Adultery Could Lead to Life in Prison

In Michigan, the Legislature probably did not intend for adultery to fall under the sexual crime laws, but the Michigan Supreme Courts say the way the laws are written, adultery could lead to life in prison:

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan’s second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

I want to open up a discussion on this – while Michigan will no doubt clarify their legislation, should adulter be a crime? Arguably their are innocent victims involved – the spouse of the one cheating, any children, etc. And nearly everybody, I think, believes that adultery is wrong (including those that are committing adultery). So, should adultery also be a criminal offense? Or maybe a civil offense?

Neither, both? What’s your opinion?

Overturning Roe v. Wade

South Dakota has wasted no time challenging the federal government’s mandate to allow abortion. They have approved a ban on abortion specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade.

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

A judge is likely to suspend the abortion ban during the legal challenge, which means it would never take effect unless the state gets the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and wins.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.

Money for the anticipated legal fight is already pouring in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations.

State of Cindy's Delusion

You probably know Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed before the President’s State of the Union address last night. That wasn’t really a surprise – the surprise to me was that a U.S. Representative, Lynn Woolsey, gave her a ticket. Sometimes the Left is really… Left, you know? Cindy was removed by Capital Police because, well, because it wasn’t a State of Cindy speech last night.

Cindy’s posted about her experience on Michael Moore’s website. I’m going to nitpick only a couple of pieces in it:

[…]
At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2,245 Dead. How many more?
[…]
I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, “Protester.”
[…]
I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on.

These snippets show she still doesn’t understand why she was escorted out. The show wasn’t about her. The wife of Republican Representative C.W. Bill Young was also escorted out for wearing a t-shirt supporting the troops. I remember a man being escorted out during one of Bill Clinton’s State of the Union speeches. The President is required by the US Constitution to tell Congress about the State of the Union every year. It’s all about the President on that night.

I have lost my First Amendment rights.
[…]
I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight.
[…]
I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government.

I think a lawyer would have a hard time proving that her First Amendment rights are being violated, especially when she’s posted everything she wanted to say the very next day. The fact that she can’t say it there and that particular time and be disruptive at a Presidential event is supported by a Supreme Court ruling placing a “reasonable time, place or manner” restriction on speech.

Read some of her ranting. Does she sound oppressed to you?