RadioRob

Published by AFP Protestors in New York hold up cardboard cutouts of conservative Supreme Court justices after the leak of a draft court ruling that would end the constitutional right to abortion Washington (AFP) – The leaked draft decision that indicates the Supreme Court is poised to eliminate abortion rights marks a stunning triumph of a five-decade campaign by religious conservatives to plant their agenda at the center of US political life. At the core of the “culture wars” over feminism, race, secularism and LGBTQ rights, the campaign took off when conservative Catholics and Evangelical Protestants joined hands following the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling guaranteeing a woman’s right to have an abortion. That alliance, at first weak compared to the progressive social movement, grew to become a juggernaut in local and national politics over the following decades. The final stage was set when Donald Trump, never an opponent of abortion before he ran for president in 2016, repaid the religious right’s support by naming three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, tilting it decidedly in their favor. “Roe v. Wade was decided 50 years ago, and the right wing began to resist it and launched an enormous backlash immediately,” said Columbia Law School Professor Katherine Franke. Their stunning success at the Supreme Court, she said, represents a “radical retrenchment” of three generations of constitutional law. Litmus test for candidates Russell Moore, a veteran Evangelical Christian activist and public theologian at Christianity Today, recalled that abortion was not a partisan political issue in the 1970s. At the time, he said, “Many Roe supporters assumed that the ‘pro-life’ movement would just go away.” Catholics and Evangelicals built media-savvy lobby groups with names like “Moral Majority” and “Family Research Council” that spread their message in churches around the country. With strong funding, they supported political candidates who backed “right to life,” as the anti-abortion movement was dubbed, and steadily accrued power. By the arrival of president Ronald Reagan in 1981, abortion had become a centerpiece of conservative politics, and was a litmus test for any Republican seeking office. Moore said the movement took advantage of advances in medical technology to promote their arguments. For one, steady improvements in care for premature babies pushed back the view of “viability” — how early a fetus can live outside the womb — changing people’s views of the consequences of abortion. In addition, Moore said, the spread of sonograms allowed expectant mothers and their families to see their babies in the womb. With sonograms, “it becomes very difficult… to speak of the unborn child as simply a clump of tissue or collection of cells,” he said. Washington insider In parallel with the popular movement, anti-abortion activists built a force in Washington with a long-term goal to get their own justices on the Supreme Court. “From the very beginning, people understood that this would have to be addressed through the judiciary,” said Moore. Central to that effort was Leonard Leo, a former clerk of the court’s most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, and a figure in the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion Opus Dei sect, a quiet but highly influential force in Washington politics. From the late 1990s, Leo built a network to shape the US judiciary over the long term, operating from the powerful Federalist Society and tapping donors for tens of millions of dollars. According to The Washington Post, in the 2000s, Leo was deeply influential in President George W. Bush’s administration. Most notably, Leo led the campaigns to promote Bush’s two nominations to the high court: Samuel Alito, the author of the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who reportedly stands with the court’s three liberals against it. A key contact of Leo’s in the Bush White House was Brett Kavanaugh — now one of the five Supreme Court Justices who reportedly backed Alito’s opinion. Victory with Trump Polls showed, and still show, that a significant majority of Americans support abortion rights. But by 2016, the anti-abortion movement were powerful enough to make or break Trump’s presidential campaign. Never particularly religious or opposed to abortion, Trump actively courted Evangelical leaders and, earning their blessing, began to condemn abortion and say Roe should be overturned. Trump chose for his vice president Mike Pence, an Evangelical himself who as Indiana governor set tough restrictions on abortion. And Trump announced a “shortlist” of nominees he would propose to fill court vacancies — a list supplied by Leo. That helped swing the election, with nearly 80 percent of Evangelicals backing Trump despite clouds over his personal life. The payoff was clear: Trump, it turned out, had the opportunity to name three justices to the nine-member Supreme Court, and all were conservatives backed by Leo and his network. Struggle not over Moore said he is uncomfortable with the way Alito’s draft decision was leaked, saying it tarnished the court. Nevertheless, it marks the success of a five-decade political battle. “Most conservative evangelicals will be very happy with the court decision,” Moore told AFP. “But most of us understand that does not mean an end to the struggle, but a new phase,” he said, referring to what is already a fight to have abortion made illegal by the legislatures in each of the 50 states. View the full article

Published by New York Daily News NEW YORK — Fashion’s biggest night out was also a big night for reflection. Dwyane Wade and Gabrielle Union paid a touching tribute to their 14-year-old daughter, Zaya, at the Met Gala on Monday night, while also sharing powerful words of advice for other parents of trans kids. The power couple’s fashion turned heads as they entered the celebrity-packed fund-raiser benefitting the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute: Union, 49, stunned in a silver sequin Versace number with a long feathered train and a massive flower accent around her waist; while Wade, 40, wore a white blazer, whit… Read More View the full article

Published by Raw Story By Sky Palma An official audit of five large California law enforcement agencies has found evidence of significant racial bias from officers, some of whom are members of the right-wing extremist group the Proud Boys, Rolling Stone reports. “The results of the state auditor’s investigation into ‘biased conduct’ — launched at the request of the legislature — were released last week in a 95 page report,” reports Rolling Stone. “The investigation surveyed the patterns and practices of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department, the police departments of San Jose, San Bernardino, and Stockton, as well as… Read More View the full article

Published by AFP Demonstrators in front of the US Supreme Court in Washington on May 3, 2022 Washington (AFP) – President Joe Biden urged voters Tuesday to defend their “fundamental” rights after a leaked Supreme Court draft on ending nationwide legal abortion sparked a political firestorm around one of America’s most divisive ethical issues. If confirmed by the court, the ruling would categorically overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which enshrined abortion rights across the country — ensuring the hot-button question will dominate the November midterm elections for control of Congress. In practice, it would mean that abortion laws were left up to individual state legislatures, with as many as half of the country’s states expected to introduce bans or new restrictions. Abortion is the fiercest fought of all the so-called culture war battles, and Republicans have pushed hard for years to overturn Roe — something that became almost inevitable once three conservative justices were appointed under Donald Trump, shifting the Supreme Court’s political balance sharply to the right. Biden, whose Democrats have been forecast to lose their narrow control of Congress in November, issued a rallying cry to the left, warning that restricting abortion rights will be only the beginning. “I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental… and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned,” Biden said in a written statement. “It will fall on voters to elect” officials who back abortion rights, he said, vowing to work to pass legislation in Congress that codifies Roe v. Wade — a goal impossible to achieve unless far more Democrats win seats. Speaking to reporters, Biden went further, calling the draft ruling “radical” and warning of a “fundamental shift in American jurisprudence” that could put into question the future of gay marriage and “how you raise your child.” “It would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question.” ‘Roe v. Wade is going to go!’ The leaking of the draft ruling was unprecedented, knocking another hole in the once hallowed reputation of the top court as the one apolitical branch in the US government. Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that the document released by the Politico news website was authentic, although he cautioned that this did not necessarily represent the court’s final decision. Roberts ordered a probe into the leak. Crowds of protesters from both camps descended on the Supreme Court building, with anti-abortion activists chanting “abortion is violence. Abortion is oppression” as well as “Hey Hey Ho Ho Roe v. Wade is going to go!” In Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that access to abortion is a constitutional right. In a subsequent 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks of gestation. Most developed countries allow abortions on request up to a gestational limit, most often 12 weeks. Roe v. Wade makes the United States one of a handful of nations to allow the procedure without restriction beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy — although many others allow it past that point for specific reasons. The court had been expected to decide this June on challenges to Roe v. Wade. The Republican National Committee said it was time for abortion decisions to revert to state governments. “The far left wants unelected judges to impose a radical, one-size fits all abortion policy, leaving Americans without a voice. The Republican Party will always stand for the sanctity of life,” it said. ‘Wrong from the start’ The draft opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and according to Politico has been circulating since February inside the court — now dominated 6-3 by conservatives. The 98-page draft majority opinion calls Roe v. Wade decision enshrining the right to abortion “egregiously wrong from the start.” “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes in the document, labeled the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” The Guttmacher Institute, which backs abortion rights, has said 26 states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Democratic governors of several states including California, New Mexico and Michigan swiftly announced plans to enshrine abortion rights into law even if the court overturns Roe, with California Governor Gavin Newsom tweeting: “Women will remain protected here.” View the full article

Published by NJ.com The pastor of a church in Sussex County says a portion of his congregation has felt bullied since the beginning of the year, when vandals began setting fire to the LBGTQ+ flag in front of the building and leaving harassing messages on the house of worship’s voicemail. “It is a rainbow flag, we are an open congregation, and we welcome all people,” the Rev. Steve Bechtold told NJ Advance Media on Tuesday. “But that’s not popular with some people and we get criticism about that,” Bechtold said. Bechtold is pastor of the Sparta United Methodist Church in Sparta. He said the flag was first burned l… Read More View the full article

Published by Reuters By Maria Caspani (Reuters) – Democratic lawmakers from 16 states on Tuesday pledged to introduce legislation providing legal refuge to transgender youth and their families displaced by restrictive laws in their states. These states will join legislative efforts already under way in California, New York and Minnesota to provide a coordinated response to a recent wave of laws and measures banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth in multiple conservative states including Texas and Alabama. “This attack on the very existence of our community is something that we will not accept and we’re going to fight and push back very, very hard,” said California state Senator Scott Wiener as he announced the coalition at an event with the LGBTQ Victory Institute and other civil rights groups. Wiener is the sponsor of a California bill introduced in March that is serving as a template for other states. It would, among other things, reject any out-of-state court judgment removing transgender children from their parents in cases where parents allow their kids to receive gender-affirming care against local measures. It would also bar compliance with any out-of-state subpoenas seeking to obtain health or other related information on individuals who come to California to receive such care, Wiener has said. The rollout of refuge legislation will have to wait in many of the 16 states where legislative sessions have already wrapped up, and might face opposition in some legislatures. Annise Parker, the president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Institute, said it was nonetheless important for leaders to send “a very clear message” to trans youth and their families. “We see you, we hear you, we support you and we’re going to do everything in our power to make you safe,” Parker said. (Reporting by Maria Caspani in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis) View the full article

Supreme Court Leak: Guerrilla Girls Poster on Abortion Traditional Values Buy Your OwnAccess to Abortion and LGBTQ Equality Overlap in Legal Arguments In an unprecedented development, a purported draft of what is believed to be the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on abortion indicates not only that the court is poised to overturn its long-standing decisions protecting the right to abortion but that it is also laying the groundwork to overturn landmark pro-LGBT decisions. “LGBTQ people should recognize that we are once again in the crosshairs and that all of our hard-won protections are under serious threat,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “If this really is the judgment of a majority of the Supreme Court,” said Jenny Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, “we have entered an era of arrogant judicial activism unlike anything this country has seen for a hundred years.” “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” –Draft Supreme Court Desicion Obtained by Politico Nan Hunter, a veteran of many legal battles for LGBT equality, said the draft would almost certainly unleash “a rush by right wingers to get a challenge before the court” to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision which struck down state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. The abortion decision draft, first reported by Politico.com Monday night, appears to be authentic. But it is dated February, leaving open the possibility that it is not finalized. At least five justices must sign onto the final decision to carry the majority. Votes on some decisions in the past have changed very late in the process. Justices have sometimes voted with a majority view at first, then later changed their vote after reading the majority’s proposed decision. Also in the past, attempts to report the outcome of cases before the decisions were released have turned out to be wrong. Supreme Court Leak Looks Legit 1977 Women’s Conference in Houston But most legal analysts Monday night said they believe the draft released Monday is authentic and that its being leaked represents a dramatic departure from the court’s efforts to avoid being influenced by political pressure. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” states the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, referring to Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roe, in 1973, said there is an implied right to privacy and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution that covers the right to choose an abortion. Casey, in 1992, said that states could regulate abortion once a fetus becomes viable as long as the regulations did not create an undue burden to women who seek an abortion. “If this really is the judgment of a majority of the Supreme Court, we have entered an era of arrogant judicial activism unlike anything this country has seen for a hundred years.” –Jenny Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal In language especially troubling to LGBT legal activists, the draft opinion in Dobbs, apparently penned by Justice Samuel Alito, states, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. According to Alito, the only implicit rights the 14th Amendment due process clause protects must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Alito’s draft says abortion is not one of those rights and, in language reminiscent of a 1986 decision that allowed states to ban same-sex sexual relations, he notes that three-fourths of states made abortion a crime when the 14th Amendment was adopted. The opinion further echoes the Bowers v. Hardwick decision when it notes that a right to abortion was “entirely unknown in American law” before the latter part of the 20th Century. Pro Choice with no nostalgia “If our due process rights to ‘ordered liberty’ are to be limited now to those rights respected by white male landowners wearing wigs and tri-cornered hats, the Constitution will fail utterly to do the job our founders intended it to do,” said Lambda’s Pizer. “And while it’s true that abortion is unique in some ways, its use as a political weapon to drive extreme-right voters is anything but, as state legislatures have proved again and again in recent times with frenzies of anti-LGBTQ bills.” Alito’s draft also says that abortion is “critically different” and “fundamentally different” from some other rights that have been protected by the 14th Amendment– such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage—because abortion takes the life of an “unborn human being.” But activists were not much comforted by that distinction. “Justice Alito badly wants to overrule Obergefell. What this opinion tells us is that he doesn’t have the votes to do so. If there were three other justices –beside him and Thomas– willing to end same-sex marriage, that would have been part of this decision.” Nan Hunter, LGBTQ Legal Veteran Evan Wolfson, a gay legal activist who was a key player in the legal and political battle for marriage equality, said Alito “leans on the distinctiveness of abortion and doesn’t necessarily go further (though we know he would like to).” Nan Hunter was more blunt: “Justice Alito badly wants to overrule Obergefell. What this opinion tells us is that he doesn’t have the votes to do so. If there were three other justices –beside him and Thomas– willing to end same-sex marriage, that would have been part of this decision.” The apparent leaking of the draft decision has stirred almost as much controversy as the 98-page draft decision itself. The U.S. Supreme Court has a long-standing protocol of not signaling to the public how its decisions are developing. The assumed motivation behind this tradition is to prevent outside politics from putting pressure on the court’s legal analysis and reasoning. Some legal commentators Monday night were characterizing this leak as a blatant attempt to play politics with the final formulation of the court’s abortion opinion. But the pressure could have come from either side –from Alito, attempting to discourage any justice from abandoning his politically aggressive opinion, or from a pro-choice justice hoping public pressure would rattle any majority justice who was concerned about the far-reaching consequences of the opinion. We don’t know if this will be the final decision, but it is shocking to read this assault on an established fundamental right. Shanon Minter“That someone leaked this opinion–violating the court’s most sacrosanct rule of confidentiality–speaks volumes about how extreme and dangerous much of the court’s jurisprudence has become,” said NCLR’s Minter. “We don’t know if this will be the final decision, but it is shocking to read this assault on an established fundamental right.” The case in question is Dobbs v. Jackson, in which an abortion clinic challenged a new law in Mississippi that banned abortion at any time after 15 weeks, unless there is a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. Most observers following the case and the court’s oral argument have predicted the Supreme Court majority would likely overturn Roe and Casey. But nearly everyone expected the decision to be released in late June, when the court typically releases its most controversial decisions. During oral argument December 1, the court discussed the implications for this case on two major LGBT decisions: Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. Lawrence ruled that states could not ban sexual relations between same-sex couples; Obergefell ruled that states could not ban same-sex couples from marrying. “A court that would issue an opinion like this–if it does–is a court that has abandoned any pretense of protecting individual freedom,” said NCLR’s Minter. “…We have become too accustomed to counting on the courts for protection, and we must realize the days when we could safely do so are past. Our hope lies in joining forces with others who are fighting to protect democracy and the rule of law and to prevent our country from sliding into the same authoritarianism that is rising across the globe.” “Whether or not this draft makes it into a majority opinion, and whether or not it later gets invoked in assaults on other rights, it’s already a firebell in the night,” said Evan Wolfson. And he said it underscores “the importance of voting out the Republicans who have conspired, lied, and court-packed to get our country to this ugly, divisive, corrosive moment.” “The cure,” said Wolfson, “is to vote in representatives who will defend Americans’ rights and our constitutional democracy itself.” View the full article

Published by The Philadelphia Inquirer In the backroom of a popular Mexican restaurant in Chester County’s mushroom capital of Kennett Square, standing in front of florid Mexican folk paintings, a faux red-tile roof, and a half-finished Corona, state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta held court for 20 minutes to explain why Pennsylvania Democrats should pick him, a 31-year-old North Philadelphian with a surname forged in 1960s Black radicalism, as their U.S. Senate nominee. About 20 folks sated by chips and salsa gave their rapt attention as Kenyatta paid little mind to the political horse race that still pegs him as a long shot. Instead, he g… Read More View the full article

Published by Tribune News Service Debuting Tuesday, May 3, on HBO Max is a documentary taking a look at a reunion 15 years in the making. “Spring Awakening: Those You’ve Known” follows the reunion concert of the original cast of the eight-time Tony winning musical “Spring Awakening,” benefiting The Actor’s Fund. The film, directed by Michael John Warren, gives fans a taste of the concert, but also dives into the development and production of the show, a challenging and unique piece of work that struggled to find its producers, and its audience, before becoming a bona fide cultural phenomenon, thanks in large part to its young,… Read More View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Kyan Douglas is retiring from television. The 51 -year-old star shot to fame as grooming expert on the original version of reality show ‘Queer Eye’ – which was rebooted by Netflix in 2018 – from 2003 to 2007 but is now stepping down from his television career after almost than 20 years on the box. Speaking on daytime chat show ‘Rachael Ray’, he said: “I’ve done more episodes of ‘Rachael Ray’ than I did of ‘Queer Eye’. But I just feel ready to move on to something else. I don’t know what that is yet, but things come to an end and the universe will fill a void, so it’s time to step away and see what’s next for me.” However, Kyan – who following his time on ‘Queer Eye’ went on to become a regular item presenter on ‘Rachael’ Ray – went on to thank his fellow TV star for working with him for over a decade and revealed that because of the show he was able to spend time with his mother before she passed away. He added: “I’ve worked for you for 13 years and because of you and working on this show, the flexibility that it gave me, the income that it gave me, I was able to spend the last year of my mother’s life with her at home. You gave that to me, so thank you so much.” Prior to his announcement, Kyan took to Instagram to alert fans that something “very special” was on the way. He said: “Hello friends! Forgive me for the last-minute post but I will be on The Rachael Ray show today with a very special announcement! Please watch when and where you can. Check your local listings. Love you guys!”(sic) View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Sophie Turner thinks that motherhood has made her a “better actress.” The 26-year-old star welcomed daughter Willa into the world with husband Joe Jonas back in July 2020 and has insisted that becoming a mother has improved her skills on screen because it has made her a “much more emotional person”. She said: “The concept of family has made me an entirely much more emotional person. The empathy is heightened; the feelings about family are just like overflowing.It’s made me a better actress for becoming, you know, becoming a mother.” The ‘Dark Phoenix’ actress – who has been married to former Disney star Joe, 32, since 2019 – went on to explain that the only way to become a “brilliant actor” is to experience life and noted that parenthood is “another part of her life” that she is able to incorporate into her work. Speaking on WrapWomen’s ‘UnWrapped’ podcast, she added: “Because as an actor, you know, the only way to become a really brilliant actor is to experience as much life as possible and to bring those experiences in, and so this is just another little part of life that I’m experiencing that I get to bring in and hopefully it helps my performance one way or another.” The former ‘Game of Thrones’ actress is set to make her return screens in HBO Max drama ‘The Staircase’ after a two year break from acting and explained that while the tone was different than what she initially expected, she ended up “preferring” the final cut. She said: “I wasn’t fully prepared for the tone and told it was a little more comedic than the script it ended up being. But I preferred the story as it was executed ultimately. It was very seductive from the get-go. I was pleasantly surprised about how emotional it was when I saw the first cut.” View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Bjorn Ulvaeus thinks that the ABBA comeback is an “immense risk.” The 77-year-old musician began his ascent to global fame when he won the Eurovision Song Contest for Sweden with the song ‘Waterloo’ alongside ex-wife Agnetha Faltskog as well as Anni-Frid Lyngstad, and Benny Andersson back in 1974 and the four are set to reunite as digital avatars for a series of London concerts, and but Bjorn has been losing sleep over the comeback. He said: “It’s an immense risk and most people I talk to don’t appreciate that. They say, ‘Oh, it’ll be fine.’ Sometimes I wake up at four in the morning and think, ‘What the hell have we done?’” The show is being staged at the purpose-built ABBA Arena in London from May at an estimated cost of £15 million but the ‘Super Trouper’ hitmaker – who has sold 385 million records as part of the legendary pop group – explained that a lot of their fellow artists will be “studying” the format of the world-first style of digital concert and named rock band Oasis He told The Sunday Times: “Lots of artists are going to be studying us, definitely. I won’t name names, but I can think of a few. I wonder who’s going to be first.I couldn’t possibly comment.” Meanwhile, co-lead singer Anni-Frid, 76, – who was married to Benny during the latter years of the band’s heyday while Bjorn was married to Agnetha -explained that going on tour for them back in the day was an “odd experience” and left them feeling like “prisoners” in their hotel rooms. She said: “Our situation was so odd. Not in the studio, which was our second home, but going on tour, where we were more or less prisoners in our hotel.” ‘ABBA Voyage’ is set to kick off on May 27 and will run until December 2022. View the full article

Published by Radar Online mega Amber Heard fans who are planning to head to the movie theaters to see Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom when it premieres may be disappointed, as rumors are swirling that the actress is featured in mere minutes of the film. Heard was previously assumed to be starring in the popular comic book flick alongside costar Jason Momoa. mega The news was first dropped by film critic Grace Randolph, who has previously been a reliable source for a broad array of movie scoops. “I hear #AmberHeard has less than 10 min of screentime in #Aquaman2,” she tweeted on Thursday, April 28, leading to rampant fan speculation on whether she needed to be in the movie at all. Amber Heard Demanded Johnny Depp Pay For Her Range Rover, LA Apartment & Cough Up 125k Before She Filed Restraining Order “Still too much,” one user replied in the comment section. “Like seriously cut the ten minutes and reshoot no one will mind.” Another agreed they’d prefer it if she had, “0 min screentime.” A DC fan suggested the role be recast in future films, calling it a “shame” that such an incredible comic book character is now “tainted forever in the eyes of the general public” due to Heard’s less than favorable reputation. mega This comes after Radar reported an online petition to get Heard removed from the entirety of the Aquaman sequel reached over 2 million signatures as Heard and ex-husband Johnny Depp‘s shocking defamation trial continues. “In his $50 million lawsuit, Johnny Depp describes many incidents of domestic abuse that he suffered at the hands of his (then) wife Amber Heard,” the change.org petition summary read, going on to reference testimonies given in court alleging the All the Boys Love Mandy Lane star repeatedly physically abused Depp. “Also, Amber Heard was arrested in 2009 for abusing a former domestic partner, Tasya Van Ree.” “As Amber Heard is a known and proven domestic abuser, Warner Brothers and DC Entertainment should and must remove Heard from their Aquaman 2 film project,” the text continued. “They must not ignore the suffering of Heard’s victims, and must not glamorize a domestic abuser.” The petition currently has over 2,900,000 signatures. View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Martha Stewart has recalled that Pete Davidson was a “young upstart” early on in his career. The 80 year-old businesswoman remembers sharing the stage with comedian Pete, 28, – who has been dating reality superstar Kim Kardashian since 2021 – for ‘Comedy Central Roast of Justin Bieber’ back in 2014 and took to Instagram to honour him after the power couple made their first red carpet appearance together at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington D.C. on Saturday (30.04.22) night . Alongside a throwback of video of Pete, Martha wrote on Instagram: “seven years ago i was on the stage with a young upstart named pete who was doing comedy on saturday night live now that same pete is all grown up , squiring gorgeous women around and appearing everywhere! @petedavidson.93 and @kimkardashian were in washington for the correspondents dinner This clip is from the @justinbieber Comedy Central roast years ago.”(sic) In the throwback clip, the ‘Saturday Night Live’ star can be seen telling the camera: “I’m Pete and I’m very excited to be doing this roast with Martha because she’s adorable and doesn’t know that she’s gonna get abused.” Kim – who has North, eight, Saint, six, Chicago, four, and Psalm, two, with her ex-husband Kanye West whilst Pete has previously dated the likes of pop star Ariana Grande and Hollywood actress Kate Beckinsale – was invited to the prestigious event on behalf of ABC following the debut of her new Hulu series ‘The Kardashians’, while Pete came along as her guest. The couple arrived more than 90 minutes after the event began but they still found the time to stop and pose for photos, though they didn’t speak to reporters before heading into the ballroom. View the full article

Published by Reuters MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -The pressure Texas exerted on neighboring Mexican states last month to tighten border security was tantamount to “extortion”, Mexico’s foreign minister was quoted as saying on Sunday. Texas Governor Greg Abbott made deals with the governors of the border states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon after enhanced Texan security checks to prevent smuggling of people and contraband disrupted bilateral trade. The episode sparked a testy response from Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who described Texas’ behavior as “despicable”, and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, this weekend weighed in with his own criticism. “Let me put this in quotation marks, it’s an extortion scheme, or rather it is extortion; I close the border and you have to sign whatever I say. That’s not a deal, a deal is when you and I are in agreement on something,” Ebrard was quoted as saying by news network Milenio during a visit to Nuevo Leon. Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside of normal business hours. Ebrard did not take issue with the Mexican governors, saying that they had been presented with no alternative. “But we’re not prepared to have a governor extorting Mexico. I will never allow that,” he said. A spokesperson for the Mexican foreign ministry said Ebrard had been interviewed by Milenio. Abbott, who is running for re-election as governor, said Texas had reached accords with the Mexican states to beef up security at the border in order to curb illegal immigration. Mexican media reported later on Sunday that Ebrard declared himself a candidate for the presidency in 2024 during a state election campaign event in the central region of Hidalgo. A foreign ministry official confirmed the reports, saying Ebrard had previously made it clear he intended to run. Record numbers of people have this year been caught trying to cross the Mexican border into the United States. (Reporting by Dave Graham; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Kenneth Maxwell) View the full article

Published by Reuters HELSINKI (Reuters) – Finland will decide to apply for NATO membership on May 12, Finnish newspaper Iltalehti reported late on Sunday, citing anonymous government sources. The decision to join will come in two steps on that day, with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto first announcing his approval for the Nordic neighbour of Russia to join the Western defence alliance, followed by parliamentary groups giving their approval for the application, the paper reported. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has pushed Finland and Sweden to the verge of applying for NATO membership and abandoning a belief held for decades that peace was best kept by not publicly choosing sides. Reuters was not immediately able to verify the details provided by Iltalehti. Under the Finnish constitution, the president leads Finland’s foreign and security policy in cooperation with the government. The decision will be confirmed in a meeting between the President and the government’s key ministers after the President’s and the Parliament’s initial announcements, the paper reported. Russia, with which Finland shares a 1,300-km (810-mile) border and a pre-1945 history of conflict, has warned it will deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles in its Baltic coast enclave of Kaliningrad if Finland and Sweden decide to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance. (Reporting by Anne Kauranen, editing by Gwladys Fouche) View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Joanne Froggatt insisted it is an “easy decision” to keep returning to ‘Downton Abbey’. The 41-year-old actress has portrayed Anna Bates in the TV series and both spin-off movies and she will always feel a “real loyalty” to the franchise and everyone who works on it. She said: “I love the people and feel a real loyalty to their show and our team. “We had a wonderful experience during the show so it’s an easy decision to keep coming back. “We get to hang out with our friends and revisit something that has been such a big and special part of our lives.” Joanne will always be grateful for the variety of storylines that showrunner Julian Fellowes has written for her over the years. She continued to Big Issue magazine: “I also love revisiting Anna. It’s never a tough decision to step back into her shoes. “Julian has put her through the mill over the years, which as an actor I’m very grateful for. “I wanted to be an actor for the versatility, to be able to play different roles and challenge myself. But to have the opportunity to pop back and revisit that character in a movie is so dreamy, and something that very rarely happens in the TV world.” The actress has promised the new movie, ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’, will be a comforting watch. She said: “I think the second movie is even better than the first. “It is funny, it is poignant, it looks beautiful – it’s got all those things people love about ‘Downton’. “It feels like you are getting a warm hug. And I think that’s what everybody needs right now, after the last few years and with what’s happening in the world.” View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Serena Williams didn’t tell her daughter’s tennis instructor who she was. The 40-year-old sports star – who is often dubbed The Queen of the Court – has revealed she didn’t want four-year-old Alexis Olympia Ohanian Jr.’s coach to know they are training the Grand Slam champion’s offspring. Appearing on ‘The Ellen DeGeneres Show’ on Monday (02.05.22), she said of her little girl’s skills on the court: “Her ambition is playing princess games.” The host quipped: “You enrolled her in tennis classes with a coach but you did not tell the coach that you were the mother?” And Serena replied: “I don’t have the patience to teach tennis. “It drives me nuts.” Meanwhile, Serena recently admitted she didn’t feel any connection with her daughter during her pregnancy. She didn’t form a bond with her baby girl until the day she was born. In a personal essay for Elle, Serena explained: “I was nervous about meeting my baby. Throughout my pregnancy, I’d never felt a connection with her. While I loved being pregnant, I didn’t have that amazing ‘Oh my God, this is my baby’ moment, ever. It’s something people don’t usually talk about, because we’re supposed to be in love from the first second. “Yes, I was a lioness who would protect her baby at any cost, but I wasn’t gushing over her. I kept waiting to feel like I knew her during pregnancy, but the feeling never came. Some of my mom friends told me they didn’t feel the connection in the womb either, which made me feel better, but still, I longed for it.” However, the Olympic gold medallist – who is married to Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian – added: “When I finally saw her – and I just knew it was going to be a girl, that was one thing I knew about her before we even had it confirmed – I loved her right away. It wasn’t exactly instantaneous, but it was there, and from that seed, it grew.” View the full article

Published by DPA Best friends beyond 70: Over seven seasons, Jane Fonda (Grace, left), and Lily Tomlin (Frankie, right) have brought an unusual friendship to life. Now the longest-running Netflix series is coming to an end. Suzanne Tenner/Netflix/dpa Well they certainly don’t act their age. Grace Hanson and Frankie Bergstein may be well past 70, but they would hardly fit (or approve of) the label “senior citizens”. Hanson still enjoys a martini with lunch and remains the feisty head of a cosmetics company at an age when others would have long since dozed off into retirement. Bergstein, on the other hand, is a lively art teacher who loves to paint nude in her studio and is still up for every esoteric trend even at her advanced age. The Netflix show “Grace and Frankie” deals with the narrow-minded ideas society has about older women and also raises a good question: In the final stretch of life, do friendships not matter, or even more, than our partnerships? In 2015, the hit producers Marta Kauffman (“Friends”) and John E. Morris (“Home Improvement”) had the right instinct to finally put older people at the centre of a series. The idea became Netflix’s longest-running fictional original production. After the first of four new episodes were previously released, the final 12 episodes of season seven appeared on Netflix at the end of April. The show started out with what felt like a cheesy TV drama: After decades of marriage, two women learn that their husbands are secretly in love with each other and have been having an affair for years. When their spouses move in together, Grace and Frankie also decide, out of necessity, to share a flat. At the beginning, critics were lukewarm at best and pointed to the lazy dialogue and a cliché-riddled plot. Gradually, however, the two women moved more and more into focus and with them the question: Is it ever too late to reinvent yourself? The acclaim from critics grew and grew. Lily Tomlin as Frankie, now 82, has since been nominated four times in a row for the best leading actress in a comedy series at the Emmy television awards Jane Fonda, 84, is credible as the dapper businesswoman Grace, even if many of us know the actor as a left-wing climate activist and protester against the Vietnam War. And Tomlin has proven in her career that a character like the absurdly over-the-top Frankie suits her well. After all, she gained fame from eccentric 1980s films like “The Incredible Shrinking Woman” and “9 to 5”. For anyone who knows the latter, a fitting finale awaits the leading duo at the end of the seven-season run. Cameo spoiler alert: Singer, songwriter and actor Dolly Parton makes a guest appearance in the last episode of “Grace and Frankie”, bringing the trio of Parton, Tomlin and Parton together again four decades their first joint appearance in the office satire “9 to 5”. View the full article

Published by AFP This file photo taken on March 26, 2022, shows the Netflix logo at the Anime Japan 2022 fair in Tokyo New York (AFP) – Netflix has canceled an animated series created by Meghan Markle as it makes cost-saving moves following disappointing first-quarter results. The TV streaming giant confirmed in an email to AFP on Monday that it was not moving forward with the Duchess of Sussex’s “Pearl,” which was announced in July last year. The cancellation is “part of the strategic decisions Netflix is making around animated series,” the company said, adding that it was scrapping other children’s series including “Dino Daycare” and “Boons and Curses.” Markle and her husband, Britain’s Prince Harry, signed a deal to produce content for the streaming platform after quitting their royal duties in Britain. The California-based couple formed a production company called Archewell Productions, named after their son Archie. “Pearl” was due to be about a 12-year-old girl who is inspired by historical female figures. In 2020, Harry and Meghan announced they would create a documentary series about the Invictus Games for wounded servicemen and women, which Prince Harry has long championed. Netflix said that Archewell Productions “remains a valued partner and we are continuing to work together on a number of projects, including the upcoming documentary series Heart of Invictus.” Last month, Netflix reported a drop in subscribers for the first time in a decade, sparking a plunge in its share price. The Silicon Valley tech firm said it ended the first quarter of this year with 221.6 million subscribers, a drop of around 200,000 users from the final quarter of last year. Netflix blamed the quarter-over-quarter erosion to suspension of its service in Russia due to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Disney showed earlier this year that it was closing the gap with market leader Netflix in America’s TV streaming wars. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Leah Douglas (Reuters) – Black farmers in the United States lost roughly $326 billion worth of acreage during the 20th century, according to the first study to quantify the present-day value of that loss. Land loss is a contributor to the racial wealth gap in the United States and an issue that has marred the relationship between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and minority farmers. “Wealth and land is one way in this country that you’re able to grow opportunity for your family,” said Dr. Dania Francis, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study published on Sunday in the American Economic Association’s Papers and Proceedings journal. “When huge groups of African Americans were denied that opportunity, it speaks to the intergenerational wealth gap that opened up in part due to this type of land loss,” Francis added. The land loss was due to discriminatory USDA lending policies and forced sales of co-owned land called heirs’ property, among other factors, the study said. The study calculated the compounded value of declining acreage owned by African Americans between 1920 and 1997 in the 17 states where almost all Black-owned farms were documented, using data from the USDA Census of Agriculture. “This is not just theoretical, but this is empirical,” said Dr. Darrick Hamilton, economics professor at The New School and another of the study’s authors. “These are real losses that occurred.” In 1910, Black farmers owned more than 16 million acres of land, according to experts. In 2017, when the most recent agricultural census was done, that figure was just 4.7 million acres, about 0.5% of all farmland. The $326 billion figure is a conservative