Prisoners in White County, Tennessee can now receive a credit for 30 days off their sentences if they voluntarily undergo a birth control procedure.

General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed the standing order instituting the program on May 15. Since then, at least 32 women and 38 men have volunteered for the procedure. Female prisoners receive a Nexplanon arm implant, which works for up to three years. Male prisoners receive a vasectomy. The Tennessee Department of Health conducts both procedures free of charge for the inmates.

Judge Benningfield decided to sign the order after speaking with the Department of Health. He says his hope is that the program will end the vicious cycle of drug-addicted ex-cons giving birth to children they cannot support and who might one day become drug users and criminals themselves. “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children,” he said in an interview with Nashville’s News Channel 5. “I understand it won’t be entirely successful, but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win-win.”

Not everyone agrees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement on Wednesday calling the program “unconstitutional:”

Offering a so-called ‘choice’ between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

There is also dissent closer to home. Tennessee’s District Attorney Bryant Dunaway has instructed his staff not to make arrangements regarding the program. “Those decisions are personal in nature and I think that’s just something the court system should not encourage or mandate,” he told local news station WTKR.

So far, 32 female volunteers have received their implants. The male volunteers are still waiting for their procedures to begin.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tennessee Inmates Trading Time in Prison for Birth Control and Vasectomies appeared first on Law Street.

A man who works as a high school administrator is accused of intentionally hitting a cyclist with his SUV in a national park in Tennessee, and then fleeing the scene. A friend of the cyclist had a GoPro camera on his helmet and shared a video of the incident on Facebook. After that, the police were able to track down the driver, Marshall Grant Neely III.

On Sunday night, Neely, 58, was arrested on charges of felony reckless endangerment, leaving the scene of an accident, failure to immediately notify of an accident, and failure to render aid.

He was released after posting an $11,500 bail, but could still face additional federal charges. Park rangers will meet with the United States Attorney’s office this week to discuss any further charges.

The chilling footage from the incident shows two cyclists biking through the Natchez Trace Parkway. The road the two were cycling is a designated bicycle route, and bikes are legally allowed to use the whole lane when necessary. In the opening seconds of the video, a white truck passes the cyclists without incident.

Soon after, a black Volvo SUV comes up from behind and hits 23-year-old cyclist Tyler Noe, who is slightly further ahead of his friend, Greg Goodman.

But the video makes it pretty obvious that the car hit him on purpose, as there were no other cars or people in sight. Neely also did not stop to check on Noe. Luckily, Noe was not seriously injured, and was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. Noe got up on his feet after tumbling off of the bike.

“A black Volvo passing the bicyclists struck Noe causing serious but non-life threatening injuries. The Volvo’s driver failed to stop and left the scene,” said a press release from Natchez Trace Parkway officials.

NEW: According to arrest report, Marshall Neely claimed “a man & a woman were standing in the road & threw the bicycle at his car.” @WKRN pic.twitter.com/mZKopldryE

— Josh Breslow (@JoshBreslowWKRN) July 10, 2017

According to Goodman, a witness told him that the same Volvo SUV had tried to hit someone a week earlier as well. According to the police report, Neely claimed that a man and a woman had been standing in the road and had thrown a bicycle at his car.

Neely has worked with children since 1995. Until the accident, he served as dean of students at the University School of Nashville, a K-12 private school. The school also has a mountain biking team. Neely is the father of two USN alumni, and also reportedly has a degree in law.

Neely’s profile has been deleted from the school’s website since the incident, but the school wrote on its Facebook page that he has been placed on a leave of absence while the investigation is ongoing.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post High School Employee Arrested for Hitting Cyclist and Fleeing the Scene appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

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 Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

From the Nashville sit-ins in the 1960s to the Memphis sanitation workers’ strikes, Tennessee has a rich history of practicing civil disobedience in the form of nonviolent protests. And recently, Tennessee has seen a resurgence of nonviolent protests. On Inauguration Day, a group of Tennesseans chained themselves to the state capitol. About 15,000 people marched in downtown Nashville on the day of the Women’s March. And, this past July, hundreds of Black Lives Matters protesters spilled onto the interstate, stopping traffic. But in response to this civic action, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a road block bill that grants drivers who “[exercise] due care” immunity from civil liability if they injure a protester or demonstrator who is blocking traffic.

