The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple

HUFFPOST PERSONAL 
09/24/2020 
Jamie Smith Guest Writer

“I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times.”


JOSEPH PREZIOSO VIA GETTY IMAGES

The Baphomet statue in the conversion room at the Satanic Temple in Salem, Massachusetts, on Oct. 8, 2019.


Like so many other women in the United States, when I learned of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, my first reaction was not grief but fear. I fear that American citizens are inching closer to living in a theocracy or dictatorship and that the checks meant to prevent this from happening are close to eroding beyond repair.

When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism. 

Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion.

Just like other faiths, the Satanic Temple has a code that their members believe in deeply and use to guide their lives. These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that “one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,” that “the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,” and that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” 

Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it. When Justice Ginsburg’s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles. 




Even before Ginsburg’s death, the Supreme Court was unwilling to provide adequate protection for a woman’s right to choose and to control her body. The court was unwilling to keep church and state separate. Now, without her voice of reason on the court ― let alone her vote ― Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being overturned not based on legal arguments or scientific reasoning, but because of religious objections to what is a safe and necessary procedure for the women who seek it out after discussion with their physician. Ginsburg’s replacement is all but certain to be vehemently anti-choice, with one of the top contenders belonging to a sect that actually used the term “handmaid” to refer to some women until the popularity of the TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale” gave the term negative connotations.

Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it.

In the hours after Justice Ginsburg’s death, I sat wondering what the future would hold for my daughters. Their ability to live in a country where the religious beliefs of others would not play a role in their right to assert autonomy over their own bodies was suddenly, starkly, in danger. Traditional means of keeping abortion safe and legal seemed woefully inadequate to protect the rights that women in the generation before me had fought so hard to secure. 

Almost immediately I sought strength in the Satanic Temple’s efforts to turn religious arguments on their head by pushing for religious liberty for their members on an equal basis with believers in the dominant Christian faiths. And this is not just a theoretical push. The temple has launched campaigns and filed lawsuits to compel the government to do this in matters ranging from exemptions from legal mandates to cover birth control to the ability to display religious symbols in government buildings or allow religious clubs in public schools. By pointing out instances where the government has favored Christian rhetoric ― and filing legal challenges to stop it ― the Satanic Temple has transformed belief into action and has demonstrated what freedom fighting truly looks like.

The Satanic Temple hopes to appear before the Supreme Court in a case challenging a Missouri abortion law that requires those seeking to terminate their pregnancy to first receive materials asserting that their abortion would end the life of a separate, unique person. The temple argues that these materials violate the deeply held religious beliefs of one of its members regarding bodily autonomy and scientifically reasonable personal choice. The argument the Satanic Temple is using is the same one the Supreme Court effectively endorsed in the Hobby Lobby birth control case, for which Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent ― that no one should have to follow a law that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. If a Christian should not have to do so based on their religion, a Satanist should not have to either. This is what equality under the law means on a fundamental level.

This is an organization I want standing up for my rights and for my daughters’. While I support more mainstream groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Church and State, my research has shown that the Satanic Temple is truly in line with my beliefs about protecting our First Amendment rights and fighting laws that promote or are based on religious doctrine and that it is willing to use radical, creative and yet legally sound strategies to make its case.

I was able to become a mother when I wanted on my own terms. Throughout my pregnancy, I had access to scientifically accurate information and the ability to make informed choices with my doctor. While I never had an abortion, I want the same opportunities to choose for my own daughters. I am far from certain these rights will exist 10 years from now when they may be deciding when, how or even whether to start their own families. 
We need creative, resolute thinkers who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and take concrete action to do so, and the Satanic Temple is full of those kind of people. I am proud to now count myself among their ranks.

There is a real chance that the Supreme Court will be lost for a generation or more to justices appointed for their religious beliefs rather than a deep understanding of the Constitution or a desire for justice to be carried out on an impartial basis. Because of this, I believe that the Satanic Temple ― and its members’ dedication to fighting for true freedom ― represents our best, last defense against anti-choice lawmakers who are seeking to assert power over women’s bodies and take away our right to choose. We need creative, resolute thinkers who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and take concrete action to do so, and the Satanic Temple is full of those kind of people. I am proud to now count myself among their ranks. 

Everyone who cares about women having autonomy over their bodies should care about efforts to use religion to chip away at this right. We need to think outside the box to challenge what is coming and what is already here. The Satanic Temple is already doing that, and by becoming one of its members, I believe I have joined a community of people who will stop at nothing to safeguard my family’s rights ― and all of our rights ― when they are at their most vulnerable.

Jamie Smith is an attorney and mother who cares about civil rights. She can be reached at jamiesmithwrites@gmail.com.

This DC-Area Lawyer Set the Internet Ablaze With Her Essay About Joining the Satanic Temple

Jamie Smith's HuffPost opinion piece caused a frenzy on the right. So we got her on the phone.

WRITTEN BY ANDREW BEAUJON 

 

 | PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2020

Image via iStock.

Jamie Smith’s article for HuffPost Thursday had the kind of headline that was more or less guaranteed to make anyone who ran across it drop everything and click: “The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple.”

“Satanic Temple” trended on Twitter, and for a bunch of MAGA influencers, it was if every one of their Christmases came at once—the Federalist even ran a piece titled “The Satanic Temple Is In Fact Emblematic Of The Leftist Worldview.” Washingtonian got Smith, an attorney who lives in the greater Washington area, on the phone to ask about why she wrote the piece and what kinds of reactions she got.

Washingtonian: So…what made you think about about writing and publishing this this piece?

Jamie Smith: I guess I’ll say some things that are maybe maybe more attorney-like than you’re looking for. But with the very real possibility that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be replaced by an ultra conservative, I think it’s very unlikely that we will see any [Supreme Court] decisions that really promote equality and will protect women’s rights. And so as I said, in the article, even though I’ve been an admirer of the tactics of the Satanic Temple for a little while, I think their approach is brilliant. And for me, personally, and that’s why I thought this was the moment for me personally, at least to go more public with my support of what they’re doing.

