ReportWire

Tag: civil rights and liberties

  • Senate to take up book ban restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Senate is poised to approve a plan to restrict efforts to ban books from public libraries and schools in response to a rise in challenges from parents and conservative groups.

    The “free expression” legislation, which cleared the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Thursday with bipartisan support, would make Massachusetts one of a handful of states to effectively outlaw book bans because of “personal, political or doctrinal” views by setting new restrictions on receiving state funding.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm&?56C E96 AC@A@D2=[ D49@@= 5:DEC:4ED[ 492CE6C D49@@=D 2?5 =@42= 65F42E:@? 286?4:6D H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ 25@AE 2?5 AF3=:D9 2 HC:EE6? D49@@= =:3C2CJ A@=:4J E92E 8@G6C?D E96 D6=64E:@? 2?5 FD6 @7 =:3C2CJ >2E6C:2=D 2?5 @FE=:?6D AC@465FC6D 7@C C6DA@?5:?8 E@ 3@@< 492==6?86D]k^Am

    kAm{:3C2C:6D H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ 25@AE E96 p>6C:42? {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@?’D {:3C2CJ q:== @7 #:89ED[ H9:49 564=2C6D E92E “>2E6C:2=D D9@F=5 ?@E 36 6I4=F565 3642FD6 @7 E96 @C:8:?[ 324<8C@F?5[ @C G:6HD @7 E9@D6 4@?EC:3FE:?8 E@ E96:C 4C62E:@?” @C 2 D:>:=2C A@=:4J]k^Am

    kAm%96 >62DFC6[ D=2E65 7@C 2 G@E6 }@G] `b 😕 E96 7F== $6?2E6[ H@F=5 DE:== ?665 E@ 36 2AAC@G65 3J E96 DE2E6 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 DFCG:G6 v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J’D G6E@ A6? E@ 364@>6 =2H]k^Am

    kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 |2DD249FD6EED $49@@= {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@? 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED {:3C2CJ pDD@4:2E:@?[ D2J E96 492?86D 2C6 2:>65 2E AFD9:?8 324< 2E 677@CED 3J A2C6?ED 2?5 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD E@ C6>@G6 46CE2:? E:E=6D 7C@> D49@@=D 2?5 AF3=:4 =:3C2C:6D]k^Am

    kAm%9@D6 8C@FAD 92G6 4:E65 2? FAE:4< 😕 “3@@< 492==6?86D” 3J A2C6?E 8C@FAD[ 4@?D6CG2E:G6 @C82?:K2E:@?D 2?5 =2H>2<6CD H9@ H2?E E@ C6>@G6 46CE2:? 3@@ D49@@=D 2?5 =:3C2C:6D[ 6DA64:2==J E9@D6 562=:?8 H:E9 {vq%” 2?5 C24:2= E96>6D]k^Am

    kAm!t} p>6C:42[ 2 ?@?AC@7:E @C82?:K2E:@? 565:42E65 E@ 7C665@> @7 6IAC6DD:@?[ D2:5 >@C6 E92? `_[___ 3@@ a_ab E@ a_ac] p D:K23=6 49F?< @7 E96 3@@< 32?D E@@< A=246 😕 u=@C:52 2?5 x@H2 2D 3@E9 DE2E6D 6?7@C465 DH66A:?8 =2HD E2C86E:?8 4=2DDC@@> >2E6C:2=[ !t} D2:5]k^Am

    kAm“$E2E6 =68:D=2E:@? H2D 2=D@ A2CE:4F=2C=J 4C:E:42= 😕 2446=6C2E:?8 3@@< 32?D[ >2<:?8 :E 62D:6C E@ C6>@G6 3@@ D49@@=D H:E9@FE 5F6 AC@46DD[ @C 😕 D@>6 42D6D[ H:E9@FE 2?J 7@C>2= AC@46DD H92ED@6G6C[” E96 8C@FA D2:5 😕 2 C646?E C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED =:3C2C:2?D D2J E96J 92G6 366? D66:?8 2? FAE:4< 😕 E96 ?F>36C @7 3@@< 492==6?86D 7C@> A2C6?ED 2?5 @FED:56 8C@FAD FAD6E H:E9 H92E E96J G:6H 2D :?2AAC@AC:2E6 4@?E6?E @? D6IF2=:EJ 2?5 C24:D> 7@C J@F?86C C6256CD]k^Am

