Tag: Ban

Categories
Health

Abortion ban launched by Lindsey Graham after Supreme Court docket Roe ruling

Abortion ban introduced by Lindsey Graham after Supreme Court Roe ruling

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation on Tuesday that would ban most abortions nationwide after the 15th week of pregnancy.

The South Carolina senator introduced the bill less than three months after the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade, overturned the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. The measure would severely limit access to abortion in numerous states — particularly blue states, which tend to have more protections from abortion rights.

The law, as it stands, has little chance of passing Congress as Democrats hold narrow majorities in both the House and Senate.

It comes ahead of the crucial midterm elections in November, which have cast doubt on expectations of a Republican defeat as evidence mounts that Roe’s reversal has roiled Democratic voters. Abortion rights advocates have warned that a GOP takeover of Congress would erode women’s rights, and many were quick to tout Graham’s bill as a prime example.

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican who would decide whether to vote on a statewide abortion ban if the GOP wins the chamber in November, was reluctant to pass Graham’s bill.

“I think most members of my conference would prefer this to be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon. Other GOP senators have offered mixed messages on the bill.

While the title of Graham’s bill suggests it would only ban “late” abortions, it would limit the procedure nationwide after less than four months of pregnancy, a threshold that falls in the second trimester.

According to the health policy non-profit KFF, abortions are typically considered “late date” from the 21st week of pregnancy. However, the organization notes that this term is not an official medical term and that abortions at this stage are rarely sought and difficult to achieve.

The 15-week boundary precedes the point of fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks gestation. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe that women have the right to have a pre-viability abortion, and after that point states can begin to impose restrictions.

In June’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another abortion-right case. The ruling by a court that had become much more conservative after nominating three of former President Donald Trump’s nominees gave individual states the power to set their abortion policies.

Numerous Republican-leaning states have immediately sought outright bans on abortion, while many Democratic leaders have attempted to enshrine safeguards over the procedure.

Graham, a close Trump ally, had previously expressed his support for states making their own abortion laws. “This is, in my view, the most constitutionally sane way to deal with this issue and the way the United States handled this issue up until 1973,” Graham tweeted in May.

But Graham has also introduced legislation to limit abortion nationally – although his 2021 bill would have banned abortion after 20 weeks, instead of the 15-week limit in the current version.

“Abortion is a controversial issue. After Dobbs, America has a choice to make,” Graham said at a Tuesday news conference unveiling the new legislation.

“States have an opportunity to do this at the state level, and we have an opportunity in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose to,” he said. “I have decided to speak.”

By the 15-week mark, Graham said, the fetus has developed enough to feel pain from an abortion. After that, his bill would no longer allow abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. “And that should be America,” the senator said.

Flanking Graham was the leaders of several anti-abortion groups, including Pro-Life America President Susan B. Anthony, Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“This is incredible progress, but much more needs to be done,” Dannenfelser said in a statement.

The White House slammed Graham in a statement later Tuesday, calling the bill “wildly inconsistent with what Americans believe” and touting the Biden administration’s legislative goals while accusing Republicans of “spending millions of… taking away women’s rights”.

Abortion rights groups echoed this sentiment but tied the issue directly to the midterm elections.

“Republicans in Congress for anti-abortion rights are showing us exactly what they intend to do when they come to power: pass a national ban on abortion,” Alexis McGill Johnson, CEO of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

“We want to thank Senator Graham for making it clear to voters today that Republicans are pursuing a national abortion ban in this midterm election,” said Dani Negrete, national political director for progressive advocacy group Indivisible.

Polls show attitudes toward abortion are shifting toward the pro-choice position after the Dobbs ruling. Some Republican candidates who previously took tough positions on abortion during the GOP primaries have softened or toned down their views as they run in general elections.

Democratic candidates such as Pennsylvania Senate nominee John Fetterman have addressed the issue.

“Dr. Oz has made it *very* clear that he wants to take women’s reproductive freedom away,” Fetterman tweeted Tuesday of Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz. “As the GOP introduces a national abortion ban, it’s now more important than ever that we stop it in November.”

Categories
Politics

Decide Permits Biden’s Narrower Evictions Ban in Place for Now

Judge Allows Biden’s Narrower Evictions Ban in Place for Now

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday allowed the Biden government’s moratorium on replacement evictions to continue and said it had no power to block such public health emergency policies, despite believing that “the government is not will enforce “when the matter returns to the Supreme Court.

In a 13-page ruling, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District Court for the District of Columbia cast doubts about the legality of the policy issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on August 3 in the counties where Covid-19 occurred is, had imposed rages.

The ban replaced an expired, nationwide moratorium, first imposed last September to prevent people from crowding into homeless shelters and with relatives and spreading the virus. The new one is narrower because it only applies at high transfer rates. Still, this category currently covers about 91 percent of the counties in the United States.

Judge Friedrich blocked the statewide version of the moratorium in May, but the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned it and the Supreme Court abandoned that decision in June. On Friday, she ruled the replacement policy was so similar to the original that the earlier appeal court ruling controlled the case – for now.

“Without the DC Circuit ruling,” she wrote, she would immediately prevent the government from enforcing the new eviction ban. “But the court’s hands are tied.”

The Justice Department declined to comment. But in a statement Jen Psaki, White House press secretary said, “The government believes the CDC’s new moratorium is an appropriate use of its legitimate powers to protect public health. We are pleased that the regional court has left the moratorium, but we know that further proceedings are likely in this case. “

Plaintiffs, led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, are expected to promptly bring the case back to the appellate court to expedite its path to the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices Judge Friedrich are likely to agree that the ban exceeds the emergency powers government under a broad but vague Public Health Act of 1944.

An attorney for the plaintiffs directed a request for comment to Patrick Newton, a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors who is not involved in the case but is helping landlords. He said plaintiffs would appeal, adding, “We are confident that this illegal eviction ban will soon come to an end.”

The government’s power to ban evictions as part of its efforts to combat the pandemic has raised complex legal and political issues. The Biden administration had signaled that it would let an earlier version of the moratorium, which had already been extended several times, expire in late July after a Supreme Court judge warned that it was likely to be legally shaky.

But as the delta variant of the virus increased, and spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi and progressive Democrats called on the White House to reverse course, the government passed a new, tighter moratorium this month – even as Mr Biden made it clear in comments to reporters that it did his chances of being upheld by the Supreme Court were slim.

“Most of the constitutional research says it is unlikely to pass the constitutional test,” he said on Aug. 3. “But there are several key scientists who believe this is possible – and it is worth the effort.”

To signal that the White House understands the moratorium’s longer-term prospects are weak, Ms. Psaki on Friday urged state and local officials to take other steps that could mitigate a virus-spreading wave of mass displacement, including imposing local moratoriums and taking more aggressive steps to distribute $ 46.5 billion that Congress approved as an emergency fund for rent.

A temporary moratorium on the pandemic began to evacuate during the Trump administration. Sometimes Congress has specifically approved this. But when those deadlines expired, the CDC enacted extensions under the 1944 Act, which empowers the government to enact rules it deems necessary to slow the spread of disease between states.

Unable to evict non-paying tenants, landlords sued, questioning whether a nationwide eviction ban was outside of the 1944 law.

In May, Judge Friedrich ruled that plaintiffs would likely prevail and issued an order prohibiting the government from enforcing the ban during the litigation. However, she upheld that ruling even while the government appealed, and the appeals court declined to overturn her stay, stating that contrary to her view, the ban would most likely be found lawful.

At the end of June, the Supreme Court also refused to have her stay lifted and voted 5 to 4 against the immediate blocking of the original eviction ban. But while the government won, the lawsuit came with a strong warning: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh warned that “clear and specific approval from Congress” was required for the moratorium to continue beyond its scheduled expiration in late July.

At this point, the pandemic appeared to be subsiding, and the government thought tens of billions of dollars seized by Congress as an emergency fund for rentals were about to be distributed. With this in mind, the Biden government’s legal and policy teams agreed to allow the moratorium to expire as planned.

But by the end of July, the conditions had changed. The distribution of housing benefits turned out to be dysfunctional, and coronavirus cases increased. When the speedy passage of new laws proved politically impossible, House Democrats, led by Ms. Pelosi, urged Mr. Biden to act unilaterally, at a time when his broader agenda made it dangerous to overthrow all allies in the narrowly divided Congress alienate.

This move was made difficult by the fact that some Biden politicians and members of the press had meanwhile suggested that the Supreme Court’s move in June make an extension of the moratorium illegal. These now awkward comments were, in the view of officials familiar with internal reasoning, an oversimplification of the more complicated reality.

In fact, they advised, the government could maintain its position that it can approve an eviction moratorium under the 1944 law because the Supreme Court’s action in June did not set a definitive, controlling precedent for what that law might mean. However, they also warned that it was likely that the Supreme Court would quickly lift any new moratorium, and such a ruling could also limit the CDC’s flexibility to act in a future public health crisis.

Three days after the end of the nationwide moratorium, the Biden government issued its narrower eviction moratorium until October.

One legal question raised by the case is whether the new facts – the advent of the delta variant and the restricted scope of the ban – distinguish the new moratorium from the old in a legally meaningful way, or whether the main question is how to interpret the moratorium Statute of 1944.

In her judgment on Friday, Judge Friedrich stated that the replacement moratorium was basically so similar to the original that it was considered an extension of the same for which the existing litigation could continue, and not as a new directive for which legal arguments were introduced would have to about.

“The slight differences between the current and previous moratorium do not exempt the former from ordering by this court,” she wrote, adding that although the government “has excluded some districts from the scope of the recent moratorium, the policy remains in effect nationwide.” sharing the same ”. Structure and design like its predecessors, offers continuous coverage with them and claims to rest on the same legal authority. “

Categories
Health

Schooling Secretary criticizes Republican governors over ban on masks in faculties.

Education Secretary criticizes Republican governors over ban on masks in schools.

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration admonished the Republican governors of Texas and Florida on Friday for blocking local school districts from requiring masks or taking other measures to protect students from the coronavirus in the coming school year.

The secretary of education, Miguel Cardona, sent a pair of letters to the governors and their education commissioners, writing that he was concerned about recent executive actions taken by both governors.

Those orders, he wrote, prohibited districts from “voluntarily adopting science-based strategies for preventing the spread of Covid-19 that are aligned with the guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” like universal masking. The letters were made public late Friday.

The debate over whether local school districts should be able to require masks has become highly partisan. Republicans have cast mask rules as an infringement on parental rights, while Democrats have said they are a matter of public health.

Last week President Biden also sharply criticized Republican governors like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas who had banned mask mandates, saying they “are passing laws and signing orders that forbid people from doing the right thing.”

“If you aren’t going to help, at least get out of the way,” Mr. Biden said.

In one letter released Friday, Dr. Cardona criticized Governor DeSantis for threatening this week to withhold the salaries of district superintendents or school board members who defied his order.

The education secretary noted that the American Rescue Plan Act passed by Congress allocated more than $7 billion to the state for safety measures. None of the money has been made available to local districts, Dr. Cardona wrote, and it could be used to pay the salaries of school officials.

“In fact, it appears that Florida has prioritized threatening to withhold state funds from school districts that are working to reopen schools safely rather than protecting students and educators and getting school districts the federal pandemic recovery funds to which they are entitled,” Dr. Cardona wrote.

In his letter to Texas officials, Dr. Cardona criticized Governor Abbott’s executive order blocking mask rules in schools as well as other state guidance that makes contract-tracing optional.

Dr. Cardona said Governor Abbott’s order “may infringe upon a school district’s authority to adopt policies to protect students and educators as they develop their safe return to in-person instruction plans required by federal law.”

The offices of Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbott did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

He suggested that the state’s actions might imperil its federal relief funding. The policies, he wrote, appeared to “restrict the development of local health and safety policies and are at odds with the school district planning process,” which are required under the Education Department’s rules for receiving the relief funding.

Dr. Cardona said his department’s rules emphasize that districts have discretion over how to use their funding, and that contact tracing, indoor masking policies, and other C.D.C recommendations are permitted and encouraged.

Dr. Cardona added that the Biden administration would “continue to closely review and monitor” whether both states were meeting requirements under federal funding laws.

Dr. Cardona also expressed support for districts in both states that have defied the governors’ orders.

“The Department stands with these dedicated educators who are working to safely reopen schools and maintain safe in-person instruction,” he wrote.

Categories
Politics

U.S. decide denies landlords’ request to dam CDC nationwide eviction ban

U.S. judge denies landlords' request to block CDC national eviction ban

Housing advocates and New York City renters march to call on Governor Andrew Cuomo to cancel rent on October 10, 2020 amid the pandemic.

Andrew Lichtenstein | Corbis News | Getty Images

A US judge on Friday denied a motion by rental groups to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new eviction moratorium.

The decision of US District Judge Dabney Friedrich is a win for the Biden government.

More than 11 million Americans are left behind with their rentals, prompting the CDC to issue a new eviction ban earlier this month after the previous one expired on July 31. This protection is valid until October 3rd and for places where Covid rates remain high.

Broker groups are likely to appeal against Friedrich’s decision.

More from Personal Finance:
The federal rent subsidy is still not reaching the people
There are still six months free of federal student loan payments
Take these financial steps before you quit your job

The CDC’s eviction ban has faced numerous legal challenges and landlords have criticized it, saying they couldn’t afford to house people for free or shoulder the land’s massive arrears in rent. On Thursday the US Supreme Court lifted at least part of the eviction moratorium in New York.

Housing advocates say evictions must be banned until states distribute the $ 45 billion in rental subsidies provided by Congress. According to a recent analysis by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, only around $ 4.2 billion of that money has reached households.

“It is imperative that cities and states provide rental subsidies to vulnerable communities as soon as possible to prevent evictions and the public health impact in all of our communities,” said Emily Benfer, visiting law professor at Wake Forest University.

Categories
World News

Italy’s Authorities to Ban Cruise Ships From Venice

Italy’s Government to Ban Cruise Ships From Venice

Italy announced on Tuesday that it was banning large cruise ships from entering Venice’s waters and was also declaring the city’s lagoon a national monument, in a move to protect a fragile ecosystem from the downsides of mass tourism.

The ban, demanded for decades by both Venice residents and environmentalists, will take effect on Aug. 1.

“The intervention could no longer be delayed,” Italy’s culture minister, Dario Franceschini, said in a statement.

In recent weeks, as cruise ships returned to Venice after the pause imposed by the pandemic, protesters in the city rallied on small boats and on the waterfront with “No big boats” flags. Last Sunday, they demonstrated during the Group of 20 summit for economic ministers that took place in the city, attracting international media attention.

“My heartbeat is so fast I could be having a heart attack,” said Tommaso Cacciari, an activist and spokesman for the No Big Ship Committee, responding to Tuesday’s announcement. “We have been fighting for 10 years, and now this victory feels almost unbelievable.”

In April, the government of Prime Minister Mario Draghi announced that it was planning to ban large cruise ships from the San Marco basin, the San Marco canal and the Giudecca canal, but no date for the ban was set. Also, the prohibition was conditioned on the building of a new port where tourists could disembark to visit the city, a project that could take years.

Tuesday’s decision removed that condition, so the ban could be enforced in weeks, not years.

Mr. Franceschini explained that the government had drafted the urgent decree to avoid “the real risk of the city being put on the blacklist of “World Heritage in Danger” sites established by UNESCO, the United Nations culture body.

In 2019, UNESCO warned Venice about the “damage caused by a steady stream of cruise ships.” Before a UNESCO World Heritage Committee beginning later this week that could have seen Venice added to the blacklist, the Italian government approved the decree making Venice’s waterways a national monument, a status usually given to artworks and historical buildings that puts the lagoon under enhanced state protection.

Over the last 10 years, Venice has been caught up in a clash between those representing the economic interests of cruise traffic — which employs thousands of people in the area — and others who want to protect a delicate environment from gigantic boats that disgorge tourists en masse.

The ban applies to ships that are either heavier than 25,000 tons, longer than 180 meters (about 590 feet), taller than 35 meters (about 115 feet), or that employ more than a set amount of fuel in maneuvering. The ban is such that even large yachts could be affected.

The government also decided to give power to the regional port authority to determine how five temporary docks can be built in Marghera, a nearby industrial port, while respecting maritime safety and environmental laws.

The intention to divert the cruise ships to the port of Marghera has raised eyebrows. The port is built for cargo ships and is not nearly as picturesque as the city’s lagoon. Moreover, the port’s channel is not large and deep enough for most cruise ships and would require major construction work.

Among the many projects considered by governments over the years, one envisioned a permanent passenger terminal at the Lido entrance to the lagoon. Activists considered that the best solution for the city and for the cruise industry.

Mr. Draghi’s cabinet also moved on Tuesday to establish compensation for sailing companies that will be affected by the ban and for other businesses connected to the cruise traffic inside the lagoon.

“It is a positive decision and could be the beginning of a new era,” said Francesco Galietti, national director for the Cruise Lines International Association. He added that the association has been asking for the temporary docking sites in Marghera since 2012.

The cruise industry is hoping, Mr. Galietti said, that the new docking sites would be ready in 2022, when tourists are expected to return en masse to cruises. This year, only 20 liners were expected to arrive in Venice.

Categories
World News

With a Ban on Navalny’s Group, Putin Sends a Message to Biden

With a Ban on Navalny's Group, Putin Sends a Message to Biden

MOSCOW – A court on Wednesday ruled the political movement of Aleksei A. Navalny as extremist, a notable broadside from President Vladimir V. Putin, who also sent a message to President Biden ahead of their meeting next week: Russian internal affairs are not up Discussion.

The judicial decision – almost certainly with the blessing of the Kremlin – seemed to push the resistance against Putin further underground after years of efforts by the Russian government to suppress dissenting opinions entered a new, more aggressive phase for several months. Under the law, Mr Navalny’s organizers, donors or even social media supporters could now face criminal prosecution and face jail terms.

The ruling increases the commitment of the Geneva summit to Mr Biden, who has promised to defend himself against Mr Putin’s violation of international norms. But the Russian President has said that while he is ready to discuss cyberspace and geopolitics with Mr Biden, he will not have talks about how he governs his country. The question is how much Mr Biden accepts these demands.

“The views on our political system can be different,” Putin told the heads of international news agencies last week. “Please give us the right to organize this part of our life.”

The June 16 Geneva meeting will come after months in which Mr Putin has dismantled much of what remains of Russian political pluralism – and made it clear that he would ignore Western criticism.

Mr Navalny was arrested in January after returning to Moscow after recovering from poisoning carried out by Russian agents last year, according to Western officials. Since then, thousands of Russians have been arrested during protests; opposition leaders have been imprisoned or forced into exile; Online media were branded as “foreign agents”; and Twitter and other social networks have come under pressure from the government.

“The state has decided to fight all independent organizations with total bombing,” said Nawalny’s anti-corruption foundation – one of the groups declared extremist on Wednesday – in a Twitter post anticipating the verdict.

