The War on Efficient Trash Collection

/in /by

Normally, I wouldn’t get into a shouting match between John Cole and his poster ED Kain. John started it when he objected to a revolt against a city council decision to contract with just one trash collector.

Our entire nation has collectively lost its shit:

A Valley community’s decision to change the way trash is picked up provided further proof of how deeply the nation’s anti-government, “tea party”-fueled sentiment is running.A decision by the Fountain Hills Town Council to hire a single trash hauler and begin a curbside recycling program has been met with angry protests from residents who accuse town leaders of overstepping their bounds and taking a leap toward socialism.

Some even likened it to “Obamacare” for garbage, calling it “trashcare.”

[snip]

This is how the American empire will end. With us rioting in the streets over the right to choose a trash collecter, while the top 5% laugh all the way to the bank.

Followed by Kain hailing choice.

Naturally, I disagree entirely with John’s argument on trash collection. It may be a small issue – so long as your trash is collected, it doesn’t really matter that much who picks it up – but the Tea Partiers are right this time: having choice is a good thing, even for trash collection. If the government came in and said “You can only buy Dell computers from now on” people would be unhappy. We want to be able to choose what kind of computer we buy – and not just because maybe we prefer Apple, but because we know that competition keeps innovation up and prices down.Now, in trash collection you probably won’t see too much innovation, but competition will keep prices down and quality of service high. If you don’t like the people picking up your trash, or the containers they provide, or the driver is rude, or whatever – you can switch.

Once the government has granted a monopoly, however, you’re stuck. It doesn’t matter what level of service you receive, whether prices go up – you have no choice. Many of us already have no choice when it comes to trash collection, so this is sort of a foreign concept. And that’s also why this isn’t really that big of a deal. Trash is basically a public utility in many places, and it works pretty well that way.

But I’m going to wade into this trash debate because it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. As you probably know, I recently moved from an idyllic left wing small city to an idyllic right wing small city. Both are great places to raise a family, both have charming downtowns, and both support diverse local businesses. One big difference, I’ve come to learn, is that the left wing city provides high quality public services–including single stream curbside recycling, best-in-state public schools, and well-developed social services, whereas the right wing city has privatized those same functions, with “choice” in trash collection, a significant reliance on religious schools (this is one of the hotbeds of voucher activism), and church groups providing many of the social services.

Now, as it happens, I still live in a complex with dumpsters; I’ve got no choice in trash collection because my landlord chose a collector for me. Which means I’ve got to pay a yearly fee with the county for the privilege of driving my recycling to a dumpster a few miles away. Which also means I can’t speak to this wondrous choice that Kain says we might have in trash collection firsthand.

But I will say this. First, it is a significant pain in the ass, on trash day, to have 4 different sets of trash collectors holding up traffic four different times on the same damn roads, because four different companies are picking up trash in the same area. This is not a dense area, which means you’ve got miles and miles and miles of duplicated truck routes, all in the name of this glorious “choice.” Each of those duplicative four truck routes cost money (and of course none of them have the automated pick up that might be affordable if a city awarded a monopoly for the pickup), which I presume makes the cost to consumer much higher. Of course, the way to avoid all this duplication in an idyllic right wing small city, is to push everyone into developments with CCRs, so the development can band together and offer a monopoly to one trash collector, thereby avoiding the four sets of trash trucks, but not the potential for corruption. Choice is not all it’s made up to be, particularly for services with a huge upside on efficiency.

As for me, I have honestly studied which townships offer trash collection–and particularly whether they offer curbside recycling. Because I’ve discovered out here that the real choice you’ve got–certainly the choice to have some kind of efficiency in trash collecting–comes when you select your house, because once you’ve picked, you’re locked into inefficiency.

(And don’t even get me started on sidewalks.)

Share this entry

Zenyatta! An LA Woman Runs For The Roses & History

/in , , /by

There is great football this weekend, both by student and professional athletes. Obviously, that should be discussed in comments. It’s what we do here. Bizarrely as it may be, this blog exists in its current form because of some weird joining of legal thought and passion for football, with a smattering of divine intervention by Phred and perhaps a few too many pitchers of Beamish. Go figure; that is the randomness of entropy and the blogosphere. Nevertheless, here we are.

And so, here we are and I serve up a prime weekend Trash Talk of horse. Sue me if you object; my attorney, Mary, she of midwestern common horse sense, will answer and defend. Aggressively.

The story of Zenyatta was first adopted and incorporated by the Emptywheel blog just over a month ago when she ran to defend her crown in the Lady Secret Stakes at Hollywood Park in the City of Angels, California. Well, we are all in now. So much so that we had an official liveblog reporter at Hollywood Park for the Lady Secret, Rosalind. Rosalind not only went to Hollywood for the Lady Secret, she took pictures and came to feel the force that is Zenyatta. Although a bit bottled up and not quite as focused as normal, Zenyatta brought the heart of the champion she is and closed out a win, and defense of her crown, in the Lady Secret.

The Lady Secret win at Hollywood park made Zenyatta an unprecedented 19-0 in her racing career. She won the Breeders Cup Classic last year; other than the Triple Crown races of the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes, the biggest, and arguably more annually competitive, horse race in the world every year. No woman had ever won this bring all comers race before, but Zenyatta closed out all the best boys in the world, in the biggest race in the world. In style.

Last years’ Breeder’s Cup Classic win made Zenyatta a star, and fixture among the greatest horses of all time, and almost certainly surpassing the truly remarkable and astounding Rachel Alexandra to take her place as the greatest filly of all time. But now comes the 2010 Breeders Cup Classic. Rachel Alexandra, other fillies, and indeed almost all other horses regardless of sex are either in the backseat, or paying damn close attention as Zenyatta makes a move on unquestionable immortality.

A second Breeders Cup Classic win against the best male horses the world has to offer would put Zenyatta in the untouchable category. Babe Ruth and Secretariat land. Where, arguably, no horse, male or female, has gone before. This is truly stunning stuff.

Now, I have no idea whether this horse can close the deal or not. But, at a remarkable and unprecedented 19-0, Zenyatta has earned the reputation, and buildup, that puts her in this position. Seriously. In spades. The last horse that came into a race like this with the weight of history and expectation of otherworldliness on it’s shoulders was Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes. We know what happened in that race.

So, we shall see. There is stiff competition from the boys (so to speak). She will have to beat some studs including Paddy O’Prado, Blame and, perhaps most significantly, Bob Baffert’s Lookin at Lucky. Despite her eternal greatness, the odds and history are stacked against Zenyatta. While there is almost no chance Zenyatta will pull away from a talented field like Secretariat did in the 1973 Belmont, may the modern day Pegasus fly to a win of any nature and history!

There is also, of course, college and pro football; not to mention the penultimate race in the F1 Circus this year, the Brazilian Grand Prix. Somewhat incredibly, Fernando Alonso of the real red animal, the prancing horse of Ferrari, leads Mark Webber of Red Bull by eleven points going into Sao Paulo. Red Bull is fast in practice, but it is Sebastian Vettel leading the way. With only this race and Abu Dhabi left in the season, the race is indeed on!

It has been a long hard slog this week folks, let’s rip this joint and trash it up!

Share this entry

The Logical Outcome of Juan Williams’ Legitimization of Irrational Fears

/in , /by

As Adam Serwer noted, a family apparently dressed in Muslim garb was removed from a plane and questioned by the FBI today.

Some cannot help but think their appearance had something to do with a family’s removal from a plane Tuesday morning at Memphis International Airport.

“My understanding is they were dressed in attire that would indicate some Muslim-type religion,” said airport vice-president Scott Brockman.

[snip]

“The family was asked to leave the aircraft, which they did peacefully,” said Brockman.  “At that point, the aircraft was inspected and cleared,” he added.

A bomb-sniffing dog and other measures resulted in a two-hour delay.  The family was placed on a later flight following an interview with the FBI.

