France : Pédophilie ? Air France fait voyager les enfants sans adulte à proximité !

" Pour le service juridique d'Air France, les probabilités d'attouchements sexuels sont plus élevées que celles de dépressurisation d'urgence ", déplorent certains employés de la compagnie. Pour se prémunir d'accusations d'attouchements sexuels sur des mineurs non accompagnés à bord de ses avions, la compagnie Air France a décidé de les faire voyager sans adulte à proximité immédiate, au risque, estiment les syndicats, de mettre en cause la sécurité des enfants. " La nouvelle réglementation concernant les UM ( unaccompanied minors ) stipule qu'il ne doit pas y avoir de passager adulte sur le même bloc siège sauf en cas de cabine complète", a expliqué lundi à l'AFP Jean-Marc Quattrochi, délégué syndical à l'UNAC, l'un des syndicats des hôtesses et stewards.

Cette directive figure dans le nouveau manuel de sécurité et de sauvetage des personnels navigants commerciaux ( PNC ) édité en février. Elle aurait été édictée à la suite de plaintes sur des vols long-courriers en particulier, vers les Etats-Unis, selon plusieurs sources internes.

" Le nombre de plaintes est confidentiel, Air France n'a évidemment pas envie d'en faire publicité ", explique-t-on chez Alter, syndicat de pilotes. " Le service juridique redoute à l'évidence d'être mis en cause pour négligence en ayant laissé un adulte ( qui s'avérerait pédophile ) à côté d'un UM s'il y avait la possibilité de le mettre ailleurs", ajoute-t-on.

Le texte ( interne à Air France ) précise toutefois que " la présence d'un passager adulte sur un bloc siège adjacent, en priorité, le siège situé de l'autre côté de l'allée est impérative ". Une précaution que les syndicats jugent insuffisante.

Sécurité des enfants non assurée : " Cela va à l'encontre de la sécurité des vols et des enfants. Comment un passager assis de l'autre côté pourrait-il venir en aide à un enfant assis côté hublot ? ", interroge Guillaume Pollard, délégué Alter. Il souligne que cette directive est en particulier en contradiction avec les consignes en cas de dépressurisation présentées par l'équipage au début du vol : l'adulte doit s'équiper du masque à oxygène avant de mettre celui de l'enfant assis à côté de lui.

" En cas de dépressurisation d'urgence, l'adulte devra rester assis et attaché et je ne vois pas comment il pourrait mettre le masque de l'enfant assis de l'autre côté ", commente M. Pollard. Cette directive est en outre incompatible avec la procédure de préparation de la cabine en cas d'évacuation d'urgence qui préconise de mettre les enfants entre deux adultes, relève le même syndicat.

" Pour le service juridique d'Air France, les probabilités d'attouchements sexuels sont plus élevées que celles de dépressurisation d'urgence ", soulignent plusieurs PNC, souhaitant garder l'anonymat.

Enfants à côté des femmes chez Corsiar : Estimant que la vie des enfants peut être mise en danger, certains pilotes ont décidé de ne pas appliquer cette directive.

" Depuis la mise en place de cette procédure, aucun incident de sécurité n'a été observé ", a indiqué Air France dans un communiqué, précisant que la procédure datait de mi-juillet 2009. " La DGAC ( direction générale de l'aviation civile ) a validé ces procédures qui participent d'une politique générale par rapport à ces problèmes d'attouchements", a indiqué de son côté un porte-parole de la DGAC tout en reconnaissant les limites de cette directive.

Il faut dire que la prise en charge de ces enfants, âgés de 4 à 12 ans, est un véritable casse-tête. Surtout quand ils sont en grand nombre sur le même vol, puisque Air France ne fixe pas de limite au nombre de ses jeunes passagers.

" La procédure chez Corsairfly est à ce jour d'assoir un passager de sexe féminin à côté de l'UM ", a précisé une porte-parole, car statistiquement, la pédophilie est plus le fait d'hommes. Une statistique dont British Airways a fait les frais. Cet été, elle a été condamnée pour discrimination après avoir appliqué strictement cette même consigne : un homme avait déposé plainte après que l'hôtesse lui eut demandé de se déplacer pour ne pas le laisser à côté d'un enfant non accompagné.

Source by http://tbiet.blogspot.com/ and Le Monde

Breaking: Prop 8 ban on gay marriages in California ruled unconstitutional

Following a lengthy public trial, Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the voter initiated Proposition 8, that bans gay marriage in California is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker ruled that Prop 8, as it has become known, violates the equal protection clause in the United States constitution by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry a member of the same sex.

