Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a Kentucky law that requires doctors to show and describe ultrasound images and play the sounds of the fetuss heartbeat to women seeking abortions.

The organizations challenging the law, which included a Kentucky abortion clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was a breach of the First Amendment because it forced patients to see and hear content they didnt want to.

The law, which was previously upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, was blocked while the Supreme Court considered whether to hear the case. The courts refusal to hear it is not a ruling and will not have consequences for similar laws around the country, but it allows the law to go into effect in Kentucky.

In defending the law, Kentucky argued that the regulation was part of the medical informed-consent process and that the law "does nothing more than require that women who are considering an abortion be provided with information that is truthful, non-misleading and relevant to their decision of whether to have an abortion."

The appeals court agreed, writing in its ruling that there was nothing suspect about the state requiring a doctor to provide truthful information, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion."

While the Supreme Courts rejection of the case is the last word on the challenge to Kentuckys law, the law can still be repealed by the states legislature, and abortion rights organizations are calling on legislators to take this action.

The physicians at Kentuckys last abortion clinic will be forced to subject every patient to their ultrasound images, a detailed description of those images, and the sounds of the fetal heart tones prior to an abortion, the ACLU wrote in a statement on the rejection, even if the patient objects or is covering their eyes and blocking their ears, and even if the physician believes that doing so will cause harm to the patient.

The Kentucky law is not the first of its kind. Texas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin already have similar laws in place, and ultrasound laws were previously struck down in Oklahoma and North Carolina. The courts rejection will not affect those laws, but it may give other states the confidence to pass similar laws without fear of their being blocked by the courts.

The rejection comes as Roe v. Wade faces multiple challenges in the lower courts and as the Supreme Court considers a law in Louisiana that requires abortion clinics and doctors to obtain admitting privileges from nearby hospitals.

The challenge to the Louisiana law will be the first abortion case argued before the Supreme Court since President Donald Trump appointed Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, solidifying a conservative majority on the court. The courts decision could greatly impact abortion rights across the country.

However, Mondays rejection of the Kentucky law has no bearing on the Louisiana case, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, insisted to BuzzFeed News.

No, it is absolutely not a premonition of what the justices will decide next year, Kolbi-Molinas told BuzzFeed News.

This was a First Amendment claim. It mandates speech for the doctors; its a totally different legal question. Completely unrelated, Kolbi-Molinas said.

The Supreme Court will hear the Louisiana abortion case on March 4, 2020.

Continued here:
The Supreme Court Allowed A Kentucky Law Requiring A Woman To Listen To A Fetuss Heartbeat In Order To Get An Abortion - BuzzFeed News

President Donald Trump said that French President Emmanuel Macrons recent comments about NATO were very insulting. USA TODAY

A conference celebrating the 70th anniversary of NATO was canceled after the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, objected to a speaker who has made statements critical of President Donald Trump, the Danish think tank co-sponsoring the event announced Sunday.

Stanley Sloan, a former CIA analyst and author of "Defense of the West,"had planned to deliver an address on the challenges facing the transatlantic alliance, and the West in general, at the conference, which was scheduled to take place Tuesday at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen.

A day before Sloan left for Denmark, he said he was informed by the Danish Atlantic Council thatthe U.S. Embassy "vetoed my participation due to my critical evaluation of Trump's impact on transatlantic relations."

"Stunned and concerned about my country," Sloan said in a tweet.

The next day, the Danish Atlantic Council announced the conference had been canceled altogether.

U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands arrives for the New Year reception for the diplomacy at Christiansborg Castle, Denmark, Jan. 3, 2019.(Photo: Philip Davali, AP)

"We have all the time known that Mr. Sloan has a critical approach towards President Donald Trump. That is no secret especially when following his Twitter and Facebook profile," the Danish Atlantic Council Secretary-General Lars Bangert Struwe said in a statement.

But Struwe said they "never doubted" that Sloan "would deliver an unpolitical and objective lecture," as he promised he would.

When Sands objected to Sloan's appearance, Struwe said the council decided to pull the plug on the event because "the process has become too problematic."

In a series of tweets, the U.S. Embassy said it "supports freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment" and that it was "unfortunate" the Danish Atlantic Council decided to cancel the conference.

"This event would have provided speakers and attendees an important opportunity to exchange views on security cooperation and strengthening #NATO for the future," the U.S. Embassy said.

