FILE – Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee delivers his State of the State address in the House Chamber of the Capitol building, Monday, Jan. 31, 2022, in Nashville, Tenn. Lee has signed legislation that will strictly regulate the dispensing of abortion pills, including imposing harsh penalties on doctors who violate them. The measure will go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. (AP Photo/Mark Zaleski, File)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee will soon strictly regulate the dispensing of abortion pills, including imposing harsh penalties on doctors who violate them, under legislation recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee.
The measure, which Lee signed on Thursday, will go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. Once enacted, a medical clinician will be required to be physically present when abortion pills are administered to a patient even though federal regulations now allow mail delivery nationwide.
The issue has become even more important as the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as suggested through a recently leaked draft opinion. Notably, Tennessee is among the 13 states with a so-called trigger law that would make abortion illegal should Roe be overturned.
To date, 19 states have placed strict restrictions on accessing medication abortion. Under the Tennessee version, delivery of abortion pills by mail would be outlawed and anyone who wanted to use abortion pills would be required to visit a doctor in advance and then return to pick up the pills.
The drugs may be dispensed only by qualified physicians — which would include barring pharmacists from doing so. Violators would face a Class E felony and up to a $50,000 fine.
However, according to abortion law experts, it’s an unsettled question whether states can restrict access to abortion pills in the wake of the the Food and Drug Administration’s decision earlier this year to no longer require women to pick up the abortion medication in person. The move allowed millions of American women to get a prescription via an online consultation and receive the pills through the mail.
“The general rule is that federal law preempts conflicting state law,” Laura Hermer, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, recently told The Associated Press.
No lawsuit has been filed challenging Tennessee’s newly enacted restrictions.
Meanwhile, the in-person requirement had long been opposed by medical societies, including the American Medical Association, which said the restriction offers no clear benefit to patients
Use of abortion pills has been rising in the U.S. since 2000 when the FDA approved mifepristone — the main drug used in medication abortions. More than half of U.S. abortions are now done with pills, rather than surgery, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
Two drugs are required. The first, mifepristone, blocks a hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. A second drug, misoprostol, taken one to two days later, empties the uterus. Both drugs are available as generics and are also used to treat other conditions.
Tennessee is the latest red state to make it a felony to mail abortion pills.
The law makes it punishable by 20 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. https://t.co/xdMbhujz13
Bill Hwang, founder of the more than $10 billion Archegos Capital Management investment firm who was once revered as one of the Evangelical world’s biggest benefactors, could spend the rest of his life in prison after he was arrested and charged Wednesday with racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud offenses.
The charges stem from a number of interrelated schemes to unlawfully manipulate the prices of publicly traded securities in Archegos’ portfolio, the U.S. Department of Justice announced. Prosecutors say those schemes caused billions of dollars in losses to leading global investment banks, brokerages and investors.
In recent years, Hwang, who co-founded the Grace and Mercy Foundation, has been a contributor to Focus on the Family and a trustee of the Fuller Theology Seminary.
“We allege that these defendants and their co-conspirators lied to banks to obtain billions of dollars that they then used to inflate the stock price of a number of publicly-traded companies,” said U.S. Attorney Williams.
“The lies fed the inflation, and the inflation led to more lies. Round and round it went. In one year, Hwang allegedly turned a $1.5 billion portfolio and pumped it up into a $35 billion portfolio. But last year, the music stopped. The bubble burst. The prices dropped. And when they did, billions of dollars of capital evaporated nearly overnight.”
“As alleged, Hwang and his co-conspirators convinced major financial institutions to enter into agreements with them based on lies, the result of which ultimately led to a massive market manipulation scheme,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Michael J. Driscoll.
“We allege the defendants caused harm to U.S. financial markets and ordinary investors alike, causing significant losses to banks, market participants and Archegos employees. Today’s charges highlight our commitment to making sure the investment arena remains free from fraudulent activity of all kinds.”
Market participants who purchased the relevant stocks at artificial prices lost the value they believed their investments held, the banks lost billions of dollars, and Archegos employees, many of whom were required to invest 25% or more of their bonuses with Archegos as deferred compensation, lost millions of dollars.
When Ravi Zacharias filed a RICO lawsuit against @LoriAnneThomps2 whom he sexually abused, Ravi said he had a “donor with deep pockets who’ll fund it as long as it takes to silence the Thompsons.” That donor was Bill Hwang, who was just arrested by DOJ for fraud and racketeering. https://t.co/ifATk6C7qKpic.twitter.com/0JzkyygRkd
U.S. authorities charged Archegos Capital Management owner Bill Hwang with racketeering, fraud and market manipulation as regulators said their manipulation of stock prices cost banks billions of dollars https://t.co/3mG3SZfF4mpic.twitter.com/y7yPs7MqW0
So Focus on the Family gets bankrolled by a crook? And that’s all Biblical, right? Rob Peter to pay Paul and then we can fuck over all the homos. Now I get it.
The authorities don’t care about his employees who lost millions of dollars because they were forced to invest 25% or more of their bonuses with Archegos as deferred compensation. But the banks and other rich people lost billions. That’s the real crime. Stealing money from rich people and banks.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is facing backlash after questioning how many “over-educated, under-loved” women have participated in protests supporting abortion rights after a draft ruling from the Supreme Court showed that the bench is poised to roll back Roe v. Wade.
“How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” Gaetz wrote on Twitter Wednesday morning.
The tweet came two days after Politico published a draft majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, that said the rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey “must be overturned.” The Supreme Court said the leaked draft ruling is “authentic,” but stressed that it does not reflect the final decision from the bench.
Protesters, however, have since taken to the streets to speak out against the draft opinion or express support for overturning the near 50-year precedent.
Gaetz is now drawing scrutiny for his tweet about some protesters.
Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Bulwark, wrote on Twitter Tuesday that Gaetz’s comment illustrated “witless and vulgar misogyny.”
Jessica Valenti, who dubs herself a “feminist author” on Twitter, quoted Gaetz’s mention of “over-educated” women before writing, “If you think this kind of language is just a gaffe, you’re wrong.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) used his response to Gaetz’s tweet as a way to galvanize voters ahead of the November midterm elections.
“Republicans like Matt Gaetz are for government-mandated pregnancy, against education, and against cats. You can help on campaigns to decide whether or not he is in the majority this November (assuming he isn’t indicted by the DOJ who is investigating him for sex crimes),” the congressman wrote on Twitter.
A number of tweets criticizing the congressman referenced the sex trafficking investigation that is examining the 39-year-old congressman. Investigators are probing to see if Gaetz paid for sex, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and if he paid women to cross over state lines to have sex with him, according to The Washington Post.
The congressman has denied the allegations, contending that he has not paid for sex nor had sex with a minor while he was an adult, the Post noted. The investigation into Gaetz stemmed from a federal probe into former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg, who in June pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a minor, among other federal crimes.
“How many of the Republican politicians trying to control women and restrict their fundamental rights are currently under criminal investigation for sex crimes?” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) wrote on Twitter.
Meena Harris, the niece of Vice President Harris and the founder of Phenomenal Woman Action Campaign, sounded a similar note, writing on Twitter “How many of the right wing members of Congress rallying against Roe are under investigation for sex trafficking a minor? Just you?”
Jemele Hill, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, wrote on Twitter “How many Florida politicians are out here using a tax collector as a personal pimp to procure sex with a 17 year old girl because they’re a predator and gross?”
“Hypothetically speaking, of course,” she added.
“My tweet speaks for itself,” Gaetz told The Hill when reached for comment. “I obviously don’t regret it.”
Republicans like Matt Gaetz are for government-mandated pregnancy, against education, and against cats.
You can help on campaigns to decide whether or not he is in the majority this November (assuming he isn’t indicted by the DOJ who is investigating him for sex crimes). https://t.co/yfmm0NplPJ
How many of the right wing members of Congress rallying against Roe are under investigation for sex trafficking a minor? Just you? https://t.co/oqSo1XjPwQ
How many Florida politicians are out here using a tax collector as a personal pimp to procure sex with a 17 year old girl because they’re a predator and gross?
Wow, @mattgaetz you’re supposed to be a grown man. Supposed to be, but between the underaged girls and your 9th grade intellect you’ve shown that a pillow fisted, DUI having Daddy’s boy really makes for a shit human. Sad for you… boy. https://t.co/uozBKRFPxX
The idea behind a lot of the laws of the US is the constitution gives the right to privacy, liberty, and body autonomy. Everything from the civil rights laws, Loving vs Virginia which allowed different race people to marry, abortion, Lawerance vs Texas which gave everyone the right to have sex as they wished instead of just penis in vagina, (that law that banned oral sex and anal sex was used just against gay men but did apply to everyone) and of course the right to same sex marriage. The average right wing only wants their hated people subjugated and the right to discriminate without repercussions. But the real power behind this is the hard right businesses and the religious right. Both need to take the country back before the government had the authority or ability to stand up for the people. Why do you think there is such push back against anything resembling what the other advanced countries do for their public, because these groups lose more control every time the people get more right / benefits from their government? It might threaten those over the top profits. But also it threatens the religious leaders that know if people had rights and acceptance along with comfortable living they wouldn’t need religion to offer relief. Anyway anyone who doesn’t think that the next rights to fall are anything not straight male Christian did not read the leaked report. Alito to specifically mention that there was no right to privacy in the constitution, and that is what Lawerance vs Texas was based on that gave the right of people to enjoy whatever sex they wanted with another adult is based on. Remember Ted Cruz when he was the AG of Texas tried to ban adults from using sex toys in the state. Welcome to the Puritan age.
First of all, Obergefell is a bad Supreme Court decision and if we had a Supreme Court worth its salt, they would overturn Obergefell.
But they’re not going to. They explicitly say — Alito says, I think three separate times in that decision that I read in nearly its totality on the air yesterday, that this has no impact on other cases of different lines. Which is a clear reference to Obergefell, repeatedly.
But Democrats know deep in the cockles of their tiny little Grinch-like hearts on abortion, they know that the abortion issue is not a winner. So they’re trying to expand it out – well, you never know.
The Supreme Court, they might go after gay rights, they might go after — sure, you’re right. The same Supreme Court in which Neil Gorsuch idiotically ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers transgender people is now going to overrule Obergefell.
Justice Alito wrote the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
Here he is a year ago talking about his opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges.
“This decision, and what Alito has to say about marriage equality, is a clear call to anyone who opposes marriage equality, who opposes LGBTQ+ equality, that they have a friend on the court. More than one friend." — Jim Obergefell https://t.co/SZZOHwZn3k
Referencing the landmark cases that legalized marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges) and legalized private consensual sex (Lawrence v. Texas), Alito ominously wrote that, like abortion rights, "None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history."
If interracial marriage is based on the Equal Protection clause. Then why doesn’t same-sex marriage fall under the same category? We’re taking about a civil contract between two non-related consenting adults. It’s the exact same thing.
JFC… his voice is “nails on the chalkboard” annoying. How can anyone tolerate listening to this asshole?
I was reading an article from CNN that says the Court may use the Civil Rights Act of 1984 to defend Loving while then going after Obergefel so Thomas’ marriage won’t be jeopardized.
My argument in favor of gay marriage was that there was no compelling public interest in preventing two men or two women from marrying.
In fact, there is a public interest in favor of gay marriage because it provides both financial and psychological stability for the partners involved (which, in turn, benefits society as whole).
As we’ve warned, SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights.
Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These 2 points must change https://t.co/5Isec0osV0
The Florida residents say the state’s dissolution of the corporate giant’s private government — and its special tax status — will burden them with more than $1 billion in bond debt.
The Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. (John Raoux/AP)
MIAMI (CN) — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis violated the rights of taxpayers when he signed a law removing Disney’s self-governing status, three residents claim in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday.
In the 11-page complaint, Michael Foronda, Edward Foronda and Vivian Gorsky — all of whom live near the Walt Disney World theme park and resort — say the state’s actions will saddle them and other taxpayers with Disney’s bond debt estimated at more than $1 billion.
“Plaintiffs, who are property owners in the surrounding counties, fear that they will now have to assume the tax burden that Disney previously assumed under the special tax status,” the complaint states. “Their fear is well founded, and it is through this taxpayer lawsuit and mandamus action that they are able to protect their rights.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, names the Republican governor, Florida Secretary of State Laurel M. Lee and Florida Department of Revenue Director Jim Zingale as defendants. DeSantis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature voted to remove Disney’s self-governing status last month, following a battle over the corporation’s opposition to the state’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. DeSantis signed the bill, SB 4C, a few days later.
The law will dissolve independent special districts created before 1968, including the Reedy Creek Improvement District that contained Walt Disney World, in June 2023 unless a new agreement is reached.
The company lobbied for the special district more than 50 years ago so that it could act as a county government. Disney owns the roads and utilities in the 25,000-acre district and also operates a police force and fire department there.
Unless Disney and the state government reach another agreement, the special district will dissolve and all assets and liabilities will be transferred to local governments, according to the bill’s language. Disney would also lose the ability to construct new buildings or roads without local oversight and potentially cumbersome zoning restrictions.
The law is widely considered to be retaliation for Disney’s opposition to the state’s Parental Rights in Education law, known more commonly as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which bans the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity topics from kindergarten through third grade. Disney heavily criticized the bill, which was signed into law by DeSantis in March, and vowed to end any political contributions to state lawmakers.
The federal lawsuit makes note of this, claiming DeSantis “intended to punish Disney for a First Amendment protected ground of free speech,” which “directly resulted in a violation of plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.”
The plaintiffs also allege stripping Disney of its special status, and burdening residents with debt and some public safety responsibilities now paid for by the theme park, violates the Florida Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
Disney has so far stayed mum on the issue, though the Reedy Creek Improvement District did send a message to bondholders last week reminding them that the law establishing the special district mandates all debts must be paid before changing its status.
“In light of the state of Florida’s pledge to the district’s bondholders, Reedy Creek expects to explore its options while continuing its present operations, including levying and collecting its ad valorem taxes and collecting its utility revenues, paying debt service on its ad valorem tax bonds and utility revenue bonds, complying with its bond covenants and operating and maintaining its properties,” the statement reads.
