Civil & Human Rights

A solution in search of a non-existent problem

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The progressive Arizona Constitution similarly protects "liberty of conscience," Ariz.Const. Article 2, Sec. 12.

There are federal and state laws that also protect the free exercise of religion from government interference.

Nevertheless, Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park) wants to make it illegal for government to “require a minister to solemnize a marriage inconsistent with a minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.” Dude, there already is a law! This is a solution in search of a non-existent problem. Proposed law offers religious leaders exemption from conducting gay marriage services:

Montenegro acknowledged there is currently no danger of such a mandate.

* * *

Montenegro said he is trying to keep his own measure as narrow as possible.

For example, it spells out that the protections against having to recognize a same-sex marriage does not extend to hospitals, hotels, restaurants, businesses or other places of public accommodation. That is designed from it becoming a weapon in legal fights similar to one in New Mexico where that state's high court ruled that a commercial wedding photographer could not refuse to take pictures of a same-sex wedding.

“We're not trying to go out and pick a fight,” Montenegro said. He said nothing in the legislation would bar a pastor, minister, rabbi or other religious leader from voluntarily presiding over a same-sex marriage, though under current Arizona law it would not be recognized by the state.

Montenegro conceded that the entire effort could prove meaningless even if he gets it approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer: A court could still rule the measure unconstitutional. But Montenegro said he still thinks the effort is worthwhile.

“As representatives of the people here in Arizona, we want to make sure we're doing our part to protect the religious freedoms of pastors, ministers, and the churches,” he said.

Arizona State Hearing – National Commission on Voting Rights

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Announcement from the Arizona Advocacy Network:

JANUARY 9, 2014
10:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.
ASU College of Law – Armstrong Hall – Great Hall
1100 S. McAllister Ave. Tempe AZ

Join Arizona Advocacy Network, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and community partners in a commission that will hear testimony dealing with voting discrimination and election administration problems throughout the country.

The purpose of the commission and the hearings will be to build the Congressional record for a Voter Registration Act fix.

Volunteers are needed! Please contact jon@azadvocacy.org for more information

Come and hear about the state of voting in Arizona and share your voting experiences. The hearing is free, nonpartisan, and open to the public! There will be three formal panels of witnesses testifying on topics such as voting discrimination, registration and polling place problems, access for voters with disabilities and language minorities, and more!

A counter-movement to anti-choice extremism

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A new study shows more abortion restrictions went into effect in the last three years than in the previous decade. States pass record number of abortion laws:

State legislatures have passed more laws restricting access to abortions in the last three years than they did in the decade beforehand, according to a new study.

Abortionrestrictions

The Washington Post's Sarah Kliff explains:

What made 2010 such a boom year for abortion restrictions? It’s hard to pinpoint a particular reason, but a few factors do stand out. First, Republicans took control of lots of state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections, allowing them to pass more restrictions than was politically feasible in the past. The Affordable Care Act also ignited a fight over abortion policy, particularly whether federal funds would help pay for abortions (when Americans used their tax subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage). That fight spilled over to state legislatures – the ones that Republicans had recently come to control – and many passed laws restricting insurance coverage of abortion.

Lastly, the focus on late-term abortion, with the 20-week abortion bans, likely played a role, too. As the Guttmacher Institute reports, those bans proliferated quickly, after Nebraska passed the first such law back in 2010. While the majority of Americans do support legal abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, support for abortion rights falls significantly when you get into second and third trimester terminations. That drop-off in public support could have laid the groundwork for the success of the late-term restrictions.

Ninth Circuit Marriage Equality case again delayed for briefing

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie: Equality on Trial reports that Sevcik v. Sandoval (No.12-17668), the marriage equality case from Nevada before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is again delayed for briefing: Briefing in the challenge to Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban has been delayed further. The new request for delay came from the defendants, who haven’t yet … Read more

(Update) ‘Culture Warrior Day’ at the U.S. Supreme Court

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On New Year's Eve, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave respondents until Friday to file a response to petitions filed by the state of Utah in the marriage equality case, and from the Little Sisters of the Poor in the contraceptive coverage mandate of "ObamaCare" case from Colorado. Those responses have now been filed.

Early reports from the Washington Post: Obama administration asks Justices to lift delay on birth-control rule:

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Friday that a group of Colorado nuns does not need a special injunction against the new health-care’s law provision providing contraceptive coverage for employees because the group can easily exempt itself from the requirement.

The government asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to lift the temporary injunction she issued New Year’s Eve for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Colorado nonprofit organization that provides services to the elderly. The Affordable Care Act, new provisions of which went into effect Jan. 1, requires employers who provide insurance coverage to include contraceptive services.

But nonprofit organizations such as the nuns’ may opt out of the requirement simply by certifying that they have religious objections, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote in a response to Sotomayor filed Friday morning.

The “employer-applicants here are eligible for religious accommodations set out in the regulations that exempt them from any requirement ‘to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage,’ ” Verrilli wrote.

“They need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.”