The family who says their 3-year-old girl was asked to leave a KFC restaurant because her scars disturbed customers won't directly accept a $30,000 donation but instead wants the money given to the foundation of a doctor who will work on her face, according to an attorney's statement.
"The family didn't think it was appropriate to accept KFC's donation, but KFC is invited to make a donation to the Frank Stile foundation," Bill Kellum said in a statement Wednesday.
Stile is a Las Vegas physician who has offered to donate his services to work on Victoria Wilcher's face, scarred from a pit bull mauling.
The restaurant chain had pledged the money to help with the medical bills of the 3-year-old, even though it says an investigation concluded that there was no proof that any employee asked her to leave the Jackson restaurant.
Kellum said the child's family stands by the claim.
Victoria was mauled by three pit bulls in April at the home of her grandfather, Donald Mullins of Simpson County. She lost her right eye and suffered multiple facial fractures.
Kellum told The Clarion-Ledger (http://on.thec-l.com/1odvGfn) that the child and her mother and grandmother will fly to Florida on Monday for a preliminary examination at the Raymond E. Peters of the Center for Custom Prosthetics in Naples. He said the center has offered to provide Victoria with a prosthetic eye. Stile will attach the prosthetic eye in a later surgery.
 |
| Yum Brand's KFC restaurant is shown in Mountain View, Calif. |
Stile is a Las Vegas physician who has offered to donate his services to work on Victoria Wilcher's face, scarred from a pit bull mauling.
The restaurant chain had pledged the money to help with the medical bills of the 3-year-old, even though it says an investigation concluded that there was no proof that any employee asked her to leave the Jackson restaurant.
Kellum said the child's family stands by the claim.
Victoria was mauled by three pit bulls in April at the home of her grandfather, Donald Mullins of Simpson County. She lost her right eye and suffered multiple facial fractures.
Kellum told The Clarion-Ledger (http://on.thec-l.com/1odvGfn) that the child and her mother and grandmother will fly to Florida on Monday for a preliminary examination at the Raymond E. Peters of the Center for Custom Prosthetics in Naples. He said the center has offered to provide Victoria with a prosthetic eye. Stile will attach the prosthetic eye in a later surgery.
At the Native Roots Apothecary, a discreet marijuana shop in a grand old building in Denver's busy 16th street shopping mall, business is so brisk that customers are given a number before taking a seat to wait their turn.
There are young men in ball caps, nervous-looking professionals in suits, and the frail and elderly. Staff say customers have been flocking to their outlets since Colorado voted to allow recreational pot use for adults from January.
Six months on, Colorado's marijuana shops are mushrooming, with support from local consumers, weed tourists and federal government taking a wait-and-see attitude.
Tax dollars are pouring in, crime is down in Denver, and few of the early concerns about social breakdown have materialized - at least so far.
"The sky hasn't fallen, but we're a long way from knowing the unintended consequences," said Andrew Freeman, director of marijuana coordination for Colorado. "This is a huge social and economic question."
Denver, dubbed the "Mile High" city, now has about 340 recreational and medicinal pot shops. They tout the relaxing, powerful or introspective attributes of the crystal-encased buds with names like Jilly Bean, Sour Diesel and Silverback Kush.
In the first four months, marijuana sales amounted to more than $202 million, about a third of them recreational. Taxes from recreational sales were almost $11 million.
Despite some critics' fears of a pot-driven crime explosion, Denver police say burglaries and robberies were down by between 4 and 5 percent in the first four months of the year.
THE DOWN SIDE
On the down side, sheriff's deputies in neighboring Nebraska say pot seizures near the Colorado border have shot up 400 percent in three years, while Wyoming and New Mexico report no significant increases.
In May, controls on marijuana edibles were tightened after two people died. In one case, a college student jumped from a hotel balcony after eating six times the suggested maximum amount of pot-laced cookies. In the other, a Denver man was charged with shooting dead his wife after apparently getting high from eating marijuana-infused candy.
As Colorado passes the six-month mark, Washington state is approaching with some trepidation the launch next week of the nation's second recreational pot market.
Up to 20 retail marijuana stores are due to receive licenses on July 7, fueling concerns about long lines, high prices, and the possibility of inadequate supplies when doors open the following day. Washington state officials have received some 2,600 applications from would-be weed growers, but say they have approved fewer than 80.
