Federal judge blocks part of Tennessee's "abortion trafficking" law
Why it matters: The judge's July 18 ruling strikes down the "recruitment" section of the 2024 law, which made it illegal for adults to "recruit" minors to get legal, out-of-state abortions.
The case highlights how speech has become a new battleground in the abortion debate.
Catch up quick: State Rep. Aftyn Behn (D-Nashville) and Nashville attorney Rachel Welty sued to block the law, arguing the "recruitment" section could broadly block their efforts to share information about how to obtain legal abortions in other states.
They said the law unconstitutionally criminalized their speech based on their viewpoints.
The court agreed, cementing an earlier preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked the law while legal arguments took place.
Yes, but: Other prongs of the law making it illegal to help transport or provide shelter for a minor seeking an abortion remain in place.
Context: Tennessee banned abortions in 2022, soon after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The state ban only allows for narrow exceptions if the mother's life is in danger.
What she's saying: Tennessee's 2024 law "prohibits speech encouraging lawful abortion while allowing speech discouraging lawful abortion. That is impermissible viewpoint discrimination, which the First Amendment rarely tolerates — and does not tolerate here,"senior U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Gibbons wrote.
She said the "recruitment" provision was "'an egregious form of content discrimination' that punishes speech based on 'the opinion or perspective of the speaker.'"
Gibbons added that "public advocacy, information-sharing, and counseling" about obtaining legal abortions outside of Tennessee were protected forms of speech.
Between the lines: Gibbons, who heard the case in Nashville's federal district court, previously served as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
4 hours ago
- UPI
French President Macron, wife sue podcaster over claims first lady born a man
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte (L), greet King Frederik X and Queen Mary of Denmark at the Elysee Palace in Paris on March 31. File Photo by Maya Vidon-White/UPI | License Photo July 23 (UPI) -- French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, on Wednesday filed a defamation suit in the United States against right-wing podcast host Candace Owens, who claims the first lady was born a man. The 22-count complaint, which was filed in Delaware Superior Court, seeks unspecified damages. The 219-page lawsuit also named her company, Candace Owens LLC, and the operator of her website, GeorgeTom, Inc. During an eight-part series, called "Becoming Brigitte," she alleged Brigitt Macron had assumed another person's identity and transitioned to a woman. Emmanuel Macron is 47 and his wife is 72. "These claims are demonstrably false, and Owens knew they were false when she published them," the lawsuit said. "Yet, she published them anyway. And the reason is clear: it is not the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of fame." The lawsuit said a retraction was sought three times, including a final one on July 1. The lawsuit said she continued to push "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions" against the couple. "Ms. Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety," they said. "We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused. It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all." A spokesperson for Owens said to CBS and CNBC: "Candace Owens is not shutting up. This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist. Candace repeatedly requested an interview with Brigitte Macron. "Instead of offering a comment, Brigitte is resorting to trying to bully a reporter into submission. In France, politicians can bully journalists, but this is not France. It's America." Owens also responded to the suit live on YouTube, calling it public relations strategy. "This is why you're here," she said. "This is how I feel right now. My receiving my papers today." She has 4.48 million subscribers on her YouTube channel. The Macrons have been married since 2007, 10 years before he became president. "People end up believing them, and it disrupts your life, even in your most private moments," Macron said at an event in Paris in 2024. Owens began making the allegations in March 2024 when she was working for The Daily Wire, a conservative media outlet, after the rumors first surfaced in 2021. After she was terminated by The Daily Wire, she launched her podcast in June 2024. In December, the Marons sent their first retraction demand. Then, she launched the podcast series. On July 2, she published a letter from the Macrons' attorney Clare Locke to her lawyer demanding the retraction. "If ever there was a clear-cut case of defamation, this is it," attorney Tom Clare told CNBC. In 2022, Brigitte Macron sued two French women for spreading similar claims. Macrons won the original case but this year the women were victories on appeal with the lawsuit going to a higher court. Owens said in June that she was wrong to campaign for Donald Trump in the 2024 election after the U.S. became involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. "He's been a chronic disappointment," Owens said during an appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored. "And I feel embarrassed that I told people to go vote for him because this wasn't going to happen, and it is happening."
