US

New York City, N.Y., May 31, 2019 / 02:49 pm (CNA).- Marijuana, mushrooms, and now prostitution: decriminalization as a legal tactic for handling previously (or currently) illicit activities is a growing trend, and lawmakers in multiple states are now considering bills that could decriminalize the buying and selling of sex, to varying degrees.

The push to decriminalize prostitution is happening primarily in Democrat-led state legislatures, including in New York, Maine, Massechusets, Washington, D.C., and in Rhode Island, which is considering a proposal that would study the impact of decriminalizing prostitution, according to the New York Times.

“This is about the oldest profession, and understanding that we haven’t been able to deter or end it, in millennia,” Senator Jessica Ramos, a Democrat from Queens, told the New York Times. “So I think it’s time to confront reality.”

New York Democrats plan to introduce a proposal that would decriminalize prostitution both for the men, women and children who are prostituted, and for those who buy their services. Other efforts focus on criminally prosecuting pimps and buyers of prostitutes, but offer social services to the prostitutes themselves, rather than criminal charges, which is sometimes called the Nordic Model or the End Demand Model.

Currently, prostitution is only legal in the United States in 10 Nevada counties. A bill pushing to make prostitution illegal throughout the whole state of Nevada died in committee in April.

Critics of total decriminalization say that it would only further facilitate and legitimize criminal activity like sex trafficking and child prostitution.

Ane Mathieson is a program specialist at Sanctuary for Families, a Manhattan-based organization that serves victims of domestic violence and is part of an anti-decriminalization coalition.

“Prostitution is inherently violent,” Mathieson told the New York Times. “Sex buying promotes sex trafficking, promotes pimping and organized crime, and sexual exploitation of children.”

Laura Ramirez, a representative with international feminist group AF3IRM, said at a protest against decriminalization in New York that she was “absolutely appalled at the fact that this is being sold as something that’s progressive.”

“This proposed legislation is the most classist, racist and absolutely obtuse legislation that we have ever seen,” Ramirez said, according to the New York Times. “Women and girls of this state deserve better.”

Decriminalization proponents point to countries in Europe, like Germany and the Netherlands, where prostitution has been decriminalized for years. However, critics of decriminalization say that this ignores the problems that these countries have had as a result of the decriminalization of prostitution.

Tina Frundt, a survivor of child sex trafficking and founder of Courtney’s House, which helps victims of domestic sex trafficking and commercial sex exploitation, told CNA in 2015 that the decriminalization of prostitution would be a “terrible idea.”

“This has been tried and failed – in the Netherlands, in Germany – they’ve closed down over 30 brothels because we are talking about a criminal industry that we are trying to legalize,” Frundt said at the time. She said that women and underage girls from other countries were trafficked to places with legalized markets and given fake IDs, so that they could work in a legitimized market.

“Criminals think like criminals. It’s a die-hard criminal business making millions,” she added.

Frundt spoke with CNA in 2015 after global human rights organization Amnesty International announced that it supported the worldwide decriminalization of prostitution.

Candace Wheeler, a therapist with Restoration Ministries who works with victims of sex trafficking, also spoke with CNA in 2015.

Wheeler said she was skeptical of decriminalization efforts, based on what she’s seen in other countries.

“What they have found (in Amsterdam) is that tolerance is not protecting women who are in prostitution there, because it’s mostly women who are trafficked from other countries, and they are realizing that their tolerance is a huge problem,” Wheeler said.

“If it’s decriminalized, then that just opens up the door for that kind of business. We could have established brothels and red light districts, and then crime comes with that, and drugs – and I am the person that gets to see them afterwards and try and heal them.”

[…]

Atlanta, Ga., May 31, 2019 / 10:00 am (CNA).- Following the passage of the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act in Georgia earlier this month, major film and television companies have said they may consider relocation if the law comes into f… […]

Washington D.C., May 31, 2019 / 08:30 am (CNA).- The United States bishops’ conference has released its annual report on the protection of children. The report records an increase in the number of new allegations of clerical sexual abuse being br… […]

New York City, N.Y., May 31, 2019 / 12:00 am (CNA).- A class action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase was settled this week, after a lawsuit from fathers denied parental leave.

