Search

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

A new mum has banned her own mother from babysitting duties, after she blatantly refused to follow a few basic safety instructions. The young mum took to Reddit to share her plight, after moving back home so she could save up to buy a house, which at the time her mum "very enthusiastically agreed to". But, after a few months of living together again, the 23-year-old mum has had more things added onto her plate, as she's constantly worried about her own mum not following her instructions when it comes to her son, who was born in September. She said that her mum has been "constantly checking to see if he has teeth" or pushing them to "stop feeding him milk", or even trying to "give him really complicated food" like candy yams. And whenever she expresses her concerns, her mum nonchalantly responds with: "I did with you and you survived". It reached a peak when her mother gave her baby boy some water, which according to The World Health Organisation, children under six months should not be drinking anything else other than breast milk or formula. This is because babies stomachs are very small and their kidneys are still developing, so they are unable to process water in the same way adults do, plus it puts them at risk of water intoxication and nutrition loss. The grandmother blatantly ignored her daughter's request and gave her grandson water anyways responding with, "See, he's fine. He isn't dead." That was the young mum's breaking point and she immediately took her baby away. "She will no longer be watching the baby alone since she is constantly overstepping my boundaries and doing everything I ask her to not do," she wrote. But she said that things are complicated since they're living together and now her mother isn't speaking to her because she made her "feel like a bad parent and grandparent." The young mum questioned whether she was the bad guy in this scenario, but other Reddit users were quick to defend her for setting her boundaries. "One would hope for a *little* bit more for their kid than "not dead"," one wrote. "This is an incredibly low standard for her to be proud of maintaining", another added. Image: Getty

Family & Pets

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

A bride-to-be has sparked a feud for deciding to ban her sister’s “loud and distracting” toddler from her wedding ceremony, with the bride asking social media users for advice. The bride was only weeks away from her intimate destination wedding, which included a guest list of only a few friends and close family. After being met with a difficult decision, the bride took to Reddit to share how a massive family feud had erupted in the weeks before the big day. “My sister is bringing her one-year-old toddler. The child is more than welcome — she’s part of the family and we want her there as part of the day,” she began. “However, as she’s still very young (and very loud at times), I’ve asked that somebody takes her out during the ceremony if she’s being distracting, shouting and babbling loudly.” “I know that this will probably happen as she’s constantly chatting loudly and is never quiet.” “But it’s only for half an hour and she can be as loud as she likes for the rest of the day.” “I just want everybody to be able to focus on the ceremony and I don’t want the distraction.” The bride said she was worried about sounding selfish, but then admitted that she was allowed to be selfish on her big day, and wanted all eyes on her and the groom. “We want everyone to be able to enjoy them and, to be honest, we want the guests’ attention focused on us,” she said. However, after the bride told her sister of the plans, things didn’t go down well. “My sister has told me I’m being an a****** for ‘excluding’ my niece from the ceremony and therefore by default ‘excluding’ my brother-in-law who will be the one to take her out,” the bride said. “She says that I’m asking him and the one-year-old to go all that way just for the evening meal as they will miss the ceremony and that the toddler will most likely miss that too as it will be after bedtime.” “I’ve told her that there’s a whole afternoon of relaxing things going on — photos, cake, a little walk outside and late lunch that they will be part of but apparently she’s still really annoyed with me.” The bride says her sister is now “threatening” to attend the wedding alone, leaving her partner and their daughter at home. “We’ve called her bluff and said if that’s what she wants to do then we understand,” she said. “To be honest, she’s p***ing us off so much that we’d be fine with all three of them not coming at this point.” “I don’t think that I’m asking anything unreasonable.” “All I want is a peaceful, relaxed ceremony where we can all focus on what’s going on without a toddler babbling away. “Also, to be honest, even if this WAS an unreasonable ask, surely as it’s my wedding day then it’s up to me? Isn’t it the one day of my life when I can do literally anything I want?” The post was quickly met with hundreds of comments, with most people flocking to the bride’s defence. One person wrote, “This is basic event etiquette, but it seems like sis cannot be relied on to follow basic etiquette - or even asked to do so without herself acting like a toddler.” Another suggested: “Removing a disruptive baby from a formal event would be normal etiquette, but if you specifically had to ask in advance, I’ll guess she’s got a history of not doing so.” “Your wedding, your rules. You could have gone completely child-free, all you asked was for the common courtesy of taking her outside if she got noisy.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

A woman has banned her in-laws from seeing her newborn daughter after they “betrayed her trust” and directly went against her wishes. The new mum shared the story to Reddit, as she explained why she was cutting contact with her husband’s parents after they pierced her child’s ears without their knowledge or consent. “My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears and his mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced a few days after she was born,” the 32-year-old mum began. “I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself. We live in my country where piercing a baby's ears isn't common at all.” The new mum's world soon came crashing down after the baby spent a weekend with her grandparents, before she went back to her parents red in the face and screaming. “My mother-in-law was looking after her over the weekend and decided to pierce her ears without my knowledge or consent.” “When I saw this I threw a fit. My baby was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out.” The doctor advised the parent to take the earrings out as they were irritating the baby, but the issue didn’t end there. “I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again - or at least until she's a teenager.” “My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely. I told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police.” The husband of the baby girl reluctantly sided with his wife over the issue, despite saying it wasn’t a big deal and suggesting everyone move on from the incident. The story prompted a mixed response online, with some people saying the woman was overreacting and should work towards rebuilding trust with her in-laws. Others, however, had the opposite opinion, with one person saying, “Forget rebuilding trust, I'd be having them charged with assault.” Another person said, “They mutilated a child and they knew it was against the parents wishes. These people have serious problems. Not that I'd press charges, but getting holes poked in someone else's kid is a huge thing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

