The New York Times
September 24, 2011
Where Abortion Rights Are Disappearing
By DOROTHY SAMUELS
Thirty-eight years after Roe v. Wade recognized a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions and legalized abortion nationwide, a newly intensified drive by anti-abortion forces who refuse to accept the law of the land has seriously imperiled women’s ability to exercise that right. Opponents of abortion rights know they cannot achieve their ultimate goal of an outright ban, at least in the near future. So they are concentrating on enacting laws and regulations narrowing the legal right and making abortion more difficult to obtain.
The most visible battleground is Congress, where the House Republican majority seems to have time for a big-government attack on women’s reproductive health and freedom but not to pass a job-creating bill.
However, as in the past, most of the fights are taking place in state capitals. The result has been a huge number of new abortion restrictions, traceable in part to the 2010 mid-term elections, which increased the number of anti-abortion governors and state legislatures controlled by abortion opponents, who keep concocting new schemes to make terminating a pregnancy a right on paper only. The spate of new laws comes on top of many state and federal abortion curbs already in place.
The map illustrates the barriers, state by state, facing women needing access to a constitutionally protected medical procedure. States shown in the darkest shade have enacted five of the most harmful restrictions: mandatory waiting periods; demeaning “counseling” sessions lacking a real medical justification; parental consent or notification laws that pose a particular hardship for teenagers from troubled homes, including incest victims; needlessly onerous clinic “safety” rules governing such things as the width of hallways and the amount of storage space for janitorial supplies; and prohibitions on abortion coverage in insurance policies. States in lighter shades have fewer of these restrictions. Twenty-seven states have enacted three or more of these laws, while only 12 states, shown in white, have none.
The graphic traces the total number of a broad range of major abortion restrictions enacted by the states, including the five covered in the map and others, like mandatory ultrasounds. Sixty-one such laws were enacted during just the first eight months of this year — nearly triple the number in all of 2010, and more than double the previous record of 28 set in 1997. Although some of this year’s statutes have already been preliminarily enjoined by courts as unconstitutional, others will be left to stand as constraints on women’s reproductive freedom.
If anything, the chart understates the limits on access to abortion. It fails to capture other negative developments, like the big decline in the number of abortion providers. In 1982, there were 2,908 providers nationwide. As of 2008, there were only 1,793. In 97 percent of the counties that are outside metropolitan areas there are no abortion providers at all.
One powerful strategy of the anti-abortion forces has been to portray abortion as outside the mainstream and cast women who have abortions as immoral outliers. In reality, abortion is one of the safest and most common of medical procedures, one that about one-third of American women undergo during their lifetime.
One clear lesson of this year’s skyrocketing number of new state laws is that those who care about keeping the procedure safe, legal and accessible need to raise their voices as loudly and effectively as those on the other side. If they don’t do so, and quickly, the number of harmful restrictions will continue to balloon, at a rising cost to women’s lives, health and equality.
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Igualdad. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Igualdad. Mostrar todas las entradas
lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2011
sábado, 17 de septiembre de 2011
Velo y Libertad Religiosa en Holanda
The New York Times
September 16, 2011
Dutch to Ban Full-Face Veils
By REUTERS
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) — The Dutch government said Friday that it would ban face-covering veils worn by some Muslim women because the garments flout the Dutch way of life and culture.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte also announced tougher rules for immigrants and asylum-seekers who want to pursue Dutch nationality; in the future, he said, they will have to show that they have income and that they have not received financial assistance or benefits for at least three years.
The country’s reputation as relatively tolerant and open to immigration has changed over the last decade, reflecting voters’ concerns over a large influx of Muslim immigrants.
“The government believes the wearing of clothing that completely or almost entirely covers the face is fundamentally at odds with public life, where people are recognized by their faces,” the government said in a statement.
The new measures reflect the influence wielded by Geert Wilders, a populist politician whose anti-Islam, anti-immigration Freedom Party is the third-largest in the Dutch Parliament.
The government contended that the ban on face-covering veils did not represent a restriction on religious freedom, but that even if it was, it was “necessary and justified in the interest of protecting the character and way of life in the Netherlands.”