The Kremlin denies having played any role in the campaign against Navalny and his movement and insists that Russia’s judiciary is independent. However, analysts and lawyers largely see the courts as subordinate to the Kremlin and the security services, especially in politically sensitive cases.

Mr Putin has already signaled that he will reject any criticism of the Kremlin’s handling of the Navalny case by claiming that the United States has no power to teach others. At Russia’s annual economic conference in St. Petersburg last week, Putin repeatedly referred to the January arrests of Capitol rioters in Washington when challenged over repression in Russia or its ally Belarus.

“Look at the sad events in the United States where people refused to accept the election results and stormed Congress,” Putin said. “Why are you only interested in our non-systemic opposition?”

The “non-systemic opposition” is the Russian term for factions that are not represented in parliament and that openly demand Putin’s impeachment. For years they were tolerated, even if they were closely monitored and often persecuted. The court’s ruling on Wednesday signaled that this era of tolerance is coming to an end.

Prosecutors harassed Navalny and other opposition activists, mostly on pretexts such as violating rules for public gatherings, laws unrelated to their political activities, or, more recently, anti-gathering regulations designed to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

Behind the scenes, according to Western governments and human rights groups, the Kremlin had gone further: murdering or expelling journalists, dissidents and leaders of the political opposition in exile. Mr Navalny only barely survived an attack with a chemical weapon last summer. In 2015, another opposition leader and former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Boris Y. Nemtsov, was shot dead with a pistol. But officials denied any role in these actions.

The dissolution of Mr Navalny’s nationwide network marked a new phase in the fight against dissent through a formal, legal process to dissolve opposition organizations despite the country’s 1993 Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression.

The Kremlin’s campaign against the opposition increased after Navalny returned from Germany in January, where he received medical treatment after the neurotoxin attack. Police arrested Mr. Navalny at the airport and a court sentenced him to two and a half years in prison for violating parole on conviction in a case of embezzlement alleged by a human rights organization to be politically motivated.

In power since 1999, either as Prime Minister or President, Mr Putin has gradually tightened the screws on dissent and opposition. In a long twilight of post-Soviet democracy during his rule, elections took place, the internet remained largely free, and opposition was tolerated to a limited extent. His system has been called “gentle authoritarianism”.

But prosecutors this spring demanded that the court outlaw Mr Navalny’s move by using a term that compares its members to terrorists without bothering to publicly argue that the nonprofits were, in fact, seditious organizations . The evidence was classified and the case was held behind closed doors in a Moscow courtroom.

A lawyer representing the organizations, Ivan Pavlov, who had access to the evidence but was not empowered to disclose it, said after a preliminary hearing that it was not convincing and that he would publish as much as the law allows . Within a few days, police arrested Mr. Pavlov on charges of divulging secret evidence in another unrelated case, in what looked like a warning to avoid an aggressive defense of Mr. Navalny’s organization. He faces up to three years in prison.

According to Russian legal experts, the anti-extremism law offers a lot of scope for comprehensive action against the opposition in the coming days or months, but it remains unclear how it will be enforced.

According to the law, the organizers of the group face prison sentences of up to 10 years for continuing their activities. Anyone who donates money can be punished with up to eight years in prison. Public comments such as social media posts in favor of Mr Navalny’s groups could also be prosecuted in support of extremists.

The case was directed against three non-profit groups, Navalny headquarters, the Anti-Corruption Fund and the Civil Rights Defense Fund. In a preliminary ruling last month, the court ordered the activities of some of these groups to be suspended.

Pending the final verdict, Mr. Navalny’s staff disbanded one of the groups, Navalny’s headquarters, which operated its network of 40 political offices, before the court had a chance to designate it as an extremist group. Mr Navalny’s staff said they hoped some offices would continue to operate as independent, local political organizations.

“Unfortunately, we have to be honest: it is impossible to work in these conditions,” said an adviser to Mr Navalny, Leonid Volkov, in a YouTube video, warning that continuing the operation would prosecute supporters of the opposition leader. “We are officially dissolving the network of Navalny offices.”

When they announced the case in April, prosecutors argued that Mr Navalny’s groups were in fact riotous organizations disguised as a political movement. In a press release, the prosecutor said that “under the guise of liberal slogans, these organizations are busy creating conditions for the destabilization of the social and socio-political situation”.

Since he is forbidden from founding a political party, Mr Navalny has worked for various non-governmental organizations instead. Despite relentless pressure from the Russian authorities, these groups have for years insisted on promoting an anti-corruption campaign that frustrated and embarrassed Mr Putin, and have often used social media to great effect.

Mr Navalny’s movement was the most prominent in Russia, openly calling for Mr Putin’s ousting through elections, and its supporters say the Kremlin is determined to crush those efforts before they can bear fruit.

