Tag Archives: NRLPA:OCIV

White nationalists accused of planning riot are bailed out of Idaho jail

June 13 (Reuters) – Thirty-one members of white nationalist group Patriot Front, arrested in Idaho over the weekend on suspicion of plotting to violently disrupt an LGBTQ pride event, were released from jail on bond and will make their initial court appearances in the coming weeks, a court official said on Monday.

The men, arrested on Saturday after the U-Haul rental truck they were riding in was pulled over, face misdemeanor charges of conspiracy to riot, according to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Police Chief Lee White.

A local resident called authorities after spotting the group of men, all dressed alike with white gaiter-style masks and carrying shields, loading themselves into the truck “like a little army,” White said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Police stopped the truck about 10 minutes after the call, a short distance from the “Pride in the Park” event, he said.

Karlene Behringer, the trial court administrator in Kootenai County, confirmed that the men bonded out of jail and will appear in court at a later date.

During a news conference on Monday, White said authorities had no prior knowledge of the group’s plans in Coeur d’Alene, an Idaho Panhandle city about 380 miles (612 km) north of the capital, Boise.

“One lesson we have for our community … is one concerned citizen can prevent something horrible from happening,” White said.

Video taken at the scene of the arrest and posted online showed a group of men in police custody, kneeling next to the truck with their hands bound, wearing similar khaki pants, blue shirts, white masks and baseball caps.

Police officers seized from the truck at least one smoke grenade, a collection of shields and shin guards and documents that included an “operations plan,” White said over the weekend, adding these items made their intentions clear.

“That level of preparation was not something you see everyday,” he said. “It was clear to us immediately that this was a riotous group.”

The men had come from at least 11 states across the country, White said, including Texas, Colorado and Virginia.

Since the arrest, White said, he and others in his department have received death threats. He gave no details.

The Patriot Front formed in the aftermath of the 2017 white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, when it broke off from another extremist group, Vanguard America, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.

Saturday’s pride event, described by organizers as the largest ever in North Idaho, drew a crowd of several hundred people for festivities that included a talent show and drag queen dance hour, local media reported.

“We are in the same city that we were last week,” Coeur d’Alene Mayor Jim Hammond said on Monday. “We are a city that respects everyone, that welcomes everyone.”

KREM-TV in Spokane reported several smaller groups turned out to protest the gathering, with dozens of individuals seen carrying guns on the fringe of the park in what organizers said was an attempt to intimidate those attending the LGBTQ event.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Daniel Wallis, Chris Reese, Nick Zieminski, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Oklahoma governor signs into law strictest abortion ban in the U.S.

May 25 (Reuters) – Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on Wednesday signed into law the strictest abortion ban in the United States, one that prohibits abortions from fertilization and allows private citizens to sue those who help women terminate their pregnancies.

“I promised Oklahomans that as governor I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk and I am proud to keep that promise today,” Stitt said in a statement.

The Republican-backed legislation, which takes effect immediately, makes exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, rape or incest.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Oklahoma is among the country’s Republican-led states rushing to pass anti-abortion laws this year, anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established the constitutional right to abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a global advocacy group based in New York, said it would “imminently file a challenge to the ban and seek to block it in court.”

“Oklahoma is now the only state in the United States to successfully outlaw abortion while Roe v. Wade still stands,” the center said in a statement.

A draft Supreme Court opinion leaked on May 2 showed the court’s conservative majority intends to overhaul federal abortion rights and send the issue of legalization back to individual states.

Oklahoma’s four abortion clinics have already stopped providing abortion services in anticipation of the ban.

Earlier this month, Oklahoma enacted another bill that banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, as opposed to fertilization. Like the latest measure, it relies on civil lawsuits for enforcement.

The enforcement provision in both bills was modeled after Texas legislation that took effect in September and stopped clinics from performing nearly all abortions in that state.

