The Supreme Court on Friday issued a decision allowing abortion providers in Texas to continue challenging a new law that bans most abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy. But while the conservative majority didn’t close the door on abortion in Texas completely, the degree to which it is cracked allows in only a sliver of light.

For now, the law in question, Senate Bill 8, remains on the books. Anyone who assists in providing an illegal abortion — from the provider down to the person who gives a woman a ride to the clinic — can still be sued. Roe v. Wade has essentially been overturned in the state, and soon that astonishing reality may not only become permanent there but may also spread to other states.

A key component of women’s rights and body autonomy is being snatched away as we watch.

In a dissent Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to ‘veto’ or ‘nullif[y]’ any federal law with which they disagreed.”

I found the invocation of South Carolina’s Calhoun striking. Yes, he was a strong believer in nullification, the idea that states could nullify federal laws, but he was also a raging racist who went further than the slave owners who saw slavery as a “necessary evil,” seeing it instead as a positive good.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-abruptly-cuts-taiwanese-ministers-video-at-summit-for-democracy-2021-436416">Also read |&nbsp;US abruptly cuts Taiwanese minister's video at 'Summit for Democracy 2021'</a>

In 1837, Calhoun railed in a speech on the Senate floor that slavery had “grown up with our society and institutions and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people.” He continued:

"But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding states is an evil: Far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the Black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically but morally and intellectually."

He would reiterate that slavery was, “instead of an evil, a good — a positive good.”

In fact, Calhoun’s stance on slavery and states’ rights was so severe that he has been called the father of secession and the man who started the Civil War, even though he died 11 years before the war commenced.

In Calhoun’s view, the states had the right to control and oppress Black bodies as they saw fit, regardless of any actions to the contrary on the federal level. States, he felt, should be able to choose whether or not they wanted slavery.

I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now. I see this country on the verge of another civil war, as the Calhounian impulse is reborn.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/even-as-washington-tries-to-maintain-friendly-relations-with-pakistan-its-actions-indicate-concern-436447">Also read |&nbsp;Even as Washington tries to maintain friendly relations with Pakistan, its actions indicate concern</a>

There are enormous, obvious differences, of course. The civil war I see is not the kind that would leave hundreds of thousands of young men dead in combat. That is not to say that we aren’t seeing spats of violence but rather that this new war will be fought in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes, rather than in the fields.

And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy.

It will seek to push back against all the “others”: Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones.

In some ways, the abortion battle now being waged in the courts is a test case. Can the states make an argument that a civil right can be reversed on the state level? Can they make the case that all that the Constitution has not explicitly spelled out should be reserved for the states?

The Constitution has been silent on quite a bit since it was written in 1787, and the last time it was amended was nearly 30 years ago, in 1992, when the states ratified the 27th Amendment. When did Congress first approve that amendment? In 1789! Having not gotten enough states to ratify it after passage, it simply languished for 200 years.

All of us should be very worried about what we see happening with these abortion cases not just women who might need abortions or relatives and friends of women who might need them.

We should worry about whether or not we are at an inflection point for an age of regression.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a decision allowing abortion providers in Texas to continue challenging a new law that bans most abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a decision allowing abortion providers in Texas to continue challenging a new law that bans most abortions in the state after about six weeks of pregnancy. But while the conservative majority didn’t close the door on abortion in Texas completely, the degree to which it is cracked allows in only a sliver of light. For now, the law in question, Senate Bill 8, remains on the books. Anyone who assists in providing an illegal abortion — from the provider down to the person who gives a woman a ride to the clinic — can still be sued. Roe v. Wade has essentially been overturned in the state, and soon that astonishing reality may not only become permanent there but may also spread to other states. A key component of women’s rights and body autonomy is being snatched away as we watch. In a dissent Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to ‘veto’ or ‘nullif[y]’ any federal law with which they disagreed.” I found the invocation of South Carolina’s Calhoun striking. Yes, he was a strong believer in nullification, the idea that states could nullify federal laws, but he was also a raging racist who went further than the slave owners who saw slavery as a “necessary evil,” seeing it instead as a positive good. Also read | US abruptly cuts Taiwanese minister's video at 'Summit for Democracy 2021' In 1837, Calhoun railed in a speech on the Senate floor that slavery had “grown up with our society and institutions and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people.” He continued: "But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding states is an evil: Far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the Black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically but morally and intellectually." He would reiterate that slavery was, “instead of an evil, a good — a positive good.” In fact, Calhoun’s stance on slavery and states’ rights was so severe that he has been called the father of secession and the man who started the Civil War, even though he died 11 years before the war commenced. In Calhoun’s view, the states had the right to control and oppress Black bodies as they saw fit, regardless of any actions to the contrary on the federal level. States, he felt, should be able to choose whether or not they wanted slavery. I see too many uneasy parallels between what was happening nearly 200 years ago and what is happening now. I see this country on the verge of another civil war, as the Calhounian impulse is reborn. Also read | Even as Washington tries to maintain friendly relations with Pakistan, its actions indicate concern There are enormous, obvious differences, of course. The civil war I see is not the kind that would leave hundreds of thousands of young men dead in combat. That is not to say that we aren’t seeing spats of violence but rather that this new war will be fought in courts, statehouses and ballot boxes, rather than in the fields. And this war won’t be only about the subjugation of Black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy. It will seek to push back against all the “others”: Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones. In some ways, the abortion battle now being waged in the courts is a test case. Can the states make an argument that a civil right can be reversed on the state level? Can they make the case that all that the Constitution has not explicitly spelled out should be reserved for the states? The Constitution has been silent on quite a bit since it was written in 1787, and the last time it was amended was nearly 30 years ago, in 1992, when the states ratified the 27th Amendment. When did Congress first approve that amendment? In 1789! Having not gotten enough states to ratify it after passage, it simply languished for 200 years. All of us should be very worried about what we see happening with these abortion cases not just women who might need abortions or relatives and friends of women who might need them. We should worry about whether or not we are at an inflection point for an age of regression.

We’re edging closer to civil war

One person has been killed and at least 13 have been injured after another shooting incident took place in Texas, US. The incident took place when a gunman inside a vehicle started firing on a crowd gathered at&nbsp;vigil at around 6:40 pm.

Nearly 50 people were gathered for a celebration in Baytown, which is about 25 miles west of Houston.&nbsp;

Speaking to the Associated Press, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said, "Right as they were releasing the balloons up into the air was when the vehicle came. Almost at that exact time is when they opened fire into a crowd."

He further explained that one of the injured person was taken to a hospital by helicopter. One among the injured is also said to be a child.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BREAKING?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BREAKING</a>: "Maybe 20 to 30 shots" 
 
One person is dead and at least 7 others injured after a suspect fires into a crowd in Baytown, according to HCSO. The large crowd was holding a vigil for a man recently murdered. 
 
Hear from a witness on <a href="https://twitter.com/abc13houston?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@abc13houston</a> at 10 p.m. <a href="https://t.co/3ABflN1msl">pic.twitter.com/3ABflN1msl</a>
— Brooke Taylor (@ABC13Brooke) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC13Brooke/status/1470218238130802692?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The police has not disclosed any more information as of now.&nbsp;

Shooting incidents have become too common in Texas. Earlier in October, a Texas deputy was shot dead and two of his colleagues were injured, outside a bar. This happened when they were investigating a disturbance.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/kentucky-tornadoes-likely-killed-more-than-100-says-governor-andy-beshear-436395">Also read |&nbsp;Kentucky tornadoes likely killed more than 100, says Governor Andy Beshear</a>

Earlier in the same month, the Timberview High School was targeted by an 18-year-old who opened fire in the school premises after a fight broke out in the school.&nbsp;

The shooter was identified as Timothy George Simpkins. The school was immediately put under a lockdown after the horrifying incident took place.

(With inputs from agencies)

One person has been killed and at least 13 have been injured after another shooting incident took place in Texas, US. The incident took place when a gunman inside a vehicle started firing on a crowd gathered at vigil at around 6:40 pm.

One person has been killed and at least 13 have been injured after another shooting incident took place in Texas, US. The incident took place when a gunman inside a vehicle started firing on a crowd gathered at vigil at around 6:40 pm. Nearly 50 people were gathered for a celebration in Baytown, which is about 25 miles west of Houston. Speaking to the Associated Press, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said, "Right as they were releasing the balloons up into the air was when the vehicle came. Almost at that exact time is when they opened fire into a crowd." He further explained that one of the injured person was taken to a hospital by helicopter. One among the injured is also said to be a child. #BREAKING: "Maybe 20 to 30 shots" One person is dead and at least 7 others injured after a suspect fires into a crowd in Baytown, according to HCSO. The large crowd was holding a vigil for a man recently murdered. Hear from a witness on @abc13houston at 10 p.m. pic.twitter.com/3ABflN1msl — Brooke Taylor (@ABC13Brooke) December 13, 2021 × The police has not disclosed any more information as of now. Shooting incidents have become too common in Texas. Earlier in October, a Texas deputy was shot dead and two of his colleagues were injured, outside a bar. This happened when they were investigating a disturbance. Also read | Kentucky tornadoes likely killed more than 100, says Governor Andy Beshear Earlier in the same month, the Timberview High School was targeted by an 18-year-old who opened fire in the school premises after a fight broke out in the school. The shooter was identified as Timothy George Simpkins. The school was immediately put under a lockdown after the horrifying incident took place. (With inputs from agencies)

At least 1 dead, 13 injured after gunman opens fire at vigil in Texas

US Supreme Court in a landmark judgement upheld Texas six-week abortion law but provides relief to clinics by allowing them to sue Texas over the ban.

US Supreme Court upheld Texas six-week abortion law but allows clinics to sue Texas over ban

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (December 10) has ruled on the Texas abortion law, now allowing the abortion providers to challenge the ban in federal court.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (December 10) has ruled on the Texas abortion law, now allowing the abortion providers to challenge the ban in federal court. However, it let the controversial law remain in effect for now. The controversial law, known as SB8, prohibits the procedure after around six weeks of pregnancy - a phase before most women even know they are pregnant. An exception can be made if there is any medical emergency, however, not in the case of rape or incest. ALSO READ | US blacklists Chinese firm, sanctions political leaders over human rights violations in Uyghur The controversial law remained one of the highly-debated topics in US politics this year as this emerged as a restrictive law in the country, passed since abortion was made a constitutional right five decades ago. Today's ruling gives a window that the law might get suspended as the case will return to a district court for further proceedings, CNN reported. The law came into effect on September 1 and was heavily criticised by women's rights groups, especially by the Biden administration. Eight out of nine justices agreed that lawsuits filed by abortion providers against the Texas law may proceed, but they divided 5-4 on whether other officials could be sued. ALSO READ | United States wins appeal over extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Here's what the court said: Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, said that "given the ongoing chilling effect of the state law, the District Court should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay." "The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others," the court, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said as quoted by FOX News. "The petitioners then filed a request for injunctive relief with the Court, seeking emergency resolution of their application ahead of [the law's] approaching effective date," the court said. "In the abbreviated time available for review, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ filings failed to identify a basis in existing law that could justify disturbing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to deny injunctive relief," it added. ×

US Supreme Court allows abortion providers to challenge Texas law in federal court

A viral video doing rounds on social media has captured a shocking incident in which a white student can be seen hitting a Black teacher. The incident took place in a school named Castleberry High School in Texas, USA.

In the video, the student can be seen walking towards the teacher who appears to be making a call. The female student comes and takes the receiver from teacher's hands and hits her on her left arm.

The two of them appear to be in altercation in which the teacher keeps her calm while the student can be heard hurling abuses like 'b****'

The student then can be heard talking to her mom and asks her to speak with the teacher 'because she is black'.&nbsp;

Castleberry Independent School District officials have put out a statement and praised the teacher who kept her calm even in the face of literal assault. The statement said that teacher's handling of the incident was exemplary 'throughout the entirety of the incident even when the situation turned violent and offensive.'

“Harassment, racism and violence against our teachers will not be tolerated at Castleberry ISD, and we will take swift and effective action to protect our teachers so that they can perform their duties and educate students in a safe environment," the statement said.

As per media reports the school will hold an internal investigation into the matter and as physical assault was involved, the matter will be reported to law enforcement authorities as well.

