Judge strikes down abortion waiting period in Michigan
Judge Sima Patel ruled that the law conflicted with an amendment Michigan voters passed in 2022 enshrining abortion rights into the state's Constitution.
The waiting period existed in Michigan for years, but Patel temporarily blocked it last year, arguing that it 'exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care,' according to The Associated Press.
Michigan abortion providers sued last year to overturn the 24-hour waiting period for patients and to scrap the informed consent law, as well as a law that barred advanced practice clinicians from providing abortions.
Patel, a Court of Claims judge, also reversed a part of the law that required abortion providers to give patients fetal development charts and information on alternatives to abortions, arguing that it also violates the Reproductive Freedom for All constitutional amendment.
She also paused a section of the law that excluded nurses, nurse midwives and physician assistants from providing abortion care.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said she was 'overjoyed' by the judge's decision to overturn the waiting period and informed consent requirements.
'For years, Michiganders have faced obstacles when seeking reproductive care. From a 24-hour waiting period before accessing abortion to a ban on advanced practice clinicians providing care, these rules have put politicians between a woman and her doctor,' Whitmer wrote in a post on social platform X.
'I'm overjoyed to say that the Michigan Court of Claims has seen these restrictive provisions for what they are: an unconstitutional overreach that infringes on our constitutional right to make our own reproductive health decisions,' she added.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups in the state admonished Patel for her ruling, arguing that it poses an 'immediate threat' to women's health across the state.
'Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,' Amber Roseboom, president of the Right to Life of Michigan, wrote in a statement.
'There is no question that women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic in Michigan today than they were even a few years ago,' the group added.
The risk of complications from an abortion remains extremely low. Research shows that about 2 percent of abortions involve some type of complication.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Taliban marks four years in power by luring young female influencers to boost tourism
Four years after Afghanistan fell to Taliban control, the Islamic country is not only welcoming tourists, it's seeing a recent travel boost. Taliban forces captured the capital city of Kabul on Aug. 15, 2021, following the chaotic withdrawal of American troops under the Biden administration. Deputy Minister of Tourism Qudratullah Jamal told The Associated Press (AP) recently that Afghanistan had nearly 9,000 foreign visitors last year — with 3,000 tourists in the first three months of this year. "Tourism brings many benefits to a country," he said. "We have considered those benefits and aim for our nation to take full advantage of them." United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization director-general Audrey Azoulay told Fox News Digital in a statement that the Taliban has wiped out any gains for Afghan women. "This exclusion of women from public life in Afghanistan has disastrous consequences for the country's long-term development," she said. "At a time when some are seeking to normalize relations with the Taliban, I call on the international community to remain more mobilized than ever to fully and unconditionally restore Afghan women's right to education." "I expected to feel rather fearful." One of the first Afghan female tour guides recently led a group through the National Museum of Afghanistan – and the group consisted of all women. Suzanne Sandral, an Australian in the group, told AP she was surprised. "It's not what I expected at all. I expected to feel rather fearful. I expected to be given a lot of ... accusatory looks. Not at all." She said, "Wherever you go in the streets, if you smile at someone and give them a little nod or say hello, you get a terrific response. So it's very different." Another woman in the group posted videos of her recent trip in June on TikTok. She captioned a video, "Exploring the nuanced and complex lives of Afghan women in context, and exploring all this beautiful land has to offer." The U.S. Department of State, however, is very clear. It lists travel to Afghanistan as "Travel Advisory Level 4: Do Not Travel" — warning of civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping and limited health facilities. "U.S. citizen travelers to Afghanistan have been wrongfully detained for months or even years," said a spokesperson. "We remind all U.S. citizen travelers that no adventure or vacation is worth the price of your freedom." Other traveler influencers and regular tourists have shared their experiences on social media – with most showing the Taliban-run country in a positive light. A travel photographer posted a recap of her trip, saying she was "one of the first tourists to visit the country after the Taliban takeover." She added in a TikTok video that has been viewed over 56,000 times, "I was completely blown away by the incredible hospitality of the locals, amazing food and beautiful scenery." "No adventure or vacation is worth the price of your freedom." A popular solo traveler and social media creator posted a video of his trip to Afghanistan, writing, "I know a lot of people have mixed feelings about Afghanistan travel, but honestly, I had an amazing time there as a solo traveler." Another TikTok video that amassed nearly half a million likes shows an Australian traveler shopping at a food market. "Some of the best food I have had in all my travels was in Afghanistan," said the video's caption in part. Manizha Bakhari, ambassador of Afghanistan to Austria, told Fox News Digital the Taliban's promotion of tourism is an attempt at "image management." "As someone who has lived and worked in Afghanistan, I can say this: What these female influencers experience is not representative of women's lives in Afghanistan," said Bakhtari. She added, "The Taliban treat foreign women differently, and often with exaggerated politeness, because they serve a purpose in the regime's public relations strategy." The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) released its human rights report in May, pointing out that Afghan women are being denied the opportunity to join the workforce and are unable to access services without a male relative — while girls are still deprived of their right to education. The State Department wrote in its 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices document that treatment of woman has become progressively worse. The new report stated that there has been "further restricted access to education, employment, and freedom of movement for women and girls – effectively removing them from public spaces." "By showcasing scenic landscapes and hospitality toward foreign visitors, especially influencers, they aim to create a narrative of stability and openness," said Bakhtari. Bakhtari noted she's seen a growing disconnect in global travel culture when it comes to adventure tourism. "The thrill of visiting the 'forbidden' or 'untouched' often outweighs concern for human rights … [It] becomes a form of voyeurism, one that prioritizes personal experience over the realities of those who live under oppression." Kelley Currie, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council, discussed the danger of visiting Afghanistan, saying Americans should "buy travel insurance." The United States is "unable to provide consular services if something happens, especially if they are kidnapped and sold or given to other extremist groups," Currie told Fox News Digital. Adam Duckworth, Travelmation's president and founder, told Fox News Digital that travel companies take State Department advisories "very seriously." "If you are considering travel to a location in the higher levels, then do your research to understand why those places are on those lists," said Duckworth. Bakhtari said while Afghanistan is breathtakingly beautiful, "beauty should not blind us to injustice." "Travel should open hearts, not close eyes." The Associated Press contributed reporting.
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
The Nvidia chip deal that has Trump officials threatening to quit
is a senior correspondent and head writer for Vox's Future Perfect section and has worked at Vox since 2014. He is particularly interested in global health and pandemic prevention, anti-poverty efforts, economic policy and theory, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy. President Donald Trump and Jensen Huang, co-founder and CEO of Nvidia, at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2025. Ken Cedeno/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images Whatever else can be said about the second Trump administration, it is always teaching me about parts of the Constitution I had forgotten were even in there. Case in point: Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 states that 'No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.' This is known as the export clause, not to be confused with the import-export clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 2). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, most recently in 1996's US v. IBM, that this clause bans Congress and the states from imposing taxes on goods exported from one state to another or from the US to foreign countries. This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. I found myself reading US v. IBM after President Donald Trump announced an innovative new deal with chipmakers Nvidia and AMD. They can now export certain previously restricted chips to China but have to pay a 15 percent tax to the federal government on the proceeds. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but several people who are lawyers, like former National Security Council official Peter Harrell, immediately interpreted this as a clearly unconstitutional export tax (and as illegal under the 2018 Export Control Reform Act, to boot). At this point, there's something kind of sad and impotent about complaining that something Trump is doing is illegal and unconstitutional. It feels like yelling at the refs that the Harlem Globetrotters aren't playing fair; of course they aren't, no one cares. The refs are unlikely to step in here, either. The parties with the standing to sue and block the export taxes are Nvidia and AMD, and they've already agreed to go along with it. Maybe the best we can do is understand why this happened and what it means for the future of AI. A brief history of the 2025 chip war While AMD is included in the deal, for all practical purposes, the AI chips in question are being made by Nvidia — and the main one in question is the H20. As I explained last month, the H20 is entirely the product of US export controls meant to limit export of excessively powerful chips to China. Nvidia took its flagship H100 chip, widely used for AI training, and dialed its processing power (as measured in floating point operations per second) way down, thus satisfying rules restricting advanced chips that the Biden administration put in place and Trump has maintained. At the same time, it dialed up the memory bandwidth (or the rate at which data moves between the chip and system memory) past even H100's levels. That makes the H20 better than the H100 at answering queries to AI models in action, even if it's worse at training those models to start with. Critics saw this all as an attempt to obey the letter of the export controls while violating their spirit. It still meant Nvidia was exporting very useful, powerful chips to Chinese AI firms, which could use those to catch up with or leap ahead of US firms — precisely what the Biden administration was trying to prevent. In April, the Trump administration seemed to agree when it sent Nvidia a letter informing it that it would not receive export licenses for shipping H20s to China. Then, in July, reportedly after both some bargaining with China over rare earth metals and a personal entreaty from Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang, Trump flip-flopped; the chips could go to China after all. The only thing new this month is that he wants to get a cut of the proceeds. That, of course, is an important new element, not least because it seems bad that the president is asserting the power to unilaterally impose new taxes without Congress. (At least with tariffs, Trump has some laws Congress passed he can cite theoretically granting the authority.) But the big question about H20s remains the same: Does this help Chinese companies like DeepSeek catch up with US companies like OpenAI? And how bad is that, if it happens? Talking through the pros and cons of H20s The concerns here are such that maybe the best way to understand them is to imagine a debate between a pro-export and anti-export advocate. I'm taking some poetic license here, in part because people in the sector are often averse to plainly saying what they mean on the record. But I think it's a fair reflection of the debate as I've heard it. Anti-Export Guy: Trump says he wants the US to have 'global dominance' in AI, and here he is, just letting China have very powerful chips. This obviously hurts the US's edge. Pro-Export Guy: Does it? Again, the H20 is powerful, but it's no H100. In any case, Chinese firms are totally allowed to rent out advanced AI chips in US-based cloud servers. DeepSeek could even rent time on an H100 that way. So, why are we freaking out about exporting a weaker chip? Anti-Export: You act like the cloud option is a loophole — it's a feature! That way, they're dependent on US servers and companies. If Chinese AI firms ever start making dangerous systems, the US can shut off their access, and they'll be out of luck. Pro-Export: Again, will they be out of luck? There's a third option after Nvidia exports and US servers. Huawei is making its own AI-optimized chips. Chinese firms don't want to depend on foreign servers forever, and if we deny them Nvidia chips, they'll run right over to Huawei chips. Pro-Export: You're exaggerating. By some metrics, Huawei's latest systems (not just the chips, but the surrounding servers) outperform Nvidia's top-end model — even though that model uses B200s that are faster than H100s and lightyears faster than you'd ever be allowed to export to China. Yes, programmers will have to learn Huawei's libraries, and transitioning from Nvidia's will take time, but it's doable. Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI have all recently moved away from Nvidia chips toward things like Google's own TPUs or Amazon's Trainiums. That took effort, but they did it. What we're fighting for I suppose we'll see, in the next few months and in the rollout of new chips from competitors like Huawei, who got the better of that argument. China is reportedly discouraging firms from using Nvidia chips in the wake of the export tax deal, largely to encourage them to use domestic chips like Huawei, though they are clearly not banning the firms from using Nvidias if they prove necessary. It's also investigating whether the US is including spyware in them. The bigger question this debate raises for me, and one I certainly can't answer adequately here, is: To what degree is 'beating China' on AI important for making the future of AI go well? The answer for most US policymakers, and most people I know in the AI safety world, has been 'very.' The Financial Times reports that some Trump officials are considering resigning in protest over allowing China to get H20s. As Leopold Aschenbrenner, the AI analyst turned hedge funder, put it bluntly in his influential 2024 essay 'Situational Awareness': 'Superintelligence will give those who wield it the power to crush opposition, dissent, and lock in their grand plan for humanity.' If China 'wins,' then, the result for humanity is permanent authoritarian repression. No doubt, the Beijing regime is brutal, and I have no faith that they will use AI wisely. I'm very confident they'll wield it to oppress Chinese citizens. But it feels as though 'staying ahead of China' has become the sine qua non of US AI policy. I worry less that this focus on China is directionally wrong and more that it is exaggerated. The bigger danger is that no one can control these systems, rather than that China can, and that the focus on staying ahead of China will cause the US to speed deployment of automated weapons systems that could prove deeply destabilizing and dangerous. As with most aspects of AI, I feel like there's a small island of things we're all sure of and a vast ocean of unknowns. I think offering China H20s probably hurts AI safety a bit. I think.
