The Texas anti-abortion law, which was allowed to go into effect last week despite being in clear conflict with decades-old precedents set by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, is a complex piece of legal engineering. It was intentionally built to avoid initial judicial review and structured to compel people to comply with it, even if they believe it violates their constitutional rights, through fear of being bombarded with excessive legal fees that could bankrupt them. Attorney General Merrick Garland this week ordered the Justice Department to explore “all options” to challenge Texas’s highly restrictive abortion law and to protect abortion clinics that are under attack. Many Democrats and abortion rights proponents caution, however, that while they believe the law is unconstitutional, it was crafted in a way that makes legal challenges difficult. FILE – U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland attends a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, June 25, 2021.Senate Bill 8, as the legislation is called, makes it illegal in Texas for a doctor to perform an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy — before most women are even aware that they are pregnant. Crucially, however, the law explicitly bans state officials from acting to enforce the law, delegating that responsibility instead to private citizens, who are eligible to recover a $10,000 judgment, plus attorney’s fees, from anyone who they can prove aided or abetted a woman seeking an abortion. The law casts a broad net, meaning that not only doctors, but clinicians and clinic workers, and even relatives who help pay for an abortion are liable. However, the plain language of the law states that only people who “knowingly” assist someone seeking an abortion are liable, meaning that the commonly cited example of an Uber driver being exposed to a lawsuit under the bill is incorrect, experts say. The Supreme Court last week, in a 5-4 decision, declined to block the law from coming into effect on procedural grounds, arguing that because there is no specific individual charged with enforcing the law, there is nobody who can be sued over it, and therefore, nobody the court can enjoin from enforcing it. President Joe Biden sharply criticized the Supreme Court ruling and instructed Garland to explore ways to challenge the Texas law.Thus far, abortion clinics in Texas have been careful to observe the new law — which makes no exceptions for rape or incest — and avoid drawing fire from self-appointed citizens or groups claiming violations of the new abortion restrictions. However, it is likely that eventually someone will defy the six-week limit on pregnancies before a procedure, leading to a constitutional test case. Opponents furious FILE – Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks in Lubbock, Texas, March 2, 2021.Opponents of the legislation have been scathing in their criticism of the Texas legislature and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott who signed the legislation. “Texas politicians have succeeded for the moment in making a mockery of the rule of law, upending abortion care in Texas, and forcing patients to leave the state — if they have the means — to get constitutionally protected health care,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “This should send chills down the spine of everyone in this country who cares about the Constitution. We will keep fighting this ban until abortion access is restored in Texas.” Others aimed their anger at the Supreme Court for choosing not to block enforcement of the statute. “The Supreme Court has ignored 50 years of precedent and set back the hands of time, essentially allowing Texas to be a pre-Roe [v. Wade] state,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This is a travesty for the nearly seven million women of reproductive age, and everyone who supports access to safe, legal abortion.” FILE – Texas state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, center, speaks against a bill that would ban abortions as early as six weeks and allow private citizens to enforce it through civil lawsuits, in the House Chamber in Austin, Texas, May 5, 2021.Supporters claim victory Supporters of the law, however, see it as a victory over a court system that they believe is rigged against them. The anti-abortion movement had two main goals in advancing the legislation, said John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, a group closely involved in drafting the legislation. “The first one was, how do we have a pro-life policy actually be enforced, when we have lawless district attorneys who are not enforcing pro-life laws,” Seago said. “The second one is these activist federal judges — how do you get around them? [They are] looking for excuses to hold up laws, even though we can win ultimately.” Genesis of the law The roots of S.B. 8 can be traced