Niqabs, which leave the eyes uncovered, and burqas, which cover the face with a cloth grid, are far less commonly seen on the streets of the Netherlands than hijabs, or head scarves, which leave the face exposed.
September 16, 2011
Dutch to Ban Full-Face Veils
By REUTERS
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) — The Dutch government said Friday that it would ban face-covering veils worn by some Muslim women because the garments flout the Dutch way of life and culture.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte also announced tougher rules for immigrants and asylum-seekers who want to pursue Dutch nationality; in the future, he said, they will have to show that they have income and that they have not received financial assistance or benefits for at least three years.
The country’s reputation as relatively tolerant and open to immigration has changed over the last decade, reflecting voters’ concerns over a large influx of Muslim immigrants.
“The government believes the wearing of clothing that completely or almost entirely covers the face is fundamentally at odds with public life, where people are recognized by their faces,” the government said in a statement.
The new measures reflect the influence wielded by Geert Wilders, a populist politician whose anti-Islam, anti-immigration Freedom Party is the third-largest in the Dutch Parliament.
The government contended that the ban on face-covering veils did not represent a restriction on religious freedom, but that even if it was, it was “necessary and justified in the interest of protecting the character and way of life in the Netherlands.”
Niqabs, which leave the eyes uncovered, and burqas, which cover the face with a cloth grid, are far less commonly seen on the streets of the Netherlands than hijabs, or head scarves, which leave the face exposed.
Pena de Muerte y Discriminación Racial Hoy en en New York Times
The New York Times
16 de Septiembre de 2011
Editorial
Estado de Ejecución
Después de declarar el “estado de ejecución de Duane Buck a sólo horas de ser ejecutado en Texas el Jueves, la Corte Suprema debe ahora revisar el caso o, por lo menos, ordenar que un tribunal federal inferior considere el pedido del Sr. Buck de una nueva audiencia antes de decidir su sentencia. El Tribunal no puede permitir que tenga lugar una terrible injusticia.
El Sr. Buck, un Afro-Americano, fue condenado a muerte en 1997. En la etapa de sentencia de su juicio, un psicólogo que participaba como perito experto dijo que “sí” cuando se le pregunto si “el factor raza, negra”, icrementaba las chances de que el Sr. Buck pudiera llevar a cabo de nuevo una conducta peligrosa.
En Texas, esta es una pregunta clave: si si el estado no prueba “la peligrosidad futura” más alla de la duda razonable, no puede sentenciar al imputado a muerte. La fiscalía obtuvo la respuesta que quería y urgió al jurado a basar la decisión en ese testimonio. El jurado sentenció al Sr. Buck a muerte.
En el año 2000, el Senador John Cornyn, que era entonces el Jefe de los Abogados del estado de Texas, solicitó nuevas audiencias de sentencia en seis casos en los que se había condenado a muerte –incluuido el Sr. Buck- porque la raza de los imputados se había utilizado inapropiadamente como un factor relevante para obtener esa sentencia.
El Sr. Buck es el único de ese grupo al que no se le concedió una nueva audiencia. El Abogado de Distrito a cargo del caso del Sr. Buck reusó admitir que el uso de la raza fue un error constitucional que requería una nueva audiciencia. Cuando el caso llegó al juzgado federal, había un nuevo Jefe de Abogados del Estado de Texas, y éste se reusó a obedecer el juicio del Sr. Cornyn.
El claro racismo que tuvo lugar en el caso del Sr. Buck es una nueva prueba de que la pena de muerte es cruel e inusual porque es arbitraria y discriminatoria, además de bárbara, y debe ser abolida.
La traducción es mía. La versión original en inglés está abajo.
The New York Times
September 16, 2011
Stay of Execution
After granting a stay of execution to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday, the Supreme Court must now review the case or, at the very least, order a lower federal court to consider Mr. Buck’s plea for a new sentencing hearing. It cannot allow a terrible injustice to stand.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would do something dangerous again.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future dangerousness” beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted and urged the jury to rely on this testimony. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
In 2000, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the Texas attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings for six men given the death penalty — including Mr. Buck — because race was improperly used as a factor in their sentencing.