    kAmr@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD 2C8F6 E96J 2C6 ?@E =@@<:?8 E@ 32? 3@@@E:@?2= =62C?:?8 @G6C 2 EC25:E:@?2= 65F42E:@?[ 2?5 E96 :?EC@5F4E:@? @7 D6IF2==J 6IA=:4:E 3@@:55=6 2?5 9:89 D49@@= =:3C2C:6D]k^Am

    kAmqFE 4C:E:4D 4@?E6?5 E96 3@@< 492==6?86D 2C6 36:?8 5C:G6? =2C86=J 3J C24:D> 2?5 9@>@A9@3:2[ 2?5 2C6 92C>:?8 DEF56?ED 2?5 DE:7=:?8 7C66 DA6649]k^Am

    kAm~3D6CG6CD D2J 3@@< 32??:?8 92D 8@?6 7656C2= F?56C E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H:E9 E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 s676?D6 C6>@G:?8 5:G6CD:EJ[ 6BF:EJ 2?5 :?4=FD:@? >2E6C:2=D 7C@> =:3C2C:6D @? >:=:E2CJ 32D6D E92E D6CG6 24E:G6 D6CG:46 >6>36CD]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? D2:5 3@@65 E@ 36 😕 A@DD:3=6 G:@=2E:@? @7 E96 AC6D:56?E’D 6I64FE:G6 @C56CD E2C86E:?8 EC2?D86?56C A6@A=6 2?5 D@42==65 “C25:42= :?5@4EC:?2E:@?” @7 D49@@=49:=5C6? 92G6 366? C6>@G65 7C@> =:3C2CJ D96=G6D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge overturns Trump’s Harvard funding freeze

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s move to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard University was unconstitutional.

    The ruling issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Boston said the funding freeze amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion” against the Ivy League school for refusing to yield to the White House’s “ideologically motivated” policy demands.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“p C6G:6H @7 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 C64@C5 >2<6D :E 5:77:4F=E E@ 4@?4=F56 2?JE9:?8 @E96C E92? E92E E96 5676?52?ED WE96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?EX FD65 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2D 2 D>@<6D4C66? 7@C 2 E2C86E65[ :56@=@8:42==J>@E:G2E65 2DD2F=E @? E9:D 4@F?ECJ’D AC6>:6C F?:G6CD:E:6D[” qFCC@F89D HC@E6 😕 E96 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmqFCC@F89D’ CF=:?8 3=@4:?:DEC2E:@? 7C@> E6C>:?2E:?8 @C 7C66K:?8 >@C6 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E@ w2CG2C5[ 3FE E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 92D G@H65 E@ 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm(9:E6 w@FD6 DA@<6DA6CD@? {:K wFDE@? D2:5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? H:== 2AA62= E96 CF=:?8 2?5 3=2DE65 qFCC@F89D 2D 2? “24E:G:DE ~32>22AA@:?E65 ;F586]” $96 D2:5 w2CG2C5 “5@6D ?@E 92G6 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ E2IA2J6C 5@==2CD 2?5 C6>2:?D :?6=:8:3=6 7@C 8C2?ED 😕 E96 7FEFC6]”k^Am

    kAmx? 2 DE2E6>6?E[ w2CG2C5 !C6D:56?E p=2? v2C36C D2:5 E96 ;F586’D CF=:?8 “277:C>D w2CG2C5’D u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 2?5 AC@465FC2= C:89ED[ 2?5 G2=:52E6D @FC 2C8F>6?ED 😕 5676?D6 @7 E96 &?:G6CD:EJ’D 24256>:4 7C665@>[ 4C:E:42= D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49[ 2?5 E96 4@C6 AC:?4:A=6D @7 p>6C:42? 9:896C 65F42E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm“tG6? 2D H6 24@H=6586 E96 :>A@CE2?E AC:?4:A=6D 277:C>65 😕 E@52J’D CF=:?8[ H6 H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ 2DD6DD E96 :>A=:42E:@?D @7 E96 @A:?:@?[ >@?:E@C 7FCE96C =682= 56G6=@A>6?ED[ 2?5 36 >:?57F= @7 E96 492?8:?8 =2?5D42A6 😕 H9:49 H6 D66< E@ 7F=7:== @FC >:DD:@?[” v6C36C D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 925 2C8F65 E96 7F?5:?8 7C66K6 H2D ?646DD2CJ E@ 4@>A6= w2CG2C5 E@ 255C6DD 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2?5 “C25:42= =67E” :56@=@8:6D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAmt2C=:6C E9:D J62C[ E96 (9:E6 w@FD6’D ;@:?E 2?E:D6>:E:D> E2D< 7@C46 — H9:49 :?4=F56D E96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 w62=E9 2?5 wF>2? $6CG:46D 2?5 s6A2CE>6?E @7 t5F42E:@? — D2:5 :E 92D 5:C64E65 7656C2= 286?4:6D E@ 7C66K6 >@C6 E92? Sa]a 3:==:@? 😕 5:C64E 7656C2= 7F?5D E@ E96 6=:E6 D49@@=]k^Am

    kAm%96 286?4:6D 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D a_ab C63F<6 😕 $EF56?ED 7@C u2:C p5>:DD:@?D G] w2CG2C5[ F?:G6CD:EJ :?G6DE:82E:@?D 2?5 C6A@CED E92E 7@F?5 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 2C6 DF3;64E65 E@ A6CG2D:G6 :?DF=ED[ A9JD:42= 2DD2F=E[ 2?5 :?E:>:52E:@? @? 42>AFD[ H:E9 “?@ >62?:?87F= C6DA@?D6” 7C@> w2CG2C5’D =6256CD9:A]k^Am

    kAm“w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ @?46 2 DJ>3@= @7 24256>:4 AC6DE:86[ 92D 364@>6 2 3C665:?8 8C@F?5 7@C G:CEF6 D:8?2=:?8 2?5 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[” E96 E2D< 7@C46 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96C6 😀 2 52C< AC@3=6> @? w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ 2?5 3J AC:@C:E:K:?8 2AA62D6>6?E @G6C 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ :?DE:EFE:@?2= =6256CD 92G6 7@C76:E65 E96 D49@@=’D 4=2:> E@ E2IA2J6C DFAA@CE]”k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 DF65 @G6C E96 >@G6[ 4=2:>:?8 :E H2D “2C3:EC2CJ 2?5 42AC:4:@FD” 2?5 G:@=2E65 :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2?5 E96 DE2EFE@CJ AC@G:D:@?D @7 %:E=6 ‘x @7 E96 r:G:= #:89ED p4E]k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 92D >@C6 E92? Sh 3:==:@? 😕 4FCC6?E 2?5 A=65865 7656C2= 8C2?ED 2?5 4@?EC24ED[ >F49 @7 :E 56G@E65 E@ D4:6?E:7:4 2?5 >65:42= C6D62C49[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 F?:G6CD:EJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 =682= 7:89E 😀 A2CE @7 2 9:89DE2<6D 5:DAFE6 36EH66? E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2?5 E96 xGJ {628F6 F?:G6CD:EJ[ H9:49 92D AFD965 324< 282:?DE E96 AC6D:56?E’D 677@CED E@ 7@C46 D49@@= =6256CD E@ 6=:>:?2E6 :ED 5:G6CD:EJ AC@8C2>>:?8 2?5 4FCE2:= DEF56?E 56>@?DEC2E:@?D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2=D@ D@F89E E@ AC6G6?E w2CG2C5 7C@> 6?C@==:?8 :?E6C?2E:@?2= DEF56?ED 😕 2? 677@CE E@ AF?:D9 E96 D49@@= 7@C C67FD:?8 :ED 56>2?5D] qFE E9@D6 677@CED 92G6 D@ 72C 366? 3=@4<65 3J 7656C2= 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 😀 2=D@ AFD9:?8 7@C w2CG2C5 E@ 36 DEC:AA65 @7 :ED 244C65:E2E:@? 2?5 E2I6I6>AE DE2EFD 2D 96 AC6DD6D 7@C C67@C>D 2E @E96C 6=:E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D 2?5 4@==686D 96 4=2:>D 2C6 “:?5@4EC:?2E:?8” DEF56?ED H:E9 “C25:42= =67E” :562D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — An abortion rights group is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit against them and Gov. Maura Healey by anti-abortion groups in response to a state-funded campaign targeting pregnancy ‘crisis’ center operators.

