Certain non-physician medical professionals will now be allowed to perform first-trimester abortions in the state, while abortion facilities will no longer be singled out to adhere to certain facility standards.
Websites like YouGotPosted.com and MyEx.com have profited off of “revenge porn,” a form of cyberbullying in which people post once-private pictures of their exes. Some say criminal laws, like the one just passed in California, are the best remedy, while others suggest putting down the camera in the first place.
Having to fight your employer for health-care equity is bad; having to fight whoever else has an opinion on it is worse.
Last week, California passed a bill requiring overtime pay for domestic workers. Some are concerned about the cost people with disabilities—many of whom are low-income—may incur to pay for such care.
This week, researchers are hopeful after a common topical anti-fungal medication is found to kill HIV-infected cells, a transgender high school student experiences highs and lows after being named homecoming queen, and President George H.W. Bush is a witness at a same-sex wedding.
Despite the recent HIV outbreak among porn stars, a bill to require condoms on set died in the California senate. So porn stars will head back to work on Friday without condoms, but with new STD testing rules.
On this episode of Reality Cast, Dr. Tracy Weitz talks about a new bill designed to expand access to safe abortion services in California. In another segment, I discuss how anti-choicers are upsetting people in New Mexico, and I have some good news about teen pregnancy.
While there have been recent transgender rights victories for students in California and Colorado, there are also plenty of roadblocks in guaranteeing equal representation and protection.
We applaud the California governor’s veto of AB 926, which would have permitted researchers to pay women for their eggs. His decision was based, in part, on the fact that the risks to women who provide eggs outweigh the potential scientific benefits.
In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel ruled the first-of-its-kind law did not violate the First Amendment.