Before the passage of the Oklahoma laws, it had become a destination for Texas women seeking abortions after six weeks. The restrictions in Oklahoma have now expanded a region of the country where there is little to no legal abortion access, forcing patients to travel to states such as Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado to end their pregnancies.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Gabriella Borter and Daniel Trotta; Editing by Sandra Maler and Tom Hogue

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Oklahoma lawmakers pass near-total abortion ban

May 19 (Reuters) – Oklahoma lawmakers on Thursday gave final approval to a bill that would ban nearly all abortions and would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps women terminate a pregnancy.

The bill would take effect immediately upon being signed by Republican Governor Kevin Stitt, making it the most restrictive abortion ban in the United States.

The Republican-backed legislation bans abortion from the moment of “fertilization,” making exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, rape or incest. The bill text says it does not prohibit the use of contraception or emergency contraception.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Trust Women, which operates a clinic in Oklahoma City, called passage of the bill “gratuitous and cruel.”

“Our patients are frightened, confused about the new reality they now live in,” the clinic said in a statement.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a global advocacy group based in New York, said on Thursday it would challenge the ban in state court.

Oklahoma is among the country’s Republican-led states rushing to pass anti-abortion laws this year, anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established the constitutional right to abortion.

A draft opinion leaked earlier this month showed the court’s conservative majority intends to overhaul federal abortion rights and send the issue of legalization back to individual states.

The Republican-backed laws remain vulnerable to legal challenges pending that ruling. A federal judge on Thursday extended a block on a recently-enacted in Kentucky law that would force clinics to stop offering abortions until they can meet certain requirements. read more

Oklahoma Governor Stitt has said he will sign any anti-abortion legislation that reaches his desk.

The state already this month enacted a bill that banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, as opposed to fertilization. Like the latest measure, it relies on civil lawsuits to be enforced.

The enforcement provision in both bills was modeled after Texas legislation, which took effect in September and stopped clinics from performing nearly all abortions in that state.

Oklahoma quickly became a destination for Texas women seeking abortions after six weeks.

But the enactment of Oklahoma’s own six-week ban this month has severely limited abortion services the state’s four clinics can provide.

If signed as expected, the newest bill would expand a region of the country where there is little to no legal abortion access, forcing patients to travel to states such as Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado to end their pregnancies.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Gabriella Borter; editing by Colleen Jenkins, Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Ukraine prosecutor seeks life sentence for Russian soldier in war crimes trial

KYIV, May 19 (Reuters) – A Ukrainian state prosecutor asked a court on Thursday to sentence a Russian soldier to life in prison for killing an unarmed civilian in the first war crimes trial arising from Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion.

Vadim Shishimarin, a 21-year-old Russian tank commander, asked widow Kateryna Shelipova to forgive him for the murder of her husband, Oleksandr, in the northeast Ukrainian village of Chupakhivka on Feb. 28.

“I acknowledge my blame … I ask you to forgive me,” he told Shelipova at the hearing on Thursday attended by Reuters.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

He pleaded guilty to the murder on Wednesday. read more

Oleksandr Shelipov’s killing was one of what Ukraine and Western nations say is a far wider picture: Ukraine has accused Russia of atrocities and brutality against civilians during the invasion and said it has identified more than 10,000 possible war crimes. Russia has denied targeting civilians or involvement in war crimes.

At Thursday’s court hearing, Shishimarin cut a forlorn spectacle in a glass booth for defendants – boyish, dressed in a tracksuit and with his shaven head lowered.

The Kremlin has said it has no information about the trial and that the absence of a diplomatic mission in Ukraine limits its ability to provide assistance.

The widow told the court that on the day her husband was killed, she had heard distant shots fired from their yard and that she had called out to her husband.

“I ran over to my husband, he was already dead. Shot in the head. I screamed, I screamed so much,” she said. She looked distraught and her voice trembled with emotion.

Shelipova told the court she would not object if Shishimarin was released to Russia as part of a prisoner swap to get “our boys” out of the port city of Mariupol, a reference to hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers who have given themselves up to Russia. read more

The trial takes place as much of Ukraine is gripped by the fate of its soldiers who it hopes Russia will hand over as part of an exchange. In Russia, some senior lawmakers have called for the Azov Regiment fighters to be put on trial.

Shelipova said her husband had been unarmed and was dressed in civilian clothes. They had a 27-year-old son and two grandchildren together, she added.

Ukrainian state prosecutors have said Shishimarin fired several shots with an assault rifle at a civilian’s head from a car after being ordered to do so. read more

Asked if he had been obliged to follow an order that amounted to a war crime, Shishimarin said “no”.

“I fired a short burst, three or four bullets,” he told the court.

“I am from Irkutsk Oblast (a region in Siberia), I have two brothers and two sisters … I am the eldest,” he said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Max Hunder;
Writing by Tom Balmforth;
Editing by Alexandra Hudson, Nick Macfie and Frances Kerry

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Suspect in Buffalo supermarket massacre visited city in March, police say

BUFFALO, N.Y., May 16 (Reuters) – The 18-year-old man accused of the deadly mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, visited the city in March and the day before the rampage, police said on Monday, as public figures decried the suspect’s racist ideology and the spread of white supremacy.

The FBI said Payton Gendron, 18, who is white, committed an act of “racially motivated violent extremism” when he opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle on Saturday at the Tops Friendly Market in a predominantly African-American neighborhood of Buffalo. Eleven of the 13 people struck by gunfire were Black.

Ten of the victims – nine shoppers and a retired police officer working as a store security guard who exchanged gunfire with the assailant – were killed in the rampage, part of which the gunman live-streamed on a social media platform.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Gendron, who police said surrendered to officers confronting him inside the store after he held the gun barrel to his own chin, has been jailed without bail on a charge of first-degree murder. He pleaded not guilty.

Investigators have said they are searching through phone records, computers and online postings, as well as physical evidence, as new details about Gendron’s past and meticulous planning emerged.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that Gendron, a resident of Conklin, New York, near the Pennsylvania border, roughly 200 miles from Buffalo, made an “apparent reconnaissance” trip to the Tops store in March to map out its layout and location in preparation for the attack.

He was confronted there by a store security guard, who thought he looked suspicious, according to the Post, citing an account of the visit that the newspaper said was posted online by an individual identifying himself as Gendron.

Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia said at a news briefing on Monday the suspect had visited Buffalo in early March, but he declined to confirm other details of the probe reported by the Washington Post or other news media.

Authorities said the suspect returned to Buffalo on Friday to undertake a final “reconnaissance” of the area.

Gendron came to the attention of local law enforcement last June, when police detained him after he made a threat at his high school, Gramaglia told reporters said. He was given a mental health evaluation and released after 1-1/2 days.

‘ADVANCE SURVEILLANCE?’

The Post said the trip to Buffalo in March was detailed in messages compiled in a 589-page document posted on an internet messaging platform but since removed.

The document referred to the Tops store as “attack area 1” and described two other nearby locations as targets to “shoot all blacks,” the Post reported. The writer said he counted 53 Black people in the Tops at the time of his visit, according to the account.

Police confirmed that they are investigating Gendron’s online postings, including a 180-page manifesto he is believed to have written outlining the “Great Replacement Theory,” a racist conspiracy notion that white people are being replaced by minorities in the United States and elsewhere. read more

Experts say the trend of mostly young white men being inspired by previous racist gun massacres is on the rise, citing such incidents as the 2015 attack at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, a 2018 shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and a 2019 rampage at a Walmart in a Hispanic neighborhood of El Paso. read more

U.S. Representative Liz Cheney took to Twitter on Monday to call on fellow Republicans to reject white supremacy, saying the political rhetoric of her party’s leaders in the House of Representatives has “enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and anti-Semitism.” read more

Federal, state and local authorities said on Monday they were redoubling efforts to watch for threats of additional racially motivated violence propagating on social media.

