Arrested and Sued For Sending a GIF

We’ve probably all been bullied at one time or another, and some of us might have even been cyber-bullied. Some examples of cyber-bullying might include text messages, emails or social media posts that operate to threaten, harass, intimidate, embarrass or otherwise harm a recipient.

Facing an Enhanced Charge
According to the American Bar Association Journal, one Twitter user recently sent another user a GIF with a strobe effect. It was accompanied by the message, “You deserve a seizure.” The sender knew that the recipient was an epileptic. Strobe lights can cause seizures in a small minority of epileptics. Indeed, the recipient went into a seizure. The sender has now been arrested on federal cyberstalking charges. That charge was dismissed, but the sender still faces another charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in state court. Prosecutors are calling the bullying an enhanced hate-crime.

A Physical Tool
There’s still another case that’s pending against the sender in federal court, and that’s a lawsuit based on the civil tort theory of battery. In its simplest sense, battery involves harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person coupled with the intent to do so. That definition dates back before the Mayflower. In the 21st century, battery isn’t always thought of as a violent physical blow or groping though. As per the strobe case, it was held that the GIF was a physical tool that would have “the same effect as any person with the plaintiff’s condition.” In support of his decision, the federal judge stated that past cases involving second-hand smoke, electrical shocks or loud noise can also constitute a battery. Much like a laser causing blindness, or a deafening noise, direct harmful or offensive contact need not be made.

What the sender never realized is that battery is an intentional tort. Intentional torts are generally not covered by insurance or dischargeable in bankruptcy. On top of that, punitive damages are allowed in personal in cases involving intentional torts. The sender is likely to learn a lesson from the school of hard knocks in this case. He’s likely to be in for a long payoff.

Read More: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sending_a_flashing_gif_to_provoke_a_seizure_can_constitute_battery_federal

California Supreme Court Rules Yelp Isn’t Required to Remove Negative Review of Law Firm

The Supreme Court of California made a decision by overturning a ruling made by San Francisco Superior Court, stating that Yelp Inc. does not have to delete negative consumer reviews from its website.

According to legalnewsline.com, the case dates back to 2012, when Ava Bird went to Yelp to leave a negative review about the law firm that represented her in a personal injury case. Hassell Law Group attempted to sue her after discovering the review.

Managing partner of California law firm Haight Brown and Bonesteel, David Evans, stated that the court was divided on the matter in spite of the final ruling, which took place on July 2, 2018. He explained that three judges believed Yelp should win the case, while another three disagreed.

Bird and the law firm had reached an agreement. However, there were emails back and forth between Dawn Hassell, the owner of Hassell Law Group, and Ms. Bird that resulted in the revelation that Bird was dissatisfied with the way the firm was handling her case. As a result of the exchanges, the law firm withdrew its representation.

Subsequently, the law firm discovered a review on Yelp from someone who had rated it one out of five stars. According to the Supreme Court, that review was posted by a user called “Birdzeye B” and that the individual said in the review that the law firm is not even worthy of one star and urged others to avoid it.

According to the opinion, Hassell believed that Bird was the person who posted that review. She then sent her an email and accused her of slander and trying to intentionally damage the reputation of the business.

This was not the only one-star review the law firm received on Yelp. In early February 2013, there was one from a user called “J.D.” from Alameda.

Two months later, the plaintiff Hassell filed a lawsuit against Bird in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming that she authored both negative reviews and that she was being libelous. Dawn Hassell also claimed emotional distress. Yelp was not named as a defendant in the case.

The opinion stated that, in the event that the plaintiffs later decided to add Yelp as a defendant, Yelp could claim immunity under section 230. Section 230 exists for the purpose of promoting free exchange of ideas or information on the Internet.

Evans stated that protecting websites like Yelp is a priority, but that the other side should also be considered. He said Yelp doesn’t want to be sued every time a user posts a negative review about a company and that was why section 230 was enacted.

Governor Jerry Brown is reported to head to the Supreme Court where he expects his pension law case to be heard.