back to an article by a former solicitor general of the state of Texas, Jonathan F. Mitchell, which was published in the Virginia Law Review in 2018. Called The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy, the article argued that when federal courts block enforcement of state laws, those laws are not, as popularly believed, “struck down.” Rather, they remain on the books and are simply not enforced. That leaves room for future, and even retroactive, enforcement, if a later Supreme Court overrules a previous opinion enjoining enforcement. And, critically for this case, Mitchell theorized that a bill that provided a private cause of action in state court could continue to be enforced by private citizens, even if a federal court has enjoined state officials from enforcing it. That would remain the case unless a person sued under the law pursued an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. “Unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States declares a statute unconstitutional, the States remain free to authorize and entertain private enforcement actions in their own courts — even after a federal district or circuit court has disapproved the statute and enjoined the State’s executive from enforcing it,” Mitchell wrote. Mitchell was closely involved in the drafting of S.B. 8. Private cause of action It may not be clear to a layperson how a private individual with no connection to a person who gets an abortion — and no way to show that they have suffered personal harm because of it — can have the standing to sue in the first place. If this were a federal law, that objection would have force. But under state law in Texas, the legislature is allowed to specifically confer standing on private individuals in certain kinds of cases if it chooses to do so. In S.B. 8, that is precisely what state legislators did. Most states have similar rules allowing the legislature to confer standing on private citizens, which is one reason why governors and legislators in at least seven states across the country have said that they are preparing legislation similar to S.B. 8 in their states. FILE – A security guard opens the door to the Whole Women’s Health Clinic in Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 1, 2021.Fear of legal fees The law is structured to compel compliance — even if a defendant in a potential case believes that their rights are being violated and that they would be vindicated in court — through fear of legal bills.The law itself does not allow someone sued under it to recover legal fees from their accuser, even if they are able to demonstrate their innocence. However, it does allow the accuser to recover legal fees from the defendant in the case of a guilty verdict. But the burden of legal fees is potentially even heavier than it seems. If Mitchell’s theory is correct, and enforcement of the law could only ever be truly blocked by a Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional, that means someone who wants to challenge it is going to face years of lawsuits involving huge legal fees. But in the United States, a defendant in a federal lawsuit who is asserting his or her constitutional rights are being violated is generally not eligible to recover legal fees. In the law review article, Mitchell lays out the implications plainly.”Of course, the defendants in these private enforcement actions can reassert the constitutional objections to the statute — and perhaps they will persuade the court to follow the reasoning of the courts that have disapproved the statute,” he wrote. “But a defendant has no entitlement to attorneys’ fees when he asserts his constitutional rights defensively in a private enforcement action, and the need to foot one’s own legal bills may induce statutory compliance even for those who expect to prevail on their constitutional objections.” Boomerang effect There has been much speculation that the unique legal structure of the Texas law might just as easily be applied to other areas in which lawmakers want to curtail specific rights that have been guaranteed by court rulings. For example, some have suggested that states where a majority of residents disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings on handgun bans might create a private right of action against gun dealers who sell them. The point would not be to win an argument over the constitutionality of the statute, but to compel compliance with it anyway. Seago, of Texas Right to Life, said that the “narrow focus” of his organization is such that the broader implications of the use of this novel legal structure are not a great concern, but that the group welcomes the opportunity to resolve any issues in court. “The question kind of assumes you are headed towards a collision in our federalist principles. But that’s an important legal question that should be answered, not avoided just because it’s a new question,” he said.
