The Senate cleared a historic hate crimes bill Thursday for President Obama’s signature, approving new federal penalties for attacks on gay men and lesbians.

The legislation, which was attached to the conference report for the bill outlining the Pentagon’s budget, marks the culmination of a years-long fight by civil rights groups to codify the expanded protections.

The measure would extend the current definition of federal hate crimes — which covers attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin — to include those based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It also would make it a federal crime to attack U.S. military personnel because of their service.

. . .

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is named for Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998, and Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death behind a pickup truck in Texas in 1998. Shepard’s family founded the Matthew Shepard Foundation, which helped lobby for the measure. Offered repeatedly by the late senator  Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the bill had stalled previously in the Senate, and President George W. Bush vowed to veto it if it reached his desk.

Link

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from having an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect on Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a health research organization based in Washington. The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appeared unique in that its intent was that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

More. . .

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CECILE RICHARDS

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Link.

CANOGA PARK, Calif. - The U.S. Department of Justice today issued proposed regulations for Section 2257A, an addition to the 2257 federal record-keeping law which applies to those who produce images of simulated sexual activity.

The proposed regulations appear at pages 32262 through 32273 of volume 73 of the Federal Register and on the Free Speech Coalition’s website. The public comment period for these proposed regulations will end on August 5, 2008.

Section 2257A was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in July 2006 as part of the Adam Walsh Act. The proposed record-keeping requirements provoked a strong reaction from Hollywood studios concerned that the regulations could affect mainstream movies depicting sexual conduct.

(more . . . )

by Alan R. Levy, April 28, 2008
[View as PDF]

Section 2257 of title 18 of the U.S. Code requires that “producers” of photographs and films of “actual sexually explicit conduct” create and maintain records documenting the age of the performers depicted in those performances. The statute’s purpose is to ensure that the performers are not minors. This recordkeeping statute has generally been limited to the adult film industry, although recently the statute’s impact has crept into the realm of mainstream film and television. For over two decades, the statute has withstood numerous constitutional challenges by the adult film industry and civil libertarian organizations. On October 23, 2007, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that § 2257 was overbroad on its face and therefore unconstitutional.

Although the Sixth Circuit has since vacated the Connection III decision to rehear the case en banc, this decision marks the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down the recordkeeping statute on constitutional grounds. Ironically, the victorious plaintiff was not the adult film industry or a civil liberties organization but rather a non-commercial “swingers” publication in which married couples published explicit photographs of themselves to seek out other married couples for sexual relationships. While the court protected the constitutional rights of swingers, this decision will also impact the speech rights of both the adult film industry and the mainstream entertainment industry. Even though the full Sixth Circuit decision will replace that of the appellate panel, the reasoning in the earlier decision will lay out the framework for the arguments in this case and future challenges to the statute.

(more . . .)

DUNCANVILLE, Texas – The most popular address on Cedar Ridge Drive is Jim Trulock’s split-level home, which has a group sex room and attracts as many as 100 people to swinger parties featuring “Naked Twister” nights.

But the festivities could soon be over. In response to neighbors’ complaints, the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas. Citations have been issued, and search warrants may be next.

“It’s crazy that they want to force their morality down our throats,” said Dawn Burton, 45, a regular guest at the parties. “We’re all frustrated.”

So are those who complain of the noise, traffic and parking problems that occur in their otherwise quiet, upscale neighborhood every Friday and Saturday, when Trulock’s home is transformed into “The Cherry Pit.”

Duncanville, which proclaims itself “The Perfect Blend of Family, Community and Business,” is an unlikely venue for a neighborhood swinger club. The city of 36,000 just southwest of Dallas has about 50 places of worship and not a single registered sexually oriented business.

Duncanville officials insist they are not just another prudish Texas town giving the boot to spouse-swappers. They say it all boils down to a matter of law: Trulock is operating a business featuring live sex acts.

“It’s not trying to judge anyone or pass judgment on someone’s lifestyle,” city spokeswoman Tonya Lewis said.

To support its claim, the city notes that the Cherry Pit accepts money from guests and promotes the parties on its Web site.

“We’re not about infringing on the rights of the Cherry Pit patrons or owners,” Lewis said. “But now your right to have fun has infringed on everyone else’s. And now you have to draw the line.”

Other cities have wrestled with the same issue.

(more . . . )

Look, kiddie porn and terrorism are bad. Obvious. But what better way for a government to push through controversial legislation quickly than to harness their emotive properties? After all, what self-respecting member of the US House of Representatives would vote against legislation called Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online, or SAFE? Only two, it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul), with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to be on the lookout for report known “illegal images” and “obscene” cartoons and drawings. The reporting requirement extends to cover social networking sites, ISPs, and email providers. Failing to dutifully report what you’ve seen (or haven’t seen but are unwittingly complicit in) could leave your data seized and in debt from fines of up to $300,000. This isn’t a call to arms, however . . .

(more . . . )

Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.

“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”

The retired officers offer data showing that 65,000 gay men and lesbians now serve in the American armed forces and that there are more than one million gay veterans.

“They have served our nation honorably,” the letter states.

The letter’s release comes as rallies are scheduled on the Mall by groups calling for a change in the law, which is known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” because it bars the military from investigating soldiers’ sexual orientation if they keep it to themselves.

Although the signers of the letter are high-ranking, none are of the stature of General John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the policy was adopted and who now argues for its repeal. Shalikashvili refocused attention on the issue earlier this year when he wrote that conversations with military personnel had prompted him to change his position.

The current generation of Americans entering the armed services have proved to him “that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers,” the general wrote in an Op-Ed article published in The New York Times on Jan. 2.

“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” Shalikashvili wrote. “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.”

Few issues have split the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates this year as clearly as whether to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

(more . . . )

How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can’t outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn’t hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.

From Slashdot

The comment period for the H.R. 4472, the proposed regs for 18 U.s.C. 2257 ends tomorrow. I posted the action alert earlier in the week.

Have you written the DOJ to tell them how you feel about providing personal information to an adult website, and being regarded as a “secondary producer?” Are you comfortable with having that personal information subject to warrantless searches?

Comments may be submitted electronically to: Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov or to http://www.regulations.gov by using the electronic comment form provided. The subject line must read: Docket No. CRM 104.

Facsimile comments may be submitted to: (202) 514-1793. This is not a toll-free number. Comments submitted by facsimile must include Docket No. CRM 104 on the cover sheet.

The comment period for the proposed regs for Section 2257 ends in just 4 days. From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

While many of the regulations pertain to companies that produce adult entertainment magazines and videos (and are extremely burdensome), they would also affect anyone who uses an adult social-networking site. Here’s how:

• The regulations would require the people running a site to get and maintain personal information from every user (that means you) who posts a “sexually explicit” photo, including your photo ID (driver’s license, passport, or military ID).
• The regulations would allow the Attorney General to conduct warrantless searches at will on the sites’ records, including your personal information.
• There are few safeguards over what the FBI can do with the information it obtains.
• If a site operator fails to comply with the regulations, he or she would face a prison sentence of up to 5 years.

Please follow this link to their activist center, for a sample form letter and the email address to send it to. Make sure it says in the subject line: Section 2257 Docket No. CRM 104.

(AP) Just hours after the White House issued a veto threat Thursday, the House voted to add gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.

The House legislation, passed 237-180, also makes it easier for federal law enforcement to take part in or assist local prosecutions involving bias-motivated attacks. Similar legislation is also moving through the Senate, setting the stage for another veto showdown with President Bush.

“This is an important vote of conscience, of a statement of what America is, a society that understands that we accept differences,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the only openly gay man in the House, presided over the chamber as the final vote was taken.

The vote came after fierce lobbying from civil rights groups, who have been pushing for years for added protections against hate crimes, and social conservatives, who say the bill threatens the right to express moral opposition to homosexuality and singles out groups of citizens for special protection.

The White House, in a statement warning of a veto, said state and local criminal laws already cover the new crimes defined under the bill, and there was “no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement.”

It also noted that the bill leaves other classes, such as the elderly, the military and police officers, without similar special status.

“Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim.”

Republicans, in a parliamentary move that would have effectively killed the bill, tried to add seniors and the military to those qualifying for hate crimes protection. It was defeated on a mainly party-line vote. (more…)

One of the craziest library bills of all time was reintroduced in the Florida Legislature yesterday.

S1804 GENERAL BILL by Posey
Sexual Offenders/Public Libraries; prohibits certain specified sexual offenders whose victim was under age of 18 from entering public library without immediately notifying employee of public library of sex offender’s presence & intent to use resources of library; prohibits sex offender from entering library until employee acknowledges presence of offender; provides that offender who violates act commits felony of third degree; provides criminal penalties, etc. Amends 947.1405, 948.30. (more…)