According to Tennessee’s WTVC News Channel 9, state Senator Bill Ketron, who introduced the bill, said in a statement, “we believe that citizens have the right to protest. There is a procedure for peaceful protests and the purpose of that process is to protect the safety of our citizens. Protesters have no right to be in the middle of the road or our highways for their own safety and the safety of the traveling public.”

There are two distinctions in the bill that should be noted. The first is that if a person takes purposeful or willful action to injure a protester, they will not be granted immunity from civil liability. The second distinction is that the law does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

Tennessee lawmakers said that this bill was introduced to protect both drivers and protesters. As the Epoch Times points out, states like North Dakota have introduced similar legislation. If Tennessee’s bill passes, it will go into effect this summer.

At first glance, these kinds of bills aren’t erroneously offensive. But at the heart of these bills, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the core principles of civil disobedience.

Protesters and demonstrators do not simply block roads for the sake of inconveniencing people who are just trying to have a normal commute. Blocking traffic is a visceral statement that reminds people that some lives are inherently inconvenient–that some lives come with inherent roadblocks simply based on trivialities like the color of someone’s skin or who a person loves. Blocking traffic impedes the inexplicit conveniences that privilege bestows.

We can look at Tennessee’s road-block bill uncynically. We can hold the belief that the bill was introduced with the best of intentions–with the belief that these lawmakers truly want to look after the safety of the public. But we can also maintain the perspective that the bill ignores the principles of non-violent protests and continues to allow people to abrogate their responsibility to help society progress toward moral justice in service of letting them go on with their lives as if everything is as it should be, and nothing is wrong.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Tennessee’s Road Block Bill Wouldn’t Actually Keep People Safe appeared first on Law Street.

A 29-year-old woman is suing a Tennessee sheriff for $1.5 million, claiming he violated her Constitutional rights when he denied her access to an abortion while she was in jail.

The Tennessean reports that Kei’Choura Cathey was arrested in July 2015 on robbery and murder conspiracy charges in Maury County. She found out that she was pregnant roughly two weeks later. Cathey alerted Maury County Sheriff Bucky Rowland via her lawyer that she wanted to have an abortion, but claims that Rowland told her that his department would not pay to transport her to the clinic unless the abortion was medically necessary or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Cathey wasn’t able to post bail until January 2016, and by then it was too late to have the procedure. The child was born in April.

Sheriff Rowland disputes her account. “The lawsuit is not correct,” Rowland told the Daily Herald on Tuesday. “We did offer her transportation to and from, if she elected to go through with the procedure. We were not going to take her and pay for the procedure. We felt like it was an elective procedure. We did not feel like the taxpayers should pay for it.”

“Her health and her life [were] not in jeopardy,” Rowland said. “No other circumstances came into play, except she wanted to have an abortion. If she wanted to pay for that, that was up to her.”

The lawsuit was filed December 29 in federal court in Nashville. Cathey alleges in the complaint that Rowland violated her Eighth Amendment rights by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, as well as her 14th Amendment rights.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Arpaio that an Arizona woman had a Constitutional right to get an abortion off jail grounds.

Imprisoned women have a legal right to obtain an abortion if they want one; however, women receiving non-life threatening abortions are often left financially responsible for the appointment and transportation, regardless of whether or not they are able to pay. Jail and prison policies regarding pregnancy-related health care and abortions vary from state to state.

While the ACLU has often represented women in cases where they believe their right to an abortion was infringed upon, the non-profit is not involved in Cathey’s pending case against Maury County.

Cathey is asking for $150,000 in actual damages and $1.35 million in punitive damages.

