Latest news with #HeartbeatAct
News18
5 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Who Is Olivia Julianna? The Democrat Activist Fighting For Abortion Rights
Last Updated: Olivia Julianna has been using her influence to inspire youth and voice their fight for abortion rights and other issues. Olivia Julianna, the Democrat activist, has time and again stirred headlines with her strong stance on abortion rights, LGBTQ+ issues, and other matters important to her generation. At the age of 22, Olivia has emerged as a youth star, even joining Gen-Z for Change as Director of Politics. Not just that, Julianna is also known for voicing her thoughts over body shaming, once describing herself as a 'queer, plus-size, disabled Latina." The fourth-generation Texan frequently uses social media to advocate for causes affecting the youth. Whether she's advocating for abortion rights or voting rights, the 22-year-old holds a deep influence on her followers. Read along to know more about her. Who Is Democrat Activist Olivia Julianna? Born in 2002, Olivia Julianna Herrera is a first-generation college student, currently doing her major in political science at the University of Houston-Victoria. Her passion for activism took a significant leap around the 2020 elections, where she started taking on various political issues, directly connecting with Gen Z. In 2021, Olivia's fierce tweets after the super-restrictive Heartbeat Act stirred a buzz in the country. Next was the major X showdown in 2022 when Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz made a rude comment about abortion rights activists. 'Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb," Gaetz said during his speech at the Student Action Summit in Tampa Gaetz: "Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb." — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 23, 2022 In a strong response to the words, Olivia, in a strong-worded tweet, said, 'It's come to my attention that Matt Gaetz — alleged paedophile— has said that it's always the 'odious… 5'2 350 pounds" women that 'nobody wants to impregnate" who rally for abortion. I'm 5'11" and 6'4 in heels. I wear them so the small men like you are reminded of your place," sparking a heated exchange on the microblogging platform. Its come to my attention that Matt Gaetz — alleged pedophile— has said that it's always the 'odious.. 5'2 350 pound" women that 'nobody wants to impregnate" who rally for abortion. I'm actually 5'11. 6'4 in heels. I wear them so the small men like you are reminded of your place — Olivia Julianna 🇺🇸🦅🗳️ (@0liviajulianna) July 24, 2022 The public attack worked in favour of Olivia, as she claimed to have achieved major abortion fundraising goals. Ever since, Olivia Julianna has been unstoppable, playing a key role in mobilising several youth movements, with Bloomberg Media also adding her to the 50 Most Influential list. With millions of followers on TikTok, X, and Instagram combined, Olivia's message has been resonating loudly, inspiring more young people to get involved.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas' latest anti-abortion bill should alarm anyone who cares about rule of law
You know how some showrunners try to amp up the sex and gore in streaming series when they're worried about fading viewer interest and don't have better ideas? The Texas Legislature is following this playbook when it comes to abortion. After lawmakers in 2021 passed Senate Bill 8, the "Texas Heartbeat Act" that banned abortion once fetal cardiac activity was present, Texas abortions officially fell to negligible numbers. But Texas women continued getting abortions at nearly the same rate as when the procedure was legal. Abortion pills are easy to obtain and take, even in states where they are illegal. The pills are almost always effective, and have fewer serious side effects than drugs such as Viagra and penicillin. With the Senate's recent passage of SB 2880, the 'Women and Child Protection Act,' the desperation of Texas legislators is palpable. The Protection Act would make abortion pill manufacturers, distributors, prescribers and transporters strictly liable for the death or injury of a pregnant person or fetus. Nearly any private person could bring a civil suit up to six years after the alleged abortion, seeking damages of up to $100,000. Additionally, the bill authorizes the Texas attorney general to bring a civil action on behalf of fetuses to enforce the state's criminal abortion laws. The bill would make not only defendants but also their attorneys liable to pay the attorney's fees and costs of prevailing plaintiffs. The corker is that the bill purports to prevent courts from finding the bill unconstitutional, whether in part or in whole. In fact, should any court dare to find any portion of the bill unconstitutional, the bill declares such a finding to be void — and SB 2880 says that any person may sue the judge or anyone following the judge's ruling and obtain at least $100,000 in punitive damages from them, among other damages and relief. Clearly, the Texas Legislature thinks that those prescribing and supplying abortion pills to Texas women are scofflaws who need to be disciplined. But the Legislature is woefully impotent on this issue. The Texas Heartbeat Act already permits private people to bring these sorts of 'bounty suits' against many of the defendants that SB 2880 contemplates. If the Heartbeat Act isn't working, why should SB 2880 yield greater success? Damages under the Heartbeat Act start at $10,000 rather than the $100,000 offered under SB 2880, but given that both also cover prevailing plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs, it's hard to see how the increased bounty would spur the thousands of private suits needed to help deter illicit abortions. The Legislature should realize that the bounty hunter tactic isn't working. The tactic is unconstitutional. To sue for civil damages, a person must have suffered a redressable injury. Without an actual injury, a person doesn't have the right to bring a civil lawsuit seeking damages against another party. Imagine if anyone — your neighbor, a business competitor, some person on the other side of the country — could haul you into court and sue you for thousands of dollars if they learned that you did something that the Legislature decided wasn't allowed, like jaywalking or wearing a red shirt. This is what the Heartbeat Act and SB 2880 do. They throw the bedrock constitutional principle of due process under the bus. What's more, in an outrageous attempt to circumvent the courts, SB 2880 would heavily penalize any judge who dared to find the statute unconstitutional. Most of published decisions to date involving the Heartbeat Act, including decisions at the U.S. and Texas Supreme Courts, have concerned matters other than the bounty hunter provision. But one Texas district court has addressed the substantive issue. It held that the Heartbeat Act's enforcement mechanism is unconstitutional. Any other holding would be absurd. It would throw state courts open to anyone, potentially, to sue another party for any reason or no reason at all. The Texas Legislature is trying to tear down the rule of law. Regardless of our views on abortion, we should all oppose this. Laura Hermer is a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Saint Paul, Minn. She previously served on the faculty at the University of Texas Medical Branch and the University of Houston Law Center. She teaches and writes on health law and reproductive rights. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas' anti-abortion bill is an attack on the rule of law | Opinion
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Ohio Democrats seek to codify reproductive care, align state law with constitutional amendment
Ohio abortion rights demonstrators. (Photo by Graham Stokes for the Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) Ohio Democratic lawmakers will try to push back against existing abortion regulations and align state law with the state constitution in a new bill to codify reproductive care. State Reps. Anita Somani, D-Dublin, and Desiree Tims, D-Dayton, introduced House Bill 128 this month, which seeks to repeal 'archaic laws in our state that do not improve outcomes or access to care,' Somani said, laws that include 'unnecessary ultrasounds' and hospital transfer agreements that hinder physicians from conducting care at certain clinics or facilities that provide abortion care. 'They were passed to create roadblocks for those seeking abortion care and those providing that care,' Somani said. The bill is a reintroduction of a measure from the last General Assembly that only had one committee hearing, never received a vote and died with the end of a session run by a Republican supermajority which has in the past shown more support for anti-abortion measures than reproductive rights efforts pushed by the Democrats. 'I would hope that all of the stories of women dying because of restrictive abortion laws (nationwide) would help people understand what these restrictive abortion laws do,' Somani told the Capital Journal. Somani's previous bill, House Bill 343, sought to repeal legislation approved by the legislature in 2019 that banned abortion after six weeks of gestation, called the Heartbeat Act by supporters. That law spent most of its existence in court as abortion rights groups fought to have it rejected. The bill couldn't be enforced while it was tied up in multiple courts, and it was ultimately struck down by a Hamilton County judge last October. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In his decision, Judge Christian Jenkins cited the state's constitutional amendment, approved by 57% of Ohio voters in November 2023, which established rights to reproductive health, including abortion, miscarriage care, and fertility treatments. The fate of the 2019 law hasn't been decided yet, however, as Ohio Attorney General (and 2026 governor hopeful) Dave Yost has appealed the decision to the First District Court of Appeals. Yost has said he isn't planning to fight the six-week ban's rejection on appeal, instead aiming his arguments at other provisions of the law, saying not all state regulations that could be considered connected to abortion care can be eliminated. 'The state respects the will of the people regarding the six-week abortion ban, but the state is also obligated to protect provisions in S.B. 23 (the Heartbeat Act) … that the constitutional amendment does not address,' a spokesperson for Yost said when the appeal was filed. It's the idea of litigating law after law that drove Somani to the legislation she hopes to see considered in the new General Assembly. Before, during, and after the passage of the constitutional amendment, reproductive rights advocates went to court to fight laws regarding fetal and embryonic remains disposal, the 24-hour waiting period required before an abortion, a two-visit minimum for pregnant individuals before the procedure can take place, and virtual prescription of medication used for abortions, along with the six-week ban lawsuit. 'Our hope is to align legislation with the constitutional amendment, and not have to go through each piece of previous legislation,' Somani said. As an OB/GYN as well as a legislator, Somani said codifying the care established in the state constitution would also address maternal and infant mortality, issues the state has struggled with for years, particularly when it comes to Black infants and mothers. In recent research from Groundwork Ohio, the state was also one of the worst in the country for low infant birth weight among Medicaid enrollees, with premature birth rates also increasing since 2019. H.B. 128 would also add nondiscrimination, civil, and criminal protections for 'evidence-based care,' according to the bill sponsors. 'This legislation ensures that health care providers can focus on what matters most: providing high-quality, compassionate care to those who need it,' Tims said in a statement on the bill. The bill was referred to the Ohio House Health Committee on Wednesday, where it will be subject to testimony from supporters and opponents before the chamber can vote on the measure. The legislation faces an uphill battle, not only because a Democratic-led bill on reproductive rights is likely to struggle in the Republican supermajority Statehouse, but also because state operating budget negotiations have taken over much of the discussion as the July deadline approaches. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