Before Jerry Brown exits his seat as the California boss, he wants the Supreme Court in the state to determine a lawsuit that could permit his successor to decrease or modify pension welfare for California public workers. Governor Jerry Brown’s office asked Chief Justice Tani Cantil- Sakauye to hurry up the state Supreme Court’s contemplation of a lawsuit that was filed. It challenged a Marquee law that was signed six years ago. The law restricted pension benefits for all the public workers that were hired from 2013. Precisely, the lawsuit is pushing for a change on a tiny part. If the lawsuit is heard and altered according to how Jerry Brown wants, it will have restored a pension benefit that the law had canceled which permitted public workers to buy extra years of service that was previously credited to their pensions.

However, both sides, the Governor’s office, and the Supreme Court have argued that the stakes at hand were excellent. According to Sac Bee, a win by Governor Jerry Brown would see a massive dent in the California Rules. Technically, the rule restricts agencies from decreasing pension benefits for all the current workers and retirees except if they deliver additional reimbursement to counterbalance the loss income. Governor Jerry Brown is so eager to erase the precedent. The rule generally blocks public agencies and cities from making even little alterations to pension strategies even as the workers spending on retirement plans elevate. Jerry Brown argued that crucial city services were at high risk. This included the capacity to fund fire protection and the police. In October last year, Jerry Brown’s office took a major step to release Attorney General Xavier Becerra off his duties so that the law against the trial from the union that signifies California Fire workers would be pushed for hearing.

An attorney in Brown’s office, Rei Onishi wrote to the Chief Justice a note saying that the move was considerably energetic in large section by Governor Jerry Brown’s profound concern for the economic honesty and creditworthiness of public pension systems in the entire state of California. The letter went on to state that, as the term for Governor Jerry Brown neared to end, the Governor’s office humbly commended the Supreme Court for considering the issue for argument as soon as possible. The Supreme Court had not yet responded to the request that was sent. Governor Brown’s office said that it would continue to stress on the matter till things were changed.

Paul Mampilly Reveals Stocks Most Affected by Trump’s Trade War

Paul Mampilly has stated that President Donald Trump has been threatening to start a trade war with China, and some stocks are going to suffer because of it. The unfortunate thing about this is that the stocks that are set to take a fall are currently extremely popular.

Wilbur Ross of the Commerce Department has called China “the most protectionist country” on our list of trade partners and stated that new tariffs will be placed on Chinese aluminum and steel. The announcement caused steel stocks to rise for one day, but experts believe that if this sort of talk and the actions it leads to continue, American companies that are overexposed in China could pay a very high price.

In response to the announcement, China stated that it may turn its attention to Boeing, Starbucks and General Motors and place a 45 percent tariff on products imported to the United States from China. The danger is that future revenue would be in as much peril as near-term revenue if the U.S. follows through with its promises.

President Trump would place an import tariff on foreign goods to make these products more expensive in the U.S. marketplace. This gives an upper hand to manufacturers of steel and aluminum in the United States. These import tariffs would also reduce the amount of products of low quality that China has been dumping into U.S. markets. This strategy is not without risks because analysts say that steel and aluminum manufacturing in America would also suffer. In addition to that, if prices remain high for a long period of time, it will hurt several companies’ bottom lines, stunt job growth and hurt the overall economy.

When these particular stocks start to lose value, investors big and small are going to want to sell them. This, of course, is going to mean that no one will be in the market to buy them. As of right now, these stocks are looking very weak. One example is Harley-Davidson, and it lost 6 percent of its value following an announcement that it would start producing some of its equipment overseas.

Paul Mampilly says that people should start selling their stocks now before the selling gets out of control and people begin to lose money.

Paul Mampilly used to work on Wall Street, but he left that line of work because he wanted to help regular people buy the best stocks for their portfolios. He started the newsletter Profits Unlimited for this purpose. With his years of experience and expertise, Paul Mampilly recommends the stocks that he believes are going to climb higher to the 130,000+ subscribers who receive his newsletter.

What does Paul Mampilly recommend that you sell?

The Boeing Company

According to Paul Mampilly, the one to get hit the hardest will be Boeing. It is the boeingnumber one stock that is overexposed to China. This is a blue-chip stock, and 13 percent of its sales come from China. Boeing was expecting China to purchase 30 percent of the 737s that it makes, but China can easily start to buy from European company Airbus. This one action would send Boeing’s stock crashing to the ground. In addition to that, 150,000 American jobs would be at risk if China follows through with this threat.

Apple Inc.

apple logoIt’s also time to avoid Apple. Approximately 25 percent of Apple’s sales come from China. Apple’s products are also made in China. Because of this, Apple’s predicament is different from all other companies. If China were to do something to prevent Apple phones from being sold in China, Apple’s stock would be worthless.

The iPhone factories that Apple operates in China could also be in trouble. China could decide to inspect these factories more often than it has been doing in the past, but it could also charge Apple more for transportation fees so that it will be more difficult for Apple to transport its phones to other global markets.

In other words, a trade war means that Apple will lose.

The possibility exists that President Trump will encourage Apple to begin producing iPhones in the United States, and analysts believe that American manufacturers will outperform those in China. However, increased production in the U.S. will mean higher prices and lower profits. Experts say that share buybacks and dividends will no longer exist.

Starbucks Corporation

starbucksStarbucks is also overexposed to China. There are more than 1,540 Starbucks stores in China. That means that 6 percent of Starbucks stores are in China, and the company wants to have as many as 5,000 Chinese stores by 2021. Starbucks is currently losing steam in America, so it is counting on China to make up for that because the Chinese Starbucks market is growing faster than any other market in the world.

A trade war wouldn’t mean anything good for Starbucks, and we could expect to see the lowest of the lows for this company.

General Motors Company

General_Motors_logo.svgThis is another company that is highly dependent upon China. In 2017, GM sold the Chinese more than 4 million vehicles, and only 20 million cars were sold in China in total that year.

GM had a record number of sales to China in the last quarter, but it could decide that it wants to purchase cars from local manufacturers. All it would need to do is give people incentives for buying locally. It could also tie up GM in red tape and regulations so that it would be difficult for GM to manufacture its cars in China.

It is best to leave this stock alone until GM settles its differences with China.

Walmart Inc.

walamrt logoWalmart is double exposed in China as Apple is double exposed. China currently has 20 Walmarts. It also has 1.4 million members of its 14 Sam’s Clubs, and Sam’s Club has been growing at a rate of 10 percent each year. On the other side, Walmart purchases a ton of merchandise from China. Experts have stated that 40 percent to 70 percent of the things sold at Walmart were purchased from China.

The point must be made here that China would also be hurt if there is a trade war between it and the United States, but there is still danger.

Follow Paul Mampilly

Twitter

LinkedIn

Crunchbase

 

Judge Makes Ruling in Child Reunification Effort

Starting earlier this year, the Trump administration began what it called a zero-tolerance policy regarding those who were crossing into the United States illegally. When parents crossed over the border with their children, the children and the parents were separated with the adults being taken to detention centers while the children were placed in separate facilities designated for their care. After an outcry against this policy of child separation, President Trump reversed the child separation policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed numerous lawsuits in federal court seeking to have the children reunited with their parents as quickly as possible. One federal judge ruled that the children under five years old had to be reunited with their parents by July 10. Children over the age of five are required to be reunited with their parent by July 26.

The reunification of children with their parents has hit a snag, and the ACLU was back in court this week challenging another policy by the Trump administration. In some cases, parents who were seeking to be reunited with their children where being asked to pay the reunification costs before the children would be returned. In one case that was documented, this would have been approximately a $1900 fee to the parents.

On Friday, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ruled that the parents of separated children will not have to pay anything to be reunited with their children. She is the same judge the ruled on when the children must be reunited with their parents.

Representatives of the Trump administration argued that it was too much to ask for the government to have to pay the fees for 2,000 or more children that must be reunited. The judge simple said that it will happen.

The Trump administration is also balking over the speed at which the judge ordered reunifications to take place. The Trump administration argues that they do not have the time to make sure that children are being reunited with the correct people.

The judge has of yet not reversed or extended the timelines that she has imposed. The ACLU has stated that it will take further legal actions regarding this matter should circumstances warrant.

Encounter the Most Crowded Airlines: Load Factor Reaches a Record High

Summer has finally arrived. That means even more stacked planes and close airports. If one thinks that airline trips are much crowded than how they were before, then they are absolutely right. The passenger load factor otherwise known as (PLF) of commercial airways has risen tremendously over the past decade. In 2005, airlines had a mean load factor of 75.2%. Therefore on average, only three seats for every four seats were traded.

The recession of 2007-2010 halted the load factor growth. However, by 2018, the average load factor reached 81.7% globally. In the United States, the load factor has risen on domestic flights. It has inflated from 67.88% in 2002 to 86.08% by 2018. During that time, the number of domestic trips has had an almost stationary status. This is from 8,085,083 in 2002 to 8,176,610 in 2017. The US airline sector has gotten even better in documenting seats as revenue passenger miles rose. It has seen a significant increase from 471,652,206 in 2002 to 684,221,393 in 2017.

The era of having an entire row to space up in coach is a thing of the past. It is also inclusive of having an empty middle seat disjointing one from his or her neighbor. The airlines rarely mourn over it. On the contrary, these airlines of global repute are busy shrinking seats and cramming additional seats. As one might anticipate, the reduced cost carriers typically have the highest load factor. However, the load factor can at times fluctuate. An example is the Frontier Airlines. Its load factor grew from 73.5% in 2004 to an incredible 91.28% in 2013. From that moment, however, the load factor no matter how robust, has dropped significantly. It was noted in 2017 when it turned back to 86.36%. It may due to heightening competition from major airlines. They offer the dread “basic economy” fare. It starts with Delta’s “experiment” in 2014.

According to Forbes, as of July 2017, Ireland’s Ryanair was the most packed airline. Its load factor was 93.1% in 2016. Furthermore, the airline propelled the figure further to 94.7% in 2017. The airline is somehow involved in a “cattle car” reputation. Regardless, Ryanair successfully stacked in 130 million Millennials in the 2017-2018 fiscal years. However, other carriers challenged it for its passenger packing size. Four other different carriers boasted of 90% or even enhanced load factor in 2017. It was headed by India’s very own Spicejet. It flew an average of 92.8% full.
Reference

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Privacy Advocates

Telephones were the last thing on the mind of the Founders when the U.S. Constitution was written, as no one of that time had any idea that technology would become what it is today. Personal privacy was actually such a non-issue that that it was not even directly addressed when the document was being written, as books and newspapers were the only form of societal communication. In addition, crime had a completely different dynamic as well, with most criminal cases involving physical attack, gun fights, or various forms of theft. But, in today’s world, there are myriad ways in which a crime can be committed, commonly involving the use of a personal phone that leaves a wide array of information available for police authorities when attempting to solve crimes. The question today is one of priority, along with the view of the Supreme Court that people have at least a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in certain areas of their life. Today that area includes personal cell phone records.

The high court decided this issue in an appeal from a convicted individual who was accused of orchestrating several coordinated robberies of electronics stores while using the his personal cell phone to connect with other ring members. At issue was the concept of “reasonable means” of obtaining the information police used to solve the case. They used cell phone tower information that was accessed without a warrant and covered a time frame of over four months. According to the court, this extended swath of information gleaned from cell phone tower records was excessive.

The significance of this decision has much more impact than many people realize, as it will govern all investigations from now on when officers want to access phone records. The concept of “being secure in personal papers” is now extended to cell phone use as well, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion that the need for a personal cell phone is a fundamental necessity to function in modern society. Not only can phone information reveal individual private facts about the owner, but information extracted from phone records over a four-month period gives police officials much more personal information than needed to prove the charge.

