ReportWire

Tag: brand safety-nsf mature

  • Tennessee becomes first state in 2023 to restrict drag performances | CNN Politics

    Tennessee becomes first state in 2023 to restrict drag performances | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill into law Thursday afternoon that will restrict public drag show performances in Tennessee, making his state the first to do so this year.

    The state Senate passed the bill earlier Thursday along party lines to limit “adult cabaret performances” on public property so as to shield them from the view of children, threatening violators with a misdemeanor and repeat offenders with a felony.

    The bill, which the Tennessee House passed last week, defines an adult cabaret performance as a performance “that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers.”

    Republicans hold supermajorities in both the state House and Senate. The law will go into effect on July 1, 2023.

    The Tennessee measure is the first of nearly a dozen such bills presently working their way through GOP-led state legislatures. Republicans say the performances expose children to sexual themes and imagery that are inappropriate, a claim rejected by advocates, who say the proposed measures are discriminatory against the LGBTQ community and could violate First Amendment laws.

    As transgender issues and drag culture are increasingly becoming more mainstream, such shows – which often feature men dressing as women in exaggerated makeup while singing or entertaining a crowd, though some shows feature bawdier content – have occasionally been the target of attacks, and LGBTQ advocates say the bills under consideration add to a heightened state of alarm for the community.

    Republican state Sen. Jack Johnson, who sponsored the Tennessee legislation, told CNN on Thursday that the bill was not meant to target drag performances or transgender people.

    “For clarification, this bill is not targeting any group of people. It does not ban drag shows in public. It simply puts age restrictions in place to ensure that children are not present at sexually explicit performances,” Johnson said.

    Ahead of the bill’s signing, Lee faced accusations of hypocrisy after an unidentified Reddit user posted a photo from a 1977 high school yearbook, which purports to show the future governor dressed in women’s clothing and a wig alongside female students dressed in men’s suits.

    CNN has been unable to verify the authenticity of the photo.

    At a news conference on Monday, the GOP governor ignored a question about whether he had once dressed in drag but rejected any comparisons between the purported image and the drag show legislation.

    “What a ridiculous, ridiculous question that is, conflating something like that to sexualized entertainment in front of children, which is a very serious subject,” Lee said, according to CNN affiliate WZTV.

    A spokesperson for Lee further elaborated to The Daily Beast, saying, “The bill specifically protects children from obscene, sexualized entertainment, and any attempt to conflate this serious issue with lighthearted school traditions is dishonest and disrespectful to Tennessee families.”

    This story and headline have been updated for additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    Fox News election fraud revelations could take down the network’s embattled chief | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Who will Rupert Murdoch exile from the Fox kingdom?

    The Fox Corporation chairman is facing an ever-deepening scandal that threatens to cause considerable financial and reputational damage to the crown jewel of his media empire, Fox News, as well as the parent company he leads. The scandal, exposed by Dominion Voting Systems’ blockbuster $1.6 billion lawsuit, has unearthed damning information, revealing the right-wing talk channel, driven by financial interests, was willing to lie to its viewers.

    The stunning levels of misconduct exposed in recent weeks raise questions about the future of Suzanne Scott, the embattled chief executive of Fox News. Will she be Murdoch’s sacrificial lamb? No moves are currently on the immediate horizon, CNN is told. But it’s certainly possible — perhaps even likely — that Murdoch might cancel her in an attempt to save himself and his legacy.

    The Murdochs “are certainly setting Suzanne Scott up to take the fall for this,” Ben Smith, the Semafor editor-in-chief who writes a Sunday night media column, said Wednesday.

    “They’re leaving a trail of crumbs that lead back to her office,” added David Folkenflik, the NPR media correspondent and Murdoch biographer.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    There is no shortage of evidence to support the notion Scott is on the chopping block. Most notably, during his deposition, Murdoch sought to distance himself from decision making at Fox News. Instead, he pointed to Scott: “I appointed Ms. Scott to the job … and I delegate everything to her,” he said. In doing so, Murdoch made the case that Scott is in charge of the network — and if there was wrongdoing, it rests on her shoulders. Of course, astute media observers know that Murdoch is the person actually calling the shots. But it’s not hard to see how the company could advance this narrative.

    This is not the first time that Murdoch has been faced with a serious and embarrassing matter in his media empire. In 2011, his now-defunct News of the World newspaper was ensnared in a phone hacking scandal. In 2016, Fox News founder Roger Ailes was accused in an explosive lawsuit of sexual harassment. And in 2017, star host Bill O’Reilly was caught in his own sexual misconduct scandal.

    In each case, Murdoch made the decision to sever ties with top personnel. As one source who once worked in Murdoch-world said Wednesday, “His pattern has been to throw some money overboard and offer a head or two in the process to make it go away.” And cutting ties with Scott would appear to be one of the easier ousters for Murdoch to execute over the course of his decades at the helm of one of the world’s biggest media empires.

    “Looking back to previous scandals, Murdoch and the companies have tended to try to pay early and quietly to make things go away, or they ignore them thinking they’re so big they can ride things out,” Folkenflik said. “And then when things really come to a head, they try to cauterize the wound at the lowest level possible.”

    “If he threw [Scott] over, he would only do it because he thought he needed to cauterize the wound before it goes higher,” Folkenflik added. “That’s his record. That’s what he does. It can be editors. It can be executives. It can be stars. He’s not throwing himself over the side.”

    Jim Rutenberg, the former media columnist at The New York Times who has an extensive history covering Murdoch, echoed that sentiment.

    “Murdoch has a history of sacrificing loyal lieutenants, but he does it only in the most extreme circumstances,” Rutenberg said. “We know that he hates doing it. We know that he tends to try to fight for his loyalists, even for Ailes, certainly for O’Reilly. But when it’s a necessity to overcome a real threat to his business, he’ll do it.”

    Whether the circumstances have reached a boiling point yet are unclear. The Dominion lawsuit, which has already caused massive reputational damage to the Fox News brand, is still in the pre-trial phase of the case. There’s no telling what could emerge from a weeks-long trial in which prominent executives and hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are called to the stand. And it remains to be seen whether outside forces, such as potential shareholder lawsuits, come into play and exert added pressure on Murdoch to take action.

    Regardless, it’s worth noting that Murdoch himself has signaled that firings could be coming. When asked in his deposition whether Fox News executives who knowingly allowed “lies to be broadcast” should face consequences, Murdoch responded in the affirmative: “They should be reprimanded,” he said. “They should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”

    As Folkenflik noted, “If you’re Rupert, you can’t fire Rupert. And you’re not going to fire [Fox CEO] Lachlan [Murdoch] either. So who are you going to chop?”

    “Everyone who takes a senior executive position under Rupert Murdoch knows that is the case, that is the ultimate fall position,” Folkenflik explained. “They understand that’s part of the job. You’re very well paid. It can be a somewhat glamorous life. If you fall out of favor with the sun king, or it is to his benefit, that’s part of the equation.”

    We’ll see what Scott’s fate ultimately looks like. For now, Fox is not offering any public statement of support for her. When I reached out to Fox spokespeople on Wednesday asking for comment, the company declined.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Eric Garcetti’s ambassador nomination in limbo with committee vote expected next week | CNN Politics

    Eric Garcetti’s ambassador nomination in limbo with committee vote expected next week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The nomination of former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to be the next ambassador to India continues to be in limbo in the US Senate with a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee now expected to be held next week.

    Sen. Bob Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations panel, told CNN on Tuesday that he expects to reschedule a vote for Garcetti’s nomination next week. The nomination was held over for one week out of a courtesy to Republicans this week.

    CNN reported last year that concerns over the nomination have 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.

    The former Los Angeles mayor’s nomination faces an uncertain future as it has continued to face headwinds, notably including from within the Democratic Party. If Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was to put the nomination on the floor, it’s not a sure thing Garcetti would get the votes to be confirmed.

    Asked on Tuesday if Garcetti has the votes on the floor, Schumer said the first step is to see what happens in committee.

    Several Democrats still have concerns about the nomination, according to multiple sources. Most of those Democrats have tried to privately express their concerns to the White House and Garcetti, but the White House has stood by him.

    His office previously released a statement, saying, “As the Mayor has said repeatedly and under oath, he absolutely did not witness and was not aware of any sexual harassment … and if he were, he would have put a stop to it.”

    Garcetti’s nomination passed out of committee in the last Congress, but because it never came to the floor, the Biden administration had to renominate him and start the process over in the new Congress.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dictionary.com’s new additions include ‘hellscape,’ ‘rage farming’ and ‘petfluencer’ | CNN

    Dictionary.com’s new additions include ‘hellscape,’ ‘rage farming’ and ‘petfluencer’ | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    On this hellscape that we call the internet, you’ve probably witnessed a particularly blatant instance of rage farming. Maybe you’ve rolled your eyes at the pinkwashing that abounds during Pride Month. Perhaps you’ve felt violated when a Zoom call fell prey to cyberflashing.

    In a sign of our Extremely Online times, these terms describing the bleak realities of our digital sphere are among the latest additions to Dictionary.com. The online reference site announced on Tuesday that it has added 313 new entries, 130 new definitions for existing entries and 1,140 revised definitions – several of which reflect how the internet has shaped our experiences and vernacular.

    “It’s not surprising to me that this new digital context of our lives is necessitating a new kind of language,” John Kelly, senior director of editorial at Dictionary.com, told CNN. “And it’s interesting that a lot of a new language does give label to more toxic or harmful behaviors.”

    Rage farming, for the uninitiated, refers to “the tactic of intentionally provoking political opponents, typically by posting inflammatory content on social media, in order to elicit angry responses and thus high engagement or widespread exposure for the original poster.” Pinkwashing is when individuals or institutions show superficial support for LGBTQ rights “as a ploy to divert attention from allegiances and activities that are in fact hostile to such liberties” – in other words, talking the talk but not walking the walk. And as you might imagine, cyberflashing is the act of sending unsolicited, sexually explicit visuals online.

    Such words and phrases aren’t necessarily new – indeed, those who spend a lot of time on social media have likely encountered or used them for years. But their inclusion in the dictionary signals that they’ve reached a certain level of popularity and mainstream usage, Kelly said.

    Take, for instance, the newly added entry queerbaiting. The term is slang for “a marketing technique involving intentional homoeroticism or suggestions of LGBTQ+ themes intended to draw in an LGBTQ+ audience, without explicit inclusion of openly LGBTQ+ relationships, characters, or people.” In recent years, celebrities including Harry Styles, Bad Bunny and Cardi B have been accused of the practice (though critics of the term say it invites unfair speculation around a person’s sexuality and polices gender expression).

    Another term in Dictionary.com’s latest update, trauma dumping, points to the social media discourse around mental health. The phrase, which describes an unsolicited offloading of negative experiences and feelings onto an unsuspecting person, was at the center of a TikTok controversy in 2021 and has since been the subject of several online articles.

    The internet isn’t all doom and gloom. It’s also made it easier for people to connect with each other, which in turn, has given rise to more nuanced ways of discussing identity, Kelly said. Many of the new additions reflect a shift toward more inclusive language.

    “WOC,” short for woman of color, made the list, as did “Latine,” an alternative to the divisive, gender-neutral term “Latinx.” The terms multisexual and sexual minority offer more expansive ways of talking about sexuality, while anti-fat captures negative cultural attitudes toward fat bodies.

    Among the lighter entries are petfluencer, which can describe either a person who has amassed a large internet following by posting pictures of their pet or a pet who itself has achieved internet fame, as well as fan service, a term for material added to a fictional work for the benefit of its fans.

    Other newly added words and phrases of note include liminal space, self-coup, cakeism, 988, subvariant, microdosing, dosa, and paratha.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Meta platform aims to prevent sextortion of teens on Facebook and Instagram | CNN Business

    New Meta platform aims to prevent sextortion of teens on Facebook and Instagram | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Meta is taking steps to crack down on the spread of intimate images of teenagers on Facebook and Instagram.

    A new tool, called Take It Down, takes aim at a practice commonly referred to as “revenge porn,” where someone posts an explicit picture of an individual without their consent to publicly embarrass or cause them distress. The practice has skyrocketed in the last few years on social media, particularly among young boys.

    Take It Down, which is operated and run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, will allow minors for the first time to anonymously attach a hash – or digital fingerprint – to intimate images or videos directly from their own devices, without having to upload them to the new platform. To create a hash of an explicit image, a teen can visit the website TakeItDown.NCMEC.org to install software onto their device. The anonymized number, not the image, will then be stored in a database linked to Meta so that if the photo is ever posted to Facebook or Instagram, it will be matched against the original, reviewed and potentially removed.

    “This issue has been incredibly important to Meta for a very, very long time because the damage done is quite severe in the context of teens or adults,” said Antigone Davis, Meta’s global safety director. “It can do damage to their reputation and familial relationships, and puts them in a very vulnerable position. It’s important that we find tools like this to help them regain control of what can be a very difficult and devastating situation.”

    The tool works for any image shared across Facebook and Instagram, including Messenger and direct messages, as long as the pictures are unencrypted.

    People under 18 years old can use Take It Down, and parents or trusted adults can also use the platform on behalf of a young person. The effort is fully funded by Meta and builds off a similar platform it launched in 2021 alongside more than 70 NGOs, called StopNCII, to prevent revenge porn among adults.

    Since 2016, NCMEC’s cyber tip line has received more than 250,000 reports of online enticement, including sextortion, and the number of those reports more than doubled between 2019 and 2019. In the last year, 79% of the offenders were seeking money to keep photos offline, according to the nonprofit. Many of these cases played out on social media.

    Meta’s efforts come nearly a year and a half after Davis was grilled by Senators about the impact its apps have on younger users, after an explosive report indicated the company was aware that Facebook-owned Instagram could have a “toxic” effect on teen girls. Although the company has rolled out a handful of new tools and protections since then, some experts say it has taken too long and more needs to be done.

    Meanwhile, President Biden demanded in his latest State of the Union address more transparency about tech companies’ algorithms and how they impact their young users’ mental health.

    In response, Davis told CNN that Meta “welcomes efforts to introduce standards for the industry on how to ensure that children can safely navigate and enjoy all that online services have to offer.”

    In the meantime, she said the company continues to double down on efforts to help protect its young users, particularly when it comes to keeping explicit photos off its site.

    “Sextortion is one of the biggest growing crimes we see at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,” said Gavin Portnoy, vice president of communications and branding at NCMEC. “We’re calling it the hidden pandemic, and nobody is really talking about it.”

    Portnoy said there’s also been an uptick in youth dying by suicide as a result of sextortion. “That is the driving force behind creating Take It Down, along with our partners,” he said. “It really gives survivors an opportunity to say, look, I’m not going to let you do this to me. I have the power over my images and my videos.”

    In addition to Meta’s platforms, OnlyFans and Pornhub’s parent company MindGeek are also adding this technology into their services.

    But limitations do exist. To get around the hashing technology, people can alter the original images, such as by cropping, adding emojis or doctoring them. Some changes, such as adding a filter to make the photo sepia or black and white, will still be flagged by the system. Meta recommends teens who have multiple copies of the image or edited versions make a hash for each one.

    “There’s no one panacea for the issue of sextortion or the issue of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images,” Davis said. “It really does take a holistic approach.”

    The company has rolled out a series of updates to help teens have an age-appropriate experience on its platforms, such as adding new supervision tools for parents, an age-verification technology and defaulting teens into the most private settings on Facebook and Instagram.

    This is not the first time a major tech company has poured resources into cracking down on explicit imagery of minors. In 2022, Apple abandoned its plans to launch a controversial tool that would check iPhones, iPads and iCloud photos for child sexual abuse material following backlash from critics who decried the feature’s potential privacy implications.

    “Children can be protected without companies combing through personal data, and we will continue working with governments, child advocates, and other companies to help protect young people, preserve their right to privacy, and make the internet a safer place for children and for us all,” the company said in a statement provided to Wired at the time.

    Davis did not comment on whether it’s expecting criticism for Meta’s approach, but noted “there were significant differences between the tool that Apple launched and the tool that NCMEC is launching today.” She emphasized Meta will not be checking for images on users phones.

    “I do welcome any member of the industry trying to invest in efforts to prevent this kind of terrible crime from happening on their apps,” she added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 12 blue states sue FDA, saying it’s too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up | CNN Politics

    12 blue states sue FDA, saying it’s too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twelve states led by liberal attorneys general announced Friday that they had sued the Food and Drug Administration, saying its limits on mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, are too strict.

    The suit is a possible hedge by states waiting to see how a federal judge in Texas rules in a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the FDA’s approval of mifepristone altogether. Conflicting rulings could mean the Supreme Court is asked to sort out the issue.

    RELATED: How a medication abortion, also known as an ‘abortion pill,’ works

    “The federal government has known for years that mifepristone is safe and effective,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s radical decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the FDA is now exposing doctors, pharmacists and patients to unnecessary risk. The FDA’s excessive restrictions on this important drug have no basis in medical science.”

    Mifepristone was first approved in 2000 and medication abortion accounts for more than half of the abortions in the US. It is the first drug, followed by misoprostol, in the medication abortion regimen. Patients and providers must sign agreements stating the drug will be used to end a pregnancy, and pharmacies must have special certification.

    The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington state. The states in the lawsuit are: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

    A lawsuit seeking to block the use of medication abortion nationwide could receive an initial decision at any moment, after the plaintiffs in the case submitted to the court on Friday their final brief on the challenge.

    The lawsuit, filed in November by anti-abortion advocates against FDA, challenges the two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process.

    A decision by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in favor of the plaintiffs could have far-reaching consequences since medication abortion now makes up a majority of abortions obtained in the US.

