Alabama

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      RuPaul Is Sending a Rainbow Bus to Give Away Books Targeted by Bans

      by

      The star, whose show “RuPaul’s Drag Race” has an international following, is one of the founders of a new online bookstore promoting underrepresented authors. The giveaways are part of its outreach.At a time of book bans and efforts by state legislatures to ban drag shows, the performer and television producer who is arguably the country’s most famous drag star, RuPaul, is the co-founder of a new online bookstore that will be sending a rainbow school bus from the West Coast to the South to distribute the very books targeted by those bans.He announced on Monday that he was one of three business partners behind the bookstore, Allstora, which will promote underrepresented authors and provide writers with a greater share of profits than other online booksellers do.RuPaul said that this sort of book website would fill an important gap, especially in “these strange days, we’re living in,” to support the ideas of people “who are willing to push the conversation forward.”In recent years, there has been a sharp rise in efforts to restrict access to books at libraries in the United States, and most of the challenged books are by or about L.G.B.T.Q. people or people of color, according to library and free speech organizations. Some libraries have received bomb threats, and others have faced closure over efforts to remove books. At the same time, states have tried to ban drag shows and restrict access to health care for transgender people.RuPaul with Eric Cervini, left, co-founder and chief executive of Allstora, and Adam Powell, co-founder and director of the Rainbow Book Bus.AllstoraEnter RuPaul. Drag has been in popular culture for decades, but his reality competition show “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” which is airing its sixteenth season and has more than a dozen international editions, has brought the work of hundreds, if not thousands, of drag performers to home audiences.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Rules Against Corporate Transparency Act Disclosure Provision

      by

      An Alabama judge barred the government from collecting certain company ownership data to help the Treasury Department identify money launderers, and called the effort a case of congressional overreach.In a blow to government efforts to combat money laundering, a federal court has ruled that the Treasury Department cannot require some small businesses to report personal details about their owners.Under a section of a 2020 law that took effect Jan. 1, small businesses must share details about their so-called beneficial owners, individuals who hold financial stakes in a company or have significant power over their business decisions. The law, the Corporate Transparency Act, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and was intended to help the Treasury Department’s financial-crimes division identify money launderers who hide behind shell corporations.But in a ruling issued late Friday, Judge Liles C. Burke of the U.S. District Court in Huntsville, Ala., sided with critics of the law. They argue that asking a company’s owners to present personal data — names, addresses and copies of their identification documents — was a case of congressional overreach, however well intended.“Congress sometimes enacts smart laws that violate the Constitution,” Judge Burke wrote in a 53-page filing. “This case, which concerns the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act, illustrates that principle.”Judge Burke’s ruling prevented the department from enforcing the ownership reporting requirements on the plaintiff in the Alabama case, the National Small Business Association, a nonprofit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member companies.Lawyers who have followed the Alabama case said over the weekend that they expected the government to quickly request that the injunction be paused, either by Judge Burke or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, or both. The Justice Department will almost certainly appeal the Alabama case to the circuit court, the lawyers said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We did it in cattle’: Alabama Republicans’ bungled response to IVF patients