A viral video doing rounds on social media has captured a shocking incident in which a white student can be seen hitting a Black teacher. The incident took place in a school named Castleberry High School in Texas, USA.

A viral video doing rounds on social media has captured a shocking incident in which a white student can be seen hitting a Black teacher. The incident took place in a school named Castleberry High School in Texas, USA. In the video, the student can be seen walking towards the teacher who appears to be making a call. The female student comes and takes the receiver from teacher's hands and hits her on her left arm. The two of them appear to be in altercation in which the teacher keeps her calm while the student can be heard hurling abuses like 'b****' The student then can be heard talking to her mom and asks her to speak with the teacher 'because she is black'. Castleberry Independent School District officials have put out a statement and praised the teacher who kept her calm even in the face of literal assault. The statement said that teacher's handling of the incident was exemplary 'throughout the entirety of the incident even when the situation turned violent and offensive.' “Harassment, racism and violence against our teachers will not be tolerated at Castleberry ISD, and we will take swift and effective action to protect our teachers so that they can perform their duties and educate students in a safe environment," the statement said. As per media reports the school will hold an internal investigation into the matter and as physical assault was involved, the matter will be reported to law enforcement authorities as well.

Investigation on after white student hits black teacher in Texas school

Samsung&nbsp;Electronics Co Ltd said on Wednesday it had picked Taylor, Texas as the location for a new $17 billion plant to make advanced chips for functions such as mobile, 5G, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence.

The plant would create 2,000 high-tech jobs with construction to begin in the first half of next year, and production due to start in the second half of 2024, the South Korean tech giant said. It would also create at least 6,500 construction jobs, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said.

The world's biggest memory chipmaker and second-largest contract chip manufacturer had also considered sites in Arizona and New York for the plant, which will be much bigger than its only other US&nbsp;chip plant in Austin, Texas.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-names-all-of-hezbollah-neo-nazi-group-as-terrorist-organisation-431646">Australia names all of Hezbollah, neo-Nazi group as terrorist organisation</a>

The company said it chose Texas based on factors such as infrastructure stability, government support and proximity to its existing plant.

Samsung&nbsp;is joining rivals TSMC and Intel in the race to expand chip contract manufacturing in the United States, where the sector is seen as an area of strategic competition with China.

US&nbsp;President Joe Biden's administration has promised billions of dollars&nbsp;in federal funding to boost chip manufacturing and research to ensure it has an edge over China in advanced technologies and to address shortages for critical industries like autos.

"Securing America's supply chains is a top priority for President Biden and his Administration," US&nbsp;National Economic Council Director Brian Deese and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement welcoming&nbsp;Samsung's investment.

"We will continue to use every tool and pursue every avenue to invest in our sources of strength like manufacturing and technology."

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-asks-us-to-stop-providing-platform-to-taiwans-independence-forces-431638">China asks US to stop providing platform to Taiwan's independence forces</a>

Abbott, flanked at a press conference by&nbsp;Samsung&nbsp;Electronics Vice Chairman Kinam Kim and US&nbsp;Senator John Cornyn of Texas, said the company's decision was a testament to Texas's economic environment built on low taxes, reasonable regulations and robust infrastructure.

Texas last winter suffered a multi-day, widespread power outage, causing some 300-400 billion won ($254-$339 million) in damages to&nbsp;Samsung's existing chip plant in Austin, Texas.

"I'm extremely confident that the power grid is stable, resilient and reliable," Abbott said on Tuesday when asked about electricity supply for the plant.

The new site in Texas's Williamson County, which comprises the city of Taylor, offered the best incentives package&nbsp;of the sites&nbsp;Samsung&nbsp;was considering, sources previously told Reuters.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Senator Cornyn on Tuesday called on the Biden administration to invest more money to attract chip manufacturers to the United States, calling it a "national security imperative."

"If China continues to saber-rattle, the majority of the world could be at their mercy when it comes to the supply of critical semiconductors," Cornyn said.

Samsung's Kim thanked the Biden administration for "creating an environment that supports companies like&nbsp;Samsung&nbsp;as we work to expand leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing in the US"

"We also thank the administration and Congress for their bipartisan support to swiftly enact federal incentives for domestic chip production and innovation."

Samsung&nbsp;has not specified what the new plant will make beyond advanced logic chips which can be used to power mobile devices and autonomous vehicles.

Analysts said it would likely make cutting-edge chips of 5-nanometres or less, using machines made by the Netherland's ASML, for large clients like Qualcomm. Such chips can handle more data per area than the 14- and 28-nanometre chips&nbsp;Samsung's existing US&nbsp;plant in Austin mainly makes.

The Taylor site, about 25 miles (40 kms) from Austin, spans more than 5 million square metres,&nbsp;Samsung&nbsp;said.

Samsung&nbsp;Electronics Vice Chairman Jay Y. Lee&nbsp;met White House officials as well as leaders of companies including Alphabet's Google, Amazon and Microsoft during a trip to the United States last week.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said on Wednesday it had picked Taylor, Texas as the location for a new $17 billion plant to make advanced chips for functions such as mobile, 5G, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd said on Wednesday it had picked Taylor, Texas as the location for a new $17 billion plant to make advanced chips for functions such as mobile, 5G, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence. The plant would create 2,000 high-tech jobs with construction to begin in the first half of next year, and production due to start in the second half of 2024, the South Korean tech giant said. It would also create at least 6,500 construction jobs, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said. The world's biggest memory chipmaker and second-largest contract chip manufacturer had also considered sites in Arizona and New York for the plant, which will be much bigger than its only other US chip plant in Austin, Texas. ALSO READ | Australia names all of Hezbollah, neo-Nazi group as terrorist organisation The company said it chose Texas based on factors such as infrastructure stability, government support and proximity to its existing plant. Samsung is joining rivals TSMC and Intel in the race to expand chip contract manufacturing in the United States, where the sector is seen as an area of strategic competition with China. US President Joe Biden's administration has promised billions of dollars in federal funding to boost chip manufacturing and research to ensure it has an edge over China in advanced technologies and to address shortages for critical industries like autos. "Securing America's supply chains is a top priority for President Biden and his Administration," US National Economic Council Director Brian Deese and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement welcoming Samsung's investment. "We will continue to use every tool and pursue every avenue to invest in our sources of strength like manufacturing and technology." ALSO READ | China asks US to stop providing platform to Taiwan's independence forces Abbott, flanked at a press conference by Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Kinam Kim and US Senator John Cornyn of Texas, said the company's decision was a testament to Texas's economic environment built on low taxes, reasonable regulations and robust infrastructure. Texas last winter suffered a multi-day, widespread power outage, causing some 300-400 billion won ($254-$339 million) in damages to Samsung's existing chip plant in Austin, Texas. "I'm extremely confident that the power grid is stable, resilient and reliable," Abbott said on Tuesday when asked about electricity supply for the plant. The new site in Texas's Williamson County, which comprises the city of Taylor, offered the best incentives package of the sites Samsung was considering, sources previously told Reuters. NATIONAL SECURITY Senator Cornyn on Tuesday called on the Biden administration to invest more money to attract chip manufacturers to the United States, calling it a "national security imperative." "If China continues to saber-rattle, the majority of the world could be at their mercy when it comes to the supply of critical semiconductors," Cornyn said. Samsung's Kim thanked the Biden administration for "creating an environment that supports companies like Samsung as we work to expand leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing in the US" "We also thank the administration and Congress for their bipartisan support to swiftly enact federal incentives for domestic chip production and innovation." Samsung has not specified what the new plant will make beyond advanced logic chips which can be used to power mobile devices and autonomous vehicles. Analysts said it would likely make cutting-edge chips of 5-nanometres or less, using machines made by the Netherland's ASML, for large clients like Qualcomm. Such chips can handle more data per area than the 14- and 28-nanometre chips Samsung's existing US plant in Austin mainly makes. The Taylor site, about 25 miles (40 kms) from Austin, spans more than 5 million square metres, Samsung said. Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Jay Y. Lee met White House officials as well as leaders of companies including Alphabet's Google, Amazon and Microsoft during a trip to the United States last week.

Samsung to build new $17 billion chip plant in Texas, construction to begin next year

In America the republicans are talking about breaking up the country. A campaign in Texas is gaining momentum. It is called "Texit" - the exit of Texas from the United States. Surprisingly, it isn't just Texans who want to secede from America. More citizens want to separate from the American union. So, could the United States break up? Here is a report.

Texit campaign gains momentum in US

Republican lawmaker Ted Cruz wants Texas to secede "if things become hopeless". Can "Texit" become a reality? A surprising share of American citizens wants to break up the country. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: Texit after Brexit? Why some Texans want to leave the US

At least 8 people have been dead and several others injured at hip hop star Travis Scott’s Astroworld music festival in Houston.

Houston Festival Stampede : Criminal probe launched

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood? Well, this seems to be something out of the ordinary.&nbsp;

A housing project being developed in Austin, Texas, is set to become world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood. It is scheduled to break ground next year.

A digital rendering of the project showed 3D-printed houses with solar cells on the roof. The development project is a collaboration between Lennar, a homebuilding company and ICON, a construction firm specialising in 3D-printing structures. A Danish firm Bjarke Ingels Group has co-designed the houses.

Each 3D-printed house would take a week to build. The companies say that houses measuring 3000 square feet in size.

Construction of the neighbourhood in Texas would take place with the help of five 46-foot wide robotic 'Vulcan' printers. These 3D printers will pipe out a concrete mixture called Lavacrete to 'print' the houses.

Although the companies have not disclosed the exact cost of house-building, they say that the cost of 3D-printing a house is less than traditional construction methods.

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood?

3D printing has been around for a while. We even have friends who flaunt small keepsakes they say have been 3D-printed. But printing a full house? An entire neighbourhood? Well, this seems to be something out of the ordinary. A housing project being developed in Austin, Texas, is set to become world's first 3D-printed neighbourhood. It is scheduled to break ground next year. A digital rendering of the project showed 3D-printed houses with solar cells on the roof. The development project is a collaboration between Lennar, a homebuilding company and ICON, a construction firm specialising in 3D-printing structures. A Danish firm Bjarke Ingels Group has co-designed the houses. Each 3D-printed house would take a week to build. The companies say that houses measuring 3000 square feet in size. Construction of the neighbourhood in Texas would take place with the help of five 46-foot wide robotic 'Vulcan' printers. These 3D printers will pipe out a concrete mixture called Lavacrete to 'print' the houses. Although the companies have not disclosed the exact cost of house-building, they say that the cost of 3D-printing a house is less than traditional construction methods.

World's largest 3D-printed neighbourhood to come up in Texas

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it.

Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.”

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/cop26-why-the-world-is-worried-about-china-and-co2-levels-425836">Also read |&nbsp;COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels</a>

Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue.

The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state.

After almost three hours of lively arguments, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to allow abortion providers but perhaps not the Biden administration to pursue a challenge to a Texas law that has sharply curtailed abortions in the state. That would represent an important shift from a 5-4 ruling in September that allowed the law to go into effect. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who were in the majority in that ruling, asked questions suggesting that they thought the novel structure of the Texas law justified allowing the providers to challenge it. Kavanaugh said that might amount to closing a loophole. Barrett said the law was structured to prevent the providers from presenting a “full constitutional defence.” Also read | COP26: Why the world is worried about China and CO2 levels Such a decision would not conclude the case or address whether the law itself is constitutional. Instead, it would return the case to lower courts for further proceedings. It was, moreover, not clear whether the court would temporarily block the law while the case moved forward if it allowed either the providers or the administration to sue. The law, which went into effect on Sept. 1, was drafted to evade review in federal court, a goal the state has so far achieved. The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks and includes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, has caused clinics in the state to turn away many women seeking the procedure.

Supreme court hints it may allow challenge to Texas abortion law

At least nine people were injured and one man died&nbsp;at a Halloween party in Texarkana, Texas, as a gunman opened fire at an event centre.&nbsp;

The Texarkana Police Department, in a statement on Facebook, said, "Officers responded to several reports of shots fired at the party venue in the 2300 block of Texas Blvd. at 11:56 on Saturday night. When they got there, they encountered a large number of people running from the building and several inside suffering from gunshot wounds."

A 20-year-old man was declared dead at one of the hospitals. His name has not yet been released.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/documents-trump-wants-to-shield-from-capitol-riots-investigators-revealed-425544">Also read |&nbsp;Documents Trump wants to shield from Capitol riots investigators revealed</a>

The police have said that the injuries of the other nine people did not appear to be life-threatening. As per the police, the suspect left the scene in an unknown vehicle and has not been taken into custody.&nbsp;

"Detectives are investigating and interviewing victims and witnesses. It is estimated that there were at least a couple hundred people in the venue when the shootings occurred," said police.

The motive of the shooting remains unknown. However, the preliminary investigation concludes that the shooting may have been the result of some type of disturbance among some of the partygoers.

(With inputs from Agencies)

At least nine people were injured and one man died at a Halloween party in Texarkana, Texas, as a gunman opened fire at an event centre. The Texarkana Police Department, in a statement on Facebook, said, "Officers responded to several reports of shots fired at the party venue in the 2300 block of Texas Blvd.

At least nine people were injured and one man died at a Halloween party in Texarkana, Texas, as a gunman opened fire at an event centre. The Texarkana Police Department, in a statement on Facebook, said, "Officers responded to several reports of shots fired at the party venue in the 2300 block of Texas Blvd. at 11:56 on Saturday night. When they got there, they encountered a large number of people running from the building and several inside suffering from gunshot wounds." A 20-year-old man was declared dead at one of the hospitals. His name has not yet been released. Also read | Documents Trump wants to shield from Capitol riots investigators revealed The police have said that the injuries of the other nine people did not appear to be life-threatening. As per the police, the suspect left the scene in an unknown vehicle and has not been taken into custody. "Detectives are investigating and interviewing victims and witnesses. It is estimated that there were at least a couple hundred people in the venue when the shootings occurred," said police. The motive of the shooting remains unknown. However, the preliminary investigation concludes that the shooting may have been the result of some type of disturbance among some of the partygoers. (With inputs from Agencies)

One dead, 9 injured as gunman opens fire at Halloween party in Texas

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a measure prohibiting transgender females from participating in female sports in schools into law on Monday.

According to The Texas Tribune, transgender student-athletes in Texas will be barred from participating in K-12 school sports teams that match their gender identification.

Student-athletes competing in interscholastic contests will be required to participate on sports teams that correspond to the sex recorded on their birth certificate at or near the time of birth under House Bill 25.

It was drafted by state Rep. Valoree Swanson, R-Spring, and is due to take effect on January 18, according to The Texas Tribune.

The bill goes beyond the University Interscholastic League's current guidelines, which control school athletics in Texas.

The gender of a student is established by their birth certificate under current UIL standards.

However, UIL acknowledges lawfully updated birth certificates in which a person's sex has been altered to match their gender identification.

Swanson expressed her delight at Abbott's decision to sign HB 25 into law in a statement.

Swanson has said that the measure aims to promote fair competition in girls' sports while also upholding Title IX, a federal rule against sex-based discrimination in education.&nbsp;

During a committee hearing, Swanson stated, "It's so very, very vital that we safeguard all that women have earned in the previous 50 years." 
 
Meanwhile, the Equal rights advocacy organisations, on the other hand, have slammed the law as discriminatory.

The Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights, stated that it will continue to fight for the community.

It previously said that such measures will be challenged in court.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Texas Governor Greg Abbott signs HB 25 banning trans youth from participating in sports alongside their peers. 
 
They are now the 10th state to pass such a law. 
 
We will not stop fighting to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LetKidsPlay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LetKidsPlay</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TXLege?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TXLege</a>
— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) <a href="https://twitter.com/HRC/status/1452754640714469376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Heartbreaking. Our trans youth in Texas - and everywhere - deserve to be loved and cherished, and to play the sports that bring them joy. We will never stop fighting to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LetKidsPlay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LetKidsPlay</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TxLege?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TxLege</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/brad_stuver?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@brad_stuver</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ADunkin23?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ADunkin23</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/AnneLiebs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AnneLiebs</a> <a href="https://t.co/2FkdpSQEZ8">https://t.co/2FkdpSQEZ8</a>
— Athlete Ally (@AthleteAlly) <a href="https://twitter.com/AthleteAlly/status/1452782278845865990?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to The Texas Tribune, supporters of transgender Texans argue that the debate is harmful not just to transgender youngsters, but also to cisgender girls and women who may not follow precisely conventional standards.

Nine states have approved laws prohibiting transgender youth participation in sports this year, according to the Trevor Project, a national suicide prevention and crisis intervention group for LGBTQ children.

Legal battles have already erupted in two of those states, Florida and West Virginia.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a measure prohibiting transgender females from participating in female sports in schools into law on Monday. According to The Texas Tribune, transgender student-athletes in Texas will be barred from participating in K-12 school sports teams that match their gender identification.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a measure prohibiting transgender females from participating in female sports in schools into law on Monday. According to The Texas Tribune, transgender student-athletes in Texas will be barred from participating in K-12 school sports teams that match their gender identification. Student-athletes competing in interscholastic contests will be required to participate on sports teams that correspond to the sex recorded on their birth certificate at or near the time of birth under House Bill 25. It was drafted by state Rep. Valoree Swanson, R-Spring, and is due to take effect on January 18, according to The Texas Tribune. The bill goes beyond the University Interscholastic League's current guidelines, which control school athletics in Texas. The gender of a student is established by their birth certificate under current UIL standards. However, UIL acknowledges lawfully updated birth certificates in which a person's sex has been altered to match their gender identification. Swanson expressed her delight at Abbott's decision to sign HB 25 into law in a statement. Swanson has said that the measure aims to promote fair competition in girls' sports while also upholding Title IX, a federal rule against sex-based discrimination in education. During a committee hearing, Swanson stated, "It's so very, very vital that we safeguard all that women have earned in the previous 50 years." Meanwhile, the Equal rights advocacy organisations, on the other hand, have slammed the law as discriminatory. The Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights, stated that it will continue to fight for the community. It previously said that such measures will be challenged in court. BREAKING: Texas Governor Greg Abbott signs HB 25 banning trans youth from participating in sports alongside their peers. They are now the 10th state to pass such a law. We will not stop fighting to #LetKidsPlay. #TXLege — Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) October 25, 2021 × Heartbreaking. Our trans youth in Texas - and everywhere - deserve to be loved and cherished, and to play the sports that bring them joy. We will never stop fighting to #LetKidsPlay. #TxLege @brad_stuver @ADunkin23 @AnneLiebs https://t.co/2FkdpSQEZ8 — Athlete Ally (@AthleteAlly) October 25, 2021 × According to The Texas Tribune, supporters of transgender Texans argue that the debate is harmful not just to transgender youngsters, but also to cisgender girls and women who may not follow precisely conventional standards. Nine states have approved laws prohibiting transgender youth participation in sports this year, according to the Trevor Project, a national suicide prevention and crisis intervention group for LGBTQ children. Legal battles have already erupted in two of those states, Florida and West Virginia. (With inputs from agencies)

Texas bans transgender girls from participating in female sports in schools

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on November 1 legal challenges to a restrictive abortion law passed in Texas, but meanwhile declined to block the controversial law. President Joe Biden's administration and abortion providers have been asked the court to reverse this Texas law.

US' Supreme Court refuses to block Texas' controversial abortion law

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent.

“For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure.

The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?”

The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-american-neera-tanden-appointed-bidens-staff-secretary-reports-423070">Also read |&nbsp;Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports</a>

That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case.

The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court.

Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it.

The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees.

The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided.

In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions.

“The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”

“The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward.

“The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.”

After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced.

On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law.

“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review.

“Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.”

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay.

“SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.”

“SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote.

Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law.

“At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov.

The Supreme Court on Friday once again refused to immediately block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks. But the justices agreed to fast-track their consideration of appeals from the Justice Department and abortion providers in Texas, scheduling arguments for Nov. 1. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent. “For the second time, the court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas,” she wrote. “For the second time, the court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.” But she added she welcomed the court’s decision to hear arguments in the two cases, which will apparently be limited to the procedural question of whether the Texas law, SB 8, is subject to review in federal court given its novel structure. The court said it would decide this question in the federal government’s appeal: “May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8 from being enforced?” The court turned down a request from officials in Texas to use the cases to decide whether to overturn the right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. Also read | Indian-American Neera Tanden appointed Biden's staff secretary: Reports That question is already before the court in a case challenging a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. Roe and other Supreme Court precedents, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. The Mississippi case will be argued Dec. 1, a month after the Texas case. The Texas law, known as Senate Bill 8, was designed to evade review in federal court. Usually, a lawsuit seeking to block a law because it is unconstitutional would name state officials as defendants. However, the Texas law, which makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from incest or rape, bars state officials from enforcing it and instead deputises private individuals to sue anyone who performs the procedure or “aids and abets” it. The patient may not be sued, but doctors, staff members at clinics, counsellors, people who help pay for the procedure or drive them to it are all potential defendants. Plaintiffs, who do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it, are entitled to $10,000 and their legal fees recovered if they win. Prevailing defendants are not entitled to legal fees. The Supreme Court’s earlier encounter with the case left the justices bitterly divided. In an unsigned opinion in that earlier case, the majority cited “complex and novel” procedural obstacles to blocking the law and stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law. The majority wrote that its ruling “in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.” Officials in Texas have said that providers can challenge the law by violating it, getting sued and asserting the law’s unconstitutionality as part of their defence. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three more liberal members in dissent in the earlier case. All four dissenting justices filed opinions. “The court’s order is stunning,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent at the time. “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.” “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.” Roberts wrote that he would have blocked the law while appeals moved forward. “The statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” he wrote. “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.” After the Supreme Court rejected the providers’ request for emergency relief, the Justice Department then filed its own challenge to the law, one that it said was not subject to the procedural barriers the providers had faced. On Oct. 6, Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court in Austin ruled for the federal government, granting it a preliminary injunction forbidding the state, its officials and private individuals acting in concert with them for enforcing the law. “That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide,” he wrote. “This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.” An injunction was an appropriate response, Pitman wrote, to a law that both violated the Constitution and was designed to evade judicial review. “Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional,” he wrote, “the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that.” A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, stayed Pitman’s ruling, reinstating the law. The Justice Department then filed an application asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay. “SB 8 is plainly unconstitutional under this court’s precedents,” wrote Brian Fletcher, the acting solicitor general. “Texas has not seriously argued otherwise.” “SB 8 is an affront to the United States’ sovereign interests in maintaining the supremacy of federal law and ensuring that the traditional mechanisms of judicial review endorsed by Congress and this court remain available to challenge unconstitutional state laws,” he wrote. Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, responded that the federal government was powerless to challenge the state’s abortion law. “At bottom, the federal government’s complaint is that SB 8 is difficult to effectively enjoin,” Paxton wrote. “But there is no requirement that a state write its laws such that they can be easily enjoined.”

Supreme Court again refuses to block Texas abortion law

A Texas deputy was shot dead, with two colleagues injured, outside a bar as they were investigating a disturbance early Saturday. It happened around 2:15 am in the 4400 block of the North Freeway at the 45 North Bar and Lounge.

One person was taken into custody, even though the authorities did not immediately know whether that person was a suspect or a witness, Houston police Executive Assistant Chief James Jones told reporters.

The deputies were taken to a hospital, and one died. The names were not immediately released. Among the injured, one deputy was shot in the back, and another deputy was shot in the foot.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texas-high-schools-falls-prey-to-yet-another-shooting-at-least-4-injured-418710">Also read |&nbsp;Texas high schools falls prey to yet another shooting; at least 4 injured</a>

Authorities have been searching for a Hispanic man in his early 20s wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans, who is believed to have been the shooter. He was described as a heavyset man with a beard.

There was a heavy police presence in the area of the nightclub.

Harris County sheriff's deputies, deputy constables and Houston police officers could also be seen searching an area off the freeway, including a hotel.

"We hope to have a suspect in custody soon," Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman. He further asked anyone with information about the shooting to call Houston police.

A Texas deputy was shot dead, with two colleagues injured, outside a bar as they were investigating a disturbance early Saturday. It happened around 2:15 am in the 4400 block of the North Freeway at the 45 North Bar and Lounge.