As of Thursday, Chase Bank has agreed to pay $5 million to hundreds of fathe… […]

Denver, Colo., May 30, 2019 / 06:30 pm (CNA).- The maker of a popular fertility awareness app says it is built on peer-reviewed research and a scientific approach to women’s health, after a recent report criticized the app’s developers and funders  as “anti-abortion, anti-gay Catholic campaigners.”

A May 30 report in the Guardian said the FEMM app “sows doubt about birth control” and “features claims from medical advisers who are not licensed to practice in the U.S.”

The app, sold by the FEMM Foundation, markets itself as a period and ovulation tracker with three options for users – to achieve pregnancy, avoid pregnancy, or track their health.

Anna Halpine, CEO of the FEMM foundation, told CNA that “FEMM is a science and evidence based program for women’s health, and our app allows us to provide personalized health care information to women directly.”

“We think that this knowledge is basic women’s health literacy, and we think every women has the right to know how her body works, in order to make an informed choice about how she wants to manage her fertility,” Halpine added.

The app primarily serves as a tracker for various markers of fertility and health for women, with options to track periods, cervical mucus, medications, hormone levels, basal body temperature, and a host of physical and emotional symptoms.

The app has been downloaded more than 400,000 times in the past 4 years, according to the Guardian. It has 4.8 out of 5 stars in more than 1,000 reviews in the Apple store. The FEMM Foundation also offers classes on ovulation and fertility charting, as well as “medical management” training in “protocols for the management of ovarian dysfunction, menopause and infertility.”

The Guardian’s report said that FEMM appears to be biased against hormonal birth control.

“The FEMM app’s literature sows doubt about the safety and efficacy of hormonal birth control, asserting that it may be deleterious to a woman’s health and that a safer, ‘natural’ way for women to avoid pregnancy is to learn their cycles,” The Guardian reported.

Halpine told CNA that FEMM aims to help women understand their own bodies.

“FEMM sees reproductive endocrinology (hormones) as the unifying element in women’s health. Our approach is to empower women to understand their hormones and fluctuations, and to use our, or other charting systems, to monitor their own personal hormone patterns. The critical element is their pattern; based on the observations that they make of changing biomarkers in their body (temperature, or cervical fluid or dryness) women can ‘see’ their own changes of estrogen and progesterone cycle to cycle.”

“Ovulation is the sign that these hormones, plus many others, are at the right level at the right time. This is why we say that ovulation is a sign of health,” Halpine said.

Dr. Nathaniel DeNicola, an OB-GYN with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, told The Guardian that: “The birth control pill is one of the greatest health achievements of the 20th century” and is “standard” in women’s health care.

The Guardian did not, however, mention risks of artificial contraception identified by scientific research.

According to a study posted on the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies are classified as carcinogenic to humans (group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.”

According to the National Cancer Institute, the use of oral contraceptives is associated with increased risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer and cervical cancer, while it is also associated with a decreased risk for cervical cancer.

The Guardian also reported an outdated claim on the efficacy of fertility-awareness based methods (FBAMs) of birth control, also called Natural Family Planning methods, which FEMM facilitates. The Guardian reported that the efficacy rate of FBAMs is about 75%.

In fact there are a variety of FBAMs available, each with varying levels of efficacy, depending on the method and the real-life use. For example, the Marquette Method, an FBAM, has been reported to be 89% effective with typical use, compared with an 87% efficacy rate for real-life use of condoms as a birth control method.  

The Guardian reported that implants and IUDs are among the most effective of birth control methods. However, IUDs can also cause some of the most severe side effects, including migration of the device and the perforation of organs.

The Guardian’s report noted that a financial supporter of the FEMM app is the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a non-profit whose chairman is Sean Fieler, a wealthy philanthropist and businessman who lives in Princeton, New Jersey, and who has previously backed pro-life politicians and causes in the past.

The mission of the Chiaroscuro Foundation is “to renew in our culture a deep awareness of the composite unity of our shared human nature.” According to The Guardian, the foundation donated between $350,000 and $1 million to FEMM each year between 2015-2017, or the majority of its operating budget.

Halpine told The Guardian that FEMM does not comment on abortion, or advocate on political issues.

“FEMM has never commented on the abortion issue. And doesn’t work in that area. FEMM is an organization committed to expanding information research and knowledge about women’s reproductive health around the world,” Halpine told The Guardian.

The Guardian noted that some of FEMM’s medical advisors are based in Chile, and are not licensed to practice in the United States.

“The Reproductive Health Research Institute (RHRI) provides FEMM’s medical assertions, research and training. The two physicians leading RHRI are listed on its website as Pilar Vigil and Patricio Contreras. Vigil is listed as the medical director of RHRI, which has two addresses, one in New York City and another in Santiago, Chile,” the Guardian reported.

“Vigil is listed as an OB-GYN and Contreras as a ‘medical doctor’, but neither is licensed to practice medicine in the United States,” The Guardian noted.

Halpine explained that “FEMM works with medical researchers and providers around the world. Our growing network of health educators and providers in the United States and other countries serves our users worldwide. Our global network is inclusive, and FEMM benefits from the diversity of experience and ideas that our health educators and providers bring to us around the world.“

On its website, FEMM provides health center locators and doctor referrals, and lists licensed health centers and doctors located in the United States.

[…]

Manchester, N.H., May 30, 2019 / 06:01 pm (CNA).- Bishop Peter Libasci of Manchester welcomed Thursday the New Hampshire legislature’s override of a veto by the governor on capital punishment repeal.

“I welcome the vote by the New Hampshire Senate today that repeals the death penalty. As a citizen of New Hampshire, I offer my deep appreciation and sincere empathy to the members of the Legislature for their deliberate and often very difficult process of debate and decision-making that is so much a part of their office and was especially so in this most serious matter,” Bishop Libasci said May 30.

“As good citizens we must not look upon this vote as a victory, for that would dishonor the grief of those whose lives have been tragically altered by the crimes committed against their loved ones and society in general. Instead, we need to stand together as a citizenry and live by what we said when we spoke of human dignity, incarceration that rehabilitates, especially in cases of life without possibility of parole.”

The bishop added: “Being part of a society that is committed to dealing with the ills that lead to the decomposition of personhood and the evil crime of murder is the work of a noble people who uphold the sacredness of human life. Now is the opportune time to recommit ourselves to participating in this responsible movement forward.”

The vote makes New Hampshire the 21st state to abolish capital punishment.

The New Hampshire legislature voted to repeal the death penalty this spring, but the bill was vetoed by Republican Governor Chris Sununu earlier this month.

The Senate voted 16-8 to override Sununu’s veto May 30. The House voted last week to override.

Sen. David Starr had initially voted to repeal capital punishment, but did not vote to override the governor on Thursday, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported.

Bishop Libasci had submitted written testimony in favor of the repeal.

Those convicted of capital murder in New Hampshire will now face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The repeal applies to convictions from today onward.

Currently on New Hampshire’s death row is Michael Addison, who in 2006 murdered a Manchester policeman, Michael Briggs.

“I have consistently stood with law enforcement, families of crime victims, and advocates for justice in opposing a repeal of the death penalty because it is the right thing to do,” Sununu said May 30. “I am incredibly disappointed that the Senate chose to override my veto.”

Patrick Cheetham, a police captain and a former president of the New Hampshire Police Association, said the death penalty repeal “doesn’t make New Hampshire safer; it doesn’t make it safer for New Hampshire police officers and it’s extremely disappointing. The death penalty has been used sparingly, judiciously and appropriately at a time when New Hampshire’s police officers are confronted with greater and greater violence.”

The Church has consistently taught that the state has the authority to use the death penalty, in cases of “absolute necessity,” though with the qualification that the Church considered such situations to be extremely rare.

Both Pope Francis and his immediate predecessors have condemned the practice of capital punishment in the West.

St. John Paul II called on Christians to be “unconditionally pro-life” and said that “the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.” He also spoke of his desire for a consensus to end the death penalty, which he called “cruel and unnecessary.”

And Benedict XVI exhorted world leaders to make “every effort to eliminate the death penalty” and told Catholics that ending capital punishment was an essential part of “conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”

In August 2018, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a new draft of the catechism’s paragraph regarding capital punishment.

Quoting Pope Francis’ words in a speech of Oct. 11, 2017, the new paragraph states, in part, that “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

Reasons for changing the teaching, the paragraph says, include: the increasing effectiveness of detention systems, growing understanding of the unchanging dignity of the person, and leaving open the possibility of conversion.

Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., a moral theologian at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., told CNA at the time that he thinks this change “further absolutizes the pastoral conclusion made by John Paul II.”

“Nothing in the new wording of paragraph 2267 suggests the death penalty is intrinsically evil. Indeed, nothing could suggest that because it would contradict the firm teaching of the Church,” Fr. Petri continued.

[…]

Washington D.C., May 30, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) has warned that a proposed anti-discrimination law could be used to compel medical professionals to participate in abortion procedures.

The Congresswoman made the comments du… […]

Washington D.C., May 30, 2019 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- Sen. Kamala Harris, one of the two dozen Democratic presidential hopefuls, announced Tuesday a plan that would bar some states from changing their abortion laws without federal approval.

“As President, I will stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect,” Harris, California’s junior Senator, wrote May 28 on Twitter.

Harris announced her proposal during a town-hall on MSNBC.

Her plan would require that states and municipalities that have restricted abortion rights in the past to get permission from the Department of Justice before any new laws regarding abortion can take effect.

Under Harris’ proposal, the Justice Department would have to determine that a law complies with the standards of Roe v. Wade and the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill she is co-sponsoring which would bar any government from imposing a wide variety of limitations on abortion, and which is stalled.

The senator’s plan would require 60 votes in the Senate.

It is modeled on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which disallowed nine states and many counties and municipalities from modifying their electoral laws without federal sanction. Major parts of the law, which mainly affected southern states, were struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2013.

Her proposal is in response to legislation in states such as Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia. Earlier this month Alabama adopted the Human Life Protection Act, making the the attempt or performance of an abortion a felony.

On MSNBC Harris, who was California’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017, said, “I got a real problem with that.”

“We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding … women have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies,” she stated.

Harris’ proposal was welcomed by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Along with Sen. Mazie Hirono, Harris raised concerns in December about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian Buescher, who has been nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” which is “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and against “marriage equality.” In the light of his Catholic faith and membership of the Knights, both senators questioned Buescher’s ability to apply the law fairly and objectively as judge.

Democratic presidential candidates are vying to codify protections for abortion amid the wave of pro-life laws being passed across the US.

Joe Biden’s campaign said May 21 he would support federal laws protecting abortion rights “should it become necessary,” and he called recent state pro-life laws “pernicious” and “wrong.”

And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said May 29 she disputes Church teaching on the priesthood, sexuality, and abortion: “I think [the Church] is wrong on those three issues. And I don’t think they’re supported by the Gospel or the Bible in any way. I just – I don’t see it, and I go to two Bible studies a week. I take my faith really seriously.”

[…]

Baton Rouge, La., May 30, 2019 / 07:45 am (CNA).- The Louisiana House of Representatives has passed a fetal heartbeat bill, making it the latest state to move towards adopting such legislation. The bill passed the house with bipartisan support on May 2… […]

Washington D.C., May 29, 2019 / 11:01 pm (CNA).- Are childless, spouseless women actually happier than their married counterparts?

A widely-circulated finding from a study by a London professor suggests that while marriage increases the happiness of men, married women are actually more miserable than single women.

