HOT NEWS: YEADON BOROUGH MAYOR ROHAN HEPKINS AT WAR WITH WILLIAM PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT OVER UNCONTROLLED RAISING TAXES.

Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule

Court: Religious rights trump birth control rule 

Demonstrators embrace as they react to hearing the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

The justices' 5-4 decision, splitting conservatives and liberals, means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under the health insurance plans of objecting companies.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, over a dissent from the four liberal justices, that forcing companies to pay for methods of women's contraception to which they object violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He said the ruling is limited and there are ways for the administration to ensure women get the birth control they want.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the decision creates health risks for women, and he said Congress should take action to make sure they get coverage.

"President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them," Earnest said. "Today's decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies."

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that Obama signed in 2010. Nearly 30 million women receive birth control as a result of the health law, the government has said.

Benefits experts say they expect little impact from the ruling because employers use health benefits to recruit and retain workers. But one constitutional law scholar, Marci Hamilton of Yeshiva University, cautioned that more than 80 percent of U.S. corporations are closely held and she said they could "now be able to discriminate against their employees."

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal Supreme Court vote that saved the law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election. On Monday, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety, holding in favor of the religious rights of closely held corporations, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the contraceptives provision.

Hobby Lobby is among roughly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like the two involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized.

But Monday's ruling would apply more broadly to other companies that do not want to pay for any of the 20 birth control methods and devices that have been approved by federal regulators.

Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," he said.

He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, creating a buffer, their insurer or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it. Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law.

That accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, and the court said Monday that profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administration can solve its problem easily. "The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it," Kennedy said. He said that arrangement "does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs."

Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt-outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.

Leaders of women's rights groups blasted the decision by "five male justices," in the words of Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government's supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

Most working women will probably see no impact from the ruling, corporate health benefits consultants expect. Publicly traded companies are unlikely to inject religion into their employee benefit plans, said Mark Holloway, director of compliance services at the Lockton Companies, an insurance broker that serves medium-sized and growing employers.

"Most employers view health insurance as a tool to attract and retain employees," said Holloway. "Women employees want access to contraceptive coverage, and most employers don't have a problem providing that coverage. It is typically not a high-cost item."

It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. Hobby Lobby is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

The company has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. Hobby Lobby is owned by the family of David Green, evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets.

Jimmie Moore Makes Court Challenge About His 32nd Ward by Van Stone frontpagenews1@yahoo.com (267) 293-9201

Jimmie Moore Makes Court Challenge About His 32nd Ward by Van Stone frontpagenews1@yahoo.com (267) 293-9201 

Jimmie Moore, former Philadelphia Municipal
Court Justice.
 
Former Municipal Judge Jimmie Moore has file a law suit against the Democratic City Committee of Philadelphia.

Overturning what he calls his primary election win as leader of North Philly's 32nd Ward is bad voting or worst for the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee.

I have been in close contact with Jimmie Moore, former judge, political candidate for Ward Leader, 32nd Ward, in the last Primary Election 2014.

There is a civil cover sheet; defendants are Garry Williams and Judith Robinson, Democratic County Executive Committee of Philadelphia.  The former Judge Jimmie Moore has sued concerning the Ward Leader election.  It is a civil rights issue.

"We are ready!" says Judge Moore.

The Civil Court will have a hearing tomorrow, Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 10AM in Courtroom 3A.

  His lawyer, Larry Otter, says the lawsuit may be filed as soon as today in federal court.

Moore challenged ward leader Gary Williams' bid for a third term. They agree that the first vote ended in a 20-20 tie.

Williams and Moore agree that Moore narrowly won a second vote during the ward meeting.

Tie votes are supposed to go directly to the Democratic City Committee's Contest Committee. The full

Democratic City Committee voted Monday that Williams would have prevailed 21-20 because a committeewoman wanted to change her vote.

Moore, said he sees himself as the rightfully elected ward leader.

"I'm going to have a ward meeting Monday," Moore said. "I'm going to continue on with ward business." That meeting did take place on Monday, June 23, 2014.

Kerry hands dire warning to Iraqis over future

Kerry hands dire warning to Iraqis over future 
 

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, at the Prime Minister's office in Baghdad on Monday, June 23, 2014. Kerry flew to Baghdad on Monday to meet with Iraq's leaders and personally urge the Shiite-led government to give more power to political opponents before a Sunni insurgency seizes more control across the country and sweeps away hopes for lasting peace.

 

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Warning of the "existential threat" posed by Sunni militants, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the U.S. is prepared to take military action even if Baghdad delays political reforms, noting that the risks of letting the insurgency run rampant threaten dangers beyond Iraq's borders.

