Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1.

SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Karen J. Nelson, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, applauded the law’s passage in April but also highlighted the continuing fight for health care nationwide.

“As Marylanders, we must remember that a state solution does not change the fact that politicians in Congress are trying to prohibit millions of people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on all of us to keep up the fight for women. No state should have to step in to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has access to care.”

In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood for one year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate health care bills include sweeping cuts to Medicaid spending. Supporters of Planned Parenthood joined other protesters on June 27 to specifically protest the Senate’s health care bill, including a group of activists dressed as women from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are nine Planned Parenthood locations in Maryland, and their funding will be protected by the legislation. However, the future for Planned Parenthood is less promising in other states. Take Iowa for example–four of its Planned Parenthood clinics have recently closed. Iowa has approved a state budget that cut off the organization’s funding. Some Iowans fear that more closures could be on the horizon if the Senate’s health bill passes.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards condemned Iowa’s defunding of Planned Parenthood on social media.

Today, a devastating “defunding” law in Iowa is forcing 1/3 of our health centers in the state to close.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

Here’s what that means: nearly 15,000 people will lose access to the doctors and nurses they trust. https://t.co/DMQ6NAUzwf pic.twitter.com/dwCDSuZ9Cd

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

If other states follow in Iowa’s footsteps instead of Maryland’s, health care services could be in jeopardy for those states’ citizens who rely on Planned Parenthood.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding appeared first on Law Street.

If someone offered you “drinkable sunscreen,” would you try it? Unless you’re Charlie from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” I really hope you said no…and apparently so does the state of Iowa.

Iowa’s Attorney General has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against the makers of two brands of drinkable sunscreen for using “seriously flawed testing” to trick consumers into buying “ordinary water at premium prices.”

Two brands of “drinkable sunscreen” have been accused of fraud by the Iowa Attorney Generalhttps://t.co/JDYsiWS5zs

— mat honan (@mat) March 15, 2017

AG Tom Miller named Osmosis, LLC; Harmonized Water, LCC; and their joint owner Benjamin Taylor Johnson in the lawsuit. Both companies have advertised their enhanced water as the “world’s first drinkable sunscreen.” The UV neutralizer is said to contain a form of radio frequencies called scalar waves that when ingested “vibrate above the skin to neutralize UVA and UVB, creating protection comparable to an SPF 30.”

via GIPHY

But Miller isn’t convinced, calling Johnson’s claims “almost certainly pure bunk” and “pseudoscience at its worst.”

“It’s flat-out dangerous to consumers to make them think without any proof that this water protects them from what we know is proven–potentially cancer-causing exposure to the sun,” reiterated Miller in a statement on Tuesday.

Each bottle of the “harmonized water” retails somewhere between $30-$40, and the company claims it has only sold 35 bottles of the UV neutralizer in Iowa in the five years it has been for sale.

Miller also called “BS” on Johnson’s so-called mosquito repellant, Harmonized H2O Mosquito, and its anti-bug “vibrating shield”–admittedly, like his other products, its only listed ingredient is “frequency-enhanced” water.

And then there’s Johnson’s past run ins with the law. Even though he frequently references his medical degree in promotional advertisements, Johnson lost his license to practice medicine in Colorado in 2001 after two patients complained to the Colorado Medical Board about his laser hair removal services, according to the lawsuit.

He was previously reprimanded by the board in 1999 for selling Viagra online without providing any sort of physical exam, according to medical board documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News. He does, however, still hold a medical license in California.

Johnson defended his products in a statement to Buzzfeed, writing:

I think it is important to note that we have been selling this remarkable product for about 5 years. We have had thousands of re-orders. Surely people understand that as a successful skincare company it would make no sense that we would sell people a fake sun protection water….and if we did, how long does one think those sales would last?

Even so, the attorney general’s office says the seller failed to provide a reasonable basis for the benefits touted by the products, a requirement under Iowa law.

“It’s bad enough when a consumer wastes money on a product that doesn’t work,” Miller said. “But it’s much worse when someone relies on a product to prevent serious harm, and it just doesn’t deliver.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drinkable Sunscreen Maker Accused of Consumer Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The World’s Scariest GOTV Strategy?