A Texas deputy was shot dead, with two colleagues injured, outside a bar as they were investigating a disturbance early Saturday. It happened around 2:15 am in the 4400 block of the North Freeway at the 45 North Bar and Lounge. One person was taken into custody, even though the authorities did not immediately know whether that person was a suspect or a witness, Houston police Executive Assistant Chief James Jones told reporters. The deputies were taken to a hospital, and one died. The names were not immediately released. Among the injured, one deputy was shot in the back, and another deputy was shot in the foot. Also read | Texas high schools falls prey to yet another shooting; at least 4 injured Authorities have been searching for a Hispanic man in his early 20s wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans, who is believed to have been the shooter. He was described as a heavyset man with a beard. There was a heavy police presence in the area of the nightclub. Harris County sheriff's deputies, deputy constables and Houston police officers could also be seen searching an area off the freeway, including a hotel. "We hope to have a suspect in custody soon," Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman. He further asked anyone with information about the shooting to call Houston police.

Texas deputy killed, two wounded as gunman opens fire outside a bar

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement.

“The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement.

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas.

The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state.

The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion.

The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue.

Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.

A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday.

The Biden administration will ask the Supreme Court to block a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy while a challenge to it moves forward, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said Friday. A ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place its own previous order last week that had temporarily allowed the law to be enforced again, overturning a federal district judge in Austin, Texas, who had temporarily blocked its enforcement. “The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” the spokesperson, Anthony Coley, said in a statement. The 2-1 decision by a three-judge appeals panel dealt the Biden administration a significant setback, as it seeks to undo a law that has virtually ended abortions in Texas. The Texas law, one of the strictest in the country, bans abortions when cardiac activity is detected, which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy, a time when women may not yet know they are pregnant. It also makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. The law immediately stopped most abortions in Texas when it went into effect at the start of September, after the Supreme Court declined to intervene. Demand at clinics in nearby states such as Oklahoma has surged as women in Texas seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy have been forced to travel out of state. The Justice Department is suing Texas over the law’s unique enforcement mechanism, which it claims violates the Constitution by using private parties to enforce the law, rather then the state. This lets Texas technically comply with court decisions that say states may not prohibit abortion. The law encourages private parties to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of performing or aiding in an abortion that violates the statute by granting $10,000 to plaintiffs that successfully sue. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the enforcement mechanism an “unprecedented” effort to bar women from their constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. The department argued in its lawsuit that the Texas law is invalid under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law, and under the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. A federal district judge last week granted the department’s request to halt enforcement of the law while the legal challenge makes its way through the court system, delivering a short-lived win to the Biden administration. But two days later, the appeals panel intervened.

Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban

In October 2019, a prison officer who worked at a juvenile detention center in Central Texas was charged with sexual assault and accused of forcing a boy in custody to perform oral sex on him in his cell. The incident came to light the day after the alleged crime, when the boy tried to kill himself.

Two months before that, at another detention facility in Texas, a corrections officer was fired after a teenage girl said she was pregnant with his child. He was later charged in connection with that case. And in May of last year, another prison worker was arrested on charges that he had carried on a relationship with a teenager who was on parole.

At five state juvenile detention centers, the day-to-day conditions are relentlessly violent and oppressive, with guards often resorting to force, according to a complaint filed to the Justice Department. In 2019, prison staff used force against incarcerated children almost 7,000 times&nbsp;equivalent to six times per child who was confined that year.

Over the years, nearly a dozen staff members have been arrested on charges of sexual abuse against juveniles, and complaints about mayhem inside the facilities gang wars, fights and suicide attempts — are common. Now the Justice Department has begun a wide-ranging investigation into the detention centers, part of a broader effort to overhaul the country’s most troubled prisons.

Taken together, the voluminous allegations by advocacy groups and families, lawsuits filed against the state, news media reports, and investigations at the state level present a portrait of a terrifying environment inside juvenile prisons in Texas, one that is rife with sexual abuse, violence and severe staffing shortages.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/as-schools-shift-back-to-classroom-teaching-are-students-ready-to-be-reintroduced-to-outer-world-421087">Also read |&nbsp;As schools shift back to classroom teaching, are students ready to be reintroduced to outer world?</a>

The Justice Department’s investigation comes almost a year after two Texas advocacy groups — Disability Rights Texas and Texas Appleseed&nbsp; filed a complaint urging the federal government to intervene. The organisations have been working together since 2007 to push for reforms of the state’s juvenile justice system.

That document amounted to a devastating compilation of abuses, despite close attention by Gov. Greg Abbott, who ousted the head of the juvenile justice system in 2017 after an investigation by The Dallas Morning News revealed a litany of degradations, including staff members distributing pornography and paying children money and drugs to fight one another.

In a statement, Camille Cain, the executive director of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, which oversees one of the nation’s largest networks of youth correctional facilities, said her office intended to cooperate fully with investigators. “We all share the same goals for the youth in our care: providing for their safety, their effective rehabilitation, and the best chance for them to lead productive, fulfilling lives,” she said.

Despite reforms that began in 2007, with the closure of some facilities and a push to expand probation and reduce the number of children locked away, the groups found that violence and sexual abuse persisted within the five facilities that remain open and are now under investigation.

The problems, according to the complaint, have been exacerbated by severe staffing shortages, in part because of officers calling in sick during the coronavirus pandemic. This has led to a lack of supervision, the complaint said, which has allowed violence among the incarcerated children to flourish, as well as violence between staff members and the youths. On any given day, there are between 800 and 900 children in the state’s juvenile centers.

“The high staff turnover and lack of staffing in general both lead to a lack of programming and supervision, with kids often on lockdown in their dorms, which in turn leads to unrest and acting out by kids,” the complaint says.

Staff members have responded with beatings and pepper spray, the complaint explained, behavior that has created “a generally unsafe environment where rehabilitation, the primary goal of the juvenile justice system, is nearly impossible.”

Christie Dennis said her son was 15 when he entered one of the facilities at the center of the investigation, the McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility in Mart, Texas.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tour-of-the-neighbouring-galaxy-nasa-shares-stunning-video-of-the-andromeda-421105">Also read |&nbsp;Tour of the neighbouring galaxy: NASA shares stunning video of the Andromeda</a>

Dennis was horrified when she called one day in 2019 and learned that her son had been beaten and taunted as guards apparently stood by, she said. Her son was sent to the jail’s doctors on one occasion, she said, and she was later told that many guards did not intervene because they were afraid of the youths themselves.

“I was wondering, where are the guards? They didn’t have enough staff to handle the chaos,” Dennis said. “He was actually scared,” she said of her son.

Dennis said her son ended up at the center after taking her car without permission several times and money from her purse. After talking to the authorities, she was advised that if she “wanted to teach her son a lesson,” he needed to go to a juvenile facility, Dennis said, a decision she ended up regretting.

The attacks against her son escalated to the point where he begged guards to keep him in solitary confinement, Dennis said. Released in July 2020, months before his 17th birthday, he now works at a fast-food restaurant and is earning his general equivalency diploma with plans to pursue welding. But he is not the same as he was before his detention, she said. “He has PTSD,” she said. “He hears a noise and he panics.”

Her son’s experience was included in the complaint filed to the Justice Department. In the complaint, he was identified by the initials “M.C.” and described an environment in which “gangs ran the facility” and put out “hits” on children. Food was frequently stolen, he said, and staffing was so limited that officers resorted to the use of pepper spray to pacify groups of children who were fighting.

Sometimes parents were not notified when their children were transported to other facilities. A seasoned volunteer at Gainesville State School who did not want her name used because she was not authorised to speak publicly about an open investigation, said she witnessed instances in which mothers showed up to see their children only to learn they were no longer there. After nine years, she was let go in 2019 after she reported one such case, she said.

In announcing the investigation, Kristen Clarke, who leads the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, said the federal inquiry would examine the state’s use of isolation and chemicals like pepper spray, plus the allegations of physical violence, sexual abuse and mistreatment of children.

Three years ago, the Justice Department found that children in Texas detention centers suffered much higher rates of sexual victimisation than in other states. The department found that while 7% of youth in juvenile facilities across the country had reported being the victim of sexual abuse, complaints at three Texas facilities were significantly higher. For example, 14% of children at a detention center in Brownwood, Texas, were reportedly victims of sexual violence. At two other prisons, the rate was higher, with 1 in 6 children said to have been abused.

In one egregious case, in August 2019, a corrections officer was charged with having sex with a girl who was housed in the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex in Brownwood. The victim reportedly became pregnant, and the officer was later charged with sexual abuse and possession of child pornography. Last year, another staff member at the complex, a woman whose title was “youth development coach,” was accused of sexual misconduct with a child in custody.

The announcement of the Justice Department investigation was praised by advocates for criminal justice reform, families of those confined and former inmates as a move that could bring relief and better conditions to people held in the centers.

In October 2019, a prison officer who worked at a juvenile detention center in Central Texas was charged with sexual assault and accused of forcing a boy in custody to perform oral sex on him in his cell.

In October 2019, a prison officer who worked at a juvenile detention center in Central Texas was charged with sexual assault and accused of forcing a boy in custody to perform oral sex on him in his cell. The incident came to light the day after the alleged crime, when the boy tried to kill himself. Two months before that, at another detention facility in Texas, a corrections officer was fired after a teenage girl said she was pregnant with his child. He was later charged in connection with that case. And in May of last year, another prison worker was arrested on charges that he had carried on a relationship with a teenager who was on parole. At five state juvenile detention centers, the day-to-day conditions are relentlessly violent and oppressive, with guards often resorting to force, according to a complaint filed to the Justice Department. In 2019, prison staff used force against incarcerated children almost 7,000 times equivalent to six times per child who was confined that year. Over the years, nearly a dozen staff members have been arrested on charges of sexual abuse against juveniles, and complaints about mayhem inside the facilities gang wars, fights and suicide attempts — are common. Now the Justice Department has begun a wide-ranging investigation into the detention centers, part of a broader effort to overhaul the country’s most troubled prisons. Taken together, the voluminous allegations by advocacy groups and families, lawsuits filed against the state, news media reports, and investigations at the state level present a portrait of a terrifying environment inside juvenile prisons in Texas, one that is rife with sexual abuse, violence and severe staffing shortages. Also read | As schools shift back to classroom teaching, are students ready to be reintroduced to outer world? The Justice Department’s investigation comes almost a year after two Texas advocacy groups — Disability Rights Texas and Texas Appleseed filed a complaint urging the federal government to intervene. The organisations have been working together since 2007 to push for reforms of the state’s juvenile justice system. That document amounted to a devastating compilation of abuses, despite close attention by Gov. Greg Abbott, who ousted the head of the juvenile justice system in 2017 after an investigation by The Dallas Morning News revealed a litany of degradations, including staff members distributing pornography and paying children money and drugs to fight one another. In a statement, Camille Cain, the executive director of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, which oversees one of the nation’s largest networks of youth correctional facilities, said her office intended to cooperate fully with investigators. “We all share the same goals for the youth in our care: providing for their safety, their effective rehabilitation, and the best chance for them to lead productive, fulfilling lives,” she said. Despite reforms that began in 2007, with the closure of some facilities and a push to expand probation and reduce the number of children locked away, the groups found that violence and sexual abuse persisted within the five facilities that remain open and are now under investigation. The problems, according to the complaint, have been exacerbated by severe staffing shortages, in part because of officers calling in sick during the coronavirus pandemic. This has led to a lack of supervision, the complaint said, which has allowed violence among the incarcerated children to flourish, as well as violence between staff members and the youths. On any given day, there are between 800 and 900 children in the state’s juvenile centers. “The high staff turnover and lack of staffing in general both lead to a lack of programming and supervision, with kids often on lockdown in their dorms, which in turn leads to unrest and acting out by kids,” the complaint says. Staff members have responded with beatings and pepper spray, the complaint explained, behavior that has created “a generally unsafe environment where rehabilitation, the primary goal of the juvenile justice system, is nearly impossible.” Christie Dennis said her son was 15 when he entered one of the facilities at the center of the investigation, the McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility in Mart, Texas. Also read | Tour of the neighbouring galaxy: NASA shares stunning video of the Andromeda Dennis was horrified when she called one day in 2019 and learned that her son had been beaten and taunted as guards apparently stood by, she said. Her son was sent to the jail’s doctors on one occasion, she said, and she was later told that many guards did not intervene because they were afraid of the youths themselves. “I was wondering, where are the guards? They didn’t have enough staff to handle the chaos,” Dennis said. “He was actually scared,” she said of her son. Dennis said her son ended up at the center after taking her car without permission several times and money from her purse. After talking to the authorities, she was advised that if she “wanted to teach her son a lesson,” he needed to go to a juvenile facility, Dennis said, a decision she ended up regretting. The attacks against her son escalated to the point where he begged guards to keep him in solitary confinement, Dennis said. Released in July 2020, months before his 17th birthday, he now works at a fast-food restaurant and is earning his general equivalency diploma with plans to pursue welding. But he is not the same as he was before his detention, she said. “He has PTSD,” she said. “He hears a noise and he panics.” Her son’s experience was included in the complaint filed to the Justice Department. In the complaint, he was identified by the initials “M.C.” and described an environment in which “gangs ran the facility” and put out “hits” on children. Food was frequently stolen, he said, and staffing was so limited that officers resorted to the use of pepper spray to pacify groups of children who were fighting. Sometimes parents were not notified when their children were transported to other facilities. A seasoned volunteer at Gainesville State School who did not want her name used because she was not authorised to speak publicly about an open investigation, said she witnessed instances in which mothers showed up to see their children only to learn they were no longer there. After nine years, she was let go in 2019 after she reported one such case, she said. In announcing the investigation, Kristen Clarke, who leads the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, said the federal inquiry would examine the state’s use of isolation and chemicals like pepper spray, plus the allegations of physical violence, sexual abuse and mistreatment of children. Three years ago, the Justice Department found that children in Texas detention centers suffered much higher rates of sexual victimisation than in other states. The department found that while 7% of youth in juvenile facilities across the country had reported being the victim of sexual abuse, complaints at three Texas facilities were significantly higher. For example, 14% of children at a detention center in Brownwood, Texas, were reportedly victims of sexual violence. At two other prisons, the rate was higher, with 1 in 6 children said to have been abused. In one egregious case, in August 2019, a corrections officer was charged with having sex with a girl who was housed in the Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex in Brownwood. The victim reportedly became pregnant, and the officer was later charged with sexual abuse and possession of child pornography. Last year, another staff member at the complex, a woman whose title was “youth development coach,” was accused of sexual misconduct with a child in custody. The announcement of the Justice Department investigation was praised by advocates for criminal justice reform, families of those confined and former inmates as a move that could bring relief and better conditions to people held in the centers.