In a written judgement, he said: "the state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," he added

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
The case was brought by two gay couples who argued that their constitutional rights were violated by Prop 8, which was voted in by residents of California following an earlier court ruling that legalised gay marriage within the state.

During case testimony, the court heard experts testify that allowing gay marriage would help the mental health of gays and lesbians, give more legal protection to their children, reduce discrimination and give gay couples more political power.

Prop 8 supporters argued that retaining the ban would protect children and traditional marriage. They put forward only two witnesses, one of who argued that gays are 12 times more likely to molest children. Unusually, given that the legislation is upheld by the State of California, the original 'defendants', California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court. Schwarzenegger campaigned heavily against the introduction of Proposition 8.
In concluding, Judge Walker re-instated gay marriage in California. He wrote that the "plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8."

He added: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgement permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

Democrat Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, the co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus said: "We live in a democracy wherein majority rule is checked and balanced by the guarantee of inalienable minority rights. This case, as it wends its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, presents jurists with fundamental questions about minority rights and majority rule. I believe Judge Walker got it right, declaring that denial of marriage rights and protections to gay and lesbian citizens violates the Constitution even if it reflects the will of the majority of Californians."

In 2009, following a trip to the United States, the then prime minister, Gordon Brown told gay rights campaigners: "This Proposition 8 in California, this attempt to undo good that has been done, this attempt to create divorces for 18,000 people who were perfectly legally brought together in partnerships.
"This is unacceptable and this shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination."

Gay & Lesbian Center [sic] chief executive Lorri Jean welcomed the ruling: "Today’s historic decision by the federal district court is clearly a milestone victory for all gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians, our families and our friends. But much more than that, it is a resounding affirmation of fundamental American ideals and core principles of the US Constitution.

"Almost from our very beginnings, one of the exceptional hallmarks of our nation’s progress has been the expansion of our concepts of liberty and justice to include those of us who were not initially considered fully equal, or who were perhaps not even considered at all.

"Although it has often taken years of struggle, we have seen profound advancements in the recognition of the full citizenship of women, of African-Americans, and of countless other ethnic, religious and social minorities.

"These changes have come about through a continually broadening public understanding of who we all are, and of the common bonds and aspirations that we all share."

She added: "As welcome and significant as today’s ruling truly is, it is in no way a final victory…not in the current court case, and certainly not in the ultimate fight for the fully equal treatment of all LGBT Americans. There are more legal challenges, debates and votes to come. Therefore, it is as important as ever that all who support our ultimate goal of full equality continue, through every available avenue and at every opportunity, to persuade those who may not yet be with us.

"Over the last 40 years, the advances in the movement for LGBT equality have been extraordinary, but that progress has not been unbroken and there are clearly more obstacles to overcome. But today’s decision is yet another signpost as we move ever closer to the day when the ideal of liberty and justice for all is fully realized for LGBT Americans, as it should be for every American, and indeed for everyone everywhere.”

Around 18,000 gay couples married in the state in the few months in which gay marriage was legal. They were permitted to remain married after the ban passed.
Prop 8, which was the most expensive social issue campaign in US history, passed with 52 per cent of the vote.

It is expected that the supporters of Prop 8 will fight the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Source By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

Iranian teenager faces execution for 'false' gay assault charges

An 18-year-old Iranian man is facing execution over a false sodomy charge, campaigners say.

Ebrahim Hamidi was sentenced to death two years ago at the age of 16 for an unspecified assault on another man.

Although the allegation was withdrawn and the Iranian Supreme Court has rejected the guilty verdict and execution order, a lower provincial court is insisting on Mr Hamidi's execution.

Now, his fate lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, which must decided whether to uphold the execution order.

Previously, he was represented by the human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei but Mr Mostafaei has gone into hiding after a warrant for his arrest was issued.

The lawyer is also representing Sakineh Ashtiani, the Iranian woman who has been sentenced to death by stoning on charges of adultery.
Supporters of Mr Hamidi say that while Ms Ashtiani is unlikely to face death because she has international support, he could be executed at any time.

They are asking for people to contact their MPs to raise awareness of Mr Hamidi's plight.

He was arrested in 2008 with three other men after a fight between two families outside the city of Tabriz.

The four men were told by police that one of the men they had been fighting had claimed they attempted to strip and sexually assault him.

The men say they were tortured in prison and Mr Hamidi signed a confession which he said was not true.

All four were tried in two consecutive provincial criminal courts and were sentenced to execution.

