Tag Archives : Build House

Civil rights groups say new Florida education law 'silences and erases' LGBTQ+ people and families

Civil rights groups including Lambda Legal and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in a lawsuit filed this week argued that a newly-implemented Florida education law “silences and erases” LGBTQ+ students and families.

“The law, by design, chills speech and expression that have any connection, however remote, to sexual orientation or gender identity,” reads the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court on behalf of 12 plaintiffs. The complaint is the latest challenge to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed by its critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law.

Plaintiffs in the suit are seeking to block the enforcement of the law within four Florida school districts.

Under the law, which was signed by the state’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in March and took effect early this month, public primary school teachers are barred from engaging in classroom instruction related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Public school educators through high school may not address either topic in a manner that is not “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” for their students.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The measure also empowers parents to directly sue a school district if they are dissatisfied with its implementation of the law, which legal scholars have said will likely chill the speech of teachers fearful of unintentionally violating the law.

“This vigilante enforcement mechanism, combined with the law’s intentionally vague and sweeping scope, invites parents who oppose any acknowledgment whatsoever of the existence of LGBTQ+ people to sue, resulting in schools acting aggressively to silence students, parents, and school personnel,” the lawsuit, also filed by the Southern Legal Counsel (SLC) and private counsel Baker McKenzie, reads.

Proponents of the law have argued that the legislation aims to strengthen the rights of parents and shield children from classroom “indoctrination.”

Already, reports of Florida school districts’ attempts to get ahead of potential lawsuits – through which parents may be awarded damages – have surfaced. Last week, the Miami-Dade school board voted to reject two previously approved textbooks on reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases following criticism from parents that the learning materials violated the law.

In a statement released Monday by his attorneys, Will Larkins, a rising senior at Winter Park High School in Orange County and one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, said the new law could embolden “close-minded” parents to push their personal beliefs upon public school students.

“I am concerned that this law will eviscerate any hope of healthy and important discussions about LGBTQ+ issues or historical events, which are already lacking in our schools,” Larkins said. 

Others have also expressed concern that the vague language of the law will be used to erase LGBTQ+ issues from classrooms in a state that saw the nation’s deadliest attack on LGBQT+ individuals when a gunman killed 49 people at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando in 2016.

Another lawsuit filed against the law in March calls the measure a “blatantly unconstitutional” attempt to stigmatize and erase LGBTQ+ identities in Florida public schools. The complaint filed by Equality Florida, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and others names DeSantis, Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran and other education officials as defendants.

Source: TEST FEED1

New vaccines and global partnerships can end malaria as we know it

One of the most widely anticipated vaccines ever to be developed, RTS,S, or Mosquirix, is the very first licensed malaria vaccine, and as of last week, the first countries can now apply for it, through Gavi. 

Taking 35 years to develop and coming more than a century after the search for a malaria vaccine first began, this really is a historic moment. But, if it is to fulfill its potential and have a truly global impact, then we need to start viewing this not just as the end of an incredibly long journey, but as the beginning of a new (and far faster) one. Because before vaccines can meaningfully start helping to defeat this terrible disease, significant challenges must still be overcome.

With malaria infecting over 240 million people a year globally and killing more than 620,000 of them, demand for this vaccine will be incredibly high. Yet, as is common with a new vaccine, the supply of RTS,S will initially be very limited, until manufacturing capacities are scaled up. So, in addition to the challenges of working out precisely how to integrate this complex new vaccine — which requires four doses, of which three doses are outside of the normal schedule — into existing immunization programs, and in ways that complement other malaria control interventions, sufficient, sustainable and affordable supply will also be critical. Not only will we need multiple suppliers, but also continued innovation on next-generation malaria vaccines that are even more effective. To make that happen we now need a similar pace of science, innovation and collaboration as we saw with COVID-19 vaccines.

When used with other interventions, malaria vaccines have genuine potential to mark a turning point in the fight against this terrible disease. Not only will they help save countless lives, but they can also bring about broader social and economic benefits that are huge. Because even when malaria doesn’t kill people, it is a constant drain on families living in hyperendemic regions, impacting the health and wealth of individuals, their families and communities and slowing economic growth, with billions of dollars across the world lost due to healthcare costs and productivity losses. This is one reason why demand will be so high.