…
Day: September 8, 2021
Malawi health authorities fear vaccine hesitancy could lead to tens of thousands of COVID-19 jabs expiring early next month. With just 2% of Malawi’s population vaccinated, authorities hope to increase uptake by deploying mobile vaccination clinics to bring the vaccine closer to people.Malawi has so far received just over 1.2 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines under the COVAX facility.But vaccine hesitancy in Malawi is widespread largely because of misperceptions of the jabs’ efficacy and safety. Dr. Gift Kawalazira, who heads Health and Social Services at the Blantyre Health Office, says there’s yet another reason for the low vaccination rate. “We have noticed that with the coming of summer, the number of cases has drastically reduced, and also the number of people coming for vaccination have reduced from having over 2,000 people per day to having just about 400 people per day now,” he said.Kawalazira said deploying mobile vaccination centers will help increase vaccine uptake, noting that when the initiative was launched Saturday over 600 people were vaccinated – and six companies booked the mobile clinic to come and vaccinate their workers.He predicted the initiative will help Malawi meet its vaccination target of 60% by 2022 and allay fears that more vaccines will expire.“Johnson & Johnson is actually expiring after December and AstraZeneca has got two different batches, one of which is expiring next month, and the other one is going up until December,” he said.In May, Malawi incinerated about 20,000 AstraZeneca doses that had expired after many people refused the jab due to concerns about its safety and efficacy.Malawi health ministry statistics show that currently only about 700,000 people have had one jab, while about 400,000 are fully vaccinated, representing 2.1% of the country’s 18 million population.Simeon Phiri gets vaccinated at a mobile vaccination clinic at Limbe Market in Blantyre. Health authorities say the initiative will increase vaccine uptake among Malawians. (Lameck Masina/VOA)Simeon Phiri got his jab Wednesday at a mobile COVID-19 vaccination clinic at Limbe market in Blantyre. He said the convenience with which he could get the jab played an important role for him. “This has helped me a lot because it has provided me easy access to the vaccine instead of walking a long distance. For example, I came here to Limbe to do some errands, but I also have found an opportunity to get vaccinated,” Phiri said. To increase uptake in rural areas, the government is currently working with traditional leaders to mobilize and tell their communities about the need to be vaccinated when the mobile clinics visit their villages.
…
The first trial in the “Operation Varsity Blues” college admissions bribery scandal will begin this week, with the potential to shed light on investigators’ tactics and brighten the spotlight on a secretive school selection process many have long complained is rigged to favor the rich.Jury selection is beginning Wednesday in federal court in Boston in the case against two parents — former casino executive Gamal Abdelaziz and former Staples and Gap Inc. executive John Wilson — who are accused of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to help get their kids into the University of Southern California by falsely presenting them as athletic recruits.Though they were among dozens of prominent parents, athletic coaches and others arrested across the country when the case exploded into the headlines over two years ago, theirs is the first to go to trial. Defense attorneys are expected to argue that their clients believed their payments were legitimate donations and that USC’s treatment of their children was routine for parents with deep pockets.”The government appears to want to present its one-sided evidence that the ‘school wasn’t okay’ with granting preferential admissions treatment for donations while at the same time blocking the defendants’ evidence that, in fact, the school was okay with this arrangement,” the two executives’ lawyers wrote in a court filing.Prosecutors say the defense is merely trying to muddy the waters in a clear-cut case of lying and fraud.Since March 2019, a parade of wealthy parents has pleaded guilty to paying heavily to help get their children into elite schools with rigged test scores or bogus athletic credentials. The group — including TV actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin and Loughlin’s fashion designer husband, Mossimo Giannulli — have received punishments ranging from probation to nine months behind bars. Now, prosecutors face the challenge of convincing a jury that two of the few remaining parents still fighting are guilty. Abdelaziz, of Las Vegas, is accused of paying $300,000 to the sham charity run by the scheme’s mastermind — admissions consultant Rick Singer — to get his daughter into USC as a basketball recruit. Prosecutors say Abdelaziz signed off on an athletic profile that touted the girl as a star, even though she didn’t even make the cut for her high school varsity team. Wilson, who heads a Massachusetts private equity firm, is charged with paying $220,000 to have his son designated as a USC water polo recruit and an additional $1 million to help get his twin daughters into Harvard and Stanford. Prosecutors say Singer told Wilson he couldn’t secure spots for both girls on Stanford’s sailing team because – according to Singer — the coach “has to actually recruit some real sailors so that Stanford doesn’t … catch on.” An attorney for Abdelaziz declined to comment ahead of the trial, and a lawyer for Wilson didn’t respond to messages seeking comment. Defense attorneys have argued in court documents that their clients had no knowledge of any false information submitted about their children. They say USC can’t be a victim of fraud because the school regularly rewarded donors by giving their kids special treatment in admissions.Prosecutors have accused the defense of trying to turn the case into a trial on USC’s admissions policies instead of whether the parents agreed to lie and trump up their children’s