Categories
Politics

Fb Says Trump’s Ban Will Final at Least 2 Years

Facebook Says Trump's Ban Will Last at Least 2 Years

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook said on Friday that Donald J. Trump’s suspension from the service would last at least two years, clarifying a timeline on the ban that the company put in place in January.

The company said Mr. Trump would be eligible for reinstatement in January 2023, when it will then look to experts to decide “whether the risk to public safety has receded,” Facebook said. The company barred the former president from the service after comments he made about the Capitol riots.

“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension,” Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs at Facebook, wrote in a company blog post, “we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols.”

If reinstated, Mr. Trump will be subject to a set of “rapidly escalating sanctions” if he committed further violations, up to and including the permanent suspension of his account.

Categories
Politics

Klobuchar to Suggest Ban on Prechecked Containers in Political Donations

Klobuchar to Propose Ban on Prechecked Boxes in Political Donations

Senate committee chairman Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota will enact legislation Monday banning political campaigns from routing online donors to recurring donations by default. This practice has attracted criticism for tricking backers into giving inadvertent gifts, sometimes in the thousands of dollars in total.

The planned introduction of the law follows a non-partisan recommendation by the Bundestag Electoral Commission that Congress should restrict the practice of pre-checking boxes that automatically encourage donors to make repeated donations. The FEC unanimously voted 6-0 in favor of recommending the change after a New York Times investigation found that contributors’ refunds and fraud claims against former President Donald J. Trump rose.

Ms. Klobuchar, who heads the rule committee that oversees the administration of the federal elections, calls the draft law the RECUR law to “save every participant from unwanted repetitions”. She currently has only Democratic co-sponsors, including Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is the second-largest Democrat in the Senate leadership and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Ms. Klobuchar said she was confident she could attract Republican co-sponsors after the FEC’s three Republican commissioners joined the Democrats in recommending the ban on the practice – a rare moment of agreement at an agency, often driven by a party-political deadlock is defined.

“We have to make sure that we encourage people who can only make small contributions so that their voices are heard but not exploited,” said Ms. Klobuchar in an interview.

In a statement, Mr Durbin said he was “proud” to introduce the bill with Ms. Klobuchar. “In a bipartisan recommendation, the Bundestag Electoral Commission called on Congress to take action to stop the fundraising practices that were outrageously used by the Trump campaign and that led contributors to recurring payments,” he said.

The Times investigation found that Mr. Trump’s cash shortage political operation had his online employees become unintentional repeat donors by checking a box to withdraw additional donations every week last fall. Their inquiries also included a second pre-checked box labeled a “money bomb”. Over time, the campaign added text, sometimes in bold or capital letters, that obscured the opt-out language. Soon banks and credit card companies saw a flurry of fraud complaints.

Overall, the Trump operation with the Republican Party reimbursed donors who donated through the online processing site WinRed $ 122.7 million – more than 10 percent of each dollar raised. In contrast, the online reimbursement rate for President Biden’s campaign with the party at ActBlue, the corresponding Democratic processing agency, was 2.2 percent.

While the practice of pre-checking boxes is now far more common among Republicans, Democrats have previously used the tactic as well. Some prominent Democratic Party committees continue to use it. And Mr Trump continued the practice in his post-presidency period.

Ms. Klobuchar’s legislation would require all political committees to be given “consent” to receive donations, and it specifically states that pre-checked boxes do not meet this requirement.

“If you have experience and look at this, you know that it is just pure fraud,” said Ms. Klobuchar of the pre-examination practice, “and it is not something that should be allowed in the future.”

Ms. Klobuchar said the FEC’s unanimous vote was “very helpful” in providing impetus for their legislation. This is a stand-alone bilateral bill, but it could be incorporated into other election-related laws. The Democrats are pushing for legislation that would result in a major overhaul of the elections, but the bill’s prospects remain bleak.

Categories
Health

Cruise Line Threatens to Skip Florida Ports Over Proof-of-Vaccination Ban

Cruise Line Threatens to Skip Florida Ports Over Proof-of-Vaccination Ban

Norwegian Cruise Line threatens to keep its ships out of Florida ports after the state enacted laws prohibiting companies from requesting proof of Covid-19 vaccination in exchange for services.

The company, which plans to launch its first cruises to the Caribbean and Europe in the summer and fall, offers limited capacity trips and requires all guests and crew to be vaccinated for bookings by at least the end of October.

During a quarterly earnings call Thursday, Frank Del Rio, managing director of Norwegian Cruise Line, said the issue had been discussed with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican. Mr Del Rio said if the cruise line had to skip the ports of Florida, it could operate from other states or the Caribbean.

“We definitely hope it doesn’t come to that,” said Mr Del Rio. “Everyone wants to operate from Florida. It’s a very lucrative market. “

The conflict between Norwegian Cruise Line and Florida is one of the many that is likely to surface when it comes to how states and companies go about whether or not proof of vaccination is required. While some states are not yet taking a position on companies that require vaccines, others are already using such protocols.

At many New York events, such as Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association games, state health and safety guidelines require fans to provide a vaccination certificate or negative coronavirus test within 72 hours of attending.

“We hope this has not become legal or political football,” said Del Rio on the conference call.

Norwegian Cruise Line is headquartered in Florida, along with Royal Caribbean Cruises and Carnival Corporation. According to an economic analysis prepared for the Cruise Lines International Association last year, around 60 percent of all US cruise ships in 2019 came from ports in Florida.

In a business update on Thursday, Norwegian Cruise Line announced that bookings for the first half of 2022 were seeing “robust future demand” that was “well ahead” of 2019 bookings. By the end of the first quarter of 2021, the company announced a pre-sale of $ 1.3 billion in tickets.

Florida law not only prohibits companies from providing evidence of vaccination, but also prevents state and local authorities from closing personal learning companies or schools unless there is a hurricane emergency.

Updated

May 8, 2021, 2:21 p.m. ET

“I have refused to take the same approach as other lockdown governors,” DeSantis said in a statement on Monday when he signed the bill. “Florida protects your personal choice about vaccinations and no company or government agency can deny you services based on your choice.”

His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday and Norwegian Cruise Line could not be reached for comment.

“We hope everyone is pushing in the same direction, which means we want to safely resume the cruise, especially at the beginning,” said Del Rio on the call for winners. “In six months or a year, things could be different.”

The latest guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow cruise lines to conduct “simulated voyages” with volunteer passengers to see how cruise lines can safely resume operations with measures such as testing and potential quarantines.

The CDC requires cruise ships to complete test runs before they can be cleared for sailing with passengers this summer.

“It is not possible for cruises to be an activity without risk for the spread of Covid-19,” the CDC said this week. “While cruises always pose some risk to the transmission of Covid-19, CDC is committed to ensuring that cruise ship passenger operations are carried out in a way that protects crew, passengers and port personnel.”

The latest guidelines recommend but do not require that cruise ship travelers and crew members receive a vaccine when it is available to them.

Speaking at this week’s call for a prize, Mr. Del Rio said Norwegian Cruise Line had submitted a proposal to the CDC requiring vaccine detection from all crew members and passengers.

It’s unclear how much business Norwegian Cruise Line could lose by avoiding Florida ports. Of the dozen of ports listed on its website, Norwegian Cruise Line has Florida ports in Tampa, Miami, and Key West.

Mr Del Rio said “pent-up demand” helped fill bookings quickly.

“I believe it’s the # 1 destination for Americans in the Caribbean,” said Del Rio. “Who knows? This ship could prove so profitable there that it will never return to US waters.”

Categories
Business

Trump Ban From Fb Upheld by Oversight Board

Trump Ban From Facebook Upheld by Oversight Board

SAN FRANCISCO – A Facebook-appointed panel of journalists, activists and lawyers confirmed the social network’s ban on former President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, ending any immediate return of Mr Trump to mainstream social media and renewing one Debate on the technical power of the Internet speech.

Facebook’s oversight board, which acts as the court for the company’s substantive decisions, ruled that the social network rightly banned Mr. Trump after the Washington uprising in January, saying that he had “created an environment in which to serious risk of violence is possible. ” The panel said the persistent risk “justified” the move.

The board has also thrown the case back on Facebook and its top executives. An indefinite suspension was “not appropriate” as it was not a punishment set out in Facebook’s policies and the company should apply a standard punishment such as a temporary suspension or a permanent ban. The board gave Facebook six months to make a final decision on Mr Trump’s account status.

“Our only job is to hold this extremely powerful organization, Facebook. accountable, ”Michael McConnell, co-chair of the Oversight Board, told reporters on a call. Mr. Trump’s ban “did not meet these standards,” he said.

The decision makes it difficult for Mr Trump to re-enter mainstream social media, a major source of clout that he used during his years in the White House to directly appease his tens of millions of followers, take advantage of their abuses, set guidelines and criticize opponents. Twitter and YouTube also cut Mr Trump off after the Capitol uprising in January, saying the risk and potential for violence he created was too great.

While Mr Trump’s Facebook account remains banned, he may be able to return to the social network once the company reviews its actions. Mr Trump still has a tremendous influence on Republicans, and his false claims of a stolen election continue to be mirrored. On Wednesday, House Republican leaders moved to expel Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney for criticizing Mr. Trump and his election lies.

In a statement, Mr. Trump did not directly address the board’s decision. But he slammed Facebook, Google, and Twitter – some of which were important fundraising platforms for him – and called them corrupt.

“The President of the United States has been denied freedom of speech because radical left-wing madmen are afraid of the truth,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s continued Facebook suspension gave new fuel to the platforms for Republicans who have accused social media companies of suppressing conservative voices. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, testified several times in Congress whether the social network had shown bias towards conservative political views. He denied it.

Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, said the decision was made by the Facebook board “extremely disappointing ”and it was“ clear that Mark Zuckerberg sees himself as the arbiter of freedom of speech ”. And Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan said Facebook, which is under antitrust scrutiny, should be disbanded.

Democrats were unhappy too. Frank Pallone, chairman of the House’s Energy and Trade Committee, tweeted, “Donald Trump has played a huge role in spreading disinformation on Facebook, but whether he’s on the platform or not, Facebook and other social media platforms do too The same business model will find ways to highlight divisive content in order to generate ad revenue. “

The decision underscored the power of tech companies to determine who can say what online. While Mr. Zuckerberg has said that he doesn’t want his company to be “the arbiter of truth” in social discourse, Facebook has become increasingly active on the type of content it allows. To prevent the spread of misinformation, the company has been cracking down on QAnon conspiracy theories, polling loopholes, and anti-vaccination content for the past few months before Trump’s lockdown in January.

“This case has dramatic implications for the future of online language as the public and other platforms examine how the Board of Directors will deal with a difficult controversy that will recur around the world,” said Nate Persily, professor at Stanford University Law School .

He added, “President Trump has moved the envelope beyond the allowable language on these platforms and set the outer boundaries so that if you are not willing to pursue it, you will allow a great deal of incitement and hate speech and disinformation online others will spread. “

In a statement, Facebook said it was “pleased” that the board recognized that Mr Trump’s January lockdown was warranted. It said it would examine the judgment and “determine an act that is clear and proportionate”.

The case of Mr Trump is the most prominent one that the Facebook Oversight Board, conceived in 2018, has dealt with. The board, made up of 20 journalists, activists and former politicians, reviews and evaluates the company’s most controversial decisions regarding the moderation of content. Mr. Zuckerberg has repeatedly referred to it as the “Facebook Supreme Court”.

Although positioned as independent, the body was founded and funded by Facebook and has no legal or enforcement agency. Critics were skeptical of the board’s autonomy, saying it gave Facebook the ability to make tough decisions.

Each of his cases is decided by a five-person panel chosen from the 20 members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be from the country from which the case originates. The committee examines the comments on the case and makes recommendations to the entire board, which decides with a majority of votes. After a decision is made, Facebook has seven days to respond to the board’s decision.

Since the board began issuing decisions in January, it has overturned Facebook’s decisions in four of the five cases it examined. In one case, the board asked Facebook to restore a post in which Joseph Goebbels, the Nazis’ head of propaganda, made a reference to the Trump presidency. Facebook had previously removed the post for “promoting dangerous people,” but it was in line with the board’s decision.

In another case, the board ruled that Facebook had gone too far by removing a post from a French user who falsely suggested that the drug hydroxychloroquine could be used to cure Covid-19. Facebook restored the post but also said it would continue to remove the wrong information, as directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.

In Trump’s case, Facebook also asked the board for recommendations on how to deal with the accounts of political leaders. On Wednesday, the board suggested that the company publicly explain when it would apply special rules for influential people, although it should set specific deadlines in doing so. The board also said Facebook should clarify its strike and punishment process and develop and publish a policy regulating responses to crises or novel situations in which its regular processes would not prevent impending harm.

“Facebook was clearly abused by influential users,” said Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of the Oversight Board.

Facebook doesn’t have to accept these recommendations, but has said it will “examine them carefully”.

For Mr. Trump, Facebook has long been a place to gather his digital base and support other Republicans. He was followed by more than 32 million people on Facebook, although this was far fewer than the 88 million+ followers he had on Twitter.

Over the years, Mr. Trump and Mr. Zuckerberg had an irritable relationship. Mr Trump regularly attacked Silicon Valley executives for suppressing conservative language. He also threatened to revoke Section 230, a legal shield protecting companies like Facebook from liability for what users post.

Mr Zuckerberg on occasion criticized some of Mr Trump’s policies, including how to deal with the pandemic and immigration. But as calls from lawmakers, civil rights activists, and even Facebook’s own staff increased to contain Mr Trump on social media, Mr Zuckerberg declined to act. He said the speeches given by political leaders, even if they are telling lies, were timely and in the public interest.

The two men appeared cordial at occasional meetings in Washington. Mr Zuckerberg visited the White House more than once and dined privately with Mr Trump.

The courtesy ended on January 6th. Hours before his supporters stormed the Capitol, Mr Trump used Facebook and other social media to cast doubts on the results of the presidential election he lost to Joseph R. Biden Jr. Trump wrote on Facebook, “Our country has had enough, them will not take it anymore! “

Less than 24 hours later, Mr Trump was banned from the platform indefinitely. While his Facebook page stayed active, she slept. His last Facebook post on January 6th read: “I ask everyone in the US Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! “

Cecilia Kang contributed to coverage from Washington.