Civil & Human Rights

CAP Christian Taliban to oppose Gov. Brewer’s Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Mullah Cathi Herrod and the Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) are injecting their hysterical anti-abortion crusade against Planned Parenthood into the debate over Governor Jan Brewer's Medicaid (AHCCCS) restoration plan. . . because more ignorance and hysteria over "ObamaCare" is what is needed in this debate. This is a grand distraction straw-man for Tea-Publican extremists to oppose the Governor's plan.

The Arizona Republic reports Abortion enters Arizona debate on Medicaid expansion:

TalibanOne of the Legislature’s most powerful lobbying groups says Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid-expansion plan would subsidize abortions and is pushing for an amendment that complicates negotiations and threatens the proposal.

The Center for Arizona Policy is using an opinion from the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal-defense organization, to argue that the draft Medicaid legislation should be amended to disqualify the non-profit women’s health provider Planned Parenthood from receiving public money.

It’s the first in what is expected to be a long line of suggested changes to Brewer’s proposal to broaden eligibility for the state-federal health-insurance program for the poor and disabled, each with the potential to gain or lose votes for the governor’s top legislative priority with thousands of lives and billions of dollars at stake.

Democrats warn that piling on unrelated amendments could cost Brewer their support, and the governor still must find ways to win over Republicans.

The amendment suggested in a letter this week to Brewer from Cathi Herrod, the center’s president, is similar to a law signed by the governor last year to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit, and a federal judge put House Bill 2800 on hold in February. [Because Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed on the merits of its case in overturning the law.]

Corrupt Kavanagh’s Committee passes the ‘show me your papers before you pee’ bill

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) got the corrupt Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) to sponsor its bill based upon ignorance, fear and loathing for a distinct class of individuals whom they want state law to sanction discrimination against on the basis of gender.

02

On Wednesday, the corrupt Kavanagh's Tea-Publican-controlled Appropriations Committee voted to void parts of local anti-discrimination ordinances designed to give protections to transgender individuals on a 7-4 party-line vote. Phoenix transgender restroom bill clears House committee:

Senate Bill 1045 [a strike everything amendment] would prohibit local governments from passing ordinances that could subject businesses to lawsuits or criminal penalties if they forbid a transgender person from using a restroom.

Bill sponsor Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the measure is a response to Phoenix’s new city ordinance, which bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. The law applies to public accommodations such as stores, restaurants and hotels.

SCOTUS appears ready to strike down DOMA

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral argument in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of today's oral argument. Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble:

If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural
thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that
defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone,
after a seventeen-year existence.  That was the overriding impression
after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the
Defense of Marriage Act.

That would happen, it appeared, primarily because Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy seemed persuaded that the federal law intruded too deeply into
the power of the states to regulate marriage, and that the federal
definition cannot prevail.   The only barrier to such a ruling, it
appeared, was the chance – an outside one, though — that the Court
majority might conclude that there is no live case before it at this
point.

SCOTUS grants review of second affirmative action case

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the University of Texas affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas (11-345). It is widely speculated that the Court may issue its decision in this case this week.

But on Monday, the Court granted review in another affirmative action case with broader implications, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Michigan's Proposition 2, the so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (2006) promoted by anti-affirmative action proponent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute. Similar Ward Connerly measures were enacted in California, Proposition 209 (1995), in Nebraska, Initiative 424 (2008), and in Arizona, Proposition 107 (2010).

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on affirmative action ban:

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed
to decide whether a state may constitutionally ban the use of race in
deciding who gets admitted to public colleges or universities.   The
Court chose not to await the outcome of an already pending case on the
constitutionality of an admissions plan at the University of Texas that
makes some use of race. The new case is significantly broader.

SCOTUS appears ready to punt on California’s Prop. 8

by

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case involving a challenge to California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. It appears as if pre-hearing legal analysis questioning whether the parties have proper legal standing to be litigants before the Court may carry the day after all. Justice Kennedy openly questioned "Why are we here?," indicating that the Court may punt on a decision on the merits and instead issue a procedural ruling.

The argument transcript is here (updated link). Argument audio  is here. (h/t SCOTUSblog.com).

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog.com has posted his first impression of The Proposition 8 oral argument:

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument.  The
bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the
five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly
will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8
is constitutional.