      by

      On Wednesday morning, some 200 Alabama in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients, doctors and advocates descended on the Alabama state house. Wearing orange and pink shirts for infertility awareness, they carried a variety of handmade signs: “You can’t cuddle an embryo”. “I just want to be a mom”.For these people and thousands of others in the state, the last two weeks have been tumultuous.Following the Alabama supreme court’s recent ruling that frozen embryos are considered “children”, IVF clinics in the state have paused their services, leaving people who were in the process of treatment in limbo. Embryo shipping companies have also stopped servicing the state, which means that patients who want to transfer their frozen embryos out of Alabama are unable to do so.The rally concluded with some direct conversations between advocates and lawmakers. In one such interaction, the Republican state representative Ben Harrison told families that a “solution” would be to freeze the sperm and egg separately, instead of freezing embryos, likening the former procedure to a process used on cows.“My personal opinion is that we keep them apart and only bring them together for what you need and what you’re willing to implant,” Harrison said. “We did it in cattle all the time.”The interaction pointed to the disconnect between families who are undergoing the IVF process, doctors who provide IVF services and lawmakers who may not understand the intricacies of and science behind IVF, but who ultimately can decide whether or not it remains legal.Dr Mamie McLean of Alabama Fertility in Birmingham has become one of the most vocal opponents of the supreme court decision. Flanked by other doctors and IVF patients, she spoke to those attending the rally before they headed into the state house.“As an infertility physician, I am used to difficult conversations, but these last two weeks have been absolutely heartbreaking,” she said. “Due to the uncertainty posed by the supreme court ruling, we have had to cancel embryo transfers for patients who are longing and praying for a child. We call on the state of Alabama to provide immediate, complete and permanent access to IVF care for the women and families of Alabama.”Resolve, the national infertility group that helped organize the rally, provided pamphlets and advised attendees on how to speak to legislators. “What happens here today in these offices will be looked at by the rest of the country,” said Barbara Collura, the group’s president and CEO. “This potentially could be a roadmap for other states to restrict access to IVF or a roadmap for how to protect access to IVF and family building. Please use your voice.”Collura said that some desperate families were leaving the state for treatment.“You’re on these medications for weeks and they cost a lot of money. It’s not covered by insurance for most of these people,” she said of the drugs used during IVF treatment. “You can’t just stop and start up next week, plus we don’t know when this will get fixed.”‘It could end my journey’Elizabeth Goldman, who stood with McLean and other advocates during the rally, was diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome when she was 14. The rare disorder means that she was born without a uterus; doctors told her she would never be able to carry her own child. When the University of Alabama launched a uterus transplant program in 2020, Goldman applied, moving with her husband from Mobile to Birmingham (near the school’s campus) in the hope of being able to have a child. After receiving the uterus transplant and undergoing several rounds of IVF treatment and transfers, Goldman was able to conceive. Her daughter, who was with her at the rally, was born in October 2023.Transplant patients are able to keep the uterus for just one or two deliveries, because of the volatility of a foreign organ, Goldman said. She estimates that she has taken about 20,000 pills since her transplant 22 months ago to keep her body from rejecting the uterus.Her medical team cleared her to carry a second child, and had planned to proceed with her transfer this March. But the supreme court decision has put that at a standstill. Goldman was on her way to a transfer appointment when she found out through a notification that her clinic had closed.“With all of the transplant meds I take, it can start to cause kidney damage and other health problems,” she said. “It’s not a life-saving transplant, but a life-giving transplant. So basically, right now I’m healthy. My kidneys are good. But if it continues to drag on, it could end my journey.”Jamie Heard and Deidra Smith drove to the rally from Birmingham hoping to speak to legislators face to face. Heard used IVF to give birth to her now two-year-old son. She had already started her cycle for a second child when the news of the supreme court’s decision broke. Her clinic cancelled her appointments in the middle of treatment.“It was heartbreaking,” Heard said. “The emotions for the past few days – I feel like I’ve been grieving a loved one, that’s how heavy my emotions have been.”Brittany Pettaway and her husband Byron, of Montgomery, currently have eight frozen embryos. She said that this was their only chance of becoming parents. They attended the rally hoping that legislators would make things go “back to literally how it was two weeks ago”.“We’re just trying to protect that right, and what should be a natural, God-given ability to do,” she said. “It’s surreal, I feel like I’m waiting for someone to say it was a joke, a really horrible emotional nightmare.”‘I don’t know what the answer is’After the rally ended, advocates queued outside to make their way into the state house to speak to legislators directly. The floors with offices for senators and representatives were full of people dressed in orange and pink.Outside one office, a group of families engaged the Alabama state auditor, Andrew Sorrell, in a conversation about their struggles. As auditor, Sorrell reports the state’s receipts, claims and payments, taxes and revenues to the governor.“I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but we’ve got to find some way to protect the IVF industry while also maintaining our pro-life stance,” he said.Sorrell suggested women only make as many embryos as they want to use. The advocates explained “the numbers game”, in which a family may produce dozens of eggs, but ultimately only have one or two viable, healthy embryos. Sorrell also suggested the state pay to make it easier for people to adopt frozen embryos.Following the near immediate backlash to the court’s decision, Republicans across the country initially were mum on the issue. But as clinics across Alabama began to close, they turned heel, speaking out in support of IVF. Alabama’s attorney general promised not to prosecute IVF clinics or patients, while the former president Trump also spoke in support of the procedure. On Wednesday, several bills that would preserve IVF moved forward in the Alabama legislature. One bill, which will progress to the Alabama senate after it received a vote of 94-6 on Thursday, would protect clinics from lawsuits.But there is no comprehensive solution to preserving IVF in the state and, in the meantime, patients and families, even those mid-treatment, are left waiting. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Democrats to force vote on protecting IVF access across the US

