It is amazing how many ways politicians have come up with to violate privacy. Alabama is the latest example. A new law would force women aged 25-50 to obtain a negative pregnancy test. This test must be done within 48 hours after the purchase.
The measure—which passed a Senate committee in a 7–2 vote last week—comes from state Sen. Larry Stutts (R–Tuscumbia), who also works as an obstetrician and gynecologist.
National Advocates for Pregnant Women has calledThe bill is ““Blamingly and unconstitutional, unprecedented.”
Emma Roth from NAPW stated that the NAPW is concerned by the intrusion on the privacy and right of Alabama women to receive equal protection.
Stutts proposal (S.B. 324) would require a negative pregnancy test for women of childbearing age before they could purchase medical cannabis. According to Stutts’ proposal (S.B. 324), medical marijuana dispensaries “would require a negative pregnancy screening for women under the age of 18 before they can purchase medical marijuana and would also prohibit breastfeeding women from buying medical cannabis without a registered caregiver,” according to a legislative summary. The physician would require pregnancies from pregnant women who are on the cannabis patient registry to be reported to him.
Not only would it be frustrating but also inconvenient to need to see a physician or pay for a test to determine if you are pregnant before purchasing medical marijuana. This is a surcharge for young (ish) female patients.
New moms breastfeeding mothers would be prohibited from buying medical marijuana. The bill does not specify how the ban will be implemented.
Alabama has just recently approved medical marijuana, but with many caveats. Gov. Kay Ivey in May 2021 signed the medical marijuana legalization bill into law. The state still has not licensed any dispensaries. The Alabama Cannabis Commission is responsible for creating the system of dispensary licensing and a patient registry, along with rules for marijuana packaging, labeling and advertising.
The number of dispensary licences issued by the state is already limited to just a few FourIt prohibits marijuana dispensaries located within 1,000 feet from any child care center, school, daycare or school. Stutts bill, which would restrict the location of dispensaries by requiring that home-based child care operators be included in this regulation, will also apply to them.
Even patients who are eligible for state dispensaries will be discouraged from buying and registering through the legal system. If Stutts’ bill passes it will provide an incentive to patients to avoid state dispensaries by continuing buying on the dark market.
Science is important. It is not clear that marijuana has any unique risk of harm to pregnant women or that it poses a greater danger than other medications prescribed for them. It is also unconstitutional and not supported by evidence. https://t.co/GsC1GQ4NwM
— National Advocates for Pregnant Women (@NAPW) April 1, 2022
The Colorado law on cyberbullying is not constitutional. A 2015 Colorado law made it a misdemeanor—punishable by up to six months in jail and a $750 fine—to initiate communication with or direct language toward someone via phone, text, instant message, “or other interactive electronic medium in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage” or to convey something obscene, provided the communicator has an “intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person.” Because it could punish protected speech, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that this law is a violation both of state and federal constitutions.
Notably, the law could penalize online communications like negative restaurant reviews or social media posts on public health protocols. The Denver Post. The state Supreme Court ruled that only “intended to harass” was invalid and kept the remainder of the cyberbullying statute in force. This prohibits communications which “threaten(s), bodily injury, property damage”, or are obscene. Justices ruled that the law cannot prohibit communication because it “intended harass.”
We are entering a new era of nicotine prohibition.Jacob Grier writes that while regulators have always targeted tobacco products, there is a new energy behind bans on cigarettes and vapes. For this reasonIssue May 20,22. Grier explains what is driving the new momentum and where it is going legislatively. What could be its potential consequences.
In July 2014, five New York City police officers approached Eric Garner on a Staten Island sidewalk and accused him of illegally selling “loosies”—individual cigarettes without a tax stamp. Garner refused handcuffs and the two of them got into a heated argument. Officer Daniel Pantaleo forced Garner to his knees and placed him in a banned chokehold. Garner was unable to breathe after protesting eleven times. He died in less than an hour.
Since Garner’s suicide, the US has made tobacco-based products more restricted. This puts illicit market participants in conflict with law enforcement. Even though the nation is finally beginning to recognize the terrible consequences of its war on drugs the government continues to take a more restrictive approach towards nicotine.
The whole article is available here.
• There’s been controversy on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee over a second COVID-19 vaccine booster for healthy adults.
• A complete list of the winners at last night’s Grammy Awards.
• Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s far-right prime minister has reportedly won a fourth consecutive term in office.
• A federal court has ruled that “a Texas law that limits the use of remotely piloted drones to capture images is unconstitutional,” reports the Dallas Observer.
• Poptarts has won a lawsuit over whether its labels are misleading.
• Inside House Zero, a 3D printed house in Austin, Texas.
• Against scientific gatekeeping.