estimate, said the study authors, in part because it does not account for multiplier effects, like whether Black farmers could have used lost land as collateral to make other investments. A Biden administration effort to provide debt relief to farmers of color as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, framed as repair for past USDA discrimination, is currently stalled in court after white farmers argued it was discriminatory. [L1N2SY2JW] (Reporting by Leah Douglas; Editing by Bill Berkrot) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Jan Wolfe and Sarah N. Lynch WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A former New York City police officer was found guilty on Monday of assaulting a Washington, D.C., police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, handing prosecutors another win at trial, a Justice Department spokesman confirmed. A federal jury in the District of Columbia rejected arguments by Thomas Webster, 56, that he was acting in self-defense when he struck a Washington officer with a flagpole and tackled him. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Webster will be sentenced on Sept 2. Webster was the fourth Capitol riot defendant to take his case to a jury trial. The Justice Department has secured convictions in all four of those cases. Of the four defendants to face a jury so far, Webster was the first to argue he was acting in self defense. Webster took the witness stand during the week-long trial. He told jurors that the officer had “incited” him by hitting him in the face. “I felt like I was dealing with a rogue cop,” Webster testified during the trial. Prosecutors had rejected Webster’s defense and portrayed the District of Columbia police officer, Noah Rathbun, as the victim in the altercation. Prosecutors said Rathbun made physical contact with Webster to create distance between the two men, who were on opposing side of a police barricade eventually overrun by Trump supporters. About 800 people are charged with a role in the Capitol riot, which disrupted a joint session of Congress to certify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory and sent lawmakers scrambling for safety. About 250 have pleaded guilty so far. (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Editing by William Maclean) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group by refusing to fly a flag bearing the image of a cross at City Hall as part of a program that let private groups use the flagpole while holding events in the plaza below, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday. The 9-0 decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, overturned a lower court’s ruling that the rejection of Camp Constitution and its director Harold Shurtleff did not violate their rights to freedom to speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. President Joe Biden’s administration backed Camp Constitution in the case. Boston’s flag-raising program was aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s different communities. In turning down Camp Constitution, Boston had said that raising the cross flag could appear to violate another part of the First Amendment that bars governmental endorsement of a particular religion. As a result of the litigation, Boston last October halted the program to ensure that the city cannot be compelled to “publicize messages antithetical to its own.” Boston has said that requiring it to open the flagpole to “all comers” could force it to raise flags promoting division or intolerance, such as a swastika or a terrorist group. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken an expansive view of religious rights and has been increasingly receptive to arguments that governments are acting with hostility toward religion. At issue was whether the flagpole became a public forum meriting free speech protections under the First Amendment to bar discrimination based on viewpoint, as the plaintiffs claimed, or whether it represented merely a conduit for government speech not warranting such protection, as Boston claimed. Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s current term, wrote that Boston’s “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech.” Denying Camp Constitution’s request “discriminated based on religious viewpoint” and violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections, Breyer added. In a concurring opinion, conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the outcome of the case, but not Breyer’s reasoning, which they suggested may not always ferret out when a government is “surreptitiously engaged” in censorship of private speech. The dispute arose over Boston’s practice of allowing private groups to hold flag-raising events using one of three flagpoles on the plaza in front of City Hall. From 2005 to 2017, Boston approved all 284 applications it received before rebuffing Camp Constitution. The vast majority of flags were those of foreign countries, but also included one commemorating LGBT Pride in Boston. Camp Constitution, whose stated mission is “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage” as well as “free enterprise,” sued in 2018 over its rejection. It was represented in the case by Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group. “This case is so much more significant than a flag,” Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver said. “Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored when it opened the flagpoles to all applicants and then excluded Christian viewpoints. Government cannot censor religious viewpoints under the guise of government speech.” The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the city’s control of the flag-raising program made it government speech. Breyer wrote that the ruling does not prevent Boston from changing its flag-raising policy to make clear it is intended for government speech not private expression. A city spokesperson said in a statement that “we will ensure that future City of Boston programs are aligned with this decision.” Among other topics, Camp Constitution’s website posts materials questioning the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and claiming that last year’s U.S. Capitol attack was actually a cover up for “massive” 2020 election fraud. Its website also posts materials blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on provocations by the “Biden and Obama administrations” seeking to integrate Ukraine into NATO and calling Japan’s 1941 Pearl Harbor attack and al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States “carefully orchestrated false flags.” (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article