So not long after my past post, which discussed Oregon’s new registered domestic partnership issues, especially within the context of the Department of Corrections, this story was released:

“Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Halted”

It seems that there were multiple oppositions to these laws, petitions were filed and yada yada, but the state said the petition was short 116 signatures. A federal judge has decided to stop the RDP (registered domestic partnership) laws from going into effect until the petitions are reviewed and such…

“Prison benefits offered same-sex couples, not marrieds”

Oregon Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007 recognize legal partnerships between same-sex couples. Basically its Oregon’s form of civil unions or as they call them “registered domestic partnerships”. Max Williams the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections has decided that the prison system needs to take these laws and implement them in his own way. A memo was sent out saying:

“inmates that have entered into a RDP [registered domestic partnership] will be allowed to live in the same facility and unit, subject to the needs of orderly operation, safety and security of the facility.”

Whoa! Last time I checked the prison system doesn’t normally allow married men and women to live in the same facility. Of course there is the issue of the prisons being single-sex, but if you are going to start handing out privileges for being “partner” like being able to stay in the same location as you “partner” then why isn’t something being worked out for husbands and wives.

If I committed a crime and went to prison, and my husband (which I don’t have- but for this example let’s just pretend I do) also committed a crime and we were in Oregon, it wouldn’t matter that we were married, there would be no way we could be in the same location. But if I had a RDP, if seems like Oregon wants to let me be near my “partner”. What you do for one orientation, you need to do for the other.

Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown

I’ve decided to start a list of my favorite places- places that have proven themselves politically.
Besides Oklahoma, Colorado is added to the list.
The Colorado Supreme Court is allowing the Colorado for Equal Rights group to collect signatures for a ballot initiative which would define a fertilized egg as a person.
This is a fantastic development, but the Colorado for Equal Rights group is taking an interesting and odd spin to it.

“”It doesn’t outlaw abortion, it doesn’t regulate birth control,” said Kristi Burton, 20, of Colorado for Equal Rights. “It’s just a constitutional principle. We’re laying a foundation that every life deserves protection.”

Sorry but if you define a fertilized egg as a person then abortion would be murder and birth control would be attempted murder (or would it? thats a tricky one). Those who oppose the measure are right on the account, at least in my opinion, that this would lead to the eventual outlawing of abortion and possibly birth control.

Before I get ahead of myself, all this means is that the Supreme Court of Colorado is letting them collect the 76,000 signatures needed to place it on the ballot as a referendum. There are six months to gather the signatures (I highly doubt they will need all of those 6 months). If placed on the ballot, it would be voted on to become a state constitutional amendment which would give the fertilized egg “protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process”.

This is a sneaky attempt at trying to get abortion outlawed. I’m all for it, but I almost wish that the Equal Rights group would come out and say something of the sort instead of trying to say that it would not have a thing to do with outlawing abortion. Americans are intelligent, give us the credit we deserve. We know the point of this ballot initiative is, so don’t try pretending otherwise.

Best of luck to you all and I’m sure you will be making the news in the upcoming months.

According to the article “similar voter-led initiatives or legislative efforts are under way in five other states, including Montana, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan and South Carolina.”

I mentioned in my November 4 post “Oklahoma! (sorry, not the musical)” the wonderful things that Oklahoma is trying to accomplish with its House Bill 1804. Apparently its catching on!

Anti-illegal-immigration leader advises other states

“Carol Helm with Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now says she’s advised groups from Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, California, Alabama and New Jersey and has met with a congressional delegation in Florida. She also says anti-illegal-immigration efforts are under way in South Carolina, North Carolina, Utah, Missouri and Tennessee.”

Spread the love everyone! One day, states will accomplish what they are setting out for, a nation that respects its laws and doesn’t welcome lawbreakers with open arms. It didn’t take a federal bill to begin the efforts towards protecting our borders. It took some daring individuals who were willing to go against the grain. And now others are following…

In the race to be one of the first states to have a presidential primary, the GOP had decided that enough is enough. Apparently there are rules in the Republican Party that prevent primaries (not caucuses) from being held before Feb 5. Because so many states are having them in January, the GOP is taking away delegate votes from these states. The most amusing part is New Hampshire, though.
New Hampshire actually has a law on the books that says the government has to schedule the primary date to be the first in the nation. So because all the other states began to push theirs back, New Hampshire by law pushed theirs back. So they either had to break state law to abide by the Republican Party rules (which would never happen) or get punished by the GOP for following state law. Oh, how crazy is that!
It will be interesting to see what happens now that several states have lost delegate votes for the Republicans, and whether that changes the importance of the primaries in other states.

GOP to punish five states for early votes

This person went so far over the line that he couldn’t even see it with a telescope. The pro-life cause isn’t about threatening the lives of anyone!

Ax threats, abortion foe told
Abortion foe ordered to stop Web postings

Not long after I posted my last entry on the recall of toys because they contained a date rape drug, these stories were released:

405,000 toys recalled in latest lead paint scare
Recall: Curious George contaminated with lead.

“More than 405,000 children’s products made in China, most of them toy cars, were recalled Wednesday for containing dangerous levels of lead, a government safety group announced.”

I expect we will see many many more of these stories coming. Now that a problem has been detected, our government will probably be on high alert for imported items from China. Its about time they started paying attention to our health and not just cheap products.

