#no not an amending regulation that changes an already existing regulation

[psqqa]

every day legislators find new and exciting ways to make the legislative process as unnecessarily convoluted as humanly fucking possible

[metanarrates]

the bill (post that outlines it from last week) has been signed into law.

the slight good news: the language of the bill has been amended so that children can no longer be criminally charged for using a bathroom or locker room that aligns with their gender identity.

the bad news: literally almost everything else about the bill is the same. adults can still be charged.

in addition to everything highlighted in my earlier post, I would like to highlight that the law will charge transgender adults with trespass if “the individual enters or remains in the changing room under circumstances which a reasonable person would expect to likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another individual." in other words, if a transphobe is alarmed by a trans person existing in a restroom, and the judge agrees, that's a trespassing charge. maximum penalties for trespassing under utah law go up to six months in jail and a $1000 charge.

I don't think I need to explain the violence that trans people, particularly trans women, face in jail, especially if they are sent to a men's prison as a trans woman. I also don't think I need to explain the poverty that the trans community experiences as a result of systemic discrimination, and how devastating a fine can be to a poor person. and even without the charge, being harassed by both civilians and cops who will demand that you prove your gender is traumatizing and humiliating. even though this law does in fact only extend to buildings that are publicly funded (such as government offices, schools, possibly the salt lake city airport,) this will also embolden transphobes to harass trans people in other places. make no mistake, this law is violence.

additionally, the law also can give out charges of lewdness and voyeurism, both of which are sex crimes. being placed on the sex offender registry can be DEVASTATING for a person's job opportunities, ability to find housing, and basic rights to privacy. in addition to the already devastating housing and employment issues faced by ex-convicts, this would make life practically unlivable for anyone convicted.

I'll emphasize again that this endangers the trans community, particularly the transfem community, but I am also scared for black women, gnc people, and intersex people, all of whom are also vulnerable to gender policing and gender-based harassment. I am terrified at how openly this law gives leeway for civilians to act as vigilantes and for cops to demand to know what a person's genitals look like. I am terrified at the escalation of hate crimes and harassment that this will likely prompt.

please show up for the utah trans community. in the next few days, I will put together a list of trans people's gofundmes in the state. I would appreciate it if you would share that as well. chances are, we're going to need a lot of financial help in the future, especially if some of us end up choosing to flee the state.

as always, death to the american police state and all it enables.

[mariacallous]

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)

Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty

Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children

Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students

Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law

Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools

Promote universal private school choice

Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it uses to allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatory funding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education—and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion—it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states.

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students

Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination

Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus

Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers

Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

[wyrmfedgrave]

4 Supreme Court decisions that have quietly jumpstarted Project 2025 | Salon.com

So, it turns out that Project 2025 has been secretly advanced by piecemeal Scotus legislation.

4 important pieces of the plan have already been passed!

1. Paying elected officials for their 'help' is no longer Bribery!

2. EPA regulations can no longer regulate protection from pollution, food additives, etc...

3. Only Christo-Fascist beliefs are imposed on all other citizens!! The separation of church & state is gone!

4. The 14th Amendment's protection of women's medical privacy was stuck down!!

Abortion is no longer a Sex Based choice but a legal one.

In all these cases, OLD common law is more important than modern ones.

Republikkkans claim that the Biden/ Harris Scotus reforms are already "Dead."

Not so.

As usual, Republikkkans lead with lies.

They've only been able to impose their full wills on a few states - for now...

All 6 partisan Scotus judges are in bed with fossil fuel companies.

And, they all belong to the Federalist Society & the Heritage Foundation.

All receive Dark Money from various rich corporate donors.

And, have the media support of rich Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network.

Project 2025 exists mostly to secretly advance Climate Change denial...

But, you'll have only 1 chance to be able to stop this - on November 5th.

So, come out prepared to do your part to preserve your hard-won freedoms...

Cause the Republikkkans are dying to break even more laws to protect their "sugar daddies."

End.

[beardedmrbean]

RIGA - The Saeima today supported in principle amendments to the Road Traffic Law, which provide for the ban of vehicles registered in Belarus in Latvia.

The bill will be processed in a fast track procedure. It stipulates that vehicles registered in Belarus that are currently in Latvian territory must be removed or registered for road traffic in Latvia by October 31.

After the deadline, Belarusian vehicles will only be able to enter Latvia for one transit crossing of the Latvian territory, by applying in advance in the e-services provided by the Road Traffic Safety Directorate.

The Justice Ministry proposes to include two exceptions. The bill would not apply to persons with reduced mobility driving a vehicle registered in Belarus and entering to visit relatives in Latvia. In line with the recommendation of the Foreign Ministry, vehicles registered in Belarus will also be allowed to enter Latvia in special security cases. In these cases, persons will have to ask the Financial Intelligence Service for permission to enter the territory of Latvia.

Janis Vitenbergs (National Alliance), a member of the Saeima national economy, rural, environment and regional policy committee, stressed earlier in the session that such exceptions do not exist in the regulation on vehicles registered in Russia, which are already banned from entering Latvia.

Dace Melbarde (New Unity), Parliamentary Secretary of the Foreign Ministry, said that the Belarusian diaspora is very different from the Russian diaspora, noting that Belarusian opposition representatives had earlier called for the initial version of the draft law not to be supported. "That is why we are ready to be flexible if the political situation in Belarus changes," she said.

The plan is that in case of non-compliance with the new regulation, Latvia will be able to confiscate vehicles registered in Belarus in favor of Ukraine, supporting Ukrainians in their fight for independence.

The planned changes to the legislation will oblige owners of vehicles with Belarusian registration plates entering Latvia to re-register these vehicles in Latvia within a certain period of time, as well as to determine the consequences and liability of persons who fail to comply with these obligations.

It will also prevent the owners of these vehicles from evading responsibility for non-compliance with road traffic rules, explained the Transport Ministry.

A similar draft law was submitted by the opposition National Alliance, but was rejected by both the responsible committee and the Saeima at the end of June, saying that the Justice Ministry was already preparing a regulation.

[getmanlaw]

Schuyler County may ask state to reject legislation that could close shooting ranges statewide

A proposed bill in the New York Senate is a gun control law being presented under the guise of an environmental law, warns the Schuyler County Clerk. 

According to County Clerk Theresa Philbin, "the Sporting Range Good Neighbor Act," currently pending in the New York State Senate, would place heavy restrictions on shooting ranges, due to proximity to wetlands and open water sources, potentially forcing existing ranges to close.  

That, in turn, would prevent people from getting pistol permits.  It would also mean local school shooting leagues would have no place to practice. 

At Philbin’s request, on Monday (May 13) the Schuyler County Legislature will consider a resolution asking state officials to reject the bill.

The proposed resolution, drafted with the assistance of Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman, cleared the county’s Management and Finance Committee in April.   It points out that the proposed act “will cause severe hardship on the clubs, members and schools who depend upon the fish and game clubs for this very popular recreational sport in Schuyler County and the Finger Lakes with no empirical evidence that the mandates and restrictions are necessary.”

“This Bill is based upon misinformation as to the trajectory of skeet shots, and the reason why most trap and skeet fields have been operating for decades without the need for this additional legislation,” the resolution notes.

“This mis-named Act would require skeet field tracts at shooting ranges to be a minimum of 600 yards by 300 yards….Participants are shooting shotguns with small lead pellet loads which are only capable of traveling a maximum distance of 150-200 yards; in addition, most clubs reclaim the expended pellets for reuse.”

The bill says these restrictions will prevent lead from bullets getting into the environment.

Critics of the bill, including Philbin, have noted that shooting ranges already have to meet restrictive guidelines to operate safely, costing them up to $100,000, and that restrictions will cost thousands of dollars more, possibly forcing them to close.

“This Bill essentially will force most ranges and clubs to build a covered backstop and be required to follow the State rules regarding lead reclamation,” Philbin said. “Most if not all clubs will not be able to afford to comply with these regulations.”

Getman noted that closing ranges could impact citizens’ ability to obtain a pistol permit under New York State’s gun control laws.

“If you wish to apply for a concealed carry license, you need to complete the Concealed Carry Firearm Safety Training Course,” Getman said.  “Often, those classes are held at the local ranges.”

“Forcing those ranges to close would effectively prevent many New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

According to Philbin, it is not just club members who participate at these ranges, but also school trap teams.    “When you look at those kids that are on school-sponsored sports teams, they get better grades in school, they have a lower dropout rate, they stay away from alcohol and drugs and tobacco,” she said.  

"This legislation could negatively affect students’ futures.  That’s why we want to protect our clubs."

The county’s resolution, if passed, will be sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul and the county’s representatives in the New York State legislature, Senator Thomas O’Mara and Assemblyman Philip Palmesano, asking each to oppose the bill.

The Schuyler County Clerk is the point of contact for pistol permit processing in Schuyler County. Amendments to the permit, name and/or address changes, transfers to/from other counties, as well as suspensions are made through the office. Pistol permit records are kept in the office, the original of each record is sent to the state.

The Schuyler County Attorney is the legal advisor for county government and its various officials. The County Attorney prepares legislation and prosecutes and defends civil actions on behalf of the county and county employees acting pursuant to their official duties.

A complete copy of the proposed resolution is available here

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Rupa Subramanya

Published: Mar 6, 2024

One of the first things you learn—or should learn—in Civics 101 is that there is no freedom at all without freedom of expression. Free speech is the essential freedom from which our other rights flow. It’s a right that we have taken for granted in the West. 

But a new wave of hate speech laws has changed that. In English-speaking countries with long traditions of free expression—countries like Canada, Britain, and Ireland—this most basic freedom is under attack. 

Take Canada. Civil liberties groups north of the border are warning a new bill put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government will introduce “draconian penalties” that risk chilling free speech. How draconian? The law would allow authorities to place a Canadian citizen under house arrest if that person is suspected to commit a future hate crime—even if they have not already done so. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life.

These punishments depend on a hazy definition of hate that Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has warned could blur the line between “political activism, passionate debate, and offensive speech.” 

The proposed law is in keeping with the Trudeau government’s broader hostility to free expression. I’ve reported before for The Free Press on this censorious turn in my country, from the crackdown on the trucker protesters to the backdoor regulation of online speech. And, testifying before the U.S. Congress in November, I urged Americans to treat Canada’s war on free expression as a cautionary tale. Increasingly, though, what’s true of Canada is true across the English-speaking world. 

In Ireland, the government is pressing ahead with controversial new restrictions of online speech that, if passed, would be among the most stringent in the Western world. 

The proposed legislation would criminalize the act of “inciting hatred” against individuals or groups based on specified “protected characteristics” like race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation. The definition of incitement is so broad as to include “recklessly encouraging” other people to hate or cause harm “because of your views” or opinions. In other words, intent doesn’t matter. Nor would it matter if you actually posted the “reckless” content. Merely being in possession of that content—say, in a text message, or in a meme stored on your iPhone—could land you a fine of as much as €5,000 ($5,422) or up to 12 months in prison, or both. 

As with Canada’s proposed law, the Irish legislation rests on a murky definition of hate. But Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee sees this lack of clarity as a strength. “On the strong advice of the Office of the Attorney General, we have not sought to limit the definition of the widely understood concept of ‘hatred’ beyond its ordinary and everyday meaning,” she explained. “I am advised that defining it further at this juncture could risk prosecutions collapsing and victims being denied justice.” 

In Britain, existing online harm legislation means that tweeting “transwomen are men” can lead to a knock on the door from the cops. Now the governing Conservative Party is under pressure to adopt a broad definition of Islamophobia as a “type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” 

Other parties have adopted this definition, and free-speech advocates in Britain worry that it is only a matter of time until a Labour-run government codifies the definition into legislation. To do so, they argue, would mean the introduction of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain. 

These growing restrictions on speech across the Anglosphere are making the United States, with its robust First Amendment protection of speech, an outlier—though not for the Biden administration’s lack of trying. 

In April 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” to “coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security.” There was an immediate pushback from free-speech advocates, who pointed to the obvious fact that this new body would necessarily impinge on protected First Amendment rights. The administration dropped the idea a few months later. 

Then, in September 2023, a federal court ruled that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when they “coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content” during the pandemic. 

Jay Bhattacharya was one of the scientists on the winning side of that case. Writing in The Free Press after the ruling, he recalled being grilled on the First Amendment during his citizenship test when he was nineteen. “The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy,” he wrote. “I never imagined that there would come a time when an American government would think of violating this right, or that I would be its target.” 

The trouble isn’t just the Biden administration. 

Listen to Barbara McQuade, an MSNBC legal analyst and professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Her new book, Attack from Within, details “how disinformation is sabotaging America.” America’s “deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. . . makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship,” said McQuade in an interview with Rachel Maddow last week. 

A worrying number of Americans appear to be sympathetic to McQuade’s argument. A 2023 Pew survey found that just 42 percent of voters agreed that “freedom of information should be protected, even if it means false information can be published.” 

McQuade has it backward. The First Amendment is a feature, not a bug; a strength, not a vulnerability; and the bedrock of American freedom and flourishing. 

Across the English-speaking world, we once took our civil liberties for granted. Freedom of speech was understood as a blessing of democracy, not something that needed to be fought for every day. We thought that opaque and vague laws were used by those in power to punish their political or ideological opponents only in illiberal autocracies such as Russia or China. But we were wrong. And those now fighting censorship in Canada, or Britain, or Ireland, wish they had a First Amendment of their own to fall back on. 

==

Calls for censorship always come from those in power to silence dissent.

You're not supposed to notice that although they're doing it in the name of - and using the language of - "victimhood," those calling for censorship and restriction of speech are the ones who hold power from that claim to victimhood.

[providentalproperties]

Legal Considerations for Foreign Buyers in Abu Dhabi Real Estate

Abu Dhabi is a promising city in UAE which is bustling with economic activity. Because of such growth and its strategic position in the Persian Gulf, it is a dream destination for expats who would like to invest in a foreign country. 

With such alluring attractions Abu Dhabi has found solid investments from foreign nationals in the real estate sector.

Abu Dhabi’s Department of Municipalities and Transport recently reported a rise in foreign investments in real estate by 363 percent in the first half of 2023.

These statistics are indeed the result of deliberate efforts and legislation on the part of incumbent authorities. 

Until 2019 there were restrictions for foreign nationals to own land or any properties. As a part of the governing body's interest to multiply its economic prowess, the government has opened real estate to foreign nationals with certain restrictions.

Can a foreigner buy property in Abu Dhabi? 

As already mentioned right to own land was restricted for foreigners in Abu Dhabi. As a result, most expats had to lease out properties with contracts that may reach up to 99 years. 

In 2019 a law regulating the ownership of real estate properties was amended by the incumbent governor of Abu Dhabi. This amendment, in the law numbered 19 in 2005, gave way for foreign nationals to own land in Abu Dhabi. This was made possible with amendments in its Articles 3 and 4. 

So the answer to the question is, Yes a foreigner can buy freehold properties in Abu Dhabi in areas fixed by the authorities. 

Thus homes for sale in Abu Dhabi got a surge in demand from foreigners.

Paper works for foreign buyers in Abu Dhabi

Registration, creation of an escrow account, and notarising contracts such as the sale and purchase agreement provide you legally binding transfer of property in Abu Dhabi. The paperwork involved in such procedures might overwhelm you. In such cases, it is better to consult a professional legal practitioner for preparing or evaluating this paperwork.

You might find it alluring to jump after cheap houses for sale in Abu Dhabi. Wait! There are a few more legal considerations that will assure you a legitimate ownership of the property.

Legal Considerations

Title Deed: Before making the transaction please verify the title deed. The seller should have a legal title over the property with zero space for disputes. Homes for sale in Abu Dhabi might come with attractive offers. However, keeping and checking necessary documents is essential for legitimate ownership. A professional lawyer can assist you in this property title search.

Registration: Registering the property in your name at the Abu Dhabi land department is necessary to ensure lawful custody of the property.

Fees Involved: Property Transfer Fee, Registration Fee, and all other fees and taxes should be paid in compliance with Emirati laws. 

The changes in Abu Dhabi laws have resulted in enormous investment in the real estate sector. Leveraging this opportunity effectively requires adherence to the existing laws. These laws are intended to provide trouble-free transactions for sellers and investors equally. Thus before proceeding with the search for homes for sale in Abu Dhabi, it is required of you in your best interest to understand the legal terrain of Abu Dhabi land laws.

With a team of qualified legal professionals Providential Properties Management is all set to take you through a hassle-free process of finding a trustworthy investment opportunity in Abu Dhabi.

[davies-parker]

A Comprehensive Guide for Businesses to comply with the California Privacy Right Act

Introduction:

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) came into effect on January 1, 2023, marking a significant shift in data privacy legislation. With full enforcement scheduled for July 1, 2023, businesses must understand the implications of this new law on their websites and operations. In this blog post, we dissect the key elements of the CPRA, shedding light on its implications and the necessary steps for compliance.

Compliance with Tsaaro:

Tsaaro Consulting is already ahead in ensuring compliance with California’s data privacy laws. As we transition into the CPRA era, Tsaaro continues to offer robust solutions to navigate the evolving landscape, aligning seamlessly with the state’s stringent regulations.

California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA): A Quick Overview

The CPRA, passed into law on November 3, 2020, serves as an extension of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which took effect on January 1, 2020. Positioned as a data privacy frontier, California significantly bolsters residents’ rights and introduces stricter regulations on the use of personal information (PI). Notable changes include the establishment of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) for statewide data privacy enforcement.

Key Changes Introduced by CPRA:

Creation of Sensitive Personal Information (SPI): The CPRA introduces a new category, SPI, encompassing data on race, religious beliefs, genetic information, and more. SPI is regulated separately, granting users expanded control over its use.

Updated Definitions and Scope: The CPRA modifies the definition of business, excluding smaller entities and including those with substantial revenue generated from the collection, sharing, or selling of Californians’ PI.

New and Modified Rights: California residents gain four new rights, including the right to correction and the right to limit the use of SPI. Existing rights, such as the right to delete and opt-out, are also modified to enhance user control.

Regulation of Behavioural Advertising: The CPRA specifically regulates cross-contextual behavioural advertising, allowing users to opt-out of targeted ads based on their behavioural data.

Introduction of the CPPA: The creation of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) marks a significant shift in enforcement responsibilities from the Office of the Attorney General. The CPPA has the authority to investigate and fine violations, ensuring strict adherence to the CPRA.

GDPR-Like Provisions: The CPRA introduces GDPR-like requirements, emphasising data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation. Businesses are now mandated to collect, use, and share data strictly according to the purpose of collection.

Timeline for CPRA Compliance:

January 1, 2021: CPRA is passed into law, and the CPPA is created.

July 1, 2021: launch of the procedure for creating and approving CPRA regulations.

January 1, 2022: In accordance with the CPRA’s one-year lookback period, PI collection becomes liable.

July 1, 2022: The CPPA’s deadline for approving the CPRA’s final regulations.

January 1, 2023: The CPRA goes into effect fully.

July 1, 2023: Under the CPPA, the CPRA is first enforced.

CCPA vs. CPRA: A Unified Data Privacy Regime

It’s crucial to understand that California operates under one overarching data privacy regime. The CPRA serves as a comprehensive amendment to the CCPA, refining and reinforcing the existing framework. While the CCPA laid the foundation, the CPRA renovates it, addressing ambiguities and introducing additional regulations.

Conclusion:

As businesses navigate the complex terrain of California’s data privacy laws, compliance with the CPRA is not just a legal necessity but a commitment to user rights and ethical data practices. With Tsaaro leading the way in compliance solutions, businesses can confidently embrace the CPRA era, ensuring the protection of user data and upholding the highest standards of privacy.

Click Here for Data Privacy Services

[waterfiltergurus]

EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions LCRR (Ultimate Guide)

Lead is a heavy metal with some of the most serious health risks to humans. It's classed as a neurotoxin, and no amount of lead is safe in drinking water. With that said, between 6 and 10 million lead service lines still exist in the US, and we still continue to hear stories of lead poisoning epidemics around the country - with the most recent being the September 2022 discovery of dangerous levels of lead in Chicago's public drinking water system. The EPA is thankfully taking the matter of lead in water seriously, and has recently made public the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), which builds on the existing Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) with the goal of eliminating lead from our homes once and for all. The new regulation is a high priority in the White House, and will hopefully fast-track the plans and processes in place to ensure all US communities have access to lead-free drinking water. In this guide, we've done a deep dive into the EPA LCRR, sharing everything you need to know about this important subject. Note: If you have specific questions about the LCRR that you want answering quickly and simply, check the FAQ section at the bottom of this article. 📌 Key Takeaways: - The EPA Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) is a revised version of the original Lead And Copper Rule. - The aim of the LCRR is to better protect communities from lead in drinking water, particularly children and disadvantaged communities, and support the government in eliminating all lead service lines in the US within a decade. - The first draft of the LCRR was published in 2019, and the initial compliance date is currently set to October 2024. - This date will likely change because the EPA has been working on an amended version of the LCRR (the LCRI) which is set to be implemented in the near future. 🤔 What Is The EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR)? The EPA Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) is an update to the existing Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address issues related to lead and copper contamination in drinking water. It was implemented on December 16, 2021. October 16, 2024 is the first compliance date. The original Lead and Copper Rule was established in 1991, but had faced criticism for not doing enough to protect public health. The LCRR aims to strengthen regulations surrounding lead and copper in drinking water systems and ultimately reduce exposure to these harmful contaminants. There are several aims of the LCRR, including introducing more stringent testing requirements, establishing a lower "action level" for lead (which requires corrective actions when exceeded), and improving public transparency through better communication with consumers about lead levels in their drinking water. The rule also mandates the replacement of lead service lines - a significant source of lead contamination, especially in older communities. These revisions are a vital step towards ensuring safer drinking water for all communities in the US, and preventing the kind of lead crises that we've seen in the past (such as the infamous Flint, Michigan case). 📆 What Are The Key Dates For The LCRR? Here's a timeline of dates documenting the implementation of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, from 2018 to 2024: - 2018: The LCRR was included by the White House as a key objective in a federal action plan that aimed to protect children from lead. By this point, the EPA had already been gathering feedback on revisions for over 10 years. - 2019: The EPA published a draft of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, allowing stakeholders to give their input. - January 2021: The LCRR was officially implemented by the EPA, and the first compliance date - January 2024 - was set. Executive Order 13990 was issued, requiring federal agencies to determine the sufficiency of the existing rules in relation to scientific data, public health, and environmental protection. The outcome of this order was that the EPA needed to review the LCRR and an additional 47 other rules. - March 2021: The EPA delayed the implementation of the LCRR because of the issuing of Executive Order 13990. The date was pushed back to June of the same year, but the EPA also requested comment on whether the implementation should be moved as far back as December for the sake of seeking public feedback. This same month, the American Jobs Plan was issued, proposing to "eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in our drinking water systems". - June 2021: The LCRR’s implementation date was pushed back to December by the EPA, and a new compliance date - October 2024 - was issued. - April - August 2021: Over these months, the EPA met with stakeholders and held public hearings, requesting comments, with a focus on the communities disproportionately impacted by lead exposure in water. - November 2021: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act was signed by President Biden, and $15 billion was delegated for the identification and replacement of lead service lines within a period of 5 years. - December 2021: The EPA reimplemented the LCRR and maintained its amended compliance date of 16 October 2024. This month, the White House also announced the Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan, with the aim of replacing all the lead pipes in the country. 🔎 What Is The Lead And Copper Rule? Before we look in more detail at the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, let's jump back to look at the original Lead and Copper Rule. The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is a federal regulation that was established by the EPA in 1991 to safeguard the quality of municipal drinking water and reduce our exposure to lead and copper in public water systems. The primary goal of this rule was to protect the public, especially vulnerable populations like children, from the concerning health effects associated with lead and copper contamination. The original LCR required public water systems to monitor lead and copper levels in drinking water through regular testing. If their water supplies contained lead at levels that exceeded the action levels, water systems had to take corrective actions, like implementing corrosion control measures to reduce the leaching of lead and copper from pipes and fixtures. The rule also required water utilities to notify the public of their test results and provide guidance on how to minimize exposure. Plus, lead service lines were mandated to be replaced over time, and the rule imposed a ban on lead-containing materials in plumbing. 🧐 What Was Wrong With The Original Lead And Copper Rule? The original LCR has faced criticism over the years for not being sufficiently protective of public health, particularly in light of the Flint, Michigan water crisis. One of the key issues was that the rule's action level for lead was too high, allowing public water systems to exceed lead levels considered safe before they legally had to take action. As a result, the extent of lead contamination was underestimated in some areas. The rule was criticized because it didn't require the immediate replacement of lead service lines, allowing them to remain in use, which perpetuated the risk of lead leaching into drinking water. Finally, the LCR also lacked transparency, as it didn't require authorities and public water systems to sufficiently notify and inform their communities about lead contamination in water systems, so many residents were simply unaware of the potential health risks of this toxic metal. We've seen numerous examples over the years that tell us the original LCR hasn't been sufficient in protecting communities from lead in water. If the rule was 100% effective, there should have been no concealed or underplayed cases of lead contamination since its implementation. Unfortunately, this simply wasn't the case. 🚰 Did The Original Lead And Copper Rule Do Anything Right? Yes, actually - despite its criticisms, a lot of good came out of the original Lead And Copper Rule. We've seen a 90% decrease in the number of large public water systems that exceed the lead “action level”, which is promising news. And this figure has got better in recent years - only 3% of water systems reported exceeding this “action level” during the last three years. Plus, the actions implemented as a result of the LCR, combined with other federal regulations, have helped to reduce the concentration of lead in the blood of children aged one to five by 95% since the 1976-1980 date range. Back then, the median concentration of lead in these children's blood measured at 15 micrograms per deciliter, while in 2013-2014, the median concentration measured at just 0.7 micrograms per deciliter. Of course, we want to see a concentration of 0, but improvements have clearly been made. We can see from these examples and other data that we've come a long way since the EPA Lead And Copper Rule was first implemented. But we still haven't achieved the goal of eliminating lead from drinking water, and that's where the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions come into play. 🔑 What Are The Key Revisions To The Lead And Copper Rule? The key Lead And Copper Rule Revisions are: - Lead testing at child care facilities and schools. Public water systems are now required to test for lead in schools and childcare facilities. - Lead service line inventories. PWS must also provide information on their lead service lines for public viewing. - Trigger level to mitigate lead exposure. If lower levels of lead are detected in municipal water supplies, PWS must now initiate mitigation based on a new "trigger level" of 10 µg/liter (lower than the action level of 15 µg/liter) for the contaminant. The LCRR also builds on a lot of the measures that existed in the original Lead And Copper Rule, including the replacement of lead service lines, treatment to control corrosion, public education, lead drinking water sampling, and more. Some of these additional changes to existing measures include: - Better and more reliable lead sampling. The new regulation provides stricter guidance on the method of collecting samples and has updated the sample collection process. - "Find and fix" initiative. The LCCR has also implemented a "find and fix" initiative that aims to help public water systems to identify high levels of lead in customer homes. - Provide improved education. According to the revised rule, PWS must also provide more thorough education to communities to better protect the public. - Increase the lead service line replacement rate. The rule also aims to increase the annual lead service line replacement rate and increase the program period to 1-2 years minimum. - Additional lead service line replacement rules. There are a few specific mandates that tie into lead service line replacements, including avoiding delay to replacements and requiring a full replacement if a customer plans to replace their portion of a line. ✅ What Are The Lead And Copper Rule Improvements? While the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) and the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) might sound like they're exactly the same, but they're not - the LCRI are the changes that have been made to the LCRR. The purpose of these improvements was to acknowledge the Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan, which, as we mentioned earlier, was implemented in December 2021 and has big aims to replace all the lead pipes in the country. This new regulation is still being developed by the EPA and has not yet been issued - all we know is that it'll be released before the initial compliance date of the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions (which are looking like they will likely be delayed due to changes to the regulation's requirements). What can we expect to see in the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements? The EPA hasn't yet released the exact planned contents of this regulation, but it has announced that the LCRI will focus on four key areas: - Improving lead sampling practices - Replacing all lead service lines - Ensuring that resources and funding for lead service line replacements are equitable - Providing clarification on the "trigger" and "action" levels for lead in drinking water, and reconsidering whether the "trigger" level is necessary. The EPA is also in the process of determining whether to reduce the implementation-to-compliance period of three years (as outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act) for the Lead And Copper Rule Improvements, preventing the unnecessary delay in implementing public health improvements. How aggressive will the LCRI be? Again, we don't know how aggressively the EPA will amend the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions with the LCRI. One argument is that the changes made to the initial regulation are only minor, since it's set to be implemented soon. If major changes were to be made, the EPA could take years - even decades - to update the regulation, which is far from ideal given the pressure from the government to replace lead as a service line material in all water systems in the country within a decade. With that said, the EPA might provide a fast turnaround and make aggressive changes to the regulation - again, because of the pressure to remove all lead service lines and eliminate this source of lead in drinking water as quickly as possible. 📖 Helpful Terms To Be Aware Of To get a more thorough grasp of the new Lead And Copper Rule Revisions, it's worth being aware of a few helpful terms. These are: Lead Service Lines Lead service lines are pipes made of lead that were originally widely used to connect homes and buildings to the public water supply. Lead was historically used for this purpose because of its durability and malleability. We now know that lead poses a significant health risk and can leach into drinking water, which is why Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986, banning the use of lead in new service lines. Unfortunately, this ban didn't require existing lead service lines to be replaced, but efforts have since been made to replace lead service pipes with those made from safer materials, like copper or plastic. In the revised Lead And Copper Rule, "lead service lines" is often shortened to LSR. Lead Service Line Replacement Following on from the above, when a public water system or a resident replaces part of, or all of, the lead pipe connecting the water main to their home, it's referred to as a lead service line replacement. You'll see this mentioned in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions because there are several new requirements or updates to the original regulations that relate to the subject. There are typically two sides to a lead service line: one side that's owned by the customer and one that's owned by the water utility. Customers must pay for the replacement of their side of the lead service line, but the new regulation requires utilities to replace their side of the line when the customer informs them that they plan to make this replacement. Water systems are working on identifying and replacing lead service lines in their communities, but the sad reality is that many customers can't afford to replace their side of these lines. "Lead service line replacement" is often abbreviated to LSLR in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. Corrosion control treatment Unlike most other trace contaminants in drinking water systems, lead rarely enters the water from the environment. The majority of cases of lead exposure in drinking water are the result of leaching from lead pipes. While replacing lead service lines is ultimately the best solution to the problem of lead in municipal water, it's also an expensive one. In the meantime, many public water systems use corrosion control treatment: a method or set of measures employed to prevent or minimize the lead corrosion of metal pipes and plumbing components in a water distribution system. The primary goal of corrosion control is to ensure that the water remains safe to drink, while also protecting the infrastructure from damage. The exact methods of corrosion control treatment vary depending on the situation, but common methods include adjusting pH, increasing water hardness or alkalinity, or using corrosion inhibitors, like silicates and orthophosphate or sodium polyphosphates. Corrosion control treatment is usually abbreviated to "CCT" in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. Lead Sampling Lead sampling was, and remains, a big part of the Lead And Copper Rule. In the revisions made to the rule, there are updated requirements that public water systems must adhere to when taking and documenting lead water samples. There are now very precise rules for lead sampling, which specify how and where a lead sample should be conducted. The rules also mandate the frequency of sampling, and from whom lead samples should be taken. A water system must take action if lead is detected in levels higher than the standards set by the EPA. This action may involve implementing corrosion control treatment, replacing a lead service line, or even distributing lead removal water filters for municipal drinking water customers affected by the lead contamination. Lead Service Line Inventory A lead service line inventory is a comprehensive record-keeping system that municipalities and water utilities use to track and manage the presence of lead pipes or components in their drinking water distribution systems. The inventory records the following data: - The known lead service lines in the community - The material type for the service lines - Any galvanized service lines that need to be replaced (if they're downstream of lead pipes) - Documentation of "lead status unknown" if the pipe has not yet been properly assessed for lead The purpose of creating and regularly updating a lead service line inventory is to enable authorities to prioritize the replacement of lead-containing pipes, implement corrosion control measures if necessary, and communicate effectively with residents about their potential risks and necessary precautions they should take. Lead service line inventories are often referred to as LSL inventories in the Lead And Copper Rule Revisions. 📈 What Are The EPA's Projections For The Lead And Copper Rule Revisions? We know the goals and intended outcomes for the revised Lead And Copper Rule - but what does the Environmental Protection Agency project for the future once the new rules have been implemented? The EPA anticipates that between 213,500 and 350,000 lead service lines will be replaced in the next 35 years simply as a result of increased community awareness and lead service line inventories. Once all the revisions to the LCR are taken into account, the EPA estimates an even better figure for lead service line replacements: between 339,000 and 555,000. This should mean that water utilities make significant process compared to the previous lead service line replacements under the original Lead And Copper Rule. 🧾 Are There Any Non-Regulatory Actions That The EPA Is Taking? Yes, there are a number of non-regulatory actions that the EPA is taking to help fulfill the White House's clean water plan and address concerns held by stakeholders. These are: - Collaboration with federal agencies and partners to ensure that facilities like child care centers and schools have the support and funding they need to protect their facilities from lead in water. Without this collaboration, the EPA's authority over these facilities is limited. - Raising awareness in communities by providing templates and guidance to water systems, states, and tribes, to increase awareness of the risks of lead exposure. The EPA will also be revising the Consumer Confidence Report Rule so that water systems must make customers aware when corrosion control treatment is being used, and how a utility is mitigating a case of lead presence above the EPA action level. Read the full article

