Court Affirms Prostitute’s Right to Rent a Room [Sex Industry]

Aug 8, 2012 10:00 AM  

An Australian court in Canberra has ruled that a prostitute was illegally discriminated against when a motel owner refused to rent her a room, and the decision is forcing hotels to reconsider some of their written and unwritten rules about barring sex workers from renting rooms. After the management at a motel in the town of Moranbah wouldn't rent her a room, the women took her discrimination case to the Queensland state Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which then upheld the claim.

According to David Edwards, the motel's lawyer, the woman will now seek damages to the tune of $32,000. This case, notes Accommodation Association of Australia chief executive Richard Munro, should also force the Queensland and Australian governments to revise some of their laws about who has the authority to bar whom from a hotel or motel, considering there are probably far weirder things than people having sex for money happening behind the closed doors of motels all throughout the Outback.

Australian court says motel can't ban prostitute [CBS News]

Image via Mike Flippo/Shutterstock.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

These Three Court Rulings on Women's Health Will Give You a Rage Headache [War On Women]

Happy Day After No Copay Day! Everyone hug your now-likely-much-cheaper birth control and jump around screaming like you just randomly ran into it at a bar! Dance together in a circle! Get all of your celebrating out now, because I've got some pretty sobering, not-awesome news: in the past week, three separate, terribly depressing court rulings have ignored science and put both abortion rights and birth control access at risk. Again.

The New York Times nicely sums up the trio of giant bummers happening at about the same time that health care becomes more affordable to millions of women. And while all of them can be appealed, none of them should be ignored.

First, let's take an imaginary trip to Arizona (because no one should ever take a real trip there). On Monday, a district judge there ruled that the state's ban on all abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, or fetal abnormality can go into effect, even though it directly defies the Supreme Court ruling that states can't ban abortion before viability (before the fetus can survive on its own outside of a woman's body), which doesn't occur until about 24 weeks' gestation. The law's especially cruel considering the fact that many fetal abnormalities and health risks to the mother can't be determined until beyond that point in a pregnancy, and, as others have mentioned, the new law will condemn some couples to give birth to nonviable fetuses and basically watch them die. It also requires women whose pregnancies are risks to their own health to either leave the state or deal with a debilitating pregnancy Arizona mandates they carry to term. Judge James Teilborg, a Bill Clinton appointee (!!!) characterized the ban not as a "ban," but as a "regulation," which is constitutional. Teilborg also acquiesced to flimsy, unaccepted scientific evidence that fetuses, at 20 weeks, can feel pain (most doctors who didn't get their medical degree from It Says Right There In The Bible! University agree that they can't). But what about women, you may ask, can they feel pain? The answer is no. No, women cannot feel pain. Shhh. Thankfully, yesterday a 9th Circuit judge showed some damn sense and issued an emergency injunction blocking the law.

The next stop on our Tour de Ugh lands us in South Dakota (which, unlike Arizona, is a terribly underrated state that everyone should visit, if only for the Mitchell Corn Palace), which currently has a law on the books requiring doctors to lie to women by telling them that having abortions puts them at higher risk of suicide than women who just go on ahead with 9 months of a pregnancy they do not want. Last Tuesday, the Eighth Circuit Court in St. Louis ruled that this is just fine; doctors don't have free speech rights that can be trampled upon, because it's totally within the purview of elected state legislators to use their positions to practice medicine on women they don't know and have never met. You read that right — it's just fine for states to require doctors to lie to patients. This could be read as bad news, or it could be read as excellent news, because I guess that means that now I can push for that law that requires doctors to tell dudes that if they hog, like, three seats on the subway by sitting with their lets too ridiculously wide open, it will cause their dicks to shrink. What's real is what is most comforting to my existing world view!

And, finally, let's not forget about a secular Colorado heating and air conditioning business (because — duh — there's no such thing as a churchy heating and air conditioning business, unless we're talking about that giant heating business located far below ground, the one that Satan uses to bake naughty people) that was granted the right to deny its female employees birth control coverage on the grounds that the owner of the business finds it icky. Religious freedom means freedom of oppression. It means the freedom to make other people's choices for them. In the Colorado case, thankfully, the judge specified that his injunction allows Hercules Industries to refuse to follow Obamacare's guidelines, but it doesn't stop the administration from enforcing them on anyone else. Like anyone adamantly against whore pills will listen to that.

So enjoy the free birth control while it lasts, and don't take it for granted. There are entire teams of jerks working feverishly to take it away from you, and they won't stop until everyone's either pregnant or chaste.

[NYT]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Someone Foolishly Scheduled Volleyball on the Same Court as Sandcastle Building [Snap Judgment]

Jul 31, 2012 9:45 PM  

Sanne Keizer of the Netherlands reacts near the end of a mystery volleyball match with the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012, in London. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Embryos Before Hoes Advocates Want Supreme Court to Declare that Fertilized Eggs are People [Roe V World]

It's really too bad that the word FAIL emblazoned across a picture of something failing miserably has become a cliche, because America's floundering but tenacious Personhood movement is perfectly suited to be meme-ified. In 2008 and 2010, voters in Colorado rejected a Personhood amendment that would have defined human life as starting at the moment of conception and given all rights pertaining to human life to single-celled zygotes. In 2011, voters in Mississippi also said thanks, but no thanks to a similar measure. In Ohio, a Personhood amendment failed to get the necessary number of signatures to appear on this fall's ballot, and in Oklahoma, the state Supreme Court unanimously declared that personhood amendments are really, terribly fucking stupid (at least, that's the technical legal term). But Personhood advocates are undaunted! They're going to keep fighting for the microscopic babies we may all be pregnant with right now all the way to the Yoo-nighted States Supreme Court.

To review: Personhood is a terribly stupid idea that would outlaw all abortion and threaten the legality of many forms of birth control and some fertility treatments. It would give fetuses more rights than pregnant women, as it would prioritize rights of non-sentient bundles of cells over the rights of women not to have other people living inside of them after they have sex. It treats the penis like a magic wand that makes life happen and the female body like a passive baby holder.

The right wing yokels who run the state government in Oklahoma are mostly in support of a measure that would force women who become pregnant to stay that way, but the State Supreme Court didn't agree, as the measure was "clearly unconstitutional." But proponents of Personhood want to take this to Washington. Says Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, via press release:

The proponents of this measure have made explicit the ultimate objective of the anti-reproductive rights movement: to strip all Americans of their constitutional right to make their own decisions about whether and when to have children.

The scope of the fundamental rights and longstanding court precedents under attack by the opponents of reproductive rights is stunning.

In other words — the goal of the Personhood movement is to bring America back to the dark ages, from coast to coast.

No need to get your Fallopian Tubes in a twist just yet, though — it's highly unlikely that the High Court will even agree to hear Oklahoma's goofy argument, and even if they do, the only way they'd win is if Justice Scalia clones himself 4 times and disguises the clones as Justices Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor and somehow knocks the real Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy, Kagan, and Sotomayor out for a few days, which is way too Scooby Doo dastardly even for a guy who goes hunting with Dick Cheney.

[CRR]

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.