Is the Supreme Court open to Arizona’s controversial immigration law? Is sex addiction a myth? The Metro vs. Beverly Hills: Will The long-awaited “Subway to the Sea” project stall? A new California bill could outlaw sex conversion therapy.
Supreme Court open to Arizona’s controversial immigration law?
Justices at the Court picked apart the Obama administration’s arguments against Arizona’s controversial immigration law today.
As SCOTUSblog.com reports, Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia was “pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states the clear authority to close their border entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S.” With Justice Elena Kagan recused, the seven other justices tried to square state rights with federal jurisdiction over immigration laws.
Myriad reporters and analysts who listened to this morning’s arguments believe the Court sounds ready to accept some key provisions of S.B. 1070.
The provisions being considered are as follows: 1. requires Arizona law enforcement officers to question individuals believed to be undocumented; 2. makes it a state crime when an immigrant fails to carry their “papers”; 3. makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to work; 4. grants police power to make a warrantless arrest if they believe someone has committed a deportable crime.
The overall goal of S.B. 1070 is to encourage illegal immigrants to show themselves out – a notion dubbed as “self-deportation.” Five other states followed Arizona’s lead in 2011 – Georgia, Utah, Alabama, Indiana and South Carolina – albeit with limited success in the lower courts. This Supreme Court decision could bolster or quash that trend.
How strong were the arguments from both sides in the courtroom today? What incisive questions came from the bench? How would this ruling affect the rest of the country? What are the political implications during this election year? Why are some states cracking down on illegal immigrants? How does that fit the historical picture of the United States’ relationship with migrants?
Guests:
Kitty Felde, KPCC Washington Correspondent
Ira Mehlman, Spokesperson, Federation for American Immigration Reform
Hector Villagra, Executive Director, ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Southern California
Is sex addiction a myth?
According to a new book sex addiction is not only a myth, it’s also having a negative effect on men’s sexuality.
David Ley is a clinical psychologist based in New Mexico. He writes in “The Myth of Sex Addiction” that the science supporting sexual addiction is essentially junk, based on small, self-selected samples. He also posits that every single sex addict who has sought treatment suffers from some other disorder at the same time, leading him to believe that unsafe or excessive sexual behavior is a symptom of a larger problem that goes untreated when the focus is on the sex instead of the corresponding personality disorder.
Ley insists that this hyper focus on men’s sexuality, perpetuated by the media, actually has a deleterious effect on men. When they’re not expected to take control of their own sexuality, and let off the hook when it comes to their inappropriate choices, it turns their sexuality into something that should be feared instead of enjoyed.
Dr. Ley’s ideas on sexual addiction are not without controversy. People who deal with treating these disorders say sexual addicts get the same highs from pursuing sex as drug addicts get from drugs. They say it’s a behavioral addiction much like gambling or food and should be treated as such.
Is sexual addiction real? Or is it a media-inflated moneymaking scheme for therapists? How does the concept of sex addiction affect men’s sexuality? And if women can suffer from the same disorder, does it affect them in the same way? Also, does treating sexual addiction mean other more important issues get ignored?
Guests:
David Ley, PhD, clinical psychologist and author of “The Myth of Sex Addiction” (Rowman & Littlefield, April 2012)
Robert Weiss, founding director, Sexual Recovery Institute based in Los Angeles
The Metro vs. Beverly Hills
The long-awaited “Subway to the Sea” could be stalled further this week. On Thursday, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a vote set to approve or reject a recent environmental impact study. One aspect of this vote would be confirming the desired subway stations for the line expansion.
Originally, the Metro planned on building a stop on Santa Monica Boulevard in Beverly Hills, but due to the presence of active fault lines and recommendations of seismologists, the proposed stop has been moved to Constellation Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars.
The new stop does not have such geological limitations, and is located conveniently close to office towers, the Westfield Century City Mall and several hotels. Furthermore, a stop here would serve an estimated 8,500 people a day, a full 3,100 more than the Santa Monica stop.
“The MTA, myself and I hope the majority of the MTA board members believe that the subway should go to the middle of Century City ... where the ridership will be 8,500 a day instead of 5,500,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. “If you go in the middle, you're serving what is one of the most significant job magnets in West Los Angeles.”
The only perceived hitch in this plan is that now the subway line will run under Beverly Hills High School. Activists in Beverly Hills began vocalizing their disapproval of this new stop over the past few weeks, and are calling for a return to the former plan, citing student safety and possible building code restrictions as their main concern.
