RadioRob

Glenn Youngkin’s campaign said his stance was a private matter, but it troubles those who have considered the issue settled. Glenn Youngkin’s campaign said his stance was a private matter, but it troubles those who have considered the issue settled. Originally published by The 19th For most Americans, the question of whether or not LGBTQ+ couples should be allowed to marry has long been settled. Or at least it was. But in Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican nominee for governor, says he’s personally against same-sex marriage. He’s running against former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, in a race that’s being watched for what it says about Americans’ views of the Biden administration. For LGBTQ+ advocates, it’s also about whether Virginians will pick a candidate who is against marriage equality, a striking stance for a mainstream candidate of either major party. Late last month, Youngkin told the Associated Press in an interview that he feels “called to love everyone” but, when asked if that expressed support for same-sex marriage, said, “No.” He said it was “legally acceptable” in the state and he would support the law. LGBTQ+ rights organization the Human Rights Campaign blasted Youngkin as out of touch with mainstream America. “His relentless anti-equality messaging as he closes out his campaign is proof that fundamental fairness and equality are at stake in this election, Joni Madison, the group’s interim president, said in a statement. McAuliffe rushed to highlight his own history of backing LGBTQ+ rights in Virginia, noting on Twitter that he was “proud to be the first Southern governor to officiate a same-sex wedding.” In a statement to The 19th, the Youngkin campaign further clarified the candidate’s stance as a private matter and pointed to other, more inclusive stances he had taken during the campaign. “As Glenn said, gay marriage is the law in Virginia and he will support the law as governor,” the campaign said. “Glenn spoke up when pride flags were destroyed because he believes in respecting everyone and protecting everyone.” Still, Youngkin’s public opposition to marriage equality troubles those who have considered the issue settled. According to Gallup, support for queer marriage rights in the United States is at an all-time high at 70 percent. A majority of Republicans also now support marriage equality. Virginians have also shown strong support for LGBTQ+ residents in recent years. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, 60 percent of Virginians backed marriage equality as of 2017. That same year, the state elected the county’s first out transgender representative, Danica Roem. This year, the legislature voted overwhelmingly to wipe its unenforceable marriage ban from the books. This year however, transgender people have weathered a year of unprecedented political attacks nationwide. Ten anti-trans bills have been signed into law this year in other states. The Equality Act, federal legislation that would grant nondiscrimination protections to LGBTQ+ people nationwide and a key Biden agenda item, has stalled short of votes in the Senate. A year ago, while declining to hear a case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court indicated that marriage equality should be overturned, a move that sent shockwaves through the queer legal community as the court prepared to confirm another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett. Equality rights organizations fiercely opposed her confirmation because of her past ties to a far-right anti-LGBTQ+ organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom. Youngkin’s stance against LGBTQ+ unions has sent up red flags for queer political organizers who fear they are losing ground on the swift progress gained since the Supreme Court declared marriage equality the law of the land in 2015. Lucas Acosta, a senior spokesperson for Democratic National Committee and longtime queer rights activist, said he anticipated backlash after 2020 presidential election and in response to the Biden administration backing LGBTQ+ rights early on. “What does surprise me is the fact that even now, some Virginia voters still consider Glenn Youngkin a moderate,” he said. “Solely based on this position alone, he cannot call himself a moderate, and I think that that is on us in the campaign in these closing days, to really drive home for voters across the state.” Polling shows a tight race in Virginia, which Biden won by 10 points last year. All 100 seats in the state House of Delegates are also up for grabs, and Democrats are defending a 55-45 majority there. photo CC License Flickr Glenn Youngkin for Governor View the full article

Published by AFP Facebook halting its controversial facial recognition system San Francisco (AFP) – Facebook is shutting down its facial recognition system and deleting a billion faceprints, its parent company said Tuesday, in response to serious concerns over privacy. The announcement from the leading social media network was made as it battles one of its worst crises ever, with reams of internal documents leaked to reporters, lawmakers and US regulators. “There are many concerns about the place of facial recognition technology in society, and regulators are still in the process of providing a clear set of rules governing its use,” parent company Meta said in a statement. “Amid this ongoing uncertainty, we believe that limiting the use of facial recognition to a narrow set of use cases is appropriate,” it added. It was not clear when the changes would take effect, but they will be widely felt with Facebook noting that more than a third of its daily users have opted in to using the facial recognition system. Shutting down that system “will result in the deletion of more than a billion people’s individual facial recognition templates,” the statement said. As the social media giant battles a whistleblower crisis, it has also changed its parent company name to “Meta” in an effort to move past being a scandal-plagued social network to its virtual reality vision for the future. Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — which are used by billions around the world — will keep their names under the rebranding that critics have called an effort to distract from the platform’s dysfunction. View the full article

He can’t support 2022 world cup in Qatar after all the corruption in the bidding process. Also expresses concern over gay protections. Published by BANG Showbiz English Gary Lineker doesn’t support the 2022 World Cup being played in Qatar. The next edition of the global football tournament will take place in the Middle Eastern nation, but the decision has proved controversial due to the corrupt nature of the bidding process and the former England footballer has reservations about the event. Gary – who was part of England’s failed bid to host the 2018 tournament – told ITV’s ‘This Morning’: “At the time I was obviously perturbed by it because I was kind of brought in late as part of the English bid. “It was obviously pretty corrupt at the time and it has been proven to be so. I don’t agree that it should be there but we’ll have to report it. “But am I a supporter of the fact that it’s there? No.” Concerns have also been raised about Qatar’s attitude to gay rights, although the legendary English striker expects footballers to “get on with it” once the tournament begins next year. The ‘Match of the Day’ presenter said: “Pretty much every sport now is played in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. I think the sportsmen will get on with it.” Lineker also hopes the decision made by the Australian player Josh Cavallo to come out as gay can inspire other players to do the same and get rid of the stigma surrounding gay players in the sport. The 60-year-old broadcaster said: “It’s unbelievable really that we even have to have this conversation. It’s a shame but at least he has (come out). “I hope other players will follow. There’s obviously lots of them in the game. We know that. It’s inevitable and there will be some in the Premier League. I hope the way it has been received so positively will encourage a player to do so.” Gary continued: “I understand the fear of doing it – even for me who has been around… it’s easy for me to say but I honestly think if they do it will be received in such a positive manner by pretty much everybody. “I just hope someone is brave enough to do it because then others will follow. It’s ridiculous that we have to have the conversation about this but hopefully that will change. Well, it will change but it’s just a question of time.” 2022 World Cup on Towleroad Lourdes Leon Madonna Halloween Cease-fire. Both Feature Sexy Costumes, Even As Kids Leak Concern For Mom’s Legacy More ‘The only person who killed’: Prosecutor paints Rittenhouse as aggressor in opening of trial More From Boeing to Mercedes, a U.S. worker rebellion swells over vaccine mandates More Net zero clothing: Biden ‘flashed by naked Scotsman’ More First Out LGBTQ Woman Confirmed to Federal Appeals Court; Highly Qualified Justice Breezes By Bizarre Republican Queries More After George Floyd, Minneapolis voters weigh replacing police department More Tom Daley found coming out ‘traumatic’ More More than 100 countries join pact to slash planet-warming methane emissions More Conservative Justices Reconsider Positions, Ask Tough Questions; Indicate Supreme Court May Be Lean Toward Blocking Texas Abortion Law More New York food delivery workers mobilize against attacks, theft More Supreme Court Spurns Catholic Hospital Appeal Of Transgender Patient; Bolsters Catholic Challenge To NY Abortion Funding Requirement More Load More View the full article

Published by OK Magazine Like mother, like daughter! Despite sources squealing Lourdes Leon objects to her mom Madonna dressing provocatively at 63, the model joined in on the Halloween fun as they both showed some skin on the spooky day. The Queen of Pop shared photos from their celebration on Monday, November 1 via Instagram. The “Hung Up” singer sported some low cut red shorts, fishnets and a crop top as she was a spot-on Harley Quinn. Mega MADONNA SLAMS DABABY FOR HOMPHOBIC RANT, SAYS ‘PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON WE ARE STILL LIVING IN A WORLD DIVIDED BY FEAR’ Lourdes looked equally as divine in a short plaid mini skirt and corset top with blood running down her neck. The Material Girl’s beau Ahlamalik Williams was also in attendance during the bash. The 27-year-old dancer and Madonna have been dating for over two years. Fans of the pop icon gushed over how she slayed her costume. “Omg! So beautiful,” one user wrote, while another commented: “Cutest little Harley Quinn.” Lourde’s indulging her mom’s sexy ways comes after OK! reported she and her brother Rocco Ritchie, 21, are frustrated with her wild antics, including going on TV and baring all. Mega The Grammy winner recently made a jaw-dropping appearance on late-night TV, in which she crawled across host Jimmy Fallon’s desk and flashed her bum to the audience. MADONNA’S DAUGHTER LOURDES LEON BRINGS THE HEAT IN MARC JACOBS SPRING COLLECTION — AND EVEN SHOWS OFF HER UNSHAVEN ARMPITS “They can’t understand why [her behavior] needs to be so hyper and gratuitous,” dished the source. Madonna’s children love and respect her, “but it makes them cringe to see her writhing around naked and making a fool of herself,” the source added, explaining that Lourdes and Rocco have “struggled for years” with her attention-seeking behavior. @madonna/Instagram The Evita actress is also Mom to David Banda, 15, as well as 8-year-old twins Stelle and Estere Ciccone. “Madonna thinks she’s being hip and irreverent and still gets this huge kick out of shocking people, but it’s reaching a boiling point,” the insider continued, noting the kids are ready to confront her before it goes too far. “[The siblings] plan to sit their mom down and tell her she needs a reset before she winds up imploding and ruining her legacy,” the source concluded. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Nathan Layne KENOSHA, Wis. (Reuters) – The prosecution on Tuesday sought to portray a U.S. teenager accused of fatally shooting two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year as an aggressor who was an outlier in resorting to deadly force, aiming to undercut his claim of self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse, then 17, shot dead two protesters and wounded a third man with a semi-automatic rifle amid protests over the police shooting of a Black man. In his opening statement, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger acknowledged that chaos had engulfed Kenosha, as agitators came like “moths to a flame” to engage in arson, rioting and looting. Binger repeated seven times that Rittenhouse was the only person to have killed anyone on Aug. 25, 2020, the night he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, in the arm. “The evidence will show that the only person who killed anyone was the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse,” Binger said. Binger said the evidence would show that the bullet that killed Rosenbaum – who was chasing the teenager and threw a plastic bag at him but was unarmed – was to his back. Binger said Rittenhouse fled the scene without providing first aid. Rittenhouse, now 18, is charged with reckless and intentional homicides in the killing of Rosenbaum and Huber and the wounding of Grosskreutz with an AR-15-style rifle. He has pleaded not guilty and says he acted in self-defense. The unrest had been sparked by a white police officer’s shooting and wounding of Jacob Blake, just three months after the police murder of George Floyd, another Black man, in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests over racism and police brutality. The 20-person jury, composed of 11 women and nine men, will now listen to opening statements from the defense. Rittenhouse, sitting next to his lawyers, was wearing a dark gray suit and a maroon shirt and tie. The teen appeared to be listening attentively, though he yawned several times. Rittenhouse has emerged as a hero to some conservatives who believe in unfettered gun rights and see the shootings as justified during the chaos that had engulfed Kenosha, while many on the political left have labeled him a vigilante killer. Some legal experts https://www.reuters.com/world/us/prosecutors-face-tough-test-trial-us-teenage-protest-shooter-rittenhouse-2021-10-28 have said the prosecution faces a tough task in convincing a jury that Rittenhouse did not fear for his life, given video evidence showing all three men were advancing toward him, with Rosenbaum and Huber appearing to reach for his weapon and Grosskreutz armed with a pistol, when he fired. Under Wisconsin law, people can only use deadly force if they “reasonably” believe it necessary to prevent someone from killing or causing great bodily harm to them. The jury was selected on Monday after lawyers and Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder vetted candidates for biases, with many questions focused on their views on the protests and their experiences with guns. The trial is poised to be the biggest U.S. court test of a civilian’s right to self-defense since George Zimmerman was acquitted in 2013 in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in Florida. Rittenhouse’s lawyers will likely try to portray the men he shot as bad actors involved in lawless behavior, giving him reason to fear for his safety. They may highlight the expected testimony of a reporter named Richard McGinnis, who told police that Rosenbaum tried to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle before the teenager shot him. They are also expected to stress audio and video evidence of protesters yelling things like “Get his ass!” as Rittenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground before shooting Huber, who swung a skateboard at him, and Grosskreutz, who was holding a pistol. (Reporting by Nathan Layne; Editing by Ross Colvin, Peter Cooney and Jonathan Oatis) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Tina Bellon and Eric M. Johnson AUSTIN/SEATTLE (Reuters) – In Wichita, Kansas, nearly half of the roughly 10,000 employees at aircraft companies Textron Inc and Spirit AeroSystems remain unvaccinated against COVID-19, risking their jobs in defiance of a federal mandate, according to a union official. “We’re going to lose a lot of employees over this,” said Cornell Beard, head of the local Machinists union district. Many workers did not object to the vaccines as such, he said, but were staunchly opposed to what they see as government meddling in personal health decisions. The union district has hired a Texas-based lawyer to assist employees and prepare potential lawsuits against the companies should requests for medical or religious exemptions to vaccination be denied. A life-long Democrat, Beard said he would no longer vote for the party. “They’ll never get another vote from me and I’m telling the workers here the same thing.” The clock is ticking for companies that want to continue gaining federal contracts under an executive order by Democratic President Joe Biden, which requires all contractor employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Dec. 8. That means federal contract workers need to have received their last COVID-19 shot at least two weeks before the deadline to gain maximum protection, according to U.S. government guidance. With a three-week gap between shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, workers must get the first jab by Wednesday. If the government holds fast to its deadline, it is already too late to choose Moderna’s vaccine, which is given in two doses four weeks apart. Workers could opt to get Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot vaccine until Nov. 24 to meet the deadline. Vaccines remain by far the most effective way to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, particularly faced with the extremely contagious Delta variant of the virus that can cause infections even among those fully vaccinated. Despite vocal opposition from some, vaccine mandates have been effective at shrinking the rates of the unvaccinated and convincing the reluctant to roll up their sleeves. Several big employers such as Procter & Gamble, 3M and airlines including American Airlines and JetBlue have imposed mandates. In some industries, including among food workers, unions have supported vaccine requirements. But the mandate has stirred protests from workers in industries across the country, as well as from Republican state officials. Opposition to the mandate could potentially lead to thousands of U.S. workers losing their jobs and imperil an already sluggish economic recovery, union leaders, workers and company executives said. More legal clashes are likely over how companies decide requests for vaccination exemptions. For the companies, time is getting tight, though the Biden administration has signaled federal contractors will not have to immediately lay off unvaccinated workers who miss the Dec. 8 deadline. Under government guidance published on Monday, companies will have flexibility over how to implement the mandate, which may allow them to avoid mass firings. “A covered contractor should determine the appropriate means of enforcement with respect to its employee,” the guidance said. For Boeing Co in the United States, more than 7,000 workers have applied for religious exemptions and around 1,000 are seeking medical exemptions, people familiar with the matter told Reuters. That amounts to some 6% of the planemaker’s roughly 125,000 U.S employees. ‘ILLEGAL, IMMORAL AND IMPRACTICAL’ At a rally last week outside Boeing property in Auburn, south of Seattle, many of the three dozen workers gathered in driving rain said they would rather be escorted off Boeing property on Dec. 8 than take a vaccine. Others said they would pursue early retirement. “The mandate is illegal, immoral and impractical,” said one veteran Boeing program analyst who attended the rally. “We are standing together against a company and government trampling on our rights.” Many legal experts have said vaccine mandates in the interest of public health are legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected several challenges to mandates, with the high court last week turning away a healthcare worker who sought a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The rebellion has put Boeing executives in a bind. The company could lose skilled staff, but must comply with a presidential order. A Boeing spokesperson said the company was committed to maintaining a safe working environment for its employees. The order’s provision for religious and medical exemptions is causing more tension. Two Textron workers who requested religious exemptions told Reuters the company’s human resources representatives quizzed them on the name of their church leaders and asked detailed questions about their faith. Textron declined to respond to questions, but in a statement said it was obligated to comply with Biden’s order and was taking steps to do so. “Employees who are unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccination due to a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief are being provided an opportunity to request an accommodation from this requirement,” Textron said. Spirit AeroSystems did not respond to a request for comment. Raytheon Technologies’ CEO Greg Hayes last week warned the U.S. defense firm will lose “several thousand” employees because of the mandate. A group representing FedEx Corp, United Parcel Service Inc and other cargo carriers said it would be virtually impossible to have all their workforces vaccinated by the deadline. Some companies have imposed vaccine mandates even absent immediate government regulation. Mercedes-Benz USA, the U.S. unit of German carmaker Daimler AG which is not a U.S. government contractor, told employees in an October email seen by Reuters that proof of vaccination against COVID-19 would become a condition of employment beginning Jan. 4. The carmaker said it implemented the move in anticipation of a separate U.S. government vaccine mandate that would apply to businesses with at least 100 employees, affecting some 80 million workers nationwide. Less than half of the company’s workers at U.S. import processing centers are vaccinated and many refuse to get a shot, according to a source familiar with the matter. Mercedes USA in a statement said it had given employees 90-day notice to fulfill the requirement, adding that two thirds of its U.S. employees – not including factory workers in Alabama – have provided proof of vaccination to date. “We expect that the vast majority of our employees will provide proof of vaccination before the deadline,” the company said. (Reporting by Tina Bellon in Austin, Texas and Eric M. Johnson in Seattle, Washington; Editing by Joe White and Bill Berkrot) View the full article

Published by AFP As US president, Joe Biden is used to being the centre of attention Glasgow (AFP) – As the world’s most powerful man, he’s used to crowds and curious onlookers wherever he goes — but probably not a naked Scotsman with a mobile phone. Reporters travelling with US President Joe Biden to the UN climate change summit in Glasgow detailed the unexpected sight at an unspecified location en route from Edinburgh. “At one point when we were still on smaller country roads, a large, naked Scottish man stood in his front window taking a picture of the motorcade with his phone,” they said. It was not immediately clear if Biden witnessed the au naturel onlooker from “The Beast”, his bullet-proof limousine, nor how the man’s nationality was known. In 2016, Biden’s White House predecessor Donald Trump was serenaded by a Mexican Mariachi band, Juan Direction, when he arrived at Glasgow Prestwick airport. The unscheduled welcoming party came after the then-presidential hopeful had proposed building a wall on the US southern border to keep out Mexican migrants. pool-bur-phz/am/tgb View the full article

Table Of Contents Highly Qualified Justice Breezes By Bizarre Republican QueriesVeteran of The Battles to Protect LGBTQ Relationships, Highly Qualified VT Supreme Court Justice Breaks Another Glass Ceiling for Representationm Confirmed to federal appeals court.Federal Appeals Court on Towleroad Highly Qualified Justice Breezes By Bizarre Republican Queries By Lisa Keen, Keen News Service The U.S. Senate tonight (November 1) confirmed the appointment of the first openly LGBT woman for a seat on a federal appeals court circuit bench. Monday’s roll call vote, 51 to 45, came with no debate on the Senate floor, but followed an unusually crass interrogation of the nominee, Beth Robinson, on paper. After challenging Robinson in the publicly broadcast confirmation hearing last month, Republicans posed a sometimes bizarre series of questions through behind-the-scenes Senate questionaires. Among other things, Republicans asked Robinson: “How many biological sexes do you believe there are?” and “Do you think it is appropriate for an individual to threaten a six-year-old girl with a box cutter by telling her that he would kill her in her sleep?” One senator named two dozen landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions —from Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (which established the court’s authority to review the constitutionality of laws) to Brown v. Board (ending segregation), Loving v. Virginia (ending bans on interracial marriage), and nearly every pro-LGBT decision issued since 1997 and asked whether each was “correctly decided.” Republican senators used the televised confirmation hearing September 14 to assert claims that Robinson showed “marked hostility toward religious liberty,” ask whether she “ever represented a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay,” and insinuate that she would be attempting to “drive broader social change” on the court. Beth Robinson opening remarks in hearing for confirmation to Federal Appeals Court. Nominee Beth Robinson, a justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, answered each question and, the Senate confirmed her appointment to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The vote makes Robinson the first openly LGBT woman to be confirmed to a federal circuit appeals court seat. President Biden appointed Robinson in August to the Second Circuit, which covers Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. Robinson has been serving on the Vermont Supreme Court since 2012. Prior to that, she was involved in several prominent legal challenges seeking equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. She played a key role in the litigation that won the nation’s first civil union designation, in Vermont in 2000. She later served as chief legal counsel to then Vermont Governor Pete Shumlin, who nominated her to Vermont’s highest bench. How many biological sexes are there? Senator Ted Cruz to VT Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson as part of confirmationDuring the confirmation hearing, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee lined up against Robinson, saying that, early in her career as an attorney, she had demonstrated hostility toward religious liberty. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused Robinson of “marked hostility toward religious liberty.” His evidence was her work as a private attorney representing a client who sued a Vermont printer for refusing to print flyers for the client’s Catholic pro-choice group. Cruz said Robinson sought to “force” the printer to print “membership cards for a pro-abortion group.” Robinson pointed out that the case to which he was referring was one in which she was representing a client who was herself suing over discrimination based on her religion. “My client was a Catholic,” replied Robinson. “She was [at the printer’s] to get flyers for Catholics for Choice printed. She was deeply offended by the suggestion [by the printer] that she wasn’t a true Catholic and that was the reason why the printer wouldn’t print [the client’s] materials.” The case settled before any court ruled on the merits of the issue, recalled Robinson. In his written questionnaire to Robinson, Cruz asked, “How many biological sexes do you believe there are?” Robinson declined to respond, noting, as most nominees nowadays to, that the issue was likely to come before her in court. Beth Robinson response to Senator Durbin on transition from advocate to judge in hearing for confirmation to Federal Appeals Court. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) also attacked Robinson over the printer case, during the public hearing. On his written questionnaire to Robinson, Hawley also asked “How many sexes and genders do you believe there are?” and “Do you think it is appropriate for an individual to threaten a six-year-old girl with a box cutter by telling her that he would kill her in her sleep?” Robinson, of course, said no and explained her dissent in a case in which the court had to decide whether a box cutter constituted a “deadly weapon” in a particular circumstance. Cruz and Hawley have been criticized harshly in recent months for fanning the flames of insurrection around the January 6 attack on Congress. Their harsh questioning of Robinson—and other Biden nominees—could have been motivated in part by an effort to deflect attention away from their culpability in attempting to interfere with the certification of the 2020 presidential vote. It might also be a symptom of the ever-increasing partisan battles in Congress, attempting to derail the other party’s judicial nominee by whatever means necessary. Robinson, 56, graduated from Dartmouth College and the University of Chicago Law School before beginning private practice in Middlebury and Burlington, Vermont, with the law firm of Langrock Sperry & Wool, focusing on family and employment law. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) presented her with its 2009 Spirit of Justice Award for her work in promoting passage of Vermont’s marriage equality law in 2009. She is married to medical doctor Kim Boyman. Beth Robinson responds to Ted Cruz’s questions at hearing on her confirmation to Federal Appeals Court. Keen News Service © 2021 Keen News Service. All rights reserved. Veteran of The Battles to Protect LGBTQ Relationships, Highly Qualified VT Supreme Court Justice Breaks Another Glass Ceiling for Representationm Confirmed to federal appeals court. By Orion Rummler, The 19th The Vermont judge helped lay the groundwork for marriage equality in 1999 when she argued for legal protections for same-sex couples. Originally published by The 19th Beth Robinson, a Vermont Supreme Court judge who served as co-counsel in the country’s first case to establish that LGBTQ+ couples deserve the same legal protections afforded to straight married couples, was confirmed by a 51-45 Senate vote on Monday as President Joe Biden’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Robinson is the first out LGBTQ+ woman to serve on a federal appeals court, following the appointment of Judge Todd Michael Hughes in 2013 — the first LGBTQ+ person to hold such a position. Experts say that her confirmation is a historic moment that should be celebrated, but it also signals that much more LGBTQ+ representation is needed in the country’s federal judiciary. “There are 870 federal judgeships, but only 12 — now 13 — are held by openly gay or lesbian judges. Four federal circuits do not have a single openly LGBT judge,” Sharon McGowan, legal director at Lambda Legal, said in a statement following Robinson’s confirmation vote. An openly bisexual or transgender person has never been nominated to the federal judiciary, Ezra Ishmael Young, a civil rights attorney and assistant professor at Cornell Law, and Karen Loewy, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, told The 19th. “The representation of LGBTQ people on the federal judiciary is miniscule,” Loewy said. Out LGBTQ+ judges currently make up just over 1 percent of the federal judiciary, she said, citing internal data from the advocacy group. LGBTQ+ judicial elected officials in the U.S. largely serve on county and district courts, with the highest concentrations in California, Texas, and Illinois, according to the current count from the Victory Institute, which works to elect LGBTQ+ officials. “We are stunningly underrepresented” in judgeships across the U.S., said Annise Parker, president and CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, over text. As the former mayor of Houston, she appointed Phyllis Frye, the first openly trans judge in the United States, in 2010. That underrepresentation matters especially in courts where judges need to understand a broad range of lived experiences, Loewy said. Robinson’s legacy arguing in the landmark 1999 Baker v. Vermont case — and her extensive background lobbying for LGBTQ+ rights as a lesbian born in Karachi, Pakistan — is an important step toward the country’s judicial system actually reflecting the communities it serves, experts say. Having an out lesbian serving on a federal appeals court should also “be the norm by now,” Young said. “She just broke a major glass ceiling here. It’s the fact that such a ceiling had to be broken in 2021 that we should be appalled by.” Robinson is aware of the importance her past work holds, and empathetic to the emotional toll that activism can take, after chairing the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force off and on for 15 years. “For a lot of people in the queer community in Vermont, 2000 was an incredibly intense time, an incredibly difficult time … that’s left its marks on people for some time thereafter,” Robinson said, reflecting on the year that ruling took effect, in a June 2020 interview with the Pride Center of Vermont. More from The 19th Meet the first trans women of color to teach at Harvard Law Senate confirms second ever woman solicitor general, who represents federal government before Supreme Court Republican candidate in Virginia governor’s race opposes marriage equality In that interview, Robinson said that during the three-year window that culminated with the country’s first recognition that LGBTQ+ relationships deserve legal protections, queer people in Vermont “found themselves called to speak up,” whether they liked it or not. “That debate really caused people all around the state, in our community, people who were living quietly, they didn’t think of themselves as activists … suddenly they found themselves called to speak up. And to speak honestly about the truth of their lives,” she said. After arguing that case, which Robinson described in that June 2020 interview as one of the first conversations that brought marriage equality and civil unions into the broader body politic, she went on to work as counsel to the Vermont governor in 2011 and joined the Vermont Supreme Court later that year. As an associate and then partner at Langrock Sperry & Wool, the private practice that Robinson worked at while arguing Baker v. Vermont, her areas of focus included family law, employment law, employment discrimination, among other areas. Alongside Robinson’s nomination by the Biden administration in August, the president also nominated Charlotte Sweeny to serve as a United States District Judge for the District of Colorado — marking another first for LGBTQ+ representation. If confirmed, Sweeny — who is currently in private practice — would be the first out LGBTQ+ federal judge in the state, and one of the few LGBTQ+ women to serve as a federal district court judge in the country. The Senate Judiciary committee held her confirmation hearing in late October. Parker, while reflecting on how LGBTQ+ and trans judicial representation has improved since she appointed Frye in 2010, said that the need for more LGBTQ+ officials has not gone away. “We keep reaching milestones. The problem with milestone appointments is, when you see a milestone, it means you haven’t reached the end of the turn. So, we need more … to even move the needle in the federal benches,” Parker said. Disclosure: Annise Parker has been a financial supporter of The 19th. Federal Appeals Court on Towleroad After George Floyd, Minneapolis voters weigh replacing police department More Tom Daley found coming out ‘traumatic’ More More than 100 countries join pact to slash planet-warming methane emissions More Conservative Justices Reconsider Positions, Ask Tough Questions; Indicate Supreme Court May Be Lean Toward Blocking Texas Abortion Law More New York food delivery workers mobilize against attacks, theft More Supreme Court Spurns Catholic Hospital Appeal Of Transgender Patient; Bolsters Catholic Challenge To NY Abortion Funding Requirement More Demi Lovato, Paris Jackson Among Young Celebrities Costumed For Hollywood Halloween. Also Paris Hilton, Sophie Turner, Joe Jonas: Photos More U.S. Congress’ November agenda not for the faint of heart More Why is video chat causing a ‘Zoom boom’ in facial cosmetic surgery? More Infected despite immunity: Why breakthroughs don’t surprises experts More Barclays CEO Staley departs after Epstein probe More Load More View the full article

Published by Reuters By Brad Brooks (Reuters) – Minneapolis voters may decide on Tuesday to scrap their police force for a reimagined department that takes a holistic approach to crime and its causes, 18 months after the murder of George Floyd sparked global protests for racial justice. Supporters say what the ballot calls a Department of Public Safety is badly needed after decades of failed attempts at police reforms. Opponents in the city of some 430,000 people say it is a mistake for Minneapolis with crime on the rise. Policing needs to be more equitable, they say, but reforms should take place within the existing structure. The city was thrust to the center of the U.S. racial justice debate in May 2020 when officer Derek Chauvin pinned his knee against the neck of Floyd, a Black man, for more than nine minutes. Chauvin was sentenced in June to 22 1/2 years in prison. Three other officers charged in Floyd’s death face trial in March. Democrats, normally allies in the largely progressive Midwestern city, have split over the ballot question. Many fear dissolving the department will provide easy election fodder for Republicans nationwide ahead of November 2022 congressional elections. Opposing the measure are Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo; Mayor Jacob Frey, up for reelection on Tuesday; U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Governor Tim Walz. Some of the state’s best-known progressives – such as U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who oversaw Chauvin’s prosecution – support the change. Nearly all of the dozens of Minneapolis residents interviewed last week said they were confused about how a new public safety department would operate, even those who support it. If voters approve the creation of the new public safety department, the mayor and the city council would then analyze what type of support residents need – from armed officers responding to violent crimes to mental-health and addiction specialists to address situations where a traditional officer with a gun is not required. (Reporting by Brad Brooks; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Howard Goller) View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Tom Daley described coming out as gay as “traumatic” but “liberating”. The four-time Olympic-medal winner – who broke the news to fans nearly eight years ago in a candid YouTube video – admitted he wished he’d been open about his sexuality sooner because there is less “pressure” on him now, though he also knows it would have been a different experience if he wasn’t famous. Speaking to the new issue of Britain’s GQ magazine: “It was kind of traumatic, but then [also] a very liberating experience. To be honest, I wish I had come out earlier. “I don’t know what that would have been like for me or whatever, but since coming out I’ve felt like I could be myself; all of that pressure comes off. I look back and think, ‘Imagine if I was out when I was 16, 17, when I first started exploring?’ “One thing that’s hard is exploring sexuality in the public eye. I think if I wasn’t in the public eye maybe things would be different. It’s a very surreal thing to have to go through that in the public eye.” Tom – who has three-year-old son Robbie with husband Dustin Lance Black – believes countries which criminalise LGBTQ+ people shouldn’t be allowed to host events like the Commonwealth Games. Asked if he knows if UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has raised the issue, he said: “Not that I’ve heard, no. I know two countries since then have decriminalised LGBTQ+ people. I don’t know if Boris Johnson has any control over the Commonwealth in that sense, but, you know, especially for the Commonwealth Games, they should not be allowed to host any of those major events if they have those laws.” Following his success at Tokyo 2020 – where he took home Gold in the 10m synchronised dive and Bronze in the 10m platform – the 27-year-old diver is now deciding whether to compete at the Paris games in 2024, as he’s achieved what he wanted to but thinks he’s in great shape and has rediscovered his passion for the sport. He said : “It’s difficult, because I know that I’m getting better. I always said that I’ll keep going until my body gives up or until I get the gold medal. And I’ve got the gold medal. But my body’s getting better. So there are lots of decisions to be made in the next year or so. “This time that I’ve had since the Olympics, when I’ve not been diving, I’ve realised, you know what? I actually miss it. I actually do like diving! It’s something that I would probably do recreationally anyway.” Read the full feature in the GQ Heroes issue available on digital download and in print on 5 November. Visit https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/sport/article/tom-daley-interview for more. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Kate Abnett, Valerie Volcovici, Ilze Filks and Jeff Mason GLASGOW (Reuters) -More than 100 countries have joined a U.S.- and EU-led effort to slash emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels, an initiative aimed at tackling one of the main causes of climate change. Methane https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-watchdog-track-promised-cuts-potent-greenhouse-gas-methane-2021-10-31 is the main greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. It has a higher heat-trapping potential than CO2 but breaks down in the atmosphere faster – meaning that cutting methane emissions can have a rapid impact in reining in global warming. The Global Methane Pledge, launched at the COP26 summit in Glasgow on Tuesday after being announced in September, now covers countries representing nearly half of global methane emissions and 70% of global GDP, U.S. President Joe Biden said. “Together, we’re committing to collectively reduce our methane by 30% by 2030. And I think we can probably go beyond that,” Biden said at the COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland. “It’s going to boost our economies, saving companies money, reducing methane leaks, capturing methane to turn it into new revenue streams, as well as creating good paying union jobs for our workers.” Among the new signatories was Brazil – one of the world’s five biggest emitters of methane. China, Russia and India, also top-five methane emitters, have not signed on to the pledge. Those countries were all included on a list identified as targets to join the pledge, first reported by Reuters. “Methane is one of the gases we can cut fastest. Doing that will immediately slow down climate change,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. WIDENING THE PACT Since it was first announced in September with a handful of signatories, the United States and European Union have worked to get the world’s biggest methane emitters to join the partnership. There were roughly 60 countries signed up only last week, after a final diplomatic push from the United States and EU ahead of the COP26 summit https://www.reuters.com/business/cop. While it is not part of the formal U.N. negotiations, the methane pledge could rank among the most significant outcomes from the COP26 conference, given its potential impact in holding off disastrous climate change. A U.N. report in May said steep cuts in methane emissions this decade could avoid nearly 0.3 degree Celsius of global warming by the 2040s. Failing to tackle methane, however, would push out of reach the 2015 Paris Agreement’s objective to limit the global rise in temperature to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The 30% methane cut, which is not legally binding, would be jointly achieved by the signatories, and cover all sectors. Key sources of methane emissions include leaky oil and gas infrastructure, old coal mines, agriculture and landfill sites. If fulfilled, the pledge is likely to have the biggest impact on the energy sector, since analysts say fixing leaky oil and gas infrastructure is the fastest and cheapest way to curb methane emissions. The United States is the world’s biggest oil and natural gas producer, while the EU is the biggest importer of gas. The United States on Tuesday unveiled its own sweeping proposal https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-unveils-crackdown-methane-starting-with-oil-gas-rules-2021-11-02 to crack down on methane emissions with a focus on the oil and gas sector. The main regulation could take effect as soon as 2023 and slash methane from oil and gas operations by 74% from 2005 levels by 2035, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EU and Canada both plan to unveil methane legislation addressing the energy sector later this year. (Reporting by Kate Abnett in Brussels, Valerie Volcovici in Washington, Ilze Filks and Jeff Mason in GlasgowEditing by Matthew Lewis and Mark Heinrich) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared to lean toward allowing a challenge brought by abortion providers to a Republican-backed law that imposes a near-total ban on the procedure in Texas and lets private citizens enforce it. Over nearly three hours of oral arguments, the justices heard separate challenges by President Joe Biden’s administration and abortion providers to the Texas law. Abortion rights in the United States are hanging in the balance as the nine justices tackled the dispute over the Texas law barring abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy before hearing arguments on Dec. 1 https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-court-abortion-instant/u-s-supreme-court-takes-up-case-that-could-limit-abortion-rights-idUSKCN2CY1P9 over the legality of a Mississippi measure prohibiting the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In the challenge brought by Texas abortion providers, the court on Sept. 1 declined to halt the law https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/texas-six-week-abortion-ban-takes-effect-2021-09-01, with five of the court’s six conservative justices in the majority. But there were signs during oral arguments that some conservative justices were reconsidering their positions. Some justices signaled that existing Supreme Court precedent could accommodate the lawsuit brought by abortion providers challenging the law against even with the measure’s unusual private-citizen enforcement structure. However, in the Biden administration’s challenge, conservative justices seemed more skeptical about the federal government’s power to sue Texas over the law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked clinic lawyer Marc Hearron about whether under the unusual structure of the law defendants could ever get a “full airing” of the constitutional claims on the right to abortion. Under the law, abortion providers can bring up the right to an abortion as a defense only after they have been sued. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed interest in an outcome discussed by liberal Justice Elena Kagan in which state court clerks would be barred from docketing lawsuits brought by private individuals seeking to enforce the law. Kavanaugh said the Texas law “exploited” a loophole in court precedent concerning when state officials can be barred from enforcing unconstitutional laws. He wondered if the court should “close that loophole.” Kavanaugh also wondered if states could pass similar laws that could infringe other constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms. A state, for example, could allow for $1 million in damages against anyone who sells an AR-15 rifle, he said. Kagan said the law was written by “some geniuses” to evade the broad legal principle that “states are not to nullify federal constitutional rights.” Other justices, including conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared skeptical about the idea of judges themselves being sued under the law. Roberts on Sept. 1 had dissented along with the court’s three liberal justices. Some conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, raised the question of whether anyone would have standing to sue under the Texas law without having a direct injury. Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone, defending the law, said “outrage” based on opposition to abortion would be grounds to bring a lawsuit. In the Biden administration’s challenge, Roberts questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar as to the “limiting principle” for the federal government suing states, noting that a different administration could also try to directly challenge states over their laws. Other conservative justices expressed similar doubts. At issue is whether federal courts can hear lawsuits aimed at striking down the Texas law and whether the U.S. government even can sue to try to block it. If the justices keep federal courts out of the process by virtue of the law’s unique design, it could be replicated in other states and curtail abortion access in other parts of the country. The Texas and Mississippi laws are among a series of Republican-backed abortion restrictions pursued at the state level in recent years. Lower courts blocked the Mississippi law. LANDMARK RULING Abortion opponents hope the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will roll back abortion rights or even overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy and legalized the procedure nationwide. The law bans abortion at a point in time when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. There is an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape. The Texas measure takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials, instead enabling private citizens to sue anyone who performs or assists a woman in getting an abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo. That feature made it more difficult to directly sue the state, helping shield the law from being immediately blocked. Individual citizens can be awarded a minimum of $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits under the law. Critics have said this provision lets people act as anti-abortion bounty hunters. The abortion providers and Biden’s administration have called the law unconstitutional and explicitly designed to evade judicial review. The law’s design has deterred most abortions in Texas, which is the second most populous U.S. state, behind only California, with about 29 million people. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the abortion providers case refused to block the law and indicated that federal courts lack jurisdiction to intervene. After a federal judge in the Biden administration’s challenge blocked the law on Oct. 6, the 5th Circuit quickly reinstated it. Mississippi has asked the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mississippi-asks-us-supreme-court-overturn-abortion-rights-landmark-2021-07-22. The Texas attorney general has signaled he also would like to see that ruling overturned https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-urges-us-supreme-court-maintain-states-abortion-ban-2021-10-21. The Texas dispute reached the Supreme Court with unusual speed. The justices agreed to take up https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-texas-abortion-ban-2021-10-22 the matter on Oct. 22, bypassing lower courts that are considering the challenges. (Reporting by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by AFP Vicente Carrasco, originally from Mexico, formed a group to help protect fellow New York delivery workers from assault and bike theft New York (AFP) – “A colleague needs help to recover his bicycle!” says a message in the WhatsApp group of the Delivery Boys United, a team of food delivery workers in New York who are organizing to defend themselves following attacks and thefts. Vicente Carrasco, a 39-year-old from Mexico, formed the group in March after he was assaulted. They aim to protect themselves and their electric bikes, which cost around $3,000 and, along with their phones, are their livelihoods. Every night after a long day riding around the Big Apple, Carrasco and other “deliveristas,” mostly men, meet under the Queensboro Bridge on the Manhattan side of the East River where they wait to come to the aid of any colleague in trouble. “If there is a bicycle stolen with GPS we follow it,” he tells AFP, stressing they never go alone. “When there are many of us, we will always try to get it back. We don’t want to risk our lives too much. You don’t know if people are armed. We do what we can do.” There have been several reports of attacks on delivery personnel in New York this year. In October a 51-year-old rider was stabbed to death and had his e-bike stolen in Chinatown. In April, a deliverista was shot dead in a Harlem. That same month, another on his scooter was hit by a vehicle in Queens. Eric Adams, expected to be elected New York’s next mayor Tuesday, has pledged to make the city’s streets safer should he take office in January. For now, Carrasco’s group is working alongside three other organizations that bring together more than 1,000 delivery riders across Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens. “This is my way of life,” says another organizer Jose Rodrigo Nevares, whose friend was killed during a theft of his bicycle. “With my bike, I feed my family, I pay my rent. I can’t just leave it so someone takes it away,” he adds. There are roughly 65,000 deliveristas in New York, according to official figures. With their frustration building over how police have handled cases, Carrasco and the other groups decided to take safety into their own hands. “We did this because when you call the police when you’ve been robbed, they never arrive,” he says. “We organize ourselves to be able to defend ourselves, to be faster.” For its part the New York Police Department says its “Operation Identification” helps recover registered stolen bicycles, and that NYPD duly investigates such crimes. “The NYPD takes these crimes very seriously and will exhaust all leads available in order to catch those responsible,” spokesman Sergeant Edward Riley tells AFP. Some 80 percent of the deliveristas are undocumented immigrants, according to rights groups, meaning they are often reluctant to contact police. Nevares, who became a deliveryman after losing his waiter job during the Covid-19 pandemic, says that reluctance is “out of fear, because you know that you are going to get into trouble.” – ‘Not violent’ – While Carrasco’s group sometimes recovers stolen bikes on their own, the operations have raised safety concerns. “Our fear is that someone will end up injured,” says Ligia Guallpa, from the Labor Justice project, who has been fighting for years to improve conditions for undocumented workers. Many who support the workers distance themselves from the self-defense groups. But Carrasco dismisses suggestions that the men are vigilantes. “We are not violent,” he states. Food delivery workers — many of whom are of Latino, African or Asian origin — average $2,345 a month, below the hourly $15 minimum wage in New York’s service sector. They receive no social security, no health insurance and no overtime. Nor do they have a right to unionize. Guallpa calls the working conditions “inhumane.” Only from next year will they be allowed to use the restrooms of restaurants where they collect food, after a campaign by Guallpa’s organization. Revenue from food delivery apps has surged more than 200 percent over the past five years, with profits skyrocketing during the lockdown. It’s been a win-win for the apps, which earn fees from customers and restaurants while having no commitments to the freelance deliveristas, according to a 2020 survey conducted by the Labor Justice Project and Cornell University. Activists say it’s time to give the riders the same protections as other workers. Almost half of the survey’s 500 respondents said they had had an accident, including being run over, while working — and three quarters of those paid their medical expenses themselves. Fifty-four percent of respondents had their bicycles stolen — and one third of them had been victims of assault during the robbery. “We have to change the system, otherwise we are not changing the root problem,” says Guallpa. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by a Catholic hospital in California to avoid a lawsuit over its refusal to let its facilities be used to perform a hysterectomy on a transgender patient who sought the procedure as a part of gender transition from female to male. The justices turned away an appeal by Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Sacramento-area hospital owned by Dignity Health, and let stand a lower court ruling that revived Evan Minton’s lawsuit accusing it of intentionally discriminating against him in violation of California law because he is transgender. The justices on Monday also bolstered a Roman Catholic-led challenge to a New York state requirement that health insurance policies provided by employers cover abortion services. The justices told a lower court to reconsider its decision to throw out a bid by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other plaintiffs to widen an existing religious exemption to a 2017 state regulation that requires health insurance policies to cover “medically necessary” abortions. Conservative Justices Thomas Alito, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken up both cases for argument. In the California case, the hospital said it does not discriminate against transgender patients, but does not allow its facilities to be used for a certain procedures including abortion, sterilization and euthanasia, which it contends are contrary to Catholic teachings. The hospital in 2016 had initially scheduled Minton’s hysterectomy – surgical removal of the uterus – but canceled it after learning the reason Minton wanted it, according to the lawsuit. The hospital let Minton’s physician perform the procedure at a different facility in its system a few days later. Minton sued in state court, accusing the hospital of violating a California civil rights law that prohibits discrimination by business establishments, including hospitals, based on race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. After a trial judge ruled against Minton, a California appeals court in 2019 revived the case, rejecting the hospital’s argument that forcing it to perform procedures contrary to its religious beliefs would violate its right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to the free exercise of religion. “This case poses a profound threat to faith-based health care institutions’ ability to advance their healing ministries consistent with the teachings of their faith,” the hospital told the justices in a court filing. Minton said the hysterectomy was medically necessary to treat gender dysphoria, which the American Psychiatric Association defines as “clinically significant distress” due to a conflict between a person’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The hospital routinely performs hysterectomies on non-transgender patients to treat other issues, such as chronic pelvic pain or uterine fibroids, Minton told the justices in a legal filing. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by OK Magazine Booby Tape Hollywood takes Halloween! No one does spooky season like your favorite A-list celebrities. These masters of disguises looked scary-good while dressed up for the Booby Tape Halloween celebration in West Hollywood on Saturday, October 30. Scroll through the images below to see A-list celebs rocking costumes. Paris Hilton Booby Tape Paris Hilton put her own spin on Cinderella. The TV personality donned a sexy powder blue corset dress and a tiara to go with her blonde locks. She topped the look off with gloves and silver pumps to represent the classic Disney princess. Sophie Turner & Joe Jonas Booby Tape Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas got creative with their Lizzie McGuire-themed costumes. The power couple looked glamorous while the Game of Thrones actress took on Hilary Duff‘s famous character. Justin & Hailey Bieber Booby Tape Justin Bieber and Hailey Bieber looked adorable dressed as decked out characters from The Jungle Book. The pop singer dressed as Baloo the bear, while the model looked stylish in an all-black outfit resembling the black panther Bagheera from the Disney film. Demi Lovato & Vas J Morgan Booby Tape Demi Lovato posed alongside Vas J Morgan while sporting a goth chic look with black lipstick and a haunting dark smokey eye. Emma Roberts Booby Tape Emma Robertsgot into the Halloween spirit with a head-to-toe clown inspired look. Paris Jackson Booby Tape Paris Jackson rocked a brown mini dress paired with knee-high brown boots while she dressed as a glamorous witch for the evening. Madelaine Petsch, Camila Mendes & Lili Reinhart Booby Tape The women of Riverdale reunited for a photo while decked out in Halloween looks. Madelaine Petsch and Camila Mendes went as the famous female duo Scooby Doo, Velma and Daphney, while Lili Reinhart rocked an evil witch ensemble. Rebel Wilson Rebel Wilson appeared to have a blast at Booby Tape’s Squid Game themed event, where she and her pals dressed up as characters from the hit Netflix show. Olivia Rodrigo & Conan Gray Booby Tape Olivia Rodrigo posed alongside fellow up-and-coming artist Conan Gray while rocking a throwback costume look. The “Brutal” singer looked demure as Elvira Hancock from Scarface. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Richard Cowan WASHINGTON (Reuters) – November is shaping up to be a momentous month for President Joe Biden as Democrats controlling the U.S. Congress face a formidable workload that, if completed, would lock in the $2.75 trillion pillar of his domestic agenda – one that some compare to the 1930s “New Deal” or the 1960s “Great Society.” If the sheer dollar figure was not daunting enough, Biden last week framed the early November agenda this way in a closed-door meeting with House of Representatives Democrats, according to a source familiar with his remarks: “I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that the House and Senate majorities and my presidency will be determined by what happens in the next week.” That is just for starters. A further $1.5 trillion in annual domestic spending to fund routine government operations also must be cobbled together before a Dec. 3 deadline. Failure in the deeply divided Congress could trigger a partial government shutdown. Layered on top of that is the same Dec. 3 deadline for raising Washington’s $28.4 trillion cap on borrowing, a mundane process in which Republicans say they will refuse to participate. Failure on that front would plunge the federal government into a historic default on its debt, creating financial troubles that could ripple through the global economy. As soon as this week, the House could vote to pass the first prong of the $2.75 trillion package – more than $1 trillion to improve roads, bring broadband to underserved rural areas and invest in other infrastructure. It is a bill that even some Republicans support. That could follow quickly with debate on the partisan, $1.75 trillion bill Democrats have fought over among themselves for months, undercutting Biden’s popularity. It is half of the $3.5 trillion Biden initially sought. Biden, who is in Europe for G20 and climate summits, said on Sunday that the package will be voted on sometime this week, “God willing.” With a large portion of the public saying it is unaware of the larger bill’s tax cuts for lower-income families with children, expanded social safety-net programs and $550 billion of investments to tackle climate change, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took to the airwaves on Sunday to tout them. “This is not half a loaf. It is a feast of good policy,” Buttigieg said on ABC’s “This Week.” BATTLES ABOUND With Republicans united against much of the Democrats’ spending plans and the Democratic caucus fractured, it is unclear Congress can manage such a heavy load. Adding to that is a looming Senate fight over election reform legislation. If the Democrats’ effort falters, as expected, it could prompt them to alter the “filibuster” rule so that minority Republicans cannot block such bills so easily. But the Democrats’ top priority will be passage of the two massive bills that together make up most of Biden’s domestic agenda. After months of negotiation, moderates and liberals in the party were nearing agreement on the safety-net bill. But Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading liberal, told CNN’s “State of the Union” broadcast on Sunday that he insists a provision be included to cut prescription drug costs. With the November 2022 congressional election campaigns nearing, the flurry of legislation will test whether Democrats, without much help from Republicans, can push through a major expansion of government programs while cutting taxes for some and raising them on the ultra-wealthy and corporations. Democrats could be emboldened if the party scores a victory in Tuesday’s tight election for governor in Virginia. A possible Republican upset could give Democratic moderates in Congress second thoughts, however, about signing onto Biden’s sweeping “Build Back Better” plan. (Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Peter Cooney) View the full article

Published by DPA Last year, facial cosmetic surgery boomed during a rise in Zoom calls in which people saw their own faces more often than usual. David Parry/PA Wire/dpa Since the first lockdowns of March 2020, cosmetic surgery specialists have been reporting a dramatic rise in requests for minor facial procedures in the wake of the global shift to remote working. The way we perceive our own face in video chat programs like Zoom is typically more negative than our the mirror image, says Joerg Blesse, who heads the annual conference of the German Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (DGAePC). He’s one of many surgeons around the world who linked a surge in demand for facial procedures this year and last to the rise of Zoom and other video conferencing tools as millions were asked to work from home during lockdown. In Britain, in the weeks after the first lockdowns of 2020, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) was already forecasting a “Zoom Boom” during the pandemic and noting a 33 per cent rise in men and 66 per cent rise in younger women seeking virtual consultations about plastic surgery. In the US, 64 per cent of plastic surgeries were reporting an increase in their telemedicine consultations by June 2020. The trend appears to be continuing and according to a 2021 survey of DGAePC patients in Germany, procedures to beautify the face without major incisions – like operations to have the eyelids tightened – are much more in demand in 2021 than in previous years. This is also evident in the statistics of the country’s largest professional society, the Association of German Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (VDAePC). So what it is about Zoom that’s makes people all over the planet want to change their faces? “Many then think to themselves: ‘Oh, that’s me there’,” says Blesse and then focus on their face during much of a meeting. But the way we look at our faces in Zoom is also different to the way we see ourselves in the mirror or take selfies with our phones, researchers say. “Unlike the still and filtered selfies of social media, Zoom displays an unedited version of oneself in motion, a self-depiction very few people are used to seeing on a daily basis,” write the authors of a November 2020 study on the impact of Zoom on self-perception. Unlike in real-world conversations, where we don’t see our faces, let alone compare them to those of others, in Zoom we are constantly shown what we look like. “This may have drastic effects on body dissatisfaction and desire to seek cosmetic procedures,” say the authors of the paper, published in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. “In addition, cameras can distort video quality and create an inaccurate representation of true appearance,” authors Shauna M. Rice, Emmy Graber and Arianne Shadi Kourosh write, noting that the size of a nose can be distorted by different lenses and their distance from the subject. “Webcams, inevitably recording at shorter focal lengths, tend to produce an overall more rounded face, wider set eyes and broader nose.” Not only that, but the person confronted with their own face at length during online meetings can also be emotionally impacted by what they see in themselves. What you might see as wrinkly or tired-looking eyes can lead you to perceive yourself as sad or tired as a result, the researchers write. We shouldn’t attribute the rise in cosmetic surgery entirely to video chat however, and Blesse notes that the obligation to wear a mask has also drawn more attention towards the eyes. In any case, the rise in minor facial procedures due to a more intensive preoccupation with self-image is also worrying many specialists in Germany. For more and more people, the threshold for such minimally invasive procedures is much lower than for more complex operations, says Harald Kaisers, president of surgeon association DGAePC. “We are particularly critical of the presentation of such aesthetic plastic treatments on social media. There is a lot of information, but not explanation.” Influencers on platforms such as Instagram, who present such treatments as a lifestyle product and not as a medical intervention, also contribute to this. Those who want to have Botox or hyaluronic acid injected do not necessarily have to consult a specialist. Such “filler materials” against wrinkles are medical products, VDAePC President Steffen Handstein says. “Anyone can purchase them. It’s quite a bizarre situation. There are many places that can do it legally, although they could not treat possible complications.” On platforms like YouTube, there are even video instructions to inject yourself with hyaluronic acid, says Kaisers. “You can go blind if you inject it incorrectly.” The two associations are therefore calling for greater restrictions on the business of such treatments. “This belongs in the hands of specialists,” Kaisers said, stressing that the trend towards such minor interventions is likely to continue even after the pandemic. View the full article

Published by DPA Experts say your best protection against coronavirus is one to two weeks after the second vaccination, after which the protection against infection slowly decreases. Michael Kappeler/dpa Many of us have been hearing of more and more breakthrough cases in recent weeks – friends of friends, celebrities and government figures are testing positive for coronavirus despite being fully vaccinated. Some get Covid-19 symptoms, albeit mostly mild. In Germany alone, 117,763 probable vaccination breakthroughs – i.e. infections with symptoms – were recorded since the beginning of February by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) leading the country’s pandemic response. And yet experts do not see a lack of effectiveness of vaccines, which continue to protect very well against severe symptoms, even if booster vaccinations are needed to maintain this level of protection. How breakthrough infections occur “You have to know: The protection against infection is no longer as good six months after vaccination,” says virologist Hendrik Streeck. Vaccine researcher Leif Sander from the Charite hospital in Berlin agrees. The best protection is one to two weeks after the second vaccination, after which the protection against infection slowly decreases, Sander says. However, vaccinated people remain much better protected than unvaccinated people. While many are surprised at the fact that the coronavirus is still a threat to those who are vaccinated, this diminishing level of immunity is not unexpected in the scientific community. Leading German virologist Christian Drosten said in April that vaccinated people could contribute to the transmission of the virus again after a few months. Much more important than being safe from infection, however, is a protection against a severe case of Covid-19 – which remains stable, emphasises Streeck. According to experts, those who become infected despite vaccination are usually mildly ill or do not notice anything. In general, vaccine breakthroughs also occur with vaccinations against other diseases. The risk posed by vaccinated and unvaccinated infected persons also differs. “According to one study, when vaccinated persons become infected, their viral load is briefly as high as that of unvaccinated persons,” Streeck explains. “But this drops much more quickly. Thus, vaccination shortens the time span in which the virus can be passed on.” Vaccine breakthroughs can be dangerous It’s important to know that an infection can be particularly dangerous in older people or those with previous illnesses. The immune response of older people, for example, is lower after vaccination, and they can then become more seriously ill. According to the RKI, 782 of the 1,076 Covid 19 cases with vaccine breakthroughs that died between the beginning of February and the end of last week were at least 80 years old. “This reflects the generally higher risk of death – regardless of vaccine efficacy – for this age group,” it says. The share of vaccine breakthroughs in all Covid-19 cases shows “that only a small proportion of hospitalised, ICU-attended or deceased Covid-19 cases can be assessed as vaccine breakthroughs.” The RKI calls the increase in breakthrough infections over time “predictable” – more and more people are vaccinated, and the virus is able to spread more again as restrictions end. “This increases the probability of coming into contact with the virus as a fully vaccinated person.” Experts where vaccination programmes have helped immunize the majority of the country are now keen to maintain that level of immunity with booster jabs. And yet some experts are worried the level of trust in vaccines will suffer if there were a widespread call for boosters now. And yet for Charite scientist Sander, “offering all vaccine-ready people a third vaccination six months after the second vaccination would also have a dampening effect on the spread of the virus in the population.” Sander also cites Israel’s recent experience, where they “boosted” themselves out of the past wave. Opponents of an expansion of booster vaccinations, including Streeck, point to the worldwide shortage of vaccines, and stress that the majority of countries still need doses more urgently than those where booster vaccination are an issue. In addition: The health system would be relieved more if vaccination gaps were closed for people over 60 – and less with third vaccinations for people in their mid-20s. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki has become the latest of a long list of high-profile individuals to contract the coronavirus despite being vaccinated. Such breakthrough cases are no surprise, say many experts. Some say they’re proof we need to take action. Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire/dpa View the full article

Published by Reuters By Lawrence White LONDON (Reuters) – Barclays Chief Executive Jes Staley is leaving the bank after a dispute with British financial regulators over how he described his ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Staley will be replaced as chief executive by the bank’s head of global markets C.S. Venkatakrishnan, who pledged on Monday to continue his predecessor’s strategy for Britain’s third-biggest bank by market value. Staley’s shock departure comes after Barclays was informed on Friday of the unpublished findings of a report by Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) into Staley’s characterisation of his relationship with Epstein, who killed himself in jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on charges related to sex trafficking. “In view of those conclusions, and Mr Staley’s intention to contest them, the Board and Mr Staley have agreed that he will step down from his role as Group Chief Executive and as a director of Barclays,” the bank said. “It should be noted that the investigation makes no findings that Mr Staley saw, or was aware of, any of Mr Epstein’s alleged crimes, which was the central question underpinning Barclays’ support for Mr Staley following the arrest of Mr Epstein in the summer of 2019,” it said in a statement. The investigation has yet to be published, though regulators have said previously that it was focused on how truthful Staley was about his ties to Epstein. If Staley is found to have misled regulators he could face a fine, a ban from Britain’s financial industry or both. Barclays shares fell 2% following the announcement, before paring losses to trade down 1% at 1315 GMT, underperforming European rivals. ‘I THOUGHT I KNEW HIM WELL’ Staley dealt with Epstein during his long career at JPMorgan, where Epstein was a major private banking client until 2013. A college dropout who styled himself as a brilliant financier, Epstein socialised in elite circles, including with former and future U.S. presidents. In 2008, he was registered as a sex offender but continued to maintain ties with powerful players in business and finance. The New York Times reported in 2019 that Epstein had referred “dozens” of wealthy clients to Staley. It reported that Staley visited Epstein in prison when he was serving a sentence between 2008-09 for soliciting prostitution from a minor, while Bloomberg reported he visited Epstein’s private island in 2015. Staley told reporters last February that his relationship with Epstein had “tapered off significantly” after he left JPMorgan in 2013, and that he had not seen the disgraced financier since taking over as CEO of Barclays in 2015. “I thought I knew him well, and I didn’t. I’m sure with hindsight of what we all know now, I deeply regret having had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” he said at the time. Epstein’s links with prominent men have come back to haunt some of them. Leon Black, the billionaire investor, stepped down https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apollo-global-clayton-idUSKBN2BE1E0 from Apollo Global Management, the private equity firm he co-founded, earlier this year after an outside review found he had paid Epstein $158 million for tax and estate planning. Britain’s Prince Andrew https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-andrew-seeks-dismissal-accuser-giuffres-lawsuit-2021-10-29 has quit royal duties over his associations with Epstein while Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has said it was a “huge mistake” to spend time with the financier. Britain’s FCA and PRA regulators said in a statement they could not comment further on the Epstein investigation, which was launched https://www.reuters.com/article/us-barclays-results-idUSKBN2070NF after JPMorgan provided them with emails between Epstein and Staley from Staley’s time as head of