El debate sobre el matrimonio homosexual con la proposición 8 irrumpió de nuevo cuando el Presidente, Barack Obama, pidió a la Corte Supremo que revoque la prohibición de California sobre el matrimonio homosexual. La Casa Blanca presentó un escrito formal ante el Tribunal de Justicia en un esfuerzo por devolver el matrimonio gay en el estado.
Una reportera de CBS2/KCAL 9 en Los Angeles, Serene Branson, fue a West Hollywood para ver la reacción de ambos lados. Resultados: Los partidarios del matrimonio gay están honrando al presidente por sus acciones. Al contrario, los partidarios de la Proposición 8, por supuesto, están diciendo que el gobierno federal no tiene derecho a entrometerse en algo que dicen los Estados deben decidir. Esto seguirá siendo una cuestión de los derechos humanos.
As adults in this country, we live a fast paced busy life so fast food seems like a necessity. Even the food we buy from the grocery stores, we are often searching for a quick way to feed ourselves and our families. We are also aware that in order to meet the demand for meat in this country and all around the world, slaughterhouses are an unfortunate necessity as well. But a California cow slaughterhouse came under fire by animal rights activist when a video was released exposing the abuse and torture of cows on their way to be slaughtered. Although the plant was originally shut down as a result of this video being released, just six days later they were allowed to reopen. Claiming to have performed “corrective actions.” But I’m pretty sure its because Americans need their beef. The video is horrifying and makes you question what kind of conditions the beef we are being fed is in before it reaches our plates. Cows being treated this way, fed other animal parts and slop surely affect the quality of meat that we consume. But the federal government is more concerned with meeting the demand of cow products rather then the quality of the product itself.
”]The battle over “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life” in the abortion issue has long been waging in America, since the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade states from outlawing child abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, and makes health reasons the only justification for abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.
Should the law ever be overturned, the issue of abortion would return to the States. While California and Colorado were the first states to legalize it under extreme circumstances (rape, mental instability, etc.) in 1967, they lack enforcement in the Parental Consent field, which requires a female minor to provide permission from her parents before undergoing the procedure. (In 2008, Prop 4 appeared on California’s ballot, which would “prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.” [Ballotpedia] The measure lost 52-48%.)
There are many aspects tied to this controversy, and not only the religious versus secular views. While most churches and religious institutions argue that any human life form (even in early development) is a life, and thus abortion is considered murder, there is a scientific perspective that argues whether a fetus can be considered a human life in the first trimester of pregnancy.
This debate will likely never end – because no matter the amount of scientific reasoning or religious views that are offered, people will hold different viewpoints and beliefs in the practice.
What is fact, however, is the physical repercussions that can accompany abortion. For example, there is a reported link between abortion and breast cancer, as well as the risk of uterine damage, complications with future pregnancies, infection, and even death. With these very serious risks looming over an impending abortion, perhaps it is wise from a political standpoint to not outlaw the procedure altogether. After all, making it illegal would not stop it entirely. It would merely force physicians (or untrained novices with no surgical skills) to perform the procedure in secret, making the risk for medical complications even more severe. I picture hideouts and dark alleyways, with dirty knives and “under the table” payment, and women screaming from the unprofessional procedure. No anesthesia, no insurance coverage or protection from harm, and those who could perform it would have a monopoly.
The social repercussions could be disastrous. Therefore, all moral and religious perspectives aside, I hope that abortion is never outlawed in America (or California, for that matter). It just might become a bigger problem than it seems to be now.
The term hate crime is obviously self explanatory: a crime which is committed based on the hatred of the subject to which the crime is being acted upon. In a recent article published by the Spanish-language daily newspaper, La Opinion, it was revealed that California is still number one in the nation leading in the number of hate crimes committed every year. The article was based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual report which also named the states of New York and New Jersey as the second and third places most prone to hate crimes. A fact that is perhaps most startling is that the largest number of hate crimes in California, 453 out of the 1015 hate crimes committed, were racially based. This was then followed by sexual orientation with 222 cases, religion with 194, ethnic origin with 142, and 4 against the disabled. My question to society in general is have we not moved on passed this? What happened to our nation’s “with liberty and justice for ALL” clause? Has that been essentially thrown out the window if your ethnicity or whatever the ‘x’ factor might be isn’t up to par to another individual’s standard. It is simply disheartening to see that what one would consider being a progressive country is absolutely the complete opposite.
I grew up in San Diego (and still live there permanently when I’m not in the CSUN dorms), so the incidents with Amber DuBois and Chelsea King were extremely close to my heart, as they happened within my community. Both girls lived within 10 miles of my own home, and the man who raped and murdered them lived even closer.
I was heartbroken when Amber DuBois went missing in February 2009, and even more disheartened when she still hadn’t been found a year later. But the news about Chelsea King’s death devastated me – especially when Amber’s body was found barely a week later, and the same man confessed to the rape and murder of both girls.
It positively disgusts me that there are human beings like him who walk the earth, and that young, innocent women fall victim to his sick, sadistic fantasies. But what disgusts me even further is California’s stance on rape — and the lack of explicit law regarding it. The man responsible for the death of King and DuBois was a repeat offender – who had just finished serving a mere 5 years in prison for his previous offense. While his psychiatrist urged officials not to release him because he wasn’t psychologically ready to be back in the throes of society, released he was, and hardly a month later 14-year-old Amber became his first victim.
And he walked free for a year, until Chelsea became his next public victim and the truth about both girls came out. Now, he is facing another sentence of life in prison…for two counts of murder.
Never mind the whole rape part.
Obviously, in this story specifically, I’m glad he’s behind bars for ending those girls’ lives, but what if he hadn’t actually killed them? What if he took sexual advantage of them, leaving them hurt and emotionally scarred, probably facing therapy and a lifetime of haunting memories, or even physical injury and the possibility of conception…the list of consequences goes on and on. While his victims would struggle with these effects, he’d either walk free or be reprimanded with a mere slap on the hand and a few months of jail time.
Stricter punishment and stronger restraints for sexual offenders and child molesters is crucial. It is simply unjust to allow a person to take complete advantage of another and force her (or him!) into sexual submission against her/his will, and then get away unscathed.
Chelsea’s parents initiated a bill that would establish a new penalty of a life sentence without the possibility of parole for offenders convicted of sex crimes against children under age 14, and would require repeat offenders to be tracked with a GPS for life, and furthermore imposes a sentence of 25-years-to-life for other forcible sex crimes.
I am 200% behind this bill, which Senate passed unanimously on Aug. 25, 2010, and Gov. Schwarzenegger just approved on Sep. 9, 2010. I don’t think it is “too harsh” or “strong” like many critics feel; a violent crime exploiting another’s physical privacy or life is never too punishable.
Hopefully, this will create a safer environment for children and more equal justice for those who have been taken advantage of and never saw justice before.
For more information on California’s stance on rape and child molestation, click here.
Los partidarios del matrimonio gay están honrando al presidente por sus acciones. Al contrario, los partidarios de la Proposición 8, por supuesto, están diciendo que el gobierno federal no tiene derecho a entrometerse en algo que dicen los Estados deben decidir. Esto seguirá siendo una cuestión de los derechos humanos.
Derechos Humanos • Human Rights 