The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Welcome to post-racial America, where people have their heads in the sand about the state of race relations in this country because a black man was elected POTUS.
The staff at the Valley Swim Club in NE Philly must have stepped into the DeLorean and took a spin back into the days of segregation, as 60 kids were turned away from the pool there and apparently the people at the Swim Club didn't mind their inner bigot surface for all to see. (NBC Philly):
"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.
The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.
"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."
..."There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.
Excuse me, what year is this? Am I watching a rerun of a scene in Far From Heaven (2002)? There was a scene in the Todd Haynes film, set in the 1950s, where a black boy, the son of service worker at a Miami hotel, dares to step into the hotel pool. His father rushes and pulls him out, but it's too late -- the white people in the pool race to get out of the "contaminated" water. Apparently that's the kind of "change they can believe in" at The Valley Swim Club.
Contact information for the club is here. This is so outrageous that I'm almost unable to type.
I don't see anything on the membership app asking about race, so when do they determine you can't join -- when you show up? Check out the club's rules of operations below the fold.
In the piece Commission to investigate suspension of transgender student, I made a reasonable assumption that a transgender student was harassed for using a female restroom based on operative status. Apparently, she was discriminated against relating to whether or not she had genital reconstruction surgery (GRS), but it apparently was for being post-operative, and not pre-operative. From the New York Daily Record:
Jamie Nicole Anderson says she just wants to be treated like everyone else. The York woman is a 42-year-old ex-Marine who takes her 11-year-old son to school and never misses his football, baseball or hockey games.
...In May, she got a sex change operation, from male to female, and, she says, that's when the trouble started.
...Anderson said she was banned from using a women's rest room and was repeatedly referred to as "he" and "his" by her [Harrisburg Area Community College (HAAC)] clinical instructors.
Further:
Anderson said she was suspended for three days Oct. 2 by HACC for "insubordination," using the women's rest room after being told not to because some operating room employees said they were "uncomfortable" with her being there.
Anderson said she was dismissed from her program Oct. 30 for her violation of a dress code that forbids more than two earrings in an ear.
"I forgot to take (one) out that day," she said.
Anderson said she filed the complaint because she wants the situation corrected for her and other transgendered people like her.
If one is born with a penis, I tend to believe the arguments against fully inclusive anti-discrimination language will always revolve around the bathroom, whether or not a trans person/a person of trans history currently has a penis or not. Some transsexuals (and people of trans history) see a difference between pre-operative and post-operative folk where anti-discrimination rules should only be applied to the post-operative folk. In the real world where discrimination is often based on fear and/or hate, discrimination is often based on what the genitals looked like at birth, not what one's genitals look like now, or not what gender one is between the ears. It's based on societal gender norms associated with natal genitalia shape -- just as it is for effeminate gay and straight men, and masculine lesbian and straight women.
Anti-discrimination laws that give legal recourse for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression based discrimination are what keeps businesses and government from behaving badly against those perceived to be gender variant people.
Jamie is never going to be perceived as a woman by those who discriminated against her. I'm with Jamie -- to correct the situation for her and other transgender people like her, sometimes one has to fight against unacceptable behavior sanctioned by businesses and governments.
The man is out of it. Look at this rally in Pennsylvania where he appears to agree with the charge that the western part of the state is openly bigoted. The rest of his statement is just as incoherent.
"You know, I think you may have noticed that Senator Obama's supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about Western Pennsylvania lately," McCain told the audience in the town of Moon Township. "And you know, I couldn't agree with them more."
What are these people thinking, given the evidence out there that grown adults are getting Tased to death by trigger-happy, poorly trained law enforcement who electrocute first and ask questions later?
Uniontown school officials intend to draft a Taser policy for their school police officers that might be discussed as soon as the school board's Aug. 18 meeting and could be considered for adoption next month.
The school's director of security says giving the district's three officers the option of using a Taser is more about providing the safest possible conditions for children, staff and visitors than as a weapon "directed at the students."
Concerned parents and residents questioned the necessity of the devices at a public meeting Wednesday night, but a Cleveland consultant said in an interview Thursday that a Taser can be a "useful extra tool" for authorities as an alternative to a firearm in gaining control in a tense situation.
Well-known forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht gave a thumbs-up to sizzling teens into submission:
"Once you have the Taser and it's been accepted and legitimized ... I see nothing wrong with officers being able to use it on teenager."