However, while the rollout of this vaccine will eventually be made available to a broader range of African countries with moderate to high transmission of P. falciparum malaria — the deadliest species of malaria parasite against which RTS,S protects — to begin with, doses will go to just three countries: Ghana, Kenya and Malawi. This will help ensure the uninterrupted continuation of malaria vaccine programs in the national immunization programs of these countries, which are currently part of the World Health Organization’s Malaria Vaccine Implementation Pilots (MVIP).

In order to bring malaria transmission under control, it is clear a wide-scale deployment of affordable vaccines will be needed, particularly across Africa, which accounts for 95 percent of all cases. To this end, Gavi is investing more than $155 million until 2025 to help lower-income countries make malaria vaccines available to children since under-fives make up around 80 percent of all malaria deaths. But how far that support goes will depend very much upon the speed at which existing manufacturers scale up their production, the initial prices at which the vaccine is offered, how quickly other malaria vaccines can enter the market, and how fast regulatory pathways open up for new malaria vaccines.

In addition to more doses, to really turn the tide on malaria in the longer term, we also need improved vaccines, especially ones that are more effective at preventing malaria, including those with higher efficacy, longer duration of protection, and likely also vaccines that target other forms of malaria as well as vaccines for non-African strains. With a nascent malaria vaccine pipeline in place, there is hope for this. However, with most vaccine candidates still at an early stage of research and development, we now need that development, as well as regulatory pathways and manufacturing, to move with the sense of urgency that reflects the level of crisis and devastation that malaria continues to inflict on the world — we cannot wait another 35 years.

The problem is that historically the processes involved in the development, manufacture and regulatory approval of vaccines can move incredibly slowly, often taking more than a decade to bring a vaccine candidate to market. With COVID-19 vaccines we’ve seen that it doesn’t have to be that way, with manufacturers and regulators demonstrating incredible agility and moving at breakneck speed when there is urgent demand and a market for a vaccine. Given their huge potential to save lives, reduce sickness and the economic gains, we can, and we must do the same for malaria: The world has waited long enough.

Dr. Seth Berkley is CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Warren, Padilla call on Buttigieg to crack down on airline industry

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote a letter on Tuesday to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Transportation Department general counsel John Putnam urging them to crack down on the airline industry as it experiences delays, cancellations and high prices.

“By utilizing its existing licensing and rulemaking authority, the Department can improve experiences for travelers and help bring down exorbitant ticket prices driven in part by anticompetitive mergers,” the senators wrote in their letter.

Warren and Padilla suggested that the Transportation Department work harder to protect consumers from “a wide range of rampant unfair practices” and create concrete rules for refunds after seriously delayed flights.

The senators also called on Buttigieg and Putnam to “impose fines on airlines for the delays and cancellations that result from their own poor planning” while combating “dwindling competition” among airlines.

Warren and Padilla cited statistics that 1 in 5 flights have arrived behind schedule in 2022 and that airlines have canceled almost 122,000 flights so far this year, more than the cancellations that occurred across the whole year in 2021.

“Airlines have also increased flight overbookings, causing passengers to be involuntarily denied boarding nearly three times as often this year than they were in 2018,” the senators wrote. “Unions are sounding the alarm that airlines are selling tickets for flights they know they will not be able to staff.”

They also pointed out skyrocketing prices in the airline industry that they said are in part fueled by mergers creating less competition in the market.

Prices for domestic flights have increased by almost 50 percent since January, the lawmakers said, adding that airlines have “failed to issue at least $10 billion in refunds for flight cancellations throughout the pandemic, despite being required to do so by federal law.”

Warren and Padilla specified that Buttigieg should begin disincentivizing airlines from engaging in “a wide range of rampant unfair practices” such as delaying and canceling flights by issuing fines “of up to $37,377 per violation.”

The Transportation Department should “fully utilize its statutory authority to protect consumers, promote competition in the airline industry and hold airlines accountable for delayed and canceled flights,” the senators concluded.

Source: TEST FEED1

Buttigieg edges out Biden among Democrats in New Hampshire poll

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg received slightly more support compared to President Biden among likely 2024 New Hampshire Democratic primary voters when asked their first choice for president, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

The University of New Hampshire (UNH) Survey Center Granite Poll found that 17 percent of likely 2024 Democratic primary voters in the state would choose Buttigieg among a list of Democrats, or those who caucus with Democrats, who are considered possible 2024 presidential contenders. 

Biden received 16 percent support, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who each came in at 10 percent. A handful of other Democrats, in addition Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), received less than 10 percent.

The margin of error for among the Democrats polled specifically is plus or minus 4.7 points, meaning Buttgieg and Biden are statistically tied among voters. 

But the polling further demonstrates that Democrats are not wedded to the idea of choosing Biden as their nominee in the next presidential cycle. The White House has said Biden intends to run in 2024, though Buttigieg has not made any announcements on the matter.

When respondents were asked about their second choice for their 2024 presidential candidate, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) received the most support at 14 percent, followed by Buttigieg at 13 percent. 

In comparison, only 2 percent of respondents chose Biden as their second choice.

The poll also found that, compared to data collected in June, fewer Democrats want the president to seek another term in 2024. While 54 percent of Democrats said in June they wanted Biden to make another bid, that figure dropped to 31 percent in this latest poll.

“President Biden is increasingly seen as an electoral liability for Democrats, both in the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election,” UNH Survey Center Director Andrew Smith said.

The UNH Survey Center Granite Poll was conducted between July 21 and July 25 with 1,043 people surveyed. The margin of error among all respondents was plus or minus 3 percentage points. 

Among the 430 likely 2024 Democratic primary voters surveyed specifically, the margin of error was plus or minus 4.7 percentage points. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Primaries are exposing the lie of ‘voter suppression’

If states that passed new voting laws were intending to suppress voter turnout, as many Democrats and much of the media have alleged, those efforts have failed, miserably. Many have seen record midterm primary voter turnout. Meanwhile, some of the deep blue states with progressive politicians who made the voter-suppression allegations have experienced abysmal voter turnout.

Remember the allegations? Here’s President Biden speaking at Georgia’s Atlanta University on Jan. 22.

“To them [Republican legislators in Georgia], too many people voting in a democracy is a problem. So, they’re putting up obstacles. … Jim Crow 2.0 is about two insidious things: voter suppression and election subversion. It’s no longer about who gets to vote; it’s about making it harder to vote. It’s about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all.”

Biden’s sentiments were echoed by Democrats and many in the mainstream media across the country for months.

And his condemnations didn’t stop there. “It’s not just here in Georgia,” Biden said. “Last year [2021] alone, 19 states not proposed but enacted 34 laws attacking voting rights.”

Now that several state midterm-election primaries are over, it’s a good time to see if Biden’s Jim Crow 2.0 warnings have panned out.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive organization that echoes the left’s voter suppression accusations, tracked state election-integrity and other voting bills, including in the 19 states Biden mentions. The Center concludes, “Between Janu­ary 1 and Septem­ber 27 [2021], at least 19 states enacted 33 laws that make it harder for Amer­ic­ans to vote.”

Of those states, the Brennan Center seems to imply that Georgia, Texas, Iowa and Florida (whose primary isn’t until August) are among the most restrictive. Is that what actually happened?

Georgia’s midterm primary was May 24. Here’s the Washington Post’s coverage of the Peach State’s primary, “Turnout set modern records for a midterm primary. Ballot rejections plummeted.” Hmmm. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Mark Antony, voter suppression “should be made of sterner stuff.”

The high turnout left the critics claiming it “was an outgrowth of years of painstaking efforts to register and mobilize voters — not a reflection of the Election Integrity Act.” So, if turnout is low, it’s voter suppression; if turnout is high, it’s a result of heroic Democratic efforts.” Got it.

Probably the second most criticized state was Texas, whose primary was March 1. Following the primary, the left-leaning Texas Tribune announced, “Texas has a history of a dismal turnout rate in primary elections. This year’s turnout was higher than the last six midterm primaries.”

Apparently, we’re going to have to look elsewhere for that voter suppression. How about the June 7 primary in Iowa, anther state that passed voter integrity legislation and was tagged by the Brennan Center? The following headline sums it up: “The 2022 primary had the second-highest turnout since 1994, says Iowa Secretary of State.”

So, it appears voter-suppression accusations were baseless — at least so far. But lots of local, state and national factors can affect voter turnout: the choice of candidates, voter intensity and issues such as crime, inflation and the economy. And we’re heading into the midterm elections, which historically have lower turnout rates than presidential-election years.

But if the states where voting laws allegedly suppressed voters are seeing large turnouts, those deep blue states that claim to be doing everything possible to make voting easier should be seeing voter explosions, right?

New York’s midterm election primary isn’t until Aug. 23. But the state had a gubernatorial primary in June, so how did that go? According to the Gotham Gazette, “Voter turnout in New York City and State declined dramatically — by nearly half — from the 2018 Democratic primary for governor to the one that closed on Tuesday.”

It turns out deep blue Illinois also saw low voter turnout on its June 28 primary. As WTTW, Chicago’s PBS affiliate, explains it: “Depending on who you ask, the unusual timing of the elections, issues with voters’ access to the polls, and election judges resigning right before polls opened all contributed to the low turnout among Chicago and suburban Cook County’s registered voters on June 28.”

Wait, “voter access,” “unusual timing,” “election judge issues” — those sound like the left’s criticisms of Republican-led states. So, Georgia’s election goes smoothly, with record midterm primary turnout, while Illinois and Chicago had, well, election-integrity issues.

Ok, voter turnout in New York and Illinois really sucked. But surely far-left California had a good showing on its June 7 primary. Or maybe not.

According to one account, “Midterm primary elections are notorious for low voter turnout, and California’s primary on Tuesday yielded some of the lowest turnout numbers of eligible voters in the state’s history …” Ouch!

And for a bonus, here’s Washington, D.C.,-based WTOP’s story on voter turnout in Virginia and Washington, D.C., “Though D.C. did have substantially more in-person voting than expected, turnout for these [primary] races was low to lackluster throughout the region.”

Democrats and much of the media attacked states that passed election-integrity laws, making outrageous accusations. And yet it looks like voter turnout underperformed in the blue states making the accusations.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kirby: Chinese rhetoric over potential Pelosi trip to Taiwan 'clearly unhelpful'

White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby on Tuesday said China’s “escalatory” rhetoric ahead of a potential trip from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to Taiwan is “clearly unhelpful and not necessary.”

Kirby told CNN’s John Berman that Pelosi has yet to formally announce a trip to Taiwan, a self-governing island nation off the coast of China, and the U.S. has not changed its policies concerning the two countries.

“That kind of rhetoric coming out of the Chinese side is clearly unhelpful and not necessary,” Kirby said. “Again, there’s been no trip announced and there’s no call for that kind of escalatory rhetoric.”

Whispers of a potential Pelosi visit to Taiwan, which could happen in early August, began circulating over the spring, with reports that she might lead a delegation to the island nation.

The news came amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and China over the island nation, which Beijing sees as historically part of the mainland.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijan last week warned the House speaker’s visit would result in “strong and resolute measures” against the U.S. because it would violate the “One China” policy, which recognizes Taiwan as part of the mainland.

“It will have a severe negative impact on the political foundation of China-US relations, and send a gravely wrong signal to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces,” he said.

China previously warned against Pelosi visiting Taiwan in April following reports she was planning a trip to the island in the near future. She later postponed her trip to Asia after testing positive for COVID-19.

If Pelosi were to stop at the island, she’d be the most senior U.S. official to visit Taiwan since former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1997.

The U.S. takes an ambiguous position on Taiwan, offering to help the nation defend itself from potential Chinese aggression but making clear it would not intervene militarily on its behalf. The U.S. recognizes the “One China” policy but considers the Taiwan issue unsettled.

When President Biden traveled to east Asia over the spring, he said the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily in comments the White House later clarified were not a change in policy. Biden has warned against Pelosi’s potential visit to Taiwan, saying it was “not a good idea.”

Chinese forces have in recent years escalated rhetoric against Taiwan and have often conducted military drills near the nation of 23 million people.

Taiwan itself is ramping up its own military drills with increasing tensions over Pelosi’s visit, the Associated Press reported.

Source: TEST FEED1

IMF: Global economic outlook ‘gloomy and more uncertain’

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced that its projection for global economic growth is “gloomy and more uncertain” as it reduced its growth expectation for 2022 to 3.2 percent, about half a percentage point lower than previously predicted. 

The IMF released its most recent World Economic Outlook report on Tuesday, noting that risks it identified earlier in the year are beginning to come to fruition. 

Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s chief economist, said in a release that three key risks that the organization identified in its report in April are materializing: higher-than-expected and broader inflation, a worse-than-expected economic slowdown in China amid COVID-19 outbreaks and lockdowns and negative effects of the war in Ukraine and associated sanctions that have been put in place. 

Gourinchas said global growth has been revised to 2.9 percent for the next year, a drop of 0.7 points from its April projection. Expected inflation was increased to 6.6 percent in advanced economies and 9.5 percent in developing economies. 

“Taming elevated inflation should be the first priority of policymakers around the world,” Gourinchas said. “This requires tightening monetary policy, as many central banks have started to do both in advanced economies and emerging markets.” 

