Trumped

Donald Trump, loud-mouthed, New York real estate developer and GOP presidential contender is his own worst enemy.  If his lips are moving, one has to anticipate another self-inflicted wound to his empire or his reputation. There were problems in the first six sentences of his presidential candidacy announcement -- a speech that had all the flavor of an off-the-cuff rant.

Before he even started speaking, The Donald paid some members of his audience to be vocally enthusiastic and to shout appreciation.  He said: “This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.”  That’s a fact.  Most crowds occur naturally when they are loyal to a person or party.  Trump continued patting himself on the back for the crowd he brazenly bought like delivered pizza by comparing himself to other candidates.  “And, I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in. They didn’t know the air-conditioner didn’t work. They sweated like dogs.  They didn’t know the room was too big, because they didn’t have anybody there.”  After it was stuffed with actors, Trump Tower WAS the perfect venue, right Donald?

This was a segue to his international policy: Saber rattling and name-calling.  In an incoherent, hate-filled diatribe Trump listed the following countries and entities as U.S. enemies: China, Japan, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Latin America and ISIS.  Why?  His reasons were primarily based on his perception of personal competition.  Some countries were making greater financial gains than the U.S. and Trump, himself, and that’s just not fair!

The biggest problems that came from Trump’s speech were derived from his statements regarding Mexico.  He made it sound as if the Mexican government had CONSPIRED!

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.  But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.”

Reacting to these statements, Univision, America’s largest Spanish-language station, terminated its broadcasting partnership with Trump’s Miss Universe Organization.  The Organization, which is owned as a joint venture by NBCUniversal and Trump, also operates the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants.  As of today, NBCUniversal announced it also was terminating its partnership with Trump due to his “derogatory statements” regarding Mexican people.

According to CNN, Trump’s NBC program "The Apprentice" might also be on the chopping block.  CNN reported, “Following his presidential announcement, NBC said it would "re-evaluate" Trump's role on the reality show.”  Although the network reportedly indicated it would like to keep the “Celebrity Apprentice” program on the air, they reportedly do not want him to host it.  True to form, Trump pledged to sue Univision and said he might sue NBC as well.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s popularity within his own party is growing.  Currently, he is favored by 11 percent of would-be GOP voters in New Hampshire, second behind Jeb Bush's 16 percent popularity rating.  While Trump believes people support him because they appreciate his tell-it-like-it-is style, this writer believes his popularity is based solely on name recognition.

If asked, many of those polled likely would concede they did not sit through the entire broadcast of Trumps’ presidential announcement.  I have viewed and then read the transcripts of most GOP candidates' announcements.  Even if I disagree with the content of the speeches, most candidates presented logical and sequential messages.

By contrast, both in listening to and in reading The Donald’s announcement, this writer went crossed-eyed.  After quashing feelings of disgust for his arrogance, I asked: “How does any of this pertain to running a country?”  The answer is that it doesn’t.  The man is clearly an insane megalomaniac who should never be allowed to come within ten thousand light years of the mechanisms that command our nation’s nuclear or traditional arsenals.  While there are several presidential contenders who might be dangerous due to lack of experience or narrow philosophy, Trump is dangerous because he is just f---ing nuts.

Somewhere in the first 25 minutes of his 54 minute monologue, Trump declared: “Now, our country needs— our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.”

When does America or any other country not need great leadership to safeguard her people from threats foreign and domestic?  Do great leaders call constituents and other elected officials “stupid” as you did eight times, Donald?  No.  Great leaders find a way to avoid contentious language and seek viable, diplomatic solutions.

Do great leaders impugn the character of every person living in one’s neighboring country with vulgar accusations?  No, Donald, great leaders extend hands of friendship and seek solutions to mutual problems.  Great leaders do not threaten to invade countries half-way around the globe while promising to bypass diplomacy.  Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte did this and we all know how that worked out for them in the end.  Donald, great leaders do not attack other nations carelessly and invite the self-protective wrath of World War III to descend upon their nations.

When the American people get over your bombastic platitudes, they will know that you will never lead our nation.  Go ahead, Donald, spend all the money that you want.  In the end, the American people won’t be buying it.

The New Jim Crow: Caging the Evil Bird

Most Americans who were paying attention in their high school U.S. History classes are familiar with Jim Crow laws.  African American citizens over the age of 50 who grew up in the former states of the Confederacy didn’t need a history lesson about these laws because they lived them.  Here’s a refresher course.