A 42-year-old mother has received a lifetime ban from Carnival Cruise Line voyages, after she attempted to board one of the company's ships with a seemingly innocent item. Melinda Van Veldhuizen, a nurse practitioner and mother of two from Texas, said she was treated "like a criminal" when cruise ship employees found a bag of the CBD “sleep tight” gummies in her luggage while at a port in Miami. Melinda told local news station WPLG she packed the gummies to help her get some sleep on the August trip she had planned to take with her family to celebrate both her 21st wedding anniversary with her husband and her son’s senior year of high school. Ms Van Veldhuizen was taken to a separate area of the security check-in when the discovery was made, and was questioned by Carnival security and police for two and a half hours. The mother was blocked from boarding the ship, and her husband and son also disembarked as they didn’t want to go on the cruise to Aruba, Curaçao and the Dominican Republic without her. The family had spent just under $9,000AUD on their planned vacation, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s attorney Daren Stabinski told the Washington Post. CBD is a compound commonly derived from hemp that doesn’t cause impairment or a “high,” and is different from marijuana's mind-altering substance of THC. CBD is becoming more readily available across the globe, and is used to treat ailments from chronic pain to sleeplessness. In most parts of the US, CBD products that contain no greater than 0.3 per cent of THC are legal. According to WPLG, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s gummies contained less than 0.01 per cent THC. Despite the product being legal in the state Ms Van Veldhuizen was departing from, the hemp product is prohibited by Carnival Cruise Lines. “While certain CBD products used for medicinal purposes may be legal in the US, they are not legal in all the ports we visit and therefore are also considered prohibited items,” its website states. Soon after Ms Van Veldhuizen was forbidden from going on the cruise she paid for, she received a letter from Carnival informing her she was banned from all Carnival ships for life. The letter signed by Captain Rocco Lubrano states that she will “not be permitted to sail on-board any Carnival Cruise Lines vessel in the future.” “This decision was based on your actions on the current cruise, which were a violation of the ship rules, interfered with the safety and/or enjoyment of other guests on the ship or caused harm to Carnival,” Mr Lubrano wrote. Ms Van Veldhuizen said she has taken more than a dozen Carnival cruises over the years and was freaked out by the letter and the whole experience, and was not expecting such a severe reaction. “I thought it was one of those situations where you’re like, ‘Oh shoot, I left a bottle of water in my backpack; you gotta throw it away,’ kind of thing like that happens at TSA,” she said. Ms Van Veldhuizen is pursuing an internal claim with Carnival, but has threatened to sue if her situation isn’t resolved “appropriately” and hired Mr Stabinski to assist her. “Out of all the cases I take, this one was just specifically outrageous,” Mr Stabinski said. Image credits: WPLG

Travel Trouble

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Sometimes films are banned for poor taste, extreme themes, or literal pornographic content. Other times, films are banned for ridiculous reasons. These are their stories. 1. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial <a href="http://www.ifc.com/shows/the-spoils-before-dying/blog/2015/06/10-movies-that-were-banned-for-crazy-reasons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apparently</a>, the governments of Norway, Finland, and Sweden worried that E.T. film portrays adults in such a bad light that if children were allowed to see it, it would provoke a full-scale revolt. The Swedish Board of Film Censorship banned anyone under the age of 12 from seeing the film in cinemas when it was released. 2. Back to the Future The much loved time travel romp is beloved around the world, not least of all because Michael J Fox is just so damn fun to watch. Unless you’re in China, that is, where any kind of time travel plot is outright banned from the country. 3. The Interview Written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (the same guys who wrote comedy hits Superbad, This Is the End, and Pineapple Express) The Interview was always going to be edgy and hilarious. Little did anyone realise just how much trouble the film would prove to be as it neared release. The film is about a TV talk show host and his producer who are recruited by the US government to travel to North Korea and assassinate Kim Jong-un. Strangely, the North Korean dictator and his government didn’t see the humour in the film’s plot, and had hackers break into Sony’s computer networks. The regime also threatened violence against any American movie theatre screening the film, which worried most theatre chain enough that the film was shunted sideways into an unglamorous video-on-demand release. 4. Wonder Woman Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was the superhero 2017 desperately needed, and the worldwide box office and reviews reflected how joyously she was welcomed in just about every corner of the globe. One notable exception to this was Lebanon, where the film was officially banned by the nation’s government. The reason? Because of the war between the two countries, Lebanon bans its residents from having contact with Israel’s people or products. Star Gal Gadot is Israeli, meaning that the film was a no-show. 5. Beauty and the Beast (2017 version) While there are those of us who could have done without this (perfectly fine) remake, some Disney fans (and professional angry-about-everything-ers) balked when director Bill Condon announced that the film would feature Disney’s first “exclusively gay moment” in a feature film. The news was met with mixed reactions from the LGBTQI community (which we won’t go into here), but with pure venom from some conservatives who believe that this constituted a direct attack on their right to see a young white woman fall in love with a violent beast without being exposed to gayness at the same time. As a result, at least one cinema, in Alabama, refused to screen the film when it was released. Image credit: Getty / Instagram

Movies

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

A serial puppy offender has faced sentencing over 17 charges of animal cruelty, with both a lifetime ban and thousands of dollars in fees included in her punishment. The 51-year-old woman from Bullsbrook, a northern suburb in Perth, had been breeding sick dogs in squalid conditions while charging their potential new owners thousands of dollars, and has now been banned from owning or breeding any more dogs for the rest of her life. For her cruel actions, the Perth Magistrates Court handed her a “10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, $25,000 in fines and an 18-month Intensive Supervision Order.” Additionally, the repeat offender - who has been in custody since April 14 after breaching the conditions of her bail - was also ordered to pay $24,279.11 in legal costs, as well as care and treatment costs totalling $18,241.01. The charges were in relation to 23 dogs who were seized from her property in June 2020 - with sought-after breeds including the likes of Maltese, shih-tzus, poodles, and cavalier King Charles spaniels among them. It wasn’t her first offence - instead her fourth - but her most recent was in 2014 when the RSPCA found 50 dogs at her former home, with 12 of the animals “hidden in a bunker three metres underground”. This time around, she had been trying to conceal her crimes. As the court heard in December, she has been moving the dogs between three different Bullbrook addresses in a bid to avoid detection. It was a display of “callous disregard or at least wilful blindness,” Magistrate Janie Gibbs said. RSPCA WA had launched their investigation into her after a member of the public reported their concerns - they had been trying to purchase a puppy through Gumtree, and had grown suspicious when they were informed they couldn’t visit the dog at home. From there, RSPCA WA seized 32 dogs from the woman’s property - of which there were four adult males, 19 adult females, and nine puppies - with the majority of them showing signs of being “underweight, unkempt, or unwell”, and nearly all of them suffering from “ear infections and/or dental disease and … matted, overgrown hair”. Two did not survive, and five of them were pregnant, giving birth to 22 more puppies in the weeks to follow. All have been in the foster care of RSPCA WA while the case went on. As RSPCA WA Executive Manager Animal and Enforcement Operations Hannah Dreaver explained, the woman responsible had been operating a profit-driven business, and had been placing her income well above the welfare of the dogs in her care. “This included using several locations to hide this operation from both authorities and potential puppy buyers,” she added. “All were popular breeds selling for thousands of dollars. These dogs were making her a fortune and she was treating them as nothing more than money-making machines, having litter after litter without proper care. “Please, if you want to get a dog, consider adoption from the RSPCA or another reputable rescue organisation first. If you do decide to buy a puppy, never buy online and never buy sight unseen. “Always meet your new puppy and its mum in the home where it’s being raised.” Images: RSPCA WA

Family & Pets

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

Politicians in Florida are considering a draft law to strengthen state control over sex education in students. This would ban any lessons in schools teaching students about menstrual cycles before high school. The proposal comes after Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, passed various laws limiting discussion in schools of gender and sexuality, reducing the emphasis on diversity in public schools across the state. The latest proposal came from Republican Stan McClain which would allow instruction "acquired immune deficiency syndrome, sexually transmitted diseases, or health education” only from sixth grade through to 12, typically children aged 12-18. Girls generally have their first period between the ages of 10 and 15, but some do as young as eight. "Imagine a little girl in fourth grade, going to the bathroom and finding blood in her panties and thinking that she is dying," state representative Ashley Gantt, a Democrat, said in a social media post. "She doesn't actually know what's going on. And her teacher does not even have the ability to tell her that this is a part of life.” However, the bill passed the subcommittee by a 13-to-5 vote. Planned Parenthood said the legislation would take "total control from local school districts in approving sex ed curriculum and give it to the State Department of Education", in turn presenting a "reductive and binary view of sex" and stigmatising LGBTQIA+ students. Critics say conservative legislatures in the USA are trying to impose their own views on others, preventing students from having a well-rounded education. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

King Charles III has banned a classic French delicacy from his royal residence. The ban comes following animal cruelty concerns, PETA have confirmed. The animal rights group said the King removed "foie gras" which is a traditional delacy made from the fattened liver of a duck or goose. It has been off the royal menu for quite some time now, both at Buckingham Palace and all other residences owned by the royal family. The food product was banned around 2008, while Charles was the Prince of Wales. PETA have more recently confirmed the King has issued a blanket ban on the product which was described as “torture in a tin”. The foie gras ban extends to Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor Castle, Hillsborough Castle and Buckingham Palace, reports claim. "As Prince of Wales, King Charles removed foie gras – a despicable product for which ducks and geese are force-fed until their livers swell up to 10 times their natural size before the animals are slaughtered – from his royal residences," a PETA spokesperson said. The group made public a letter they received from royal officials confirming the ban. "I can confirm that foie gras is not purchased by the Royal Household nor served in Royal Residences, and there are no plans for this policy to change," the letter reads. The letter was signed by the Master of the King's Household, Tony Johnstone-Burt and dated November 10, 2022. Elisa Allen, PETA's vice president, said she hoped Charles' move would encourage other people to ditch foie gras from their diet. There is a ban on the production of foie gras in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. However, it can be imported and sold within those countries. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

James Corden has been called out by renowned restaurateur Keith McNally for his “abusive” behaviour in a well-known New York restaurant. The talk show host was reportedly “extremely nasty” to staff, with McNally calling Corden a “tiny cretin of a man” over his actions. In a lengthy Instagram post, McNally recounted instances of Corden behaving inappropriately at his former restaurant, Cafe Luxembourg, on several occasions which left one server “shaken”. He started by calling Corden a “hugely gifted comedian”, before ripping into the Tony winner for his unacceptable restaurant behaviours. He said, “James Corden is a Hugely gifted comedian, but a tiny Cretin of a man. And the most abusive customer to my Balthazar servers since the restaurant opened 25 years ago." "I don't often 86 a customer, to today I 86'd Corden. It did not make me laugh.” In two manager's reports, McNally shared that Corden had demanded free drinks, threatened to leave bad reviews, verbally abused staff and berated restaurant chefs. Corden, a big-time foodie, has not yet responded to the allegations. McNally’s post racked up over 18,000 likes in just six hours, as the comment section was flooded with people condemning Corden’s alleged behaviour. One person said, “One can tell the true character of a person based on how they treat their server.” Another commented, “I’m always astounded (and impressed) by the lengths you and your staff go to appease, what I deem to be, extremely high maintenance (and sometimes unreasonable) clientele.” “I’ve often wondered if there’s a limit to that tolerance and appeasement. I’m really glad to see that there is. No staff should be treated like this, no matter how fine an establishment.” Another called out McNally’s allegations, saying, “Come on Keith, you know this isn’t true. James Corden is NOT a ‘hugely gifted’ comedian.” Image credits: Getty Images

Food & Wine

5 actors who are banned from China

China carefully decides which American movies make their way into Chinese mainstream media. While the Chinese Government is more open to American movies now, there are still a few Hollywood stars who have gotten on the government’s bad side. 1. Brad Pitt Brad Pitt featured in the 1997 film Seven Years in Tibet as the 14th Dalai Lama’s tutor. Due to how the film portrayed the Chinese occupation of Tibet, officials took offense to the movie and decided they would bar the main people involved in the film from China. Pitt was banned from the country for 19 years and was only allowed back in 2016. 2. Richard Gere During the 1993 Academy Awards, Richard Gere made an impromptu speech about the human rights abuses that China had inflicted on Tibet. Gere was presenting the award for best art direction but skipped the pre-arranged comments to highlight the issue in Tibet. The Academy Award producers were furious and vowed to ban Gere from any future awards shows. Chinese officials also banned him from the country. Many major studios won’t cast Gere anymore as they want Chinese distribution to increase their profit. Gere has now focused his career on appearing in independent films and has received great reviews for his performances. 3. Sharon Stone In 2008, Sharon Stone commented on the Sichuan Earthquake at the Cannes Film Festival. Stone said she believed the disaster, which killed 90,000 people, was the result of a bad karma built up by the Chinese for oppressing the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government responded to her remarks by banning all her movies from China. It appears as if she didn’t receive an actual ban herself to enter but it’s most likely she wouldn’t be warmly welcomed. 4. Harrison Ford Harrison Ford has been a long-time advocate for human rights and in 1992 he was involved in Tibetan issues. His wife at the time, Melissa Matheson, worked with Martin Scorsese on the script for film Kundun which focused on the story of the 14th Dalai Lama. Ford had the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama and he became an advocate for Tibet. In 1995, Ford testified before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the need for Tibetan independence and highlighted all of China’s human rights abuses. Ford and Matheson were banned from the country but he still continues to advocate for Tibet. 5. Miley Cyrus The Disney star turned controversial popstar offended the Chinese government when she took a photo of herself imitating Asians by pulling back the skin around her eyes. The Organisation for Chinese Americans had strong words about the photo and the Chinese Foreign Minister said, “Miss Cyrus has made it clear she is no friend of China or anyone of East Asian descent. We have no interest in further polluting our children's minds with her American ignorance." Cyrus apologised and blamed the press for taking things out of context and attacking her and then later apologised again after her first one was criticised for not being genuine. The ban still remains in place. Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

Three controversial countries have been banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral. A senior British government source confirmed to CNN that dignitaries from Russia, Belarus and Myanmar would be excluded from Her Majesty's funeral, although a final guest list has not been released. In the case of Russia and Belarus, the source said they have been banned due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which Belarus has supported. The source also claimed that Myanmar's exclusion is because of the treatment of the Rohingya people. The Palace tradition is to send invitations to state funerals on the advice of the government, after members of the civil and diplomatic services have considered the political implications of inviting certain leaders. Palace protocol also stipulates that the guest list of family events is not released until the day, and has not yet commented on the invitees. Typically, every country that the United Kingdom has normal diplomatic relations with would be invited to a state funeral, such as the one which will be held for the late monarch in London on September 19th. Such nations are usually represented by their political leader, head of state, a senior member of the government or their ambassador to the United Kingdom. A second UK government source also told CNN that up to 500 foreign dignitaries are expected to attend the funeral. The UK has been one of the strongest opponents to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, by enforcing sanctions on Russia and sending aid to Ukraine. As for Myanmar, the UK placed sanctions on military officials and businesses over what it has described as the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim group in the country's majority Buddhist state which has suffered decades of persecution. Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

Facebook messages lead to abortion charges for mother and daughter

Social media users have been warned that Facebook messaging isn’t as private as we think it is, with users being urged to even delete their Facebook accounts after private messages between two women were handed over to police and led to them being charged. Jessica Burgess was charged after allegedly obtaining and giving abortion pills to her daughter Celeste earlier this year. The then-17-year-old was 23 weeks pregnant when she and her mum discussed using medication to induce an abortion and burn the foetus afterwards. The pair were initially charged with the felony of removing or concealing a body, as well as concealing the death of another person and false reporting. But, after receiving a tip from a woman who said she was a friend of Celeste’s and saw her take an abortion pill, detective Ben McBride then applied for a warrant to seize laptops and phones from the pair, and compelled Facebook to turn over messages they sent on the platform. As a result of reviewing the messages, Jessica was also charged with performing or attempting an abortion at more than 20 weeks of pregnancy - which is illegal under a Nebraska law enacted after Roe v. Wade was overturned - and performing an abortion as a non-licenced physician. When they were first interviewed, Jessica and Celeste told investigators the baby was born unexpectedly as a stillborn in the shower, before taking the foetus and burying it several miles out of town. However, court documents said the body showed signs of “thermal wounds”, and that the daughter confirmed that she and her mother burned the foetus in an exchange where she wrote that they would “burn the evidence afterward”. The two women pleaded not guilty to the charges at a hearing last week, where the prosecutor said it was the first time he has charged anyone for illegally performing an abortion after 20 weeks. Before the controversial overturning of Roe v. Wade, states weren’t allowed to enforce abortion bans before the point where the foetus is considered viable outside the womb, which is roughly 24 weeks. In one of the messages, Jessica tells her daughter she has obtained the medication and instructs her on how to use them. According to court documents written by a detective, Celeste “talks about how she can’t wait to get the ‘thing’ out of her body”. “I will finally be able to wear jeans,” one message read. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said the warrants from investigators hadn’t mentioned abortion, but the case has raised concerns about how data companies collect could help prosecutors enforce abortion restrictions. #DeleteFacebook has since been trending online, with many sharing their fury and urging women to delete their accounts. “Every woman should delete Facebook right now,” 19-year-old activist Olivia Julianna wrote. Journalist Emily Crockett <a href="https://twitter.com/emilycrockett/status/1557093270299328515" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that the case occurred before Roe was overturned, arguing it was “just a preview of what’s to come”. “If you don’t #DeleteFacebook, at least make sure you never talk about anything over Facebook Messenger that you wouldn’t want turned over to the police,” she added. Image: Getty Images

Technology

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

A pregnant US woman has argued her unborn baby should count as a second passenger in her car in the wake of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roe v Wade being overturned</a>, after she was fined for driving in a lane that requires at least two people in the car. Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, was pulled over on June 29 after driving in a high-occupancy (HOV) lane by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department looking for drivers violating HOV lane rules, as reported by <a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-cited-for-hov-violation-says-her-unborn-baby-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC-Dallas Fort Worth</a>. HOV lanes, also known as carpool and T2 lanes, require drivers to have at least one passenger in their car when they use the lane. When an officer told Bottone about the rule and asked whether she had any passengers with her, she said she did. “I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person’,” the 32-year-old told <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dallas Morning News</a>. The officer argued that the rule applies to “two people outside the body”, to which Bottone responded that, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, her unborn child is considered as a living person. “And then I said, ‘Well [I’m] not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on, this counts as a baby’,” Bottone recounted. She said the officer told her he didn’t “want to deal with this”, insisting the law for HOV lanes required “two persons outside of the body” to be in the vehicle. While the penal code in Texas recognises a foetus as a person, there appears to be no language in the state Transportation Department’s code that recognises a foetus in the same way. Though deputies told Bottone that her case would likely be dismissed if she fought it, she still plans to fight the $215 ticket, arguing that her in-utero baby should count as another occupant. “This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” she told The Morning News. “I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.” Image: NBC DFW

Legal

Instagram and Facebook have been hiding abortion posts

In the wake of the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and placing the right to accessing an abortion in jeopardy, Instagram has been hiding posts that mention abortion from public view and, in some cases, asking viewers to verify their age in some cases to make posts visible. Several Instagram accounts run by abortion rights advocacy groups have found their posts and stories hidden with warnings that describe them as “sensitive content”. Bleu Grano, who runs the account Fund Aborition Not Police, found that a post containing a guide to abortion services - including how to obtain abortion pills through the mail - had been removed for violating the platform’s community guidelines on the “sale of illegal or regulated goods”. “I got really stressed that they were going to suspend the account,” Grano told <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/meta-abortion-content-restriction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wired</a>. “I started to think it was specific to abortion, and stopped using the word ‘pills’ and only said ‘abortion by mail’.” <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/07/instagram-abortion-snip.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /> A educaitonal post Bleu Grano, who runs the account Fund Abortion Not Police, shared on Instagram was removed for violating certain policies amid growing crackdowns on posts mentioning abortion. Image: Bleu Grano <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gav3/facebook-is-banning-people-who-say-they-will-mail-abortion-pills" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Motherboard</a> also found that posts like Grano’s were being restricted by Meta (which owns both Facebook and Instagram) for violating policies that restrict the sale of illegal or controlled substances on the platforms. On June 27, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/instagram-restricts-abortion-resource-posts-hashtags-rcna35522" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC</a> reported that Meta was restricting search results for the terms “abortion” and “mifepristine”, one of two drugs commonly used to induce a medical aboriton. These reports have led to speculation that the company had changed its policies since the Supreme Court decision - though Meta has denied making any changes. However, pro-choice advocates have said this censorship isn’t new, telling Wired that the company’s AI moderation system has been seen tagging abortion content, oftentimes about abortion pills, as “sensitive”, decreasing its visibility, or removing the content altogether. “We have been seeing social media platforms, specifically Meta, suppressing abortion content for quite a while now,” Jessica Ensley, the digital outreach and opposition research director at Reproaction, a nonprofit that supports access to abortion, told the outlet. A volunteer moderator for a large Facebook group for American women seeking abortion information and support said recent content removals were “totally precedented”, with posts about abortion pills being removed by Facebook for years. “What’s wild is that you don’t know where the line is,” she said. “Every single post has to be seen by a moderator, because we don’t want people posting requests for pills, to request or to send pills, because that will get the entire group taken down.” In comparison, a similar group she moderates on Reddit also has rules about not selling or buying rules on the platform. But, sharing content and links discussing the pills aren’t removed by the platform or put the group at risk of being shut down. <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/07/Meta-Censoring-Abortion-Content-Abortion-Finder-Business.jpg" alt="" width="794" height="987" /> Posts containing information about accessing abortion, like this one shared on Power To Decide’s Abortion Finder page, are being labelled as ‘sensitive content’ by the platform. Images: Power To Decide Though censoring this kind of content doesn’t seem to be a new issue, the platforms have only come under scrutiny for hiding this content but not others in the weeks since the Supreme Court decision. The <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/world/roe-v-wade-update-instagram-hides-some-posts-that-mention-abortion/1ce6239e-1337-4669-bc35-3a85c5cc1811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a> recently identified nearly a dozen posts mentioning the word “abortion” which were covered up by Instagram, while an earlier report found that both platforms were deleting posts that offered to mail out abotion pills in states where their use was restricted. The platforms said the posts were being deleted because they violated policies relating to the sale or gifting of certain products, including pharmaceuticals, drugs, and firearms. But, the AP reported finding that similar posts offering to send guns or marijuan through the mail weren’t removed by Facebook, which is yet to respond to questions about the discrepancy. Images: Supplied

Technology

After Roe v Wade, here’s how women could adopt ‘spycraft’ to avoid tracking and prosecution

The art of concealing or misrepresenting one’s identity in the physical world has long been practised by spies engaged in espionage. In response, intelligence agencies designed techniques and technologies to identify people attempting to hide behind aliases. Now, following the US Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v Wade, women in the United States seeking assistance with unwanted pregnancies have joined the ranks of spies. The ruling has resulted in several trigger laws coming into effect in conservative states to outlaw abortions in those states. These laws, coupled with groups targeting women’s reproductive rights protests, have raised fear among women of all ages about their data being used against them. Thousands have engaged with online posts calling on women to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/28/why-us-woman-are-deleting-their-period-tracking-apps" target="_blank" rel="noopener">delete their period tracking apps</a>, on the premise that data fed to these apps could be used to prosecute them in states where abortion is illegal. At the same time, abortion clinics in New Mexico (where abortion remains legal) are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-shields-abortion-providers-ahead-expected-patient-surge-2022-06-27/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> bracing for an influx of women from US states. As someone who has served as a special agent for the United States Army and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as a Senior Intelligence Officer with the US Defense Intelligence Agency, I can tell you deleting period tracking apps may not be enough for vulnerable women now. But there are some tools women can use to conceal their identities, should this be necessary – the same tools once reserved for professional spies. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Menstrual tracking app Stardust is one of Apple’s top three most-downloaded free apps right now. It’s also one of few apps that has said it will voluntarily—without being legally required to—comply with law enforcement if it’s asked to share user data. <a href="https://t.co/sJ17VAiLvp">https://t.co/sJ17VAiLvp</a> — Motherboard (@motherboard) <a href="https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1541456351414583297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2022</a></blockquote> The privacy myth Apart from espionage, the emergence of the internet created a new impetus for widespread data collection by data aggregators and marketers. The modern surveillance economy grew out of a desire to target products and services to us as effectively as possible. Today, massive swathes of personal information are extracted from users, 24/7 – making it increasingly difficult to remain unmasked. Data aggregation is used to assess our purchasing habits, track our movements, find our favourite locations and obtain detailed demographic information about us, our families, our co-workers and friends. Recent events have demonstrated how tenuous our privacy is. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20926585/hong-kong-china-protest-mask-umbrella-anonymous-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Protests in Hong Kong</a> have seen Chinese authorities use cameras to identify and arrest protesters, while police in the US deployed various technologies to identify <a href="https://theconversation.com/police-surveillance-of-black-lives-matter-shows-the-danger-technology-poses-to-democracy-142194" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Black Lives Matter</a> protesters. Articles appeared in Australian <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/06/29/protests-police-government-surveillance-how-to-avoid/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">media outlets</a> with advice on how to avoid being surveilled. And people were directed to websites, such as the <a href="https://www.eff.org/wp/behind-the-one-way-mirror" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>, dedicated to informing readers about how to avoid surveillance and personal data collection. What we’ve learned from both spy history and more recent events is that data collection is not always overt and obvious; it’s often unseen and opaque. Surveillance may come in the form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/surveillance-cameras-will-soon-be-unrecognisable-time-for-an-urgent-public-conversation-118931" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cameras</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-hide-from-a-drone-the-subtle-art-of-ghosting-in-the-age-of-surveillance-143078" target="_blank" rel="noopener">drones</a>, automated number plate readers (<a href="https://theconversation.com/number-plate-recognition-the-technology-behind-the-rhetoric-17572" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ANPR/ALPR</a>), <a href="https://www.q-free.com/reference/australia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">toll payment devices</a>, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/publication/acoustic-surveillance-devices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">acoustic collectors</a> and of course any internet-connected <a href="https://theconversation.com/smartphone-data-tracking-is-more-than-creepy-heres-why-you-should-be-worried-91110" target="_blank" rel="noopener">device</a>. In some cases when your fellow protesters upload images or videos, crowd-sourced intelligence becomes your enemy. Data deleted, not destroyed Recently, a lot of the focus has been on phones and apps. But deleting mobile apps will not prevent the identification of an individual, nor will turning off location services. Law enforcement and even commercial companies have the ability to access or track certain metrics including: <ul> <li>international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), which is related to a user’s mobile number and connected to their SIM card</li> <li>international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), which is directly related to their device itself.</li> </ul> Ad servers may also exploit device locations. Private companies can create advertisements targeting devices that are specific to a location, such as a women’s health clinic. And such “geofenced” ad servers can identify a user’s location regardless of whether their location settings are disabled. Further, anonymised phone track data (like call signals pinging off nearby towers) can be purchased from telecommunications providers and de-anonymised. Law enforcement can use this data to trace paths from, say, a fertility clinic to a person’s home or “bed down” location (the spy term for someone’s residence). The bottom line is your phone is a marker for you. A temporary cell phone with an overseas SIM card has been the choice for some people wishing to avoid such tracking. Adding to that, we recently saw headlines about <a href="https://theconversation.com/bunnings-kmart-and-the-good-guys-say-they-use-facial-recognition-for-loss-prevention-an-expert-explains-what-it-might-mean-for-you-185126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">facial recognition technology</a> being used in Australian retail stores – and America is no different. For anyone trying to evade detection, it’s better to swap bank cards for cash, stored-value cards or gift cards when making purchases. And using public transport paid with cash or a ride-share service provides better anonymity than using a personal vehicle, or even a rental. In the spy world, paying attention to one’s dress is critical. Spies change up their appearance, using what they call “polish”, with the help of reversible clothing, hats, different styles of glasses, scarves and even masks (which are ideally not conspicuous these days). In extreme cases, they may even use “appliances” to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cias-former-chief-of-disguise-drops-her-mask-11576168327" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alter their facial characteristics</a>. Then again, while these measures help in the physical world, they do little to stop online detection. Digital stealth Online, the use of a virtual private network (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-virtual-private-network-vpn-12741" target="_blank" rel="noopener">VPN</a>) and/or the onion browser, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-dark-web-46070" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tor</a>, will help improve anonymity, including from internet service providers. Online you can create and use multiple personas, each with a different email address and “personal data” linked to it. Aliases can be further coupled with software that removes cookies and browser history, which will help conceal one’s online identity. One example is <a href="https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CCleaner</a>. This program removes privacy-violating cookies and internet history from your device, while improving your device’s privacy. There are also plenty of online applications that allow the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-be-phish-food-tips-to-avoid-sharing-your-personal-information-online-138613" target="_blank" rel="noopener">temporary email addresses</a> and phone numbers, and even temporary accommodation addresses for package deliveries. To some, these may seem like extreme privacy measures. However, given the widespread collection of identity data by commercial companies and governments – and the resultant collaboration between the two – there’s reason to be concerned for anyone wanting to fly under the radar. And for women seeking abortions in the US, these measures may be necessary to avoid prosecution. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Not to be that guy but it seems like it really should be bigger news that the national guard is now helping crack down on abortion protests <a href="https://t.co/DGh83in0Cm">https://t.co/DGh83in0Cm</a> — Read Wobblies and Zapatistas (@JoshuaPotash) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1541527897273409536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dennis-b-desmond-1252874" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dennis B Desmond</a>, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-roe-v-wade-heres-how-women-could-adopt-spycraft-to-avoid-tracking-and-prosecution-186046" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

Bette Midler has responded to the US Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v Wade in an equally hilarious and furious reaction. The 76-year-old actress took aim at the justices whose decision allowed individual states to decide whether to make abortion illegal. In a fiery post to social media, she said, "Time to ban Viagra. Because if pregnancy is 'God's will', then so is your limp d**k." The post racked up nearly 250,000 likes amid the huge wave of opposition to the controversial SCOTUS ruling. Midler has been vocal with her criticism of the decision since last week, calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "a**hole" and branding Justice Samuel Alito a "villain". In her first reaction to the news, she wrote, "They did it. THEY DID IT TO US! #SCOTUS has overturned #RoevWade, enshrined in the Constitution as settled law for over 50 years." "How dare they? This #SCOTUS is absolutely tone-deaf to the will and even the actual needs of the American people. #WakeUpAmerica." Bette Midler is far from the only celebrity to weigh in on the devastating decision. Many <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high-profile women</a>, including former First Lady Michelle Obama, have made moving and poignant statements about the controversial ruling which have garnered international attention. In a post on Instagram, Michelle Obama said, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions." "That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again." Image credits: Getty Images

Body

"Heartbroken": High-profile women react to landmark Roe v Wade decision

When the US Supreme Court made the landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday June 24, women across America and all around the world took to social media to express their anger, disgust, sadness and outrage. A range of celebrities and high-profile women spoke out over the decision, as they grieved the loss of fundamental women's right and bodily autonomy in the eyes of the law. Roe v. Wade was implemented to grant women in the US the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of their reasoning. The landmark abortion ruling, which has been in place since 1973, was officially overturned last week, meaning individual states in America now have the right to ban women from seeking legal abortions – which several states have now already done. Australian model Robyn Lawley made a statement on her Instagram as she wrote on her torso, "My body my choice". The model shared her disgust for the ruling, while also empathising with women living the US of the challenges they are about to face. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfOyiHmO1ud/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfOyiHmO1ud/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Robyn Lawley (@robynlawley)</a> </div> </blockquote> Former First Lady Michelle Obama posted an emotional statement online, which has been shared millions of times by men and women alike who are in disarray over the ruling. In the statement she wrote, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions." "That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again." <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMSJTKu_XY/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMSJTKu_XY/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Michelle Obama (@michelleobama)</a> </div> </blockquote> Pop star Taylor Swift was one of the many who reposted Obama's message, adding, "I'm absolutely terrified that this is where we are – that after so many decades of people fighting for women's rights to their own bodies, today's decision has stripped us of that." Kim Kardashian echoed the thoughts of many as she shared that "In America, guns have more rights than women," as the overturning of Roe v. Wade has somehow taken priority over tighter gun restrictions, despite there being over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">250 mass shootings in 2022</a> so far. Hillary Clinton also chimed in on the decision, saying overturning Roe v. Wade is "a step backward". "Most Americans believe the decision to have a child is one of the most sacred decisions there is, and that such decisions should remain between patients and their doctors," Clinton said. "Today's Supreme Court opinion will live in infamy as a step backward for women's rights and human rights." Everyday women across America shared their fear over the ruling, with many encouraging others to delete their period tracking apps, to have real conversations with their partners about their intimacy, and to start savings accounts to travel out of their state for an abortion if needed. As protestors took to the steps of the Supreme Court to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade, online spaces were dominated with anger, as "my body, my choice" began trending on Twitter and became the battle cry for the women of the United States and around the world. Image credits: Getty Images

Body

Queen’s private jet forced to abort landing

A plane carrying Queen Elizabeth II was forced to abandon its initial landing due to severe weather conditions. The pilot was due to land at RAF Northolt, about 20km from Windsor Castle, after leaving Aberdeen but was unable to because of a severe electrical storm, rain and hail. The plane remained in the air for an extra 15 minutes before the pilot successfully pulled off a second attempt at landing. The 96-year-old monarch was then taken to Windsor Castle to prepare for the Platinum Jubilee celebrations that will run until June 5. Revellers have already begun camping outside the castle hoping to get a glimpse of the royals during the exciting days ahead. The Platinum Jubilee will kick off with Trooping the Colour Parade on Thursday. It remains unclear how many events the Queen will attend due to her mobility issues, with the Palace no longer announcing whether she will attend an event in person until the day. Instead, it is assumed that her son Prince Charles, 73, will take her place as he has been doing for quite some time. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

US Senate to vote on abortion rights bill – but what would it mean to codify Roe into law?

The U.S. Senate is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097980529/senate-to-vote-on-a-bill-that-codifies-abortion-protections-but-it-will-likely-f">expected to vote on May 11, 2022</a>, on a bill that would enshrine the right to an abortion into law. The Democrats’ bill, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, isn’t expected to pass – a previous attempt was blocked by the Senate. But it reflects attempts by abortion rights advocates to find alternative ways to protect a woman’s right to the procedure following the publication of a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">leaked draft opinion</a> from Justice Samuel Alito indicating that a majority on the Supreme Court intend to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is enshrining abortion rights via legislation feasible? And why has it not been done before? The Conversation put these questions and others to <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/profile/linda-c-mcclain/">Linda C. McClain</a>, an expert on civil rights law and feminist legal theory at Boston University School of Law. What does it mean to ‘codify’ Roe v. Wade? In simple terms, to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/codify#:%7E:text=To%20codify%20means%20to%20arrange,by%20subject%2C%20into%20a%20code.">codify something</a> means to enshrine a right or a rule into a formal systematic code. It could be done through an act of Congress in the form of a federal law. Similarly, state legislatures can codify rights by enacting laws. To codify Roe for all Americans, Congress would need to pass a law that would provide the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/us/what-is-roe-v-wade.html">same protections that Roe</a> did – so a law that states that women have a right to abortion without excessive government restrictions. It would be binding for all states. But here’s the twist: Despite some politicians saying that they want to “codify Roe,” Congress isn’t looking to enshrine Roe in law. That’s because <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18">Roe v. Wade</a> hasn’t been in place since 1992. The Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744">Planned Parenthood. v. Casey</a> ruling affirmed it, but also modified it in significant ways. In Casey, the court upheld Roe’s holding that a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of fetal viability and that states could restrict abortion after that point, subject to exceptions to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. But the Casey court concluded that Roe too severely limited state regulation prior to fetal viability and held that states could impose restrictions on abortion throughout pregnancy to protect potential life as well as to protect maternal health – including during the first trimester. Casey also introduced the “<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WWH-Undue-Burden-Report-07262018-Edit.pdf">undue burden” test</a>, which prevented states from imposing restrictions that had the purpose or effect of placing unnecessary barriers on women seeking to end a pregnancy prior to viability of the fetus. What is the Women’s Health Protection Act? Current efforts to pass federal legislation protecting the right to abortion center on the proposed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, introduced in Congress by Rep. Judy Chu and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal in 2021. It was passed in the House, but was <a href="https://time.com/6152473/abortion-roe-v-wade-democrats/">blocked in the Senate</a>. Democrats put the bill forward for a procedural vote again after Alito’s draft opinion was made public. Supporters of the bill are still expected to fall short of the votes they need. Rather, the vote is being used, in the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097820801/senate-democrats-plan-a-vote-on-abortion-rights-but-its-unlikely-to-pass">words of Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar</a>, “to show where everyone stands” on the issue. The legislation would build on the undue burden principle in Casey by seeking to prevent states from imposing unfair restrictions on abortion providers, such as insisting a <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbnqw4/abortion-clinics-are-closing-because-their-doorways-arent-big-enough">clinic’s doorway is wide enough</a> for surgical gurneys to pass through, or that <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers">abortion practitioners need to have admitting privileges</a> at nearby hospitals. The Women’s Health Protection Act uses the language of the Casey ruling in saying that these so-called TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws place an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion. It also appeals to Casey’s recognition that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Has the right to abortion ever been guaranteed by federal legislation? You have to remember that Roe was very controversial from the outset. At the time of the ruling in 1973, most states had restrictive abortion laws. Up to the late 1960s, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/28/archives/gallup-poll-finds-public-divided-on-abortions-in-first-3-months.html">majority of Americans opposed abortion</a>. A poll at the time of Roe found the public evenly split over legalization. To pass legislation you have to go through the democratic process. But if the democratic process is hostile to what you are hoping to push through, you are going to run into difficulties. Under the U.S. system, certain liberties are seen as so fundamental that protecting them should not be left to the whims of changing democratic majorities. Consider something like interracial marriage. Before the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395">Loving v. Virginia State</a> that banning interracial marriages was unconstitutional, a number of states still banned such unions. Why couldn’t they pass a law in Congress protecting the right to marry? It would have been difficult because at the time, the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx">majority of people were against</a> the idea of interracial marriage. When you don’t have sufficient public support for something – particularly if it is unpopular or affects a non-majority group – appealing to the Constitution seems to be the better way to protect a right. That doesn’t mean you can’t also protect that right through a statute, just that it is harder. Also, there is no guarantee that legislation passed by any one Congress isn’t then repealed by lawmakers later on. So generally, rights have more enduring protection if the Supreme Court rules on them? The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx">Supreme Court has the final word</a> on what is and isn’t protected by the Constitution. In the past, it has been seen as sufficient to protect a constitutional right to get a ruling from the justices recognizing that right. But this leaked opinion also points out that one limit of that protection is that the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents. Historically, it is unusual for the Supreme Court to take a right away. Yes, they said the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537">Plessy v. Ferguson ruling</a> – which set up the legal basis for separate-but-equal – was wrong, and overruled it in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483">Brown v. Board of Education</a>. But Brown recognized rights; it didn’t take rights away. If Alito’s draft ruling is to be the final word, the Supreme Court will be taking away a right that has been in place since 1973. For what I believe is the first time since the end of the Lochner era, the Supreme Court would be overriding precedent to take away a constitutional right from Americans. While Justice Alito notes that, in 1937, the Court overruled “an entire line” of cases protecting “an individual liberty right against federal health and welfare legislation,” that “right” to economic liberty and freedom of contract was as much one of businesses as much as for individuals. The Court has not overruled of the long line of cases (in which Roe and Casey fit) protecting “liberty” in making significant decisions about intimacy, sexuality, family, marriage, and reproduction. Moreover, the leaked opinion is dismissive of the idea that women have to rely on constitutional protection. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504">Alito writes</a>, adding: “The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.” But this ignores the fact that women <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roe-v-wade-overturned-supreme-court-abortion-draft-alitos-legal-analys-rcna27205">rarely make up close to half</a> of the members of most state legislative bodies. So are the promises to get Congress to protect abortion rights realistic? Republicans in the Senate successfully blocked the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act. And unless things change dramatically in Congress, there isn’t much chance of the bill becoming law. There has been talk of trying to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-abortion-move-sparks-calls-ending-senates-filibuster-2022-05-04/">end the filibuster rule</a>, which requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. But even then, the 50 votes that would be needed might not be there. What we don’t know is how this Supreme Court leak will affect the calculus. Maybe some Republican senators will see that the writing is on the wall and vote with Democrats. Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski <a href="https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-and-murkowski-introduce-bill-to-codify-supreme-court-decisions-on-reproductive-rights_roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey">introduced legislation</a> earlier this year that would codify Roe in law, but isn’t as expansive as the Women’s Health Protection Act. Senator Collins has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/">recently indicated</a> that she will not support the Act out of concern for religious liberty of anti-abortion health providers. And then we have the midterm elections in November, which might shake up who’s in Congress. If the Democrats lose the House or fail to pick up seats in the Senate, the chances of pushing through any legislation protecting abortion rights would appear very slim. Democrats will be hoping that the Supreme Court ruling will mobilize pro-abortion rights voters. What is going on at a state level? Liberal states like Massachusetts have <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/policy/2020/12/29/massachusetts-senate-override-abortion-access/">passed laws that codify Roe v. Wade</a>. Now that the Supreme Court’s apparent intentions are known, expect similar moves elsewhere. Massachusetts and other states are looking to go a step further by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/01/1095813226/connecticut-abortion-bill-roe-v-wade">protecting residents who help out-of-state women</a> seeking abortion. Such laws would seemingly counter moves by states like Missouri, which is seeking to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-11/editorial-missouri-might-make-it-illegal-to-help-a-woman-get-an-abortion-elsewhere-thats-ridiculous">push through legislation that would criminalize helping women</a> who go out of state for abortions. Wouldn’t any federal law just be challenged at the Supreme Court? Should Congress be able to pass a law enshrining the right to abortion for all Americans, then surely some conservative states will seek to overturn the law, saying that the federal government is exceeding its authority. If it were to go up to the Supreme Court, then conservative justices would presumably look unfavorably on any attempt to limit individual states’ rights when it comes to abortion. Similarly, any attempt to put in place a federal law that would restrict abortion for all would seemingly conflict with the Supreme Court’s position that it should be left to the states to decide. This is an updated version of an article <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-and-is-there-any-chance-of-that-happening-182406">originally published on May 5, 2022</a>.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182908/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linda-c-mcclain-1343287">Linda C. McClain</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-senate-to-vote-on-abortion-rights-bill-but-what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-182908">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Wordle changes answer amid abortion rights debate

The New York Times has swiftly changed the answer to its daily Wordle puzzle out of fear it would be interpreted politically amid the debate on abortion rights in the US. The wildly-popular browser-based game, which was bought by the masthead in January, gives users six attempts to guess a five letter word each day which is chosen in advance and at random by a computer program. On Monday, the Times scrambled to change Monday’s word which was “fetus”, using the American spelling. The word could have been seen as a controversial choice given the <a href="https://oversixty.co.nz/finance/legal/america-s-roe-v-wade-abortion-law-could-be-overturned" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent leaked report</a> of a draft decision from the Supreme Court to overturn two laws that grant women the right to access abortions. In a message to readers on the same day, the newspaper said the word choice was “entirely unintentional and a coincidence”. “At New York Times Games, we take our role seriously as a place to entertain and escape, and we want Wordle to remain distinct from the news,” the message said. Monday’s word was changed and a spokesman said a “vast majority” of users saw that, save some who hadn’t refreshed their page and saw “fetus” instead. Many New Zealand users reported seeing “fetus”, according to the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/wordle-answer-changed-to-avoid-fraught-word-ny-times-says/2ZONMXP5ZTIXJGVZR2YMJWHZPI/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ Herald</a>. However, Cohen wouldn’t say whether the Times received any complaints about the word choice. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

5 actors who are banned from China

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

Facebook messages lead to abortion charges for mother and daughter

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

Instagram and Facebook have been hiding abortion posts

After Roe v Wade, here’s how women could adopt ‘spycraft’ to avoid tracking and prosecution

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

"Heartbroken": High-profile women react to landmark Roe v Wade decision

Queen’s private jet forced to abort landing

US Senate to vote on abortion rights bill – but what would it mean to codify Roe into law?

Wordle changes answer amid abortion rights debate

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

5 actors who are banned from China

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

Facebook messages lead to abortion charges for mother and daughter

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

Instagram and Facebook have been hiding abortion posts

After Roe v Wade, here’s how women could adopt ‘spycraft’ to avoid tracking and prosecution

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

"Heartbroken": High-profile women react to landmark Roe v Wade decision

Queen’s private jet forced to abort landing

US Senate to vote on abortion rights bill – but what would it mean to codify Roe into law?

Wordle changes answer amid abortion rights debate

Join Over60