But he stressed military action would not be in support of the present Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Kerry, on a few hours' visit to Baghdad, urged Iraq's leaders to quickly set aside divisions as the only means of stopping the vicious Sunni insurgency and said Iraq's future depended on choices Iraq's leaders make in the next days and weeks.

"The future of Iraq depends primarily on the ability of Iraq's leaders to come together and take a stand united against ISIL," Kerry told a news conference, using the acronym for the al-Qaida-breakaway group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, that has captured huge swathes of Iraqi territory in the north and west.

"Not next week, not next month, but now," he said. "It is essential that Iraq's leaders form a genuinely inclusive government as rapidly as possible."

It was a dire warning to leaders of Iraq's bitterly divided Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that came at a time when the Middle Eastern nation was facing its worst crisis since the withdrawal of U.S. forces in late 2011 after eight years in Iraq.

The Sunni fighters have virtually erased Iraq's western border with Syria and also taken territory on the frontier with Jordan.

Noting the dangers the Sunni militants pose to Iraq and the region, Kerry said the U.S. was prepared to take military action if necessary even before a new government is formed.

"That's why, again, I reiterate, the president will not be hampered if he deems it necessary, if the formation is not complete," he said, referring to Iraqi efforts to form a government that bridges the deep divisions among the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, Kurds and other groups.

Kerry stressed, however, that if military action is taken - President Barack Obama has said he is considering airstrikes - "it has nothing to do with support for a specific government."

"It's not specifically support for the existing prime minister or for one sect or another," Kerry said. "It will be against ISIL, because ISIL is a terrorist organization, and I think everybody today that we talked to understood the urgency."

Kerry arrived in Baghdad just a day after the Sunni militants captured two key border posts, one along the frontier with Jordan and the other with Syria, deepening al-Maliki's predicament. Their latest victories considerably expanded territory under their control just two weeks after the group started swallowing up chunks of northern Iraq, heightening pressure on al-Maliki to step aside.

Their offensive in the north and west takes the group closer to its dream of carving out an Islamic state straddling both Syria and Iraq. Controlling the borders with Syria will help it supply fellow fighters there with weaponry looted from Iraqi warehouses, boosting its ability to battle beleaguered Syrian government forces.

The creation of such a vast safe haven would serve as a magnet for jihadis from across the world, much like al-Qaida did in the 1990s in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Already, the Islamic State's battlefield successes in Syria and more recently in Iraq have sent tremors across the region, jolting neighboring countries into action over fears that the Sunni militants may set their sights on them next.

In Jordan, Iraq's neighbor to the west, the army dispatched reinforcements to its border with Iraq last week to boost security, while in Lebanon police busted a suspected sleeper cell allegedly linked to the Islamic State militants in raids on two hotels in central Beirut.

Kerry offered few details of his closed-door meetings in Baghdad. But he said each of the officials he met with - including al-Maliki - committed to the newly elected parliament holding its inaugural session by the end of June.

Iraq's constitution says parliament must convene by June 30, when lawmakers must elect a speaker, a position that has traditionally gone to a Sunni. The chamber will then have 30 days to elect a president - traditionally a Kurd - who will have 15 days to ask the leader of the majority in the 328-seat legislature to form a government. Then a prime minister will be picked.

Al-Maliki's coalition, State of the law, won 92 seats in the April 30 election, the most by any single group. 

While that would have normally placed him in a strong position to lead a coalition government, there is a growing consensus among his former Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni allies to deny him a third term because of what they see as his monopoly on decision-making, his perceived sectarian policies toward the Sunnis and Kurds, and the military setbacks of the past two weeks.

Kerry, echoing comments made by Obama last week, said no country - including the U.S. - should try to pick new leadership for Iraq. "That is up to the people of Iraq," he said. However, Iraqi officials briefed on the Kerry-al-Maliki talks say the pressure has increased on the prime minister to step down.

Al-Maliki, they said, urged the United States during his talks with Kerry to start airstrikes against the Sunni militants in territory under their control in the mostly Sunni north and west. Kerry's response was that the United States needed to move with extreme caution to avoid civilian casualties and not appear to be targeting Sunnis, they said.

Also during the meeting, according to the officials, the United States appeared to be linking any military action on guarantees that a genuinely inclusive government would come to office in Baghdad.

The officials agreed to discuss the substance of the talks only on condition of anonymity.

Obama, in a round of television interviews in the U.S., said al-Maliki and the Iraqi leadership face a test as to whether "they are able to set aside their suspicions, their sectarian preferences for the good of the whole."

"The one thing I do know is that if they fail to do that then no amount of military action by the United States can hold that country together," Obama said.

Al-Maliki's Shiite-led government long has faced criticism of discriminating against Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish populations. But it is his perceived marginalization of the once-dominant Sunnis that sparked violence reminiscent of Iraq's darkest years of sectarian warfare in 2006 and 2007.

In the latest evidence of the deadly turmoil roiling Iraq, suspected Sunni militants stormed the house of a government-backed Sunni militiaman, his wife, son, daughter, sister and a cousin in Tarmiyah, a town 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of Baghdad, police and hospital officials said. The anti-al-Qaida militia, known as "Sahwa" or "Awakening," was set up by the Americans to fight al-Qaida in 2007.

The Iraqi government later took over the militias, incorporating many of them in the security forces. They have been revived to combat the re-emergence of the Sunni militants over the past year.

What is a slur? Redskins case forces us to decide

What is a slur? Redskins case forces us to decide 

FILE - In this Oct. 13, 2014 file photo, Juan Mancias, of Floresville, Texas, a member of the American Indian Movement of Central Texas, holds a sign as he joins others in protest before an NFL football game between the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys in Arlington, Texas. The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday, June 18, 2014, that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled.

Something is happening just beneath the fight over the name of a certain Washington, D.C., pro football team: America is working through the process of determining what is - or is not - racially offensive.

What is a slur, and who gets to decide? How many people must be offended to tip the scales? Why should some be forced to sacrifice their traditions out of respect for others?

We are a long way from consensus on these questions, judging by the response to a federal ruling that the "Redskins" team name is disparaging and its trademarks should be canceled.

The team is appealing the decision, and even if it loses its trademark, it can still use the name. But this latest development highlights the limitations of how America wrestles with certain racial statements, and our struggle to balance free speech and social good.

A rapidly diversifying nation has more need than ever to figure out what is racially offensive.

Some offenses are undeniable: NBA owner Donald Sterling earned universal condemnation for asking his mistress not to bring black people to his games.

Yet in an era of blunt and sometimes coarse online discussion and political debate, Americans continue to disagree about the nature of calling Hispanics who cross the border without documents "illegals," or the propriety of images that depict President Barack Obama as a "witch doctor."

And it took years of discussion to win makeovers for Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, the stereotypical black faces used to sell syrup and rice.

Jim McCarthy, a lawyer who followed the Redskins trademark case, said he is not offended by the name, but "there's no denying the fact that a certain percentage of Native Americans are offended. We don't know if it's a minority, a majority, but it's a fact."

"If we want to be the best version of ourselves in our society, do we want to promote that, or do we want to minimize that?" he asked.

"I'd love it to be different where people just cooperate to effect change," he said. "But we're a very adversarial society."

Michael Lindsay, who was lead attorney for a group of Native Americans in a prior trademark case, said there are two ways to determine if something is offensive.

"The first is the legal path. The other is out in the real world. The legal test, it seems to me, actually does have something to teach the real world," said Lindsay, of the Dorsey and Whitney firm in Minneapolis.

Here is what the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ruling Wednesday in a case first filed more than 20 years ago, tried to show the real world:

-What matters is if "Redskins" is disparaging to Native Americans - whether other ethnic groups are offended doesn't matter.

-A "substantial" percentage of Native Americans must be offended - not a majority. The judges defined that threshold at 30 percent.

-A disparaging term does not require intent: "Redskins" can still be disparaging even if the team says it is intended to show honor and respect.

Based on testimony from linguistics and lexicography experts, and a review of how the term was used in dictionaries, books, newspapers, magazines and movies, the board ruled 2-1 that the term was disparaging to Native Americans.

The dissenting opinion was not a ringing endorsement of the term: "I am not suggesting that the term "redskins" was not disparaging ... Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was," the judge wrote.

All of which left Paul Calobrisi, co-founder of http://www.savethewashingtonredskins.com , quite unsatisfied. In his opinion, there's a simple way to determine whether something is a slur: The majority rules.

"I think an overwhelming majority of Native Americans should be against the name before we change it," said Calobrisi, who grew up in Virginia rooting for the team.

He resisted the idea that a few people could decide something is offensive when he did not intend to offend them.

"If they think we're demeaning them, if they think we think they are mascots, if we were doing it in any negative way, they are wrong ... As Redskins fans, we love them. Cowboys and Indians, we were the Indians. We cherish these people."

But intent is irrelevant to Lindsay, the attorney: "When a substantial percentage tell you this is offensive, you should stop. It's really that simple."

