Equifax had an online portal where customers go to log issues with their credit reports.

\n\nThe Equifax data breach that leaked information on the now-145 million people was caused by a vulnerability in Apache's Struts system. Trouble is, the software provider supplied a patch back in March that should have eliminated that vulnerability. But Equifax's former CEO (who suddenly retired last week) told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that a single IT technician was at fault for the whole thing after they failed to install the patch.\n\nWhile speaking to the committee (video below), former CEO Richard Smith outlined the company's normal procedure for new patches: Have a technician install it and then scan the system for any remaining vulnerabilities. Apparently, both the human and computer steps failed.\n\nAs Smith outlines in his written testimony (PDF), the Department of Homeland Security's Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) sent Equifax (alongside many other companies) a notice on March 8th, 2017 about the vulnerability in certain versions of Apache Struts. Equifax sent out an internal mass-email, which should have required its internal IT team to fix the vulnerability within 48 hours, but that didn't happen. An automatic scan for vulnerabilities on March 15th also failed to indicate that Equifax was using a Struts version that had the vulnerability.\n\nBased on Equifax's postmortem investigations, the hacker that exploited this exact weakness likely first used it to pry into Equifax on May 13th, and then continued until July 30th, and Equifax's security tools were none the wiser.

Automatic scan on March 15th failed to detect vulnerability.

\n\nEquifax says a giant cybersecurity breach compromised the personal information of as many as 143 million Americans — almost half the country.\nCyber criminals have accessed sensitive information -- including names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and the numbers of some driver\'s licenses.\n\nAdditionally, Equifax said that credit card numbers for about 209,000 U.S. customers were exposed, as was "personal identifying information" on roughly 182,000 U.S. customers involved in credit report disputes. Residents in the U.K. and Canada were also impacted.\n\nThe breach occurred between mid-May and July, Equifax said. The company said it discovered the hack on July 29.\n\nThe data breach is one of the worst ever, by its reach and by the kind of information exposed to the public.\n\n"This is clearly a disappointing event for our company, and one that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we do," said Equifax chairman and CEO Richard F. Smith.\n\nEquifax is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history, which all factor into credit scores.\n\nUnlike other data breaches, not all of the people affected by the Equifax breach may be aware that they\'re customers of the company.

Cyber criminals accessed sensitive information such as names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's license numbers.


\n\nThe Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5m files from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ then shared them with a large network of international partners, including the Guardian and the BBC.\n\nWhat do they reveal?\nThe documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.\n\nA $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.\n\nAmong national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.\n\nAn offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork.

Panamanian lawyers closed the offshore law firm and had no control over how its clients may have used the offshores he created for them.

\n\nIceland’s embattled prime minister, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, has become the first major casualty of the Panama Papers, stepping aside from his office amid mounting public outrage that his family had sheltered money offshore.\n\nWhat was planned as a mass protest in Reykjavik on Tuesday evening turned to muted satisfaction as demonstrators vented their anger following revelations that Gunnlaugsson once owned – and his wife still owns – an offshore investment company with multimillion-pound claims on Iceland’s failed banks.\n\n“We were hoping parliament would be dissolved,” said Steingrimur Oli Einarsson, a fish oil trader, one of a few hundred to brave a freezing northeasterly wind on parliament square in downtown Reykjavik.\n\n“Of course we’re happy the prime minister has stepped down. But we are not satisfied with who is taking over from him, and with the fact that the government itself is still there.”\n\nGunnlaugsson’s office said in a statement that he was not resigning, but “handing over the office of prime minister for an unspecified time” to Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, the agriculture and fisheries minister.\n\nGunnlaugsson was “very proud” of his success resurrecting Iceland’s economy after the 2008 financial crisis, the statement said, and “especially proud of his government’s handling of ... the creditors of the failed Icelandic banks”.\n\nOutside parliament, Sigrin Eiroksdottir, a pre-school teacher, said the occasion “doesn’t really feel like any kind of victory. There is so much still to put right in this country in terms of ethics, of how the world looks at us.”\n\n

Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson steps down amid public outrage over his family's offshore investments.

\n\nThe new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.\n\nFiles seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.\n\nAccording to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.\n\nThe emergence of the contracts from 2003 and 2006, which were co-signed by Infantino, link Uefa for the first time to one of the companies involved in the huge unfolding scandal that has brought down former Fifa president Sepp Blatter.\n\nUefa has denied any wrongdoing by any of its officials or any other marketing partner.\n\nIt said the contracts were all above board. Fifa has previously insisted Infantino had no dealings with any of the officials currently under investigation – or their companies. Infantino said he was “dismayed” by the reports and “will not accept that my integrity is being doubted”.\n\nThe disclosures are based on the leak of 11m documents from the files of the offshore financial law firm Mossack Fonseca, which were obtained by Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the Guardian and other news organisations.\n\n

Documents revealed by the Panama Papers leak have implicated the new head of world football.

An offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain.

11.5 million files were leaked from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca.


\n\nNew records have been set as temperatures topped 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) across much of Spain and Portugal Wednesday amid a persistent heat wave across western Europe.\n\nIn northwest Spain, the city of Ourense set its all-time temperature record of 43.2 degrees Celsius (109.76 degrees Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, according to Spain’s meteorological agency, AEMET.\n\nOn Wednesday, Zamora set its own record after reaching 41.1 degrees Celsius (105.98 degrees Fahrenheit), according to climate statistician Max Herrera. Soria set a record of 38.7 degrees Celsius (101.66 degrees Fahrenheit) that same day.\n\nThe central Portuguese town of Lousã set an all-time record of 46.3 degrees Celsius (115.34 degrees Fahrenheit) and Lisbon set a July record of 41.4 degrees Celsius (106.52 degrees Fahrenheit).\n\nBut the worst is yet to come.\n\nOfficials in Spain and Portugal are bracing themselves for the hottest day of the heat wave so far.\n\nTemperatures are set to reach around 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) in parts of western and southern Spain, according to AEMET. In its afternoon update, AEMET warned that Spain is set to experience its hottest day of the heat wave on Thursday.\n\nSimilar is being said of Portugal. Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa told reporters that Thursday is set to be the “most serious day” for Portugal as far as the extreme weather is concerned, warning that the country needs “to be more careful than ever to avoid new occurrences.”\n\n

Hundreds are dead from heat-related causes in Portugal and Spain and the toll is likely to climb further.

\n\nBritish authorities have described the extreme heat as a "national emergency" and southern Britain is under an “extreme” heat warning for the first time on record.\nIn Spain, 237 deaths occurred due to high temperatures last week, according to the country\'s Carlos III Institute, which records temperature-related fatalities daily.\nThe chances of temperatures like those forecast for next week are already 10 times higher than they would have been without the influence of human activity, said Nikos Christidis, a Met Office climate scientist.\n\nAn ongoing heat wave is fueling wildfires, causing heat-related deaths and breaking records in Western Europe.\n\nBritish authorities are issuing dire warnings, as temperatures may reach 104 degrees Fahrenheit in southern Britain, a region usually known for moderate summer heat, with July highs in the 70s. It\'s the first time such a forecast has been made in the area.\n\nThe heat poses a serious health risk, as people will need to take precautions to avoid heat-related illness. In Britain, few homes, apartments, schools or small businesses have air conditioning, making residents particularly vulnerable.\n\nExtreme heat is also endangering the environment and homes, with wildfires raging in Portugal, Spain and France.\n\nBritish authorities have described it as a "national emergency" and southern Britain is under an “extreme” heat warning for the first time on record.\n\nLondon Underground subway passengers are being advised not to travel Monday and Tuesday, because the heat is expected to affect rails and might cause delays, authorities said.\n\n

British authorities have declared a "national emergency".

\n\nHundreds more people were evacuated from their homes as wildfires blistered land in France, Spain and Portugal on Friday, while officials in Europe issued health warnings for the heatwave in the coming days.\n\nMore than 1,000 firefighters, supported by water-bomber aircraft, have battled since Tuesday to control two blazes in southwestern France that have been fanned by scorching heat, tinder-box conditions and strong winds.\n\nWhile temperatures dipped a little in Portugal, they were still expected to top 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) in some places, with five districts on red alert and more than 1,000 firefighters tackling 17 wildfires, authorities said.\n\nIn Spain, a new wildfire broke out in the south of the country after blazes in the west in the past week.\n\nMore than 400 people were evacuated from the hills of Mijas, a town popular with northern European tourists in the province of Malaga. Beachgoers in Torremolinos, some 20 km away, could see plumes of smoke rising above the hotels lining the coast.\n\nMeanwhile, the worst drought in over 70 years reduced Italy's longest river, the Po, to little more than a trickle in places, with temperatures expected to rise next week.\n\nOfficials are worried about the effects on people's health and on healthcare systems already challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic as the searing heat sweeps the continent, with warnings issued for worse to come in Britain in particular.\n\nThe World Meteorological Organization said the heatwave would worsen air quality, especially in towns and cities.\n\n

Italy's longest river, the Po, reduced to little more than a trickle in places.

\n\nMore than 125 million Americans are under heat warnings and advisories on Monday evening as a dangerous heat wave that began in the Southwest covers more real estate in the Central and Southern U.S.\n\nThe big picture: The National Weather Service (NWS) is warning that a "dangerous" combination of heat and humidity will affect the majority of the lower 48 states before the week is over, and there are few signs the heat will abate after that.\n\nAll of Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Illinois, Iowa and Indiana are under heat warnings plus parts of at least a dozen other states.\nThe heat wave is courtesy of a strong area of high pressure, or heat dome, that is slowly moving east across the Central U.S.\nThe heat dome is likely to shift eastward during the first part of the week, but then careen back west in a see-saw pattern, setting up hotter conditions again for the Upper Plains and Central states later in the week.\nClimate change is causing heat waves such as this one to be more severe, frequent and longer-lasting than just a few decades ago.\n\nWhy it matters: Heat waves are the deadliest type of severe weather hazard in the U.S., and they especially target low-income residents who may lack access to air conditioning. They are also particularly dangerous for outdoor workers.\n\nThreat level: As of Monday morning, heat watches, advisories and warnings were in effect from the Carolinas to Texas, extending north into Wisconsin and Minnesota and south to the Gulf Coast.\n\n

The US is experiencing more severe, frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves than just a few decades ago.

Europe is experiencing extreme heat waves.


\n\n\nFor the second time in two days, the Bank of England has been forced to offer extra support to UK markets still reeling from the government’s announcement last month that it would slash taxes and increase borrowing.\n\nThe central bank warned Tuesday that there was still a “material risk to UK financial stability” from a sharp-sell off in government bonds that has sent yields soaring, pushing up borrowing costs across the economy and forcing some pension funds to dump assets to raise cash.\n\nA slump in UK government bonds that promise to protect investors from inflation — known as index-linked gilts — was the latest source of risk, it said.\n\n“Dysfunction in this market, and the prospect of self-reinforcing ‘fire sale’ dynamics pose a material risk to UK financial stability,” it said in a statement.\n\nThe extent of the bond market strain was underscored Tuesday when the UK government sold £900 million ($994 million) of index-linked gilts due in 2051 at the highest yield since October 2008, according to Reuters.\n\nStarting Tuesday, the Bank of England will include index-linked gilts in its emergency £65 billion ($71.7 billion) bond-buying program announced on Sept. 28. “These additional operations will act as a further backstop to restore orderly market conditions,” it added.\nThe bank said the program would end as planned on Friday, despite calls for it to continue for another three weeks.\n\nOn Monday, it doubled the daily limit on its bond-buying to £10 billion through the end of the week.

SVB had specialised in financing start-ups.

\n\nA global rout sparked by investors’ pessimism about the US economy has pulled down Indian technology companies, too.\n\nThe Nifty IT, a key Indian stock market index for the information-technology space, is ending 2022 down 24% from the previous year, its worst fall since the 2008 global financial crisis. This decline comes after five straight years of annual gains.\n\nTech majors such as Wipro, Tech Mahindra, and Mphasis have lost more than 40% of their market value in 2022. Hundreds of employees of both startups and bellwether companies have been laid off. Venture capitalist funding has dwindled.\n\nWhile the Indian economy itself has been resilient in a shaky global environment, its tech industry’s weak stretch may continue into 2023.\n\nFears of a recession, stoked by rising interest rates in developed markets, have hit the revenues, sales, and growth prospects of many global tech firms. A major share of Indian tech firms’ earnings comes from global clients.\n\nThis sell-off only intensified after Goldman Sachs, in September, downgraded Mumbai-based Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Bengaluru’s Infosys to “sell” from “buy,” citing a potential slowdown in revenue growth.\n\nMeanwhile, HCL Technologies, India’s third-largest IT company by revenue, has also lowered its revenue growth projection for 2023.\n\n

Nifty IT index ends 2022 down 24%, its worst fall since 2008 global financial crisis

\n\nEconomic warning signs are mounting in California — foreshadowing potentially tough budget decisions for the state officials and policymakers who emerge victorious from the Nov. 8 election.\n\nOne particularly eye-popping statistic: Just nine companies headquartered in the Golden State went public in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to 81 during the same period last year, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.\n\nAs of Sept. 30, initial public offerings in California had raised just $177 million, compared to an average of $16 billion during the same period over the past five years.\nThe $177 million figure represents just 2% of funds generated by U.S. companies that went public through the end of September. Last year at this time, California accounted for 39% of funds nationally.\nIf this trend continues, it could spell an end to the streak California has maintained since 2003 of generating more IPOs than any other state.\n“We are already seeing an immediate effect,” Brian Uhler, deputy legislative analyst for the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, told Bloomberg. “And it does appear to be significant,” contributing to a 5% decline in California employers’ income tax withholding payments in September compared to last year.\n\nIndeed, California collected about $2.8 billion less in taxes in September than it thought it would, marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections, according to a report released this week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance.\n\n\n

California collected less in taxes in September marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections.

UK government announces to slash taxes and increase borrowing.


\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Abortion remains legal without restrictions in Oregon.

\n\nWithin days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s memorial service in late September 2020, boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the\u202fSupreme Court’s\u202fground floor, where\u202f–\u202fbefore the ongoing pandemic\u202f–\u202ftourists could watch a film about court operations.\nGrieving aides to the justice who’d served 27 years and become a cultural icon known as the “Notorious RBG” sorted through the chambers’ contents there.\nThe abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative team to clear out Ginsburg’s office and\u202fmake way for the next justice broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied.\nIt upset employees throughout the building. They were aware that in the weeks before Ginsburg died, her staff had labored to ensure she had case documents at hand, whether in the hospital or at home. They were exhausted from all the memorial arrangements, which had attracted thousands of people to Washington.\u202f\nBut the confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s chosen successor, Indiana-based US appeals court\u202fJudge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the court as in the political sphere.\n

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

\n\nIn a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.\n\nWriting for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."\n\nThe decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.\n\nJoining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."

June 24, 2022: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote.

\n\nIn the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.\n\nSpeaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as "the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy," and he called the decision to overturn it a "tragic error" and the "realization of an extreme ideology."\n\nHowever, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden\'s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.\n\nOn June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline "Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982..." and the caption "Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden."\n\nIn recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.\n\nThat claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is "True."\n\n

A viral Facebook post claimed that Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.

Abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts in at least four states.


\n\nEconomic warning signs are mounting in California — foreshadowing potentially tough budget decisions for the state officials and policymakers who emerge victorious from the Nov. 8 election.\n\nOne particularly eye-popping statistic: Just nine companies headquartered in the Golden State went public in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to 81 during the same period last year, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.\n\nAs of Sept. 30, initial public offerings in California had raised just $177 million, compared to an average of $16 billion during the same period over the past five years.\nThe $177 million figure represents just 2% of funds generated by U.S. companies that went public through the end of September. Last year at this time, California accounted for 39% of funds nationally.\nIf this trend continues, it could spell an end to the streak California has maintained since 2003 of generating more IPOs than any other state.\n“We are already seeing an immediate effect,” Brian Uhler, deputy legislative analyst for the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, told Bloomberg. “And it does appear to be significant,” contributing to a 5% decline in California employers’ income tax withholding payments in September compared to last year.\n\nIndeed, California collected about $2.8 billion less in taxes in September than it thought it would, marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections, according to a report released this week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance.\n\n\n

California collected less in taxes in September marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections.

\n\nA global rout sparked by investors’ pessimism about the US economy has pulled down Indian technology companies, too.\n\nThe Nifty IT, a key Indian stock market index for the information-technology space, is ending 2022 down 24% from the previous year, its worst fall since the 2008 global financial crisis. This decline comes after five straight years of annual gains.\n\nTech majors such as Wipro, Tech Mahindra, and Mphasis have lost more than 40% of their market value in 2022. Hundreds of employees of both startups and bellwether companies have been laid off. Venture capitalist funding has dwindled.\n\nWhile the Indian economy itself has been resilient in a shaky global environment, its tech industry’s weak stretch may continue into 2023.\n\nFears of a recession, stoked by rising interest rates in developed markets, have hit the revenues, sales, and growth prospects of many global tech firms. A major share of Indian tech firms’ earnings comes from global clients.\n\nThis sell-off only intensified after Goldman Sachs, in September, downgraded Mumbai-based Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Bengaluru’s Infosys to “sell” from “buy,” citing a potential slowdown in revenue growth.\n\nMeanwhile, HCL Technologies, India’s third-largest IT company by revenue, has also lowered its revenue growth projection for 2023.\n\n

Nifty IT index ends 2022 down 24%, its worst fall since 2008 global financial crisis

Layoffs are making headlines, and most seem to be centered around one job sector: tech. \n\nThe tech industry increased its layoffs by 649% in 2022, which is the highest since the dot-com bubble more than a few decades ago, according to "The Challenger Report." More tech employees were laid off in 2022 than in 2020 and 2021 combined. \n\nCompanies turn to layoffs as a survival method to cut costs when revenue and profits get leaner. \n\nWhen inflation hit the economy hard in June 2022, consumers saw price increases of 9.1% compared to the typical annual rate of 2% for steady inflation, according to the Federal Reserve. 2022 saw the highest inflation rate in 40 years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The economy softened as people started buying less to accommodate these higher prices. The cost of living jumped significantly, and people and businesses had to make cutbacks. Technology companies saw price increases for services, so companies had to evaluate and make cuts if necessary. \n\nHigher interest rates affect how much a company wants to borrow due to higher costs. These higher rates directly impact venture capitalists (VCs) and other funding of startups. Companies do not want to invest in riskier areas when the economy's future is uncertain. Economic uncertainties cause companies to reevaluate their hiring and growth strategies. \n\nInvestors want companies to decrease expenses as revenues slow down. VCs are worried that profits will be down this year after the large growth period. \n\nPart of the rise in layoffs is due to correcting the hiring of too many people. During the height of the pandemic, the use of technology grew significantly as everything moved online. \n\nWith the collapse of SVB, more venture capitalists and banks are going to be nervous about taking on the risk of start-up companies.

Investors wanted companies to decrease expenses as revenues slowed down.


\n\nNovember 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. During his presidency, he appointed three conservative judges to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — solidifying a conservative majority.\n\nJune 27, 2016: In its strongest defense of abortion rights in 25 years, the court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.\n\nDecember 1, 2021: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was brought to the Supreme Court, a case dealing with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Upholding Mississippi's ban would mean overturning Roe.\n\nMay 2, 2022: A Politico report details a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade. The news set off protests and rallies across the country.\n\nJune 24, 2022: The court ruled 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative justices in the decision to uphold Mississippi's law, but urged a concurring opinion concerning Roe. The decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states in the nation.\n\n

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

\n\nWithin days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s memorial service in late September 2020, boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the\u202fSupreme Court’s\u202fground floor, where\u202f–\u202fbefore the ongoing pandemic\u202f–\u202ftourists could watch a film about court operations.\nGrieving aides to the justice who’d served 27 years and become a cultural icon known as the “Notorious RBG” sorted through the chambers’ contents there.\nThe abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative team to clear out Ginsburg’s office and\u202fmake way for the next justice broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied.\nIt upset employees throughout the building. They were aware that in the weeks before Ginsburg died, her staff had labored to ensure she had case documents at hand, whether in the hospital or at home. They were exhausted from all the memorial arrangements, which had attracted thousands of people to Washington.\u202f\nBut the confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s chosen successor, Indiana-based US appeals court\u202fJudge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the court as in the political sphere.\n

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.


Gwyneth Paltrow\'s attorneys asked the daughter of a man suing the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer over a 2016 ski collision about missing GoPro camera footage that they called "the most important piece of evidence" at trial Thursday.\n\nSteve Owens, Paltrow\'s attorney, asked one of the man\'s daughters, Polly Grasham, about emails exchanged with her father about the mysterious footage and the possibility that the lawsuit was filed against Paltrow because she was famous.\n\nThe GoPro footage has not been found or included as evidence for the trial.\n\n"I\'m famous ... At what cost?" Terry Sanderson, the 76-year-old retired optometrist suing Paltrow, wrote in the subject line of an email to his family after the crash.\n\nSanderson is suing Paltrow for more than $300,000 in damages, claiming that she skied recklessly into him on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago, breaking his ribs and leaving him with a concussion. Paltrow has claimed Sanderson caused the crash and countersued for $1 and attorney fees.\n\nThe trial took on an increasingly personal note on the third day of proceedings when Sanderson\'s daughter and a neuropsychologist testified about his declining health.\n\nSanderson\'s attorneys tried to persuade jurors that the collision had changed the course of their client\'s life, leaving him brain-impaired and damaging his relationships with loved ones.\n\nPaltrow\'s attorneys questioned whether Grasham and neuropsychologist Dr. Alina Fong could say with certainty that Sanderson\'s downturn wasn\'t a result of aging or documented, pre-crash conditions.

Paltrow was criticized by the public for promoting starvation diets and her ideas on conscious uncoupling

Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Sanderson's legal team could not come to a resolution with Paltrow and her attorney.

Gwyneth Paltrow was skiing at the Deer Valley Resort when she collided with retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson.

Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she emphatically denied that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.\n\n"Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth," Paltrow said from the stand Friday.\n\nThe actor and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way. \n\nPaltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson\'s daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.\n\nPaltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.\n\nPaltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.\n\n“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Paltrow denies responsibility for the accident and claims it was actually Sanderson at fault.

Gwyneth Paltrow is on trial over a 2016 ski accident in Utah involving a retired optometrist who claims he suffered life-altering injuries.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, says the Hollywood actress was distracted and caused the crash. He is seeking $300,000 (£245,000) in damages.\n\nMs Paltrow, 50, denies the charge, and has countersued for $1 plus compensation for attorneys\' fees.\n\nMr Sanderson first filed suit against Ms Paltrow in 2019, three years after their collision.\n\nThe former US army captain and optometrist, who says he has never been injured in more than 30 years of skiing, accuses the Oscar winner of being "reckless" and racing into him from behind on a beginner slope at the upscale Deer Valley Resort in western Utah.\n\nLawyers for Mr Sanderson, who was 69 at the time, allege Ms Paltrow was distracted by her children and emitted a "blood-curdling scream" before landing on top of him, then left him "lying in the snow" without calling for help.\n\nHe claims the February 2016 crash left him unconscious, and that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and four broken ribs, as well as "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and disfigurement".\n\nHe initially sought $3.1m over what he deems a "hit and run", but that lawsuit was dismissed last May.\n\nHe took the stand twice during the trial, defending himself against allegations he is trying to exploit a celebrity.\n\n\nA movie star-turned-lifestyle influencer, Ms Paltrow rejects the plaintiff\'s version of events and alleges he skied directly into her back.

Terry Sanderson has accused Gwyneth Paltrow of causing the skiing accident.


\n\nIn a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.\n\nWriting for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."\n\nThe decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.\n\nJoining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."

June 24, 2022: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote.

\n\nThe American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove. \n\nBy more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women's lives worse rather than better. \n\nThose who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy. \n\nAs they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday's ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.\n\nViews on Roe being overturned divide along partisan lines, though perhaps not as completely as political debate or legislative battles might suggest. One in six Democrats approves, and one in five Republicans disapproves. \n\nAcross demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. \n\nApproval is high among Republicans, those who identify as conservatives, and evangelical Christians.\n\nThose who approve of Roe being overturned report feeling hopeful most of all, and happy and relieved. White evangelicals are also particularly likely to express these positive sentiments.\n\n

Three-fourths of conservatives approve of the ruling.

\n\nNovember 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. During his presidency, he appointed three conservative judges to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — solidifying a conservative majority.\n\nJune 27, 2016: In its strongest defense of abortion rights in 25 years, the court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.\n\nDecember 1, 2021: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was brought to the Supreme Court, a case dealing with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Upholding Mississippi's ban would mean overturning Roe.\n\nMay 2, 2022: A Politico report details a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade. The news set off protests and rallies across the country.\n\nJune 24, 2022: The court ruled 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative justices in the decision to uphold Mississippi's law, but urged a concurring opinion concerning Roe. The decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states in the nation.\n\n

June 27, 2016: Supreme Court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

May 2, 2022: Politico report details leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.


\n\nEurope’s energy crisis is deepening as Russia further limits exports of natural gas, forcing governments to spend billions to protect businesses and consumers from soaring bills as the region slides towards recession.\n\nEuropean benchmark natural gas prices spiked 28% on Monday morning to hit €274 ($272) per megawatt hour — the first day of trading after Russian energy giant Gazprom halted flows through the vital Nord Stream 1 pipeline indefinitely, claiming it had found an oil leak in a turbine.\n\nLast year, the pipeline delivered about 35% of Europe’s total Russian gas imports. But since June, Gazprom had slashed flows along Nord Stream 1 to just 20% of its capacity, citing maintenance issues and a dispute over a missing turbine caught up in Western export sanctions.\n\nMoscow’s decision not to reopen the pipeline on Saturday stoked concerns that the European Union could run short of gas this winter, despite a successful effort to fill storage tanks. Similar fears in the United Kingdom sent wholesale natural gas futures up by more than a third on Monday.\n\nNews of the pipeline’s indefinite closure on Friday caused the euro to sink below $0.99 on Monday — its lowest level in 20 years. The pound hit $1.14, its lowest since 1985, as traders worried about the toll a potentially drastic energy shortage could have on regional economic activity and government budgets.\n\nSome countries are preparing to spend big to try to limit the pain.\n\nOn Sunday, the German government announced a €65 billion ($64 billion) relief package to help households and companies cope as inflation soars.\n\n

Some Russian gas is still flowing to Europe through pipelines passing through Ukraine and Bulgaria.

\n\nFor the first time, global demand for each of the fossil fuels shows a peak or plateau across all WEO scenarios, with Russian exports in particular falling significantly as the world energy order is reshaped\n\nThe global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing profound and long-lasting changes that have the potential to hasten the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy system, according to the latest edition of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.\n\nToday’s energy crisis is delivering a shock of unprecedented breadth and complexity. The biggest tremors have been felt in the markets for natural gas, coal and electricity – with significant turmoil in oil markets as well, necessitating two oil stock releases of unparalleled scale by IEA member countries to avoid even more severe disruptions. With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system, the World Energy Outlook 2022 (WEO) warns.\n\nThe WEO’s analysis finds scant evidence to support claims from some quarters that climate policies and net zero commitments contributed to the run-up in energy prices. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices – and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some consumers, albeit far from enough. The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy.\n\n

\n\nFinding a joint strategy to ease the European Union\'s ailing energy market is set to drive discussions in Brussels this week, as EU leaders convene for a two-day summit.\n\nEnergy prices — determined by the price of gas, coal and oil — had already soared across the globe after COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted and economies opened up, and the war in Ukraine has only exacerbated the crisis. Moscow\'s decision to cut gas supplies to the EU since launching the invasion has had a dynamic impact on gas prices within the bloc.\n\nPrices rose to a record high of €335 ($337) per megawatt hour (MWh) in the spring. Since then, prices have fallen to about €225 per MWh, but are still up 300% since the start of 2022.\n\nPhuc-Vinh Nguyen, a research fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute, a Paris think tank, told DW that if the war continued to escalate European gas prices would remain relatively high, and could be up to four times as much by 2025. "This will be a big issue for industries and also for consumers," he said.\n\nEU leaders and their energy ministers have held a string of meetings over the past few weeks to find solutions to reduce these high prices. But a united strategy is not yet on the table.\n\nDivisions persist over "capping prices," with some EU states, including Belgium, Italy, Poland and Greece, wanting a pan-European wholesale price cap on gas.

COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted and economies opened up.

\n\nEurope is struggling to contain an energy crisis that could lead to rolling blackouts, shuttered factories and a deep recession.\n\nThe primary cause: Russia has choked off the supplies of cheap natural gas that the continent depended on for years to run factories, generate electricity and heat homes. That has pushed European governments into a desperate scramble for new supplies and for ways to blunt the impact as economic growth slows and household utility bills rise.\n\nThe crisis deepened when Russia’s state-owned exporter Gazprom said the main pipeline carrying gas to Germany would stay closed, blaming an oil leak and claiming the problems could not be fixed because of sanctions barring many dealings with Russia.\n\nEuropean officials say it’s energy blackmail, aimed at pressuring and dividing the European Union as it supports Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.\n\nHere is the latest on Europe’s efforts to avoid an energy disaster:\n\nJust about. The halt in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline means Russian gas shipments have fallen 89% from a year ago. Russia used to supply 40% of Europe’s natural gas, and even more to Germany, where inexpensive energy was a pillar of the economy.\n\nThere’s still some Russian gas flowing to Europe through a pipeline passing through Ukraine into Slovakia, and another crossing the Black Sea to Turkey and then to EU member Bulgaria. Russia started cutting back gas as early as last summer, before the war in Ukraine started. That sent gas prices sharply higher.\n\n

Russia's state-owned exporter Gazprom has closed the main pipeline carrying gas to Germany.


\n\nIn the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.\n\nSpeaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as "the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy," and he called the decision to overturn it a "tragic error" and the "realization of an extreme ideology."\n\nHowever, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden\'s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.\n\nOn June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline "Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982..." and the caption "Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden."\n\nIn recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.\n\nThat claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is "True."\n\n

A viral Facebook post claimed that Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.

\n\nNovember 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. During his presidency, he appointed three conservative judges to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — solidifying a conservative majority.\n\nJune 27, 2016: In its strongest defense of abortion rights in 25 years, the court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.\n\nDecember 1, 2021: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was brought to the Supreme Court, a case dealing with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Upholding Mississippi's ban would mean overturning Roe.\n\nMay 2, 2022: A Politico report details a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade. The news set off protests and rallies across the country.\n\nJune 24, 2022: The court ruled 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative justices in the decision to uphold Mississippi's law, but urged a concurring opinion concerning Roe. The decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states in the nation.\n\n

June 27, 2016: Supreme Court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Lawsuits have been filed in several states arguing that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.

\n\nIn a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.\n\nWriting for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."\n\nThe decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.\n\nJoining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."

June 24, 2022: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote.


\n\nIn the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.\n\nSpeaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as "the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy," and he called the decision to overturn it a "tragic error" and the "realization of an extreme ideology."\n\nHowever, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden\'s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.\n\nOn June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline "Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982..." and the caption "Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden."\n\nIn recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.\n\nThat claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is "True."\n\n

A viral Facebook post claimed that Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.

\n\nWithin days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s memorial service in late September 2020, boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the\u202fSupreme Court’s\u202fground floor, where\u202f–\u202fbefore the ongoing pandemic\u202f–\u202ftourists could watch a film about court operations.\nGrieving aides to the justice who’d served 27 years and become a cultural icon known as the “Notorious RBG” sorted through the chambers’ contents there.\nThe abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative team to clear out Ginsburg’s office and\u202fmake way for the next justice broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied.\nIt upset employees throughout the building. They were aware that in the weeks before Ginsburg died, her staff had labored to ensure she had case documents at hand, whether in the hospital or at home. They were exhausted from all the memorial arrangements, which had attracted thousands of people to Washington.\u202f\nBut the confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s chosen successor, Indiana-based US appeals court\u202fJudge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the court as in the political sphere.\n

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

\n\nAbortion rights activists across the country are sending a clear message after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: They’re not backing down.\n\nFrom Minnesota to California to Florida, more than a dozen protests are planned Monday to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the nearly 50-year-old federal constitutional right to have an abortion.\n\nThe fallout was swift: At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion since Friday’s ruling. And 26 states have laws indicating they could outlaw or set extreme limits on abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.\n\nActivists on both sides of the debate rallied in jubilation or devastation.\n\n“Old men, stop telling me what to do with my body,” read one protester’s sign in Washington, DC.\n\n“People’s bodies are more regulated than guns,” read another protester’s sign in Atlanta.\n\nOutside the Supreme Court, an elated Valentina Aaron held up a sign with an image of a fetus. “Forceps off my body,” the sign read.\n\n“It’s incredibly exciting,” Aaron said about the historic ruling. “If I was a baby in a womb, I would want someone to stand up for me.”\n\nBut nearby, abortion rights supporter Joseph Little held a sign saying, “Forced birth is enslavement.”\n\n“Making people give birth is enslavement,” Little told CNN. “When you tell people that they no longer have a voice in their own personal matters, that’s enslavement. It’s oppression. And the Bible clearly says that we need to correct oppression.”\n\n

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.


May 2, 2022: Politico report details leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.

\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights.

Abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts in at least four states.

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.


\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Lawsuits have been filed in several states arguing that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

\n\nThe American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove. \n\nBy more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women's lives worse rather than better. \n\nThose who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy. \n\nAs they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday's ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.\n\nViews on Roe being overturned divide along partisan lines, though perhaps not as completely as political debate or legislative battles might suggest. One in six Democrats approves, and one in five Republicans disapproves. \n\nAcross demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. \n\nApproval is high among Republicans, those who identify as conservatives, and evangelical Christians.\n\nThose who approve of Roe being overturned report feeling hopeful most of all, and happy and relieved. White evangelicals are also particularly likely to express these positive sentiments.\n\n

Three-fourths of conservatives approve of the ruling.


\n\nAbortion rights activists across the country are sending a clear message after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: They’re not backing down.\n\nFrom Minnesota to California to Florida, more than a dozen protests are planned Monday to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the nearly 50-year-old federal constitutional right to have an abortion.\n\nThe fallout was swift: At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion since Friday’s ruling. And 26 states have laws indicating they could outlaw or set extreme limits on abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.\n\nActivists on both sides of the debate rallied in jubilation or devastation.\n\n“Old men, stop telling me what to do with my body,” read one protester’s sign in Washington, DC.\n\n“People’s bodies are more regulated than guns,” read another protester’s sign in Atlanta.\n\nOutside the Supreme Court, an elated Valentina Aaron held up a sign with an image of a fetus. “Forceps off my body,” the sign read.\n\n“It’s incredibly exciting,” Aaron said about the historic ruling. “If I was a baby in a womb, I would want someone to stand up for me.”\n\nBut nearby, abortion rights supporter Joseph Little held a sign saying, “Forced birth is enslavement.”\n\n“Making people give birth is enslavement,” Little told CNN. “When you tell people that they no longer have a voice in their own personal matters, that’s enslavement. It’s oppression. And the Bible clearly says that we need to correct oppression.”\n\n

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.

\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Lawsuits have been filed in several states arguing that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.

\n\nThe American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove. \n\nBy more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women's lives worse rather than better. \n\nThose who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy. \n\nAs they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday's ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.\n\nViews on Roe being overturned divide along partisan lines, though perhaps not as completely as political debate or legislative battles might suggest. One in six Democrats approves, and one in five Republicans disapproves. \n\nAcross demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. \n\nApproval is high among Republicans, those who identify as conservatives, and evangelical Christians.\n\nThose who approve of Roe being overturned report feeling hopeful most of all, and happy and relieved. White evangelicals are also particularly likely to express these positive sentiments.\n\n

Three-fourths of conservatives approve of the ruling.


June 27, 2016: Supreme Court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.


Gwyneth Paltrow is on trial over a 2016 ski accident in Utah involving a retired optometrist who claims he suffered life-altering injuries.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, says the Hollywood actress was distracted and caused the crash. He is seeking $300,000 (£245,000) in damages.\n\nMs Paltrow, 50, denies the charge, and has countersued for $1 plus compensation for attorneys\' fees.\n\nMr Sanderson first filed suit against Ms Paltrow in 2019, three years after their collision.\n\nThe former US army captain and optometrist, who says he has never been injured in more than 30 years of skiing, accuses the Oscar winner of being "reckless" and racing into him from behind on a beginner slope at the upscale Deer Valley Resort in western Utah.\n\nLawyers for Mr Sanderson, who was 69 at the time, allege Ms Paltrow was distracted by her children and emitted a "blood-curdling scream" before landing on top of him, then left him "lying in the snow" without calling for help.\n\nHe claims the February 2016 crash left him unconscious, and that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and four broken ribs, as well as "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and disfigurement".\n\nHe initially sought $3.1m over what he deems a "hit and run", but that lawsuit was dismissed last May.\n\nHe took the stand twice during the trial, defending himself against allegations he is trying to exploit a celebrity.\n\n\nA movie star-turned-lifestyle influencer, Ms Paltrow rejects the plaintiff\'s version of events and alleges he skied directly into her back.

Paltrow has counter-sued for $1 plus lawyers fees.

The trial over a 2016 ski accident involving actor and businesswoman Gwyneth Paltrow wrapped up Thursday, with the jury ruling that she was not responsible for the collision at a Utah ski resort.\n\nAfter a short deliberation, the jury concluded that plaintiff Terry Sanderson was entirely at fault for the collision, with the decision ultimately hinging on which party jurors believed was higher on the slopes when the crash occurred. \n\nSanderson, 76, sued Paltrow for $3.1 million after alleging that she crashed into him at the tony Deer Valley resort in Park City, Utah. After a judge dismissed his initial suit, he later refiled his complaint seeking more than $300,000. Paltrow, 50, countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.\n\nIn each taking the stand last week, Paltrow and Sanderson presented starkly different accounts of the collision and called a succession of medical experts and witnesses to buttress their claims. Paltrow\'s ski instructor at the time of the incident, Deer Valley veteran Eric Christiansen, blamed Sanderson for the crash, which occurred on a beginner ski run. \n\n\n"Gwyneth was making her turns very rhythmically," he said under oath, while alleging that Sanderson "was making wide radius turns and taking up a large swath of the ski slope."\n\nFor his part, Sanderson has accused Paltrow of barreling into him, breaking four of his ribs and causing a severe concussion whose symptoms lingered for years.

Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski accident for $3.1 million.

Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Gwyneth Paltrow was skiing at the Deer Valley Resort when she collided with retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson.


\n\nThe supreme court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago in a rare reversal of long-settled law that will fracture reproductive rights in America.\n\nJoe Biden called the ruling a “tragic error” and the Republicans celebrating it “wrong, extreme and out of touch”.\n\nThe court, the president said, had pointed America down “an extreme and dangerous path”. Sounding an alarm over a concurring opinion by the conservative justice Clarence Thomas, Biden said key rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception could now be targeted by the rightwing court.\n\nHe said: “Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality. The right of couples to make their choices on contraception.\n\n“This is an extreme and dangerous path the court has now taken us on.”\n\nThe ruling, handed down a day after the court overturned a New York gun control law, came in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the last abortion clinic in Mississippi opposed state efforts to ban abortion after 15 weeks and overturn Roe.\n\n“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” said the majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, referring also to a 1992 ruling which buttressed Roe. “The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”\n\n

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.


\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Lawsuits have been filed in several states arguing that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.


\n\nIn a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.\n\nWriting for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."\n\nThe decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.\n\nJoining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."

June 24, 2022: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote.


\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights.

Abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts in at least four states.


Layoffs are making headlines, and most seem to be centered around one job sector: tech. \n\nThe tech industry increased its layoffs by 649% in 2022, which is the highest since the dot-com bubble more than a few decades ago, according to "The Challenger Report." More tech employees were laid off in 2022 than in 2020 and 2021 combined. \n\nCompanies turn to layoffs as a survival method to cut costs when revenue and profits get leaner. \n\nWhen inflation hit the economy hard in June 2022, consumers saw price increases of 9.1% compared to the typical annual rate of 2% for steady inflation, according to the Federal Reserve. 2022 saw the highest inflation rate in 40 years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The economy softened as people started buying less to accommodate these higher prices. The cost of living jumped significantly, and people and businesses had to make cutbacks. Technology companies saw price increases for services, so companies had to evaluate and make cuts if necessary. \n\nHigher interest rates affect how much a company wants to borrow due to higher costs. These higher rates directly impact venture capitalists (VCs) and other funding of startups. Companies do not want to invest in riskier areas when the economy's future is uncertain. Economic uncertainties cause companies to reevaluate their hiring and growth strategies. \n\nInvestors want companies to decrease expenses as revenues slow down. VCs are worried that profits will be down this year after the large growth period. \n\nPart of the rise in layoffs is due to correcting the hiring of too many people. During the height of the pandemic, the use of technology grew significantly as everything moved online. \n\nWith the collapse of SVB, more venture capitalists and banks are going to be nervous about taking on the risk of start-up companies.

Too many people hired in the tech industry during the pandemic.

\n\nEconomic warning signs are mounting in California — foreshadowing potentially tough budget decisions for the state officials and policymakers who emerge victorious from the Nov. 8 election.\n\nOne particularly eye-popping statistic: Just nine companies headquartered in the Golden State went public in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to 81 during the same period last year, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.\n\nAs of Sept. 30, initial public offerings in California had raised just $177 million, compared to an average of $16 billion during the same period over the past five years.\nThe $177 million figure represents just 2% of funds generated by U.S. companies that went public through the end of September. Last year at this time, California accounted for 39% of funds nationally.\nIf this trend continues, it could spell an end to the streak California has maintained since 2003 of generating more IPOs than any other state.\n“We are already seeing an immediate effect,” Brian Uhler, deputy legislative analyst for the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, told Bloomberg. “And it does appear to be significant,” contributing to a 5% decline in California employers’ income tax withholding payments in September compared to last year.\n\nIndeed, California collected about $2.8 billion less in taxes in September than it thought it would, marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections, according to a report released this week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance.\n\n\n

California collected less in taxes in September marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections.


\n\nWithin days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s memorial service in late September 2020, boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the\u202fSupreme Court’s\u202fground floor, where\u202f–\u202fbefore the ongoing pandemic\u202f–\u202ftourists could watch a film about court operations.\nGrieving aides to the justice who’d served 27 years and become a cultural icon known as the “Notorious RBG” sorted through the chambers’ contents there.\nThe abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative team to clear out Ginsburg’s office and\u202fmake way for the next justice broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied.\nIt upset employees throughout the building. They were aware that in the weeks before Ginsburg died, her staff had labored to ensure she had case documents at hand, whether in the hospital or at home. They were exhausted from all the memorial arrangements, which had attracted thousands of people to Washington.\u202f\nBut the confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s chosen successor, Indiana-based US appeals court\u202fJudge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the court as in the political sphere.\n

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

\n\nIn the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.\n\nSpeaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as "the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy," and he called the decision to overturn it a "tragic error" and the "realization of an extreme ideology."\n\nHowever, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden\'s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.\n\nOn June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline "Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982..." and the caption "Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden."\n\nIn recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.\n\nThat claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is "True."\n\n

A viral Facebook post claimed that Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.


\n\nThe supreme court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago in a rare reversal of long-settled law that will fracture reproductive rights in America.\n\nJoe Biden called the ruling a “tragic error” and the Republicans celebrating it “wrong, extreme and out of touch”.\n\nThe court, the president said, had pointed America down “an extreme and dangerous path”. Sounding an alarm over a concurring opinion by the conservative justice Clarence Thomas, Biden said key rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception could now be targeted by the rightwing court.\n\nHe said: “Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality. The right of couples to make their choices on contraception.\n\n“This is an extreme and dangerous path the court has now taken us on.”\n\nThe ruling, handed down a day after the court overturned a New York gun control law, came in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the last abortion clinic in Mississippi opposed state efforts to ban abortion after 15 weeks and overturn Roe.\n\n“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” said the majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, referring also to a 1992 ruling which buttressed Roe. “The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”\n\n

May 2, 2022: Politico report details leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.


May 2, 2022: Politico report details leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.

\n\nAbortion rights activists across the country are sending a clear message after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: They’re not backing down.\n\nFrom Minnesota to California to Florida, more than a dozen protests are planned Monday to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the nearly 50-year-old federal constitutional right to have an abortion.\n\nThe fallout was swift: At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion since Friday’s ruling. And 26 states have laws indicating they could outlaw or set extreme limits on abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.\n\nActivists on both sides of the debate rallied in jubilation or devastation.\n\n“Old men, stop telling me what to do with my body,” read one protester’s sign in Washington, DC.\n\n“People’s bodies are more regulated than guns,” read another protester’s sign in Atlanta.\n\nOutside the Supreme Court, an elated Valentina Aaron held up a sign with an image of a fetus. “Forceps off my body,” the sign read.\n\n“It’s incredibly exciting,” Aaron said about the historic ruling. “If I was a baby in a womb, I would want someone to stand up for me.”\n\nBut nearby, abortion rights supporter Joseph Little held a sign saying, “Forced birth is enslavement.”\n\n“Making people give birth is enslavement,” Little told CNN. “When you tell people that they no longer have a voice in their own personal matters, that’s enslavement. It’s oppression. And the Bible clearly says that we need to correct oppression.”\n\n

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.

\n\nThe supreme court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago in a rare reversal of long-settled law that will fracture reproductive rights in America.\n\nJoe Biden called the ruling a “tragic error” and the Republicans celebrating it “wrong, extreme and out of touch”.\n\nThe court, the president said, had pointed America down “an extreme and dangerous path”. Sounding an alarm over a concurring opinion by the conservative justice Clarence Thomas, Biden said key rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception could now be targeted by the rightwing court.\n\nHe said: “Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality. The right of couples to make their choices on contraception.\n\n“This is an extreme and dangerous path the court has now taken us on.”\n\nThe ruling, handed down a day after the court overturned a New York gun control law, came in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the last abortion clinic in Mississippi opposed state efforts to ban abortion after 15 weeks and overturn Roe.\n\n“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” said the majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, referring also to a 1992 ruling which buttressed Roe. “The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”\n\n


Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she emphatically denied that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.\n\n"Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth," Paltrow said from the stand Friday.\n\nThe actor and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way. \n\nPaltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson\'s daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.\n\nPaltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.\n\nPaltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.\n\n“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Paltrow denies responsibility for the accident and claims it was actually Sanderson at fault.

Sanderson's initial lawsuit was dismissed.

Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Sanderson's legal team could not come to a resolution with Paltrow and her attorney.