[businessofmedia23kp]

Canada's Online Streaming Act Set to Regulate Streaming Giants

Canada's new C-11 streaming bill, which includes provisions for regulating streaming services like Netflix and Amazon, has now become law. The bill was introduced in Parliament in 2021, and after undergoing several rounds of review and amendment, it was finally passed by the Senate in April 2023. 

The bill requires foreign streaming services to invest in Canadian content production and has increased the quota for Canadian content to at least 20% of their programming. As a result of the new regulations, foreign streaming services will be required to invest in the Canadian Media Fund (CMF) and the Canada Council for the Arts, which will contribute to the creation of new Canadian content. 

The CMF has a mandate to support the production of Canadian content and has previously received funding from traditional broadcasters. The additional funding from digital streaming services is expected to provide a significant boost to the Canadian production industry. This requirement has been a point of contention for some foreign streaming services, such as Netflix, who have argued that they already invest in Canadian content and that the new regulations could lead to higher costs for consumers. The new regulations will also provide greater transparency and accountability for digital streaming services. They will be required to report to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) on their Canadian programming expenditures, which will be made publicly available. The CRTC will have the power to issue fines for non-compliance. 

As streaming giants expand their global reach, national government regulations of these streamers are important factors to their growth. Streamers have, to this point, operated outside the existing system. However, they recently have been facing similar regulations in other countries, such as Australia, where the government is planning to introduce content quotas and the UK which also has been tightening regulations around SVoDs. The EU already imposes 30% local content quotas on streamers. These regulations will protect local content and production workforce from being completely decimated by the foreign Hollywood content that these streaming giants bring, but they may also affect/stifle creativity and innovative growth in the media industry. The impact of these changes on the industry will likely be felt for years to come. (365 words)

[skytrust7]

What are the SEBI Guidelines for an IPO? Latest modifications

What are the SEBI Guidelines for an IPO? Latest modifications

The 2021’s IPO frenzy saw a listing of 60+ fresh IPOs. However, some IPO rules were changed to protect the interests of retail and non-institutional investors (NIIs).

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is a statutory regulatory body that regulates the Indian security market and protects the interests of investors investing in securities. SEBI guidelines for an IPO were already laid out, but recently some amendments were made to them.

The 2021’s IPO frenzy saw a listing of 60+ fresh IPOs. However, some IPO rules were changed to protect the interests of retail and non-institutional investors (NIIs). Logicalnivesh believes that these updated guidelines will help investors find the right IPOs to invest in. Below is the list of amendments made by SEBI to the IPO guidelines.

Increased transparency – IPO trading should always be based on transparency. As per the new SEBI guidelines for an IPO, companies raising money for inorganic growth objectives must clearly specify their goals and targets. If the company cannot qualify for the targets, the company must not exceed 25% of the total amount raised for investments and acquisitions. Such clarity will help investors make the right investment decisions for upcoming IPO stocks.

