Daily Archives: September 1, 2006

Road Less Traveled Reminder

I know it’s been mentioned already a few times here, but here’s this weekend’s Road Less Traveled: Vermonters Walking Toward a Clean Energy Future schedule…

Friday, September 1 at Middlebury’s town green (Main and Pleasant Sts.)

The Back Roads Walk

13 miles to Vergennes via Seymour St., Morgan Horse Farm Rd., Pearson Rd., Green St.

Schedule
9am registration and preparation at Middlebury town green (Main and Pleasant Sts.). Coffee and light breakfast provided.
10am depart for Vergennes. Water and snack station en route.
5:30pm arrive at Vergennes town green for Conversation on the Green with music, town meeting, and action on global warming.

Saturday, September 2 in Vergennes at Burroughs Farm Rd

One Step Closer

11.5 miles to Charlotte via Route 7.

Schedule
9am registration and preparation at 276 Burroughs Farm Rd. Coffee and light breakfast provided.
10am depart for Charlotte. Water and snack station en route.
5pm  arrive at Charlotte senior center, 212 Ferry Rd. for Conversation on  the Green with music, town meeting, and action on global warming.

Sunday, September 3 in Charlotte at Congregational Church, 403 Church Hill Rd

Spiritual Movement

5.8 miles to Shelburne via Route 7

Schedule
10am Paster Will Burhans opens his pulpit to Bill McKibben for spiritual address on global warming.
11am registration and preparation at Congregational Church, 403 Church Hill Rd.
12pm depart for Shelburne
4pm  arrive at Shelburne Farms, 1611 Harbor Rd., for Conversation on the  Green with family activities, interfaith service, music, and theater.  Skinny Pancakes will be serving sweet and savory crepes.
Attendees  are invited to spend the night at Shelburne Farms. Must provide own  camping equipment and dinner. Shuttles will be available from  Burlington back to Shelburne after Monday’s Battery Park events.

Monday, September 4 at Shelburne Farms, 1611 Harbor Rd.

Meeting on the Greens

8 miles to Burlington via Route 7.

Schedule
8am registration and preparation at Shelburne Farms, 1611 Harbor Rd. Coffee and light breakfast provided.
10:30am depart for Burlington
3pm music and Meetings on the Green at Battery Park (Note: the original location for this event, City Hall Park, has been changed to Battery Park).  Maple Wind Farms will be serving grass-fed and finished hamburgers and cheeseburgers and organic sausages.
3pm  Political candidates address Vermonters’ call for action on global  warming. Senator Jim Jeffords and candidates for Governor, Senate, and  House races propose their plans to address global warming (invited).
Shuttles available back to Shelburne Farms.

Free speech in Billtown and in the sky

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its decision yesterday on a case involving a challenge to the enforcement of the Williamstown Middle School dress code. The case was brought by the Vermont chapter of the ACLU on behalf of Zachary Guiles.

Zachary was a seventh grader who started wearing an anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-drug T-shirt to school in early 2004. Although he wore the shirt to school once a week for about two months, when he tried to wear it on a field trip chaperoned by a parent who disagreed with the message, school officials gave him the choice of covering up images of cocaine and martinis, that were intended to suggest George Bush’s hypocrisy and prior history of drug abuse, or going home. He served two days of suspension and finally was allowed to return to school when he agreed to cover the images with tape.

He sued in federal court, and the court agreed in part, but supported the school’s decision to make him cover up the cocaine and alcohol images.

Now, the Second Circuit has released a decision that support’s the student’s rights on every point. They make it clear that students continue to have speech rights, and that the disciplinary action that the school took was directed to the anti-war message that Zach was promoting.

Big ups to Zach Guiles and the ACLU for doing this.

Free speech didn’t fare so well in the friendly skies, this week, though

On August 12 an Iraqi-American architect was trying to board a Jet Blue flight wearing a t-shirt that bore the message “We will not be silent” written in both Arabic and English.

Well, this was obviously too much for the sensibilities of the fragile souls who fly Jet Blue. apparently a number of the passengers complained so security came and told him if he didn’t take the shirt off he couldn’t fly. After an extended confrontation he finally was allowed to fly when he consented to wear another shirt the security people provided for him.

Now I know that some people get worried when they fly, especially nowadays, but come on. From what we know of terrorists in general, and hijackers in particular, don’t they pretty much try to blend in? Since people here in the United States seem to  think that any message written on a t-shirt in Arabic might as well say “I’m a terrorist”, wouldn’t it be smart not to wear that shirt if you actually are one? Maybe it’s just me, but that seems obvious.

I remember a story from when I was a kid. Probably in Boys’ Life. Anyway, a group of kids are out camping and one of them comes staggering into the camp site, clothes torn, bleeding, all craped up and covered with dirt. The other campers ask him what happened and he says, “garter snake.” “Arger snake? They can’t do anything to you.” “If they can make you run off a fifteen foot cliff, they don’t have to!”

Despite what Rumsfeld or any of those guys say, these are the times when we really need to protect our liberties. If we don’t (you guessed it) the terrorists have won. Only this time it’s really true.

Freedoms in the News: Information and Reproduction

Two big events today:

First, the Net Neutrality action at Senator Jeffords’ office. I didn’t write it up previously the way I’ve written up action alerts on congressional action on the matter simply because Jeffords was already on the record being very much in favor of it. Still, it was unquestionably a great thing and we will make sure and forward action alerts from national organizers when the time comes for calls and letters. Cathy has a piece with links as well as several comments from blogger Morgan Brown who was in attendence. Great job, folks!

Second is the press conference held by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. In a bit of a case of cart-before-horse, candidates are being asked to sign on to support the “Vermont Freedom of Choice Act” (Democratic Lt. Gov candidates John Tracy and Matt Dunne, as well as Progressive candidate Marvin Malek did). Sounds great, except that there is no Vermont Freedom of Choice Act at this point. When it does materialize, it will (according to PPNNE) closely resemble the Federal Freedom of Choice Act (S. 2593 and H.R.5151), introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Gerald Nadler (D-NY) respectively (and introduced in one form or another into every sitting congress for more than a decade).

Getting pro-active on the matter will not only serve to protect Vermont women from federal action and give pro-choice activists a boost, it will also help draw some bright lines within the Democratic caucus between those who respect women’s basic freedoms and those who are in favor of forced childbirth. That’s a line I, for one, look forward to see being drawn.

For a preview, click on the link to see the text of the Boxer bill:

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2593

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 6, 2006
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. STABENOW, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State’s interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman’s decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.’.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women’s health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(10) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(11) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(12) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(13) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(14) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because–

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government’ includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State’ means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability’ means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
END