ReportWire

Tag: brand safety-nsf mature

  • This community’s quarter century without a newborn shows the scale of Japan’s population crisis | CNN

    This community’s quarter century without a newborn shows the scale of Japan’s population crisis | CNN


    Tokyo
    CNN
     — 

    When Kentaro Yokobori was born almost seven years ago, he was the first newborn in the Sogio district of Kawakami village in 25 years. His birth was like a miracle for many villagers.

    Well-wishers visited his parents Miho and Hirohito for more than a week – nearly all of them senior citizens, including some who could barely walk.

    “The elderly people were very happy to see [Kentaro], and an elderly lady who had difficulty climbing the stairs, with her cane, came to me to hold my baby in her arms. All the elderly people took turns holding my baby,” Miho recalled.

    During that quarter century without a newborn, the village population shrank by more than half to just 1,150 – down from 6,000 as recently as 40 years ago – as younger residents left and older residents died. Many homes were abandoned, some overrun by wildlife.

    Kawakami is just one of the countless small rural towns and villages that have been forgotten and neglected as younger Japanese head for the cities. More than 90% of Japanese now live in urban areas like Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto – all linked by Japan’s always-on-time Shinkansen bullet trains.

    That has left rural areas and industries like agriculture, forestry, and farming facing a critical labor shortage that will likely get worse in the coming years as the workforce ages. By 2022, the number of people working in agriculture and forestry had declined to 1.9 million from 2.25 million 10 years earlier.

    Yet the demise of Kawakami is emblematic of a problem that goes far beyond the Japanese countryside.

    The problem for Japan is: people in the cities aren’t having babies either.

    “Time is running out to procreate,” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told a recent press conference, a slogan that seems so far to have fallen short of inspiring the city dwelling majority of the Japanese public.

    Amid a flood of disconcerting demographic data, he warned earlier this year the country was “on the brink of not being able to maintain social functions.”

    The country saw 799,728 births in 2022, the lowest number on record and barely more than half the 1.5 million births it registered in 1982. Its fertility rate – the average number of children born to women during their reproductive years – has fallen to 1.3 – far below the 2.1 required to maintain a stable population. Deaths have outpaced births for more than a decade.

    And in the absence of meaningful immigration – foreigners accounted for just 2.2% of the population in 2021, according to the Japanese government, compared to 13.6% in the United States – some fear the country is hurtling toward the point of no return, when the number of women of child-bearing age hits a critical low from which there is no way to reverse the trend of population decline.

    All this has left the leaders of the world’s third-largest economy facing the unenviable task of trying to fund pensions and health care for a ballooning elderly population even as the workforce shrinks.

    Up against them are the busy urban lifestyles and long working hours that leave little time for Japanese to start families and the rising costs of living that mean having a baby is simply too expensive for many young people. Then there are the cultural taboos that surround talking about fertility and patriarchal norms that work against mothers returning to work.

    Doctor Yuka Okada, the director of Grace Sugiyama Clinic in Tokyo, said cultural barriers meant talking about a woman’s fertility was often off limits.

    “(People see the topic as) a little bit embarrassing. Think about your body and think about (what happens) after fertility. It is very important. So, it’s not embarrassing.”

    Okada is one of the rare working mothers in Japan who has a highly successful career after childbirth. Many of Japan’s highly educated women are relegated to part-time or retail roles – if they reenter the workforce at all. In 2021, 39% of women workers were in part-time employment, compared to 15% of men, according to the OECD.

    Tokyo is hoping to address some of these problems, so that working women today will become working mothers tomorrow. The metropolitan government is starting to subsidize egg freezing, so that women have a better chance of a successful pregnancy if they decide to have a baby later in life.

    New parents in Japan already get a “baby bonus” of thousands of dollars to cover medical costs. For singles? A state sponsored dating service powered by Artificial Intelligence.

    Kaoru Harumashi works on cedar wood to make a barrel.

    Whether such measures can turn the tide, in urban or rural areas, remains to be seen. But back in the countryside, Kawakami village offers a precautionary tale of what can happen if demographic declines are not reversed.

    Along with its falling population, many of its traditional crafts and ways of life are at risk of dying out.

    Among the villagers who took turns holding the young Kentaro was Kaoru Harumashi, a lifelong resident of Kawakami village in his 70s. The master woodworker has formed a close bond with the boy, teaching him how to carve the local cedar from surrounding forests.

    “He calls me grandpa, but if a real grandpa lived here, he wouldn’t call me grandpa,” he said. “My grandson lives in Kyoto and I don’t get to see him often. I probably feel a stronger affection for Kentaro, whom I see more often, even though we are not related by blood.”

    Both of Harumashi’s sons moved away from the village years ago, like many other young rural residents do in Japan.

    “If the children don’t choose to continue living in the village, they will go to the city,” he said.

    When the Yokoboris moved to Kawakami village about a decade ago, they had no idea most residents were well past retirement age. Over the years, they’ve watched older friends pass away and longtime community traditions fall by the wayside.

    “There are not enough people to maintain villages, communities, festivals, and other ward organizations, and it is becoming impossible to do so,” Miho said.

    “The more I get to know people, I mean elderly people, the more I feel sadness that I have to say goodbye to them. Life is actually going on with or without the village,” she said. “At the same time, it is very sad to see the surrounding, local people dwindling away.”

    Kaoru Harumashi is a lifelong villager. Kentaro calls him grandpa.

    If that sounds depressing, perhaps it’s because in recent years, Japan’s battle to boost the birthrate has given few reasons for optimism.

    Still, a small ray of hope may just be discernible in the story of the Yokoboris. Kentaro’s birth was unusual not only because the village had waited so long, but because his parents had moved to the countryside from the city – bucking the decades old trend in which the young increasingly plump for the 24/7 convenience of Japanese city life.

    Some recent surveys suggest more young people like them are considering the appeals of country life, lured by the low cost of living, clean air, and low stress lifestyles that many see as vital to having families. One study of residents in the Tokyo area found 34% of respondents expressed an interest in moving to a rural area, up from 25.1% in 2019. Among those in their 20s, as many as 44.9% expressed an interest.

    The Yokoboris say starting a family would have been far more difficult – financially and personally – if they still lived in the city.

    Their decision to move was triggered by a Japanese national tragedy twelve years ago. On March 11, 2011, an earthquake shook the ground violently for several minutes across much of the country, triggering tsunami waves taller than a 10-story building that devastated huge swaths of the east coast and caused a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

    Miho was an office worker in Tokyo at the time. She remembers feeling helpless as daily life in Japan’s largest city fell apart.

    “Everyone was panicking, so it was like a war, although I have never experienced a war. It was like having money but not being able to buy water. All the transportation was closed, so you couldn’t use it. I felt very weak,” she recalled.

    The tragedy was a moment of awakening for Miho and Hirohito, who was working as a graphic designer at the time.

    “The things I had been relying on suddenly felt unreliable, and I felt that I was actually living in a very unstable place. I felt that I had to secure such a place by myself,” he said.

    The couple found that place in one of Japan’s most remote areas, Nara prefecture. It is a land of majestic mountains and tiny townships, tucked away along winding roads beneath towering cedar trees taller than most of the buildings.

    They quit their jobs in the city and moved to a simple mountain house, where they run a small bed and breakfast. He learned the art of woodworking and specializes in producing cedar barrels for Japanese sake breweries. She is a full-time homemaker. They raise chickens, grow vegetables, chop wood, and care for Kentaro, who’s about to enter the first grade.

    The big question, for both Kawakami village and the rest of Japan: Is Kentaro’s birth a sign of better times to come – or a miracle birth in a dying way of life.

    Source link

  • New Mexico governor signs bill protecting access to reproductive and gender-affirming care into law | CNN Politics

    New Mexico governor signs bill protecting access to reproductive and gender-affirming care into law | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Thursday signed into law a bill that prohibits local municipalities and other public bodies from inferring with a person’s ability to access reproductive or gender-affirming health care services.

    HB7, the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, also prohibits any public body from imposing laws, ordinances, policies or regulations that prevent patients from receiving reproductive or gender-affirming care.

    The move comes in the wake of the reversal of federal abortion rights last year and as several states have enacted measures to prevent minors from accessing gender-affirming care.

    Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.

    “New Mexicans in every corner of our state deserve protections for their bodily autonomy and right to health care,” Lujan Grisham said in a media release. “I’m grateful for the hard work of the Legislature and community partners in getting this critical legislation across the finish line.”

    Each violation of the law can result in a fine of $5,000 or damages, if the amount is greater, according to the bill.

    The law follows ordinances that several municipalities in the state had previously passed related to abortion care access after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.

    While abortion is legal in New Mexico, several GOP-led states have introduced or enacted measures restricting abortion, including Texas and Oklahoma, which have banned the procedure at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. In response, New Mexico, which neighbors both states, allocated $10 million to build a new abortion clinic near the Texas border.

    Several other Democratic-controlled states have moved to reaffirm reproductive care in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.

    Minnesota’s Democratic governor signed a bill into law earlier this year that enshrined the “fundamental right” to access abortion in the state. Last year, California passed several bills expanding abortion access, including protections for abortion providers and patients seeking abortion care in the state from civil action started in another state.

    As states move to enact measures, new legal challenges could further complicate abortion access in a post-Roe America.

    A federal court in Texas heard arguments this week to block the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in a medication abortion, which made up more than half of US abortions in 2020, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Though the Trump-appointed judge has not issued a ruling, he suggested during arguments that he is seriously considering undoing the FDA’s approval.

    Also at risk is access to gender-affirming care for trans youth, which LGBTQ advocates have long stressed is life-saving health care.

    So far this year, lawmakers in Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah and South Dakota have enacted legislation to restrict minors’ access to such care.

    Additionally, more than 80 bills seeking to restrict access to gender-affirming care have been introduced around the country through early last month, according to data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union and shared with CNN.

    Source link

  • 19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    The Wild West of the post-Roe v. Wade legal landscape is focused on a lone federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, who could use a 19th century law to limit access to abortion medication for every American woman.

    The judge, 45-year-old Matthew Kacsmaryk, held a hearing Wednesday about whether he should impose a preliminary injunction that would require the US Food and Drug Administration to withdraw or suspend its approval of the drug, mifepristone, while a larger case progresses.

    Mifepristone is taken along with another drug, misoprostol, as part of the two-step medication abortion process. Misoprostol can be prescribed on its own, but it is considered less effective.

    Kacsmaryk, who sounded open to the idea of restricting access to mifepristone, will have to agree with some or all of these general points raised if he decides to issue an injunction:

    • That doctors who don’t perform abortions and live in Texas, where abortions are already banned, are harmed by abortions conducted elsewhere.
    • That an FDA approval conducted over the course of four years and finalized 23 years ago was so flawed that it should be rescinded.
    • That a single federal judge in Amarillo should do what no federal judge has ever done and unilaterally rescind an FDA approval.
    • That a drug, which studies suggest is on par with ibuprofen in terms of safety, is actually so harmful it should be reconsidered by the FDA.

    CNN’s Tierney Sneed wrote a longer list of takeaways from the hearing, where anti-abortion rights doctors and activist groups teed up their lawsuit in Kacsmaryk’s courtroom to further limit access to abortion care in the US.

    It’s important to note that no matter what Kacsmaryk does, it will be appealed up through the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially to the Supreme Court.

    But perhaps the most incredible question Kacsmaryk faces is whether an 1870s chastity law named for an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, should be resuscitated and applied to the medicine that now accounts for a majority of US abortions.

    Comstock operated the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and was a special agent of the US Postal Service. He was known for seizing contraband like contraceptives and condoms in the name of rooting out obscenity, according to the New York Historical Society.

    Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who has written about the Comstock Act for CNN Opinion, described Comstock as being “obsessed by what he saw as the decaying morals of a country preoccupied with sex.”

    Ziegler writes:

    The law he inspired barred not just the mailing of “obscene books” but also birth control and abortion drugs and devices. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Comstock Act was used to prohibit the mailing of many literary classics, from Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” to works by James Joyce and Walt Whitman.

    Comstock himself proudly carried a gun and scoured the mail for cases involving information about abortion or contraception, even if a doctor provided it. By Comstock’s standard, the law was a great success: he claimed to have destroyed 15 tons of books, arrested more than 4,000 people and driven at least 15 people to suicide.

    While Congress has acted to relax elements of the Comstock Act, including to allow the mailing of contraceptives, it is still technically on the books with regard to the mailing of anything that could be used for an abortion.

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDA dropped its requirement that a person obtain mifepristone in person. A prescription is still required.

    In December, the Department of Justice notified the US Postal Service that the Comstock Act did not apply as long as “the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.”

    The FDA permanently removed the in-person requirement in January, hoping to guarantee more access to the medication after the Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade last June.

    The group that brought the Texas lawsuit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, wants to reapply the Comstock Act and restrict the mailing of abortion medication.

    The FDA’s already exhaustive and detailed drug approval process was especially scrutinized for mifepristone, which was more commonly known as part of the RU-486 regimen when it became available to American women at the turn of the century.

    It had been available in Europe for a dozen years before that. Here’s CNN’s report from September 2000.

    That the drug works safely as a means of abortion is not really up for dispute as a medical matter after all that time, according to CNN’s Jen Christensen, who explains more about the medication in this article about mifepristone.

    Another CNN data analysis suggests mifepristone is safer than penicillin and Viagra.

    Mifepristone has a death rate of 0.0005% – five deaths for every 1 million people in the US who used it. Penicillin’s death rate is four times greater. Viagra’s is 10 times greater, according to the analysis by CNN’s Annette Choi and Will Mullery.

    Kacsmaryk had a long history of challenging laws providing greater access to reproductive rights before he became a federal judge. While he has promised to be an impartial judge, every Democrat and one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, opposed his nomination in 2019.

    Now Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge at the courthouse in Amarillo, which almost guarantees he hears cases filed there.

    So it may be no coincidence that the group challenging use of mifepristone set up an outpost months before filing its lawsuit. The group is based in Tennessee, but one of the doctors named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit practices near Amarillo.

    However one feels about judicial shopping and whether that happened in this case, the word appears to be out that a conservative judge is alone in Amarillo and open for business.

    According to a CNN profile, Kacsmaryk has also put on hold Biden administration policies related to immigration and overseen cases related to vaccine requirements and gender identity. Last December, he halted a federal program in Texas that allowed minors to get birth control without their parents’ consent.

    That suit regarding the birth control program established in 1970 was brought by a Texas father “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality,” which he said forbids premarital sex.

    Kacsmaryk agreed, even citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church in his decision to say “contraception (just like abortion) violates traditional tenets of many faiths, including the Christian faith Plaintiff practices.”

    His sister described him to The Washington Post as an anti-abortion rights activist and detailed her own decision to give a child up for adoption rather than seek an abortion.

    “He’s very passionate about the fact that you can’t preach pro-life and do nothing,” Jennifer Griffith told the Post. “We both hold the stance of you have to do something. You can’t not.”

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Texas hearing on medication abortion drugs | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from the Texas hearing on medication abortion drugs | CNN Politics


    Amarillo, Texas
    CNN
     — 

    Over the course of about four hours of arguments, a federal judge in Texas asked questions that suggested he is seriously considering undoing the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a medication abortion drug and the agency’s moves to relax the rules around its use.

    But the judge, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, also indicated he was thinking through scenarios in which he could keep the drug’s 2000 approval intact while blocking other FDA rules.

    Anti-abortion doctors and medical associations are seeking a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA to withdraw or suspend its approval of the drug, mifepristone, and that would block the agency’s more recent regulatory changes making the pills more accessible.

    Here are takeaways from the hearing:

    Kacsmaryk showed a particular interest in the arguments by the abortion opponents that the FDA approved mifepristone in an unlawful way.

    He zeroed in on a claim by the abortion foes that the studies that the FDA looked at when deciding whether to approve the drug did not match the conditions under which the agency allows it to be administered.

    Erik Baptist, attorney for the challengers, alleged that those studies all featured patients who received ultrasounds before being treated with the drug, which is not among the FDA’s requirements for prescribing abortion pills. Baptist accused the FDA of “examining oranges and declaring apples to be safe.”

    Kacsmaryk returned to that “apples to oranges” argument several times throughout the hearing.

    Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei defended the FDA’s approach, arguing that the relevant law gives the FDA discretion to determine what studies are adequate for approving a drug’s safety. He also said the challengers’ claims were factually flawed, because the FDA also was looking at studies where the patients did not receive an ultrasound.

    Kacsmaryk was similarly focused on a claim by the plaintiffs that the FDA violated the law in the special, accelerated process that it used to approve mifepristone in 2000.

    At one point the judge revealed in the hearing that he had downloaded a list of the other drugs the FDA had approved through the process. He ticked through the list of drugs, which were made up mostly of treatments for HIV and cancer, and he asked the Justice Department for its “best argument” for why mifepristone fit into the list.

    One of the sharpest questions from the judge was whether the anti-abortion activists could point to another analogous case when a court intervened in the way he is being asked to intervene here.

    Baptist conceded there was none and blamed FDA delays in addressing citizen petitions and challenges. Later in the hearing, Baptist raised other times the FDA had suspended or withdrawn drugs based on court cases in other contexts, arguing those cases showed that Kascmaryk had the authority to grant the plaintiffs’ request.

    Attorneys for the defendants – which include both the FDA and a drug company that manufactures mifepristone and intervened in the case – pushed back on those examples. They said that the plaintiffs were relying on patent cases, where the dispute was between a brand name drug and a generic counterpart, and those examples were not analogous here.

    The medication abortion lawsuit targets actions the FDA took around medication abortion pills before last summer’s Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade’s abortion rights protections.

    While that decision, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, didn’t play a major role in Wednesday’s arguments, the judge referenced it and suggested it could have an impact on his thinking about the case.

    He brought up Dobbs early on in the hearing and raised it specifically in connection with a friend of the court brief filed by 22 GOP-led states supporting the challengers.

    The judge noted that the red states’ brief argued that the FDA’s actions were infringing on their state laws concerning abortion pills.

    He asked Erin Hawley, an attorney for the challengers, whether Dobbs was an “intervening event” that has “changed the landscape” around the relationship between state and federal government concerning abortion policy.

    Hawley agreed, calling it a “sea change.”

    If Kacsmaryk has any sore feelings over the blow up around his efforts to keep Wednesday’s hearing plans quiet, he didn’t show them at the proceedings.

    When questioning both sides of the case, Kacsmaryk had a restrained, straight-forward tone. He had occasional follow-up questions for the plaintiffs, but did not aggressively push back on their arguments. The substance of his questions for the FDA’s defenders was more skeptical, but he kept with the measured approach in his questioning, and avoided any pushiness when grilling the government and the drug company about the approval process.

    At the end of the hearing, he thanked the parties, as well as those who filed dozens of friend of the courts briefs, for their “superb” briefing. He also acknowledged the logistical hurdles the lawyers at the hearing went through to get to his courthouse in Amarillo, which is a several hours’ drive from Texas’ biggest cities.

    Left unmentioned by the judge was the fact that he tried to delay the announcement of the hearing until the evening before, which would have made it difficult for members of the public and the media to attend Wednesday’s proceedings. When there was blowback to The Washington Post reporting about his plan – laid out in a private teleconference with attorneys where he pointed to death threats and harassment that had been directed to the courthouse staff – he announced the hearing on Monday.

    The courtroom was open to the public, but only with limited seating: 19 seats for reporters and 19 for members of the public. By 6 a.m. CT Wednesday there were already lines outside the courtroom to claim those seats. Those attendees were not allowed to bring electronics in with them, and if they left the courthouse, they were not allowed back in.

    Kacsmaryk warned at the beginning of the hearing that anyone who disrupted the proceedings would be immediately removed without warning. But there were no such disruptions.

    Kacsmaryk wrapped up the hearing without any explicit timeline for when he’ll rule, telling the parties he would issue an order and opinion “as soon as possible.”

    While he was arguing, Schwei, the DOJ attorney, requested that the judge – if he were to rule against the FDA – to immediately put that ruling on pause so it could be appealed. The judge stopped short of promising an automatic stay in the event of an adverse ruling, but he acknowledged he understood what DOJ was asking for.

    An appeal would first go to a panel of three judges of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most conservative appeals court in the country. The panel’s decision could then be appealed either to the full 5th Circuit or the US Supreme Court.

    Beyond these procedural questions, Kacsmaryk seemed to be grappling with the practical impact of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. He asked plaintiffs’ attorneys, the DOJ lawyers and the attorneys for the drug company Danco whether it would be possible for him to block some but not all of the FDA actions the challengers were targeting. He returned to the question again when the plaintiffs were back up for the rebuttal.

    He also pressed Baptist, the attorney for the abortion opponents, on whether the plaintiffs were seeking an order that the FDA begin the withdrawal of the drug – a process that would take months – or if they thought the judge could directly take if off the market.

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Kamala Harris to make first trip to Iowa since becoming vice president | CNN Politics

    First on CNN: Kamala Harris to make first trip to Iowa since becoming vice president | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday will make her first trip to Iowa since taking office for an abortion rights event, a White House official told CNN.

    Harris will travel to Des Moines to convene a roundtable with local leaders about the fight to protect reproductive rights.

    The last-minute, high-profile trip comes after flurry of activity from Republicans presidential hopefuls who’ve descended on the early caucus state, like former President and current candidate Donald Trump and potential 2024 GOP candidate Ron DeSantis. GOP politicians have begun to woo caucus-goers who favor personal politicking, as the state is set to play its traditional role in kicking off the party’s 2024 nominating contest.

    President Joe Biden, who is expected to launch a 2024 reelection bid, has been absent from the state after urging national Democrats to replace Iowa first-in-the-nation caucuses with South Carolina, a primary state where the majority of Democratic voters are Black, which propelled him to the nomination in 2020. The Democratic National Committee adopted the president’s changes last month but the vice president’s visit to Iowa underscores how Democrats do not intend to fully abandon the state, despite its Republican-leaning trends.

    Harris’ trip will also come a day after a federal judge overseeing a challenge to the federal government’s approval of a medication abortion drug will hold a hearing in the case. The vice president has become the Biden administration’s lead messenger on the issue after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

    This week, she slammed attacks on medication abortion and warned that preventing doctors from prescribing mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process, could have wider ramifications.

    “But if extremists and politicians can override FDA approval and remove one medication from the shelves – in this case, abortion medication – one must ask: What medication is next?” Harris said in a recent press call with local media and coalition outlets.

    Harris has held dozens of events on access to abortion care since last year, meeting with activists and state lawmakers about abortion rights in deep red and swing states.

    Recently, Iowa State House Republicans introduced a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, determining that life begins at conception. Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled last year that the state Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion, clearing the way for the state’s Republican legislative majority to potentially enact stricter abortion measures.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    Source link

  • Ex-Garcetti aide says former LA mayor ‘unfit to become an ambassador’ | CNN Politics

    Ex-Garcetti aide says former LA mayor ‘unfit to become an ambassador’ | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A former Eric Garcetti aide, who has accused the former Los Angeles mayor of ignoring allegations of sexual harassment during his time in office, said Monday that he is “unfit” to become US ambassador to India amid his embattled nomination.

    “He is unfit to become an ambassador or really to hold public office anywhere in this country or this world,” Naomi Seligman, a former communication’s director for Garcetti, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead.”

    CNN reported last year that the initial nomination of Garcetti, a Democrat, by President Joe Biden had faced headwinds over concerns centered on accusations that he had ignored alleged sexual harassment and bullying. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved his nomination for a second time last week, with two Republicans voting with Democrats in favor of advancing Garcetti to the Senate floor.

    Notably, a key Democratic holdout – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York – said she would support the nomination after expressing confidence in the review of Garcetti conducted by the foreign relations panel.

    Seligman, a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat, said she briefed nearly a third of the Senate on the alleged misconduct in Garcetti’s office, and called it “devastating” to see lawmakers from her party push on with his nomination.

    “Unfortunately, the White House has put undue pressure on Democrats to vote for Eric Garcetti because Eric Garcetti has been a very, very loyal person to President Biden, and that’s unfortunate,” she told Tapper. “These senators that purport to support #MeToo cannot just do it when it’s politically expedient. They have to do it when it matters, even if it’s your own political party.”

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, when asked last week about the nomination, said Garcetti is “well qualified to serve in this vital role” and urged the Senate to move forward to confirm him.

    “The president nominated him because he thought he had the experience to be the US ambassador to India,” Jean-Pierre said.

    Throughout the lengthy process of Senate consideration of Garcetti’s nomination, the White House has stood steadfastly behind the former Los Angeles mayor. Garcetti has repeatedly denied any knowledge of the allegations and has met personally with senators in an effort to clear a path to confirmation.

    The White House did not have an immediate comment on Seligman’s interview.

    Seligman on Monday detailed her time serving in Garcetti’s office, saying she was present when Garcetti witnessed his onetime deputy chief of staff and longtime political adviser “touch people, hug people, kiss people.”

    “We were in a work environment where sexual harassment and abuse was tolerated, enabled and ubiquitous. It was as common as checking your texts,” she told Tapper. “It was a very hard, disappointing and toxic environment where Mayor Garcetti enabled, tolerated and at times laughed about the abuse by his top aide and confidant, Rick Jacobs.”

    Jacobs stepped down from his political work for Garcetti in the fall of 2020 – several months after a lawsuit was filed against him and the city by LAPD Officer and former Garcetti bodyguard Matthew Garza, who alleged Jacobs made “crude sexual remarks” and inappropriately touched him, The Los Angeles Times reported last year. Jacobs has previously denied harassing anyone and that civil lawsuit is ongoing.

    As the allegations were being investigated, Seligman alleged in a deposition that Jacobs had repeatedly harassed her while she worked at City Hall from 2015 to 2017, according to a staff report from Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office last year. She stated that Jacobs’ conduct included “unwanted hugs, kisses (and) sexual comments.” One incident included “a prolonged kiss on the lips without her consent in front of several staff members,” the report stated.

    CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect that Seligman was referring to the #MeToo movement in a reference to support from Democratic senators.

    Source link

  • Media outlets urge judge to announce his plans for a hearing in blockbuster medication abortion case | CNN Politics

    Media outlets urge judge to announce his plans for a hearing in blockbuster medication abortion case | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Several media organizations asked a federal judge on Monday to publicly announce his plans to hold a hearing Wednesday in a blockbuster medication abortion case after the judge reportedly moved to keep the hearing under wraps.

    “Across the ideological spectrum, the public is intensely interested in this case,” the organizations wrote in their letter to US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

    The case concerns a challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors and medical associations to the federal government’s 2000 approval of a drug used to terminate pregnancies. Medication abortion is the most common method of abortion in the United States.

    “The Court’s delayed docketing of notice of Wednesday’s hearing, and its request to the parties and their counsel not to disclose the hearing schedule publicly, harm everyone, including those who support the plaintiffs’ position and those who support the defendants’ position,” the media outlets added.

    At 7 weeks pregnant she wanted an abortion. Here’s why she turned to a doctor in Austria

    The letter pointed to reporting by The Washington Post on Saturday that said on Friday, Kacsmaryk held a private phone call with the lawyers in the case and told them he was scheduling a hearing for Wednesday but not announcing those plans on the case’s docket until Tuesday evening. The judge reportedly told the lawyers not to publicize the hearing plans in the meantime.

    Kacsmaryk is currently considering the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would “withdrawal or suspend” that approval while the lawsuit plays out.

    If the judge grants the request to block access to the drug nationwide, it could make the pills harder to obtain even in states where medication abortion is legal.

    The media outlets told Kacsmaryk that the “Court’s attempt to delay notice of and, therefore, limit the ability of members of the public, including the press, to attend Wednesday’s hearing is unconstitutional, and undermines the important values served by public access to judicial proceedings and court records.”

    Kacsmaryk’s courtroom is in Amarillo, Texas – a division in the northern Texas panhandle that is a several hours’ drive from Texas’ biggest cities and accessible only by a limited number of direct flights.

    According to the Post, Kacsmaryk told the case’s lawyers he was holding off until Tuesday to announce the Wednesday hearing to limit the potential for protests and disruptions to the proceedings.

    “The Court cannot constitutionally close the courtroom indirectly when it cannot constitutionally close the courtroom directly,” the media outlets wrote.

    “The United States Supreme Court has made clear that, because of our historical tradition of public access to judicial proceedings, and because of the structural necessity of such access to ensure government transparency and accountability, the circumstances in which a courtroom can be closed without violating the First Amendment and common law rights of access are rare.”

    The organizations signing onto the letter are the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Washington Post, NBCUniversal News Group, ProPublica, Inc., Texas Press Association, The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, The Markup, and Gannett Co., Inc.

    Source link

  • China censors women modeling lingerie on livestream shopping — so men are doing it | CNN Business

    China censors women modeling lingerie on livestream shopping — so men are doing it | CNN Business


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Donning a sassy piece of silk lingerie, a male model grooves to the beat and forms a heart shape with his fingers during a livestreaming session on Douyin, one of China’s most popular video-sharing platforms.

    His modeling performance is the latest illustration of the kind of entrepreneurial innovation sometimes needed to bypass China’s rigorous internet censorship, a dragnet that can ensnare seemingly innocuous activities – in this case retailers selling women’s underwear online.

    China deploys one of the world’s most stringent censorship regimes, with a track record of blocking out not just politically sensitive information but images of women’s bodies deemed marginally racy.

    Several businesses specializing in selling lingerie through livestreaming have had their sessions cut short after they featured a female model and their brush with internet censorship came to light in January.

    Hence the use of men instead.

    On one of the sales channels, a man is seen dressed in black lingerie, standing next to a mannequin showing a similar outfit, in what appears to be a screenshot of a livestream broadcast on Alibaba

    (BABA)
    ’s Taobao Live, a streaming platform for the e-commerce giant.

    In another image, a different male model put on a pink slip dress and silky shawl, accessorized with cat ear headbands.

    In one livestream clip, carried by multiple state media outlets, an owner of an online venture said he was simply trying to play it safe.

    “This is not an attempt at sarcasm. Everyone is being very serious about complying with the rules,” the man, who identified himself as Mr Xu, said.

    The emergence of male lingerie models has caused mixed views online in China, from merriment and annoyance to reluctant acceptance.

    “So what should I do if I want to promote and showcase lingerie in the live broadcast session? It’s very simple, find a man to wear it,” read one comment on China’s microblogging site Weibo.

    A man in a mini slip dress and velvet robe models beside a woman in pajamas in a video posted on Douyin on February 17, 2023.

    Livestreaming sales of products is a multibillion-dollar industry in mainland China, and was given a major boost during the three years of the country’s strict Covid lockdowns that battered many bricks and mortar businesses.

    As of June last year, the number of livestreaming e-commerce users in mainland China is over 460 million, according to the Academy of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, a body affiliated with Beijing’s commerce ministry.

    A 2021 report by iResearch, a Beijing-based firm specializing in measuring audience growth online, predicted the livestream sector would be worth as much as $720 billion this year.

    Male models are not the only workaround.

    On Douyin, the Chinese domestic version of TikTok, other female models have circumvented the censorship by showcasing the latest style of lingerie on themselves on top of a t-shirt they are already wearing.

    Others displayed the items on mannequins.

    In 2015, China led a crackdown on television shows exposing actresses’ cleavage, forcing some of the most popular costume dramas to zoom in on their faces to avoid getting into trouble with the broadcast authorities.

    Having male influencers promoting female-oriented products is not new in China, either.

    One of the industry’s most successful livestream shopping influencers is Austin Li Jiaqi, who made his name as the “Lipstick King” after selling 15,000 lipsticks in just five minutes in 2018.

    As one of China’s biggest internet celebrities, Li also peddles cosmetics, skincare products and fashion apparel, often applying products he’s selling to his own face.

    Even outside of China, platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have faced criticism for restricting the sharing of images involving partial nudity, especially of women.

    Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta, restricts the sharing of breasts, although it says it intends “to allow images that are shared for medical or health purposes.” But even Meta’s own Oversight Board has called on the company to make its policy less confusing and more gender inclusive.

    YouTube says it prohibits “the depiction of clothed or unclothed genitals, breasts, or buttocks that are meant for sexual gratification,” but it may age-restrict other images or videos involving nudity.

    Source link

  • Washington Post: Judge keeps plans for medication abortion hearing out of public view for now | CNN Politics

    Washington Post: Judge keeps plans for medication abortion hearing out of public view for now | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge has set a hearing for next week in a blockbuster medication abortion case in Texas but took a series of highly unusual steps to delay making the public aware that such a hearing was being scheduled, The Washington Post reported.

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who is hearing the case, held a private call Friday with the case’s lawyers and scheduled the hearing for Wednesday, according to the Post. The call was not publicly noticed on the case’s docket, nor did the judge issue a public order announcing that Wednesday’s hearing had been scheduled. The case is not under seal.

    In the case, anti-abortion doctors are asking the judge – an appointee of former President Donald Trump – to undo the federal government’s 2000 approval of pills used to terminate a pregnancy. Such a move could cut off access nationwide to the most common method of abortion.

    Kacsmaryk told the lawyers on the call, according to the newspaper, that he would hold off on publicly announcing the Wednesday hearing until Tuesday evening, so as to limit disruptions and potential protests at the proceeding. He also asked that the attorneys on the call – which reportedly included the Justice Department’s lawyers who are defending the drug’s approval, lawyers for the anti-abortion activists who are challenging it, and lawyers for a company that distributes the drug and has intervened in the case – not to publicize the hearing plans before then.

    The judge’s efforts to limit transparency around Wednesday’s hearing comes in a case that has major implications for access to abortion and is arguably the biggest legal battle over the procedure since the Supreme Court overturned nationwide abortion protections in a ruling last June.

    Voicemails left by CNN on Sunday morning with the court’s clerk’s office and with Kacsmaryk’s chambers about the Post’s Saturday night report were not immediately returned.

    The case is unfolding in Amarillo – a far-flung court division in Texas’ northern panhandle that is a several hours’ drive from the state’s biggest cities and has only limited direct flight routes. Federal judicial proceedings typically play out in public.

    Source link

  • Manhattan DA says ‘focus is on the evidence and the law’ in probe of Trump hush money scheme | CNN Politics

    Manhattan DA says ‘focus is on the evidence and the law’ in probe of Trump hush money scheme | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    New York City prosecutors probing former President Donald Trump’s alleged role in a hush money scheme and cover-up are focused “on the evidence and the law,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said this weekend.

    Speaking on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation,” Bragg did not go into detail about what he called the “active investigation” but instead praised the “professionalism” of his prosecuting team.

    “We follow the facts. It doesn’t matter what party you are, it doesn’t matter your background. What did you do? And what does the law say?” Bragg said Saturday, adding that he’s “constrained from saying anything more than that because I don’t want to prejudice any investigation.”

    The investigation relates to a $130,000 payment made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels in late October 2016, days before the presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

    Manhattan prosecutors have invited the former president to appear before the grand jury investigating his alleged role in the payment and the cover-up, a person familiar with the matter previously said, indicating a decision on charging Trump may come soon.

    Trump was to meet with his legal team at Mar-a-Lago this weekend to consider his options and possibly decide whether to appear before the grand jury, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Hush money payments aren’t illegal. Prosecutors are weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization for how they reflected the reimbursement of the payment to Michael Cohen, Trump’s then-fixer who said he advanced the money to Daniels. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York.

    Prosecutors are also weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree for allegedly falsifying a record with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal another crime, which in this case could be a violation of campaign finance laws. That is a Class E felony, with a sentence minimum of one year and as much as four years.

    The Trump Organization noted the reimbursements as a legal expense in its internal books. Trump has denied knowledge of the payment.

    When asked what factors into a prosecutor’s decision to move forward in any case, Bragg said, “We’re looking at the facts and the law and the facts as they develop. We review documents, we talk to witnesses and so, yes, we live in this world, we may hear what this pundit says and we may hear all the commentary, but our focus is on the evidence and the law.”

    Trump would be the first former president ever indicted and the first major presidential candidate under indictment. He has said he “wouldn’t even think about leaving” the race if charged.

    Trump’s spokesperson last week said in a statement to CNN, “The Manhattan District Attorney’s threat to indict President Trump is simply insane. For the past five years, the DA’s office has been on a Witch Hunt, investigating every aspect of President Trump’s life, and they’ve come up empty at every turn – and now this.”

    In a lengthy post on his Truth Social account Thursday, Trump said in part, “I did absolutely nothing wrong, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels.”

    Bragg, however, said he doesn’t follow what is posted on social media and instead is “focusing on the work.”

    He said the $1.6 million fine the Trump Organization was ordered to pay in January for running a decade-long tax fraud scheme was an example of the professionalism of his office. Trump and his family were not charged in the case.

    “I thought that was consequential,” Bragg said. “The first time we’ve had that kind of a criminal conviction involving the Trump Organization. And it speaks to the rigor and the professionalism of the career prosecutors in my office.”

    Source link

  • What to know about NY prosecutors’ probe into Trump’s role in hush money scheme | CNN Politics

    What to know about NY prosecutors’ probe into Trump’s role in hush money scheme | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Manhattan prosecutors’ invitation to Donald Trump to testify in an investigation into a hush money scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels has thrust the yearslong probe into the spotlight as officials weigh whether to charge the former president.

    Prosecutors in District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office have asked Trump to appear before the grand jury investigating the matter.

    The request represents the clearest indication yet that investigators are nearing a decision on whether to take the unprecedented step of indicting a former president since potential defendants in New York are required by law to be notified and invited to appear before a grand jury weighing charges.

    Here’s what to know about the hush money investigation.

    The Manhattan DA’s investigation first began under Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance, when Trump was still in the White House. It relates to a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s then-personal attorney Michael Cohen to Daniels in late October 2016, days before the 2016 presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied the affair.

    At issue in the investigation is the payment made to Daniels and the Trump Organization’s reimbursement to Cohen.

    According to court filings in Cohen’s own federal prosecution, Trump Org. executives authorized payments to him totaling $420,000 to cover his original $130,000 payment and tax liabilities and reward him with a bonus.

    The Manhattan DA’s investigation has hung over Trump since his presidency, and is just one of several probes the former president is facing as he makes his third bid for the White House.

    Hush money payments aren’t illegal. Prosecutors are weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying the business records of the Trump Organization for how it reflected the reimbursement of the payment to Cohen, who said he advanced the money to Daniels. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York.

    Prosecutors are also weighing whether to charge Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree for falsifying a record with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal another crime, which in this case could be a violation of campaign finance laws. That is a Class E felony and carries a sentence of a minimum of one year and as much as four years. To prove the case, prosecutors would need to show Trump intended to commit a crime.

    The Trump Organization noted the reimbursements as a legal expense in its internal books. Trump has previously denied knowledge of the payment.

    If the district attorney’s office moves forward with charges, it would represent a rare moment in history: Trump would be the first former US president ever indicted and also the first major presidential candidate under indictment seeking office.

    The former president has said he “wouldn’t even think about leaving” the 2024 race if charged.

    A decision to bring charges would not be without risk or guarantee a conviction. Trump’s lawyers could challenge whether campaign finance laws would apply as a crime to make the case a felony, for instance.

    In a lengthy response on his Truth Social account Thursday night, Trump said in part, “I did absolutely nothing wrong, I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels.”

    Trump is meeting with his legal team this weekend to consider his options and possibly make a decision on whether to appear before the grand jury, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

    It’s not clear when Trump would need to make a decision on the grand jury invitation extended by Bragg’s office, nor whether there’s a firm deadline.

    An attorney for Trump said Friday that any prosecution related to hush money payments to an adult film star would be “completely unprecedented” and accused the Manhattan district attorney of targeting the former president for “political reasons and personal animus.”

    Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said in a statement shared with CNN that the campaign finance laws in this case, which is related to seven-year-old allegations, are “murky” and that the underlying legal theories of a possible case are “untested.”

    “This DA and the former DA have been scouring every aspect of President Trump’s personal life and business affairs for years in search of a crime and needs to stop. This is simply not what our justice system is about,” Tacopina said.

    Cohen, Trump’s onetime fixer, played a central role in the hush money episode and is involved in the investigation.

    He has admitted to paying $130,000 to Daniels to stop her from going public about the alleged affair with Trump just before the 2016 election. He also helped arrange a $150,000 payment from the publisher of the National Enquirer to Karen McDougal to kill her story claiming a 10-month affair with Trump. Trump also denies an affair with McDougal.

    Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to eight counts, including two counts of campaign-finance violations for orchestrating or making payments during the 2016 campaign.

    Cohen met with the Manhattan district attorney’s office on Friday and is set to appear Monday as well.

    Speaking to reporters has he walked into court Friday, Cohen said he has not yet testified in front of a grand jury.

    “I have to applaud District Attorney Bragg for giving Donald the opportunity to come in and to tell his story,” he said. “Now knowing Donald as well as I do, understand that, he doesn’t tell the truth. It’s one thing to turn around and to lie on your ‘Untruth Social’ and it’s another thing to turn around and to lie before a grand jury. So I don’t suspect that he’s going to be coming.”

    For her part, Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford, said in 2021 that she had not yet testified in the probe but that she would “love nothing more than” to be interviewed by prosecutors investigating the Trump Organization.

    Daniels said at the time that her attorney has been in contact with Manhattan and New York state investigators and that she has had meetings with them about other issues. She said if she were asked to talk to investigators or a grand jury she would “tell them everything I know.”

    She wrote a tell-all book in 2018 that described the alleged affair in graphic detail, with her then-attorney saying that the book was intended to prove her story about having sex with Trump is true.

    Bragg’s investigation has continued to move forward in recent months as it neared this latest development.

    Trump’s lawyer recently met with the district attorney’s office, one source told CNN. His legal team has been concerned with Bragg’s intentions because of recently ramped up activity at the grand jury, according to another source familiar with the matter.

    Former Trump White House aides Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway recently appeared before the grand jury. And CNN reported last month that Jeffrey McConney, the controller of the Trump Organization, would appear in front of the grand jury, according to people familiar with matter.

    McConney is one of the highest-ranking financial officers at the Trump Organization and has responsibility for its books and records.

    Trump’s attorneys would likely be offered a chance to persuade the DA’s team that an indictment is not warranted.

    Source link

  • Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics

    Judge says jury in E. Jean Carroll case can see ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and testimony of two other accusers | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge on Friday said that E. Jean Carroll, in her defamation case against former President Donald Trump, can use as evidence the testimony of two other sexual assault accusers as well as the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged about being able to grope women.

    US District Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Trump’s request that the judge block the accusers from testifying at trial. Trump also asked the judge to block the Access Hollywood tape from being played at the trial.

    Carroll, the former magazine columnist who sued Trump for defamation after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s, has indicated that she will call Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds, two women who came forward with allegations against Trump in 2016, as well as use their videotaped depositions.

    Stoynoff alleged Trump sexually assaulted her when she was reporting an article about Trump and his wife, Melania, for People magazine. Leeds alleged Trump groped her while they were on an airplane together. Trump has denied both allegations, as well as Carroll’s rape claims.

    In Friday’s opinion, the judge pointed to court rules passed by Congress in 1994 that say that that in a civil case “based on a party’s sexual assault,” evidence that the defendant committed any other sexual assault may be admitted in trial.

    The judge said that, even though Carroll’s case is a defamation case, she must prove Trump sexually assaulted her in order to prevail.

    “In consequence, this indeed is a case ‘based on’ a sexual assault even under the categorical approach,” said Kaplan, who sits on the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.

    The judge noted that Trump has publicly denied the accusations of the other women Carroll seeks to put on the stand and said that Trump is entitled to put those denials before the jury.

    Carroll is also seeking to introduce as evidence statements Trump made during the 2016 campaign about his accusers. Kaplan is deferring on ruling whether those statements are admissible.

    Trump’s lawyers had argued that the Access Hollywood tape was “irrelevant and highly prejudicial.” They argued that the testimony of the two other accusers “will offer no relevant or meaningful insight into the central question.”

    “We maintain the utmost confidence that our client will be vindicated at the upcoming trial,” Trump attorney Alina Habba said Friday.

    A spokesperson for Carroll’s lawyers declined to comment on the new ruling.

    The case is set to go to trial in April while awaiting a DC appeals court decision that could determine whether the case proceeds against Trump. Carroll also sued Trump for battery and defamation in a separate lawsuit under a new New York law. The judge has not determined whether the trials will be combined.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • US Chess Federation investigates grandmaster following accusations of sexual misconduct | CNN

    US Chess Federation investigates grandmaster following accusations of sexual misconduct | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    A chess grandmaster is under investigation by the game’s governing body in the US following accusations of sexual misconduct, according to the US Chess Federation.

    Two formal complaints were received last September by the federation regarding conduct by Grandmaster Alejandro Ramirez and the investigation “is ongoing,” the organization stated Thursday, adding that Ramirez’s membership has been suspended.

    The announcement comes after two-time US women’s chess champion Jennifer Shahade posted on social media on February 15, “Time’s up,” accompanied by a two-page statement saying she was assaulted by Ramirez two times “9 and 10 years ago.”

    Shahade wrote that she was speaking out now after other women had approached her with their own accounts of abuse by Ramirez.

    CNN has reached out to Ramirez for comment about the accusations through his lawyer Albert S. Watkins, who replied, “I have been directed to respect the confidentiality I was advised would purportedly attach to pending investigative undertakings.”

    The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the accusations, quoted Watkins as saying, “At some point we are all compelled to take pause and reflect on the reality that unsubstantiated, temporally aged, and concurrent use of social media to incite a ‘Me Too’ call-to-arms runs afoul of every constitutional safeguard we have always held so dear. Superimposing today’s mores on erroneous recitals of acts of yesteryear is a recipe for disaster for both the accused and the accuser.”

    Shahade told CNN she had notified the US Chess Federation and the prominent Saint Louis Chess Club – where Ramirez served as a resident Grandmaster – of the alleged transgressions in 2020. She again reported concerns about Ramirez in 2021 after learning of a separate allegation from a fellow chess player, she said.

    Since her tweet last month, Shahade told the Wall Street Journal and CNN that other women have told her about alleged experiences of abuse by Ramirez.

    US Chess said it “strongly respects the right of alleged victims to control when and to whom they tell their story. However, because US Chess did not receive complaints from, or sufficient information regarding, the allegations of the other women referenced in the WSJ article, we have not had the opportunity to investigate and consider those additional allegations. That process is underway.”

    The Wall Street Journal reports Ramirez has resigned from his post at the Saint Louis Chess Club.

    Ramirez had been a chess coach with Saint Louis University since the inception of the school’s chess program in 2016. A university spokesperson told CNN Thursday, “On February 16, at our request, the St. Louis Chess Club removed Ramirez as SLU’s coach. They have since assigned an interim coach to lead the team.”

    Shahade told CNN Thursday, “I am relieved to hear Alejandro Ramirez resigned from the chess club and SLU. It is high time for a new chess era where we do all we can to make women, girls and all children feel fully safe and welcome.”

    CNN has reached out to the Saint Louis Chess Club and the International Chess Federation (FIDE) for comment.

    According to the Saint Louis Chess Club website, Ramirez was a chess prodigy and a FIDE Master when he was 9 years old. Ramirez earned his Grandmaster title by the age of 15.

    Source link

  • Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend has lawsuits against golfer and trust | CNN

    Tiger Woods’ ex-girlfriend has lawsuits against golfer and trust | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Erica Herman, who was a longtime girlfriend of golfer Tiger Woods, has filed two separate complaints after the six-year relationship between the pair came to an end. Both filings were made to the circuit court in Martin County, Florida.

    The first suit, filed in October 2022, alleges a trust owned by Woods violated the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act by breaking the oral tenancy agreement. The filing states the actual damages “are likely to be measured in excess of $30,000,000.” Woods is not named as a defendant in the October lawsuit.

    In December, the trust filed a motion for the court to dismiss with prejudice in response to Herman’s complaint, alleging that the dispute between the two began when Woods broke off his relationship with Herman in October and informed her “that she was no longer welcome in” Woods’ home.

    It further states that the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the two required “confidential arbitration in all disputes between” Herman and Woods, and that Herman’s suit violates that agreement. A copy of the NDA is attached to Woods’ trust’s motion, but the publicly available version of that document is redacted entirely.

    A more recent complaint aimed at nullifying the NDA was served to Woods on Monday. Both cases are being brought by Fisher Potter Hodas, a Florida-based family law specialist. CNN reached out to Fisher Potter Hodas for further comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    CNN also reached out to Woods’ representatives for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    The October filing alleges that Woods’ Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust unlawfully brought Herman’s tenancy at the couple’s property on the Hobe Sound, Florida, to an end.

    The legal filing states, “the Defendant (Woods and his trust) elected to engage in ‘prohibited practices,’ i.e., self-help, causing… severe emotional damages to the Plaintiff. The prohibited practices were done intentionally, with premeditation, and with malice aforethought.”

    Specifically, the lawsuit claims “agents of the Defendant” told Herman “to pack a suitcase for a short vacation” before revealing to her that she had been locked out of the house on arrival at the airport. It claims lawyers for the trust were on hand to “confront” Herman with “proposals to resolve the wrongdoing they were in the midst of committing.”

    The filing also alleges that agents of Woods and the trust have since removed Herman’s belongings from the property and “misappropriated” over $40,000 of her cash.

    The NDA was signed in August 2017 according to the court filing, but Herman believes it is “invalid and unenforceable.”

    It notes that during litigation, a trust controlled by Woods commenced an arbitration against Herman based on the NDA, thus expressing its belief that the agreement remains valid.

    The filing asks for the “purported arbitration clause” in the NDA be deemed unenforceable under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Of Sexual Assault And Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 and the federal Speak Out Act.

    The former bill, coming into public law in March 2022, “invalidates arbitration agreements that preclude a party from filing a lawsuit in court involving sexual assault or sexual harassment, at the election of the party alleging such conduct,” according to Congress’ website.

    The Speak Out Act became public law in December 2022 and “prohibits the judicial enforceability of a nondisclosure clause or nondisparagement clause agreed to before a dispute arises involving sexual assault or sexual harassment.”

    The filing does not accuse Woods of sexual assault or sexual harassment. In a civil cover sheet appended to the October suit, Herman’s attorney indicated “no” when asked whether the case “involves allegations of sexual abuse.”

    Source link

  • Michigan Senate votes to repeal 1931 abortion ban | CNN Politics

    Michigan Senate votes to repeal 1931 abortion ban | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Michigan state Senate on Wednesday voted to repeal the state’s 1931 abortion ban as well as its sentencing guidelines.

    The bills were passed 20-18, along party lines in the Democratic-controlled Senate after passing the House last week and were sent to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her signature. Democrats control the governor’s office and the state legislature for the first time in four decades.

    Whitmer has been a vocal supporter of abortion rights, using the issue as a driving force in her 2022 reelection campaign. The governor filed a lawsuit against several county prosecutors in her state last year in an attempt to prevent the 1931 ban from taking effect after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    The Michigan law, which was invalidated by the 1973 high court decision but remained on the state’s books, prohibits abortions even in cases of rape or incest, except to preserve the woman’s life.

    Michigan state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks previously told CNN one of the first priorities of the new legislature would be to repeal the ban that was put back in play after the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer.

    In September, a state court declared the abortion ban unconstitutional and blocked it from being enforced, allowing abortion to remain legal in the state.

    Michigan voters enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution during the midterms, a move that was intended to help block the ban from taking effect.

    But reproductive rights advocates see the bills’ passage through the legislature as “major step forward.”

    “This is proof positive that elections matter,” Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “Michiganders made clear in the midterms that they overwhelmingly support reproductive freedom, and repealing this oppressive pre-Roe ban sends an unmistakable signal that Michigan will always fight for abortion access.”

    Democratic state senators celebrated the bills’ passage in the legislature Wednesday.

    “My abortion was necessary to save my life,” state Sen. Rosemary Bayer said on Twitter. “I’m glad I’m here today because of that, and to be able to vote on this bill and ensure this life-saving healthcare is protected and kept safe and legal here in Michigan.”

    Republicans in the Michigan state Senate, however, oppose the new effort and have described it as “dangerous.”

    “While Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to strengthen safeguards for women, Senate Democrats are rushing dangerous bills to repeal long-standing protections for women and the unborn,” GOP state Sen. Joseph Bellino said in a statement.

    Source link

  • Eric Garcetti, Biden nominee for ambassador to India, clears committee hurdle | CNN Politics

    Eric Garcetti, Biden nominee for ambassador to India, clears committee hurdle | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A Senate committee on Wednesday voted to advance the embattled nomination of Eric Garcetti to be ambassador to India.

    The vote was 13-8, primarily along party lines. Two Republicans Sens. Todd Young of Indiana and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee voted with Democrats to support the nominee.

    The next step is for Garcetti to get a vote on the floor of the US Senate. It still is not clear where the votes stand, but the fact he has two Republican votes in committee indicates he has some wiggle room on the floor to lose a handful of Democratic votes and still win the job.

    Garcetti cleared the same committee hurdle last Congress, but that was before he faced headwinds over a controversy from when he was mayor of Los Angeles.

    CNN reported last year concerns over the nomination centered around a former employee in Garcetti’s mayoral office who has accused him of ignoring alleged sexual harassment and bullying by one of his former senior aides. Garcetti has repeatedly denied the allegations that he ignored the alleged harassment.

    Naomi Seligman, a former Garcetti aide who’s accused the former Los Angeles mayor of ignoring credible sexual assault accusations during his time in office, blasted Wednesday’s vote.

    “Today’s vote, on International Women’s Day no less, shows a real disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from elected leaders who claim to support victims of workplace sexual harassment and the pass they give to party loyalists in the next breath. It’s disheartening to say the least,” Seligman said in a statement, calling the former mayor “unfit to represent our country.”

    Source link

  • Newsom to shut Walgreens out of California state business following abortion pill decision | CNN Politics

    Newsom to shut Walgreens out of California state business following abortion pill decision | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    California will cease all its business with Walgreens, the retail drugstore chain, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Monday, days after the company announced it would not dispense abortion medication in 21 Republican-dominated states.

    “California won’t be doing business with @walgreens – or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk,” the Democratic governor tweeted. “We’re done.”

    Newsom’s pushback came at an already fraught time for the future of medication abortion, which is used in more than half of all procedures nationwide, as a Texas judge weighs issuing a ban on Mifepristone, the first pill in a two-drug abortion regimen. Walgreens had responded to legal pressure from Republican attorneys general in 21 states – including a handful where abortion remains legal – in deciding to partially halt its efforts to sell the drug.

    “We intend to be a certified pharmacy and will distribute Mifepristone only in those jurisdictions where it is legal and operationally feasible,” the company said last week in a statement.

    Walgreens declined to comment on Newsom’s tweet.

    The clash between Newsom and Walgreens, a massive chain with thousands of stores around the country, marks the latest round of fallout following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling, handed down in June of last year, shook up national politics ahead of the 2022 midterms – with many Democrats crediting the backlash for helping their candidates in tough, swing state and seat races – and complicated relationships between political and business leaders.

    The state is currently “reviewing all relationships between Walgreens and the state,” said Newsom spokesman Brandon Richards. He also accused the company of giving in to “right wing bullies.”

    Newsom’s office announced Wednesday that California would be “pulling back” a renewal of a $54 million contract with Walgreens that would have taken effect May 1, 2023.

    California’s Department of General Services holds a contract with the retailer “to procure specialty pharmacy prescription drugs,” mostly used by the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its correctional health care system, Newsom’s office said in a news release.

    The state will explore other options “for furnishing the same services,” his office said.

    CNN has reached out to Walgreens for comment on Wednesday’s announcement.

    Late last week, Democratic California state Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement slamming Walgreens for bowing to political pressure from GOP officials.

    “Medication abortion is safe, effective, and serves as a lifeline for people in need of critical care, especially those from vulnerable and underserved communities,” Bonta said on Friday. “I am disappointed that Walgreens has decided to give in to political pressure from anti-abortion states, and cut off access to these necessary and lifesaving medications.”

    The company on Monday sought to clarify its position, though their latest statement only added to the confusion.

    “Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so,” the company said. Medication abortion is legal and accessible in states like Kansas and Iowa, among others, despite opposition from top Republicans, who have threatened legal action.

    In a letter addressed to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, an anti-abortion Republican, from last month, Walgreens said it “does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies.”

    Abortion remains protected under Kansas state law. Last summer, the state voted overwhelmingly to block efforts by lawmakers to ban the procedure following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade less than two months earlier.

    The US Food and Drug Administration said in early January that pharmacies certified to dispense Mifepristone can do so directly to someone who has a prescription from a prescriber.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    Source link

  • Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics

    Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Several women who say Texas’ abortion bans posed significant risks to their health have sued the state this week, opening a new front in the legal battles that have emerged since the Supreme Court overturned national abortion rights protections last year.

    Five women allege in the lawsuit that uncertainty around when medical emergency exemptions in Texas’ abortion laws apply exacerbated medical emergencies that put their lives, health and fertility in danger.

    “To the extent Texas’s abortion bans bar the provision of abortion to pregnant people to treat medical conditions that pose a risk to the pregnant person’s life or a significant risk to their health,” the lawsuit says, “the Bans violate pregnant people’s” rights under the state constitution’s provisions protecting fundamental rights and the right to equality.

    The lawsuit is not seeking to block Texas’ abortion bans outright. Rather, the women – who are joined by two medical providers in the lawsuit – ask the court to clarify that abortions can be performed when a physician makes a “good faith judgment” that “the pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or a risk to their health (including their fertility).”

    The women’s complaint details harrowing stories of being denied abortion care when they faced emergency complications in their pregnancies, which were all wanted. They filed the lawsuit in state court in Austin, Texas.

    Texas, its Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas Medical Board and its Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton are listed as defendants in the lawsuit. Neither Paxton’s office nor a spokesperson for the state medical board responded to a request for comment from CNN. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office also did not immediately respond to CNN’s inquiry.

    Source link

  • DeSantis agenda — and potential campaign platform — in the spotlight as Florida lawmakers return to work | CNN Politics

    DeSantis agenda — and potential campaign platform — in the spotlight as Florida lawmakers return to work | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    In the coming weeks, Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to show Floridians – and the country – just how much further he is willing to go than any other Republican leader to turn his state into a conservative vision where abortion is nearly outlawed, guns can be carried in public without training, private schools are subsidized with taxpayer dollars and “wokeness” is excised.

    DeSantis’ agenda is expected to dominate the debate in Tallahassee when state lawmakers return to action on Tuesday for what is perhaps the most anticipated legislative session in recent memory. With a decision on his presidential ambitions waiting on the other side of the 60-day session, DeSantis has hyped the humdrum of parliamentary proceedings and legislative sausage-making into a spectacle worth following.

    “People look at Florida like, ‘Man, the governor has gotten a lot done,’” DeSantis told “Fox & Friends” last month. “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

    With DeSantis’ backing or urging, Republican lawmakers have filed a slate of bills that will keep Florida at the forefront of the culture wars that are raging in statehouses across the country. There are legislative proposals targeting drag shows, treatments for transgender children, diversity and equity programs at public universities, gender studies majors, professor tenure, teachers unions, libel protections for the media, so-called “woke” banking and in-state college tuition for undocumented residents. Other proposals would extend DeSantis’ powers as governor, including to control the hiring of professors on every public campus through his political appointees and put him in charge of picking the board that oversees scholastic athletics in the state. Another would amend a longstanding “resign to run” law so DeSantis could launch a bid for president without stepping down as Florida governor.

    Though no governor in Florida’s modern history has wielded executive power or the bully pulpit quite like DeSantis, it’s the closely aligned, Republican-held legislature that has handed the governor many of the policy wins that have fueled his political rise. Already this year, the legislature has met in special session to shore up several of DeSantis’ priorities, including the freedom to transport migrants from anywhere in the country to Democratic jurisdictions and fewer hurdles for his new election crime office to charge people for voting errors and violations.

    Lawmakers in the special session also approved DeSantis’ plans for a takeover of Disney’s special government powers – punishment for the entertainment giant’s objection last year to the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics, which prohibited the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity until after third grade. Under the new law, DeSantis chooses the board members that oversee the taxing district around Disney’s Orlando-area theme parks. Last week, he appointed to the board a political donor, the wife of the state GOP chairman and a former pastor who once suggested tap water could turn people gay.

    Now, lawmakers have proposed taking up the legislation at the heart of that feud once again, by extending the prohibited topics in the Parental Rights in Education law to eighth grade. The bill also declares “it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex” and it prohibits school districts from requiring teachers or other employees to use a student’s preferred name or pronouns.

    For his part, DeSantis will deliver the state of the state address on Tuesday and then spend much of the following weeks on the road to promote his new book, “The Courage to be Free,” a memoir transfixed on the political battles from his first term. It will be up to Republican lawmakers to give DeSantis fresh material from which he can build a narrative for a presidential campaign, should he choose to run. DeSantis has said he intends to decide after the session if he will jump into the 2024 contest.

    Privately, DeSantis’ political team believes that as a sitting governor, DeSantis’ ability to stack policy wins is critical to mounting a campaign against former President Donald Trump. Like Trump and former Gov. Nikki Haley, the only other major declared candidate, many potential contenders for the nomination are out of office and unable to dictate an agenda for other Republicans to match. And, unlike DeSantis, their records may not reflect what animates GOP primary voters at the moment.

    In a speech behind closed doors last week to the conservative Club for Growth, DeSantis also suggested he is a singular force among elected Republicans in pushing the party to engage in ideological battles.

    “I’m going on offense,” DeSantis said, according to audio of his speech obtained by CNN. “Some of these Republicans, they just sit back like potted plants, and they let the media define the terms of the debate. They let the left define the terms of debate. They take all this incoming, because they’re not making anything happen. And I said, ‘That’s not what we’re doing.’”

    Democrats, a perennial minority in Tallahassee with even fewer members after the last election, have little recourse to stop DeSantis and Republican lawmakers. Democrats have asserted that the Republican agenda is failing to address the problems many Floridians are facing, including skyrocketing rents, a housing shortage and fast-rising property insurance rates.

    “Just a reminder, eggs are still $5 for a dozen,” Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book said Monday. “It’s $3.50 for a gallon of gas. If you live in the state of Florida in a high rise, you still have to buy flood insurance. But the Republicans want to fight about drag and which bathroom people use.”

    Still, there are signs of dissent among Republicans in how hard to push on several fronts. Some Republicans have raised concern at the price tag for a DeSantis-backed expansion of a school voucher program that currently allows low-income parents to offset the cost of sending their children to private and religious school. Under the latest proposal, the program would be open to virtually all parents regardless of income, including those who choose to home school their kids.

    At a committee meeting last week, state Sen. Erin Grall, a Republican, warned that the “potential for abuse rises significantly with the dollar amount and keeping a child at home.”

    Republicans also have not settled on a new legislative framework for the future of abortion access in the state. Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, DeSantis signed a bill to ban abortion at 15 weeks without exception. He recently signaled he would support legislation that banned abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected; however, he has not publicly advocated for it with the same fervor as his other priorities. Meanwhile, the state’s Senate President Kathleen Passidomo previously said she wanted a 12-week ban that included exemptions for rape and incest.

    John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, an influential conservative group, said he expects a compromise heartbeat bill will pass that includes some exceptions. Other anti-abortion groups want to see DeSantis sign a complete ban on abortion.

    “While exceptions are important and represent real human beings, the bottom line is they are small in number, so it’s a huge victory even with exceptions and I think the governor and his staff are thinking the same way,” Stemberger said. “He’s certainly committed to signing a heartbeat bill.”

    It remains to be seen, too, how Republicans respond to DeSantis’ immigration agenda. DeSantis has proposed repealing a measure that granted in-state tuition for undocumented students who were brought to the US by their parents. The law, championed by his own lieutenant governor, Jeanette Nuñez, when she was a state representative, was a top priority of his predecessor, then-Gov. Rick Scott, and passed the GOP-controlled legislature with help from many of the party’s Latino members. Additionally, DeSantis wants lawmakers to mandate that employers check the immigration status of all workers against a federal database called E-Verify, a proposal opposed for years by the state’s influential hospitality and agriculture industries that bankroll many Republican campaigns.

    Republicans have also faced pressure from the right on another DeSantis priority: eliminating the state permit to carry a concealed weapon in Florida. Under the proposal, eligible Floridians could carry a concealed gun in Florida without seeking approval from the state, which currently requires proof of training and a background check to obtain.

    While Democrats and gun-control advocates have criticized DeSantis for removing one of the few checks on firearms in the state, gun-rights activists have said the measure doesn’t go far enough. They want Florida to allow people to carry a gun in public in the open and for the state to eliminate gun-free zones. In Florida, it’s currently illegal to carry a firearm at a school or on a college campus.

    “The title of ‘constitutional carry’ for this bill is a lie,” Luis Valdes, the Florida director of Gun Owners of America, said during a recent committee hearing on the bill. “Why are Republicans defending (former Democratic attorney general) Janet Reno’s gun control policies?”

    DeSantis has suggested, at times, that it is up to the legislature to put these bills on his desk. But for some conservatives, DeSantis has set the expectation that he can bully Republican lawmakers into supporting any measure he gets behind.

    DeSantis himself has said his political philosophy is guided by taking political risks that others won’t.

    “Boldness is something that voters reward,” DeSantis said Sunday in California. “The lesson is swing for the fences. You will be rewarded.”

    Source link

  • London police officer who killed Sarah Everard sentenced for indecent exposure | CNN

    London police officer who killed Sarah Everard sentenced for indecent exposure | CNN


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Wayne Couzens, the former London police officer who abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard in 2021, has been sentenced to 19 further months in prison for indecent exposure incidents that took place while he was serving in the force.

    Couzens, 50, was already serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the killing of 33-year-old Everard, which sparked outrage towards the Metropolitan Police and began a national debate about violence against women.

    He was additionally sentenced on Monday for exposing himself to women on three occasions in the months prior to the murder. Two occurred at a fast-food restaurant – the latter of which was just days before he murdered Everard – and another took place while Couzens was on shift with the police.

    Couzens appeared via video link from prison during Monday’s hearing. The court heard that he stepped into the path of a female cyclist while naked and masturbating, in a woodland area of Kent in November 2020, while he was supposed to be working from home.

    Then, on two dates in February 2021, Couzens displayed his erect penis to staffers at a fast food drive-through, while picking up food in his car.

    The second incident took place on February 27; days later, on March 3, Couzens kidnapped Everard in south London.

    On Monday, Couzens also pleaded not guilty to a fourth indecent exposure charge from an alleged incident in June 2015. The UK news agency PA Media reported that he will not face trial over that charge as it was left on file.

    Confidence in the Met police force has plummeted following a series of scandals, including cases of violence against women and allegations of a misogynistic and protective culture among officers.

    The crisis began after Couzens’ murder of Everard, which stunned Britain and drew sharp scrutiny towards Scotland Yard. The 33-year-old was walking to her London home on March 3 when Couzens used his police identification and handcuffs to deceive her into getting in his car under the pretense that she had violated Covid-19 pandemic rules. He raped her and strangled her with his police belt later that evening.

    Police were subsequently criticized for their heavy-handed tactics at a vigil for Everard in Clapham, south London, near where she went missing, and for not acting upon red flags in his behavior sooner.

    Two police officers are currently facing misconduct hearings over their handling of two separate indecent exposure reports related to Couzens, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirmed last month.

    In January, former Met senior officer David Carrick admitted 49 offenses, including 24 counts of rape, over an 18-year period, sparking another round of anger. Critics have called for a root-and-branch inquiry into its the Met’s operations and its process in dealing with complaints.

    Met Commissioner Mark Rowley apologized for the failings that led to Carrick not being caught earlier, in an interview distributed to UK broadcasters in January.

    Announcing a review of all those employees facing red flags, he said: “I’m sorry and I know we’ve let women down. I think we failed over two decades to be as ruthless as we ought to be in guarding our own integrity.”

    A report last fall found that when a family member or a fellow officer filed a complaint, it took on average 400 days – more than an entire year – for an allegation of misconduct to be resolved.

    Source link