Connect with us

U.S.

Alabama Senate Passes the Nation’s Strictest Abortion Ban

Published

on

  • Alabama’s Senate passed the strictest abortion law in the U.S., banning the procedure in all stages of pregnancy and making no exceptions for rape or incest.
  • Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to Roe V. Wade.
  • However, many of the politicians who pushed this bill did so hoping it would bring the topic of abortion back to the Supreme Court, in an effort to try and overturn the landmark Roe V. Wade decision.

Update: Governor Kay Ivey has now signed the bill into law.

Alabama Law Moves Through Senate

The Alabama State Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that effectively bans abortion in almost all cases, marking what would be the strictest abortion law in the country if signed by Governor Kay Ivey.

The bill was passed by Alabama’s house last month. Gov. Ivey has not publicly indicated her support for it, but many leaders in the state believe she will sign it.

The bill bans abortion in every stage of pregnancy and does not make an exception for cases of rape or incest. It includes three exceptions: if the pregnancy poses a severe risk to the mother’s life, if the pregnancy is ectopic, or if there is a case of lethal fetal anomaly.

The bill also criminalizes abortion procedures. Any doctor who performs it could be charged with felony offenses and land up to 99 years in jail.

Democratic Responses

Democrats quickly condemned the movement of this bill, citing its direct opposition to Roe V. Wade, which is the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed women’s constitutional right to choose. The bill’s critics include 2020 candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who called the ban “dangerous and exceptionally cruel.”

Fellow presidential runner Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called the bill “unconstitutional.”

Democrats in Alabama also spoke in opposition of the legislation headed for its governor. State Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-AL) went on CNN and called the bill “horrible.”

“I think that we raped women last night,” said Singleton. “We made women of Alabama the model of the new Roe v. Wade. I think that this is just a horrible bill.”

“I hate to think the fact that if someone would rape my daughter at 12 years old,” Singleton continued, “that is just sad to tell my daughter that she had to carry that baby for nine months here in the state of Alabama and look that rapist in the face for the rest of her life.”

On the Senate’s floor, Sen. Vivian Davis Figures (D-AL) also spoke out against the legislation her colleagues were passing.

“You don’t have to raise that child,” she said while debating a male Republican senator. “You don’t have to carry that child. You don’t have to provide for that child. You don’t have to do anything for that child — but yet, you want to make the decision for that woman, that that’s what she has to do.”

Alabama Republicans Support Bill

Republicans in the state spoke in defense of the legislation. Alabama State Sen. Clyde Chambliss (R-AL) said, “This bill has the opportunity to save the lives of millions of unborn children.”

Alabama’s Senate Majority Leader Greg Reed (R-AL) said this bill aimed to speak on behalf of the beliefs of the state’s residents.

“Alabamians stand firmly on the side of life,” he said in a statement.

State Rep. Terri Collins (R-AL) said that this legislation is about more than just the laws it will enact in the state of Alabama. After the vote, she said it was about creating a larger debate around Roe V. Wade.

“This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn, because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection,” she said.

What Challenging Roe V. Wade Looks Like

Having states pass abortion laws with the intent of challenging Roe V. Wade is nothing new. Several states have recently proposed or passed abortion legislation knowing that it will likely be challenged in court.  

Both Ohio and Georgia recently joined Mississippi and Kentucky in passing fetal heartbeat bills, which ban abortion after a heartbeat can be detected. This happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, which opponents of the laws note is often before many women even know they are pregnant.

Organizations have already promised to take these to court. On Wednesday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the bill in Ohio.

Legal experts argue that a lot of these laws could be appealed, and could end up in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Since the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court now swings in conservative favor with five right-wing justices and four liberal justices. This could mean that if the topic of abortion were to be brought to the Supreme Court, it is possible that Roe V. Wade may not be held up.

So, what would happen if Roe V. Wade were to be overturned? Well, a full and complete reversal of Roe V. Wade would likely not happen overnight. It would take years for a case to really land in the hands of the Supreme Court. However, the court could make a series of decisions that slowly chip away at it, and severely limit abortion rights.

To see the most severe results possible, let’s take a look at the country without Roe V. Wade. Overturning the ruling would not make abortion illegal nationwide, rather, abortion would become a state issue.

Some states already have regulations in place in the event that Roe V. Wade is ever overturned, most of which would ban abortion in most cases. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine states have bans pre-Roe that would be retained, and six others have a post-Roe trigger law that would ban abortion immediately upon its reversal. There are seven states who have expressed intent to severely limit abortion rights.

Ten states would protect abortion rights. Nine would make sure the procedure is legal up to the point of viability, while one would protect the right throughout a full pregnancy.

As for whether or not Americans want Roe V. Wade upheld, a Fox News poll back in February showed general support for it. About 57 percent of responders said they wanted to let the ruling stand, while 21 percent said they wanted it overturned.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (Reuters) (Washington Post)

Advertisements

U.S.