During their third trial, three of the men were cleared of all charges but Mr Hamidi was again sentenced to execution.

He was sentenced to die on June 21st this year.

On July 7th, the man who made the original accusation against Mr Hamidi withdrew it, telling police in a written statement that he had made up the claim under parental pressure.

The Supreme Court of Iran has twice rejecting the lower court's rulings on the case because of shortcomings in the judicial investigation.

However, Mr Hamidi's supporters say that the lower court is intent on his execution.

Dan Littauer, the editor of Gay Middle East, who has been reporting on the case, says that Mr Hamidi currently has no legal representation.

In a statement today, he urged people to support the accused man's case by contacting their MPs.

"There is no evidence that Hamidi is gay or that he committed any crime. This execution must be stopped. We need your help," Mr Littauer said.

UK-based gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell added: "Ebrahim's case shows the flaws and failings of the Iranian legal system. It is further evidence that innocent people are sentenced on false charges of homosexuality."
"An international campaign can help stop Ebrahim's execution, just as a similar global campaign has, so far, halted the stoning to death of Sakineh Ashtiani."

Source By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

TIME TO RELAX...???

Source By Aroeira (O Globo) (Thanks a Tony Goes)

Gay Australian cabinet minister Penny Wong comes out against gay marriage

The first openly gay cabinet minister in Australia has claimed that she has suffered discrimination but refused to support gay marriage.

Penny Wong, the Labor climate change minister told ABC television: "By virtue of who I am, prejudice and discrimination are things I have firsthand knowledge of.

"When I entered the parliament, I did actually think very carefully about how to handle being Asian and gay and in the parliament, because it hadn't been done before."

Ms Wong, who has been in a relationship with Sophie Allouache for a number of years, refused to support gay marriage.

When asked if she would support the introduction of marriage equality, Ms Wong said: "I've made quite a number of comments on this (gay marriage) issue.

"I appreciate your interest, but I'm here today to talk about using water wisely here in Western Australia."
When asked a similar question by Channel Ten television she said: "On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect."

"The party's position is very clear and that is an institution between a man a woman,” she said. Adding: "I do respect the fact that's how people view the institution."

In 2008, Ms Wong did steer through legislation that guaranteed same sex couples equal rights in regards to taxation, healthcare and retirement benefits.
Fellow Labor politican, Steven Lewis who is fighting the seat of Wentworth told his local newspaper, the Wentworth Courier: "My personal view is that I support gay marriage."

"I believe that those who are in a loving relationship of the same sex should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I understand that this view might not be shared by the majority of the people of Australia, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work towards achieving that goal."

Another Labor party politician, Steven Hurd said: "We know the current Labor Party position is not too supportive… If I were to be elected to parliament, I would advocate a free vote – a conscience vote on gay marriage and I would support it, because I don’t see the point in creating all this legislation to remove discrimination and then stopping short of allowing the same rights to marry as straight people.

"This is about love, and giving love dignity." Unfortunately for gay marriage advocates, Mr Hurd is unlikely to become a member of the Senate as he is fighting the safe Liberal seat of Kooyong, Melbourne.
Party leader and current Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard declared her opposition to gay marriage in one of her first interviews after assuming office. She told the Austereo Show: "We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, which is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples."

Same sex domestic partnership ceremonies are available in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. Civil partnerships along the British model are available in the Australian Capital Territory.

Source By: Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk

Harry Truman and the Fight to Finally Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

If you were flipping through the pages of your local newspaper this morning, and stumbled upon the "This Day in History" section, you might have come across this entry:

July 26, 1948: U.S. President Harry Truman issues Executive Order 9981, effectively desegregating the U.S. military.

As Presidential executive orders go, this is probably one of the biggest in history. Civil rights activist Dorothy Height (who sadly passed away earlier this year) deemed Truman's order "the most significant institutional advance for the civil rights of black Americans since President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation." And the order was one of the finest examples of a President bucking popular opinion, in order to do what was fundamentally right.

As Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog notes, Truman's push to desegregate the military ran counter to popular opinion, with almost two-thirds of the country saying back in 1948 that the military was just fine as a segregated institution. Heck, even the U.S. military, when surveyed about their views on race, were hesitant to desegregating the military (as Igor Volsky at Think Progress pointed out last week). Still, Truman knew that it was the right thing to do. And sometimes, the right thing to do shouldn't have to wait until popular opinion catches up with it.

The parallels between Truman's push to desegregate the U.S. military, and the push today to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and open the U.S. military up to gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers are pretty striking. Indeed, it was Harry Truman's grandson, Clifton Truman Daniel, who recently noted the similarities, saying that proponents of keeping the military segregated used similar arguments to proponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Clifton Truman Daniel wrote a letter to President Obama, on behalf of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), challenging "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" earlier this year. At the time he wrote that while he's uncertain how his grandfather, President Truman, would have reacted to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," he was hopeful that his grandfather would have recognized the basic issues of fairness and equality in the debate.

"While I have no idea where my grandfather would stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I do know that he admired service and sacrifice. An estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen are willingly risking their lives to defend our nation, despite being treated as second class citizens," Clifton Daniel Truman wrote. "I would hope that my grandfather would want his openly gay great-granddaughter and others like her to have the opportunity to serve the country they love with dignity and integrity."

We're hopefully heading in the right direction toward a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Indeed, nearly 80 percent of the country want to see the policy thrown out the door. The U.S. Senate is likely going to vote on their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise legislation in September, as part of the defense spending bill, which should set in motion (outrageous Pentagon surveys notwithstanding) the process for moving repeal forward.

But there is something to be said about Truman's bold act of courage in issuing Executive Order 9981. If only other Presidents had the same tenacity to break down institutional discrimination wherever it may exist.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Source By: Michael Jones is a Change.org Editor

BBC 'worst for on-screen portrayal of gay people'

A Stonewall study into how gay people are portrayed in TV programmes watched by young people has found that many depictions are negative, demeaning or stereotypical.

It found that the BBC – which has been plagued by controversy over its handling of on-screen homophobia in the last two years – was the worst of the four channels surveyed.

The report, titled Unseen on Screen, looked at the top 20 programmes watched by people aged between 12 and 18.

In 126 hours of programming across BBC1, ITV1, Channel 4 and Five, only 46 minutes showed gay people in positive and realistic lights.

In 39 hours of output, the gay charity said that BBC1 showed just 44 seconds of positive and realistic depictions of gay people out of 39 hours and 30 minutes of programming.

Channel 4 transmitted 12 minutes of positive and realistic portrayal out of a total 34 hours and 14 minutes of programming and was ranked the best for showing gay and lesbian people at all.

ITV1 transmitted 34 minutes of positive and realistic portrayal out of a total 50 hours and 3 minutes of output.

The best four programmes were broadcast by Channel 4 and ITV. These were I’m a Celebrity… , Hollyoaks, Emmerdale and How to Look Good Naked.

Young people interviewed across Britain said that in most of the programmes they watched, gay people were shown as predatory, comical or promiscuous.

They also said the programmes were unrealistic, showing gay people as rejected by their families, bullied and depressed.

Where programming depicted homophobia, three fifths went unchallenged. One 16-year-old interviewed by researchers said: "TV gives the wrong view of gay people because every storyline is about them being beaten up and discriminated against. They are never accepted by their family. In real life they just want to fit in."

Lesbians were found to be particularly underrepresented on television, as 77 per cent of depictions of gay people concerned gay men.

BBC2 and the corporation's other channels contained no depictions of lesbian and gay people. On BBC1, researchers found that only two programmes in the viewing sample contained portrayals of gay people. These were EastEnders, which has a storyline about gay characters Christian and Syed, and The Jonathan Ross Show, which features Four Poofs and a Piano.
The report said that the EastEnders storyline focused on Syed's fear of being outed and the turbulent relationship between the couple. Meanwhile, Four Poofs and a Piano has been repeatedly criticised as a stereotypical depiction of gay men, in addition to complaints about the band's name.

The BBC has had a number of run-ins with Stonewall in the last two years. In 2008, one programme featured "gratuitous" remarks about Lindsay Lohan's sexuality, Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles has been criticised for calling a ringtone "gay" and mocking gay singer Will Young, Jonathan Ross was criticised for joking that gay children should be adopted and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has been attacked for suggesting a car was "a bit ginger beer".

Former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell recently appeared on Top Gear. He claimed that the two got onto the subject of homosexuality when Clarkson said: "I demand the right not to be bummed." The alleged comments were edited out of the programme.

A BBC spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk: "As part of ongoing work to better understand all our audiences, the BBC launched its most comprehensive research and consultation project into the portrayal of lesbian, gay and bisexual people – across all genres on every platform, engaging people across various viewpoints. We will publish the findings of this project in the autumn."

ITV did not return requests for comment, while a Channel 4 spokeswoman pointed to its own research on gay and lesbian portrayals on television.

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: "Of course it’s welcome that some of the most obnoxiousness unpleasantness of people such as Jeremy Clarkson is now being edited out before transmission.