    In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Boston on Tuesday, lawyers for the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation argue that the plaintiffs “lack standing” to file the lawsuit and blasted the legal challenge as an attempt to “silence” their advocacy work.

    “Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, this case is not about any wrongful deprivation of the First Amendment or other constitutional rights …” lawyers for the foundation wrote in a court filing. “Instead, it is a blatant attempt to enlist this court’s assistance in its effort to silence Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its president Rebecca Hart Holder, by enjoining them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in August by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of Your Options Medical Center and others, alleges that the state and Equity Now violated their constitutional rights with a “campaign of harassment, suppression, and threats” against the Revere-based facility and other pregnancy centers.

    At issue is a taxpayer-funded education campaign by the state Department of Health warning the public to avoid pregnancy crisis centers, which have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning federal protections.

    The $1 million campaign, which began earlier this year, has blanketed social media platforms, billboards and radio, with ads emblazoned on MBTA buses, trains and depots.

    The plaintiffs allege the campaign has forced them “to operate in a culture of fear and harassment” and that they continue to face “unprecedented investigations, including unnecessary subpoenas,” despite a prior state investigation clearing the operators of any wrongdoing.

    But lawyers for Holder and Equity Now argue in court filings that the public education campaign hasn’t deprived the pregnancy centers of their free speech rights or interfered with their operations.

    “To be clear, the public has not been prevented from seeking out and receiving YOM’s services, and YOM has not been prevented from expressing its viewpoints or fulfilling its mission consistent with those viewpoints,” they wrote.

    The plaintiffs “utterly failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate this is one of those rare instances in which the conduct of private parties constitutes state action,” they added.

    Hart-Holder calls the lawsuit “an attempt to silence our organization and prevent us from exercising our First Amendment protected right to free speech.”

    “We will not be intimidated by this lawsuit, and we will always fight for New England patients and their ability to access the reproductive health care that is right for them,” she said in a statement.

    Pregnancy crisis centers have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning federal protections.

    The centers, which advertise free services and counseling for women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, have proliferated in the wake of the high court’s decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

    But Healey and women’s reproductive rights groups claim the facilities are funded by anti-abortion groups with the intention of blocking women from getting abortions.

    In June, the state Department of Public Health partnered with the advocacy groups on a new campaign to educate the public about the “dangers and potential harm” of anti-abortion centers that advocates say are providing misleading information to women.

    The $1 million taxpayer-funded public campaign features ads on social media platforms, billboards, radio and transit warning women about the pregnancy crisis centers.

    Some communities have moved to limit or ban the centers amid complaints that they are using deceptive advertising and providing misinformation.

    But anti-abortion groups say the centers are providing options to women other than abortions and being unfairly targeted by a “smear campaign” by proponents of the procedure.

    The Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts said the network of pregnancy care centers in the state “provides millions of dollars in no-cost support and care for thousands of women annually who face planned and unplanned pregnancies.”

    The alliance has accused Healey and other state leaders of “furthering their extreme abortion agenda by using a taxpayer-funded campaign to discredit our centers.”

    “Our pregnancy resource centers are paying close attention to the case and look forward to learning the outcome, since a decision will directly impact our service to women and communities across the state,” the alliance said in a statement.

    The conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which has helped former President Donald Trump fight his legal battles, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. It argues that the campaign targeting pregnancy centers is part of a strategy to “silence the anti-abortion movement.”

    Healey, who is being represented by the Attorney General’s office, hasn’t formally responded to the lawsuit’s claims but was granted an extension this week to file her response until Dec. 13, according to federal court filings.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link