My Thoughts On The Abortion Issue Both Good, Bad And Sideways

My Thoughts On The Abortion Issue Both Good, Bad And Sideways

 

Abortion, a very divisive issue here in the U.S. and I would guess it to be so all over the globe. As a Christian I did spend sometime looking through the encyclopedic Index of my King James Bible trying to make sure of the things I write concerning God’s Word on this issue. The ultimate opinion on this subject matter is God’s, not so much mine or yours. But for good conversation on this difficult matter this isn’t going to be a strictly “the Bible says” type of letter to you this evening. By the way, the word abortion is not found anywhere within the King James version of the Bible. I can not say with certainty that the word abortion isn’t found in any of the other translations of Scripture as there are some versions that I have not read cover to cover as I have with the King James.

 

I guess I am going to tackle this subject in three formats, 1.) my personal thoughts on the matter as if there was no Biblical or Spiritual thought, knowledge or concern on the matter. 2.) The way our Nations Supreme Court has looked at it. 3.) What God has said about it, His view. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge nor do I wish to be so, lets see where this train of thought, study and prayer takes us on this subject matter.

1.) My personal thoughts. If I did not know what God’s Word says, nor had I ever heard of others opinions argued on the radio and TV, I believe the following would most likely be my thoughts on this matter. I believe there is nothing that can be considered joyous about an abortion. It would be something that a person would not want to have to do even in a case of rape or incest if there is anything even slightly decent about the person at all. I believe that by the end of the first trimester (3 months) should be long enough for a person to make up their own mind about doing it, or not. I believe that there is no excuse for Partial Birth abortions. If a pregnancy has gone far enough that the baby has any reasonable chance of being born alive instead of being aborted then aborting the child should be considered as first degree murder unless the mothers life is in serious trouble if she continues the pregnancy. My ‘no’ to abortion would have to also cover aborting any child that through our medical knowledge tells us will be in anyway ‘deformed’. If a child has active brainwaves and a heart beat, then it is a living Soul from God. To put an end to it life from that point on should have to be considered as first degree murder, at least that is my personal opinion on this matter. Maybe it is just my lack of knowledge but I do have a question. The news media often talks about how thousands of couples are on the waiting list to be able to adopt a child, especially a newborn baby. Why is it that the ‘Right To Life’ supporters can’t somehow work with the politicians to make the rules easier for people to adopt? This would/should end the need for the ‘black market’ baby industry. To me this seems like it should be a ‘hand in glove’ resolution, a perfect working relationship.

 

2.) The law of our Country concerning abortion, what the U.S. Supreme Court has stated as the law. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in the “Roe verses Wade” decision that said abortion was to be legal in our Nation. Plus they have ruled many times since then on many different type of challenges in favor of “the woman’s right” to choose whether to give birth or to abort a child. I believe that Americas two most important documents are the Scriptures and the Constitution, in that order. It is plain and it is obvious to anyone who studies into this matter that the Constitution was written by men who considered themselves to be Christians. So they wrote it from a Christian view point. But they also wanted there to be a separation of Church and State. On the one side of the coin so that the State could not dictate to the Churches how they could worship as with England’s ‘Church of England’. On the other side of the coin they did not want a State Church being allowed to be giving orders to the Government on how they were allowed to govern. Nor were they in favor of one ‘Faith’ being in a position where all the people had to belong to one Faith.

 

3.) I am going to put down on paper a few Scriptures that I hope will help you think about what the Holy Spirit has to say on this matter. Jeremiah 1:5, God speaking to Jeremiah. “Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a Prophet unto the nations.”

Luke 1: 15, this is from God in reference to John the Baptist, the last half of the verse. “and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mothers womb.”

Mark 10: 14 and 15, This is Jesus speaking to His Apostles. “Let the little children come unto Me and do not forbid them; for as such is the Kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God (the Holy Spirit) as a little child does, he shall not enter therein.”

Matthew 18: 6—Jesus speaking to His Disciples. “But whosoever shall offend (hurt) one of these little ones which believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” 18: 7 “Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence comes!”

