Passion
 

The word passion literally means love of one thing, compassion meaning love of all. I am not at all certain that the 10 "artists" you mentioned had love in their heart - au contraire, having seen the biopic on Picasso, I am sure he didn't know what "love" was. To be transparent myself, I am not a fan of any of the artists you mentioned, and I have been to the Louvre, and saw Géricault's "Raft of Medusa" [no offense to Medusa of this site - :)]; it takes up the whole wall, not crazy about that one either - even if I could own it, I wouldn't want it... can you imagine having to look at that one every day...? The thing is I wouldn't want to shake hands with any of these people, nor would I encourage any of them. I find it interesting and weird that people value their works of "art". Procurement of such "art" has become nothing less than big business.

The thing is I am able to see love in art; and when there is no love, I feel nothing, same thing with music.

Insofar as finding "solace or grace" in works of art, I know someone here who has stared incessantly at a picture of the Virgin Mary (a very nice work of "art" btw), and then built his life around that, creating his own church, with himself as high priest, he even bought religious vestments and walks around in them (smh) - having done Christian "contemplation" incorrectly termed meditation. There are so many examples of people finding so-called "solace or grace" in detrimental habits, that I doubt there is any grace in what they do. To me, it's just another delusion - in other words, playing with something that isn't real. Of course, when a person chooses to follow and believe in whatever delusion they like, they must live with the consequences.

All I understand is that the brain can play tricks with itself and lie to itself. So, far be it from me to tell another how to live, or to tell another whether or not to boycott MJ or R Kelly (I saw his interview with Gayle King btw!!!), etc.

R Kelly's display was incredible, right? Having been accused of trying to control/dominate and influence the lives of so many of his young victims, nothing could seem to stop him from trying to control/dominate and influence his audience's view... geez!

Therefore, I cannot tell another to "boycott" MJ or R Kelly or whoever, I can only speak for myself.

When you say, Demonize the person, not their work, I can only say that whatever a person puts out in the universe is but a reflection of what is going on inside of them, and that is why this planet is in such a mess.

I only brought up this subject because I think it is important to think about the subject.

Addendum
 

Just to clarify, the entire interview that Gayle King had with R Kelly as well as two of the young women who live with him, will be shown later this week. CBS has been airing parts of that interview this week.

And now that we have thought about it, I will bow out.

Hola tina martina,

Im doing fine...and Im feeling well, all things considered... :seeingstars:

Anyway, I just wanted to share this video (especially with you and with Georgia Ma'am) ... not to debate or "dialogue" about it in here, but because I thought you might be interested in its content (also, I appear there ... look for me !! LOL :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g--PlKIr3OY

Loqui,

Bishop Grant Hagiya is a great voice for moderation, isn't he? Although not giving in to cynicism is a tall order! (for me, at least.) It was interesting to hear his POV as an attendee at the conference. I didn't realize quite how much some Conservatives want the Progressives and Moderates completely gone from the church before I heard this. It's heartening to hear that some Moderates and Progressives are willing to wait and see what happens over the next few months before leaving en masse. At least, I hope many will.

Thanks so much for posting this useful video.

While R.Kelly, MJ, and say, Woody Allen are recent examples, this debate of art vs. artist's character is as old as, well, art.

For example, D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. Made in 1915, it reflected the attitudes of its time and the 1860's, when it was set. Griffith's father was a colonel in the Confederate Army, and young David must have heard stories. I have no knowledge if D.W. himself was a racist, but do we condemn this movie or recognize it as an art form and jump in movie development?

Or Wagner, of the operas? He was a vicious anti-Semite. Should we never thrill to his "Ride of the Valkyries" again? It's one of my favorites-does that make me awful?

I believe in letting adults use their common sense in what they want to read, hear, watch, etc., and don't want some outside group telling me what I cannot show my children (who have seen BOAN and heard Wagner performed). They realize both Griffith and Wagner were products of their time and place.