Erie County District Attorney John Flynn announced that a 52-year-old Buffalo man had been charged on Monday with making a terroristic threat after placing menacing telephone calls on Sunday to a both a local pizzeria and a brewery in which he made reference to the Tops grocery shooting.

President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, plan to visit Buffalo on Tuesday.

ANOTHER TARGET

At a separate news conference on Monday, civil rights attorney Ben Crump called on officials to define Saturday’s attack as an “act of domestic terrorism.”

“We can’t sugarcoat it, we can’t try to explain it away talking about mental illness,” Crump said, surrounded by the weeping family of Ruth Whitfield, an 86-year-old woman who was among those slain at the Tops supermarket.

Other victims included a pharmacist, a church deacon, and a young man who pushed grocery carts and did other jobs.

If the suspect had not been stopped, authorities said he planned to continue the killings, possibly targeting another large store nearby.

Authorities said that Gendron on Saturday, wearing body armor, arrived at the Tops store and began his assault with the semi-automatic rifle, which he had bought legally but then modified. Law enforcement found an additional rifle and a shotgun in his car.

The gunman broadcast the attack in real time on the social media platform Twitch, a live video service owned by Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O). The video service said it removed the broadcast within minutes.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Jenna Zucker in Buffalo, New York; Additional reporting by Brendan O’Brien, Kanishka Singh, Doina Chiacu, Sarah N. Lynch, Gabriella Borter, Ken Li and Tyler Clifford; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Rosalba O’Brien, Leslie Adler and Gerry Doyle

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Court says Musk recklessly tweeted that ‘funding secured’ for taking Tesla private

SAN FRANCISCO, May 10 (Reuters) – A court said that Elon Musk’s 2018 tweets that funding was secured to take Tesla private was inaccurate and reckless, saying “there was nothing concrete” about financing from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund at that time.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco is a major victory for investors alleging that Musk inflated stock prices by making false and misleading statements, causing billions of damages.

In 2018, Musk met with representatives of the Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and had a discussion about taking Tesla private, but evidence shows that “there was nothing concrete about funding coming from the PIF,” the judge wrote.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“Rather, discussions between Tesla and the PIF were clearly at the preliminary stage.

“No reasonable jury could find that Mr. Musk did not act recklessly given his clear knowledge of the discussions,” he said.

He said details such as the total amount of funding needed to take Tesla private or the price to be paid for Tesla stock were not discussed.

The summary judgment, made on April 1, was sealed for more than a month before it was publicly available on Tuesday.

“It is hugely significant,” shareholder attorney Nicholas Porritt, a partner at Levi & Korsinsky LLP told Reuters.

He said it is are that class action plaintiffs get summary judgment on falsity and scienter before going to a jury trial, scheduled in January.

The remaining issue is what damages the intentionally false statement has caused to shareholders, he said.

The judge refused to grant shareholders summary judgment on the question of whether or not the allegedly false statements actually impacted Tesla’s share prices.

Musk’s lawyer, who has filed motions to undo the court decision, was not immediately available for comments. Musk said recently that funding was actually secured to take Tesla private in 2018.

The latest ruling was in line with a complaint from the U.S. security regulator which sued Musk for fraud charges for the tweets in 2018. He settled with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stepping down as Tesla chairman, paying fines and agreeing to have a lawyer approve some of his tweets before posting them.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin; Editing by Stephen Coates

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. will no longer enforce mask mandate on airplanes, trains after court ruling

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, April 18 (Reuters) – The Biden administration will no longer enforce a U.S. mask mandate on public transportation, after a federal judge in Florida on Monday ruled that the 14-month-old directive was unlawful, overturning a key White House effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Soon after the announcement, all major carriers including American Airlines (AAL.O), United Airlines (UAL.O) and Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), as well as national train line Amtrak relaxed the restrictions effective immediately. read more

Last week, U.S. health officials had extended the mandate to May 3 requiring travelers to wear masks on airplanes, trains, and in taxis, ride-share vehicles or transit hubs, saying they needed time to assess the impact of a recent rise in COVID-19 cases caused by the airborne coronavirus. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Industry groups and Republican lawmakers balked and wanted the administration to end the 14-month-old mask mandate permanently.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of President Donald Trump, came in a lawsuit filed last year in Tampa, Florida, by a group called the Health Freedom Defense Fund. It follows a string of rulings against Biden administration directives to fight the infectious disease that has killed nearly one million Americans, including vaccine or test mandates for employers.

Judge Mizelle said the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had exceeded its authority with the mandate, had not sought public comment and did not adequately explain its decisions.

A U.S. administration official said while the agencies were assessing potential next steps, the court’s decision meant CDC’s public transportation masking order was no longer in effect. The administration could still opt to appeal the order or seek an emergency delay in the order’s enforcement.

“Therefore, TSA will not enforce its Security Directives and Emergency Amendment requiring mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs at this time,” the official said in a statement.

“CDC recommends that people continue to wear masks in indoor public transportation settings.”

The Transportation Security Administration said it will rescind the new Security Directives that were scheduled to take effect on Tuesday.

The ruling comes as COVID-19 infections rise again in the United States, with 36,251 new infections reported on average each day, and 460 daily deaths, based on a seven-day average – the highest number of reported total COVID-19 deaths in the world.

The White House called the ruling “disappointing.”

The CDC first issued a public health order requiring masks in interstate transportation in February 2021. The TSA issued a security directive to enforce the CDC order.

The CDC and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declined to comment.

United Airlines, American, Delta, Southwest Airlines (LUV.N), JetBlue (JBLU.O) and Alaska Airlines (ALK.N) said masks are now optional on their planes.

“We are relieved to see the U.S. mask mandate lift to facilitate global travel as COVID-19 has transitioned to an ordinary seasonal virus,” Delta said. The World Health Organization warned against comparing the virus to an endemic illness like the flu earlier this year, noting it is evolving too quickly.

The move could impact travel demand, which has roared back after a blip caused by the Omicron coronavirus variant. U.S. passenger traffic has been averaging about 89% of the pre-pandemic levels since mid-February, according to TSA data.

With the COVID-19 case count rising again, lifting the mandate could make some passengers wary, while prompting others to fly again.

Only 36% of Americans think it’s time for people to stop using masks and quarantines so that life can get back to normal after COVID-19, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between Jan. 31 and Feb. 7. However, while a mere 16% of Democrats hold this view, a whopping 60% of Republicans do, according to the poll.

Delta Chief Executive Officer Ed Bastian last week acknowledged the risk, but said the airline still expected its flights to be full.

“It’s a question of individual accountability, personal accountability, making your own decisions rather than the government making decisions for people as to how to stay well,” Bastian told Reuters in an interview.

On Monday, Delta asked its employees to show “understanding and patience” as the unexpected nature of the announcement could result in “inconsistent” enforcement.

Since January 2021, there have been a record 7,060 unruly passenger incidents reported, 70% involving masking rules, according to the FAA. Thousands of passengers have been put on “no-fly” lists for refusing to comply with masking requirements.

Alaska said some passengers will remain banned, even after the mask policy is rescinded.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by David Shepardson, Mike Stone, Jeff Mason and Jason Lange in Washington and Rajesh Kumar Singh in Chicago; Writing by Chris Sanders and Rajesh Kumar Singh; Editing by Nick Macfie, Heather Timmons, Bill Berkrot and Bernard Orr

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Judge finds Tesla liable to Black former worker who alleged bias, but slashes payout

April 13 (Reuters) – A federal judge said on Wednesday Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) was liable to a Black elevator operator who said the electric car company ignored racial abuse at the factory where he worked, but reduced a nearly $137 million jury award to $15 million.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco ruled after jurors last October found that Tesla subjected Owen Diaz to a hostile environment at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California by allowing and failing to stop the racism he faced.

