PseudoSABR

This is false. Although the Partial Birth Abortion Ban does make Dilatation and Extraction of the fetus illegal, Intact Dilatation and Excavation is still legal--where the fetus is, well, cut up and excavated. The alternative poses more risks to the woman, however, it is supposed that she can better retain her dignity having been spared the partial birth Source on the differences between partial birth procedures. It's after this Intact D & E, that material might be useful for stem-cell research or prospective organs could be recovered. (IMHO, the Partial Birth Abortion Act doesn't materially alter the abortion dilemma, but rather poses more risks to the women, leaving more gruesome choice to her in the second trisemester--it's passage is a symbolic bone to pro-life advocates.) If Planned Parenthood had violated the Partial Birth Abortion Act, there's numerous outfits including many State Attorneys who would happily file suit.

I wasn't endorsing a leftist politics in Israel, much less one unconcerned about security. I was responding to the notion that Israel would be encouraged by the results of the deal--which I don't think they are. I honestly don't know if there's a sustainable Israel that doesn't concede a significant Palestinian State--the premise of Israel has generational antagonism. I want to be a fly on the wall of what ever room, people carved up the map after WWII. It will be a long time for humanity to correct the arrogance that took place in that room.

Perk gives up a triple to Braun. Ugh.

With the Hawks in perpetual power in Israel, I doubt stability is what that government seeks. They stay in power based on the belief that there is an imminent Muslim threat to which only hawkish strength can protect. Any diplomatic gains or long-lasting stability in the region undercuts the current regime in Israel, I think.

Helpful and thorough website; thanks for the link. What is the counter-argument here? Appeasement?

That's Rookie of the Year Marty Cordova.

I think everyone should read the actual bill: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read: 67386. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following: (1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent. (2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances: (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused. ( The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented. (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence. (4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: (A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious. ( The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity. © The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition. ( In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following: (1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality. (2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses. (3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault. (4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate. (5) Contacting and interviewing the accused. (6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses. (7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate. (8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people. (9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident. (10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty. (11) The role of the institutional staff supervision. (12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases. (13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties. © In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused. (d) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy. (e) Outreach programming shall be included as part of every incoming student’s orientation.

It certainly seemed like you were suggesting that the nuance was a right of passage, not that you were advocating a distinction in punishment. My apologies, but your post did seemed hedged with caveats that led me to that reading. (If you thought post was self-righteous, the pre-edited version was way worse). I do agree the law needs far more flexibility in fitting the punishment to the actual crime, and I agree there is some nuance there were the culpability of the transgressor might be somewhat mitigated. Here, the punishment is expulsion which is far cry from the 15 years of imprisonment you note.

I'm all about that. But that will take generations. And is something that the state really can't implement in a way that our democracy would ever approve.

False accusations of rape already occur. And unreported rape occurs. And reported rape goes unconvicted. I don't think hard prosecution will fix the latter. I understand the problems with the shifting the burden, but I do think for the special circumstance of universities removing the burden of proof off of the victims is a good thing. I'm in favor of alternative ideas, but I don't think the system California is putting in place will necessarily have the outcome Levi predicts.

I think women have different experience of that phenomenon you call growing up. Not everyone has the same reaction to unconsented sex, and we shouldn't minimize those that aren't fine with it.

I don't know it work that way, that seems pretty cynical. It's still up for the factfinders to decide who they believe--they would have to believe a person was lying about consent in order to find him guilty of rape. I think the shifting of the burden is far more about taking it off of the victim, than it is about placing it on the accused.

I'm not missing this point. I think that 'hardship' is outweighed by the ineffectiveness of our current system to allow for actual rape victims to prove that they were raped. I'll ask it this way. Is rape really so infrequent that we should worry more about the potential for people being falsely accused, and then later found guilty at a hearing where they could not prove the other person had consent and as a result they kicked out of school (and suffer other consequences)? I just don't think our current presumption of innocence standard is going to allow us to really remedy the situation. None of the alternatives you've listed seem impactful given that presumption. Maybe this isn't the right model, but I do think we need to examine what kind of proof is needed to establish rape on a university campus, where people are known to put themselves in risky situations.

False. The distinction is substantial: a: Making no presumption about guilt or innocence is not the same thing as b: making a presumption of guilt. In the latter, you pre-decide a key element, and the former you make no such decision, and let the facts guide you. I'm making a distinction between the punishment and the consequences, noting that the punishment is nothing like the criminal punishment for rape. As to what the consequences will be, it will matter whether the proceedings are made public? Will they be?

Not only was the accusation public, but I think charges were brought and later dropped. I think that points to how our current system fails addressing the phenomenon of rape that meets the criminal burden of proof. The Duke case also points to that there's not much to be gained by false accusations other than a lot of drama.

I think your hitting upon the crux. Some people, including me believe: even when both parties are at fault, when "sexual misconduct" happens--given the nature of penetration--that is cut-and-dry rape. Maybe not violent, god-awful, worse-case evil rape. But no doubt, many young women put themselves in really stupid situations, and too many young men take advantage of that situation. I think that's rape. And those men should be punished. University's are fertile ground for people putting themselves in risky situations, because of that, we probably need to take unusual steps.