If we as a people go down the road of banning things left and right because of the artist's actions, or-and it's not a huge jump to monuments and statues-because the subject didn't have the "right" opinions based on 2019 standards, then we are on a perilous road indeed where we are told what to think and what is "right". Dissension will be punished. There are a few societies, none of which are/were pleasant to live in, in which that was tried.

Paul Manafort sentenced to 47 months .......


You try committing bank fraud & tax fraud and see what you'll get!

They'd probable lock the average Joe up and throw away the key!

Bill Shine Abruptly Resigns From White House To Head To Trump Campaign
 

His departure to become a senior adviser to Trump’s 2020 campaign shows how laser-focused Trump is on reelection, though it’s unclear exactly what spurred Shine’s sudden resignation or why the announcement was made without a replacement lined up to fill his position.

“Bill Shine has done an outstanding job working for me and the Administration. We will miss him in the White House, but look forward to working together on the 2020 Presidential Campaign, where he will be totally involved,” Trump said in a statement. “Thank you to Bill and his wonderful family.”

Banning? I think that's a good way to approach the work of an active perpetrator such as R Kelly. There are other approaches that work for me. Right now my personal policy is refusing to support abusers with my money, and opting for compassion for survivors. For instance, I have adamantly refused to spend another cent on anything that might provide Woody Allen with profit. The daughter he abused is a living person who is injured each time her abuser is held up for praise.

I'm an enormous fan of the work of Rodin. When his artistic and romantic partner, Camille Claudel, balked at her erasure from and lack of credit for her contributions to their collaborative pieces, he had her committed to an insane asylum. Rodin was in strong company. Rembrandt had his housekeeper committed to an insane asylum when she sued him in court for breach of contract after he refused to marry her. They had become lovers after the death of Rembrandt's beloved Saskia. Yes, I continue to enjoy the art of those two men, but I never view their work without acknowledging just how craven those men were. Could I enjoy their work if either woman were still alive? Probably not.

Jackson's many victims are very much alive. I can't imagine how painful it is for each of them to hear his work played on the radio. Without warning, many times a day, each of those people might be forced to hear the music, or see the image, of their abuser. Anywhere, anytime. Who knows besides the abused men which songs or images might trigger them? It must be excruciating for many. I choose not to torment survivors of abuse.

I occasionally work with a man who was sexually assaulted by that dumb f*ck, Kevin Spacey. I'm a survivor myself, so I had already recognized his haunted, hunted look before he ever told me about what happened to him when he was a teenager. I no longer have that look myself. Time has been an ally for me. But my co-worker is clearly sent into a terrible place when his abuser is mentioned. Compassion for survivors should be part of our process whenever we discuss how to handle the art of abusers.

But who gets to decide for everyone else what is banned? If a statue triggers someone, should it be pulled down even if the person's descendants objects? Who would decide for me what I can't see, watch or read?

I too am a survivor. But I don't want to live in a sterile world free of triggers. I don't want compassion. I want the whole world of art, as messy and controversial as it is.

I think the movement to stop R Kelly, for instance, is just and empowering. If you want to support his art, go right ahead. His victims/survivors have a right to appeal to any and all to NOT support his art. As long as R Kelly is making money he has power and influence. Unless the law finally catches up to a man who abuses black women, he will face no repercussions. He's shown himself to be someone who feels entitled to abuse women, so I feel good about his downfall.

I think we should be precise about our language, too. I know you haven't done so, Grainne, but whenever this subject comes up, butt hurt men come screaming out of the woodwork to decry the supposed trampling of their right to free speech. When we say 'ban' in reference to a recording artist, we're not talking about any government stopping him from doing his work under penalty of criminal prosecution. We're saying that reputable, compassionate people have decided that the only way to stop this man from victimizing other young women is to cut off his supply of funds. You can have all the messy artists you want, but I'm committed to stopping the careers of active, unrepentant abusers.