I will finish this section with one last verse. 1 John 3: 15—The Apostle John speaking. “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

Justice is higher than simply following the rules of man because the rules are often unjust, but if we put the rules of God first in our heart, they will save our Soul. Man kind can only kill our body, they can only condemn our Soul if we give it to them to destroy. So, consider, which Judge should we fear the most? For the Holy Spirit is the teacher and the counselor to the true followers of Christ.

Well, thats it, I hope you enjoyed the read, I hope that it was able to evoke some thoughts within your heart and Soul. I hope that you and your loved ones are able to have a great evening, God bless.

 

 

Brazil: Lula is free

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Lula is free and will never be arrested

Journalist Fernando Rodriguez, owner of the conservative site Poder360, a shrewd political analyst, has a full diagnosis of Lula’s situation: “There seems to be an exaggeration in the statement about Lula never being arrested. There is not. This is a reality that has based on the objective elements of Brazilian law ”

(Photo: Ricardo Stuckert)

247  Journalist Fernando Rodrigues, owner of the conservative Poder360 website , states that “there seems to be an exaggeration in the statement about Lula never being arrested”. “There is not. It is a reality that is based on the objective elements of Brazilian law,” he continues.

In his analysis, Rodrigues points out that former President Lula “is 74 years old, his cases may go back to the 1st Instance and new rules for the execution of sentence after conviction in the second degree will certainly be challenged because of the principle of ‘priority’ (new rules are ‘forward’ and not ‘backward’) “.

“Obviously Lula’s opponents will dispute these understandings, but the Power360 talked to ministers of the Supreme Court, law enforcement and politicians,” he says.

“The chance of the former president being arrested again is zero. Of course, Lula could commit 1 crime and be caught in the act. His situation will be different. But the chance of the petista at this point to make some slip it’s also zero, “he adds. “All things considered, is what is at the beginning of this text: Lula is loose and should never be arrested again.”

Appeals court hands Trump another loss, saying Congress can seek his tax returns

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

Appeals court hands Trump another loss, saying Congress can seek his tax returns

Washington (CNN)An appeals court has denied for the second time President Donald Trump’s attempt to stop an accounting firm from turning over his financial documents to the House, making it the second tax case Trump’s lawyers say they are taking to the Supreme Court.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that a panel of eight judges out of 11 voted against allowing Trump to continue his appeal.
The decision is another loss stacked against Trump, after federal judges have repeatedly rebuked him and greenlighted the House’s effort as it also pursues his impeachment. The case, if Trump loses again with the Supreme Court, could deliver his tax returns or closely related financial documents into the hands of House Democrats.
The opinion reiterates the strong signal the court sent last month, when it upheld a lower court ruling that Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA must comply with a House subpoena of his tax documents and turn over eight years of accounting records.
Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday that they will appeal the decision to Supreme Court, noting “well reasoned dissent” from three judges to Wednesday’s opinion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the new ruling in a statement Thursday, saying, “once again, the courts have resoundingly reaffirmed the Congress’s authority to conduct oversight and consider legislation on behalf of the American people.”
In a separate case, Trump faces a Thursday deadline to ask the Supreme Court to block a Manhattan grand jury subpoena for copies of his financial records and tax returns. His attorneys have previously said they intend to ask the Supreme Court to take up the New York case.
And in yet another new filing in a third case Wednesday night, Trump’s legal team asked a judge for a two-week buffer period if the US House asks for his tax returns through New York state. Congressional Democrats countered in that court filing that they’d like to write an argument this week responding to this request and have an in-person hearing before the judge makes a decision.
Courts have previously refused to curtail Congress’ subpoena power.
The majority of the appeals court did not give reasoning why they declined to hear Trump’s appeal on Wednesday. But two judges, Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees to the federal appellate bench, wrote that they disagreed with the vote and would have heard Trump’s arguments again.
Katsas, who served in the White House Counsel’s office before taking the bench, wrote that he wanted a larger panel of judges on the court to hear the case, which he said presents “exceptionally important questions regarding the separation of powers among Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary.”
He said that because the records are “personal” and not related to the office of the presidency, the “unavailability” of an assertion of executive privilege “creates an open season on the President’s personal records.”
Rao, who also served in the Trump administration and also dissented from the three-judge panel’s opinion, charged that when the court allowed the subpoena to go forward it “shifted the balance of power between Congress and the President and allowed a congressional committee to circumvent the careful process of impeachment.”
She said that even though the House has subsequently authorized an impeachment inquiry, the committee in issuing the subpoena was not relying on impeachment power.
A third judge, Karen Henderson, appointed to the circuit by President George H.W. Bush, signed onto their reasoning.
The administration has continued to stand its ground against all efforts to obtain Trump’s tax returns. Trump has claimed that ongoing IRS audits have stopped him from making his tax returns public, even though audits don’t prevent individuals from releasing tax returns.
This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Brazil: Fachin denies appeal that could annul Lava Jato proceedings

