Tag Archives: ACLU

Illinois demorats seek to expand access to abortion via removal of parental notification and late-term abortions

What kind of adult believes it is a good idea for minors to have medical procedures without their parent’s consent? The baby-killing, pro-abort liberal kind…

As reported by MyFoxChicago: Illinois Democrats have introduced two measures that would expand abortion access in the state by removing a parental notification requirement and a ban on late-term abortions.

The proposed legislation was filed Wednesday, The Chicago Tribune reported. One bill sponsored by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Welch of Hillside would repeal the state’s parental notice law, which requires minors to notify a legal guardian before having an abortion.

The other bill would remove restrictions on late-term abortions, require private insurance companies in the state to cover abortions and allow advanced-practice nurses to perform the procedures.

“As a woman, a mother and someone who has been a longtime supporter of full access to reproductive care, from contraception, abortion, pregnancy and postpartum care, it is time to modernize and update these laws to reflect the equality of women in Illinois,” the bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, of Chicago, said in a news release.

Mary Kate Knorr, who heads Illinois Right to Life, said the bills are “extreme” and “irresponsible.”

“This parental notification law is absolutely necessary,” she said. “There are women who are in abuse situations and are being trafficked that this law protects. This parental notification law is a checkpoint for abuse and human trafficking situations.”

A spokesman for Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he’s an advocate for women’s rights and is looking forward to reviewing the bills. Pritzker last month said he wanted to make Illinois “the most progressive state in the nation when it comes to standing up for women’s reproductive rights.”

Abortion rights are an important issue for Illinois residents, said Colleen K. Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

“What the new law would do is say we will treat women’s health care – whether it’s for abortion, birth control or maternity care – we’re going to treat that as health care, not as a crime, the way the old enjoined laws did,” Connell said.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Illinois demorats introduce bill requiring gun buyers to reveal social media accounts

Rep. Dan Didech

Who gets to define “troubling” comments?

From MyFoxChicago: Illinois Democrats are introducing a bill forcing gun buyers to reveal their public social media accounts to police before they are given permission to get a firearm license.

The new legislation is sponsored by two state Democratic lawmakers, in an effort to block people from acquiring guns if they have made some troubling comments on social media.

State Rep. Daniel Didech, a Democrat who’s pushing the bill, told CBS 2 Chicago: “A lot of people who are having mental health issues will often post on their social media pages that they’re about to hurt themselves or others,” adding that these people need “the help they need.”

The bill’s proponents point to Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland High School shooter, saying he posted “very disturbing” images on social media before going on a rampage and killing 17 people last year. Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter, also posted numerous troubling comments about the Jewish people on social media.

A similar bill was introduced last year in New York that would require people looking to buy a gun in the state to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase. The bill was met with criticism, but it was approved by the new Board of Legislators last month, though it remains unclear when the lawmakers will vote on it.

The proposal in Illinois facing similar criticism, with Rebecca Glenberg of ACLU saying the bill doesn’t address what the police could do with the data, in addition to the First Amendment concerns.

“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg told the station.

The Illinois State Rifle Association, meanwhile, said that everyone should be outraged by the intrusiveness of the bill. “When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” Richard Pearson said.

But Didech defended his measure to the station, saying his bill “gives Illinois State Police additional tools to make sure that dangerous weapons aren’t getting into the hands of dangerous people,” noting that his measure is also less intrusive than the one proposed in New York.

See also:

Demorat who wants social media history reviewed prior to gun ownership tweets “kill yourself” to political opponent

NY demorats push for social media review as part of firearm background check

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Shocker, not: Criminally insane in Oregon commit more crimes after release from state hospital

Another reason to exercise your Second Amendment right.

From Oregon Live: About 30 percent of people found criminally insane in Oregon and then let out of supervised psychiatric treatment were charged with new crimes within three years of being freed by state officials, according to a comprehensive new analysis by ProPublica and the Malheur Enterprise.

The analysis and interviews show that Oregon releases people found not guilty by reason of insanity from supervision and treatment more quickly than nearly every other state in the nation. The speed at which the state releases the criminally insane from custody is driven by both Oregon’s unique-in-the-nation law and state officials’ expansive interpretation of applicable federal court rulings.

In Oregon, those decisions are made by the Psychiatric Security Review Board. The five-member panel of mental health and probation experts has custody of defendants found “guilty except for insanity” and oversees their treatment.