A recreational pot initiative will be on the ballot in Alaska this fall, and legalization bills look likely to pass in Oregon and the District of Columbia.
Although the Colorado law sanctioned pot sales only to those over the age of 21, one of the biggest concerns is the effect on teens.
Gina Carbone helped to found Smart Colorado, a non-profit aimed at informing young people.
She said the state's commercialization of pot put the business interests of the marijuana industry at the forefront, and that youngsters' perception of harm from the drug had been dramatically reduced.
Even before recreational retail sales began, Carbone said, rates of marijuana use among eighth-graders were significantly higher in Colorado than in other states.
"They are receiving messaging that this is medicine, that this is healthy," she said. "A lot of people that even voted for (legalization) are saying, 'Gosh, I didn't know it was going to look like this.'"
Visitors at Denver weed stores have their ID checked, often more than once. Some 20 recent sting operations have failed to catch any shops selling to under-21s.
Store workers at Native Roots, among the most well-established outlets, say they've seen a diverse range of recreational buyers, from heavy-lidded students, to curious middle-class couples, and seniors.
Native Roots sells cannabis in child-proof plastic containers priced at about $60 for 1/8th of an ounce, as well as pot-infused cookies and candy and marijuana e-cigarettes.
"This will help your pain," long-haired salesman Rob Folse told an older woman with a cane and a few tattered bank notes. "We're giving you a discount, Dear, because we understand your situation."
 |
| Employees roll joints behind the sales counter at Medicine Man marijuana dispensary in Denver, Friday Dec. 27, 2013. |
Six months on, Colorado's marijuana shops are mushrooming, with support from local consumers, weed tourists and federal government taking a wait-and-see attitude.
Tax dollars are pouring in, crime is down in Denver, and few of the early concerns about social breakdown have materialized - at least so far.
"The sky hasn't fallen, but we're a long way from knowing the unintended consequences," said Andrew Freeman, director of marijuana coordination for Colorado. "This is a huge social and economic question."
Denver, dubbed the "Mile High" city, now has about 340 recreational and medicinal pot shops. They tout the relaxing, powerful or introspective attributes of the crystal-encased buds with names like Jilly Bean, Sour Diesel and Silverback Kush.
In the first four months, marijuana sales amounted to more than $202 million, about a third of them recreational. Taxes from recreational sales were almost $11 million.
Despite some critics' fears of a pot-driven crime explosion, Denver police say burglaries and robberies were down by between 4 and 5 percent in the first four months of the year.
THE DOWN SIDE
On the down side, sheriff's deputies in neighboring Nebraska say pot seizures near the Colorado border have shot up 400 percent in three years, while Wyoming and New Mexico report no significant increases.
In May, controls on marijuana edibles were tightened after two people died. In one case, a college student jumped from a hotel balcony after eating six times the suggested maximum amount of pot-laced cookies. In the other, a Denver man was charged with shooting dead his wife after apparently getting high from eating marijuana-infused candy.
As Colorado passes the six-month mark, Washington state is approaching with some trepidation the launch next week of the nation's second recreational pot market.
Up to 20 retail marijuana stores are due to receive licenses on July 7, fueling concerns about long lines, high prices, and the possibility of inadequate supplies when doors open the following day. Washington state officials have received some 2,600 applications from would-be weed growers, but say they have approved fewer than 80.
A recreational pot initiative will be on the ballot in Alaska this fall, and legalization bills look likely to pass in Oregon and the District of Columbia.
Although the Colorado law sanctioned pot sales only to those over the age of 21, one of the biggest concerns is the effect on teens.
Gina Carbone helped to found Smart Colorado, a non-profit aimed at informing young people.
She said the state's commercialization of pot put the business interests of the marijuana industry at the forefront, and that youngsters' perception of harm from the drug had been dramatically reduced.
Even before recreational retail sales began, Carbone said, rates of marijuana use among eighth-graders were significantly higher in Colorado than in other states.
"They are receiving messaging that this is medicine, that this is healthy," she said. "A lot of people that even voted for (legalization) are saying, 'Gosh, I didn't know it was going to look like this.'"