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Fachin denies appeal that could annul Lava Jato proceedings

Rapporteur of the case in the Federal Supreme Court, Minister Edson Fachin voted against the appeal dealing with the order of the defendants’ final allegations in a lawsuit and could affect one of former President Lula’s rulings. The session was concluded after Fachin’s vote

247 – Rapporteur of the case in the Supreme Court, Minister Edson Fachin voted against the appeal dealing with the order of the defendants’ final allegations in a case and may affect one of former President Lula’s rulings. The session was concluded after Fachin’s vote.

After the vote, which lasted three hours and took the whole session, the trial was suspended and the session adjourned. In the afternoon of tomorrow (26), the collegiate resumes the analysis of the case with the vote of the minister Alexandre de Moraes.

The trial discusses the order of submission of the final allegations by collaborating and non-collaborating defendants in criminal proceedings and has the power to overturn judgments of the Lava Jato operation, including that of former judge Sérgio Moro who has held in custody for over a year. former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

In his explanation, Fachin argued that one would be facing a debate that does not concern a question between prosecution and defense, but between defense and defense. “Would there be illegality or abuse of power by failing to comply with an express legal rule that does not exist?” 

“The procedural law differentiates the moments of the MP and the defense. It does not distinguish, however, the moment of participation between the defenses due to the possible collaborative posture on the part of one of the parties. prosecution, “he said.

“The order of submission of final allegations by prosecution and defense is to establish a minimum of balance of force. Parity of arms. But this logic does not transfer mechanically to the winning collaboration. Delation must be analyzed to see whether or not it is efficient,” concluded the minister.

Lula’s defense disputes Lava Jato about STF’s omitted conversations

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Lula’s defense disputes Lava Jato about STF’s omitted conversations

In a statement to the Supreme Court, Lula’s defense refutes Lava Jato’s arguments about the former president’s tapped conversations with officials: “Dialogues were omitted because they showed a totally different scenario from the one the Curitiba authorities maintained,” says the lawyers’ petition.

(Photo: Felipe L. Gonçalves / Brazil247)

247 – The Folha de S.Paulo Panel column reports that former President Lula’s defense went to the Supreme Court to rebut the arguments of Lava Jato’s judge in Curitiba, Luiz Antonio Bonat, about the petist’s conversations with authorities that were intercepted by PF but were left out of the process.  

Bonat said in an explanation that it hurts common sense and does not convince anyone that the material was irrelevant to the investigation.  

Lula’s lawyers say the analysis of relevance was up to the court itself, because before the conversation with then-President Dilma Rousseff, Lula had spoken with then-Vice President Michel Temer, with deputies and senators – all with forum privileges, he points out. the column.  

For Lula’s defense, Lava Jato hid the other dialogues because they pointed to the exact opposite of what the prosecutors’ and the judge’s punitivist theses stated. 

“Dialogues were omitted because they showed a totally different scenario from the one that the Curitiba authorities maintained,” says the petition of former President Lula’s lawyers.

Brazil: Senate goes to STF against Lava Jato and can isolate Barroso in supreme court

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZILIAN NEWS AGENCY 247)

 

Senate goes to STF against Lava Jato and can isolate Barroso in supreme court

Senate President David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP) complained that the Lava Jato operation, authorized by Supreme Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, did not have the consent of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR), recalls journalist Esmael Morais . Barroso is friends with prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, who is “hurt” by Vaza Jato reports

Senate President, Senator David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP), granted interview.
Senate President, Senator David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP), gives interview. \ R \ rPhoto: Marcos Brandà £  £ o / Federal Senate (Photo: Marcos Brandão / Federal Senate)

By Esmael Morais, in his blog – In Brasilia, k-juice will boil even more. Senate President David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP) has announced that he will go to the Supreme Court (STF) against intimidation of the House.