College Exam Bust
 

actresses Felicity Huffman (known for Get Shorty, Desperate Housewives), Lori Loughlin (known for Fuller House, When Calls the Heart, Garage Sales mysteries, 90210, etc.) busted in college admissions cheating scandal, among many others conspired to help parents' kids to get into elite schools

https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/lori-l...ating-scandal/

bribery, fraud, money laundering, etc.... yikes

Cardinal Pell
 

Chief Judge Peter Kidd has sentenced Cardinal George Pell (highest ranking official of the Catholic Church in Australia - he is 77 years old) to six years in prison, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months, for the sexual abuse of two boys at St Patrick’s Cathedral in the 1990s. I watched Kidd read the sentence @45' online!

He retains (!!!) his title until his appeal is heard...

(cough)

Mass Terrorist Shootings in New Zealand
 

Right-wing (white supremacist) extremist terrorists shoot and kill in two mosques in Christchurch - watching news on TV (BBC), Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister) said @40 killed, @48 at least wounded in hospital (approx. 20 seriously) - these numbers may change... in process. What a horror, in such a peaceful country!! Ardern said of those hurt, "They are us", which reminded me of Kennedy's "I am a Berliner", which one can relate to, as in, "I am you" - the youness. Of the 4 suspects who are in custody, she said of them, "They are not us". Really respect all that Ardern has already done in NZ, and understand completely what she meant by her statements, as I cannot relate to nor feel anything at all for those who are abusive.

All this reminds me of something I once read that the worse thing one can say to another is that one parts ways with that person, the separation between us and them.

Curious fact of my life is that life usually keeps abusive people apart from me, which was not the case prior to meditation, as I came from a not-so-perfect childhood. I have no idea whatsoever what one could say that would awaken people to their abusiveness. They seem to act out of choice (which arises from thought) instead of compassion (which arises from love). One understands that any gang like the above-mentioned 4 in custody always target someone to act out their hatred on. All such gangs are always exclusive, instead of being inclusive.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...XZ-NlJhJLN7F7A

Whistleblowers expelled
 

Oh good grief - Trudeau has expelled the two above-mentioned "whistleblowers" from the Liberal Party because Jody Wilson-Raybould was able to prove that there was pressure from Trudeau lackeys by introducing tapes (the brilliant woman taped some convos) and also introduced emails...

In Canada, it is not illegal to tape convos of which one is a part.

Trudeau's rationale is ugly, discussing "trust", i.e. loyalty (reminds me of Trump). His popularity is really plummeting. With elections approaching here in Canada, the alternative to Trudeau is worse... Oh dear....

Canadian Press:
Quebec’s Deputy Premier says citizens who see municipalities or school boards failing to apply the province’s proposed secular dress code can call the police to have the law enforced.

Provincial Public Security Minister Geneviève Guilbault told reporters at the Quebec National Assembly that it is the job of the police to enforce the law, and the province’s proposed ban on wearing religious symbols in some public service jobs would be no different."

See a bureaucrat wearing a hijab or a yarmulke call the police. See a bureaucrat wearing a cross on a necklace or earrings...ummm "gee nice jewelry".

This is Quebec today. The most "socially" progressive/liberal province in Canada while being the most "culturally" backward province in North America.

Want to have anal sex, no problem. Want to have anal sex while wearing a hijab, watch your ass.

I know, I know...the rules are for bureaucrats functioning in their official roles but it's a freaking slippery slope when the Government starts deciding how much of your beliefs you have to hide.

Be careful what you wish for.

Oh Canada, Oh Nova Scotia

"Under the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act, all people in Nova Scotia would be considered potential organ donors unless they opt out."

Just so totally right.

Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen is out


Good ridden to bad rubbish!


Sidebar: When these idiots that worked for Trump leave and go on to their next job, who in their right mind hires them?

Sri Lanka blasts: More than 200 dead in church and hotel bombings across country

(CNN)At least 207 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in a series of bomb blasts that hit luxury hotels and churches across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, leaving the entire country in a state of lock-down.