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Is House size the solution to the gerrymandering problem?
Plymouth Advertisement To be truly representative, why not expand House to 10,000 members? Jeff Jacoby's suggestion to enlarge the House of Representatives as a way to end the gerrymandering wars was a good idea but did not go far enough. Today's data and data processing capabilities would still make gerrymandering possible, even if the United States tripled the number of members of the House, and districts would still be too large. Large districts enable the wealthy and special interests to make our representatives beholden to them, and enable outside money to influence what our country's Founders meant to be local elections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Technology is distorting our electoral processes. Why not use technology to support the democracy the Founders envisioned? Why not expand the House to 10,000 members, with each member representing approximately 34,000 constituents? That's close to the same number when the country was founded, 30,000. We should also end the requirement that all members be physically present and use more video conferencing and other technology to support the actions needed for the House to govern. This would make the 'people's chamber' once again the people's chamber, reduce the cost of elections, make representatives more accessible, and truly eliminate gerrymandering. Advertisement Richard Amster Cambridge Gerrymandering isn't the only problem with the House I stand in complete agreement with both Jeff Jacoby's analysis of the gerrymandering problem and his fitting solution. Our Framers intended Article 1 of the US Constitution, which establishes Congress, to be the most significant. They wanted House members to be close to the average citizen. They anticipated this body increasing in size with our nation's increasing population, to accurately reflect the views and needs of the people. Capping the number of representatives at 435 in 1929 was wrong — and so is the historic practice of gerrymandering, famously done in Massachusetts in 1812 and repeated often since then in virtually every state. But our nation's lawmaking body is also undermined by two related factors — the use of seniority in committee assignments and the lack of term limits. Partly as a result, representatives spend too much time on political pandering, fund-raising, and trying to manage age-related infirmities. Instead of giving committee assignments to the longest serving members, who have been waiting in the wings and feel entitled to the role, grant them to members with practical experience in the work of that committee. And while we're in the mood for change, let's allow representatives only four terms. This should be sufficient time for each to make substantive contributions, especially in smaller districts more 'in touch' with their constituents. Advertisement Peter Vangsness Medway Small districts aren't enough: We need good government initiatives Jeff Jacoby proposes enlarging the House of Representatives as a solution to political gerrymandering. But it's important to note that the term 'gerrymander' goes back to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who signed a state redistricting plan into law in 1812. Wags referred to one tortuous, lizard-shaped, North Shore district as a 'Gerry-mander.' The congressional districts at the time had about 35,000 constituents each, and digital computers were still more than a century from their birth. So you do not need large congressional districts, or computers, to engage in gerrymandering. To point out something that should be obvious, running an honest government requires bipartisan support for fair districting practices, honest ethics oversight, and effective protection against foreign government interference. Donald Segretti, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and others have for decades used dirty tricks to win elections — and many of these dirty tricksters have been Republicans. At the same time, the purging of voter rolls has often disproportionately affected Democratic voters. This contrasts with a decades-long effort by Democrats to improve voting access and integrity, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms. The disparity is stark between the Republicans, who are backing away from bipartisanship and good government initiatives, and the Democrats, who remain committed to them. Stuart Gallant Belmont