Between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 15, 2015, the state freed 418 defendants who had been acquitted of felonies because they could not tell right from wrong or control their actions. About 20 percent of them, or 83 people, were charged with attacking others within three years. Thirty-five were charged with lesser crimes. Fifty others were charged more than three years later, including 30 people for violent incidents.

They were charged with felonies more often than people freed after serving prison terms — 23 percent compared to 16 percent within three years — according to the Enterprise analysis and the Oregon Department of Corrections.

The frequency of new crimes and violence startled experts who have long hailed Oregon as a leader in balancing the civil rights of patients against the need to protect the community. Many mistakenly believed that only a tiny percentage of the people released by state officials went on to commit new crimes.

“I didn’t know that,” said Dr. Landy Sparr, who directs the Forensic Psychiatry Training Program at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and has evaluated hundreds of insanity defendants in the state. “I’m totally surprised.”

One reason for Sparr’s misimpression was that the Psychiatric Security Review Board has not publicly disclosed what it has learned about this issue.

On its website, the board assures Oregonians that repeat offenses by people it supervises are exceedingly rare events, with only 0.46 percent of defendants committing new crimes each year.

That rosy statistic does not encompass the significant problem of what happens after defendants are freed, and the board knows it. Almost three years ago, internal documents show, board officials exchanged emails about the rate of crimes committed by clients released from oversight. The officials launched a preliminary study of three sample years, which found from one-third to one-half of the people freed by the board had since been arrested on new charges. They limited that search to Oregon records, which means the real number of crimes is almost certainly larger.

Those numbers are “higher than I was expecting given how well our clients do on supervision,’’ Juliet Britton, the board’s former executive director, wrote in a September 2017 email.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

ACLU sues Montana sheriff for denying illegal alien bond and honoring ICE detainer

Lincoln County Sheriff Roby Bowe

From KPAX.com: The Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office is currently facing a lawsuit from the ACLU and the ACLU of Montana regarding a current inmate at the Lincoln County Detention Center.

Agustin Ramon, a dual citizen of France and Mexico, was arrested on Aug. 3 for a criminal burglary charge and his bond was posted at $25,000.

The ACLU lawsuit says that when Ramon tried to pay his bond he was told that because of an ICE detainer Lincoln County could not release him. Once an immigrant posts bond the ACLU of Montana argues that the immigrant must be released according to state law.

They argue that Lincoln County Sheriff Roby Bowe must act within state law and the ACLU of Montana hopes that the class-action lawsuit will end the use of ICE detainers in Lincoln County and around the state.

The ACLU also hopes that the lawsuit bring compensation for Ramon’s false imprisonment.

The Lincoln County Detention Center confirmed that they do have Ramon in their custody and that he is being held on a $25,000 bail for a criminal burglary charge and a border patrol hold.

Lincoln County Sheriff Roby Bowe could not be reached for comment.

According to the Missoulian, the ACLU believes that Sheriff Bowe is overstepping his boundaries by holding the illegal alien on suspected immigration violations, which would be a civil matter. The bond for burglary is a criminal matter.

The illegal alien moved to Montana in April and married his wife in May. An immigration rights attorney is assisting the suspected burglar and his wife with their immigration options.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Attritional strategy: Washington state wants to apply ERPOs to minors, prove you have no firearms in the family home

Just another way for the gun grabbers to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

From MyNorthwest.com: Prosecutors in Washington are looking to expand the state’s Red Flag laws to include minors.

Red Flag laws – or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOS) – are civil orders that allow judges to temporarily suspend a person’s gun rights, even if they haven’t committed a crime, when they exhibit violent behavior that suggests they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Washington was among the first of five states to pass a Red Flag law when voters overwhelmingly approved I-1491 in 2016. Another eight states passed similar laws this year after the Parkland shooting, and four more states are considering them now.

The laws vary by state as far as who can petition the court for the civil orders, with some only allowing law enforcement to file for them, while others allow family members, roommates, people who share children, and some medical professionals to petition the courts.

In Washington, police and family members can petition the courts for an emergency 14-day order to take away a person’s guns. That can be followed with a one-year ban if the court is convinced the pattern of behavior shows the person is a risk to themselves or others.

State law is silent on whether minors can be the subject of an ERPO, but there is an effort to change that.

For the past several months, a legislative task force made up of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others has been meeting to develop strategies to prevent mass shootings, and it recently released a list of 25 recommendations.

Among the recommendations, clarifying state law to make clear ERPOs can apply to minors.

Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt with King County’s Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Unit – the only specialized unit in the state that helps other police agencies statewide and family members with ERPOs – believes the orders should apply to juveniles.

“We’ve had that issue come up multiple times, and we’ve been asked around the state by other law enforcement agencies that are struggling with the same issue. To date, I don’t know of any that have been filed yet against juveniles, but we have one particular case where we are making that recommendation to law enforcement right now,” Wyatt said.

In this case, they are working with a school resource officer at a school where a student under 18 is facing charges for a crime, requiring he not have access to weapons to determine if they need an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said.

She said police had tried several times to confirm with the father where the guns are located, but he refuses to comply.

Wyatt said using the ERPO would not be about taking away the father’s firearms rights.

We’re trying to say, ‘Dad lawfully can possess those guns,’ and we would hope that most parents have given law enforcement reassurances where the firearms are. But in this particular case, the father has declined to give any of those reassurances. So we would say that the juvenile could not be in that home with access to firearms. If dad wants to keep the firearms in the home and not share the information, you know that puts him in a difficult position,” Wyatt said.

If the ERPO was served on the child in this case, the dad would then have to choose between proving to law enforcement where the guns are so they know they’re not in the house, or having the child live elsewhere.

Wyatt says overall, they are seeing a lot of success with ERPOs, including another case where they served one to an 18-year-old student in Seattle, who police came to talk to regarding a drug issue and were allowed to search his bag. When school officials and law enforcement searched the student’s bag, they found a loaded gun with the safety off in the backpack.

Wyatt said that on top of the criminal issues there, that the 18-year-old showed extremely negligent behavior with a firearm. That ultimately was why they filed an ERPO against the student, to ensure he could no longer legally buy guns currently legally available.

Those are just some of the examples Wyatt gave lawmakers earlier this month to highlight the importance of ERPOs, and the urgent need to clarify the state law on their use in juvenile cases, as the work group recommended.

The work group also recommended more promotion of the existence of ERPOs and their uses to both law enforcement and the public, and that a second violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order leads to the permanent loss of a person’s firearms rights.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

President Trump bars those entering U.S. illegally from seeking asylum

The New York Times reports that yesterday, invoking national security powers to protect the United States against threats from abroad, the Trump administration announced new immigration rules giving the President new authority to deny asylum to “migrants” who illegally cross the border.

Breitbart reports that the new policy covers the “migrants” in the three caravans that are moving northwards, and all other migrants who cross the border illegally.

Officials indicated that President Trump will issue a proclamation today, and that the new rules will overhaul longstanding asylum laws. Once Trump makes a proclamation identifying who is barred, the new rule would be immediately applied. Officials said “migrants” could apply for two other smaller programs that are much less likely to allow them to stay.

The denial of political asylum to those entering the U.S. illegally is sure to be challenged in court. Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said:

“The law is clear: people can apply for asylum whether or not they’re at a port of entry, and regardless of their immigration status. The president doesn’t get to ignore that law, even if he dislikes it.”

This is what the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website says about asylum and refugee status:

Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

Refugees

Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the Refugees section.

Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

  • Meet the definition of refugee
  • Are already in the United States
  • Are seeking admission at a port of entry

USCIS’s webpage on “Asylum” says:

Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

  • Race
  • Religion
  • Nationality
  • Membership in a particular social group
  • Political opinion

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.

What ACLU lawyer Jadwat does not address is that President Trump is invoking national security as the justification for barring illegal border-crossers from seeking political asylum.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen and Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker said in a statement yesterday:

Consistent with our immigration laws, the President has the broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens into the United States if he determines it to be in the national interest to do so. Today’s rule applies this important principle to aliens who violate such a suspension or restriction regarding the southern border imposed by the President by invoking an express authority provided by Congress to restrict eligibility for asylum. Our asylum system is overwhelmed with too many meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources, preventing us from being able to expeditiously grant asylum to those who truly deserve it.

Today, we are using the authority granted to us by Congress to bar aliens who violate a Presidential suspension of entry or other restriction from asylum eligibility.

