A woman's rights to her own life, her own body

[gotsnowgotslush]

The US House of Representatives voted to overturn a Washington, DC, law that makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who use their insurance to cover procedures like in-vitro fertilization or abortion and contraception like birth control pills and IUDs for themselves, their spouses, or their children.

The House vote to overturn the bill was 228 to 192, a mostly party line vote.

Three Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to undermine democracy in the District and workplace protections for women:

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Thirteen Republicans, all from swing districts, voted with Democrats:

Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Ryan Costello (PA-06)
Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
David Jolly (FL-13)
John Katko (NY-24)
Martha McSally (AZ-02)
Pat Meehan (PA-07)
Tom Reed (NY-23)
Elise Stefanik (NY-21)

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05...-to-Fire-Women-for-Their-Reproductive-Choices

“If Concerned Women of America and the other groups are asking individual job applicants whether they use birth control, have had an abortion in the past, or have used assistive reproductive technologies, then they will be clearly violating the law, and doing so in a really despicable manner,” Grosso said.

He added that those employers are “well within their rights to evaluate a job applicant’s ability to execute the functions of the advertised position and seek employees who agree with the organizational mission.”


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...s-vow-defy-new-provisions-d-c-law-dont-exist/

 

[Busybody]

A woman's rights to her own life, her own body

while we tell all

Its ILLEGAL to smoke indoors

To have 16 oz drinks

and 899992736533 other regulations on what we can NOT do with OUR BODIES

 

[Sean Renaud]

Smoking in doors effects other people. It's not the right to your own life it's the right to others. I'm pretty sure nobody has even suggested outlawing 16 oz drinks. That's only slightly larger than the standard serving size. And while I it doesn't hurt my feelings much, people have a bad habit of finishing stuff so they don't feel wasteful not that they actually want it I only remember one city even trying to limit the size of sodas and they got shot down pretty goddamn hard.

Those subjects aren't even remotely related.

 

[Busybody]

Smoking in doors effects other people. It's not the right to your own life it's the right to others. I'm pretty sure nobody has even suggested outlawing 16 oz drinks. That's only slightly larger than the standard serving size. And while I it doesn't hurt my feelings much, people have a bad habit of finishing stuff so they don't feel wasteful not that they actually want it I only remember one city even trying to limit the size of sodas and they got shot down pretty goddamn hard.

Those subjects aren't even remotely related.

Bloomberg did

 

[Boxlicker101]

Smoking in doors effects other people. It's not the right to your own life it's the right to others. I'm pretty sure nobody has even suggested outlawing 16 oz drinks. That's only slightly larger than the standard serving size. And while I it doesn't hurt my feelings much, people have a bad habit of finishing stuff so they don't feel wasteful not that they actually want it I only remember one city even trying to limit the size of sodas and they got shot down pretty goddamn hard.

Those subjects aren't even remotely related.

You're right about second-hand smoke, and there should be limits placed on where people can smoke. However, the mayor of NY is trying to outlaw sugary drinks of over 16 ounces. http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-pushes-forward-on-soda-ban-1413421275

A half-liter, which is a common size, is more than 16 ounces.

ETA: And, of course, there are other dumb laws, such as those against being drunk or prostitution that should also be repealed, at least as they pertain to adults.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're right about second-hand smoke, and there should be limits placed on where people can smoke. However, the mayor of NY is trying to outlaw sugary drinks of over 16 ounces. http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-pushes-forward-on-soda-ban-1413421275

A half-liter, which is a common size, is more than 16 ounces.

So I guess you're fine with the hundreds of billions in medical care all the extra fat ass causes right?

ETA: And, of course, there are other dumb laws, such as those against being drunk or prostitution that should also be repealed, at least as they pertain to adults.

But you have no problem supporting imprisoning people for them....???? Or is that just black drug dealers?? You obviously don't mind the white ones last we spoke...

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're right about second-hand smoke, and there should be limits placed on where people can smoke. However, the mayor of NY is trying to outlaw sugary drinks of over 16 ounces. http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-pushes-forward-on-soda-ban-1413421275

A half-liter, which is a common size, is more than 16 ounces.