athletic credentials. USC has said it wasn’t aware of Singer’s scheme until 2018 when it began cooperating with investigators.The judge told the defense at a recent hearing that “USC is not on trial.” The parents’ attorneys would be allowed to introduce evidence that the school admitted other unqualified students whose parents donated, the judge said, only if the defendants were aware of it at the time they paid the alleged bribes.Opening statements are expected on Monday. Among issues likely to influence jury selection is the wealth of the defendants.Defense attorneys had sought to block prosecutors from introducing evidence about their incomes, wealth, spending or lifestyles, saying it would do nothing other than “unfairly prejudice the jury.” But U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton said such evidence could show the parents were motivated “to have their children admitted to elite universities so they could maintain or improve their status in the community.” Singer, the admissions consultant who began cooperating with the FBI in 2018 and recorded his phone calls with parents, has pleaded guilty and was long expected to be a key witness for the government. But prosecutors have not yet said whether they intend to call him to the stand.Defense attorneys have seized on notes revealed in court documents last year in which Singer claimed investigators told him to lie to get parents to make incriminating statements. In the notes Singer took on his phone in 2018, Singer said the agents instructed him to say he told the parents the payments were bribes. The agents have denied pressuring Singer to lie, but putting Singer on the stand could present the defense with an opportunity to attack his credibility. “He can be directly confronted on statements suggesting that he may have in fact been pressured in saying certain things … which could be devastating to the prosecution if the jury believes that,” said Brad Bailey, a former federal prosecutor in Massachusetts who isn’t involved in the case.But at the same time, not calling Singer could be even more problematic for prosecutors by allowing the defense “to raise more questions that really could result in reasonable doubt,” said Bailey, now a defense attorney. Wilson is also fighting another legal battle after filing a defamation lawsuit against Netflix in April over its portrayal of him in its “Operation Varsity Blues” documentary. Wilson’s lawyers wrote that Singer deceived him and insist that his son was not a fake athlete, but “an invited member of the United States Olympic water polo development program” with grades and test scores that “were more than sufficient to gain admission to USC.” Another parent who was supposed to go on trial with Abdelaziz and Wilson pleaded guilty last month to paying $500,000 to get her son into USC as a football recruit though he wouldn’t really play on the team. Marci Palatella, the chief executive officer of a California liquor distribution company, was the 33rd parent to plead guilty in the case.Three other parents are scheduled to go to trial in January. The sprawling Varsity Blues case has been prosecuted out of Boston because authorities there began investigating the scheme years ago thanks to a tip from an executive targeted in a securities fraud probe.
…
A new report released Wednesday says the COVID-19 pandemic had a “devastating” impact in the fight against HIV and tuberculosis last year.The Global Fund, an alliance of governments, civil society groups and private sector entities, says the number of people reached with HIV prevention programs and services declined 11 percent in 2020 compared with the year before, while testing for HIV dropped 22 percent last year.The number of people treated for drug-resistant tuberculosis fell by 19 percent in countries where the Fund invests — a figure the Geneva-based group described as “staggering” — while those being treated for “extensively” drug-resistant tuberculosis plummeted by 37 percent.Peter Sands, the executive director of The Global Fund, told the Reuters news agency that about one million fewer people were treated for tuberculosis in 2020 than the year before, a fact he says will “inevitably mean that hundreds of thousands of people will die.”The Fund said programs to fight malaria appear to have been “less badly affected” by COVID-19 than HIV or tuberculosis.Meanwhile, the Bloomberg news service says a study conducted in South Africa found that Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot COVID-19 vaccine reduces the risk of contracting the disease by about half. The study, which involved nearly half a million health workers in the country, found that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was about 70 percent effective against hospitalization and as much as 96 percent effective against death.Glenda Gray, the study’s co-leader, tells Bloomberg the final results from the study will be submitted for publication in days.While the European Union is boasting an average vaccination rate of 70 percent, the rates are much lower among eastern European nations compared to those in western Europe. Only 20 percent of all citizens in Bulgaria have been vaccinated against COVID-19, the lowest rate among all 27-member EU nations, while deaths have surged in recent weeks. The New York Times says similar circumstances have also been found in countries like Poland, Romania and Slovakia.Observers blame the discrepancies on doubts about the vaccines due to misinformation, along with deep mistrust of authorities and institutions.More than 222 million people around the globe have tested positive for COVID-19, including 4.5 million deaths, since the outbreak was first detected in late 2019 in central China, according to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The United States has now surpassed 40 million confirmed COVID-19 infections, including more than 650,690 deaths, leading the world in both categories. COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus.(Some information for this report came from the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France Presse.)
…
U.S. (gridiron) football great Sam “Bam” Cunningham, whose performance against Alabama in a 1970 game is credited for prompting major college football programs in the southern United States to integrate their teams with Black players, has died at the age of 71. The University of Southern California, where Cunningham played his collegiate years, said he died Tuesday at his home near Los Angeles. Cunningham was a sophomore (second-year student) running back when he rushed for 135 yards and two touchdowns to lead USC to a 42-21 rout of Alabama, one of college football’s most dominant programs both in the southern U.S. as well as nationally. His performance led Paul “Bear” Bryant, Alabama’s legendary head coach, to begin recruiting Black players to his then-predominantly White team, with other college coaches in the south doing the same. The late Jerry Claiborne, a longtime college football coach who was one of Bryant’s assistants, said Cunningham “did more for integration in 60 minutes (the length of a football game) than Martin Luther King did in 20 years.” Cunningham later said the game did not change how White people felt about Blacks, but that Black players “were accepted because they could help their program win football games.” Cunningham became an All-American standout for USC during his three years on the team, capping his collegiate career by scoring four touchdowns in a 42-17 win over Ohio State in the 1973 Rose Bowl, securing the Trojans the national championship for the 1972 season. Cunningham, who earned his nickname for his powerful head-on running style, went on to play nine seasons with the National Football League’s New England Patriots, becoming the franchise’s all-time leading runner with 5,453 yards. He helped lead the Patriots to a record-setting 3,165 single-season rushing yards in 1978, which stood until it was broken in 2019 by the Baltimore Ravens. Patriots owner Robert Kraft praised Cunningham as a player who “made a tremendous impact, both on and off the field.” Cunningham was elected into the College Football Hall of Fame in 2010, the same year he was inducted in the Patriots Hall of Fame. His younger brother Randall, was a standout NFL quarterback for 16 seasons. Some information for this report came from the Associated Press and Reuters.
