FBI report looms as senators slam Trump for mocking Kavanaugh accuser

WASHINGTON - With the FBI poised to report as soon as Wednesday night on sexual misconduct allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's mocking remarks about one of Kavanaugh's accusers raised concerns among three Republicans whose votes could decide the confirmation fight.

Several people with information related to allegations against Kavanaugh told Reuters they had not heard from the FBI, suggesting its report may be narrower than was desired by some of the lawmakers who demanded it just days ago.

Christine Blasey Ford, a college professor from California who accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her in 1982 when they were high school students, has not been contacted by the FBI, her attorneys said.

As Senate Republican leaders marched toward a final vote on Kavanaugh's nomination, perhaps over the weekend, the three Republicans who could be key to whether Kavanaugh is confirmed, criticized Trump for his remarks about Ford at a political rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night.

Senators Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski were among lawmakers who objected to Trump's comments about Ford's testimony on the alleged assault.

Ford, who testified last week at an extraordinary Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said she could not remember the precise date or location of the alleged assault or how she got home later, but offered a detailed account of the incident. She said a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to remove her clothing and covered her mouth when she screamed.

Imitating Ford's testimony, Trump, who was himself accused during the 2016 presidential race of sexual misconduct with numerous women, said: "What neighborhood was it in? I don't know. Where's the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember."

"And a man's life is in tatters," Trump added.

Flake told NBC's "Today" show that "there's no time and no place for remarks like that, that discuss something this sensitive at a political rally ... It's kind of appalling."

Collins told reporters: "The president's comments were just plain wrong." She did not respond when asked if his comments would affect her vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Asked whether Trump's comments would affect her vote, Murkowski told reporters: "I am taking everything into account. The president's comments yesterday mocking Dr. Ford were wholly inappropriate and, in my view, unacceptable."

A day after the hearing, Trump had called Ford "a very credible witness" who provided "very compelling" testimony.

Kavanaugh has denied Ford's accusation as well as allegations by two other women, all dating from the 1980s.

'CLEARLY A REASON'

Flake was instrumental last Friday in getting Trump to order an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, a conservative federal appeals court judge nominated by Trump for a lifetime job on the top U.S. court.

Trump limited the investigation to no more than a week.

Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, complained in an interview with Reuters that the White House had not responded to requests for documents detailing its instructions to the FBI about the scope of its investigation of Kavanaugh.

“There's clearly a reason for that and I assume the administration doesn't want members of Congress and the public to see it,” Durbin said.

It was not immediately clear whether the FBI report, which will be made available to senators, would be released to the public.

The No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn, said the report could be given to senators as soon as Wednesday. Republican Senators John Kennedy and Roy Blunt said the FBI report should be made public.

Trump's fellow Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. If all the Democrats oppose Kavanaugh, Trump cannot afford to lose the support of more than one Republican for his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tiebreaking vote. No Republicans have said they will vote against Kavanaugh.

Opposition among Americans to Kavanaugh has increased since last week's hearing, Reuters/Ipsos polling data showed on Wednesday.

In the latest seven-day average in a survey of 4,057 U.S. adults, 41 percent of respondents opposed Kavanaugh, 33 percent supported him and 26 percent said they did not know. Opposition to Kavanaugh grew 4 percentage points after the hearing, apparently driven by people who previously were undecided.

In a Twitter post on Wednesday, Trump did not back away from his rally comments, instead attacking Kavanaugh's Democratic critics. Trump said when he goes to political rallies, which are organized by Republicans, he sees that voters are angry at the "vicious and despicable" way Democrats are treating his nominee.

At a White House briefing, Trump's spokeswoman Sarah Sanders defended his remarks in Mississippi and said he was not concerned the comments may have jeopardized the votes of key senators. "The president was stating the facts" about the gaps in Ford's recollection of the alleged incident, Sanders said.

The FBI has interviewed Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh who Ford said was in the bedroom where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her.

Judge has denied any memory of such an incident, as have at least three others with information about Ford's allegations and those of a second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who has said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were Yale University students.

A person familiar with the matter said the FBI questioned Ramirez for more than two hours on Sunday and that she provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 possible witnesses.

Two Yale classmates of Ramirez told Reuters on Tuesday that they had reached out to the FBI over the weekend but had not yet heard back.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

US government seeks end to Supreme Court privacy fight with Microsoft

The US government's Supreme Court battle with Microsoft Corp over whether technology companies can be forced to hand over data stored overseas could be nearing its end, after federal prosecutors asked that the case be dismissed.

