LA Times: Can Britney Spears' conservators force her to keep her IUD?

 Until Rose McGowan appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight this week I had no idea that pop-star Britney Spears was under a conservatorship. I could read this as a court presumably in California has allowed others to be in control of Spears' life and has been true since she was about 25.

What's this IUD mentioned in the blog title? Well it's birth control her conservators doesn't want her to have any children. See having children probably would do no good for her conservators if she has to take a break from performing. I could see this as her conservators see nothing but dollar signs.

Well McGowan spoke out about this on Tucker Carlson and we learn that Spears who's almost 40 is asking the court to let her out of this conservatorship. She wants to take back control of her life. And from the LA Times article where I derive the title this is a bit striking:

In response to Spears’ rousing remarks, Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, called the pop icon’s account of forced contraception “extremely troubling.”

“Planned Parenthood supports her right and the right of all individuals to make informed choices about their sexual and reproductive health, including whether and when to have children, free from coercion and exploitation,” Hicks said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times.

“Given what we’ve seen in this case, the state must do better to ensure that stronger protections are in place with regard to reproductive decision-making for individuals subject to conservatorship.”

Wait, Planned Parenthood is arguing for an individuals right to determine whether or not they want to have children? You know I always think of that organization as one that promotes abortion in this case I applaud them for taking a stand for Spears. And this is a strange turn for this case. Furthermore

What was your initial reaction to Spears’ testimony?

[Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor and faculty director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley]: It was outrageous. It recalled, for me, the long history of the denial of decision-making around reproductive matters that marginalized people — women, poor women, white women without class privilege, people of color, disabled people, incarcerated people — there’s a long history of denying those marginalized people the ability to make decisions around their bodies, their reproduction.

Do Spears’ conservators have a legal right to limit her reproductive choices to that degree?

My understanding is that conservators have the ability to direct financial and medical decisions of the person under the conservatorship. And so, in order for this to be legal, her conservators would have to make a claim that controlling her reproduction impacts her financial well-being, or it’s a medical decision. And I think they could make those arguments, but it still seems like an incredible overreach of the decision-making power that they have as conservators of her estate.

I think this one way to look at this. Perhaps this could open up the door to a lot of issues that could be at play. Could some authority somewhere make these decisions for someone and not just in a conservatorship in a variety of situations perhaps you're in jail or in a detention for immigration based violations.

What I'd be curious about is the reasoning for placing on on a conservatorship? I see on her wiki page that she had some psychological issues and OK at some point in the 2000s she was spotted having shaved her head. I see that she has two children with Kevin Federline and there were some issues there.

Well perhaps more will unfold over time.

How to argue for personhood in the 24th century

[VIDEO] This video features the legal drama contained within "The Measure of a Man" which was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation airing during that programs 2nd season. Unfortunately this wasn't an episode I caught on it's first airing years ago since I only started watching TNG during season 6. This episode I only saw in reruns during the week tuning in to WPWR Power 50 here in Chicago.

The plot of this episode is basically a request from Starfleet Medical to acquire the Enterprise's Ops Officer Lt. Cmdr Data for the purposes of scientific study by a Cmdr. Bruce Maddox. Ultimately a hearing is convened by a Starfleet JAG to determine whether or not Data is the property of the Starfleet service and thus can choose to not subject himself to Cmdr. Maddox's experiments.

So this YouTube channel Legal Eagle examines the legal ramifications of this episode. I accept most of what you see in the scenes leading up to that fateful hearing where Data is determined to not be property of Starfleet and can choose not to be subjected to experiments. I wish I got the name of the lawyer who examined this episode in the above video.

It's fascinating to see the research done hear especially the principles we currently know about various rulings with regards to individual rights. He notes as the Dred Scott ruling as a precedent that could relate to Data's case. Dred Scott was a slave who moved to a free territory and was sent back to a slave state and then tried to sue claiming he was free only for his case to go to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and it was determined that free or enslaved Black Americans aren't US citizens and thus aren't entitled to the rights thereof.

Examinations. As you will see in the above clip Cmdr. William Riker was forced to advocate against Data as his next most senior officer (something dinged by this attorney in his analysis). He takes Data's arm as a form of an examination. It was noted that something similar was done in the OJ Simpson case with that glove that didn't fit. Even with a clip of the late Johnnie Cochran declaring that "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".

Basically, I agree that this episode is mostly dramatic with a few really good examples of good procedure (while also noting bad procedure). I really like how he broke down the various arguments both good and bad. I wondered if the legal system of the 24th century would be very different from the legal system of the 21th century. Although it cool to see that some of the arguments and procedures seen here could actually work in today's courtrooms.

BTW, how appropriate that we're talking about this episode of TNG when the Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise will return with his own series to be streamed on CBS All-Access later this year. Who knows what adventures await the elderly and retired legendary Starfleet Captain.

Chick-fil-A

In the past especially over at my other blog - The Sixth Ward - I've discussed this issue. On the north side an Alderman wanted to block the construction of a franchise over what he believed was discriminatory and/or hateful activities against gay marriage. This turned into an issue of not only tolerance, but also an issue of free speech or the free exercise of religion.

The reports over the past week seemed to reflect the belief that Chick-fil-A ultimately capitulated. At the same time Chick-fil-A attempts to explain their stance in a statement (hat-tip Illinois Review). They indicate that 1st Ward Alderman Joe didn't exactly score a victory on Chick-fil-A.

In finding this out I wonder how the Chicago GOP who jumped on this issue last summer will respond to Chick-fil-A's statement? We saw how they responded to the capitulation.