“The city has very strong concerns not only about current building codes, but future building codes, which are increasingly becoming more restrictive,” said Beverly Hills Councilman Barry Brucker. “That actually happened to us when the former school board and city council 30 years ago approved an extensive oil drilling and processing center. ... Now there's a state law that restricts a school being built within 300 feet of an existing oil facility. What if, 20 years from now, the State Department of Architects prohibits schools within fault zones from being built or rebuilt on top of subway tunnels? Where is Beverly Hills High School to go?”
According to studies conducted by the MTA and the City of Beverly Hills, tunneling under Beverly Hills High School poses no threat to safety. The current plan is to tunnel eight stories under ground, under a building that is annexed by the high school, which Yaroslavsky says would not prevent the high school from further developing their campus in the future. Many other schools in the Los Angeles area have subway tunnels underneath their property.
“I don't want to add another mistake to that list that says, ‘How is it that you spent $5 billion to go from Western Avenue to Westwood and you did not serve Century City?’” said Yaroslavsky. “That would be the most colossal mistake we could make ... We have to move forward. Traffic on the west side is impossible.”
On Tuesday, the Beverly Hills City Council authorized the Mayor to write a letter to the Metro’s board explaining the council’s concerns.
“We're going to be asking Metro to hold off on to their decision and let scientists on all sides come together,” said Brucker. “We would simply like our collective science experts come together for an open and transparent discussion.”
It appears as if the council will invoke an obscure provision of the state public utilities code which allows entities, such as Beverly Hills, which would be affected by construction, to demand a public hearing to weigh all issues before moving forward.
In closing today’s discussion, Brucker alluded to the possibility of a lawsuit if the issue should come to that point. "I think we're looking at all options and litigation is not off the table," said Brucker.
Weigh In:
How will the Metro handle this development? What legal grounds does the Beverly Hills City Council have to stand on? How will this affect the line expansion on the whole? Which side of the subway line do you fall on? Should Beverly Hills get over it and allow the Metro to come on through? Or does the subway pose a serious threat to students and the community?
Guests:
Barry Brucker, Councilman for the city of Beverly Hills where he has also served two terms as Mayor and as Vice Mayor; President and CEO of Independent Ink, Inc., an international manufacturer of digital and security printing inks
Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County Supervisor representing the Third District; Member of the MTA Board
California bill could outlaw sex conversion therapy
Can a person’s sexual orientation be changed through therapy? Some mental health professionals think so, and there is a growing practice among therapists who claim they can “cure” someone who does not want to be gay or lesbian.
But such so-called “conversion therapy” is highly controversial; the medical community is in agreement that homosexuality is not a disease, mental disorder or any other medical condition, and many consider conversion therapy to be potentially dangerous. Now a bill proposed by California Senator Ted Lieu would regulate sexual orientation therapy.
"First of all, it is not a medical condition or illness or defect to be homosexual. It is nothing that requires a cure," Lieu said. "Second, it is dangerous. People and therapists who practice this have, in cases, sometimes caused young people later to commit suicide."
In a press release, Lieu says that “some therapists are taking advantage of vulnerable people by pushing dangerous sexual orientation-change efforts.” His bill would ban children under 18 from undergoing such treatment, and would require adults contemplating sexual orientation therapy to acknowledge that they’ve been made aware of potential dangers. Opponents of the bill support a patient’s right “to explore their unwanted attractions and make changes to their lives.”
L.A.-based reparative therapist David Pickup said that homosexuality is environmentally caused, and therapy helps alleviate symptoms that are caused by childhood trauma.
"This is not just 'Oh, my dad yelled at me.' We're talking about a severe emotional trauma during the developmental times where one first forms their sexual and gender identity," he explained.
He added that his many of his clients want help changing their sexuality. "All the men in my office, for instance, claim that for them, homosexuality is not inborn. And they deserve a voice," Pickup continued.
According to Lieu, his bill will only affect those in the medical community. "This doesn't apply to clergy or other religious institutions— there are other places [people] can go if they really believe that they want this issue to be looked at. Because this is not medicine, you can't engage in this with children," he explained.
Lieu said that homosexuality is not a medical illness, and Pickup agrees. "We don't believe it's a disease or mental illness either," he said. "We don't demonize people, we don't coerce people, we don't coerce children. We honor who they believe they really are."
Pickup said he's afraid Lieu's bill is too blunt of an instrument to deal with the few reparative therapists who stray from professionalism.
Which side here is right? Should people be able to make their own decisions, regardless of the consequences? Is this practice even effective? Have you undergone sex conversion therapy or known anyone who has?
Guests:
Ted Lieu, California State Senator (D-28), author of SB 1172
David Pickup, Reparative Therapist with a practice here in the L.A area, President of International Institute for Reorientation Therapies, also a Member of National Association for the Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH)