Tag: Court

Categories
Health

Larry Nassar is Back in Court, Where More Than 60 Women Are Scheduled to Speak


As of Wednesday, Larry Nassar is officially back in court—this time in Eaton County, Michigan—for yet another round of sentencing. Yes, Nassar has already been sentenced to 40-175 years in prison in Ingham County, but this new courtroom appearance relates to an entirely different case brought against the former USA Gymnastics doctor.

The details of the new case: While last week’s sentencing primarily centered on sexual abuse during Nassar’s time at Michigan State University, the Eaton County case is focused on women who allege that Nassar abused them at Twistars Gymnastics Club. Nassar has already entered a guilty plea in this case (similar to last week’s proceedings) and the plea agreement calls for a minimum of 25-40 years in prison. Though this case was only brought against Nassar by three plaintiffs, any and all victims of Nassar are invited to make impact statements. This includes any of the women who already delivered statements at the last week’s sentencing, where an unprecedented 150 women spoke out. (In the Michigan courtroom today, a judge said that 265 women have accused Nassar of abuse in all.)

Twistars, where survivors allege the sexual abuse occurred, is a gym that was run by 2012 Olympic coach John Geddert, who has also been accused of abuse. Survivors have described a pattern where Geddert would physically abuse them and then push them to seek treatment from his good friend, Nassar. Geddert has been suspended by USA Gymnastics and retired from Twistars, but it’s likely that survivors in the courtroom throughout the coming days will mention him as well as Nassar.

Who is slated to appear in the courtroom: The New York Times estimates that over 65 women will share impact statements during the Eaton County hearing, though that number may grow. The sentencing hearing is set to begin Friday morning and continue through Monday and Tuesday of next week, giving an opportunity for more survivors to speak.

In the courtroom today, more than 30 women (including some who have chosen to remain anonymous) shared their stories and addressed Nassar directly. Among them was Annie Labrie, who warned the court, “A pedophile cannot flourish in the way Larry did and in an environment that is not conducive to his behavior. It is imperative we as society do not view this as an isolated incident.” Katherine Ebert also spoke in the courtroom, telling Nassar: “You are the most vile, disgusting creature I have ever met. There are black holes in my memory that come back as nightmares or flashbacks, not wanting to believe they’re true.”

There will reportedly be some overlap in the women appearing in the courtroom to make statements—like 17-year-old Jessica Thomashow, who was the first to speak today—but Olympians like Aly Raisman and McKayla Maroney aren’t expected to appear.

One key similarity—a female judge: A central element in the Ingham County case was the incredible work by presiding Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, who became a pillar of support for the young women. One of her most notable lines, “Leave your pain here and go out and do your magnificent things,” became a rallying cry. In Eaton County, the sentencing is being presided over by Judge Janice K. Cunningham, and while she has yet to exhibit the same oratorial style of Judge Aquilina, she is presiding over a courtroom that will welcome as many statements as survivors wish to give, and today’s statements have already proved heart wrenching.

To be sure, the legacy of last week’s powerful testimonies is certainly felt in the courtroom and by those survivors who have chosen to speak in Eaton. And it is no less important that their voices be heard. Tiffany Dutton addressed this directly today, saying, “On this day, I’ve decided to fully relinquish my anonymity as a symbol to myself that there is absolutely nothing I have to be ashamed or afraid of.” She told the court, “Due to the bravery and courage of the many women who appeared in Ingham County to face our predator, I am no longer fearful. To all of them I will be ever grateful.”

We’ll be following the events in the courtroom—and spotlighting these brave women and teenagers’ stories—as the hearings in Eaton County progress this week.

READ MORE: ‘It Ends Now’: The Survivors of Larry Nassar, in Their Own Words



Source link

Categories
Health

The Supreme Court Just Ruled that Donald Trump's Travel Ban Can Go Into Effect—for Now


As the third and latest iteration of President Donald Trump’s travel ban remains tied up in lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the order can go into effect even amid the continuing legal battles.

