Russian Duma votes to ban 'childfree propaganda'

In November the lower house of the Russian Parliament unanimously approved a bill banning "propaganda in favor of a childfree lifestyle."

Russia: Ban on “propaganda” in favor of child-free lifestyles | International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH):

November 14, 2024 - "Russia continues its ultra-conservative shift. Two days ago the Duma unanimously passed a bill banning the dissemination of neutral or positive information about being childfree on the Internet, in the media, films, and advertisements. This law still needs to be approved by the upper house before being sent to President Vladimir Putin for final approval. It includes significant financial penalties, which can reach up to 400,000 rubles for individuals (around $4,200) and 5 million rubles for companies (nearly $50,000). There is also the risk of administrative arrest and deportation for non-Russian citizens.

"This law is part of the ongoing ultra-conservative turn that Russia has taken in recent years.... In 2020, Russian authorities made significant revisions to the Constitution, notably adding Article 67, which states that "children are the most important priority of Russian state policy." Similarly, in November 2022, President Putin signed a decree titled 'Foundations of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values.' The decree asserts, among other things, that the country’s demographic situation is threatened by the 'destructive ideological influence' exerted on Russian citizens, propagated by 'the United States of America and other unfriendly foreign states'.... 

"The year 2024 has been declared in Russia as the 'Year of the Family'... Divorce fees have been increased eightfold, laws have been passed prohibiting 'incitement to abortion' and .. private clinics in certain regions are now refusing to perform voluntary abortions.

"The newly passed law bans the dissemination of information about the 'childfree' movement (a term used for people who consciously choose not to have children, whether for personal, economic, or environmental reasons).... Once the law comes into effect, Russian citizens will no longer be allowed to say or write anything that promotes a 'positive image of childlessness and the conscious choice not to have children, unless this choice is related to medical contraindications.'

"This legislation ... adds to a series of repressive laws aimed at restricting freedom of expression, reinforcing an environment of censorship where any opposition to the state’s pronatalist directives is gradually being criminalised, similar to the law passed on 24 November 2022, which completely bans "LGBT propaganda" and expands the 2013 ban on the dissemination of information to minors.

"FIDH is monitoring and expressing concern over this new attack on women’s rights, which is part of a global trend of regression and the rise of reactionary ideologies."

Read more: https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/lgbtqi-rights/russia-ban-on-propaganda-in-favor-of-childfree-lifestyles

Russia steps up its war on childlessness | Voice of America | November 27, 2024:

Abortion-rights activists score wins at state level

In the 2024 U.S. election. abortion-rights ballot measures passed in seven of ten states, including five won by Trump/Vance.

Abortion protest, New York, May 2022. Photo by Legoktm. CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

Pro-Choice Abortion Initiatives Pass in Seven Out of Ten States | Reason | Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

November 6, 2024 - "Measures meant to protect abortion access were approved by voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York.... Until yesterday, the pro-choice position [has] prevailed in every state where abortion-related measures were on the ballot, including in red states such as Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio. That ... pattern is broken somewhat by results in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota.... 

