Feed aggregator

Take those token limits and shove them by vibe coding with a local LLM

With model devs pushing more aggressive rate limits, raising prices, or even abandoning subscriptions for usage-based pricing, that vibe-coded hobby project is about to get a whole lot more expensive. Fortunately, you're not without cost-saving options.…

It’s become a familiar refrain: something awful happens in the world, and a member of the commentariat asks, “Where are the student protests? Or did those only happen when Biden was president?”

Deprived of student targets, they are forced to post ad infinitum about Hasan Piker. Who wouldn’t be bitter?

The consistent thread is that kids these days, because they’re protesting or because they’re not, are the problem. “One might expect left-leaning college students to have practically started a revolution” over Trump’s bombing of Iran, a writer for the Atlantic recently mused. After all, critics from Jonathan Haidt (“Instagram intifada”) to Jesse Watters (“Hamas influencers”) framed the students as the least impressive of Iran’s proxies.

But the question itself is a fair one. Where are the protests? The real answer isn’t that students decided to shut up. It’s that universities, and a hostile federal government, have expended massive resources trying to ensure they do. 

Between spring and fall of 2024—before Donald Trump’s reelection, let alone his return to office—the total number of campus protests dropped a staggering 64 percent.

Then came Trump’s second term. Universities were terrorized and cuts dished out—but administrators who had been pulling their hair out in 2024 could now say their hands were tied. Soon after Trump’s election, dozens of schools fell over themselves to institute even more speech-suppressing policies, banning things like megaphones and musical instruments from outdoor areas of campus except with permits or during specified hours.

Even faculty members are still dealing with the legal and disciplinary fallout of joining protests.

University presidents dragged before Congress to prove their compliance with Trump’s half-dozen executive orders on education testified endlessly about why they’d allowed such chaos in their fiefdoms. In response to allegations of antisemitism—and threats to revoke federal funding—some schools, like the University of California, Berkeley, even turned over students’ personal information to the federal government. 

Others simply turned the other cheek as the federal government bore down on their students. Some students who spoke in support of the Palestinian cause, like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, were kidnapped by ICE. Others, like Momodou Taal, were pressured into leaving the country to avoid the same fate. Even faculty members are still dealing with the legal and disciplinary fallout of participating in the encampments.

Schools like the City University of New York and New York University still aren’t allowing student commencement speakers out of fear that those speakers might criticize Israel. At Swarthmore College, students are busy preparing for criminal trials over their participation in encampments two years ago, when they should be preparing for finals. Immigrant students, now as in 2024, face the highest stakes: say too much about Israel or Palestine or genocide online, and your green card might be revoked. 

The high-risk climate has not silenced student activism entirely, in particular around Gaza. On April 24, several dozen students rushed the quad at Occidental College bearing Palestinian-flag banners, and set up the same cheap green Amazon tents that got Columbia protesters accused of being a Soros and/or Hamas-funded op back in 2024. One student in the encampment called me on Saturday, late from a session of his weekly Torah study group, and said the Occidental group was “definitely the first encampment that’s lasted more than 24 hours since 2024.”

The students at Occidental, who also mounted an encampment in 2024, wanted their school to divest from weapons manufacturers and companies profiting from occupation and genocide in Gaza. Occidental, like most colleges and universities, did not divest two years ago. 

The most liberal of liberal arts schools can now plead Trump administration pressure to call in riot cops.

But, like many schools, it did change its rules around demonstrations. “We’ve seen wave after wave of reactionary protest policies,” the Occidental student, who did not wish to be named due to fear of administrative retribution, told me—as at the dozens of other schools that expanded the circumstances in which student protest would be met with the threat of expulsion or arrest.  In Occidental’s case, student protests have been restricted to specific times and spaces, and more bafflingly, “semi-permanent structures” have been banned. (“What does that even mean?” the student I spoke to wondered.) 

Columbia’s 2024 encampment lasted two weeks. Occidental’s 2o24 protest lasted eight days and was voluntarily disbanded after the school’s board of trustees agreed to consider a divestment proposal, which it did not take up. The 2026 Occidental encampment, called the Rafah to Jenin Liberated Zone, was dismantled after only 3 days. No one was arrested and no one was hurt—but even the most liberal of liberal arts colleges can now plead Trump administration pressure if they threaten, or choose, to call in the riot cops. April’s Occidental board meeting, which the students aimed to protest, was moved to Zoom. 

“Students involved in the encampment cited a recently submitted divestment proposal as their key issue. That proposal is currently under review by the College’s Board of Trustees through the College’s established process, which is designed to gather input from across our community,” an Occidental representative told me.

