Alaska House votes to streamline Alaska's sexual assault kit tracking system
Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, speaks in favor of House Bill 62 on Friday, May 16, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska House voted to advance a bill that would establish a statewide tracking system for sexual assault examination kits, expedite processing times, and ensure that survivors can privately monitor the status of their own kit.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy proposed the legislation, House Bill 62, and the House passed the bill on Friday with a vote of 39 to 0. One member, Rep. Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen, was absent.
Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage and chair of the House Judiciary Committee spoke in support of the bill on the House floor on Friday.
'House Bill 62 is a vital step toward strengthening Alaska's response to sexual assault,' he said. 'Currently, there's no legally required timeline for when health care providers must notify law enforcement after completing a kit. House Bill 62 corrects this.'
If passed, the legislation would set more expedient timelines for processing sexual assault examination kits, which is a collection of physical evidence that can be used in criminal prosecution. Health care providers would have to notify law enforcement that a kit is ready for forensic testing within 14 days. The law enforcement agency would then have to submit the kit for forensic testing also within 14 days, down from 30 days. The lab would have to test the kit within 120 days, down from 180 days or six months.
Alaska law enforcement has made major progress on a statewide backlog in testing sexual assault examination kits in recent years, and Gray urged support for the bill to continue that positive trend. 'Supported by advocacy groups, medical professionals and public safety officials, this bill is the result of a statewide collaboration,' he said. 'With the backlog of untested kits now behind us, House Bill 62 ensures that we never have a backlog again.'
The legislation would also create a tracking system for survivors to privately monitor their own forensic kit through the testing process. David Kanaris, chief of the scientific crime detection laboratory in the Department of Public Safety testified before lawmakers in February that this was a major priority for the department.
'Doing this previously had to be done through them contacting a law enforcement agency,' he said of kit tracking. 'Which can be a traumatic experience in itself for the victim-survivor, and so allowing them to do it at their own pace through the kit tracking system was huge for us.'
The state already has a tracking system in place, supported by grant funding, according to the department, and the bill would provide that the state maintain the system, at an estimated cost of $200,000 per year.
With just five days left in the legislative session, the Alaska Senate is likely to take up the bill next year.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'
A court on Thursday put a temporary stay on Donald Trump's latest effort to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, as the US president's battle with one of the world's most prestigious universities intensified. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday sought to bar most new international students at Harvard from entering the country, and said existing foreign enrollees risked having their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Harvard quickly amended an existing complaint filed in federal court, saying: 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students.' '(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' READ | 'Such a disgrace': Outrage as Trump ramps up attacks on Harvard, Columbia US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thursday ruled the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation. Harvard had showed, she said, that without a temporary restraining order, it risked sustaining 'immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties'. The same judge had already blocked Trump's earlier effort to bar international students from enrolling at the storied university. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity'. Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27% of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. In its filing, Harvard acknowledged that Trump had the authority to bar an entire class of aliens if it was deemed to be in the public interest, but stressed that was not the case in this action. The president's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard. Harvard filing Since returning to office Trump has targeted elite US universities which he and his allies accuse of being hotbeds of antisemitism, liberal bias and 'woke' ideology. Trump's education secretary also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions - including Columbia - have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
A West Virginia prosecutor is warning women that a miscarriage could lead to criminal charges
Amid a constantly changing reproductive landscape, one West Virginia prosecutor is warning people who have miscarriages in his state that they could get in trouble with the law. Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman says that although he personally wouldn't prosecute someone for a miscarriage, he made the suggestion out of an abundance of caution after hearing from other prosecutors. Truman even suggests people might want to let local law enforcement know if they've have a miscarriage. Several reproductive law experts say people around the country have, indeed, faced charges related to miscarriages — but they still wouldn't recommend reaching out to law enforcement. Truman says the idea first came up during a chat with other West Virginia prosecutors at a conference several years ago, and it's been been an ongoing conversation since. The initial conversation was theoretical, since at the time, women in the US still had the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. But some of the prosecutors believed they could charge a person using state laws related to the disposal of human remains. 