Diaz, who worked at the plant for nine months in 2015 and 2016, said other employees used racist slurs when speaking to him, and scrawled swastikas and slurs including the “N-word” on bathroom walls. He also said one supervisor drew a racist caricature near his workstation.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

In a 43-page decision, Orrick said the evidence amply supported the jury’s finding Tesla liable for the “profound” emotional harm Diaz suffered and the “often inadequate” disciplinary steps the company took.

But the judge reduced Diaz’s compensatory damages to $1.5 million from the “excessive” $6.9 million that the jury awarded, and lowered punitive damages to $13.5 million from the “unconstitutionally large” $130 million jury award.

Bernard Alexander, a lawyer for Diaz, in an interview said his client plans to appeal the lowered damages award.

“We’re pleased that the court upheld the jury’s finding that Tesla’s conduct was absolutely reprehensible,” Alexander said.

“The award of $15 million is substantial but does not come close to reflecting the harm caused to Mr. Diaz, or the reprehensibility of Tesla’s conduct,” he added.

Tesla and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The company had sought to limit compensatory and punitive damages to $300,000 each.

Led by billionaire Elon Musk, Tesla faces similar claims in other lawsuits.

In one such case, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged in February that Black workers at the Fremont plant endured constant harassment, but saw their complaints ignored.

Tesla previously called that lawsuit misguided, and said it has adopted policies to prevent and punish racist conduct.

Compensatory damages are meant to cover actual losses, while punitive damages are meant to punish and deter violations.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, punitive damages typically should be less than 10 times compensatory damages.

Legal experts had called Diaz’s original $137 million award one of the largest for a single plaintiff alleging workplace discrimination.

The case is Diaz v Tesla Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-06748.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Daniel Wiessner in New York; Editing by Christian Schmollinger and Kenneth Maxwell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Alabama passes bill making some transgender healthcare a felony

April 7 (Reuters) – Alabama lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that would criminalize gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, with a threat of 10 years in prison for medical providers.

The legislation, passed 66-28 by the state’s House of Representatives on the last day of the legislative session, is the latest in a flurry of measures in Republican-led states dealing with transgender youth.

The American Civil Liberties Union called it the first bill of its kind to make healthcare for transgender youth a felony and said it would challenge the bill in court if Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed it into law.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The bill would make it a felony punishable with up to 10 years in prison to provide medical care including hormone treatment, puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery to minors.

Democrats in the minority tried to fight the bill in part by arguing it contradicted Republican principles on the role of government.

“This is not small government; this is not a conservative bill,” Democratic Representative Neil Rafferty told the chamber.

But Republican Representative Wes Allen likened the initiative to laws that prevent minors from getting tattoos or buying nicotine products.

“We make decisions in this body all the time that are to protect children from making decisions that could permanently harm them,” Allen said.

Ivey has not said whether she would sign the bill, but last year she signed one banning transgender athletes from school sports. Ivey’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bill would also compel school personnel to disclose to the parent or legal guardian that a “minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

Last week, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed a bill banning irreversible gender reassignment surgery for minors. read more

Mainstream medical and mental health professionals say gender-affirming care saves lives by reducing the risk of depression and suicide. Gender-reassignment surgery for people under 18 is extremely rare and would take place only after years of treatment in cases where the patient’s wishes are unwavering, according to medical experts.

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposed the bill and urged Ivey to veto it.

“This legislation targets vulnerable young people and puts them at great risk of physical and mental harm,” Mark Del Monte, the academy’s chief executive, said in a statement. “Criminalizing evidence-based, medically necessary services is dangerous.”

The Alabama Senate has also passed a bill that would require students in public schools to use bathrooms or changing rooms that match the gender on their original birth certificates. An amendment was attached to the bill, which now has to go back to the House for a vote, prohibiting classroom discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grades.

Transgender rights have emerged as one of the issues at the forefront in the culture wars ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. Lawmakers have introduced hundreds of bills across state legislatures, the majority of them dealing with trans youth.