“We do have some good longitudinal data following the same people over time, but I am going to do a massive disservice to that science and just say: if you’re a man, you should probably get married; if you’re a woman, don’t bother,” Paul Dolan, a professor of behavioral science at the London School of Economics, said at a presentation of his data analysis this weekend, reported on by The Guardian. The study is the basis of a new book by Dolan called Happily Ever After.

But other researchers have suggested that Dolan seems to be basing at least some of his conclusions on a misreading of data from the American Time Use Survey, which he analyzed for his study.

Particularly, Dolan seems to have misread a question that asks about whether a spouse is present or absent, W Brad Wilcox, a professor and family researcher with the Institute of Family Studies said on Twitter.

Dolan concludes that the question from the ATUS survey refers to whether a woman’s spouse was in the room as she responded to the survey, Wilcox said, but the question seems to refer instead to whether a spouse was present or absent in the respondent’s life.

“But Dolan appears to have misread ATUS survey questions regarding whether or not spouse was in the household to refer to whether or not the spouse was present for the interview–and thereby drew incorrect conclusions about marrieds’ happiness, especially wives’ happiness,” Wilcox said on Twitter.

Gray Kimbrough, a researcher and adjunct professor with the American University’s School of Public Affairs who tweeted that he “doesn’t have a dog in the fight” in whether single women are happier or not, also said on Twitter that Dolan appears to have misanalyzed the question about a spouse’s presence or absence.

“This claim, repeated breathlessly by many media outlets, appears to be based on a flawed analysis that actually compared slight differences in reported activity-level happiness for married people whose spouses live in the same household from those whose spouses live elsewhere,” Kimbrough said.

The ATUS question on presence or absence of a spouse “isn’t measuring a spouse’s presence for the interview, or even for any activities–just presence *in the household*,” Kimbrough added.

In other words, the decrease in happiness Dolan found appears to occur when spouses are absent in a married woman’s life for various reasons, instead of married women admitting their misery only when their spouse leaves the room during a survey, both Wilcox and Kimbrough concluded.

Furthermore, Wilcox said, Dolan’s findings do not align with other studies on marriage and happiness for women.

In data from the General Social Survey between 2010-2018, analyzed by Wilcox and researcher Nicholas Wolfinger, married women between the ages of 18 and 50 reported significantly higher rates of happiness than their divorced, separated, or single and never married counterparts.

According to GSS data, married women without children reported being “very happy” at a rate of 45%, while married women with children reported being “very happy” at a rate of 41%. Women separated or divorced without children reported “very happy” rates of 27%, while separated or divorced women with children reported “very happy” rates of 21%.

For single, never-married women, their reported rates of being “very happy” were at 24% for those without children, and 19% for those with children.

The pattern held when adults were questioned about rates of unhappiness, Wilcox and Wolfinger found.

Wolfinger noted that he was unable to reach Dolan for comment on an article he wrote about his data analysis, but Wolfinger said that “the story becomes clearer after looking at the ATUS questionnaire. First, it’s important to note that general happiness is being measured, not happiness within one’s marriage. The two are related to be sure, but far from perfectly. The GSS has separate measures of marital happiness and overall happiness, and the correlation coefficient between the two is .39.”

Secondly, he said, one ATUS question does ask about people present in the room during the survey, but respondents do not specify whether it was a spouse, child, parent, or cable repair guy, Wolfinger noted.

“Instead, respondents are asked this question: ‘Were you interacting with anyone during this time, including over the phone? (Yes/No).”

“But let’s put all these concerns aside and take Dolan’s finding at face value. How can his finding be explained? Here’s what he has to say about it on page 69 of his book: ‘It appears that people are more likely to say they feel happy if their spouse can hear what they are saying. Or it could simply be that their spouses put them in a better mood, which influences how they recall their experiences yesterday. (My money is on the former.)’”

“I’d like to think he’s wrong here,” Wolfinger concluded, “and his data do little to convince me one way or another.”

[…]