'I thought these guys were just chewing on a Dreamsicle,' Truman said. But, he added, West Virginia's legal statutes include definitions that are 'pretty broad-ranging.' The way some prosecutors may interpret the law means people who miscarry could face criminal charges, including felonies, he said. 'It's a different world now, and there's a lot of discretion that prosecutors have, and some of them have agendas where they would like to make you an example,' Truman told CNN. 'What's changed is, Roe isn't there anymore, and so that may embolden prosecutors in some cases,' he said. 'I'm just trying to say, 'be careful.' ' Early pregnancy loss is common, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, It happens in about 10 of 100 known pregnancies, often because the embryo isn't developing properly. And some reproductive law experts say it's probably not a good idea to call the police when it happens. 'It's always a mistake to invite law enforcement into your reproductive life,' said Kim Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School who specializes in reproductive justice. Calling police could prompt an unwanted investigation, she says. 'If they then decide, 'no, it actually wasn't a miscarriage, this was somebody who took pills,' or whatever sort of thing that they want to conjure up, then all of a sudden it goes from 'here's this poor woman who had a miscarriage' to 'here's a person who we're going to start to prosecute,' ' Mutcherson said. 'I understand the idea that caution is better than being caught up in something that you weren't anticipating, but it is difficult for me to imagine any circumstance in which I would think it was safe for someone who miscarried to call the police,' she added. Abortion is illegal in West Virginia, but there are exceptions in the case of a medical emergency or a nonviable pregnancy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Kulsoom Ijaz, senior policy counsel with Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit focused on the civil and human rights of pregnant people, said she doesn't believe there is anything in West Virginia law that criminalizes miscarriage. 'I think the law is pretty clear,' she said. 'There's nothing in the law that says someone can be charged with a crime in connection to their pregnancy loss or their conduct during pregnancy, or for how they respond to that pregnancy loss or miscarriage or stillbirth.' The fractured landscape of reproductive rights that came about in the wake of the Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court ruling that revoked the federal right to an abortion, has increased the risk that a pregnant person can face criminal prosecution for a variety of reasons, not just a miscarriage, according to a report from Ijaz's organization. Between June 2022 – when Dobbs was handed down – and June 2023, there were more than 200 cases in the US in which a pregnant person faced criminal charges for conduct associated with pregnancy, pregnancy loss or birth, according to Pregnancy Justice. The number is most likely an undercount, Ijaz said. In West Virginia, there were at least three cases related to pregnancy prosecutions. In one, the state's Supreme Court found that the state could not levy criminal child abuse charges against someone for their prenatal conduct, which included substance use during pregnancy. Even with the strict abortion ban in place, Ijaz said, 'there are still protections for pregnant people.' In states like Alabama that have fetal personhood laws that give fertilized eggs, embryos and a fetus the 'same rights as you and I,' Ijaz said, it's a little different. 'We've seen people get prosecuted and face decades of incarceration for substance use during pregnancy, because that fetus that they're carrying is seen as a child,' she said. Last year in Ohio, a woman who had a miscarriage at home was charged with a felony on the advice of the Warren City Prosecutor's Office, but a grand jury dismissed the case. Ijaz said that she doesn't think there is an appetite for these kind of cases among the public but that no matter where someone lives, inviting the law into their life right after a miscarriage is ill-advised. The legal landscape for reproductive justice 'seems to almost be changing on a daily basis' – and generally not in favorable ways for pregnant people, said Brittany Fonteno, CEO of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers. 'The laws, the rhetoric, the culture in which we are living in within the US has become so incredibly hostile to people who experience pregnancy,' she said. 'I think that the intersection of health care and criminalization is an incredibly dangerous path,' Fonteno added. 'As a country, we should be supporting people and their ability to access the health care that they need, rather than conducting intrusive and traumatic investigations into their reproductive lives.' Fonteno recommends that people who experience pregnancy loss reach out to a qualified medical professional rather than law enforcement. 'While we are living in a very different country than we were pre-Dobbs, I believe still that this is an individual experience and a health care decision,' she said. 'Most providers believe that as well.' Mutcherson also says that the reproductive justice landscape in the US is 'scary' for people who are pregnant, who want to get pregnant or who have bad pregnancy outcomes. If there's any silver lining to the discussion about criminalizing miscarriage, she said, it's that it's good for people to know that such things can happen. 'Women have been criminalized for their pregnancies for decades, frankly, so to the extent that there is a wider and broader conversation about what it means to treat an embryo or a fetus as a person, and the ways in which that diminishes the personhood of somebody who was pregnant, that is in fact a valuable thing, right?' Mutcherson said. 'Maybe this is actually going to bring us to a better space.'