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period which mandated “de jure” racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states.  It started in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans.  The laws mandated the segregation of all public schools, public places, public transportation, restrooms, restaurants and drinking fountains for whites and blacks.  Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior.  The laws institutionalized educational, economic and social disadvantages.

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled the segregation of public schools to be unconstitutional with their decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  Many of the remaining Jim Crow laws were overturned legislatively with the passages of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  However, countless discrimination cases continue to come before the courts even today demanding clarification for all races, women, religious adherents, and members of the LGBT community.

Given the discriminatory prosecution, incarceration, and the resulting systemic disadvantages faced by people ensnared in the War on Drugs, it is clear that Jim Crow is still alive and well.  The new Jim Crow is now an epidemic that swept the nation.

In 2012, author Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow credited modern drug laws with a new wave of discrimination.  Richard Nixon was the first president to actively target drug abuse as “public enemy number one” in a 1971 special message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control.  Nixon called for federal funding to prevent addiction and to facilitate rehabilitation.  The propaganda of the day made it clear that drugs were to be treated as crimes that would not be tolerated.  Nothing has changed.

Drug related arrest rates remained fairly stable through the 1970’s, but in the 1980’s with the popularity of crack and powder cocaine, everything changed.  Though arrest rates for all crimes rose 28 percent in this decade, drug arrests increased by and astounding 126 percent.  According to a Washington Post article in 2010, statistics from 1998 demonstrate wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-American drug users reportedly made up 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes.  Upon release from prison, these people often reportedly were denied public assistance and licenses.

Many community activists, church leaders, and even President Obama have pointed out the disastrous effects of these public policies in communities with high African American populations.  Cities that have erupted into riots in recent years could not withstand the losses of brothers, fathers, husbands, and sons.  The communities could not survive the fact that these former felons could not find jobs and often had to return to drug sales or petty theft just to eat each day.

One politician in particular has spoken out repeatedly on this discriminatory system.  Surprisingly, it is the Republican Senator and presidential aspirant from Kentucky, Rand Paul.  When he announced his candidacy for president on April 7, 2015 Paul stated: “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally, and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”  He points out repeatedly in speeches and radio interviews that one-third of African American males are banned from voting due to the War on Drugs.

Paul blames mandatory minimum sentencing standards and the fact that many state and local governments still treat minor drug offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanor crimes.  By making very minor offenses felonies, the person convicted of the crime is denied the right to vote, cannot own a fire arm, becomes the victim of future job discrimination, poverty, and much more.

While all other Republican presidential candidates seem to be avoiding conversations about race as if it were Ebola, I can appreciate Paul’s fortitude in this regard.  He is right, of course, and he is not backing down.  It will not make me vote for him; but if I ever met him, I would thank him for his stance.

Which brings me to my final thought:  If this problem is so obvious to the gentleman from Kentucky, a state with a population that was over 86 percent white in the last census, why isn’t this obvious to everyone?  How can America continue to act like the three monkeys that refuse to hear, see, and speak of this evil?  Jim Crow never went away.  That evil bird is still pecking at the beating hearts of our citizens and communities.  If there was ever a bird that needed a cage, that’s the one.

Reading the Letter of the Same-Sex Marriage Law

Following the landmark ruling in the case of Obergefell et al. v. Hodges by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, people across America took to the streets in celebration.  The Syllabus section of the Court’s ruling said the only purpose of the law is this:

“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”

Issuance and recognition of marriage licenses have always been expectations of white male-and-female couples of consenting age.  This was not always a privilege that mixed race couples enjoyed.  It was not until 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that banning interracial marriage was a Constitutional violation.  Now, people of common gender also have the legal right to marry and share common benefits such as the right to adopt, visit sick loved ones, and bequeath their belongings in death.  When love won the day, the tears of joy cried in the chamber of SCOTUS were as justified as the cheers in the street.

But many have disagreed strongly with the five assenting Justices.  Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas all felt the urgent need to express opposing opinions.  Historically, it is far more common for one Justice to write a dissenting opinion in a matter, but all four?  Clearly this is an emotional issue surrounded by misinterpretation.  (Read the opinions here.)

While Kennedy’s opinion relied heavily on the “equal protection clause,” Thomas’s dissent said: “The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.”  What Thomas fails to understand, however, is that same-sex couples were routinely deprived of life, liberty and property in states like Georgia.

Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent began by saying that the Court’s decision was a “threat to American democracy.”  In his argument for the status quo, he went on to say: “The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.”  As a person who was once a certified tax preparer, I can say unequivocally the Federal tax code applying to same-sex couples was ridiculously cumbersome.  As recently as 2012, many same-sex couples opted to file as single and head of household to avoid the trouble.  As for inheritance rules, well, they were random, capricious and absolutely unfair.