"Even if you meant no offense, if you keep using it, what does that say about you?"

It says that some people care more about their traditions than determining what is offensive, said Gillian McGoldrick, editor-in-chief of the school newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Langhorne, Pennsylvania.

Neshaminy's mascot is the "Redskins." Her newspaper recently chose to no longer print the name, but school administrators ordered them to do so. When McGoldrick and her staff resisted, administrators briefly confiscated the newspapers.

At first, McGoldrick thought the name honored Native Americans. But when an Indian school parent objected, she researched the history and usage of the word and changed her mind. She doesn't think those who support the team name have fully investigated the issue.

"I don't think they want to," she said. "I think they want to decide the word for themselves. But that's not how this works. We have dictionaries for that."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the term is "very offensive and should be avoided." But again, given today's confrontational discourse on the Internet and in politics, do we really care about giving offense? Or has that value gone the way of curtsies and tipping hats?

"As a general culture, I think we care about offending certain people," said Karmit Bulman, executive director of the Conflict Resolution Center in Minneapolis. "We are still very much a power-based society. We care if we offend those in power. We don't care if we offend those who we see as irrelevant and invisible."

"You can look at this (Redskins case) as a trivial dispute, it's just a name," she said. "Or you can look at it as demonstrating how we still have huge clashes between people who we see as different than we are. And that our systems that we use to try to address those issues are really unsatisfactory."

Dennis Locantore: The Complete Burst Of A Bass Musician Package by Van Stone Frontpagenews1@yahoo.com (267) 293-9201.

Dennis Locantore:  The Complete Burst Of A Bass Musician Package by Van Stone Frontpagenews1@yahoo.com (267) 293-9201. 

During some recent performances in churches, studios, and on television in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Dennis Locantore electrified a crowd of over thousands with an incredible two-and-a-half hour, sometimes three hour 16-song set list that covered all corners of musical sounds. The performances ranged from Gospel and R & B Music to Caribbean and new Jazz Fusion.  Philadelphia Front Page News Magazine deemed Loncantore’s music as one of the best bass play heard in 2014, and if you weren't able to catch the sound live at a concert, now you can listen to the performance for yourself on POWER WVSR 1360.us Internet Radio. We caught up with Locantore to chat with him about his musician talents.

Q.   From what city are you originally, and where are some of the cities you’ve played?

A.  I am from Camden NJ.  I have played music throughout the US from NYC to Los Angeles, CA. I’ve played so many venues I probably can't remember them all. I have traveled to Paradise Island, Nassau, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and Curacao.  I have done session work for Vincent Montana Jr. and the Salsoul Orchestra, and played all kinds of music in every genre.

Q. Describe your first instrument. And other instruments that you play.

 A.  My first instruments were really guitar and piano. I wanted to play in a particular band at age 10.  But the band had a guitarist, a functional keyboard player and a drummer, but they had no one to play bass. So I became a bass player in the main for years until I got involved as a writer and set myself up with a midi keyboard, some sound modules software, and a computer in the early 90's. Hence, I can play guitar, drums, keys and bass.

Q. What was/were the first tune(s) you learned?

A.  The first songs I learned were definitely BEATLES, Elvis's stuff and R&B hits from the early 60's. Since I am basically self-taught I started to study orchestrations and arranging music. Everything from film scores (another passion of mine) to jazz, classical and even experimental music and twelve tone composition and serial techniques.

Q. Do you continue to perform in public? Please describe those occasions? Have you performed in concerts, on radio, on TV?  

A.  Oh, yes.  And I have performed in public for audiences as large as 19,000 people in concerts, hotels, clubs, showrooms, private parties, churches, studios and on television.

Q. How can you be reached concerning your music today?

A. The best way to reach me is email as I constantly check it. And email is quicker than playing "phone tag."Here is my email address…soulhog5@comcast.net.  

2 Phila. Men Freed After Serving 15 Years For Murder Won’t Be Retried

2 Phila. Men Freed After Serving 15 Years For Murder Won’t Be Retried

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — The Philadelphia district attorney has decided not to retry two men who were freed from prison last fall after serving fifteen years for a 1995 murder, after the men’s case was championed by the Innocence Project at Temple University.

Eugene Gilyard and Lance Felder were convicted of a brutal robbery and shooting on the strength of a single witness who picked them out of a photo array two years after the crime.

A judge ordered their release last November, describing the evidence as “extremely weak” and ruling that a jury should get a chance to hear the case again because of new evidence uncovered by the Innocence Project.

For full story go to:  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/