    In the filing submitted Friday, the anti-abortion advocates rehashed many of the arguments they made in earlier briefs. Its submission means that Kacsmaryk could soon rule on a motion by the plaintiffs to temporarily block use of the medication. The judge had previously said that once the February 24 filing deadline ended, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

    Kacsmaryk, however, could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses.

    The defendants in the case – the FDA and Danco, which makes mifepristone – argued in separate briefs to the court that a decision against the drug’s approval would be unprecedented and would shutter the drugmaker’s business.

    Reproductive rights advocates have stressed that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be devastating, with NARAL Pro-Choice America saying in a statement that if the drug is yanked from the market, “64.5 million women of reproductive age in the US would lose access to medication abortion care, an exponential increase in harm overnight.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: The one critical step Congress could take to protect kids online | CNN

    Opinion: The one critical step Congress could take to protect kids online | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, DC. He is also a former senior policy adviser to Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. Follow him on Twitter. The views expressed in this piece are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    This week the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that raised thorny questions over algorithms and free speech on the Internet. In Gonzalez v. Google, lawyers for the parents of a teenager killed in an Islamic State attack are arguing that YouTube should be held liable for promoting content from the group.

    The political debates over how much speech protections online cover Big Tech firms have inflamed the right for years. In the oral arguments, at least, the justices seemed uncertain about how best to proceed with the complex issues at play.

    But new research shows some issues surrounding tech don’t have a political divide. A new report I wrote for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Institute for Family Studies shows widespread concern around kids online. And a set of policy proposals that aim to restore parents’ ability to shepherd their kids on the wild west that is the Web all recorded high levels of support across parents from both political sides.

    This issue is something that nearly every parent has to navigate. A recent report from Common Sense Media found that the average age of first exposure to pornography is now 12, and that three-quarters of teens had seen porn online by age 17.

    But parents have plenty to worry about kids online in addition to early exposure to pornography. All manner of online content can impact a child’s life. As this week’s Supreme Court case reminds us, youth can be lured into extremism or self-harm via online content. Parents might want to know if their child is becoming increasingly drawn toward figures who share racist or misogynistic views online.

    Documents released by a whistleblower indicated Facebook’s (now known as Meta, Instagram’s parent company) internal data showed the site made “body image issues worse for 1 in 3 teen girls,” and also led to more severe and self-destructive thoughts. While the company disputed the claims, it also postponed an “Instagram for Kids” offering. Cyberbullying and non-consensual nude photo sharing have plagued high schools.

    These concerns are resonating with policymakers. Current law and decades of Supreme Court precedent establish much more leeway for Congress to protect kids online without having to hash out the complexities of more wide-ranging free speech concerns.

    A bipartisan effort to take modest steps to protect kids online might bear fruit. Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal have been pushing their colleagues to pass their Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which would update the framework for how tech companies serve minors online.

    Among other things, it would require social media sites to default minors into the strongest possible privacy protections and give parents new tools to monitor harmful content. It would mandate social media platforms mitigate harms to minors, such as by restricting or eliminating content relating to self-harm, suicide and eating disorders. And it would set up require an annual audit of risks to minors, including providing broader data access to researchers to study the impact of social media on kids’ development.

    The bill was opposed by some civil rights and LGBTQ groups, who worried that putting greater content restrictions on what kids may come across online could prevent them from accessing information about sexual education without their parents’ knowledge. But that concern may ring hollow with parents who believe they should have better tools to know if their 13- or 14-year-old child is searching for information about birth control.

    Some say parents should be the ultimate gatekeeper of their kids online, which is true. But we have laws relating to the minimum age to consume alcohol or drive a car precisely because we know adolescents’ brains are still developing, and the potential to cause harm to oneself or others is high. After all, unless a critical mass of families agree to move social life offline, minors who don’t have access to Instagram, TikTok or Facebook may be missing out on crucial information or opportunities to socialize.

    Moreover, while some tools exist for helping keep kids safe online, they are often easily circumvented. Asking individual parent to be an expert on the plethora of user settings, filters and options for keeping age-inappropriate content away from their kids places an undue burden on families. Establishing age-based controls, and policing them effectively, would be an appropriate step for Congress to take.

    Indeed, some say the Blackburn-Blumenthal framework doesn’t go far enough. The policy solutions polled in our recent report are more aggressive than those included in KOSA, and still receive support from three in four parents.

    For example, nearly 9 in 10 Republican parents, and 77% of all parents, agreed with a proposal to require social media platforms to grant parents full access to what their children are seeing and who they are communicating with online, the most popular policy polled among that subgroup. 81% were in favor of a law that would require social media platforms to get parents’ permission before allowing minors to open an account. Another two-thirds of parents agreed or strongly agreed that internet service providers should be required to obtain age verification (like a drivers’ license or credit card) before allowing individuals to view pornography.

    Future action will likely take up these concerns. Just last week, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced a bill that would bar users from under age 16 from opening a social media account. While the implementation mechanism would likely need to be improved on – relying on Big Tech companies to keep copies of every American’s drivers’ license safe may not work out – the direction of the legislation is laudable, recognizing that American parents are looking for bold action when it comes to keeping kids safe online.

    The battles over Big Tech and accusations of algorithmic bias may be what gets the Republican base riled up. But in a divided Congress, both parties should listen to the parents who make up their base – giving families more tools to protect their kids online is not only long overdue, it’s a political winner.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nonconsensual deepfake porn puts AI in spotlight | CNN Business

    Nonconsensual deepfake porn puts AI in spotlight | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    In its annual “worldwide threat assessment,” top US intelligence officials have warned in recent years of the threat posed by so-called deepfakes – convincing fake videos made using artificial intelligence.

    “Adversaries and strategic competitors,” they warned in 2019, might use this technology “to create convincing—but false—image, audio, and video files to augment influence campaigns directed against the United States and our allies and partners.”

    The scenarios are not difficult to imagine; a faked video showing a politician in a compromising position; faked audio of a world leader discussing sensitive information.

    The threat doesn’t seem too distant. The recent viral success of ChatGPT, an A.I. chatbot that can answer questions and write prose, is a reminder of how powerful this kind of technology can be.

    But despite the warnings, we haven’t seen many notable instances, that we know of, where deepfakes have successfully been deployed in geopolitics.

    But there is one group the technology has been weaponized against consistently and for several years: women.

    Deepfakes have been used to put women’s faces, without their consent, into often aggressive pornographic videos. It’s a depraved AI spin on the humiliating practice of revenge porn, with deepfake videos appearing so real it can be hard for female victims to deny it isn’t really them.

    The long-simmering issue exploded into public view last week when it emerged Atrioc, a high-profile male video game streamer on the hugely popular platform Twitch, had accessed deepfake videos of some of his female Twitch streaming colleagues. He later apologized.

    Amid the fallout, the Twitch streamer “Sweet Anita” realized deepfake depictions of her in pornographic videos exist online.

    “It’s very, very surreal to watch yourself do something you’ve never done,” Twitch streamer “Sweet Anita” told CNN after realizing last week her face had been inserted into pornographic videos without her consent.

    “It’s kind of like if you watched anything shocking happening to yourself. Like, if you watched a video of yourself being murdered, or a video of yourself jumping off a cliff,” she said.

    But the deeply disturbing use of the technology in this way is not novel.

    Indeed, the very term “deepfake” is derived from the username of an anonymous Reddit contributor who began posting manipulated videos of female celebrities in pornographic scenes in 2017.

    “From the very beginning, the person who created deepfakes was using it to make pornography of women without their consent,” Samantha Cole, a reporter with Vice’s Motherboard, who has been tracking deepfakes since their inception, told CNN.

    The online gaming community is a notoriously difficult place for women – the 2014 “Gamergate” harassment campaign a most prominent example.

    But concerns over the use of nonconsensual pornographic images isn’t exclusive to this community, and threatens to become more commonplace as artificial intelligence technology develops at breakneck speed and the ease of creating deepfake videos continues to improve.

    “I am baffled by how awful people are to each other on the Internet in a way that I don’t think they would be face to face,” Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and digital forensics expert, told CNN.

    “I think we have to start sort of trying to understand, why is it that this technology, this medium, allows and brings out seemingly the worst in human nature? And if we’re going to have these technologies ingrained in our lives the way they seem to be, I think we’re going to have to start to think about how we can be better human beings with these types of devices,” he said.

    It’s part of a much larger systemic problem.

    “It’s all rape culture,” Cole said, “I don’t know what the actual solution is other than getting to that fundamental problem of disrespect and non-consent and being okay with violating women’s consent.”

    There have been efforts from lawmakers to crack down on the creation of nonconsensual imagery, whether it is AI-generated or not. In California, laws have been brought in to try to counter the potential for deepfakes to be used in an election campaign and in nonconsensual pornography.

    But there’s skepticism. “We haven’t even solved the problems of the technology sector from 10, 20 years ago,” Farid said, pointing out that the development of artificial intelligence “is moving much, much faster than the original technology revolution.”

    “Move fast and break things,” was Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s motto back in the company’s early days. As the power, and indeed the danger, of his platform came into focus he later changed the motto to, “Move fast with stable infrastructure.”

    Whether it was willful negligence or ignorance, Silicon Valley was not prepared for the onslaught of hate and disinformation that has festered on its platforms. The same tools it had built to bring people together have also been weaponized to divide.

    And while there has been a good deal of discussion about “ethical AI,” as Google and Microsoft look set for an AI arms race, there’s concern things could be moving too rapidly.

    “The people who are developing these technologies – the academics, the people in the research labs at Google and Facebook – you have to start asking yourself, ‘why are you developing this technology?,’” Farid suggested.

    “If the harms outweigh the benefits, should you carpet bomb the Internet with your technology and put it out there and then sit back and say, ‘well, let’s see what happens next?’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kentucky Supreme Court ruling allows state’s near-total abortion bans to remain in place for now | CNN Politics

    Kentucky Supreme Court ruling allows state’s near-total abortion bans to remain in place for now | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled Thursday that a lower court wrongfully stopped the enforcement of two state abortion laws, according to court documents.

    The two measures are Kentucky’s so-called trigger law banning the procedure and a separate “heartbeat” law restricting abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy.

    Siding with Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron, Justice Debra Hembree Lambert asserted in her opinion that the circuit court “abused its discretion by granting abortion provider’s motion for a temporary injunction.”

    Planned Parenthood, along with an abortion provider represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kentucky, sued to block Kentucky’s sweeping abortion laws after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    They filed two complaints challenging the two statutes, which effectively prohibit abortions in Kentucky except in limited circumstances where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, according to the opinion.

    The near-total bans outlaw abortion in most instances with no exceptions for rape or incest, making Kentucky one of 13 states that have banned or severely restricted abortion.

    The plaintiffs argued that the laws violate the state’s constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and self-determination, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU said in a statement.

    After a circuit court temporarily enjoined the abortion bans last summer, an appellate court judge granted the attorney general’s emergency request to dissolve the injunction, but an appellate panel later recommended that the state’s highest court weigh in on the injunction.

    The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled that the abortion providers did not have the standing to challenge the six-week ban because they had not argued it violated their own constitutional rights, only those of their patients.

    Although the court found that the abortion providers have standing to challenge the trigger ban, it ruled that the abortion providers did not show they were sufficiently harmed by the ban to warrant a temporary injunction on its enforcement, according to the opinion.

    Instead, the court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the constitutionality of the trigger ban, the opinion stated.

    The opinion does not determine whether the Kentucky Constitution protects the right to receive an abortion, as there was no “appropriate party” to raise the issue in the suit, according to Lambert.

    “Nothing in this opinion shall be construed to prevent an appropriate party from filing suit at a later date,” she said.

    In a statement, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU expressed disappointment with the ruling but said “this fight is not over.”

    “Once again, the Kentucky Supreme Court failed to protect the health and safety of nearly a million people in the state by refusing to reinstate the lower court order blocking the law,” the statement said.

    The statement added, “Even after Kentuckians overwhelmingly voted against an anti-abortion ballot measure, abortion remains banned in the state. We are extremely disappointed in today’s decision, but we will never give up the fight to restore bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom in Kentucky.”

    Cameron called the ruling a “significant victory” Thursday.

    “Since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last June, we have vigorously defended Kentucky’s Human Life Protection Act and Heartbeat Law,” he said in a statement. “We are very pleased that Kentucky’s high court has allowed these laws to remain in effect while the case proceeds in circuit court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • National Archives agrees to give personal tours to activists who say staff asked them to hide anti-abortion attire | CNN Politics

    National Archives agrees to give personal tours to activists who say staff asked them to hide anti-abortion attire | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The National Archives will give “personal tours” to two activists who sued the federal records agency, resolving a days-old lawsuit the pair brought after staff at the museum told them cover up anti-abortion attire during a recent visit.

    A federal lawsuit filed last Wednesday said that the activists were visiting the Washington, DC, museum the same day as the national March for Life in January and “were subject to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by federal government officials, specifically National Archives security officers … who targeted plaintiffs and intentionally chilled their religious speech and expression by requiring plaintiffs to remove or cover their attire because of their pro-life messages.”

    The National Archives quickly issued a statement last week clarifying that its policy allows visitor clothing to “display protest language, including religious and political speech,” and said it would investigate the incident.

    In court papers filed Tuesday by both sides, the museum promised to work with each plaintiff to arrange a “personal tour” of the museum. Under the deal, staff with the National Archives and Records Administration will also extend “a personal apology on that tour regarding the events” that unfolded last month.

    “NARA shall further reiterate to all NARA security officers, as well as all other NARA personnel who interact with the public … that NARA policy expressly allows all visitors to wear t-shirts, hats, buttons, and other similar items, that display protest language, including religious and political speech,” the agreement reads.

    A judge must still approve the agreement.

    Last month’s March for Life event saw scores of anti-abortion activists travel from all over the US to attend the march, which was the first such event held since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year – the primary goal of the annual protest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Don’t let another sister suffer’: Alleged gang rape in Pakistan’s ‘Central Park’ sparks protests | CNN

    ‘Don’t let another sister suffer’: Alleged gang rape in Pakistan’s ‘Central Park’ sparks protests | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Islamabad, Pakistan
    CNN
     — 

    The alleged gang rape of a woman in a park in Pakistan has enraged women’s rights activists who are protesting against what they see as “increasing sexual barbarism” in the country.

    The woman, 24, was with a male colleague in the capital Islamabad’s Fatima Jinnah park – known locally as F9 park and the largest in the city – last Thursday when they were allegedly attacked by two armed men, according to a statement she filed with the police, seen by CNN.

    The woman alleged the men forced the pair toward a “jungle area” of the park where they ripped off her clothes and raped her.

    She said the men told her she should not have been in the park at night and asked about her connection to her colleague.

    “When I responded, I was slapped. My hair was pulled and I was thrown on the floor,” the woman said in her police statement.

    The incident has sparked outrage in the country of 220 million, which is highly patriarchal and where violent attacks against women and girls frequently make headlines.

    Scores of protesters have tied their dupattas – scarves worn by South Asian women – to the railings of the park, alongside messages imploring change.

    “Please don’t let another sister suffer,” one note read. “Save the women and kids of Pakistan,” read another.

    The rights group, Aurat Azadi March (Women’s Freedom March), said in a statement, “There is an increasing sexual barbarism in Pakistan, and criminal silence on it by the state and society is unacceptable.”

    “We are enraged. We are in pain. And we will not let this be forgotten.”

    A spokesperson for Islamabad police told CNN no arrests had been made in the case so far.

    Fatima Jinnah park is a sprawling oasis spread across the center of Islamabad in an affluent part of the city, and has a high security presence. It is often likened to New York’s Central Park as families often gather for festivals and children play at the park throughout the day.

    The government on Sunday ordered domestic television channels not to report on the alleged assault, citing the need to protect the woman’s identity.

    In a statement, Pakistan’s Electronic Media Regulatory Authority said any broadcast of news reports was “prohibited with immediate effect.”

    More than 5,200 women reported being raped in the country in 2021, according to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, but experts believe the actual number is much higher as many women are afraid to come forward due to social stigma and victim blaming.

    Fewer than 3% of sexual assault or rape cases result in a conviction in Pakistan, Reuters reported in December 2020, citing Karachi-based non-profit War Against Rape.

    In December 2020, Pakistan toughened its rape laws to create special courts to try cases within four months and provide medical examinations to women within six hours of a complaint being made. But activists say Pakistan continues to fail its women and does not have a nationwide law criminalizing domestic violence, leaving many vulnerable to assault.

    In 2021, the beheading of Noor Mukadam, a Pakistani ambassador’s daughter, sent shockwaves through the country with protesters calling on the government to do more to protect women.

    Her killer, Zahir Jaffer, the 30-year-old son of an influential family and a dual Pakistan-US national who knew Mukadam, was sentenced to death by an Islamabad judge last February.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conservative activist Matt Schlapp denies sexual battery allegations in new court documents | CNN Politics

    Conservative activist Matt Schlapp denies sexual battery allegations in new court documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    High-profile conservative activist Matt Schlapp is denying claims of sexual assault and wants the man who is accusing him to be publicly identified, according to court documents filed Thursday in the lawsuit against Schlapp and his wife, Mercedes Schlapp.

    The documents claim the lawsuit, which seeks more than $9 million in damages from the Schlapps, “reeks of gamesmanship and hypocrisy” and say the accuser’s request to remain anonymous “is utterly without justification.”

    The Schlapps state the staffer’s identity should be made public because they allege that his own reputation should be questioned, asserting that the staffer can’t “meet his burden of showing special circumstances which outweigh the public interest in knowing his name,” according to the documents.

    “Plaintiff simply cannot proceed on his claims of alleged impropriety by the Defendants while shielding from scrutiny his own past admitted unsavory affiliations with white nationalists and anti-Semites by proceeding as a ‘John Doe,’” the documents say.

    The initial complaint said the staffer, identified only as John Doe, faced an “unusual risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm” if he was named, based on the Schlapps’ popularity and prominence.

    The Schlapps are now being represented by attorney Benjamin Chew, known for winning the defamation case against actor Johnny Depp. The 2022 trial, which saw a jury award Depp $15 million in his lawsuit against former wife Amber Heard, became known for airing many personal and intimate details publicly.

    The original lawsuit, filed in January, alleges that Schlapp, the president of the American Conservative Union, inappropriately fondled the genital area of a male Republican strategist during a car ride back to Schlapp’s hotel in Atlanta last year. Schlapp was in Georgia for Herschel Walker’s Senate campaign and had spoken at an event earlier in the day. The staffer was assigned to drive Schlapp back to his hotel, and to another Walker event scheduled for the following morning.

    In addition to sexual battery allegations against Matt Schlapp, the lawsuit also accuses both Schlapps of defamation and conspiracy to discredit the staffer.

    The Schlapps’ response to the lawsuit denies all claims of sexual battery and inappropriate touching but admits to phone calls and text messages exchanged between Matt Schlapp and the staffer, which have been previously reported and reviewed by CNN.

    The Schlapps admit to a text message in which Matt Schlapp suggests he and the staffer meet up for drinks, writing, “I have a dinner at 7. May grab a beer after if you want to join let me know.” The staffer responds, “I’d enjoy that,” according to the documents.

    The Schlapps also admit to a phone call later the night of the alleged incident, to arrange pickup for the following morning, and a text message at 7:26 a.m. from Matt Schlapp to the staffer that said, “I’m in the lobby,” waiting for the staffer to drive him to the planned Walker event in Macon, Georgia.

    CNN previously reported that after the alleged sexual assault, the staffer notified Walker campaign officials, who told him not to drive Schlapp in the morning and to instead give him the phone number to a local car service.

    The staffer responded to Schlapp’s text, saying, “I did want to say I was uncomfortable with what happened last night. The campaign does have a driver who is available to get you to Macon and back to the airport,” and provided the number. The Schlapps admit to this detail in the court documents and to three attempts Matt Schlapp made to call the staffer, which went unanswered.

    Several hours later, Matt Schlapp texted the staffer, “If you could see it in your heart to call me at the end of day. I would appreciate it. If not I wish you luck on the campaign and hope you keep up the good work” – another exchange the Schlapps admit to in the documents.

    As part of the defamation count in the original lawsuit, the complaint claimed that Mercedes Schlapp sent a message to a neighborhood group text that smeared the staffer’s character and claimed he’d been fired from jobs for “lying and lying on his resume.” The Schlapps deny that allegation in their response.

    The Schlapps are requesting the court dismiss the complaint. A preliminary hearing on whether the staffer should be identified is set for March 8 in Alexandria Circuit Court in Virginia.

    The staffer and his attorney declined to provide further comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvey Weinstein sued by woman who he was convicted of raping in Los Angeles criminal trial | CNN

    Harvey Weinstein sued by woman who he was convicted of raping in Los Angeles criminal trial | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A woman has filed a civil lawsuit against disgraced former film producer Harvey Weinstein for sexual battery, false imprisonment and other claims after he was convicted of raping her last December in Los Angeles.

    The model and actress, who is identified as Jane Doe 1 in court documents, was the first to testify in Weinstein’s Los Angeles trial in 2022.

    The three charges Weinstein was convicted of last December – rape, sexual penetration by a foreign object and forcible oral copulation – were all tied to Jane Doe 1, who testified the movie mogul assaulted her in a Beverly Hills hotel room in 2013.

    But the jury deadlocked on the alleged aggravating factors attached to the charges, which could have increased his sentence and the judge declared a mistrial on those allegations.

    Weinstein is set to be sentenced on February 23, at which time the judge will consider a motion from defense attorneys asking for a new trial.

    The new lawsuit, filed February 9 in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, alleges Weinstein met Jane Doe 1 briefly at a film festival and then showed up at her hotel room later that evening and assaulted her in February 2013.

    The plaintiff is suing Weinstein for sexual battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. She is also seeking an undisclosed amount in punitive and other damages.

    “Harvey has always denied the allegations, and even more, has maintained that he was never together with her in Mr. Cs hotel at all and that these events never happened. Certain witnesses lied about crucial evidence that could have exonerated Mr. Weinstein, and it was deemed unnecessary by the court for the jury to hear or know about these facts,” Juda Engelmayer, a representative for Weinstein, told CNN in a statement.

    Engelmayer added that Weinstein’s attorneys have “submitted a motion detailing those facts and contend that the jury would not have convicted him had they known the specifics…”

    The assault happened after Weinstein allegedly showed up at the hotel and asked a front desk staffer to connect him with the victim, the lawsuit said. After the front desk called Jane Doe, Weinstein ended up talking on the phone with the victim and asked her for her room number. She declined to offer her room number and hung up.

    Minutes later, Weinstein showed up outside her room, and when the woman refused to let him inside, he “bullied his way into her room,” the lawsuit says.

    “Once in the room, he engaged in small talk with Plaintiff but in an arrogant and intimidating manner. He quickly made his real intentions clear. He wanted to have sex with her,” the lawsuit says. “He sat on her bed and then forcibly grabbed Plaintiff and made her sit down next to him.”

    After telling her that she was “pretty,” he commented on her breasts and “grabbed” at them, the lawsuit says.

    Jane Doe repeatedly asked Weinstein to leave her hotel room, but he ignored her and became aggressive verbally and physically, according to the lawsuit.

    “He then forced Plaintiff to orally copulate him and then he forcibly moved her into the bathroom, where he blocked her from leaving and then raped her,” the lawsuit says. “After he was done raping her, he acted as if nothing out of the ordinary happened, and left.”

    California law allows adult victims of sexual assault to file a civil action within ten years of the alleged assault and within one year of the defendant being convicted of a felony, according to the lawsuit.

    The victim’s attorney, Dave Ring, said in a statement to CNN that they “look forward to have Weinstein finally testify under oath in this case.”

    “Harvey Weinstein has been convicted of raping Jane Doe 1,” Ring said. “Her lawsuit seeks to recover compensation from him for the horrific rape she endured and all of the issues she has suffered through for the past ten years because of that rape.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the lawsuit aiming to ban medication abortion drug mifepristone | CNN Politics

    What to know about the lawsuit aiming to ban medication abortion drug mifepristone | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge may rule later this month on a lawsuit seeking to block the use of medication abortion nationwide, in the biggest abortion-related case since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    The lawsuit, filed in November by anti-abortion advocates against the US Food and Drug Administration, targets the agency’s 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process

    Medication abortion, which now makes up a majority of abortions obtained in the US, has become a particularly acute flashpoint in the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade.

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, has extended the briefing deadline in the case until February 24.

    Reproductive rights advocates say that if Kacsmaryk sides with the plaintiffs, “it would eliminate the most commonly used method of abortion care,” according to NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    Here’s what to know about the lawsuit:

    The lawsuit, filed last year by a coalition of anti-abortion national medical associations under the umbrella of the “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine” and several doctors, is seeking a number of actions by the court, chief among them a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the FDA “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs and to withdraw defendants’ actions to deregulate these chemical abortion drugs.”

    “After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, plaintiffs now ask this court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen,” the complaint reads.

    The FDA responded to the lawsuit last month by asking the judge to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that issuing one in the matter “would upend the status quo and the reliance interests of patients and doctors who depend on mifepristone, as well as businesses involved with mifepristone distribution.”

    The agency also says a ruling against it would set a dangerous precedent.

    “More generally, if longstanding FDA drug approvals were so easily enjoined, even decades after being issued, pharmaceutical companies would be unable to confidently rely on FDA approval decisions to develop the pharmaceutical-drug infrastructure that Americans depend on to treat a variety of health conditions,” the FDA wrote.

    “A preliminary injunction would interfere with Congress’s decision to entrust FDA with responsibility to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. In discharging this role, FDA applies its technical expertise to make complex scientific determinations about drugs’ safety and efficacy, and these determinations are entitled to substantial deference.”

    Danco, which makes mifepristone, also made a similar request to the FDA’s in a court filing, stressing that the lawsuit could decimate the company’s business.

    “Danco is a small pharmaceutical company. It sells one drug: Mifeprex,” lawyers for the company wrote in court papers. “Entering the mandatory preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek would force FDA to withdraw approval for Danco’s only product, effectively shuttering Danco’s business.”

    “Congress entrusts decision-making like this with the FDA. And they’re coming in trying to overrule that, saying this medication is unsafe because women bleed. Well, that’s part of having an abortion. It’s also part of having a pregnancy,” said Ryan Brown, an attorney representing Danco in the case. “The bottom line being that they just want to do away with abortion across the board and for any reason.”

    Kacsmaryk was appointed to the court in 2017 by then-President Trump and was confirmed by a 52-46 vote in 2019.

    Since then, he’s helped make Texas a legal graveyard for policies of President Joe Biden’s administration, presiding over 95% of the civil cases brought in Amarillo, Texas.

    In December, Kacsmaryk put on hold the Biden administration’s most recent attempt to end the so-called “Remain in Mexico” program. And he has overseen Texas cases challenging vaccine mandates, the gender identity guidance issued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the administration’s limits on the use of Covid-19 relief funds for tax cuts.

    Before joining the court, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious liberty legal group, where he worked mainly on “religious liberty litigation in federal courts and amicus briefs in the US Supreme Court,” according to his White House biography.

    The case is being closely watched by a number of interested parties, including Republican and Democratic state attorneys general. On Friday, two different multi-state coalitions filed amicus briefs with the court urging them to act one way or another in the matter.

    A coalition of 22 Democratic attorneys general urged Kacsmaryk to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, writing in court papers that “annulling – or even merely limiting – any of the FDA’s actions relating to medication abortion would result in an even more drastic reduction in abortion access across the entire nation, worsening already dire outcomes, deepening entrenched disparities in access to health care, and placing a potentially unbearable strain on the health care system as a whole.”

    And a coalition of 22 Republican attorneys general asked the court to issue the preliminary injunction, arguing the FDA exceeded its authority when it approved the medication.

    “State laws on chemical abortion thus account for the public interests at issue – and they do so with the benefit of democratic legitimacy (and legal authority). The FDA’s actions can make no such claim. By obstructing the judgments of elected representatives, the agency has undermined the public interest,” they wrote.

    Abortion rights advocates have sounded the alarm on the case, stressing that a ruling by Kacsmaryk in favor of the plaintiffs would affect every corner of the country since the lawsuit is targeting a federal agency.

    “If FDA approval of mifepristone is revoked, 64.5 million women of reproductive age in the US would lose access to medication abortion care, an exponential increase in harm overnight,” NARAL said in a statement on Friday, pointing to internal research.

    “This research reveals the high stakes of this lawsuit, and we can only expect the worst from this Trump-appointed federal judge. Americans want access to abortion, but anti-choice bad actors are dead set on restricting reproductive freedom by any means possible,” said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, the group’s vice president of communications and research.

    And activists are mobilizing in Texas around the issue, with the Women’s March planning to hold a rally at the federal courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, on Saturday.

    “We’ve said it before: the fight for reproductive rights now lies in the states, and legal challenges like these are just the latest example of how our fight is bigger than Roe,” said Rachel Carmona, the executive director of Women’s March.

    On Thursday, Kacsmaryk told the plaintiffs that they had until February 24 to respond to a recent filing by the Danco, writing in an order that following the deadline, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

    On Friday, the plaintiffs in the case submitted one response to the FDA’s filing. But the deadline extension means that after the plaintiffs submit a separate response to Danco, the case is ripe for judgment since all required briefings will have been filed.

    Kacsmaryk can rule at any time after that, though he could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses as well.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China to offer free fertility treatment in bid to boost record low birth rate | CNN

    China to offer free fertility treatment in bid to boost record low birth rate | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    China is planning to offer free fertility treatment to citizens under its national insurance scheme in a bid to reverse its plummeting birth rate.

    The National Healthcare Security Administration said on Friday it would extend its coverage to help shoulder the costs for families trying to conceive.

    It said the new coverage would include assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques and also cover labor analgesia to ease pain in childbirth. The most commonly performed ART procedure is in vitro fertilization (IVF).

    The administration described China’s falling population as one of the biggest obstacles to national development and stressed it had already added ovulation-inducing drugs to its coverage, to help “reduce the burden of infertility.”

    The expanded coverage is part of a wider attempt by Chinese authorities to persuade more people to get married and have more children.

    The country’s birthrate has been falling for years and last year the country recorded its first population decline in more than 60 years.

    The country’s population fell to 1.411 billion in 2022, a drop of 850,000 people from the previous year, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

    At the same time, the birthrate fell to a record low of 6.77 births per 1,000 people. Some 9.56 million babies were born in 2022, compared with 10.62 million in 2021.

    An increasing number of women in China are delaying marriages and choosing not to have children, often citing financial constraints, and the need to prioritize careers, according to Chen Wei, a professor at China’s Renmin University. Options covering costly procedures such as IVF may help to alleviate some of these pressures, said Chen. The average cost associated with IVF in cities such as Shanghai is between $4,500 to $5,000.

    China has 539 ART-approved medical institutions and 27 sperm banks as of June 2021, and each year these facilities facilitate more than one million IVF cycles, according to experts from the country’s National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

    Policymakers are increasingly concerned about the impact China’s growing demographic crisis could have on economic growth.

    China introduced a highly controversial “one child” policy decades ago in an attempt to address fears of overpopulation and alleviate poverty, but decided to scrap it in 2015 amid concerns a rapidly aging population and shrinking workforce could threaten economic and social stability.

    Initially, it allowed couples to have up to two children, but later further loosened the policy to allow up to three.

    Chinese authorities are also moving to drop restrictions on registering the births of children born to unmarried parents in a country where unwed mothers still face stigma.

    In February, the provincial health commission of Sichuan – which is home to over 83 million people – said it would allow single parents to register the birth of their children, a move that granted them access to benefits previously reserved for married couples. These benefits included maternity insurance that covers prenatal healthcare, childbirth-related medical expenses and paid maternity leave.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is doxxing? | CNN

    What is doxxing? | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: This story is part of ‘Systems Error’, a series by CNN As Equals, investigating how your gender shapes your life online. For information about how CNN As Equals is funded and more, check out our FAQs.



    CNN
     — 

    In 2017, Kyle Quinn enjoyed the anonymity any engineering professor typically would until he became a target of doxxing. Angry social media users mistakenly identified him as having attended a White nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. His pictures, home address and employer’s name quickly made rounds across social networks, frightening Quinn and his wife and sending them to a colleague’s home for refuge, the New York Times reported.

    Quinn is one of many victims of doxxing, a form of online invasion of personal privacy that can lead to devastating consequences.

    According to the International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication, doxxing is the intentional revelation of a person’s private information online without their consent, often with malicious intent. This includes the sharing of phone numbers, home addresses, identification numbers and essentially any sensitive and previously private information such as personal photos that could make the victim identifiable and potentially exposed to further harassment, humiliation and real-life threats including stalking and unwanted encounters in person.

    There are multiple etymologies for the term, but the cybersecurity firm Kapersky reports that one explanation is that doxxing came from the phrase ”dropping documents” and gradually ”documents” became ”dox” which has been used as a verb to refer to the practice. Originally a form of online attack used by hackers, the firm wrote, doxxing has been around since the 1990s.

    Doxxing can happen in many ways online and on other platforms.

    According to the International Encyclopedia of Gender, Media, and Communication, in 2014, the gaming industry experienced a watershed moment known as Gamergate, a year-long culture war led by far right trolls online. After Eron Gjoni, ex-boyfriend of game developer Zoe Quinn uploaded a blog post about their break up, accused her of cheating on him, and shared screenshots of their private communications on an online forum, Quinn became one of many gamers to be a high-profile target of doxxing and rape threats, followed by many other female game developers who raised their voices, according to The Guardian.

    One of the victims, the American game developer Brianna Wu wrote in the magazine Index on Censorship: ”The truth is there is no free speech when speaking about your experiences leads to death threats, doxxing and having armed police sent to your house.”

    In 2014, Wu tweeted about escaping her home out of fear for her safety along with screenshots of death threats sent to her account.

    In 2019, the South African journalist and broadcaster Karima Brown missent a message meant for her producer to a WhatsApp group run by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) political party in which journalists are able to get media statements from the EFF, according to the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ). Julius Malema, the party leader, accused her of spying on the party, and reacted by tweeting her phone number to his 2.3 million followers. Brown reportedly received rape and murder threats, including graphic messages 7]. The high court in Johannesburg later ruled the doxxing was a violation of the country’s Electoral Act, according to the CPJ, with Brown telling the non-profit that the court’s ruling was “a victory for democracy and media freedom, and a blow against misogyny and toxic masculinity.”

    Facebook’s parent company Meta does not explicitly use the term ”doxxing” in its privacy violations policy, but said in a statement to CNN that it considers users sharing ”personally identifiable information” about others a violation of its community standards. The company says it reviews any piece of content against its community standards and may remove private information such as home addresses that could result in tangible harm unless this information is publicly available through news coverage, press releases or other sources. Facebook users can use a specific reporting channel when they are concerned about their image privacy on the platform.

    TikTok clearly defines doxxing in its community guidelines which ban both the collection and publication of individuals’ personal information for malicious intent. Users can report a specific item on the platform and follow the instructions.

    Twitter’s app and desktop versions allow you to report other users who tweet private information and media about themselves or somebody else without permission by clicking on the three dots in the corner of an offending tweet, then Report Tweet and following the instructions. Users found in violation of the policy are required to remove the content in question and temporarily locked out of their account. Twitter says permanent suspension may result from a second violation. Users can also file a separate form to report such violations.

    It depends on the jurisdiction. In Asia, Singapore outlawed most forms of intentional harassment or distress in 2014, which includes doxxing, and violators can be fined up to SGD $5,000 (nearly $3,800 US) and/or jailed for up to 6 months.

    In Indonesia, activists told CNN that doxxing cases have been on the rise, especially those targeting women human rights defenders and journalists. Damar Juniarto, the executive director of Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network, a network of digital rights activists, said the term doxxing ”is not known in the Indonesia legal system” causing some doxxing cases to not be taken seriously by police. But he explained that the Personal Data Protection law, passed in September, punishes people who use and share personal information without a person’s consent, which can include doxxing.

    In the UK, there are clear guidelines for prosecutors to handle cases, particularly cases of violence against women and girls, which involve threats to post personal information on social media and the disclosure of private sexual images without consent, and the punishments vary.

    In the US, measures to combat doxxing vary across states. Last year, Nevada passed a bill that bans doxxing and allows victims to bring a civil action against the perpetrators. In California, cyber harassment including doxxing with the intent to put others and their immediate family in danger can put violators in county jail for up to one year or impose a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

    In 2021, Hong Kong authorities amended the data privacy law to include doxxing, with people facing jail sentences of up to five years and fines of up to HK$1 million ($129,000 US). This followed the doxxing of many officials and police officers during the 2019 protests against the Hong Kong government’s proposed bill to allow extraditions to mainland China. Critics argued that doxxing can be legally defended if sharing information about government officials out of public interest.

    Lauren Krapf, the technology policy and advocacy counsel for the Anti-Defamation League in the US, said whether doxxing is criminal depends on the intent.

    ”I think in certain circumstances, it is probably appropriate that [doxxers] have some level of criminal liability or civil liability,” Krapf told CNN, but emphasized that doxxing is not a black and white situation. The activity itself can be an empowerment tool for people engaging in protests to share information about extremists to others, she explained.

    Across the US, “state laws vary greatly and there is no federal statute outlawing doxxing,” Krapf told CNN, meaning “there isn’t currently one specific standard codified.”

    While anyone can be doxxed, experts believe women are more likely to be targets of mass online attacks, leaks of their sensitive media, such as sexually explicit imagery that was stolen or shared without consent and unsolicited and sexualized messages.

    A 2020 report by UN Women focusing on India, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and South Korea found that women experience many forms of online violence simultaneously such as trolling, doxxing and social media hacks.

    A 2020 global report by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), found that online violence against women is startlingly prevalent in the 51 countries surveyed, with 45% of Generation Z and Millennial women reporting being affected, compared to 31% of Generation X women and Baby Boomers, while 85% of women surveyed overall report witnessing online violence against women. While online violence is alarmingly common globally, the study shows significant regional differences, with Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East showing at least 90% of women surveyed having been affected.

    While the responsibility to prevent doxxing rests with those who would violate another’s privacy, and not with the victim, it is useful to take some preventative steps to protect yourself online.

    It can help to be familiar with doxxing-related policies on the online platforms you use as well as how to report abuse more generally. Consider making it harder for people to track you online by restricting the accessibility of any information that can identify you online and offline. For example, check who can see your personal email, phone number, home addresses and other physical locations on your social media accounts.

    The University of Berkeley, PEN America and Artist at Risk Connection provide thorough online privacy guides.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Manhattan attorney says ‘many bits and pieces of evidence’ exist to charge Trump | CNN Politics

    Former Manhattan attorney says ‘many bits and pieces of evidence’ exist to charge Trump | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A former Manhattan special assistant district attorney who investigated Donald Trump said Sunday night there are “many bits and pieces of evidence” the district attorney could use to bring criminal charges against the former president.

    Mark Pomerantz, a former senior prosecutor on the Manhattan DA’s team investigating Trump and his organization’s business dealings, said prosecutors weighing similar evidence against anyone other than the former president would have moved ahead with charges in a “flat second.”

    Pomerantz made the comments in a “60 Minutes” interview promoting a new book about his time investigating Trump. He pointed to evidence he had access to during the investigation – principal among them, that Trump personally signed off on inflating his own net worth to obtain more favorable banks loans.

    “There were many bits and pieces of evidence on which we could rely in making that case,” Pomerantz told CBS’s Bill Whitaker.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, his eldest children and others alleging they were engaged in a decade long fraud by using inaccurate financial statements to obtain favorable loan and insurance rates and tax treatment. The burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is lower than what prosecutors need to prove a criminal case. Trump has called the lawsuit politically motivated and has denied any wrongdoing.

    The allegations come nearly a year after Pomerantz resigned from the DA’s office in protest and days before the release of his new book, which has prompted pushback from District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

    Pomerantz resigned after Bragg, who was newly sworn into office, refused to give him a green light to seek an indictment against Trump. The district attorney’s office previously brought tax fraud charges against the Trump Organization and chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty.

    Pomerantz resigned last February along with general counsel Carey Dunne.

    “If you take the exact same conduct – and make it not about Donald Trump and not about a former president of the United States, would the case have been indicted? It would have been indicted in a flat second,” Pomerantz said Sunday. He called Bragg’s decision not to bring the case a “grave failure of justice.”

    Pomerantz’s claims detailed in his forthcoming book have drawn the ire of his former boss and the DA’s Association of the State of New York, who claim that a former prosecutor speaking out about a case he used to be a part of could damage its integrity.

    Bragg’s office asked to review the book before its publication out of concern it would reveal information obtained from a grand jury. Simon & Schuster, the publisher, moved ahead with publication.

    “After closely reviewing all the evidence from Mr. Pomerantz’s investigation, I came to the same conclusion as several senior prosecutors involved in the case, and also those I brought on: more work was needed. Put another way, Mr. Pomerantz’s plane wasn’t ready for takeoff,” Bragg said in a statement to CNN.

    Bragg added that he hasn’t “read the book, and won’t comment on any ongoing investigation because of the harm it could cause to the case. But I do hope there is at least one section where Mr. Pomerantz recognizes his former colleagues for how much they have achieved on the Trump matter over the last year since his departure.”

    In January, a New York judge fined the Trump Organization $1.6 million – the maximum possible penalty – for running a decade-long tax fraud scheme, a symbolic moment because it is the only judgment for a criminal conviction that has come close to the former president.

    Two Trump entities, The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp., were convicted last year of 17 felonies, including tax fraud and falsifying business records. Trump himself was never charged or convicted.

    On Sunday Pomerantz expanded on what evidence he believes they had against Trump, including Trump’s signature on a Deutsche Bank loan certifying that all of his financial statements were accurate.

    “He warrants that the financial statements are true and correct in all material respects. Finally of course on the guaranty is his sharpie signature, Donald J. Trump,” Pomerantz said. He also alleges he has documents proving Trump knew the accurate size of his 10,996-square-foot Fifth Avenue condominium, but lied anyways, claiming in 2015 and 2016 accounting documents that it was really 30,000 square feet.

    CNN previously reported that some prosecutors did not believe they had enough evidence to prove Trump’s intent and they lacked a credible narrator to explain how the financial statements were put together.

    In a letter to Pomerantz, Trump’s lawyer threatened legal action against the former prosecutor if he releases the book. The lawyer, Joe Tacopina, told CNN in a statement that Pomerantz’s “desperate attempt to sell books will cost him everything. Not to mention, it is clear that he was very much in the minority in his position that President Trump committed a crime.”

    In the book, which publishes on Tuesday, Pomerantz compares Trump to John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organized crime family, according to an advanced copy obtained by The New York Times, and lays out the complicated investigation that saw many close to the former president charged with crimes.

    Meanwhile, Bragg’s office last week accelerated its investigation into Trump’s alleged role in a hush money payment made to silence adult film star Stormy Daniel’s allegations of an affair. Trump has denied the affair.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans across the country push legislation to restrict drag show performances | CNN Politics

    Republicans across the country push legislation to restrict drag show performances | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A slew of bills, mostly in Republican-led states, are looking to restrict or prohibit drag show performances in the presence of children, part of a larger fight over a burgeoning culture war issue.

    Republicans say the performances expose children to sexual themes and imagery that are inappropriate, a claim rejected by advocates, who say the proposed measures are discriminatory against the LGBTQ community and could violate First Amendment laws.

    As transgender issues and drag culture are increasingly becoming more mainstream, such shows – which often feature men dressing as women in exaggerated makeup while singing or entertaining a crowd, though some shows feature bawdier content – have occasionally been the target of attacks, and LGBTQ advocates say the bills under consideration add to a heightened state of alarm for the community.

    Bills in at least 11 states across the country are working their way through legislatures, though none have yet been signed into law, according to a CNN review.

    Legislation in Tennessee and Arizona, which seek to limit “adult cabaret performances” on public property so as to shield them from the view of children, threaten violators with a misdemeanor and repeat offenders with a felony. A bill in the Texas legislature would include restaurants and bars that host drag performances under the state’s definition of a “sexually oriented business.”

    Under the terms presently being considered in West Virginia, parents or guardians of children who are either involved in drag shows or permit their children to be in the presence of one could be “required to complete parenting classes, substance abuse counseling, anger management counseling or other appropriate services” as determined by the state.

    Shangela, a drag performer who has competed on “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” told CNN in an interview that as the drag community has gained visibility, “it becomes a greater target and a greater point of possible division.”

    “Now (people are) seeing drag. They’re seeing it on their cable networks, they’re seeing it in film, and it’s being represented authentically. And it’s forcing, it’s driving conversations that have never had to be had before. And some people are afraid of that,” she said.

    Jonathan Hamilt, the executive director of Drag Story Hour, a non-profit organization that features performers reading to children, believes bigotry is the motivation behind the bills.

    “If drag wasn’t rooted in gay culture and rooted in queer community, I don’t think it’d be up for debate,” Hamilt said. “Nobody is banning clowns, nobody is banning miming. This is nothing new, this is just the 2023 trending version of what homophobia looks like.”

    “Drag meddles in stories about gender, beauty, and culture,” drag queen Sasha Velour wrote for CNN in 2017. “Even in the act of lip syncing, we choose a song – a preexisting story that’s deemed ‘straight’ or ‘normal’ or ‘nothing out of the ordinary’ – and then we squeeze our beautiful queer bodies into it, shifting the meaning, disrupting the total effect. Drag makes room for us queers as we are (or perhaps more importantly, as we imagine ourselves) in the center of every recognizable narrative.”

    Republican sponsors of some bills, however, claim such performances are adult in nature and potentially harmful to children.

    “When you take one of these little kids and put them in front of drag queens that are men dressed like women, do you think that helps them or confuses them in regard to their own gender?” Arkansas state Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican who sponsored legislation that passed in the state Senate last month, asked during floor remarks.

    “This bill is not anti-drag. It is pro-child,” Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson told CNN in a statement. “I am carrying the legislation to protect children from being exposed to sexually explicit drag shows that are inappropriate for minor audiences. It is similar to laws that prohibit children from going to a strip club.”

    Johnson’s press secretary, Molly Gormley, insisted to CNN that the bill, which looks to limit “entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest,” is specifically aimed at “sexually explicit” drag performances and that the senator is “not taking issue with drag shows or children at drag shows.”

    A Montana bill, which flatly seeks to prohibit children from attending drag shows, would block drag performances at publicly funded libraries or schools, a reference to events such as Drag Queen Story Hours, which have occasionally faced backlash from far-right groups. During an event last year, Proud Boys interrupted as drag queen Panda Dulce was reading to children at the San Lorenzo Library in California.

    Several sponsors to whom CNN spoke said some constituents complained about the shows, while others offered anecdotal examples of performances they described as sexually explicit.

    “You have the constitutional right as an adult to engage in sexual activity, you have the constitutional right to go to a drag performance. And no one in Texas is actually trying to stop that,” said Texas state Rep. Nate Schatzline, a Republican. “I think when we see minors involved in activities that are inappropriate for a child to be involved in, that’s where we as legislators have to step up and say, ‘Hey, we have to draw a line,’ because ultimately it’s our job to protect the liberties of those that are citizens in the state of Texas and to protect those that can’t protect themselves.”

    Advocates of LGBTQ and free speech rights fear that the laws, if passed, would have a chilling effect on the performances and argue that the language is vague.

    “It’s not clear to me that a trans man for example, who wrote a book, would be able to do a book reading at a local book store under these bills. A high school couldn’t perform a Shakespeare play like Twelfth Night because Twelfth Night explicitly in its plot includes a woman dressed as a man,” said Kate Ruane, the director of Pen America’s US Free Expression program.

    Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, noted that the bills don’t amount to outright bans on drag performances but “libraries, book stores, regular theaters and restaurants would have to comply with all adult business regulations, and they are unlikely to do that so they’re more likely to cancel the shows.”

    Some drag shows indeed may be inappropriate for children, Shangela acknowledged. But, she said, “you can’t characterize the world of the drag by one particular type of show, the same way that you can’t characterize the way a television film by one particular program.”

    “The world of drag is no different than any other aspect of entertainment in our world,” she said. “If you are a parent that is concerned about what your child is seeing, then you stay involved in what you’re allowing your child to be exposed to.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cohen says he handed over phones to Manhattan DA | CNN Politics

    Cohen says he handed over phones to Manhattan DA | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Michael Cohen, former President Donald Trump’s former attorney, has handed over his cell phones to Manhattan prosecutors, he told “CNN This Morning” on Wednesday.

    Prosecutors are zeroing in on the Trump Organization’s involvement in hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels as part of an effort to stop her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump days before the 2016 presidential election. A grand jury in New York has been convened to hear evidence related to the effort, sources familiar with the matter have told CNN.

    Cohen met last month with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Trump has denied the affair.

    CNN has reported that former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was set to meet with prosecutors this week as part of the probe. The district attorney’s office also reached out to Keith Davidson, who represented Daniels in the hush money deal, in recent weeks.

    Manhattan prosecutors are looking into whether Trump and his business falsified business records by improperly treating the reimbursement as a legal expense. That charge is a misdemeanor in New York unless it can be tied to another crime, such as campaign finance laws.

    Prosecutors working under the previous DA, Cy Vance, had explored bringing charges related to the hush money scheme but some attorneys on the team were not convinced that a charge involving a federal election law violation would survive legal challenges, people familiar with the investigation told CNN.

    Last year, a jury convicted two Trump Organization entities of a decade-long tax fraud scheme, which appears to have emboldened prosecutors.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Minnesota governor signs bill codifying ‘fundamental right’ to abortion into law | CNN Politics

    Minnesota governor signs bill codifying ‘fundamental right’ to abortion into law | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Minnesota’s Democratic Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill into law Tuesday that enshrines the “fundamental right” to access abortion in the state.

    Abortion is already legal in Minnesota, but in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the Protect Reproductive Options Act goes a step further by outlining that every person has the fundamental right to make “autonomous decisions” about their own reproductive health as well as the right to refuse reproductive health care.

    “This is very simple, very right to the point,” Walz said Tuesday on “CNN Tonight.” “We trust women in Minnesota, and that’s not what came out of the [Supreme Court’s] decision, so I think it’s critically important that we build a fire wall.”

    With the passage of the bill, Minnesota is now the first state to codify abortion via legislative action since Roe v. Wade was reversed, the office of the bill’s lead author in Minnesota’s state Senate, told CNN.

    “Last November, Minnesotans spoke loud and clear: They want their reproductive rights protected – not stripped away,” Walz said in a news release. “Today, we are delivering on our promise to put up a firewall against efforts to reverse reproductive freedom. No matter who sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court, this legislation will ensure Minnesotans have access to reproductive health care for generations to come. Here in Minnesota, your access to reproductive health care and your freedom to make your own health care decisions are preserved and protected.”

    The bill states that local government cannot restrict a person’s ability to exercise the “fundamental right” to reproductive freedom. It also clarifies that this right extends to accessing contraception, sterilization, family planning, fertility services and counseling regarding reproductive health care.

    “The Pro Act also goes beyond just granting those rights to abortion, it really says all reproductive healthcare decisions aren’t our business, including access to contraception, including access to really anything that is related to personal and private decisions about your reproductive life,” Megan Peterson, the executive director of pro-abortion rights campaign UnRestrict Minnesota, told CNN following Walz’s signing of the bill.

    In a letter to Walz ahead of the signing, Republican legislature leaders argued that the bill went too far and urged the governor to veto what they called “an extreme law.”

    “As the PRO Act was being rushed through the legislature, Republicans offered reasonable amendments with guardrails to protect women and children,” state Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson and House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth wrote, “Sadly, each of these amendments were struck down by a Democrat majority.”

    In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Gomez that abortion was a fundamental right protected under the state’s constitution. The Protect Reproductive Options Act ensures that even in the event of a new state Supreme Court reversing the ruling, the right to abortion will be protected under state law.

    “By passing this law, Minnesotans will have a second layer of protection for their existing reproductive rights. A future Minnesota Supreme Court could overturn Doe v. Gomez, but with the PRO Act now in State law, Minnesotans will still have a right to Reproductive healthcare,” Luke Bishop, a spokesperson for Democratic State Sen. Jennifer McEwen, the bill’s author in the Senate, told CNN over email.

    Following the governor’s signature of the bill, the White House applauded Minnesota’s efforts, pointing to the popular support for women’s rights to make their own health care decisions.

    “Americans overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, as so clearly demonstrated last fall when voters turned out to defend access to abortion – including for ballot initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

    “While Congressional Republicans continue their support for extreme policies including a national abortion ban, the President and Vice President are calling on Congress to restore the protections of Roe in federal law,” she wrote. “Until then, the Biden-Harris Administration will continue its work to protect access to abortion and support state leaders in defending women’s reproductive rights.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link