High lock-in time for anchor investors – Several companies that launch IPOs allocate some portion of their stocks to anchor investors to gain traction. But their immediate exit after 30 days increases the volatility of stock prices, leading to reduced confidence among regular investors. To combat such situations, anchor investors were allowed to sell only 50% of investments after a lock-in time of 30 days. To sell the remaining 50%, anchor investors will have to wait for 90 days.

Limit on offer to sell (OFS) – According to the new SEBI guidelines for IPO in stock market, the existing shareholders who own more than 20% of company stocks are not allowed to sell more than 50% of their shares. Those below 20% are not allowed to sell more than 10% of their shareholding. It is the best option to prevent promotors or stakeholders from exiting using the IPO route.

Sub-categories for NII investors – Many individual investors are not really small but also don’t fit into the high net-worth individual (HNI) category. Now here is a new bifurcation for them. IPO companies allotted 15% of the issue size to NIIs with no other bifurcation. But currently, one-third of the shares allocated to NIIs will be reserved for those with application sizes between Rs 2-10 lakh and two-thirds for those who exceed Rs 10 lakh.

Minimum price band – Earlier, companies looking for stock and IPO investment could set their price band as per their wish. However, to ensure proper price discovery and realistic pricing, SEBI mandated that the upper price band has to be a minimum of 105% of the lower price band.

Utilization of IPO proceeds – Scheduled commercial banks or public financial institutions will no longer monitor the IPO stocks. Instead, registered credit rating agencies will monitor the IPO proceeds, including the general corporate spending, till 100% of the funds are not utilized. This will help prevent the misuse of funds raised through IPO in trading.

Valuation report – During an IPO stock raise, the valuation report made by the independent valuer has to be furnished if a company allots 5% shares to an entity.

[mariacallous]

The politics of abortion aren’t especially ambiguous at this point: Most Americans don’t want a government ban. And while there’s a range of opinion on exactly when it’s OK to restrict access, or under what conditions, most Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade in June.

The evidence is in the polls, in the rejection of that anti-abortion ballot initiative in Kansas, and in the victories for Democrats who support abortion rights in a series of special elections. But for political professionals, the most telling sign may be the way that opponents of abortion rights are acting.

They are desperate to shift political conversation away from reproductive rights. When they can’t do that, they try to obfuscate either their own position or that of abortion-rights supporters.

It’s been going on for a while. Here, for example, is an article from August about Republican candidates scrubbing their websites of references to abortion.

But this week opponents of abortion have rolled out a new campaign, one that seeks to exploit anxiety over LGBTQ rights and what conservatives have been calling “grooming.” It alleges that a key ballot proposal, in a key state, would let children get gender-affirming care without parental consent.

And “alleges” is the right word, because it’s based on a far-fetched argument that one prominent legal scholar told me was “absurd.”

A Battle Over Abortion Rights In Michigan

I know about this because it’s happening in my home state, Michigan, where reproductive rights are especially central to November’s midterm elections. A big reason for that is Proposal 3, which organizers have called the “Reproductive Freedom for All” initiative.

The ballot proposal would amend the state constitution by adding language to protect reproductive rights, effectively preventing future lawmakers from passing major abortion restrictions and ― more urgently ― nullifying a 1931 law that makes abortion illegal in nearly all cases.

The 1931 law is not currently in force (i.e., abortion remains legal in Michigan) because lower courts have already blocked prosecutors from bringing cases, pending a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether the Michigan Constitution already protects abortion.

Incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, both Democrats and both fierce supporters of abortion rights, have said they would use whatever authority they have to prevent its enforcement.

But there’s no way to know how the state Supreme Court will rule, just as there’s no way to know whether Whitmer or Nessel will win reelection next month. Polls were picking up comfortable leads in August and September. Now they are finding closer races for both.

Proposal 3 has generally fared well in polls, but a recent one found support down to just 50% amid a burst of advertising by the initiative’s opponents. As of last week, those opponents had spent nearly $23 million, while Proposal 3 supporters had spent a little less than $16 million, according to figures collected by the tracking company AdImpact.

The advertising isn’t so surprising, and if the margins are shrinking that wouldn’t be a surprise either. Change frequently makes voters nervous, and the ads try to exploit that by suggesting the amendment would, for example, invalidate existing safety regulations for abortion.

The proposal’s supporters have disputed that claim ― acknowledging that the amendment, like any other, leaves some rule for judicial interpretation but noting that it explicitly allows for regulations when the state can show a “compelling” interest. Safety regulations would seem to clearly qualify, at least as long as they’re really about safety.

A Bold, Tendentious Claim

But that’s nothing compared with the new ad, which intersperses images of young children with injectable drugs and argues that Proposal 3 would allow kids to get gender-affirming care without consulting their parents.

Here’s the full script:

“This drug blocks a child from going through puberty. It’s the first step in gender change therapy. Clinics prescribe this drug in Michigan. If Proposal 3 passes, minors as young as 10 or 11 will be able to receive this prescription without the consent of their parents ― or their parents even knowing it. They call it ‘reproductive freedom.’ We call it extreme. Proposal 3 opens up Pandora’s box. Only you can close it. Vote no on Proposal 3.”

The anti-Proposal 3 ad focused only on puberty blockers. But other critics have taken it even further. In an article for The Federalist, a conservative publication, senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland wrote earlier this month that passing Proposal 3 would “give boys a constitutional right to be castrated and girls the right under Michigan’s constitution to be sterilized by way of a hysterectomy or the removal of their ovaries — all without their parents’ consent.”

The argument in the article and the ad rests on two central contentions. One is that the amendment’s references to “sterilization” and “infertility care” would extend rights to gender-affirming care, because gender-affirming care can affect fertility. The other is that language applying the amendment’s protections to “all individuals” would render age distinctions meaningless, giving minors the right to gender-affirming care without parental involvement.

“This is not merely a political point, and it is not a worst-case-scenario argument based on how some liberal activist judge or justice might interpret Prop 3,” wrote Cleveland, who is also an adjunct law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “This reality flows from the plain language of Prop 3 and rests on general legal principles of constitutional construction.”

Some Very Important Context

These are bold claims. And while I don’t have the credentials to judge their merits, Leah Litman does.

Litman co-hosts the progressive “Strict Scrutiny” podcast and is a law professor at the University of Michigan. That last part is important because she’s been paying close attention to this proposition and published a short analysis of it earlier this month.