Thanks to Juan Williams’ legitimization of this kind of irrational response, I guess people dressed in religious garb no longer can pee in crappy airplane bathrooms without expecting to be detained by the FBI.

Share this entry

Judge Phillips’ DADT Order Is Not The Victory Being Claimed

/in , , , , , /by

As David Dayen is reporting at FDL News, Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California United States Federal Court has issued her injunctive order in the Log Cabin Republicans’ (LCR) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) case, formally known as Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert M. Gates:

(1) DECLARES that the act known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

(4) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans’ request to apply for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans’ request to file a motion for costs of suit, to the extent allowed by law.

Judge Phillips’ order is being hailed far and wide as the greatest thing since sliced bread – at least on LGBT rights as they relate to DADT. I am quite decidedly not so sure about that.

I simply do not see how this judge, Virginia Phillips, has either the authority or jurisdiction to enter the sweeping injunctive mandates she has done in sections 2 and 3. The scope of those sections appear well beyond her actual authority and, quite frankly, have the patina of such an overreach that they should be appealed based upon protection of Executive Branch power and authority concerns. It is hard to see how the federal government in DC can allow a single remote District Court judge to have that type of reach over the conduct of the entire United States military across the globe.

There is little question but that the CACD had the jurisdiction to hear the case itself and to grant relief to the specific individuals within the established umbrella of the designated plaintiff “Log Cabin Republicans” within the territorial jurisdiction of the CACD. Further, there is no question Phillips has the authority to rule the DADT policy unconstitutional on a facial challenge to its constitutionality, which the government strongly argued this case was Read more →

Share this entry

Witt Reinstated To The Air Force; Wittless In The White House

/in , , , , , /by

The late, but great, news this fine Friday afternoon is the decision of Western District of Washington (WDWA) Judge Ronald Leighton in the case of Air Force Major Margaret Witt. Witt has been an Air Force reserve flight and operating room nurse since 1987 and was suspended from duty in 2004, just short of retirement, upon her base commanders being informed by an off base nosy neighbor that she was a lesbian.

From NPR:

A federal judge ruled Friday that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible in the latest legal setback to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton came in a closely watched case as a tense debate has been playing out over the policy. Senate Republicans blocked an effort to lift the ban this week, but two federal judges have ruled against the policy in recent weeks.

Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and sued to get her job back. A judge in 2006 rejected Witt’s claims that the Air Force violated her rights when it fired her. An appeals court panel overruled him two years later, leaving it to Leighton to determine whether her firing met that standard.

This is indeed a wonderful decision, and one based upon the elevated level of scrutiny that is now clearly the standard in Federal court consideration of the rights based on sexual preference. The full text of the court’s decision is here. The critical language from the decision setting and clearing the table is as follows:

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on April 12, 2006. On July 26, 2006, this Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that the regulation was subject to rational basis scrutiny, and that the evidentiary hearings held, and factual findings adopted, by Congress provided a sufficient foundation to support the regulation. Plaintiff timely appealed.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiff. It held that Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003) effectively overruled previous cases wherein the Ninth Circuit had applied rational basis to DADT and predecessor policies. It held that something more than traditional rational basis review was required. Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2008). The Circuit

Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the District Court the plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process claims. It affirmed this Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s equal protection claim. On remand, this Court was directed to determine whether the specific application of DADT to Major Witt significantly furthers the government’s interest, and whether less intrusive means would substantially achieve the government’s interest. Witt, 527 F.3d at 821.

Now comes the interesting part of the opinion (and case as argued by the government) and it ties in directly with the Log Cabin Republicans v. USA DOD decision recently rendered in the Central District of California (I will return to that in a bit). Specifically, the 9th Circuit based at least partially upon briefing in the alternative by the government (i.e arguing multiple positions), granted the government’s argument that, at a minimum, they were at least entitled to argue that homosexuals were bad for Read more →

Share this entry

First They Came for Women Enjoying Sex, Then They Came for Men Jacking Off

/in /by

I know Democrats are thrilled that Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Delaware, will be running against the kook Christine O’Donnell.

But I’m a little troubled by the treatment of O’Donnell’s anti-masturbation stance as just one more kooky proposal.

It’s not.

Rather, it’s the logical extension of the conservative assault on reproductive freedom. Sure, most conservative efforts to regulate reproduction are targeted exclusively at women (not even on their doctors). Because they bear wombs, after all, it’s a lot easier to regulate and politicize the sexual conduct of women.

But the logic is always the same–and it’s precisely the “logic” O’Donnell gave for her opposition to masturbation. (And, incidentally, the same logic the Prop 8 defenders used in their case in San Francisco.) It’s about ensuring that all sexual enjoyment–all of it–is tied to procreation within marriage.

So while she may be a nut, she’s really only advocating for the same oppressive treatment of men as mainstream Republicans advocate for women of child-bearing age.

Share this entry

Who We Are: Zeitoun and Camp Greyhound Five Years On

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In a country founded on “self evident truths” such as life, liberty, equality, and due process of law, the timeless quote from Ben Franklin speaks to the peril imposed when the founding principles are discarded or compromised:

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

Yet, of course, since 9/11 that is exactly what the United States has done and what has resulted in return. Fareed Zakaria has a piece up at Newsweek speaking to the senseless and destructive madness that has consumed the US since the 9/11 attacks:

The error this time is more damaging. September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted.

….

Some 30,000 people are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications in the United States. And yet no one in Army intelligence noticed that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been making a series of strange threats at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he trained. The father of the Nigerian “Christmas bomber” reported his son’s radicalism to the U.S. Embassy. But that message never made its way to the right people in this vast security apparatus. The plot was foiled only by the bomber’s own incompetence and some alert passengers.

Such mistakes might be excusable. But the rise of this national-security state has entailed a vast expansion in the government’s powers that now touches every aspect of American life, even when seemingly unrelated to terrorism.

…..

In the past, the U.S. government has built up for wars, assumed emergency authority, and sometimes abused that power, yet always demobilized after the war. But this is a war without end. When do we declare victory? When do the emergency powers cease?

Conservatives are worried about the growing power of the state. Surely this usurpation is more worrisome than a few federal stimulus programs. When James Madison pondered this issue, he came to a simple conclusion: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germs of every other … In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended?.?.?.?and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual war,” Madison concluded.

Indeed it is a chilling picture we have allowed our political “leaders” to paint us into, and Zakaria does not even hit some of the most disturbing impingements on due process and the rule of law such as the government arrogating itself the right to summarily execute American citizens with no judicial trial or due process whatsoever and the legal black hole that is Guantanamo and the Obama Military Commission and indefinite detention program. That is, as a nation, who and what we are today and it has bought us nothing except world scorn, geometrically more enemies, a plundered treasury, ignored and dilapidated domestic infrastructure, swelling joblessness and exploding income inequality.

But, hey, at least we have increased security and all those oppressive terrorist modalities are only for al-Qaida and the bad foreigners, right? No. The rot is now who we are, towards ourselves in addition to “them”. And that is where we finally get to the subject of the title of this post. Nothing demonstrates the deadly rot virus that has been injected into the blood of the American ethos than the story of Zeitoun. (more after jump) Read more →

Share this entry

Breaking News: Perry Prop 8 Stay Granted By 9th Circuit

/in , , , /by

The order granting the Proponents/Appellants request for stay in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was just sent to me by the 9th Circuit. The docket text is as follows:

Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Well, I thought there was a very good chance that there would be an accelerated briefing and consideration if there was to be consideration on the merits. And there will be consideration on the merits, even if it is concurrent with consideration of the standing issue (here is a very good and detailed discussion of the standing issues and law).

This is a bit of a new wrinkle and, safe to say, gives more life to Proponents/Appellants than many people were giving them recently. And it appears there will be oral argument in San Francisco during the second week of December. Now the next question is what panel for the merits will the appeal be handed to – will it be Wardlaw, Fisher and Berzon – or will it be a new panel? Time will tell, and we should know that very soon. Exciting!

Share this entry

The Bully Pulpit with Training Wheels

/in /by

Folks are still arguing about whether Obama’s statement about the Cordoba House was sufficiently impassioned or whether his subsequent statements backtracked off the original statement.

Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.  Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan.  The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country.  And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders.  And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  (Applause.)  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -– from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we’re fighting against, and what we’re fighting for.  Our enemies respect no religious freedom.  Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam -– it’s a gross distortion of Islam.  These are not religious leaders -– they’re terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children.  In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -– and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

So that’s who we’re fighting against.  And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms -– it is the strength of our values.  The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish.  The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status.  Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us –- and that way of life, that quintessentially American creed, stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

And to be sure, Obama typically conceded the legitimacy of the hurt feelings of all those people in Kansas or Texas outraged that an Islamic cultural center will be built in the general vicinity of lower Manhattan–a city those people will rarely even visit.

But his statement, weak as it was, still allowed the question of constitutionality, of the First Amendment, to begin to contest the din of the fearmongerers trying to use this for political gain.

In response, the fearmongerers have predictably turned on Obama.

But by ascending to the bully pulpit on this issue, it seems Obama has elevated the principles involved (however weakly stated) and made the press enabling the fearmongerers to think twice about the issues involved. Heck, even Mark Halperin is calling on the fearmongerers to stop.

Say what you will about the wisdom of Obama’s policies overall, but his belated commentary on religious freedoms clearly was not done for political gain. Quite the contrary. the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House’s side. The reaction since the President spoke has been vitriolic and unvarying from leading voices on the right, painting Obama as weak, naive, out of touch and obtuse (not to mention flip-flopping, after his confusing follow-up comments Saturday suggested to some that he might be hedging his position).

Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.

But please don’t do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.

It isn’t clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama’s measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

Maybe Obama will even respond in turn, and point out just what Halperin does: that fighting the Cordoba House only helps al Qaeda. Then we’d really have a useful discussion about how the most aggressive stance often embraced by the fearmongerers is actually counter-productive.

In any case, it was a cautious, rare attempt to use the bully pulpit. But it was a welcome one. And if we can win this argument, Obama might just learn to like this bully pulpit thing.

Share this entry

Meanwhile, Womb-Bearers Get Rights Too!

/in , /by

While everyone has been focused on the hope that gays and lesbians may soon get the rights straight people enjoy, in Florida a court ruled that womb-bearers have some rights too, specifically to decide their own medical treatment when pregnant. From the ACLU press release:

In an important decision for the right of women to make their own medical choices, the Florida District Court of Appeal today ruled that the rights of a pregnant woman were violated when she was forced to remain hospitalized against her will after disagreeing with a hospital’s recommended treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of themselves and the American Women’s Medical Association (AMWA) supporting the woman in her case against the state.

“Women do not relinquish their right to determine their own medical care when they become pregnant,” said Diana Kasdan, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, who presented oral argument in the case along with Samantha Burton’s attorney, David Abrams of Tallahassee, Florida. “We are glad that the court has upheld the constitutional right of a pregnant woman to make her own medical decisions.”

In March 2009, the Circuit Court of Leon County ordered Burton – a mother of two suffering from pregnancy complications – to be indefinitely confined to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and forced to undergo any and all medical treatments the doctors there deemed necessary to save her fetus. The lower court order forbade her from transferring to another hospital of her own choosing. After three days of state-compelled hospitalization and a compelled cesarean section, Ms. Burton suffered a stillbirth and was released.

So if you’re a pregnant woman, you now have the radical right to choose your own doctor and have a say in your treatmetn, even if a judge thinks he knows better. Radical!!

Kind of crazy, all this rights-upholding going on. It might just lead you to believe we were in the United States or something.

Share this entry