The American officials objected to Sloan's "proposed last-minute inclusion in the program," which "did not follow the same deliberative process of joint decision-making and agreement that we followed when recruiting all other speakers."

But Struwe disputed that explanation and told The Washington Post that the U.S. Embassy, which was paying for the event, had not given any input on the other speakers.

"I'm sorry that you objected to my inclusion in the conference," Sloan tweeted in reply to the embassy. "I am an experienced public diplomacy lecturer who always represents his country well."

"I have given presentations during Republican and Democratic administrations that criticized to one degree or another administration policy," he said. "I have always praised the State Department for its willingness to display our freedoms to foreign audiences. I hope we can return to that."

Sloan posted the text of theaddress he had planned to give online. In the speech, he commendsSands for her "expression of support for the values on which the alliance is based as well as its strategic importance for both Demark and the United States."

And he planned to say the "current crisis" facing NATO "did not start with Donald Trump, even though he certainly has brought it to a head."

Sands is an entrepreneur,former chiropractor and former actress who appeared in the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful." She was appointed ambassador to Denmark by Trump and was approved by the Senate in November 2017.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/nato-event-canceled-after-us-ambassador-blocks-trump-critic/2631746001/

Original post:
NATO conference canceled after US ambassador Carla Sands blocks speaker critical of Trump - USA TODAY

Utahs secret sauce when it comes to economic growth, job creation, and security for our families has been the collaboration between the public and private sectorsparticularly when it comes to our legislators at home and in Washington, DC. With that in mind, we have formally requested the assistance of Utahs federal delegation and expertise in advancing common-sense legislation on key priorities that are important to our business community. They are namely, immigration, trade, healthcare, and infrastructure.

As a nation built by immigrants, the United States should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill who want to contribute to our communities. Immigration is a key component of keeping our economy strong, strengthening our communities, and ensuring a bright and prosperous future for our children, but our current broken immigration system will lead to economic uncertainty. We urge Utahs federal delegation to lead the way in advancing comprehensive immigration reform consistent with the principles included in the Utah Compact.

Immigrants make up one in nine members of our states workforce, and limiting legal immigration would reduce Utahs GDP growth by $686 million in 2028. Immigration reform will ensure that our business community has the skilled workforce necessary to compete. As such, we urge Utahs federal delegation to advance comprehensive immigration reform consistent with the Utah Compact principles and to advance the H1-B Visa reform legislation.

With more than 3,500 Utah companies competing in the global market, trade is critical to Utahs economy and essential to the success of our states small businesses. Exports contributed 8 percent to Utahs GDP in 2018 and supported 22 percent of all Utah jobs. Global trade does more than just create and support jobs; it also helps retain a skilled workforce through competitively higher wages.

Utah businesses need free markets and fair trading practices built on balanced agreements that sustain economic growth through stable and predictable relationships. We ask Congress to ratify the United States, Mexico, and Canada trade agreement and use its available means to accelerate the development of trade agreements with the European Union and China, among others.

Currently, our healthcare systems and entitlement programs are falling short when it comes to providing simple, affordable, accessible, and high-quality services to Americans. High costs and low health market options undermine an employers ability to strengthen their workforce, expand the economy, plan for the future, and create long-term fiscal stability. They hinder the ability of our families to be self-reliant and secure from accidents or illnesses. As part of our federal priorities, we call upon Congress to revise our entitlement and healthcare programs to provide equitable, efficient services to those who need them most, and to address our nations prevalent opioid epidemic.

Nine years ago, as part of the Affordable Care Act, Congress enacted a 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices. While lawmakers have voted to suspend the tax since that time, it is slated to go back into effect at the end of the year, creating considerable uncertainty in a sector that has supported strong economic and job growth across our state and the nation. Enacting a permanent repeal of the medical device tax will ensure that Utah can continue to be a hub of medical innovations and economic opportunity.

Additionally, we urge Congress to carry out its responsibilities and put a federal legal framework into place to allow for timely and responsible medical cannabis treatment. We need federal guidelines that allow us to safeguard the public interest, address potential consequences to the business community, as well as guard against an impaired workforce or other negative outcomes.

Infrastructure is the backbone of the American economy. It gets us to work and school while powering our homes and businesses, and makes transporting goods and services possible. Attending to Americas infrastructure should be an issue with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, much of our nations infrastructure hasnt been fully funded in decades. Long-term transportation and infrastructure investment are required to sustain our economic growth and competitiveness.

We urge Congress to enact and fund a bipartisan plan for infrastructure modernization, as well as provide a long-term, stable funding source for infrastructure that states across America can rely upon to plan for the future. We are grateful for our federal delegations support and the efforts they make to move their colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives forward on these issues.

Utahs economy benefits from a delegation that is business-friendly and committed to improving our nation and state. We encourage them to utilize the secret sauce of collaboration and work across the aisle to find solutions to these pressing challenges.

Visit link:
Collaboration On Capitol Hill Is The Key To Success - Utah Business

Arguing that Americas two-party political system has failed, a Northeast Ohio group is pushing to elect more third-party candidates. And its starting next year at the local level.

The local branch of the non-profit Labor and Community Campaign for an Independent Party met over the weekend in Middleburg Heights, discussing how Democrats and Republicans have failed to address issues like climate change and immigration reform.

One presenter was Alan Benjamin, who spent 25 years on the executive board of the San Francisco Labor Council. He was previously involved with an attempt to organize a national labor party in the mid-1990s.

Now, he says the focus will be slightly different.

We needed to begin running candidates for local office," Benjamin said. "Were not at a point where we can run and have a real solid base to win elections at the statewide level or congressional level, let alone the Presidency.

Benjamin adds that social media has made it easier for workers to connect and make their voices heard, both to the public and to labor leaders. And he hopes that will create more grass-roots support for third-party candidates.

Original post:
Political Group Plans To Organize Third-Party Candidates In Northeast Ohio - WOSU

The Ninth-Circuit Court of Appeals, which has routinely blocked Trump administration rule changes, gave the administration a win when it lifted two injunctions blocking implementation of the administrations changes to the public charge rule.

The administration's changes limit the number of foreign nationals receiving taxpayer-funded welfare benefits by clarifying the definition of the law and enforcing it.

By a vote of 2-1 Thursday, the Ninth Circuit lifted injunctions issued by federal judges in California and Washington.

The phrase [public charge] is subject to multiple interpretations, it in fact has been interpreted differently, and the Executive Branch has been afforded the discretion to interpret it, wrote Judges Jay Bybee and Sandra Ikuta in their decision. Whether the change in policy results from changing circumstances or a change in administrations, the wisdom of the policy is not a question we can review.

Judge John Owens dissented.

The judges chastised Congress for not reforming immigration laws, which could have avoided wasting the courts time.

We have seen case after case come through our courts, serious and earnest efforts, even as they are controversial, to address the nations immigration challenges, Bybee wrote. Yet we have seen little engagement and no actual legislation from Congress. It matters not to me as a judge whether Congress embraces or disapproves of the administrations actions, but it is time for a feckless Congress to come to the table and grapple with these issues.

The Justice Department and White House applauded the ruling.

"The Ninth Circuit has rightly recognized the administration's authority to adopt an interpretation of the 'public charge' restriction more faithful to and consistent with the scope of the statute passed by Congress, the White House said in a statement.

"[The court] held that the Trump administration should be able to enforce a regulation implementing a statute passed by Congress that has declared for over a century that any alien who 'is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.'"

According to an analysis of the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), 63 percent of non-citizen households access welfare programs. That's compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

Among the non-citizens, according to Census Bureau data, roughly half are illegal immigrants, the report states. The other half includes long-term temporary visitors such as guest workers and foreign students, and permanent residents who have not naturalized and are green cards.

Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, the authors of the CIS report, Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, wrote.

Existing law stipulates that immigrants "within the Nations borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations. This is intended to ensure that the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.

This news follows the all-too-common pattern of how activist judges have been slapped down by superior courts," Mike Howell, Heritage Foundation senior adviser for executive branch relations and former DHS oversight counsel, told The Center Square. "First, a judge will overstep his or her authority by declaring a sprawling injunction on a policy with which he or she disagrees. Then, either an appeals court or the Supreme Court will step in and overturn the judicial overreach. But those declaring the injunctions can still claim some victory in the delay, litigation costs, and distraction inherent to the process, which is unfortunate given the Trump administrations attempt to enact common-sense immigration policy that protects American interests and re-affirms the rule of law.

The rule remains blocked by courts in Maryland and New York, whose injunctions fall under different appellate jurisdiction. The Justice Department continues to appeal the injunctions, arguing the courts have overstepped their authority.

Read more here:
Ninth Circuit lifts injunctions on Trump rule change, chastises feckless Congress for failing to address immigration reform - MDJOnline.com