It is when we are talking about a CRIMINAL conviction. For instance, the burden of suing some one for sexual assault, emotional harm, etc. is far easier in a civil proceeding. (Proof by a 'preponderance of evidence' as opposed to 'beyond a reasonable doubt') Here, where the potential punishment is getting kicked out of one school where the accused choose to be, there probably is even a lower threshold of proof. The nature of rape itself is what allows for a shifting of scrutiny, and i think an avoidance of presumption. I'll look at the Bill itself, but I don't think there is a presumption of guilt (not of criminality), rather there is no presumption of innocence, so the fact-finders wouldn't favor any party's interpretation of the facts.

Well, in the reverse, how do you prove that rape happened if there isn't physical evidence? Beyond the person's testimony? Indeed, the rubber does meet the road.

I'm sure the accused's testimony would stand as evidence. It would still be up to the fact-finders to determine whether they believe him. This isn't really different from choosing whether to believe the victim who is accusing the person of rape. It just shifts who needs to convince you.

I know anecdotal or subjective evidence won't sway anyone, but I personally know of women who would have had some recourse where they felt they had none. I really hope some women weigh in. I think the demand to show proof that rape is an epidemic is bound within patriarchy itself. The trouble about rape its often a he-said-she-said so it defies 'proof' even when it really happens. Not all rape--especially date rape--involves forcible penetration that can be detected after the act. The problem isn't prosecution not "nailing" actual rapist. The problem is having enough evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt. And when there isn't physical evidence, that gives prosecution very little to work with, especially if the victim was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. IMHO, It's not at all fascist for a society to ask of men: MAKE SURE YOU GET CONSENT. And for dudes who don't want to get consent, well, they can choose not to go to universities. Again, this is not criminal law that would broadly apply to anyone or would result in a criminal conviction.

Because the actual legal consequences can be subverted by the presumption of innocence. This will totally change that, and enable actual rapists to get kicked out of school. "How would one even go about "proving" that their partner gave consent? Short of video? (Especially given many of these statutes claim anyone that has consumed alcohol, by definition, cannot give consent)" I don't know what the standard of proof actually would be--I doubt it's beyond on a reasonable doubt. Your assuming that fact-finders at the hearing wouldn't weigh testimony from witnesses, the victim and the accused, and choose to believe one over the other. In criminal law, a rapist can escape conviction because a victim's testimony may not overcome the burden of reasonable doubt. Likewise, if the accused is credible in asserting affirmative consent that may be enough. This wouldn't be a court of law, and the proof would not need to be reach that level of scrutiny. "Your argument basically comes down to trying to regulate sexual conduct. Is that a new liberal thing I wasn't aware of? It's sounds like you and the abstinence only folks might be on the same page here. Your justifications are borderline fascist. " Fascist? Give me a break. Your arguments are borderline sexist, totally dismissing the epidemic of rape before whining about the falsely accused. If you want to have discussion about the issues please dispense with framing the discussion with terms like fascism and Klingon--it's weak and rude.

There's a hearing, there is due process, but yes the presumption is against the accused. I seriously doubt every hearing would result in a finding of rape--that would be a broken, rubber stamp system, and if that would happen, the law will quickly be changed. Where the law will have an affect--hopefully--is how young men engage in sexual conduct. Make sure you get consent, and make sure that you don't sleep with someone who could falsely accuse you. (i.e. avoid one-night stands with strangers). Women already have to worry about dating a person that could potentially rape them. I don't know if this system is appropriate, but I think 1) the injuries left by being falsely accused are smaller than that of being raped and 2) that the likelihood of being falsely accused is lower than the likelihood of rape.

Because university rapes are epidemic. I'd be curious what some of our female board members think of the approach. If our current system isn't working to keep female universities students free from rape, I think this kind of experimentation is appropriate. If it results in far too many false-accusations-resulting-in-dismissal, the law can be changed. No one's going to prison over this. The typical criminal standards for the burden of proof work against rape victims (he said/she said), and in a special circumstance where many young women are at higher risk of rape such as a university campus, changing that standard makes a lot of sense to me, though not without risk. Private institutions are free to set whatever standards they want when dismissing their members and employees; while universities are semi-public, students do choose to become a member of universities, so this isn't some blanket law that would apply to all young men.

At first blush, it looks like a university discipline hearing where this burden and standard of proof has shifted. (And the law only applies to those receiving financial aid). In that case, the university is free to have a lower standard of proof of rape, and to put that burden on the accused. It won't result in a conviction of an innocent person, but it could result in some people being falsely-accused getting kicked out of school. And really which mindset are we worried about more, the one that falsely-accuses without consequence or the one that rapes without consequence? I don't think there's any risk of the criminal justice system picking up this standard--if they did, as Levi implied, it would violate our fundamental rights to be presumed innocent.

Darren Wolfson ‏@DWolfsonKSTP 13m13 minutes ago Max Kepler tweaked his shoulder today, I hear. Initial thought is day-to-day. So minor. Did exit Chattanooga's game early. #mntwins