President Donald Trump on March 22 signed a provision into law making it clear that US judges can issue warrants for such data, while giving companies an avenue to object if the request conflicts with foreign law.

"This case is now moot," the US Department of Justice said, citing the newly passed legislation, in a 16-page court filing on Friday that requested the dismissal.

The Supreme Court on Feb. 27 heard arguments in the case, which had been one of the most closely watched of the high court's current term. Some justices urged Congress to pass a law to resolve the matter.

Microsoft and the Justice Department had been locked in a dispute over how US prosecutors seek access to data held on overseas computer servers owned by American companies. The case involved Microsoft's challenge to a domestic warrant issued by a US judge for emails stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin relating to a drug-trafficking investigation.

The bipartisan new law, known as the Cloud Act, was supported by Microsoft, other major technology companies and the Trump administration. But civil liberties groups opposed it, saying it lacked sufficient privacy protections.

Microsoft, which has 100 data centers in 40 countries, was the first American company to challenge a domestic search warrant seeking data held outside the United States. The Microsoft customer whose emails were sought told the company he was based in Ireland when he signed up for his account.

A representative for Microsoft did not immediately return requests for comment on the Justice Department's filing.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Samsung wins US appeal in Apple patent case

SAN FRANCISCO, United States - A US appeals court on Friday handed Samsung a win over Apple in a long-running patent fight, overriding a jury verdict ordering it to pay $119.6 million to the iPhone maker.

The court ruled that two Apple patents at issue were not valid, according to a copy of the decision posted online.

"We are delighted with the resounding victory from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that two of Apple's patents should never have been issued," Samsung said in a statement.

"Today's decision is a win for consumer choice and puts competition back where it belongs -- in the marketplace, not in the courtroom."

Apple originally filed the suit against Samsung in early 2012, accusing the South Korean consumer electronics giant of infringing on an array of patents related to smartphones.

Samsung denied it had done anything wrong and filed a countersuit saying that Apple had infringed on some of its patents.

The number of patents involved was whittled down during the lengthy litigation process.

Three Apple patents and two Samsung patents were at issue in the appeal ruled on Friday.

Apple had sought some $2.2 billion at trial, only to have a jury award the California-based company $119.6 million.

The panel of appeals court judges ruled that Samsung did not infringe on one of the Apple patents and that the remaining two, which involved auto-correct and slide-to-unlock features, were not valid, nullifying the jury award, according to a copy of the decision.

The appeals court endorsed the jury's decision ordering Apple to pay Samsung $158,500 for infringing one of the South Korean company's patents.

Samsung in December paid smartphone rival Apple just over $548 million in a different years-long patent battle in federal court in California. That case has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Arch-rivals Samsung and Apple decided in 2014 to drop all patent disputes outside the United States, marking a partial ceasefire in a seemingly relentless legal war between the world's two largest smartphone makers.

The companies have battled in close to a dozen countries, with each accusing the other of infringing on various patents related to their flagship smartphone and tablet products.

But neither has managed to deliver a knock-out blow with a number of rulings going different ways, and the announcement they agreed to drop all litigation outside the United States suggested a line was finally being drawn.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

U.S. Justice Scalia, conservative icon, dead at 79

WASHINGTON - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died, setting up a major political showdown between President Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate over who will replace him just months before a presidential election.

"On behalf of the court and retired justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement on Saturday, calling Scalia, 79, an "extraordinary individual and jurist."

Scalia's death was first reported by the San Antonio News-Express, who said he had apparently died of natural causes while visiting a luxury resort in West Texas.

Obama, who is traveling in California, extended his condolences, and the White House said he would have more to say about Scalia's death later on Saturday. The Supreme Court lowered its U.S. flag in honor of Scalia on Saturday.

The U.S. president will face a stiff battle to win confirmation of a nominee to replace the dead jurist, with Republicans likely to delay in the hope that one of their own wins the November election.

"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican who currently controls if and when the Senate would vote on a nominee.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Obama should send the Senate a nominee "right away."

Obama could tilt the balance of the nation's highest court, which now consists of four conservatives and four liberals, if he tries to and is successful in pushing his nominee through the Senate confirmation process. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy sometimes joins with the liberals on high profile issues, including gay rights and the death penalty.

"Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, and the nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next president names his replacement," Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, said on Twitter.

The question of replacing Scalia is likely to come up when six of the Republican White House hopefuls participate in a televised debate Saturday evening in South Carolina, which holds its Republican nominating contest on Feb. 20.