UCLA Drops Controversial Facial Recognition Plan

Published

on

  • After backlash from students and activist groups, UCLA is dropping its plans to use facial recognition on campus.
  • Critics said the software often fails when recognizing women and people of color, and could lead to racial profiling. 
  • UCLA released a statement, just over a week before a National Day of Action to Ban Facial Recognition from College Campuses is set to be held, saying that the school longer thinks the technology would be effective at the school.
  • The use of facial recognition software on college campuses and on a national level has long been a subject of debate. Several cities have already banned it, and last week, two Senators proposed legislation banning it on a federal level unless Congressional guidelines are enacted. 

UCLA Stops Plans to Use Facial Recognition

After backlash from students and activists, the University of California, Los Angeles has dropped its plans to use facial recognition technology on its campus.

UCLA announced plans to potentially use it in its security systems. Students were concerned that this technology could interfere with students’ privacy and lead to racial profiling on campus. 

“We have determined that the potential benefits are limited and are vastly outweighed by the concerns of the campus community,” Michael Beck, the Administrative Vice-Chancellor of the school said in a statement to Fight for the Future, a group advocating for freedom in the digital age.

Fight for the Future is holding a National Day of Action to Ban Facial Recognition from College Campuses on March 2. The group had been very vocal when encouraging UCLA not to adopt facial recognition. They did a test on how effective it would be at the school and found racial biases in its algorithm.

Inaccuracies in Facial Recognition

Fight for the Future used Rekognition, a software made available by Amazon, and scanned publicly available photos of UCLA athletes and faculty and compared them to a mugshot database. They scanned 400 faces in total and said that 58 were falsely matched. 

“The vast majority of incorrect matches were of people of color,” Fight for the Future said of their findings. “In many cases, the software matched two individuals who had almost nothing in common beyond their race, and claimed they were the same person with ‘100% confidence.’”

They are not the only group to find this. According to a study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in terms of one-to-one matching, there are higher rates of false positives for Asian and African American faces in comparison to white faces. They specifically noticed increased false positives when it came to African American females.

Student Concerns

Students at UCLA expressed their concerns about this. An editorial in the school’s paper, the Daily Bruin, warned against using facial recognition because of the potential inaccuracies and profiling of people of color.

“For students belonging to these groups, facial recognition technology would simply reinforce the biases that are already stacked against them,” the piece said. The editorial listed privacy as a concern as well.

“Facial recognition technology would present a major breach of students’ privacy and make students feel unsafe on a campus they are supposed to call home,” the Daily Bruin editorial staff wrote. “It is one thing to monitor campus activity with security cameras, but it’s another entirely to automatically identify individuals and track their every move on campus.”

Students and advocacy groups like Fight for the Future were pleased with UCLA’s ultimate decision to not use facial recognition.

“Let this be a lesson to other school administrators: if you try to experiment on your campus with racist, invasive surveillance technology, we will come for you. And we don’t lose,” Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, Evan Greer, said in a statement.

Facial Recognition on a National Scale

UCLA is not the only college in the United States having a conversation about facial recognition. Fight for the Future has been keeping a scorecard of schools that have stated their intentions on using facial recognition. While big schools like Harvard, MIT, Michigan State, and NYU have said they do not intend on using it, other major colleges like Ohio State, Princeton, and the University of Georgia have stated that they might. 

Outside of colleges, other localities have already been working on fighting against facial recognition technology. In 2019, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban facial recognition technology. Somerville, MA, Oakland, CA and Berkeley, CA did the same months later. 

Still, this kind of technology is still used on a wide scale. According to Vox, in states like Texas, Florida, and Illinois, the FBI uses it to scan through DMV databases. In many U.S. airports, Customs and Border Protection uses it for screening passengers on international flights. 

Recently Proposed Legislation

The national use of this could be subject to change, though. In February, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-)R) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) proposed legislation that would ban federal use of facial recognition until proper regulations and rules had been established by Congress for it.

“Facial recognition is a technology that is increasingly being used and marketed to law enforcement agencies across the United States without appropriate debate or consideration of its impacts,” the bill said before describing that this technology has been used at protests, rallies, and other events where one’s’ freedom of speech is on display.

“It is critical that facial recognition not be used to suppress First Amendment related activities, violate privacy, or otherwise adversely impact individuals’ civil rights and civil liberties,” the legislation continued. 

This legislation would still allow law enforcement to use it if given a court order.

See what others are saying: (Vice) (USA Today) (TechCrunch)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Fashion Institute Apologizes for ‘Racist’ Runway Look

Published

on

  • In a Feb. 7 Fashion Institute of Technology runway show, models were asked to wear oversized prosthetic lips and ears, along with bushy eyebrows. 
  • Amy Lefévre, a black model, refused to wear the accessories and called them racist for recalling offensive caricatures of black people. 
  • Many agreed with Lefévre and criticized the designer and the showrunners for the display.
  • Multiple leaders at FIT have issued apologies in the wake of the backlash.

Controversial Accessories

Several head figures at New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology have issued apologies after a runway show featured designs that many have labeled “racist.”

The show was held on Feb. 7 to debut designs of graduating students. For one look, designed by Junkai Huang, models were asked to wear oversized prosthetic lips and ears, as well as bushy, large eyebrows. Amy Lefévre, a black model, was horrified at the request. 

“As soon as I saw the pieces, I started shaking. I felt it was very racist,” Lefévre told TODAY

Lefévre said she verbally expressed her discomfort with the accessories, which to her were reminiscent of offensive caricatures of black people that emphasize those features. But Richard Thornn, the producer of the show, allegedly brushed off her resistance.

According to TODAY, Lefévre claims that he told her, “it’s only 45 seconds. It’s fine to feel uncomfortable for 45 seconds.”

The 25-year-old refused to don the accessories and walked in the show without them. However, other models in the show wore the additions, and these looks were seen by an audience of about 100 people as well as captured by photographers.

Reactions and Responses

Upon seeing the pictures from the show and catching wind of Lefévre‘s protest, many Internet users supported the model and condemned both the designer and the institution for allowing it.  

“Junkai Huang should go back to school for something other than fashion because his designs are racist and this is unacceptable,” one person tweeted. “FIT how could you allow this?”

In the wake of the backlash, FIT President Joyce Brown issued a public letter on Tuesday. 

“As many of you now know, there was an unfortunate and disturbing reaction to the show that I want to address,” Joyce wrote.

She claimed that no offense was meant.

“Currently, it does not appear that the original intent of the design, the use of accessories or the creative direction of the show was to make a statement about race; however, it is now glaringly obvious that has been the outcome,” Brown added. “For that, we apologize—to those who participated in the show, to students, and to anybody who has been offended by what they saw.”

Brown said the school is taking steps to “ensure that a situation like this will not happen again” by working with groups including their Diversity Council and Student Government.   

Jonathan Kyle Farmer, the chair of the MFA program at FIT who ran the show, posted an apology on Wednesday acknowledging Lefévre directly.

“It was never our intent for the show’s styling to be interpreted as racist or to make people feel uncomfortable but I now fully understand why this has happened,” Farmer said. “I take full responsibility and am committed to learning from this situation and taking steps to do better.”

//www.instagram.com/embed.js

This is by no means the first racially-insensitive blunder that the fashion industry has made. Last year, Gucci came under fire for releasing a black turtleneck with lips that could be pulled around the face, resembling blackface. Burberry faced backlash for a sweatshirt featuring a noose-like drawstring around the neck. In 2018, H&M was slammed for an ad featuring a black boy wearing a pullover that read “coolest monkey in the jungle.” 

Many seem to be fed up with these errors. 

“How do people not understand that this isn’t ok and keep doing it again and again and again?” one Instagram user commented on a picture of the show posted by a fashion industry watchdog account. 

See what others are saying: (USA Today) (BBC) (Washington Post)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

George Zimmerman Sues Warren and Buttigieg for Defamation Over Trayvon Martin Commemoration Tweets

Published

on

  • George Zimmerman is suing Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren for $265 million in a new defamation suit.
  • The lawsuit centers around tweets the two candidates posted on Trayvon Martin’s birthday commemorating him.
  • Zimmerman alleges that Warren and Buttigieg defamed him in the tweets “to bolster their standings amongst African-American voters.”

Zimmerman Files Lawsuit

George Zimmerman is suing 2020 presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg for $265 million, claiming they defamed him in order to “garner votes in the black community.”

Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in 2012, was later acquitted on murder charges after claiming he acted in self-defense when he killed the unarmed black teen.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, alleges that the candidates “defamed Zimmerman for political gain in misguided and malicious attempts to bolster their standings amongst African-American voters, all at Zimmerman’s expense.”

The accusations stem from two tweets posted by the candidates on Feb. 5, which would have been Martin’s 25th birthday.

“How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear? #BlackLivesMatter,” Buttigieg wrote in his post.

In her tweet, Warren expressed her condolences to Martin’s friends and family.

He should still be with us today,” she wrote. “We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free.”

Defamation Claims

The lawsuit claims that both Warren and Buttigieg falsely represented Trayvon’s death as being a result of “gun violence” which it claims “is generally understood in the public arena to refer to the reckless and indiscriminate use of illegally owned firearms that causes the death of a random innocent victim.”

Zimmerman, the suit argues, acted in self-defense and had a registered legal weapon.

It also says that the tweets defamed Zimmerman because they implied that he acted out of racism or white supremacy, claiming that Buttigieg’s use of the term “white supremacy” in his tweet, “defamed Zimmerman by claiming without any basis whatsoever that the Hispanic minority advocate and Obama supporter Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in cold blood due to his ‘white supremacy.’”

The same argument was given for Warren’s use of the word “racism” in her tweet.

The lawsuit then goes on to say that Warren and Buttigieg’s tweets implied that Zimmerman was “directly responsible for ‘white supremacy,’ ‘gun violence,’ ‘prejudice,’ ‘fear’ and ‘racism,’ among other defamatory innuendos and statements as explained above; and thus murdered Trayvon Martin as a result.”

The suit against the two candidates is not only defamation claim Zimmerman has filed in the last few months. In December, Zimmerman sued Martin’s family and others for $100 million, claiming that he was the victim of defamation and a conspiracy.

See what others are saying: (Newsweek) (Fox News) (The Miami Herald)

Advertisements
Continue Reading