State Department defends vote against UN resolution condemning death penalty for homosexuality https://t.co/bJ8IhhDBNg
— 🗽Jeffrey Levin 🗽 (@jilevin) October 4, 2017
The U.S. State Department responded Tuesday to questions as to why it opposed a United Nations resolution that condemns the discriminatory use of the death penalty, such as in cases of adultery and same-sex relations. Spokesperson Heather Nauert said the U.S. had “broader concerns” about the resolutions language regarding the death penalty. “As our representative to the Human Rights Council said last Friday, the United States is disappointed to have voted against that resolution,” Hauert said at a press briefing Tuesday. “We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances, and it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether. We had hoped for a balanced and inclusive resolution that would better reflect the positions of states that continue to apply the death penalty lawfully as the United States does.”
Any politician or political animal fortunate enough to be able to work at the highest levels of government understands the importance of optics. It’s not always WHAT you do; the salient point is how what you do is perceived. For an administration predicated on bigotry, the appearance of endorsing the application of the death penalty for homosexuality makes for some damned poor optics. Continue reading
A Detroit-area woman who refused to vaccinate her son was sentenced by a judge on Wednesday to seven days in prison…. Rebecca Bredow told the local ABC News affiliate WXYZ that a judge had ordered her to vaccinate her 9-year-old son. On Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that Bredow was sentenced by Judge Karen McDonald, who ruled that Bredow’s ex-husband (the son’s father) “gets a say” in the decision. Though the parents have shared custody of their two children, Bredow is the primary caregiver. In response, Bredow told the judge that she takes “full responsibility” for her actions but that she is philosophically opposed to vaccinating her son for transmissible, potentially fatal and otherwise preventable diseases such as measles…. “I would rather sit behind bars for standing up for what I believe in than giving into something I strongly don’t believe in,” she said last week during the television interview with WXYZ. “God forbid he were to be injured by one of the vaccines, then what—that’s what scares me.” Bredow has said she is not opposed to vaccines, but she believes it was the right decision for her family.
For years, I’ve struggled to understand the phenomenon of vaccine denial. I’ve tried to wrap my head around how normally intelligent, lucid individuals could reject more than a century of scientific research in favor of something they heard Jenny McCarthy say on television. I’ve attempted to come to grips with how some folks are able to blithely ignore science simply because it doesn’t mesh with their preconceived notions.
Are vaccines perfectly, 100% safe for ALL children? Of course not…but what in this life comes without associated risks? If you think about it rationally, the effects of diseases vaccines are designed to prevent carry far more risk than the vaccines themselves. For some reason, though, there are parents out there who believe no one has the right to force them to vaccinate their children. To call that attitude irresponsible and selfish wouldn’t begin to do justice to their arrogance and ignorance. Continue reading