I am the FIRST!!!
regular 4 post ff
infinite scroll 4 pff
Republicans' push to ban "discrimination" against unvaccinated people
State Republican lawmakers around the country are pushing bills — at least one of which has become law — that would give unvaccinated people the same protections as those surrounding race, gender and religion.
Why it matters: These bills would tie the hands of private businesses that want to protect their employees and customers. But they also show how deep into the political psyche resistance to coronavirus vaccine requirements has become, and how vaccination status has rapidly become a marker of identity.
The big picture: On a national scale, well-known GOP figures have recently escalated their rhetoric about the vaccination effort, comparing it to Nazi Germany and apartheid.
- At a state level, there's more bite to the bark. Many Republican-led states have enacted some kind of restriction on vaccine mandates or vaccine "passports."
- And some state lawmakersare trying to it illegal for employers, governments or private businesses to treat unvaccinated people any differently than vaccinated people, using the same language found in federal civil rights law.
“When we think about the normal discrimination statutes…we have protected classes based on something that is sort of inherent to you, with religion maybe being the one that is a choice," said Lowell Pearson, a managing partner at Husch Blackwell, which has been tracking the bills. "But vaccination status you certainly can control."
Between the lines: The states with restrictions on vaccine requirements tend to have lower vaccination rates than those without such laws, and cases are on the rise in several of them.
- Most of the measures are full of loopholes or have limited application, meaning unvaccinated residents may still face consequences for their decision.
- But vaccine requirements aren't very popular in general among employers, experts said, although it is relatively common among private businesses to have different rules for vaccinated and unvaccinated employees or customers.
Rather, the laws and low vaccination rates in states that have them both stem from the politicization of vaccination.
- "It’s difficult to see exactly why there’s such an intense reaction here, except through the lens of hyper-partisan politics; that this has just become another signal of party affiliation," said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
Zoom in: Montana has made it illegal to "discriminate" on the basis of vaccine status, with some exceptions within the health care sector.
- The law prohibits businesses, governmental entities and places of "public accommodation" — like grocery stores, hotels or restaurants — from refusing to serve or withholding goods from anyone based on their vaccination status or whether they have an "immunity passport."
- Employers aren't allowed to discriminate against or refuse to employ someone based on the same criteria.
- “This is a civil rights statute. It absolutely is," Bagley said. "What this law is saying is that a restriction directed at the unvaccinated is prohibited in the same way as you'd be prohibited from putting up a sign saying, 'no Irish admitted.'"
Other state laws are generally more limited in scope, although there's a wide variance.
- Alabama law, for example, prevents schools and universities from requiring coronavirus vaccines, prohibits vaccination as a condition of receiving government services, and bans businesses from refusing to serve someone based on their vaccine status.
- Several other states have implemented measures that are targeted more narrowly to state and local governments or schools.
Yes, but: Legislation similar to Montana's has been introduced all over the country and would ban discrimination against unvaccinated people.
What they're saying: “When a legislature passes an anti-vaccine law, it sends a signal to businesses not to deploy any kind of vaccine system," said Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University.
- This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated."
What we're watching: “I think the question is, for those who are not vaccinated yet, what are their concerns and what is going to help them or encourage them to go get vaccinated?" said Hemi Tewarson, executive director ofthe National Academy for State Health Policy.
- "If it’s not going to be tied to employment or going to schools, which in some states it’s not going to be, then what’s the incentive?”
The bottom line: The national vaccination effort is increasingly dependent on partnerships with various institutions, like schools and employers, to encourage more people to get vaccinated.
- "If we’re ever going to get to anywhere near herd immunity, we’re going to need people to be getting vaccines where they work, where they learn, where they recreate and where they play," Gostin said. “A lot of what they're doing is really undermining the national vaccine campaign.”
Biden to unveil executive actions on gun violence prevention
President Biden is expected to present a series of executive actions on guns Thursday, including directing his Justice Department to tighten regulations on purchases of so-called “ghost guns."
Why it matters: The president has faced increased pressure from Democrats and gun violence prevention groups to act on the issue following a series of recent high-profile gun tragedies across the U.S.
Details: Biden is using the bully pulpit to issue a number of actions at the executive level while urging Congress to do its part to enact more permanent legislation, which could prove difficult given the split Senate.