Complaints against Texas’ juvenile prisons include violence and sex abuse

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, responding to what he called "bullying" by the Biden Administration, on Monday barred all COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the state by any entity, including private employers.

Abbott's move sets him up for a clash with President Joe Biden, a Democrat who last month called on businesses nationwide to order their workers to be vaccinated or lose their jobs. At least several thousand people have since been fired for refusing to comply.

ALSO read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/vaccines-prevent-severe-covid-even-from-delta-study-419798">Vaccines prevent severe Covid, even from Delta: study</a>

"In another instance of federal overreach, the Biden Administration is now bullying many private entities into imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, causing workforce disruptions that threaten Texas continued recovery from the COVID-19 disaster," Abbott said in an executive order.

The White House had no immediate comment.

Abbott's order states that "no entity in Texas" could compel proof of vaccination by any individual, including employees or customers. He called on state lawmakers to take up the issue in an upcoming special session.

Technology giants Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google have both told employees that they would need proof of vaccination to return to their offices. Both companies employ large numbers in Texas.

Fort Worth-based American Airlines, the largest US&nbsp;carrier, last week told its 100,000 US-based employees they must submit proof of full vaccination no later than November&nbsp;24 - or be fired. read more

United Airlines&nbsp;imposed a vaccine mandate on its 60,000 employees, around 9,000 of whom are based in Texas.

Also Read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/old-fake-news-sputnik-v-refutes-claims-russia-stole-oxford-vaccine-blueprint-419855">&nbsp;'Old fake news': Sputnik V refutes claims Russia stole Oxford vaccine blueprint</a>

The company is defending a lawsuit filed in Fort Worth, and a federal judge on Wednesday will hear a request by United employees for an injunction to prevent the carrier from firing those who requested exemptions.

Biden issued his mandate in September as his administration struggled to control the pandemic, which has killed more than 700,000 Americans.

Political leaders across the United States have ratcheted up pressure on the unvaccinated in recent weeks.

Laws requiring proof of vaccinations are deeply controversial in the United States, with many Americans criticizing them as unconstitutional and authoritarian.

Proponents of vaccine mandates see them as necessary to pull the nation out of the nearly two-year pandemic and return to normalcy.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, responding to what he called "bullying" by the Biden Administration, on Monday barred all COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the state by any entity, including private employers.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott, responding to what he called "bullying" by the Biden Administration, on Monday barred all COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the state by any entity, including private employers. Abbott's move sets him up for a clash with President Joe Biden, a Democrat who last month called on businesses nationwide to order their workers to be vaccinated or lose their jobs. At least several thousand people have since been fired for refusing to comply. ALSO read | Vaccines prevent severe Covid, even from Delta: study "In another instance of federal overreach, the Biden Administration is now bullying many private entities into imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates, causing workforce disruptions that threaten Texas continued recovery from the COVID-19 disaster," Abbott said in an executive order. The White House had no immediate comment. Abbott's order states that "no entity in Texas" could compel proof of vaccination by any individual, including employees or customers. He called on state lawmakers to take up the issue in an upcoming special session. Technology giants Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google have both told employees that they would need proof of vaccination to return to their offices. Both companies employ large numbers in Texas. Fort Worth-based American Airlines, the largest US carrier, last week told its 100,000 US-based employees they must submit proof of full vaccination no later than November 24 - or be fired. read more United Airlines imposed a vaccine mandate on its 60,000 employees, around 9,000 of whom are based in Texas. Also Read | 'Old fake news': Sputnik V refutes claims Russia stole Oxford vaccine blueprint The company is defending a lawsuit filed in Fort Worth, and a federal judge on Wednesday will hear a request by United employees for an injunction to prevent the carrier from firing those who requested exemptions. Biden issued his mandate in September as his administration struggled to control the pandemic, which has killed more than 700,000 Americans. Political leaders across the United States have ratcheted up pressure on the unvaccinated in recent weeks. Laws requiring proof of vaccinations are deeply controversial in the United States, with many Americans criticizing them as unconstitutional and authoritarian. Proponents of vaccine mandates see them as necessary to pull the nation out of the nearly two-year pandemic and return to normalcy.

Texas governor bars all COVID-19 vaccine mandates in state, rips Biden for 'bullying'

The 18-year-old arrested for shooting three people at Timberview High School in Arlington, Texas has been released on a $75,000 bail.

Timothy George Simpkins walked out of the jail on Thursday, straight to a white Mercedes sedan, without talking to reporters. Simpkins was released by County Magistrate Judge Brooke Panuthos into house arrest enforced by a GPS monitor.&nbsp;

Also, it was told that he had to undergo drug and alcohol testing and stay away from the victims.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/texas-high-schools-falls-prey-to-yet-another-shooting-at-least-4-injured-418710">Also read |&nbsp;Texas high schools falls prey to yet another shooting; at least 4 injured</a>

On Wednesday, the Timberview High School was targeted by Simpkins as he opened fire in the school premises after a fight broke out in the school.&nbsp;

At least four people have been injured.&nbsp;Two of the victims were still in the hospital as of Thursday. The victims include a 15-year-old boy in critical condition and a 25-year-old man in good condition, the authorities said.

The latter has been identified as Calvin Pettitt, an English teacher who jumped in to break up the fight between Simpkins and another teen.

The school was immediately out on a lockdown as the students and all staff members were rushed to safe spots in the premises.

The authorities were able to quickly set up a parent reunification point at the Center for Performing Arts located at 1110 W. Debbie. "Officers will be at that scene. Students will eventually be bused to that location after the school is completely secured," the police department informed all concerned parents through a tweet.

The 18-year-old arrested for shooting three people at Timberview High School in Arlington, Texas has been released on a $75,000 bail. Timothy George Simpkins walked out of the jail on Thursday, straight to a white Mercedes sedan, without talking to reporters.

The 18-year-old arrested for shooting three people at Timberview High School in Arlington, Texas has been released on a $75,000 bail. Timothy George Simpkins walked out of the jail on Thursday, straight to a white Mercedes sedan, without talking to reporters. Simpkins was released by County Magistrate Judge Brooke Panuthos into house arrest enforced by a GPS monitor. Also, it was told that he had to undergo drug and alcohol testing and stay away from the victims. Also read | Texas high schools falls prey to yet another shooting; at least 4 injured On Wednesday, the Timberview High School was targeted by Simpkins as he opened fire in the school premises after a fight broke out in the school. At least four people have been injured. Two of the victims were still in the hospital as of Thursday. The victims include a 15-year-old boy in critical condition and a 25-year-old man in good condition, the authorities said. The latter has been identified as Calvin Pettitt, an English teacher who jumped in to break up the fight between Simpkins and another teen. The school was immediately out on a lockdown as the students and all staff members were rushed to safe spots in the premises. The authorities were able to quickly set up a parent reunification point at the Center for Performing Arts located at 1110 W. Debbie. "Officers will be at that scene. Students will eventually be bused to that location after the school is completely secured," the police department informed all concerned parents through a tweet.

Texas school shooting suspect released on bail

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would be moving its headquarters from Palo Alto, California to Austin, Texas. He announced the news at the 2021 Tesla, Inc. annual meeting of stockholders, which took place at Austin.

Tesla aims at increasing production at its plant in Fremont, California, by some 50 per cent. He did not elaborate on how he would achieve such an increase in production.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259162367285317633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"I'm excited to announce that we're moving our headquarters to Austin, Texas," he said. "Just to be clear, though, we will be continuing to expand our activities in California."

Talking about the inaugural plant in Silicon Valley, Musk said, "When we first went in there it was it like a kid in his parents' shoes; tiny us and this giant factory."&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/jury-orders-tesla-to-pay-137-million-over-racist-treatment-418415">Also read |&nbsp;Jury orders Tesla to pay $137 million over racist treatment</a>

He added, "Now, it's like a spam can. We are hitting the sides of the bowl."

He further highlighted that the cost of living in Silicon Valley is high for workers.&nbsp;

Musk had clashed with regulators in California and is among high-profile tech figures who personally left the state for places with lower income taxes and less regulation.

Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives termed it as a "smart strategic move" as he said, "We believe this was the first step towards Tesla making Austin its domestic and global foundational location over the coming decade with its recent frustration with California officials likely accelerating this move."

Meanwhile, earlier this week, a California jury ordered Tesla to pay $137 million to Owen Diaz, a Black former employee who accused the carmaker of ignoring racial abuse he faced while working there.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tesla-chief-elon-musk-praises-china-again-416500">Also read |&nbsp;Tesla chief Elon Musk praises China again</a>

"They awarded an amount that could be a wake-up call for American corporations," said civil rights attorney Larry Organ, who represented the former Tesla worker.

"Don't engage in racist conduct and don't allow racist conduct to continue."

