Will Tennessee legalize the New Jane Crow?


THE STATE of Tennessee is about to establish a dangerous new precedent in the war on women.

Both houses of the state legislature recently passed SB 1391, a bill that would sanction women’s arrest and incarceration on the basis of the outcomes of their pregnancies. If Gov. Bill Haslam does not veto the measure, it would be the first law in the U.S. to criminalize pregnant women for the use of illegal or prescription drugs.

Supporters of reproductive rights are trying to pressure Haslam into stopping SB 1391 from becoming law.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, hundreds of pregnant women have suffered unwanted medical interventions, arrests and incarcerations, based on a range of flimsy assertions about the health of their pregnancies—very often without legal or medical grounding for the claim that the women were responsible for harming a fetus or newborn.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) compiled a groundbreaking report showing how these cases amount to what NAPW Executive Director Lynn Paltrow has termed the “New Jane Crow”—a reference to author Michelle Alexander’s best-selling book on racism and mass incarceration, The New Jim Crow.

(via socialismartnature)

The U.S. Military Is Preparing for Something Most Conservatives Don't Think Is Real

For the U.S. military, climate change isn’t just about sad-looking polar bears and declining biodiversity. It’s a real challenge that has the potential to seriously destabilize nations and throw entire regions into conflict, potentially escalating into wars that will require new strategies and new technologies to win.

In a recent interview with the Responding to Climate Change blog, retired Army Brig. Gen. Chris King said that the military is extremely concerned about climate change.

"This is like getting embroiled in a war that lasts 100 years. That’s the scariest thing for us," the general told RTCC. "There is no exit strategy that is available for many of the problems. You can see in military history, when they don’t have fixed durations, that’s when you’re most likely to not win."

Read moreFollow policymic

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

The relevant question is not how much a CEO contributes to the company. That is not how economics works. After all, how much does the firefighter contribute who rescues three kids from a burning house? We don’t pay our hero firefighters multimillion dollar salaries. We pay firefighters on the basis of how much it costs to hire another firefighter who can also do the job.

The question is how much does the CEO contribute compared with the next person in line for the job? Given the experience of large corporations in other countries, there is every reason to believe that there are lots of next people who could do the job as well or better and for much less.

Opinion: Time to rein in grossly overpaid CEOs: Company directors need to be held more accountable (via aljazeeraamerica)

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence. For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.

I respectfully dissent.

Supreme Court Justice SONIA SOTOMAYOR, concluding her forceful, data-driven dissent in Schuette v. BAMN; her dissent begins on p. 51. (via inothernews)

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Walmart’s owners are so absurdly rich that one of them, Alice Walton, spent over a billion dollars building an art museum in Bentonville, Arkansas, 500 miles away from the nearest person who ever would want to look at art. And she said about it: ‘For years I’ve been thinking about what we can do as a family that can really make a difference.’ How about giving your employees a raise, you deluded nitwit?