- In what a senior administration official called an “initial” set of actions, the Department of Justice will introduce rules meant to minimize the proliferation of “ghost guns,” which are untraceable firearms assembled from kits.
- The DOJ will issue a proposed rule within 60 days that would subject any pistol outfitted with a stabilizing brace to the requirement of the National Firearms Act. Such a brace, used by the shooter in March at a grocery store in Boulder, Colo., could make a pistol essentially function as a rifle.
- The DOJ will publish “red flag” legislations for states to model on the local level and will also file a report on firearms trafficking for the first time since 2000.
- Biden will also announce on Thursday that the administration is investing in evidence-based community violence intervention. The president has proposed a $5 billion investment in such intervention as part of his initial infrastructure proposal.
- Biden will also nominate a gun control advocate to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
What they’re saying: Gun violence prevention advocacy groups are praising the executive actions while indicating there is still room for more action, such as providing more directives to agencies besides the DOJ, like HHS, that also work on the issue.
- Groups are also calling for a broad, unified national strategy from the White House as well as the appointment of a director specifically focused on gun violence issues.
- “We've been asking for a long time for them to prioritize this issue, and it's clear that they're going to start doing that,” Max Markham, policy director for March for Our Lives, told Axios.
Pornhub's tighter rules may not be enough, experts say
Pornhub tightened its rules around violent and underage content this week. Those changes are a good start, experts say, but they won't be sufficient to combat a growing problem of non-consensual videos.
Why it matters: The New York Times story, by Nick Kristof, reported that Pornhub's vast user-generated content library contains plenty of revenge porn and videos with underage participants. It also details the harm that being on Pornhub can cause for people whose videos were posted without their consent.
Driving the news: Pornhub this week announced a series of changes, including stepped-up moderation, temporarily limiting uploads to known content producers, and eliminating the ability to download videos.
Yes, but: "I don’t think it's going to come anywhere close to fixing the whole problem," Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network CEO Scott Berkowitz told Axios.
- For example, he noted that verifying posters is an important step, but doesn't go far enough to ensure that everyone depicted is a willing, consensual adult.
- "There’s been a staggering increase in the amount of child sexual abuse material that’s available," Berkowitz said, in addition to the posting of revenge porn and other videos that are posted without the consent of all participants.
PornHub also said it would increase the resources it puts toward moderation.
- "The key question is, is [Pornhub] going to implement these changes fully?" said Yiota Souras, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "On paper, it's great. But there must be investment and follow-through."
Between the lines: There's a big difference between videos with consensual adults, often professional, enacting all manner of sex scenes and the minefield that is user-generated content. In the latter, Berkowitz says, it is impossible to know if users consented to the act shown, if users consented to broad distribution of the video, and if everyone was of age to consent.
The big picture: Pornhub's changes come at a moment when legislators and activists are looking to solve a wide range of problems online by proposing limits to the tech industry's liability protection. But that approach has had unintended consequences in the past.
- SESTA/FOSTA, a law passed in 2018, aimed to curtail sex trafficking on line by narrowing the tech industry's liability protection, known as Section 230.
- But the controversial law resulted in massive policing of sex-related content across online platforms, inadvertently hurting sex workers and eliminating their comparatively safe online spaces, said Kendra Albert, a clinical professor at the Cyberclinic at Harvard Law School.
Pornhub's changes came faster than legislation — just days after the New York Times report — and, while perhaps not going far enough, are more squarely aimed at problem areas.
- The Times column's effectiveness at prompting quick change shows the power of investigative work and putting sexual assault survivors' voices first, which sways public opinion and clearly illustrates harm, said Souras.
- But sometimes columns like Kristof's can leave sex workers and other affected groups out of the conversation, Albert said.
Of note: Part of the pressure on PornHub came from its payment processors, companies like MasterCard and Visa.
- Sex worker advocates are concerned that if those companies withdraw completely from the porn industry, workers will end up in more dangerous situations.
Our thought bubble: Before tinkering with Section 230 again, lawmakers should look at SESTA/FOSTA's record of effectiveness as well as the collateral damage it inflicted. As the Pornhub example shows, public and media pressure might change sites' behavior faster than legislation.
What's next: A bipartisan Senate bill introduced Wednesday would allow victims of rape or sex trafficking to sue porn sites that profit from their images, an approach RAINN has endorsed.