Human resources vice president Valerie Capers Workman downplayed the allegations of racist abuse in the lawsuit. However, he acknowledged that at the time Diaz worked there, Tesla "was not perfect."&nbsp;

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would be moving its headquarters from Palo Alto, California to Austin, Texas. He announced the news at the 2021 Tesla, Inc.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that the company would be moving its headquarters from Palo Alto, California to Austin, Texas. He announced the news at the 2021 Tesla, Inc. annual meeting of stockholders, which took place at Austin. Tesla aims at increasing production at its plant in Fremont, California, by some 50 per cent. He did not elaborate on how he would achieve such an increase in production. Frankly, this is the final straw. Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately. If we even retain Fremont manufacturing activity at all, it will be dependen on how Tesla is treated in the future. Tesla is the last carmaker left in CA. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 9, 2020 × "I'm excited to announce that we're moving our headquarters to Austin, Texas," he said. "Just to be clear, though, we will be continuing to expand our activities in California." Talking about the inaugural plant in Silicon Valley, Musk said, "When we first went in there it was it like a kid in his parents' shoes; tiny us and this giant factory." Also read | Jury orders Tesla to pay $137 million over racist treatment He added, "Now, it's like a spam can. We are hitting the sides of the bowl." He further highlighted that the cost of living in Silicon Valley is high for workers. Musk had clashed with regulators in California and is among high-profile tech figures who personally left the state for places with lower income taxes and less regulation. Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives termed it as a "smart strategic move" as he said, "We believe this was the first step towards Tesla making Austin its domestic and global foundational location over the coming decade with its recent frustration with California officials likely accelerating this move." Meanwhile, earlier this week, a California jury ordered Tesla to pay $137 million to Owen Diaz, a Black former employee who accused the carmaker of ignoring racial abuse he faced while working there. Also read | Tesla chief Elon Musk praises China again "They awarded an amount that could be a wake-up call for American corporations," said civil rights attorney Larry Organ, who represented the former Tesla worker. "Don't engage in racist conduct and don't allow racist conduct to continue." Human resources vice president Valerie Capers Workman downplayed the allegations of racist abuse in the lawsuit. However, he acknowledged that at the time Diaz worked there, Tesla "was not perfect."

Elon Musk announces Tesla headquarters to move from California to Texas

Four injured in shooting at Texas high school after an 18-year-old student drew a gun and opened fire during a classroom fight. The suspect has been arrested by the police.

Four injured in shooting at Texas high school

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure.

The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a &nbsp;heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are no exceptions for cases of incest or rape.

US District Judge &nbsp;Robert Pitman in Austin granted the request from President Joe Biden's administration to block enforcement of the law pending further litigation. The judge said that the law violated US constitution. The state of Texas can appeal against the ruling.

In his 113-page ruling, Pitman said Texas officials had created an "unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right."

"From the moment SB 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," Pitman said, using the abbreviation for Senate Bill 8, the law's official name.

"This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right."

In recent years, similar laws have been passed in other states but were struck down because they violated US Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Texas law, which thus far is the most restrictive in the country, is unique in that it empowers anyone to file a lawsuit against a person who has assisted in an abortion. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for cases that lead to prosecution, prompting charges that the law encourages Texans to act as vigilantes.

As Texas can still appeal Pitman's order, the case may end up in front of the Supreme Court.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling as "a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law."

He added: "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.”

(With inputs from agencies)

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure. The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

A federal judge in US on Wednesday blocked a law that banned most abortions in Texas. The law is part of a conservative drive to deny access to the procedure. The statute, which went into force on September 1, prohibits abortions as soon as a heartbeat is detectable, usually at around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are no exceptions for cases of incest or rape. US District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin granted the request from President Joe Biden's administration to block enforcement of the law pending further litigation. The judge said that the law violated US constitution. The state of Texas can appeal against the ruling. In his 113-page ruling, Pitman said Texas officials had created an "unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right." "From the moment SB 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution," Pitman said, using the abbreviation for Senate Bill 8, the law's official name. "This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right." In recent years, similar laws have been passed in other states but were struck down because they violated US Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, at around 22 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law, which thus far is the most restrictive in the country, is unique in that it empowers anyone to file a lawsuit against a person who has assisted in an abortion. They can be rewarded with $10,000 for cases that lead to prosecution, prompting charges that the law encourages Texans to act as vigilantes. As Texas can still appeal Pitman's order, the case may end up in front of the Supreme Court. US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling as "a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law." He added: "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.” (With inputs from agencies)

US judge blocks abortion law in Texas

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution."

Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided.

Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/activists-say-texas-anti-abortion-law-shows-terrifying-fragility-of-womens-rights-414113">Also read |&nbsp;Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights</a>

However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?"

Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care.

US President Joe Biden's administration urged a federal judge to swiftly block a new law that bans most abortions in Texas, raising concerns about women's curtailed access to care. Deputy assistant attorney general Brian Netter, in one of the court arguments in Austin, said that the controversial statute represents "an open threat to the rule of law." The government further went on describing the ban as "a truly extraordinary law designed to outflank the federal government and to violate the constitution." Netter said that adding a "judicial intervention" was necessary to make the law unenforceable until the case is decided. Attorney William Thompson of the Texas Attorney General's office accused Netter of "inflammatory rhetoric" and insisted the law respects Supreme Court precedent. Also read | Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights However, the judge Robert Pitman said, "If the state's so confident in the constitutionality of the limitations on a woman's access to abortion, then why did it go to such great lengths to create this very unusual private cause of action?" Earlier, Biden had openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Joe Biden's administration urges judge to block Texas anti-abortion law

On a windy Tuesday morning, the parking lot outside a small brick building on the Southside of Oklahoma City was filling up fast. The first to arrive, a red truck shortly before 8 a.m., was from Texas. So was the second and the third.

The building houses one of Oklahoma’s four abortion clinics, and at least two-thirds of its scheduled patients now come from Texas. So many, in fact, that it is trying to hire more staff members and doctors to keep up. The increase is the result of a new law in Texas banning abortions after about six weeks, a very early stage of pregnancy. As soon as the measure took effect this month, Texans started traveling elsewhere, and Oklahoma, close to Dallas, has become a major destination.

“We had every line lit up for eight hours straight,” said Jennifer Reince, who works the front desk phones at the clinic, Trust Women Oklahoma City, describing the first week the measure was in force.

The effects of the new law have been profound: Texans with unwanted pregnancies have been forced to make decisions quickly, and some have opted to travel long distances for abortions. As clinics in surrounding states fill up, appointments are being scheduled for later dates, making the procedures more costly. Other women are having to carry their pregnancies to term.

Marva Sadler, senior director of clinic services at Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said she believed that many patients were not able to arrange child care or take time off work without losing their jobs to travel to other states.

“I think a majority of women are being sentenced to being parents,” she said.

The law is the latest in a string of successes by the anti-abortion movement, which for years has pushed for more conservative judges and control over state legislatures. Now the Supreme Court is preparing to take up an abortion case — the first to be argued before the court with all three of former President Donald Trump’s conservative appointees — that has the potential to remove federal protection for abortion altogether.

In Texas, the new state law has effectively accomplished that, at least for now.

Samerah, who requested that her last name not be published, was just five weeks pregnant when she lay on an examining table in Houston to get an ultrasound. It was Aug. 31, the day before the law went into effect. She had heard about it on the news and knew that it banned abortions after cardiac activity was detected. But when the doctor performed the ultrasound, there was no sound, and she was told to come back the next day for her procedure.

When she returned and lay again in a darkened room, staring up at a set of paper dancers hanging from the ceiling, the doctor got a different result.

“He said, ‘Take a deep breath,’ and budoom, budoom, budoom, all you hear is a heartbeat,” said Samerah, who is 22. “In that same breath, all the things I had been crossing my fingers about just came out, and I just bawled and bawled and bawled.”

She walked into the hallway, her mind racing, and saw other women there too.

“We were all just crying in the hallway like, ‘What are we going to do?’”

The answer for many women in her position has been to race to get an abortion in a different state. About half the patients at Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, are now from Texas, up from about one-fifth before the law. At Little Rock Family Planning Services, in Arkansas, Texas patients make up 19% of the caseload now, compared with less than 2% in August.

Oklahoma does not require two trips to a clinic to get an abortion in most cases, so it has been a common choice. Trust Women had 11 Texas patients in August; it has 110 so far in September. Patients come from as far away as Galveston and Corpus Christi. Some drive through the night in time for a morning appointment. The high demand from Texas has meant that the clinic’s schedule is full for weeks. Last week, the earliest appointments were for mid-October.

Samerah arrived last Monday from Beaumont, a city near Houston, where she lives with her partner and their 2-year-old son.

The news of her pregnancy, she said, threatened the life they had built for him.

Their financial circumstances had only recently stabilized. She had gotten a customer service job. Her partner was driving a van for a medical service. They moved out of his family’s house into their own apartment. Their son has his own room. She bought new furniture: a sectional and a bed.

“This was our first time actually buying a brand-new, out-of-the-box mattress, not off of Facebook or something,” she said.

She felt proud to be able to give her son attention, toys, a stable home, things she said she never had herself. But she could not afford to do that for two. “I don’t want to be that parent,” said Samerah, whose mother was a teenager when she was born. “I don’t want to bring my kid into something that I can’t afford to take care of, because they don’t deserve it. I grew up in that kind of reality. And I know what it does to people.”

Samerah said she had gotten an abortion once before, the year after her son was born, for similar reasons. She said she made an appointment to get an IUD immediately after her procedure Tuesday.

As states pass more abortion restrictions, it increasingly is poor women who must grapple with their effects. Half of American women who got an abortion in 2014 lived in poverty, double the share from 1994, when about one-quarter of the women who had abortions were low-income, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. Theories for why include demographic change, increased funding for abortions for low-income women, and higher-income women having more access to highly effective contraception.

The longer women have to wait, the more expensive their procedures become. Abortions at Trust Women range in cost from $650 for earlier stages to $2,350 for later stages. Financial assistance is also available.

Sarah, who works at a roofing company, found out she was 13 weeks pregnant on Aug. 23. But then the law went into effect, and she raced to find a clinic in another state.

“It has just been a scramble to get this taken care of, especially since I just ran out of time so quickly,” said Sarah, 21, who asked that her last name not be published to protect her privacy.

She finally got her abortion at the Oklahoma City clinic Sept. 20. She had to put off a car payment to cover her part of the $1,550 charge. Her partner, a police officer, split the cost and drove her the three hours from Dallas where they live.

She said she had been on her own for some time. Her mother died in a car crash when she was 9, and her father died of cancer when she was 19. And though she feels much more financially stable now than in her teens — she was putting herself through college studying criminal justice until the coronavirus pandemic — she said she could not support a baby.

“I would have to put my life on hold,” she said. “I don’t know if I would be able to go back to school."

Sarah had never been pregnant before, but she said she knew her decision was right. Still, it was difficult. In the weeks that she waited for her appointment, she said it was impossible not to think about what was growing inside her. The ultrasound confirming her pregnancy, which she received at a center run by an anti-abortion group, was performed by a woman who typed ‘Hi, Mommy’ and ‘Hi, it’s me' into the screen and gave Sarah the printout.

“It’s hard not to have the instinct to want to form a bond with it,” Sarah said. “And just having to remind myself every day, you can’t do it. Like, it’s just not the time for you. So that’s been the hardest part.”

Trust Women draws anti-abortion groups too. A recreational vehicle operated by anti-abortion activists that advertises free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds sometimes parks across the street at Rancho Village Food Mart.

Raymundo Marquez, 23, a cashier there, said his brother, an owner of the shop, allows it. But Marquez has conflicted feelings. He believes that abortion is wrong. When his girlfriend got pregnant in high school, they did not consider it. But he said it was hard to judge someone else for doing it, because he knows there are children who are homeless and neglected.

“It’s sad both ways,” he said.

By Tuesday afternoon, one protester had appeared, standing tall in a green flowered jacket and green flats, praying and looking toward the clinic’s security booth. Inside, Louis Padilla, the security guard, was watching her. She is a regular, and sometimes he walks outside to debate her.

Padilla said that he was Catholic and Republican but that he was won over to the cause of the clinic after working there for a while. Each woman has her own story, he said, and who are men like him to judge them? He mows the clinic’s lawn, puts up its flag and sometimes fixes appliances because repairmen refuse to come to an abortion clinic. He even bought a drone with his own money to watch the protesters outside.

The situation in Texas may be temporary. A hearing Oct. 1 will give the law’s opponents another chance to convince a judge to suspend it. But other restrictions are looming. In Oklahoma, there are five, including a law that requires abortion providers to be board-certified obstetricians. If it takes effect as scheduled Nov. 1, four of the eight doctors licensed to work at Trust Women could no longer do so.

Samerah made it to the Oklahoma clinic with the help of financial assistance funds, which covered plane tickets for her and her son. Her abortion was covered too. But her partner had to pay his own way there. He was fired, she said, when he asked for time off. And she lost several days’ pay.