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Indiana report details ways in which it removed DEI
Until recently, the Indiana Department of Child Services offered online publications such as 'Parenting in Racially and Culturally Diverse Adoptive Families,' and 'Preparing Families for Racially and Culturally Diverse Adoptions.' Now, those publications and others have been removed from the DCS website in an effort to quash examples of diversity, equity and inclusion in government. Gov. Mike Braun's administration released a report earlier this month on its efforts to replace diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, with merit, excellence, and innovation, or MEI. In January, Braun signed an executive order directing state agencies to review their DEI positions, departments, activities, procedures and programs for compliance with the decision in , where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected affirmative action at college and universities. Indiana Black Legislative Caucus Chair State Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, said he's concerned by the state's effort to remove diversity, equity and inclusion from state agencies, which follows actions taken by the Trump administration. 'Unfortunately, a lot of things that are happening on the national level are trickling down to states,' Harris said. The report found more than 350 examples of DEI initiatives in state government programs, 70 cases of DEI training, instruction or programming for state employees, 34 grants within Indiana State agencies focused on DEI and 200 DEI initiatives in state agency policy and procedures. 'Indiana has replaced the divisive, politically-charged DEI ideology with merit, excellence and innovation: a level playing field where every single Hoosier has the chance to get ahead with hard work,' Braun said in a statement. The report addresses where agencies had diversity, equity and inclusion language, from website information to candidate hiring, and the removal of the information from the agency's policies, contracts and websites to align with Braun's executive order. For example, under the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's division of mental health and addiction, the report highlighted 53 contracts that include DEI language. Many of the contracts state the vendor has to work within a 'culturally competence framework,' according to the report. The contracts that haven't expired are being amended or edited to remove DEI language, according to the report. The Indiana Commission for Higher Education's graduate medical education board, which focuses on funding physician residency programs across the state, issued a statement in 2020 about efforts to 'combat the scourge of racial and ethnic bias and its negatively associated social determinants of health,' according to the report. That statement was removed from its website, according to the report. The College Success Program was funded in the 2023 budget to 'be used for college success programs including capital investments for minority and first-generation low-income students,' according to the report. Three grants issued through the College Success Program supported first-generation students of color at Indiana State University; Black, Latino and Hispanic students at Purdue University Northwest; and first-generation college students and/or of an underrepresented background in Valparaiso University. Indiana State and VU repurposed their grant funding to other scholarships, but Purdue Northwest had continued its efforts as of April 30, 2025. The upcoming budget does not allocate funding for the College Success Program, so the grants 'will naturally conclude' at the end of the year, according to the report. The Indiana Department of Education has an online learning lab where thousands of educational videos are available for students and teachers, according to the report. When the department reviewed the videos, some with information like 'to support diverse learners in inclusive classrooms' and 'the essential role of equity and inclusion in the new science starnars' were taken down, according to the report. State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said he hadn't read the report and that legislative leadership hadn't discussed the report with House members. But, Aylesworth said the governor's office has the ability to take some action without the legislature. 'I certainly don't have a problem with (the report). It's the governor's prerogative,' Aylesworth said. Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he hadn't read the report and didn't want to comment on it without doing so. DEI has been twisted to mean something negative, Harris said, with some people pushing the idea that DEI means unqualified people who are a minority, a woman or a member of the LGBTQ community are getting jobs or contracts or opportunities based on their race, sex or gender. 'That's not what DEI is about. It actually opens up the pool to make sure that all the best have the opportunity,' Harris said. 'This whole DEI gives unqualified people the upper hand is so untrue. It actually means that even more of the best of the best are allowed opportunity.' Harris also focused criticism on the elimination of the Indiana Department of Health's maternal health equity coordinator position. Indiana's rates of maternal mortality, especially among Black women, are some of the highest in the nation — 73% higher than their white peers according to 2021 data. The report also states that 19 contractors who worked under the Office of Minority Health were eliminated. Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, said DEI is the 'alphabet soup of the year' that Republicans are attacking. 'What we're going to see is really more homogeny, more privilege, as opposed to ensuring that we have representation throughout our different communities,' Pol said. 'I think that it's all political theater.' Removing items that address diversity, equity and inclusion will 'cause some issues for our state,' Harris said, and it will hurt all Hoosiers. As the state removes diversity, equity and inclusion from its policies, some Hoosiers may decide to move and those debating whether to move to Indiana for school or work may choose not to, he said. When policies like this are in place, Harris said he takes comfort in knowing 'there will always be another legislative session.' 'Hopefully, as we see where this goes, we can do adjustments. The problem and the fear is what damage will already be done and how long will it take us to get where we were,' Harris said.