The first wave of attacks struck at the heart of the country's minority Christian community during busy Easter services at churches in the cities of Colombo, Negombo and Batticaloa on Sunday morning.
Additional blasts ripped through three high-end hotels, the Shangri La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury, all in capital city Colombo.
In a statement, the Shangri-La hotel in Colombo said that the hotel's Table One cafe was hit just after 9 a.m local time. The hotel is popular with foreign tourists and the country's business community.
A seventh and eighth blast, at a hotel in front of the Dehiwala Zoo in Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia and at a private house in Mahawila Gardens, in Dematagoda, occurred Sunday afternoon.
Here's the full list of blast sites reported so far:

• St Anthony's Shrine, Kochchikade
• St Sebastian's Church, Negombo
• Zion Church, Batticaloa
• Cinnamon Grand, Colombo
• Shangri-La Hotel, Colombo
• The Kingsbury Hotel, Colombo
• Near Dehiwala Zoo in Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia
• A house in Mahawila Gardens, Dematagoda

I saw this on twitter before i went to bed and got up and turned on the news, expecting the coverage to be wall-to-wall like it was for New Zealand

CBS was interviewing "K-pop sensations" BTS
MSNBC was talking about Joe Biden
CNN was talking about George Zimmerman being blocked from dating apps

Why is this? My theory-- New Zealand is a white country. New Zealand's victims were Muslims, not percieved as white, but the country is white.

Sri Lanka is not white. The targets were Christian, but they are not white Christians.

If the perpetrators were attacking "western values" they failed, bc we don't care about that country at all, apparently

dark_crystal:

"Sri Lanka is not white. The targets were Christian, but they are not white Christians.

If the perpetrators were attacking "western values" they failed, bc we don't care about that country at all, apparently"

Would seem so but how better to keep local people away from Christianity and how better to keep "foreigners" away and perhaps ruin an economy including a newly burgeoning tourist trade which was opening the country to various new influences beyond what some considered traditional ?
___

When you live outside the USA but watch USA news you'd quickly see how much of the world is ignored by USA news media. I suppose it's understandable.

Nothing special about Sri Lanka.

I saw the attack on Sri Lanka just this morning; I am still crying. I cry because my brothers and sisters were killed; Christian, Muslim, Jew, on and on...you should be free to worship ( or not) without facing death.

As to news coverage...we ( the US) are only concerned with things that directly effect us, or peoples that we consider to be close allies. The rest of the worlds problems? Unless they are sensational like a tidal wave, not so much.

BTW, the article I found was from Al Jazarra

Maybe it's not so much Western Values as maybe it could also be a form of denouncing any form of Imperialism?

Or maybe it could be viewed as a form of denouncing any form of rule which is shaped by forms of Authoritarian Rule?

In my mind, Authoritarian Rule is always associated with forms of Fascism (generally speaking).

This is why I listen to BBC World News. In addition to making me more informed, I think I get the temperature of what the rest of the Western world thinks is most important. Al Jazeera quit podcasting in English a couple of years ago, but now they are back with "Al Jazeera Your World", a 3-minute daily update of headlines.

It's amazing what all goes on in the world that is completely ignored by the U.S. news media.

Further thoughts:

The New Zealand perpetrator was a white supremacist who implicated Trump. This was juicy. It may be that the mainstream media (not FOX, which i haven't checked) is "liberal" enough at this point to be more comfortable sensationalizing the Trump angle than they are with fueling more anti-Muslim sentiment.

Right now it is a big assumption that the perpetrators were Muslim.

Sri Lanka has only specified "religious extremists"

There is a report that the government was warned last week that a group called "National Thowheeth Jama’ath" were planning to attack churches.

National Thowheeth Jama’ath is made up of "Syria and jihad returnees" and first came to public attention "when it was linked to the vandalisation of Buddhist statues"

I am getting that information from an article proclaiming their innocence on a Malaysian website, though, which is also underreporting the casualties at 135.

The group that is being mentioned has also vandalized Buddhist statues, so their issue may be with "infidels," generally.

Yes, very telling that i assumed we were the audience lol. The attacks (of the suspected perpetrators) on Buddhist sites indicate this could very easily be about internal purity

I know someone posted about this awhile back, so thought I'd add this update.