POSSIBLE REPLACEMENTS
Appointed to the top U.S. court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, Scalia was known for his strident conservative views and theatrical flair in the courtroom.

Scalia's replacement would be Obama's third appointment to the nine-justice court, which is set to decide its first major abortion case in nearly 10 years as well as key cases on voting rights, affirmative action and immigration.

Obama's first two appointments to the court, liberals Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010, both experienced relatively smooth confirmation hearings in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats.

This nomination will be different, with Republicans now in charge of the Senate and keen to exert their influence over the process. Obama is likely to be forced into picking a moderate with little or no history of advocating for liberal causes.

Other factors the White House is likely to consider is whether to nominate a woman or a member of a minority group, or someone who fits into both categories.

Among those mentioned within legal circles as potential nominees are Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since May 2013, and Jacqueline Nguyen, a Vietnamese-American who has been a judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since May 2012.

Paul Watford, a black judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was appointed in May 2012, and Jane Kelly, a white woman and former public defender who has served on the St. Louis, Missouri-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since April 2013, also have been touted as possible nominees.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Jeff Mason and Scott Malone; Editing by Bill Trott and Paul Simao)

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Samsung to finally pay Apple $548 million in patent dispute

NEW YORK - Samsung fought until the bitter end to avoid paying Apple, but the company now says it will finally hand over the more than $548 million it owes for infringing the patents and designs of its biggest smartphone rival.

In papers filed in federal court in San Jose, California on Thursday, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said it will make the payment by Dec. 14 if Apple Inc sends an invoice on Friday.

Asked if it had done so, Apple declined to comment on Friday.

The payment comes after a U.S. appeals court last May reduced a $930 million judgment against Samsung by $382 million, stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple patents and copying the look of the iPhone.

Another trial over remaining damages relating to some of Samsung's infringing products in the case is set to go ahead next spring.

Even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. had authorized damages to Apple in May, Samsung again appealed the final figure to the same court, and was rebuffed twice more.

Now agreeing to pay, Samsung told the San Jose court that it expects to be reimbursed if it eventually succeeds in a forthcoming appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over its liability for copying the patented designs of the surface, bezel and user interface of the iPhone, which accounted for $399 million of the total award.

South Korea-based Samsung also said it reserved the right to be reimbursed in the future if a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office invalidating one of the Apple patents in the case, related to touchscreen gestures, is upheld.

Apple intends to appeal that ruling and said in court documents it "disputes Samsung's asserted rights to reimbursement."

"We are disappointed that the court has agreed to proceed with Apple's grossly exaggerated damages claims regardless of whether the patents are valid," a Samsung spokeswoman said in a statement.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

How Obamacare helps boost BPO employment in PH

MANILA – More and more Filipino nurses are finding jobs in Business Process Outsourcing (BPOs) firms following the US Supreme Court verdict upholding Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act.

According to Pasig City Representative Roman Romulo, chairman of the House Committee on Higher and Technical Education, the Philippine units of Dublin-based Accenture plc and New York-based EXL Service Holdings Inc. have increased their hiring of Filipino nurses, mainly for deployment to their global delivery centers in Cebu City.

"Both firms are signing up Filipino nurses with US licenses as well as those who have passed the NCLEX but still without US licenses," said Romulo.

Romulo said both firms provide a wide range of outsourced business support services to American health insurers. Accenture has 16 delivery centers in the Philippines, while EXL has three.

"There's no question Obamacare is driving US health insurers to transfer additional contact center, insurance claims processing, clinical support analysis, medical coding, and other non-core, business support jobs to the Philippines, either through independent BPO providers, or through in-house back offices,'' Romulo said.

Meanwhile, Romulo said UnitedHealth Group Inc. is also enlisting Filipino nurses and other fresh college graduates for training and employment opportunities as transition managers, assistant managers, team leaders, specialists handling health care accounts, customer service representatives and medical coders, whether certified or not.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Profile photos turn to 'rainbow' as Pinoys 'celebrate pride'

Filipino netizens are showing their support for same-sex marriage via social networking site Facebook.

Colorful, filtered profile pictures are proliferating Facebook feeds to signify a “celebration of pride,” following a landmark US Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage throughout US. The rainbow is widely used as a symbol of the LGBT community.

Through its “Celebrate Pride” application, Facebook allowed users to change their profile photos into rainbow-colored versions with ease.

Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg said in various posts that the social networking site “is a proud supporter of Pride,” and that he rejoices with his friends and “everyone in the community who can finally celebrate their love.”

“Our country was founded on the promise that all people are created equal, and today we took another step towards achieving that promise,” said Zuckerberg.

In the Philippines, same-sex marriage is still deemed unlawful. But the recent US decision gives the Filipino LGBT community some hope.

Kim Arveen Patria, an LGBT rights advocate, said the US Supreme Court’s decision “takes the fight for gender equality forward by leaps and bounds.”

“It is true that the U.S. is not the world, but the world has its eyes on the U.S. The Philippine Supreme Court, for example, cites U.S. jurisprudence in many of its rulings. The case Obergefell v. Hodges gives me and many gender equality advocates hope. Changing our Facebook profile photos is a small manifestation of our overwhelming joy,” said Patria.

April Isiderio, married, and has one kid, said she joined the “Celebrate Pride” call because she believes “love is a choice.”

“These gay individuals should share the same choices like the rest of us. One's sexual preference should not be an issue. If you want to label your relationship and put it on paper, then the option should be the same for every kind,” she said.

CBCP's take on gay marriage
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines for its part maintained that marriage is a “permanent union of man and woman.”

“Fortunately for human persons, there is so much more to us and to our dignity than what the law prescribes,” said CBCP President, Archbishop Socrates Villegas.

He emphasized however that no Church official should “demand to know a person’s orientation.”

“All will continue to find welcome in the Church, while, under command from The Lord himself, will continue to teach what the Church has unceasingly taught,” Villegas added.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

WATCH: YouTube pays tribute to LGBT community

MANILA -- As the world rejoices over the US Supreme Court ruling to legalize same-sex marriage in the entire nation, video-sharing website YouTube posted a video to pay homage to all members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

The two minute, 24-second long video was a compilation of moments of triumph for the LGBT community.

In the caption, YouTube reminisced how several people used the website to upload videos of support to the LGBT cause.

''Over the last 10 years, everyone from moms to presidents have uploaded videos in support of LGBT awareness, to stand up against bullying and discrimination, and to say together, as a community, that marriage equality matters.''

"That's why we are so excited by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to recognize the constitutional right of all couples to marry,'' it added.

YouTube also started a campaign encouraging everyone to join in their cause to inspire change. Everyone can join the cause by uploading or sharing videos using the hashtag #ProudToLove in the title.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

US Supreme Court to rule on birth control

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court will rule Monday on whether an employer can cite religious beliefs as a reason to limit employees' access to birth control.

Saving the most sensitive issue for its last day of the current term, ahead of a three-month recess, the Supreme Court is also expected to be the site of protests from both sides of the issue as the hearing gets underway.

The decision, hotly awaited since arguments on March 25, is the first related to President Barack Obama's signature health care reform since the court upheld the law two years ago.

The controversy relates to four of the 20 contraception methods that the law requires be 100 percent reimbursed by insurance: two types of morning-after pills and two types of intrauterine devices, or IUDs.

The plaintiffs are companies refusing to buy insurance for their employees that covers these types of birth control, saying they violate their religious convictions against abortion.

Craft store chain Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinetmaker, risk a fine if the top court rules against them for refusing to conform to the contraception requirements under the Affordable Care Act, dubbed "Obamacare."

Hobby Lobby's billionaire chief executive David Green says his company follows "biblical principles" that bar him from complying. Conestoga's owners say they run the company based on Mennonite Christian values.

But the Obama administration, which exempted traditional religious congregations from the rule, says a for-profit company such as Hobby Lobby does not enjoy the same protections afforded to individuals under the US Constitution.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby closes its stores Sunday for the Sabbath -- rare among US businesses -- and credits "God's grace and provision" on its website for its economic success.

The company does not argue against other birth control methods covered under the federal law, but says the four types at issue violate the religious principles it tries to apply on a daily basis.

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the company, finding that the legal obligation infringed on religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

"Everybody agrees that churches and Catholic charities have the right" to cite the First Amendment, said constitutional lawyer Noel Francisco.

So "why one category and not the others?" he asked.

But Georgia University law professor Eric Segall argued that "if we live in a country where people can not follow the law because their conscience is offended, we're going to have a whole lot of chaos."

Elizabeth Wydra, lawyer at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said she has "no doubt that the Green family as individuals might have objections."

However, "the law doesn't place any burdens on individuals, it places obligations on the corporate entities, they must provide the whole package of contraception," she added.