Tom's Guide
5 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
Trump just announced a new AI plan that scraps Biden's rules — and gives Big Tech a green light
The White House has just released a sweeping new AI roadmap titled America's AI Action Plan, outlining how the federal government will try to supercharge AI development in the coming decade. The plan, backed by President Trump, prioritizes national security, infrastructure expansion and fewer regulations, which positions AI as the backbone of future U.S. economic and technological leadership. But this aggressive push for AI supremacy could come at a cost, particularly for states that aim to regulate AI more strictly, and other parts of the plan raise concerns about free speech. In short, the U.S. wants to build AI systems faster and export them under favorable terms, while locking down competitive advantages at home. At the heart of the plan are three pillars: One of the most controversial pieces of the plan is its deregulatory stance. The federal government wants to eliminate what it calls 'burdensome red tape' and may withhold federal AI funding from states that implement stricter AI oversight laws. That means if a state passes strong privacy or data transparency laws around AI, it could lose access to federal money intended to support AI development, workforce training or infrastructure. For consumers, this could translate to a boom in AI-powered tools: smarter assistants, faster services and more innovation reaching your devices. It also opens the door for AI to play a bigger role in everything from healthcare and education to smart homes and city planning. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. But the plan also raises concerns about data privacy, environmental impacts and lack of public oversight, especially as AI systems become embedded in daily life. The plan does acknowledge workforce disruption. It outlines new programs to retrain workers for AI-adjacent jobs, especially in trades like electrical work, HVAC installation and robotics maintenance. Unlike earlier federal tech plans, this one appears to focus less on white-collar upskilling and more on supporting the physical infrastructure of an AI-driven economy. Trump's plan places a unique emphasis on combating perceived 'ideological bias' in AI systems, an issue largely absent from Biden's formal policy language. The proposal accuses current AI models of being 'programmed by the radical left' and calls for the creation of standards to ensure political neutrality in outputs. This includes potential mandates requiring AI models to disclose training data sources and undergo third-party audits for viewpoint bias. The emphasis on ideological balance appears designed to resonate with conservative voters concerned about fairness in emerging technologies. However, how these measures would be implemented and whether they can be reconciled with First Amendment protections remains to be seen. The Trump administration's new America's AI Action Plan marks a major departure from the Biden-era playbook. One of Trump's first moves was scrapping Biden's 2023 executive order, which focused on putting guardrails around AI. Biden emphasized safety testing, algorithmic transparency and civil rights protections through agencies like the FTC and Department of Commerce, Trump has scraped all of that, leaning heavily into deregulation. The new order frames Biden's approach as too restrictive and instead aims to strip away what it calls 'burdensome' policies that could slow down AI innovation. Rather than requiring companies to prove their systems are safe or equitable, the emphasis is now on speeding up infrastructure development, including fast-tracking data centers and chip manufacturing plants. The America's AI Action Plan is a new roadmap for scaling U.S. AI capabilities, but it also sets up future legal and political battles over states' rights, privacy protections and AI accountability. As the federal government puts billions behind building the AI economy of tomorrow, the question remains if this will make our tech smarter and life easier or just less transparent.