      by

      Senate Democrats are moving to push through a bill that would protect Americans’ access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, after an Alabama supreme court ruling that frozen embryos are children led to the closure of a number of infertility clinics in the state.The Democratic Illinois senator Tammy Duckworth said she would try to force a vote on the legislation on Wednesday which would establish a federal right to IVF and other fertility treatments that are at risk in the post-Roe era. Duckworth’s two children were conceived through IVF.“I’m headed to the Senate floor to call on my colleagues to pass via unanimous consent my Access to Family Building Act, which would ensure that every American’s right to become a parent via treatments like IVF is fully protected, regardless of what state they live in – guaranteeing that no hopeful parent or doctor is punished,” Duckworth said at a news conference on Tuesday.Duckworth’s move comes as Democrats vow to make IVF a campaign issue as they look to squeeze Republicans and highlight the continuing fallout of the overturning of Roe v Wade.“I warned that red states would come for IVF. Now they have. But they aren’t going to stop in Alabama. Mark my words: if we don’t act now, it will only get worse,” Duckworth added.The bill would require unanimous consent in order for it to pass, meaning that any one senator can block its passage. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said it was unlikely to receive unanimous consent from the chamber to rush the bill through.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile many Republican lawmakers registered disappointment over the Alabama ruling, at least one conservative senator was expected to object.Blumenthal said Democrats would not be deterred. He would not say what the next legislative steps would be, but he said Democrats, who control the Senate, would look for other ways to protect IVF and reproductive healthcare.“The IVF dilemma for Republicans is they are down a path that is not only unpopular, it’s untenable as a matter of constitutional law and basic moral imperative, and we’re going to pursue it vigorously,” Blumenthal said.“Today’s vote, the effort to seek a unanimous consent, we know is unlikely to be successful. Failing today is only the prelude to a fight ahead on women’s reproductive care centered on IVF and other steps that have to be taken to protect basic rights.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida delays ‘fetal personhood’ bill after fallout from Alabama IVF ruling

      by

      Florida lawmakers have postponed a bill that would give fetuses civil rights after a similar ruling in Alabama has halted in vitro fertilization treatment at several clinics in the state.The “fetal personhood” bill had been gaining support amid Florida’s mostly Republican lawmakers. The legislation attempts to define a fetus as an “unborn child”, allowing parents to collect financial damages in the case of wrongful death, the Tampa Bay Times reported.But the bill has largely stalled after Democrats argued that the legislation could affect in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, as seen in Alabama after the state’s supreme court ruled earlier this month that embryos created through IVF are considered “extrauterine children”. Since the ruling, several Alabama IVF clinics have paused services.The Florida state representative Dotie Joseph, a Democrat, told the Washington Post that the bill’s language did not protect IVF treatment from being affected.“We are exposing the healthcare provider to liability if something goes wrong,” Joseph said. “You have a situation where you are creating a chilling effect for people who are proactively trying to have a baby.”Florida Democrats have also warned that the new law could further affect abortion access, as fetuses gain additional civil rights rights under law.The Republican state senator Erin Grall, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement that she requested the legislation be postponed amid concerns.“Although I have worked diligently to respond to questions and concerns, I understand there is still work that needs to be done,” Grall said, the Bay Times reported. “It is important we get the policy right with an issue of this significance.”Other co-sponsors of the bill, such as the Republican state representative Jenna Persons-Mulicka, have reiterated that the bill is about the “value of the life of an unborn child”, the Post reported.It is unlikely that the bill will be passed in the current legislative session, which ends on 8 March, the Post reported.Following the Alabama ruling, other states have weighed similar bills that would grant fetuses rights, NBC News reported.At least 14 states legislatures have introduced similar “fetal personhood” bills, NBC reported, citing data from the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Guttmacher Institute. The surge is the largest increase of such bills since the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022. More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Alabama is using the notion that embryos are people to surveil and harass women | Moira Donegan