The argument about age, Litman told HuffPost, ignores the fact that courts have long understood that minors don’t have the full rights of adults. She cited several examples, including the Second Amendment, which says nothing about age. Even so, she said, judges have ruled repeatedly that the government has more leeway to restrict gun ownership and use by children.

“Even though the text of those amendments [like the Second Amendment] don’t distinguish ― in their language ― between adults and minors, they are still understood to allow states to enact more restrictions over minors rights than adults,” Litman wrote in an e-mail. “That just reflects a basic principle of constitutional law that isn’t stated in the words of the amendments: States have greater latitude to restrict the rights of minors than the rights of adults.”

Litman went on to say that courts have traditionally applied this same logic to reproductive rights, even before the ​​decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. “States couldn’t enact spousal consent requirements, but they could enact parental consent requirements,” she wrote. “That’s the regime ― or the protections of rights ― that Proposal 3 reinstates.”

Some Words That Matter

As for the idea that Proposal 3 protections would somehow extend to gender-affirming care, Litman said, opponents are taking words like “sterilization” out of context, which is not the way judges would interpret them.

Litman pointed out that the amendment specifically defines “reproductive freedom” as having “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy.”

“Put another way: the measure is about decisions/actions/procedures whose nature or purpose is to affect someone’s reproductive capacity or state,” she said. “That doesn’t describe gender affirming care; you don’t receive gender affirming care in order to alter or bring about a pregnancy; you don’t receive gender affirming care for reproductive capacity ― you receive it in order to align your physical sex characteristics with your gender identity. It’s not about pregnancies.”

As an example, Litman noted that the presence of toxins in water could affect pregnancy or lead to sterilization. “No one thinks this amendment says anything about a right to clean drinking water, even though that will have effects on people’s fertility,” she said.

That’s a pretty detailed legal argument, obviously, and it’s unclear how many persuadable, undecided voters — if any — would spend that much time thinking about the amendment. But that’s also why the anti-Proposal 3 ads could be effective. They create uncertainty and confusion, which could be enough to defeat a proposal that substantial majorities would otherwise support on the merits.

[wyrmfedgrave]

4 Supreme Court decisions that have quietly jumpstarted Project 2025 | Salon.com

So, it turns out that Project 2025 has been secretly advanced by piecemeal Scotus legislation.

4 important pieces of the plan have already been passed!

1. Paying elected officials is no longer Bribery!

2. EPA regulations can no longer regulate protection from pollution, food additives, etc...

3. Only Christo-Fascist beliefs are imposed on all other citizens!! The separation of church & state is gone!

4. The 14th Amendment's protection of women's medical privacy was stuck down!!

Abortion is no longer a Sex Based choice but a legal one.

In all these cases, OLD common law is more important than modern ones.

Republikkkans claim that the Biden/ Harris Scotus reforms are already "Dead."

Not so.

As usual, Republikkkans lead with lies.

They've only been able to impose their full wills on a few states - for now...

All 6 partisan Scotus judges are in bed with fossil fuel companies.

And, they all belong to the Federalist Society & the Heritage Foundation.

All receive Dark Money from various rich corporate donors.

And, have the media support of rich Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Network.

Project 2025 exists mostly to secretly advance Climate Change denial...

But, you'll have only 1 chance to be able to stop this - on November 5th.

So, come out prepared to do your part to preserve your hard-won freedoms...

Cause the Republikkkans are dying to break even more laws to protect their "sugar daddies."

End.

[skytrustit6]

What are the SEBI Guidelines for an IPO? Latest modifications

What are the SEBI Guidelines for an IPO? Latest modifications

The 2021’s IPO frenzy saw a listing of 60+ fresh IPOs. However, some IPO rules were changed to protect the interests of retail and non-institutional investors (NIIs).

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is a statutory regulatory body that regulates the Indian security market and protects the interests of investors investing in securities. SEBI guidelines for an IPO were already laid out, but recently some amendments were made to them.

The 2021’s IPO frenzy saw a listing of 60+ fresh IPOs. However, some IPO rules were changed to protect the interests of retail and non-institutional investors (NIIs). Logicalnivesh believes that these updated guidelines will help investors find the right IPOs to invest in. Below is the list of amendments made by SEBI to the IPO guidelines.

Increased transparency – IPO trading should always be based on transparency. As per the new SEBI guidelines for an IPO, companies raising money for inorganic growth objectives must clearly specify their goals and targets. If the company cannot qualify for the targets, the company must not exceed 25% of the total amount raised for investments and acquisitions. Such clarity will help investors make the right investment decisions for upcoming IPO stocks.

High lock-in time for anchor investors – Several companies that launch IPOs allocate some portion of their stocks to anchor investors to gain traction. But their immediate exit after 30 days increases the volatility of stock prices, leading to reduced confidence among regular investors. To combat such situations, anchor investors were allowed to sell only 50% of investments after a lock-in time of 30 days. To sell the remaining 50%, anchor investors will have to wait for 90 days.

Limit on offer to sell (OFS) – According to the new SEBI guidelines for IPO in stock market, the existing shareholders who own more than 20% of company stocks are not allowed to sell more than 50% of their shares. Those below 20% are not allowed to sell more than 10% of their shareholding. It is the best option to prevent promotors or stakeholders from exiting using the IPO route.

Sub-categories for NII investors – Many individual investors are not really small but also don’t fit into the high net-worth individual (HNI) category. Now here is a new bifurcation for them. IPO companies allotted 15% of the issue size to NIIs with no other bifurcation. But currently, one-third of the shares allocated to NIIs will be reserved for those with application sizes between Rs 2-10 lakh and two-thirds for those who exceed Rs 10 lakh.

Minimum price band – Earlier, companies looking for stock and IPO investment could set their price band as per their wish. However, to ensure proper price discovery and realistic pricing, SEBI mandated that the upper price band has to be a minimum of 105% of the lower price band.

Utilization of IPO proceeds – Scheduled commercial banks or public financial institutions will no longer monitor the IPO stocks. Instead, registered credit rating agencies will monitor the IPO proceeds, including the general corporate spending, till 100% of the funds are not utilized. This will help prevent the misuse of funds raised through IPO in trading.

Valuation report – During an IPO stock raise, the valuation report made by the independent valuer has to be furnished if a company allots 5% shares to an entity.