“Toys linked to a date-rape drug recalled”

Here comes another recall! Aqua Dots, sold by an Australian based Moose Enterprise (you lucked out this time Mattel!), are beads that if ingested as children are wont to do, the chemical coating turns into the drug gamma hydroxy butyrate- date rape drug.
Big surprise that these toys were made in China.
“Last week, the government announced an export ban on more than 700 toy factories in the region because of shoddy products.”
So the lead was pretty horrific when it was announced, as well as the poison dog food and such, but this could be the most terrifying of all. Children getting dangerously sick from a drug that causes “unconsciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma and death”.
Every now and then I write editorial columns for a paper and I wrote one about this topic not to long ago- how maybe we need to stop importing so much, especially from China.

————————————–
© 2007
The United States imported $5.3 million worth of American flags in 2006 - and about 94 percent of that money went to China, according to a U.S. Census press release.

The latest video from Osama Bin Laden shows the world is still riddled with conflict. President George W. Bush, in response to the tape, reminded us that it is a “dangerous world in which we live.”

National security is not just a matter of physically protecting our nation from terrorist attacks. Ultimately, it comes down to changing the way that this country functions.

While the brave soldiers of this country are trying to protect us from foreign invaders who threaten to harm us, our culture is fast becoming one that depends on low-cost foreign goods. If the stability of the world were to ever falter - if for some unspeakable reason the United States was forced to sanction countries such as China - our economy could break down.

Chinese imports totaled $288 billion in 2006, according to U.S. Census Foreign Trade Statistics. That is nearly three times that of 2000 and a staggering 45 times that of 20 years ago. The only country we import more goods from is Canada.

I’m not suggesting that we stop trading with foreign countries because that goes against the capitalistic principles of our country. Additionally, it would be extremely difficult and naturally more expensive to produce everything at home.

However, with the surge of recalls of Chinese-made products, it becomes important to consider just how much a cheaper product costs. Toothpaste, dog food and toys, among other products, have been recalled this year because of safety issues - and of all the recalls that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has made this year, nearly 60 percent were of Chinese-made products.

Would it be worth a few extra dollars to avoid potential toxins in a product? Has our country become so materialistic that saving money trumps our health?

As a college student, I know that every dollar matters, so I’m not suggesting that everyone here switch to purchasing American goods only. What I’m suggesting is that when possible, you should consider American products rather than automatically choosing foreign counterparts. Your money wouldn’t be leaving the country as it would if you were purchasing a product made elsewhere, by a company that doesn’t pay taxes in this country. Instead it would be reinvested in our own economy, an economy that our generation will have to shape.

In a world where conflicts seem to be constantly escalating, it’s important for the United States to become less economically dependent on other nations. As of now, if anything happens with the countries we import from or if sanctions need to be issued, our country’s economy will be greatly affected.

Because the United States is so economically dependent on other nations, diplomacy is vital. But there is always the lingering possibility that maybe decisions are not made to ensure the sanctity of our nation, but instead the thickness of our wallets.
© 2007

Appeals court rejects Michigan man’s child support lawsuit

The pro-choice camp always likes to use the idea that it is a woman’s body and she should have the right to control it, not the government. There is also the idea that it prevents unwanted pregnancies, and families that may not be capable of raising children, don’t have to. Well here is a story that brings an interesting question to light.
Matthew Dubay filed a lawsuit in Michigan saying that he shouldn’t have to pay child support for the child his ex-girlfriend had. The lower court and the court of appeals dismissed his lawsuit as “frivilous”. Dubay said that he knew his girlfriend didn’t want children, and actually told him that she didn’t think she could have children because of a medical issue. Ok so accidents happen.
Here is the kicker though. If a woman can chose not to deal with a baby, why can’t the man? Why should he be forced to pay when he didn’t want it. These are the kind of issue that are going to come up with abortion. Why can women chose not to be responsible for their accidents and mistakes, but not men? It takes two to tango. If women have reproductive rights, why don’t men?
You cannot award some people rights and not others. But I don’t know the answer to questions like this.

Read the United States Court of Appeals Opinion here:
Dubay v. Wells

“Judge denies motion for preliminary injunction against state’s tough anti-illegal immigration bill”

A federal judge denied a request for an injunction on a new law about to be implemented. The law House Bill 1804 would “bar illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs or state assistance and make it a felony to harbor or transport illegal aliens”. Of course those who filed for the injunction aren’t going to give up, the lawsuit will continue. But this marks a step towards some laws actually being passed and ENFORCED in regards to illegal immigration.
The argument that I’m so completely tired of hearing is that simply because I want the laws of this country enforced, I’m a racist. A bill like this “dehumanizes people and panders to people with racial biases”, or so they say. I’m not racist against Mexicans! I simply have a problem with the Mexicans who think its ok to just stroll on into the United States, disregarding our federal laws, and try to say that they have the right to public services, the right NOT to be deported. This is America-we have laws! There are plenty of people from all over who have been waiting for years to legally enter the United States- the way they should. Instead Mexicans think its ok to just skip the process and come on it! This blantant disrespect for this country is disgusting.
Thanks to those in Oklahoma that are trying to pass this bill…you are doing what the federal government obviously can’t.