A historically black church in Greenville, Mississippi was set on fire late Tuesday night and vandalized with the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the façade. Most of the damage was to the main building and no people were hurt. But the community is in shock over what reminds many of hateful attacks in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Black Church in Mississippi Burned Down, ‘Vote Trump’ Painted on It https://t.co/vTcPtZs72F pic.twitter.com/HUBpCy8PFB

— CitizenSlant (@CitizenSlant) November 2, 2016

Many fear that this is only the beginning of what could happen if Trump is elected president. But at the same time some crazy people think it was staged by Democrats to place blame on the Republicans.

Just like the 1960’s, #Democrats are burning churches to scare and intimidate Black Voters who are voting for Trump https://t.co/SSm317UFfL

— P. J. (@Portosj81J) November 2, 2016

The Trump campaign made sure to dissociate itself from that message.

Trump campaign statement on Mississippi church arson pic.twitter.com/d6PnyVuHBR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The votes are in, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the official winners of the Iowa caucuses, and the 2016 primary season is officially underway. Now that political commentators have some results to talk about the speculation will likely hit unprecedented levels, but what should we learn from Monday night? Let’s take a quick look at what happened, why it happened, and what we should take away from Iowa.

1. Trump didn’t meet expectations

At the end of the night, Donald Trump was not Iowa’s choice for the Republican nominee. In fact, he almost came in third after a surprise showing from Marco Rubio. How big of a blow this will have on the Trump campaign remains to be seen, but given that the phenomenon surrounding him didn’t quite meet expectations, we can expect to see some less Trump-centric discussion in the rest of the primaries. Trump still maintains a wide lead in New Hampshire so barring any massive shifts in the next week he will likely win there. But his image as a self-proclaimed “winner” was tainted a little last night.

Unlike Trump, Rubio ended up beating expectations with a third place finish. While most polls showed Rubio coming in third, he closed a lot of distance between the two frontrunners in the brief time leading up to the caucus. If you watched his speech Monday night it almost seemed like he won the whole thing, but for the Rubio campaign, a close third finish is a lot like winning.

2. Clinton and Sanders (basically) tied

It took until Tuesday afternoon to come up with the final tally for the Democratic side, but in the end, Hillary Clinton eked out a victory, though just barely. But for all intents and purposes, this race was more or less a tie. The Democrats have 44 delegates at stake here and they will likely be almost completely split between the candidates. Although to be fair, the Democrats have a very confusing process of allocating Iowa’s delegates–Iowan Democrats have their own county, district, and state conventions to determine the delegates to send to the national Democratic Convention where the winner will ultimately be chosen. Republicans, on the other hand, base delegates on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate.

Delegate weirdness aside, the results of caucus voting essentially determine the state’s winner. What’s more, Iowa’s 44 delegates are only an extremely small fraction of the total number of delegates needed to win the actual nomination (Democratic candidates need at least 2,382 of the 4,763 total delegates and Republicans need 1,237 of 2,472). The takeaways from the Iowa caucuses tend to be more momentum or narrative-based than an actual edge in the election. For this reason, you can interpret the results in many ways, but when you consider Iowa’s role in delegate allocation Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are basically tied going into New Hampshire next week.

3. Look at the demographics

To fully understand the outcome in Iowa, it is important to look at the demographics of the Iowa electorate, which put simply, does not look all that much like the rest of the country. The population and voting system in Iowa was ideal for Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. Caucuses tend to attract fewer voters than primaries and those voters are more likely to hold extreme views. This means that Ted Cruz, who is arguably the most conservative candidate in presidential election history, and Bernie Sanders who bills himself as a democratic socialist, were uniquely benefited by the typical Iowan caucus-goer.

New York Times reporter Nate Cohn, has a nice explanation as to why the tie in Iowa might not be enough for Sanders. Given that Sanders is the underdog in the Democratic race, a tie in Iowa could be spun as a significant achievement, but it is also important to note that Iowa and New Hampshire are considerably more favorable to him than other states might be. In terms of population, Iowa is considerably whiter than the rest of the country. According to the 2014 census, the United States as a whole is about 77 percent white, but over 92 percent of Iowans are white and that’s even more so the case in New Hampshire. So far, Hillary Clinton has managed to maintain her support among black voters, an extremely large part of Democratic Party. In some upcoming primary states, like South Carolina, black voters make up a much bigger portion of the electorate, which is part of the reason why Clinton holds a much stronger lead there. 

In Ted Cruz’s case, the high number of evangelical Christians in Iowa helped Cruz push his way to the top. According to exit poll data, 64 percent of Republican caucus voters identified as evangelicals. Tred Cruz won 34 percent of those voters’ support while Donald Trump came in second with 22 percent. Cruz also won the support of voters who identify as “very conservative” by a very wide margin, earning 44 percent of the votes from that cohort.

4. Don’t forget about turnout

It’s also important to recognize how few people vote in caucuses. Monday night’s caucus broke a record for turnout among Republicans, yet just over 185,000 people voted. Even fewer voted in the Democratic caucus, which had just over 171,000 people vote. To put this in perspective, there are over 2.2 million Iowans who are eligible to vote, and 1.5 million registered voters.

Based on the number of people who are eligible to vote, last night’s caucus had a turnout rate of just 15.7 percent. That’s important to keep in mind when talking about the Iowa caucuses, particularly when you couple that with the fact that so few delegates are actually up for grabs. While they may be important for momentum or winnowing the field, the Iowa caucuses involve a particularly small number of Americans.

5. We lost two candidates

By the end of the night, two candidates had officially suspended their campaigns: Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee. While this might be a good sign for those who are hoping to see the field trimmed, it’s probably still too early to call it a trend, particularly in an election cycle when more people have hung around despite abysmal polling numbers.

Also of note, while Ben Carson did not say he was suspending his campaign, he did announce that he is taking a break…but only to change his clothes. Yes, you heard that right, the campaign released a statement saying, “After spending 18 consecutive days on the campaign trail, Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.” I’m not sure how much to read into that, but it does come amid a challenging time for Carson’s campaign. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the field to narrow even further.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Takeaways from the Iowa Caucuses appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? appeared first on Law Street.

“The Daily Show’s” new host, Trevor Noah, has made an enemy: Jeff Kaufmann, the chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Kaufmann denied “The Daily Show” press credentials to attend the Iowa Growth and Opportunity Party, and in the process, inspired Noah’s comedic wrath. In fact, Noah pretty much lambasted him on the show last night–check out the full clip below:

Then, “The Daily Show” correspondent who would have been the one covering the event joined Noah to poke fun at Kaufmann.

The reason that Kaufmann gave for the denial of “The Daily Show’s” press credentials was that he was concerned the comedy news show would make fun of the state of Iowa. But Noah’s attack accused him of a more duplicitous motive, stating that Kaufmann:

Shouldn’t hide behind Iowa when the things you really don’t want people to make fun of are pretty obvious here. You don’t want people making fun of your terrible candidates and your ridiculous event.

But, as Noah pointed out, not inviting “The Daily Show” won’t keep the satirical show from poking fun. In fact, Noah delivered some blistering jokes about the event, including a jab about a Hillary Clinton scarecrow that was on display.

Trevor Noah on Iowa Hillary scarecrow: “If you want a fake empty Hillary Clinton you should just use Carly Fiorina.” pic.twitter.com/tZFCES32tJ

— Ryan Adams (@filmystic) November 4, 2015

Noah also created a mocking event on Facebook–“The Daily Show’s Official Jeff Kauffman-less Blowout.” The event description includes the following:

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah is having a party, and everyone but Jeff Kaufmann is invited!
That’s right, anybody can come! As long as you aren’t Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann. If you are Jeff Kaufmann, you will be asked to leave.

Party schedule:
6pm – 7pm: Eating all Jeff Kaufmann’s favorite foods
7pm – 11pm: Talking smack about Jeff Kaufmann
11pm – 12am: All Jeff Kaufmann’s most embarrassing stories, told by Jeff Kaufmann’s friends and family

“The Daily Show” is certain to continue to make fun of the GOP field, and the GOP as a whole, through the 2016 campaign. But on Kaufmann’s part, denying the press credentials was probably a bad move, because it gave Noah especially easy and hilarious fodder.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “The Daily Show” Barred From Iowa GOP Event: Trevor Noah Fights Back appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t already heard, Deez Nuts–the independent candidate from Iowa–is polling at nine percent in North Carolina and close to that in other early primary states. Deez Nuts will obviously never be president, but a series of recent polls may highlight the issues with other, more ordinary polls when they are conducted so early on in an election cycle. While videos of news anchors attempting to seriously report the poll’s findings are certainly hilarious, Deez Nuts may tell us something deeper about polls in general.

But first, who is Deez Nuts and how did he manage to get on a poll like this in the first place? The poll featuring the illustrious Iowan Independent was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a liberal polling firm that produces polls for the public as well as its paying clients. After the poll’s results went viral, reporters finally started to ask the question: who is Deez Nuts? Deez Nuts, according to several media reports, is actually a 15-year-old boy from Iowa named Brady Olsen. While Olsen is two decades away from being constitutionally eligible to run for president, Deez Nuts has officially submitted a statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Comission for the 2016 election. Jim Williams, a polling specialist at PPP, told the Daily Beast that his company received an email saying, “I’m Deez Nuts. I’m running. Here’s my filing statement. Would you poll me?” The company’s reasoning–according to its Twitter account–“YOLO.”

#YOLOhttps://t.co/p1aZw9wiCf

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) August 21, 2015

This isn’t the first time PPP has run a rather eccentric poll. Public Policy Polling is also the company that compared Americans’ approval ratings of random things with their approval rating of Congress. This poll led to headlines like, “Congress is less popular than lice, colonoscopies and Nickelback.” The firm has also received a fair amount of scrutiny from the media for allegedly “herding” its poll results, which involves adjusting a poll’s findings to fit better with the results of other polls or the polling average. While PPP may have herded previous polls, it is (so far) the only firm to survey people about Mr. Nuts, so no polling average exists for comparison.

PPP conducted three surveys asking voters about Deez Nuts–whether they viewed him favorably and whether they would vote for him, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump. Relative to the other two candidates, he polled at seven percent in Iowa, eight percent in Minnesota, and nine percent in North Carolina where Clinton and Trump received 38 and 40 percent respectively. Here are the results reported by ABC6 Columbus (yes, this was actually aired on TV):

#DeezNuts is a registered Pres candidate, and he’s gaining in polls (Yes you read that right) http://t.co/pTEkImqRPy pic.twitter.com/H2RJNyveIH — WSYX ABC 6 (@wsyx6) August 20, 2015

There are several potential reasons why North Carolina voters may have chosen Deez Nuts over the Democratic and Republican frontrunners. Some may not like the available selection of candidates, others may be dissatisfied with politics or both parties in general, and some may not be able to resist choosing Deez Nuts when asked who they would vote for. What is more important than the reasons behind this poll’s results, is the fact that people’s opinions will likely change a lot before primary elections and even more so before the general election. Among North Carolina voters, Deez Nuts has a six percent favorability rating, 13 percent view him unfavorably, and 81 are not sure.

While this poll was certainly fun, it does point to some potential drawbacks of early polls in general. When people know little about the candidates, name recognition–or in Mr. Nuts’ case, an unorthodox name–could be enough to inflate poll numbers, but as time goes on and people learn more about who the candidates are and what stand for, the poll results start to adjust. As the campaign continues, candidates may also get caught up in controversy or flat out embarrass themselves–causing their numbers to fall. What’s more, polls that take head-to-head matchups for a general election before the primary has even occurred, like PPP’s poll with Deez Nuts, do not provide much useful information the summer before an election year. For obvious reasons, giving three options from different parties more than a year before the election and several months before the primaries will not give a great picture of what the matchup actually looks like. As Danielle Kurtzleben from NPR puts it, “That might tell you a little bit about how the election would turn out if it were held today, but unless you’re reading this on Nov. 8, 2016, the election is not today.”

This is not to say that polls will never predict the outcome of an election well before people cast their votes, but accurate predictions generally come when candidates are established and already have other structural advantages–for example a president running for reelection or a sitting vice president will already have high polling numbers among members of his or her own party well before the primary. Put simply, it’s not the fact that someone is polling well, rather the reasons behind it that determine the likelihood that they will win the election. Early polls can be accurate, but in these cases you often don’t need a poll to tell you a candidate is popular. PPP’s Deez Nuts poll made for some great headlines and some early election fun, but it also shows the importance of looking at a poll and the questions that it asked before you draw your own conclusions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Can we Learn from Deez Nuts? appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Working out way across the country with our Dumbest Laws in the United States series, we’re now at smack dab in the middle of America’s Heartland. Let’s start with Nebraska, a state in which college football and corn are taken very seriously. Google search “Nebraska” and you’ll likely find that “football” pops up as the first result. Another thing taken very seriously there? Sexually transmitted diseases. In Nebraska, persons with gonorrhea may not marry.

Many truckers and road trippers drive through Nebraska en route to more modern locales. Those who drive through the state often note its flat terrain, which raises the question of why lawmakers there felt it necessary to warn mountain drivers specifically to use caution near the right hand edge of the highway.

Perhaps drunken pilots presented a problem in Nebraska in the past, as there is a law prohibiting flying a plane while drunk.

Many sites listed dumb laws in Nebraska for which they did not provide proper citation. Therefore, it may or may not be factual that sneezing or burping is illegal during a church service, and that barbers are prevented from eating onions after 7:00am. Even if they are not true, they are amusing to read.

Kansas gets off pretty easily here. Due to lack of proper citation, I can’t poke fun at its laws too much; however, the Wheat State doesn’t get off the hook completely as it does have many moronic city-specific laws. For example, in Derby, it is illegal to damage a vending machine or other coin-operated device. Even if a vending machine steals your money, you can’t beat the crap out of it, sorry! That city also enjoys quiet living–it is illegal to make screeching sounds with your tires, and you can’t use your trusty steed to commute because riding any animal down the road is illegal.

Topeka, Kansas is one of the stricter parts of of the state. There, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal. Like Derby, Topeka enjoys peace and quiet: residents may not engage in “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am, or at any time or place.”

Moving on to Iowa, another often under-appreciated state in good ol’ middle America. Lawmakers must have been as bored as kids often are driving through the state, as they made a law determining the exact size a box used for picking hops must be. The size of a box used for this purpose must be exactly 36 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 23.25 inches deep.

What’s with the Midwest and gonorrhea? Iowa, like Nebraska, actually has a law pertaining to the STI, saying that doctors who treat a person with gonorrhea must report this to the local board of health and include the disease’s “probable origin.”

Looking to get a closer parking space with a deceased person’s handicapped sticker? Sorry, but doing so in Iowa is strictly forbidden.

Ministers and other religious officials in Iowa are subject to a few more regulations than the average citizen. There, they must obtain a permit to carry liquor across state lines. On the liquor topic, liquor stores in Bettendorf, Iowa may not place advertisements for beer outside the store.

There is a vast number of stupid laws for Oklahoma listed on the Internet, but many, like one saying that dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property, do not have proper citation; however, one particular outrageous law for which there is citation says that in Oklahoma, “it is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.” Strict stuff! Oklahoma lawmakers must be very concerned about animals as there, one may not promote a horse-tripping or bear-wrestling event. PETA would be happy to know that!

Phew, those four states were a doozy!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: America’s Heartland appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Joni Ernst may be a newcomer to Washington D.C., but she’s already making a big splash. She was just selected by the Republican Party to give its response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. That’s a pretty good thing for which to be chosen–the last few years the spot of responder has included Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, ran for Vice President last year, and Rubio’s name keeps popping up on the list for possible 2016 contenders.

But what does this choice actually mean? When I said that Ernst is a newcomer, I really meant newcomer–before running for Iowa’s Senate seat, she was in the Iowa State Senate. So, she’ll only have been in Washington for about a month before speaking for the entire GOP in response to the President. She in some ways ran her campaign on the fact that she was a Beltway outsider–her most talked-about ad of the 2016 elections involved her discussing castrating pigs as a child.

Honestly, it’s probably that outsider status that inspired the GOP to pick her as the responder. President Barack Obama and, by extension, the Democrats have run the Executive Branch since 2008. The GOP is probably going to paint them as tired, crony-filled, and too nationally focused to look out for the average American. On the other hand, Ernst is pretty much the definition of a fresh face. She’s also a woman, which given the gender gap that has made or broke some recent national elections, probably appeals to the Republican Party. For those reasons, this is a pretty good strategic choice on the GOP’s part.

On the other hand, she’s also a risky choice. She’s untested on the national stage, and she’s said some weird things in the past. For example, she subscribes to the conspiracy theory that Agenda 21, a sustainable environmental plan created by the United Nations, is a secret drive to force Americans off their land. Last November, she stated:

All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I’ve seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don’t have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it’s bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.

It’s a relatively popular Tea Party idea–but coming out against the U.N. is…extreme, to say the least.

It’s definitely a good position to be in for your first few months in Washington, but whether or not Ernst will be able to rise to the occasion will have to be determined. No matter what, one thing is certain: it will be an interesting speech to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Joni Ernst Chosen to Give GOP Response to State of the Union appeared first on Law Street.

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week.

One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed.

Basically, the driver was stopped for an equipment violation, and the officer warns the driver about headlight use. Then he saw something horrifying and totally weed-related in the car. It wasn’t drugs, it wasn’t paraphernalia, it was…a disc golf bag!

The officer goes on to interrogate the stopped driver about the relationship between disc golf and pot. After that exchange goes back and forth for a few minutes, the officer says, “you understand you’re free to go and everything but you wouldn’t have a problem with me looking through your car?” The man, of course, replies no, because that’s both unreasonable and illegal. The officer then tries to imply that because he won’t let his car be searched, the driver in question does have weed in the car. Throughout the entire exchange both men involved stayed relatively calm and pleasant, despite their clear disagreement and frustration. Most importantly, the driver was right to refuse the car search–according to Drake Law Professor Robert Rigg:

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that under the Iowa constitution you can’t convert an equipment violation stop into a general search. and any consent that would have been given would have been invalid in any event.

The video footage really is worth a full listen, if for hilarity purposes only:

In a completely separate incident, but definitely equally amusing story, a man in Georgia had his garden raided last week because he was growing something almost as deadly as disc golf–okra. Police were using helicopters to survey for marijuana, when they saw what they thought was pot in the Atlanta man’s garden. They showed up at his door, heavily armed and with a K-9 unit. They eventually discovered that the plants were not marijuana, apologized, and left.

It turned out to be okra, which like marijuana is a green plant, with leaves. Unlike marijuana, okra is really delicious when deep fried, and a popular vegetable in many dishes in the southern United States.

Obviously, these are both totally silly stories. But they also are telling, at least in the sense that in these two cases, police resources were used for what ended up being kind of ridiculous incidences. Yes, marijuana use should not be encouraged in places where it is illegal, but there’s also something to be said for making mountains out of molehills. Interrogating a man for carrying a bag of frisbees, or bringing a K-9 unit to deal with a man who was just growing veggies seems like a bit of overkill. As our nation changes its views on marijuana, seemingly state by state, it seems more and more likely that these kinds of disconnects and misperceptions will happen. So the moral of these stories: hide your frisbees and okra, they may not be worth the trouble.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Taber Andrew Bain via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

For 7 years, Rennie Gibbs was charged with the murder of her stillborn child. But last week, a Mississippi judge threw out the case. This wasn’t a “normal” murder charge- it involved the concept of fetal harm.

In this case, Rennie gave birth to a stillborn daughter, whose umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck. While tragic, cases like this do happen, and mothers are never charged with a crime, much less murder.

But the twist is that Rennie’s daughter tested positive for traces of a byproduct of cocaine- which is different than the drug itself- at the time of her death. When the medical examiner found this out, he ruled the death a homicide. Shortly after, charges were filed against Rennie, and only now, seven years later, was the case thrown out.

The charges of second-degree murder brought against Rennie are known as “depraved heart murder” in Mississippi. This is constituted by actions “eminently dangerous to others” and “regardless of human life” even if unintentional.

No one thinks taking drugs while pregnant is healthy, but is it enough to result in a murder charge? Not according to one Mississippi judge. The case was recently thrown out on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the drug usage during Rennie’s pregnancy caused the baby’s death. Furthermore, taking the drugs was not so egregious of an act that it constituted murder. At most, the judge ruled that charges of manslaughter could be re-filed.

And while Rennie’s case is a tragedy in itself, it isn’t an anomaly. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of these “fetal harm” cases that target mothers who either lose children during pregnancy, or have stillborn children.

One woman in Iowa was jailed for two days after she fell down the stairs and suffered a miscarriage. She was going to be charged with “feticide” which, in Iowa, is when someone “intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester.” In this instance, the woman had to purposefully fall down the stairs with the intention of killing the fetus. Sound crazy? There’s more.

One woman in Indiana found herself in jail for over a year after she tried to kill herself while pregnant. Though she survived, the child did not. And three months after her suicide attempt in 2010, she was arrested. Though she was supposed to originally be charged with murder, in 2013 she plead to a lesser count of misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

But something is missing from all three of these cases: intent.

There was no proof in any of these cases, and certainly not enough to convict, that the women intended for their children to die- and in most murder cases, that’s a necessary element. So why did the prosecutors move forward with these charges in the first place? Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana are all very conservative states when it comes to the rights of unborn children. And there are certainly merits to the points brought up regarding if a fetus deserves rights like those of humans. But there is something inherently wrong about making examples out of women who clearly made accidents, or acted negligently, but without a clear disregard for human life.

