The school district thinks the new plan will help curb unsafe sex among teenagers.
The school district thinks the new plan will help curb unsafe sex among teenagers.
Disgusted by Westboro Baptist’s plans to picket a vigil for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the hacker collective is waging a cyber war against the hate-mongering religious group. The Topeka, Kan.-based church has announced its plan to come to Connecticut to protest memorials and funerals over the state’s 2008 legalization of gay marriage.
Anonymous, which has previously targeted the Websites of NATO and the Church of Scientology, says it has taken down Westboro’s atrociously named site, godhatesfags.com, and posted the phone numbers and residential addresses of church members. The hacker collective also announced on their Twitter feed that they are in possession of members’ social security numbers and have filed for a death certificate for Shirley Phelps-Roper, the spokeswoman of the church, Ars Technica reports. ”We will not allow you to corrupt the minds of America with your seeds of hatred,” they said in a video posted online. ”…We will render you obsolete. We will destroy you. We are coming.”
Time News Feed has the full article
Mehdi Hasan interviews evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins at the Oxford Union and asks: Is religion a force for good or evil? Can it co-exist with science? Is science the new religion? And why if god does not exist, is religion so persistent?
Harvard students who have bedroom proclivities that would make their parents’ faces go crimson will soon be able to share the details – in a school-sanctioned club for scholars who like kinky sex. An informal group that calls itself “Harvard College Munch” began meeting last year in the dining hall to discuss the sexual ties that bind them, and it is on the brink of gaining recognition from the school’s Committee on Student Life.
The committee expects to approve the group, along with 14 other student organizations, on Friday, The Harvard Crimson reports.
For charter members, such as one the school paper identified only as “Michael,” the recognition means future generations of students will be free to talk among themselves about all their nocturnal adventures.
“It’s a little hyperbolic for me to get teary-eyed and paternal about sophomores, but it’s really a joy to see the experience they will have now,” Michael told the Crimson.
In joining other student organizations, such as the Harvard Undergraduate Mathematics Association and the Harvard Undergraduate Maternal Health Initiative, the new, 20-member group will be allowed to apply for grants, openly recruit members and promote their, um, events.
“If you come to campus and you have the sexual interests we represent, you may not even suspect that such a group exists,” Michael told the Crimson, adding that recognition “shows we are being taken seriously.”
Harvard spokesman Jeff Neal said the school recognizes more than 400 independent student organizations, and the groups are required to submit an organizational constitution and agree to the school’s nondiscrimination and anti-hazing policies. Then, their fate is decided by a committee composed of students and administrators.
“The college does not endorse the views or activities of any independent student organization,” Neal told FoxNews.com. “Rather, it ensures that independent student organizations remain in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Handbook for Students.”
A woman who went by the name Mae told the Crimson the group has provided her with a comfortable environment to discuss her sexual interests.
“I didn’t think that anyone was even remotely interested (in kink) on campus,” Mae said. “It’s a community where you can feel safe, and you can feel comfortable talking about (kink).”
The established club now means that heartland valedictorians who harbor dark carnal secrets they never felt they could discuss will now be able to lean on the like-minded.
“Pretty much everyone who joins this club always thought they were alone,” Michael said.
This is a copy of the full article provided by Fox News
In the latest attack on therapies aimed at helping gay patients who want to become heterosexual, a congresswoman from California said Wednesday that she was introducing a resolution calling on Congress to denounce the practice.
Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democrat, is proposing the resolution as two lawsuits move through federal court challenging a new California law to ban minors from receiving “sexual-orientation change efforts” under any circumstance.
In a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday, Ms. Speier said she was introducing her Stop Harming Our Kids resolution to “bring us some reality checks” about sexuality.
“Let’s get this straight,” she said. “Being gay, lesbian [or] transgender is not a disease to be cured or a mental health issue to be treated.”
Therapies aimed at helping someone go from gay to straight are “discredited” and “ineffective,” and minors should not be subjected to them, she said.
She added that she will investigate whether taxpayer funds in Medicaid or Tricare, the Pentagon’s health care system, have been used to reimburse therapists offering such counseling.
Practitioners of so-called “sexual reparative therapies” defend the practice, as do some conservative religious organizations, saying efforts to curb their work violate their right to freedom of religion and speech. Many of the most invasive practices once employed have been stopped, they say, and they argue that a blanket ban will hurt young people who want to fight homosexual feelings on religious or moral grounds and will only lead to more unregulated efforts.
Ms. Speier was joined by two people who said they underwent “gay conversion quackery” and advocates for groups that oppose such therapies, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Washington Times has the full article
If you’re a white heterosexual middle-class young male who’s attending Butler University, don’t register for Political Science 201: Research and Analysis; your perspective is unwanted there. In that class, taught by a black female professor, the students are requested to ignore their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when they write or speak.