Many Republicans and conservative activists promote the laws as safeguards for children and parental rights. Opponents, including Democrats and LGBTQ+ organizations, say the legislation is harmful, unnecessary and unfairly targeting vulnerable and underrepresented communities.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Maria Caspani; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Bradley Perrett

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Jackson a tough sell on racial-bias claims

U.S. Supreme Court nominee and federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson meets with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 2, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) – A U.S. Park Police officer said he was demoted and then fired by the agency because he is Black. A Bureau of Land Management employee accused managers at the agency of hostile treatment because she is Black. A pharmacist at a Washington hospital claimed he was dismissed from his job because he is Black.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee to become the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, presided as a federal trial court judge in all three of these cases involving claims of racial discrimination. She ruled against all three plaintiffs.

During Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings last year after Biden nominated her to a federal appellate court, Jackson faced Republican questions about whether race plays a role in how she does her job as a judge. She said it does not, though the issue could arise again during her four-day confirmation hearing before the committee beginning on Monday. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reuters reviewed 25 cases in which Jackson issued substantive rulings as a U.S. district court judge in Washington from 2013 to 2021 involving plaintiffs who made claims of racial discrimination, most involving the workplace. She ruled in favor of plaintiffs in only three of the cases.

Of the 25 cases, 22 were pursued by Black plaintiffs. Jackson ruled against 19 of the Black plaintiffs.

“Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases lose a lot, so this strikes me as consistent with the pattern I would expect because they are notoriously hard to win,” said employment law expert Kim Forde-Mazrui, director of the University of Virginia School of Law’s Center for the Study of Race and Law.

In two of the three cases that did not involve Black plaintiffs, Jackson ruled against a white man and an Asian man claiming workplace racial discrimination.

In the third case, she rejected a challenge by a company that bids on military contracts to the constitutionality of a U.S. law that gives preference for awarding government contracts to small businesses owned by “socially disadvantaged individuals,” a category that includes racial minorities.

In one case, Jackson declined to certify racial discrimination claims brought by two Black workers against defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) as a class action that would have involved potentially more than 5,000 employees. Jackson also rejected a $22 million settlement fund that the workers had negotiated with Lockheed, saying it was unclear if the amount was fair to workers who were not involved in the litigation. The case was eventually settled in 2020.

“If people are afraid she is going to be siding with Black plaintiffs because of her race, there are plenty of cases in her record that show she is not unwilling to side against a Black plaintiff if the facts and the law require it,” said Aron Zavaro, an employment lawyer in the Washington area who has represented plaintiffs in cases against government agencies.

Zavaro said Jackson’s rulings show that she followed Supreme Court precedent in how to analyze cases brought under the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination, a claim that can be difficult to prove because plaintiffs rarely have direct evidence of bias.

AN EVENLY DIVIDED SENATE

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate is given the job of confirming a president’s judicial nominees. A simple majority vote would be needed for Jackson’s confirmation to a lifetime post on America’s top judicial body, replacing the retiring liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.

The Senate is divided 50-50 between the two parties, with Biden’s fellow Democrats controlling it because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast a tie-breaking vote.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Biden’s Republican predecessor Donald Trump, has flexed its muscles by taking up cases that could curb abortion rights, expand gun rights and end affirmative action policies used by universities to increase Black and Hispanic student admissions.

Biden’s nomination of Jackson fulfilled his 2020 campaign promise to name the nation’s first Black woman justice – a “long overdue” milestone, he said – though some Republicans accused him of discriminating against men and non-Black women by refusing to consider any of them for the job. read more

During an April 2021 confirmation hearing after Biden nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, some Republican senators confronted Jackson on race including whether she considers the U.S. justice system racist.

Republican Senator John Cornyn asked her: “What role does race play in the kind of judge you have been and the kind of judge you will be?”

“I don’t think race plays a role in the kind of judge I have been and would be,” Jackson replied, adding that race “would be inappropriate to inject” into her consideration of a case.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here