• In Florida, 57 percent of voters supported Amendment 4, an Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion ... but it falls short of the 60 percent approval threshold required for constitutional amendments in Florida.
• In Nebraska, 48.7 percent of voters approved the state's Right to Abortion measure, (Initiative 439), which would have amended the constitution to declare that 'all persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability'.... [A] competing measure — Initiative 434 — passed 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent.... Initiative 434 ... allows for first trimester abortions but prohibits second and third trimester abortion unless 'necessitated by a medical emergency or when the pregnancy results from sexual assault or incest'....
• [I]n South Dakota — where it's currently criminal to perform an abortion or prescribe abortion medication unless a pregnant woman's life is at risk ... [v]oters rejected Amendment G — a citizen-led initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution— by almost 20 percentage points (with 87 percent of votes counted)..... 
• In Arizona, voters approved Proposition 139, a measure that enshrines a 'fundamental right' to abortion until fetal viability in the state's constitution. Abortion is currently legal in Arizona only until 15 weeks pregnancy. Voters rejected this status quo, with about 62 percent voting for Proposition 139 with 60 percent of votes tallied.
• In Missouri, where abortion is currently illegal except in medical emergencies, voters approved Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment declaring that 'the Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions'.... 
• In Maryland, where abortion is currently legal until fetal viability, voters overwhelmingly approved Question 1, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. The tally was about 74 percent for and just 26 percent with three-quarters of votes counted. Initiated by state lawmakers, ... the amendment says 'the State may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right [to an abortion] unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.'
• In Montana, where abortion is currently legal until fetal viability, voters approved The Right to Abortion Initiative, also known as CI-128. The measure will amend the state constitution to say 'there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,' and 'this right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means'....
• In Nevada, where abortion is now legal until 24 weeks pregnancy, voters approved Question 6.... The measure states that the right to an abortion 'shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.' With 84 percent of Nevada votes counted, it was up 63.3 percent to 36.7 percent. However, it must pass again in 2026 to be enacted.
• In Colorado, where abortion is currently legal throughout pregnancy, voters passed Amendment 79.... The measure repeals a 1984 amendment prohibiting the use of public funds for abortion and creates a new constitutional amendment stating that 'the right to abortion is hereby recognized. Government shall not deny, impede, or discriminate against the exercise of that right, including prohibiting health insurance coverage for abortion'....

"Trump won Florida, Missouri, and Montana and ... Arizona and Nevada ... yet a majority of voters in these states, too, opted to support legal abortion."

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/11/06/pro-choice-abortion-initiatives-pass-in-seven-out-of-ten-states/

Desperate Trudeau scaremongers about abortion

Unable to dent a 20-point lead in polls for the opposition Conservatives, Canada's increasingly desperate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resorted to the old Liberal Party tactic of scaremongering about abortion.  

Trudeau's abortion shtick reaches new lows | National Post | Chris Selley: 

May 18, 2024 - “'Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday that Canadian conservative leaders are as much of a threat to women’s right to a safe abortion as the rollback of the landmark Roe v. Wade court decision was in the United States,' the Toronto Star reported this week. I was disbelieving..... Having checked the tape, I can report that Trudeau didn’t actually say Canadian conservative leaders were as big a threat to women’s rights as the rescinding of Roe v. Wade. He said they’re a bigger threat.... 

"That’s unhinged. It’s wacko, to borrow a phrase. It’s what Liberals would call a conspiracy theory or misinformation, were it coming from the other side: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has vowed that his government will never 'legislate on abortion.' And it’s a bit insulting, surely, to the women in the 14 American states now living with near-total bans on abortion.... What set Trudeau off, by contrast, was the closure of Fredericton’s Clinic 554 earlier this year.... Women now must visit one of three hospitals, two in Moncton and one in Bathurst, where abortion is available on demand and gratis.... That’s the sharp end of Canada’s anti-abortion stick, legally speaking. I humbly submit the two countries’ situations aren’t even remotely comparable....

"If women’s rights are as incomplete and imperilled as you say, Prime Minister, then why not pass legislation codifying them? Two years ago Trudeau briefly even seemed open to the idea of writing something down on paper, though nothing came of it. By rights, demands for codifying abortion rights should only be growing in Canada after Roe v. Wade.... Trudeau’s fight against the forces of darkness, by contrast and as always, still seems to begin and end in front of a microphone."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeaus-abortion-shtick-reaches-new-lows

- Toronto Star, May. 16, 2024. 

Trudeau's ongoing abortion rhetoric a sign of true desperation | Toronto Sun | Brian Lilley: 

May 18, 2024 - "If we’re talking about abortion, it must be the month of May in Canada. Each May, on the Thursday before Mother’s Day, pro-life activists march to call for an end to abortion and at the same time, Liberals go on a rampage about how only they can protect abortion. 

"This year, trailing badly in the polls, Justin Trudeau is keeping up the pro-abortion rhetoric, warning women that voting for Conservatives will put them at risk. He did that Thursday at a campaign-style stop in New Brunswick.... 'We will keep fighting for women’s rights,' Trudeau said ... as if our Supreme Court had ruled abortion a right, as it once had in the United States. That never happened in Canada, we simply have an absence of a law. But Trudeau loves to import American political issue into Canada while decrying American-style politics....

"[W]hat really has Trudeau riled up about abortion in New Brunswick is that they stopped funding abortion at a private clinic. 'The shutting down of health and reproductive services offered by Clinic 554 for the unwillingness to engage in allowing women to actually choose what happens to their future, their bodies is a disgrace,' Trudeau said. Does anyone else find it odd that Liberals are against private health care delivery if it’s for knee replacement surgery or cataracts but are all in favour of private abortion clinics? Once again, if the Trudeau Liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all....

"Here’s the thing about this annual fight over abortion that happens around Mother’s Day, it doesn’t matter, nothing is going to change.... We haven’t had a law on abortion in Canada since the Supreme Court struck down the old one in the Morgentaler decision in 1988. We aren’t likely to get one any time soon, despite the overheated rhetoric from the Liberals about electing a Conservative government.... Even in the Conservative Party there is no appetite to ban abortion, not among the majority. A free vote held in the Commons on a bill to restrict abortion after the sixth month mark wouldn’t even pass.

"All of the posturing, the lecturing, and the social media posts on this issue from the Trudeau Liberals and their allies in the media is simply a sign of their desperation as Liberal poll numbers fall further."

Read more: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/trudeaus-ongoing-abortion-rhetoric-a-sign-of-true-desperation

Kansas voters reject anti-abortion initiative

Kansans Reject Anti-Abortion Ballot Measure — and It's Not Even Close | Reason - Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

August 3, 2022 - "Voters overwhelmingly voted against a measure that would have allowed abortion to be banned in Kansas in the first post-Roe test of abortion's legality put directly to the people. As of Wednesday morning — with 95 percent of precincts reporting — the vote was 58.8 percent against and 41.2 percent for, according to The New York Times.

"The ballot measure would have amended the Kansas constitution to state that it did not protect the right to have an abortion. Such an amendment would open the gates for state lawmakers to ban abortion—an option currently blocked by a 2019 state Supreme Court finding that the Kansas Constitution's guarantee of 'equal and inalienable rights' included a 'natural right of personal autonomy' that protected abortion access. But voters yesterday gave a resounding no to the question 'should the Kansas constitution be amended to remove protections of abortion rights?'

"The vote isn't the result of low turnout — Kansans voted on the abortion measure in numbers normally not seen in non-general elections. Nor is it a result of August elections typically favoring more liberal voters. 'When the Legislature's GOP supermajority placed the amendment on the ballot last year they picked the election most likely to favor the amendment,' notes The Kansas City Star. 'August primaries have disproportionately high Republican turnout because Democratic primaries in Kansas are often uncontested.'

"And it doesn't turn on results from more liberal urban areas or university towns alone. Suburban Johnson county overwhelmingly voted against it. Rural counties such as Franklin and Osage also voted against the amendment 'by significant margins," reports the Star....

"Whether Kansas is a good bellwether for the rest of the country on this issue is debatable. But Kansas is a relatively conservative and Republican state, and residents voting against an anti-abortion initiative at least suggests that conservative enthusiasm for banning abortion might not be as strong as many believe."

"Does this mean Democrats will benefit from calling out GOP extremism on abortion? Some think so.... I'm not as convinced. In my experience, few moderates and Republicans are single-mindedly attached to protecting abortion rights. They may oppose abortion bans, but they won't reject an otherwise simpatico candidate who supports them (or vote for a liberal candidate just because that candidate opposes them). 

"Meanwhile, Republican candidates are — probably now more than ever—under pressure from pro-life factions, who still make up much of their base. Which means Republican politicians and lawmakers still have a lot to gain and little to lose from opposing legal abortion. And Republican-controlled legislatures are likely to keep proposing and passing extreme abortion bans, even if these bans aren't universally popular among their constituents or wanted by a majority of their state's residents.

"That's why abortion ballot initiatives like this one in Kansas are a good way to actually leave the question of abortion's legality up to the residents of each state."

Read more: https://reason.com/2022/08/03/kansans-reject-anti-abortion-ballot-measure-and-its-not-even-close/

SCOTUS won't block NY Covid vaccine mandate

Vaccine mandate protesters in New York, August 2021. Photo: New York Times. 