The plaintiffs are represented by Miami-based attorney William Sanchez.
The right wing / religious right cannot stand adult people making the living arrangements that work for them. They are insistent on everyone having the nuclear family that tradition describes. A dad who can do what he wants outside the house and is served by a mommy who takes care of his property while providing him with frequent pleasure, producing his kids which she raises. Everyone must do this by decree of tradition and god! The right wing / religious right doesn’t want other adults to make their own choices in life, to do what is good for themselves without harming others. This law ends the Golden girls style of living. The right wing / religious right has tried for ever to stop co-habitation without marriage. I wonder what other adult arrangements will become illegal next?
On Monday, a Johnson County city unanimously voted to ban a living arrangement aimed at helping tenants decrease the amount of rent they pay. The Shawnee City Council voted 8-0 to ban co-living, which has gained popularity in recent years as rent and home prices have soared.
The new ordinance defines a co-living group as a group of at least four unrelated adults living together in a dwelling unit. The ordinance stated that if one adult is unrelated to another adult, then the entire group will be classified as unrelated.
The practice, which includes things like sharing a kitchen, living room and community areas, started to gain popularity as rental and housing prices continued to increase across the United States.
“City Staff received input and concerns from residents and City Council members regarding a relatively new trend where single family homes are being purchased and converted into rental units with multiple individual tenants,” a memorandum of the ordinance said.
“In this arrangement, individual tenants have leases of varying lengths, have separate secured access to their rooms, and often do not know or have relationships with the others who are also occupying the same single family dwelling,” the memo continued, saying the rental arrangements are “not typical of common rental uses in single family districts that are occupied by family units.”
Since it was approved unanimously a week ago, Shawnee’s decision has made news well beyond the Kansas City metro, with one national publication saying the city had “effectively [made] roommates illegal.”
The new ordinance has also been called out by KC Tenants, a local tenants rights group whose director Tara Raghuveer evoked Johnson County’s history of redlining and tweeted that groups of adults living together in an apartment or house is one of the few affordable options for lower-income people in the area.
But Shawnee council members pushed back forcefully this week, saying that, in fact, they’ve struck a blow to keep home prices from ballooning even faster than they have already. They said their motives for passing the co-living restrictions have been misrepresented.
A recent Shawnee City Council decision to ban “co-living” arrangements has drawn accusations of classism, racism and a callous disregard for the people struggling to afford homes and apartments in Johnson County.https://t.co/PoXZDjGA4T
Shawnee City Council unanimously passed an ordinance that bans ‘co-living.’ Here’s a look at what that actually means for renters. https://t.co/xjOyWFmhEv
If you want to stop ballooning home prices, limit short-term rentals. Limit the number of homes speculative buyers and giant rental companies can buy. Don’t make roommates illegal for people who are struggling so much they can’t make their own rent payment. Sheesh.
Hint: they are lying about the reason. They are not helping people. They are helping corporations. With the added bonus of brutalizing the poor, particularly women. Thus forcing women to be depended on men to whom they are related. Handmaid’s Tale continues.
For some people – for me, when I was a student – it’s a choice between living with flatmates and being homeless. Inspiring to see municipal leaders taking such a strong pro-homelessness stance.
More “small government” conservatives no doubt. I don’t see how this is remotely constitutional but with the Roberts Alito court, I’m sure they would side with the wealthy.
If you can’t afford to rent your own place then you can’t live in their town. The are forcing out low income people to move out so their town will only have upper class people.
So, in this town, someone who is elderly, single, needs care, and has no biological relatives can’t move in with people they’ve known for years. For instance, when I get to the stage I need assistance, I couldn’t move in with my best friend, his wife, and daughter, even though they are my sole heirs? What a stupid law.
Yeah, that clause about “any one of the people being unrelated means they’re all unrelated” makes it incredibly problematic for a lot of cases. I’ve been in situations where I nearly moved in with some friends for a month or so after some major surgery (it was incredibly generous of them to offer), but that would put them in danger with this ban. Assisted living, same problem.
Hell, I’ve got an aunt and uncle (eta: that’s what I’ve called them my entire life, but they are unrelated) that immigrated to the US, and when they became citizens, they changed their last name to my family name because of our long, generational friendship. But if I took them in if, say, their home got destroyed, boom, banned under this setup.
problem is – – – this is typical of nearly all of Johnson County, one of the wealthiest in the US. The renters would have to move to Wyandotte, Leavenworth, or Douglas County. Like the president of Santa Clara Community College in California living nearly 50 miles from campus to find housing affordable for her two professional earners household.
The fact that it is “one of the wealthiest (areas) in the US” is the issue. People in affluent neighborhoods don’t want what’s essentially a rooming house next door. They want to keep “those people” as far away from them as possible.
Scottie's Playtime 