Visitors at Denver weed stores have their ID checked, often more than once. Some 20 recent sting operations have failed to catch any shops selling to under-21s.
Store workers at Native Roots, among the most well-established outlets, say they've seen a diverse range of recreational buyers, from heavy-lidded students, to curious middle-class couples, and seniors.
Native Roots sells cannabis in child-proof plastic containers priced at about $60 for 1/8th of an ounce, as well as pot-infused cookies and candy and marijuana e-cigarettes.
"This will help your pain," long-haired salesman Rob Folse told an older woman with a cane and a few tattered bank notes. "We're giving you a discount, Dear, because we understand your situation."
Cameron Diaz does something she's never done before in her upcoming movie, "Sex Tape."
She gets naked on camera.
It's a first for the 41-year-old actress, who described the experience to Esquire magazine as "just a part of the role."
She says her co-star Jason Segel also gets nude on-screen.
In "Sex Tape," Diaz and Segal play a bored married couple who decide to spice up things by filming a sex tape. After it's accidentally leaked, they try to get it back.
She also has a labor scene in the film. Diaz has been open about not wanting children in real life, saying she never really wanted to be a mother.
The August issue of Esquire goes on sale July 8.
She gets naked on camera.
It's a first for the 41-year-old actress, who described the experience to Esquire magazine as "just a part of the role."
She says her co-star Jason Segel also gets nude on-screen.
In "Sex Tape," Diaz and Segal play a bored married couple who decide to spice up things by filming a sex tape. After it's accidentally leaked, they try to get it back.
She also has a labor scene in the film. Diaz has been open about not wanting children in real life, saying she never really wanted to be a mother.
The August issue of Esquire goes on sale July 8.
 |
| This magazine cover image released by Esquire shows actress Cameron Diaz on the August issue of the men's magazine, on newsstands on July 18, 2014, the same day Diaz's new move, "Sex Tape," hits theaters. |
 |
| In this photo taken July 1, tourists enter the Graceland attraction to an exhibit where two planes once owned by late singer Elvis Presley are displayed in Memphis, Tenn. |
By April of next year, the planes named Lisa Marie and Hound Dog II could be gone.
Elvis Presley Enterprises, which operates the Graceland tourist attraction, has written to the planes' owners saying they should prepare to remove the jets from Graceland by next spring.
The planes have been a tourist attraction since the mid-1980s. They had been sold after Presley's death, and were eventually purchased by OKC Partnership in Memphis.
 |
| This photo taken July 1, shows the Lisa Marie, one of two jets once owned by late singer Elvis Presley, that is used as a tourist exhibit at the Graceland tourist attraction in Memphis, Tenn. |
In an April 7 letter to OKC Partnership's K.G. Coker, Elvis Presley Enterprises CEO Jack Soden says the company is exercising its option to end the agreement and asks Coker "to make arrangements for the removal of the airplanes and the restoration of the site on or shortly after April 26, 2015."
Their removal could cause an uproar among fans, especially those who visit Graceland every year as part of an annual pilgrimage to events such as Elvis Week and the candlelight vigil commemorating Presley's death.
Dedicated Elvis fan Paul Fivelson of Algonquin, Illinois, says he expects many fans will be upset to hear the planes may be leaving.
"The people who come to Memphis for Elvis Week like seeing those planes there because it's just part of the whole aura of what Elvis was about," Fivelson said Tuesday. "It would be kind of blasphemous to take them away, and I think there are probably a lot of fans who will feel the same way."
The disclosure also raises questions about the future use of the site where the airplanes now sit, across the street from Presley's longtime home.
Elvis Presley Enterprises declined immediate comment.
In November, New York-based Authentic Brands Group bought Elvis Presley Enterprises and the licensing and merchandising rights for Presley's music and image from CORE Media Group. As part of the deal, Joel Weinshanker, founder of the National Entertainment Collectibles Association, acquired the operating rights to Graceland, which attracts about 500,000 visitors each year.
After the sale, Authentic Brands said upgrades to the tourist attraction were planned. Earlier this year, Elvis Presley Enterprises announced plans to build a 450-room hotel, theater and restaurant, with a projected opening date of August 2015. Their plan was approved Tuesday by the Memphis City Council.
Today, Graceland visitors can buy a ticket that includes a tour of Presley's home-turned-museum and the two airplanes. Fans climb into the airplanes for an up-close look at their interiors.
The larger plane, a Convair 880 named after Presley's daughter Lisa Marie, is like a customized flying limousine, complete with a large bed, a stereo system, conference room and gold-plated bathroom fixtures. It was renovated after Presley bought it from Delta Air Lines. Presley took his first flight on it in November 1975.
When Presley died on Aug. 16, 1977, Presley's pilot flew the Lisa Marie to California to pick up Presley's ex-wife, Priscilla Presley, to bring her back to Memphis.
The smaller jet, a JetStar named the Hound Dog II, was also used by Presley.
At one point, after the planes were sold following the singer's death, the Lisa Marie was owned by Raymond Zimmerman, owner of the Service Merchandise chain, according to Coker. The Hound Dog II was in the hands of Hustler head Larry Flynt for a time, Coker said.
OKC Partnership eventually bought the planes and the Lisa Marie was installed at Graceland in 1984. The Hound Dog II came later.
Coker, 76, says OKC may sell the planes if they're removed from Graceland, but he still hopes to negotiate a deal that would keep the planes there. Coker acknowledges that he and his partners would lose money from ticket sales if the planes were removed.
"I would love to see the airplanes stay where they are forever," Coker said. "Millions of fans have toured those airplanes and there's a real connection between fans and those airplanes. Those airplanes are part of the Elvis experience."
 |
| This photo taken July 1, shows the bathroom inside the Lisa Marie, one of two jets once owned by late singer Elvis Presley, that are used as tourist exhibits at the Graceland attraction in Memphis, Tenn. |
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the government cannot require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control if they conflict with the employer’s religious beliefs. The ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is not only a blow to the Affordable Care Act but also, critics argue, to women’s rights.
Here’s what women need to know:
The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) requires most health insurance plans to cover birth control without cost-sharing. Without healthcare coverage, the pill can cost about $25 a month and an IUD (intrauterine device) can cost up to $900 (though it’s inserted once and lasts up to 12 years).
Before the ruling, houses of worship were already exempt from the birth control insurance mandate. Non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, have to inform the insurer if they object to contraceptives, and the insurer is then responsible for figuring out a way to guarantee contraceptive coverage for the workers without the company using its premiums to pay for it.
The privately-owned corporation Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store with self-described Christian values, argued that they too should not have to cover certain emergency contraception because of their religious beliefs. The company objected to paying for emergency contraception including Plan B, Ella—both commonly known as the morning after pill—plus two types of IUDs. Hobby Lobby said they believe these types of birth control amount to abortion. The company did not object to covering other types of contraception, including birth control pills.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, but the ruling applies only to companies considered “closely held.” According to the IRS, a company is “closely held” if five or fewer people own more than half the corporation. Closely held firms make up over 90% of all American businesses, and about 52% of the American workforce works for a closely held corporation, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University. The Affordable Care Act, however, only requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to workers, so many “closely held” firms are already exempt.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his ruling that the Health and Human Services (HHS) department could extend the accommodations that they have in place for religious non-profits to these for-profit companies so the insurer would provide birth control without charging the company. However, both religious groups and women’s rights groups think this would be insufficient. Some religious non-profits have alleged that these accommodations still infringe on their religious beliefs and are suing the federal government. And advocates at the Women’s National Law Center have said companies should be required to provide contraception as a basic healthcare need. The Obama administration may need to come up with a an alternative way to provide coverage, but it’s unclear what those options would be or how difficult they would be for consumers to access.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer (the only male justice who dissented). “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” Ginsberg wrote. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community,” she continued.
Ginsberg notes that an IUD without coverage costs a month’s pay for minimum-wage workers. And critics of the ruling say that because a federal work around hasn’t been developed yet, many of the women who currently work for places like Hobby Lobby have lost easy access to key family planning options and one of the most most effective type of birth control. Even after the gap is filled, it still may be cumbersome to acquire birth control. While some women are able to choose their place of employment taking health care into consideration, because of geography and economic restrictions, that’s not possible for all women.