These cases aren’t even about abortion. They are about people who don’t know how the law works, or don’t care about how the law works, trying to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies to advance their agendas. No one- not mothers, not children, or the judicial system, can be helped from people like medical examiners who ignore scientific evidence to prove a point.

This debate goes beyond the rights of fetuses and mothers; it expands into personal vendettas and ideologies getting in the way of practicing good law. By targeting women with unfairly applied laws, no one wins in the end.

 [Mississippi Bill] [Pro Publica] [RH Reality Check] [Huffington Post] [Iowa Law]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fetal Harm: A New Kind of Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access to this service. Let’s take a look at the four newest bills presented to state legislatures, and what’s wrong with each of them.

1. Making women wait 72 hours to get an abortion

New bills in Missouri would require women to wait 72 hours after deciding to have an abortion to actually get one. In some states, there is a 24-hour waiting period, but Missouri would be the first to extend that by two full days. There would be no exceptions for cases of rape.

There really isn’t an explanation for this law besides the fact it stalls women looking for an abortion, and may provide an opportunity to talk them out of it. By making women wait three days after deciding to have the procedure, and actually going through with it, she may feel pressured into changing her mind. And without exceptions to the law, women who have been raped or face medical emergencies are put in a dangerous situation.

2. Letting women sue their doctors up to 10 years after their abortion if they regret having it

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced that would allow women to sue their abortion provider long after the abortion has taken place. The reason is not because of medical malpractice, lack of information, or the procedure was done incorrectly, but because they regret their abortions.  Women would have up to 10 years to sue their doctor after having the procedure. Women would be allowed to sue for compensation because of emotional distress. Even women who sign a consent form for the procedure would be eligible to sue their doctors if they think more information about alternatives, or potential dangers from abortions could have been provided to them.

Some women do regret the abortions they have, but that isn’t the fault of the doctor. If a woman is given accurate information about the procedure, signs consent forms, and the doctor does the procedure correctly, why would he or she be held responsible for emotional damage afterward? A doctor is supposed to inform a patient of her options, and should not be held accountable for someone’s regret, no matter how painful, down the road.

3. Make sure not just one, but both parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion are notified

Also in Missouri, there is a new bill that would require not one, but both parents of a girl seeking an abortion to be notified before the procedure take place. Currently, at least one parent of a minor is notified before a girl can have an abortion, but this law goes beyond that. It presents a number of problems, among them being children who may not know both of their parents, but be restricted from receiving an abortion because of this legislation. Additionally, young women may choose to cross state lines or have riskier abortions if they think their parents won’t find out. While the bill does include exceptions for parents who have been convicted of sexual abuse of the child, or if the courts had previously terminated their rights, it doesn’t include any exceptions for medical emergencies. So, if a parent were out of town, or just not a part of the girl’s life, her access to abortion would be cut off.

Parental notification has been contentious throughout the abortion debate because it concerns people who are underage. But most states have adequate parental notification laws with just one parent- adding this law serves as nothing but a hinderance and waste of time for women looking to get an abortion.

4. Restrict abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

West Virginia has been the most upfront in their aim to restrict access to abortion- by trying to limit them to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions after this time period could be fined up to $5000, and face between 1 to 5 years of jail time. As a reminder for everyone- Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that settled this decades ago) said that women are able to have abortions until the pregnancy is “viable,” and went on to say that 24 weeks into pregnancy is the earliest a child is viable. Simple math shows us that West Virginia is at least four weeks short with this bill.

Perhaps the most troubling part of each of these bills is the way the people who introduce them try to cover their true intentions. Rather than just saying, “I’m against abortion and trying to restrict it,” lawmakers bring in pleas for “family values,” and perhaps most insulting, by insinuating a woman who wants an abortion isn’t capable of making the decision to get one without a plethora of “help” from lawmakers in her state. State legislatures are allowed to pass laws for the betterment of that state, but it’s hard to take some of these laws seriously when they were so obviously written to restrict access to abortion.

[Slate] [RH: West Virginia] [Iowa Bill] [RH: Missouri 1] [RH: Missouri 2]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

The Hawkeye State is thinking of making a big change to the way it deals with young law school graduates. There’s a proposal before the Iowa State Supreme Court that would allow graduates of Iowa’s law schools to practice law without passing the bar. The proposal is very specific–it would only apply to graduates of Iowa’s two law schools: The University of Iowa School of Law and Drake Law School. In order to be eligible to not take the bar, the graduates would have to remain in Iowa to practice law after graduation. They would still have to pass the ethics and background tests, as well as take a class on Iowa specific laws and legislation.

This concept is known as in-state diploma privilege, and currently, Wisconsin is the only state that officially offers it, although New Hampshire offers it on a case by case basis.

There are many pros and cons to in-state diploma privilege, and a debate about the subject has taken center stage in Iowa. The proposal is backed by the Iowa State Bar Association, as well as the dean of Drake Law School. However, the Governor of Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad, disagrees with the idea. He stated that, “as someone who took the bar, I think they ought to take the bar.” He also pointed out that medical students are required to sit through more intensive exams before becoming doctors.

One of the pros to in-state diploma privilege is that it allows law students to begin work sooner. After graduation, law graduates have to study for the bar for a few months, and then wait for the results. There are a lot of expenses associated with not working, or working a non-permanent job during this period of limbo. They may require loans for their living expenses The Dean of Drake Law School, Allan Vestal, said, point blank that those months in between graduation and receiving bar results are “a waste of time.”

Another reason that the bar exam is being called unnecessary is that last year, only 6.8% of Iowans taking the bar didn’t pass on the first try, and most of those passed on the second time around.

On the other hand, there are certain benefits to the bar. One is that it may keep students paying attention through their third year, even if they already have a job offer. Another reason that getting rid of the bar in Iowa may be harmful is that it precludes those young lawyers from going to another state. Currently 14 states use essentially the same bar, and it’s possible to move between them without issue. If the Iowa students don’t take any bar, it may prevent them from moving to another state practice ever. While that could be good for Iowa, it would be harmful to that student.

There are other suggestions for a more middle ground approach to the Iowa bar exam. An attorney from Des Moines, Angela Campbell, has pointed out that one of the arguments against the bar is that there’s nothing really Iowa specific on it, so it should be made more relevant instead of done away with. It will be up to the State Supreme Court to see which set of arguments they agree with.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [HeatherMG via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Bar No More? appeared first on Law Street.

Disclaimer: I am a very vocal advocate of stricter regulation of gun laws.  That does not mean that I do not respect the 2nd amendment (“right to bear arms”).  I absolutely do, and I respect the original point of view of the framers of the Constitution.  So does Justice Scalia; it’s called being an originalist.  Now can we acknowledge that times have changed since the drafting of the Constitution?  That public safety should override, or at least be more strongly considered, in federal, state, and local legislative actions?  That sometimes there is a limit to how far a law can reach?

The backstory is simple: According to the Des Moines register, Iowa now grants permits to obtain guns to legally blind people.

Their reasoning is simple: it is legal and constitutional, pursuant to both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 endeavors to regulate, and has for years regulated, who is able to obtain a license to carry a gun and the rules surrounding the ability to obtain a gun license.  The law provides that there are certain classes of people who are ineligible to be licensed gun owner.  These people include, but are not limited to, the following: criminals, a non-citizen of the United states; potentially dangerous people against whom restraining orders have been issued, and abusers of illegal substances or alcohol.  Not listed in this group of people banned from owning a gun license?  Blind people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 seeks to protect those who for any reason may face unlawful discrimination due to a disability.  These disabilities include physical and mental disabilities like blindness, deafness, those in wheelchairs, and those with developmental issues.

Both of these federal laws serve important and necessary purposes for the protection of public safety and civil liberties.  The difficulty with this particular legal and legislative issue is the cross-section of the laws and their purposes.

In allowing the legally and completely blind to obtain gun licenses, Iowa is taking an important stand in the advancement of the ADA and the protection of the civil liberties of its citizens.

That being said, our nation has, in the last few years had significant problems with gun control, gun access, and disabilities (specifically mental health).  We’ve been down this slippery slope before.  Is anything catastrophically dangerous likely to happen if a legally blind person is carrying a gun they are legally licensed to have?  Probably not.  But what if a blind woman is in her home with her two children one night and an intruder enters?  What if the woman grabs her firearm and shoots in the direction of the perceived intruder, but instead fatally wounds her child?  Why are we not considering the repercussions of this law?  There needs to be more debate on this, and more possible scenarios considered, before the full enactment of the law.

[Des Moines Register, CNN, Fox News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [M Glasgow via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iowa Permits Blind People to Obtain Gun Permits. Seriously. appeared first on Law Street.