Fight over census citizenship question hits Supreme Court

The battle over the Trump administration's efforts to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census is hitting the Supreme Court.

The justices will hear arguments on Tuesday over the administration adding the question, a controversial move that has sparked legal battles throughout the U.S. court system.

The Commerce Department, which administers the census, is expected to argue that it has the authority to collect data on citizenship and that the question is needed to help with the Justice Department's enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

But opponents of the move, represented by the state of New York, will claim that adding the question will deter undocumented immigrants from filling out the survey, leading to an inaccurate count of the American population.

Two other parties — House Democrats and a collection of immigrant rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union — will also be given a chance to argue to the justices that the addition of the question is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration has repeatedly seen controversial policies shot down by federal judges but then supported by the Supreme Court. And with three lower court judges blocking the citizenship question from being added to the census, this week's arguments will present the justices with one of their biggest cases of the term.

Ok, wow: Sri Lankan Official Says Bombings Are Retaliation For New Zealand Massacre

A Sri Lankan government official says coordinated suicide bombings in the island nation on Easter Sunday, which killed more than 320 people, were carried out in retaliation for last month's mass shooting at mosques in New Zealand.

State minister for defense, Ruwan Wijewardene, said the attacks were carried out by two Islamist organizations. As NPR's Lauren Frayer reports, "it's not immediately clear how he knows that – whether the information comes from suspects being interrogated, or evidence the suicide bombers may have left behind."

That second graf is a notable caveat, but since the New Zealand shooter claimed to be inspired by Trump, doesn't Trump have some responsibility for Sri Lanka?

I think the 12th Century Crusaders also have to take their, first-in-line, fair share of responsibilty.

Also William Knox D'Arcy

Handsome Her
 

In Melbourne, Australia, a lesbian owned vegan café is closing after 2 years - they were known for "provoking a debate by offering women priority seating and charging men an extra 18% one week a month".

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cp...vegancafe1.jpg

from Handsome Her:

"We’ve never shied away from controversy in the spirit of social justice and it seems fitting that we go out in the same style in which we came in: a whirlwind of sad, angry male tears. A pretty decent spruik on The Daily Mail has set off a spate of love letters from adoring men worldwide, and yes it is sad but true; this Sunday is our final day. However let us assure you that we are not closing because of:

"A) Male tears or misogynistic vitriol from men's rights activists. We’re lesbians, we’re quite used witnessing the fragility of the male ego which literally cannot compute the idea of a woman who is not interested in them. These abusive comments have been mostly amusing, only reinforced our views about how toxic sexism is, and great motivation for us to keep up the good work

"B) Not making enough money. If you've been in you know we are doing just fine. Our fans and regulars can smell a rat when it comes to fake google reviews from #sadmen. Most of our male customers have happily paid above and beyond the optional surcharge (mantax) which we donate to charity. Handsome Her was somewhat of a social experiment for us outside of our professional realms, and we have seen that it works to put our politics to the forefront in life and in business

"As much as people would love to believe it, sorry but the man tax did not run our business into the ground, we just don't want to own a cafe anymore...

"For real though, we have sold the business because we are young, educated and off on our next adventure! For those of you who have run your own small business, you know how much time, blood, sweat and tears it takes, and we are looking forward to a slower, more deliberate way of living out in the world and putting our feminist, vegan, low-waste politics into practice.

"We are open Friday, Saturday and Sunday so we will see you then!

"We remain ever yours, the leftist, extremist, man-hating, vegan dykes of your worst nightmare xx much love to you all"

I especially liked that last line - made my day, and made me smile and chuckle :) - so I placed that line in emphasis.

Oh, to be young, lesbian, and adventurous!!!

NYT's Op-Ed by Neal Katyal
 

Why Barr Can't Whitewash The Mueller Report

We have a system in place for our government to uncover evidence against a sitting president. And it's working.

by Neal Katyal (May 1st, 2019; The New York Times Op-Ed)

Many who watched Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which followed the revelation that the special counsel Robert Mueller had expressed misgivings about Mr. Barr’s characterization of his report, are despairing about the rule of law. I am not among them. I think the system is working, and inching, however slowly, toward justice.