…
Mexico’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional, a major victory for advocates of women’s health and human rights, just as parts of the United States enact tougher laws against the practice.The decision in the world’s second-biggest Roman Catholic country means that courts can no longer prosecute abortion cases, and follows the historic legalization of the right in Argentina, which took effect earlier this year.Arturo Zaldivar, president of the Mexican Supreme Court, hailed the decision as “a watershed moment” for all women, especially the most vulnerable.The court’s ruling stemmed from a 2018 case challenging a criminal law on abortion in Coahuila, a northern Mexican state which borders Texas, which has just tightened its laws.It also comes as a growing feminist movement has taken to the streets in Mexico to press for change, including calls to end anti-abortion laws on the books in much of the country.At a demonstration in Coahuila state capital Saltillo, women wearing green bandanas to symbolize the pro-choice movement embraced and shouted “abortion is no longer a crime!””We’re very happy that abortion has been decriminalized, and now we want it to be legal,” said 26-year-old Karla Cihuatl, one of the demonstrators, who belongs to the feminist organization Frente Feminista in Saltillo.”This step has broken the stigma a little. But I believe that we still have to change the social aspect.”With some 100 million Catholics, Mexico is the largest predominantly Catholic country after Brazil. The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures.Hundreds of mostly poor Mexican women have been prosecuted for abortion, while at least several dozen remain jailed.Tuesday’s vote establishes a mandatory criteria for all judges in the country, making it no longer possible to prosecute any woman who has an abortion without violating the criteria of the court and the constitution, Zaldivar said.Coahuila’s state government issued a statement saying the ruling would have retroactive effects and that anyone woman imprisoned for abortion should be released “immediately.”A number of U.S. states have moved to restrict access to abortion, particularly Texas, which last week enacted a sweeping ban on the procedure after the first six weeks of pregnancy when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.The Mexican ruling may lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies.In July, the state of Veracruz became just the fourth of Mexico’s 32 regions to decriminalize abortion.Mexico’s leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has carefully avoided taking a stand on the matter, as he did again on Tuesday morning in the run-up to the ruling.When asked at a news conference for his opinion on abortion, he sidestepped the question, saying it was up to the court.”Due my presidential office, I can’t expose myself to wear and tear, so I have to look after myself, and this is quite a controversial issue,” he said.During his winning 2018 election campaign, he forged an alliance with a small political party founded by Christian conservatives known for their strong opposition to abortion.
…
Britney Spears’ father filed Tuesday to end the court conservatorship that has controlled the singer’s life and money for 13 years. James Spears filed his petition to terminate the conservatorship in Los Angeles Superior Court. “As Mr. Spears has said again and again, all he wants is what is best for his daughter,” the document says. “If Ms. Spears wants to terminate the conservatorship and believes that she can handle her own life, Mr. Spears believes that she should get that chance.” Judge Brenda Penny, who oversees the case, will need to approve the move. Britney Spears’ attorney, Matthew Rosengart, said in an email the filing “represents another legal victory for Britney Spears — a massive one — as well as vindication for Ms. Spears.” James Spears had been the target of much of the anger surrounding the conservatorship from both his daughter and the public. A petition from Britney Spears’ attorney to remove him was to be heard at the next hearing in the case on September 29. James Spears said in a filing on August 12 that he was planning to step down as the conservator of her finances but offered no timetable. He gave up his control over her life decisions in 2019, keeping only his role overseeing her money. He has repeatedly said there is no justification for his removal, and he has acted only in his daughter’s best interest. The conservatorship was established in 2008 when Britney Spears began to have very public mental struggles as media outlets obsessed over each moment, hordes of paparazzi aggressively followed her everywhere, and she lost custody of her children. Tuesday’s filing cites how Britney Spears’ “impassioned plea” to end the legal arrangement in a June 23 speech in court gave a jolt to those who wanted to see her freed from it, quoting from the transcript of that afternoon. “I just want my life back,” Britney Spears said. “And it’s been 13 years and it’s enough. It’s been a long time since I’ve owned my money. And it’s my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested.” Tuesday’s filing notes that Britney Spears said she did not know she could file a petition to end the conservatorship, which she has yet to do. It says that Penny’s decision to allow her to select Rosengart as her attorney demonstrates that the court trusts her with major choices. And it says evidence shows she has apparently “demonstrated a level of independence” by doing things like driving herself around Southern California. It also cites her desire to make her own decisions on therapy and other medical care. Spears had said in her June 23 speech that she was being compelled under the conservatorship to take certain medications and to use an intrauterine device for birth control against her will. James Spears called for a court investigation of these and other allegations, saying they were issues that were beyond his control because he had stepped down as conservator of his daughter’s person, handing the role to court-appointed professional Jodi Montgomery. Rosengart said when he was hired in July that he intended to help end the conservatorship, and questioned whether it needed to be established in the first place, though he had not yet filed to terminate it. He said instead that his first priority was getting rid of James Spears, whom he challenged to resign on the spot in his first appearance before the court. In his email responding to the request to terminate, Rosengart indicated that his tactics wouldn’t change. “It appears that Mr. Spears believes he can try to avoid accountability and justice,” Rosengart said, “including sitting for a sworn deposition and answering other discovery under oath, but as we assess his filing (which was inappropriately sent to the media before it was served on counsel) we will also continue to explore all options.” Britney Spears gave the conservatorship’s initial existence credit for keeping her career afloat, though she has now put her work entirely on hold for more than two years. Fans objecting to her circumstances and seeing what they believed were pleas for help in the pop star’s Instagram posts began calling online to #FreeBritney, and began appearing outside her court hearings to protest. Famous names from Miley Cyrus to Britney Spears’ former boyfriend, Justin Timberlake, have joined the outcry in recent months, especially after Britney Spears made a pair of passionate speeches to the court in June and July. Penny, the judge with the ultimate power over the conservatorship, has not appeared inclined to end it before, but she has also never been presented with such a clear opportunity.
…
Qatar has granted academic scholarships to members of a girls’ robotics team from Afghanistan dubbed the “Afghan Dreamers,” the Persian Gulf nation’s education and science foundation said on Tuesday. Qatar has been instrumental in efforts to evacuate at-risk Afghans and foreigners from Kabul airport, including members of the team who are being housed in Doha’s Education City campus of schools and universities. “They will receive scholarships that enable them to keep pursuing their studies through a partnership between Qatar Foundation (QF) and Qatar Fund for Development,” QF said in a statement. The team of high-achieving high school girls has about 20 members, mostly still in their teens, and are now dotted around the world with some in Qatar as well as Mexico. The girls made headlines in 2017 after being denied visas to take part in a robotics competition in Washington — before then-President Donald Trump intervened and they were allowed to travel. Last year, they worked to build a low-cost medical ventilator from car parts hoping to boost hospital equipment during the coronavirus pandemic. “These talented, creative students have been living through a time of uncertainty and upheaval, and at Qatar Foundation we want to do whatever we can,” said Sheikha Hind bint Hamad Al-Thani, vice-chairwoman and chief executive of QF. “By providing them with scholarships to study at Education City, their education can now continue uninterrupted.” The girls’ needs were being assessed to determine which schools or pre-university programs they should be placed in, she added. The Taliban’s seizure of power a little over one week ago has furled a chaotic mass exodus as many Afghans fear a repeat of the brutal interpretation of Islamic law implemented during the militants’ 1996-2001 rule. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with several members of the team on Tuesday during a whirlwind tour of the emirate. “You’re famous around the world and a source of inspiration,” he told them. “The story you’ve already told about the importance about women engaging in science… sends an important message around the world, well beyond Afghanistan.” Roya Mahboob, the founder of the Digital Citizen Fund, parent organization of the team, said the girls were “excited and grateful for this opportunity to study abroad.” She also questioned Blinken on what the future would hold for Afghan women. Several other members of the robotics team, none of whom were identified for security reasons, have relocated to Mexico.
…
Mexico’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional, a major victory for advocates of women’s health and human rights, just as parts of the United States enact tougher laws against the practice.The court ruling in the majority Roman Catholic nation follows moves to decriminalize abortion at the state level, although most of the country still has tough laws in place against women terminating their pregnancy early.”This is a historic step for the rights of women,” said Supreme Court Justice Luis Maria Aguilar.A number of U.S. states have recently taken steps to restrict women’s access to abortion, particularly Texas, which last week enacted the strictest anti-abortion law in the country after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.The Mexican ruling opens the door to the possibility for the release of women incarcerated for having had abortions. It also could lead to U.S. women in states such as Texas deciding to travel south of the border to terminate their pregnancies. In July, the state of Veracruz became just the fourth of Mexico’s 32 regions to decriminalize abortion.
…