Justice Roberts’ dissent focused on the rights of voters and state legislatures to determine their own laws with regard to approval or disapproval of the recognition of the legality of same-sex marriages.  Simply said: “…(T)his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.”

Justice Alito was of the same opinion.  He said: “Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”  Such an arrangement invites expensive, ugly political campaigns against gays and lesbians.

Many politicians also had to add their voices to the chorus of dissent.  Senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz went on Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday afternoon and called the combination of rulings on Obamacare and same-sex marriage “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”  Cruz went on to say: “…this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state.  It has no connection to the United States Constitution.  They are simply making it up.”

Of course, that is simply wrong.  (Shame on you, Harvard law school graduate!)  Before this ruling, there were 37 states in America that already condoned same-sex unions.  This law does not strike down the laws of those states.  The remaining 13 states either did not support gay marriage at all, or did not acknowledge legal marriages performed in other states.  The law says these states must now do both in the interest of equality.

Some pseudo-religious organizations based their defiance to the law on the grounds of “religious liberty.” The American Family Association responded by saying, in part:  “There is no doubt that this morning’s ruling will imperil religious liberty in America, as individuals of faith who uphold time-honored marriage and choose not to advocate for same-sex unions will now be viewed as extremists. But to the Court, we send this unequivocal message: We will continue to uphold God’s plan for marriage between one man and one woman, and we call on all Christians to continue to pray for the nation, and for those whose religious liberties will be directly impacted by this ruling.”

Wrong again.  Section IV of the court’s opinion said:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

This statement tells me that churches that do not condone same-sex marriages still have the right to refuse to perform weddings for gays and lesbians.  Walking hand-in hand with the principle right to free speech and the right to associate, evangelical pastors can tell these couple “No, we just don’t do that here.”  While some may argue that there will be someone somewhere who will try to take up a legal challenge to a church’s refusal based on this SCOTUS ruling, an argument against the church will fail immediately at the lower court level.  The lower court ruling will also be upheld in appeal based on the supremacy of the First Amendment.

I believe this ruling is wonderful for gay and lesbian couples.  I could say many, many things about my views on the topic, but no one could have spoken more eloquently than did Justice Kennedy in the closing paragraphs of the court’s opinion.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

And with that, the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court was reversed.  Amen.

Playing Dumb About Racism

In the aftermath of the murders at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, many people have weighed in on the tragedy.  Scenes from that city where thousands marched across the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge on Sunday told me that white and black people share the knowledge that this was a hate crime.  They held hands with strangers united in sadness and in the hope that they could heal their community.

The suspect reportedly had a clear message for his victims.  The only adult survivor of the massacre, a woman who feigned her death by lying in a pool of her son’s blood, told authorities what Dylann Roof said before he opened fire: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go."

Unfortunately, not everybody seems to understand this message of racism and hate.  Some news pundits and politicians are ignoring it all together.  For example, when “America’s Newsroom,” host Martha MacCallum was joined by guests who blamed access to fire arms and lack of mental health care for the crime, she waved these reasonable arguments away.  “We’re a very unique society and that’s a very wonderful thing, in large part,” she said. “But that may be a contributing factor here.”

Fox News anchors Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck ignored the racial implications of this hate crime and spun it into a crime against Christianity.  Their guest, Pastor E.W. Jackson attempted to make a case for arming ministers by citing “rising hostility toward Christians in this country.”  Naturally, Doocy agreed, calling the hate crime label “exceptional” and one which was determined by authorities “because it was apparently a white guy in a black church.”  Doocy appeared to be confused.  It had to be an attack on religion.

Taking a lead from Fox perhaps, Pennsylvania’s former Senator and presidential hopeful Rick Santorum echoed his belief that Roof attacked his victims because of their religious faith rather than the color of their skin.  South Carolina’s Senator Lindsay Graham, another presidential candidate, agreed.  Roof, he said, was just another one of many “people out there looking for Christians to kill them.”  On Friday, Jeb Bush also joined the chorus of ignorance.  He claimed that he didn’t know what motivated Roof, but urged Christians to come together in reflection and prayer.

The only Republican presidential candidate who got it right was Dr. Ben Carson.  Carson has said a lot of really strange things in public, but his op-ed piece in USA Today was pitch perfect.  He likened denial of the racist element in this crime to being a doctor who won’t tell his patient a medical diagnosis for fear of offending them.  The article said:

“I understand the sensitivities. To some, calling the events in Charleston, S.C., a hate crime reinforces a stigma, which they have fought hard to put behind them. But refusing to call it what it is — racism — is a far more dangerous proposition.”

“We know what's at stake here, so let's stop all the interpretive dance around the obvious. Was it a depraved act of violence? Of course. Was it an act of unspeakable evil? Affirmative. Was it an attack on innocent Christians? Manifestly so. Is this killer a sick individual? In my professional opinion, yes, he is. What is his sickness? It's the sickness of racism, a spiritual sickness that distorts the mind and heart and causes irrational and baseless fear and hatred in people of all colors.”

Well stated.  It is a rare day that I agree with most of Ben Carson’s ideas.  Today, I applaud every word and urge readers to read the rest of this very thoughtful article.

In the Eye of the Kansas Tornedo

People of Kansas, I am not picking on you.  I am going to attack your leaders in your defense, however, because you need someone in your corner.  On Friday, Kansas legislators ended the longest legislative session in state history.  Every single day that Kansas legislators worked overtime it cost at least $43,000.   Mathematically, that was approximately $860,000 (yes, just south of a million dollars at a time when the state was dealing with a budget shortfall of $600 million.) This estimate does not include the expenses associated with paying for the capitol staff personnel who also worked overtime.

Now state leaders are balancing the budget by driving the taxation bus over all low-income Kansas taxpayers and their children.  The state cut funding for education by $127 million in the middle of a school year, an action that has been deemed unconstitutional repeatedly by state courts.  Safety nets, retirement benefits and funds for medication for the mentally ill were slashed.  Now, how much bang are Kansans going to be getting for their tax bucks?  The answer is obvious: Less than zero.

Rather than simply repealing the bad laws passed in 2012 and 2013, Kansas legislators decided to approve regressive taxes – sales taxes – to balance the budget.  General sales taxes were raised from 6.15 percent to 6.5 percent.  The sin tax on tobacco also was increased and will generate an estimated $384 million.  Ironically, when the cost associated with smoking increases significantly, many smokers (predictably) make the decision to kick the habit, thus reducing this potential revenue stream for the state.

While many states do not tax purchases of food, Kansas does.  If a Kansas family earns less than $30,615 annually, they can apply for a $500 tax credit.  Families earning more, however, will be paying an extra $700 per year just to put food in their mouths.  It is only plain to see that the families who have the least to spare will be harmed the most by the budget decisions that were signed into law.

Fortunately, the state budget bill partially reversed business tax cuts.  “Pass-through” businesses are small businesses like single-owner entities or limited liability corporations (LLCs).  Kansas Governor Brownback eliminated taxation of these entities.  As a result, many businesses reinvented themselves to save money.  The decision cost Kansas almost $207 million in 2013 alone.  The restoration of approximately eleven percent of the business tax could generate $23.7 million and will not significantly harm corporations or job growth in the state.  Although Brownback stridently claimed that he would veto this portion of the budget bill, in the end, that was a lie.  He was over a barrel and passing it was the only rational thing to do.

Certainly, extreme situations such as Kansas’s financial state of affairs called for extreme reactions.  Unfortunately, the actions taken by these legislators were extremely wrong.  A momentary, self-inflicted crisis has been averted.  But, as Think Progress writer Alan Pyke pointed out in his June 16 article, “lawmakers will face another $400 million projected gap in the following year unless revenues from Brownback’s slashed income tax system leap up at an unusual rate.”

Kansas, you need to clean your political house.  The Brownback administration has harmed and will continue to harm your state.  The economic ignorance of your governor, his stubborn adherence to the Laffer curve and Republican policies designed to favor the rich and corporations are now and will continue to result in life-threatening damage to people who are already living on the bubble.  After education, what is cut next? Funding for hospitals, police, fire and emergency response?   Can we predict that Kansas might experience a tornado?  What then?

Be bold, Kansas!  Be bold.  Start a recall effort now.

The Insanity of Hatred

Dylann Storm Roof sat in a Bible study for an hour on Wednesday night at the Emmanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.  Everyone was very nice to him, he said.  He almost couldn’t do it.  But, he wanted to start a race war.  In the end, he arose, shot, and killed nine innocent people because they were Black.  Then he fled the scene of his crime, driving north to the neighboring state.

This young man will retain a public defender who probably will attempt an insanity defense when he comes to trial.  Pleading innocence by reason of insanity would be the only reasonable thing to do in a court of law.  The media supports the idea that this is the act of a "crazy" person.  No “sane” person would kill a room full of nice, faithful, peaceful people, would they?

A sane person who is a bigot would, though.  Mirriam Webster defines a bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”  While bigotry is irrational, there is no mention of insanity in this definition.

In contrast, Mirriam Webster defines insanity in the following way:

1:  a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)

2:  such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

3 a:  extreme folly or unreasonableness.  b:  something utterly foolish or unreasonable.

People who are insane are disorganized thinkers.  Many cannot retain jobs or keep their living spaces clean without help.  Though some forms of insanity are expressed in compulsive behaviors or obsessive thoughts, those expressions are more crippling than they are conducive to forward progress.  This was not apparently the case with Roof.  According to CNN, Roof’s roommate, Joey Meek, reportedly said that Roof had been “plotting something for six months.”  Roof also reportedly reloaded his .45 caliber weapon five times during the assault.  These are not hallmarks of a disorganized mind.

In my mind the real insanity is that almost any “sane” person with a few hundred dollars can purchase a firearm with extreme ease almost everywhere in America.  While the NRA and 2^nd Amendment supporters cringe at the idea of making the acquisition of a firearm even a little bit more complicated for “law abiding” citizens, it is obvious that crimes like this would not occur if guns were less available.

I had to ask: Why a race war?  How could Roof benefit personally from a race war?  I pondered that for a while and arrived at this conclusion.  In riots such as those in Baltimore and in Los Angeles in 1992, when people of color took to the streets, the damage they caused was to their own homes and communities.  Whites were responsible for depriving the communities of education and opportunity while suppressing and abusing the rights of citizens on a daily basis. Roof knew this.  He knew that he didn’t have to be anywhere nearby to start a fire.  All that Roof had to do was light the match that caused African Americans to burn themselves down.

That is not insanity.  That is hatred.

Turn Your Head and Cough, Please

On June 15, the 4^th Circuit court of appeals struck down North Carolina’s controversial A Woman’s Right to Know Act.  The law required doctors and ultrasound technicians to perform an ultrasound on pregnant women seeking abortion services to display and describe the image of the fetus to the patient during the procedure even if she actively “averts her eyes” and “refuses to hear.”  The law’s intent, ironically, is to provide “informed consent” and was consensual for neither the patient nor the attending medical care provider.  Even the conservative North Carolina appeals panel recognized the unconstitutionality of the law.

The unanimous decision which upheld a lower court decision was authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.  Not only did he agree that the provision violated a doctor’s First Amendment Right to free speech, he also acknowledged the cruel and humiliating situation for the female patient.  His ruling says in part:

“Informed consent frequently consists of a fully-clothed conversation between the patient and physician, often in the physician’s office… This provision, however, finds the patient half-naked or disrobed on her back on an examination table, with an ultrasound probe either on her belly or inserted into her vagina. … Rather than engaging in a conversation calculated to inform, the physician must continue talking regardless of whether the patient is listening. … Forcing this experience on a patient over her objections in this manner interferes with the decision of a patient not to receive information that could make an indescribably difficult decision even more traumatic and could “actually cause harm to the patient.” … (I)t is intended to convey not the risks and benefits of the medical procedure to the patient’s own health, but rather the full weight of the state’s moral condemnation.”

I applaud this ruling as a woman who has endured several ultrasounds to determine the health and well-being of my unborn children. I can fully imagine how horrible it would be to suffer such humiliation if I was seeking to terminate an unwanted or a tragically unsustainable pregnancy.  Ultrasounds require the patient to have a full bladder which is uncomfortable enough.  If the ultrasound technology being used was intravaginal, I most certainly would feel that I was being raped by a government that forced a stranger to maintain unwanted contact with my vagina while he or she robotically read from a lawfully imposed script.

North Carolina was not the only state to pass such a law.  There currently are 10 states with mandatory ultrasound laws.  Wisconsin Governor Scott K. Walker also was dealt a blow by this ruling.  The rumored presidential candidate defended his state’s law by saying this:

“I’m pro-life…  We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound…  Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound …  I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It’s just a cool thing out there.”

Governor, while you are thinking about your boys, think about this.  What if men were subjected to intrusive procedures like this one?  Say, for example, you were considering a therapy for an enlarged prostate gland.  In the middle of your proctological examination while you are bent over the examination table with your doctor’s digits in your rectum and your scrotum cupped in his hand, image having to listen to him recite a script regarding your examination and your treatment options.

Please turn your head and cough.  Again.  And, one more time, please.