Apr 12
The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday, argues that Georgia’s current rules give doctors too much control over midwives’ ability to practice.
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from Singapore
seen from Singapore
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Austria
seen from Australia
seen from Taiwan
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday, argues that Georgia’s current rules give doctors too much control over midwives’ ability to practice.
Kansas Rep. Abi Boatman: My fellow Kansas lawmakers targeted trans people. They'll end up hurting everybody.
Fuck Age Verification:
Australians will have to prove their age to access pornographic websites, R-rated video games and explicit...
After being leaked many months ago, age verification will be required for some GTA Online players next week. We previously reported on how R
Also imagine paying for a video game only to be told 'sowwy you can't play it till we see your ID )': '.
3D Printing is a Crime?! WA House Bills 2320 and 2321 may make that a reality https://search.app/8o47A
3D Printing Nerd Studios POWERED by PCBWay8% off using code 3DPN ▶ https://3d.pn/pcbwayREDEEM COUPON HERE ▶ https://member.pcbway.com/Member
I was waiting to see what the 3D printing community had to say about this...
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is trying to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- the provision that says ISPs and websites are not legally responsible for most actions of their users. Whether or not you think that it's too broad, full repeal with no replacement is a horrifying prospect for the internet. I pose to you three questions.
Without this law, what's to stop someone from sabotaging a website they don't like by uploading something illegal to it and forcing them to deal with the consequences?
The only answer I can think of to the previous question is pre-screening of all user-uploaded content. Wouldn't that create an enormous barrier to entry that allows existing megacorporations who can hire armies of moderators and lawyers to keep operating but shuts out any that are small or operate on a volunteer basis?
Why now? Who but the most sniveling lackey could possibly want this administration -- the one that pardons scammers, drug smugglers, and coup-plotters; that launches vague investigations of the president's enemies to hunt for any sign that they have committed crimes while ignoring that he has obviously committed those same crimes; that has made it its open mission to remove the mention of women, racial minorities, the LGBT, and the disabled from everything it can; that obviously and openly decides policy based on whether those affected support the president personally -- to decide who to target when their users inevitably misuse their services?
There are once again rumblings of repealing the 22nd Amendment (presidential term limits) to let Trump run again. This won't happen because of how incredibly difficult it is to amend the constitution. But here's the thing: what's stopping him from doing that already? What happens if he runs illegally? Will state governments -- the institutions that control ballot access -- correctly recognize that he isn't a valid candidate and demand that the Republicans nominate someone else? Because presidential elections work differently from all others, will electors be counted as "unpledged" instead of for a candidate? (There are precedents for that: in 1872, Horace Greeley died after the election but before the EC met, and in 1960, 14 electors from Mississippi and Alabama were elected with no associated candidate as protest votes against pro-civil rights JFK, and in both cases, the electors chose other candidates.)
Trump was *already* put in office illegally -- he is currently not legally the president because he is disqualified under the 14th Amendment for trying to overthrow the government -- but he made it onto ballots and was not stopped by the Electoral College or Congress anyway. Our checks failed, and they will fail again unless other sources of institutional power get as aggressively independent as they did in the South American countries we've seen overcome antidemocratic movements in recent years.
What is the recourse if he is illegally elected to a third term? Will the DC police arrest him? Evict him? Will people inside the government refuse to follow his orders and instead demand to hear from the VP, who I suppose would be the legal president in this situation by default?
(Who *is* legally the president right now, by the way? JD Vance via order of succession since he was elected Vice President with no valid president attached? Kamala Harris by virtue of being the only valid candidate to get electoral votes? Donald Trump after all because you could kind of argue that Congress technically followed the available backup method to elect a president if nobody wins the EC?)
I recently went to a Democratic Party event in my small NH town, which was disappointingly light on policy and amounted to "we need to get more Democrats elected to our state government because we're not Trump", with no clear vision about what they would do or could already do. At one point, we went around and introduced ourselves and said what our main state and local issues were. I realize I may have sounded crazy, especially to the older and more establishment people in the room, when I said that one of my main concerns/issues is how state and local governments can ignore or defy the federal government. Or at least, I got the impression that I did from the absolute blank silence and stares I got in response.
But two recent great examples of this are the seizure of power in DC, where the president announced a fake emergency, the DOJ installed its own (fake) police chief, and states' National Guard units have been called in to occupy the city; and the announcement of federal meddling in states' constitutionally protected ability to manage their own elections, including the proposed mid-decade "redo" of the Census to only count citizens and Trump's incoherent rant about banning voting by mail. These are not just illegal, they are such absurdly unjust policies that it doesn't matter whether they're alleged to be legal; the loudly-broadcast policy of the Democratic Party if they actually do want to be a governing party instead of a placeholder for "not Trump", should be that no "Blue State" will cooperate with them.
And frankly it's kind of insane that New Hampshire Democrats are so reluctant about this. Just look at the governors of our neighboring states. Janet Mills in Maine has repeatedly refused Trumpist demands to enact transphobic policies and accepted the federal funding cuts that they try to punish her with. Maura Healy in Massachusetts has announced her state will ignore federal anti-vaccine policies and issue its own evidence-backed medical guidelines. Phil Scott in Vermont -- a Republican! -- has refused to let his National Guard participate in the occupation of DC. Kelly Ayotte, our Republican governor in NH, is a Trumpist collaborator, but I have heard little to nothing from NH Democrats, including current elected officials, about what they would do differently or are currently trying to do.
How is there all this fury about KOSA, and yet nobody has noticed a Virginia law, which has PASSED, that forces apps to limit users under 16 to only being able to use social media for ONE HOUR A DAY
Note that this law's definition of a social media platform applies to YOUTUBE