The report comes as the Federal Reserve is set to potentially raise interest rates as much as three quarters of a percentage point this week in an attempt to curb inflation. The Fed raised interest rates by that amount last month in the largest rate hike since 1994. 

The IMF release states that the potential risks to the global economy are “overwhelmingly tilted” to the negative. It states that the war in Ukraine could lead to a sudden stop in European gas imports from Russia, inflation may be harder to bring down than expected and renewed COVID-19 outbreaks could limit Chinese growth. 

Gourinchas said the IMF ran an alternative situation in which some of these risks materialize, causing growth next year to fall to 2 percent. Global growth has only been lowered five times since 1970. 

He said countries will need to increase the resilience of their financial systems to prepare for “tighter” financial conditions. He added that policymakers should pay attention to health and climate resilience, working to increase vaccination rates to prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks and take action to address climate change.

Source: TEST FEED1

Planned Parenthood website removes distinction between ectopic pregnancy and abortion

Planned Parenthood changed the language on its national webpage last week explaining ectopic pregnancy and abortion, removing one sentence that distinguished treatment of the condition from an abortion. 

The changes come amid debate and confusion surrounding ectopic pregnancy as abortion bans are implemented in various states following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, the 1973 landmark case establishing a constitutional right to abortion. 

Some supporters of abortion rights have claimed abortion bans could be interpreted to outlaw necessary medical treatment for ectopic pregnancies. 

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, eight states have banned abortion, and five have implemented bans that are currently blocked in court. Eight of the laws explicitly remove ectopic pregnancy from their definitions of abortion in their text, while the remaining five allow exceptions when a mother’s life is threatened. 

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the uterus, most often in a fallopian tube, according to Mayo Clinic. The embryo is unable to survive outside the uterus, and if not removed using surgery or medication it can rupture the tube, resulting in heavy bleeding and sometimes death. 

The Planned Parenthood page that was changed previously stated the following on abortion and ectopic pregnancy: “Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus.  

“Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure,” the website had stated. 

The new language eliminated the sentence about ending a pregnancy in a uterus, and begins by discussing the location of an embryo during an ectopic pregnancy.  

Planned Parenthood also altered a sentence on the webpage that previously said: “The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.” 

It now reads: “The medical procedures for terminating a pregnancy in the uterus are usually different from the medical procedures for terminating an ectopic pregnancy.” 

Planned Parenthood told The Hill in a statement that the website’s language had been updated to prevent information from being “twisted” by anti-abortion voices. 

“Planned Parenthood believes that everyone should have access to medically accurate information to help them make informed decisions about their health care and their lives — without judgment,” said the written statement from Adrienne Verrilli, vice president of communications and culture at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  

“That is why we regularly update the health information on our website. Anti-abortion politicians, on the other hand, routinely misrepresent language around ectopic pregnancy to serve their own agenda. Our web page on ectopic pregnancy was updated to retain factual information about ectopic pregnancy, while also ensuring that the information could not be twisted or misrepresented by anti-abortion politicians. 

“An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that develops outside of the uterus,” the statement from Verrill continued. “It is a dangerous type of pregnancy that is not viable, can never result in childbirth, and threatens the life of the pregnant person. It requires immediate medical or surgical intervention. 

“Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is different from the medical processes used for an abortion. A provider can treat an ectopic pregnancy using a medication called methotrexate or, more commonly, surgically through a procedure called laparoscopy. Although these treatments are different from abortion care, many patients and health care providers fear potential civil and criminal penalties around the treatment of pregnancy outcomes — including but not limited to ectopic pregnancy — because of the egregious overturning of Roe v. Wade. As a result, patients experiencing an ectopic pregnancy may have life-saving treatment delayed or denied due to providers’ fears of facing legal or criminal repercussions,” the statement said.  

Democratic officials have referenced ectopic pregnancies in their arguments against abortion bans. For example, in a July 8 tweet referring to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted in favor of overturning Roe, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote, “he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Supreme Court wrong to block Biden immigration priorities

With its official term finished, the Supreme Court just released a short order with big implications for immigration policy. The court on Thursday refused to block a lower court ruling that has prevented the Biden administration from setting immigration enforcement priorities. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced these priorities last September, and then in June a Texas judge blocked them from taking effect. Now the high court voted (5-4) to keep Biden’s immigration priorities on hold, and to hear arguments on the case in December.  

This may sound like business as usual, as controversial measures often wend their way through our legal system. But here the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is ignoring federal law, precedent, and common sense. The court is basically allowing one Trump judge to usurp the authority of elected and appointed leaders. This amounts to a threat to our separation of powers, as well as to immigrant families who could find themselves at risk for deportation.  

At issue is whether Biden can set his own immigration enforcement priorities, something presidents of both parties have been doing for decades. Presidents set such priorities because Congress has never allocated enough money to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to remove all of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. The Pew Research Center estimates that there are nearly 11 million undocumented people in the country.  

Biden’s immigration enforcement priorities are completely reasonable. The administration wanted to focus on removing threats to national security, public safety, and border security. Immigration agents were being told to go after criminals and terrorists, rather than, say, rounding up U.S. military veterans and students. This targeted use of resources is within Mayorkas’s authority. When DHS was created in 2003, Congress said that the Secretary “shall be responsible” for “establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”  

That didn’t stop District Judge Drew Tipton from ruling that the administration could not implement its guidelines. Worse, the Supreme Court is letting his deeply flawed decision stay in place for months.  

Consider that the court has consistently upheld the authority of the federal government over immigration. In 2012, the court noted that “a principal feature of the removal system is broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” The court ruled in 1999 that an agency can drop deportation proceedings against a person for any number of reasons, and in 1985 it held that “an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review.” By allowing Judge Tipton to substitute his judgment for that of the administration, the current court is trampling on precedent. 

The court’s order could also have a devastating impact on undocumented immigrants. Now any person in the country without authorization is at risk of deportation. It doesn’t matter if they have been in the country for years, have citizen children, or are on the front lines in the fight against COVID-19. ICE agents are free to target anyone they choose, which could destabilize immigrant communities and lead to more racial profiling of Latinos.  

Setting immigration priorities doesn’t mean that a president is soft on illegal immigration. Biden’s priorities are close to those of Obama, and his administration deported over 2 million people.  

True, the court’s order is temporary, as it agreed to hear arguments in this case in December. Yet that means that a final decision will probably not come until next Spring. Even if the Biden administration ultimately wins its case, a core responsibility of DHS Secretary Mayorkas will have been held hostage by a lone federal judge for nearly a year. And eliminating these priorities is not fair to immigration agents either; they will have to do their jobs without official guidance on best practices. 

It’s one thing to have aggressive immigration policies under a president like Trump, who was democratically elected and accountable to voters. It’s a different matter to have aggressive immigration policies because a conservative judge in Texas thinks we should. By permitting this, the court is allowing an encroachment upon the powers of the executive. That seems a violation of our system of co-equal branches of government. 

President Biden has the right to enact his immigration agenda unimpeded by a partisan judiciary, whether that be a Texas judge or the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. By again imposing its will on millions of Americans, the high court is further eroding its own legitimacy.

Raul Reyes is an immigration attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. A graduate of Harvard University and Columbia Law School, he is also a contributor to NBCNews.com and CNN Opinion. You can follow him on Twitter at @RaulAReyes, Instagram: raulareyes1.

Source: TEST FEED1

Meta asks Oversight Board if it should stop removing COVID misinformation

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, asked the board tasked with overseeing policy debates on the platform to weigh in on whether it should ease its COVID misinformation policy. 

The company asked the Oversight Board, a task force funded by Meta that operates independently, if the company’s policy, including to remove posts with false claims, is still appropriate as the pandemic “has evolved,” Meta’s president of Global Affairs Nick Clegg wrote Tuesday in a blog post.

Facebook is asking the board to issue an advisory opinion on whether the current measures are appropriate, or if the company should address misinformation through other means such as labeling or demoting content. 

Facebook broadened its misinformation policies in January 2020 to include removing posts with misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The company expanded the policy to remove false claims about the coronavirus vaccine in late 2020, as vaccines became available. 

Before the updates, Facebook only removed misinformation when local partners with “relevant expertise” flagged a particular post to the company that could contribute to a risk of imminent physical harm. 

The company is aiming to create a policy that will address varying concerns globally, since vaccination rates and the state of returning to normal life are different based on country circumstance. 

Clegg said the change led Meta to remove COVID-19 misinformation on an “unprecedented scale.” He said the company removed more than 25 million pieces of content since the start of the pandemic under the policy. 

As Meta looks to possibly ease back on COVID-19 misinformation policies, the company has faced criticism from advocacy groups and Democrats that it has not done enough to combat misinformation about the virus or vaccines.

Source: TEST FEED1