The court ruled that because the requested records were not specific concerning what the police needed, this case was an example of governmental overreach that should be protected by a reasonable right to privacy concerning aspects of the defendant’s life that do not pertain to the case. Privacy rights advocates surely consider this decision a victory for the common person, even when being accused of a crime that can be proven they committed. And of course, police departments across the nation are saying it impedes their ability to do their job, but the U.S. Constitution has historically been pesky in that regard as well.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

Will California’s Public Workers’ Unions Frustrate United States Supreme court’s decision?

Diana Corral, a soft-spoken young lady who is aged 36 years, doesn’t even look fit to be a County social worker. She even hardly fits into the typical pedigree of being a county boss. She is reported to love her job so much because she enjoys helping people. She is considered a helper who likes guiding the poor, the homeless and the disabled. She assists them in securing food stamps, cash assistance, medical care and insurance. Diana Corral is among the army that is on the warpath in California to stand against the effects of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision. The protestors were trying to overturn the decision that was passed by the Supreme Court that seemed not be in their favor. They intended to outlaw the so-called fair share that was being taxed by the government unions.

The levies that are paid by employees that later decline to join the government unions have offset the collective bargaining costs. Unions are involuntary asked to represent the ‘free riders’. Experts have foreseen the extensive issues of dues-paying members. This has, in turn, crippled the labor movement. However, in California, there are 1.5 million union-protected public workers and also a labor-friendly council. That supposition might be incorrect. Corral reported that the Janus case had sparkled an issue in the workers. The employees have been sitting seeing the inequity, the rich continuing to be rich while the poor have grown to be poorer. Corral revealed that it was the moment for the working class American citizens to stand up and fight for the little that they have left.

According to her tone, Corral seemed more renewed and with energy. She meant a new action team for all the fourteen work sites. She asked all her colleagues to sign commitment cards. She reported that the cards had been approved by over 90% of her work members. She intended to legally re-enrol them for another year. If they were re-enrolled, it meant that they had to bargain their contracts. The cards were more significant as they represented the statewide representation of the worker’s plea. They were to push for a change after the Supreme Court passed a law that seemed not to favour them. She urged her work members to open their eyes and see what was happening. The court’s decisions was a wakeup call for them. It was a signal to the entire labour movement that had to fight for their rights so that the court can prioritize their demands.

Read Full Report: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article214022469.html

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to step down

Much of the media coverage surrounding U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has focused on how and when his soon-to-be-vacant seat should be filled, but the 81-year-old jurist’s announcement that he would be stepping down after three decades on the court also raises a number of thorny legal questions. Justice Kennedy was widely viewed as a reliable conservative when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1988, but he has provided a crucial liberal vote in a number of important recent Supreme Court decisions.

This has progressive groups worried as President Trump has said that Justice Kennedy’s successor will be selected from a list of 25 names vetted and approved by a group of conservative legal activists. Pro-life and pro-choice organizations were especially vocal in the days following Justice Kennedy’s announcement as several cases dealing with abortion rights, and laws that have been passed in several states to restrict them, are likely to be argued before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

However, advocacy groups both liberal and conservative may be wise to remember that the voting records of Supreme Court justices rarely follow strict ideological lines. While Justice Kennedy provided a key vote to protect abortion rights in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he also voted to restrict these rights in cases including Hodgson v. Minnesota and Gonzales v. Carhart.

Justice Kennedy has long been admired by the LGBT community for his stance on gay rights, and he became one of their heroes in 2015 when he penned the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. However, his voting record on other liberal hot-button issues is not quite as progressive. He voted to strike down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and he wrote the majority opinion in the 2009 case Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which allowed an Alaskan mining company to use a technique that environmentalists said would flood a large area with contaminated water.

Some Americans see lifetime appointments and the power to make law as unusual in a democracy, but the judicial branch has provided a robust defense against government overreach. The Supreme Court has been dominated by either conservatives or liberals many times during its 229 year history, but the nation has never fallen victim to the extreme versions of these ideologies as a result.

 

China’s Legal Retaliation

China responded to the United States trade rules by disapproving Washington’s move to the supremacists of its foreign investment supervisory body. The Chinese administration expresses fears that this move means that the US will use general security apprehensions unlawfully to confine Chinese investments. Chinese Tech industries investing in the US are the targets of the new investment rules. The recent trending trade wars have sparked retaliation in imports and exports between China and the US. The levies are valued at $34 billion.

The Trump administration imposed tariffs on its allies a month ago which, has brought heat-ups in trade. All Washington’s trade associates vowed to retaliate in case president Trump refused to evoke the new rules. Following Trump’s declination, countries in the European Union and China began strike backs on certain US commodities. These trade wars have affected the Forex platform with investors avoiding risks given the deteriorating value of currencies against the greenback.

The US President Donald Trump whispered his support on the legislation that would magnify the influences of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). CFIUS exists as an inter-agency group that inspects the state security and effects of trade deals resulting in foreign proprietorship of US firms. The president has the mandate to cease agreements if recommended by the body. However, in run-through, a lousy CFIUS outcome only is so often sufficient to halt a deal. In a statement, Mr Trump hailed the move claiming that it was combat for the predatory venture practices menacing the US tech industry, and future economic fortune.

Deals that would pose a threat to the US tech prosperity can be halted by the stretched out role of CFIUS legislation. The critical striking point in the US and China trade tensions revolves around intellectual property. For long the US has been accusing China of stealing the country’s tech. The legislation is highly opposed by China with Gao Feng, saying China will monitor it to evaluate its potential impact on Chinese firms. Gao is the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman. According to BBC, China is the primary investor in the US which should exempt it from harsher foreign investment legislation.
China has been focusing on its initiative, Made in China 2025, that focuses on tech progress. Since the election of Trump, Chinese investment depreciated with values from the Rhodium Group showing a more than 90% fall in 2017. China’s investment in the US totaled $24.2 billion in 2017 according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Will the Anti Trump Faction want an Investigation into the Retirement of Justice Kennedy?

The District of Columbia can be a crazy place at times. While the battle for power before the election of Donald Trump has typically been between the Democrats and the Republicans, the climate of Washington today is such that the paradigm is possibly overlapping. An example of this merging of what were once opponents is the call from a former Bush Administration official for an investigation into what spurred Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire abruptly, as though another investigation will expose a morsel of another something regarding Trump that appears underhanded.

When the announcement was made at the end of this court session it also included the actual date of July 31 as Kennedy’s last day as a member of the Supreme Court, meaning President Trump will now have an opportunity to impact the court for many years to come. This is also a transition that segveral on both sides of the aisle may not want to see, not to mention all of the left who want to attack Donald Trump for even eating Russian dressing.

University professor Richard Painter, who was once an official in the Bush Administration, claims the facts surrounding Justice Kennedy’s decision to step down must be investigated before Trump even gets an opportunity to name a nominee, citing Trump’s personal relationship with Kennedy’s son who works at Deutsche Bank. What many people do not realize is that Trump’s business bankruptcies impacted his personal credit rating as well after his companies went into bankruptcy, but Kennedy’s son found a way to influence the bank into re-establishing Trump’s credit status. According to a story published in the New Republic, Trump and Kennedy have been friends for many years with Kennedy’s son being a very trusted financier for the Trump brand.

Of course, the real problem for many who do not want to see the court transition is the potential revisiting of Roe vs. Wade, which is the decision that made abortion a fundamental right instead of just a medical option for women seeking the procedure. And, that is not to mention the direction the SCOTUS will take on future rulings. Trump has vowed to make a decision on a nominee in very short order with a potential vote coming before the fall, a vote the Democrats are already gearing up to avoid or stall. Critics of the “shady” relationship between Trump and Kennedy are even claiming Kennedy is “too young” to consider retiring from the bench that is a constitutionally protected lifetime appointment.

The fact that Kennedy is 81 years of age and may want to spend his remaining years in retirement is not an acceptable notion for many, as many justices stay on the court until death. But, one thing is for certain in this court appointment situation. The jury is still out.

Superior Court Rules against the California Crisis Pregnancy Facility Law

The justice court terminated a California bill that requires anti-abortion disaster pregnancy to issue content on matters like the termination of a pregnancy. The ruling also cast doubts on similar bills in Illinois and Hawaii. The California law was reported to have taken action in the year 2016. It required the health centers that were licensed to inform clients about the availability of various services like abortion, contraception and prenatal care that are at no cost. All the centers that were not licensed were required to put up a sign that said so. However, the Supreme Court struck down the law. The health centers reported that they were forced to deliver the information on which most of them had disagreed. The state of California reported that it wanted all the poor women living in the State to understand their options clearly.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the health centers are more likely to prosper in their constitutional protest. Justice Clarence went on to reveal that even as the law is currently on the papers, the petitioners can still go back to court and receive an order that will halt the enforcement. The attorney for the challengers reported that they expect whatever Justice Clarence had ruled with immediate effect. However, the state of California had not been enforcing the law. Thomas wrote for himself and others like Justices Samuel Alito, Kennedy Anthony, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, that California can’t co-option the licensed health facilities to deliver the message that they intended. He termed the requirement by the State of California to the unlicensed centers as rude, burdensome and unjustified.

Justice Breyer reported that among the reasons that the California law should be upheld is because the Supreme Court had already upheld the laws. It required the doctors working in these facilities to inform all women who came seeking an abortion to tell them about other services offered like adoption. Beyer stated in a dissenting opinion that the law should be evenhanded. All anti-abortion groups and the US Attorney General Jeff Session were among the people that were singing and celebrating when the law was upheld by the court. President Donald Trump’s administration reported that the State of California was violating the rights of all the health centres that were licensed but had no objection to the directive that was issued. The Trump’s administration went on to say that speakers shouldn’t be forced by their governments to report things that they disagree.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-voids-part-of-crisis-pregnancy-center-law/2018/06/26/cba2e0c6-794a-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.21c6b58c4ce3

How US Politics, though Illegal, are affecting the US Market

Trade tensions have been rising every passing day which is affecting the forex trading platform. The effect has been felt everywhere in the market since the threats turned to reality. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump’s administration announced imposing tariffs on aluminum and steel. Target countries included the European Union (EU) markets and China that are prominent producers of steel worldwide. The notice came by surprise to many of the United States trade allies as well as some politicians in America.

Investors have been shunning away from risk in the forex trade as currencies continue to lose value in the market. Forecasters warn of greater impacts and effects should this continue, risking business and the economy. Recently, German received an increased levy on their cars just when the Merkel government is struggling with immigration issues. However, the tensions are favorable to some currencies such as the Japanese Yen that continues to rise against the greenback significantly.

Today, the forex platform was all about trade tensions with the increasing threats and protective measures from Washington. These continue to intensify weighing on the upper betas generally while a slowdown of the increased trade plays out. The US trade allies in response to the tariffs by Trump warned of raising taxes on specific US commodities. The EU announced targeting particular products such as motorbikes among others in retaliation. Trump, having imposed the levies, forced his allies to pose trade barriers in retaliation to the tariffs. In retaliation, President Donald Trump has again threatened China and the EU to withdraw these barriers, failure to which there will be severe consequences.

Among the new threats, the administration will add tariffs to Chinese tech firms. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration plans to stop Chinese tech industries from investing in American tech corporations. Additionally, Beijing’s tech exports will be blocked. Currencies continue to deteriorate in value against the USD in the Forex space recording a significant fall with the Euro in New York closing at 1.1703. Ahead of the EU Summit, GBP/USD was stable then uneven to the top closing at 1.3280. On the NY session at +0.13% within the N. American range of 1.3289 to 1.3251.

Oil was lower besides copper that in the June rout was nose-diving. For the first time since late last year, gold recorded a close beneath the 200-D SMA. The Aussie nosedived to 0.7397 from 0.7440 ranking it as one of the most underperforming commodities. However, Kiwi hiked from 0.6901 to 0.6890 in the equity market.

The Netherlands Hopes To Eliminate Sexism In Muslim Culture Within Its Borders

Islam is the second-most popular religion on planet Earth behind Christianity with about 1.8 billion followers of the spiritual belief system around the world. Without writing a novel to explain the differences between Christianity and Islam, Muslims – followers of the religion of Islam – believe that Muhammed is the last prophet to spread the word of Allah – or the one, true God. Whereas Christians believe Jesus spread the proper word, Muslims believe that Muhammed’s version of religion is the only true interpretation of such prophecies.

Another major difference between the two religions is that the Qur’an – the holy book of Islam – is considerably more conservative than the Holy Bible. For example, Muslim women are required by religion, culture, and even law to wear garments like the hijab whenever they’re out in public or otherwise exposed to men outside of their respective families.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia’s province of Aceh all require women to dress in hijab when outside of their homes. Men aren’t required to abide by the same rules and can essentially wear whatever they want. Women in the three aforementioned places also have far fewer rights than men, though the three countries’ respective laws regarding women are different; even those women who do want to challenge their respective governments’ laws aren’t able to successfully influence them.

Unfortunately for women hoping to live with the same rights as men – whether those rights are dictated by Saudi Arabian law or simply by Muslim culture both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia and other countries throughout the Middle East – not all governments around the world attempt to level the proverbial playing field between Muslim males and females.

The Netherlands is now striving to bring greater equality to Muslim women in respect to men

In an effort to eliminate the gap between men and women who follow the spiritual reasoning of Islam, the Netherlands recently announced that its federal government had successfully passed a law that outlaws women – the bill effectively only targets Muslim women, though it applies to all females – from wearing garments that cover their faces when worn in public, including government facilities like hospitals, schools, universities, and on modes of public transportation like trains, buses, and trolleys.

The Netherlands outlawed both the niqab, a face-covering veil, and the burqa, a full-body veil, on Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Read full report on vox.com.

Legal Medication vs. Ethics

There have been changes in the US since the election of President Donald Trump. Ranging from immigration to transgender conflicts among other factors, things are becoming even harder. They might not be directly linked to Trump personally, but widely encouraged by his administration. According to hellogiggles, life has been harder for the American woman. The Trump administration has been enacting rules and laws that the public is up against. This includes former ex-first ladies and notable figures of the country.

A post has gone viral on both Instagram and Facebook about a woman’s experience from Arizona. Nicole Arteaga, a school teacher, shared how a pharmacist from Walgreen denied her legitimate medication. According to a statement given by Nicole to BuzzFeed News, she was nine months pregnant when her doctor said that her baby had ceased to grow. In fact, they couldn’t feel the baby’s heartbeat. Nicole opted for medication instead of surgery to terminate the pregnancy. Even with the doctor’s prescription, the pharmacist at Walgreen refused to sell it to her based on ethics.

Every discipline has ethics, and some, such as the medical institutions, have strict rules and repercussions for failure to comply. The (American Medical Association) AMA Code of Medical Ethics instructs doctors to meet the moral challenges of medical practice. The Principles of Medical Ethics requests a physician to respect the law. Additionally, to identify an obligation to pursue alterations in those necessities that are dissimilar to the paramount benefits of the patient.

According to Hello Giggles, reproductive rights are a long-term battle that women have been fighting against. The doctor prescribed the medication given the pregnancy wasn’t fully functional, and that the baby would die in the long-run. It wasn’t Arteaga’s wish to end the pregnancy. However, situations forced her to go ahead with the procedure. Nicole continues to express her feelings on the pride that comes with carrying a healthy baby. The miscarriage was the last thing Arteaga wanted, but given the situation, it was the last choice she had.

There is strictness in some countries when it comes to moral and religious beliefs. Pharmacists in Arizona are lawfully allowed not to fill prescription contrary to moral beliefs. This law extends to six other states as well where the Code of Medical Ethics is strictly observed. However, people feel the need for changes in these rules saying they are unfit for women. The opinion expressed by the contributor terms it unacceptable for physicians to deny patients prescriptions based on their beliefs.