Mr. Buck is the only one who has not been granted a new sentencing hearing. The state district attorney in charge in Mr. Buck’s case refused to admit that the use of race was a constitutional error that required a new hearing. By the time the case got to federal court, there was a new Texas attorney general who refused to abide by Mr. Cornyn’s judgment.
The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished.
16 de Septiembre de 2011
Editorial
Estado de Ejecución
Después de declarar el “estado de ejecución de Duane Buck a sólo horas de ser ejecutado en Texas el Jueves, la Corte Suprema debe ahora revisar el caso o, por lo menos, ordenar que un tribunal federal inferior considere el pedido del Sr. Buck de una nueva audiencia antes de decidir su sentencia. El Tribunal no puede permitir que tenga lugar una terrible injusticia.
El Sr. Buck, un Afro-Americano, fue condenado a muerte en 1997. En la etapa de sentencia de su juicio, un psicólogo que participaba como perito experto dijo que “sí” cuando se le pregunto si “el factor raza, negra”, icrementaba las chances de que el Sr. Buck pudiera llevar a cabo de nuevo una conducta peligrosa.
En Texas, esta es una pregunta clave: si si el estado no prueba “la peligrosidad futura” más alla de la duda razonable, no puede sentenciar al imputado a muerte. La fiscalía obtuvo la respuesta que quería y urgió al jurado a basar la decisión en ese testimonio. El jurado sentenció al Sr. Buck a muerte.
En el año 2000, el Senador John Cornyn, que era entonces el Jefe de los Abogados del estado de Texas, solicitó nuevas audiencias de sentencia en seis casos en los que se había condenado a muerte –incluuido el Sr. Buck- porque la raza de los imputados se había utilizado inapropiadamente como un factor relevante para obtener esa sentencia.
El Sr. Buck es el único de ese grupo al que no se le concedió una nueva audiencia. El Abogado de Distrito a cargo del caso del Sr. Buck reusó admitir que el uso de la raza fue un error constitucional que requería una nueva audiciencia. Cuando el caso llegó al juzgado federal, había un nuevo Jefe de Abogados del Estado de Texas, y éste se reusó a obedecer el juicio del Sr. Cornyn.
El claro racismo que tuvo lugar en el caso del Sr. Buck es una nueva prueba de que la pena de muerte es cruel e inusual porque es arbitraria y discriminatoria, además de bárbara, y debe ser abolida.
La traducción es mía. La versión original en inglés está abajo.
The New York Times
September 16, 2011
Stay of Execution
After granting a stay of execution to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday, the Supreme Court must now review the case or, at the very least, order a lower federal court to consider Mr. Buck’s plea for a new sentencing hearing. It cannot allow a terrible injustice to stand.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would do something dangerous again.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future dangerousness” beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted and urged the jury to rely on this testimony. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
In 2000, Senator John Cornyn, who was then the Texas attorney general, called for new sentencing hearings for six men given the death penalty — including Mr. Buck — because race was improperly used as a factor in their sentencing.
Mr. Buck is the only one who has not been granted a new sentencing hearing. The state district attorney in charge in Mr. Buck’s case refused to admit that the use of race was a constitutional error that required a new hearing. By the time the case got to federal court, there was a new Texas attorney general who refused to abide by Mr. Cornyn’s judgment.
The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished.
