Recognize your Rights to Assure Public Safety and LGBT Discrimination

According to Caleb Laieski, Human being is born free and no sooner they come out of their mothers’ wombs, then there is 30 basic right, which gives them the privilege to live a life in their own and free manner. These laws are implemented by the worldwide organization which seeks that every individual that has taken birth could live life without any kind of torture, slavery, pressure and any other sexual abuse. That could lead once a life to disaster or evening sometimes resulting as worse as death.

As all are a creation of God, no matter rich or poor, of high society or a garbage picker, of any caste or creed, it doesn’t mean that you could impose your power of status and could force your expectation could be carried out only. Even further aspects of public safety to human from the human brutal deed that could eventually lead to human life havoc, are being considered day to day. Such that each and every kind of discrimination could be avoided that are practiced by human beings itself in the name of various aspects such as caste, religion, sex, marital status and on people with physical deformities. 

           

Especially, Caleb Laieski emphasizes in the case of LGBT where you could find a various negative, thoughts, comments, and hatred apart, they are also a human being and the creation of God and had equal rights. And, also you can find the specific role of them in our society as well as different holy books of various religions. More often according to the different society and land boundaries, the perception and the mentality changes each time, which it’s related to LGBT right and even the jurisdiction also varies from time to time and from places to places. 

Any kind of discrimination that is carried out in a society or nation that is related to gender identity, which everyone has their own either male or female that could affect everyone. In many countries, the government itself tries to refuse and ignore the cases that are related to violence on LGBT people and many a time such abuses are carried out by state authorizes no matter any sanction of any legal notice. Under article 16 (UDHR) universal declaration of human rights of each and every human being either male or female have the right to marry and find, a family of their own choice. Thus, if you are surrounded by any such kind of hideous deed or any kind of discrimination on minors or LGBT people, then you can raise your voice to help of Caleb Laieski to get public safety and right authorities look after these matters seriously.       

Surprise Teen is an Advocate for Gay Rights

Fifteen-year-old Caleb Laieski's summer days go something like this: Wake up. Sit in front of a Dell laptop and read dozens of e-mails. Give a virtual pep talk and a phone contact to a girl from Australia considering suicide. Provide a hotline number to a Valley teen unsure how to tell his parents he's gay.

Add to a list of politicians across the country who will soon receive information about discrimination against gays and lesbians. And, oh yeah, return yet another call from the media.

Laieski, of Surprise, isn't spending his summer hanging at the pool. The high-school student is a gay activist, working between classes and school breaks.

He co-founded a national anti-discrimination organization in 2008, when he was a middle-school student. It's now based out of his bedroom.

He has sent hundreds of e-mails full of statistics to legislators, local politicians and others, hoping to inspire policy changes favorable to the gay community. And he has dealt with what he dubbed harassment at Willow Canyon High School in Surprise.

"Everything I have gone through has inspired my activism," Laieski said.

Eager to raise awareness, he recently shared his experiences with reporters from MSNBC and other outlets interested in the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona's offer to represent him. Dysart officials should have tried to stop anti-gay slurs and abuse, Laieski said.

Dysart Unified School District officials said they can't comment on specific students but have policies to prevent harassment.

Dan Pochoda, legal director at the Arizona ACLU office, said he and Laieski hope to meet with the district to promote updates to school bullying policies and additional training for staff.

Laieski isn't waiting. He has been on the move since 2008. That year, he and a friend founded Gays and Lesbians United Against Discrimination in reaction to votes barring gay marriage in Arizona, California, and Florida.

Caleb Laieski, the group's executive director, now leads about 20 volunteers who hope to urge lawmakers to overturn policies and laws they believe discriminate against gays and lesbians. They also hope to build a homeless shelter.

Laieski said he will pursue non-profit status in coming weeks.

Chicago-based volunteer Casey Cameron, 35, said he decided to help because he found Laieski's goals refreshing.

"With his organization, I feel like the approach is, 'We've waited long enough. I want something done now,' “Cameron said.

Former Equality Arizona co-chair Mike Remedi, 37, exchanged several e-mails with Laieski before someone mentioned his age.

The two would later meet at a Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner.

"What surprised me was how well versed he was, in issues around the country even," Remedi said. "That's why I wouldn't have assumed his age. He had his facts. He knew the stats. He knew them better than most people do."

Laieski's father, Michael, drove his son to the dinner and stayed. He was proud.

"There are so many profound things that have happened that it constantly impresses me," Michael Laieski said.

Caleb Laieski acknowledges that he's not like most 15-year-olds but said he enjoys "taking a stand."

"Age is really just a number," he said. "And this is, like, my fun."

Original posted... http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/13/20100713surprise-teen-gay-rights-advocate.html

Interview with Caleb Laieski, an Advocate for LGBT Youth

Caleb Laieski is a 16-year-old advocate for LGBT youth. After being successful in getting his school and district to update its anti-discrimination policy and include protection for LGBT students in the student handbook, he's moved on to advocate for the Student Non-Discrimination Act pending before Congress. You can find out more about him here: http://www.askthejudge.info/caleb-lai...

Battling the Blood Ban

Caleb Laieski, a Virginia resident and LGBT rights advocate who rose to prominence after speaking out against the anti-gay bullying that forced him to leave school when he had lived in Arizona, announced Thursday he had filed a lawsuit in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ban on allowing gay and bisexual men to donate blood or organs.

The ban, implemented in 1985, has its roots in the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s when men who have sex with men (MSM) were the primary victims HIV/AIDS, and the disease was found to potentially be transmitted through blood transfusions. Under the policy, any man who has engaged in sex with other men since 1977 is “deferred,” meaning the donor could potentially be found to be eligible to donate blood or tissue for organ transplants at a later date, though for an indefinite amount of time. Over the years, several LGBT activist groups have called for the FDA to alter its policy of indefinite deferrals for MSM who wish to become donors. In 2010, the D.C. Council passed a resolution calling on the FDA to “reverse the lifetime deferment of blood donations by men who have had sex with men since 1977 in favor of a policy that protects the safety and integrity of the blood supply that is based on up-to-date scientific criteria.”

In his lawsuit, Caleb Laieski alleges that the ban targets a single class of citizens, violating their constitutional rights, fails to protect sick families, and violates medical and donor privacy by forcing them to disclose same-sex encounters and medical history in order to be able to donate — something not required of heterosexual donors.

AccordinfNoting that the ban was implemented when little was known about HIV/AIDS, Laieski says the ban has affected him and other gay and bisexual men throughout the country who want to donate blood to help save sick people’s lives. According to facts provided by Laieski, nearly 912,000 people are on a waiting list for organ donations, and a recent study showed that hospitals do not have access to nearly 219,000 pints of blood because of the restrictions imposed by the ban. Laieski cites a study by the American Red Cross that estimates lifting the ban could help save the lives of up to 1.8 million people. He further notes that medical technology and screening have allowed hospitals to more accurately test blood and tissue for the presence of HIV and other viruses, making the ban unnecessary as all blood must be screened for safety purposes.

“Where the defendant may debate that the ban is to protect the public or ensure that blood is safe, the defendant currently tests all blood to make sure it is safe, so their ban is not necessary. It is an outdated and discriminatory ban that is putting lives and our health care at jeopardy,” Laieski said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 

Regarding the claim that the ban unfairly targets a single class of citizens, Laieski cites the Supreme Court’s findings in major LGBT rights cases such as Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor that found that the government could not single out a select group for discrimination, in this case, due to potential donors’ sexual orientation. He also argues that the ban violates the 14th Amendment rights of those sick people who would benefit from the ban’s repeal and that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs, in that blood donations, are accepted by federally funded programs, hospitals, and organizations. He also notes that former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius previously acknowledged that the ongoing ban promoted discrimination and stereotypes against gay and bisexual men. 

“The defendant’s policy focuses on sexual orientation, rather than the actual risk and science,” Caleb Laieski says in concluding his argument for why he is bringing the lawsuit.

Original Posted   ... http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/10/battling-the-blood-ban-2/

Gay Teen Claims Discrimination at School

SURPRISE, Ariz. -- A Valley teen says he's been getting death threats because he's gay. Now, he wants his school district to do something about it.

"Well, you basically wake up in the morning and you know you're going to be teased, harassed," said Caleb Laieski, a 15-year-old from Surprise.

The last few years haven't been easy for him, ever since he came out of the closet in eighth grade.

"High school -- it got really bad, I started to receive death threats in school, out of school," he said.

During his freshman year at Willow Canyon High School, Laieski says on days it got really bad he had no choice but to leave campus altogether.
 

"I walked home, I just walked out those gates, I said, 'Too bad, I'm not being protected by administration, and I'm being treated poorly by students, and I have to do what's safe for myself.'"

Laieski said he reported the harassment to all levels of the administration from the assistant principal all the way up to Dysart Unified School District officials. But he claims little action was taken.

"All they did was talk with the student, and I think they should have at least showed they mean business on the matter," Laieski said. "If nothing else, even a lunch detention to say that the administration is really serious about the matter."

Caleb Laieski decided to take matters into his own hands, convincing the ACLU of Arizona to take up his case, and threatening to file a lawsuit against the school district.

Officials from the Dysart Unified School District declined to speak specifically on Laieski’s case because of privacy policies. But in a prepared statement, they said: "The Dysart Unified School District has policies in place that prohibit illegal discrimination and harassment as well as bullying... The implementation of the policies and practices are proven to be prompt and effective when utilized by a student."

Despite that, Laieski says nobody’s gotten in trouble for what he claims they’ve done to him.

"I really want to see they mean business for all LGBT students," he said.

Specifically, he wants the district to make a change in their student handbook. The handbook currently defines hate speech as "any communication that manifests malice towards others based on their race, gender or identity." Laieski wants that definition to be amended to include sexual orientation.

Amidst his frustration over the bullying and harassment, Laieski formed his own grassroots organization: Gays and Lesbians United against Discrimination (http://gluad.org).

He's also working with the ACLU to help pass a federal law known as the Student Non-discrimination Act of 2010.

Original Posted... http://www.azfamily.com/story/28324533/gay-teen-claims-discrimination-at-school

Caleb Laieski on Arizona's Safe Schools Act

Caleb Laieski lived in Arizona at the time and at the age of 16, speaks on Arizona's Safe Schools Act. 

Human Rights in US

Among the industrial nations, the United States is unique in many ways. The capitalist economics of the United States that promotes free trade, private ownership, laissez-faire, consumerism, individualism and claims for welfare is the source of paradoxes. It is long that commentators are criticizing the condition of the health care. The last of them is the American documentary director, Michael Moore with his fabulous "Sicko". In it, he analyzes like a physician the ill health care of his country.

According to Caleb Laieski pharmaceutical products are a large part of a nation's health care. Health Care, respectively, is a major component in promoting the justice, as a Human Rights credo in a society. One of the realms in which the US should manage to make reformation, thus, is the health care provisions and policies.

Health Care in the US 

The present feather on the US cap regarding health care are the two programs of Medicare and Medicaid which are in their own turns under criticism.

The public health care debates began somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century. During the century of efforts that would ultimately determine the fate of the condition, all American presidents were assumed to be advocates of national health care. But, as the present conditions reveal, each time there was an obstacle in the way. FDR, for example, left it high and dry lest the Social Security plan be blocked and doomed. The advent of the cold war decrepitated it as the "socialized medicine". However, the 40s and 50s were the summits of the movement of the public health care as a more serious program. A system then, unique among industrial nations, America, in the 1950s had a health care system that was tied to employment. Of course, there were inefficiencies in such a system to that suffering low-income, women, and the agrarians and workers in the remote areas.

Kennedy and Johnson, also, were advocates of the program but they were limited by the votes of the republican congress. Finally, when the congress turned to democrats, the Medicare and Medicaid programs were passed. And most disastrous was the Watergate which abandoned the promised national health care by President Nixon for another run. Then, "instead of producing medical care and related services itself, the government chose- as it usually did in America- to rely on the market. ... Government production of medical care diminished as government funding increased and health care was outsourced to private providers.

"From 1972 to 1994, the population improved from 18 to 35 million. In the same years, the costs of the program soared from $8 billion to &144 billion... and by 1980s, Medicaid often was the largest program in state budgets, and by the 1990s it cost governors six times as much as AFDC. From this point, price cutting began. Underneath President Reagan, the Prospective payment system decreased the radius of the umbrella. "As in the familiar master narrative of policy reform, policy makers judged their success by the lower numbers and paid little attention to the consequences for patients or clients."(ibid: 264) this led to the 20 percent decrease of Medicare during the 80s. At this very historical point, the business interests began exploiting the profitable healthcare as a new industry. Katz says that in the 80s, the number of investors in health services was one-fourth of the totals.

According to Caleb Laieski the New Deal of President Clinton, The President Health Security Plan, was a final attempt to rescue the health care, but it failed. He observed that almost 37 employees worked without the usual employer's coverage because they worked for small employers who didn't carry insurance. Those with insurance worried about their situation in the case of losing their jobs. The policy of the Clinton committee on the reform was not to follow the excellent model of other industrialized nations, but to create a distinguished one for the sake of uniqueness. This is known as the managing competition which is considered as the reason for the defeat of the reform.

Intellectual Property

IP, Intellectual Property, is a kind of patent regulated as the legal protection of the technological products for the companies or individuals that are the investors and inventors of it.

The issue that is the concern of this paper is the influence of such laws, and specifically, this law on the welfare consumers, people, in the United States. Data released in 2004 by the Census Bureau show that "the number of uninsured Americans erected at 45.8 million in 2004, the percentage of people without health insurance has been 15.7 percent in 2004.

The current stated United States policy on intellectual property, whose main focus is on preserving its unparalleled strength in economic, political and military affairs, therefore raises particular concerns. That is "the United States policy, by focusing exclusively on the rights of its export industries, may lead to very restrictive interpretations of the flexibilities contained in the international agreements, to the detriment of public health needs. On the other hand, the domestic implications of the acts and the policy should not be ignored.