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 Jailed Tennessee Woman Claims She Was Denied an Abortion, Sues Sheriff appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, people! We hear this weekend may bring a snowstorm to the middle of the country–so it’s the perfect time to cozy up inside with a good book or an edition of RantCrush. Stay warm and enjoy the last entry of the week!

Malta Criminalizes Conversion Therapy

As America gets ready to inaugurate a new Vice President who has supported conversion therapy, Malta becomes the first European country to criminalize the practice. The new law also supports transgender rights. It will punish anyone advertising or performing the controversial therapy with fines or jail time, and it states: “No sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression constitutes a disorder, disease or shortcoming of any sort.”

#SoProud of #Malta the land of my ancestors! Malta Outlaws ‘Conversion Therapy,’ a First in Europe https://t.co/NMZwKPKZ0j

— Joseph Gatt (@MeetJoeGatt) December 8, 2016

This is amazing news and hopefully will become the norm everywhere. The Mediterranean island of Malta is the smallest country in the European Union with only 420,000 citizens, but it is really progressive when it comes to LGBT rights and has been called the most gay-friendly nation in Europe.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, I hope you’re enjoying your Thursday! If you’re like me, the weeks feel extra long when waiting for the holidays to come. But the last story today features some new takes on classic holiday songs that may help you bide that time! 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:

EPA Critic to Head the EPA

This morning, Trump’s transition team announced that the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency will be a firm critic of the agency, climate change denier Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is Oklahoma’s Attorney General, and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry. He has fought President Obama’s climate efforts and has sued the agency he will now be leading, first over the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector and then over regulations of methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors.

The man who Trump just appointed to lead the @EPA sued the agency on behalf of the coal industry to kill enviro + public health regulations. https://t.co/ekXsqhmyXM

— Erin Schrode (@ErinSchrode) December 7, 2016

Many believe that this appointment will be disastrous for the environment. “Our country needs–and deserves–an EPA administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are in danger. The whole country is in danger.” A lawyer who knows Scott Pruitt reacts. https://t.co/EOdsPbniPI

— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) December 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The tragic school bus accident in Tennessee that killed five children and injured many others has cast a dark shadow prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. Now one of the mothers, who lost one child in the accident but had two others who survived, says that the driver allegedly asked the kids if they were ready to die right before the crash. “My daughter said right before the bus flipped that he was speeding around the curve and asked them ‘Are y’all ready to die,” said Jasmine Mateen to CBS. Twenty-four-year-old Johntony Walker had been driving the school bus since August and has no previous criminal record.

Walker was arrested on charges of vehicular homicide, reckless driving, and reckless endangerment, with a bond set at $107,500, according to the Chattanooga police. In total, 35 children, from kindergarten up to fifth grade, were on the bus at the time of the accident.

While the accident shocked the community, some parents reported that Walker’s reckless behavior while driving had been an issue in the past. “There has been times where I’ve seen him going a little faster than he probably should be going,” father of two Craig Harris said. Mateen also said that she complained to the school about Walker in the past for slamming his brakes on purpose to make the kids hit their heads. After the school talked to him about his behavior, he allegedly responded, “So, I’d do it again.”

Johnthony Walker, 24, charged w/ 5 counts vehicular homicide, reckless endangerment & reckless driving in Talley Rd school bus crash. pic.twitter.com/9ZTIpXUZNl

— Chattanooga Police (@ChattanoogaPD) November 22, 2016

According to Walker’s own mother, he called her right after the accident, saying that he tried to help the children out from the vehicle and that he hoped it wasn’t his fault, which contradicts the notion that he could have crashed the bus on purpose. But according to authorities, he was driving way faster than the speed limit of 30 mph when he somehow slammed the bus into a telephone pole. His mother told reporters that Walker is a sober, dedicated father to a three-year-old and well liked as a school bus driver. She also said that the accident was God’s will.

We will be shooting for our 1st press briefing @ corner of Howard & Talley Rd @ 5:00 pm. #ChattFire pic.twitter.com/1bpnabsHmJ

— Chattanooga FireDept (@ChattFireDept) November 21, 2016

This wasn’t Walker’s first collision while driving the bus: in September, he crossed the centerline and swiped a car coming in the opposite direction, resulting in material damages. The driver in the other car, Belinda Hamilton, said that she saw him race past a stop sign before he scraped her car. “Luckily, no one got killed. What’s going to happen the next time?” she remembered thinking at the time. Walker also had his license suspended for some time, due to lack of proof of vehicle insurance.

Walker was employed through a bus contractor, Durham School Services, of Illinois. Amy Kutcher, a Hamilton County Schools spokeswoman, did not say whether there were any complaints against him. She said: “Legally, there is no way that we could discipline someone who is not our employee. We’ve got 192 Durham bus drivers. Obviously, this is a bad one.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mom Says Driver in School Bus Accident Asked Kids if They Were Ready to Die 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:

Oh My Gosh, They Made A Three Parent Baby!

Five months ago, a scientific miracle was born in Mexico (because the U.S. ain’t about that life), a child born with the DNA of three parents. I know, I know, you must be asking: how does one have a three person baby? Well this family, fearing that their baby would inherit an awful condition from the mother’s side, allowed doctors to create an embryo using the dad’s sperm, the mom’s egg, and donor DNA, by removing the mitochondrial material that carried the disease and replacing it with the donor’s mitochondrial DNA. They essentially deleted the chance of that particular disease from the family’s offspring using this awesome new technique! Crazy, right?

The baby now carries less than one percent of that gene and doctors say it shouldn’t become a problem.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

People who saw Rick Tyler’s billboard alongside Highway 411 in Polk County, Tennessee either couldn’t believe their eyes, or must have thought they were seeing a practical joke–its message read “Make America White Again.” But the message from the independent candidate running for Congress was not a joke, and he wants to make sure everyone knows.

The sign is an obvious reference to Donald Trump’s saying “Make America Great Again.” Tyler claims he’s not racist, but merely looking back to a time when America was safe enough for residents to leave their doors unlocked. However, his Facebook post tells another story:

It was an America where doors were left unlocked, violent crime was a mere fraction of today’s rate of occurrence, there were no car jackings, home invasions, Islamic Mosques or radical Jihadist sleeper cells.

This is the criticized sign:

A congressional candidate is actually trying to argue that this sign isn’t racist… https://t.co/ODEG6A1idX pic.twitter.com/xjvFVL2RZs

— Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton) June 22, 2016

Tyler’s campaign also erected another billboard depicting an illustration of the White House surrounded by Confederate flags. At the top of that billboard are Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous words “I Have a Dream.” Tyler claimed that the signs were a very well planned maneuver to get around “the iron curtain of censorship.” In regards to people’s strong reactions to the message, he wrote, “Obviously, there are the ‘frothing at the mouth lunatics’ who react in a completely irrational, emotional, Pavlovian dog fashion.”

He even goes on to claim that people who are not white should not be allowed to move into the US claiming,

A moratorium on nonwhite immigration and the abolition of policies that subsidize nonwhite birth rates would be two constructive actions toward beginning the long journey back toward sanity and stability in our beleaguered and foundering nation.

This is one Twitter user’s solution to the hateful sign:

.@newschannelnine Oh hey, I fixed your sign Rick Tyler. #LoveTrumpsHate aka the Polk Co racist pic.twitter.com/miNJxdTIzU

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) June 23, 2016

Tyler’s words evoke chilling references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Topher Kersting, who is also running for Congress as an independent, told the Huffington Post,

He’s about as racist as you can get, from what I can tell […] He wants to go back to the 1950s where whites are in control and blacks ‘know their place. He’s wide open about it. It’s kind of scary we’re not past this.

The signs have since been removed, but no one knows who took them down. Tyler is of the opinion that most people in the country liked them, since he saw some people snapping photos of one earlier. He wants them back up as soon as possible since he paid for them to be there until the general election in November.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tennessee Politician Wants to Win Votes by Making America White Again appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the debate over guns and gun control is now front and center in the political sphere. Earlier this week, Senate Democrats filibustered for almost 15 hours in order to pressure the Senate into talking about gun control. Social media has also been abuzz with arguments on both sides of the debate over gun control.