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Here are the people Trump is trying to delete
Women, people of color and those in the LGBTQ+ community are main targets When the Trump administration encounters a group it doesn't respect or care for, oftentimes it just deletes them — specifically, the very record of their existence. For example, when the Defense Department was asked to cull all DEI-related content from its websites, it removed approximately 26,000 images. A list of the deleted photos was given to the Associated Press. About 19,000 of them included descriptions, and our analysis found that 4 out of 5 depicted women, people in the LGBTQ+ community and racial minorities. We recovered a handful of the photos so you can see what's missing. Many erased images included American service members from the past and present, both on and off duty. Most of the people were unnamed. About 80 percent of the erased images contained one or more targeted keywords, such as gay, transgender, women, Hispanic and Black. In a nutshell, the purge sought to exclude the diversity the U.S. military once celebrated. This is part of a broader campaign to delete the statistical and visual evidence of undesirables, or at least those who may not fit into President Donald Trump's conception of the new American 'golden age.' Entire demographics are being scrubbed from records of both America's past and present — including people of color, transgender people, women, immigrants and people with disabilities. They are now among America's 'missing persons.' This is a chart that shows, of the images with text descriptions, the portion that include words related to targeted groups. Six percent of images included at least one word related to LGBTQ+ communities, seven percent with DEI-related words, 22% with female-gendered words and 46% with words related to race and ethnicity. Seventy-nine percent of all the images with descriptions included at least one word from any of those four categories. The analysis was done by Amanda Shendruk. A look at the deleted groups On the list of 26,481 images targeted for deletion, 19,017 included text descriptions. Of images with descriptions, the fraction with words related to: LGBTQ+ | Ex: Pride, gay, transgender 6% DEI | Ex: Diversity, inclusion, bias 7% Female gender* | Ex: She, women, her 22% Race and ethnicity | Ex: Heritage, Hispanic, Black 46% Any of the above categories 79% *Fewer than 1% included a male-gendered term. Source: Analysis by Amanda Shendruk/The Washington Post A look at the deleted groups On the list of 26,481 images targeted for deletion, 19,017 included text descriptions. Of images with descriptions, the fraction with words related to: LGBTQ+ | Ex: Pride, gay, transgender 6% DEI | Ex: Diversity, inclusion, bias 7% Female gender* | Ex: She, women, her 22% Race and ethnicity | Ex: Heritage, Hispanic, Black 46% Any of the above categories 79% *Fewer than 1% included a male-gendered term. Source: Analysis by Amanda Shendruk/The Washington Post A look at the deleted groups On the list of 26,481 images targeted for deletion, 19,017 included text descriptions. Of images with descriptions, the fraction with words related to: LGBTQ+ | Ex: Pride, gay, transgender 6% DEI | Ex: Diversity, inclusion, bias 7% Female gender* | Ex: She, women, her 22% Race and ethnicity | Ex: Heritage, Hispanic, Black 46% Any of the above categories 79% *Fewer than 1% included a male-gendered term. Source: Analysis by Amanda Shendruk/The Washington Post Story continues below advertisement Advertisement People who aren't White are an especially frequent target of government erasure. Some are higher-profile, such as baseball legend Jackie Robinson or the recently-fired Carla Hayden, the first Black American and first woman to serve as librarian of Congress. But most are ordinary people going about their jobs and lives, who may not even realize recognition of their existence has been terminated. Everyday Americans who happen to be nonwhite have been deleted from federal datasets and indexes designed to inform government preparations for emergencies. Some government mapping tools that involve race have been taken down entirely. In response to an executive order banning DEI, some federal agencies now forbid the recognition of Black History Month and employee affinity groups. And keywords such as 'Black,' 'ethnicity' and 'indigenous' have appeared on lists of banned words for public communications and scientific grants. These systemic deletions are ironic in the case of the military. When the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions in 2023, it specifically exempted military service academies. The justices appear to have been swayed by military leaders who argued that a deliberately diverse military serves national security. 'Diversity in the officer corps creates a more cohesive, more competent, and ultimately more lethal fighting force,' the leaders wrote in an amicus brief. But under this administration, service members and veterans who exemplify racial 'diversity' are now MIA, at least visually. **ONE TIME USE ONLY. MANDATORY CREDIT. For op-erased-shendrukrampell about Trump removing people of color and LGBTQA people from administrative existence. Where did gay and trans people go? The military has also been particularly aggressive at removing any evidence of the LGBTQ+ community from its installations and facilities. At the start of Pride Month, Defense officials announced they are seeking to rename a ship that honors Harvey Milk, the late gay rights icon and former Navy officer. (This is part of a broader effort to ensure military installations reflect a 'warrior ethos,' according to a Pentagon statement.) The U.S. Navy launched the USNS Harvey Milk in 2021. (Alex Gallardo/AP) At one point, U.S. military-run schools in Europe took down all rainbows from kindergarten classrooms. Schools have since been told that rainbows are allowed, provided they aren't used as a gay pride symbol. Meanwhile, trans people have been removed from military ranks altogether (litigation is ongoing). Though the military is hardly alone in attempting to purge this demographic; trans and other gender-nonconforming citizens have been a frequent target of erasure across the government. On Trump's first day in office, he signed an executive order directing the government to stop recognizing trans and nonbinary people entirely. The order included a directive to the State Department and Department of Homeland Security 'to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards,' reflect their sex 'at conception.' Trans activists and LGBTQ+ rights groups have condemned the change as dehumanizing and insulting. ('Remember that you do not need the government's permission to exist,' Lambda Legal advised in an online FAQ about legal rights and ID applications.) On a practical level, the policy effectively left some citizens without usable travel documents. TSA agents have flagged some (real) passports as fraudulent because the sex listed on the document — the sex assigned at birth — does not match that of the traveler standing before them. There is ongoing litigation over this policy as well. Trans people have similarly been removed from sites across the government: This is a graphic that shows government webpages that have been altered or deleted. The state department removed trans-specific international travel warnings. The Centers for disease control and prevention is no longer counting trans people in federal health data, and removed pages about trans health risks. The deleted webpages were restored by court order, but now include a note. The Department of Justice has stopped tracking assaults on trans people, a group four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. The U.S. National Park Service removed references to trans people on the Stonewall National Monument website. Before Today LGBTQI+ Travelers Jan. 31 After Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Travelers June 5 State Department Removed trans-specific international travel warnings. Before Jan. 26 After June 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Is no longer counting trans people in federal health data and removed pages about trans health risks. The deleted webpages were restored by court order but now include a note. Before Jan. 30 After The requested page could not be found June 5 Justice Department Has stopped tracking assaults on trans people, a group four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. Before lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person Feb. 13 After gay or lesbian person June 5 U.S. National Park Service Removed references to trans people on the Stonewall National Monument website. Before After Today LGBTQI+ Travelers Jan. 31 Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Travelers June 5 State Department Removed trans-specific international travel warnings. Before After Jan. 26 June 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Is no longer counting trans people in federal health data and removed pages about trans health risks. The deleted webpages were restored by court order but now include a note. Before After Jan. 30 The requested page could not be found June 5 Justice Department Has stopped tracking assaults on trans people, a group four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. Before After lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person Feb. 13 gay or lesbian person June 5 U.S. National Park Service Removed references to trans people on the Stonewall National Monument website. Before After State Department Removed trans-specific international travel warnings. LGBTQI+ Travelers Jan. 31 Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Travelers June 5 Before Centers for Disease Control and Prevention After Is no longer counting trans people in federal health data and removed pages about trans health risks. The deleted webpages were restored by court order but now include a note. Jan. 26 June 5 Before After Justice Department Has stopped tracking assaults on trans people, a group four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. Jan. 30 The requested page could not be found June 5 Before After U.S. National Park Service lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person Removed references to trans people on the Stonewall National Monument website. Feb. 13 gay or lesbian person June 5 Story continues below advertisement Advertisement **ONE TIME USE ONLY. MANDATORY CREDIT. For op-erased-shendrukrampell about Trump removing people of color and LGBTQA people from administrative existence. The invisible woman Meanwhile, some women's rights and protections have been erased under this administration. In some cases, so have their jobs, health concerns and identities. Women (alongside racial minorities) have been disproportionately fired in purges of National Institutes of Health science review boards and senior military leadership positions. A landmark study on women's health — the Women's Health Initiative — was canceled entirely in April, though eventually restored after significant public outcry. The Labor Department likewise canceled grants for women's apprenticeship programs last week. More broadly, the terms 'woman' and 'women' have also appeared on banned-word lists for federal agency websites, grant applications and other external communications, including at the National Science Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration. **ONE TIME USE ONLY. MANDATORY CREDIT. For op-erased-shendrukrampell about Trump removing people of color and LGBTQA people from administrative existence. De-documenting immigrants In his first term, Trump tried to delete immigrants from the decennial census counts used for apportioning legislative representation and drawing congressional districts. He ultimately failed. This time around, the administration has taken a slightly different tack: manipulating other administrative records for immigrant families, from cradle to