Alcolumbre referred to the action of the Federal Police, this Thursday (19), in the office of Senator Fernando Bezerra Coelho (MDB-PE), leader of the government.

The Senate president complained that the Lava Jato operation, authorized by Supreme Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, did not have the consent of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR).

Barroso is friends with prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, the task force’s coordinator in Curitiba, who is “hurt” by Vaza Jato reports.

Davi Alcolumbre sees the PF operation as ‘serious’ and ‘drastic interference’ because the reasons alleged in the court ruling would be between 2012 and 2014, so there is no justification for the search and seizure that took place today in the Senate. That is, by the time lapse, it would have given Bezerra Coelho time to conceal supposed evidence more than a million times.

“The determination of search and seizure also has the potential to reach the executive branch, as it was also held in the parliamentary cabinet for the Senate Federal Government Leader,” says a statement issued by the Senate president.

Senator Bezerra, in turn, said he was the victim of political persecution of Minister Sergio Moro. According to the government leader, his position in defense of fundamental guarantees bothers the former Lava Jato judge.

Brazil: STF should not be afraid to judge former judge’s (Moro’s) acts

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS OUTLET)

 

Gilmar points out deviations from Moro and says STF should not be afraid to judge former judge’s acts

Minister Gilmar Mendes says the Supreme Court will not consider Moro’s popularity in judging his suspicion. “If a court comes to consider this factor, he has to close because he loses his degree of legitimacy,” he says. He is adamant: “Let us imagine that these people were in the Executive. What would they do? Surely they would close Congress, they would close the Supreme. This phenomenon of institutional breach would not have occurred systemically had it not been for the support of the media. Therefore, they are co-authors. of evildoers. ”

Gilmar Mendes
Gilmar Mendes (Photo: Carlos Humberto / SCO / STF)

247 – In an interview with Thais Arbex and Tales Faria, Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes said he would not assess the popularity of former judge Sergio Moro in assessing his suspicion. “If a court considers this factor, he has to close,” he said. He was incisive: “Let’s imagine these people were in the Executive. What would they do? Surely they would close Congress, they would close the Supreme. This phenomenon of institutional violation would not have occurred systemically had it not been for media support. So they are co-authors of the wrongdoers. ”

Gilmar also pointed out deviations committed by Moro and Dallagnol during the Lava Jato. “The collusion between judge, prosecutor, delegate, IRS is spurious. This does not fit our model of the rule of law, ”he said and also said that Brazil needs to“ end the cycle of false heroes ”.

“People realize that this prosecutor is not acting properly. This judge is not acting properly. Whether or not we are going to overturn these judgments, the judgment that is forming is that this is not how justice should be.” That this is wrong, that these people were using the functions for something else. That became increasingly evident, “said Gilmar. “What is this incontrastable power? We learned, seeing this underworld, what they were doing: contingency-related denunciations, mocking people, persecuting family members to get the outcome of the investigated. All this has nothing to do with the state of Right.”.

In a message to Bolsonaro, Celso de Mello says ‘MP does not serve governments, people, ideological groups’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS AGENCY)

 

In a message to Bolsonaro, Celso de Mello says ‘MP does not serve governments, people, ideological groups’

Minister Celso de Mello, the oldest of the Federal Supreme Court defended on Thursday (12) the independence role of the prosecutor. The STF dean stated that the prosecution cannot serve governments or ideological groups. The prosecution should not be the servile representative of anyone’s sole will or basic instrument of minority law offense, “said the minister.

Jair Bolsonaro and Celso de Mello
Jair Bolsonaro and Celso de Mello (Photo: PR | STF)

247 – Minister Celso de Mello, the oldest of the Federal Supreme Court, defended on Thursday (12) the independence role of the Public Prosecution Service. The dean of the STF stated that the Public Prosecution Service cannot serve governments or ideological groups, informs O Globo .  

The statement was made at the last session in which Attorney General Raquel Dodge participated in the Court. She will be replaced by Deputy Attorney Augusto Aras, who will still be subject to Senate sabbath.  