Supreme Court rejects move to block New York vaccine mandate | Politico - Shannon Young:

December 13, 2021 - "The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request to block New York’s vaccination mandate for health care workers because it doesn't have a religious exemption. The court announced its ruling Monday afternoon in a brief, unsigned order. Three of the court's six conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — dissented, saying they would grant relief. Gov. Kathy Hochul lauded the court’s decision....

"More than a dozen medical professionals and We the Patriots USA, Inc. sued the Hochul administration over the mandate, which covers patient-facing staff in hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities. They asked the court last month to block the state from requiring those who were previously granted religious exemptions to get vaccinated or show proof of a medical exemption. A federal appeals court previously ruled that the mandate could move forward even though it did not allow for a religious exemption.

"Gorsuch wrote in his 14-page dissent that the health care workers who filed the suit and a companion case are not '"anti-vaxxers" who object to all vaccines,' but say they can’t receive a Covid-19 vaccine 'because their religion teaches them to oppose abortion in any form, and because each of the currently available vaccines has depended upon abortion-derived fetal cell lines in its production or testing'....

"Gorsuch also noted New York made changes to its mandate for health workers. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo promised limited religious exemptions in August, but the policy took effect in September without such an exemption under Hochul’s new administration.

"'Six weeks ago, this Court refused relief in a case involving Maine’s healthcare workers. Today, the Court repeats the mistake by turning away New York’s doctors and nurses,' he wrote. 'We do all this even though the state’s executive decree clearly interferes with the free exercise of religion — and does so seemingly based on nothing more than fear and anger at those who harbor unpopular religious beliefs.'"

Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2021/12/13/supreme-court-rejects-move-to-block-new-york-vaccine-mandate-1399691

Why Jorgensen opposes LP abortion plank

Jo Jorgensen Talks Diversity-Less Democrats, DOPE, Dershowitz, And The Elephant In The Room | The Libertarian Republic - Gary Doan:

March 5, 2020 - TLR: "This is Gary Doan ... talking to Jo Jorgensen. She’s best known for being Harry Browne’s running mate on the ’96 Libertarian presidential ticket and is currently running for the nomination, herself.... How far off do you think the Libertarian Party is from being competitive in ... an actual electoral sense? And how do you get there?
JJ: "Well, I think ... that in order to get anywhere, we need to have candidates at all levels: state, local and federal. And we need to have, of course, supporters, donors, people knocking on doors and all of that. So in 1996, Harry Browne and I focused on membership, and we doubled the party during those two years, and that’s been the largest growth in Libertarian Party history. And that’s what I think we need to replicate.... I think we need to become so big that people can’t ignore us. I’m not sure that the best way to do it is to look for people ... who’ve been elected for years, and then try to convince them to go our way. A lot of times, they got there by money from the special interests, from lobbyists. There have been a few exceptions. I will point to Ron Paul, I think Ron Paul is a libertarian....

TLR: "You’ve talked a lot, even here, about your connection to Harry Browne, as his VP in ’96. However, a lot has changed in the last 14 years. Why are you the best choice to head the ticket in 2020? And what have you done since ’96 that makes you more qualified for the top slot than then?
JJ: "First of all, there are some things that haven’t changed. Government is still too big and there are still a lot of the same philosophical reasons, some of the same history..... I was on something like 300 radio shows back then. I’ve had a lot of experience. So I can speak to a lot of these things. So that’s one thing that I think would help me that would carry over from ’96. But you’re right, things are different now. We’ve got social media, which we didn’t have before. And for those types of things, I do have other people....

TLR: "You have called for the Libertarian Party to delete the abortion plank, which would presumably mean that the platform was actually silent on the matter and individual candidates could feel more free to run under their own interpretations on the interplay between that and the non-aggression principle. If there were no abortion plank, would you personally run as a pro-life Libertarian?
JJ:.... "I am not going to feature abortion, whether pro-choice, pro-life… I am not going to have that as part of something that I’m campaigning on or that I’m emphasizing. Because there’s something like 2% of the population, where that’s their number one voting issue. Something like 80% of Americans thinks that abortion should be okay in the first three months. It just seems like for the most part that’s been set aside for more urgent things. So I would not run on the issue one way or the other. And in fact… right now I just say I support the party platform.