She does not believe that the people who passed the law considered the consequences for women like her. Those officials, she said, go to their jobs in “their car that doesn’t have problems starting up, with a tire that is not flat.”

Meanwhile, she, her partner and her son will go back to Texas to a real fear that they may not be able to pay rent for October.

“I have to go home and figure out what to do in the next month, and the next month is in a couple of weeks. Like, what am I going to do, you know?”

On a windy Tuesday morning, the parking lot outside a small brick building on the Southside of Oklahoma City was filling up fast. The first to arrive, a red truck shortly before 8 a.

On a windy Tuesday morning, the parking lot outside a small brick building on the Southside of Oklahoma City was filling up fast. The first to arrive, a red truck shortly before 8 a.m., was from Texas. So was the second and the third. The building houses one of Oklahoma’s four abortion clinics, and at least two-thirds of its scheduled patients now come from Texas. So many, in fact, that it is trying to hire more staff members and doctors to keep up. The increase is the result of a new law in Texas banning abortions after about six weeks, a very early stage of pregnancy. As soon as the measure took effect this month, Texans started traveling elsewhere, and Oklahoma, close to Dallas, has become a major destination. “We had every line lit up for eight hours straight,” said Jennifer Reince, who works the front desk phones at the clinic, Trust Women Oklahoma City, describing the first week the measure was in force. The effects of the new law have been profound: Texans with unwanted pregnancies have been forced to make decisions quickly, and some have opted to travel long distances for abortions. As clinics in surrounding states fill up, appointments are being scheduled for later dates, making the procedures more costly. Other women are having to carry their pregnancies to term. Marva Sadler, senior director of clinic services at Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics in Texas, said she believed that many patients were not able to arrange child care or take time off work without losing their jobs to travel to other states. “I think a majority of women are being sentenced to being parents,” she said. The law is the latest in a string of successes by the anti-abortion movement, which for years has pushed for more conservative judges and control over state legislatures. Now the Supreme Court is preparing to take up an abortion case — the first to be argued before the court with all three of former President Donald Trump’s conservative appointees — that has the potential to remove federal protection for abortion altogether. In Texas, the new state law has effectively accomplished that, at least for now. Samerah, who requested that her last name not be published, was just five weeks pregnant when she lay on an examining table in Houston to get an ultrasound. It was Aug. 31, the day before the law went into effect. She had heard about it on the news and knew that it banned abortions after cardiac activity was detected. But when the doctor performed the ultrasound, there was no sound, and she was told to come back the next day for her procedure. When she returned and lay again in a darkened room, staring up at a set of paper dancers hanging from the ceiling, the doctor got a different result. “He said, ‘Take a deep breath,’ and budoom, budoom, budoom, all you hear is a heartbeat,” said Samerah, who is 22. “In that same breath, all the things I had been crossing my fingers about just came out, and I just bawled and bawled and bawled.” She walked into the hallway, her mind racing, and saw other women there too. “We were all just crying in the hallway like, ‘What are we going to do?’” The answer for many women in her position has been to race to get an abortion in a different state. About half the patients at Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, Louisiana, are now from Texas, up from about one-fifth before the law. At Little Rock Family Planning Services, in Arkansas, Texas patients make up 19% of the caseload now, compared with less than 2% in August. Oklahoma does not require two trips to a clinic to get an abortion in most cases, so it has been a common choice. Trust Women had 11 Texas patients in August; it has 110 so far in September. Patients come from as far away as Galveston and Corpus Christi. Some drive through the night in time for a morning appointment. The high demand from Texas has meant that the clinic’s schedule is full for weeks. Last week, the earliest appointments were for mid-October. Samerah arrived last Monday from Beaumont, a city near Houston, where she lives with her partner and their 2-year-old son. The news of her pregnancy, she said, threatened the life they had built for him. Their financial circumstances had only recently stabilized. She had gotten a customer service job. Her partner was driving a van for a medical service. They moved out of his family’s house into their own apartment. Their son has his own room. She bought new furniture: a sectional and a bed. “This was our first time actually buying a brand-new, out-of-the-box mattress, not off of Facebook or something,” she said. She felt proud to be able to give her son attention, toys, a stable home, things she said she never had herself. But she could not afford to do that for two. “I don’t want to be that parent,” said Samerah, whose mother was a teenager when she was born. “I don’t want to bring my kid into something that I can’t afford to take care of, because they don’t deserve it. I grew up in that kind of reality. And I know what it does to people.” Samerah said she had gotten an abortion once before, the year after her son was born, for similar reasons. She said she made an appointment to get an IUD immediately after her procedure Tuesday. As states pass more abortion restrictions, it increasingly is poor women who must grapple with their effects. Half of American women who got an abortion in 2014 lived in poverty, double the share from 1994, when about one-quarter of the women who had abortions were low-income, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. Theories for why include demographic change, increased funding for abortions for low-income women, and higher-income women having more access to highly effective contraception. The longer women have to wait, the more expensive their procedures become. Abortions at Trust Women range in cost from $650 for earlier stages to $2,350 for later stages. Financial assistance is also available. Sarah, who works at a roofing company, found out she was 13 weeks pregnant on Aug. 23. But then the law went into effect, and she raced to find a clinic in another state. “It has just been a scramble to get this taken care of, especially since I just ran out of time so quickly,” said Sarah, 21, who asked that her last name not be published to protect her privacy. She finally got her abortion at the Oklahoma City clinic Sept. 20. She had to put off a car payment to cover her part of the $1,550 charge. Her partner, a police officer, split the cost and drove her the three hours from Dallas where they live. She said she had been on her own for some time. Her mother died in a car crash when she was 9, and her father died of cancer when she was 19. And though she feels much more financially stable now than in her teens — she was putting herself through college studying criminal justice until the coronavirus pandemic — she said she could not support a baby. “I would have to put my life on hold,” she said. “I don’t know if I would be able to go back to school." Sarah had never been pregnant before, but she said she knew her decision was right. Still, it was difficult. In the weeks that she waited for her appointment, she said it was impossible not to think about what was growing inside her. The ultrasound confirming her pregnancy, which she received at a center run by an anti-abortion group, was performed by a woman who typed ‘Hi, Mommy’ and ‘Hi, it’s me' into the screen and gave Sarah the printout. “It’s hard not to have the instinct to want to form a bond with it,” Sarah said. “And just having to remind myself every day, you can’t do it. Like, it’s just not the time for you. So that’s been the hardest part.” Trust Women draws anti-abortion groups too. A recreational vehicle operated by anti-abortion activists that advertises free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds sometimes parks across the street at Rancho Village Food Mart. Raymundo Marquez, 23, a cashier there, said his brother, an owner of the shop, allows it. But Marquez has conflicted feelings. He believes that abortion is wrong. When his girlfriend got pregnant in high school, they did not consider it. But he said it was hard to judge someone else for doing it, because he knows there are children who are homeless and neglected. “It’s sad both ways,” he said. By Tuesday afternoon, one protester had appeared, standing tall in a green flowered jacket and green flats, praying and looking toward the clinic’s security booth. Inside, Louis Padilla, the security guard, was watching her. She is a regular, and sometimes he walks outside to debate her. Padilla said that he was Catholic and Republican but that he was won over to the cause of the clinic after working there for a while. Each woman has her own story, he said, and who are men like him to judge them? He mows the clinic’s lawn, puts up its flag and sometimes fixes appliances because repairmen refuse to come to an abortion clinic. He even bought a drone with his own money to watch the protesters outside. The situation in Texas may be temporary. A hearing Oct. 1 will give the law’s opponents another chance to convince a judge to suspend it. But other restrictions are looming. In Oklahoma, there are five, including a law that requires abortion providers to be board-certified obstetricians. If it takes effect as scheduled Nov. 1, four of the eight doctors licensed to work at Trust Women could no longer do so. Samerah made it to the Oklahoma clinic with the help of financial assistance funds, which covered plane tickets for her and her son. Her abortion was covered too. But her partner had to pay his own way there. He was fired, she said, when he asked for time off. And she lost several days’ pay. She does not believe that the people who passed the law considered the consequences for women like her. Those officials, she said, go to their jobs in “their car that doesn’t have problems starting up, with a tire that is not flat.” Meanwhile, she, her partner and her son will go back to Texas to a real fear that they may not be able to pay rent for October. “I have to go home and figure out what to do in the next month, and the next month is in a couple of weeks. Like, what am I going to do, you know?”

With abortion largely banned in Texas, an Oklahoma clinic is inundated

The US. is flying Haitians camped in a Texas border town back to their homeland and blocking others from crossing the border from Mexico in a massive show of force that signals the beginning of what could be one of America’s swiftest, large-scale expulsions of migrants or refugees in decades. Watch this report for more details.

US launches mass expulsion of Haitians migrant from Texas

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said.&nbsp; 
They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement.

Sarah Shaw, head of advocacy at MSI Reproductive choices was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Even though we have seen little gains here and there, in some places, we can never, ever be complacent because we’re only ever really hanging on to these rights by the skin of our teeth."

She further said that the Texas law was “really terrifying” because of the emboldening message it sent to other anti-choice governments and organisations.

“This is all happening in the context of a rising, much more aggressive, much better organised, better funded and much more legitimised opposition movement than we’ve ever seen before,” Shaw said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-lashes-out-at-us-supreme-court-for-texas-abortion-law-410322">Also read |&nbsp;Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law</a>

US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. 
Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights.

"The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest."

Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades.

As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said. They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement.

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said. They have also warned of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement. Sarah Shaw, head of advocacy at MSI Reproductive choices was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Even though we have seen little gains here and there, in some places, we can never, ever be complacent because we’re only ever really hanging on to these rights by the skin of our teeth." She further said that the Texas law was “really terrifying” because of the emboldening message it sent to other anti-choice governments and organisations. “This is all happening in the context of a rising, much more aggressive, much better organised, better funded and much more legitimised opposition movement than we’ve ever seen before,” Shaw said. Also read | Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law US President Joe Biden has openly condemned the US supreme court for rejecting to ban the abortion law. Biden said the supreme court judges, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, delivered an assault on a woman’s rights. "The Supreme Court's ruling overnight is an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for almost fifty years," Biden said in a statement. "This (Texas) law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest." Texas abortion law is one of the toughest and most restrictive abortion bans in the US in the past couple of decades. As per the law, any member of the public from Texas can file a legal complaint against the doctors, health care providers and family members who support a woman in aborting a child after six weeks of the start of her pregnancy.

Activists say Texas anti-abortion law shows ‘terrifying’ fragility of women’s rights

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit.

“I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.”

Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure.

On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders.

The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation.

At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued.

“I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.”

“We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement.

A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday.

In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said.

He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.

“I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.”

In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

“At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.”

Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law.

“I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation.

A Texas doctor disclosed Saturday that he had performed an abortion in defiance of a new state law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, setting up a potential test case of one of the most restrictive abortion measures in the nation. In an opinion essay published in The Washington Post under the headline “Why I violated Texas’s extreme abortion ban,” the doctor, Alan Braid, who has been performing abortions for more than 40 years, said that he performed one Sept. 6 for a woman who, although still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit. “I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care,” Braid wrote. “I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn’t get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested.” Braid’s disclosure was the latest — and perhaps most direct — salvo by supporters of abortion rights who have been fighting to stop the law, which prohibits most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women are even aware that they are pregnant. The law makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Even before his disclosure, Braid, who has operated abortion clinics in Houston and San Antonio as well as in Oklahoma, was already challenging the law in court. His clinics were among the plaintiffs in a pending federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure. On Sept. 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision prompted by the lawsuit, declined to immediately block Texas’ new law. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the law’s constitutionality and did not intend to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it. On Tuesday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an order that would prevent Texas from enforcing the law, known as Senate Bill 8, which was passed with the strong support of the state’s Republican leaders. The Justice Department argued in its emergency motion that the state adopted the law “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights,” reiterating an argument the department made last week when it sued Texas to prohibit enforcement of the contentious legislation. At the centre of the legal debate over the law is a mechanism that essentially deputizes private citizens, rather than government officials, to enforce the new restrictions by suing anyone who either performs an abortion or “aids and abets” the procedure. Plaintiffs who have no connection to the patient or to the clinic may sue and recover legal fees, as well as $10,000 if they win. Patients themselves cannot be sued. “I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it’s something I believe in strongly,” Braid wrote. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is already representing Braid in his clinics’ pending lawsuit, said in a statement that he had “courageously stood up against this blatantly unconstitutional law.” “We stand ready to defend him against the vigilante lawsuits that SB 8 threatens to unleash against those providing or supporting access to constitutionally protected abortion care,” she said in a statement. A representative for Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed the measure into law, and Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had been seeking tips on any doctors who might be violating the new law, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Saturday. In an interview Saturday, Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. “I’m not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way,” he said. He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law. “I hope the law gets overturned,” he said, “and if this is what does it, that would be great.” In his opinion essay, Braid noted that his career began with an obstetrics and gynaecology residency at a San Antonio hospital on July 1, 1972, just before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. “At the hospital that year, I saw three teenagers die from illegal abortions,” he wrote. “One I will never forget. When she came into the E.R., her vaginal cavity was packed with rags. She died a few days later from massive organ failure, caused by a septic infection.” Roe v. Wade, he wrote, “enabled me to do the job I was trained to do.” Then, this month, “everything changed” with the Supreme Court decision not to block the Texas law. “I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces,” Braid wrote. “I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. I have spent the past 50 years treating and helping patients. I can’t just sit back and watch us return to 1972.”

Texas doctor says he performed an abortion in defiance of new state law

Thousands of migrants, mainly fleeing Haiti, are currently being held under a bridge at Del Rio near the US-Mexico border as immigration facilities in the area have reached capacity.

US immigration: Thousands gather under a bridge at US-Mexico border

The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate, in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so.

The law establishes a kind of bounty system. If these vigilante plaintiffs are successful, the law allows them to collect cash judgments of $10,000 — and their legal fees — from those they sue. If they lose, they do not have to pay the defendants’ legal costs.

The Supreme Court declined to stop the legislation from taking effect, and so far, no one has brought a suit against an abortion provider because clinics in the state have chosen to abide by the law, which effectively bars abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy.

The enforcement provision has generated backing from those seeking to limit abortion rights but confusion and criticism among supporters of abortion rights.

“When the law first came out and I was reading it, I thought I was missing something,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the history of reproductive law. “It almost seemed like anyone could sue anyone — and that didn’t seem right. But it was. It really is that extraordinary.”

Here are some questions and answers about the enforcement provision.

Are there other laws that use the same mechanism?

Not really — or at least not with the same scope as the Texas law.

While giving private citizens the right to file suit in lieu of — or in tandem with — criminal enforcement by state officials is a staple of medical malpractice cases and other forms of tort law, the Texas law is different.

It removes enforcement entirely from state jurisdiction and vastly expands who can sue and who can be sued over abortions. The statute, for example, permits anyone — even people who live outside Texas — to file a complaint in any court in the state if they believe an abortion has been performed. It also makes nearly everyone involved in the procedure — except for the woman who receives the abortion — liable to suits, meaning that doctors, nurses, insurance companies and even Uber drivers who help take women to clinics could be vulnerable.

According to Ziegler, the notion of using lawsuits to curb or stop abortions first emerged in the early 1990s, when a Texas pastor named Mark Crutcher created a program called Spies for Life that published manuals showing people how to use the legal system to go after abortion clinics and providers. In 1999, Louisiana passed its own law giving women who had abortions the right to sue their providers.

State Sen. Bryan Hughes, the primary author of the Texas law, has said his model for the law, known as SB 8, was a local ordinance passed in Waskom, Texas, in 2019 that empowered residents to sue anyone who performed an abortion in the city or helped someone attain one. Unlike SB 8, however, the Waskom law was largely symbolic, given that the city had no clinics that actually performed abortions.

What legal issues does private enforcement raise?

The Justice Department sued Texas on Thursday, arguing that SB 8 was passed “in open defiance of the Constitution” and Supreme Court cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. But the department’s 27-page complaint took particular issue with the law’s reliance on what it called “bounty hunters,” saying that empowering them to enforce the law was an “unprecedented scheme to insulate the state from responsibility.”

Moreover, officials claimed, SB 8 had essentially frozen the practice of abortion in Texas and achieved its goal of stopping the procedures without a single private lawsuit having been filed. After all, the complaint pointed out, the mere threat of litigation was enough “to make it too risky for an abortion clinic to operate” in Texas.

The department’s legal case relies on the argument that ordinary people, if and when they do file suit against abortion providers, will in effect be acting as agents of the state of Texas. What the government is asking for in its complaint amounts to a federal injunction barring everyone in the entire state from filing suits against abortion providers, which some lawyers say could be a bit far-fetched. Then again, it may not be any more far-fetched than SB 8 itself, which empowered everyone in the entire state to file suit.

Ultimately, legal scholars said, SB 8 is also likely to be challenged in another way. At some point, an abortion provider or someone else involved in the process — say, a group that funds abortions — could step forward and willingly violate the law as a calculated test case. But that could take time and have uncertain results.

“Whatever happens, it’s going to take a while,” Ziegler said. “And in the meantime, this law will be the status quo.”

Are other states adopting similar laws?

In recent days, lawmakers and executives in at least seven states have said they are considering similar statutes. Last week, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a Republican, said she had directed lawyers in her office to review SB 8 “to make sure we have the strongest pro-life laws on the books.” Around the same time, Wilton Simpson, the Republican leader of the Florida state Senate, said that members of his chamber were already working on a statute similar to the one in Texas.

The private enforcement mechanism was also inserted into a new gun law in Missouri that grants residents the power to sue local law departments for giving “material aid and support” to federal agents for perceived violations of the Second Amendment. Under the law, which the Justice Department has challenged, Missourians could file suit to stop local police officers from sharing data or conducting joint operations with federal agents working on gun cases.

While some on the left have talked about the notion of drafting laws empowering people to sue over issues they hold dear — like stricter gun regulations, for example — it has not risen much so far beyond social media chatter. For now, at least, Democrats have not seized on private civil enforcement as a legal strategy.

The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate, in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so.

The new law in Texas effectively banning most abortions has ignited widespread controversy and debate, in part because of the mechanism it uses to enforce the restrictions: deputizing ordinary people to sue those involved in performing abortions and giving them a financial incentive to do so. The law establishes a kind of bounty system. If these vigilante plaintiffs are successful, the law allows them to collect cash judgments of $10,000 — and their legal fees — from those they sue. If they lose, they do not have to pay the defendants’ legal costs. The Supreme Court declined to stop the legislation from taking effect, and so far, no one has brought a suit against an abortion provider because clinics in the state have chosen to abide by the law, which effectively bars abortions starting around the sixth week of pregnancy. The enforcement provision has generated backing from those seeking to limit abortion rights but confusion and criticism among supporters of abortion rights. “When the law first came out and I was reading it, I thought I was missing something,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the history of reproductive law. “It almost seemed like anyone could sue anyone — and that didn’t seem right. But it was. It really is that extraordinary.” Here are some questions and answers about the enforcement provision. Are there other laws that use the same mechanism? Not really — or at least not with the same scope as the Texas law. While giving private citizens the right to file suit in lieu of — or in tandem with — criminal enforcement by state officials is a staple of medical malpractice cases and other forms of tort law, the Texas law is different. It removes enforcement entirely from state jurisdiction and vastly expands who can sue and who can be sued over abortions. The statute, for example, permits anyone — even people who live outside Texas — to file a complaint in any court in the state if they believe an abortion has been performed. It also makes nearly everyone involved in the procedure — except for the woman who receives the abortion — liable to suits, meaning that doctors, nurses, insurance companies and even Uber drivers who help take women to clinics could be vulnerable. According to Ziegler, the notion of using lawsuits to curb or stop abortions first emerged in the early 1990s, when a Texas pastor named Mark Crutcher created a program called Spies for Life that published manuals showing people how to use the legal system to go after abortion clinics and providers. In 1999, Louisiana passed its own law giving women who had abortions the right to sue their providers. State Sen. Bryan Hughes, the primary author of the Texas law, has said his model for the law, known as SB 8, was a local ordinance passed in Waskom, Texas, in 2019 that empowered residents to sue anyone who performed an abortion in the city or helped someone attain one. Unlike SB 8, however, the Waskom law was largely symbolic, given that the city had no clinics that actually performed abortions. What legal issues does private enforcement raise? The Justice Department sued Texas on Thursday, arguing that SB 8 was passed “in open defiance of the Constitution” and Supreme Court cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade. But the department’s 27-page complaint took particular issue with the law’s reliance on what it called “bounty hunters,” saying that empowering them to enforce the law was an “unprecedented scheme to insulate the state from responsibility.” Moreover, officials claimed, SB 8 had essentially frozen the practice of abortion in Texas and achieved its goal of stopping the procedures without a single private lawsuit having been filed. After all, the complaint pointed out, the mere threat of litigation was enough “to make it too risky for an abortion clinic to operate” in Texas. The department’s legal case relies on the argument that ordinary people, if and when they do file suit against abortion providers, will in effect be acting as agents of the state of Texas. What the government is asking for in its complaint amounts to a federal injunction barring everyone in the entire state from filing suits against abortion providers, which some lawyers say could be a bit far-fetched. Then again, it may not be any more far-fetched than SB 8 itself, which empowered everyone in the entire state to file suit. Ultimately, legal scholars said, SB 8 is also likely to be challenged in another way. At some point, an abortion provider or someone else involved in the process — say, a group that funds abortions — could step forward and willingly violate the law as a calculated test case. But that could take time and have uncertain results. “Whatever happens, it’s going to take a while,” Ziegler said. “And in the meantime, this law will be the status quo.” Are other states adopting similar laws? In recent days, lawmakers and executives in at least seven states have said they are considering similar statutes. Last week, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a Republican, said she had directed lawyers in her office to review SB 8 “to make sure we have the strongest pro-life laws on the books.” Around the same time, Wilton Simpson, the Republican leader of the Florida state Senate, said that members of his chamber were already working on a statute similar to the one in Texas. The private enforcement mechanism was also inserted into a new gun law in Missouri that grants residents the power to sue local law departments for giving “material aid and support” to federal agents for perceived violations of the Second Amendment. Under the law, which the Justice Department has challenged, Missourians could file suit to stop local police officers from sharing data or conducting joint operations with federal agents working on gun cases. While some on the left have talked about the notion of drafting laws empowering people to sue over issues they hold dear — like stricter gun regulations, for example — it has not risen much so far beyond social media chatter. For now, at least, Democrats have not seized on private civil enforcement as a legal strategy.

Texas abortion law creates a kind of bounty hunter. Here’s how it works

Texas has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users "based on their political viewpoints". Prominent Republican politicians have accused Facebook, Twitter and others of censoring conservative views.

Texas has made it illegal for social media platforms to ban users "based on their political viewpoints". Prominent Republican politicians have accused Facebook, Twitter and others of censoring conservative views. Former US President Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter after a group of his supporters attacked the Capitol in January. The social networks have all denied stifling conservative views. However, these platforms do enforce these terms of service which prohibit content such as incitement to violence and coordinated disinformation. "Social media websites have become our modern-day public square," Texas Governor Greg Abbott was quoted by BBC. He said this after he signed the bill into law on Thursday. "They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely. Also read | 'Clearly unconstitutional': US Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law "But there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas." Meanwhile, the US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state as it claimed the abortion law in Texas ''clearly unconstitutional." "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," US attorney general Merrick Garland told the reporters. Earlier, US President Joe Biden had slammed the Texas abortion law and said it creates an ''almost un-American'' vigilante system. While Vice President Kamala Harris had said ''the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable." Despite massive protest, the US Supreme Court had refused to block the near-total ban on abortion, setting the stage for an intervention by the Justice Department. The harshest abortion law in the US, called the ''Texas Heartbeat Act'' took effect on September 1. Under the law, abortion is banned once the heartbeat of a child is detected, usually near six weeks of pregnancy. It faced massive backlash as it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. People in Texas are allowed to sue the doctors who perform the procedure as well as report drivers who drop clients to abortion clinics.

Texas now passes social media 'de-platforming' law

texas

Texas, News on Texas, stories on Texas, articles on Texas, Texas stories at Wion, Texas news, Texas latest news