      by

      Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.The decision immediately halted almost all IVF procedures in Alabama. Aspiring patents there – including women who had undergone rounds of injected hormone treatments and the invasive, gruelingly painful egg retrieval process in order to create the embryos – will now be unable to have the material implanted in an attempt to create a pregnancy. Hundreds of other frozen embryos – those that are not viable, or not needed by families that are already complete – can now not be destroyed as is typical IVF practice. They need to be continually stored in freezers, or what the Alabama supreme court refers to, in Orwellian style, as “cryogenic nurseries”, a term you almost have to admire for the sheer audacity of its creepiness.But the concept of embryonic personhood, now inscribed in Alabama law, poses dangers well beyond the cruelty it has imposed on the hopeful couples who were pursuing IVF in Alabama, before their state supreme court made that impossible. If embryos and fetuses are people, as Alabama now says they are, then whole swaths of women’s daily lives come under the purview of state scrutiny.Forget about abortion, which would automatically be banned as murder in any situation where fetuses are considered persons – Alabama already has a total abortion ban, without exceptions for rape, incest or health. Embryonic personhood would also ban many kinds of birth control, such as Plan B, IUDs, and some hormonal birth control pills, which courts have said can be interpreted as working by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. (In fact these methods work primarily by preventing ovulation, but facts are of dwindling relevance in the kind of anti-abortion litigation that comes before Republican-controlled courts.)Further, if embryos and fetuses are children, then the state may have an interest in protecting their lives that extends to controlling even more of women’s daily conduct. Could a woman who is pregnant, or could be pregnant, have a right to do things that might endanger her embryo in a situation where an embryo is her legal equal, with a claim on state protection? Could she risk this embryo’s health and life by, say, eating sushi, or having some soft cheese? Forget about the wine. Could she be charged with child endangerment for speeding? For going on a jog?These scenarios might sound hyperbolic, but they are not entirely hypothetical. Even before the Alabama court began enforcing the vulgar fiction that a frozen embryo is a person, authorities there had long used the notion of fetal personhood to harass, intimidate and jail women – often those suspected of using drugs during pregnancies – under the state’s “chemical endangerment of a child” law, using the theory that women’s bodies are environments that they have an obligation to keep free of “chemicals” that could harm a fetus or infringe upon its rights.Using this logic, police in Alabama, and particularly in rural Etowah county, north-east of Birmingham, have repeatedly jailed women for allegedly using drugs ranging from marijuana to meth while pregnant – including women who have claimed that they did not use drugs, and women who turned out not to be pregnant. In 2021, Kim Blalock, a mother of six, was arrested on felony charges after filling a doctor’s prescription during a pregnancy; the state of Alabama decided that it knew better than her doctor, and they could criminalize her for following medical advice.This is not an extreme example: it is the logical conclusion of fetal personhood’s legalization – the surveillance, jailing and draconian monitoring of pregnant women, an exercise in voyeuristic sadism justified by the flimsy pretext that it’s all being done for the good of children. Except there are no children. Lest this seem like an idea that will necessarily be corrected by political response, or by the ultimate intervention of a federal court on the question, remember that Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs referred repeatedly to “unborn human beings”.There are several ways this supreme court could ban abortion nationwide, and they do not need to enforce fetal personhood to do so – many rightwing organizations, for instance, are encouraging federal courts to revive the long-dormant Comstock Act, from the 1870s, to ban all abortions. Nor will the ultimate national abortion ban necessarily even come from the courts. Any future Republican president will be under enormous pressure to enact a national abortion ban, and they will have many means at their disposal to do so even without congressional cooperation, be it through the justice department or through the FDA. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in all but name, has floated the idea of a 16-week national ban – a huge restriction on women’s right’s nationwide that would undoubtably be just the opening salvo for even further rollbacks. Meanwhile, his nominal rival, Nikki Haley, responded to the news of the Alabama court ruling by voicing approval of fetal personhood. “Embryos, to me, are babies.”Let’s be clear: they are not. An embryo is not a child. Neither is a fetus. Treating them as such is a legal absurdity that degrades human life and insults the reality of parenthood. But most importantly: there is no notion of when personhood begins that is compatible with women’s citizenship other than birth. If personhood begins while a pregnancy is ongoing – if a person, that is, can be someone enclosed entirely inside another person’s body – then the competition of rights will be humiliatingly, violently, brutally one-sided. None of the opportunities, freedoms or responsibilities of citizenship are available to someone whose body is constantly surveilled, commandeered and colonized by the state like that. No citizenship worth its name can belong to someone who cannot even wield within the bounds of her own skin.It is humiliating to even have to say this: that women matter more than fetuses or embryos, that a frozen cell in a petri dish is not a human being, but we are. It is an absurdity to make this argument, an exhausting waste of our time, a degradation. That, too, is part of the point.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘That’s a hard one’: Alabama senator flounders over state’s IVF embryo ruling

      by

      Republican US senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama seemingly struggled to grasp the contradictory situation women have been placed in after his state’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos are children.Asked at a conservative conference on Thursday what he would say to women currently denied the fertility treatment, the former college football coach replied: “Yeah, I was all for it. We need to have more kids, we need to have an opportunity to do that, and I thought this was the right thing to do.”But then when he was pressed on whether the ruling would negatively affect people who are trying to have conceive, Tuberville said: “Well, that’s, that’s for another conversation. I think the big thing is right now, you protect – you go back to the situation and try to work it out to where it’s best for everybody. I mean, that’s what – that’s what the whole abortion issue is about.”As a result of the ruling in question in Alabama, at least three IVF providers in the state have suspended services.“That’s a hard one,” Tuberville said when asked about IVF availability in Alabama. “It really is.”Tuberville said: “I’d have to look at what they’re agreeing to and not agreeing to. I haven’t seen that.”But he said that it was “unfortunate” if the women would not be denied the procedure.Tuberville’s spokesperson Hannah Eddins later sought to clarify the senator’s remarks, saying he had been “emphasizing his support for life at all stages”.“In addition to being pro-life and believing life begins at conception, Senator Tuberville is also pro-family,” Eddins said. “He believes strong families are instrumental to our country’s success.”Eddins added that Tuberville was “in no way” supporting the decision by clinics to halt IVF procedures.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Alabama court’s decision, released earlier this week, came in response to a lawsuit by a group of IVF patients whose frozen embryos were destroyed in December 2020 when a patient removed the embryos from a cryogenic storage unit and dropped them on the ground.With the ruling, Republican anti-abortion politicians are now in a bind between opposing abortion and supporting treatments that promote conception.Tuberville’s spokesperson said that the senator supported the US supreme court’s ruling that overturned the federal abortion right previously established by Roe v Wade. The court’s decision returned the issue of abortion rights back to individual states, many of which have outlawed the procedure in most cases.Tuberville’s remarks on Thursday came after his decision in December to end a months-long blockade of US military promotions over his opposition to a Pentagon policy that facilitates abortions for service members and dependents. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Nikki Haley says she believes embryos created through IVF are ‘babies’

      by

      The Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has spoken in response to the recent supreme court ruling out of Alabama, revealing that she believes embryos created through IVF are “babies”.In a new interview with NBC, the former UN ambassador expressed support for the Friday ruling by Alabama’s supreme court which deemed that frozen embryos are “children”.“I had artificial insemination. That is how I had my son … One thing is to … save sperm or to save eggs but when you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that is a life. And so I do see where that is coming from when they talk about that,” Haley said.Haley’s comments come after Alabama’s supreme court allowed two wrongful death lawsuits against a Mobile fertility clinic to proceed. The lawsuits stem from an incident in 2021 when a patient removed several embryos from the clinic’s cryogenic nursery.According to the lawsuit, “the subzero temperatures at which the embryos had been stored freeze-burned the patient’s hand, causing the patient to drop the embryos on the floor, killing them”.A statement released by Alabama supreme court justice Jay Mitchell said: “The central question presented in these consolidated appeals, which involve the death of embryos kept in a cryogenic nursery, is whether the act contains an unwritten exception to that rule for extrauterine children – that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.”Mitchell added: “Under existing black-letter law, the answer to that question is no: the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.”Asked whether she has any concerns on how the court’s ruling could hurt people seeking IVF treatment, Haley said: “I think that we have to have those conversations … Let’s never underestimate the relationship between a doctor and a patient.“This is one where we need to be incredibly respectful and sensitive about it,” she said, adding: “I know that when my doctor came in, we knew what was possible and what wasn’t … Every woman needs to know, with her partner, what she is looking at. And then when you look at that, then you make the decision that’s best for your family.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHaley, who is currently trailing behind Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential contest, has previously downplayed the federal abortion ban. Instead, the former South Carolina governor has said that it was up to each state to determine their limits on abortion.During her time as governor, Haley signed a bill into law which bans abortion at 20 weeks and does not provide exceptions for rape or incest. More