“The prosecution does not serve governments, people, ideological groups, is not subordinate to political parties, does not bow to the omnipotence of power or the wishes of those who exercise it. The prosecution should not be the servile representative of the will either. of anyone, or a basic instrument of minority offense, “said the minister.  

The dean also said that the MP acts to protect “a huge mass of citizens, forest people and children of nature unfairly persecuted with predatory greed of those who violate the law.”

Brazil: Supreme prepares offensive against Moro and Lava Jet that could result in Lula’s release

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZILIAN NEWS AGENCY 247)

 

Supreme prepares offensive against Moro and Lava Jet that could result in Lula’s release

October may be the time for a turning point in the clash that Brazil’s legalistic and democratic forces are waging against the discretion of Sergio Moro and Operation Lava Jato. The Supreme Court (STF) is preparing to give its harshest message to Operation Lava Jato and the former judge and current minister of justice, with his decisions rendered ineffective and Lula freed from the political prison imposed on him.

Celso de Mello must decide the fate of Moro and Lula 
Celso de Mello must decide the fate of Moro and Lula (Photo: STF | Ricardo Stuckert)

247 – The month of October may be the time of a turning point in the struggle the loyalists and democratic forces of Brazil waging against the will of Sergio Moro and Operation Lava jet. Report by journalist Thais Arbex, from Folha de S.Paulo, informs that the Supreme Court (STF) is preparing to give in October its toughest message to Operation Lava Jato and the former judge and current Minister of Justice, with their decisions rendered ineffective and Lula freed from the political prison imposed on him.  

It is possible that in October Minister Gilmar Mendes resumes the trial of Sergio Moro’s suspicion. It seems that by then there will be a defeat of Moro in the second class of the court.  

According to the report, the Supreme Court will again discuss a habeas corpus request made by the defense of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT), alleging Moro’s lack of impartiality in conducting the Guarujá triplex process ( SP). 

If the claim is accepted, the sentence may be overturned. the case would go back to the initial stages and Lula could get out of jail. The trial was set for July 25, but Gilmar asked him to leave the agenda. 

For the minister, the court should await the unfolding of the leaking talks attributed to Moro with the Lava Jato summit. At that moment, there was the prospect that new dialogues would emerge that could corroborate what Lula’s lawyers claim.  

There is a change of mood in the Supreme over this sensitive issue. The dean of the court, Celso de Mello, has shown signs of discomfort with the content of the messages revealed by Intercept. 

The minister is considered a fundamental piece for the suspicion of Moro to be debated again and be accepted by the board. Gilmar was just waiting for a signal from his colleague to release the process.  

The assessment of one wing of the Supreme is that most Ministers in the Second Class today have no doubt about Moro’s bias. The understanding has been reinforced by international repercussions. 

A magistrate told Folha, on condition of anonymity, that the Supreme Court needs to position itself because the scenario for the Brazilian Justice is bad.   

The report informs that can also go to the plenary of the Supreme Court next month the actions that question the constitutionality of prisons after conviction in the second instance and the discussion that overturned the sentence imposed by Moro Aldemir Bendine, former president of Petrobras and Banco do Brazil. This is what signaled the President of the Supreme Court, Dias Toffoli, to members of the court.   

An unfavorable scenario is drawn for Moro and Dallagnol. According to Ministers of the Supreme Court, the likely inclusion of these topics in the plenary agenda indicates that today, there would already be a majority in favor of theses contrary to Lava Jato.  

Toffoli also indicated that he could anticipate the debate on the use of detailed data from control agencies such as Coaf, IRS and Central Bank without judicial authorization.  

In July, Toffoli suspended criminal investigations that used detailed information from these agencies. Moro expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision to Toffoli, saying it could endanger the fight against money laundering.

India: A year after 377 verdict: Long battle for civil rights

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HINDUSTAN TIMES OF INDIA)

 

A year after 377 verdict: Long battle for civil rights still ahead

It’s been a year since the Supreme Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

INDIA Updated: Sep 06, 2019 07:09 IST

Dhamini Ratnam and Dhrubo Jyoti
Dhamini Ratnam and Dhrubo Jyoti

Hindustan Times, New Delhi
The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.
The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.(Sushil Kumar/HT FILE PHOTO)

A year ago, the Supreme Court handed victory to 34 people from across India who challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a British-era law that criminalized consensual, adult, same-sex relationships and fostered a climate of fear and discrimination against the entire Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

Now, petitioners and other members of the community say that although Section 377 was read down on September 6, 2018, the legal battle for their civil rights has only just begun.