When it comes to investigating a president, the special counsel regulations I had the privilege of drafting in 1998-99 say that such inquiries have one ultimate destination: Congress. That is where this process is going, and has to go. We are in the fifth inning, and we should celebrate a system in which our own government can uncover so much evidence against a sitting president.

Some commentators have attacked the special counsel regulations as giving the attorney general the power to close a case against the president, as Mr. Barr did with the obstruction of justice investigation into Donald Trump. But the critics’ complaint here is not with the regulations but with the Constitution itself. Article II gives the executive branch control over prosecutions, so there isn’t an easy way to remove the attorney general from the process.

Instead, the idea behind the regulations was to say, “We recognize the constitutional reality that the attorney general controls the prosecution power, so what else can we do?” My colleagues and I (a group that included many career officials at the Justice Department as well as bipartisan leaders in the House and Senate) settled on two things. First, provide a mechanism to enable an independent investigation, and thereby generate public confidence in the outcome of that investigation. Second, design that mechanism so that if the attorney general interferes with the special counsel’s inquiry, that interference would be reported to Congress and ultimately become public.

The underappreciated story right now is that we’ve not only learned that it was Mr. Barr — and pointedly not Mr. Mueller — who decided to clear President Trump of the obstruction charges, but also discovered the reasoning behind Mr. Barr’s decision. The American public and Congress now have the facts and evidence before them. The sunlight the regulations sought is shining.

Mr. Barr tried to spin these facts. He hid Mr. Mueller’s complaints, which were delivered to him in writing more than a month ago, even when Congress asked in a previous hearing about complaints by members of the special counsel's team. And the four-page letter that Mr. Barr issued in March and supposedly described the Mueller report omitted the two key factors driving the special counsel’s decision (which were hard to miss, as they were on the first two pages of the report’s volume about obstruction): First, that he could not indict a sitting president, so it would be unfair to accuse Mr. Trump of crimes even if he were guilty as sin; and second, Mr. Mueller could and would clear a sitting president, but he did not believe the facts cleared the president.

These two items came out because the special counsel regulations allowed for public release of this information (and not, as Mr. Barr testified on Wednesday, because he “overrode” the regulations to give the information to the public). The attorney general was misleading through and through, not just about the investigation, but about the special counsel regulations themselves.

What’s more, we now know about Mr. Barr’s reasoning to clear the president, which turns out to be painfully thin. When asked on Wednesday why he did so, Mr. Barr said the Department of Justice ordinarily issues “binary” decisions: indict or not indict. But Mr. Barr’s own view is that this case is anything but ordinary, because the president cannot be indicted. If Mr. Trump were an “ordinary” individual, he’d almost surely be looking down the barrel of a federal indictment right now. So how can Mr. Barr now use the “ordinary” rules playbook?

This mishmash of legal arguments is absurd. No responsible scholar who thinks a sitting president cannot be indicted also thinks an attorney general can try to truncate a process of oversight — by Congress, for example — by “pre-clearing” the president in advance. The whole idea behind the notion that a sitting president cannot be indicted is that the responsibility lies in Congress. An attorney general shouldn’t put his thumb on the scale one way or the other. That’s why Mr. Mueller’s predecessors, Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski, simply served the evidence up to Congress; they didn’t try to exonerate the president in advance of it.

And that brings us full circle to the special counsel regulations. We knew when we drafted them that we could have a nefarious attorney general (though, in fairness, we didn’t predict this amount of duplicity). But we also knew that the facts would ultimately be forced out into public view under the regulations. That is why the special counsel isn’t a regular Justice Department employee. The “break glass in case of emergency” option was that if the attorney general was interfering with the work of the special counsel and preventing it from becoming public, the special counsel could leave the department and testify. Mr. Mueller needs to testify and tell us whether he disagrees with Mr. Barr’s analysis and conclusions about obstruction of evidence; what he thinks about the attorney general’s reaching his decision without reviewing any of the underlying evidence; what Mr. Mueller thought of Mr. Barr’s characterization of their reported disagreements; whether there were other disagreements that have not been reported; and whether Mr. Mueller’s knowledge of what Mr. Barr has done leads him to conclude that the attorney general must recuse himself from the continuing Trump investigations.

Mr. Barr’s deeply evasive testimony on Wednesday necessitates and tees up a full investigation in Congress. Those who say Congress shouldn’t do so because surveys show that the American public is not in favor of an impeachment inquiry must take into account the fact that the American people have been misled by Attorney General Barr’s characterizations of the report and its conclusions. These surveys are therefore not surprising. But there is no more sacred duty for Congress than getting to the bottom of whether our president has taken care that the laws of this country have been faithfully executed.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/o...er-report.html

Never heard of the place. Me thinks she/they doth protest too much regarding the cause. Still, pity they're closing... whatever reason.

What's up with Alabama
 

Alabama has passed legislation to effectively ban abortion in that State. Apparently, the gov has yet to sign this law. With Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court and a majority "conservative" (Republican nominated) court, geez!!! So, Roe vs. Wade will come up again; I thought that was established/settled!!

My jaw drops as even rape or incest will not be an exception for this, only a mother's life.

I really feel for all women who find their right to decide what happens to their body infringed by the religious right in that part of America.

It just seems that certain parts of the U.S. (and in the world) are moving backwards in time. Am I imagining that?

I live in such a different world that I find so much of what is happening in the States hard to fathom.

(As an aside, a woman in our building who was suffering with terminal cancer made a decision to end that suffering, and in her apartment had a medical practitioner help her end that suffering with medically assisted suicide. I find so much of what is happening in the States so difficult to fathom and understand, considering how different we Canadians view medical situations - just saying!)

And now there is this "trade war" initiated by the Americans, which I also find quite disconcerting. I think the Chinese will win this war, and the Chinese will become the most powerful nation on this planet in this coming century. Unfortunately, due to our proximity to the States, this "trade war" will effect us here in Canada.

KELLY GRANT HEALTH REPORTER
PUBLISHED MAY 15, 2019 Globe and Mail.

Physicians who object on moral grounds to providing health-care services such as assisted dying, abortion and birth control must offer their patients an “effective referral” to another doctor, Ontario’s highest court has ruled.

In a unanimous decision released Wednesday, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reaffirmed a lower court’s conclusion that it was a reasonable limit on the religious freedom of doctors to require them to connect their patients with willing providers of medical assistance-in-dying (MAID) and other contentious health services.

Vulnerable patients “seeking MAID, abortion, contraception and other aspects of sexual health care, turn to their family physicians for advice, care, and, if necessary, medical treatment or intervention,” Chief Justice George Strathy wrote.

About one per cent of deaths in Canada medically assisted: Health Canada

End-of-life commission sees ‘strong growth’ in number of Quebeckers seeking assisted death

Opinion: On choices around death, Quebec offers a cautionary tale

“Given the importance of family physicians as ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘patient navigators’ in the health care system, there is compelling evidence that patients will suffer harm in the absence of an effective referral.”

The Court of Appeal for Ontario is now the highest court in the country to have ruled on the thorny question of how the conscience rights of doctors should be balanced against the rights of patients to access publicly funded health services – a question that became more pressing after the legalization of assisted dying three years ago.

Around the time the federal law was enacted in June of 2016, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) – which licenses doctors and regulates the practice of medicine – adopted a MAID policy that made it clear that physicians who refused to provide assisted deaths were obligated to meaningfully connect their patients with doctors who would.

~
 

Charley ! stop bashing AMERICANS , did we as a nation implicate such imbesilic actions ? Concern yourself with your own government. Like yourself I exercise the freedom of speech , Please Shut Up !:praying:

Thing is, the Conservatives want to do the same thing right here in Canada.
(And given how close Andrew Scheer is to becoming our next PM, I don't think our world will be that different at all.)


https://north99.org/2019/05/15/repub...S1CXtZSbhTZufQ