lunes, 8 de noviembre de 2010
Jujuy: Cupo Femenino e Igualdad en la Participación Política
ELA sigue con preocupación el proyecto que se debate en la Legislatura de Jujuy respecto del cupo de mujeres en cargos legislativos. | ||||
(Buenos Aires, 1 de noviembre de 2010) - El 27 de mayo de 2010 el Tribunal en lo Contencioso Administrativo de Jujuy resolvió "condenar al Poder Ejecutivo y Legislativo de la provincia para que den cumplimiento con el mandato constitucional del art. 37 último párrafo, y disposición transitoria segunda de la Constitución de la Nación, sancionando y promulgando la ley reglamentaria allí prevista, en el plazo de tres meses, bajo apercibimiento de aplicar sanciones conminatorias". Esta sentencia fue en respuesta a la acción de amparo planteada por un grupo de mujeres y varones de Jujuy, que reclamban las medidas necesarias para hacer efectivos los derechos a una igualitaria participación de las mujeres en los cargos electivos en todo el territorio provincial, estableciendo en las normas que rigen el proceso electoral el sistema denominado de cupos o cuotas. Mientras que el caso fue apelado y se espera la decisión del Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Jujuy, la Legislatura provincial se prepara para tratar y sancionar una ley de cupo que no cumple con los estándares mínimos necesarios para que la norma garantice de un modo efectivo el respeto por los derechos de las mujeres a participar en la vida política. Algunas consideraciones sobre por qué el proyecto que está siendo discutido en la comisión de Asuntos Institucionales perjudica a las mujeres 1- Sobre el objetivo de las leyes de cupo femenino: el objetivo de las acciones afirmativas es reducir las consecuencias de la discriminación. Para esto, son diseñadas como herramientas para los grupos histórica y socio-culturalmente desaventajados. Los varones nunca han sido discriminados del ámbito público-estatal, y nunca han sido identificados como un “grupo históricamente desaventajado” para la representación política. El objetivo del cupo femenino es lograr una igualdad real de oportunidades entre varones y mujeres, y para esto, es necesario aplicar transitoriamente reglas desiguales. Por lo tanto, poner el acento en asegurar la alternancia de “los sexos” a secas, para garantizar una pretendida neutralidad en la ley, sólo conduce a resultados desiguales, donde las mujeres se verán perjudicadas en su derecho fundamental a la participación política y al acceso a espacios de decisión. 2- Sobre la confusión entre los mínimos y los máximos: el porcentaje del 30% establecido en el Código Electoral Nacional ha sido interpretado en reiteradas oportunidades por la jurisprudencia (Juzgados Electorales, Cámara Nacional Electoral, Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación), por instancias de solución de controversias como la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y por el Decreto Reglamentario de la ley del Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, como un mínimo o piso, y no como un máximo a aspirar o techo. No se trata de garantizar la presencia de una mujer candidata cada tres, sino que se trata de garantizar que como mínimo haya una mujer candidata cada tres posiciones. La inclusión de la frase “con posibilidades reales de ser electas” en el texto de la ley vigente a nivel nacional no debiera estar en discusión luego de las interpretaciones jurisprudenciales de los más altos organismos de nuestro país. Otra vez, construir una norma “neutral” que busque alternar los sexos en las listas de candidatos con estos pisos, entendidos en realidad como un techo, perjudica a las mujeres. 3- Sobre lo que la realidad política nos indica: aun cuando por primera vez y en forma excepcional la Cámara de Diputados jujeña tiene actualmente un 30% de mujeres, no hay ninguna garantía de que este porcentaje se mantenga en futuras elecciones. Más grave aún es que la baja o nula presencia de mujeres en los Consejos Deliberantes municipales, que en muy pocos casos llegan cerca del 30% y en muchos otros casos no tienen ninguna mujer entre sus integrantes. La realidad política de Jujuy no se ha transformado ni siquiera luego de las pautas expresas dadas por la reforma a la Constitución Nacional en el año 1994. Una ley de cupo que no tome en serio este dato persiguiendo provocar una transformación real y efectiva en la composición de la Cámara, y por lo tanto, en la base de legitimidad democrática, implica cambiar algo, para nada se transforme. Este gatopardismo perjudica a las mujeres. Luego de casi veinte años de interpretaciones de la Ley de Cupo nacional y de las leyes provinciales, no es posible volver sobre los pasos. No garantizar legalmente las condiciones más básicas para que las mujeres tengan por fin un derecho efectivo a participar en el ámbito público-político, es restar democracia. Jujuy tiene hoy la posibilidad de reparar históricas exclusiones, al garantizar a las mujeres la entrada a cargos electivos. Si se cree en la democracia como el mejor sistema de toma de decisiones, el cupo femenino tomado seriamente ayuda a mejorar su calidad y su alcance. Notas relacionadas
|
jueves, 14 de octubre de 2010
Admision en Fuerzas Armadas en USA
The New York Times
October 13, 2010
Awaiting the Next Step on Policy on Gay Service
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Each side of the controversy over the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that restricts openly gay men and women from serving in the military waited on Wednesday for the Obama administration to reveal its next move in court.
Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court issued a sweeping injunction on Tuesday that called on the military to stop enforcing the policy, and to “suspend and discontinue” any investigations or proceedings to dismiss service members under it.
While the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the decision, department officials would not confirm or deny that an appeal was on the way.
The administration has argued that Congress, not the courts, should change the law, because legislation could provide a more orderly process.
That point was telegraphed in comments delivered on Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In his first public statement since the judge’s ruling, he said changing the policy would have “enormous consequences.”
“I feel very strongly that this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress, and that it is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training,” Mr. Gates said as he flew to Brussels for a meeting of NATO ministers.
He noted that the Pentagon was conducting a review of the policy, due in December. “Legislation should be informed by the review that we have under way,” he said.
Questions about President Obama’s response to the court ruling dominated the daily White House briefing with reporters on Wednesday. Mr. Obama has long opposed the policy, yet he now leads the government, which typically appeals to defend laws under challenge.
“The president strongly believes that this policy is unjust, that it is detrimental to our national security, and that it discriminates against those who are willing to die for their country,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “And the president strongly believes that it’s time for this policy to end.”
“The bottom line is this is a policy that is going to end,” Mr. Gibbs added. “It’s not whether it will end, but the process by which it will end.”
Opponents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law anticipated an imminent filing of an appeal.
Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEqual, a civil rights group in Washington for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, said such an action from the government would be “yet another shocking lack of leadership from the White House on issues of equality.”
If the government does appeal, it would probably ask higher courts to keep Judge Phillips’s injunction from taking effect during the appeals process, which could reach the United States Supreme Court.
That is a process that Log Cabin Republicans, the group that brought the suit, is willing to pursue, said Christian A. Berle, the group’s acting executive director.
The group “remains committed to defending this ruling and defending the rights of all service members — in the Ninth Circuit, and to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.”
At the same time, he said, the group has also asked Congress to repeal the law.
“Log Cabin Republicans prefers whatever solution will end this policy the quickest,” he said.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Brussels, and Jackie Calmes from Washington.
October 13, 2010
Awaiting the Next Step on Policy on Gay Service
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Each side of the controversy over the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that restricts openly gay men and women from serving in the military waited on Wednesday for the Obama administration to reveal its next move in court.
Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court issued a sweeping injunction on Tuesday that called on the military to stop enforcing the policy, and to “suspend and discontinue” any investigations or proceedings to dismiss service members under it.
While the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the decision, department officials would not confirm or deny that an appeal was on the way.
The administration has argued that Congress, not the courts, should change the law, because legislation could provide a more orderly process.
That point was telegraphed in comments delivered on Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In his first public statement since the judge’s ruling, he said changing the policy would have “enormous consequences.”
“I feel very strongly that this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress, and that it is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training,” Mr. Gates said as he flew to Brussels for a meeting of NATO ministers.
He noted that the Pentagon was conducting a review of the policy, due in December. “Legislation should be informed by the review that we have under way,” he said.
Questions about President Obama’s response to the court ruling dominated the daily White House briefing with reporters on Wednesday. Mr. Obama has long opposed the policy, yet he now leads the government, which typically appeals to defend laws under challenge.
“The president strongly believes that this policy is unjust, that it is detrimental to our national security, and that it discriminates against those who are willing to die for their country,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary. “And the president strongly believes that it’s time for this policy to end.”
“The bottom line is this is a policy that is going to end,” Mr. Gibbs added. “It’s not whether it will end, but the process by which it will end.”
Opponents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law anticipated an imminent filing of an appeal.
Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of GetEqual, a civil rights group in Washington for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, said such an action from the government would be “yet another shocking lack of leadership from the White House on issues of equality.”
If the government does appeal, it would probably ask higher courts to keep Judge Phillips’s injunction from taking effect during the appeals process, which could reach the United States Supreme Court.
That is a process that Log Cabin Republicans, the group that brought the suit, is willing to pursue, said Christian A. Berle, the group’s acting executive director.
The group “remains committed to defending this ruling and defending the rights of all service members — in the Ninth Circuit, and to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary.”
At the same time, he said, the group has also asked Congress to repeal the law.
“Log Cabin Republicans prefers whatever solution will end this policy the quickest,” he said.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Brussels, and Jackie Calmes from Washington.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