JPMorgan’s private bank, the Financial Times reported last year. RIGHT STRATEGY Staley told staff in an internal memo seen by Reuters that he did not want his personal response to the investigations to be a distraction. “Although I will not be with you for the next chapter of Barclays’ story, know that I will be cheering your success from the sidelines,” he said. Staley has 28 days to formally notify the FCA that he is contesting its findings, after which an independent committee inside the watchdog will uphold or reject its conclusions, a source familiar with the process told Reuters. If upheld, the investigation passes to an independent Upper Tribunal which again can back or reject the findings, the source said, in a process that could take months. The bank’s new CEO Venkatakrishnan, who followed Staley to Barclays from JPMorgan and is known as Venkat, told staff on Monday the strategy put in place by his predecessor was “the right one”, according to a separate memo also seen by Reuters. Venkat added that he would announce changes to the organisation of the investment bank in the coming days, likely to mean filling his previous role and any other resulting vacancies, sources at the bank said. Barclays’ share price has fallen 9% since Staley’s joined the bank nearly six years ago, a tenure not without controversy. His greatest success, insiders and analysts say, was to fight off a campaign by activist investor Edward Bramson in 2018 to have Staley removed on the grounds that Barclays’ investment bank was underperforming and should be cut back. Bramson sold his stake earlier this year, and the bank’s recent results have shown the investment bank performing strongly. Also in 2018, Britain’s financial regulators and Barclays fined Staley a combined 1.1 million pounds ($1.5 million) after he tried to identify a whistleblower who sent letters criticising a Barclays employee. (Reporting by Rachel Armstrong and Lawrence White; Additional reporting by Carolyn Cohn and Huw Jones; Editing by Louise Heavens, Kirsten Donovan and David Clarke) View the full article

Published by Reuters NEW YORK (Reuters) -A rush of eleventh-hour inoculations sharply reduced the number of New York City emergency responders who failed to meet the city’s coronavirus vaccination requirement as it began to be enforced on Monday, officials said. The vaccination rate for all city employees, including police officers and firefighters, rose to 91% from 86% late last week, Mayor Bill de Blasio said over the weekend on Twitter. De Blasio on Oct. 20 ordered the city’s 50,000 uniformed services workers, including emergency medical and sanitation employees, to have had at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine by late Friday afternoon. Enforcement of the mandate in the city of 8.8 million people was set to start on Monday, with de Blasio saying that employees reporting for duty who had failed to get immunized would not be paid. Union officials, who said last week at least one-third of firefighters and police officers were unvaccinated, predicted worker shortages as a result of the mandate, which eliminated a COVID testing alternative that they said had worked well. At a pre-dawn briefing, Uniformed Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro predicted that dozens of fire companies would be forced to shut down, and urged the city to give his members more time to comply, NY1 TV reported. But Ansbro added, “This is not a city in crisis.” De Blasio, a Democrat, who had predicted a last-minute vaccination surge, said 2,300 workers were immunized on Saturday alone. “More than half of the workers who haven’t been vaccinated yet have submitted exemption requests and those requests are being processed,” he said on Twitter on Saturday. Workers with pending exemption requests will continue to be paid, officials have said. By Sunday, the mayor’s office said the vaccination rate for Emergency Medical Services workers had jumped to 87% from 74% on Thursday. The Fire Department of New York reported late Friday that its rate had jumped to 77% from 64% a day earlier. The recent vaccination rate for the New York Police Department, which de Blasio put at 74% on Thursday, was not immediately available. The dispute in the largest U.S. city is the latest to erupt as vaccine mandates have been increasingly imposed by political leaders across the country, including President Joe Biden, to help stem the spread of the highly contagious Delta variant. Police officers and firefighters in Chicago and Los Angeles have also pushed back hard. New York City police and firefighter unions have challenged the mandate in court. But the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York said courts last week rejected its requests for an emergency order to halt the mandate’s enforcement. (Reporting by Peter Szekely and Trevor Clifford in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney and Peter Graff) View the full article

Published by OK Magazine It’s been nearly three decades sinceNicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were stabbed to death, but the case — and O.J. Simpson’s controversial acquittal — still captivates the nation. During a recent moment on Big Brother VIP, Caitlyn Jenner touched on the events that followed the shocking 1994 Brentwood, Calif., murders. At the time, Caitlyn — then known as Bruce Jenner — was married to Kris Jenner, who was close to the late mom-of-two. (Simpson and Brown, who were in the midst of a divorce when she was killed, shared Sydney, now 36, and Justin, now 33.) Kris’ ex-husband, Robert Kardashian, was also part of the “Dream Team” defending the former NFL star in what became known as The Trial of The Century. MEGA “It was an extraordinarily difficult time. Nicole was Kris’ best friend [and] had been for a long time,” the 72-year-old recalled. “I was at Nicole’s house two days before the murder.” O.J. SIMPSON IMPLIES HE DOESN’T LIKE TO TRAVEL TO LOS ANGELES BECAUSE HE MIGHT RUN INTO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON’S ‘REAL’ MURDERER “Obviously he did it and he got away with it, and at one point he even told Nicole, ‘I’ll kill you and get away with it because I’m OJ Simpson,’” Caitlyn revealed, noting the late woman “relayed that onto Kris at one point — and unfortunately, she was right.” “We were at the courthouse. We were watching what was going on in the other room,” the gold medalist continued. “Even after the not guilty verdict, the first thing Kris turns around to me and goes, ‘We should’ve listened to Nicole. She was right, right from the beginning.” Though Simpson was acquitted, Brown and Goldman’s families sued him in civil court for wrongful death and won a $33.5M judgment. However, in February, Fred Goldman — Ron’s father — revealed he only received $132,000 of the money owed to him. As OK! reported, Simpson was recently ordered to discuss questions regarding his assets, including “employment, property and funds,” with Fred’s lawyer in what is believed to be an attempt to satisfy the outstanding balance. MEGA Caitlyn’s step-daughter, Kim Kardashian, recently spoke out about Simpson while hosting Saturday Night Live last month. Noting in her opening monologue that she “met my first black person” because of her late father, the 41-year-old quipped: “Wanna take a stab at the dark at who it was? I know it’s sorta weird to remember the first black person you met but O.J. does leave a mark, or several or none at all. I still don’t know.” (Following the airing, Nicole’s sister Tanya told TMZ that the reality star’s jokes were “distasteful” and in “poor taste”.) FRED GOLDMAN SLAMS O.J. SIMPSON CALLING IT A ‘SHAME’ HE SURVIVED COVID In 2018, footage from a bizarre interview Simpson did to promote his book If I Did It — which contained a “hypothetical” account of the murders — with publisher Judith Regan recirculated on a two-hour special, O.J. Simpson: The Lost Confession? MEGA “As things got heated, I just remember Nicole fell and hurt herself,” the the former running back said — in what was dubbed a “shocking hypothetical account” — at the time. “And I remember I grabbed a knife, I do remember that portion, taking the knife from Charlie, and to be honest, after that, I don’t remember.” Simpson, who has maintained his innocence, joined Twitter days after the 25th anniversary of his late wife and Ron’s death. View the full article

Published by AFP Police officers stand by security barricades set up outside the US Supreme Court ahead of legal challenges to a restrictive abortion law passed by Texas Washington (AFP) – The conservative-majority US Supreme Court hears challenges on Monday to the most restrictive law passed since abortion was made a constitutional right nearly 50 years ago — a Texas bill that bans a woman from terminating a pregnancy after six weeks. Dozens of protesters gathered outside the court in downtown Washington ahead of two hours of arguments before the nine-member panel. “Keep Your Laws Off Our Bodies,” read signs carried by demonstrators supporting the right to an abortion. “Let Their Hearts Beat,” read signs carried by anti-abortion protesters. The “Texas Heartbeat Act” bans abortions after a heartbeat can be detected in the womb, which is normally around six weeks — before many women even know they are pregnant — and makes no exceptions for rape or incest. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority after Donald Trump nominated three justices, is to hear two hours of arguments in a case that has sparked a fierce legal and political battle. The Supreme Court was asked by abortion providers to block the law when it took effect on September 1, but the court declined to do so citing “procedural issues.” The case is now back before the top court after Texas, the second-largest US state, was sued by Democratic President Joe Biden’s Justice Department and a coalition of abortion providers, who say the restrictions are unconstitutional. Biden was among those who criticized the court for failing to tackle a law that “blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade,” the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling enshrining a woman’s legal right to an abortion. Laws restricting abortion have been passed in other Republican-led states but were struck down by the courts because they violated previous Supreme Court rulings that guaranteed the right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks. ‘Why are they making me keep it?’ Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) differs from other efforts in that it insulates the state by giving members of the public the right to sue doctors who perform abortions, or anyone who helps facilitate them, once a heartbeat is detected. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for initiating cases that land in court, prompting criticism that the state is encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. “The most pernicious thing about the Texas law is it sort of creates a vigilante system, where people get rewards,” Biden said at the White House in September. Many clinics in Texas — fearful of potentially ruinous lawsuits — have closed their doors, and the number of abortions in the state fell to 2,100 in September from 4,300 a year earlier, according to a University of Texas study. Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of women’s health care in the nation, sent a 30-page legal brief to the court containing testimony from women and doctors affected by the Texas law. One patient, identified as I.O., was 12 years old. “The mother said they could not travel out of State — they had barely made it to the Texas health center,” the brief said. The 12-year-old was quoted as saying, “Mom, it was an accident. Why are they making me keep it?” The Supreme Court could make a decision at any time after oral arguments but is widely expected to rule before hearing another abortion case on December 1. In that case, the court will hear a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. At least four justices appear ready to block the Texas law: the three liberals on the court and Chief Justice John Roberts, who expressed concerns about SB8 when it previously appeared before the court. “Now the question is, ‘Is there a fifth vote?'” Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, asked on a podcast. View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Ed Sheeran “thought [he] was gay for a bit” during his childhood. The 30-year-old pop star has revealed he used to question his sexuality because he loved musicals and songs by Britney Spears as a child. He shared: “I have a definite feminine side, to the point that when I was a kid I thought I was gay for a bit. “I definitely have a big feminine side. I love musical theatre, I love pop music, I love Britney Spears. “My masculine side probably stops at drinking beer and watching football.” The ‘Perfect’ hitmaker – who is an Ipswich Town fan – actually prefers women’s soccer to the men’s game. And Ed revealed that he converted to the women’s game after his daughter, Lyra, was born in August last year. He told the ‘Man Man Man’ podcast: “I watched it and I was like, ‘I don’t know why I watch male football, this is much better’. “I am not a hugely masculine person anyway. I am not a car guy. I like a nice car, but I’m not a car guy.” Ed admits that his wife, Cherry Seaborn, has had a huge impact on how he looks at life. He explained: “My wife is super pro-women and femininity. “As soon as we started dating, my life shifted to that.” Meanwhile, Ed recently revealed that he’s “cool with everyone” in the music industry. The singer is often praised for being one of the most likeable people in the industry, but Ed insists the most of his closest pals are actually from his childhood days. Ed – who lives in Suffolk in England – shared: “I get on with pretty much everyone but in terms of very close personal connections, like people I’d invite to my house for dinner or to hang out with my daughter, I can count them on my fingers. “I’m cool with everyone. I’ll have nights out with loads of people, but many of the other people in the industry I meet are the same – their closest friends are the people they’ve known for years, people they grew up with.” View the full article

Published by Reuters By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) – As abortion providers backed by President Joe Biden’s administration prepare for Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments in their challenge to a near-total ban on the procedure in Texas, they have found an unlikely ally: a right-leaning gun rights group. A “friend of the court” brief filed in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition against Republican-governed Texas illustrates how the law’s unique structure – enforcement by private individuals, not the state – has alarmed advocates for all kinds of constitutionally protected rights. Some conservatives are warning that similar laws could be crafted by liberals targeting issues important to the right. A law written like the one in Texas to impede courts from ruling on constitutionality before it takes effect could be used, for example, to take aim at constitutionally protected activities including gun rights, religious practice or free speech. Abortion is protected under the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, and subsequent decisions. “You can’t short-circuit the ordinary steps of judicial review for serious constitutional questions,” said Erik Jaffe, the attorney who filed the Firearms Policy Coalition’s brief. When laws are enacted that restrict constitutional rights, courts have a vital role to play before they take effect, Jaffe added. “This circumvents that debate. This says, ‘Too bad you don’t get to have that debate except … with my foot on your neck,'” Jaffe said. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Texas law’s structure prevents federal courts from intervening to block it and whether the U.S. government is even allowed to sue the state to try to block it. The measure, one of numerous restrictive Republican-backed state abortion laws passed in recent years, bans the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy, a point when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant. There is an exception for a documented medical emergency but not for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. MISSISSIPPI CASE The case reaches the nine justices as the future of abortion rights hangs in the balance. On Dec. 1, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is due to hear another major abortion case in which Mississippi is seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/mississippi-asks-us-supreme-court-overturn-abortion-rights-landmark-2021-07-22. The Texas attorney general has signaled he also wants Roe v. Wade https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-urges-us-supreme-court-maintain-states-abortion-ban-2021-10-21 overturned. What is unique about the Texas law is that the state plays no enforcement role. Instead, anyone can sue abortion providers – regardless of whether that person has a personal stake – and potentially win at least $10,000 in damages, a process critics have compared to placing a bounty on abortion providers. At least three states already are considering legislation mirroring the Texas law’s language including one in Illinois targeting gun dealers, said David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey who filed a brief opposing Texas. The Texas citizen-enforcement provision does not mean such laws can always evade judicial review. But to challenge them someone would have to be sued under the law first and then take aim at the enforcement mechanism in the defense. In the meantime, the fact that the law is on the books may chill the conduct at issue. That is the case in Texas, with abortion clinics complying with the ban since the Supreme Court let it go into effect https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/texas-six-week-abortion-ban-takes-effect-2021-09-01 on Sept. 1. Lawyers opposing the law have found potential analogies on other issues involving Supreme Court precedents. Laws that would enable people to sue gun owners and seek to prohibit unlimited independent spending in political campaigns are examples cited by Biden’s administration in its challenge to the abortion law. In both instances, “those statutes, too, would violate the Constitution as interpreted by this court. But under Texas’s theory, they could be enforced without prior judicial review, chilling the protected activity – and the effect of any successful constitutional defense in an enforcement proceeding could be limited to that proceeding alone,” the administration wrote in court papers. Legislators have enacted other laws that let people bring individual claims on contentious issues including transgender rights. But those are more like earlier statutes that empowered people to sue over matters such as environmental or civil rights violations. In Tennessee, a law barring transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity includes a provision that lets individuals sue local school districts if they “encounter a member of the opposite sex” in a bathroom. Some conservative and religious groups that oppose abortion have signaled little concern about the Texas law’s structure, feeling that critics have exaggerated potential consequences. Walter Weber, a lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice religious rights legal group that filed a brief backing Texas, said there is nothing to stop abortion providers from challenging the law after they are sued. “Abortion advocates crying wolf can raise a lot of money and give cover to legislative and executive measures to push further support for abortion,” Weber said. If the Texas law is so clearly unconstitutional, Weber asked, “Why are abortionists so terrified?” (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Brad Brooks MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) – Angela Harrelson points toward a blue angel painted on the pavement, marking the spot where a Minneapolis police officer murdered her nephew George Floyd and ignited a national police reform movement. “If a mental health worker or a social worker had been with the police the day my nephew died right here, he might very well still be alive today,” Harrelson said. “I don’t want to abolish the police, but we need to do something different.” On Tuesday, Minneapolis voters get to decide just how different their city’s approach to policing should be. A ballot question asks residents whether they want to replace the police department with a new department of public safety, in the first big electoral test of reform efforts sparked by Floyd’s May 2020 killing. But even after the outrage over his death and the tense protests that followed, the progressive city is deeply divided over the future of its law enforcement. The split illustrates the tricky calculus around overhauling policing in major U.S. cities, as residents fear for their safety amid crime spikes and Democratic politicians worry https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-cries-defund-police-fade-us-mayoral-races-crime-surges-2021-10-29 about Republicans weaponizing the issue in next year’s congressional elections. Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo opposes the measure. Mayor Jacob Frey, who is seeking reelection on Tuesday, is also against it. Neither responded to requests for comment from Reuters. Conversations with dozens of voters cutting across racial and socio-economic lines in Minneapolis in recent days revealed a range of views. Nearly all expressed confusion over what exactly would happen if the proposal is approved. That is in large part because the particulars of the new public safety department would only be hashed out by the mayor and city council in the months after the vote. Opponents say the measure would make good on the city council’s threat in the days after Floyd’s death to “defund the police.” They say Minneapolis, with a population of about 430,000 people, needs more officers, not fewer, as it grapples with a crime wave. Supporters insist police would remain on their jobs, though perhaps in smaller numbers. They say the change would mean approaching safety in a holistic manner, including addressing the root causes of crime before it takes place. If approved, the department of public safety would create a larger agency that would include police officers as well as mental health professionals, housing and addiction experts, and people trained in de-escalating conflict to respond to 911 calls where an armed officer may not always be needed. The new department would answer not just to the mayor but also the city’s 13 council members, which supporters say would give residents more influence in how policing is carried out. “What police have been doing for decades does not work,” said the Reverend JaNaé Bates, with the Yes4Minneapolis campaign that supports creating the new safety department. “We want the city to have the nimbleness to match its safety needs with the resources available.” ‘BIG EXPERIMENT’ Homicides in Minneapolis were up more than 17% through the end of September, compared to the same period in 2020. Robberies and aggravated assaults also have increased. More than 200 police officers have left the force since Floyd’s murder. Police who remain have in many ways stopped engaging with the community, for fear of being involved in another flashpoint case, a recent Reuters investigation found https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-policing-minneapolis. North Minneapolis, a poorer area where more Black residents live, has seen the brunt of the violence. Nearly half of all murders in the city have taken place in Precinct 4, where residents complain of nights filled with shootings, carjackings and out-of-control petty crime. “This entire thing is a white, progressive movement, man,” said Teto Wilson, a Black barber shop owner in north Minneapolis, referring to efforts to replace the police department. “They’re trying to turn us into some damn big experiment.” Like other residents on the north side who spoke with Reuters, Wilson said police reform is needed desperately – but within the current structure. He said those living with daily violence don’t have the luxury to try drastic new approaches. In the Folwell neighborhood north of Wilson’s barber shop, Anna Gerdeen, who is white and described herself as a progressive director of a community not-for-profit, said she might normally support more radical policing reforms. But not now, while she and her 11-year-old son feel under siege inside their own home. She will vote against the creation of a new department. “My neighbor’s house got hit with bullets a couple months ago. I can’t let my son play outside in the yard anymore,” Gerdeen said. “As a mother, I just can’t risk any more chaos.” ‘LIVING HELL’ Supporters of creating a new public safety department say such violence makes clear the need for a new strategy. They say advocates have tried for decades to get reforms passed to make policing more equitable and to bring more safety to poorer neighborhoods but have repeatedly failed. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a progressive Democrat, oversaw the prosecution of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who pinned Floyd’s neck to the ground for more than nine minutes with his knee. Ellison said now is the time for true change. “If we’re saying that George Floyd could be murdered on the streets of this town … and we’re not willing to take any institutional change to address that, to me that’s sad, and it’s a little scary,” said Ellison, who lives in Minneapolis. “My hope is that we actually respond to what’s happening here, in a way designed to prevent it from happening again.” Back on the street where Floyd was killed in south Minneapolis, Bridgette Stewart and other members of a community watch group had just returned from the scene of a drive-by shooting where three people were injured last Tuesday. The group, Agape Movement, was there to act as a bridge between family of the victims, community members and law enforcement, to ensure nothing escalated into more violence. That is the type of work Stewart said needs to happen on a citywide scale, and that she said could only happen if the new public safety department is approved. “This is our vision, that we can all work together for public safety,” she said. “Because if we all can’t get along and get this work done, we’re going to be stuck right where we’re at – in a living hell.” (Reporting by Brad Brooks in Minneapolis; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Daniel Wallis) View the full article