According to them, the right to own and inherit property, nominate their same-sex partners on hospital and insurance forms, and receive legal recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage were some of the main demands. Other petitions pertaining to reservations for trans persons in government jobs and educational institutions, and seeking the formation of Transgender Welfare Boards, among other things, are in the works.

“When I get calls from young people all over India, they want marriage, insurance, civil and economic rights. The cap on the bottle has been removed. It will be a multi-pronged fight,” said Menaka Guruswamy, senior Supreme Court advocate and one of the lawyers in the main Section 377 case titled Navtej Johar versus Union of India.

Analysis | 377: What we won, what remains

The preparations have already begun. Lucknow-based petitioner Arif Jafar said he and his lawyers were finalizing a petition to ask for same-sex partners to be allowed to nominate each other in insurance and property documents. Hotelier Keshav Suri said he was working on a petition asking for spousal recognition and benefits — such as joint bank accounts.

“We may not immediately ask for marriage equality, because that is a longer battle but start on the lower-hanging fruit,” said the 34-year-old, who is married to a French man. “My marriage is recognised in France but not here, I want to change that,” he added, but cautioned that consultations and strategising had not happened yet.

Another petitioner, Suma, a trans woman, will soon petition the Karnataka administrative tribunal over reservations for a government position.

Bengaluru-based activist Akkai Padmashali said the past year had seen greater recognition of LGBT rights by bureaucrats, but raised issue with the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019, which was recently passed by the Lok Sabha. “If it passes in its current form, I will have no choice but challenge it in the SC,” she said.

The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.

The Human Rights law Network (HRLN) will soon file public interest litigation’s for several transgender petitioners asking states to take steps for framing social welfare schemes, including setting up Transgender Welfare Boards, providing identity cards, toilets, and free medical care, a lawyer at HRLN said.

In July, trans activist Grace Banu filed a public interest litigation in the Madras high court seeking reservation for trans persons in education and public employment. Currently, Tamil Nadu allows reservation in the Most Backward Classes category. The petition seeks separate reservation for those persons who identify as trans.

“After the Section 377 verdict, people expected things to change much faster than they have on the ground, with problems of lack of shelter homes/safe houses, sensitive police machinery, lawyers and judges still very much present. In fact, the real struggle begins after the positive court orders where the courts have reaffirmed their right to choice, and people struggle to find jobs, rented houses while facing constant emotional pressure from families to come back,” said Delhi-based lawyer Amritananda Chakravorty.

On September 6, the Delhi high court will hear a habeas corpus case involving a lesbian in her 30’s, who was allegedly separated from her partner by her family. The woman who is married and is reportedly a victim of domestic violence, has been staying at a city shelter home in the city.

Over the past 12 months, judgments in various high courts around the country expanded the scope of human rights for LGBT people. In October 2018, a trans man named Jeeva petitioned the Karnataka high court to change his name and gender on his school and college certificates. The judge directed the state’s education department to ensure that other trans persons are able to do the same without the court’s further intervention in this matter.

In April 2019, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court upheld the marriage between a man and a trans woman, who approached the court after registration authorities refused to recognize the union, saying that a trans woman couldn’t be considered a bride under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

This was the first judgment in India where the right to marry under Article 21 of the Constitution was affirmed for transgender persons, noted the Bengaluru-based Centre for Law and Policy Research.

There are other challenges, too. In October 2018, the SC dismissed a petition seeking civil rights for the LGBT community and refused to review the decision in July 2019 – saying the issue had already been dealt with in Navtej Johar vs Union of India.

Guruswamy said the next battle for LGBT rights may be a case in a district court that eventually gets bumped up to the apex court on appeal.

“Young people are already approaching district and high courts, police stations and registrars and demanding their rights. That is the way the next big case will come,” she added.

First Published: Sep 06, 2019 05:27 IST