"But let me point out, the reason I thought that the plank should be eliminated isn’t to have candidates who are pro- life, but [for] people outside the party.... So many times I see this [perceived] as a litmus test. And so many times I run into people who are just so frustrated with Republicans because they’re not following through on smaller government. They’re frustrated with the Democrats, because they’ve changed. They’re no longer for free speech. Now they’ve become, I hate to throw terms around, but let’s just say more authoritarian. So people are looking for another party, and they look towards the Libertarian Party and they say, 'Well, I can’t be in the Libertarian Party because I’m pro-life.'

"And a lot of Libertarians send that message out that if you don’t agree with us, 100/100, you can’t be in our party. The main reason I wanted to get rid of that plank is so that all of these many fine voters out there who are lost - who don’t have a small government party to go to - will look at us as an option. And my experience is that once people join the party, they become more Libertarian on all issues. In fact, I was just talking with somebody a couple of weeks ago, at the Florida convention. And he said, 'You know, when I joined the party, I was 80/100, but being around all the people in here and all the ideas now I’m 100/100.'

"So what I would like to do is drop that one barrier that seems to be a big barrier, so that we can increase membership and then get people to look at the other things."

Read more: https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/jo-jorgensen-talks-diversity-less-democrats-dope-dershowitz-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/

UPDATE, February 16, 2024: Since this story is still being read, with over 100 reads in the past month, I should add here that the abortion plank was deleted at the Libertarian Party's 2022 National Convention. 

Tax-funded abortions violate right to choose

Democrats have abandoned the libertarian case for abortion rights - Philip Klein, Washington Examiner:

June 27, 2019 - "For decades, Democrats have tried to frame the abortion question in essentially libertarian terms, as one of opposition to government intruding on personal decisions. But by making support for taxpayer funded abortions their default position, candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination have undermined their ability to make the small government case for abortion rights.

"Libertarians themselves, it should be said, are divided on abortion. For some, the issue is straight forward: If you support limited government, you cannot support restrictions over what women try to do with their bodies. However, libertarians also believe that the primary function of government is to protect the right to life, so to those libertarians who believe an unborn child qualifies as a life, it naturally flows that they'd believe it is legitimate for government to protect that child's life and liberty.

"Reason's Stephanie Slade (a self-described pro-life libertarian) observed that Wednesday night's debate showed, 'that for the 2020 Democratic hopefuls, it's not enough for abortion to be legal. To meet the criterion of "justice," the procedure must be paid for by someone other than the woman seeking it'....

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who supports putting all Americans on a single government-run plan, said 'I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and ... that includes abortion'....  Julián Castro said, 'I don't believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice.... And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.' Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said that all insurance companies should be forced to cover abortion. Joe Biden abandoned decades of support for the Hyde Amendment that prevents Medicaid from covering abortion, arguing that lower-income women must be given equal access to abortions.

"This is, of course, a consistent liberal [progressive - ed.] position — that if you believe free healthcare is a right and that abortion is a right, it would follow that you believe everybody has a right to free abortions. But it is no longer a position that can be justified on libertarian grounds where the case would be that women have a right to abortions, but taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for them and insurers shouldn't be forced to cover them.

"As none other than Biden himself put it in 1986 in explaining his opposition to taxpayer funded abortion, 'If it’s not government’s business, then you have to accept the whole of that concept, which means you don’t proscribe [their] right to have an abortion and you don’t take [their] money to assist someone else to have an abortion.'”

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-have-abandoned-the-libertarian-case-for-abortion-rights

'via Blog this'

Rand Paul sees return of congressional gridlock

Rand Paul on How Libertarian Philosophy Can Connect Divided Partisans | Duke Today:

November 9, 2018 - "What should we expect from Congress between January and the presidential election in 2020, now that Democrats have won back the House? Not much, according to one U.S. senator.

"'I think very little will happen,' said U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky who spoke Friday at the Sanford School. 'I think Democrats will bring forth initiatives in the House and they will die in the Senate.'

"Paul, who earned his medical degree from Duke in 1988 and has a son who’s a sophomore here, also talked about how his fellow Republicans can work more productively with Democrats.... Paul said he agrees with liberals on a number of issues, including: war ('I’m as anti-war as you can get'); relaxed criminalization for drug offenses ('There is a racial disparity in drug policy and we should do something about it'); less government eavesdropping on Americans in the name of fighting terrorism; and not allowing a U.S. citizen to be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without a trial....

"Most of the compromising in Washington involves too much shared back-scratching: the left gets its welfare spending so the right can get its military spending, he said.  He believes the main role of government is to protect liberty.... 'I think we should really self-examine what government is.'

"Asked how he reconciles smaller government with economic disparity, Paul said, “There is no world in which there is no inequality'.... He said there’s 'more mobility than you think,' and that while not perfect, the United States’ and other nations’ embrace of capitalism has helped reduce extreme poverty from around 85 percent worldwide in the 1800s to around 9 percent of the world today.... He disagrees with Trump on immigration, which he said is an asset, especially in today’s hot economy where workers can be hard to find.

"Asked about gun control in the wake of recent mass killings ... Paul said he doesn’t believe that’s the answer since '99 percent of gun owners aren’t killing people'.... Better law enforcement work would help, especially investigating potential threats to the fullest extent, he said....

"Asked how he can be against government intrusion into private lives yet oppose a woman’s right to an abortion, Paul said it’s a question that divides Libertarians, but noted their political philosophy typically opposes aggression. 'If you think the baby is not a person, do what you want,' he said. 'If you think it’s a person then Libertarians say the government has a role to stop it.'

"The event was hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty student organization and POLIS: Duke's Center for Political Leadership, Innovation, and Service."

Read more: https://today.duke.edu/2018/11/rand-paul-how-libertarian-philosophy-can-connect-divided-partisans

'via Blog this'

SCOTUS agrees to hear 3 free-speech cases

Supreme Court Takes Free Speech Cases on Abortion, Property Rights, Gadsden Flag, and Voter ID - Ken Kuklowski, Breitbart:

November 13, 2017 - "The Supreme Court added three political-speech cases on Monday to its oral argument docket this year, granting review in one involving pro-life pregnancy centers, another where a man was arrested while criticizing his local government for corruption at a public meeting, and a third where state law prohibited a man from wearing the Gadsden flag or a voter-ID button when he went to his polling place to vote.

"The first case is National Institute of Family and Life Associates v. Becerra. California law requires licensed pro-life pregnancy resource centers to post ads for free or low-cost abortions.... NIFLA sued, arguing that the California law violates its rights under either the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment....

"The second case is Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach.... Fane Lozman was sounding off on local government corruption during the public comment period of a city meeting when the presiding councilmember tried to cut him off. Lozman refused to be silenced, at which time he was arrested and removed from the microphone. The question is whether this violated Lozman’s free speech rights under the Constitution....

"The third case is Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. A Minnesota man, Andrew Cilek, entered his polling location in 2010 to vote ... wearing a T-shirt displaying the Gadsden flag ('Don’t tread on me' with a rattlesnake — popular during the American Revolution in the 1770s). He was also wearing a button that said, 'Please ID Me,' supporting voter-identification laws.

"Minnesota law forbids voters wearing anything at a polling location that contains a political message. While the Supreme Court in 1992 upheld “buffer zone” laws wherein people could not actively campaign at a polling location or try to persuade voters within a certain number of feet from the ballot box, the justices have never said that these buffer zones can exclude every message that includes a political element.

"All three cases will be heard early next year, with decisions handed down by the end of June 2018."

Read more: http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2017/11/scotus-agrees-to-review-3-freedom-of.html
'via Blog this'

Libertarians positioned as moderates for choice

Libertarians Gary Johnson, William Weld endorse choice in CNN town hall - UPI.com - Eric DuVall:

June 22, 2016 - "Participating in a CNN Town Hall event, the Libertarian Party presidential ticket of former Republican Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld addressed a range of issues, promising, as Johnson said, to 'always come down on the side of choice'....

"Both men described themselves as fiscally conservative but accepting of social differences. They are pro-gay marriage and support protecting a woman's right to abortion, but have proposed across-the-board spending cuts of 10 to 20 percent in the federal government....

 "On gun control: Johnson said he is opposed to banning individuals on the no-fly list and the terror watch list from buying guns outright because some of the names on there are in error. He is in favor of prohibiting individuals with diagnosed mental illnesses from buying them, but expressed skepticism about increasing government involvement in determining who is and is not mentally fit to own firearms. He opposed a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles....

"On immigration: Both men oppose Trump's proposal to deport an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and build a wall on the Mexican border.... Johnson said 'We should make it as easy as possible for somebody who wants to come into this country to work to get a work visa. They are not taking jobs U.S. citizens want'...  Weld went further, repeating his statement likening Trump's immigration policy to those of the Nazis, particularly for the 'fear' that would be created as federal agents attempted to round up millions of undocumented people for deportation.

"On legalizing drugs: Johnson supports legalizing marijuana completely, but said he opposes legalizing narcotics like heroin. He did express support for some foreign programs where heroin addicts can have their drugs tested for potentially lethal additives, and ingest the drugs under observation to prevent overdosing.... Weld said ...  'Society is coming to view people who have serious issues with either narcotics or alcohol, that that is a public health emergency and that is not a status crime'....

"On the use of military force: Johnson said he opposes 'interventionism' in U.S. foreign policy, but agrees the military needs to be funded to deter attacks and respond to them.... He called for a return to congressional authority over military action....

"On free trade: Both men support free trade agreements, saying they will help create jobs in America. 'I think, unfairly, free trade has come under criticism as crony capitalism,' Johnson said. 'Government can level the playing field for everyone. That level playing field really is free trade.' Weld agreed. 'In the purest sense, free trade is always going to benefit the United States because we have the highest rate of productivity and we are the most technologically advanced country in the world'...

"On taxes: Both men touted their records of cutting taxes as governors. Johnson said that, ideally, ... 'I would eliminate income tax, I would eliminate corporate tax, I would abolish the IRS and I would replace it all with one federal consumption tax'.... Weld did not go as far as saying he would abolish the IRS, but did call for across-the-board spending cuts of 10 percent to 20 percent, which he said would force federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/22/Libertarian-candidates-Gary-Johnson-William-Weld-Its-all-about-choice/7621466642743/
'via Blog this'

GOP didn't 'win the midtems'; Democrats lost them

The Midterms’ Real Winner? Independents and Fiscal Sanity (Maybe) | TIME - Nick Gillespie:

November 6, 2014 - "Republicans mistake the meaning of the midterms at their own peril. These elections were a particularly frank repudiation of Barack Obama and the past six years of failed stimulus, disastrous foreign policy, and rotten economic news. Even the President’s historic health-care reform remains a negative with voters. But if the GOP thinks it has a mandate to return to the equally unpopular bailout economics and social conservatism of the George W. Bush years, it too will be sent packing as early as the next election....

"As can be gleaned from some of the midterms’ other results, voters want a government that keeps its nose out of our private lives and morality. Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. all legalized recreational pot and staunchly anti-abortion 'fetal personhood' initiatives were voted down in the two states that put the matter before voters (support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to a first-trimester abortion, has remained above 50% for decades). Gallup finds fewer and fewer Americans think the state should 'promote traditional values.' Currently, 48% agree with that notion, while an equal number says 'the government should not favor any particular set of values.'

"At the same time, twice as many Americans think there’s too much regulation of business and the economy as believe there’s too little and 59% think the government has 'too much power.' That’s up 17 percentage points from a decade ago.

"If the Republicans are actually listening to the voters, they would do well to drop the social issues that they have harped on in the past and focus instead on reducing the size, scope and spending of government. Unfortunately, there’s every reason to believe that the new GOP Congress will be ready to increase spending on the military and old-age entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Headlines like 'Election Outcome Is Good News for Defense Industry' pretty much tell you all you need to know about Republican attitudes toward the former."

Read more: http://time.com/3563215/the-midterms-real-winner-independents-and-fiscal-sanity-maybe/
'via Blog this'

Krauthammer: Rising libertarianism top story of 2013 (after Obamacare)

Krauthammer's Take: Other than Obamacare, Biggest 2013 Story is Rising Libertarianism | National Review Online:

December 31, 2013 - "When asked what the biggest story of 2013 was, besides Obamacare, Charles Krauthammer said it is how American social attitudes are becoming more libertarian.

“The swiftness with which attitudes have changed on gay marriage is simply astonishing,” Krauthammer said. Beyond marriage, Krauthammer was also surprised by the advances of the marijuana legalization movement.

The only social issue bucking the libertarian trend is abortion, “in part because of the Gosnell trial, the fact that people are becoming aware that late term abortions are so near to infanticide,” Krauthammer said. “With everything else heading left, with this issue the movement has stopped and has reversed, especially among young people.”"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367348/krauthammers-take-other-obamacare-biggest-2013-story-rising-libertarianism-nro-staff
'via Blog this'

Libertarians offer "an extraordinarily civil discourse"

The 'libertarian' threat | TribLIVE - Antony Davies and James Harrigan, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

November 16, 2013 - "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls them anarchists. Sen. John McCain speaks of “libertarian kids” in condescending tones. One thing on which Democrats and Republicans agree is that libertarians represent a threat.

"Hyperbole and ridicule aside, one thing is true — libertarians approach questions differently than do Democrats and Republicans. Where the major parties develop “platforms” of issues they support, libertarians begin with a single assumption with which most everyone can agree — all humans are free and equal in dignity by virtue of their being human. Everything else is commentary.

"Libertarians think in terms of principles. They begin with the principles of freedom and equality and apply these timeless principles to the issues of the day. What emerges is an extraordinarily civil discourse. The civility arises because libertarians begin at a point of consensus, not a point of contention."

Read more: http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/5054240-74/libertarians-principles-threat
'via Blog this'

TIME: libertarians "capable of throwing any election in their direction"

Who’s A Real Libertarian Now? | TIME.com - Nick Gillespie:

October 29, 2013 - "The American Values Survey is based on responses gathered in late September and early October from a representative group of about 2,300 adults. The researchers used answers to questions about national security, economics, and 'personal liberty' to create a 'Libertarian Orientation Scale.' By such measures, 7 percent of Americans are 'consistent libertarians' and another 15 percent 'lean libertarian,' meaning they oppose increased government spending on things such as military operations and domestic surveillance, raising the minimum wage, and environmental regulations.

"Such fiscal conservativism is matched by social liberalism, with libertarians in favor of legalizing marijuana, protecting abortion rights, allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs, and keeping the Internet unregulated. Libertarians are much more likely than most Americans to be male, white, and under 50 years old. They are also far less likely than most Americans to be religious and to think that religion has a place in politics. This puts them at odds with 'other key Republican base groups' such as the Tea Party movement....

As befits people who put a high value on individualism, libertarians don’t fit easily into existing political categories even as they are far more likely to pay close attention to politics than the average American (56 percent of libertarians versus just 38 percent) and to always vote in primary elections.... "That means that the 22 percent of Americans who are consistent libertarians or lean libertarian are fully capable of throwing any election in their direction. That makes them the true wild cards of American politics."

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/29/whos-a-real-libertarian-now/
'via Blog this'

On abortion, Obama pretends to be a libertarian

When He Talks Abortion, President Obama Pretends to Be a Libertarian - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic:

April 29, 2013 - "Addressing Planned Parenthood last week, President Obama made what must be one of the least self-aware statements of his tenure. 'Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose, we shouldn't have to remind people that when it comes to a woman's health, no politician should get to decide what's best for you,' he said. "No insurer should get to decide what kind of care that you get. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you'....

"Contrary to his rhetoric, however, Obama doesn't believe that American women should alone be empowered to decide what's best for their health as a general matter.... Obama verily believes that politicians like him ought to interfere in myriad decisions about personal medical care. It is illegitimate for him to invoke the language of liberty to score points on this set of issues."

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/when-he-talks-abortion-president-obama-pretends-to-be-a-libertarian/275364/
'via Blog this'

House Passes Bill by Rep. Amash to End Taxpayer-Funded Abortions | The State Column

House Passes Bill by Rep. Amash to End Taxpayer-Funded Abortions | The State Column - May 10, 2011:

"On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3, a bill cosponsored by U.S. Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) to prohibit federal funding of abortions and abortion coverage. The bill passed 251 to 175.

"The bill would make permanent current federal laws that prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. In addition, the bill would prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing insurance providers that include coverage for elective abortions."

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/michigan/house-passes-bill-by-rep-amash-to-end-taxpayer-funded-abortions/