During the March hearing, the three progressive female justices of the Supreme Court seemed largely on the side of the Obama administration.

It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration will have convinced at least two other judges to get a majority on the nine-person bench.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Federal benefits now afforded to same sex couples

REDWOOD CITY, California - As soon as the marriage equality celebrations die down same-sex couples may want to see their accountants and bi-national same-sex couples may want to consult an immigration attorney.

The federal protections now extended to legally married same sex couples include tax benefits that could make tax season simpler for them and even a refund check from Uncle Sam.

According to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch, same-sex couples may now file taxes jointly and possibly amend previous years' tax returns to get bigger refunds.

Same-sex couples may now share property and other assets with their partners without paying a gift tax. They may also inherit assets after the death of their partners.

Market Watch experts said couples should consult their accountants because tax relief could be limited, particularly for couples who married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, yet reside in another where it's not.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruling eases worries that immigration rights for same-sex bi-national couples will be included in the immigration reform bill.

By striking down DOMA, American citizens can now sponsor their foreign born same-sex partners for green cards.

Advocacy group Immigration Equality estimates there are 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples living in the US. The law applies to legally married same-sex couples, regardless of the state they live in.

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

US Supreme Court allows couple to reclaim adopted child

NEW YORK - In a child custody case that one justice called heartbreaking, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday an American Indian girl now being raised by her biological father should not have been taken from a couple who had cared for her since just after birth under a law aimed at keeping Native American families together.

In a 5-4 ruling that prompted stirring dissents, the court said South Carolina's highest court misinterpreted the law last July in letting the girl, who is now 3-1/2 years old, remain in the custody of Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation.

The girl, named Veronica, had earlier been in the care of Matt and Melanie Capobianco, a white couple from Charleston, South Carolina, after Brown renounced his parental rights by text message without taking custody and the birth mother gave her up for adoption.

But a family court ordered the girl be given to Brown under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 after he changed his mind. That law was intended to curb abusive practices that caused many Native American children to be removed from their families.

Brown took custody in December 2011, when the girl was 27 months old, and moved to Oklahoma. Last July, South Carolina's highest court upheld the family court order regarding the girl, who according to court papers is 1.2 percent Cherokee.

Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the South Carolina court erred in finding that the law protected Brown from losing his parental rights, or gave him a preference in caring for the girl.

"Under the State Supreme Court's reading," Alito wrote, "a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother ... and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother's decision and the child's best interests."

Allowing such an outcome automatically would "unnecessarily place vulnerable Indian children at a unique disadvantage in finding a permanent and loving home," Alito added.

Matt Capobianco has worked as a Boeing technician. Melanie Capobianco has a doctorate in developmental psychology. They are known in court papers as Adoptive Couple, and the girl as Baby Girl.

ADOPTION EFFORT TO PROCEED

"We're thrilled," Mark Fiddler, a lawyer for the couple, said in an interview. "Adoption professionals have been perplexed for years over how the ICWA applies to voluntary adoption proceedings where the unwed father is Indian and the mother is not. The decision today clears up that confusion. It means my clients may proceed with efforts to adopt Veronica."

Charles Rothfeld, a lawyer for Brown, said the decision was "disappointing" but narrow. He said Veronica still lives with her biological father and stepmother, and is "thriving and happy. We are confident that ultimately the father will retain custody."

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker also expressed disappointment, saying at a news conference: "Veronica Brown's best interests are served by her continuing to live in a loving home with her biological father."

The Capobiancos said in a statement they hope the decision will prevent "the tragic disruption of other adoptions."

Veronica was conceived while Brown had been engaged to the birth mother, who is of predominantly Hispanic background.

After renouncing his parental rights, Brown changed his mind after learning that his former fiancée had put the girl up for adoption and that the girl was under the Capobiancos' care.

"It's a pretty devastating opinion," said Dorothy Alther, executive director for California Indian Legal Services, which submitted a brief on Brown's behalf. "(It) impacts not only biological parents but also tribes, because it means they would have no right to intervene."

Alito was joined in his majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, who has two adopted children, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has nine children, dissented, saying the majority "needlessly demeans the rights of parenthood. (P)arents have their rights, no less than children do."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and mostly by Scalia, saying the majority ignored Congress's intent "to rectify a perceived wrong that, while heartbreaking at the time," cannot be undone.

