Conservative DC Think Tank Invites Taylor Swift For Policy Discussion After She Claimed She’s ‘Obsessed With’ Politics

In a Rolling Stone interview, Taylor Swift said she has a newfound obsession with politics, but ‘politics’ to Swift means only liberal ideas.

Go to Source
Author: Chrissy Clark


Buttigieg Hopes Discovery Of 2,246 Aborted Fetal Remains ‘Doesn’t Get Caught Up In Politics’

It is hard for Pete Buttigieg to spin thousands of preserved dead baby body parts as ‘women’s health care’ when your his is swarming with state and federal officials investigating how the fetal remains got there.

Go to Source
Author: Margot Cleveland

The Motherhood Pay Gap

Does capitalism help or hurt women? I recently participated in a debate on the topic at the Cato Institute. While preparing for the event, I learned many fascinating facts that may interest feminists who claim the best way to help American women is for the U.S. government to do what other governments have done: spend a lot of money on so-called “pro-family” programs.

Consider Nordic governments, often praised by modern feminists and socialists alike, as models America should emulate.

It’s certainly true that, for years, these countries have been hailed for being at the forefront of gender equality with programs such as paid family leave for both men and women and generous child care handouts to help women balance home life with work life. The policies are also supposed to help slay that favorite leftist unicorn — the “pay gap” — and elevate women to positions of power traditionally occupied by men. These entitlements certainly look fantastic on global gender equality indexes.

While it’s true that Nordic women participate in the labor force at higher rates than women in other countries, academic studies show that higher taxes on labor income — which are used to fund these generous policies — encourage women to work not full time, but part time. More generally, higher tax rates reduce the amount of time women work and increase the amount of time they spend doing unpaid household work. A Cato Institute study on “The Nordic Glass Ceiling,” by Nima Sanandaji, explains that “Nordic professors and other workers are more inclined than their lower-taxed American counterparts to devote unpaid time to domestic work rather than work longer hours in their paid work.”

Studies by the European Commission and others find that broad-based welfare policies also create incentives for women to work part time rather than full time. Ironically, paid maternity leave policies make working fewer hours more attractive relative to working full time, which in turn hinders women’s abilities to reach the top executive positions.

This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in Scandinavian countries where the benefits are more generous. For instance, while the share of female managers is 43 percent in the United States, it’s 28 percent in Denmark, 30 percent in Finland, 32 percent in Norway, and 36 percent in Sweden. These countries also have, relative to other developed nations, very low rates of women working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

Now let’s look at the impact that generous pro-family benefits have on the gender pay gap.

When measured properly, the pay gap in the United States is small. It certainly isn’t the 19 cents per dollar often advertised by the Left, including some Democratic presidential candidates.

The work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin demonstrates that this gap has almost nothing to do with discrimination. Instead, it has to do with what Goldin calls the need for “temporal flexibility.” That is, women choose to work in positions that allow them the flexibility to take care of their children. What little there is in the way of a pay gap reflects women’s choices and not employers’ discrimination.

This “earning” rather than “wage” pay gap is driven by women choosing to be moms, and it exists in every country, including Scandinavian ones. In fact, economic studies show that this gap is as big or larger in European countries with huge amounts of social spending. For instance, a well-cited paper by Henrik Kleven, Jakob Søgaard, and Camille Landais explains that although the United States and Sweden or Denmark “feature different public policies and labor markets, they are no longer very different in terms of overall gender inequality.” Other studies show that to the extent the gap is slightly smaller in Nordic countries than other big welfare states, it has more to do with these countries’ wage structures than with pro-family benefits.

The economic literature refers to these findings as the “Nordic paradox.” The lesson here is that we should not justify social policies like mandated paid leave and generous child care benefits with the idea that they will close this gap, because they won’t. American feminists should also be careful what they wish for: More generous policies might bring more women into the workforce, but they could also hinder women’s rise in the workplace by incentivizing them to work part time and, as a result, never make it to the top.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at


Go to Source
Author: Veronique de Rugy

I Was Wrong: Sometimes It’s Necessary To Remove Ectopic Babies To Save Their Mother’s Life

In my rush to defend the preborn, I fell headlong into confirmation bias. I saw what I wanted to see: that no heartbreaking compromises really have to be made.

Go to Source
Author: Georgi Boorman

Censure Vote Against Kyrsten Sinema Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Democrats’ very public reprimand of Sinema is not about addressing dissatisfaction among the electorate. It’s about shaming someone for not prioritizing uniformity over the interests of voters.

Go to Source
Author: Erielle Davidson

Hearing Friday: Plaintiffs Challenging FOSTA Ask Court to Reinstate Lawsuit Seeking To Block Its Enforcement

Washington D.C.—On Friday, Sept. 20, at 9:30 am, attorneys for five plaintiffs suing the government to block enforcement of FOSTA will ask a federal appeals court to reverse a judge’s decision to dismiss the case.

The plaintiffs—Woodhull Freedom Foundation, the Internet Archive, Human Rights Watch, and individuals Alex Andrews and Eric Koszyk—contend that FOSTA, a federal law passed in 2018 that expansively criminalizes online speech related to sex work and removes important protections for online intermediaries, violates their First Amendment rights.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is counsel for the plaintiffs along with co-counsel Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Walters Law Group, and Daphne Keller.

FOSTA, or the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, makes it a felony to use or operate an online service with the intent to “promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person,” vague terms with wide-ranging meanings that can include speech that makes sex work easier in any way. FOSTA also expanded the scope of other federal laws on sex trafficking to include online speech, and reduced statutory immunities previously provided under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The plaintiffs sued to block enforcement of the law because its overbroad language sweeps up Internet speech about sex, sex workers, and sexual freedom, including harm reduction information and speech advocating decriminalization of prostitution.

A federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” because they failed to prove a credible threat that they would be prosecuted for violating FOSTA. Because the court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, it did not rule on whether FOSTA is constitutional.

Attorney Robert Corn-Revere, counsel for the plaintiffs, will argue at a hearing on Sept. 20 that the plaintiffs don’t have to wait until they face prosecution before challenging a law regulating speech when, as here, the vague and overbroad prohibitions of the law are causing numerous speakers to censor themselves and their users. FOSTA specifically authorized enforcement by state prosecutors and private litigants, vastly increasing the risk of being sued under the statute and greatly exacerbating the speech-chilling effects of the law. FOSTA has also reportedly generated increased risks for sex workers and frustrated law enforcement efforts to investigate trafficking.

Oral argument in Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. U.S.

Robert Corn-Revere of Davis Wright  Tremaine LLP

Friday, Sept. 20, at 9:30 am

E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex
Courtroom 31
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

For more on this case:

For more on FOSTA:

Go to Source
Author: Karen Gullo

Thanks For Helping Us Defend the California Consumer Privacy Act

The California Consumer Privacy Act will go into effect on January 1, 2020—having fended off a year of targeted efforts by technology giants who wanted to gut the bill. Most recently, industry tried to weaken its important privacy protections in the last days of the legislative session.

Californians made history last year when, after 600,000 people signed petitions in support of a ballot initiative, the California State Legislature answered their constituents’ call for a new data privacy law. It’s been a long fight to defend the CCPA against a raft of amendments that would have weakened this law and the protections it enshrines for Californians. Big technology companies backed a number of bills that each would have weakened the CCPA’s protections. Taken together, this package would have significantly undermined this historic law.

Fortunately, the worst provisions of these bills did not make it through the legislature—though it wasn’t for lack of trying. Lawmakers proposed bills that would have opened up loopholes in the law and made it easier for businesses to skirt privacy protections if they shared information with governments, changed definitions in the bill to broaden its exemptions, and made it easier for businesses to require customers to pay for their privacy rights.

These bills sailed through the Assembly but were stopped in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson. The final amendments to the CCPA that passed through the legislature last week make small changes to the law, and do not weaken its important protections.

We want to thank everyone who called or wrote to their lawmakers to protect the CCPA this year and amplified how important data privacy is to the people of California. Your voices are invaluable to our advocacy.

We also appreciate the time that lawmakers, our coalition partners, and other stakeholders devoted to discussions about these amendments. As a result of this hard work, the California State Legislature stood up for the privacy law that they passed last year.

Still, while the CCPA is important for Californians’ consumer data privacy, it needs to be stronger. EFF and other privacy organizations earlier this year advanced two bills to strengthen the CCPA, which met significant opposition from technology industry trade association groups. Most importantly, these bills would have improved enforcement by allowing consumers to bring their own privacy claims to court. We particularly thank Assemblymember Buffy Wicks. Sen. Jackson, and the California Attorney General’s Office for leading the charge to improve the CCPA in the legislature.

More than anything, this year’s CCPA fight shows that when voters speak up for their privacy, it makes a big difference with legislators. We look forward to continuing to work with legislators and our coalition partners to advance measures that improve everyone’s privacy. We also look forward to offering input on the Attorney General’s regulations for the CCPA, expected this fall. And as technology trade groups redouble their efforts to weaken state privacy laws or override them with a national law, we encourage everyone to keep pushing for strong consumer data privacy laws across the country.

Go to Source
Author: Hayley Tsukayama