The problem here is that over and over as we've seen in so many posts on the matter, is that situations that used to be contained by deft negotiation now result in a Tasing; officers simply whip out the stun gun to order compliance, not to stop a truly dangerous situation where a gun might have been used. Let's go to the videotape of one of the latest egregious situations, a teen with a broken back Tased 19 times by police:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision striking down amendments that added sexual orientation, gender identity, ancestry, gender, and mental and physical disability to the state hate crime law.
The law, known as the Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act, was amended in 2002 to include protections for these groups by a two-thirds majority of the state legislature. Then-governor Mark Schweiker signed it into law. The lower court ruled last November that the law was invalid because it had been tacked onto another, nonrelated bill. The ruling did not criticize the content of the law, only the way in which it had been passed.
"We are extremely disappointed that some of the most vulnerable people in Pennsylvania are now unprotected by our state's hate crimes law," Equality Advocates Pennsylvania said in a statement.
The challenge to the law came from a conservative, Christian group, Repent America.
In great news on the East Coast, the Pittsburgh City Council has approved a domestic partner registry. (Gay Politics):
The registry will provide a standard for employers to allow workers to share benefits with their partners. Openly gay city council member and former Victory Fund endorsee Bruce Kraus wrote the legislation.
The legislation passed by a vote of 7-1 and brought cheers from several people in the audience who were at the meeting to receive a proclamation for Pride Week events. Kraus said that the legislation shows that "Pittsburgh is in fact a very progressive and forward-thinking city."
I wonder who that holdout vote was? In any case, I'm sure this news has just undone former Senator man-on-dog and Diane Gramley of the Pennsylvania AFA, who has said that "protecting marriage is the number-one issue facing the state and nation" and that "legislators must take proper action to protect 'traditional marriage and the natural family' because those entities are under nationwide attack."
In yet another move to "protect" marriage, the wingnuts in Pennsylvania have stepped up to the plate as Senate Bill 1250 moved from committee to a full Senate vote today
Senate Bill 1250, which is meant to bolster the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which already prohibits same-sex marriage, "is disheartening and discriminatory," said Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park. "It's marriage mischief -- an attempt to enshrine bigotry in the state constitution," he told an angry crowd of 200 protesters gathered in the Capitol rotunda.
"Politicians always want to get into your wallet, but now many politicians, some Democrats as well as Republicans, want to get into your bedroom."
Other opponents of the constitutional amendment included Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, and Democratic Sens. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia and Connie Williams of Delaware County. "When the basic rights of any group are threatened, then no one's rights are safe," said Mr. Fumo, amid echoing chants of "Stop this bill! Stop this bill!"
"Freedom is at risk in the bill," said Mr. Fumo, whose South Philadelphia district includes considerable numbers of gay and lesbian voters. "It's possible this legislative body could embed discrimination in our constitution by taking away the rights of a group of people based on their sexuality."
Above is the Blend chat room if you want to gab live about the coverage of the primary on the "news" networks. You can see a live webcast of coverage by the WaPo and Newsweek here.
Key: Winner Precincts: 93% |Updated: 11:31 PM ET |Source:AP
11:01: Obama, in mentioning a string of groups of people that can effect change with him (women, Native Americans, etc.), included gays.
10:45: County by county results here. Obama's up. It's odd that he's going after Clinton, since the winner usually gives their speech last.
10:35: Hillary wrapped up. CNN talking heads are talking about how she can now afford to be "gracious" and try to regain the trust and re-establish her likeability with voters, since she's pulling such high negatives.
10:16: Hillary is speaking now. She again mentioned about being ready on Day One. (Well, I hope that doesn't include nuking Iran, something her campaign had to trot out to "clarify" today. Sigh.) She makes a plea for cash -- "the future of this campaign is in your hands." This win will help with a much-needed infusion of cash. However, if she doesn't pay off those small vendors, she's going to be in another world of PR hurt since they are talking to the media these days.
* About 3% of people who showed up to cast a ballot were first-time voters.
* Democratic voters were overwhelmingly white and there were more women than men.
* Nearly 50% were from families that earned less than $50,000 last year. A quarter had household income of more than $100,000 and about as many reported having a postgraduate degree.
* Three in 10 were union members or had one in their household.
* Four in 10 had a gun owner in the household.
* One in five voters said they chose their candidate within the final week of the Pennsylvania campaign. About one in 10 said they made up their mind Tuesday. This benefits Clinton.
* About one in five voters said the race was a top factor in their decision
* An equal amount cited the candidate's gender as a top motivator in their vote.
* Half of voters said the economy was the most important issue
* Four in 10 said the country is in a serious recession, and one in 10 didn't think we are in a recession (!).
For those of you in Pennsylvania, what was it like at the polls?
Results from earlier in the evening are below the fold.
But she tells them they cannot marry -- because that's up to the states, you know (ignoring Loving v. Virginia). From the Philly Gay News.
PGN: I assume that you and President Clinton have gay friends. Can you give me your impression of one of those couples that you socialize with, without giving any names?
Hillary Clinton: Oh my gosh. There are so many of them. I know that Mark [Walsh, Clinton's national director of LGBT outreach] is on the phone. Let me say this, we don't get to socialize a lot. But when we do, it's usually at a big event where we get to see people and spend time with them. This is something I want to do more of as soon as I finish this presidential campaign. It's sort of hard to pick out people. We go to some events in Washington and New York. I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life.
PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they can't get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn't have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.
In Hillary's favor, though, John McCain and Barack Obama both declined a request for an interview.
By a 10-4 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday advanced a bill to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage or civil unions.
The bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee before consideration by the full Senate. It would have to be passed by the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions and then approved by voters in a referendum.
The amendment would read, "No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the commonwealth."
... Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf (R., Bucks) and Sen. John Gordner (R., Columbia) said they did not believe the amendment would eliminate access to existing benefits or other legal rights of same-sex couples or unmarried partners. "This will protect the sanctity of marriage and ensure that benefits are preserved," said Gordner, adding that 27 states had amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.
Here's the roll call vote, for folks in Pennsylvania. The resident go-to homobigot in the state couldn't wait to spew the bile.
Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of Pennsylvania, believes that protecting marriage is the number-one issue facing the state and nation. She says liberal voters want to focus on property tax relief and healthcare as more important issues than defending traditional marriage. However, Gramley points out that "none of those things matter if we let the foundation of society go into ruin -- and I feel we need to deal with that first before the other issues."
According to Gramley, much work remains to be done before the measure can go to voters. She believes legislators must take proper action to protect "traditional marriage and the natural family" because those entities are under nationwide attack.
Wow. The NUMBER ONE issue. It's as if all the homos are loading up AK-47s and spraying the legislatures in order to get them to do our bidding. The level of hysteria for these people -- you know, the Base of the Republican party -- is unbelievable.
Gee, with all the problems in the economy -- and blue collar workers taking it in the chin, Gramley is worried about whether gays might want to get hitched?
Sue at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents has the latest on the return of the pathetic discrimination legislation, SB 1250. It has the same number of co-sponsors (17), two are Democrats.
We had a bitter struggle over this in 2006. Many Southwestern Pennsylvania Democrats in the House voted in favor of the amendment. The Senate did some fancy footwork by introducing a watered-down version of the amendment (would not outlaw civil unions), counting on the fact that the Repubs would never go for it and they were right. So everyone walked away claiming they voted for it and against it. It all boils down to the fact that very few of our legislators were willing to publicly stand up against discrimination and homophobia.
Fast forward to 2008. Legislation in the House and the Senate to expand the Human Relations Act to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender presentation are gaining momentum and co-sponsors. Pittsburgh elects an openly gay City Councilperson. PA Human Relations Commission Chair Steve Glassman, an openly gay man, is reappointed in spite of attempts by the AFA of PA to oppose the appointment. Philadelphia is not allowing tax payers to foot the rent for the openly discriminatory Boy Scouts. Presidential candidates participate in a televised debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign.
...[T]hree Western Pennsylvania Senators have opted not to participate in a fear-driven attempt to scapegoat homosexuals while residents of Pennsylvania struggle with actual problems like the Birmingham Bridge suddenly breaking or the inability of multiple rich people to get a decent grocery store into an urban, predominantly African-American community or the shooting death of two teenagers due to gang violence. Oh hey, how about this one -- the media is filled with analysis on how to help mentally ill people stop killing college students, but once again there's no cost of living allowance in the state budget for mental health providers. Nice. How about fixing that little problem?
Truth be told people, your family is much more likely to drive across a failing bridge and fall to the river below than to suffer a single consequence of my relationship with Ledcat. Hey, we are actually going out to spend money buying a new vacuum cleaner today -- we are putting money into the economy. Isn't that what all good citizens should be doing?
RE: Employment Nondiscrimination Act: H.R. 2015 (Original Inclusive Version): SUPPORT H.R. 3685 (Revised "Sexual Orientation" Only Version): OPPOSE
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the undersigned lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), AIDS service, faith, and allied civil rights organizations, we write to urge you to support H.R. 2015, the inclusive version of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) that was originally introduced in April of this year.
H.R. 2015 would protect all LGBT Americans from employment discrimination. At the same time, we urge that H.R. 3685 not be brought forward for a vote. However, if it is, we urge you to amend H.R. 3685 to revise the overly broad religious exemption to reflect the language that appears in all other existing federal civil rights legislation as well as to include the protected class of "gender identity" in the final version of the bill. H.R. 3685 is the ill-advised and substantially weakened version of the bill that was introduced in September. The recent amendments create significant problems that will have a terribly detrimental impact upon thousands of Pennsylvanians you represent. The primary problems with the weakened version of the bill are as follows: 1) Protections in the bill against gender identity-based discrimination were removed. The original version of the ENDA (H.R. 2015) would prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Gender identity is defined in this version of the bill as "the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth." Section 4(a) of H.R. 3865 would remove protections based on gender identity entirely from the ENDA.
First and foremost, we are opposed to this amendment on principle. It is simply wrong to protect some members of the LGBT community and not others. Transgender people have been a part of our community's fight for civil rights since it began, and there is no justifiable reason to pass a law that does not cover gender identity and expression. We have come too far in our understanding of discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and gender identity to leave anyone behind, unprotected by the law.
Secondly, removal of gender identity from the ENDA would create significant gaps in federal employment law for all LGBT people even if H.R. 3685 were to pass. Gender Identity not only protects transgender individuals from discrimination, it also protects any employee, including lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and heterosexuals who may not conform to their employer's idea of how a man or woman should look and act. This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their discriminatory conduct was actually based on an employee's gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill would not prohibit. 2) Section 6 of this bill creates a blanket exemption for religious employers that is broader than the exemptions in other civil rights laws and leaves many workers with no legal protections.
Every federal civil rights law has a limited exemption for religious organizations. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Act says it is not illegal religious discrimination for a religious organization to give preferences to members of its own church. The Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) has a similar exemption, and also allows a religious organization to require employees to comply with its religious tenets.
H.R. 2015 included exemptions for churches and for jobs outside the church for ministers and religious teachers and administrators. It also allowed religious groups to require people who work for them in other jobs to comply with all the major tenets of the religion. But this first version of the ENDA, like other civil rights legislation, did not allow employers to refuse to hire someone just because of a religious objection to LGBT people.
Unfortunately, unlike the provisions in other civil rights laws, H.R. 3685 would exempt all religious groups from the law completely. It is not a broad exemption; it is a total exemption. It would give religiously affiliated hospitals, social service agencies, shelters, faith based service providers, and universities complete freedom to discriminate against LGBT people. Congress should treat religiously held beliefs that being gay is sinful just as it treated religiously held beliefs that women are unequal and that segregation and slavery was God's law. It should uphold a person's right to believe these things, but keep these beliefs out of the workplace.
In conclusion, our common goal is passage of a fair and inclusive employment nondiscrimination statute. H.R. 2015 would achieve that purpose. Any version of this law that fails to securely protect the LGBT community against workplace discrimination, such as H.R. 3685, is a law not worth having.
We pledge to work with members of Congress to ensure the enactment of a law that actually serves the purpose we all support. Among the two ENDA versions currently introduced, only H.R . 2015 does so.
For the foregoing reasons, we urge that you support H.R. 2015, a bill that would provide true protection from employment discrimination for all LGBT Americans, and ask that you please oppose any motions to remove protection against gender identity discrimination from the ENDA.
We will be contacting your office this week to follow-up on this letter and confirm your positions on each version of the ENDA. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of these important issues.
Kathy Padilla Co-President, Outfront!
Stephen A. Glassman, Chairman Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
Michael Hinson Mayor's Liaison to LGBT Communities City of Philadelphia
Michael P. Williams, Esq. Co-President, OutFront!
Stacy L. Sobel, Executive Director
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania
Kathy Black
PresidentPhiladelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women
Matthew Ray, Editor HX Philadelphia
Rue Landau, Co-Chair Liberty City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club
Ray Murphy, Co-Chair Liberty City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club
Victor Seltzer, PhD, Executive Director, The Colours OrganizationRita Urwitz, Vice PresidentAFSCME, Local 2186AFSCME, DC 47 Nurit Shein Executive Director Mazzoni CenterJohn Cunningham
Rev. Jeffery Haskins Unity Fellowship Church
Rick Feely, Project Director Trans-health Information Project (TIP), Prevention Point Philadelphia Jacinto J. GrantThe Attic Youth Center, Inc.
Erika T. Garnett-Wootson, Special Education Teacher Gay/Straight Alliance Coordinator for M.L.King H.S. in the School District of Philadelphia
Ben Singer Activist
Stephen Williams
Carolyn Natrin Secretary, OutFont!R Perry Monastero, Ed.D.
Yes, and it's more important to make sure tax-paying, law-abiding, LGBT citizens aren't able to adopt or foster children based solely on orientation. As we have seen time and again, depraved hets make the news far too often engaging in heinous behavior like this -- certainly no one would ever say ban all straight people from caregiving for the acts of a few sick people like this. (ABC):
In these photos provided by Lancaster Police Department, shown are James Gordon Dickinson, 61, and Stephanie Lutz Dickinson, 57, who were charged Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2007 with false imprisonment, recklessly endangering others and endangering children's welfare. Five adopted children and two care-dependent women were locked inside a Lancaster, Pa., basement, weren't adequately fed and were forced to endure improper sanitation by the couple being paid $9,000 a month to care for them, police said. Stephanie Dickinson also was charged with witness intimidation.
...The Dickinsons' house rules kept the seven from the basement refrigerator without permission, required them to drink water from the sink, limited radio and television to Christian stations, banned going outside without permission and punished noisemaking with spankings using a spatula or wooden paddle, police said. In general, they were not allowed upstairs.
Should we hold our collective breath waiting for a press release from Focus on the Anus, Concerned Women for America, or AFATH on this couple?
Philadelphia City Council voted today to terminate the 1928 ordinance granting the Boy Scouts? Cradle of Liberty Council rent-free use of a building in Philadelphia due to its practice of sexual orientation discrimination. The resolution gave the Boy Scouts the option of changing its practice of excluding gay scouts or leaders, or paying fair-market rent for the use of the building.
Philadelphia City Councilman Darrell Clarke introduced the resolution which passed with only one vote opposing the ordinance's termination. The resolution was based upon the local Boy Scouts' implementation of the national organizations' discriminatory policy prohibiting gay people from participating in scouting.
The resolution states, ?The City of Philadelphia's Home Rule Charter and the City's Fair Practices Ordinance reflect broad City policy abhorring discrimination and the Boy Scouts' policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law?.[T]he City's ongoing subsidy of a discriminatory organization through the allowance of free use of a building is directly contrary to the City's policy and practice of refusing to support discrimination, and of ensuring non-discriminatory access to City benefits."
Equality Advocates Pennsylvania worked with a group of concerned citizens to address the Boy Scout's free use of the building. "Equality Advocates Pennsylvania is pleased that the Philadelphia City Council has taken a strong stand against sexual orientation discrimination. We recognize the value of the Boy Scouts programs to some young people. They, however, should not be able to use taxpayers' dollars to discriminate against others," said Stacey Sobel, Equality Advocates' Executive Director.
Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of Pennsylvania, believes that protecting marriage is the number-one issue facing the state and nation. She says liberal voters want to focus on property tax relief and healthcare as more important issues than defending traditional marriage. However, Gramley points out that "none of those things matter if we let the foundation of society go into ruin -- and I feel we need to deal with that first before the other issues."
In these photos provided by Lancaster Police Department, shown are James Gordon Dickinson, 61, and Stephanie Lutz Dickinson, 57, who were charged Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2007 with false imprisonment, recklessly endangering others and endangering children's welfare. Five adopted children and two care-dependent women were locked inside a Lancaster, Pa., basement, weren't adequately fed and were forced to endure improper sanitation by the couple being paid $9,000 a month to care for them, police said. Stephanie Dickinson also was charged with witness intimidation.