And students, despite the higher-risk climate, are still politically engaged. The protests this week indicate that, as do slower modes of organizing, like the historic wave of graduate student unionism we are in. (Harvard’s graduate student union just went on strike, for one.) Some young people have simply moved their organizing off-campus and into broader coalitions. Palestinian flags can be found at anti-ICE and No Kings protests. We may not be in an era of encampments—but the kids haven’t given up and gone back to scrolling.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Looking out to sea from the grey sandy beaches of Santa Marta, on Colombia’s Caribbean coast, it is never hard to spot evidence of the country’s thriving fossil fuel export trade. Oil tankers ride at anchor on the horizon, and sometimes, locals say, lumps of coal wash up on the shore, blown off the collier ships that carry cargoes from the nearby mines.

It was here, on Wednesday evening, that the Colombian government took a bold step to shift its economy—and that of the rest of the world—away from dependence on coal, gas and oil and into a new era of clean energy. With the first-ever conference on “transitioning away from fossil fuels,” the host joined nearly 60 countries determined to loosen the grip of petrostates on the world’s future.

“This is the beginning of a new global climate democracy,” Irene Vélez Torres, Colombia’s environment minister and chair of the talks, said in closing remarks that celebrated a “new method” of bringing together high-ambition governments, parliamentarians and civil society groups to accelerate the decarbonisation of their economies.

“This is the beginning of a new global climate democracy.”

At this moment in history, the conference may also mark a new global divide between “electro-democracies” and petro-dictatorships.

The initiative has come at a pivotal moment in the climate fight. Oil and gas prices have soared since the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, the second such crisis within five years, after the price rises that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Households around the world are spiralling into debt, farmers cannot afford fertiliser, and governments are remembering that a dependency on volatile fossil fuels is holding them hostage to geopolitical forces they cannot control.

The global economy faces a triple whammy: rising energy costs, rising food costs that follow, and the spectre of rampant inflation that will raise interest rates and add to the cost of servicing debt. Both rich and poor nations are feeling the impact, but the poor, with their higher levels of debt and lower reserves, are suffering more.

Repeated oil shocks blighted the 1970s, and the current crisis is not only greater than those but more impactful than all previous crises combined, according to Fatih Birol, the world’s leading energy economist and chief of the International Energy Agency, the gold standard in energy research. “This is bigger than all the biggest crises combined, and therefore huge,” he said in an exclusive Guardian interview. “I still cannot understand that the world was so blindsided, that the global economy can be held hostage to a 50km strait.”

What is different today from previous oil shocks is the ready availability of a viable alternative: cheap, reliable and plentiful renewable energy from the wind and sun, with modern battery technology to smooth over any intermittency; while electric vehicles and heat pumps can shunt transport and heating off fossil fuels and onto far more efficient electricity.

For those reasons, Birol predicted the current shock would mark a permanent change for the global energy industry, leading consumer countries to lose trust in fossil fuels. “Their perception of risk and reliability will change,” he said. “Governments will review their energy strategies. There will be a significant boost to renewables and nuclear power and a further shift towards a more electrified future. And this will cut into the main markets for oil.”

These changes would be lasting, he added. “The vase is broken, the damage is done—it will be very difficult to put the pieces back together. This will have permanent consequences for the global energy market for years to come.”

It is an irony not lost on Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, that it is the oil industry’s dominance of global economies that has finally woken governments to the dangers. “The fossil fuel cost crisis now has its foot on the throat of the global economy,” he said. “Those who have fought to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels are inadvertently supercharging the global renewables boom.”

“Those who have fought to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels are inadvertently supercharging the global renewables boom.”

Renewables overtook coal in global electricity generation last year for the first time, according to the thinktank Ember, generating 33.8 percent of power compared with coal’s 33 percent. Interest from consumers in solar panels and batteries, from Pakistan to the UK, has leapt further since the Iran war.

“The economic logic of renewables [is] impossible to ignore,” Stiell said. Military advisers have weighed in, too, pointing out that renewables offer a better route than fossil fuels to national security. Stiell noted: “Governments are pushing renewables plans into overdrive: to restore national security, economic stability, competitiveness, policy autonomy and basic sovereignty.”

But no one should write off the petrostates just yet. The world’s biggest gas producer, the United States, is increasingly flexing its military muscle to assert the Trump administration’s goal of “energy dominance”. Russia, the second biggest gas supplier, is waging war against its democratic neighbor, Ukraine. Fossil fuel interests are pouring huge sums into the political campaigns of far-right candidates in the Americas and Europe.

The Santa Marta vision of a “new global climate democracy” sets people power against this. Polls constantly show an overwhelming majority of people want their governments to take stronger action against the climate crisis, but at many international meetings, their voices are drowned out by corporate lobbyists or shut down by petrostate vetoes.

At Santa Marta, by contrast, science led the way on the opening day, followed by a “people’s summit” and gatherings of parliamentarians. All of these groups sent representatives to the high-level sessions in the final two days, where there were no vetoes, no fractious negotiations over minutiae, only intensive and constructive dialogue on how to move forward. Many participants called the gathering historic, but few were under any illusions that it was anything more than a strong start.

Claudio Angelo, of the Observatorio do Clima, a think tank in Brazil, said: “I don’t think the Santa Marta process represents any immediate threat to the fossil fuel industry. This is more about countries organising to draw up a plan. Even within the ‘doers’, the fossil industry landscape is diverse: national oil companies in Latin America, private oil majors in Europe and parts of Africa. These folks will fight for lenient transition calendars until they’re either outcompeted by Chinese electricity or forced by governments to diversify.”

Though shifting to renewables will work out cheaper for all countries in the long-term, there is an upfront cost to the switch. Fossil fuel producer nations will also need finance to invest in new industries to replace lost oil, gas and coal export revenue.

The Santa Marta conference was not intended for new finance pledges – rich countries offered a settlement of $300 billion a year by 2035 at the Cop29 conference in 2029, and that will not be improved on now that the US has withdrawn its dollars.

But there could be other routes to finding cash. Diverting some of the $1.5tn currently spent each year on subsidising fossil fuels around the world would help, and raising money from the companies that have profited from the climate crisis, through windfall taxes and other mechanisms, is always an option. David Hillman, the director of the Make Polluters Pay coalition, said: “Fossil fuel giants are figuratively making a killing from this war. Their excessive unearned profits need to fund the transition to renewables to hasten the end of our fossil fuel dependence.”

Almost all of the 59 nations participating in Santa Marta are democracies, which is both a strength and a vulnerability. Colombia will hold a presidential election at the end of May in which the ruling party’s candidate, Iván Cepeda, faces a fierce challenge from the far-right populist Abelardo de la Espriella, who wants to increase fracking and oil production. If the latter wins, the global energy transition movement would lose one of its most important nations.

Colombia is not the only country facing difficulties. The Netherlands, co-host of Santa Marta, announced new drilling in the North Sea just before the conference. The UK is considering new North Sea fields too, and other countries present, from Brazil to Tanzania, also have fossil fuel expansion plans. Those decisions will have to be reversed for this to become the hoped-for “conference of doers”.

Before the next conference, to take place early next year on the Pacific island of Tuvalu, which is co-hosting with Ireland, countries are supposed to start the process of drawing up national roadmaps for the phaseout of fossil fuels. The organisers want these plans to feed into the broader UN climate negotiating process and to spur others to join the transition movement.

Roadmaps offer a way for countries to attract investors, and also provide guidance for their industries to help ensure the transition to a low-carbon world is fair to workers and the most vulnerable people. Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, said: “We need three transitions: out of fossil fuels, into renewable energy for all, and into a world that cares for nature. All must be grounded in justice.”

Santa Marta, a historically coal-fuelled town at the heart of a coal- and oil-fuelled country, may eventually be regarded as ground zero for the demise of fossil fuels. Fernanda Carvalho, the head of policy for climate and energy at WWF International, said: “It is here that the seeds of a new, implementation-focused initiative have been planted. In times of an exhaustion of multilateral processes and a gap in delivering the system change we need, what is emerging offers a different approach. This could be a real bottom-up process that centres the voices of communities most affected by fossil fuel extraction and consumption.”

But despite the “contagious” hope felt by many involved in the Santa Marta talks, there remains a long road ahead.

Agency insists everything is working fine, even though users spend days failing to load it

The DVSA's driving test booking system has spent the week offline, according to frustrated users.…

Britain's cyber agency says the bill for years of technical shortcuts is coming due, and it's arriving all at once

Britain's cyber agency is warning that AI-fuelled bug hunting is about to flush out years of buried flaws, leaving defenders scrambling to keep up.…

Last fall, hundreds of activists from all over the world crowded onto several dozen boats and set sail for Gaza. Their goal: Break through Israel’s blockade of the territory and end one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet. They thought that by sharing their journey through social media, they could capture the world’s attention. 

jQuery(document).ready(function(){prx("https:\/\/play.prx.org\/e?ge=prx_149_dc9cbc0d-2142-4d13-b157-207081caa6f0&uf=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.revealradio.org%2Frevealpodcast", "prx-1", "embed")});Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

At first, it was easy to dismiss the Global Sumud Flotilla—until it wasn’t. Before reaching Gaza, the flotilla was attacked by drones, and activists were arrested by the Israeli navy. 

“We were at gunpoint; like, you could see the laser on our chest,” says flotilla participant Louna Sbou.  

They were then sent to a high-security prison in the middle of the Negev desert.

“You have no control, you have no information, and you have no rights,” says Carsie Blanton, another participant. “They could do whatever they want to you.”

This week on Reveal, as a new flotilla recently set sail for Gaza, we’re bringing back our story about the Global Sumud Flotilla from last fall for a firsthand look at what activists faced on their journey and whether their efforts made any difference. 

This is an update of an episode that first aired in December 2025.

Praveen Neppalli Naga, Uber's chief technology officer, revealed the plan in an interview at TechCrunch's StrictlyVC event in San Francisco on Thursday night, describing it as a natural extension of a nascent program the company announced in late January called AV Labs.

Watsonville city officials have ended a short-lived paid parking pilot along Aviation Way after pushback from local businesses, removing meters just days after the program launched.

The 30-day pilot, which began earlier this week along the busy commercial strip at 45 Aviation Way, was intended to test whether paid parking could improve turnover and availability. The program charged $1 to $2 per hour from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and was scheduled to run through May 27.

But business owners reported a drop in customers and raised concerns that the fees would discourage visitors from stopping at the cluster of restaurants and shops, including Honeylux Coffee, Beer Mule and Slice Project.

In a statement released after the program was halted, City Manager Tamara Vides said the pilot achieved its purpose by quickly generating feedback.

“This pilot program is doing exactly what it’s intended to do. It’s giving us immediate, real-world feedback from the people who use these areas every day,” Vides said. “We heard our community clearly, and we are responding.”

The city said it observed some early improvements in parking use and turnover in both Aviation Way and downtown Watsonville, where meters remain in place. Officials will continue evaluating the downtown portion of the pilot while exploring alternative solutions for Aviation Way.

The Aviation Way test had drawn sharp criticism during this week’s City Council meeting, where business owners said the meters were already affecting foot traffic.

Brando Sencion, co-owner of Slice Project, previously told the council his business saw a “huge dip” in customers almost immediately after the meters were installed. He also said he had to pay to park while making deliveries to his own shop.

Shawd DeWitt, co-owner of Beer Mule, warned the added cost could drive customers elsewhere and force businesses to absorb new expenses, such as subsidizing employee parking.

Some council members also expressed concern about the rollout. Councilman Jimmy Dutra called the Aviation Way corridor “one of our successful areas” and said he did not want to “put a wrench in it,” while Councilman Eduardo Montesino said he had received complaints from residents and questioned the need for meters in that location.

Following the city’s decision to remove the meters, Sencion said business owners felt heard.

“We are really grateful to the city for listening and taking action so quickly,” he said in the press release. “We left the meeting feeling heard and optimistic about better solutions moving forward.”

City officials said the brief Aviation Way pilot still provided useful insights and helped open dialogue with the business community as they consider future parking strategies. Any long-term changes would require City Council approval.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center provides a deeply ominous sign for the GOP’s chances in this fall’s midterm elections. As Americans grow ever frustrated with high gas prices, President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 38%, according to The New York Times’ polling average, with his disapproval rating at an all-time high of 58%. Even then, Trump has still largely held…

Source

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know. Trump’s war on science takes a disturbing turn Now he’s arresting research scientists?! Trump team lies to evade law limiting Iran war Oh, good, more excuses and workarounds. Alex Jones’ conspiracy machine dies an inglorious death We can’t say we’re sad to see…

Source

A cartoon by Brian McFadden. Support my Patreon for early access and exclusives. Follow me on Mastodon, Bluesky, or at my website. Related | NY Times once again caught sanewashing Trump’s unhinged rhetoric…

Source

A 42-year-old Castroville man has been arrested on suspicion of human trafficking, attempted murder and multiple other felony charges following an investigation that began with a reported assault outside a local shopping center, according to the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office.

Eric Adam Melendrez was taken into custody April 28 in Salinas after detectives located him driving a silver Honda CR-V, the sheriff’s office said. He was arrested without incident.

The case began on April 23, when witnesses reported seeing a man strangling a woman near the shopping center at 11290 Merritt St. in Castroville around 11:45pm. A sheriff’s sergeant responded and located the woman, while deputies also found a vehicle linked to the suspect nearby containing evidence, authorities said.

During the initial investigation, the woman told deputies she had been sexually trafficked by Melendrez, who had fled before law enforcement arrived, according to the sheriff’s office.

Detectives with the agency’s Violent Crimes Unit took over the case. Authorities said that when Melendrez was arrested five days later, he was found with suspected methamphetamine, as well as smaller quantities of heroin and fentanyl, along with cash and scales consistent with narcotics sales.

Melendrez was found to be in possession of this suspected methamphetamine. (Contributed)

Search warrants served at multiple locations in Monterey County led to the seizure of additional narcotics, a firearm and items investigators believe are connected to sex trafficking, including condoms, lingerie and perfumes, the sheriff’s office said.

Detectives also said they obtained evidence that Melendrez threatened the victim with a knife and attempted to prevent her from cooperating with law enforcement.

Based on the investigation, authorities sought a $1 million bail enhancement and obtained an emergency protective order for the victim.

Melendrez was booked into Monterey County Jail on charges including human trafficking, attempted murder, pimping, pandering, corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant, possession of controlled substances for sale, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and dissuading a victim, according to the sheriff’s office.

Investigators said they believe there may be additional victims who have not come forward. Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective Janelli Arroyo at 831-755-7261 or Detective Sgt. Nicholas Kennedy at 831.755.3773.

The investigation remains ongoing.

CNN’s decision to keep pro-Trump provocateur and MAGA shill Scott Jennings on its payroll despite a career filled with lies and boorish behavior is once again generating a wave of negative news for the network. Some pundits who have appeared on the network’s programs are calling for Jennings to be fired after a Thursday night appearance where he couldn’t keep his composure.

Source

Protesters gathered in the Overlook Center in Watsonville Friday to highlight worker’s rights, condemn Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) round ups of immigrants, the use of Flock surveillance camera systems on city streets and other issues.

More than 120 people gathered and waved signs and chanted in front of the Target Store claiming the chain retailer endorses ICE presence and is “one of the biggest union busters in the country.” Protesters also said Target has eliminated their Diversity Equity and Inclusion policies. After an hour, the group marched south on Man Street to Romo Park in downtown Watsonville to join the annual May Day Picnic. 

Headed up by the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council Friday’s  theme for May Day was “Honor Working People.” 

The 4pm rally and escuelita (little school) at Romo Park addressed issues such as “Tax billionaires and corporations,” “Fund healthcare and education,” and “Not war and deportation.”

As we’ve said before, we haven’t covered Survivor too much on Nerdist in the past. But are Survivor fans not truly some of the nerdiest fans of all? In many ways, Survivor is actually one of my personal earliest fandoms. And getting to rewalk those paths around Survivor 50 has been a truly wonderful (and very nerdy) experience. So I say, there’s no time like the present. Plus, we cheer for Ozzy in this house. And so, we’re temporarily expanding our coverage to let you all know that if you’re in NYC on May 6, you can have a Survivor 50 watch party in style—with our fav, Ozzy. As part of Brice And Wen Present’s Survivor 50 watch party series, there will be an “Ozzy NYC Pop Up!” in NYC. We love it.

If you’re not in NYC, fear not, because Brice And Wen Present are having Survivor watch parties in basically every corner of the United States. It’s kind of amazing. But, NYC deserves some fun too, so we’re excited that on Wednesday, May 6, Ozzy will be heading to The Ainsworth, New York, for what seems like it’s going to be a hell of a night.

If you’ve been keeping up with Survivor 50, you know that everything is heating up. The prize money has doubled. The “honor and integrity” alliance has steadily fallen to the queer people, weirdos, and nerds team-up, and everyone is on their own journey of growth, change, redemption, or whatever they’re looking for. Some of our favorites have gone home, RIP Christian and Survivor Spirk. But at Nerdist, we’re fully in on the Cirizard of Oz alliance, which has fav Ozzy and fav Cirie being fabulous together. We literally could not have asked for a better duo. (And Rizo, we like him too!)

CBS

But, of course, ever since Ozzy went on Twitter, said f*ck you to all terrible people out there and came out as a true bicon, no one else could even come close to claiming the title of my favorite Survivor player of all time. And so, I’m pumped he’ll be coming through town right at the height of my Survivor excitement. Here’s to you, Jungle Man.

If you’re like me, snag your ticket to the Ozzy Pop-Up today and get ready to cheer in real time during NYC’s most fun-ever Survivor watch party. And if you’re really feeling excited, make it a truly incredible queer Survivor double feature with Parv and a drag show!

Survivor 50 is airing now on CBS.

The post Have a SURVIVOR 50 Watch Party with Ozzy in NYC appeared first on Nerdist.

A federal appeals court packed with conservatives has handed abortion opponents a major victory against the US Food and Drug Administration, reinstating an in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion medication mifepristone and shutting down telemedicine providers—at least temporarily—from prescribing the abortion pill across the US.

In a 3-0 order issued Friday afternoon, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals granted Louisiana’s request for an injunction against FDA rule changes from 2023 that have allowed blue-state telehealth providers to send mifepristone to thousands of patients every month in states where abortion is banned. The decision, which was expected to be quickly appealed, could severely disrupt the availability of mifepristone nationwide.

The ruling, however, does not affect misoprostol, the second medication used with mifepristone to terminate pregnancies—and a powerful abortion drug on its own. Nor does it stop in-person prescription of abortion pills. Nonetheless, the injunction will have the greatest impact on women in the dozen or so states—many in the South—where lawmakers and attorneys general have sought to end access completely.

The 2023 telemedicine rule “injures Louisiana by undermining its laws protecting unborn human life and also by causing it to spend Medicaid funds on emergency care for women harmed by mifepristone,” Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote for the court. “Both injuries are irreparable.”

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,'” Duncan wrote. He was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Donald Trump in 2017.

“Telehealth has been the last bridge to care for many seeking abortion, which is precisely why Louisiana officials want it banned,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “This isn’t about science—it’s about making abortion as difficult, expensive, and unreachable as possible. Telehealth has transformed healthcare. Selectively stripping that away from abortion patients is a political blockade.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed her lawsuit last fall, arguing that the Biden administration’s decision to drop the in-person dispensing rule was “arbitrary” and “capricious,” and that abortion pills are too risky to prescribe remotely, even though scores of studies around the globe have shown otherwise. She also claimed the rule change was “avowedly political”—explicitly intended to get around the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade—and interfered with Louisiana’s right to regulate abortion as it sees fit.

In April, US District Judge David Joseph—also a Trump appointee—put the lawsuit on hold pending the FDA’s own study of mifepristone’s safety, which has been underway since last fall. Even though the Trump administration has made clear its own concerns about the telemedicine rule, it has argued that rolling back the Biden rules while its review is ongoing amounts to “judicial intervention” in the agency’s long-established drug review process. It added that an injunction “may prove as unnecessary as it is disruptive, if FDA ultimately decides that the in-person dispensing requirement must be restored.” 

But abortion opponents have seen that study as a delaying tactic by a White House worried about the impact that cutting off access to abortion pills might have on the GOP’s already grim prospects in the midterm elections. Murrill quickly appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi—one of the most conservative federal jurisdictions in the country.

It is the same appeals court that ruled in a similar but separate lawsuit three years ago that the FDA exceeded its authority when it relaxed an assortment of restrictions on mifepristone during the Obama and Biden administrations, including the telemedicine rule. The Supreme Court eventually rejected that case, because the anti-abortion doctors who brought it didn’t have standing to sue. But the SCOTUS ruling did not address the far bigger and thornier issue of whether the FDA’s rule changes were legal.

In Friday’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit panel harkened back to its earlier decision.

“Our court has previously concluded that [the] FDA’s actions here were likely unlawful,” Duncan wrote in Friday’s ruling. The same reasoning, he said, “squarely applies” to the 2023 telemedicine rule change.

The ruling “will hit Latine and immigrant communities hardest,” predicted Lupe Rodríguez, Executive Director of the  National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. “Medication abortion by mail is one of the few ways people can overcome systemic barriers to care…Taking it away is deliberate and dangerous and puts politics over the health and well-being of our communities.”

“There’s no world in which this genie goes back in the bottle.”

Even as they decried the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, abortion rights advocates insisted that they have been making contingency plans for just such a scenario—including ramping up efforts to switch to a different abortion-pill regimen that doesn’t include mifepristone.

“We will do everything in our power to continue providing care to people in all 50 states,” said Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, a telemedicine provider that serves more than 3,000 patients a month. “We remain committed to ensuring that people can get the care they need, when they need it.”

Legal scholars also doubted that the flow of abortion pills could be completely cut off. “Abortion is too important,” says Greer Donley, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and shield law expert who specializes in medication abortion. “People are going to find ways around the law because [the ability to access care is] so critical to someone’s identity and autonomy and self-determination. There’s no world in which this genie goes back in the bottle.”

Developed by French researchers in the 1980s, mifepristone is one of two drugs that make up the standard abortion-pill protocol in the US. It works by blocking the production of progesterone, the main hormone needed to support a developing pregnancy. A second drug, misoprostol, then causes the uterus to contract, expelling the embryo. Misoprostol—available over the counter in many countries to treat stomach ulcers—has also been shown in numerous global studies to be a safe and effective abortifacient on its own.  

The anti-abortion movement fought hard to keep mifepristone out of the US, claiming it was—and remains—too dangerous. When the FDA finally gave its approval to the drug in 2000, it imposed a series of restrictions, including limiting mifepristone’s use to early in the first trimester. The rules became even more stringent in 2011 when mifepristone was consigned to a new program—known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS—normally reserved for the most dangerous drugs.

But the Obama-era FDA, buoyed by still more studies confirming the drug’s safety, began easing those restrictions in 2016, including allowing mifepristone to be used up to 10 weeks’ gestation and slashing the recommended dosage by two-thirds. In 2021, at the height of the pandemic, the FDA suspended the in-person office-visit requirement, and in 2023, it made the telehealth change permanent. The new FDA rules also made mifepristone more readily available in pharmacies.

In the four years since Dobbs, the revised rules have made it possible for large numbers of red-state patients —some 15,000 per month, according to the most recent data from the #WeCount project—to continue obtaining abortion pills despite draconian bans. Medication now accounts for almost two-thirds of abortions in the US, facilitated by shield laws—statutes that protect abortion providers in blue states who care for patients living in places where abortion is illegal. More than a quarter of all US abortions now occur via telemedicine. In 2025, approximately 142,000 people crossed state lines to access abortion care, or about 13 percent of all abortion patients in the US, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute.

The growing availability of mifepristone has enraged the anti-abortion movement, which was counting on Trump 2.0 to take quick action to stop the flow of pills. But so far, administration officials have resisted pressure to rescind the FDA’s approval of mifepristone or revive the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era obscenity law, unenforced for decades, that prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs, supplies, and equipment. 

So red-state attorneys general and other anti-abortion activists have escalated their own attacks in court. Murrill has been a leader in those efforts, trying to extradite abortion providers in New York and California to face criminal charges, without success, and threatening to sue those states over their shield laws. Louisiana has some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country, yet telemedicine providers are mailing close to 1,000 packages of abortion pills to patients in the state every month.

In targeting the FDA, Murrill accused the Biden administration of making the 2023 rule change for political reasons, as part of a  broader effort to thwart the Dobbs decision and “ensure that mifepristone is as widely accessible as possible.” She said the telemedicine rule exceeded Biden’s authority, violated the Comstock Act, and is causing Louisiana “irreparable harm” as long as it remains in effect, in part by forcing the state to bear the costs of Medicaid patients who suffer complications as a result of the pills’ use.

The Fifth Circuit panel cited those Medicaid costs as one of the reasons Louisiana had standing to sue. “Louisiana identifies $92,000 it paid in Medicaid costs from two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications caused by out-of-state mifepristone,” Duncan wrote. “Such costs will almost certainly continue because nearly 1,000 women monthly—many of whom are on Medicaid—have mifepristone-induced abortions in Louisiana.”

The court rejected arguments by the drug’s manufacturers that an injunction now would be premature. “We conclude Louisiana has strongly shown a likelihood of winning its … challenge to the 2023 REMS,” Duncan wrote.

In seeking a nationwide injunction, Murrill also claimed telemedicine makes it too easy for women to be tricked or coerced into having abortions they don’t want. Joining her as a co-plaintiff in the case is a Louisiana day care employee named Rosalie Markezich, who alleged that her ex-boyfriend used her email address to order drugs from a California doctor, then forced her to take the medication against her will. Markezich is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-right legal powerhouse that has played a pivotal role in most of the significant anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ policy and court battles of recent years. 

ADF also represented the anti-abortion doctors who challenged the FDA’s initial approval and regulation of mifepristone in the blockbuster case that went to the Supreme Court in 2024. While justices ruled 9-0 in that case that the doctors did not have standing to sue the FDA, it left open the possibility that other plaintiffs might. Louisiana and Markezich argue that they do have standing. The FDA and companies that manufacture mifepristone contend otherwise.

In his April 7 ruling putting Murrill’s lawsuit on hold, Joseph ordered the FDA to conduct its safety review of mifepristone with “deliberate speed.” At a hearing earlier, he was skeptical of Murrill’s arguments that issuing an injunction on telehealth would stop the flow of abortion pills.  “The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years,” Joseph pointed out, “and yet there was more cocaine produced last year than any other.” 

Donley, the law professor, agrees that abortion opponents are fooling themselves if they think any US court will be able to cut off access to abortion pills. “You shut off access to mifepristone, people will switch to misoprostol-only abortions,” she says. “Even if you were to shut down shield providers in this country, people would just switch to international providers and start shipping from other countries.”

Likely to President Trump’s dismay, the Fifth Circuit ruling suddenly makes abortion a huge issue in the midterm elections, says Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at the University of California, Davis. Telemedicine “has been why people in abortion-ban states have been able to get access to abortion,” she said. “It’s been the centerpiece of absolutely everything.” She added that voters who have been showing signs of complacency over the abortion issue, thanks in large part to telemedicine, won’t be any longer.

This is a developing story.

At TechCrunch's sold-out StrictlyVC event in San Francisco on Thursday night, we covered a lot of ground in a short time, beginning with the question everyone in the industry is asking right now: in a world where rival Cursor is reportedly in talks to be acquired by SpaceX for $60 billion, is Replit also bound to sell?

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly has stepped in to be the face of the lying machine while press secretary Karoline Leavitt is away on maternity leave. During an appearance on Fox News Friday, Kelly displayed the dead-eyed shamelessness required to deliver the kind of misinformation that President Donald Trump’s billionaire-backed orbit demands. “The president has been clear…

Source

The DTC skin, hair, and and menopause care brand will use the non-dilutive capital to super-charge customer acquisition.

Esta traducción fue generada utilizando inteligencia artificial y ha sido revisada por un hablante nativo de español; si bien nos esforzamos por lograr precisión, pueden ocurrir algunos errores de traducción. Para leer el artículo en inglés, haga clic aquí.

El Concejo Municipal de Capitola comenzará a avanzar hacia elecciones por distritos, evitando así la amenaza de una demanda de un bufete de abogados del sur de California.

“Tenemos la extralimitación de un abogado de otro lugar obligándonos a hacer algo que no nos gusta,” dijo el concejal Joe Clarke en la sesión especial del jueves por la noche. “Pero, lo bueno de Capitola es que todos se unirán y lograrán el mejor resultado, y simplemente pasarán por el proceso.”

La ciudad recibió una carta del bufete Shenkman & Hughes, con sede en Malibu, en marzo, en la que recomendaba iniciar voluntariamente el proceso para cambiar a elecciones por distritos antes de la fecha límite del 5 de mayo o enfrentar una demanda.

La base de la queja del bufete es que las elecciones generales privan de derechos a las comunidades minoritarias al diluir el poder de los votantes latinos de Capitola. Los abogados afirman que la forma actual en que los residentes de Capitola eligen a los concejales viola la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California de 2001 (CVRA). La ley busca otorgar más poder de voto a las comunidades minoritarias desfavorecidas en las elecciones locales.

Shenkman & Hughes afirma que el sistema de elección general de Capitola diluye la capacidad de los residentes latinos para elegir a un candidato de su preferencia “o de otra manera influir en el resultado de la elección del concejo de la ciudad.” Los latinos representan actualmente alrededor del 26.5% de los casi 10,000 residentes de Capitola, según los datos más recientes de la Oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos.

La ciudad llevará a cabo al menos cinco audiencias públicas sobre el cambio, la primera programada para el 28 de mayo y la quinta para el 23 de julio. Durante la próxima reunión del concejo municipal, el 14 de mayo, los residentes podrán aprender más sobre el proceso de distritación y responder a la propuesta.

Es probable que la reunión del 28 de mayo determine el número de distritos y si el cargo de alcalde será elegido de manera general, como en Santa Cruz. La ciudad también contrató a National Demographics Corporation como demógrafo y consultor de mapas. La firma trabajó anteriormente con la ciudad de Santa Cruz y el Distrito de Atención de Salud del Valle de Pájaro.

Las elecciones por distritos no entrarían en vigor hasta las elecciones de noviembre de 2028.

Bajo el sistema actual de elección general, los candidatos al concejo municipal pueden postularse para cualquier puesto vacante, representando a la comunidad en general. Todos los votantes eligen quién representa esos puestos.

En las elecciones por distritos, los concejales representan un vecindario específico, en el que también deben vivir. Los votantes solo pueden votar por los candidatos que representan su distrito. Las ciudades de Santa Cruz y Watsonville utilizan este modelo para elegir a los concejales. Scotts Valley tiene elecciones generales.

Los miembros de la comunidad que hablaron en la reunión del jueves estuvieron divididos sobre el tema. La residente de larga data Linda Smith dijo que apoya la transición a elecciones por distritos y que la ciudad evite una demanda.

También pidió al concejo municipal de cinco miembros que considere los requisitos de residencia dentro de los distritos, haciendo referencia a la salida del exconcejal Alex Pedersen, quien renunció abruptamente al concejo municipal la primavera pasada después de que un grupo de miembros de la comunidad lo acusó de no vivir dentro de los límites de la ciudad.

La residente Theresa Green dijo a los concejales que cree que el proceso se está apresurando.

“Parece que ya tenemos problemas para conseguir suficientes personas que se postulen para el concejo municipal,” dijo Green. “Esto puede ser más difícil con distritos. ¿Qué pasa si ningún candidato se postula?”

¿Tiene algo que decir? Lookout da la bienvenida a cartas al editor, dentro de nuestras políticas, de los lectores. Directrices aquí.

The post El Concejo Municipal de Capitola comienza la transición a elecciones por distritos appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.