ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Washington”

Health

Republican Congressman Hopes To Use Gosnell’s Case To Restrict Abortion Access For DC Women

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Apr 16, 2013 at 1:15 pm

What could legal abortion access for women who live in the District of Columbia, the high-profile trial of a Philadelphia-area abortion doctor, and a Congressman from Arizona all have in common?

Logically, not much at all. But Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) wants to connect the dots anyway. The Republican politician is planning to revive his previous efforts to legislate abortion care in the nation’s capital city — pushing to outlaw abortion services in DC after 20 weeks of pregnancy, based on the scientifically disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain after that point — because he believes “it would keep attention on the Gosnell case.”

Last week, the right-wing media successfully stoked outrage over the ongoing criminal case against Kermit Gosnell, who allegedly performed incredibly late-term, illegal abortions for economically disadvantaged women in Philadelphia. Gosnell’s story exploded into the mainstream media just recently, but this isn’t the first time that abortion opponents have attempted to leverage it to advance their agenda. In 2011, anti-abortion lobbyists invoked Gosnell to pressure the Pennsylvania legislature to approve unnecessary new restrictions for abortion clinics, which ultimately forced nine of the state’s 22 abortion providers to close their doors.

Over-regulating abortion clinics is a popular anti-choice tactic that is currently advancing in at least seven states across the country. But Franks isn’t necessary interested in taking that route. “Sanitizing the clinic is not going to change the suffering and agony of what children go through,” he explained to the Hill. The Arizona lawmaker said that he and his colleagues are actually focused on ending legal abortion services altogether.

As a small step toward that ultimate goal, Franks is hoping to use the Gosnell trial to push a 20-week “fetal pain” ban for DC residents, which failed in the House last year. Franks’ previous efforts to restrict abortion access for people who aren’t in his own district have angered DC residents, who stormed his office last May to protest his overreach. Abortion access is just one of many ways that Republicans often attempt to legislate the Washington, DC area that they do not represent.

Read more

LGBT

Conservatives Claim Discriminating Florist Is Victim Of Gay Nazism

By Zack Ford on Apr 16, 2013 at 10:53 am

Scott Lively's infamous book claiming the Nazis, including Hitler, were gay.

Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman faces potentially two lawsuits for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington’s nondiscrimination protections. As conservatives rush to her defense, they seem all too eager to compare the gay community to the Nazi Party.

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, the Family Research Council’s state affiliate, believes the inability for businesses to openly discriminate is a sign that “brown shirts” are coming:

One wonders what our founding fathers, many of whom left Europe to get away from a religious and philosophical litmus test for being involved in civil society, would think about the Attorney General’s apparent suggestion that you must agree with, or at least cooperate with, the government dogma regarding marriage as a condition of running a business.

Someone looking for a business idea might test just how strong the market for brown shirts actually is in Washington State.

Meanwhile, the hatemonger Scott Lively claims that the laws protecting the LGBT community amount to “homofascism,” complete with his trademark pink swastika (via Jeremy Hooper):

State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding

Homofascism is a form of extreme left-wing radicalism which attempts to establish rigid totalitarian controls over public discussions and policies addressing sexual morality, and to punish or suppress all disapproval of homosexuality and related sexual behaviors.

According to Godwin’s Law, invoking a reference to Adolf Hitler or Nazis counts as an automatic concession in any argument, but in cases like this, such references are particularly offensive. First of all, to refer to gay people as Nazis ignores the fact that the Nazis persecuted over 50,000 gay men, marking them with pink triangle concentration camp badges. Secondly, it is the gay men who were denied a public service — not the florist. Though conservatives are obviously trying to paint Stutzman as a victim, it makes no sense to paint the couple nor the attorney general as oppressors when the law is on their side.

Justice

Washington State GOP To Auction Same Type Of Semi-Automatic Used In Newtown

By Josh Israel on Apr 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm


The Washington State Republican Party will auction off an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle at its annual fundraising dinner in Bellevue on Saturday. The party’s chairman touted the weapon — the same type used in the Newtown and Aurora shootings — as one of the “great items” available.

The Seattle Times reported Thursday that Washington GOP Chairman Kirby Wilbur called the auctioning of the gun “a pro-fundraising statement,” noting that “I think folks already know the state GOP is committed to gun rights.” Indeed, the state party’s platform calls the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, “the first line of defense to maintain the rule of law.”