You would think that, when confronted with such obvious racism, sexism, and anti-Americanism, the dean would try to speak with the professor about her inherent prejudice.
But not at Butler.
Jay Howard, dean of Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, condoned the approach:
Sometimes in order to broaden the conversation and broaden the understandings you’ve got to risk making people uncomfortable. There’s nothing about a college education that guarantees you won’t be made uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, if you’re never made uncomfortable in your college education, you’re not really getting a college education.
In the college syllabus which lists the class, it says that students should use “inclusive language” because it’s “a fundamental issue of social justice. Language that is truly inclusive affirms sexuality, racial and ethnic backgrounds, stages of maturity, and degrees of limiting conditions.”
Howard denied that the practice employed by the professor was based on the assumption that every student is a racist or misogynist. He asserted that prejudices are ingrained into the culture and remain there until they are challenged. Howard stated that in twenty years, whites will no longer be the majority, and thus using inclusive language would help students prepare for a changing world.
That’s very kind of him.
“Our language doesn’t make it easy to write in ways that are inclusive,” Howard said. “We don’t have a generic singular, I mean we have he and she. There is no pronoun that is gender-neutral there.”
Untrue. We have “it”, for those who agonize over the fact that men and women are different. But then, with the secular assault on religion, the new Secular Bible will soon be rewritten as: “And Evolution created it in Its Image, in the image of Evolution It created them, it and it Evolution created them.”
Butler University. Where white means bad, male means bad, heterosexual means bad, American means bad.
And the University saw that it was good.
This is a copy of the full article provided by the Conservatives at Breitbart
Germany’s ruling coalition is calling for a ban on bestiality – or the practice of having sex with animals.
The German parliament’s agriculture committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex. Offenders could face a hefty fine.
A final vote will be held in the Bundestag (lower house) on 14 December.
Germany legalised bestiality (zoophilia) in 1969, except when the animal suffered “significant harm”.
But animal rights groups have campaigned for a change in the law and Hans-Michael Goldmann, the head of the parliamentary committee investigating the new amendment, told the Tageszeitung newspaper that the new legislation was intended to clarify the current legal position.
“With this explicit ban, it will be easier to impose penalties and to improve animal protection.”
A fine of up to 25,000 euros (£20,000) is proposed if someone forces an animal to commit “actions alien to the species”.
But Michael Kiok, the chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), said he was going to take legal action to fight the proposed changes.
“It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm,” he said, adding that animals are capable of showing what they do, or do not, want to do.
“We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women,” Mr Kiok claimed.
Bestiality is banned in many European countries, including the Netherlands, France and Switzerland.
The law was changed in the UK in 2003, which reduced the maximum sentence from life imprisonment to two years.
The act however, is permissible in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, though Stockholm is considering a change in the legislation.
This is a copy of the full article provided by BBC
Retail stores were not the only ones offering Black Friday specials. A Planned Parenthood clinic in Florida offered its own holiday discounts.
Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast’s Thanksgiving savings included $10 off a visit or $5 off emergency contraception between 10AM – 2PM. Key word: emergency.
There are many types of contraception, but only one type of emergency contraception. On their website, Planned Parenthood describes the morning after pill as “birth control” a woman can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex. They offer a limited explanation as to how the pill works to stick to their “the morning after pill is not abortion” agenda. PP claim the pill prevents ovulation, which is true. However, the pillcould also block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus.
This Planned Parenthood clinic was offering $5 off a non-surgical abortion. Another Orlando clinic offers $50 off for abortion services on Sundays.
This is a copy of the full article provided by the Conservatives at Breitbart
U.S. teenagers should be given prescriptions for emergency contraception to keep on hand in case they ever need it, the American Academy of Pediatrics said.
Emergency contraception, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA)’s Plan B One Step, should be given to teens directly ahead of time, or they should get prescriptions that will allow them to have access to the drugs as needed, the doctors’ group said in a policy statement online today.
The pills are available now without a prescription to females 17 and older and males 18 and older. A move by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter to girls younger than 17 was rejected by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in December 2011. The academy encouraged pediatricians to push for increased non-prescription access.
“The point of this whole piece would be to reduce unintended pregnancy,” said Cora Breuner, a member of the academy’s committee on adolescence who was a lead author of the statement.
The academy didn’t discuss the age of teenagers that should be given advance prescriptions, said Breuner, a physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital. The group suggests that pediatricians have discussions with their patients about sexual activity, and give prescriptions to those who are active.
The center is awaiting a federal judge’s ruling in Brooklyn, New York, on its lawsuit against Sebelius and the FDA to allow over-the-counter access to emergency contraception regardless of age.
“If we don’t have the court ruling before, then the anniversary of Sebelius’ ruling will be a teachable moment for us to remind the administration why it was bad,” Kirsten Moore, president and chief executive officer of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said in a telephone interview.
Moore said her Washington-based organization will release stories on the Internet of adults who were denied access to emergency contraception because of forgotten identification on their way to the gym or in the confusion of the moment.
“We will be ramping up those efforts in the hopes that in a second administration the doors won’t be slammed shut,” Moore said.
Bloomberg has the full article
Can an American citizen exercise his religion through his privately-owned business? The fate of Obamacare’s disturbing HHS contraception mandate turns on that question, and now the federal courts are split on the answer regarding an issue very likely to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since the Supreme Court (wrongly) upheld Obamacare’s Individual Mandate as a tax inNFIB v. Sebelius, a second round of litigation has commenced going after several other aspects of the federal government’s takeover of America’s healthcare system. Of those, none are as much in the news right now as the challenges to the HHS Mandate, requiring employers to provide no-cost birth control, sterilization, and abortion-related services. This is a regulation—not even mentioned in the law Congress passed—issued by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The HHS Mandate applies to every company with 50 or more employees. It has a narrow religious employer exemption, but it only applies to (1) nonprofit organizations, that (2) employ mostly members of that faith, (3) serve mostly members of that faith, and (4) exist primarily to teach the tenets of that faith. Essentially, it only benefits churches, synagogues, and similar houses of worship.
Other religious institutions falling outside this narrow exemption—such as my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame (which will play for the college football national championship in Miami on Jan. 7—Go Irish!)—filed suit against Sebelius and HHS.
But those lawsuits are all in the process of getting dismissed, because the Obama administration issued an official notice that it would expand the exemption to cover more organizations, and so it’s possible that these religious schools, hospitals, and charities will never fall under the mandate, and thus not suffer an actual injury to confer standing to bring this matter to federal court, at least not until the expanded exemption is finalized.
But many devoutly religious people own secular, for-profit companies, and consider it part of living out their faith to conduct their business in a manner consistent with their religion. Some of those companies are also suing Sebelius, arguing that the HHS Mandate is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is clear that such companies are not being considered for protection under the expanded religious employer exemption, so courts have a green light to rule on their lawsuits now.
Several of these lawsuits are moving forward in the courts. Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—the largest religious-liberty legal organization and network in the country—is representing several companies, and has won the first round in two cases so far. These are Newland v. Sebelius in Colorado, and Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius in D.C. In fact, ADF is representing companies in at least seven lawsuits, includingtwo plaintiffs in my home state of Indiana. Thomas More Law Center is representinganother early success, representing Weingartz Supply Company in Michigan, while the Becket Fund suffered an early setback representing Hobby Lobby. And yet another—Liberty Institute—is preparing to launch litigation. In each case, the question is whether the court will grant a preliminary injunction to put the mandate on hold while the case moves forward to final judgment.
These cases all turn on one question: Can people exercise their religion through their businesses? Whether it’s a matter of treating a wholly-owned company as an extension of a person or family, or whether a company has separate standing to assert the rights of its owners.
That would be a closer call if these were publicly-traded companies with thousands of shareholders. But here, the companies are entirely privately owned by a person of faith, or a family that shares one faith, or by a family foundation operated by those religious family members.
So the answer is directed by how you define religious freedom. If you agree with the Obama administration that the Constitution only protects freedom of worship—which is usually confined to what you do on Sunday morning in a church building—then you might think the HHS Mandate is okay.
If instead you agree with the Framers of our Constitution that religious exercise includes living out your faith in your daily life, then you would find it appalling that the federal government would order a business owner to subsidize something he considers immoral, and possibly even participating in the ending of an innocent human life.
So now appellate courts will take up the issue. All of them should hold the HHS Mandate violates RFRA, since that law forbids federal government actions that substantially burden a person’s religion unless the government has a compelling reason and there is not a less-restrictive means available. The HHS Mandate clearly fails that test. And in holding the mandate violates RFRA, no court need even reach the question of whether the mandate also violates the First Amendment (which it does).
Even though most lower courts are holding that the HHS Mandate is probably illegal, the fact that judges are splitting on this issue suggests that the high courts will also split when these cases go up on appeal. If so, then it’s a good bet that this issue will go before the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly in 2014.
Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council, and explains religious liberty in the Constitution in Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.
This is a copy of the article provided by the Conservatives at Breitbart