occupyallstreets:

Victory: Activist Sue Obama, Judge Rules NDAA Unconstitutional

In a stunning turnaround for an act of Congress, a judge ruled Wednesday that a counterterrorism provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual defense appropriations bill, is unconstitutional. Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming it would chill free speech./p>

In her decision published Wednesday, Forrest, in the Southern District of New York, ruled that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding — because of the potential that it could violate the 1st Amendment.

“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment,” she wrote, addressing the constitutional challenge.

Seven individuals, including Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg, had sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and a host of other government officials, stating they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activist activities for fear of violating Section 1021. That section prohibits providing substantial support for terrorist groups, but gives little definition of what that means. Environmental activists were also poised to join the suit if it expanded.

The suit demands that Congress cut or reform this section of the law, which allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without charges anyone — including U.S. citizens — who may have “substantially supported” terrorists or their “associated forces,” without defining what those terms mean. President Obama signed the bill on Dec 31, 2011, with a signing statement saying that the law was redundant of powers already provided to the government under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (passed after 9/11), and that these powers would not be used against U.S. citizens. The next administration may decide differently, however.

Source

Alexis Pauline Gumbs (via feministquotes)

All of this. Omg every single bit.

(via genderbitch)

preach.

(via sssupercovennn)

Word. It’s like, I think it’s fucking ridiculous that same-sex marriage is not allowed in massive chunks of the US, but I don’t like the institution of marriage as it exists either.

There needs to be an overhaul, a re-thinking of how we form unions — for romantic reasons, monetary reasons, whatever reason you have to come together with another person (people) to build a life together.

YES

(via mcgoats)

Separate marriage from benefits, then allow anyone who wants them access to either.

(via riotsnotdiets)

viviandemilo:

psychetimelapse:

genderqueer:

Argentina JUST PASSED a groundbreaking gender identity bill!!!

From now on, people will be able to change the name and gender on their ID without needing psychiatric permission or any body modifications. Furthermore, anyone who does want hormones or surgery will be able to access them for free through the public and private health system.

It was passed unanimously today by the Senate :-D

UNANIMOUSLY

<3 <3 <3

satans-advocate:

Sec. 2521, P. 1000 – The govt. will establish a National Medical Device Registry.

H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘(B) and is— ‘‘(I) a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”

Page 104 defines data in paragraph 1. Section B National Medical Device Registry from H.R. 3200 [Healthcare Bill], pages 1001-1008:

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance…

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is an “implantable radio frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information.” The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as “claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.”

Any other data deemed appropriate by the secretary, so is the sky is the limit?

Pages 1001-1008 “National Medical Device Registry” section.
Page 1006 “to be enacted within 36 months upon passage”
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationa…
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

What does this mean for potential future medical experiences? You go to a doctor for medical services; you are informed that he must implant an RFID chip in your body. And that all of your medical history must be programmed into the chip, and if you refuse the RFID chip under law he will not be able to treat you. Sound like science fiction? It’s not; it’s in the healthcare bill. Looking at the other information links provided tells us its been an idea for a very long time.