ETA: And, of course, there are other dumb laws, such as those against being drunk or prostitution that should also be repealed, at least as they pertain to adults.

I acknowledged that there was one. And it was only a ban on the larger cup sizes, nothing stoping you from refills in restaurants or buying it somewhere else if you're on the road. And like I and Bot said those fat asses pass their medical expenses on to the rest of us. I don't have a huge problem with finding reasonable solutions. I'm unsure how they came to this number so I can't defend it.

I'm not sure being drunk is a dumb law that should be repealed, but prostitution, all drug laws (so far as it goes for buying and selling) should all be repealed.

 

[LadyVer]

A Woman's Right to Her Own Life, Her Own Body

Annoying to some men.

 

[Busybody]

Annoying to some men.

yeah.....thats why THEY want MEN to pay for all teh BC they guzzle

 

[Sean Renaud]

They don't guzzle nearly enough BC if the unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates are anything to go by. Europe and Asia kick our asses in that department. (Though I specifically don't count China.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So I guess you're fine with the hundreds of billions in medical care all the extra fat ass causes right?



But you have no problem supporting imprisoning people for them....???? Or is that just black drug dealers?? You obviously don't mind the white ones last we spoke...

I believe adults should have a right to put anything they want into their bodies, and that includes booze and sugar and coffee and even the most addictive of drugs. Where I have a problem is in dealers of any race or ethnicity selling booze and tobacco and crack and heroin and other addictive stuff to minors. I don't consider sugar to be addictive because it is a normal part of the diet, especially in fruit and milk.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I believe adults should have a right to put anything they want into their bodies, and that includes booze and sugar and coffee and even the most addictive of drugs. Where I have a problem is in dealers of any race or ethnicity selling booze and tobacco and crack and heroin and other addictive stuff to minors. I don't consider sugar to be addictive because it is a normal part of the diet, especially in fruit and milk.

Sugar isn't a normal part of the diet in the amounts that we manage it. Nor is salt or animal fat. All of these things are supposed to be difficult to obtain for one reason or another. It's kinda like saying that you don't consider sitting down unhealthy because people have been sitting since there were people. But it's only been the last. . .what twenty, thirty years, that people could make an actual full career sitting behind a computer. Hell today people don't even have to leave their houses. I can get produce delivered to my goddamn door. So you're not incorrect in the technical sense, you are wrong in the practical.

Not that you seem to be disagreeing but what would go a long way towards preventing people from selling to minors would be legalization. I'm over thirty and I still get carded most places. My mother is pushing seventy and Vons still asks her to show her ID if she's buying liquor. She finds it quaint that they think there are teens with grey hair and wrinkles. But liquor is big business and you get caught selling to kids and you pay fines, possibly lose your license, depending on where and what precisely your business is liquor may be the primary thing paying the bills. Cigarettes are much the same way. No reason to believe that giving people licenses for the other drugs wouldn't have the same effects. I think we'd be wise to have PSAs on the effects of each of these substances. Soking is way down and I have to assume that's because people know the effects and don't want them. But that's a matter of education not law enforcement.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I believe adults should have a right to put anything they want into their bodies, and that includes booze and sugar and coffee and even the most addictive of drugs.

Since when?

Where I have a problem is in dealers of any race or ethnicity selling booze and tobacco and crack and heroin and other addictive stuff to minors.

All you needed last time is a black guy with drug possession/intent to sell charges and you just assume he's selling to kids then declared he should have been doing 20 to life for doing what amounts to no different than a beer slinger at a foozebawl game. And you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to elaborate...

So.....either partisan republican and staunch supporter of drug war, racist, or both....which is it?

I don't consider sugar to be addictive because it is a normal part of the diet, especially in fruit and milk.

No you don't consider it to be addictive because you're apparently totally fuckin' ignorant as to the food v. health issues in this country......

Sugar is one of THE MOST ADDICTING, readily available drugs out there....and it directly/indirectly causes more disease, death and HC expenses to the tax payer than just about ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE ON THE PLANET.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Hunt told the Toronto Sun. “Sometimes it’s just someone shouting it as they drive by. Most of the time I’m not live on-air, it’s any time you have a microphone in your hands.”

Hunt added: “This was the moment. (It was time) to take a stand.”

“Appalled” after seeing Hunt’s video go viral Tuesday, MLSE confirmed it isn’t taking the situation lightly.

“We are working to identify the individuals,” MLSE said in a release. “And when we do, they will be banned from all of our facilities.”

Toronto Police contacted Hunt early Tuesday to gather more information as they work with the Crown on possible charges.

The “f--- her right in the p----” prank isn’t unique. Reporters across Toronto have been targeted similarly for years, according to Hunt.

“Before we can open an investigation, we would need a complainant to come forward,” said Toronto Police spokesman Meaghan Gray. “There have been multiple incidents. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the outcome, but it would depend on each circumstance.”

In this case, Hunt was attempting to conduct a post-game interview when a yet-to-be identified fan shouted the vulgar phrase.

Hunt almost immediately turned the mic on a nearby TFC fan who admitted his group was waiting to do the same thing.

“Are you actually filming this?” the man, whose identity has not been confirmed, responded.

That’s when Hunt took matters into her own hands.

“I get this every single day, 10 times a day, by rude guys like you,” Hunt told him. “When you talk into my microphone and say that into my camera to viewers at the station I work at, it’s disrespectful and degrading to me.”

When asked to explain their conduct, Simoes didn’t show remorse.

“You’re lucky there’s not a f------ vibrator in your ear like in England because it happens all the time,” Simoes answered.
H
Support has since poured in for Hunt and MLSE, which reached out to apologize to the CityNews reporter and has vowed to provide more security for female reporters at all of its facilities and events.

“We had been talking about doing a story on this,” Hunt said. “This has become a normal part of our day. From my experience, it’s only men who say this to me.”

The men involved Sunday likely regret not walking away.

“We had their names the whole time, but we chose not to release them,” Hunt said. “The point was to have this conversation. (Simoes’ mother) is probably not laughing.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/T...ries-to-justify-6258831.php?cmpid=rrhoustontx


A Toronto engineer lost his job Tuesday after a social media firestorm was created by a female TV reporter who fought back against offensive and vulgar comments that disrupted her live interview.

Ontario's largest electricity provider, Hydro One, issued a statement saying it has fired one of its employees in connection with the lewd disruption Sunday at a Toronto FC game. In the video, CityNews reporter Shauna Hunt is shown confronting and questioning the men who shouted crude remarks into her microphone and defended it as part of a popular trend.

A Hydro One official identified the employee as Shawn Simoes, but spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to name him for privacy reasons. Simoes is shown in the video using an expletive and calling his friend's remark hilarious before telling the reporter she is lucky they didn't have a vibrator.

Hunt said she has often been the victim of the remarks while doing live television interviews.

"I hit my limit and I had to push back," she said Tuesday. "I wasn't going to stand for it anymore. It was time to say something."

The men also face a one year-ban from all games of the soccer club and other teams owned by Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment, which include the NHL Maple Leafs and NBA Toronto Raptors.

 

[Tigersman]

Re: OP

No man should have any say about what a woman does with her body. All the lawmakers are doing is treating the woman as chattel like they did before the 1900's.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sugar isn't a normal part of the diet in the amounts that we manage it. Nor is salt or animal fat. All of these things are supposed to be difficult to obtain for one reason or another. It's kinda like saying that you don't consider sitting down unhealthy because people have been sitting since there were people. But it's only been the last. . .what twenty, thirty years, that people could make an actual full career sitting behind a computer. Hell today people don't even have to leave their houses. I can get produce delivered to my goddamn door. So you're not incorrect in the technical sense, you are wrong in the practical.

Not that you seem to be disagreeing but what would go a long way towards preventing people from selling to minors would be legalization. I'm over thirty and I still get carded most places. My mother is pushing seventy and Vons still asks her to show her ID if she's buying liquor. She finds it quaint that they think there are teens with grey hair and wrinkles. But liquor is big business and you get caught selling to kids and you pay fines, possibly lose your license, depending on where and what precisely your business is liquor may be the primary thing paying the bills. Cigarettes are much the same way. No reason to believe that giving people licenses for the other drugs wouldn't have the same effects. I think we'd be wise to have PSAs on the effects of each of these substances. Soking is way down and I have to assume that's because people know the effects and don't want them. But that's a matter of education not law enforcement.

Sugar is a normal part of the diet and, if you don't eat any sugar and consume an all natural diet, you'll still get sugar, because your body will convert starch to sugar and burn it for energy, in addition to the fructose and lactose you will ingest.

People have been making careers out of sitting at desks or drafting tables or sewing machines for long before there were any computers. They also sit when traveling and watching entertainment and most other times.

And I agree that removing the illegality from the purchase and consumption of all drugs and treating them the way alcohol is usually treated would go a long way toward solving the problem.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In my administration we plan to offer black girls and all Democrat females large cash incentives for voluntary hysterectomies. A black girl can walk out of the ghetto with as much cash as Hillary gets for a speech, and the hysterectomy will serve America well and better than the speech.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In my administration we plan to offer black girls and all Democrat females large cash incentives for voluntary hysterectomies. A black girl can walk out of the ghetto with as much cash as Hillary gets for a speech, and the hysterectomy will serve America well and better than the speech.

A half million dollars sounds like too much.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sugar is a normal part of the diet and, if you don't eat any sugar and consume an all natural diet, you'll still get sugar, because your body will convert starch to sugar and burn it for energy, in addition to the fructose and lactose you will ingest.

People have been making careers out of sitting at desks or drafting tables or sewing machines for long before there were any computers. They also sit when traveling and watching entertainment and most other times.

And I agree that removing the illegality from the purchase and consumption of all drugs and treating them the way alcohol is usually treated would go a long way toward solving the problem.

I didn't say sugar wasn't a regular part of the diet. I specifically compared it to salt and animal fat to point out that it the quantity that is unnatural.

Those were a select few and even they still had more walking around to do than we do. Your sit for travel and entertainment is completely beside the point. I didn't say they never sat. In fact I pointed out that fucking cavemen sat. I said we sit MORE.

At least you agree on the important part.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

This bill's goal isn't to protect fetuses; as with all attacks on reproductive rights, the goal is to punish and control women—even women who are perceived as "innocent" because they didn't choose the sex that got them pregnant.

The good news is that this bill has no chance of becoming law; even on the off-chance it reached President Obama's desk, he would veto it. But Republicans' doggedness about this entirely symbolic attack on women's rights shows that, despite hopeful claims to the contrary, the religious right still wholly owns the Republican Party.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...s_after_20_weeks_waiting_period_for_rape.html

gsgs comment-


Punishing a woman for getting raped, makes so much sense.

Just as much sense as placing a woman in prison, because she experienced a miscarriage.

/ end gsgs comment

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Senate Bill 583, the Life at Conception Act, introduced by none other than Sen. States’ Rights himself, Rand Paul

Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act of 2013, which he co-sponsored, to ban abortions at 20 weeks, at the federal (not the states’ rights) level.

http://wonkette.com/586094/rand-pau...regulate-your-vag-except-for-when-he-wants-to

 

[Busybody]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFS39WZVEAAhn8E.jpg

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Reproductive Fact Act!

A proposed law being considered in the California State Assembly would force anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to post signs letting their clients know that they’re not medical facilities.

AB 7745, also known as the Reproductive FACT Act, sponsored by Assembly members David Chiu and Autumn R. Burke, would require a crisis pregnancy center to disclose that they’re not there to provide medical care because they in fact cannot.

http://jezebel.com/california-wants-pregnancy-centers-to-admit-they-arent-1706286298

gsgs comment-

What would you say to someone, that you trusted to help you with your decision to choose an abortion, if they had mistaken your IUD for a fetus ?

/end of gsgs comment

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/05/22/3661994/california-reproductive-fact/


Under the California Reproductive FACT Act — which stands for “Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency” — licensed women’s health facilities would be required to inform their patients about how they can obtain affordable birth control, abortion, and prenatal care. Facilities that don’t have a medical license, meanwhile, would be required to make it clear that they aren’t licensed and clarify which of those service they don’t offer.

“I find it extremely difficult to understand how people who claim to care about women find it so threatening to inform them about accessing affordable health care,” Amy Everitt, the state director of NARAL Pro-Choice California, said at this week’s press conference. “We can all agree that women deserve to have all the information in front of them when they make some of the most important decisions they will ever face.”

 

[phrodeau]

"Crisis pregnancy centers" and some state laws employ the tactic of delaying a woman's decision.

"Sleep on it."
"Call back on Monday."
"Just wait one more week."
"Oh sorry, now it's too late for an abortion."

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Following a San Francisco Board of Supervisors decision banning crisis pregnancy centers from engaging in what it deemed, "false or misleading advertising practices," one such organization has filed suit against the city in on First Amendment grounds.

The ordinance, which was passed in a near-unanimous vote last month, targets two such organizations designed to council women though difficult and/or unplanned pregnancies.

The organizations [crisis pregnancy centers] would be hit with a $500 fine every time they are found engaging in advertising inaccurately implying they offer abortion services.


New Anti-Choice Tactic

Anti-abortion centers known as "crisis pregnancy centers" work by trying to lure in unsuspecting women who are seeking abortions and then using guilt and stalling tactics to keep them from getting the abortions they want. The centers often do this by posing as if they offer actual abortion services. But these deceptive tactics are increasingly hard to maintain. Earlier this year, NARAL persuaded Google to stop letting the centers falsely advertise themselves as abortion clinics to women who are searching for abortion services. Undercover reporting has revealed just how the centers lie. Some cities have tried to pass laws requiring crisis pregnancy centers to disclose up front that they do not provide abortion, and the subsequent court battles have drawn more media attention to the true mission of crisis pregnancy centers.

For one crisis pregnancy center in the Bay Area, the response to all this pressure has been to try even harder to conceal its ideological agenda by claiming to offer an alternative to what they call "the Two-Box system of pro-choice and pro-life." The group is called Third Box, and it claims to be an apolitical space that merely wants "to offer the woman struggling with her choice the time, space and support to find her own voice."

BuzzFeed's Katie Baker discovered, Third Box is little more than a rebranding effort for First Resort, a crisis pregnancy center that lost a legal battle with the city of San Francisco over a new law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to disclose that they do not offer abortions:

The good news is that Third Box isn't trying to lure women in by pretending to be an abortion clinic, which is now forbidden by the San Francisco ordinance anyway. The bad news is that it's shifted toward presenting itself as if it is a disinterested counseling organization that simply wants to offer unbiased support as a woman makes her choice. It wants, in other words, to appear pro-choice.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...brands_itself_as_a_pro_choice_counseling.html


http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/03/50928.htm

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) - A San Francisco ordinance prohibiting false advertising at anti-abortion pregnancy services clinics withstood most of a legal challenge in federal court.

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong found the 2011 ordinance was not was not so vague to be confusing and was not preempted by state law, as alleged, while upholding an equal protection claim for the time being.

First Resort Inc. sued the City and County of San Francisco for civil rights violations in November 2011 for enacting the Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance, which is "aimed at ensuring that indigent women facing unexpected pregnancies are not harmed by false or misleading advertising by certain providers of pregnancy-related services," according to the ordinance.

The ordinance made it illegal for crisis pregnancy centers to make "any statement, concerning [its] services, professional or otherwise ... which is untrue or misleading, whether by statement or omission, that the limited services pregnancy center knows or which by the exercise of reasonable care should know to be untrue or misleading."

The provision applies only to limited services pregnancy centers, which is a pregnancy services center "that does not directly provide or provide referrals to clients for the following services: (1) abortions; or (2) emergency contraception."
Before filing suit to enforce the ordinance, the city attorney must provide notice of the violation and provide the center ten days to cure, after which penalties from $50 to $500 per violation can be assessed.

The court tossed First Resort's five argument that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, which can only be upheld if a person of common intelligence "must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application."

First Resort claimed that statements regulated by the ordinance are not expressly limited to advertising and therefore the ordinance could apply "to virtually any speech made by First Resort, including statements made to its financial supporters for fundraising purposes."

Armstrong noted that First Resort "ignored" provisions that state the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent false and misleading advertising regarding services and counseling provided or not provided and that any center cited under the ordinance would get a chance to cure the "false, misleading or deceptive advertising."

The judge ruled that a "person of common intelligence could discern that the conduct proscribed by the ordinance is false and misleading advertising, and not simply any statement made by the limited services pregnancy center."

First Resort's argument that a person of common intelligence could not discern what type of speech is considered misleading under the ordinance "fails to consider the context of the provisions of the ordinance as a whole.

The ordinance plainly does not apply to any false or misleading advertising. Rather, as section 93.2 makes clear, the advertising targeted by the ordinance specifically pertains to advertising that 'mislead women contemplating abortion into believing that their facilities offer abortion services and unbiased counseling,'" according to the ruling.

Armstrong gave similar short shrift to First Resort's contention that a person of common intelligence "cannot possibly know what speech is regulated when the ordinance makes it unlawful for a regulated pregnancy service center to by 'omission' engage in a 'plan or scheme with the intent not to perform the services... impliedly offered,'" finding that the contention "lacks merit."

"First Resort ignores that the ordinance is specifically directed at 'statements' that are false or misleading.

A statement may be false or misleading based on an affirmative misrepresentation in the statement. In addition, a statement may be misleading due to the 'omission' of information. Thus, it is not an 'omission' per se that is the focus of the ordinance; rather, it is a statement which either incorrectly states or implies that services will be offered. Despite First Resort's assertions to the contrary, a person of common intelligence would be able to discern what statements are regulated by the ordinance," according to the ruling.

"Not so" was the judge's response to First Resort's claim that the ordinance's statement that civil penalties would be assessed to each and every party responsible means that it could be used against parties beyond the limited pregnancy services center such as public relations firms representing the center.

Armstrong ruled: "The reference to 'each and every party' in subsection (c) must be read in the context of the ordinance as a whole, and the Enforcement section in particular. Subsection (a) expressly states that prior to filing suit, the City Attorney must provide written notice to the 'limited services pregnancy center' accused of violating the ordinance; if the center fails to respond or refuses to cure the violation within ten days, the City Attorney may file a civil action against the limited services pregnancy center.

Accordingly, the Court rejects First Resort's contention that the reference to 'each and every party responsible' renders the ordinance unconstitutionally vague."

While dismissing the claim that the ordinance is void for vagueness, the judge allowed First Resort leave to amend "out of an abundance of caution," despite finding it "questionable" that First Resort will be able to satisfy the deficiencies in its arguments.

The court did find that First Resort "sufficiently alleged that the ordinance implicates a fundamental right for purposes of its equal protection claim."

A statute that infringes on a "fundamental right" is reviewed with strict scrutiny, and should be upheld only where the law serves a compelling government interest.


First Resort argues that the ordinance "burdens its fundamental rights to free speech, thereby triggering strict scrutiny review.

The City counters that there are no allegations in the complaint that the ordinance burdens either a fundamental right or a suspect class, and as a result, the ordinance is subject to rational basis review."

The court agreed with First Resort that the complaint alleges the ordinance burdens First Resorts "fundamental rights."

While the defendants' reply brief argues against the claim Armstrong found the argument not properly before the court since the city failed to present it in its opening papers, citing 9th Circuit case Zamani v. Carnes that held the "district court need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief."

The City can, however, challenge the claim in a subsequent motion, according to the ruling.

Finally the judge tossed First Resort's preemption claim because "a claim of preemption based on the duplication of section 17500 is alleged nowhere in the complaint, such claim is not properly before the court."

The judge granted First Resort leave to amend the claim.

First Resort is represented by Kelly Sinner Biggins of Locke Lorde LLP in Los Angeles.
The center named as defendants Dennis Herrera, City Attorney for the City of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors for San Francisco City and County and the City and County of San Francisco. They are represented Erin Bernstein of the city attorney's office.