How did you first became aware of the Satanic Temple and its principles that you wrote about?

I actually first became aware of them through a documentary [Hail Satan?] that came out last year. And I was fascinated with the approach they took, especially to maintaining the separation of church and state. I started paying more attention to what what what they what they’re doing, especially to protect reproductive rights. They recently came up with a reproductive rights ritual, which some of their members have used when they were seeking out abortions. And the ritual basically just involves some affirmation, repeating some of the tenets of the Satanic Temple and basically, having a woman reassure herself that she made the right choice for herself and going through with the procedure. And because the Satanic Temple is recognized as a religion under the law, it should be a religiously protected ritual. I think that’s just a brilliant strategy to use to try to safeguard reproductive rights.

It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research on them—I’m not sure if I’m asking about this the right way, but do I understand correctly that you haven’t gone to a Satanic Temple event or met with any evangelists for the Satanic Temple?

Yeah, I’m very new to it. But no, I’m not an evangelist, and I’m not a spokesperson for them. I’ve never even attended any events. 

But you’re now officially a member?

Yes.

Have you met with any other members?

No, I’ve been in touch by email.

You mentioned supporting their work. Does that mean you’d be open to helping the Satanic Temple with its legal work?

Well, time permitting, I would be would be open to that. 

I’m very curious what type of reactions you got after publishing this.

I had been receiving a lot of emails, earlier on in the day, yesterday when the article published, I’d say they were about 90 percent positive. Later in the day when Ben Shapiro, and other right wing pundits—I would say nuts but that’s probably not the right word—started tweeting the article, I was definitely getting a lot of emails from people who said they were praying for me or that my children would become possessed by demons and spewing a lot of anti-choice rhetoric.

Did you hear from anybody who’s become interested in joining the Satanic Temple? 

Yeah, actually I heard from many people who were interested in joining. I’ve heard from a lot of people who said, at least as an initial step, they signed up for the Satanic Temple email list.

Wow, you might turn out to be the best recruiter the Satanic Temple ever had.

Possibly.

Did anything about the reaction surprise you?

I was expecting more of a negative reaction. And although in hindsight, maybe I shouldn’t have been, but I was definitely surprised that the religious right latched on to it as much as they did. Especially because I was very explicit that there is no actual devil worship. 

You also brought up Unitarians.

Yeah, and I think that’s an important point to make. Because some of the criticism I got was, well, this isn’t a real religion. It’s just a set of ethical principles or guidelines. But not all religions involve belief in the supernatural. My sister was actually married by a Reconstructionist rabbi, and Reconstructionist Jews also don’t believe in supernatural or superstition, and nobody doubts that Unitarianism or Judaism is a religion. But even if others don’t agree, it is a legally recognized religion, which is an important distinction and legal strategy in bringing these cases.

What about your family and friends?

I talked to my oldest child, even before this article was published, about the Satanic Temple and why I was donating to them. I discussed the seven fundamental tenets with him. And my child said, Well, that just sounds like being a good person. I also don’t believe in really indoctrinating any child into a religion. My husband and I try to expose them to different religions, different cultures, and they can decide when they’re older, if they want to participate in any of them.

What kind of obligations do you have now that you’ve joined the Satanic Temple? Zoom meetings?

There are really no requirements. And again, I’m not a spokesperson for the Satanic Temple. For me, it means essentially doing what I have been doing, and trying to live my life in a way where I’m compassionate, and I strive for equality. And especially as an attorney, you know, I do continue to seek justice.

One thing I found surprising was I just saw before you called earlier today, the Federalist posted a video. But one thing I think there is a big misunderstanding about was how, as an attorney, I could say that justice was separate from laws. And to me that that’s almost upsetting, because throughout history we’ve seen that slavery was legal. Right now we have laws on the books that demonstrate pretty clearly that Black lives aren’t valued in this country. I would argue that all of those laws are unjust. And that especially attorneys have an obligation to ensure that the law is is changed.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed.

Are Liberals defending Satanism? Here's how the conspiracy theory started after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death

A woman's personal account of how she joined The Satanic Temple after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created a lot of buzz on social media

By Anuka Roy
Published Sep 24, 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Getty Images)

A personal testimony of a woman on HuffPost has created quite a stir on social media. An attorney, Jamie Smith, has written a personal account of how she joined The Satanic Temple after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In the personal piece, she wrote: "Like so many other women in the United States, when I learned of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, my first reaction was not grief but fear. I fear that American citizens are inching closer to living in a theocracy or dictatorship and that the checks meant to prevent this from happening are close to eroding beyond repair."

She further expressed that the death of Ginsburg – "one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government" – right before the election "has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before". And, this is the reason she turned to Satanism.

In the article, she clarifies that "members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition". "They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion." The Satanic Temple on their website describes their objective: "The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense, oppose injustice, and undertake noble pursuits."

Smith further pens down that the ‘Seven Fundamental Tenets’ of the Satanic Temple is something she identified with. She said, "These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that 'one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,' that 'the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,' and that 'one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone'." These made her "realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it." She wrote, "When Justice Ginsburg’s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles."

She noted, "In the hours after Justice Ginsburg’s death, I sat wondering what the future would hold for my daughters. Their ability to live in a country where the religious beliefs of others would not play a role in their right to assert autonomy over their own bodies was suddenly, starkly, in danger." Smith says that’s when she "sought strength in the Satanic Temple’s efforts to turn religious arguments on their head by pushing for religious liberty for their members on an equal basis with believers in the dominant Christian faiths."

This testimony created a lot of buzz and had people weighing in on this subject. Music video director Robby Starbuck said, "Democrats are writing op-ed’s about becoming Satanists to fight pro-life Republicans now. If it wasn’t already explicitly clear to you that this is no longer about policy differences, this should really open your eyes. This is a battle of good versus evil."

Robby Starbuck 

✔@robbystarbuck

Democrats are writing op-ed’s about becoming Satanists to fight pro-life Republicans now. If it wasn’t already explicitly clear to you that this is no longer about policy differences, this should really open your eyes.

This is a battle of good versus evil.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom-joins-satanic-temple_n_5f6b3565c5b629afbe990c15?guccounter=1 …

The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple

"I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I am not the type ...

huffpost.com

4,213

1:11 PM - 24 Sep 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

3,220 people are talking about this

Another said, "Real satanism is not a debunked conspiracy theory, but historic fact. It has nothing to do w/ being a cool rebel. It's not a coincidence human sacrifice was a mainstream practice by rulers for centuries. It never stopped, only hidden & rebranded. This is what Trump is fighting." One said, "If children MUST learn about 'god' in school let's teach them about all of the gods. Norse mythology, islam, catholicism, buddhism, satanism, paganism, ect. Let them make up thier own damn minds about what they believe." One alleged, "Most liberals lean toward and actively practice satanism - They just don’t know it. Most towns and cities also have at least one Luciferian lodge where they do there 'meetings' or 'eatings' or whatever ya want to call it.”

MEA WorldWide (MEAWW) cannot independently verify and does not support any claims being made on the Internet.

The Satanic Temple Is In Fact Emblematic Of The Leftist Worldview
When justice is more important than the law and relativism receives religious freedom, the end is anarchy — and that's a serious problem indeed.

\By Kylee Zempel
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020


Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Satanism, and motherhood converged in the pages of the Huffington Post on Thursday when Jamie Smith, an attorney and mom, wrote that the death of the Supreme Court justice motivated her to join the Satanic Temple.

“I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls,” Smith said. “I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park. I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times.”


When Ginsburg passed, Smith said she didn’t feel sorrow but rather fear that America is headed toward “theocracy or dictatorship,” writing:


When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.

“Satanic Temple” began trending on Twitter as readers reacted to the article. Smith’s self-serious tone was met with conservatives taking the piece incredibly seriously, eager to amplify an article that confirmed the left’s fondness for the Devil himself.

This isn’t satire. This is real.
You think I’m joking when I say they’re working for the devil? https://t.co/KVuchFg9Dm
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) September 25, 2020

Democrats are writing op-ed’s about becoming Satanists to fight pro-life Republicans now. If it wasn’t already explicitly clear to you that this is no longer about policy differences, this should really open your eyes.

This is a battle of good versus evil.https://t.co/8ebyk34sWb
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 24, 2020

Well damn. For serving the Father of Lies this is a hell of a lot of honesty.
"The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple": https://t.co/2bKMC81WVT pic.twitter.com/qcN4vifW6a
— Micah Meadowcroft (@Micaheadowcroft) September 24, 2020

Unlike what many conservatives seemed to believe, I don’t think this article was a harbinger of the left’s wholesale departure into explicit Satan worship. We should, however, analyze Smith’s argument seriously, as her claims and their implications paint a troubling picture of the dangerous ideology pervading today’s left.

Smith assured her readers that, not to be confused with the Church of Satan, the Satanic Temple doesn’t actually worship him. Most of the temple’s adherents are atheists, viewing Satan as a symbol of rebellion. According to Smith, members reject the supernatural in favor of reason.

Like other religions, Smith said, members of the Satanic Temple adopt a set of beliefs. In this case, it’s seven tenets, which include that people “should strive to act with compassion and empathy” and that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”


“Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years,” Smith wrote. “I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it.”

SERIOUSLY: Liberal Attorney Says RBG’s Death Drove Her To Join The Satanic Temple

Satanic Temple Favors Justice Over the Law

One tenet, in particular, is notable: “The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.” In other words, the law is dispensable in the pursuit of justice — a remarkable statement coming from an attorney. The ends of equity justify the means of tearing down institutions. Sound familiar?


This principle, which the Satanic Temple articulates and Smith affirms, absolves the rioters pillaging America’s cities under the guise of “social justice.” It supports illegal social programs that promote a so-called oppressed group while discriminating against another group. It exonerates election fraud by those who reason that the “fascist” must be removed from the White House by any means necessary. This idea reeks of moral relativism and guarantees lawlessness.

To adopt a tenet such as this is an interesting response to the death of a Supreme Court justice and an interesting way to cope with the fear that one’s legal rights will be infringed. If equity is greater than the law, how does the Constitution fit in? If justice “should prevail over laws and institutions,” there will be nothing left for the Supreme Court, an institution itself, to protect.
The Problem of Religious Freedom for Moral Relativism

Another major problem with Smith’s argument is that she seeks to give religious legitimacy to a group defined by relativism.

Of course, the No. 1 issue for Smith is abortion, or as she euphemistically calls it, “reproductive rights.” Without Ginsburg’s vote and voice on the court, Smith argues, “Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being overturned not based on legal arguments or scientific reasoning, but because of religious objections to what is a safe and necessary procedure.”

Therefore, Smith has joined the efforts of the Satanic Temple in bringing lawsuits that demand religious liberty for its members, elevating their open-ended tenets to the same level as firmly held religious beliefs.

“[N]o one should have to follow a law that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” Smith said. “If a Christian should not have to do so based on their religion, a Satanist should not have to either. This is what equality under the law means on a fundamental level.”

She continued, “There is a real chance that the Supreme Court will be lost for a generation or more to justices appointed for their religious beliefs rather than a deep understanding of the Constitution or a desire for justice to be carried out on an impartial basis.”

Note the logical inconsistency of her arguments. Smith adheres to a set of tenets that rejects the supremacy of law but then bemoans Christians’ use of “religious objections” over “legal arguments.” She then delegitimizes religious protections, but in the same breath demands them for her cult.
These Tenets Belong to the Broader Left

Smith’s biggest problem isn’t that she’s identifying with an organization whose namesake is Satan. Her biggest problem is the complete lack of rationality and consistency in her worldview that claims to be founded on those very things, at the expense of the supernatural. The broader issue, however, is that Smith’s arguments represent the doctrine of the left.

While most leftists aren’t lining up to join the Satanic Temple explicitly, they do subscribe to its tenets. This is obvious in their push for abortion and transgender acceptance, their distaste for the Constitution, and their endorsement of protests-turned-riots.

When justice is more important than the law, and relativism receives religious freedom, the end is anarchy — and that’s a serious problem indeed.

Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

North Malawi MPs against legalising ‘satanic’ abortion, female MPs vow to fight bill – Report

9/28/2020 North Malawi MPs against legalising 'satanic' abortion, female MPs vow to fight bill – Report | Malawi Nyasa Times - News from Malawi about Malawi

Ngwale (r) with gender activist Emma Kaliya

Susan Dossi: I would vote against it

Rumphi East MP Kamlepo Kalua: it is more like authorising killing

The Termination of Pregnancy Bill also known as the Abortion Bill has dominated the

headlines on Saturday with reports that female lawmakers and most Northern Region

legislators have vowed to reject the piece of legislation if it is tabled during the current sitting.

The proposed Bill is lobbying for the safe termination of pregnancy where it poses a

threat to the life of a woman, or it as a result of incest or rape among others.

The current law only provides for termination of pregnancy where the life of a

woman is in danger.

The Weekend Nation newspaper reported on Saturday that it conducted a survey –

which has revealed that 113 members of Parliament (MPs) out of 141, or 80 percent

will reject the Bill if Parliamentary Committee on Health chairperson Mathews

Ngwale, will table the Termination of Pregnancy Bill in the current sitting of Parliament in

Lilongwe.

Ngwale has the support of various advocacy groups, including the Coalition for the Prevention of Unsafe Abortion (Copua)—a fierce campaigner of the proposed Bill.

Copua claims the country has a high prevalence of death from unsafe abortions, a

thing that needs to be addressed.

But both Christianity and Islam – the country’s biggest religions – are diametrically opposed to 

anything that challenges the sanctity of life.

Several faith groups have also spoken against the Bill. They include the General Assembly of

the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP), the Episcopal Conference of Malawi

(ECM), Evangelical Association of Malawi (EAM), Public Affairs Committee (PAC), and Muslim

Association of Malawi (MAM).

Reporting about its poll survey, the Weekend Nation, said 24 of the 43 female legislators in

the august House have opposed the Bill .


Kalaile-Banda said would not support the Bill.

“So long as the Bill is to do with abortion, it is a straight ‘No’ vote for me,” said Joyce Chitsulo, who represents Mwanza West in quotes reported by the paper.

She said as a mother, she cannot debate on issues to do with any loss of life. She fell pregnant while in secondary school.

“I did not abort. I just could not and I am proud of my choice. Of the three children I have, the

first is my daughter, born out of that pregnancy.

“Today, I find my decision even more fulfilling that she is an accomplished professional

midwife herself,” the parliamentarian said.

Chikwawa West legislator Susan Dossi agrees that ‘life is sacred’ and to support the Bill would

be against her conscience. Mangochi Central legislator Victoria Kingstone will also reject the

Bill.

She said: “It is an outright ‘No’ from me. I am a practicing Catholic and my church does not

encourage even contraceptives. As such, I cannot do anything against my conscience.

“Besides that chiefs in my constituency are also against termination of pregnancy. So as their

representative I cannot go against their wishes.”

In interviews with the Northern Region legislators, most of them indicated that they would not

be supporting the Bill.

Chitipa Wenya’s Davis Ng’ambi and his Chitipa South counterpart, Werani Chilenga, said the

Bill was ‘devilish’ and would not be supported.

Chilenga said abortion was “devilish, barbaric, satanic and it can only happen over my dead

body. The people of Chitipa South reject it.”

Mzimba South East legislator Ackson Kalaile-Banda said would not support the Bill.

In quotes reported by the paper, Rumphi East legislator Kamlepo Kaluwa said: “I don’t support

the Bill, and I won’t because supporting it is more like authorising killing, so Rumphi East will

not support that Bill.”

MP for Mzimba East, Wezzie Gondwe said, while she personally supports the Bill, but it would

be impossible for her to vote for it because people in her area regard abortion as a sin and

evil, so she will vote against it.

Nkhata Bay Central legislator Symon Vuwa Kaunda said: “I am a Christian, and the people I

represent do not want the Bill. So, no to it! I know fellow MPs have been getting allowances on

meetings aimed at supporting the Bill, but I haven’t been attending them. I don’t want it and

the people I represent reject it.”

In it’s extended coverage, the paper in an editorial comment said there is need for massive

civic education for all stakeholders on the Bill.

“For example, it is imperative that law makers take time to read it and understand it so that

they can appreciate it. Otherwise those rejecting it now might be doing so out of ignorance .

And they may just be throwing away the baby with bath water,” reads the editorial in

conclusion.

Ngwale agrees that. ignorance is fuelling rejection of the Bill, admitting that even some

legislators do not understand its contents.

https://www.nyasatimes.com/north-malawi-mps-against-legalising-satanic-abortion-female-mps-vow-to-fight-bill-report/

Cute 'vampire' cat is latest entry in RSPCA calendar competition in Milton Keynes
A cat called Luci is one of the fang-tastic entries in a search for MK pets to feature in a 2021 calendar.

By Sally Murrer
Tuesday, 22nd September 2020

Luci's cute vampire-like fangs have already won over the public on social media this week.

She is one of the entries sent to the Milton Keynes branch of the RSPCA, whose volunteers are organising a 2021 calendar in a bid to boost the charity's funds.

Open to animals of all shapes and sizes, there are categories including Golden Oldies, March Madness, Selfie Fun and Cozy Pets.

Luci the cat

There is a category called Forget Me Not for pets who have departed and another called Who Rescued Who specially for rescue animals.

Entries cost £1  Winners will receive a free copy of the calendar.

The Milton Keynes & North Bucks RSPCA Branch helps to rescue and re-home cats and small animals in the area.

It is a separately registered branch of the RSPCA and relies upon the support of the public and businesses to help. Its team consists of a small but dedicated group of volunteers who work for the welfare and benefit of the animals.

Henry the cat

Snow the baby bunny is another contender for the calendar

Jasper the rabbit

'Lawful but awful': US self-defense laws questioned after Breonna Taylor’s death

Kenny Jaco and Jessica Priest, USA TODAY•September 27, 2020

The lack of criminal charges this week against Kentucky police officers for the shooting death of Breonna Taylor stems not from a unique quirk in that state’s law but from deeply embedded protections in the U.S. legal system for those who use deadly force to protect themselves.

Those protections mean law enforcement officers and civilians alike have been deemed justified in accidentally killing or injuring innocent bystanders in the course of self-defense.

•In 2018, a San Antonio police officer responding to a report of an assault fatally shot one man when he meant to shoot another grabbing for a gun.

•In 2017, a Philadelphia laundromat owner shot a bystander twice in the hand while firing on a fleeing man who’d stolen $2,000 from his store.- ADVERTISEMENT -

•In 2015, a Utah police officer shot and injured a man resembling a suspect who had fired a gun at him.

A Kentucky grand jury indicted one of the three officers who served a warrant the night of Breonna Taylor's death. The charges were not for Taylor's death but for wanton endangerment of her neighbors when the officer fired his weapon into a nearby apartment

None was charged with a crime.

“You’ve got to have intent. And with Breonna Taylor, he (the officer) didn’t intend to kill her. The officer returned fire and happened to get Breonna,” said Scott Boudreaux, a Birmingham, Alabama, defense attorney who has represented clients in accidental killings. “I think it’s self-defense.”

In the early hours of March 13, Taylor’s boyfriend shot one of the three plainclothes officers. He said he mistook them for intruders when they broke down the door to her apartment, serving a search warrant for narcotics. Police said they identified themselves before entering the home. They returned fire and hit Taylor, who died in her apartment hallway. No drugs were found.

Photos of Breonna Taylor's apartment were included in a request for a no-knock search warrant made by the Louisville Metro Police Department.

Wednesday, a grand jury indicted one of the three officers, Brett Hankison, on charges of wanton endangerment of Taylor’s neighbors – not Taylor herself – as a result of firing his weapon into a nearby apartment. It declined to indict any of the officers for reckless homicide.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron cautioned against a “quest for revenge,” which did little to quell unrest after the grand jury decision. Protests erupted across the country.

"If Brett Hankison's behavior was wanton endangerment to people in neighboring apartments, then it should have been wanton endangerment in Breonna Taylor's apartment too," Ben Crump, an attorney for Taylor's family, wrote on Twitter.

The way the officers carried out the "no-knock" search warrant after midnight should be reviewed, said Dave LaBahn, president of the national Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. Crump suggested the officers knowingly used false information to obtain the warrant. If that can be proved, the dynamic of the case against the officers could change, and more charges could be brought.

The officers entered Taylor’s apartment legally, were shot at first and had a right to defend themselves, LaBahn said, calling the situation “lawful but awful.”

What Cameron described as “vigorous” self-defense laws in the state are part of a much broader trend in America toward forgiving people who claim self-defense.

Attorney Ben Crump says police should have been charged in Breonna Taylor's death.

Many U.S. states have statutes codifying the Castle Doctrine, which stems from an English court case finding in 1604 that a man has no duty to retreat from an assailant in his own dwelling, because “a man’s home is his castle.”

More than half of U.S. states, including Kentucky, expanded on this concept by enacting “stand your ground” laws, which remove the duty to retreat for people attacked outside their homes – so long as they are in a place they have a right to be, aren’t committing a crime and didn’t provoke the confrontation.

In Taylor’s case, LaBahn said, Kenneth Walker, Taylor's boyfriend, was justified in shooting at the officers, and they were justified in shooting back.
A ‘true man’ fights back

After American colonies gained their independence from the British, the new states largely imported common law from England to use as judicial precedent for their own courts. In England, the law recognized very few civilian homicide defenses as valid.

English law forbade homicide except as a last resort, requiring those under attack to first flee the scene or retreat as far away as possible. Only then, with a wall at their back and nowhere else to go, did the state authorize them to kill their assailants. Even then, it was the killers’ burden to prove that using lethal force was necessary to save themselves from grievous harm.

England’s duty to retreat was a “powerful means to produce a society of civility,” wrote Richard Maxwell Brown in his 1991 book, "No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society." Boiled down, it was a command to avoid physical conflicts, Brown wrote, barring fatal outcomes in most disputes and resulting in relatively low homicide rates.

Americans abandoned the English standard and adopted a fundamentally different attitude toward self-defense, primarily fueled by two state court decisions in the post-Reconstruction era.

In Ohio in 1876, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a man who shot and killed his son-in-law. The man said the son-in-law charged at him with an axe. The court found that the man was not at fault for provoking the confrontation and had acted as a “true man,” free to defend himself against his assailant.

The following year, the Supreme Court in Indiana took it a step further, ruling that a man who shot and killed an unarmed man in a riot on Election Day was justified because the unarmed man had instigated a fist fight with him.

Overturning the man’s conviction, Judge William Niblack wrote that “the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.”

In light of these decisions, courts across the USA began to broadly accept the view that fleeing amounted to cowardice and that cowardice was un-American, Brown wrote in his book. In the early 1900s, a Minnesota judge rejected the duty to retreat, saying it was an outdated law that did not take into account the influx of guns into societal life. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court the same year asserted man’s “divine right” to “stand his ground.”

Cathy Makowski demonstrates against what she calls the abuse of Florida's "stand your ground" law in front of the Seminole County Courthouse in Sanford, Fla., after the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012.

Some states, including Florida, have gone so far as shifting the burden onto prosecutors to prove a homicide was not committed in self-defense. Such laws “benefit the defendant in a phenomenal way” and make prosecutors less likely to file homicide charges, especially in cases with no witnesses, said Denis deVlaming, a criminal defense attorney in Clearwater.

“Prosecutors hate this new law,” deVlaming said. “Unless they can disprove the defendant’s version of events, either forensically or by a statement or contradiction, he gets a pass.”
Laws especially protect police

In 2017, Birmingham, Alabama, resident Darrell Hutton shot at a man who pulled a gun on him, and one of the bullets struck and killed a 4-year-old girl. He was charged with murder.

Boudreaux represented Hutton and asked a judge for a hearing to consider whether Alabama’s “stand your ground” law applied. He argued that Hutton was defending himself and didn’t intend to kill the girl.

A judge agreed, dismissing the charges.

Law enforcement officers rarely face criminal charges or convictions as a result of fatal shootings because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that their actions must be evaluated based on what a reasonable officer would do, given what was known at the time.

Because this is a hard concept for jurors to wrap their minds around, prosecutors often choose not to charge officers, said Philip Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

“The role of a prosecutor is to seek justice, but as a practical matter, they're very concerned with whether they can obtain a conviction,” he said.

Even when fellow officers testify that they didn’t feel afraid, calling the accused officer’s reason into question, jurors defer to how the accused officer felt in the moment.

“Jurors are very reluctant to second-guess the split-second, life-or-death decisions of a police officer in a potentially violent encounter,” Stinson said.

Stinson found that since 2005, 121 officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting in the USA. Of them, 44 were convicted – most for a lesser offense, such as official misconduct, deprivation of civil rights, aggravated assault or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Of the seven convicted of murder, four of the convictions were overturned.

According to The Washington Post, police fatally shot nearly 1,000 people in 2019.

That 1989 Supreme Court ruling, Graham v. O’Connor, was about officers using excessive force, not self-defense.

Labahn said there are questions about whether defense laws should be written as they are and whether no-knock warrants should be used the way the Louisville officers did.

“This is why we have legislatures,” LaBahn said. “Unfortunately with many things in criminal justice, it takes bad results for people to pay attention.”

 

Kyle Rittenhouse, Conservative America’s Teen Dream Killing Machine

Stephen Robinson

September 27, 2020 12:00 PM THE WONKETTE

 

What is there to say about people who think it was acceptable for cops to shoot up Breonna Taylor in her own home (damaging precious dry wall in the process) but that Kyle Rittenhouse, who broke actual laws, is an American hero? They are obviously racists obsessed with white innocence. Young Rittenhouse is just a poor boy from a poor family.

Last Thursday, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy, and his lawyer, John Pierce, attended a Wisconsin Republican event in Waukesha County. Perpetual rage machine, Michelle Malkin, brought Wendy Rittenhouse on stage where the audience gave her a standing ovation for raising a child who murdered two people and gravely injured a third. This might make sense if they were Klingons, who believe a child is a man “the day he can first hold a blade," but these people claim to follow the teachings of noted cuck Jesus Christ.

Malkin shared a photo on Twitter of herself with Wendy Rittenhouse and her son's homicide attorney. She boasted that she'd spoken to Kyle Rittenhouse on the phone and “thanked him for his courage." It takes as much courage to shoot someone as talent was required to produce that Justice League movie.

It doesn't seem like anyone was wearing masks or socially distancing at this event. Presumably, they were only prepared to gun down COVID-19, preferably in its own bed. The smile on Wendy Rittenhouse's face is very different from the anguish you see from the mothers of Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, Ahmaud Arbery, Tamir Rice, and Trayvon Martin. She looks confident that the system is going to work out in her son's favor ... either that or she's very pleased with her chicken piccata appetizer.

This is the same week that the man who killed Taylor was charged with felony wall defacement, so you can understand why we might think Kyle Rittenhouse might never see a day in prison. His “innocence" was openly proclaimed by future QAnon congresswoman, Majorie Taylor Greene.

Twitter

Wisconsin prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with a crime, but conservatives like Greene have no problem publicly disagreeing with that decision, while hiding behind Mitch McConnell's pet attorney general's burial of the case against Taylor's killers.

Rittenhouse was a vigilante who placed himself in a dangerous situation after illegally obtaining an assault rifle. You can't claim “self-defense" for a violent altercation you personally initiate. If that theory had any legal merit, Johnny Cochrane would've tried it with O.J. Simpson. Of course, Simpson was only a rich and a celebrity. He wasn't a random white kid.

Greene responded to a tweet from Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, and declared that she'd oppose ALL gun control legislation and will “defend our GREAT Second Amendment always." Yeah, guns are so awesome, two people are dead and another person permanently disabled. Rittenhouse is a coward who never would've been within 1,000 miles of the incident if he wasn't toting artificial, high-caliber “courage." Guns make everything worse. But Greene thinks this was a positive outcome. I enjoy a nice cocktail, but if a teenager got wasted (illegally) and took a car on a joyride (illegally) and killed some people, I wouldn't consider that a great moment for the 21st Amendment.

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi also defended Rittenhouse last week. She told Sean Hannity that Young Goodman Rittenhouse was a “little boy" trying to “protect his community," which was in a different state where he committed his murders.

From Newsweek:

"You have got a 17-year-old out there trying to protect his state," Bondi said, despite the fact the teenager traveled from his hometown in Antioch, Illinois, to attend the protests on August 25.

Bondi is used to lying — she defended Trump during his impeachment sham trial — but this one is a king-sized Double Whopper. She also kept mentioning that Rittenhouse was only a child of 17, which I suppose was intended to make him seem innocent, but it just reinforces that he was guilty of openly carrying an assault rifle.

Gun rights advocates who adore Rittenhouse have tried to claim he falls under the “just out hunting" exception. However, human beings — even so-called looters and rioters — are never in season. Rittenhouse was playing-acting as a cop, but all he did was create the sort of “gang violence" conservatives pretend to care about whenever they mention Chicago.

When I was in college, a film professor interpreted the ending of Taxi Driver as Travis Bickle's dying fantasy. It just wasn't realistic that the media and the American people would embrace a violent psychopath as a “hero" just because he killed the “right people." That's a charmingly naive view. Today's Travis Bickle would become a Fox News folk hero and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[Newsweek]

Follow Stephen Robinson on Twitter.

Global banking systems 'well placed to absorb' Covid shocks
Issac John /Dubai

(AFP)
Moody's said in its report that most banking systems are in good shape and can withstand the inevitable rise in bad debts over the coming months.

Most banking systems across the world are well-placed to absorb the economic shocks triggered by the coronavirus, but a second wave of the virus, leading to new blanket lockdowns or self-imposed changes in consumers' behaviour, poses a significant threat, Moody's Investors Service said in a report on Thursday.

"In contrast to the financial crisis, the banking system is more likely to act as a shock absorber rather than an amplifier," said Nick Hill, managing director - Banking at Moody's Investors Service. "But a second wave of the pandemic that leads to new lockdowns and economic turmoil could cause more lasting damage to banks' credit profiles."

Moody's bullish outlook is in sharp contrast to the dismal projections made by S&P Global about an estimated combined loan losses of $2.1 trillion faced by banks across the globe by the end of 2021, including a hit of $1.3 trillion this year, more than doubling the 2019 level as a result of the pandemic crisis.

Around 60 per cent of the losses are likely to be in Asia-Pacific S&P, although the highest relative increases - at more than double on average compared with 2019 - will occur in North America and Western Europe. S&P estimate that the top 200 rated banks represent about two-thirds of global bank lending.


Moody's said in its report that after ten years of broadly benign economic conditions, and relentless regulatory pressure to reinforce balance sheets, most banking systems are in good shape and can withstand the inevitable rise in bad debts over the coming months. "In addition, actions taken by central banks and governments to soften the virus impact have slowed the rise in asset risk and underpinned liquidity and funding," the global rating agency said in its bullish outlook on global banking.

Banks with more diversified business models - notably those with capital markets activities - will also prove more robust than those focused on more susceptible activities like lending to small businesses and corporates, said Moody's.

However, projecting a different scenario of the global banking industry, S&P Global Ratings said recovery of the sector would stretch to 2023 and beyond.

"Covid-19 and the oil price shock of 2020 are taking a heavy toll on global banks. We anticipate it will be difficult for the financial strength ratings on financial institutions to return to pre-crisis levels. We don't expect the world's largest banking sectors, including more than half of G20's, to recover to pre-Covid-19 levels until 2023, or beyond," said S&P, which has taken 335 negative rating actions globally since the outbreak began.

"The hit on financial institutions globally has been unambiguously negative," said S&P Global Ratings credit analyst Gavin Gunning.

"We have already negatively revised the economic or industry trends underpinning the financial strength of many banking jurisdictions globally. This trend should persist. Further, we have seen negative rating momentum affecting financial institutions in most major banking jurisdictions, indicating that downside risks are to the fore," said Gunning.

The rating firm said recovery to pre-Covid-19 levels would unlikely come before end-2022 even for less-affected banking jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include China, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

"Risks remain firmly on the downside for these banking jurisdictions, in our view," said Gunning.

S&P noted that in 2019, credit losses were near historical lows in almost all the higher-income countries in Asia-Pacific. Years of benign economic conditions have helped the region. "We estimate that the Covid-19 shock to these economies will drive a multifold increase in credit losses. Economic recovery in the subsequent period should ease the credit losses, in our view."

For the US and Canadian banking systems in 2020 and 2021, pandemic-related loan losses will likely sharply increase. "Such losses should tail off thereafter, pending an economic rebound envisaged in our base case. Credit losses will likely rise significantly from historically low levels for European banks in 2020, and remain high in 2021. A full economic recovery could take several years under our base case," said S&P.

While emerging-market banks will likely see a sharp increase in credit losses in 2020, there is potential for a gradual improvement in the following years if economic activity rebounds, it said.

issacjohgn@khaleejtimes.com

Issac John
Editorial Director of Khaleej Times, is a well-connected Indian journalist and an economic and financial commentator. He has been in the UAE's mainstream journalism for 35 years, including 23 years with Khaleej Times. A post-graduate in English and graduate in economics, he has won over two dozen awards. Acclaimed for his authentic and insightful analysis of global and regional businesses and economic trends, he is respected for his astute understanding of the local business scene.

Syria minister calls Turkey main terrorism sponsor in region
AP/New York
Filed on September 28, 2020


Syria's Deputy Prime Minister Walid Muallem speaks in a pre-recorded message which was played during the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters.

(AP)

Walid Al Moallem says Turkey is guilty of crime against humanity for cutting water to towns that resisted Turkish occupation


Syria's foreign minister accused Turkey on Saturday of being "one of the main sponsors of terror" in his country and the region, and said it is guilty of "a war crime and a crime against humanity" for cutting water to more than a dozen towns that resisted Turkish occupation.

In unusually harsh language, Walid Al Moallem said "the Turkish regime reigns supreme" when it comes "to sponsors and financiers of terrorism".

He said in a prerecorded speech to the first-ever high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly held virtually because of the Covid-19 pandemic that the cutoff of water supplies endangered civilian lives, especially during the coronavirus crisis.

The nine-year Syrian conflict, which initially began as a civil war, later became a regional proxy fight. Turkey, which now controls a zone in northern Syria, has backed opposition fighters against Syrian President Bashar Assad, Syrian Kurdish fighters and the Daesh extremist group.

Al Moallem also accused Turkey of moving "terrorists and mercenaries - referred to by some as 'moderate opposition' - from Syria to Libya," violating Iraq's sovereignty, using refugees "as bargaining chips against Europe" and laying claim "by force to energy resources in the Mediterranean".

"The current Turkish regime has become a rogue and outlaw regime under international law," the Syrian minister said. "Its policies and actions, which threaten the security and stability of the whole region, must be stopped."

Turkey's UN Mission said it "rejects Syrian regime's delusional statement, ridden with ludicrous allegations, in its entirety".

"It's shameful and unacceptable that the murderous Syrian regime which lost its legitimacy long ago continues to misuse (the) UN General Assembly general debate to distort the facts," said a mission spokesperson, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The Syrian regime is responsible for death, mutilation, abduction, starvation and enforced disappearance of millions of Syrians," the spokesperson said.

"Its crimes against humanity, violations of international humanitarian law and the war crimes have been documented in countless UN reports."

Al Moallem declared that the Syrian government "will spare no effort to end the occupation by all means possible under international law" of American and Turkish forces.

US troops are deployed in the country to fight the Daesh group.

"The actions of these forces, taken directly or through their terrorist agents, secessionist militias, or manufactured and illegitimate entities, are null and void, with no legal effect," he said.

Al Moallem, who is also deputy prime minister, denounced US sanctions, saying they are blocking the delivery of life-saving medicine and equipment during the pandemic.

He called the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act" passed by the US Congress an "inhumane attempt to suffocate Syrians, just like George Floyd and others were cruelly suffocated in the United States, and just like Israel suffocates Palestinians on a daily basis".

Floyd, a handcuffed Black man, died May 25 after a white officer used his knee on Floyd's neck to pin him to the ground. The officer has been charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

Al Moallem called on all countries affected by unilateral sanctions "and those that reject such measures to close ranks against them and alleviate their impact on our peoples ... through cooperation, coordination, and concrete political, economic and commercial means".

On the political front, he said Syria's government hopes a committee given the responsibility of drafting a new constitution for the country "will succeed".

But, he said, this will be possible only "if there is no external interference whatsoever in its work and by any party".

USA 

New rule may strip pollution protections from popular lakes

JOHN FLESHER,
Associated Press• September 27, 2020


WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) — Nearly 50 years ago, a power company received permission from North Carolina to build a reservoir by damming a creek near the coastal city of Wilmington. It would provide a source of steam to generate electricity and a place to cool hot water from an adjacent coal-fired plant.

Sutton Lake became popular with boaters and anglers, yielding bass, crappie, bluegill and other panfish. But coal ash from the plant fouled the public reservoir with selenium, arsenic and other toxic substances, endangering the fish and people who ate them.

Environmentalists sued Duke Energy, which settled the case by spending $1.25 million protecting nearby wetlands. But now the company — and other U.S. power producers — may have gotten the last laugh.

The Trump administration this year completed a long-debated rewrite of the Clean Water Act that drastically reduces the number of waterways regulated by the federal government. A little-noticed provision for the first time classifies “cooling ponds” as parts of “waste treatment systems” — which are not covered under the law.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the power industry describe it as a clarification with little real-world effect. But environmental groups challenging the Trump rule in court say it opens up reservoirs like Sutton Lake to similar abuse.

“These lakes are sources of food, drinking water, recreation and property values for surrounding communities,” said Frank Holleman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “They’ve been protected under the Clean Water Act ever since it’s been adopted, all the way back to Nixon. No responsible adult would have stripped away these protections.”

The provision on reservoirs is an example of “hidden bombs” that could lurk in the new regulation's fine print, said Mark Ryan, a former EPA attorney who helped craft the Obama administration's clean-water rule that was replaced by the substantially weaker Trump version.

“Congress needs to fix this, or it will be tied up in litigation forever,” Ryan said.

The 1972 law requires developers, factories and others who use navigable waters to get permits specifying how much pollution can be discharged or wetland acreage filled. State regulators and the EPA monitor compliance and punish violators.

Disagreement over which waters are under federal jurisdiction has produced Supreme Court rulings and regulatory tinkering. But cooling reservoirs for power plants were covered until the Trump rewrite, Holleman said.

No complete list of such reservoirs is available, but at least a dozen manmade lakes appear to be vulnerable now, said Blan Holman, also an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. Some cover thousands of acres, are prized boating and fishing spots, and have shorelines dotted with houses.

Among them: 4,900-acre (1,983-hectare) Clinton Lake in central Illinois, which was built in the 1970s to serve a nuclear power plant and is part of a state recreation area. Others are in the Carolinas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

Lake Keowee, which provides cooling waters for a Duke Energy nuclear plant near Seneca, South Carolina, is 26 miles (42 kilometers) long and up to 54 feet (16.4 meters) deep. It's a water sports haven and a drinking water source for several cities.

Alice Guzick, who lives beside the scenic reservoir in the Appalachian mountains, said she fears the regulatory change will make builders less careful to prevent runoff as homes spring up along the shoreline.

“That sediment could cause a lot of pollution,” Guzick said. “There are many small businesses that would fail if the water were ever contaminated.”

The Edison Electric Institute, which advocates for power companies, last year asked the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to group cooling ponds with unregulated waste treatment systems, saying confusion over their status had led to costly lawsuits.

But the industry wasn’t seeking a loophole to leave large reservoirs unprotected, said Alex Bond, the group’s associate general counsel for energy. He said critics are exaggerating what the wording change will mean.

“Generally speaking, the entire lake is not considered the waste treatment system,” Bond said, but rather the area near a plant where hot water is discharged. “Anything beyond that would be subject to regulation.”

EPA said in a statement that federal agencies “do not anticipate changes in longstanding implementation practices associated with these systems.”

Duke Power spokesman Philip Sgro said the company pushed for the wording change to be sure its coal ash retention basins at Sutton Lake and other reservoirs were excluded from the clean-water regulation. They are being closed and their contents moved to landfills.

“The lakes and reservoirs used for public access and recreation will remain classified as waters of the United States, and permits will still be required to discharge wastewater into them,” Srgo said.

But that's not what the new regulation says, Holleman countered. The law has always excluded waste treatment systems from coverage, he said, and now those systems have been defined to include cooling waters, leaving no basis for issuing federal permits to protect the reservoirs.

The power industry says state laws also will protect large reservoirs. But they are often weaker than the federal Clean Water Act and many don't allow citizen groups to sue over violations, Holleman said.

Wilmington-area environmental activist Kemp Burdette said he fears for Sutton Lake, a 1,100-acre (445-hectare) reservoir that a Duke University study last year found was still heavily contaminated with metals from decades of ash spills even though the coal plant has been replaced with a natural gas system.

“Removing any protection from this lake is going to mean the amount of pollution that's allowed to be dumped in here goes up,” Burdette, of Cape Fear River Watch, said during a recent boat tour. Great blue herons skimmed the dark, wind-rippled surface in search of fish, while ospreys took wing from sycamore and cypress trees lining the shore.

Now that coal ash has been moved from shoreline lagoons to a nearby landfill, “you could have this lake start to heal itself,” he said. “But to consider this wastewater is a terrible thing that's probably going to kill this lake.”

___

Follow John Flesher on Twitter: @johnflesher