While all of these stories have been in the news, some specific decisions by lawmakers also drew national attention. Andy Holt, Tennessee state representative for the 76th district, has received criticism for his plan to give away not one, but two AR-15 assault riffles at a fundraiser later this month.

Holt announced this gift on Facebook last Friday, two days before the death of 49 people and injury of dozens more in the Orlando club. After the announcement, the Republican representative was criticized for his decision to raffle off two of these guns because of their similarity to one of the guns found on Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter.

As a result Holt posted several Facebook posts defending his giveaways. Holt told the Tennessean, “We should not focus on the gun itself. We should focus on the depravity of the heart of the person who’s pulling the trigger.”

Needless to say, several members of the community were outraged by Holt’s giveaway following the horrific shooting.

Wonder if Andy Holt has thought out liability? Or morality, or decency? likely not. https://t.co/JfS8LYy3jE

— p-daddle (@payalayap) June 14, 2016

TN State Rep. Andy Holt is an insensitive, uncompassionate, and heartless man. #ShametoTN https://t.co/hkTXrjkPNB

— Jeremy Jordan (@j_mich23) June 14, 2016

Tenn. State Rep. Andy Holt is a disgrace to our state and tip the religion he professes to believe in. Boo. https://t.co/xkGPftBn06

— Jennifer W. Spirko (@jenspirko) June 14, 2016

In response to his decision, Holt received death threats, although there is confusion over whether or not the threats were real. Following the threats, Holt blamed the media for the negativity surrounding his event:

So, thanks to the brilliant media for their lies that have resulted in death threats to my family and staffer. Not that we are afraid seeing as how we’ve got our shotgun rifles, 4-wheel drive, and know how to survive. But, it is sad. In fact, it’s disgusting.

In addition to his other Facebook posts, Holt responded to his critics with some harsh words:

I’m sick and tired of the media and liberal politicians attacking our right to keep and bear arms. I’ll do everything I can to ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected and people are equipped to exercise their innate right to self-defense. SHARE if you’re standing with me! I wonder if I were giving away airplanes if the headlines would read… “Evil Andy Holt giving away same model of airplane used in 9/11 terror attack for law abiding citizens to use…”

It comes as no surprise that Holt’s decision to raffle off guns is so controversial, given the heavy media coverage surrounding gun violence in the last week. As tragedies like Orlando continue to happen and gun death counts continue to rise, debates over how accessible guns should be will only become more prevalent.

We, as a country, need to decide if 93 gun deaths in 72 hours is a statistic we can live with, in the name of the Second Amendment. Or, maybe, we will work to shape gun policy and stop letting Representatives like Holt control the narrative on what our right to bear arms should look like at the expense of thousands of lives a year.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Lawmaker Gives Away Guns at Fundraiser appeared first on Law Street.

Tennessee’s governor, Bill Haslam, vetoed HB0615 yesterday, a bill that would have designated the Holy Bible as the state book of Tennessee. Before the governor’s veto, the bill was passed in the state house by a vote of 55-38 and in the senate by a vote of 19-8. While some argue that naming the Bible as the official state book would fundamentally intertwine the church and state, others argue that the Bible’s historic and economic significance make it relevant and appropriate as a state book.

Opponents of the bill were outraged by the thought of the Bible being designated as the state book for several reasons and, therefore, thankful that the governor vetoed the bill. First came the obvious question of the government promoting or advancing one religion over another. The ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg pointed out potential issues with the legislation, saying:

Lawmakers’ thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Instituting the Bible as the state book would suggest the furtherance of Bible-based religions, like Christianity, over other religions that aren’t based on the bible. It would fundamentally violate the separation of church and state laid out in both the national and state constitutions.

Thank you, Gov. Bill Haslam, for taking a stand for religious liberty and against theocracy. https://t.co/MTREfE6Z9w

— David Waters (@DavidWatersCA) April 15, 2016

Others made fun of Tennessee for being a state so focused on religion with satirical and ironic tweets.

The Tennessee state senate voted to make the Bible the state book, I'm assuming because nobody there could name another one.

— J. Elvis Weinstein (@JElvisWeinstein) April 6, 2016

Hope the new official Tennessee state book doesn't fry in my hands while reading it. Think I'd rather go to hell

— Josh Sebastian (@tnseabass) April 6, 2016

One state Senator, Jeff Yarboro from Nashville, recognized that, even though it may be hard for some members of the legislature to want to vote against an important symbol of their faith, they needed to consider the constitutionality of their actions. “I understand that it’s hard to vote against the Bible—no one wants to do that. We have an obligation to follow the Constitution,” Yarboro told the Tennessean.

The final argument against making the Bible the state book is one that the governor himself made, and it’s not what you might expect. Similar to what our founding fathers claimed about the separation of church and state, Governor Haslam feels that making the Bible the Tennessee state book would trivialize the Bible. He even cited the founding fathers in his argument. In a letter to Beth Harwell, the Tenessee Speaker of the House, he said,

Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run.

He also acknowledged the difference between religion being celebrated and openly discussed in government and the actual establishment of religion by government:

Men and women motivated by faith have every right and obligation to bring their belief and commitment to the public debate. However, that is very different from the governmental establishment of religion that our founders warned against and our Constitution prohibits.

In order to override the governor’s veto, the legislature just needs a simple majority in each chamber, which seems like it could be easily attained based on the original vote counts. So, keep an eye on Tennessee everyone. It looks like it could soon become the first state to recognize a religious text as their state book and it will be interesting to see the repercussions that it may face.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Tennessee Governor Rejects Bible as Official State Book appeared first on Law Street.

As we continue our research into the dumbest laws of the United States, let’s have a look now at Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky.

I’ve heard of the cliché of throwing tomatoes at comedians who are bombing to the worst degree on stage, but never of throwing eggs at public speakers–an act that is strictly prohibited in Kentucky and punishable by a year in prison. Kentucky seems to have a thing for eggs and birds as the state has also banned dying a duckling blue and offering it for sale unless more than six are for sale at the same time. Really makes you wonder how that law came to fruition…

In Tennessee, you can’t mooch off of your parents’ Netflix account or any one else’s for that matter because it is illegal to share your password. And with regard to technology, you cannot post images online that cause “emotional distress” without “legitimate purpose.”

Tennessee also has a number of strict laws pertaining to minors. For example, students cannot hold hands in school. From what I’ve seen of the public displays put on by students today, hand holding should really be the least concern. It is also illegal to dare a minor to purchase beer, and a misdemeanor to tattoo a minor. So if you have a hankering to open a tattoo parlor in Tennessee, be sure to check ID!

Moving on to Louisiana. For starters, don’t even try to steal an alligator, because if you succeed you can land in jail for ten years. Not worth it if you ask me! Stealing crawfish is also a crime in the state.

A ten-year prison sentence looks like nothing when you compare it to the punishment for urinating in the city’s water supply. Doing so could put you behind bars for 20 years. Speaking of bodily fluids, “rituals that involve the ingestion of blood, urine, or fecal matter” are also illegal. The aforementioned are just a couple of the crimes that result in prison time in Louisiana. A false promise can lead to a year, and every time a prisoner tries to hurt him or herself he or she could serve an additional two years.

Boxing and wresting are taken very seriously in Louisiana. There, fake wrestling matches are prohibited and it is illegal for spectators to mock one of the contestants participating in a boxing match.

“AR-kan-sas?” “Ar-KAN-sas?” You better know how to pronounce the name of this state before heading there, as it is illegal to pronounce it incorrectly. In Little Rock, sandwich shops specifically like their peace and quiet. It is illegal to honk one’s horn at one after nine at night. Also in Little Rock, you cannot suddenly stop your car at a McDonald’s fast food joint.

Some dumb Arkansas laws that appeared on the Internet but could not be validated include that dogs cannot bark after six in the evening, and that it is unlawful to walk one’s cow down Main Street in Little Rock after 1:00 PM on Sundays.

Oh, the fun just doesn’t stop with these laws! Keep your eyes open for the next installment!

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 Dumbest Laws of the United States: AR, LA, TN, and KY appeared first on Law Street.

Congratulations on surviving another Halloween, everyone! While recovering from your big night, you might as drag out the holiday a bit more and freak yourself out a little with all the weird things that people have gotten themselves arrested for this week. Check out the top five weird arrests from this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=27715 ress=1]

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 Top 5 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last July a young woman named  Lacey Weld from Tennessee was sentenced to 12 years in prison plus five years of supervised release after being captured on video spending 40 minutes inside of a methamphetamine manufacturing plant by an undercover police officer back in July. Did I mention she was in the last few weeks of her pregnancy at the time? Federal Judge Thomas Varlan determined that “enhanced sentencing” guidelines regarding harm to a child justified six years of the total sentence.

I’ll admit, I had never heard of the enhanced sentencing guidelines so to hear this story was pretty shocking and honestly I have mixed feelings about the whole situation.

A gaggle of reproductive-rights-organizations have taken it upon themselves to call on one-foot-out-the-door Attorney General Eric Holder to come out and publicly condemn Weld’s sentence. I’m curious as to why any of these organizations would want him to do such a thing? His reputation isn’t the best and no matter what he does or says it will not change the facts or the sentencing. In an interview with Vice, Weld’s attorney John Eldridge said that “laws intended to prevent ‘substantial risk of harm to life of a minor or an incompetent’ do not mention harm against a fetus.”

This is where things get sticky. Shouldn’t women be held responsible for their actions even if they are pregnant and especially if they are knowingly doing harm to themselves and their unborn child? Yes, you can argue that abortion would fall under that umbrella point of view, but if a woman has made the conscious decision to give birth to her child and either put it up for adoption or raise it herself, she should be held responsible for her actions.

This case has some serious grey areas and Weld’s lawyers are doing a damn good job of finding ways to interpret the laws in order to benefit her. That’s what lawyers are paid to do. But Weld needs to take a good, hard look in the mirror before she gets out and takes on the responsibility of raising that child. It may be a while but at some point it will be her responsibility again.

Some jurisdictions allow pregnant inmates to raise babies they give birth to in jail for several years before giving them to family members on the outside. This is best exemplified by the Argentinian movie Leonera (Lion’s Den) in which a woman who is convicted of murder finds out she is pregnant and is placed in a special ward of the prison where she is able to give birth and raise her baby for several years before giving him to a family member. It is an interesting concept and it almost seems like a good idea until I realize that our tax dollars would be supporting not only an inmate but also her child. The film in particular explores the pain and struggle of raising a child behind the walls of a prison and the importance of the bond between mother and child.

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says that  “this case tells women who are pregnant and cannot overcome their addiction is, really, to get an abortion.” I do not believe that is what this case is telling any woman. The point of punishing a person for her crime is to deter her from doing it again and to make an example out of her. Perhaps there is a girl out there who has a drug problem and just found out she is pregnant. By reading this article and she might realize that if she gets caught doing something illegal and harming her unborn child that she has chosen to keep she might be better off focusing on getting clean and taking care of herself and the baby.

Weld missed that opportunity. Not only did she take that away from herself and her child but she has also done irreparable damage. Even breathing in the fumes through a shirt at a meth lab can do damage to a fetus. According to the Department of Justice there is video footage of Lacey not only working in the meth lab but also smoking the drug. Weld told the court back in July that she wanted to “apologize for all the harm and wrongdoing (she has) done to (her) children. He could have died, and (she) just pray(s) and thank(s) God that (her) sister has him and he’s OK.”  Why is Weld just now realizing that she did something wrong and why is she merely apologizing? Shouldn’t she have been more aware of what she was doing before she got caught?

The baby did test positive for opioids and methamphetamine. I think Lacey got the time she deserved and I don’t think that it was wrong for the judge in the case to “enhance” her sentencing because she actually, knowingly did harm to her baby. If you are willing to do the crime, you should be willing to do the time.

I wish Weld all of the luck in the world and hope that she can kick her habit, but I also hope that her little baby has a fighting chance.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Gets Six Extra Years in Jail Due to Pregnancy appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

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 [Wendy House 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 Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [15Everett via WikiMedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #9 Vanderbilt University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Mallory Loyola became the first pregnant woman to be arrested and charged with assault on her fetus under Tennessee’s new controversial law criminalizing the illegal use of drugs during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested July 8, 2014, one week after the law went into effect. The 26-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine (not technically a narcotic) before being released on bail. If convicted Loyola could be incarcerated for up to a year.

According to the new law, “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” If a woman does not enroll in a treatment program for the narcotic, she would be charged. According to RH Reality Check, a reproductive health news group, “the law was promoted by prosecutors against the recommendations of medical professionals.” Governor Bill Haslam says that the legislation is intended to encourage women to go to treatment centers; however, the effect of the bill may be different from its intended purpose.

Outcomes of Criminalizing Pregnancy

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check suggests that Black women will be targeted by the law’s enforcement at a disproportionate rate. Based on ugly stereotypes with roots in Reagan-era “crack baby” rhetoric, more scrutiny would be placed on pregnant Black women, Gandy says. Whether or not these prejudices are acted on, there is a structural problem for disadvantaged, minority women.

State Senator Mike Bell explained that in his rural district “there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” Healthy and Free Tennessee notes that the state has 177 addiction treatment facilities; yet only two “provide prenatal care on site and allow older children to stay with their mothers, and only 19 provide any addiction care for pregnant women.” For impoverished women, accessing and enrolling in treatment centers will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There is a discrepancy between the intention of the bill, as suggested by Haslam, and the likely effect of the bill. While it may have been passed to incentivize enrollment in treatment programs, it will likely result in the incarceration of women who cannot access those treatment centers. Because Tennessee did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the costs of such treatment may be overwhelming. Women who know that they cannot access addiction services will be discouraged from seeking help, lest they be charged with assault and have their children taken away.

Other Approaches 

In response to prenatal substance abuse, Tennessee passed the Safe Harbor Act about a year ago. The 2013 legislation, also signed by Haslam, was designed to ensure that women can access treatment centers without fear of incarceration or having their children removed. The more recent bill not only negates the benefits of the Safe Harbor Act, but regresses Tennessee even further.

This heavy-handed approach to prenatal substance abuse hints at another discrepancy: addiction is viewed by some as a disease, and by others as a crime. While the state and the governor embrace the latter with the passage and enforcement of this law, the federal government has taken a different approach.

Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke about the federal government’s broad strategy in response to the recent Tennessee law: “Under the Obama administration, we’ve really tried to reframe drug policy not as a crime but as a public health-related issue, and that our response on the national level is that we not criminalize addiction.” The politics of considering substance abuse a criminal offense rather than a disease is amplified by the politics of federal-state relationships.

Support for the Law

The Tennessee Medical Association was supportive of the Safe Harbor Act, yet its president, Dr. Doug Springer, recently spoke out in favor of the new law. “The misdemeanor means it can be expunged by a judge, it means that the [Department of Human Services] doesn’t take your baby away. It has nothing to do with an application for a job because it doesn’t interfere with your job prospects, and that’s really important,” says Dr. Springer. Obviously, if a mother is incarcerated, she and her baby could not be together. But if the law makes it easy for the offense to be expunged, incarcerated mothers may not have to go through as many obstacles as other ex-convicts.

Because the law is so new, Mallory Loyola’s outcome will set precedent. The law is set to expire after two years, at which time Tennessee will evaluate its effects.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Greyerbaby via Pixabay]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Pregnant Woman Arrested Under Controversial Tennessee Law appeared first on Law Street.