Wilbur told the Times the AR-15 style rifle — in this raffle, a Plinker Plus Flat Top, donated by the Washington Arms Collectors — is “the best-selling weapon in America.” He noted that he owns two and “they have never killed an innocent person.” The winner will receive both the gun and a one-year membership in the Washington Arms Collectors, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The auction will be hosted by John Curley, a former Seattle television news magazine host.

When asked on Twitter whether the winner of the auction will need to pass a background check, Curley responded:

The Washington Arms Collectors, the state’s largest gun show operator, require all buys to undergo background checks, despite Washington state’s gun-show loophole. Unless a vendor is federally licensed, such checks are not legally required under state or federal law.

Dwight Pelz, chair of the Washington State Democrats responded, noting that his party does not believe in assault weapons: “We think they should be banned… We would never raise money from the oil industry, or the tobacco industry, nor would we auction off an assault rifle.”

LGBT

Washington Florist Faces Second Suit Unless She Donates To An LGBT Organization

By Zack Ford on Apr 11, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Barronelle Stutzman

The state of Washington has recently filed suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, for refusing to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding last month. Even though they had been regular customers, she explained that she could not because of her “relationships with Jesus Christ.” That couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, are now threatening their own suit with support form the ACLU, but they have offered Stutzman a compromise to avoid the suit. Here are the conditions the couple’s lawyers provided to the discriminating florist:

  • You agree not to refuse to provide flowers and other goods and services to any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.
  • You agree to write a letter of apology to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll to be published in the Tri-City Herald.
  • You agree to donate $5,000 to the Vista Youth Center, in lieu of payment of attorneys’ fees.

The Vista Youth Center provides social services to LGBT youth in the area with a goal of reducing bullying and harassment while promoting leadership development.

The lawyers’ letter also details the harm the couple has experienced as well as the history of attempting to justify discrimination with religious beliefs:

Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years. Your rejection is especially painful to Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll because they felt they had a meaningful relationship with you and Arlene’s Flowers. More to the point of this letter, your conduct was a violation of Washington law. [...]

You told Mr. Ingersoll that you would not sell flowers for his and Mr. Freed’s wedding because of your religious beliefs. We respect your beliefs and your right to religious freedom. However, we live in a diverse country, and religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, may not be used to justify discrimination in the public spheres of commerce and governance. Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. Religious beliefs have been invoked to justify denying women the right to vote; to prohibit men and women of different races from getting married; and to support segregation in schools, businesses, and other public places. Just as courts have held that those forms of discrimination are not permitted, even on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs, so is discrimination based on sexual orientation unlawful.

Stutzman could face a $2,000 fine from the attorney general’s suit in addition to the couple’s complaint. According to her lawyers’ response to the state’s suit, she intends to fight and her legal team has already reached out to “a number of national non-profit organizations that are ready for the fight.” Indeed, the Family Research Council expressed its support for Stutzman, claiming that “religious hostility is in full bloom.” Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, FRC’s state affiliate, opined that “liberty is at stake for all of us,” encouraging supporters, “Don’t ignore the bully just because he hasn’t punched you in the mouth yet.” Neither group expressed concern for Ingersoll and Freed’s liberty.

LGBT

Washington Attorney General Sues Florist For Anti-Gay Discrimination

By Zack Ford on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:11 am

In March, Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts in Richland, Washington refused to provide wedding flowers to Rob Ingersoll and his partner, even though they’d been long-time customers of the florist. After owner Barronelle Stutzman informed Ingersoll that she could not provide the flowers because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” Ingersoll shared his story online and the news went viral.

Now, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers for violating the state’s nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation:

FERGUSON: As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation.  If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.

The suit asks for a permanent injunction against future discrimination and a $2,000 fine for every violation. An employee at Arlene’s told KEPR-TV that “none of us will have any comment.” Stutzman’s attorney’s warned Ferguson that “a number of national non-profit organizations… are ready for a fight,” perhaps referring to groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which regularly defends individuals when it believes their “religious liberty” has been infringed upon.

It’s important to note that Stutzman would have been violating Washington law even if marriage equality had not passed in November. State nondiscrimination policies protect gay couples from any business that would try to refuse them service, whether the service was related to a wedding or not. Incidentally, ADF recently highlighted five examples of how same-sex marriage “threatens”  biblical beliefs, but none of them actually took place it states where same-sex marriage was legal.

Health

Washington State May Require Insurers To Cover Abortion As Part Of Maternity Care

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Mar 25, 2013 at 9:05 am

Across the country, about 21 states have restricted access to abortion by preventing insurance companies from covering the cost of the legal medical procedure. But lawmakers in Washington State are currently considering the opposite approach: legislation to mandate that insurance companies pay for abortion services as part of their plans’ maternity care.

Washington has traditionally been a trailblazer when it comes to reproductive rights. In 1970, the state become the first to legalize abortion by a popular vote. Now, under the proposed Reproductive Parity Act, it may become the first to ensure that insurance companies aren’t permitted to segregate abortion care from the rest of the women’s health services covered under their plans:

The bill passed the state House earlier this month by a vote of 53-43, though it faces an uncertain future in the Senate. A similar bill in the New York state Assembly has been introduced each session for over a decade but has never received a public hearing.

“This is a core value for Washingtonians,” said Melanie Smith, a lobbyist for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “We should protect it while we still have it and not leave access to basic health care up to an insurance company.” [...]

Supporters of Washington state’s proposed abortion insurance mandate are careful to stress that it wouldn’t lead to a dramatic uptick in abortions or require carriers with a religious bent to cover the procedure. They also note that a pair of federal plans that will be sold on all 50 state exchanges will be barred from covering elective abortions.

“It’s not expanding abortion coverage,” said Democratic Rep. Eileen Cody of West Seattle, the bill’s primary sponsor. “It’s ensuring the rights of women to get what they’re paying for now and to continue their freedom of choice.”

The bill has been hotly contested, particularly as conservatives have argued it represents an affront to the religious liberty of individuals who oppose abortion and don’t want to purchase plans that cover it. But Obamacare already requires at least some plans in the state-level insurance marketplaces to exclude abortion coverage. And, as Rep. Cody notes, the legislation wouldn’t actually significantly change the current landscape in Washington because all of the state’s major insurers already cover abortion.

But it would prevent new insurers entering Washington’s insurance marketplace from adopting the same kind of anti-abortion policies that have been sweeping the nation over the past two years, as states across the country have rushed to block access to abortion coverage. Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, told the New York Times that the bill’s passage would be a “watershed event” regardless of its immediate impact on the insurance market. “It would be a model for other states to follow,” Nash explained.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, only about 12 percent of the abortions across the country are paid for by insurance providers. But in states that have enacted roadblocks to abortion coverage, women who seek abortions are often forced to pay large out-of-pocket costs in order to make their own medical decisions. The average cost of a first-trimester abortion is about $470, and an estimated 42 percent of the women who seek abortions have incomes that fall below the federal poverty line.

Justice

Washington Police Retraining Drug Dogs Not To Sniff For Marijuana After Legalization

By Ian Millhiser on Mar 21, 2013 at 9:00 am


Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that police may search a suspect when a trained drug sniffing dog indicates that the suspect is carrying drugs or other illegal materials, and “all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime.” Thus, if police wish to search a suspect for drugs, but lack a constitutional basis to do so, a drug dog can sniff the suspect and provide police with probable cause for a search if the dog “alerts.”

In Washington state, however, it is no longer a crime for someone of legal drinking age to carry up to an ounce of marijuana — and that changes the constitutional status of dog sniff. If a dog is trained to sniff out marijuana and cocaine, and it alerts after sniffing an adult suspect, that no longer would lead a “reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime” because it is likely the dog only reacted to the presence of marijuana on the suspect. Marijuana sniffing dogs cannot no longer provide probable cause that a suspect is engaged in criminal activity, because the dogs are trained to alert when the suspect is doing something that is no longer illegal under state law.

As a result of this constitutional dilemma, several Washington state police departments are retraining their drug sniffing dogs:

The passage of I-502 made things difficult enough for the humans tasked with creating and enforcing the laws for legal marijuana. Now, try explaining the difference between “personal use” and “intent to sell” or the gray area between state and federal law to a dog.

That’s why many law-enforcement agencies around the state, including the Seattle Police Department and Washington State Patrol, will no longer be training their drug-sniffing dogs to alert for marijuana. . . .

Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said the Seattle Police Department is already taking steps to desensitize its dogs to marijuana through rewards and constant training.

Currently, some law enforcement agencies continue to use marijuana-sniffing dogs in Washington. As a memo from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys explains, however, these dogs can no longer be relied on exclusively to justify a search.

LGBT

District Of Columbia Prohibits Insurance Companies From Discriminating Against Transgender People

By Andrew Cray, Guest Blogger on Mar 19, 2013 at 11:45 am

Today, the DC Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) issued a bulletin clarifying key protections for transgender people in the District of Columbia. The bulletin provides a clear directive to insurers that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is not an acceptable business practice in Washington.

The bulletin prohibits insurance companies from some of the most egregious practices that have been used to lock transgender people out of health care coverage, including:

  • Denying, cancelling, limiting, or refusing to renew an insurance policy.
  • Limiting insurance coverage on the basis of gender identity or expression.
  • Denying coverage for a procedure that is provided for the treatment of other conditions of illness. For example, if a plan covers hormone therapy for some diagnoses, it cannot categorically exclude coverage for hormone therapy related to gender identity disorder or other transition-related diagnosis.

DC joins a growing number of states, municipalities, and employers who recognize that equal access to health coverage is supported by medical science, improves the health of transgender people, and does not significantly increase costs. Ending arbitrary insurance discrimination against transgender people simply supports what expert medical bodies have been saying for years: transition-related health care is medically necessary for many transgender individuals whose health and well-being depends on bringing their physical body into alignment with their gender identity, and determination of what care an individual patient needs properly rests with medical providers, not insurance companies.

Read the full bulletin and the joint announcement from the Mayor’s Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Affairs and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking.

 

Justice

Washington Republicans Try To Fire Supreme Court Judges By Making Them Draw Straws

By Aviva Shen on Mar 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Angry over a recent Washington Supreme Court decision finding the state must put more funds into basic education, GOP state lawmakers are proposing the additional money come from downsizing the state Supreme Court to 5 justices from 9. Senate Bill 5867, sponsored by failed US Senate candidate state Sen. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA), would make the justices draw straws to decide who had to hang up their robes:

“On June 30, 2013, all existing judges of the state supreme court, shall meet in public to cast lots by drawing straws,” the bill says. “Effective July 1,2013, the positions of the four judges casting losing lots by drawing the shortest straws shall be terminated.”

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Michael Baumgartner, said the job cuts could save about $1.5 million in salary and administrative costs.

“Every dollar we save by eliminating these four positions would be automatically funneled to K-12 education to help meet the guidelines the Supreme Court laid out in the McCleary decision,” Baumgartner said in a news release.

In the education case, McCleary v. State of Washington, 7 justices decided the state was failing to uphold a constitutional obligation to fully fund basic education. The decision stated that education was the “paramount” obligation, and funding cannot be cut purely to mitigate the state’s budget shortfall. To this end, the court now requires annual reports of progress by the Legislature. Eliminating 4 seats, as Baumgartner proposed, would almost definitely take out at least some of the offending justices.

The bill was introduced just a week after the court dealt conservatives another blow; a 6-3 decision invalidated a requirement that two-thirds of the Legislature must agree to any tax increase.

LGBT

Washington Florist Refuses To Serve Long-Time Customer’s Same-Sex Wedding

By Zack Ford on Mar 6, 2013 at 2:12 pm

Rob Ingersoll and his partner have been using the same florist, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, in their home of Richland, Washington for years, but now that they are engaged to be wed, Stutzman says she can’t do the wedding. Her explanation for denying them service was her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” as she explained to NBC Right Now (KNDO):

STUTZMAN: And I just took his hands and I said I’m sorry I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ… We hire gay people. I have friends that are gay, that wasn’t the issue. The issue is that I just didn’t want to participate in the marriage. [...]

Because of public outcry, Stutzman posted a response on the Facebook page for Arlene’s Flowers:

Since that day, we have received many comments on same sex marriages. I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my conviction, yours may be different.

I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay.

I’m sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene’s, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand.

Watch a clip of her interview with KNDO:

Though he was extremely hurt by her rejection, Ingersoll expressed his regret for posting about it because he does say he respects her right to her views. Numerous attorneys have reached out to him because she blatantly violated Washington’s laws protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation. (HT: The Advocate.)

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up