Connect with us

World News

Alabama House of Representatives passes ban on transgender bathrooms in schools – JURIST

Published

on

Lawmakers in the Alabama House of Representatives passed legislation Tuesday that would bar transgender students from using gender-segregated facilities, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, that align with their gender identity. The bill passed with a vote of 74-24 after two hours of debate. Under the bill, K-12 schools would require students to use gender-segregated facilities that match the sex on the student’s original birth certificate. Republican Rep. Scott Stadthagen explained that the bill focuses on privacy, security, and preventing access by sexual predators. school bathrooms. “I’m trying to prevent men who were born male from going into women’s restrooms,” Stadthagen told the committee. “It is a security problem. I, as a father, do not want a man, who is born male, in my daughter’s bathroom.” Stadthagen described sexual assaults that occurred in school bathrooms as he urged the committee to support the bill. When a committee member asked if the shooter was transgender, Stadthagen replied that he didn’t know. Opponents of the bill argue that the bill discriminates against transgender youth. “This is basically a security privilege transfer. If someone in K-12 is going to identify as gender expansive, this bill is putting them in danger of being attacked and harassed, as well as sexual assault,” said Carmarion D. Anderson, director of Human Rights Campaign Alabama. Democratic state Rep. Neil Rafferty, opposing the bill, said schools in his Birmingham district have handled accommodations for transgender students “without targeting vulnerable youth who already have problems with suicide, mental illness and bullying.” . Rafferty argued that the bill is “demonizing an already vulnerable population. It’s all under the guise of protecting children just to score cheap political points.” The bill now moves to the Alabama Senate, where more than 45 Republicans in the 105-member House have signed on as co-sponsors.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Uzbekistan: Protests in autonomous republic over proposed constitutional reform – JURIST

Published

on

Protests erupted in Nukus, the capital of Uzbekistan’s autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan, on Friday over a proposed constitutional reform. According to a statement from the government of the region: Despite the policy of openness and free expression of will followed by the Republic of Uzbekistan, on July 1, 2022 in Nukus, a criminal group of people organized illegal actions expressed in an attempt to take over the state. administrative bodies of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. The demonstrators were protesting the planned removal of the section of the current constitution that allows Karakalpakstan the right to secede from Uzbekistan by referendum. This has caused outrage among the ethnic Karakalpak, who make up the majority of the population of Karakalpakstan. Karakalpaks from neighboring Kazakhstan held a round table discussion on the proposed change. One speaker, Rustem Matekov, stated that the day of the referendum on the new version of the constitution will be “the day of the funeral of the people of the Republic of Karakalpakstan”. However, the president of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has challenged this view, saying: We, two peoples, have become one, we are blood relatives. Previously, the regions did not know the streets of Karakalpakstan or Nukus, but now we work as one people, the youth of Karakalpakstan achieve great results. […] I respect the Karakalpak people with all my heart and I can proudly say that I am a son not only of the Uzbeks, but also of the Karakalpak people. Removal is not the only proposal on the table. Other proposals include strengthening civil rights and extending the presidential term from five to seven years, which would allow Mirziyoyev to run again despite having served two consecutive terms.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court overturns lower court injunctions on state abortion laws – JURIST

Published

on

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court struck down three orders issued by lower courts in Arizona, Indiana and Arkansas that had invalidated abortion at the state level based on Roe v. Wade. This follows the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe last Friday. The now-overturned Arizona ruling had stopped a state law criminalizing abortions performed on fetuses with non-lethal genetic abnormalities, of which Down syndrome is one. The injunction targeted relevant portions of four clauses of Senate Bill 1457, which makes it a felony for a physician to perform an abortion “knowing that the abortion is sought solely because of a genetic abnormality of the child.” The law also requires the doctor to sign an affidavit stating that the abortion is not performed for this reason and to inform the patient of the illegality of abortions due to genetic abnormalities. Finally, it requires doctors to inform the State when a genetic abnormality has been detected. This law was challenged in Brnovich v. Isaacson in 2021, and the injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Arkansas’s 2019 ruling in Little Rock Planning Services v. Rutledge passed three laws that prohibited abortion in various circumstances. Arkansas Code, Title 20, Chapter 26, Law 493 prohibits abortions after 18 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for medical emergencies and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Law 619 prohibits all abortions solely on the basis of having a reason to believe that the fetus has Down syndrome, with the same exceptions. Law 700 requires that the person performing an abortion be a doctor licensed in obstetrics and gynecology. The federal court order of these laws was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Indiana, a 2017 ruling in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky had mandated a law that prohibited abortions before 20 weeks in several cases. . The law, Indiana Code Chapter 16-34-4, prohibits abortions before 20 weeks if the abortion was for demographic, sexual, or fetal disability reasons. Specifically, abortion is prohibited if sought because of the possibility of a genetically inherited disease, defect, or disorder, whether or not it has been screened for or any risk is present. This includes, but is not limited to, Down syndrome and any mental, physical and intellectual disabilities. Abortions related to the sex of the fetus, or its race, color, national origin, or ancestry, are also prohibited. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the injunction. The three laws imposed by the precautionary measures will take effect immediately. These cases will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court denies Alaska Airlines request for exemption from state labor laws – JURIST

Published

on

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge from Alaska Airlines Inc. seeking a waiver of a California law requiring in-flight meals and rest, upending an earlier decision that sided with the United States. flight attendants in a battle for federal and state jobs. laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its July 2021 decision Virgin America, Inc. v. Julia Bernstein, that the airline, which later merged with Alaska Airlines, had to comply with California state law in addition to federal regulations for flights within the state. Bernstein, a flight attendant, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of California workers, alleging violations of state labor laws. This included a law requiring workers to have a 30-minute off-duty meal and a break after working five hours. The federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 did not preempt state law requiring rest and meal breaks. The airline group argued that the state law had a “significant impact on airline prices, routes and services” as more attendants and staff would have to be hired to meet the state’s rest requirements. The rejection of the request of the airlines can have lasting consequences. for the aviation industry, as well as state and federal labor regulations. The court’s decision also follows the guidance of the Biden Administration, as the Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the flight attendants and instructed the court not to review the case or send it back to the appeals court.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022