"However, it’s hardly surprising that there’s still almost endemic homophobic bullying in Britain’s secondary schools when, even if gay people do appear on TV shows watched by young people, they’re depicted in a derogatory or demeaning way.

"It’s tragic that in 2010 broadcasters are still under serving young people in this way, particularly when young people themselves say they want to see real gay people’s lives on TV."
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell added: "Congratulations to Stonewall for exposing the systemic, institutional homophobic bias of British TV. Unseen on Screen documents a shocking catalogue of negative, stereotypical and invisibilised depictions. Every television executive ought to feel shame."

"This report is a wake up call to the TV industry. It's time that channel chiefs ordered a dramatic change in the way LGBT people and issues are portrayed. We deserve more and fairer air-time, including more positive coverage.

"TV programmes that neglect or demean us can fuel anti-gay attitudes and lead to depression, self-harm, teasing, ostracism and violence."

Researchers watched the 20 programmes most popular with young viewers for 16 weeks between last September and January 2010.

Source By:Jessica Geen

Fire Someone in Memphis Because They're Gay? You Can Do That

Memphis. It's a city that has such deep ties to the movement for civil rights, that it's practically impossible to think about advancements in equality without mentioning the town. Yet to this day, the city of Memphis has no anti-discrimination protections for its LGBT citizens. That means that when it comes to the workplace, those who have a job in Memphis can be fired, denied a promotion, or harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And that's definitely a bleak spot when it comes to the reputation of the city.

But efforts are underway to change that. City Council member Janis Fullilove (who really has the most heart-warming last name of any politician I can think of) has introduced a measure that would add some really important language to Memphis's anti-discrimination ordinance. If Fullilove's measure passes, the following language will be added to the ordinance: "There should be no discrimination in hiring, promoting or demoting a city employee based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression."

The City Council will take up the measure next on August 3. But while it seems like a no-brainer that such an ordinance rooted in equal rights would pass, this measure is totally up in the air. And that's because several anti-gay politicians and church groups are organizing like the dickens to defeat it. Take Bellevue Baptist Church, which earlier this year made headlines for kicking a softball team out of their church league, because they were worried it had too many lesbian players on it. The pastor of Bellevue, Steven Gaines, is dead set against this ordinance.

"It's going to discriminate against people of faith who are Christians in their worldview, and I believe with all my heart that they have rights too," said Pastor Gaines, taking on the role of snake oil salesman to try and confuse people into thinking that this ordinance would discriminate against a Christian's right to hate gay people. Pastor Gaines said that he's going to organize his church, and other churches, to blast city council with emails and phones calls.

We can't let Pastor Gaines and his cohorts be the only voices touching the Memphis City Council. Send a message to the council today, urging them to pass this ordinance and take a bold step for equality. Already, fellow Tennessee city Nashville has passed an anti-discrimination ordinance inclusive of gender identity and sexual orientation. Memphis should be in the same league. Let's get them to pass this measure at their next meeting.

Source By: Michael A. Jones (Change.Org)

One in seven men on London gay scene thought to have HIV

One in seven men on the capital's gay scene are thought to be infected with HIV – markedly higher than the rate for the general gay male population.

Although Health Protection Agency figures estimate that one in 20 gay men nationally and one in ten in London are living with HIV, a recent sample of 1,251 men in gay bars and clubs found that 15.2 per cent were carrying the virus.

Health experts believe that up to a quarter of gay men with HIV do not know they are carrying the virus and suggests that many wrongly think HIV-positive men can be identified through their appearances or how they act.
Alan Wardle, head of health promotion at sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust, said: “Men who have seen the campaign in focus groups have been genuinely shocked by the one in seven figure. Yet the reality is that, after Brighton, London has the highest HIV prevalence of any city in the UK.

“Many gay men wrongly believe that you can tell someone’s HIV status by what they look like, how they act, or who they’re friends with. But you can’t tell whether someone has HIV by looking at them, and with a quarter of gay men who have HIV currently undiagnosed, he may not even know himself.

“The assumption that HIV is visible is almost certainly affecting whether men use condoms or not. Forty-seven per cent of gay men surveyed reported having unprotected anal sex with at least one partner, and a quarter reported doing this with more than one casual partner. With this in mind, it’s vital this campaign reminds men that the best way to protect themselves and others is to use condoms.”

To highlight the figure and encourage men on the scene to use condoms, THT is running an advertising campaign in London gay magazines, bars, clubs and sexual health clinics over the next three months.

By PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer

The Sherrod Case

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy