As a politician, there is a base expectation that–at one point or another–you will have to pick a side on a variety of different issues. Are you pro-choice or pro-life? What do you think about single-payer healthcare? Should recreational marijuana use be legalized? Yet even with this understanding, Utah state Representative Craig Hall must have been surprised when he had to step forward as an active proponent of sunscreen use.

Hall has four red-headed school-aged children and currently lives in the state with the highest rate of melanoma in the United States. He has even said that he buys sunscreen “in the Costco size,” so his seemingly-peculiar stance should not be a shock to anyone. But Hall cemented himself into this position earlier this year when he introduced legislation this year to allow kids to bring sunscreen to school.

“My colleagues’ first reaction to this bill was mostly, ‘Seriously? We need a bill for this?'” he told PBS Stateline.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug product–right alongside ibuprofen or cough syrup–which means that students from kindergarten to 12th grade cannot bring it to school without a doctor’s note. Even with a note, it must be applied under the supervision of a school nurse.

Under this new sunscreen bill, students would be allowed to bring and self-apply their own sunscreen, without a parent or physician’s authorization. If need be, someone working at the school could help apply sunscreen on the student if a parent or legal guardian provides a signed consent form saying so. It was officially signed into law back in March and started a trend among other states to amend their sunscreen-in-school laws.

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Washington have all enacted measures that followed Utah’s example within the last four months. They joined California, New York, Oregon and Texas, which already have lifted the ban on sunscreen in school. Terry Cronin, a Melbourne, Florida, dermatologist and head of the advocacy working group for the dermatologic surgery society, attributes the quick results to how easy the issue is to get behind.

“It’s an issue that doesn’t seem to be politically divisive at all,” said Cronin. “Everybody sees that kids need to be protected from skin cancer and they should be protected with sunscreen.”

But sunscreen bills still face some roadblocks in legislatures across the country. One such bill in Mississippi cleared the Senate but died in a House committee, and a bill introduced in Georgia has stalled. In Rhode Island–where outdoor recess is mandated state-wide–a sunscreen bill was held up because the state’s association of school nurses cited concerns of potential allergies among students.

Some of the bills have continued to face challenges, even after they have become law. While many California school districts updated their sunscreen policies as a result of Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety–the nation’s first sunscreen bill enacted by the state in 2002–surveys have discovered that “many schools had not changed their practices even though the district had changed its policy,” said Jeff Ashley, a Burbank, California, dermatologist. Ashley believes this is because schools don’t want to become babysitters.

Even so, states such as Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts are still pushing for change. Dr. Henry Lim, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said that the risk of developing melanoma in adulthood is strongly related to a history of sunburns as a child and teen.

“Children’s skin is much thinner, so the ability for the sun to penetrate the skin is significantly higher as compared to adults,” he said. “Having availability for kids to be able to use sunscreen saves them from a lot of sun damage and saves them from the development of skin cancer.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Push to Allow Kids to Use Sunscreen in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

A day after ruling out a re-election bid in the 2018 midterms, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Thursday let slip that he could end his term early. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a onetime prospect for Speaker of the House, said: “My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven’t ruled out the possibility of leaving early.”

Utah’s Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox told the WSJ that officials are preparing for a special election in Chaffetz’s 3rd Congressional District. Despite his prevalent role in the oversight committee–a role that expires in 2020–and his advantageous position after Republicans took over Washington in November, Chaffetz, 50, announced his decision to opt out of the 2018 race in a Facebook post early Wednesday:

Since late 2003 I have been fully engaged with politics as a campaign manager, a chief of staff, a candidate and as a Member of Congress. I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career. Many of you have heard me advocate, “Get in, serve, and get out.” After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018.

He added he is “healthy” and there are “no ulterior motives” behind his decision. Initially opposed to President Donald Trump’s candidacy, Chaffetz ultimately supported the president. Since his flip-flop on Trump, Chaffetz has been booed and heckled at town hall meetings.

Before Congress and the White House both turned red, Chaffetz was a feisty GOP attack dog; he targeted Hillary Clinton’s handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012. He also took aim at Clinton’s private email server, an issue that dogged her throughout the campaign.

Some are speculating that Chaffetz bowed out early because of two well-funded challengers, both first-time political candidates: Democrat Kathryn Allen, a physician, and Republican Damian Kidd, a lawyer. But Chaffetz could also be taking a hiatus from the political scene before a gubernatorial run in 2020, something he reportedly expressed interest in last year.

In his farewell Facebook post, which may be the official send-off to his supporters, Chaffetz wrote: “Thank you for allowing me to serve as your Representative in the United States House of Representatives. Serving is an honor and a privilege that I have never taken for granted.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz Stepping Down Early? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s important to keep in mind that someone is always having a worse day than you. Yesterday, that someone was Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz, who is also the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, was flooded by a chorus of boos and chants at a town hall he hosted in his district last night.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehouse pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

Chaffetz’s experience at the town hall was probably jarring for him for a whole multitude of reasons, but mostly because his day seemed to be going pretty well up until that point. Yesterday afternoon, Chaffetz gained bi-partisan praise for condemning Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom fashion line in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Conway seemingly violated an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from using their position “for their own private gain, for the private gain of friends . . . or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-government capacity.”

Speaking to reporters on the Hill, Chaffetz said Conway’s comments were “clearly over the line, wrong, wrong, wrong, and unacceptable.” Later, Chaffetz tweeted a letter he, along with Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, sent to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics, calling for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway.

What she did was wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is our bi-partisan letter to the White House and OGE. #Donteverdothis https://t.co/zqeYhcttMB

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) February 9, 2017

So, Chaffetz was probably feeling pretty good about himself after all that. Of course, all good things must come to an end. After a visit to the Utah State Senate, Chaffetz made his way over to his town hall meeting at Brighton High School, which, according to an event Facebook page, was not advertised by Chaffetz and changed locations multiple times because of large interest. While Chaffetz did not officially promote the event, multiple left-leaning groups like the Wasatch Socialist Party set up event pages that led to an outpouring of protestors and attendees, according to Utah’s KUTV news reporter Chris Jones.

The auditorium, which seats 1,100, was filled to capacity while about 1,500 people stood outside the school, chanting and holding up signs.

Several thousand people outside of Brighton HS. Who couldn’t get into @jasoninthehouse town hall. #utpol pic.twitter.com/gtARJu9mSf

— Chris Jones (@jonesnews) February 10, 2017

Auditorium for Cong Chaffetz Town hall packed. Police say 1000 outside. Now chanting, “You work for us!” @UtahIndivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/R9iDakiWrZ

— Kyung Lah (@KyungLahCNN) February 10, 2017

This was all before the actual event started. During the event, Chaffetz was grilled by multiple attendees over a wide range of subjects, from Bears Ears National Monument, to public lands, to the Trump Administration, to Betsy DeVos, to immigration.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, most of Chaffetz’s answers were drowned out by boos and chants like “Vote him out!” and “Do your job!” At one point, a frustrated Chaffetz said “If you want me to answer the question, give me more than five seconds to do it.”

