🎀

HEY I SO HEARD WE’RE MAKING LAPIS REDESIGNS? 👀 👀 

i know it’s not a very drastic redesign, but i wanted to join the bandwagon and put a little more creative thought into her design! 

plus, even though lapis has always been my favorite character (though i really, really don’t like how the writers have been treating her…) i felt that her design was too simple and honestly kinda boring, which is why i decided to do this :V

the ideas i thought of and put into the design (in detail) are under the cut!

Y'all, it’s only Day 1, and things are looking GRAVE AF. Today Trump re-instated a law that will kill thousands of women – and I am not exaggerating here. He did this 2 DAYS after the women’s march, surrounded by a group of smirking old dudes. Lovely. The policy is called the “Global Gag Rule”.

Here’s what you need to know:

The Global Gag Rule bans health organizations around the world from receiving US funding if they so much as *mention* abortion. The organizations are also banned from providing abortion services – even though other funding sources, like donations, are used to pay for them. (The Helms Amendment bans the use of US funds for abortion.)  The GGR is not a budget cut, it is a special stipulation for funding targeting reproductive health organizations specifically.

As you might imagine, this policy puts international health centers in a very difficult position. They either lose funding for things like STI screenings and birth control, or they leave patients seeking an abortion to do it on their own.

We saw the devastating impact of this policy when President Bush signed it into effect in 2001. Take Ethiopia, where unsafe abortion is the second-leading cause of death (after HIV/AIDS). Organizations there decided they could not turn women away, and thusly experienced a massive birth control supply crisis as punishment. 16 other countries also saw US donations of contraceptives and condoms abruptly cut off.

I know it’s not their thing, but the GOP desperately needs to put on their thinking caps here. What happens when you cut off birth control access? Oh yes! More people get pregnant! And what happens when you cut off safe access to abortion services? Oh, right. People die. Every year 50,000 women die from a lack of access to safe abortion. The last time the GGR went into effect, the abortion rate INCREASED. There are literally 90 katrillion studies showing that banning abortion *does not stop abortion from happening*, it just means they happen in dangerous conditions. That’s a fact. And, at least to this chick, facts still matter.

Then there are the effects that GGR has on HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. In some of the communities affected by the rule, HIV infects as many as 1 in 4 people.

Overall, this is a law that has well documented effects of death and destruction. On what fking planet is this policy “pro life”? I’m pissed, naturally. It’s unbelievable (well, not really) that our government would put women around the world in this much danger FOR LITERALLY NO REASON. Seriously – WTF?? I will not stand for it, and I hope you’ll join me in sending a vocal NOPE to our leaders.

This week, Senator Gillibrand and Senator Shaheen are introducing bi-partisan legislation to permanently REPEAL the Global Gag Rule. They are calling it “HER Act”. It’s unclear to me what is possible given that we have a 1-party government now, but given that lives are on the line, I am going to do what I can to fight back at every turn. 

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.

1) “Do you know why I stopped you?” Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.

2) “Do you have something to hide?” Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.

3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.” The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.” (Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)

4) “We’ll just get a warrant.” Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.

5.) We have someone who will testify against you Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.

6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.” Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.

7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.” Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.

U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).

Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.

Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.