensome restrictions on abortion. The restrictions would:
- require certain information to be delivered "orally and in person," rather than by phone, paper pamphlet, or e-mail;
- require that information to be delivered by the doctor who would be performing the abortion, or the referring physician, rather than a nurse or other staff member;
- require that information to be delivered by a doctor or referring physician even where the abortion was a medical one (i.e., RU-486), which can be legally administered by a nurse or physician assistant; and
- require parental consent for a minor woman's abortion to be in writing and notarized, but with no guidelines for protecting confidentiality and no penalties for breaching confidentiality.
30 September 2009
The weasel-worded case for bringing Roman Polanski to justice
Prof. Siegel at Concurring Opinions argues that Roman Polanski should be brought to justice in the the U.S., but says Polanski only "seduced" his victim.
He was very justifiably called out in the blog entry's comments for not using the term rape. As of this writing, Prof. Siegel hasn't answered the comments nor corrected his wording.
Let's be clear: when Roman Polanski slipped a 13-year-old a mickey and then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her while she continued to say "no," he raped a child. He did not merely "seduc[e] a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then [have] sex with her."
Are Prof. Siegel and other writers using some new definition of the word seduce that I haven't been aware of before this week? Seduce does not mean "dose with champagne and 'ludes until passed out." Seducing someone romantically means persuading them, over their initial objection, to consent to have sex with you. But you can't persuade someone who's been drugged to consent with you, and a 13-year-old is presumed incapable of consent. This is rape law 101.
As for the filmmakers supporting him -- Woody Allen? Is Woody Allen really the best choice to be the John Hancock on a "Free Roman Polanski" petition? Do these supporters have children? Would they give someone a free pass to rape one of their children so long as the rapist was a respected auteur? Which auteurs would they give that pass to -- is there a minimum number of Oscars or Golden Bears or Palmes d'Or an auteur would have to win first?
He was very justifiably called out in the blog entry's comments for not using the term rape. As of this writing, Prof. Siegel hasn't answered the comments nor corrected his wording.
Let's be clear: when Roman Polanski slipped a 13-year-old a mickey and then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her while she continued to say "no," he raped a child. He did not merely "seduc[e] a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then [have] sex with her."
Are Prof. Siegel and other writers using some new definition of the word seduce that I haven't been aware of before this week? Seduce does not mean "dose with champagne and 'ludes until passed out." Seducing someone romantically means persuading them, over their initial objection, to consent to have sex with you. But you can't persuade someone who's been drugged to consent with you, and a 13-year-old is presumed incapable of consent. This is rape law 101.
As for the filmmakers supporting him -- Woody Allen? Is Woody Allen really the best choice to be the John Hancock on a "Free Roman Polanski" petition? Do these supporters have children? Would they give someone a free pass to rape one of their children so long as the rapist was a respected auteur? Which auteurs would they give that pass to -- is there a minimum number of Oscars or Golden Bears or Palmes d'Or an auteur would have to win first?
29 September 2009
Driberally tonight
Drinking Liberally is a weekly social gathering where progressives talk politics and get to know one another. In Center City Philadelphia, we meet on Tuesday nights at Triumph Brewery's upstairs bar, where there are drink and food specials from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I hope to see you there!
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: Glenn Beck is not happy about the successful registration of "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com," so he's filed an official complaint (PDF) of trademark infringement with the WIPO. What domain name should the respondent have registered to avoid the problems of confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, and bad faith?
Note that "didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com" redirects to the same exact website, and Beck does not appear to be challenging that domain name -- because he can't?!
Also note that the filed response (PDF) compares the website creator's efforts to the ad at issue in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (patently offensive ad is protected speech because parody directed at a public figure). Too funny!
Of course, the Hustler Magazine case was about intentional infliction of emotional distress, not defamation (both state tort-law claims, not criminal charges or constitutional challenges), but still,
The law geeks can read or listen to attorney Isaacman's actual, entire oral argument at Oyez.com, or even listen to it.
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).
This week's topic: Glenn Beck is not happy about the successful registration of "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com," so he's filed an official complaint (PDF) of trademark infringement with the WIPO. What domain name should the respondent have registered to avoid the problems of confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, and bad faith?
Note that "didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com" redirects to the same exact website, and Beck does not appear to be challenging that domain name -- because he can't?!
Also note that the filed response (PDF) compares the website creator's efforts to the ad at issue in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (patently offensive ad is protected speech because parody directed at a public figure). Too funny!
Of course, the Hustler Magazine case was about intentional infliction of emotional distress, not defamation (both state tort-law claims, not criminal charges or constitutional challenges), but still,
"Yes, Your Honor, there is a public interest in making [Glenn Beck] look ludicrous -- insofar as there is a public interest in having [Respondent Eiland-Hall] express the point of view that [Glenn Beck] is full of B.S.! And [Respondent Eiland-Hall] has every right to express this view" (from 2:16):
The law geeks can read or listen to attorney Isaacman's actual, entire oral argument at Oyez.com, or even listen to it.
"Come for the beer, stay for the check"
28 September 2009
Open letter to HuffPo crackpots
Dear Huffington Post,
Please stop posting articles that are dismissive of and untruthful about vaccinations and supportive of homeopathy (which kills babies).
Sincerely,
Glomarization
Please stop posting articles that are dismissive of and untruthful about vaccinations and supportive of homeopathy (which kills babies).
Sincerely,
Glomarization
The ABA is enabling the legal industry's downfall, but it still won't buy me a drink
So I've been reading a few anti-ABA blogs written by lawyers lately. Some of them are written by relatively recent law school grads who are failing to make ends meet, between their crushing law-school debt and the extremely low-paying, temporary contract document-review jobs that they feel forced to take. Others are written by long-time associates who never made partner -- whether from lack of skill and drive, or from lack of cash to buy into an equity partnership.
The articles are interesting, but unfortunately in a trainwreck kind of way. As a rule they're fantastically bitter, and for good reason. Many of the authors (or their informants) work in filthy, airless, roach-infested cubicles in the basements of prestigious BigLaw firms, mostly in New York, doing mind-numbing document review. They work 50 or 70 hours per week for ever decreasing fees, like $28/hr before taxes, and with no benefits. The work pays so low because there's been a trend for BigLaw firms to outsource this kind of document review to India, with the blessing of the ABA, and because there is a lot of competition from new law grads.
Outsourcing low-level document review tasks can be cost-effective, and it can make running a law firm, which is a very expensive type of business to run, more profitable. You could even say that law firms are late to get on the off-shore bandwagon, considering how every other industry in America, from manufacturing to customer service, has been doing it for years. So it's really not surprising that the ABA, a mouthpiece for BigLaw and a group very interested in preserving the status quo of big law firms charging big fees and making big profits, has given 2 thumbs up to shipping document review jobs overseas.
But the ABA is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.
The predictable result when the economy tanks and firms lose both clients and lines of credit: layoffs, salary cuts, new hire deferrals, and rescinded offers to the class of 2009. It's not completely the ABA's fault, as some of the anti-ABA bloggers insist; but the ABA's position isn't helping. The ABA hasn't changed its offshoring policy, though it's been printing on its website and in its monthly magazine nice articles about spunky attorneys thinking outside the box and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting fabulously remunerative, non-lawyering jobs.
Some individuals at firms are seeing the writing on the wall. The chair of K&L Gates seems horrified to see that the economy appears to be driving more and more kids into law school lately, because "[w]e will be pouring tens of thousands of young people into a market that I suspect is not going to be able to absorb them at the remuneration levels that would have justified them taking on that debt" of 6 figures that law school will almost certainly leave them with.
Which makes me wonder if something isn't going to give soon. Shouldn't the invisible hand drive down law school prices one of these days? If there is a glut of law schools, and grads can't get decent-paying lawyering jobs afterward because they have a useless 4-year liberal arts degree, a law degree from a non-prestigious law school, and no life nor job experience because they're still in their early 20s -- sounds like a bubble to me.
I feel really bad for the low-paid contract document review lawyers. And I feel a heck of a lot of resentment that I've been getting zero help from my own law school's career office (though I wouldn't want to be in their position . . . except that they're getting paychecks). But mostly I feel sick and angry when I see people complaining about any aspect of their jobs right now, or about their lack of job when they have a partner at home helping out, and my tongue is starting to hurt from biting it so hard.
The articles are interesting, but unfortunately in a trainwreck kind of way. As a rule they're fantastically bitter, and for good reason. Many of the authors (or their informants) work in filthy, airless, roach-infested cubicles in the basements of prestigious BigLaw firms, mostly in New York, doing mind-numbing document review. They work 50 or 70 hours per week for ever decreasing fees, like $28/hr before taxes, and with no benefits. The work pays so low because there's been a trend for BigLaw firms to outsource this kind of document review to India, with the blessing of the ABA, and because there is a lot of competition from new law grads.
Outsourcing low-level document review tasks can be cost-effective, and it can make running a law firm, which is a very expensive type of business to run, more profitable. You could even say that law firms are late to get on the off-shore bandwagon, considering how every other industry in America, from manufacturing to customer service, has been doing it for years. So it's really not surprising that the ABA, a mouthpiece for BigLaw and a group very interested in preserving the status quo of big law firms charging big fees and making big profits, has given 2 thumbs up to shipping document review jobs overseas.
But the ABA is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.
The predictable result when the economy tanks and firms lose both clients and lines of credit: layoffs, salary cuts, new hire deferrals, and rescinded offers to the class of 2009. It's not completely the ABA's fault, as some of the anti-ABA bloggers insist; but the ABA's position isn't helping. The ABA hasn't changed its offshoring policy, though it's been printing on its website and in its monthly magazine nice articles about spunky attorneys thinking outside the box and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting fabulously remunerative, non-lawyering jobs.
Some individuals at firms are seeing the writing on the wall. The chair of K&L Gates seems horrified to see that the economy appears to be driving more and more kids into law school lately, because "[w]e will be pouring tens of thousands of young people into a market that I suspect is not going to be able to absorb them at the remuneration levels that would have justified them taking on that debt" of 6 figures that law school will almost certainly leave them with.
Which makes me wonder if something isn't going to give soon. Shouldn't the invisible hand drive down law school prices one of these days? If there is a glut of law schools, and grads can't get decent-paying lawyering jobs afterward because they have a useless 4-year liberal arts degree, a law degree from a non-prestigious law school, and no life nor job experience because they're still in their early 20s -- sounds like a bubble to me.
I feel really bad for the low-paid contract document review lawyers. And I feel a heck of a lot of resentment that I've been getting zero help from my own law school's career office (though I wouldn't want to be in their position . . . except that they're getting paychecks). But mostly I feel sick and angry when I see people complaining about any aspect of their jobs right now, or about their lack of job when they have a partner at home helping out, and my tongue is starting to hurt from biting it so hard.
27 September 2009
Today: The SoSo Block Party
Details from the image if you can't see it:
Experience the So-So (South of South) vibe: Live Music - Flea Market - Local Artists - Vintage Wares - Local Restaurants - Crafts(List of artists, vendors, and other participants.)
Sunday Sept. 27th
Bainbridge St (between 5th & 6th)
Noon to 4 p.m.
Philly AIDS Thrift is a charity shop at 5th and Bainbridge that distributes its proceeds to AIDS Fund, which distributes funds to regional HIV/AIDS support agencies. It's where most of my clothes and housewares donations go, and not just because it's the closest charity shop to my home.
Hope to see you at the block party!
26 September 2009
Poll: popular support for "Obamacare"
New York Times and CBS News poll: "Americans on Health Care and Afghanistan" asks, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?"
The biggest (and, interestingly, least frequent) concern I hear is how to pay for it over the long term. I've heard "cut waste in Medicare" and "preventative care now is cheaper than hospitalization later," which I swear I've heard somewhere before.
Favor: 65%I've found that when I say, "President Obama's plan is like an opt-in Medicare for non-seniors," people think that it's a good idea. It's not forced on anyone; you can still shop around for a low-cost catastrophic plan on your own if you want; and maybe an invisible hand will magically make the health insurance companies offer lower-cost plans as well.
Oppose: 26%
No Opinion: 9%
The biggest (and, interestingly, least frequent) concern I hear is how to pay for it over the long term. I've heard "cut waste in Medicare" and "preventative care now is cheaper than hospitalization later," which I swear I've heard somewhere before.
25 September 2009
Friday jukebox: Industrial Jazz Group
The Industrial Jazz Group will be touring the northeast next month, including a set at the Green Line Café at 4426 Locust Street on Friday 16 October:
From their website:
From their website:
[T]he IJG has slowly pioneered the concept of “avant-garde party music”: an idiosyncratic, charming / disarming blend of jazz, rock, cartoon soundtracks, humor, blues, funk, costumes, doo wop, dada, and a lot of other stuff. It’s not really “industrial,” and it’s not really “jazz”: the IJG attempts to demonstrate that music can indeed be complex, sophisticated, sexy, fun, funny, critical, smart, and groovy all at once.IJG: immensely talented musicians who dress in funny hats and give you a hell of an entertaining show. The October tour includes stops in and around New York, D.C., and New England.
24 September 2009
A Civil Procedure prof's apologia for spending so much time teaching Erie
I think it is an error to imagine that the law school class time devoted to a particular subject needs to be proportional to the time students will spend on that subject in actual practice.Out of the mouths of full-time law school professors who never practiced or clerked at the trial level.
Maybe Prof. Siegel is sore because his Civ Pro course is "[n]ot offered" this academic year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