grave. In another day one executive order, Trump tried to strip birthright citizenship from the children of many groups of immigrants, including many parents here lawfully. The order has been temporarily blocked, but if effective it would mean these children would no longer be counted as U.S. citizens — and would be denied access to the rights they're entitled to. Including, presumably, the right to stay in this country. Supporters of birthright citizenship outside the Supreme Court, where the justices are hearing a Trump administration challenge to the constitutional provision in D.C. on May 15. (Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock) Months later, DHS and the U.S. DOGE Service deliberately misclassified more than 6,000 mostly Latino immigrants as 'dead' in Social Security databases, even though they were very much alive. Their newfound spectral status would prevent them from working or receiving federal benefits they might be legally entitled to. Administration officials have said the goal was to pressure people to leave the country. Ultimately the administration backed down and resurrected at least some of the 'dead' in official recordkeeping. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement **ONE TIME USE ONLY. MANDATORY CREDIT. For op-erased-shendrukrampell about Trump removing people of color and LGBTQA people from administrative existence. Fastest way to make Americans look richer? Stop tallying the poor. While the administration's attacks have clearly been focused on non-Whites, LGBTQ+ groups, immigrants and women, others' existence has also proven inconvenient for the Trump agenda. Take, for instance, the poor. Trump's Department of Health and Human Services fired the entire team that calculates government-wide poverty guidelines, which determine who is sufficiently low-income to qualify for benefits such as food stamps. Perhaps if we never define or quantify poverty, the administration seems to believe, poor people would cease to exist — and therefore would no longer be entitled to safety-net services. The Social Security Administration similarly took down its Disability Analysis File, a long-running dataset containing historical, longitudinal and one-time data on all children and preretirement adults with disabilities. The agency also canceled multiple surveys tracking outcomes for children and adults on government income support related to their disabilities. Out of survey, out of sight, out of mind. Other government acknowledgments of people with different physical or mental abilities — such as long-standing federal guidance to private businesses about their obligations under the Americans With Disabilities Act — have also been deleted. The administration's efforts to disclaim people with disabilities has even turned international: The State Department is removing all references from its annual human rights report to people with disabilities (as well as women, indigenous communities and LGBTQ+ people). Americans didn't ask for this However anti-DEI some of Trump's base might be, Americans writ large do not appear supportive of campaigns to expunge government recognition of these groups. This is evident from recent YouGov polling on views of Trump's efforts to delete references to diversity from federal websites, buildings and official reports. This chart shows data from YouGov polling that shows most Americans don't want websites and words banned. 44% oppose removing government websites that use the terms gender, racism, diversity or bias (while 38% support it). 50% oppose removing references to women, LGBTQ people and disabled people from the State Department's annual human rights report (while 27% support this). And 55% oppose removing from federal buildings posters and materials that emphasize the inclusion of women and racial minorities. 30% support this. Most Americans don't want websites and words banned Do you support or oppose ... Removing government websites that use the terms gender, racism, diversity or bias 38% 18 44 Strongly/somewhat support Not sure Strongly/somewhat oppose Removing references to women, LGBTQ people, and disabled people from the State Department's annual human rights report 27% 23 50 Removing from federal buildings posters and materials that emphasize the inclusion of women and racial minorities 30% 16 55 Percentages on final question are greater than 100 because of rounding. Questions are from surveys conducted Feb. 11-14, April 4-9 and Feb. 26-28, 2025. Source: YouGov Most Americans don't want websites and words banned Do you support or oppose ... Removing government websites that use the terms gender, racism, diversity or bias 38% 18 44 Strongly/somewhat support Not sure Strongly/somewhat oppose Removing references to women, LGBTQ people, and disabled people from the State Department's annual human rights report 27% 23 50 Removing from federal buildings posters and materials that emphasize the inclusion of women and racial minorities 30% 16 55 Percentages on final question are greater than 100 because of rounding. Questions are from surveys conducted Feb. 11-14, April 4-9 and Feb. 26-28, 2025. Source: YouGov Most Americans don't want websites and words banned Do you support or oppose ... Removing government websites that use the terms gender, racism, diversity or bias 38% 18 44 Strongly/somewhat support Not sure Strongly/somewhat oppose Removing references to women, LGBTQ people, and disabled people from the State Department's annual human rights report 27% 23 50 Removing from federal buildings posters and materials that emphasize the inclusion of women and racial minorities 30% 16 55 Percentages on final question are greater than 100 because of rounding. Questions are from surveys conducted Feb. 11-14, April 4-9 and Feb. 26-28, 2025. Source: YouGov And why would Americans support this? Most people see themselves in at least one of these groups — and they want to be seen by their government, too. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement
