WEALTHY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES

I have read Carolina's article and also her previous blog, Poverty and criminal Justice in the United States, which is an excellent commentary on the Salon Article of 18 March 2014.  I do concur with her on both blogs.

It is a shame that in this land of plenty, wealth discriminates, so heavily on the poor and uneducated.    Concentrating on the wealthy and the Criminal Justice System and the double standard that exists therein, let’s take the cases mentioned by Caroline in reverse order.  

That a millionaire Tech CEO Chahal beat his girlfriend mercilessly for a half hour or more (in this instance.  We know that wife-beaters usually are repeat offenders), was charged with 45 felony counts, later reduced to misdemeanors and was finally sentenced to 25 hours of community service.  What kind of community service is he going to perform?  Teach husbands to beat their wives or girlfriends and get away with it?  We should also place some blame in incompetent prosecutors, who allowed themselves to be snowed under by wealthy attorneys.  There is a history in this country of slighting offenses against women, be they beatings or rape.

Now let  us look at the other case mentioned by Catalina, that of Ethan Couch. This young man killed four people and left paralytic a fifth one. That by my count is five crimes committed.  I agree with Carolina, if the defendant had been  hispanic or a black man, he would be sitting in jail for a great part of the rest of his life.  He is white and rich instead. The judge says, he suffers from being an “affluenza teen.” !?  I looked at a medical dictionary and could not find the term.  I also looked at a legal dictionary and couldn’t find it either.  Did this Judge invent this term?  How creative of him.  Are the Judge and the father of the defendant members of the same social club perhaps?  The sentence, 10 years probation.

Ten years for taking four lives and leaving the fifth one in a horrible condition!

I would like to ask, is this Judge still sitting in the bench?  Has he been impeached?  Because he should be.

The lawyers and how to level the playing field.  Perhaps all lawyers practicing criminal law should be placed in a roster, such as we as citizens are for jury duty; all criminal cases coming before the Court would be assigned at random a criminal attorney out of the roster.  All these attorney’s would be paid with public funds at the rate the State has fixed for Public Defenders.  That should equalize matters.

We know that this will not happen, money plays just too big a role in our society and the people who make the laws are in the hands of the rich and super rich.  As I said in a previous blog the “rich and Republicans have the best Congress their money can buy.”  We could paraphrase this and say, “the rich have the best Justice their money can buy.”

What Oligarchy Means for Charities

Oligarchy is defined by Wikipedia as “ a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people…” Professor Rosenman looks at oligarchy and its effects on charitable organizations, but he might as well have titled his piece –– what oligarchy means for people— because he really is making the case for people.

A recently published article by Professor Gilens from Princeton University argues that the  US is an oligarchy and the influence of the average voter on policy is virtually zero. The US Supreme Court recently in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission issued a ruling that struck down contribution limits to political campaigns thereby making money the main player in US politics and the very wealthy, be it individuals or corporations, the oligarchy as it were, are the ones dictating  policies for the country.

Retired US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has criticized the decision saying that “the voter is less important than the man who provides the money to the candidate” “ It’s really wrong.” The influence exerted by the oligarchy as Justice Stevens and Professor Rosenman point out is overwhelming vis a vis our equal but individual vote.

We know that in the State of North Carolina, Governor McCrory, a Republican elected thanks to multi-million contributions from Duke Energy, the State’s main industry, protected this company when it was discovered that they had polluted the main river that runs through the state, in such a manner that it will cost over a billion dollars to clean it up and approximately ten years. The money most likely will come from the pockets of the energy users in the state. The staff from the local environmental agency, fined Duke energy ninety nine thousand dollars, but it will cost a bit more to fix it. One more thing that I forgot to mention before, prior to becoming the Governor of North Carolina, Mr. McCrory was CEO of Duke Energy, where he worked for thirty years.

Professor Rosenman points out that in the 2012 elections, over six billions dollars was gathered in campaign contributions and it has been a good investment for the oligarchy. Those elected in that year could not have made it without those heavy contributions. Without limits to those contributions now with this decision of the Supreme Court, think of the next election and the money that will come into play.

We remember also the economic crises of 2007 - 2008 brought about by the deregulation of the financial industry obtained through the lobbying and pressure of the big financial institutions which became known as too big to fail. The multibillion losses that were incurred into by them and the shameful rescue devised by the Treasure Secretary at the expense of the taxpayers. As they say, when a bank publishes record earnings for a given quarter, we do not see any of that money entering our bank accounts, but lo and behold, the banks and the investment companies such as Goldman Sachs, AIG, and others suffer a staggering loss due to malfeasance, then “they are too big to fail,” and must be rescued by the taxpayer. These companies are capitalist when they make money, and when they loose, they become socialists.

The Federal Reserve came in and provided credit for these companies, rescuing them from bankruptcy. The Companies in turn invested the money in US Treasure Bonds. Ah! you say they returned the hand to the country by investing in our national debt, think again! They made untold millions of dollars out of that investment and tax free. On the other hand, nobody has gone to jail for the fraudulent operations being run by these companies.

Professor Rosenman also mentions the environment battles. Business organizations and the oligarchy, the 1% of the 1% at the top of the heap is spending millions again to keep us tied to polluting energy sources where they have invested their fortunes. Ask the Koch brothers whose money defines issues and elections at both the state level and nationwide.

Professor Gilens might be right in his assertion that the individual voter has zero influence over policies in our country and that the only time when the government sometimes “acts in ways consistent with the majority view, but only when the rich and/or connected (the oligarchy) also support those polices.” Are we then powerless in the political arena? I think not. If we get, together, become involved, organized, and expose the lies spread by the oligarchy through their servant Republicans, we can stop their massive attack on the middle class and the poor, particularly if we vote, and then vote again. If the people we elect do not speak for us, let’s get them out and place someone else in there. We need to advocate for regulation of the industries controlled by the oligarchy, since deregulation has been giving them carte blanch at our expense.

Professor Rosenman in his articles quotes philanthropist Phil Stern, “we have the Best Congress Money can Buy” we need to amend that to “the oligarchy  has the Best Congress their Money can Buy,” and we must not forget that, it is their congress and we need to change that. Pass the word, organize and vote in every election.

Should Hillary Clinton Be Our Next President?

This is a very interesting article, however, I think that it places too great an emphasis on Bill Clinton the President, vis a vis Hillary, who in fact has great merits of her own. When we talk about what factor could contribute to make Hilary Clinton a potential candidate, there is much more to say than she was just the wife of a former president. 
Hilary Clinton started to be involved in politics when she was 17 years old. She was a volunteer for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. She was part of the anti-war movement, which was against the Vietnam War. Then inspired by Martin Luther King’s speeches, she became a Democrat. She was studying law at Yale University when she met Bill Clinton. She was working as a lawyer for Rose Law Firm, actively involved in politics and civics affairs, when she finally married Bill Clinton. She is as talented and educated as Bill Clinton is. Additionally, this shows that Hillary Clinton has had a long carrier in politics; it was not something she discovered by being married to Clinton.   When Bill Clinton became president, she dedicated her time to support and work with her husband as partners. She tried to put together a Health Care Reform, which did not succeed, but proves the point that she is a bright woman and was a strong first lady. However, I would say that Hilary Clinton started her own independent career in politics after the Monica Lewinsky scandal because she separated politically from her husband and became a US senator from New York. In 2001 she became the only first lady to hold national office and then in 2007 she became Secretary of State. Probably, she had the support of her husband, but the merit to obtain and maintain those positions were all hers. It is not clear in the article why the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was controversial, but I think that it was more historic than controversial. It was a difficult choice for Democrats because these two people are highly qualified. However, I think that Obama being the first African-American to run for the presidency was overwhelming for many Americans. I cannot speak for others, but for me it was wonderful that after so many years of racial inequality, abuses, and segregation an African American could reach such a position; thus, I believe that many Americans decided the contest between Clinton and Obama based not just on political qualifications, because they both are qualified, but in political justice for all Americans in regard to race.   

Do Corporations Have The Same Religious Rights As People?

Under that banner the Fox News Blog “The Five” (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/2014/03/26/do-corporations-have-same-religious-rights-people) conducted a discussion about the Supreme Court Hearing held the 25th of March 2014, on the Petition for a Writ Of Certiriori -the legal term for a request for a decision on a pending case- on the case “Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al Petitioners, vs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, et al (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc)

The matter in dispute arose when Hobby Lobby Stores discovered that under the Health Plan provided their employees and because of the effects of the Affordable Care Act of 2011, their insurance had to provide a full range of coverage for contraception methods, including oral contraceptive pills, diaphragms, injections and implants, emergency contraceptive drugs and intrauterine devices. They did not want to pay for these measures because it infringed on their religious beliefs and sought to be granted an exception to the implementation of those parts of the Act that ran against their religious beliefs.  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, exemptions have been granted to non profit religious organizations, Hobby Lobby wanted the same type of exemptions, except for the fact that they are a for-profit commercial organization.

Hobby Lobby Stores is a corporation described in Wikipedia as, “a separate legal entity registered through a process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders” This is the first time in history when a commercial institution, a for-profit company argued they could be exempt from commercial regulations on religious grounds. (Rachel Maddow show, “Contraception? You’ll have to ask your boss” 3/24/2014)

The Question presented to the Court in this instance “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of 1993 (RFRA), 42 USC. 2000bb et seq, provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further compelling governmental interest….The question presented is whether RFRA allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”

The RFRA is not the only Act involved in the discussion of the issues here, we have first and foremost the US Constitution, Article III, Amendment I. “The Americans with disabilities Act of 1990” “The Anti-Injucttion Act U.S.C. 7421”, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” “The Dictionary Act also, The Employee Retirement Income Security At of 1974,” “The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care” aka “Obama Care,” and “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” There are additional several statutes and a long list of cases cited which need not occupy us here because the purpose of this “Article” is to sort out the issues in general to understand them and project their effect on us as women, as employees in the labor market.

What is very clear to everybody is that the respondent employers in the instant case want to be able to deny important and needed health care protection through their health insurance under the legal fiction (I have never seen a corporation in my church on Sunday’s) that corporations hold religious beliefs.  The respondent wants to seek cover under exemptions granted to non-profit corporations engaged in religious work.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights, First Amendment, reads as follows…”Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” this is hollowed ground indeed, and Hobby Lobby Stores is seeking refuge under its cover.  There have been several attempts by ultra conservative groups to pass laws seeking relief under this Bill of Rights, the last one was a law passed in Arizona last month which would permit any merchant the right to refuse service to anybody if such person’s attitude and beliefs were contrary to those held by the merchant.  The whiplash which this  bill caused coming from all over the country, caused the Governor of Arizona to veto the bill.  This action by Hobby Lobby is really an end run on the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), adding more exemptions to the bill, being a forerunner of more to come, practically gutting the bill.

The Five at Fox News exchanged opinions about the merits of the action.  Some said that perhaps one of the solutions would be for the corporation to not offer health insurance to  its employees. The problem, contrary to Fox News beliefs, health insurance is not a gift from the corporation to its employees; it is part of a compensation package earned by employees and in most cases employees pay part of the premiums for the policy. Furthermore, the services or coverage to be denied to the employees would affect adversely the people least able to cope with it. Emily Spitzer,executive director of the National Health Law Program says, “pregnancy … is a serious medical condition that puts a significant strain on your body … Every single major medical association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend contraception as a “standard of care” for women … because the benefits of contraception far outweigh its costs, both fiscally and physically, the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) required all insurance plans to include contraception as a covered “preventive service” meaning women no longer need to pay an additional deductible or co-pay to access it.” Ms. Spitzer, also points out that “the Hobby Lobby Stores had previously offered health insurance plans that included contraception … and operated in several of the 28 states that had required as a matter of state law, contraception coverage before the “Affordable Care Act.’” She also points out that not a single Fortune 500 company, nor the US Chamber of Commerce have joined Hobby Lobby (upon discovery of their religious belief), in this crusade. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=emily-spitzer)

It is interesting also to note that in MSNBC’s Chris Hayes show, of 25 March 2014, the first intervention of Justice Sotomayor addressing the respondent’s attorney, she said, “How does a corporation exercise religion?”  Indeed, how do they do it?  As I pointed out earlier, I have never seen the corporation in church on Sunday’s.

Justice Sotomayor also asked “Is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include blood transfusions, vaccines? For some religions products made of pork. Is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well?” I say, YES, where do we stop?

Rachel Maddow in her blog also brought out the participation of Justice Kagan on the issue of contraception and blood transfusion, and Justice Kagan brought up the legal issue whether corporations can use their economic leverage to impose their own moral views on their employees. When talking about methods of contraception and referring to the “IUD.” Justice Scalia commented, “this doesn’t cost anything.” Maddow remarked that an “IUD” can cost a month salary of women. Yet, it is Justice Scalia and other male Justices who are a majority, the ones to decide the case.

The owner of Hobby Lobby, the Green family believe that “human life begins at conception that is when sperm fertilizes an egg.”  They, therefore, oppose contraceptives on the ground that they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg; thus, they initiated this legal action contending that the requirements that the Hobby Lobby group health plan cover all forms of FDA-approved contraceptives violates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 “which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest.” They contend that they are entitled to an exemption.  Again, the argument that “human life begins at conception” has surfaced in several states where an amendment has been introduced to the States Constitution recognize “personhood” that is  to give constitutional rights to fetuses same as individuals.  Colorado recently rejected such amendment to their Constitution. This is a National movement sponsored by “Personhood USA,”  after passing a law in Wisconsin requiring women to get ultrasounds before having abortions. They renewed a push for the passage of a “personhood” amendment. A spokesperson for “Personhood USA” stated, “the personhood amendment seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it.”

There seems to be a national effort by conservative groups to assault women’s rights to determine their health reproductive choices. State Legislatures controlled by Republicans have adopted a series of measures in their states that severe limits the access of women to clinics that provide advice on contraception and abortion, particularly to those with scarce means. This war on women by Republican males is difficult to understand in view of the fact that they need the women’s vote to win any kind of election, with their attitude and actions I do not see many women running to join their party

I personally watch the news and inevitably feel that these actions -the Green’s legal action- the Republican Legislatures, have diminished me as a person.  Imagine that my employer would get to decide what kind of health care I get, specially in those areas that are the most private and personal to an individual.  My mind just doesn’t get it; it is so outrageous. We must be moving at least 50 to 60 years back in time. Women should be up in arms about these threats to their rights. Republicans cannot get away with it. If women talk to their male partners, they would constitute a solid majority in this country. Come election time any representative who supports any of these anti-women issues should be redlined by women. Let’s get them out by replacing them with candidates who clearly and specifically support women’s issues particularly in these areas we have examined here. We women have personhood, and we should not let anybody trample with our rights. 

“Controversial DOJ nominee fails to clear Senate test vote”

Under that title, Fox news reported that Debo Adegbile’s nomination, as head of the Ciivil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice, was stalled as it failed to get enough votes to advance to a final vote.

The great sin committed by Mr. Adegbile was having represented legally Abu Jamal, a man who in 1981 killed police officer Daniel Faulkner.  Abu Jamal had gone through trial process, had been convicted and sentenced to death.  It was an appeal to this death sentence that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund accepted Abu Jamal as a client, and Mr. Adegbile as a member of the Legal Defense Fund filed some briefs on his behalf.  He was successful; thus, the death sentence was overturned although his conviction stands. Jamal was to remain in jail for life without possibility of parole.

Fox news showcased the opposition against confirmation of the appointee by the widow of the slained officer.  Also, opposed were the Fraternal Order of Police, and all the Republican Senators, plus seven Democratic Senators who joined them to reject the nominee. Fox news bloggers called Adegbile a “cop killer cuddler.”