According to new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data, less than 10% of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border from Central America have legitimate asylum claims. (Breitbart)

The thousands of “caravan migrants” relentlessly marching/bussing/trucking to America’s southern border have proven themselves to be violent and determined to crash national borders. The “caravan migrants” are invaders and a clear and present threat to U.S. national security. See:

See also:

H/t Big Lug

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Google Employees Discussed Manipulation of Search Results After Trump Travel Ban

Shocker, not.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Atlanta mayor orders release of ICE detainees

The good mayor of Atlanta, Keisha Lance Bottoms, took office in January 2018. Prior to becoming mayor she served on the city council.

Like most unhinged liberals, she has a serious case of TDS. That means she’s putting illegal aliens above the law and potentially endangering the lives of American citizens.

Way to stick it to Trump!

From Fox13: On Thursday, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms signed an executive order transferring all remaining U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees out of the city jail and declaring that Atlanta will no longer hold anyone for the federal agency.

The Democratic mayor’s move follows a separate executive order from June that blocked the jail from taking in any new ICE detainees amid enforcement of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy on the Southwest border, which split up many immigrant families. Bottoms has vigorously objected to that federal policy.

“Atlanta will no longer be complicit in a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the horrific fallout,” Bottoms told reporters moments before signing her executive order. “As the birthplace of the civil rights movement we are called to be better than this.”

Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican nominee for governor, criticized the mayor’s move in a statement he released Thursday afternoon. “The City of Atlanta should focus on cleaning up corruption and stopping crime — not creating more of it,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor, commended Botttoms’ “efforts to combat the impact of the administration’s cruel and inhumane family separation policy. Anyone who stands against keeping families together lacks any kind of moral compass.”

The mayor signed her executive order on the same day the Trump administration moved to withdraw from a 1997 consent decree — nicknamed the “Flores settlement” – that limits the government’s ability to detain immigrant children. The proposed rule change would allow the government to detain immigrant children with their parents for longer than 20 days. Federal officials said they would ensure the children are “treated with dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.”

“Today, legal loopholes significantly hinder the department’s ability to appropriately detain and promptly remove family units that have no legal basis to remain in the country,” U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement Thursday. “This rule addresses one of the primary pull factors for illegal immigration and allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress.”

Immigrant rights advocates blasted the Trump administration’s move.

“It is sickening to see the United States government looking for ways to jail more children for longer,” Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said. “That’s the complete opposite of what we should be doing — and it’s yet another example of the Trump administration’s hostility toward immigrants resulting in a policy incompatible with the most basic human values.”

More from their story:

An ICE spokesman confirmed the five that were remaining in the jail would be moved out by the end of Thursday. He declined to identify them or their native countries or give any details about their immigration records, citing his agency’s privacy policies.

The city, the mayor added, has entered into a partnership with Uber and a pair of Catholic and Lutheran charities, which will provide free rides and meals to immigrant families that have been separated on the Southwest border and reunited in Atlanta.”

Read the whole story here.

Here’s what the mayor tweeted about releasing illegal aliens:

“Atlanta has permanently ended its acceptance of ICE detainees and will immediately transfer all those remaining out of our City jail. We will not be complicit in an immigration policy that intentionally inflicts misery on vulnerable populations.”

Elections have consequences.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Hanoi Jane praises Colin Kaepernick: "Keep kneeling until you can't stand up!"

hanoi jane
One would expect this praise from the anti-American womyn.
From Hollywood Reporter: The ACLU of Southern California’s annual Bill of Rights awards gala Sunday evening was a star-studded affair with honorees such as Viola Davis, Gina Rodriguez, Jane Fonda and Judd Apatow, but it was Colin Kaepernick who received the loudest applause.
The NFL star took home the Eason Monroe Courageous Courage Award.
“He’s been viciously and unfairly criticized,” said ACLU Southern California’s executive director Hector Villagra. “He’s been called a traitor because too many people in this country confuse dissent for disloyalty. He took a stand knowing some would threaten him and he has had his life threatened which is why that we are profoundly honored to have him here [and] we didn’t publicize his presence tonight.”
When Kaepernick hit the stage, the audience jumped to its feet. “We must confront systematic oppression as a doctor would a disease. You identify it, you call it out, you treat and you defeat it. We all have an obligation no matter the risk and regardless of reward to stand up for fell men and women who are being oppressed with the understanding that human rights cannot be compromised. In the words of Frederick Douglas, ‘If there is a no struggle, there is no progress.'”
Kaepernick received a second standing ovation before Billy Eichner came on stage to present a Bill of Rights Award to Judd Apatow. “I have to follow Colin Kaerpernick?!” Eichner joked. “I didn’t even wear the ACLU ribbon at the Emmys because it didn’t match my tuxedo, which I feel terrible about now, by the way.”
Judd delivered more of a politically charged standup act than an acceptance speech, which included his hope that the alleged “pee tape” of President Donald Trump would be released.
“But if there is a pee tape then who becomes president? Mike Pence,” Apatow said. “Then we need another pee tape, maybe of Trump sitting next to Mike Pence. So, we need another pee tape because then who becomes the president? Paul Ryan… We basically need a tape of a Russian hooker urinating like a firehose on like 40 Republicans until we finally get Bernie Sanders.
Read the rest of the story here.
See also:

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition

child bride
If you’re going to allow minors to “choose” their sex and mess with their biology because they “deserve” it, then they are certainly entitled to make other adult decisions.
From SF Chronicle: A Bay Area legislator was shocked when he learned from a young constituent that while Californians cannot legally consent to sex until they are 18, they can — with the permission of a parent and a judge’s order — get married at any age, even if their spouse is many years older.
“I thought, that can’t be true in California,” said state Sen. Jerry Hill, a Democrat from San Mateo. “We found that it is true in California and true in many states throughout the country.”
But Hill’s resulting proposal to bar juveniles from getting hitched has been watered down after it prompted strong objections from civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union.
As the emotional fight unfolds in Sacramento, there’s no agreement even about a basic piece of information — how many minors get married each year in California. People who want to limit such marriages say the total is in the thousands, while those who oppose the bill say that’s vastly inflated.
The state doesn’t keep such numbers, and even efforts to change that are running into resistance.
Within the past year, elected officials in several states have pushed to restrict juvenile marriage, with a law passed last month limiting matrimony by minors in New York to 16- and 17-year-olds who have become legal adults emancipated from their parents, and one in Texas holding the line at age 17 — with a judge’s permission.
Hill wanted California to set a strict line at age 18, but the effort encountered swift opposition from fellow legislators, as well as groups that include the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
While SB273 is still alive and moving through legislative committees, amendments have removed any age restriction. The measure in its current form increases family court oversight to ensure that a minor’s marriage isn’t coerced, including a requirement that judges interview individuals privately.
It’s a compromise, Hill said, but still a positive step. “It’s our responsibility to protect those kids,” he said.
Among those disappointed by the result of the compromise is Sara Tasneem of El Sobrante, who said the amended bill won’t help children and will only make elected officials feel like they did something.
Tasneem was 15 when her father, who belonged to a cult in Southern California, introduced her to a man 13 years her senior. She was forced to marry the 28-year-old in a religious ceremony that evening. Six months later, at 16, she was pregnant and legally married in a civil ceremony in Reno.
“A person who marries a 15-year-old, there’s obviously something wrong,” said Tasneem, now 36. “Putting that label of husband and wife makes something disgusting and not OK seem normal and OK.”
As a teenager, Tasneem dreamed of becoming a lawyer. Instead, she became a mother, with two children by age 19. She would ultimately defy her husband and return to school, and later file for divorce.
“Once you leave your childhood, there’s no going back to it,” said Tasneem, now a business student at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. “All those opportunities and freedom of being a child are gone.”
Activists aiming to stop such marriages say they occur across demographic groups, spurred by religious reasons, cultural norms, pregnancy, financial incentives or, in some cases, to protect someone from statutory-rape accusations because marriage circumvents the age-of-consent requirement.
Nationally, about 5 of every 1,000 children ages 15 to 17 were married as of 2014, according to U.S. census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center — figures that don’t specify where the marriages occurred. Activists for age restrictions estimate that California sees about 3,000 marriages per year that include a minor.
The ACLU and other opponents say that estimate is inflated, noting that just 44 petitions for juvenile marriage were filed in Los Angeles County — which has a population just above 10 million — over the past five years.
The focus of efforts should be on abusive and coerced relationships, regardless of marital status, said Phyllida Burlingame of the ACLU’s Northern California chapter.
Read the rest of the story here.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0