Trump issued this most recent order in September, barring certain travelers from Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia, Chad, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Six of these eight nations are Muslim-majority countries, and per The New York Times, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco has argued that the ban falls under the President’s “broad constitutional and statutory powers to control immigration.” Though the specifics of the restrictions vary among the eight nations, in most circumstances, citizens will be prohibited from studying, working, vacationing, or permanently relocating to the U.S.

Already, two federal appellate courts in Maryland and Hawaii have blocked major portions of the ban, particularly as they affect travelers who have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”—like a grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother- or sister-in-law, cousin, nephew, niece, or grandchild. In June, Trump’s second travel ban was allowed to go into effect after the Supreme Court reached a compromise and allowed individuals who fell into the “bona fide” category to travel to the U.S. (That version of the ban was only temporary and expired earlier this year.)

But by issuing that third order, Trump attempted to circumvent the standards set in place by the previous ruling. And now, the administration is once again challenging the lower court rulings and brought their latest case to the Supreme Court in an effort to see the newest ban implemented while the appeals process continues.

Two Supreme Court Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor—opposed the White House’s request and did not want to allow the ban to go into effect. As the administration prepares to once again appeal their case, the Supreme Court called on these lower courts to promptly decide on the case so a final ruling could be issued before the Court’s current term ends next June.



Source link

Categories
Health

A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled That an Undocumented Teen Girl Can Get an Abortion


Following an extensive legal battle, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that an undocumented immigrant teen—who is pregnant and has been held in federally-funded shelter—must be allowed to have an abortion “without delay.”

The 6-3 decision from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturns an earlier ruling from a three-judge panel, and as Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote for the majority, it rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government.”

The 17-year-old girl, known in court documents as “Jane Doe,” found out she was pregnant not long after she crossed the border and was detained. Since September, the teen has been trying to obtain an abortion but has been blocked from doing so by the Trump administration—which has not allowed her to leave the government shelter in which she’s been held in order to obtain the procedure.

But as more time has passed, the more urgent her situation has become. The teen is now over 15 weeks along, and because she entered into Texas upon crossing into the country, she’s been subject to the state’s restrictive abortion laws—which included banning the procedure after 20 weeks and adhering to a mandatory ultrasound and waiting period before a woman can have an abortion. Beyond these measures, Texas also requires minors to obtain parental consent before having an abortion—but a state judge waived this stipulation and gave the girl permission to have the procedure.

However, the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services—the branch that oversees the shelter where the teen has been staying—has a less than progressive stance on abortion rights. As Director Scott Lloyd said in a March email (via The Washington Post), ORR facilities “should not be supporting abortion services pre or post-release; only pregnancy services and life-affirming options counseling.”

The ACLU—who represented the teen—argued that the Trump administration was preventing her from exercising her constitutional rights. Last week, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan asked the administration to grant the teen’s request, saying she was “astounded” that the only choices the teen was being given were to carry her pregnancy to term or return to her home country.

“Just because she’s here illegally doesn’t mean she doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Chutkan said last Wednesday, adding that the girl must be given access to an abortion “promptly and without delay.”

The Department of Justice then filed an appeal last Friday and a three-judge panel decided to give the administration until the end of this month to find an adult sponsor who could assist the teen. The girl’s legal team then asked for a full bench to review the case, saying that time was running out for the girl to have an abortion under Texas state laws and all sponsorship options had been exhausted. On Tuesday, the lower court ruling—dating back to last Wednesday—was reinstated and the girl was given permission to have an abortion.

When the girl will have the procedure is unclear, but many are viewing the ruling as not only a major victory for reproductive rights—but for immigrant rights as well.

“Every step of the way, the Trump administration has shown their true colors in this case,” said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in a statement.”It’s clear that their anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-immigration agenda is unchecked by basic decency or even the bounds of the law. No one should have to go to court to get a safe, legal abortion.”



Source link