Health groups have begun to lobby for an increased use of IUDs. The IUD has a failure rate of less than one pregnancy per 100 women in a year, better than both the pill (9 pregnancies per 100 women per year) and condoms (18 pregnancies per 100 women per year), according to the CDC. Despite all these benefits, just 9% of women in America use it—the lowest of any developed country. (By comparison, 23% of women in France and 41% of women in China use IUDs.) It’s just starting to gain traction in America: Planned Parenthood reports a 75% increase in use since 2008.
Today’s decision, which gives certain companies the option of not covering the IUD, among other types of contraception, arguably undermines gains made in IUD usage. The IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it is inserted five days after intercourse, hence the Hobby Lobby’s objection to it and not birth control pills. This isn’t the way most women use the IUD: many gynecologists will only schedule an appointment for IUD insertion until after a woman gets her period that month so as to insure she’s not pregnant. Some will even perform an ultrasound. There are no statistics on how many women use the IUD as an emergency contraceptive method instead of alternate methods like the “morning after” pills, but James Trussell, a Princeton Professor who has done extensive research on the topic, TIME’s Sarah Begley, “I would say that the number [of women] who get IUDs as emergency contraception is miniscule.”
The fallout from today’s ruling could be that some women who work companies that refuse to cover the IUD may be discouraged from using this effective birth control method by additional costs they may incur or the complications of finding supplemental insurance.
Some women’s rights advocates have taken the argument even further than Ginsburg did. Up until this point the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been interpreted as a protection for individuals’ religious practices—not those of corporations. The Supreme Court just said that these protections also extend to for-profit companies, but didn’t protect a woman’s right to choose her method of birth control. Thus, many critics argue, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people, but women are not. Women’s rights groups say restricting insurance coverage for some types of contraception, or making coverage more difficult to obtain, undermines access to birth control in general and point to studies that have shown that offering greater access to contraception—rather than restricting it—leads to fewer unintended pregnancies and thus reduces the number of abortions by 75 percent annually.
As Ginsburg writes in her dissent, “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations?”
In the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he specifies that the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate, and states that it should not be understood to include to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations. But Ginsburg notes that even if the Alito exclusion holds, there are other issues: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,” said Ginsburg.
 |
| A Hobby Lobby store is seen on June 30, 2014, in Plantation, Florida. |
1. If you work at certain types of for-profit companies, they no longer have to cover the cost of any contraception that they say violates their religious beliefs
The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) requires most health insurance plans to cover birth control without cost-sharing. Without healthcare coverage, the pill can cost about $25 a month and an IUD (intrauterine device) can cost up to $900 (though it’s inserted once and lasts up to 12 years).
Before the ruling, houses of worship were already exempt from the birth control insurance mandate. Non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, have to inform the insurer if they object to contraceptives, and the insurer is then responsible for figuring out a way to guarantee contraceptive coverage for the workers without the company using its premiums to pay for it.
The privately-owned corporation Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store with self-described Christian values, argued that they too should not have to cover certain emergency contraception because of their religious beliefs. The company objected to paying for emergency contraception including Plan B, Ella—both commonly known as the morning after pill—plus two types of IUDs. Hobby Lobby said they believe these types of birth control amount to abortion. The company did not object to covering other types of contraception, including birth control pills.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, but the ruling applies only to companies considered “closely held.” According to the IRS, a company is “closely held” if five or fewer people own more than half the corporation. Closely held firms make up over 90% of all American businesses, and about 52% of the American workforce works for a closely held corporation, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University. The Affordable Care Act, however, only requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance to workers, so many “closely held” firms are already exempt.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his ruling that the Health and Human Services (HHS) department could extend the accommodations that they have in place for religious non-profits to these for-profit companies so the insurer would provide birth control without charging the company. However, both religious groups and women’s rights groups think this would be insufficient. Some religious non-profits have alleged that these accommodations still infringe on their religious beliefs and are suing the federal government. And advocates at the Women’s National Law Center have said companies should be required to provide contraception as a basic healthcare need. The Obama administration may need to come up with a an alternative way to provide coverage, but it’s unclear what those options would be or how difficult they would be for consumers to access.
2. All three female Justices dissented, arguing that this ruling limits women’s rights
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer (the only male justice who dissented). “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage,” Ginsberg wrote. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community,” she continued.
Ginsberg notes that an IUD without coverage costs a month’s pay for minimum-wage workers. And critics of the ruling say that because a federal work around hasn’t been developed yet, many of the women who currently work for places like Hobby Lobby have lost easy access to key family planning options and one of the most most effective type of birth control. Even after the gap is filled, it still may be cumbersome to acquire birth control. While some women are able to choose their place of employment taking health care into consideration, because of geography and economic restrictions, that’s not possible for all women.
3. The ruling may depress use of IUDs at some privately held corporations that deem it a form of emergency contraception
Health groups have begun to lobby for an increased use of IUDs. The IUD has a failure rate of less than one pregnancy per 100 women in a year, better than both the pill (9 pregnancies per 100 women per year) and condoms (18 pregnancies per 100 women per year), according to the CDC. Despite all these benefits, just 9% of women in America use it—the lowest of any developed country. (By comparison, 23% of women in France and 41% of women in China use IUDs.) It’s just starting to gain traction in America: Planned Parenthood reports a 75% increase in use since 2008.
Today’s decision, which gives certain companies the option of not covering the IUD, among other types of contraception, arguably undermines gains made in IUD usage. The IUD can also be used as emergency contraception if it is inserted five days after intercourse, hence the Hobby Lobby’s objection to it and not birth control pills. This isn’t the way most women use the IUD: many gynecologists will only schedule an appointment for IUD insertion until after a woman gets her period that month so as to insure she’s not pregnant. Some will even perform an ultrasound. There are no statistics on how many women use the IUD as an emergency contraceptive method instead of alternate methods like the “morning after” pills, but James Trussell, a Princeton Professor who has done extensive research on the topic, TIME’s Sarah Begley, “I would say that the number [of women] who get IUDs as emergency contraception is miniscule.”
The fallout from today’s ruling could be that some women who work companies that refuse to cover the IUD may be discouraged from using this effective birth control method by additional costs they may incur or the complications of finding supplemental insurance.
4. Women’s rights groups are angry because they see the ruling as a loss of autonomy for women
Some women’s rights advocates have taken the argument even further than Ginsburg did. Up until this point the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been interpreted as a protection for individuals’ religious practices—not those of corporations. The Supreme Court just said that these protections also extend to for-profit companies, but didn’t protect a woman’s right to choose her method of birth control. Thus, many critics argue, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people, but women are not. Women’s rights groups say restricting insurance coverage for some types of contraception, or making coverage more difficult to obtain, undermines access to birth control in general and point to studies that have shown that offering greater access to contraception—rather than restricting it—leads to fewer unintended pregnancies and thus reduces the number of abortions by 75 percent annually.
5. Under the ruling, some corporations could attempt to refuse coverage for other, non-contraceptive medications and procedures citing their religious beliefs
As Ginsburg writes in her dissent, “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations?”
In the majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he specifies that the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate, and states that it should not be understood to include to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations. But Ginsburg notes that even if the Alito exclusion holds, there are other issues: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,” said Ginsburg.
What was meant to be a joke has turned into a PR blunder for Dutch airline KLM after it angered Mexican soccer fans by taking to Twitter to celebrate the Netherlands' dramatic comeback victory in the World Cup.
Within minutes of the Netherlands' 2-1 victory over the Tri, KLM let loose on its Twitter feed a picture of an airport departures sign under the heading "Adios Amigos!" Next to the word "Departures" is the image of a man with a mustache wearing a sombrero.
The post immediately went viral, with A-list Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal using not one but two expletives in a 140-character Tweet to tell his 2 million-plus followers that he'll never fly the carrier again. Amid the widespread protest online, the post was pulled a half-hour later without an explanation.
"It was meant to be a joke," KLM spokeswoman Lisette Ebeling Koning told The Associated Press, adding that the airline never intended to offend Mexicans, which it serves via a daily direct flight between Mexico City and Amsterdam. "But there was too much negative reaction."
KLM issued a formal apology late Sunday.
"In the best of sportsmanship, we offer our heartfelt apologies to those who have been offended by the comment," said Marnix Fruitema, director general of KLM in North America.
For its part, Mexican national carrier AeroMexico is also getting in on the fun, broadcasting on Twitter its support for the country's soccer team under an arrivals sign.
