News
US States Take Control Of The Abortion Debate With Funding Focus

(CTN News) – The sole indication of the Insight Women’s Core’s faith-based objective to discourage women from seeking abortions is the jazzy piano version of “Jesus Loves Me” playing in a waiting room, despite its location at the center of a revived cultural conflict in the country.
Similar anti-abortion organizations that encourage women to carry their pregnancies to term by providing free pregnancy tests, sonograms, counseling and parenting programs taught by volunteers are being considered for funding by the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature.
Additionally, they are thinking of giving donors who fund what they refer to as “crisis pregnancy clinics” millions more in income tax deductions.”
When the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade last year and granted the states power over abortion policy, it resulted in bans and limits in certain areas while executive orders and legislation safeguarding access were passed in other states.
While such discussions are ongoing, it’s less obvious how this modification has reignited the conflict over public funds.
Supporters claim the initiative demonstrates how those who oppose abortion think toward the social and economical concerns of families.
However, detractors claim that the planned extra money for groups like Insight, whether in direct cash or tax credits for its contributors, falls well short of what is required to increase people’s access to healthcare and solve enduring poverty.
Alesha Doan, an associate professor at the University of Kansas who has researched and authored books on abortion politics, said you “route money via a short-term solution that makes it look as if you are doing something.”

Credit: Associated Press Television News
Liberal towns and states are increasingly subsidizing access to abortion, including telemedicine, which has significantly increased since more than half of abortions in the US are now performed using pills rather than surgery.
States with GOP-controlled legislatures and governors are aiming to increase the number of tax dollars going to groups that try to persuade women not to stop their pregnancies.
Legislative committees conducted hearings on ideas for a $10 million maximum on the overall credit amount and a 70% income tax credit to donors who fund anti-abortion organizations on Thursday. This week, a Senate committee might vote.
It is comparable to a venerable Missouri legislation that offers income tax deductions to contributors who fund anti-abortion organizations.
Such a statute exists in Arizona, and the Republican House Speaker of Mississippi is attempting to raise the $3.5 million tax credit ceiling from last year to $10 million.
The National Right to Life Committee reports that similar tax benefits may be added in Arkansas and Oklahoma.
One state research estimates the anti-abortion facilities served around 43,000 individuals in Missouri last year, and contributors to those organizations have gotten $15 million in state tax credits overall over the previous five years.
Long before Dobbs, the June ruling reversing Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents ran facilities like Insight, and conservative-led states used to support them financially.
On the issue of abortion rights, Oregon legislators established a $15 million fund for abortion access last year, with the first $1 million going to a charity that pays for patients’ travel and operations.
Public money for abortions or associated services has been granted or is being considered in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
Democratic governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico committed $10 million in public funding to develop a new abortion facility last year.
The financing was lauded by Morgan Hopkins, the leader of the pro-abortion rights organization All(asterisk) Above All. “Our principles are reflected in our budgets, “She stated.
Kansas already gives funds to initiatives that support individuals in getting prenatal care and completing their pregnancies.
However, it only spends less than $339,000 on the program out of a $24 billion state budget, and it only gave anti-abortion groups two grants totaling less than $74,000.
The income tax credits and Missouri’s yearly subsidy of more than $8 million are now being discussed by some opponents of abortion.
Supporters of abortion rights are angry that the call for such support is being made only days after a statewide referendum on Aug. 2 that resoundingly rejected a proposal to alter the Kansas Constitution that would have empowered lawmakers to severely limit or outlaw abortion.
State Sen. Ethan Corson, a Democrat from the Kansas City region who sits on the Senate tax committee, expressed broad worries that “we’re not following what the very apparent desire of voters was.”
Those who support abortion rights claim that these facilities entice clients away from abortion clinics by providing them with free services, false medical information, and counseling from untrained counselors. Some believe sponsoring them is a political ploy to soften the blow of abortion laws.
Opponents of abortion claim that facilities like Insight provide patients with various prenatal and postpartum programs and other support.
Additionally, they contend that increasing financing for free programs after the August decision demonstrates a commitment to not forsake parents and families.
Nearly 8 months after giving birth to her son Winston, 28-year-old Korbe Bohac continues to attend the Insight center in Lawrence, where the closest abortion facility is a 40-minute drive away.
She testified before lawmakers that the seminars and therapy helped her maintain her mental health and make her a better, more secure parent. In her words, it was “a safety net.”
Two ultrasound nurses are at the Insight facility near the University of Kansas, and a physician and radiologist sometimes donate their services.
However, the majority of the services rely on 50 volunteers. The nonprofit receives most of its $340,000 yearly budget from private contributions, but in 2014 it was awarded a community development grant to start parent education workshops.
The workers at the center explained that although they do not recommend clients to abortion clinics, they do talk to them about the possibility.
Although it is impossible to confirm, given patient privacy standards, they claimed that some patients who met with them afterward had abortions.
One waiting area is for Insight’s educational activities, while the other is for its medical services. One reason, according to executive director Bridgit Smith, is that it prevents expectant patients from being affected by viewing infants and young children.
Smith said that she thinks the new tax credit will boost contributions and assist Insight in constructing a maternity home for those without homes.
“Our goal is to create strong families and strong people. And isn’t that what we all desire? Said, Smith. “We still want the lady to be strong and well after the choice, even if she chooses not to parent.”
Related CTN News:
China has 80% of Covid-19 infected People, So There’s Little Chance of a Big Rebound

News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
News
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.
Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.
The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.
Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.
Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.
He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli
Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.
“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.
Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.
SOURCE | AP
-
News4 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health4 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning3 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?