Connect with us

U.S.

Pro-Choice Advocates Sue Georgia Over Fetal Heartbeat Law

Published

on

  • Pro-choice advocates and abortion providers are suing Georgia over the state’s new “fetal heartbeat” law, which would make abortion illegal after six weeks.
  • The lawsuit, filed by American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and others, claims that Georgia’s ban is unconstitutional.
  • It also argues that the ban will disproportionately hurt low-income women and women of color in a state with one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country.
  • The lawsuit is one of several other challenges against states that have passed similar abortion laws in the last year.

Federal Lawsuit

Abortion providers and pro-choice advocates filed a lawsuit against Georgia on Friday to block the state’s new “fetal heartbeat” law, which they argue is unconstitutional. 

The law, which was signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp last month, would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Heartbeat activity typically starts around six weeks, which critics of the law have noted is before many women know that they are pregnant.

Set to go into effect in January 2020, the law, known as H.B. 481, would be one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the United States.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of the abortion care provider SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and several other providers.

The plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion federally.

“H.B. 481 criminalizes pre-viability abortions in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade [sic] and nearly half a century of Supreme Court precedent reaffirming Roe’s central holding,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit

“H.B. 481 will prevent Georgians from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to decide whether to have an abortion prior to viability and will threaten other critical medical care for pregnant women.”

Maternal Mortality & Women of Color

The lawsuit also says that the law is “an attack on low-income Georgians, Georgians of color, and rural Georgians, who are least able to access medical care.”

The plaintiffs note that Georgia already has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country and that black women are especially impacted. 

A new study from the Center for Disease Control published last month found that, “Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women were about 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as White women.”

The lawsuit argues that if the ban goes into effect, women will be forced to travel out of state to get an abortion. It also argues that those who are unable to do so will be forced to either give birth against their will or seek an illegal and unregulated abortion.

“In a state with a critical shortage of medical providers and some of the highest rates of maternal and infant deaths, especially among Black Georgians, politicians should focus on expanding access to reproductive care, not banning abortion before someone even knows they’re pregnant,” Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said in a statement.

Legal Challenges in Other States

Georgia is one of several states that have recently passed restrictive abortion laws this year, though none have gone into effect yet.

Many of the laws have already been challenged in courts, and some have been blocked by judges. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged a similar six-week ban in Mississippi, which was blocked by a judge early last month. 

The ACLU has also challenged six-week abortion bans in Kentucky and Ohio, as well as a ban in Alabama that makes it illegal for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of pregnancy unless there are extreme health concerns.

However, anti-abortion activists and lawmakers welcome legal challenges, which they hope to eventually bring to the Supreme Court in order to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.

Gov. Kemp, who is named in the lawsuit, knew that the law would be challenged.

“I realize that some may challenge it in a court of law,” Kemp said at bill’s signing ceremony. “But our job is to do what is right, not what is easy. We are called to be strong and courageous, and we will not back down. We will always continue to fight for life.”

Georgia officials have not yet responded to the lawsuit publicly. When asked for a response, the Georgia Attorney General’s office told NPR on Friday, “that it cannot comment on pending litigation.”

See what others are saying: (NPR) (CNN) (NBC)

U.S.

How Safe Injections Sites in the U.S. Are Fighting Back Against The Opioid Crisis & Do They Work?

Published

on


America has been hit with a historical opioid crisis. In 2018, more than 31,000 people died from opioid overdoses, which is more than any previous year recorded in American history. Healthcare professionals and public health experts are offering alternatives to the status quo treatments, which leads us to today’s topic: supervised injection facilities (SIF). 

Also known as overdose prevention sites and medically supervised injection centers, SIF’s have been proposed as a solution to combat America’s opioid problem. In these centers, no drugs are supplied to the users—they bring their own and are given clean syringes to prevent bloodborne diseases. Advocates or these sites are saying that they would stop countless fatal overdoses because there would be medical staff on site. Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Australia have implemented versions of these facilities and so far there has not been any reported fatal overdoses at a SIF in the world. 

While cities like Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia have all proposed plans to make sites, they have been met with heavy opposition. The federal government opposed these sites because they claim it breaks federal laws and some residents in these cities are against them due to concerns over attracting more crime. In this video, we’ll be focusing on Philadelphia, as it might become the first U.S. city to legally open a supervised injection facility, along with the court case between the non-profit who is trying to establish the SIF and the federal government.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Elon Musk Defends Calling Rescue Diver “Pedo Guy” in Lawsuit

Published

on

  • In court documents, Elon Musk defended a tweet where he called a diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team from a cave a “pedo guy” because it “was a common insult used in South Africa.” 
  • The diver sued Musk for defamation last year after Musk sent an email to BuzzFeed where he referred to the diver as “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old.” 
  • The court documents from the suit, which were made public Monday, also revealed that Musk paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to look into the diver.
  • Musk also said he gave the statement to BuzzFeed based on information provided by the investigator, and because he was concerned the diver could be the next Jeffrey Epstein. 

Court Filings Made Public

Telsa CEO Elon Musk defended calling a rescue diver “pedo guy,” court documents revealed Monday.

Musk originally made the comment in July 2018, after Vernon Unsworth, a British diver who helped rescue the Thai soccer team trapped in a cave last year, gave an interview to CNN where he had some choice things to say about Musk.

Notably, Unsworth said the submarine Musk had designed to rescue the soccer team would not work and that it was just a PR stunt.

Musk responded by calling Unsworth a “pedo guy” in a now-deleted tweet.

Source: Elon Musk

He also sent an email to BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac, in which he accused Unsworth of being a “child rapist” who had taken a “child bride who was about 12 years old at the time.”

Source: BuzzFeed

Musk said he thought the email was off the record, but BuzzFeed said they never agreed to that. In September 2018, Unsworth filed a defamation lawsuit against Musk in the Central District of California.

Court filings from the defamation suit against Musk were made public on Monday.

Musk Defends “Pedo Guy” Tweet

In those documents, Musk claimed that referring to Unsworth as “pedo guy” was not a direct accusation of pedophilia.

“‘Pedo guy’ was a common insult used in South Africa when I was growing up,” Musk wrote. “It is synonymous with ‘creepy old man’ and is used to insult a person’s appearance and demeanor, not accuse a person of acts of pedophilia.”

“I did not intend to accuse Mr. Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia,” he continued. “In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man.”

The fact that Musk is arguing he was expressing his opinion is important in this context because under the First Amendment, opinions are usually protected speech and not considered defamatory.

The documents also included Musk’s deposition, where he talks more in-depth about the “pedo guy” tweet.

In the deposition, Musk said he sent BuzzFeed the email because he was worried it could turn into a Jeffrey Epstein situation, referring to the wealthy financier who was accused of sexually assaulting dozens of young women, including many underage girls. 

“What if we have another Jeffrey Epstein on our hands?” he said. “And what if he uses whatever celebrity he gains from this cave rescue to shield his bad deeds? This would be terrible.”

Musk’s Epstein argument might become problematic. First of all, he made the statements to BuzzFeed before the new allegations surfaced, which some have argued proves he just is using current news to frame Unsworth in a certain way, and that he did not actually consider Epstein at all.

That argument is also furthered by the fact that it has been reported that Musk had attended several events with Epstein, all of which were after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl in 2008.

Musk even said he visited Epstein’s house “several years ago.” Epstein also told The New York Times he had advised Musk while Tesla was trying to go public in 2018, though Musk denies those claims.

Private Investigator

Notably, Musk also said in the filings that he paid a private investigator more than $50,000 to investigate Unsworth after receiving an unsolicited email from the PI in August 2018.

In the documents, Musk says that the investigator: “reported that Mr. Unsworth met and began a relationship with his alleged Thai wife when she around twelve years old.”

He also added that the investigator “reported that Mr. Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand,” and that he “learned that Mr. Unsworth frequented Pattaya Beach which is well known for prostitution and sex tourism, and that Mr. Unsworth was unpopular at the rescue site because other rescue workers thought that he was ‘creepy.’”

Musk goes on to say this was the basis for the comments he made in his email to BuzzFeed.

“I did not authorize Mr. Mac or BuzzFeed to publish the contents of the email nor did I intend or expect that they would,” he said. “Especially without first independently verifying and confirming its information.”

He later added that he gave the information to Mac “so that BuzzFeed could conduct its own investigation into Mr. Unsworth and corroborate the information.”

Musk’s lawyers even admitted in the court filings that the private investigator’s findings “lacked solid evidence of Mr. Unsworth’s behavior.” 

Following the release of the court documents, Unsworth’s lawyer gave a statement to BuzzFeed condemning the Musk’s defense.

“The motion filed by Elon Musk today is a disgusting and transparent effort to continue falsely smearing Vernon Unsworth without any credible or verified supporting evidence,” the lawyer said.

“Mr. Unsworth’s opposition to Musk’s motion will reveal the whole truth of Musk’s actions and the falsity of his public statements and his motion with respect to Mr. Unsworth will be exposed.”

See what others are saying: (BuzzFeed News) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Controversy, Racism, and Genius Kids?! How One Sperm Bank Changed Everything…

Published

on


The Repository for Germinal Choice is the most controversial sperm bank in U.S. history. While it was operational some people believed this bank was racist and they even compared the companies goals to Nazi eugenic practices. But even though this sperm bank was highly controversial, it also completely changed the sperm bank industry.

So check out our video for the full story on how this controversial sperm bank would go on to shape an entire industry.

Continue Reading