Mediaboss Marketing

Oklahoma lawmakers filed a number of bills for the upcoming session that herald the U.S. Constitution while or even as grounds for defying federal law and resisting the federal government. (Photo by Janice Francis-Smith)

OKLAHOMA CITY Oklahoma lawmakers filed a number of bills for the upcoming session that herald the U.S. Constitution while or even as grounds for defying federal law and resisting the federal government.

Lawmakers met Thursdays deadline to file bills for the upcoming legislative session, which begins Feb. 7, with more than 2,200 new measures. While many focus on business and issues unique to Oklahoma, several bills grapple with issues of faith, culture and values currently debated on the national stage.

A total of 1,482 House Bills, 18 House Joint Resolutions and two House Concurrent Resolutions were filed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, while 774 Senate Bills and 23 Senate Joint Resolutions were filed.

Republicans hold a clear majority in both chambers of the Oklahoma Legislature. Several Republican-authored bills exhibited opposition to the federal government, where Democrats occupy the White House and hold a slim majority in Congress.

Senate Bill 495 by Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, clarified in its language that the author was not suggesting secession from the United States, even as the bill declared that the State of Oklahoma will not accede to the federal government in matters regarding abortion.

The measure provides that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and yet asserts that Oklahoma lawmakers fulfill their oaths to the Constitution by refusing to assent to the legal fiction that such Constitution prohibits this state from exercising its reserved police powers to outlaw homicide and from exercising its constitutional and God-given duties to provide equal protection to all persons within its jurisdiction

Nothing in this act shall be construed as an intent by this state to withdraw from the United States of America, reads the text of SB 495. To the contrary, this act is in accordance with and in furtherance of the Constitution of the United States and the principles which made America great. This state urges the federal government to honor the same by supporting this act.

Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow who is currently campaigning for a seat in Congress filed several bills which state outright defiance to federal authority and accepted provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Dahms SB 1226 would prohibit illegal alien anchor babies from receiving citizenship in Oklahoma, as it was described in a statement announcing the measure.

Similarly, Dahm and others filed several bills intended to protect Oklahomans right to own firearms in defiance of any federal law that would outlaw said firearms.

Mirroring last years arguments regarding Critical Race Theory, Oklahoma lawmakers are also joining in with legislation filed nationwide targeting issues of culture and values.

SB 1442 by Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, prohibits schools from teaching social emotional learning, or SEL curriculum. Designed to assist children dealing with trauma and build character, SEL curriculum is being targeted by dozens of Republican lawmakers nationwide following publication of a Parents Bill of Rights authored by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, claiming the program treats educators as therapists performing duties that should be left to parents.

Read more from the original source:
Culture wars a big focus of upcoming legislative session - Journal Record

Subhas Chandra Boses 125th birth anniversary yesterday saw different parties leaders like Basavraj Bommai, Mamata Banerjee, MK Stalin, Uddhav Thackeray and Yogi Adityanath pay tribute to him across the country. In the evening it was all topped by the Prime Minister unveiling Boses hologram statue at India Gate. The new statue as much as the preceding relocation of the Amar Jawan Jyoti from this space to the National War Memorial has set off a fresh round of heated debate over Indias history whether it is being erased or enriched, diluted or diversified.

Likewise, the removal of one of Gandhis favourite hymns Abide With Me from this years Beating Retreat ceremony is being criticised as yet another insult to minorities and the Mahatma, and simultaneously defended as welcome phasing-in of tunes like Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon that have wider connect with citizens. There is also much subnational texture to such conflicts. For example, the Centres rejection of Tamil Nadus Republic Day tableau has gotten strong rebuttal from the state, with DMK leaders schooling the north about the contributions of the souths freedom fighters who starred in the tableau.

But contrary to whatever the most vituperative tweets on opposite sides suggest, such contestation over historical meanings is not new, or necessarily bad. They are part of the rough and tumble of a diverse democracy, and contestations over meanings as well as readings of history are signs of healthy life in the public space. Of course, such debates often follow the power cycle every political party in government that has the capacity and inclination promotes its own heroes and other assorted historical and cultural preferences. But the quest for power by convincing voters is one of the defining features of democracy. Therefore, this is natural, too. Yes, there are some red lines that define a democracy that must be respected in such contests. Otherwise, these so-called culture wars are simply a manifestation of politics.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.

END OF ARTICLE

Originally posted here:
Good culture wars: Intense debate around history and iconography reflects a diverse democracy - The Times of India Blog

This article is a response to Will Catholic universities survive the upheaval in higher education? The next 10 years will tell, a feature by Charles C. Camosy. Read more views on this issue linked at the bottom of this article.

If the Covid-19 pandemic should teach us anything, it is that the unexpected will come at us. And when it does, we have a choice: to take care only of ourselves, what Pope Francis calls the hyperinflation of the individual, or to take stock, look at the suffering world and work for change that has the common good at heart.

Charles Camosys analysis of the future of higher education, which unfortunately stokes divisions and uses vague references to the culture to be resisted, does not get us closer to envisioning the kind of work we need to do. Most fundamentally, I do not find a compelling reason in his essay for the why of higher education, which is where this conversation needs to begin. Why should people of faith care if we have colleges and universities at all?

The why of higher education today must go beyond the day-to-day of campus life or faculty politics. If, as is made evident by the kind of critical theories that are criticized by Dr. Camosy, higher education in the United States has for most of its history ensured the preservation and continuation of privilege based on race and class (remember thecollege admissions scandal?), then our current moment calls for new models that will reverse this. The model for todays university must involve working for true societal transformation, equipping more of us to be thoughtfully critical and engaged in a shared civic life of genuinely communal concerns. It must involve inviting more of us into conversations that build a bridge across borders, continents, classes and races.

Higher education is at its best when it allows us to explore the many intersections where we can meet and discover us-ness, while celebrating the beauty of difference. This has been a focus of my own work, which resulted in the bookTeaching Global Theologies: Power and Praxis. This expansive view of who we mean by us makes clear that the Catholic intellectual tradition we teach has to be reimagined to make room for the writings of the Jesuit martyrs of El Salvador, the forceful critiques of feminist theologies, the unceasing voices of economic and post-colonial analysis from the global South, and the ideas of our young people, who are forging courageous alliances in defense of planetary flourishing.

Our campuses have to make present the disenfranchised many, not by pigeonholing Hispanics as being well suited for small schools close to their homes, as Dr. Camosy suggests, but by having the presence of young people from very dissimilar communities on all of our campuses, shaking us up, changing our spaces, creating a new reality steeped in solidarity. Higher education should be abundant, not a rare privilege for the few. If that means seeking partnerships with corporations or government wherever these are possible, so we can multiply resources, then let us do it.

Let us seek a true culture of encounter where we can affect each others worlds. If Google wants to put funding into education, then perhaps we can work together so they will come to embrace the centrality of ethics. As we engage beyond our spaces, we can work to bring about the challenging work that Pope Francis describes inLet Us Dream, his book with Austen Ivereigh, as redesigning the economy so that it can offer every person access to a dignified existence while protecting and regenerating the natural world.

There are many ways that we are Catholic. We may be described pejoratively as woke, but my community of accountability, my students, want to be seenand I want them to know I see them. Jesus extraordinarily countercultural practice was to invite outsiders to share the table and in that unlikely fellowship begin creating the kin-dom of God. This radical inclusion is what gets us past pointless culture wars and into the Good News.

Read more:
The solution to the culture wars on campus? Radical inclusion. - America Magazine

I thought we were beyond this anti-American, anti-Christian madness, particularly here at home, but I was wrong.

There is a nasty underbelly of radicalized conservatives in Citrus County. I found it shocking since I didnt think the county where I was born and raised supported such narrow-minded, bigoted people.

One of the messages being used is a slanderous assault on library staff, which accused them of trying to peddle LGBTQ "propaganda" during June in celebration of "Gay Pride Month, with rainbow flag displays featuring books and slogans promoting homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Their language was uncivil, inflammatory, unchristian, and scientifically wrong. In a move outside of the standard practice for the BOCC, this became an agenda item at a recent meeting. Luckily, common sense and three brave Commissioners voted to continue to allow the library to educate its patrons.

This group also promoted a march supporting the Patriots who stormed the Capitol building in DC. Patriots connote a vision of a revolutionary war hero and the American fight for independence. Now they are in jail.

Get more from the Citrus County Chronicle

They also took a shot at our award-winning Superintendent of Schools. This group doesnt mind degrading anyones reputation if they dont espouse their worldview. We have a good school system. It is well run and produces solid citizens, but that wont stop this group from creating issues they can protest.

Hopefully, these people dont represent Citrus County. They dont represent the people I know in Citrus. The people I know are kind and want this divisiveness to end.

Nathan Sharp

Crystal River

Read more:
Culture Wars are alive and well in Citrus County - Citrus County Chronicle

The COVID-19 pandemic has been extraordinarily hard on people everywhere, creating personal, social, and economic hardships and leaving an almost unimaginable death toll. It has been particularly devastating in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other kinds of congregate housing. Thus it is not surprising that inmates in American prisons and jails would be among the hardest hit segments of the population.

The COVID Prison Project reports that People who live in correctional settings are at a high risk of exposure to COVID-19. In fact, a majority of the largest, single-site outbreaks since the beginning of the pandemic have been in jails and prisons. As of January 18, 2022, there were 494,528 cases among people in prison and 2,748 inmates have died from the virus. In addition, 159,984 prison staff have contracted COVID-19, and 259 have died from it.

The severity of COVID-19 outbreaks does not follow the usual blue state/red state breakdown. California and Texas each lead the nation in COVID-19 cases among the incarcerated. Together they have had more than 100,000 cases in their prisons.

The everyday uncertainty and terror of trying to live with and through a pandemic is compounded many times over behind bars. Overcrowded conditions make social distancing impossible; health care in prisons is notoriously inadequate even when COVID-19 is not raging. Prison medical personnel invest little time and energy in keeping up with the latest in COVID-19 protections.

All of these things may be the predictable consequences of life behind bars during a pandemic.

But this weeks news that officials in Arkansass Washington County Detention Center have been administering to COVID-positive patients drugs that are not approved to fight the disease, and not getting consent from the inmates for those drugs, is shocking. CBS News reported that medical staff gave them the anti-parasite drug ivermectin last year, without their consent, to treatCOVID-19, while telling them the pills were vitamins.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of four of those inmates who say that had they been informed that the drugs they were given included the dewormer ivermectin and informed of its nature and potential side-effects, they would have refused to take it.

The news about the lawsuit and the possible violations of the prisoners rights serves as a reminder of the profound vulnerability of all inmates to the skill, judgment, and concern of medical personnel who are assigned to care for them.

That COVID-19 culture wars and unreliable information are now influencing medical decisions in prisons means that legislatures and courts must be especially vigilant in ensuring that prison doctors recognize and respect the right of inmates to informed consent to any medical treatment provided to them.

Ivermectin was developed forty years ago as a drug for livestock and quickly became a big moneymaker for pharmaceutical giant Merck. Ivermectin has been recognized to have limited human uses. It has been approved only to treat diseases like river blindness, intestinal problems caused by roundworms, head lice, and rosacea.

A National Public Radio report on its use as a treatment for COVID-19 notes that in June 2020, a group of Australian researchers published a papershowing that large quantities of ivermectin could stop the coronavirus from replicating in cell cultures. But, as the NPR report notes, The amount of ivermectin a person would need to take to achieve that effect isup to 100 timesthe dose approved for humans.

As a result, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved its use as a COVID-19 treatment and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have warned against using the drug for that purpose.

The FDA went as far as tweeting out a reminderlast year on August 21: You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, yall. Stop it.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the FDA and CDC position, ivermectin has come to play an important role in COVID-19 culture wars. Anti-vaxxers and mask skeptics have embraced it and claimed it is a miracle cure for COVID-19.

Acolytes of former President Trump like Texas Congressman Louis Gomert and Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson have ivermectin as an important part of the effort to defeat COVID-19. Fox News personalities, including Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, have also promoted the drug.

Perhaps this is why the Washington County Detention Centers Dr. Robert Karas started doling out ivermectin to inmates with COVID-19. Karas has been a vocal advocate for using the drug during the pandemic. On January 15 he boasted about its use at the prison.

Inmates arent dumb, he said, and I suspect in the future other inmates around the country will be suing their facilities requesting the same treatment were using at WCDCincluding the Ivermectin.

It is of course one thing for an inmate to request a particular treatment, but quite another for Dr. Karas or any other doctor to give it to them without their consent.

Courts have long recognized that physicians and other medical personnel must obtain informed consent before treating patients.

As a New York appellate court put it in a 1914 decision, Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body, and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patients consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.

And what applies beyond prison walls also applies on the inside as well.

The National Commission on Correctional Healthcare notes that Any procedure requiring writtenconsentin the community also requires a signedconsentfrom aninmatein a correctional setting.

And some state correctional departments have codified that right in regulations and policy directives. For example, the Michigan Department of Corrections states that Informed consent shall be obtained when consent is required under prevailing medical community standards before medical care is provided, unless the medical treatment or procedure is authorized by state or federal law or Department policy (e.g., blood sample for mandatory DNA or HIV testing or, body cavity search), including situations set forth in this policy.

The American Medical Association calls for respecting the autonomy and obtaining informed consentfrom the incarcerated patient[A] physician must be able to conclude, in good conscience and to the best of his or her professional judgment, that to the extent possible the patient voluntarily gave his or her informed consent, recognizing that an element of coercion is inevitably present.

The AMA is right to recognize the coercive environment in which inmates live. But recognizing that fact means that medical personnel must make special efforts to be sure that treatment is as voluntary as it can be.

Dr. Karas and his Arkansas colleagues seem to have ignored that obligation in their COVID culture war zeal. In a letter to the Arkansas Medical Board, Karas made the stunning admission that inmates had not been given necessary information about ivermectin. Only after the media got wind of the situation, Karas acknowledged, were steps taken to assuage any concern that any detainees were being misled or coerced into taking the medications.

Writing a decade ago about severe inadequacies in medical care provided in California prisons, former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly observed that the Constitution recognizes that Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Using them as guinea pigs in COVID-19 culture wars is surely incompatible with that constitutional command.

Go here to see the original:
Prisoners Should Not Be Used as Human Guinea Pigs in COVID-19 Cultural Wars - Justia Verdict