Finish reading Chapter Five and begin reading Chapter Six of Sullivan, the required text.

Hand in your 3rd Short written assignment.

Hand in any prior assignments you are missing. This includes assignments you were given an opportunity to redo. It is better to have a low grade with a penalty for lateness, than to receive a “0″.

REMINDER: YOUR RESEARCH PAPERS ARE DUE AT 6:00PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER  7TH, 2009.

You should now have completed your research and be writing your paper.

[JURIST] The New York Court of Appeals [official website] on Thursday dismissed a challenge [opinion, PDF] to two policies that provide benefits to same-sex couples married outside of the state. The first policy was a 2006 decision by the Westchester County executive to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of county employees. The second policy was a 2006 decision [memorandum, PDF] by the president of the New York Civil Service Commission, mandating an extension of full benefits to all spouses of state employees enrolled in the New York State Health Insurance Plan. Prior to that decision, extension of benefits to same-sex spouses was at the discretion of the individual state agencies. In explaining the court’s decision to affirm the Appellate Division’s dismissal, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. stated that in regards to the Westchester policy, the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of specific harms resulting from the policy, relying instead on, “bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity.” In regards to the State Civil Service Commission policy, Pigott noted that under sections 161 and 164 of the New York Civil Service Laws[legislative materials], the commission president is authorized to establish a health insurance plan for state officers and their dependents, and that the president has discretion to define the scope of dependents for purposes of benefits. In a concurring opinion joined by three others, Judge Carmen Ciparick stated that she would have simply affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that, “same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our State’s longstanding marriage recognition rule.”

Currently, New York does not permit same-sex marriages [JURIST news archive], but in April, Governor David Patterson announced legislation [JURIST report] that would allow same-sex couples to be married in the state. That legislation was approved [JURIST report] by the state assembly in May, and a senate vote isexpected before the end of the year [NYT report]. Patterson had previously issued an order to all state agencies in 2008 to recognize same-sex marriages, citing a New York Appellate Division ruling [JURIST reports] that same-sex marriages performed out of state are entitled to recognition in New York.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/10/28/unbearable-pain-0

The Human Rights Watch organization has written this report, which talks about the difficulties faced by patients in major cancer hospitals across India. Released in October 2009, this 102-page report takes an investigative look into the pain treatment situation in these hospitals. The report identifies three key obstacles to improving the availability of pain treatment and palliative care, including restrictive drug regulations and the failure to train doctors about pain treatment methods. Visitors will find that the report is divided into several major sections including “Palliative Care and Pain Treatment in India” and “The Plight of Patients”. Additionally, interested parties can also view the appendices attached to the report. An online slide show and a video feature round out the site.

[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri [official profile] vetoed legislation [text, PDF] on Tuesday that would have allowed domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships, to claim the body of their partner and to make funeral arrangements. Neither domestic partnerships or civil unions are recognized in Rhode Island, and the bill would have required that a same-sex partner produce documentation establishing the nature of the relationship, such as proof of a joint bank account, mortgage, or car registration, and that the relationship had lasted for a year or longer. In his letter to lawmakers [text, PDF] explaining the veto, Carcieri said:

This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of State of Rhode Island decide.

The sponsors of the bill, Senator Rhonda Perry and Representative David Segal [official profiles] have promised to push for an override [AP report] of the veto in the state legislature, where Democrats hold enough seats to make that possible.

The veto of the burial rights bill comes amid a larger battle in Rhode Island over same-sex marriage, which, according to a Brown University poll [press release], has the approval of 60 percent of registered voters in the state. Rhode Island and Maine remain the only two states in New England that do not recognize same-sex marriage. Advocates for same-sex couples have been met with mixed results over the last few years. Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage was vetoed in Maine [JURIST report] last week, but similar legislation was successful in New Hampshire and Vermont [JURIST reports] earlier this year. Legislation to the same end was passed [JURIST report] by the New York State Assembly in May, but has since stalled in the state senate. In April, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned [JURIST report] that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following the supreme courts of Connecticut, California, and Massachusetts [JURIST reports]. Last November, California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], making California the first state to outlaw same-sex marriage after legalizing it.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit[complaint, PDF; press release] Tuesday on behalf of US citizen Amir Meshal, alleging that FBI agents were involved in his interrogation and rendition in Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia in 2007. The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], alleges that agents repeatedly threatened Meshal with torture, disappearance, and execution in order to force him to acknowledge ties with al Qaeda. Meshal was originally detained in Kenya while fleeing fighting in Mogadishu between militia known as Islamic Courts Union [BBC profile] and forces of the US and Ethiopian-backed Transitional Federal Government of Somalia [official website; JURIST news archive]. After being held in Kenya, Meshal was returned to Somalia and eventually taken to Ethiopia where he was held until his release in May of 2007. No charges were ever filed against Meshal.

The issue of west African renditions was first raised by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] in March 2007 when they claimed [JURIST report] that the US, Kenya, and Ethiopia were cooperating with the transitional government of Somalia to secretly detain people fleeing that country’s conflict. Further reportsalleged [JURIST report] that US intelligence agents were involved with the secret prisons in Ethiopia and that citizens of western nations such as Sweden, Canada, and the US were being held there along with citizens of west African nations. The governments of Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia have all denied illegally transporting and jailing people, claiming they have only taken action against legitimate suspects.