The issue appears to be that Mr. Adegbile as an attorney at law and member of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, undertook to file some briefs on behalf of Jamal. He did not help in the trial stage but much later, after his conviction and sentence, while he was in death row an appeal to that death sentence.  It is a basic constitutional right of any person accused of a crime to have legal representation.  Attorney Adegbile just did the job his organization undertook.  To deny the nomination to an extremely capable attorney on that basis in my opinion is un-American. It goes against everything we stand for.

It seems more of a political ploy than a principled action.  Fox news reported that the Chairmen of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus called the nomination itself “an embarrassment for President Obama”, and blast “vulnerable Democrats running in 2014” who  voted yes. Political gamesmanship, rather than qualifications appear to be the real reason behind this shameful vote in the Senate.

Looking at our history,  John Adams, (1797-1801) second President of the United States who was an ardent defender of the colonists legal right to rebel against England. However, in 1770 he was the attorney defending the British soldiers, who killed five colonists, in the “Boston Massacre,” yet that was no bar for him to be nominated and elected President of the United States.

Moreover, recently in our history, we find Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1961-1991), who after graduating from Howard Law School joined the legal staff of the NAACP and later became its Chief Counsel.  His most important case as an attorney involved his representation before the Supreme Court in the case Brown vs Board of Education, which he won, Marshall was opposed to the death penalty and supported the rights of criminal defendants. He was brilliant lawyer appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and later President Johnson nominated him to the Supreme Court where he served until 1991 when he retired. Marshall’s views and advocacy against the death penalty and the rights of criminal defendants did not affect his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Additionally, not long ago in our history, we have present Chief US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, while a practicing Attorney offered to act as a pro-bono lawyer to Florida serial killer, John E. Ferguson, who had killed eight people in 1977-1978 and who ultimately was executed in October 2012.  Justice Roberts offer to represent this killer was never a reason to deny him an appointment to the highest Court of the land.

In the case of Mr. Adegbile, Fox news presents their bloggers who called Adegbile as a “cop killer cuddler” and representing a “non-repentant cop killer.” Such representations are not only unfair but vicious.  

Attorney Adegbile has argued successfully two cases before the United States Supreme Court.  These cases were related to the Civil Rights Voting Act, the Act that prohibits voting discrimination.  He is considered the top expert in the country on these laws and it is precisely this area of the Law which he had been nominated to head, the Civil Rights Department of the Department of Justice.  At a time when voting restriction laws are cropping up in many states, it is very important to have in the Department of Justice an able administrator, or is this perhaps the reasons Republicans are so opposed to the appointment of Mr. Adegbile?

As Americans we oppose the unfair criteria developed by the Republican opposition. Attorneys are not responsible for the crimes of their clients, they are just fulfilling the time honored constitutional right of defendants to legal representation.  On the other hand, we need the best people in the top jobs of government, such as the Justice department and Mr.  Debo Agdebile appears to be eminently qualified for the job.  He should be confirmed.

“Why Obama’s minimum wage proposal will hurt working poor”

I have chosen for this segment, one article entitled “Why Obama’s minimum wage proposal will hurt working poor”  authored by Peter Morici. The article appeared in TheStreet.com, an Internet blog created by James Cramer a well known stock investments counsellor  with a tv program. The article was also picked up by Fox News on February 03, 2014.

The title of the article certainly catches your attention, I thought wow, how could a substantial wage increase hurt the poor, or those receiving the increase.  Well it might hurt my feet as I rush to go to the store to spend this “windfall.”

The minimum wage effective since July 24, 2009 now stands at $ 7.25 an hour. However, workers employed by federal contractors received a raise of $ 10.10 an hour promised in pending legislation, and going into effect for those workers, thanks to an Executive Order signed by the President this past week. 

The author states, “Obama doesn’t tell voters the minimum wage is often paid to teenagers bagging groceries and college students on work-study jobs…” this seems to be the chant which the conservative right sings at interviews in the press.  Fox News, as is commonly known, is an arch conservative news site and so is the financial  blog TheStreet.com , a site for financial investors.

However, Robert Reich professor of Public Policy  at UC Berkeley, senior fellow at the Blum Center for developing economies and former  Secretary of Labor during the Clinton Administration, in an interview with National Public Radi (NPR) , stated that the Economic Policy Institute did a study in the Summer of 2012 “showing  that nearly 90 percent of the recipients of a minimum wage increase are at least 20 years old, more than half work full time, more than a quarter are parents.” 

But Mr. Morici goes further, saying that “…liberal papers are fond of trotting out single mothers…who recount they cannot afford to eat because they are earning so little at places like McDonalds…yet correspondents never get around to asking how they use their food stamps or about support received from their children’s father.”  This really stuns me.  Food stamps supplement will reach about $ 9.00 dollars a day according to the latest Farm Bill passed by Congress.  How much food can you buy with $ 9.00?  I do not think Professor Morici or James Cramer (a millionaire),nor the personnel, anchors, editors or executives at Fox News know the answer to that one.  They probably know that they can buy a coffee at Starbucks for about          $ 6.00 and they would have a couple of dollars to splurge on something else.  Speaking of the Farm Bill just passed last week by Congress, food stamps were cut significantly, but Farm subsidies to those  millionaire farm owners who do not farm the land remained in the bill.  We are talking of hundred of thousands and several million dollars for not producing anything, and incidentally quite a few of those millionaires receiving the subsidies were Republican members of Congress who oppose raising the minimun wage.  The contention that “adults earning the lowest wages have sources of income not enjoyed in Truman’s days—an earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid,”  does not bring up the issue that we are talking about, minimum wage for work done, for what the employers pay their workers. This is not about other federal benefits.  If Morici is thinking that earned income credit, food stamps and Medicaid should be considered part of the wages received by the workers, then he must admit that federal aid in the form of  income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid is a governmental subsidy to the employers who do not pay a living wage to its employees.  It is a shame that persons working full time, 40 hours week, cannot live on that salary.

It seems that to economist Morici and most Republicans the issue is about not giving the president a political victory rather than economic and moral justice.  The article’s author says that McDonalds “is already challenged by an inability to raise prices because working class Americans can’t afford to pay another dollar for lunch.”   Again, that could well be true, but it would be because employers are not paying a living wage to its employees!   According to Professor Reich however, Walmart and McDonalds could pay its employees $ 15.00 dollars an hour without losing employees or raising prices.  

Whether you believe Professor Morici or Professor Reich, still it stands to reason that any person working 40 hours  a week should have wages sufficient to cover food and shelter. Most Americans think so by an overwhelming majority.  In January Quinnipiac University conducted a poll about raising the minimum wage, 93 percent of Democrats approved, 52 percent Republicans approved and 69 percent of Independents also approved.  

(msnbc.tumblr.com/image/76645999354)

The Reverend Martin Luther King said in a 1968 sermon shortly before his assassination, “If a man doesn’t have a job or income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility of the pursuit of happiness.  He merely exists.” 

Turning back the clock to 1965

Every day we see news that conflict with our future. While flights to outer space are no longer limited to specially trained astronauts, our personal lives are no longer restricted to us because are being infringed by politicians (mainly Republicans) who want to take us back fifty years.

The article by Steven Benen appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show’s web page. It alerts us to legislation governing our private lives. The argument will continue during the election in November of this year.  Benen presents the case in point, the election in North Carolina of a US Senator, where Republican candidates have said that “the state has the authority to ban contraceptives. Will condoms also be banned?  And will the candidates also favor a Constitutional Amendment to “grant protection” to a fertilized human egg. In essence this deprives women of their right to privacy granted under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade 410 US 113 (1973).

Banning contraceptives would restrict a right ratified by the US Supreme Court in 1965.  The succinct article “Turning back the clock to 1965” is a wake up call to all of us because in Texas we will be facing the same issue.  Already in Texas the rights of women as sanctioned in Roe vs Wade have been undermined by laws passed by a State Legislature composed, in the majority, of men.

The issue is as Texans, as Americans, do we want to go back to the sixties?  Do we want legislative bodies to enter our bedrooms and determine what we can and we cannot do?

Interesting article, these might be the choices we may have to make come November of this year.