"However difficult it must have been for (Baby Girl) to leave Adoptive Couple's home when she was just over 2 years old, it will be equally devastating now if, at the age of 3 1/2, she is again removed from her home and sent to live halfway across the country," she wrote. "Such a fate is not foreordained, of course. But it can be said with certainty that the anguish this case has caused will only be compounded by today's decision."

The case is Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-399. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Harriet McLeod in Charleston, South Carolina; Editing by Howard Goller and Will Dunham)

source: www.abs-cbnnews.com

Obama administration urges US Justices to overturn anti-gay marriage law

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration outlined its argument on Friday why the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief with the court saying that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, expanding on the administration's approach to the controversial 1996 law, which it has formally opposed since February 2011.

Section 3 defines marriage under federal law as being between a man and a woman.

The law denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples that are granted to married heterosexuals.

The administration's position is that the law violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In the brief, Verrilli said there was a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians that required the Supreme Court to take a careful look at any law that specifically targets them as a group.

He therefore urged the court to take an approach to analyzing the law known as "heightened scrutiny," which, if adopted by the court, could make it more likely the court would find the law unconstitutional.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite sex couples," he wrote.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case on March 27, the day after it weighs the constitutionality of a California law, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state.

The administration has until Thursday to decide whether to weigh in on Proposition 8.

source: abs-cbnnews.com

Boy Scouts delay decision on gays

NEW YORK - The Boy Scouts of America, a youth group long seen as symbolizing traditional US values, announced Wednesday it was delaying a decision on the contentious issue of whether to allow gays to join.

The Scouts had ruled last year to maintain the ban on openly gay boys and adult leaders. Amid political pressure and rapidly shifting social attitudes, the Scouts' leadership said it would meet on the issue -- leading to speculation that a U-turn was in store.

However, the executive board issued a statement afterwards, saying that "after careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization..., (it) concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time."

"The approximately 1,400 voting members of the National Council will take action on the resolution at the National Annual Meeting in May 2013," the statement said.

The 103-year-old institution, famed for its outdoor training programs and preaching of simple virtues, has close links to the country's conservative and religious heartlands.

However, the group, which is separate from the Girl Scouts of the USA and counts 2.6 million boys in its membership, is increasingly unsure of its position in wider society.

President Barack Obama said Sunday in an interview aired right before the Super Bowl that "nobody should be barred" from the Scouts.

On Wednesday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a prominent backer of same-sex marriage, added his voice to the debate.

"Discrimination against gays in the Boy Scouts, I think, is wrong and I think they'd be well advised to eliminate it," he told reporters.

With New York among the growing number of US states allowing gay marriage, and Obama ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the Scouts appear to find themselves increasingly behind the times.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday found that voters across the country are 55 percent in favor of an end to the Scouts' ban, with only 33 percent against.

There was a notable gender gap in the poll, with 61 to 27 percent of women in favor of ending the ban, but men split 49 to 39 percent.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in favor of the Boy Scouts, saying that the prohibition against openly homosexual members was part of its right as a private organization to free association and that it could not be forced to adopt an unwanted message.

In his interview, Obama called the Scouts a "great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives."

However, he added: "My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life."

source: abs-cbnnews.com

Health IT Is a Small, But Significant Part of Health Reform

Proponents of government health IT programs may breathe a little easier after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld almost all of President Obama’s landmark healthcare reform law.

Most efforts to give hospitals and doctors the latest IT tools are rooted in 2009 stimulus laws that predate Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA). Had the law been overturned, it would likely have been no more than a speed bump for health IT.

Supporters of the wide range of health IT, from digital records to electronic information exchanges, say the reforms in the ACA are critical to creating a health care system where the latest technology flourished.

“In addition to health insurance reforms, expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the creation of health insurance exchanges, the ACA includes a number of improvements dependent on or related to health IT capabilities including, electronic health information exchange (HIE); new methods to reimburse expenses based on quality of care, operating rules and standards; and health IT workforce development,” all of which would have been lost if the law had been overturned, according to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.

In March, Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a report noting that the ACA included provisions that expanded some earlier health IT programs to encourage adoption of the latest technology. As Whitehouse observed in the report, health IT is an integral part of the broader healthcare system.

“These areas are not separate silos; progress in each area will influence, and be influenced by, progress in others,” he wrote.

That was a sentiment echoed by National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Farzad Mostashari, who told reporters earlier this month he wasn’t worried about what effect the Supreme Court’s ruling could have on health IT. “What worries me is people not having health insurance,” he said.

article source: mashable.com