"Thank you for this great championship," AeroMexico said. "You've made us proud and we're waiting for you at home."
 |
A screenshot of the KLM twitter account |
Within minutes of the Netherlands' 2-1 victory over the Tri, KLM let loose on its Twitter feed a picture of an airport departures sign under the heading "Adios Amigos!" Next to the word "Departures" is the image of a man with a mustache wearing a sombrero.
The post immediately went viral, with A-list Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal using not one but two expletives in a 140-character Tweet to tell his 2 million-plus followers that he'll never fly the carrier again. Amid the widespread protest online, the post was pulled a half-hour later without an explanation.
"It was meant to be a joke," KLM spokeswoman Lisette Ebeling Koning told The Associated Press, adding that the airline never intended to offend Mexicans, which it serves via a daily direct flight between Mexico City and Amsterdam. "But there was too much negative reaction."
KLM issued a formal apology late Sunday.
"In the best of sportsmanship, we offer our heartfelt apologies to those who have been offended by the comment," said Marnix Fruitema, director general of KLM in North America.
For its part, Mexican national carrier AeroMexico is also getting in on the fun, broadcasting on Twitter its support for the country's soccer team under an arrivals sign.
"Thank you for this great championship," AeroMexico said. "You've made us proud and we're waiting for you at home."
Luis Suarez issued an apology to Italy defender Giorgio Chiellini for biting him during a World Cup match and vowed Monday never to do it again.
The Uruguay striker was banned for four months from all football by FIFA for biting the shoulder of Chiellini during the team's 1-0 win over Italy in their group-stage game in Brazil, which sent the Uruguayans through to the second round.
"I deeply regret what occurred," Suarez said in a statement posted on Twitter. "I apologize to Giorgio Chiellini and the entire football family. ... I vow to the public that there will never again be another incident like (this)."
Suarez had originally denied wrongdoing in a written response to FIFA, and had been staunchly defended by teammates and Uruguayan officials.
"After several days of being home with my family, I have had the opportunity to regain my calm and reflect about the reality of what occurred during the Italy-Uruguay match," the statement said. "(The) truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me."
Chiellini responded on Twitter within minutes, accepting the apology.
"It's all forgotten," the Italian wrote on Twitter. "I hope FIFA will reduce your suspension."
Suarez was also suspended from Uruguay's next nine international matches — the first of which was a 2-0 loss to Colombia in the round of 16 on Saturday.
Suarez had already returned home to Uruguay by then, and has received an outpouring of support from Uruguayan fans and even the country's president, who blasted FIFA over the ban.
It is the third time Suarez has been banned for biting an opponent, after similar incidents at both Ajax in the Dutch league and Liverpool in the English Premier League.
 |
| Luis Suarez of Uruguay reacts after a clash during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Group D match between Italy and Uruguay at Estadio das Dunas on June 24, 2014 in Natal, Brazil. |
The Uruguay striker was banned for four months from all football by FIFA for biting the shoulder of Chiellini during the team's 1-0 win over Italy in their group-stage game in Brazil, which sent the Uruguayans through to the second round.
"I deeply regret what occurred," Suarez said in a statement posted on Twitter. "I apologize to Giorgio Chiellini and the entire football family. ... I vow to the public that there will never again be another incident like (this)."
Suarez had originally denied wrongdoing in a written response to FIFA, and had been staunchly defended by teammates and Uruguayan officials.
"After several days of being home with my family, I have had the opportunity to regain my calm and reflect about the reality of what occurred during the Italy-Uruguay match," the statement said. "(The) truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me."
Chiellini responded on Twitter within minutes, accepting the apology.
"It's all forgotten," the Italian wrote on Twitter. "I hope FIFA will reduce your suspension."
Suarez was also suspended from Uruguay's next nine international matches — the first of which was a 2-0 loss to Colombia in the round of 16 on Saturday.
Suarez had already returned home to Uruguay by then, and has received an outpouring of support from Uruguayan fans and even the country's president, who blasted FIFA over the ban.
It is the third time Suarez has been banned for biting an opponent, after similar incidents at both Ajax in the Dutch league and Liverpool in the English Premier League.
Blog