But, nevertheless, Chaffetz’s frustrated constituents persisted, with attendee after attendee hitting their representative with tough questions. One notable grilling came from a grade-school girl:

Utah Congressman Chaffetz gets totally owned by 10 year old girl’s sick burn about science, refuses to answer her question & crowd goes wild pic.twitter.com/FxKUM2TklY

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) February 10, 2017

And another came from an ex-teacher:

At rowdy town hall, ex-teacher asks Chaffetz — chair of House oversight — “what’s your line in the sand” for Trump? pic.twitter.com/8U7IkpZtsS

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another came from a cancer survivor who shared her story about the help she received from Planned Parenthood:

Cancer survivor — who relies on Planned Parenthood for care — asks Chaffetz: “Why are you trying to take [it] away?” pic.twitter.com/yexjMZ7wz6

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another–well, you get the idea.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the town hall lasted 75 minutes, which, according to multiple reports, was 40 minutes shorter than the event was supposed to be. Over the past couple of years, Chaffetz has been no stranger to public criticism. As Oversight Committee chairman, Chaffetz has received flack for relentlessly harping on Hillary Clinton’s connections with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He was also widely derided for taking to his Instagram to post a picture with a caption that many people saw as petty and unclassy:

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

He is also known to have a dim understanding of how charts work:

Chaffetz was also widely criticized this past election for his flip-flop on President Donald Trump. After the Access Hollywood video was released, Chaffetz told Utah’s Fox 13 News that he couldn’t vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye. Nineteen days later, presumably after looking his daughter in the eye, Chaffetz went on to say he would be voting for Trump, but would not be endorsing him:

I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 27, 2016

Chaffetz has yet to comment on what transpired last night.

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 Jason Chaffetz Flooded by Boos at Town Hall Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

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 Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

After a few months of debate on whether or not Utah would be considering porn a public health crisis, the state has finally pulled the trigger. Governor Gary Herbert signed a resolution earlier this week declaring porn a public health crisis.

While this bill does not in any way inhibit porn usage in the state, it does call for the:

Recogni[tion of] the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

However, that education, prevention, research, and policy change could be difficult considering the state hasn’t laid out any kind of legislation or proposal as to what to do about this epidemic. In addition, the resolution doesn’t allot any kind of funding toward anti-porn education or anything of the sort–so how is this resolution helping with the so-called epidemic at all?

This resolution was created by one of the state’s Republican Representatives, Todd Weiler, with the goal of increasing awareness of the potential dangers of porn. Weiler claims that he wants default internet settings to be changed in order to make viewing porn more difficult than it currently is. The senator maintains that he is not trying to ban porn in the state of Utah, but rather make it less accessible for children and teenagers. Weiler was quoted saying that:

If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them, and, yet, our children are accessing pornography on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be OK with that.

He is very concerned with how accessible pornography is on the internet because it leads to the corruption of children and young teens:

This is a $7 billion industry. Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.

Even after being mocked repeatedly when they first announced the state’s plan in January, the Utah legislature and governor are sticking to their guns and standing firmly by their decision to have porn listed as a public health crisis. Senator Weiler and Governor Herbert, along with several others, firmly believe that pornography is a danger to society because of how addicting it can be and the consequences that can come with a porn addiction.

One thing is for sure, if Utah wants to decrease porn usage in the state, they may as well just block the entire internet because, as we all know, porn is the one thing the internet is really made for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs

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 It’s Official: Utah Declares Porn a Public Health Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

After two successful years with its No-Kill Utah (NKUT) initiative, Utah is succeeding in its attempt to reduce the use of euthanasia for healthy animals in its shelters. In the two years that this initiative has been in place, the percentage of animals being saved in Utah shelters has increased from 71.3 percent in 2013, to 77.4 percent in 2014, all the way to 84.4 percent last year. Put another way, there has been a 10 percent increase in the number of animals saved from being euthanized without cause in shelters in Utah.

The NKUT initiative, which began in 2014, is headed by the Best Friends Animal Society, a nonprofit dedicated to ending the use of euthanasia in shelters across America and to reducing the number of homeless pets nationwide. The Best Friends Animal Society has a similar no-kill initiative in Los Angeles and it works with New York shelters to help improve the conditions for animals as well as decrease the number of pets killed in shelters each year.

What is the overall aim of these no-kill initiatives? Well, in order to be considered a no-kill state, the percentage of animals who leave a state shelter alive has to be at or above 90 percent. Typically, around the 10 percent of shelter animals who are euthanized in a given year are put down for serious medical or behavioral issues, which is considered humane euthanasia. Utah is on track to be a no-kill state by 2019 and Arlyn Bradshaw, Executive Director of Best Friends Animal Society, claims that Utah is paving the way for other states to do the same.

Two of the ways that NKUT is planning to accomplish these goals are by making spay and neuter services more widespread for animals and increasing adoptions of shelter animals. In theory, increasing accessibility of spay and neutering services will lower the overall number of animals entering shelters each year. Increasing the number of adoptions will, in turn, decrease the number of animals in shelters where they have the potential to be euthanized because of a lack of space or resources.

Why doesn’t every state already have these policies? The sad reality is that adopting no-kill policies can often be expensive and infeasible for states. There’s a significant debate in Chicago right now over whether or not shelters city-wide should be made no-kill shelters–a policy change that could cost them well beyond the current $5.59 million budget.

Chicago would need to "double" animal control's $5M+ budget to implement a no-kill policy https://t.co/pZJgp8oAwY pic.twitter.com/MSVGkqGjBV

— Kurt Gessler (@kurtgessler) April 4, 2016

Unfortunately, in a city that lacks funding for public education, it’s difficult to get people to rally around increasing animal shelter funds, especially when the public finds out that being “no-kill” is actually only saving 90 percent of the animals.

The good news? Advocates at the Best Friend Animal Society and animal rights activists across the country aren’t giving up. They have been working tirelessly to monitor animals going in and out of shelters and the organization created a marketing campaign to help find pets new homes. These advocacy efforts may seem small in comparison to city-wide changes, but they have a lasting impact on the community and can lead to policy change down the road.

Regardless of a state’s current shelter status (but a huge shout out to the state of Utah for its hard work and impressive results), the important thing to remember is that animal safety and security can begin on a small level. Each cat or dog that is adopted from a shelter is another cat or dog who is saved and another space available for other homeless pets in the area. So, when you head out to add a new member to your family, make sure to visit a shelter and rescue an animal in need! Even the smallest actions can make a big difference.

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 Utah’s No-Kill Initiative is Saving Pets’ Lives appeared first on Law Street.

This week the debate over the tampon tax has made its way to my favorite state–that’s right folks, we’re back to talking about Utah again! The discussion about the feminine tax has recently come into the national spotlight as several states (including Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Jersey) have gotten rid of taxes on feminine hygiene products altogether. This is a step in the right direction as far as stopping taxes on necessary items goes.

Let’s start with a little background on taxes and necessities. Individual states get to decide whether or not they want to levy a sales tax on final sale goods and, for the most part, they usually tax around five to nine percent on most of these goods. A few states–Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and New Hampshire, to be exact–don’t have a sales tax, but instead opt for changes in income, excise, and tourist taxes. Here’s a handy map from Tax Foundation displaying sales taxes nationwide from mid-2015 so you can see where your state falls as far as tax rates go.

In general, in states where there is a sales tax, items that are deemed to be necessities are exempt from being taxed. This includes goods like foods and medicines, which people need on a daily basis to survive. Even if these goods are still taxed in a state, it is usually at a lower rate than the overall sales tax. For some reason, feminine hygiene products have never been included on this list, but instead are taxed as “non-necessity” or “luxury” items; although, some states do have exemptions for things like pregnancy tests, which are categorized as medical items. 

So, if it’s up to the state’s discretion to decide which goods are and are not considered tax exempt for being “necessary,” why hasn’t this tampon and pad controversy come up before now? President Barack Obama mentioned in an interview with Youtuber Ingrid Nilsen that he suspects “it’s because men were making the laws when those taxes were passed.”

So, several states have recently been working to get rid of the tax on tampons, Utah being the most recent. Democratic Senator Susan Duckworth is introducing a bill to stop the sales tax on tampons in front of the Utah House tax panel next Wednesday. She has even made the bill broad, including incontinence products and children’s diapers as necessities that she believes should not be taxed as luxury items in the state of Utah.

The main problem with Senator Duckworth’s bill? She’s pitching it to a committee of entirely men, who may have trouble sympathizing with the whole “periods” thing. The senator is concerned that the bill won’t get out of committee, but has promised to stay committed to the cause no matter what the results this week are. Opponents of the proposal have said that, although the average woman will save over $30 dollars a year on tampon taxes alone, it could lose the state around $1 million dollars in tax revenue a year. While, yes, that is quite a hit to tax revenue, lowering the tax burden on poor women who quite literally have to buy feminine products is an important option to consider. In the words of Stephanie Pitcher, a member of the Utah Women’s Coalition, “having a period is not a choice for women.”

Outraged women took to Twitter late last year to protest the labeling of tampons as luxury items, making fun of just how ridiculous some of the proponents of keeping the #tampontax on these #luxuryitems sound.

Pure indulgence!! Living the life of luxury with my selection of sanitary products!! #tampontax #TamponsForAll pic.twitter.com/3edAveFvX4

— Sara P (@xxsarajpxx) October 27, 2015

Just had to decide whether to stick the silver plated or diamond encrusted tampon up my vagina. #luxury

— Ann Scantlebury (@scanters) October 28, 2015

We all deserve a bit of luxury #tampontax pic.twitter.com/4mM9NysaNr

— Mrs Sarah Nic (@sp1305) October 28, 2015

While all these tweets are hilarious and get the main message (a desire for the end of sales taxes on tampons) across, it’s important for everyone in this battle to keep in mind that tampons are not taxed more than regular goods. People are upset because tampons are taxed at the same rate as every other good and not given an exemption or tax reduction for being necessities for most women.

Whenever it comes to cutting taxes, there’s a hard decision to make–I get that. All I’m saying is, if we don’t tax things like babies’ bibs and adult diapers, there’s at least a discussion to be had about cutting some women a tax break where they need it. I’ll leave you with this spot-on recommendation for what you should get that special woman in your life this coming Valentine’s Day because, remember, tampons aren’t a necessity, they’re a luxury. 

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 Should States Lower the Tampon Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

I came across an article on Reddit (yes, college boys in my large lecture class, I know how to use Reddit too) with a headline claiming that Utah was banning porn. At first, I was shocked. Was this a joke? Could they actually enact legislation to ban pornographic material across an entire state? Isn’t there some kind of freedom of speech issue there? So, I started to read up on this law and Utah’s porn history–it’s all thankfully less NSFW than you might anticipate.

Here are the facts: Senator Todd Weiler, a state senator in the great state of Utah, introduced legislation this past week in attempt to have the state consider porn a “public health crisis.” Ironically, this is kind of along the same vein as what happened with the Zika virus recently, but on a smaller scale since it would only be statewide. The main concern Weiler seems to have is how accessible porn is becoming, especially to young teens, as he claims it “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment.” The proposed bill lists around 18 points describing the negatives affect that porn could have on society including, but not limited to, marriage failure, the fact that it treats women as objects, and that it can impact brain development and cause addiction.

So, Utah is not quite banning porn. Senator Weiler seems to be more interested in getting the potential negative effects on everybody’s radar; in fact, one of the specifically stated goals of the bill is to do just that:

This resolution recognizes the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

To be fair, this whole thing may be a little overblown. “Epidemic” and “public health crisis” seem like strong words to be using when we’re just talking about porn, right? Honestly, after looking at some of the data behind porn addiction in the U.S., it seems like it’s a pretty scary reality for some people. On top of addiction, according to some studies, the average age of exposure to porn may be as low as 11 years old, which certainly doesn’t seem like a good thing.

Utah in particular has has an especially interesting history as far as porn is concerned. In 2005, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. signed H.B. 260 into law, which essentially required internet providers to block pornographic websites at the request of consumers and heightened penalties for distributing porn, especially to minors. Then, in 2009, a man by the name of Benjamin Edelman conducted a study on which states consumed the most porn and why. The results? Almost every way you look at it, Utah came out on top, whether it was users per thousand people, per thousand homeowners, or per thousand broadband users.

In 2013, satire sites made fun of Utah by spreading a story that one of its cities had implemented a 30-day in jail minimum for first offense porn watching. The best part of this satirical news? People believed it, and, for a while, the nation thought Utah had really implemented jail sentences for watching porn–which is obviously ridiculous. The good news for Utah residents is that their laws to decrease porn use and subsequent embarrassment for being the country’s highest porn consumer led to some overall changes, and they have now slid back down the scale to a more moderate consumption of adult videos per capita–as you can see below in a graphic drawn up from Pornhub data in April of 2014.

All in all, I don’t really think this bill is the draconian First Amendment violation that it originally appeared to be. What Utah is trying to do is educate people on the potentially harmful effects that porn can have on children, teens, and even adults (when they get too attached). The senator seemingly has the stats to back up his claim and porn problems seem to be a lot more prevalent in our country than I ever really assumed they were, so maybe some public awareness could be a good thing. Then again, with the attention grabbing and misrepresentative headlines this legislation has been getting, I expect this bill to have some stiff opposition.

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 Is Utah Really Trying to Ban Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

On August 11, 2014 Dillon Taylor was shot dead by Officer Bron Cruz. Cruz claimed that Taylor had a weapon and that he felt threatened by the situation because he was “100 percent convinced” it would end up in a gunfight. But no weapon was ever found on Taylor and only the first minute of the body cam footage on Cruz was released at the time of the court prosecution. Prosecutors in Utah declared the killing of Taylor justified in October 2014. But now the entire eight minute video of the shooting has been released. The video pretty convincingly demonstrates Taylor’s innocence, and continues to raise questions about the force used by police officers in the United States.

In the video, Cruz yells “Get your hands up, now!” Originally, it was reported that Taylor’s response was “No, fool” before turning around to face Cruz. Cruz said he believed that Taylor was holding a gun because when he turned around he briefly lifted his shirt, a movement that often indicates a person is reaching for a gun, and that he was going to attack Cruz. As a result of this information, the court ruled Cruz’s actions as justified. Another factor that allowed the judge to clear Cruz of any charges was that he was responding to a report of a man brandishing a gun in the area. When Cruz came across Taylor and the two men with him, he believed that they were the men that the report was referring to.

Contrarily, the full video that has now been released ten months later shows Taylor wearing headphones, explaining why he did not respond to Cruz’s command to put up his hands. The remainder of the graphic video shows Cruz bending over Taylor’s body and placing him in handcuffs instead of calling for medical attention. Cruz also does not attempt to slow the bleeding of Taylor’s wounds.

Taylor’s death falls into the larger pattern of police brutality that particularly became a national conversation last fall and has continued to be a controversial issue ever since. In 2015 alone, there have been 472 people killed by the police. While many of these victims were armed and many officers probably felt threatened, the number of deaths at police hands is directly contributing to the environment of heightened anxiety and fear.

This problem is going to keep coming back again and again. While body cameras are one proposed solution and numerous counties, cities, and states have implemented them into their police departments, that one solution is not enough. The entire footage from Cruz’s body camera should have been released at the time he was being prosecuted. Instead, only the first minute of the video was used as evidence during the court process.

Police brutality is not an issue that is going to disappear, and it shouldn’t disappear if there isn’t any reform. Police officers should not be trained solely to kill and police departments should not be so militarized. These steps towards reformation will reduce the anxiety and fear that permeates so many communities.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article stated the date of Dillon’s death as August 11, 2015; Taylor’s death occurred on August 11, 2014.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dillon Taylor: Revisiting Police Brutality Through Body Camera Footage appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week lawmakers in Utah passed HB 249, which “allows a person conceived through assisted reproduction access to non-identifying medical history of the donor from the fertility clinic.” This is a huge deal that has gotten zero attention. Maybe a couple of articles in some random news sites; the Salt lake Tribune and USA Today have covered it, but nothing that has grabbed the country’s attention.

I know who both of my biological parents are (they did it the old fashion way), but my dad was adopted and there have been so many questions about his biological parents’ medical history. When filling out any medical forms there are always plenty of questions about my parents’ and grandparents’ medical histories that I sometimes just can’t answer because there isn’t much known on my dad’s side. There is a certain kind of frustration behind that because I could be facing health risks that are passed on genetically without knowing anything about it.

I’m a strong believer that having too much information is better than not having any information at all, especially when it comes to your health!

Utah’s new law gives people a better idea of what they are genetically predisposed to while still maintaining a certain level of anonymity for the donor.

USA Today discusses the lack of interest that legislators have in “assisted reproduction,” claiming that legislators are afraid to get their hands dirty because of the doors that could be opened into a deeper conversation about conception, abortion, and embryos. I know, I know, no one wants to have a continuous debate about those topics because it seems like each side is beating a dead horse, but there is something to be said about the fact that there are children out there who have no idea about one side of their genetic traits.

Currently countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia all heavily regulate many areas of reproductive technology, and many scholars around the world claim that the U.S. does not. Like somehow we have allowed this medical venture to fall by the wayside.

In my opinion the government does not need to have its hands in every single cookie jar unless it is completely necessary. There are already enough regulations set by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the boards that license every doctor. It isn’t harmful for Utah’s legislature to step in and give people a legal right to know about their medical history. It’s impossible to get any information out of a doctor about someone else’s medical history and this just allows people to know what could possibly be in their future or what could affect their own children.

This legislation does open the door to other issues; donor-conceived offspring could want to have full access to all of the information about their donor. Sometimes people just want to know where they really came from, and sometimes the donor wants to know their offspring.

Sperm banks should do a full work up and have a detailed medical history about the person donating their eggs or sperm. I get that the process is meant to be quick and helpful for those who can not conceive without a little medical intervention, but in all reality it isn’t just sperm and eggs. These pieces of biology become human beings. This is the major process of creating a life. If you are going to create a life you should know all there is to know about the counterpart helping to create it!

I will leave you with a kick ass and somewhat relevant moment from Legally Blonde to lighten the mood!

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 People Born Via Assisted Reproduction Can Now Access Medical History appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is running out of lethal injection drugs. European pharmacies have refused to sell any more of their pentobarbital or other such supplies to America after they received information that the drugs were being used to kill inmates. Most of the E.U. has abandoned the use of capital punishment; the U.S. is the only Western country that still carries out executions.

As followers of the American penal system and/or fans of Gone Girl know, the rules regarding capital punishment vary from state to state. At present, 32 states in the U.S. enforce the death penalty, including Utah and Texas.

Lawmakers are seeking “back ups” to lethal injection. Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill on Monday that allows death row prisoners to be killed by firing squad when execution by lethal injection is not available.

Read More: Lethal Injection Crisis: How States Are Solving the Problem

What are the procedures for a firing squad execution, you may ask? Officers volunteer to be part of a three-person shooting team. The anonymous trio shoots at a target over the inmate’s heart. One of the three guns that is used is loaded with a blank round, so nobody knows exactly which officer killed the inmate.

Read More: It’s Time to Bring Back the Firing Squad

If you are part of the 55 percent of Americans who support the death penalty for convicted murderers, you might agree with Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno’s evaluation of death by firing squad:

It’s the only method we have in this country for which people are trained to kill. It appears the death is the quickest.

Other methods of capital punishment have also been discussed. The electric chair, death by hanging, and gas chambers were ruled out. Judge Alex Kozinski expressed his views on the use of another controversial killing method:

The guillotine is probably best, but seems inconsistent with our national ethos.

If you are an American who is not in favor of the death penalty, you might support exploring the other alternative—eliminating capital punishment altogether. Organizations such as Amnesty International are looking to get rid of the death penalty in America and educate people about the politics of its capital punishment system.

The change of policy in Utah has brought national attention to issues of justice and morality within the U.S. prison system. Will this issue incite a push for reform? Perhaps it is necessary to re-evaluate our country’s “national ethos,” to borrow a phrase from Judge Kozinski.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Death by Firing Squad Now Legal in Utah appeared first on Law Street.

In a tragic, but very confusing story, a woman from Utah is suing herself–and a Utah court just said that she can move forward. Barbara Bagley, is representing her late-husband Bradley Vom Baur’s estate, suing the woman whose negligence may have caused the auto accident in which he passed away. The person who may have caused the accident? That’s right–it’s the same Barbara Bagley. So Barbara Bagley is suing Barbara Bagley. Confused yet? I sure am. How exactly can someone sue themselves?

Well, essentially it’s the same as when two separate people are involved in an accident like this–if someone passes away in a car accident, their “estate” can sue the person who caused the accident. In her lawsuit, she is essentially just arguing that Bagley who controls Vom Baur’s estate, and Bagley who drove the car are two different parties with two different interests. She’s asking for unspecified damages for his medical and financial expenses, loss of financial support and companionship, and the physical pain he suffered.

Bagley was driving a Range Rover in 2011 with her husband when she lost control. The car flipped after she hit a bush, and her husband, Vom Baur, was thrown from the car. He suffered extensive injuries and passed away a little over a week later. The side of Bagley that controls Vom Baur’s estate is claiming that she was negligent for failing to look ahead properly and keep control of her vehicle.

This may be a tactic to get the insurance money that Bagley desires. University of Utah Law Professor Shima Baradaran explains:

She is claiming her own negligence in her husband’s death. In order to recover for the costs of his death she has to kind of claim her own negligence. So basically she’s suing herself so that the insurance recovery can follow.

This does mean that Bagley has two separate sets of lawyers. The lawyers defending Bagley on behalf of her late-husbands estate are privately hired. The attorneys defending her as a driver come from her insurance carrier.

Now, of course, there’s been a legal battle before the case actually commenced over what Bagley is doing. The lawyers for Bagley as the driver have tried to get the case thrown out. As they wrote in a motion to dismiss:

Further, if this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether Barbara Bagley’s fault caused Barbara Bagley’s own harm. The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself In January 2014, a judge actually dismissed the case. But this week, an appeals court said that Bagley is able to sue herself.

Originally, a judge agreed with them, and threw out the case in 2014. But this week, an appeals court reversed that decision, and said that the case can move forward. The defense–the insurance company representatives for Bagley–hasn’t said whether or not it will try to bring it to the Supreme Court.

It’s a weird case, certainly, although not entirely unexpected in today’s litigation-happy world. In some ways it’s also a heartbreaking case–a woman is admitting that her negligence caused her husband’s death because that’s the way that she’s going to be able to pay off his bills. Finally, it’s a fascinating case. The ability to separate different parts of legal identity is certainly a mostly-unexplored field. Whether or not this case goes forward, or whether it ends up at the Utah Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see which of Bagley’s interests succeeds.

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 Utah Appeals Court Rules Woman May Sue Herself appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’m a Texas girl and you know we love our death penalty down here, but this week it was interesting to discover that Utah is in discussions to bring back the firing squad as one of its execution methods.

Learn more about the death penalty debate.

Last Friday, Utah’s House of Representatives voted 39-34 to approve the firing squad idea. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans, and Republican Gary Herbert sits in the Governor’s office. Herbert has kept a tight lip about whether or not he would sign the bill in question.

Apparently the firing squad has not been a very distant memory in the Beehive State. Naturally the state offers the typical lethal injection, but it also allowed the authorization of firing squads to inmates who selected that form of execution over lethal injection prior to May 3, 2004. While death-row prisoners still have the right to choose that option, the state might bring it back on a wider scale because of new concerns about lethal injection not working correctly. Advocates of this bill cited cases from Arizona and Colorado where the lethal injection was botched and led to Supreme Court challenges of that method of execution.

Read more about America’s lethal injection crisis.

Of course, in addition to these advocates there are also those who oppose the bill, namely the 34 representatives who voted against it. Many of those believe that the death penalty should be abolished altogether.

Rep. Paul Ray, a Republican from Clearfield who is sponsoring this measure, claims that a team of trained marksmen is more humane and provide much faster death than the drawn-out process of a possibly botched lethal injection. Now the bill in question would simply call for a firing squad if the state can not get the drugs needed for the lethal injection 30 days in advance of the execution. What is interesting is that there are several different kinds of lethal injection. Some states, including Utah, use a three-drug cocktail, whereas other states like Texas use a single drug.

Now that this has passed in the Utah House it is in the hands of the Senate and no one really knows which way it will go.

If you are curious, this website has a very interesting list of what all the states allow or did allow as a form of execution.

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 Utah May Bring Back the Firing Squad appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether.

Right now, the bans on watches seem to be catching on in the United Kingdom, with the University of London and London’s City University both banning the accessory.

It makes total sense that a school would want to ban smartwatches. They could obviously be used to store notes or cheat sheets that could be pulled up with just a flick of the finger. But it goes further than that–the whole idea of the technology is that it acts as a sort of extension of a smartphone. You can set them up so they give you certain notifications–for example, emails, or text messages. So, you could have a friend text you information at a particular time. Or, more simply, set up a timed email or message to send you information at a particular time during your test. Depending on what watch you have, you could also look up information during the test itself.

Some schools have banned the smartwatches themselves. Weber State University, for example, a college in Utah, has banned smartwatches during tests. It’s not just colleges, either. The College Board, the organization that runs SAT testing, has already banned them as well.

Why would schools ban all wrist watches though, in the hopes of catching just a few students who have smartwatches and hope to use them to cheat? Well, smartwatches look pretty snazzy, pretty much like real watches. If you’re not familiar with a smartwatch, as some professors may not be, it would be difficult to figure it out by just glancing at the device. It would also be a tough task for professors who teach large lecture halls with hundreds of students, and end up being a waste of time.

That being said, I think there are definitely downsides to a ban on watches as well. For one, it’s a pretty common accessory–it would be easy to forget to take off a watch the day of an exam. Secondly, any classrooms that banned watches would basically have to ensure that a clock is present in the classroom. Being able to manage time effectively is an important testing skill–many professors design tests that will take up more time than the class is allotted, if you aren’t careful. While banning watches may prevent incidental cases of cheating, it’s simpler said than done.

This is yet another example of the ways in which technology, while great, can run straight into commonsense rules. While smartwatches certainly are a threat to the integrity of our classrooms, schools will have to be very careful when it comes to figuring out the right way to mitigate that danger.

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 Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to work! OK, so if you’re like me you’ve been back to work for a week now, but it still feels like the first Monday after vacation doesn’t it? In case you weren’t into your normal routine of obsessively scrolling through the news last week, you can catch up on Law Street’s top three articles. Number one was brought to you by Marisa Mostek in her series about the dumbest laws in the United States–this time it was Utah and Nevada. The number two story was from Hannah R. Winsten who had five actionable ideas for making this your most feminist New Year yet. And the third most popular story of the week was an issue brief on hacking as a tool of war by Mike Sliwinski. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Utah and Nevada

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books. Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Read the full article here.

#2 Five Resolutions for a More Feminist New Year

Folks, the New Year is upon us. Time to break out your most bedazzled dress, pop the champagne, and party your way into 2015, am I right? Fuck yeah I am. But, while New Year’s Eve is a night of epic intoxication, huge crowds, and glittery debauchery (if you’re at the right party), it’s also notorious for being the pre-game to a little thing we all do every New Year’s Day. Resolution making. Read the full article here.

#3 Hacking: The New Kind of Warfare

Following the recent fiasco at Sony, hacking has been catapulted squarely into the spotlight. But hackers are doing more than just delaying movie premieres–they are causing serious damage and have the capability to cause much more. Before we get too scared of these anonymous boogeymen, however, it is important to understand what hacking is and who the hackers are. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books.

Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Apparently, at some point in the past, Reno also had issues with benches in the middle of the street, as lawmakers felt the need to ban putting them there. Other than that, most of the laws in Nevada are pretty reasonable.

Utah, however, is another story entirely. They take stupid laws to a completely new level. Many sites claim that in Utah, it is illegal NOT to drink milk. However, Utah’s Criminal Code actually states that “‘unfair discrimination’ of sections, communities, localities, cities or towns by buyers of milk, cream or butterfat constitutes an offense against public health, safety, welfare and morals.”

In Utah, animals have many laws that concern them specifically. For example, animals better be careful while on the road as they are considered traffic. Furthermore, it is legal to consume roadkill in Utah. Some sites wrongfully claim that it is illegal to fish from horseback, which is apparently not true. Utah does, however, have laws pertaining to fishing with a crossbow.

Also, if you are looking to change the weather in Utah, you’d better read into the laws there, where you need a permit to perform services as a “weather modifier.” Specifically, according to the Utah Administrative Code, this refers to “all acts undertaken to artificially distribute or create nuclei in cloud masses for the purposes of altering precipitation, cloud forms or other meteorological parameters.”

Many sites also claim that Utah outlaws whale hunting, which sounds like a perfectly reasonable law, except when you consider that Utah is a landlocked state. However, according to an article on Deseret News, Utah’s state law says no such thing. However, according to federal law, “it is unlawful for any person or vessel or other conveyance to take any species of whale incident to commercial whaling in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” So, okay, technically it IS illegal to whale hunt in Utah.

Sorry, Mike Tyson. Boxers must keep their technique in check in Utah matches, where biting is prohibited. If it saves the ears of other boxers from the likes of Tyson, I say that one is a reasonable law.

But not in Utah…

Despite not being allowed to swear, women have it relatively easy in Utah. If married women commit a crime in the presence of their husbands, the husbands can be held responsible for their wives’ actions.

One Utah law frequently listed as dumb bans individuals from causing a catastrophe. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me! This world could use a few less catastrophes. On that same note, it is illegal to detonate a nuclear weapon there. Makes sense, because doing so would almost certainly cause a catastrophe.

Due primarily to its Mormon population, the state has concocted a number of laws related to its inhabitants imbibing. In Utah, alcohol may not be sold during an emergency, and only retailers may possess beer in containers of two liters or more.

So to summarize, in Utah you’d better not try to cause a catastrophe by detonating a nuclear weapon and then try to purchase alcohol. But remember, in Reno, don’t put a bench in the middle of the road or sleep on the sidewalk.

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: Utah and Nevada appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

We’ve all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn’t hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I’m not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

Where is the outcry filled with blinding rage in Utah that has filled the streets of Ferguson? Why have there been no reports of Dillon Taylor’s death, except a few small pieces found here and there on random news sites? No mention on CNN, MSNBC, or any well known 24-hour news station.

Dillon Taylor, described as white and Hispanic, was shot right outside of a 7-11 on August 11 by a black police officer. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh because I’m not a huge fan of his, but he said it best on his radio show: “In the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor, and a white person can never be a victim.” Truer words have never been spoken. I realize that history has shown that white people oppressed blacks and other races. But the same has happened to whites, obviously not in the same way and not as widely remembered, but everyone has been oppressed in some way at some point in history. Why is the life of this young black man more important the life of a young white and Hispanic man?

The biggest point I want to make is that both of these young men should have the same amount of coverage, but they don’t and it is all based on race double standards. If you take a step back and look at the context of both of these shootings you would realize that there is no real difference except the color of their skin and that of the police officers. When will people stop and think about the bigger picture, not everything should be about color. It is about right and wrong. And for that matter we don’t even know who is right and wrong until all of the facts are released and the police officers who did the shootings have been investigated.

—

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 [DonkeyHotey 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 Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Weird Al Yankovic used his song “Word Crimes” to teach us all how to not make idiots of ourselves when using grammar, but it seems as if not everyone was listening. One man’s lack of attention to basic middle school language rules has created what could literally be a word crime (and Mr. Yankovic, if you somehow read this, I mean literally in its proper definition, so please don’t “smack a crowbar upside [my] stupid head.”)

Before I get into the possible crime, though, it’s time for another overdue language lesson. Homo is derived from the Latin for human, and is used in the genus classification seen in the term for the modern human, Homo sapiens. That’s right: we’re all homos. It’s also used as a Greek prefix that means “same,” as in homosexual, meaning someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex.

Another example of the homo prefix is seen in the word homophone, which refers to words that have the same sound but do not have the same meaning.

Courtesy of Funnyjunk.

Examples of homophones can be seen in the following table.

Homo-sounding Words

Urban Dictionary Definitions

My Clever Examples

Ferry

To transport internationally, or across water.

I’d love people to ferry copies of this post to other lands.

Fairy

A gay man who acts more stereotypically feminine than most straight women.

That fairy convinced me to support gay rights with his fine use of diction.

Gaze

In blog terminology, to glare with silent disapproval at a troll who has intentionally attempted to derail a topic.

If people have off-topic comments to this post, all I need to do is type “GAZE“.

Gays

A homosexual male or female.

I backed the gays at the pride parade because they used proper syntax.

Quean

The proper term for a homosexual ‘queen’ (from Elizabethan English: a male or female who sells himself for sex.) (I could have also chosen “very homosexual jeans” here.)

Yon quean not only wore a superlative gown, he also had perfect nomenclature (said in a pompous voice.)

Queen

A flamboyant homosexual, usually male, always fabulous.

That queen rocked his dress and sounded smart while doing it (said in a fabulous voice while snapping in a z formation.)

Basically, what you should learn from the above is that when someone writes about homophones, it probably has nothing to do specifically with homosexuals (except when my examples are used.) But try telling that to Clarke Woodger.

Woodger allegedly decided that one of the employees at the Norman Global Language Centre, a place teaching English as a Second Language (ESL), was out of line for writing a blog post on the very controversial world of similar-sounding words.

The employer seems to be of the opinion that ESL learners might be able to recognize the term homo, but only in the one context. Since it would be inconceivable that an ESL learning center could teach anyone that a word might have an alternate meaning, Woodger thought it best to just not ever use the word homo in any context ever. Because, you know, you don’t want anyone to mistakenly link you to the gay agenda – though the idiot agenda is perfectly acceptable.

Courtesy of Quick Meme.

Woodger purportedly demonstrated the above opinion when he fired an employee for writing an illicit homo-centric grammar post. Tim Torkildson, the dirty-minded teacher who wrote the post in question, claimed that as he was being fired, he was told the “blog about homophones was the last straw” and that the school was now “going to be associated with homosexuality.”

To be fair, I should mention that Woodger did rationally defend himself. According to him, the reason he acted the way he did was that people at this level of English learning “may see the ‘homo’ side and think it has something to do with gay sex.” Good point, Mr. Woodger, you’ve one me to you’re side – whoops, I meant you’ve won me to your side. If only there was some way to learn the difference between those same-sounding words.

Courtesy of Cheezburger.

I hope we all agree that, assuming this actually happened, Woodger is a dam unreel fool of a mail who aired in his judgment, kneads to take a chill pill, and should develop some tacked. Or something like that. But is what he did a word crime in its most literal sense?

It depends on the state and whether this fits under that state’s employment at-will exceptions. This particular story took place in Utah, where a man may marry as many people as he wants so long as all the people he wants to marry are female. In Utah, employment discrimination against LGBT individuals is not yet prohibited. That being said, I’d have to say that this means that any LGBT supporter, whether that support is intentional or just through an inappropriate grammar lesson, would also not be protected.

Drat! It appears as if it is unlikely that a word crime was committed here; however, if this had happened in a more liberal state, let’s say California, it probably would have been. So, I stand by my claim that it is literally possible to commit a word crime.

Maybe one day we will live in a land where these offensive grammar violations are banned everywhere. Until that day, let us fight against blatant homophonia by teaching future generations tolerance for the English language and all of its variable meanings.

(You earn bonus points if you see all the many, many homophones scattered throughout this epic tale.)

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Katy via Flickr].

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heterophones…Because Homophones Are Just Too Suggestive appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, citizens in both Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, Utah, poured out to celebrate gay pride at annual parades in their respective cities. In DC the mood was good. Jake Hudson, a DC local and 27-time parade attendee, actually sat it out this year, claiming this was because he was more than happy with the District’s stance on gay rights. But in Salt Lake City, the exact opposite happened. This year’s participants faced resistance from an unexpected and shameful source — the police department. An unnamed police officer refused his assignment to protect parade supporters and ensure safety. Although the Salt Lake City Police Department condemned his choice, the officer still serves as a prime example of Utah’s history of anti-gay rights legislation.

Gay Rights in Utah

Utah’s predominantly Mormon constituency tends to argue against same-sex marriage. Although some progressive groups in the community now openly support LGBT initiatives, the more conservative majority remains dominant. For this reason, gay rights legislation in Utah has had little success and far too many failures. Utah’s gay community has seen no substantial legislative victories, with the exception of a 17-day lift on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last December. LGBT couples in Utah are even prohibited from adopting children.

Gay Rights in DC

On the other side of the country, DC’s LGBT community has won countless political gains. Gay and lesbian couples have had the right to marry since 2009, and they won the right to adopt, use IVF, and hire surrogates in March 2013. In addition to these major legislative wins, the community is protected from hate crimes and sexual orientation discrimination. DC is the poster-child for gay and lesbian rights in the U.S. “I hate to say it, but we have just about everything we could want,” said Hudson.

The mayoral race in DC pretty much proves the fact that choosing a candidate based solely on shallow prejudices is no longer acceptable. There is both an openly gay candidate, Independent David A. Catania, and a candidate with a history of strong support for LGBT causes, Democrat Muriel Bowser. Based on their platforms, it is clear that both candidates would be more than willing to pass pretty much any LGBT legislation that comes their way. For example, Bowser vowed to vote against Mayor Grey’s DC United soccer stadium proposal that would have displaced the DC LGBT Center. She also hired Bo Shuff, an openly gay campaign manager who has worked in the past for the LGBT rights groups Equality Ohio and the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, DC’s LGBT community is focusing more on the more day-to-day policies of each candidate, rather than choosing the one candidate who might be in favor of extending gay rights. Nonetheless, all the advancements inside the District mean much more when you pair them with the lack thereof  in Utah. DC’s equality-driven environment is a prime example for the rest of the country  to emulate.

In a dichotomy such as this, where two sides of the country differ so drastically on such a prominent issue as gay rights, the only solution can be found in education and dialogue. There may still be a chance to encourage Utah’s youth to join the cause, while it may prove harder to change the minds of the state’s older constituents. Perhaps those who made the DC movement so successful could shift their efforts toward the country’s less progressive states.

Although it is undeniably frustrating to see two sides of a single country be so out of sync with each other, it is important to remember that social change across independent states never happens simultaneously. The horribly slow civil rights process in the South in the fifties and sixties is often blamed on tradition and prejudice. It’s fair to say the same thing is happening with gay rights in conservative areas of the country.

But there is hope in the region. Both Colorado, Utah’s neighbor, and Washington, are very progressive on many issues, ranging from the legalization of marijuana to voting for President Obama in 2012. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico have already established legal gay marriage, sparking a dialogue in Utah’s western region. Like dominos, the spread of liberal causes is influenced by neighboring states. Hopefully the Utah domino is soon to follow.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Guillaume Paumier via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC and Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parades Reveal National Split on LGBT Rights appeared first on Law Street.

The Learning Channel, or TLC, has made a name for itself in recent years for creating shows that showcase a variety of family arrangements. From the infamous “Jon & Kate plus Eight” to “Little People, Big World,” TLC stars are probably used to seeing themselves in headlines. But one of TLC’s shows, “Sister Wives,” is making headlines this week for a different reason–they were on the winning side of a lawsuit against Utah’s polygamy laws that was ruled on Friday.

“Sister Wives” stars consists of Kody Brown, his four wives, and their 17 children. They are Fundamentalist Mormons and members of a church called Apostolic United Brethren, a specific sect within the greater Latter Day Saints church. Most Mormons don’t practice polygamy now, but some do, and AUB is one of them. According to Principle Voices, a polygamy lobby and advocacy group, there are about 38,000 Mormons in the United States who practice, or at least believe in the practice of, polygamy.

“Sister Wives” began airing in 2010 and the fourth season started last summer. Brown is legally speaking only married to his first wife–Meri. The other three, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn are all married to Brown in a spiritual and religious, but not legal, sense. Since the show began, a bigamy investigation was opened by the state. The Browns have since fled from their home in Utah, to Las Vegas, NV. They were scared of persecution due to their polygamist family arrangement.

Until last Friday, Utah had some of the strictest anti-bigamy and anti-polygamy laws in the country. It was illegal to even claim you were married to multiple people, or to live with multiple partners. Most other states have made it so that it is illegal to obtain multiple marriage licenses, or try to obtain a marriage license to someone who is already married.

Under the former Utah definition, the living arrangement of the Browns would have been illegal. In Utah, it would have been classified as up to a third-degree felony, warranting a fine of up to $5000 or up to 5 years in prison. State attorneys have used the law to prosecute polygamous families successfully in the past.

The Browns brought the lawsuit against Utah about two years ago, claiming that their constitutional right to privacy was being violated by the Utah law, as well as their right of religious freedom. US District Court Judge Clark Waddoups agreed with the Browns in a 91-page ruling he released on Friday. The ruling struck down only the cohabitation portion of the Utah polygamy law, and rendered it similar to polygamy laws in most other states. Now, it is only illegal to attempt to legally marry someone, or attempt to seek a marriage license if you are already married. In his decision, Judge Waddoups pointed out that the law is “too broad because it bars consenting adults from living together and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships”.

This is seen as a huge win for both fundamentalist Mormons, as well as privacy-rights advocates. Given the national debate about marriage rights, whether this will move in a wave of changes could be interesting. But my prediction is that it will not, and that Judge Waddoups’ ruling was just a move to catch up an antiquated law in a conservative state to the rest of the United States.

—

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 [Kyle Pearce 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 “Sister Wives” Win Big Case appeared first on Law Street.

On April 11, 2007 in Pleasant Grove, UT, a woman named Michele MacNeill was pronounced dead of cardiovascular disease. MacNeill’s death came as a complete shock to her family. A former beauty queen who had just undergone a facelift procedure, MacNeill was a happy mother of eight, a devout Mormon, and married to a prominent Utah physician named Dr. Martin MacNeill.

For the MacNeill family, the years that followed were marred by lies, deceit, accusations, and tragedy. On Tuesday, October 15, Dr. Martin MacNeill’s murder trial will begin.

The story behind the MacNeill family and Michele MacNeill’s death is convoluted at best. According to different family members, there are many conflicting facts about what happened that day in the MacNeills’ Utah home.

Michele MacNeill had undergone a facelift surgery on April 3rd, 2007. She returned home on April 4th, and her daughter Alexis Somers , at the time a med-school student, stayed at home to tend to her mother. The morning after her mother returned home from the hospital, Alexis found her unresponsive in bed. According to Alexis, her father Martin stated that he might have overmedicated his wife.

Alexis’s story continues with a conversation with her mother; she testified in a pretrial hearing that Michele stated, “If anything happens to me, make sure it wasn’t your dad.” On April 11th, after Alexis returned to medical school, her mother passed away fully clothed in a bathtub in their home. Michele’s then six-year-old daughter Ada found her later that morning.

The coroner at first ruled her death as the result of a cardiac condition. However her children, particularly Alexis and her sister Rachel, were convinced that their father had something to do with their mother’s sudden passing. Finally in 2010, medical examiners took another look at the evidence and discovered that there was a possibly fatal combination of medications in Michele’s system. According to a CNN interview with Todd Grey, chief medical examiner of the Utah Sate Medical Examiner’s Office none of these medications were deadly on their own, but in combination they could have led to a cardiac death.

The MacNeills had one son, named Damian, who unfortunately committed suicide in 2010. However his girlfriend at the time, a woman named Eileen Hang, claims that Martin asked her to discard all of his wife’s medications after she died.

Martin tells a drastically different story that has been rife with contradictions. He has made numerous opposing statements to law enforcement, family, and friends. He claims to have an alibi, but it is largely unsubstantiated. His motive is, of course, at issue. The motive the prosecution will be presenting is of a philandering husband who fell in love with another woman named Gypsy Willis.

Gypsy Willis is being lauded as the prosecution’s star witness.  She had begun an affair with Martin in April 2004. From there, the story gets stranger. In the days leading up to Michele’s death, she exchanged many text messages with Martin. A week after Michele’s death, Gypsy moved in with the family to work as a nanny. She started pretending to be Martin’s wife and introduced her self as Jillian Giselle MacNeill. She pleaded guilty to identity fraud and related charges in 2011.

There are countless other confusing aspects of the story. The MacNeills had four biological children—Rachel, Alexis, Vanessa, and Damian—and then adopted four children from Ukraine. However the locations of three of these four children are essentially unknown—according to family members they may have been sent back to Ukraine. According to Alexis, before the facelift and subsequent death of Michele, Martin said he “no longer loved Michele and didn’t want their adopted daughters anymore.” Recently it has come out that the youngest, Ada, supposedly adopted, was actually Vanessa’s daughter and Michele’s biological granddaughter.

Since their mother’s death, Rachel and Alexis, along with the help of their aunt Linda, have crusaded against their father to face justice for what they believe was a murder. They have created two sites: and http://martinmacneill.info/ to attempt to inform the public about her death and his supposed involvement.

Currently, pretrial motions have been ruled upon, and jury selection will begin tomorrow. The facts will make for an interesting trial; any case so riddled with contradictions will be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It also comes a time when high profile cases have the ability to take the nation by storm. While the MacNeill case has not been as publicized as the Trayvon Martin or Casey Anthony cases, it has potential to become a media event. It will pitch a father against his daughters, a mistress against her former lover, and the truth against lies.

[CNN]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Smith 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 Stranger Than Fiction: The Martin & Michele MacNeill Case appeared first on Law Street.