samsamka: (OMG feminism!)
People have been complaining, apparently, about a South Dakota bill to legalize killing in defense of unborn children.

It looks to me like the law is primarily aimed at killing in response to an imminent or ongoing unlawful assault that could cause a miscarriage, or perhaps an imminent/ongoing forced abortion. I'd actually support legalizing such killing, personally; unborn children mean a whole lot to people who actually want to continue a pregnancy, and I think perfectly reasonable people who totally don't deserve jail time might use lethal force to protect their or their partner's unborn child, just as they'd also use lethal force to protect their newborn. Plus, it's not axiomatic that all assaults that would endanger a fetus would also endanger the life of the mother; you do hear about abusers who have deliberately attempted to cause miscarriages without actually killing the mother.

On the other hand, even if a judge would never interpret this legislation to legalize killing an abortion provider (since such an interpretation would almost definitely fail even a rational-basis constitutionality test), it certainly could be read by crazy people as legalizing it, so it's disturbing that the lawmakers didn't see fit to put an explicit disclaimer in.

Of course, I'm not sure what you can even expect from legislators who write statutory language like this:

"Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is."

DANGLING CLAUSE ALERT. Because this is the third "or" clause in the sentence, you THINK it's supposed to be parallel to the others, but that makes no frigging sense: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." WTF.

After like 20 minutes, I figured out that the final "or" clause was actually supposed to be nested into the penultimate "or" clause: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt . . . to commit any felony upon any dwelling house in which such person is, or to commit any felony in any dwelling house in which such person is."

Which, by the way, is WAY SCARIER than a law saying that you can use lethal force in defense of your own fetus. I can totally shoot someone who's attempting to commit ANY FELONY in any house where I am. If this is to be taken literally, if I go to someone ELSE's house in South Dakota and they try to deal drugs or commit securities fraud or whatever in front of me, I CAN KILL THEM IN COLD BLOOD.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the South Dakota legislature meant to say. They probably missed it because the sentence overall is completely unreadable! Learn to write more clearly, South Dakota! You really need to work on your comma usage.
samsamka: (SUPER CORGI)
I am back in the habit of arguing with stupid people on the internet! If I ever was out of it.

This time it is an argument on change.org over, of all things, Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools.

If you've ever had anything to do with Maryland or the DC area, you know that Montgomery County is ridiculously liberal. It is also one of the best educated and and wealthiest counties in the country, with towns like Bethesda, Rockville, Potomac, and Silver Spring. Its public school system is extremely good and also well-funded. I attended MCPS schools until sixth grade, and a lot of my friends went all the way through. It was a far cry from the Bible Belt.

Apparently, MCPS has a flyer program that allows community members to distribute flyers to school students twice times a year. Because the school system is a state actor and because it's opened up the flyer program as a "public forum," the school can't exclude any particular viewpoint from distributing flyers except in when it would cause serious disruption, such as overt hate speech. So when an "ex-gay" organization, PFOX, submitted a flyer that just said "don't be mean to ex-gays, instead you should respect their personal decisions, and by the way we're an organization that supports people with unwanted homosexual feelings," the school said "okay, sure, whatever, put it in the box." And the flyers went out to the student body.

Of course, the queer community is completely outraged. I would be too, if this were actually the school system passing out the flyers. Instead, though, the school system is just also allowing people to flyer-spam the students. Their viewpoint-neutral outlook enables PFLAG and other queer organizations to also send out flyers to kids (on the link, scroll down to David Fishback's first comment).

Most of the Change.org commenters seem to be under the impression that the school can keep the flyer program but require that flyers be "fact-checked," which would enable the school to ban PFOX's flyer because "ex-gay" programs don't work (interestingly, though, the flyer itself never actually asserts that ex-gay programs are effective, just that some people choose to enter into them, which is probably true. It also stops short of actually saying it's wrong to be gay, just that some gay people don't want to be, which is also true). But the lawsuit that decided that MCPS had opened a "public forum" in the first place involved a Christian evangelical organization sending out information about their religious-based club, and held that schools couldn't exclude that organization. If you could require that all the viewpoints in flyers be scientifically validated, I'm pretty sure you could exclude organizations whose primary beliefs are that evolution is a lie and God impregnated a virgin who gave birth to a human form of God who then died and rose from the dead. But the commenters JUST DON'T GET that the Constitution has a different idea than they do of when governments can engage in viewpoint discrimination.

In any case, the upshot is that tons of people are signing a petition yelling at MCPS for allowing something that they didn't really have much of a choice but to allow, unless they wanted to abolish the flyer program entirely. And I appear to be the only queer person in the world who thinks that the harm in preventing PFLAG from sending out flyers to schoolkids outweighs the harm of allowing PFOX to send them out. Because apparently when confronted with both sides, and in the context of one of the most gay-friendly public school environments in the entire country, kids STILL can't be trusted to figure out which position is the correct one. They also appear to think that the flyers are dangerous because parents could read and believe them, but from what I can tell the flyers were handed out at school and kids had no obligation to take them home.

I sort of want to start a counter-petition encouraging MCPS to keep the flyer program open.

Oh, and the worst part? Even Feminist Law Professors is getting this all wrong. "Do you think that the school system would distribute a flier with its report cards from a nonprofit that said that we could achieve world peace if only everyone embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior? That certainly isn’t a slur or a threat either, but, like the flier from the ex-gay group, it would contribute to an atmosphere of intolerance–in this case, of religious minorities." UM, YES ACTUALLY. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL LAWSUIT AGAINST MCPS. YOU ARE A LAW PROFESSOR. RESEARCH YOUR GODDAMN LAW. And also, why does Feminist Law Professors not allow comments? I will have to make do with trackback.

ETA: In case anyone was skeptical of my claim that the schools, and the students, were fully aware of the problems with PFOX, here's an interesting open letter from PFOX to MCPS from back in 2007, complaining that teachers were encouraging kids to throw the flyers in the trash. PFOX threatened litigation over it. So: a) the fact that PFOX is sending out flyers to kids is not news, and b) no reasonable kid could think the flyers were endorsed by the school. I note that even though PFOX can threaten to sue when teachers tell kids to throw out the flyers, they certainly can't prevent the kids themselves from throwing them out, which, undoubtedly, most of them do.
samsamka: (Trnka illustration)
Reading my renter's insurance policy is hilarious! If you have homeowner's or renter's insurance of any kind, I encourage you to read it. It's truly amazing to read it and think "someone had to be hired just to think about all the horrible things that could happen to someone's house, JUST IN CASE!

For example, my insurance policy specifically states that, while it will cover damage due to a volcanic explosion, it will not cover:

WAR, including the following and any consequence of any of the following:
a. Undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, or revolution;
b. Warlike ct by a military force or military personnel; or
c. Destruction, seizure, or use for a military purpose.

Discharge of a nuclear weapon will be deemed a warlike act even if accidental.


That's right: someone writing this totally was thinking "okay, but what if someone's house gets destroyed by a nuclear bomb... by accident???" Also note the implication there that if my building gets destroyed by a CONVENTIONAL bomb that was accidentally discharged, that's covered! I guess considering that's actually happened in my current city, it's an important consideration.

In addition, I'm not insured for the results of a "nuclear reaction, radiation, or radioactive contamination, or any of the consequences of any of these." This kind of DISCRIMINATION against people who live near nuclear plants is exactly why we don't have nuclear power right now! If a coal-burning plant exploded near my building and set fire to it, I'd be covered, not if I'm living near a nuclear plant? CALL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE, GUYS. Also, seriously, what's with the fact that I'm covered for volcanic explosions but not earthquakes or floods? WTF?

Profile

samsamka: (Default)
samsamka

February 2011

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
2728     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 04:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios